2009.03.18(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 03/18/09)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 18, 2009
INDEX
Area Variance No. 6-2009 Judith M. Riccio 1.
Tax Map No. 279.18-1-11
Area Variance No. 11-2008 Debaron Associates by Debra Schiebel, 7.
Partner
Tax Map No. 239.18-1-47
Area Variance No. 77-2008 NPA II, LLC (Northway Plaza) 15.
[Chili's Restaurant]
Tax Map No. 296.18-1-47
Sign Variance No. 1-2009 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc./Craig Steinfeldt 35.
Tax Map No. 303.15-1-25
Area Variance No. 11-2009 Thomas D. Heiss 43.
Tax Map No. 296.13-1-37
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD
AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING
MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID
MINUTES.
0
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 03/18/09)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 18, 2009
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
JAMES UNDERWOOD, CHAIRMAN
ROY URRICO, SECRETARY
JOYCE HUNT
RICHARD GARRAND
JOAN JENKIN
GEORGE DRELLOS
BRIAN CLEMENTS
LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I'm going to call to order the meeting here for March 18,
2009. First off let me do a quick review of our procedures in general. For each case I'll
call the application by name and number. So I'll read those in first of all. The secretary
will read in the pertinent parts of the application, the Staff Notes as well as the Warren
County Planning Board decision, if applicable. The applicant then will be invited to the
table and be asked to provide any information that they wish to add to the application.
The Board, then, will ask questions of the applicant. Following that, we'll open the public
hearing. I'd caution that the public hearing is not a vote. It's a way to gather information
about concerns, real or perceived, and it's a way to gather information and insight in
general, about the issue at hand. It should function to help the Board members make a
wise, informed decision, but it does not make the decision for the Board members. As
always, we'll have a five minute limit on each speaker, and that will basically tell us
everything they want us to know in that five minutes, and a speaker may speak again if,
after listening to other speakers, a speaker believes they have new information to
present. Following that, we'll read correspondence into the record, and then the
applicant will have an opportunity to react and respond to the public comment. Board
members then will discuss the variance with the applicant. Following that, the Board
members will be polled to explain their positions on the application, then we'll close the
public hearing, unless there's a reason to leave it open, and that would be only if it looks
like the application will be continued to another meeting. Finally we'll have a motion to
approve, disapprove or table and then we'll vote on it. So tonight on the agenda we've
got quite a bit of Old Business to get to right off the bat here.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 6-2009 SEQRA TYPE: II JUDITH M. RICCIO AGENT(S):
TOM ALBRECHT/HILLTOP CONSTRUCTION OWNER(S): JUDITH M. RICCIO
ZONING: RR-3A LOCATION: 1208 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF A 594 SQ. FT. SECOND FLOOR ADDITION ABOVE PRE-
EXISTING NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE
AND FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND FOR THE EXPANSION OF A
NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF.: N/A WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING: FEBRUARY 11, 2009 LOT SIZE: 1.81 ACRE TAX MAP NO. 279.18-1-11
SECTION: 179-4-030; 179-13-010
TOM ALBRECHT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 6-2009, Judith M. Riccio, Meeting Date: March 18,
2009 "Project Location: 1208 Ridge Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes a 594 square foot second story addition to an existing one story single family
dwelling.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests 23 feet of relief from the 50 foot front setback requirement and 10
feet of relief from the 30 foot side setback in the Rural Residential 3 Acre district per
§179-4-030. Further, the applicant requests relief for the expansion of anon-conforming
structure per §179-13-010.
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 03/18/09)
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the
neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of
this area variance. Minor changes to nearby properties are anticipated as a result of
this proposal.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,
feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The applicant could
build in a compliant or more compliant location or reduce the size of the project.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 23 feet or 46
percent relief from the 50 foot front setback requirement per 179-4-030 may be
considered moderate relative to the ordinance. The request for 10 feet or 33 percent
relief from the 30 foot side setback requirement per §179-4-030 may be considered
moderate relative to the ordinance.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the
physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated.
However, there appears to be an issue with the location and adequacy of the sewage
disposal system (see below).
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
None since 1962
Staff comments:
The applicant is requesting the use of the existing wastewater system for this project.
The location of this wastewater system appears to be in question (see survey). It
appears that the applicant will have to install a compliant wastewater system in order to
receive approval for this project or prove the existing wastewater system is capable of
supporting the proposed expansion.
There appears to be an inconsistency in regards to the total proposed bedrooms as the
applicant states that the system will be compliant with the `now three bedroom house'
although the house will be 4 total bedrooms (see applicant narrative). Clarification may
need to be forthcoming on this issue.
On February 18, 2009 the Zoning Board of Appeals tabled this project pending `further
c/aridcation as to the first floor p/an as it exists and as it wi// exist (see attached
resolution). The requested information has been submitted in a timely manner and
denotes the existing floor plan and proposed floor plan for the first floor.
Further, staff has contacted and informed the applicant's agent that the wastewater
system will likely need to be addressed prior to any Area Variance approval. The Zoning
Board of Appeals may wish to table this application pending a resolution of the
wastewater issue.
SEAR Status:
Type II - No action necessary"
"Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form February 11, 2009
Project Name: Riccio, Judith M. ID Number: QBY-09-AV-06 County Project#: Feb09-
19 Current Zoning: RR-3A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant
proposes construction of a 594 sq. ft. second floor addition above pre-existing non-
conforming structure. Relief requested from side and front yard setback requirements
and for the expansion of anon-conforming structure. Site Location: 208 Ridge Road
Tax Map Number(s): 279.18-1-11 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes
construction of a 594 sq. ft. second floor addition above apre-existing non-conforming
structure. Relief is requested from side and front yard setback requirements and for the
expansion of anon-conforming structure. The applicant has indicated the new addition
will be no closer than the existing setbacks where the side setback is 8 ft. where a 30 ft.
2
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 03/18/09)
setback is required and front setback of 21 ft where a 50 ft setback is required. The
plans show the location of the addition and other site information. The applicant has
requested a waiver from upgrading the septic system as the number of bedrooms is to
remain at three. Staff recommends no county impact based on the information
submitted according to the suggested review criteria of NYS General Municipal Law
Section 239 L applied to the proposed project. Warren County Planning Board
Recommendation: No County Impact" Signed by Richard C. Merrill, Warren County
Planning Board 2/13/09.
MR. UNDERWOOD-In regards to the wastewater issue, is that something that you've
had more contact with Craig or Staff with, as far as resolving that?
MR. ALBRECHT-I'm Tom Albrecht, Hilltop Construction, agent for Mrs. Riccio. The
waste system is a existing system, we have no idea what is in the ground, and the
discussion was we'll have to prove what's in the ground in order for us to obtain a
building permit for this project, or, you know, deal with the consequences of such. We
are increasing the property by one bedroom. So we're taking two bedrooms on the first
floor and making one bedroom out of that, and creating an additional bedroom on the
second floor is what we're proposing. The septic system, you have before you I'm sure a
letter from Mrs. Riccio, in reference to, she would like to conform with the requirements
necessary for the septic system if it was to fail. If this Board deems it's recommended
that, to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy or a building permit to proceed, then that's an
issue she'll have to address.
MR. UNDERWOOD-During construction, people are going to be living there through
construction, I would assume, at this point.
MR. ALBRECHT-Yes, sure.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I know when I rebuilt my house, the Town came over afterwards.
They let me use the current system until I was done, and then before they gave me my
Certificate of Occupancy for the new part, they made me dig mine up to make sure
everything was going to work. In my case it did, but, you know, not knowing what your
situation is here, I would assume that the site is appropriate for the addition, if necessary,
if you had to re-do the system. It didn't look to me like you had any kind of a problem
with that.
MR. ALBRECHT-Soil conditions are favorable, and location, area for the septic disposal
system is adequate. It has a lot of (lost word) if that's what's needed.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Well, I think maybe what we'll do then is, what's the Board's
feeling on this? I mean, Staff's recommendation is one thing, but I mean I don't want to
hold up the project, in other words if it's something that it looks like the Board is going to
be amenable to, then the project could continue on, or we could just put a clause at the
end of the resolution that, upon completion of the project, you know, if necessary, this
will need to be upgraded to conform for the number of bedrooms that are going to be in
use.
MR. ALBRECHT-Right. We would have to provide documentation of that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure.
MR. GARRAND-Like a contingency on approval by Staff.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Do you guys want to go through the process, then, and just
see how everybody feels?
MR. DRELLOS-That's fine. I agree to that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, I don't like to hold people up for months and months and
months, and, you know, it would seem, I don't know, in the past, if we've made people
dig up prior to construction, unless there was major concerns about failure at the
moment.
MR. OBORNE-Well, I obviously have concerns.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
3
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 03/18/09)
MR. OBORNE-Especially with the notation on the survey itself. Proposed, or, I forgot
what the verbiage is on there, but it talks about proposed location or implied location.
MR. ALBRECHT-Reputed sewage disposal location.
MR. OBORNE-Right. Yes, and that's a cause of concern for me. It sounds like it's
probably an antiquated system or an older system at the very least, that certainly will
have to be upgraded.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Is your present exit for where your wastewater goes out, is
that towards the front or the back?
MR. ALBRECHT-No, it's in the rear.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It's in the back. I thought, yes.
MR. ALBRECHT-Or it's to the left side. Now the house is, the front is Ridge Road, which
is technically the side of the house.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Exactly, yes, because of the way you're skewed.
MR. ALBRECHT-So if the front door is facing the south, which is considered the side
road, the side of the house, to the rear of the front door is the waste system.
MRS. JENKIN-That's really close to the property line. If you had to extend the sewage
system, would you then go into the area behind the house, behind Ridge Road?
MR. ALBRECHT-If we had to upgrade the septic system, it would be run to the east,
beyond the garage, yes.
MRS. JENKIN-Right, right, because right now it's right on, almost on the property line.
MR. ALBRECHT-Right, and if you look at the terrain, the terrain's ideal if we need to. I'm
suspect that we're going to need a septic system.
MR. DRELLOS-They're going to have to improve that.
MR. ALBRECHT-She would like not to, but, because of the hardship of the financial
burden, but if that's what we need to do, then by all means, that's what we need to do.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Where you've got it now, is it on just a natural gravity flow or?
MR. ALBRECHT-It's natural, yes. There's no pump station.
MR. UNDERWOOD-But, I mean, you've got enough room to go up high enough to get
your slope going up to where you need to put it in the back there.
MR. ALBRECHT-Yes. Sure.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Okay.
MR. URRICO-Do we need more information? It seems like we're guessing on, if we
don't really know one way or the other.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, I think you can look at it, I mean, George.
MR. DRELLOS-You're going to have to upgrade the system, okay. So I don't know how
the Building Department works, if you won't get the building permit until you, with the
septic is included with the building permit, maybe. You'll have to upgrade.
MR. ALBRECHT-Well, it's a separate application, but it would be filed at the same time.
If that's what your recommendation is, that we would do what's necessary to obtain a
perc test and the design system.
MR. DRELLOS-Well, whatever the Building Department's going to require, but, you're
going to have to upgrade, because I'm sure the whole system will have to be replaced,
even the tank, because if the tank is sized for a three bedroom and you're now going to a
four bedroom, the tank will have to be upgraded to the next size up. So you're looking at
a whole complete system, tank and leach field.
4
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 03/18/09)
MR. UNDERWOOD-What do you guys want to do. Do you want to continue or do you
want to?
MRS. JENKIN-Mr. Chairman, could we give an approval on the condition that the septic
system is upgraded, is definitely?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Most certainly.
MRS. JENKIN-That that would be a condition.
MR. GARRAND-Or that Staff approves of the current system.
MRS. JENKIN-No, just if it is upgraded, because George is saying it needs to be
upgraded.
MR. DRELLOS-It'll have to be upgraded.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Why don't we do that. Why don't we get to the Witty gritty of
what they were asking us relief for, and let's run through the process, and we'll keep.
MR. URRICO-We have the public hearing still open.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think what we'll do is, why don't we do this. Any questions you
have about the relief that they're requesting from us at this time? I mean, it's pretty
apparent to me that what we're looking at is a structure that's been there for a long
period of time. The addition that's going to be on is going to be upwards, vertical.
MR. CLEMENTS-Same footprint.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It's not going to be moving outside the footprint, or increasing the
amount of relief that's already there present on site. So, if you guys don't have any
questions, I'll open the public hearing and see if anybody from the public is here to speak
on the matter.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. UNDERWOOD-Any correspondence?
MR. URRICO-No.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Anything else you want to add? I mean, I think we're pretty
clear as to what your.
MR. ALBRECHT-Probably the only thing, from reviewing the paperwork, which is not the
paperwork that I put together, I hired an agency to do this, reviewing the notes here in
the last 24 to 48 hours, the relief is indicated to be 22 feet side yard relief, but in fact it is
only a 10 foot relief.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MR. ALBRECHT-If you look at the blueprints of the structure, we're not going to the back
of the building. It's a 30 yard setback, side yard setback.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, and that's, it is correct on Staff Notes, because it's a request
for 10 feet, 33% from the 30 foot side setback.
MR. ALBRECHT-All right.
MR. OBORNE-Just as a point of clarification, the front of the house is the part of the
house that faces the road.
MR. ALBRECHT-Correct.
MR. OBORNE-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So no correspondence?
MR. URRICO-No.
5
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 03/18/09)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I guess I'll poll the Board and see what you guys think.
Brian, do you want to go?
MR. CLEMENTS-Sure. As far as what we've discussed here, and making sure that the
septic system is up to date and working well, I would be in favor of this.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joan?
MRS. JENKIN-I'm looking at all the criteria, and looking at the relief that's required, I
would also agree. I don't have a problem with the relief at all. Either the 50 foot front
setback or the 10 foot of relief from the 30 foot side setback, but I would definitely like to
see a condition put on it that the septic system is upgraded to be adequate for a four
bedroom home.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. George?
MR. DRELLOS-Yes, I'll agree with the rest of you. I always like going up better than out.
I think that that's the best solution, and it's best for you. So I don't have a problem with
this project.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Rich?
MR. GARRAND-I think the application is reasonable. I'd be in favor of it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-I have to agree with my fellow Board members. I would be in favor.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Roy?
MR. URRICO-I'm in agreement with everybody else, as long as the wastewater
conditions are met.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And I'll go along with everybody else, too. I mean, it doesn't seem
unreasonable. I mean, it's a, you know, you've got 1.81 acres there, that's a lot bigger
than most lots in Town. The impact is going to be nil as far as the road or anything else,
and the only issue really, and the only sticking point, to me, is making sure that it
conforms with four bedroom usage, and, you know, if you have to go to a new septic
system, that's probably worth your investment in doing it. So does somebody want to do
a resolution.
MR. GARRAND-I'll make a motion.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MS. GAGLIARDI-Did you close the public hearing?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I'll close the public hearing. Thank you.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 6-2009 JUDITH M. RICCIO, Introduced
by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
1208 Ridge Road. The applicant proposes a 594 square foot second story addition to an
existing one story single family dwelling. The applicant is requesting 23 feet of relief
from the 50 foot front setback requirement and 10 feet of relief from 30 foot side setback
in the Rural Residential Three Acre zone as per Section 179-4-030. Further, the
applicant requests relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure as per Section
179-13-010. As for the balancing test, can benefits be achieved by other means feasible
to the applicant? I don't think benefits can be achieved by any other means feasible to
the applicant. Given the orientation of this house, I think their best option is to go
upward. Will this produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood? I don't see how
this could possibly provide any undesirable change in the neighborhood whatsoever.
This request, as noted by Staff, I would deem as moderate, and will this request have
any adverse physical or environmental effects? I don't see how it could effect the
environment whatsoever by going vertically with this house, given the amount of land
that's associated with the house. This application might be deemed self-created. I
6
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 03/18/09)
would call it self-created, and also with this application I'd like to add the caveat that the
applicant upgrade the septic system to a conforming septic system for a four bedroom
home.
Duly adopted this 18t" day of March, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Drellos, Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand,
Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
MR. UNDERWOOD-You're all set.
MR. ALBRECHT-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 11-2008 SEQRA TYPE: II DEBARON ASSOCIATES BY
DEBRA SCHIEBEL, PARTNER AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING/MC
PHILLIPS, FITZGERALD, AND CULLUM OWNER(S): DEBARON ASSOCIATES
ZONING: WR-3A LOCATION: DARK BAY LANE, OFF ROUTE 9L APPLICANT
PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AND
ASSOCIATED WASTEWATER SYSTEM AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
CONTROLS. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SHORELINE AND REAR YARD SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM ROAD FRONTAGE
REQUIREMENTS AND STORMWATER DEVICES FOR MAJOR PROJECTS. CROSS
REF.: BOH 1-2009; SPR 14-2009 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: MARCH 12, 2008
(NO COUNTY IMPACT) ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 0.45
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.18-1-47 SECTION: 179-4-030; 179-4-090; 147-9B.2(d)
DENNIS PHILLIPS & TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. UNDERWOOD-Last night the Planning Board did cover this, and I think what we'll
do is after Staff Notes are read in, I'll have Keith give us a little recap as to what the
concerns of the Planning Board were going forward last evening.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Area Variance No. 11-2008, Debaron Associates by Debra Schiebel, Partner,
Meeting Date: March 18, 2009 "Project Location: Dark Bay Lane, off Route 9L
Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 2,351 square foot
single family home, associated wastewater system and stormwater controls on the shore
of Lake George.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests 40 feet of relief from the 40 foot road frontage requirement per
§179-4-090. Further, 24.47 feet of relief requested from the 75 foot shoreline setback
and 18.27 feet of relief requested from the rear setback requirement for the WR-1A zone
per §179-4-030. Finally, 54.88 feet of relief requested from the 100 foot minimum
setback requirement per §147-9 for infiltration devices on Lake George.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the
neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of
this area variance. Moderate changes to nearby properties may be anticipated as a
result of this proposal as the potential for visual impacts to neighboring parcels may
be increased.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,
feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The applicant could
reduce the size of the project in order to be more compliant.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 40 feet or 100%
of relief from the 40 foot road frontage relief per §179-9-090 may be considered
severe relative to the ordinance. The request for 24.27 feet or 33 % of relief from the
75 foot shoreline setback requirement per §179-4-030 may be considered moderate
7
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 03/18/09)
relative to the ordinance. The request for 18.27 feet or 73% of relief from the 25 foot
rear setback requirement may be considered moderate to severe relative to the
ordinance. Finally, the request for 54.88 feet or 55% relief from the 100 foot minimum
setback requirement for infiltration devices per §147-9 may be considered moderate
relative to the ordinance.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Moderate impacts on the
physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated as
the project proximity to the shoreline and the existing slopes may result in
environmental degradation. However, the project is consistent with the nature of the
subdivision.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
S.P. 14-2009 2,351 sq. ft. Single Family Dwelling Pending
Staff comments:
The cumulative requests for relief may be interpreted as severe when juxtaposed against
the both §179, the Zoning Code and §147, Stormwater Management. However, the lack
of road frontage may be mitigated as most homes within the area do not meet this
requirement. This project has been classified a Major Stormwater Management project
and as such requires Planning Board site plan review.
SEAR Status:
Type II - No action necessary.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Keith, we had asked for some recommendations from the
Planning Board regarding this project, and part of what we're dealing with here is the
amount of relief that's been requested, that is the proposed site of the house is going to
have a zero lot line setback from the back of the property, which we realize there's a
road there. The issue of septic, because of the nearness to the lake, was resolved by
the Town Board of Health with two holding tanks that were done there also. It was nice
of you to get these notes typed up for us, but none of us I think really had an opportunity
to really digest them or to read them at any great depth, or to really spend some time
with them, but one of the things I noticed in the notes is that, you know, it's claimed that
20 years ago they proposed basically the same project on site here, and it was put down
by the Planning Board at that time. I assume at that point holding tanks were not in the
quotient?
MR. OBORNE-That is my understanding, is that that project was designed around a
conventional wastewater system, and the applicant's agent would be more qualified to
speak to that. Having seen the plan from the 80's, they had the septic right up on the
road, I do believe. As far as last night goes, I think the resolution speaks for what the
Planning Board's issues are, I think, clearly.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I know, just having briefly gone through it, one of the concerns was,
they were still concerned with stormwater runoff, and I think a lot of that emanates from
the fact that the roadway that accesses the property, everything comes down from way
up above, and so that means a substantial amount of water that's coming down to that
area where the home is there. So that seems to be one of the major points that they're
worried about moving forward.
MR. OBORNE-I think that would be fair to say. However, they did give a positive
recommendation in the sense that these issues can be worked out. In no way, shape or
form were they approving the project, but they were sending it on to the Zoning Board as
per requested by the Zoning Board.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Now, as far as the size of the house that was proposed for the site,
did they have problems with that, or were they happy with that?
MR. OBORNE-They didn't discuss that at length.
8
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 03/18/09)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Sure. Okay. Well, I think what I'll do then is open it up to
you guys, you know, so maybe you can give us your take on what occurred last night
and if there were any outstanding issues that still needed to be dealt with to any degree.
MR. PHILLIPS-My name is Dennis Phillips. I'm a lawyer with McPhillips, Fitzgerald &
Cullum, representing Debbie Schiebel who's sitting in the front row behind me, and of
course Tom Hutchins will speak next, but I do think the resolution that came to the
Zoning Board correctly states the sense of the Planning Board last night, and after
thinking about that for a period of time, we think that we are in a position to follow some
recommendations not only made by the Planning Board last night, but also made by
VISION Engineering on behalf of the Planning Board, and we thought that we would like
to actually seek a favorable recommendation from the Planning Board to the Zoning
Board, and we decided that we would like the opportunity to tweak our stormwater plan
to address the concerns of the Planning Board, to address the concerns of VISION
Engineering, so that we could have what we think would be a positive recommendation
from the Planning Board to the Zoning Board. Tom did not receive the comments until
the Friday before last night. So we really haven't had a chance to do any revisions or
modifications, to take in those other factors that were raised by VISION Engineering and
the Planning Board. So this has been a long and winding road, but so far we've been
successful at every stop, and we are trying to create a good application, the best we can
give you. So I think that we would like to ask for one more tabling on this to do revised
plans to the Planning Board for a follow up recommendation before we come back and
give a full package to the Zoning Board, and with that, I'll turn it over to Tom for any of
his comments.
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. I don't have a whole lot to add to that. As far as last night, I would
say probably 90% of the discussion was on stormwater, and they had some ideas. We
put together what we felt was a workable plan, and they had some suggestions, and
we've agreed to look into them and try to improve it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Questions from Board members, anything you want to ask at
the moment?
MRS. JENKIN-Well, when you were in front of the Board before, one of the questions
and the concerns was the size of the house and the proximity of the house to the road,
that there was not, there's only about four or five feet from the road, if it's that. It's five
feet, and definitely the size of the project, and that has not changed at all? The plans,
the house plans, are the same as they were before?
MR. HUTCHINS-Well, the house plans have been re-worked. Dimensionally, it hasn't
changed significantly. It's a 24 by 40 house.
MRS. JENKIN-Right.
MR. HUTCHINS-Which is pretty, as small as we can go. It's a very small house. As far
as the siting of the location, we're trying to maximize the distance from Lake George
while we make it manageable by siting it on the lot. We feel we've done that.
MRS. JENKIN-On the plans, there was no detail at all for the basement area, but it is a
walkout basement. What is planned for the basement?
MR. HUTCHINS-You mean for floor plan?
MRS. JENKIN-Yes.
MR. HUTCHINS-Nothing at this point. It's finished area. The area is included in all the
floor area ratio numbers which we're well within.
MRS. JENKIN-So then it essentially could be used for bedrooms in the future. Is the
septic system geared for a two bedroom home, or is it for more, a larger one than that?
MR. HUTCHINS-Well, holding tanks, at least my philosophy on holding tanks is to install
as much capacity as you reasonably can. To Queensbury's standards, they are sized for
what would be a four bedroom.
MRS. JENKIN-For a four bedroom now?
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes.
9
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 03/18/09)
MRS. JENKIN-Okay.
MR. HUTCHINS-And that's done because we want to get as much volume as we can.
MRS. JENKIN-Right.
MR. UNDERWOOD-How long does it usually take for tanks that large to fill up to normal
usage?
MR. HUTCHINS-It depends on how much water you use.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, but I mean on average. Like I have no idea.
MR. HUTCHINS-The design criteria for a two bedroom house would be 220 gallons a
day. Now, at a recent wastewater seminar I was at, the statement was made by one of
the people that that generally has a two to one safety factor over normal use. So even
100 gallons a day would be the ballpark, actual normal usage, and that concurs with
some metering I've done. If you're on a holding tank, you're going to be more
conservative.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. I know a lot of people don't bother with hooking up a washer
dryer, things like that, just because of the volume of water that's created.
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. So at 100 gallons a day, it would be 48.
MR. GARRAND-One of my concerns here is, given the topography there, finished
construction, the height of the house, height maximum is 28 feet. Are they going to be
able to maintain that?
MR. HUTCHINS-And that was discussed at length at our last meeting, and we retained
an architect to work on the building plans, and they are designed for 28 feet.
MR. GARRAND-Okay.
MRS. JENKIN-Well, the main floor is nine feet, but then the top floor isn't, and then the
basement is eight, and the top floor is eight feet total, I think so.
MR. HUTCHINS-I believe so. It's shown on the separate sheet.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Any other questions from Board members? Okay. Maybe
what I'll do, because the public is here, and just see if, I'll open up the public hearing and
make sure if anybody's here to speak on the matter. Okay.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
KATHY BOZONY
MS. BOZONY-Kathy Bozony, Lake George Water Keeper. A couple of these issues are
a reiteration of last night's meeting, and I do have one thing that I would like to throw out
that I might want to share with you. Basically the intent is not to give a variance until
stormwater management can be handled on this site. That's a really critical thing. There
are a couple of issues that are outstanding at this point, as far as the percolation rate
(lost word) should be verified. stormwater management design based on infiltration rate
of six inches per hour. The base of the infiltration trench with six inches of bedrock, and
I'm curious whether or not this is appropriate calculations. Effectiveness of the infiltration
trench location should be evaluated. Infiltration trench will be located close to the
foundation and could be impacted from construction of potential blasting. With the
depth of the proposed foundation, will there be foundation drainage and will that impact
the infiltration trench? stormwater management treatment must be enhanced if
separation to the lake is being minimized. Infiltration treatment is based on contact time
with the soils. This proposal reduces the contact with soils (lost word). Therefore
enhanced treatment should, such as amended soils, should be added as a minimum and
increased vegetation as well. This next issue I don't know if you've read my letter or not,
but I want to share this with you. This 0.35 acre pre-existing lot located in a Waterfront
Residential Three Acre is a noncompliant lot and needs special development
considerations for Site Plan approval. Although the floor area ratio calculation does not
exceed the limits of the property, use of non-buildable or constrained land in the
calculation on this steep slope to the lake may indicate that the lot is too small for the
10
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 03/18/09)
proposed house and all supporting infrastructure. Use of a FAR calculation was applied
to determine if the total proposed living space and related necessary infrastructures can
be reasonably supported a particular parcel. The necessary infrastructure includes land
required for appropriate wastewater treatment and stormwater management. A variance
has been granted for the use of two, 2,000 gallon holding tanks for new construction,
eliminating the land required for an absorption field, but the reduced available buildable
land may be an issue that cannot be compromised when adequately designing
stormwater management. Some suggestions that we'd love see, as far as a condition on
this approval, is there should be required a no disturbance zone as a condition of a
variance approval, meaning that this zone should be designated on the final plan and
prior to any disturbance on the site should be field marked as well. This is what I had
originally stated, the Planning Board Site Plan Review is recommended before
construction, although all potential issues regarding development on this parcel in
relation to anticipated environmental impacts should proceed the Site Plan Review with
the Planning Board. Thank you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Anybody else?
JIM TOBIN
MR. TOBIN-Good evening. My name is Jim Tobin. I live at 15 Dark Bay Lane. I'm a
member of what's called the Dark Bay Association, which includes all the neighbors in
this area. First of all, I want to say I oppose this proposal, and I've done it for a number
of years. You mentioned 20 years ago the proposal was before this Board, and I was
here at that time also. First of all, I'd like to talk about the relief from the lake that's being
asked for. At this point in time, they're asking 55%, which was mentioned, wow. Isn't
that a big number, and they're asking for four other ones, and they're all wows to me.
Maybe it's a sign of the times. I don't know, but I think it's an awful lot to be asking for.
Let me talk first about the neighborhood. The neighborhood is a collection of houses.
There are a number of lots there that have not been built on, but the neighbors that
surround it are larger parcels of land. Originally when this project was conceived in
1968, there were four lots along the lake and there were approximately 10 lots to the
rear. I live in the rear. The lots were smaller. They're approximately half acre lots. Over
the period of time, any house that's been build in the Association has not been built on
the small lots. I have been built on a small lot and two other houses are on the small
lots, and they were built early, before 1970. Last year, a parcel was built on and the lots
were combined. So they're not small lots there now, acre, acre and a half lots. The
applicant has a lot that has been combined over the years for various reasons, and
there's currently another two lots that are being combined maybe as I talk. Let me go
around the lake, starting from a house called Matthews, which is around the point on the
other side. Two and a half acres. The next one is Grande. That's three and a half
acres. The next one is McCormack, four and a half acres, and then we come to what's
called the beach lot, which is owned by the Association, which is approximately a half
acre, and the lot in question, and then there are three other lots which are small that go
around the lake, and then we go in to one that's called Detzer, and that's an acre and
three quarters, and the next one is Prol. These are people who have been invited to
speak, or at least been notified by this Board. So the character of the neighborhood is
not small lots, this being the most nonconforming of a nonconforming lots, and I think
there are problems associated with this. My understanding is that to grant relief for the
applicant, the applicant has to prove hardship. I have seen no hardship that the
applicant has provided. Yes, they're paying taxes on it. They've been paying taxes for
40 years on this parcel. They have enjoyed the parcel. They have built on the parcel.
They have substantial use of the parcel. There's a shed on it. There's a gazebo on it,
and there's a dock that you would die for on it. My issue is privacy. As a member of the
Association, my dock adjoins this parcel. Because of the size of this building, and
particularly the height of the building, it is not three stories high, but from my position,
sitting on the dock, it is four stories high. I now have somebody looking over my
shoulder. These are wonderful people. I like them. I've known them for 20 years.
They're nice people, but the grandkids can't go skinny-dipping anymore, for one thing.
When this parcel was sold to the people originally in 1968, there were restrictions that
were put on to the parcel by the seller, who's name was Malcolm Mitchell, lives across
the road. If you're familiar you go up 9L, there's a large, Tudor house that's still there.
When they sold the property, there were a number of issues, and they put covenants on
the property. Now I know it's not the purview of this Board to those, but there are
covenants that are required on setbacks and there are covenants that are required on
actually the size of the house. My other major concern is the number of trees that are
going to be cut. There are 35 major trees on this parcel, of which 25 of those 35 are
above 12 inch caliper. That's the diameter of the tree measured horizontally across,
about four feet from grade. Of these proposed so far, 11 of them are to be removed to
11
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 03/18/09)
put the house in. I've looked at the stormwater management plan. It's really anon-
workable plan. There are so many issues. There's so many variables. It is a blank
sheet of paper now. So if you vote on this the way it is now, you're voting on a blank
sheet of paper. For one thing, the system doesn't work in the wintertime the way it's
designed. The grounds freeze and there is bedrock that is too close to the surface. The
other issue I have is that the house is really too close to the road. There is really no
place to plow snow. We get a lot of snow there. It's a very difficult road. It's a very
narrow road. It's a one lane road. There's no place to plow snow, and the snow is going
to be plowed right in the front windows of the house. It's five feet away, and that's very
difficult to plow. I have a letter, which I would like to read to you. It's from James Grande
who lives across the Bay. He wrote a letter and I read it last night. I'd like to give it to
Staff again, to be in this file, and I'll read the letter. Jim is in Florida now because his
wife is very sick and is having an operation tomorrow so he couldn't be here. "In 1984, I
purchased a home directly across Dark Bay to the east of the applicant's property. This
is my primary residence and I have several concerns regarding this application. My #1
concern would be for the lake itself. With the close proximity of this project to the lake
and the amount of trees and other vegetation that will be removed or disturbed, in
combination with the severe elevation change in the lot, how can we be 100% sure that a
stormwater management system can be adequately designed and, more importantly,
maintained that would ensure the lake would not be impacted? Will there be annual
inspections by a governmental agency to verify the stormwater plan is being followed
and maintained in future years? Secondly, ever since I can remember, the front parcel
with an existing home", and it gives the number of the house, which is the adjoining
house, "(239.18-1-44) has enjoyed the benefit of this lot to the extent that they have built
improvements on the shoreline which they have used as if it were one lot. This
beneficial use should prohibit this lot from being used separately. Third, this lot is not in
character with the lots which abut my property (McCormick's lot - 4 '/2 acres, Matthews'
lot - 2.5 +/- acres), and developing a '/2 acre lot in a 3 acre zone seems ludicrous when
this parcel would be combined with other parcels to be more in keeping with adjacent
properties." One article I would like to bring up as a historical fact is that when this parcel
was originally granted by the Board, the lot in question was called the beach lot. It was
designed by the people who laid this out, that this was to be the beach lot. Because of
some problems that one of the houses did not want to have the beach association next
to them, the lot was moved over to the present location, and an additional parcel was
bought and added. This is aself-inflicted wound. It's been around for 40 years .Even
the people who laid this plan out knew that a house could not be built on. It would be
very difficult to be built on. I say that a house is possible to be built on here, but it could
be changed. What was brought to our attention was the square footage could be
reduced, and, Number Two, the house could be slid along the property line towards the
lake farther, still have some of the problems that are associated with it now, but it would
relieve some of the setback requirements that I see. So I think the Site Plan really
should be looked at very seriously and modifications could be made that could modify
some of the neighbors. I have some photographs here I'd like to hand out to the Board
members, and what they are, are photographs from the lake of the existing lot and the
second page is superimposed upon is the applicant's architectural design, and you see
how overpowering the house is in relationship to the dock, what I'm looking at. Thank
you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you.
MR. GARRAND-Sir, a quick question. You're a member of the Homeowners
Association. According to the covenants, it violates Section 5-A of the covenants. Do
you have any recourse as far as the HOA agreement?
MR. TOBIN-My understanding it would take litigation to do that, and it probably is not the
province of this Board or the Town Board. So, I mean, I would have to sue somebody to,
after you approve it, if you did approve it, there would be some type of litigation I'm sure.
MR. GARRAND-Okay.
MR. TOBIN-So, unless the Town wants to get involved, and I doubt that. Please feel
free, though. Is that it? Thank you.
MRS. JENKIN-Thank you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Was there any correspondence?
MR. URRICO-Not that I can see. No.
12
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 03/18/09)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So you would like us to table this until you resolve your
differences with the Planning Board or come up with something that you both can agree
on at that point?
MR. PHILLIPS-Yes. We had a very constructive meeting with the Planning Board last
night, as reflected by resolution. So we were looking at doing the best engineering
possible, relative to a stormwater plan, so that when we came back to this Board, you'd
have the best effort, after the inputs from the Planning Board and the engineering, and
tonight, with that in mind, we have not made our affirmative presentation, as we would
like to do, because of the pre-existing nature of this subdivision which has a long history
to it, and certainly I'm not prepared right now to, because I don't think it would be
appropriate to rebut what the last person has just said, but I certainly would clear the
record, because it is a public record, it is a legal record. It is on file in the Clerk's Office.
Mr. Tobin's deed is on file in the Clerk's Office, and so I think that the Board should have
the opportunity of having the facts in front of it, as opposed to some version of the facts.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Some of the points that were brought up were in regards to
vegetation on site. How much is actually going to be left in front on the foreshore there?
I mean, you guys have a map. I think you identified some of that on there.
MR. HUTCHINS-The clearing limit is shown, and we've, obviously, I hope it's obvious,
we've kept the clearing as tight as we comfortably can, and we've agreed to leave the
area between the house and the lake in its natural state. It is in the neighborhood of 40
feet that we're leaving, leaving natural, as is.
MRS. JENKIN-I have one question, too. If it's bedrock, will you have to blast in order to
put in the foundation?
MR. HUTCHINS-There's a significant amount of shallow rock in the area. This particular
site has been filled years, and years, and years ago, and there are granular soils there.
We don't, based on the test information we have, we do not anticipate having to
excavate rock. Until you actually do the entire excavation, you don't know. I've agreed
with the Planning Board to go back and do three or more test holes to confirm that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So that original area behind the retaining wall, that was all filled in at
some point in the past?
MR. HUTCHINS-Right, a long time ago. There's big trees on it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Okay. All right. Any other questions from Board members
tonight, or do you think you? One of the things I'd like to say, too, is that, you know, I
think we need more time to go back and read through what the Planning Board's
thoughts were, and part of the problem that we run into is we don't have enough stagger
between Planning Board and Zoning Board. It would be nice if we were like a week
opposite them, you know, from when they deal with you first of all, because that would
give time for us to get the information. So, you know, we're not always trying to play
catch up at this point in time, but, Brian, go ahead.
MR. CLEMENTS-Just while we're looking at things on this Site Development Data and
the setback requirements, which was done probably quite a while ago.
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes.
MR. CLEMENTS-On the side yard north, there's a required 25 foot setback and then
there's nothing for existing and there's nothing for proposed. I just, maybe when you
come back you might want to put some kind of figure in there.
MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. We'll do that. It will be great, because that side yard north is.
MR. CLEMENTS-Probably because you've got a lot of space there.
MR. HUTCHINS-Is way up here, yes.
MR. CLEMENTS-Okay.
MR. HUTCHINS-I apologize.
13
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 03/18/09)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Any other questions from Board members? I think, then,
what we'll do is then I'll make a tabling resolution, and do you want to just open ended
tabling, or do you anticipate going back in a month to the Planning Board?
MR. PHILLIPS-We're hoping to meet the filing deadline for the, of April 15t", I believe it
is, for the May Planning Board. So I think that we probably, everything the Planning
Board has asked us to do we're going to address. So we'll be complete, I believe, with
the Planning Board that night. So we could schedule right after that, in May, as soon as
possible, I guess we're asking for.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So you want us the second meeting in May, then, to make sense to
have at least a week in between?
MR. URRICO-Is there going to be enough time to digest?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I mean, we're going to get the minutes, but, I mean, is that
enough time for you, or would you rather have us go to the first meeting in June?
MR. OBORNE-I think that proper protocol should be the norm in this. If they can get it by
the April 15t", if the agenda's full, they'll be automatically bumped. So I think proper
protocol would be fine.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-April 15t", deadline date.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. So you would be under the gun for deadline, you know, for
both the Planning Board and for us, by April 15t" for the May, meeting in May. I don't
know if that's going to work for you.
MR. OBORNE-I would suggest you table them to the second meeting in May.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure.
MR. OBORNE-That would hold their position or direct them to apply by April 15t" and
have proper protocol followed.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Is that going to work for you guys, or is that too much, too soon?
MR. HUTCHINS-I guess my concern is I anticipate that there may be some give and take
with the Planning Board, assuming we can come up with something that's workable, and
we may end up with some stormwater devices in different location than we've shown,
which is based on, or which is what the application's based on.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure.
MR. HUTCHINS-So as long as we were allowed to clarify that at the meeting night, after
we've met with the Planning Board, then I think we're fine with it, but it may not be
complete as approved by the Planning Board in the application that comes in at the
same time.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. That would be logical if you're going to negotiate on it
anyway.
MR. OBORNE-And I would suggest, it sounds like you're going to table, is to direct the
Planning Board to give another recommendation that is cleaner, per se.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MRS. JENKIN-But that's only on stormwater, correct?
MR. OBORNE-That is only stormwater, correct, from your original recommendation.
MRS. JENKIN-Right.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. I mean, we're still going to rely upon our own judgment,
based upon what they're asking us for. So, I mean, that's keeping in mind what we've
done in the past and going forward. All right. Then I'll make a motion that we table.
14
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 03/18/09)
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 11-2008 DEBARON ASSOCIATES BY
DEBRA SCHIEBEL, PARTNER, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Brian Clements:
Dark Bay Lane, off Route 9L. Until the second meeting in May, and based upon what's
been discussed here this evening, we would ask that the Planning Board reconfirm that
the stormwater management project, as will be discussed with them in the future, is
adequate, and that they make a recommendation to us that they give an affirmative
going forward, that they're fine with it. At that point in time, the applicant will come back
to the Zoning Board and will deal with the outstanding issues that the Zoning Board has
as far as the setback requirements and the nonconformance of the structure, based upon
the size of the lot that we're dealing with.
Duly adopted 18t" day of March, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Drellos,
Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
MR. PHILLIPS-Thank you.
MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 77-2008 SEAR TYPE: UNLISTED NPA II, LLC (NORTHWAY
PLAZA) [CHILI'S RESTAURANT] AGENT(S): J. CAPPER, ESQ. BPSR OWNER(S):
NPA II, LLC (NORTHWAY PLAZA) ZONING: HC-INT. LOCATION: 820 STATE
ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A WALGREENS AND
CHILI'S RESTAURANT AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS. RELIEF
REQUSTED FROM MINIMUM PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: SPR
48-08; SV 74-2008; SV 75-2008; SV 76-2008 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING:
NOVEMBER 12, 2008 LOT SIZE: 31.25 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.18-1-47
SECTION: 179-4-030; 179-8-070
JON CAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. UNDERWOOD-We have previously heard this on a couple of different occasions,
and we're back here this evening with a revision of what was presented to us the last
time. In general I think I'm going to have Roy read in what the Staff Notes are, but they
have submitted new plans to us, and I believe those plans were presented to the
Cemetery Commission, and, as per the past record, the hang up that the Board had was
with the parking that was proposed down on that side of the Plaza there. So, go ahead,
Roy.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 77-2008, NPA II, LLC (Northway Plaza) Meeting
Date: March 18, 2009 "Project Location: 820 State Route 9 Description of Proposed
Project: Applicant proposes the construction of an approximate 14,820 square foot
Walgreens Pharmacy, 4,642 square foot Chili's Restaurant, reconfiguration of the former
Travelers space to include increased parking, and associated site work.
Relief Required:
Relief required from the minimum permeability requirements per 179-4-030. The project,
according to the plan submitted, proposes the reduction of permeability from 22.40
percent down to 20.0 percent. The minimum permeability for the Highway Commercial
intensive zone is 30.0 percent. Note: The Planning Board, on February 17, 2009 issued
a recommendation concerning the decrease in permeability associated with this project
(see previous handout).
The new proposal calls for 18 foot drive aisles. Per §179-4-040, each space shall be
reached by an access driveway at least 24 feet clear in width. This may require an area
variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. If this is the case, the ZBA may wish to seek
a recommendation from the Planning Board concerning the width of the drive aisles as
proposed.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
15
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 03/18/09)
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the
neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of
this area variance. Moderate to severe impacts on nearby properties may be
anticipated as a result of this proposal as the average size of the buffer between the
Pine View Cemetery and proposed parking expansion will drop from approximately
45 feet to 20 feet on average (see attached letter dated March 10, 2009 from the
Pine View Cemetery Commission).
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,
feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The applicant could
build in a more compliant location and/or reduce the size of the project.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. According to staff calculations,
the request for 35,471 square feet or 1.02 percent of additional impermeable area
may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. This parcel received
permeability relief in the past (A.V. 54-2002) and is now seeking additional relief.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Moderate impacts on the
physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated as
green space will be reduced. However, the plan calls for a stormwater management
plan that may potentially manage stormwater to a greater extent.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created as the proposal calls for the removal of green space, an increase in parking
and an increase in the overall building footprints on site.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
A.V. 54-2002 Home Depot Permeability 6/26/2002
S.V.59-2002 Home Depot signs 7/24/2002
S.V. 83-2003 Empire Vision sign 10/22/03
S.V. 61-2004 Panera sign 8/25/04
S.P. Mod, Home Depot 2004
S.V. 95-2004 sign 12/15/04
Staff comments:
Note: New comments in bold.
Staff calculations do not include the Home Depot parcel, nor will staff include said parcel
in their calculations as this has lend itself to confusion. The Home Depot parcel is not
owned by Northway Plaza Association, LLC.
The calculations submitted on February 4, 2009 appear too accurately state the existing
and proposed changes to permeability.
On February 18, 2009 the Zoning Board of Appeals tabled this application (see attached
resolution). The applicant has submitted a new plan concerning the buffer area and the
parking associated with the decrease in permeability. The new plan appears to lessen
the encroachment on the buffer by an average of 20 feet as compared to the original
proposal.
The Cemetery Commission and the applicant's agent met on March 4, 2009 to discuss a
potential compromise. The two parties could not reach an agreement and as a result, the
applicant has submitted the same material that what was before the Cemetery
Commission for Zoning Board consideration.
Review:
Permeability calculations on revised plans appear erroneous. Please correct to
reflect calculations submitted on February 4, 2009.
Has the amount of permeability requested changed due to the new proposal?
Please clarify and correct if necessary.
SEAR Status:
Unlisted-The Zoning Board of Appeals must make a SEAR Determination concerning
this application."
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Mr. Lapper?
16
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 03/18/09)
MR. CAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record, Jon Capper, project attorney.
With me is Nicole David Heiser from Clough Harbor, who did the design work for the
Plaza, and Jim Gillespie from Bohler Engineering who did the design work for the
stormwater basin on the DOT property, and Jim Hagen is behind us, project architect, as
is Bill Dutch, on behalf of the ownership group. I know that you had a full discussion
about this at the last meeting when I was not present, and I'd just like to start, I guess, by
briefly summing up the history, so that we could explain how we got to what we propose,
in response to this Board's sending us away to try and re-think this. This is a very
precarious time for the owners of the Plaza, because obviously with Travelers having
moved out, that was the largest tenant, and this is a particularly bad time for finding retail
tenants to fill vacant retail space. The restaurant project and the pharmacy project that
we were here to talk about earlier this year are projects that we've been working on for
literally four years. The Monroe Muffler was the unsightly former Montgomery Ward tire,
battery and accessory store. We thought we had a deal four years ago to buy out the
lease and to do this project then, and that fell apart at the last moment. There was
another restaurant tenant at the time that had signed a lease, and that lapsed while we
were waiting for the Monroe lease to end. So the owners have, we certainly, we came in
and did the Home Depot project, which took the vacant retail space in the back and
vastly improved the access drive from Route 9, cleaned up that part of the site, and at
the time, we told both the Planning Board and the Zoning Board that we would be back,
when we had the tenants, to fix the Quaker Road part of the site. So ultimately we had
tenant deals, but then we lost the deal with Monroe Muffler and had to wait for that lease
to end, and, you know, all things being what they are, the economy's different now than it
was four years ago, but nevertheless, the Board granted us the Sign Variances that we
absolutely needed for those transactions, and what's left before you is the permeability
issue as it reflects the parking in the back, and a lot of the discussions at your last
meeting talked about alternatives on the site, and the simple explanation is that there's a
crucial tenant in the back that they can't afford to lose. The office space in the back of
this Plaza is certainly not prime office space in the Town of Queensbury or in our market,
but it is outfitted for this office tenant, and it's important, it's crucial for the viability of this
center, that the landlord maintain that tenant there, and this tenant has indicated that if
they're going to stay, they need to add jobs and they need to add parking. So the
alternatives that you asked us to consider in terms of parking elsewhere on this site are
not acceptable to this tenant because they have other places they could go where they'll
have parking in front of their door, but I think that there's an interest, not only in terms of
keeping this center financially viable for the owner, but also for the Town, that we don't
want to have another situation like we do up at Exit 19 where you've had vacant
commercial space for a number of years until the right deal comes along. So we feel that
the restaurant and the pharmacy will reinvigorate the Plaza as it appears from Quaker
Road. The parking project will allow the tenant to stay and expand the office tenant in
the back, and having those two in place, they can wait out the economy until the right
retail tenant comes for the Travelers space. For that reason, even though we've got an
empty parking field in the front, we have to leave that there so that there's parking for a
large retail tenant in the future when that happens, you know, but that said, the office
tenant in the back's requiring office space in the back. So in terms of the benefit to the
applicant, it's really about the future viability of this center, but that said, we've always
been mindful of the interest of the cemetery, and we looked at this and said at first that
part of it's near their maintenance buildings, and in terms of visibility, you can look
underneath the trees and see what's here now in terms of the parking, and the building.
So by moving this closer to the border, it's really not going to make a visual impact, but at
the same time, when we were asked by this Board to go back and re-think this, we came
up with the plan that Nicole prepared, and we presented to the Cemetery Commission. It
didn't go over very well, but I think that reasonable people should see that what we've
proposed with substantial plantings and moving it from five feet from the property line to
between 27 and 31 feet north of the maintenance buildings, which was the area they
were concerned about, is a very dramatic difference. Really trying to meet everyone's
needs here, and to listen to the instructions that you gave us. In order to accomplish
that, and I'll have Nicole go through the details in a second, but in order to accomplish
that, we have to have one way parking or, well, by proposing one way parking with the
diagonal spaces, it allows the center to work quite well, and save the extra width,
because it's not necessary in terms of parking lot design to have 24 foot aisle widths.
However, in Queensbury, there's no distinction in the Code between perpendicular
parking and diagonal parking. So if that's something that the Board feels is real and
positive, we will have to re-submit that and come back to you as soon as possible for the
variance for the aisle width, but certainly we feel it will work quite well with the one way
and the diagonal parking, and it will accomplish the goal of trying to buffer the cemetery.
The other thing that we've been working on for four years is to deal with this stormwater
issue in the front. In order to acquire the land that we needed to fit the Chili's and the
Walgreens from the State, we had to agree to a project of just slightly under $200,000, to
17
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 03/18/09)
treat stormwater that has nothing to do with this site that's coming down Route 9,
untreated, and going directly into Halfway Brook. This is one of the top two projects of
Warren County Soil and Water. I think we previously submitted that letter as part of our
initial application package with this project. It's a large expenditure that has a real
benefit to the community because of the water quality issue in Halfway Brook, and that
was a compromise that took a long time to work out, while we were waiting for the
Monroe lease to end. So that's a benefit to the Town. Keeping this center viable is
important. Re-landscaping the front, putting these two uses in the front, is important to
the tenant and the Town. The taxes that this center pays are huge, and if this center
goes vacant, that's not going to help anybody, but we also made a real attempt, since we
were here last, to do a better job of buffering the Cemetery, even though the Cemetery
Commission doesn't agree. We hope we can convince you that it's a very reasonable
compromise. So I'm going to ask Nicole to walk you through her plans, in terms of that.
NICOLE DAVID HEISER
MS. HEISER-Good evening, everyone. So, we went back to the drawing board, and this
is what we came up with. In trying to accommodate, at least accommodating keeping
enough parking to accommodate for retail parking. So what I did is we went back and
basically we changed the two lanes. There used to be 90 degree parking here, and we
made 60 degree parking in these two areas. So what happened is we actually, I think
the most we brought it back is, we brought the edge of the parking back 31 feet here, and
in doing so, because of the grading in this area, we're actually able to also remove that
whole entire length of retaining wall that we have proposed there, and what we also are
proposing to do is, because that retaining wall is removed, now what we propose, and
you can see on this cross section here, is actually replacing pretty much most of the
vegetation we're moving with new vegetation. Down here, last time we were here, the
Board said we could keep about 20 spaces, which we did. We kept about 18, only
because the circulation worked a lot better there and it was kind of awkward if we
actually kept the 20 that the Board said. I actually also tightened up this aisle lane here
and actually moved this edge of parking and this wall away from this property line, down
where the maintenance buildings are. We also went back and re-engineered the loading
dock area here. We took out a loading dock. We rotated the direction of it, and we were
able to fit more parking in up top. I believe that was as one of the suggestions, and
importantly is that we ran all the turning radiuses for the trucks to make sure that this
would work, and it works very well. We have a couple of spaces where we lost some
additional parking just to make sure that the trucks had adequate movement to move
around the site, and that pretty much sums it up, and the issue of the fence. We also, it
doesn't show it on your sections that were submitted, but we've also added an optional
fence here, if this, the Cemetery or the Board would like to have it. When we met with
the Commission, they made a comment about issues with people trespassing or, you
know, vandalism and things like that. So, we also offer to put up the fence all along here
which really will help curb those problems, you know, as an issue that's not, you know,
related, but to help them out with those issues.
MRS. JENKIN-Will the fence be on the Cemetery side or your side?
MS. HEISER-Our side.
MRS. JENKIN-So the trees will be on the other side, so it would help to screen the fence
from the Cemetery?
MS. HEISER-Correct. Yes.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay.
JIM HAGAN
MR. HAGAN-My name is Jim Hagan the architect. If you went out there today, and
looked at the edge of the paving that exists, that falls probably somewhere right about in
this area. The tree line that exists along that property line is partially on the Northway
Plaza property, but also partially on the Cemetery property, and actually, down in this
area, the tree line is probably about, what, 15 feet away from the edge of the existing
pavement, 15 to 20 foot?
MS. HEISER-The tree line is shown, this canopy area (lost words) that's actually from
the survey that was done in this area, showing that. So you can actually see in this area
the edge of the canopy with this new plan, very little of that canopy area is going to be
removed, including what we're going to (lost words).
18
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 03/18/09)
MR. HAGAN-I think that's an important point, is that, yes, we may remove a few trees,
but we're not going through and clear cutting the whole area, and in fact what we're
proposing to do is the trees that are there are mature trees. They've grown up. The
canopy's up high, and the understory is fairly open, and what we're proposing to do is
add new plantings on our side of the property line in the space that we've created by
moving the parking back, and put in a dense planting buffer in there which would be
more at the eye level that you'd be concerned about. In doing so, we actually feel we're
going to wind up with a better buffer than what exists today, and we feel that that's a plus
and that is a compromise, and I think by doing that, you know, we're going to spend
some more money in plantings in that area, but we've also eliminated the retaining walls,
where we had retaining walls and plantings on top of it, I think it's going to look a whole
lot better. So I really see that as a major plus. The dilemma we faced in doing that is by
creating the one way traffic flow, where people coming in from Quaker Road wanting to
go around the back of the center would come in, they would flow onto the side and go
out, but people coming the other direction would come in and go in on this side. So it
would be a one way aisle situation. We're showing an aisle width of 18 foot. That is
more, significantly more, than recommended minimums for one way traffic and for one
way parking. In doing that, that's what really allowed us to free this area up.
Unfortunately, the way your Ordinance is drafted, it just has a prescriptive, it must be 24
foot. If you put a 24 foot aisle there, with one way diagonal parking, it would almost look
silly because you'd have too much room in there, quite frankly. The other thing that
we're trying to do is if you go over there, almost any time of day, it's a straight shot
through there right now, and people come in off Quaker Road and they're going down a
slope, and they're starting to move. They're doing 30, 35 miles an hour as they go, by
the time they get down to the bottom of this hill. We feel that by reconfiguring this,
narrowing that down, it's going to cause people to tend to slow down and will improve the
safety situation in the site in that area. (Lost word) you're showing that the land is
generally sloping up towards the shopping center, correct, from the Cemetery property?
But I think if you looked at this, in various locations here, there are some locations where
some of this parking is actually at grade or slightly below the grade at the property line.
Is that not correct?
MS. HEISER-Right, farther back. This was basically I wanted to show worst case
scenario.
MR. HAGAN-So I think the combination of the movement back, saving the trees, the new
trees, the fence. These are all positive elements that were not included in the plan that
was first presented to you, and I think that indicates a good faith effort on behalf of the
property owner to try to work with the neighbor, and I think that's all I really need to say
at this point.
MR. CAPPER-Thanks, Jim.
MR. URRICO-Can I ask a couple of questions? I have a couple of questions. You say a
few trees. How many is a few trees and where, where would they be taken out?
MS. HEISER-On this plan you have, the reason I included the grading plan, so you can
see exactly where we're grading, and this is the edge of the buffer right here. So the
trees that would come out would be right about like this. So this area right here. So that,
with this new plan, because of the loss of the retaining wall, which also required us, from
the old plan, to remove a lot more vegetation, and then, within this area, you can see this
is what we're going to be re-planting. So actually you can see on the plan whatever is
outside this bubble area, whatever, is over the parking area is actually in the end, all the
vegetation that we're going to lose with this new plan here.
MRS. JENKIN-Would you show that on the top as well, please, on the elevation part.
MS. HEISER-Sure. This, it says this area where it says proposed vegetation, this
represents now the maximum strip of vegetation that's going to come out. This
vegetation is all existing, shown on this section.
MRS. JENKIN-And will stay?
MS. HEISER-Correct.
MR. CAPPER-So it's just along the parking lot.
MS. HEISER-Correct.
19
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 03/18/09)
MR. URRICO-Now, in terms of traffic flow, do you have any figures, any studies that
you've done to indicate how many cars you anticipate using the back way to get into
Chili's?
MS. HEISER-This back?
MR. URRICO-Yes, that one way.
MR. HAGAN-Let me explain a little bit more how that parking really is working. Chili's
and Walgreens are out here. They're parking fields are immediately adjacent to them.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
MR. HAGAN-Okay. They've got more than adequate parking to meet their needs out in
this area. The tenant we're concerned about and the tenant that Jon was referring to is
actually located in the lower level of this section of the building back here. It's a
company called Per Se Technologies, and it's an office backroom type operation. Right
now they're entrance is right here.
MR. URRICO-I understand that, but won't there be customer cars that will use the back
way to try to get into Walgreens and therefore intersect with the parking field for the (lost
word) from Per Se?
MR. HAGAN-You've also got vehicles going through to Home Depot, and the other
portion of the center. That's the nature of our shopping center.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
MR. HAGAN-We feel that, with the one way traffic in this area, we will have a safe and
adequate arrangement, we really do.
MR. URRICO-Heading in that direction, but what if they're heading in this direction?
MR. HAGAN-At this point, this would remain two way. This would be one way
southbound. This would be one way northbound.
MR. URRICO-Exactly.
MR. HAGAN-And there'll be signage there to control that operation.
MR. URRICO-And do you know how many cars you anticipate using that back way to get
to those?
MR. HAGAN-We have not done a detailed traffic analysis at this point.
MR. URRICO-My concern is that during a shift in the shifts for Per Se, there's going to be
a bottleneck there if cars try to get in that way, and cars are backing out.
BILL DUTCH
MR. DUTCH-Excuse me. I'm Bill Dutch, representing the owner of the center. I am an
owner of the center, a principal in the Partnership of Northway Plaza Associates. The
predominance of traffic, anybody that would make that movement would be probably a
Home Depot shopper or customer. There are other options.
MR. URRICO-Or Post Office.
MR. DUTCH-Pardon me?
MR. URRICO-Or somebody going to the Post Office.
MR. DUTCH-But highly unlikely that they would make those motions. For example, if
they want to the Post Office, it would be a lot easier for them to come back out and
circulate back to go to either of these two tenants than it would be for them to go around
the building and down the hill. It just, it isn't a significant issue.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
20
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 03/18/09)
MR. DUTCH-The issue is, do you want me to continue on, Jon? All right. I just have a
couple of comments. First of all, my colleagues articulated our situation very well.
There's not a lot I can add to it. I'd like to tell you I had a lot of other thoughts, but they
covered most of them. We are in a very difficult situation. Over our tenure of ownership,
which commenced in August 1989, 20 years, we've invested a lot of money in this
property. What happened and why Home Depot bought their parcel back was a financial
transaction, was necessitated by the nature of a loan that we had. They also had an
option to do that down the road and insisted on having a subdivision up front. Ultimately,
we did sell the property back to them and paid off a loan that we had borrowed from
them to finance a lot of the site work that was done here. I think almost five million
dollars was invested in this property at that time, in general improvements, beside the
cost of their store, but to get to the meat and potatoes of this story, what we are faced
with, and what we were faced with from Day One, was that Travelers drove the bus for
this property. They were, to the best of my knowledge, the largest employer in this
County. They, we inherited that situation, and when we bought this real estate, a former
retail store had been converted into office space at a very expensive, based on a very
expensive investment. We came in the second year that Travelers was occupying the
space. We knew the ground rules and we knew the facts at the time. We anticipated a
very long term relationship with Travelers, which we had for a very long time, almost 20
years. What happened was an anomaly, something nobody could have predicted, but
during these intervals of Travelers tenancy, they had expansion and contraction
requirements, something that we couldn't control, but because of the nature of their
impact and importance to the community, what we did, obviously, was self-serving, but
we also, what we did was also in the interest of the community, and when Travelers said
to me in 1993, if we can't find, expand our operations another 25,000 square feet, we
may have to leave the community. We brainstormed this thing, and we built, if you've
seen the back of this property, a weather enclosed bridge. The first phase of which cost
us about $375,000, as I recall, the second phase of which was another $225 or 50,000.
So we had over $600,000 invested in a bridge to allow Travelers people to cross without
going outside, from one facility to the other. Self-imposed hardship? I don't think so. I
think what we were doing was in the best interest of the community and at full
employment here, I think they had over 700 people working in this site until they
contracted, and how viable is that to the community? So when Travelers snapped their
fingers, we jumped. We raised the money to put a couple of million dollars into
improvements in that lower level space. About five years later, they came back to us and
said we need another 15,000 feet. We then remodeled the back end of what had been
retail space above them, so we had 40,000 feet of additional Travelers space. They also
occupied, in the basement of this building, 13,000 square feet. All totaled, at one time,
Travelers had 112,000 square feet. We leased them the end of this building, which was
the TV Data space, when TV Data left us, and so as I said, they were up to 112,000
square feet. Then they decided to give back. The first thing they did is they gave us
back space that the improvements weren't even paid for. I mean, we looked at having to
pay those improvements over a 20 year period, they didn't last seven years. They sublet
the space to a very good tenant, a very clean tenant, Per Se Technologies, and we're
very happy to have them. They're now a wholly owned subsidiary of McKesson Robins
drug, pharmaceutical company. Subsequently Travelers gave us back the end of this
building, which was another 23,000 feet. So they went like a yoyo, up and down, to
112,000 feet back to 72,000 feet. Self-imposed hardship? We had no, I highly refute
that we had no alternative but to cow tow to Travelers. At that point in time, we had so
much money invested in these facilities, we had converted the warehouse space into
office space, basically almost Class A office space, and converted the back end of the
retail, which was really warehouse for the retail, into office space. That investment
hasn't been paid off. It's empty now. We have 28,000 feet of empty space. We have
14,000 feet of warehouse still down behind Per Se, and we have Per Se's 25,000 feet. If
they leave us, we're cooked. We're cooked, our project is cooked, the stormwater
project is cooked. Everything doesn't work, and the reason it doesn't work is that there is
no way to access the parking for these spaces from the front. You'd have to go through
someone else's space and we're worried about Home Depot, too. Somebody
mentioned, I believe the Chairman mentioned at the time that, no I think it was the
Chairman of the Zoning Board, that he had heard, correct me if I'm misstating, that this
may be targeted as one of the stores that Home Depot could close. We don't want that
to happen. That would be the worst of all possible cases. So what we're out to do is fill
this with retail which will help energize Home Depot, and obviously the pharmacy and the
restaurant would be the first phase of a positive development for this property. We've
looked at every other option. We can't build a garage. We can't use Home Depot's
parking lot and walk these people around the facility. It doesn't work, and we're
restricted by lease from parking cars all day in there for employee parking. So we've run
out of alternatives, and I will say this, and I think it needs to be mentioned, our
assessment's doubled over our tenure as owners. A lot of the assessment is based on
21
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 03/18/09)
us being able to rent this office space in the back. If we can't accommodate this tenant,
who is, has hired our architect, actually had me, I hired our architect, to re-lay out their
space so it could accommodate more desks in the future, which means more jobs, more
employment for the area. So I think the old, actually we learned in economics the guns
or butter thing. What is it here? I mean, we've got a tax base. We pay a lot of taxes in
the community. We're creating stormwater to clean up the discharge of stormwater for
future generations and we're creating more jobs in the community. What takes priority?
I can only tell you what my opinion is. I hope you share the same opinion from me. We
need as much parking back there to be able to lease the spaces we can. We don't have
any other alternatives. Thank you.
MR. HAGAN-If we have 90 degree parking or 60 degree parking, you're still going to
have the same number of people coming and going at peak times. I think if you were to
look at parking standards for one way parking, the driving aisles that we're proposing are
larger than normal for that type of consideration, and therefore whether it's 60 degree or
90 degrees, it really wouldn't matter in terms of traffic circulation.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Any other questions from Board members at this time?
MR. DRELLOS-What was with the Cemetery? You had a meeting. What was their
problem with the revised plan that they didn't like?
MR. CAPPER-Betty's here and I'm sure she'll tell you, but they didn't want to hear it, and
there is a letter.
MRS. JENKIN-We should read that into the record.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
MR. CAPPER-We thought it was very reasonable and a compromise with everyone's
interest in mind, but that's now how it was received. I wanted to mention that Jim
Gillespie is here if there are any questions about the stormwater project that's part and
parcel of this. Any details, that's more for the Planning Board, but we're here to answer
that, too.
MR. GARRAND-I had a question for him. Where is that stormwater going? The majority
of it. I mean, it's like a river down there sometimes when you get those heavy
rainstorms.
JIM GILLESPIE
MR. GILLESPIE-Well, currently it's completely uncontrolled. It goes to the Halfway
Brook, through the DOT drainage system, untreated and without any quantity or quality
controls. Bill mentioned there are a lot of benefits to the community with this project.
This is a remarkable benefit to the community. I'd just take a minute to go through some
of the notes that I've taken, in looking at the results of this drainage system. It's a 12
acre watershed, currently just piped directly to the Halfway Brook. It's almost completely
pervious area, and it's been targeted by the Warren County Soil and Water for quite a
few years, as the second biggest pollutant contributor to the Halfway Brook, and the
Halfway Brook is one of their top projects to clean up. Obviously, you know, funds are
lacking, and they're very excited that there is an opportunity now, to, you know, see this
project come to the forefront here, and what we've done is just maximized this area out
in the front with water quality treatment, and infiltrator, using infiltrator basins, or
originally we had proposed an infiltrator basin. Now it's all going to be sub, under the
ground infiltrator chambers. There's apre-treatment unit prior to that, and the results are
pretty remarkable. Just to give you an idea, for discharge, just in quantity alone, and
flow, there's a, you know, anywhere from the one year storm, a 31 % reduction in flow,
the 10 year it actually climbs up to a 39%, 39, 16 for the 100 year. That's just in flow. In
actual volume, and this is, you know, this is just flow and this is now treated flow. This is
not direct discharge. So the flow is being reduced significantly and the quantity is being
reduced remarkably. In the one year storm, an 83% reduction, 59% in a 10 year, 53% in
the 25, 51 %, of actual just discharge, not to mention sediment, the pollutant levels, I
mean, you're just removing quantities of water, you know, impervious direct discharge
polluted water from the Halfway Brook, and infiltrating it into the ground natural, you
know, treatment and infiltration, and the discharge that will make it to the Brook, which is
significantly reduced, will now be treated through a stormwater treatment hydrodynamic
separator and then through the infiltration basin and then slowly discharge, rather than
22
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 03/18/09)
just directly discharged to the Brook. So it's an incredible benefit. The soil and water
people are very happy with our plan and they're looking forward to this being built.
MR. HAGAN-Can I just address a couple of things?
MR. GILLESPIE-Sure.
MR. HAGAN-I think the point that we really want to make here is that the project that Jim
has just described to you has nothing to do with Northway Plaza. What we're talking
about is, on this map, here's Route 9 and Quaker Road. This area in red which goes,
here's Northway Plaza here, goes well beyond Northway Plaza. We're taking all the
stormwater from along Route 9 and the properties that currently sheet drain out onto
Route 9, taking that water, treating it on this corner property adjacent to Northway Plaza,
where right now it's just flowing through to Halfway Brook, and then by treating it we'll
improve the water quality, it is discharged to Halfway Brook. The point is that this
developer is doing that at this expense. There will be two other systems on site to take
care of the stormwater that's being generated in the redeveloped area of Chili's and
Walgreens, and also another system to take care of this parking area that we're
proposing on the east side of the property. So we're really talking about three separate
systems, all at the cost of the developer, the largest one of which isn't even on this
property and has nothing to do with the center.
MR. CAPPER-The last point I wanted to mention, the reason that we showed the
numbers both ways, which is roughly just round numbers, 70% and 80% in terms of the
permeability numbers. This whole site was all obviously in one ownership until recently,
but more than that, it was designed as one center, in terms of ingress and egress, in
terms of shared parking is all in the reciprocal easement agreements and we came
previously when we got the subdivision approved and we needed a very small variance
for permeability at the time because, just like the parking is on one site, the green space,
the discharge, and recharge basins are on the other site. So it all, we thought it was fair
to show it both ways because it functions as one site, in terms of all of the green space,
but we're certainly presenting it for the variance, and it's only about a one percent
difference than what's there now, but we're presenting it for the variance just for this
parcel, because that's what you'd have to grant, but we wanted to just show it both ways.
It obviously strengthens our case, but we wanted to show it both ways, and in terms of
the green space that's important. Right now there's nothing landscaped at all. It's all
blacktop and the restaurant and the Walgreens would be very nicely landscaped, and
what Nicole has proposed for the Cemetery we think is a lot better than what's there now
because of that understory that you can see through, you know, so even though the
parking may be whatever was said, 20 feet different, you can just see the cars and see
the building. Now the cars will technically be closer, but there's going to be a fence and
a lot of plantings. So you're not going to be looking at them at all, and, you know, we're
certainly trying to do the right thing here.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Any other questions at this time? I think what I'll do is open
up the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on this matter? Sure,
come forward.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MIKE GENIER
MR. GENIER-I'm Mike Genier, Superintendent down at Pineview Cemetery, and I'm
speaking for myself and the Cemetery Commission. The President of the Commission
has a speech she's giving in Albany tonight. So she wasn't able to be here. I don't really
have anything prepared, but I do want to say that we hope that we can hold to the
existing Town Code for the 50 foot barrier. That's what we've been, you know, trying for
all along. We certainly sympathize with the mall folks, but one thing happened a couple
of days ago, that I don't know if it has a whole lot of bearing, but in the last meeting we
had, you charged the folks to try to look for alternative parking, to save the trees and
what not, and had the opportunity to meet a guy the other day by the name of Keith
Laukes. I believe he's in the maintenance personnel for the Northway Plaza, and I made
the comment I wish there was some way that we could get the folks from the higher
levels that work in Per Se down to the lower levels, and I mentioned that we wish there
was like a big stairway or something that could accommodate it, and he said actually
there is, and he pointed out on the east side of the building, he says that's actually a
stairway from the top level down to the bottom. So I'd seen it but I didn't realize what it
was. So I went up and actually mailed some stuff at the Post Office, walked around the
corner across the little parking area, and then there's a covered walkway, there's like a
23
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 03/18/09)
loading dock, but a covered walkway about 90 feet over to that stairway, and the door
was locked, but I looked in, and the stairs go down to Per Se. It's, I said, gee, it's well
lighted. All the railings and everything looked like they meet Code and OSHA standard
and what not, and I said it would be great if they could park up in the upper part and walk
down, and so what I did is ran a couple of tests. I went up and I parked up by Home
Depot where the sheds and stuff are, and I timed myself. I walked down by the Post
Office, around the corner, over to where the entrance to the stairwell was, and it took me
one minute and forty-five seconds, and then I said I wonder how this corresponds with
the lower level. So I went down and I parked down, the farthest end by the Quaker
Road, and I walked over to the main office there and it took me one minute and forty-
three seconds. So essentially the same. So I said, gee, this may have some
possibilities. So I went back from Quaker Road back up to the Post Office, and this was
ten o'clock this morning, and there were 14 available parking spots down on the lower
part of the Cemetery. I went up to where I had parked by the shed, and there were 38
spots. There was nobody parked there. It's way out in the front of the Home Depot, and
down by the Post Office, where you come around the corner where most people park in
front, there were 11 spots that were empty, and then on the Home Depot where they
have their fence and their palates that are, you can almost see the doorway to this
entranceway for the stairwell, there was 15. So I added that up in my head and I came
up with 78 parking spots. So I could have lead a 78 car funeral into the lower part of the
Plaza, parked these cars within two minutes walking of either the top level or the bottom
level. I heard there was like employee lease agreements or something with Home
Depot, as far as parking and what not, but actually they're not using it, from what I can
see, I'm certainly no expert as far as parking, but there's a lot of open land up there, and
essentially what I did is just walk down in front of the Post Office, cut across, there's a
loading dock, but there's a walkway that's got rails and what not, and then there's the
Post Office folks there where you get a mail truck once in a while, but I thought it might
be a feasible alternative to cutting down the treed barrier, and maybe save Bill a lot of
money for trying to do what he's doing down in there, and yet work both ways. So, like I
say, it took me about a minute and forty-five seconds and I'm not a long legged 25 year
old secretary. I'm a 63 year old guy, and that's all it took me. So I think it's feasible,
within, you know, reason, if the employees could go in there, use the electronic swiper,
go down into the bottom, and if they didn't want to go into Per Se at the bottom of that,
there's an opening to the outside doorway, they could walk out and around and in the
main thing. I guess, like I say, we're trying to think outside the box to help Bill out and his
folks, and try to help ourselves out by saving the barrier, too. This really isn't anything.
It's just some notes. Sometimes people appreciate what we do. We try to help them out,
just kind of a thank you note to tell you the kind of, like I say, it doesn't really have any
bearing, but to people who we work with, try to, sometimes they.
MRS. JENKIN-Thank you.
MR. GENIER-Thanks a lot.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Anybody else from the public wishing to speak? Come
on up, please.
BETTY MONAHAN
MRS. MONAHAN-Betty Monahan, Sunnyside. Last night, I attended the public
information meeting on what they call the Gaslight Project, and already the planners for
that project, what they call a festival space that they want to use, are already planning on
putting in pervious parking areas. There are materials out there now that you can use
that will let the water drain right down through it. I also saw an example of that in
Philadelphia last year at the Morris Arboretum, and while it sounds like from 22.4 to 20%
permeability doesn't sound like a lot, but when you decrease it from 30% to 20%, you've
got a big decrease in your permeability, and I look at those plans and I think of Travelers,
where they're talking about putting in four retail spaces, and wondering if one of those
retail spaces couldn't become a lobby, and the lobby have stairs or an elevator going
downstairs for the employees, and we keep hearing what the employees need, what
Walgreens needs and what Chili's needs, but we forget a lot what the Townspeople
need, and a lot of these regulations were put into place, Number One in this instance to
protect the Cemetery, and the people who have occasion to use those services, but they
were also put there for visual, aesthetic, and noise pollution purposes, and we saw the
Town of Queensbury getting pretty, I'd almost use the word tacky, in its business areas,
and that's when we decided if we were going to be competitive we needed to make this
Town look like it was going into the 21St Century, as so many other areas of the country
are, and that's another reason you see a lot of those regulations there now, and I want to
take my hats off to the Cemetery Commission and the men who take care of that
24
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 03/18/09)
Cemetery, because people who have had occasion to have committals in there are
always amazed that the Staff is so unobtrusive, but it's always there ready in case
there's a glitch, and I've had many out of town people comment to me on that, and I want
you to think of the cemetery, not just as a place to warehouse remains and to have burial
services, but it has another almost intangible use, and I think of the Cemetery
Commission one time telling me about three gentlemen who lost their wives about at the
same time and were buried in the same place. They met there on a regular basis to
maintain the gravesites and they had their own really grief support groups, and there's a
certain feeling within that cemetery, if you've been in there and you take your time, that
I've not found in many places, and I had a personal experience, and our family plot is not
in Pineview, but in 1989 was a pretty rough year for me, and after the Cemetery
Commission telling me about a project that was going on in there, I went up to see it, and
I paid my respects to Fran Walters and some of our neighbors and stuff, and had a pretty
heavy feeling when I went in there, but as I walked around doing this, my spirits
lightened and a feeling of peace came over me, a feeling of peace that you can't buy in a
psychiatrist's office or anyplace else. So when you're thinking of this, and really, we
can't judge the economics of a person's business. My husband had a business, and I'm
well aware of some of the economic pressures, but I want you to think of some
intangibles that are in this Town and what we get from it, and I'd like to leave you with a
suggestion, or a quote, excuse me, and it comes from the Great Law of the Iroquois
Confederacy. In our every deliberation, we must consider the impact of our decisions on
the next seven generations. I'm sure that cemetery will be there seven generations from
now. They may even still be having burials there because of the size of it. I'm not sure
what the mall will be seven generations from now.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you.
MRS. MONAHAN-I will add one positive thing. After I was on the Town Board, I served
on a bi-county committee for the Halfway Brook, and of course we all thought that the
farms in Washington County were going to have a big impact. The greatest impact on
the Halfway Brook has been the commercial areas of the Town of Queensbury.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody else from the public wishing to speak on the matter? All
right. We do have one letter to read in. Do you want to read that, Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. It's addressed "To Whom It May Concern: The Pineview Cemetery
Commission and the Superintendent of Pine View Cemetery remain opposed to the
removal of all, or any part of the treed barrier along the common property line at the
western edge of the Cemetery and Northway Plaza. The Pine View Cemetery has been
a good neighbor and very cooperative regarding the development of the Northway Plaza.
The Northway Plaza is built on former Cemetery land. The site of Home Depot is also
former Cemetery land as well as the existing 50 ft. treed barrier which allows the Plaza to
comply with the Town of Queensbury codes and zoning ordinances. The Cemetery has
offered to make available the knoll area to the east of Per Se for additional parking with
the understanding that additional permits may be necessary. The Cemetery is agreeable
to expanding the parking area adjacent to the garage and utility buildings. We feel that
the Cemetery has given enough concessions to the Northway Plaza. Any additional
encroachment would result in a significant reduction in our peaceful and tranquil setting,
elimination of privacy, increased noise pollution and reduction in value of adjacent
Cemetery lots. Present lot holders in this area would be greatly upset with the negative
Plaza impact. Artists conceptions of proposed rock walls, plantings, etc., look fine on
paper, but they cannot replace the treed barrier. In summation, the Pine View Cemetery
Commission and the Superintendent of Cemeteries support the expansion of the Plaza
with new businesses and the growth of existing businesses. With respect to Plaza
parking issues, we feel that there are several suitable alternatives to be considered
which would not result in the destruction of the trees. It is requested that any deviation
from the existing 50 ft. treed barrier as required by Queensbury Zoning Ordinance 179-8-
070 be denied and the integrity of Pine View Cemetery be maintained. Thank you for
your consideration in this matter. Sincerely yours, Laura Vamvalis Donna Partridge
Robert Edwards Pine View Cemetery Commission Michael Genier Superintendent of
Pine View Cemetery and Crematorium"
MR. CAPPER-We just have a brief response to that. What is proposed on Nicole's
drawings is better than what's there now, visually. Right now you can see the buildings,
you can see the parking. You probably have an extra row of parking. Any trees that
would come out are on the shopping center part of it. So all of the trees that are there,
that you see from the Cemetery would remain, but by filling in the understory with mature
trees, and then the fence behind it, it'll be much more tranquil. It'll be much prettier than
visually seeing the center. On the other hand, you know, what Bill's talking about in
25
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 03/18/09)
terms of his viability is real. In this economy I'm sure you understand. If they were next
to the vacant Howard Johnsons motel, for example, I mean, if they lose another tenant
and this thing just sits vacant, that's not going to be a neighbor you're going to want to
have next to a public cemetery. All sorts of bad things happen when you have vacant
property, but we really think that the important point is that the fence and the plantings
will be better than what's there now. So we're not harming the Cemetery. It's actually
going to be an improvement.
MR. HAGAN-To address some of the technical suggestions that were made, and I
appreciate your thoughts, I really do, and we really do want to work with you. Mr. Laukes
who was referred to is a maintenance person for the center. That's it, a maintenance
person. He has no knowledge of the technical details of what the parking requirements
are, by Zoning Ordinance or by lease or by legal limitations. If you were to go over to
that center now, sure you're going to see a lot of vacant parking spaces, because there's
a lot of vacant office and retail space in that building, and while it looks like that may be
readily available, in reality, if Mr. Dutch is able to accomplish what he wants to to bring
this property back to the proper occupancy levels, full occupancy, you're going to find
that the parking that's there now is really necessary. As far as the idea of being able to
use the parking field in Home Depot, that is designed in accordance with the
requirements of the Town's zoning requirements, but there's also lease requirement from
Home Depot, and for us to go to Home Depot and say, well, could you give up some of
those, could we use those part time, really is not an option from a legal perspective. We
do, we did look at the possibility of could you cut through the building. The stairs that
were referred to may not have full access to the spaces where the parking is necessary,
which would mean you'd have to cross through other tenant spaces, which becomes
problematic. There's a lot of issues that are involved with this very complex property,
and I think what we're saying is we've looked at those options and feel that, under the
circumstances, and what we need to do to re-tenant those vacant spaces, this is the best
option that we feel would work for everyone's interests. That's a good point. There is a
Code mandated minimum number of spaces that must be handicap accessible. That
would obviously have to be balanced into that equation.
MR. CAPPER-You mean the stairs.
MR. HAGAN-Stairways, the handicap, right.
MR. DRELLOS-Going back to the fence, I didn't hear the height. Is there a height?
MR. CAPPER-Six foot.
MR. DRELLOS-Six foot. What's it made of?
MR. CAPPER-It could be whatever the Board or the Planning Board wants.
MR. DRELLOS-Was this proposed to the Cemetery Commission?
MR. CAPPER-Yes.
MR. DRELLOS-It was.
MR. CAPPER-That was something that I believe that they thought was a good idea. We
took that away from the meeting with them, but it could be wood. It could be plastic.
Whatever, you know.
MR. URRICO-What would be the width of the barrier?
MS. HEISER-The new vegetative barrier? Let's see. We're looking at about probably
20 to 25 feet at this width here of new vegetative barrier.
MR. URRICO-So it's about half of what it should be.
MS. HEISER-Correct.
MRS. JENKIN-I have a question about the loading areas. At the present time they're not
being used. You don't need the loading areas, or you do? Do you use the loading areas
now?
MR. HAGAN-There's multiple loading areas that exist on that property.
26
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 03/18/09)
MRS. JENKIN-The one at the back.
MR. HAGAN-You're talking about in this area right here?
MRS. JENKIN-Right.
MR. HAGAN-Right now there's not a loading area there, because when Travelers was in
that area it was office space. They would have some paper deliveries that were brought
in at this area down here, and it was tight and it was awkward, but they did have a dock
there, but there are no loading areas there right now.
MRS. JENKIN-Is it necessary to have loading areas there?
MR. DUTCH-Absolutely, for the retailers. Whether we have one or two, and we've
shown two because we don't know what we'll ultimately wind up with or when we'll wind
up with it, but we assume that because of the nature of the tenants and the market today,
that we might have to split the space.
MRS. JENKIN-Because there's no doors there.
MR. HAGAN-That's correct.
MR. DUTCH-Not now.
MRS. JENKIN-There's no door in there. There's a small door here, but there's no doors
or anything. So how are they going to?
MR. HAGAN-What you're seeing here, let me explain this in a little more detail, is this
would be new addition to the building. The loading dock doors would actually face this
direction. This would be a solid wall. We'd actually do some re-grading to create a dock
height situation, and the trucks would be coming in from here, circulating in, back in, and
they could either go back out this way, or they could go back out here.
MRS. JENKIN-So then you're going to open this area up.
MR. HAGAN-We would open that up. There would be a common area at the rear.
MRS. JENKIN-To get into the?
MR. HAGAN-That's correct. The one tenant would just go into the space. The multiple
tenants you may have a service corridor across the back of the space.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay.
MR. HAGAN-Now, the original plan that we had submitted previously, they were angled
on here, and in fact those doors were facing more towards the Cemetery. There were
three. We cut it down to two and we've turned them. If you felt it was necessary to
perhaps introduce some fencing along the side of this, where the trucks would park,
that's a detail that could be worked out.
MRS. JENKIN-Well, the reason I mention it was because you added parking places up
here. How are the employees that work down there going to do that? Do they have to
walk down and all the way around?
MR. HAGAN-Well, again, it's a matter of how you balance the parking.
MRS. JENKIN-Because that was one of the issues with the Planning Board the last time
and also here that you cannot upper parking because you have to have all the parking,
the available parking and the necessary parking on the lower level to access the lower,
and so this wouldn't be practical because it's on an upper level.
MR. HAGAN-Thank you, but this parking could be used by employees of this space, on
the upper level.
MRS. JENKIN-My suggestion last time, since you're moving, and you're building
retaining walls, is to move this retaining wall back and offer more parking in this area.
27
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 03/18/09)
MR. HAGAN-The problem is, what you're not seeing on this map is there are buried
utilities in that area that would have to be maintained. There's a water main that runs
through there, and I believe other electric lines.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay. It wasn't explained last time why that was not possible.
MR. HAGAN-There's a lot of detail going on here.
MRS. JENKIN-Yes, well, I'm sure there is, but it wasn't explained at the last meeting, and
it was just more or less passed over, and then when I noticed there's more parking up
here, I wondered why.
MR. HAGAN-Yes. We actually, and we don't want to bore you with the details, but we've
gone through and actually prepared maps where we allocate certain fields of parking for
certain tenant areas, and actually when Travelers was there the spaces on the site were
color coded to control that. We wouldn't necessarily have to do that in this case, but
clearly you need to show each tenant where they can anticipate both their employees
and their customers will be able to reasonably park.
MRS. JENKIN-That makes sense.
MR. HAGAN-And we've spent a lot of time thinking that through.
MR. OBORNE-I do want to remind the Zoning Board that we're not here to approve
parking. We're here to approve permeability. Parking is a Site Plan issue.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Keith, maybe you could just refresh everybody's memory here. The
present buffer that exists behind there on the backside there, in the area that's in
question for parking, what's the current width of the vegetated portion of that on site?
MR. OBORNE-On the NPA side?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-They would be able to answer. I don't know off the top of my head.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, what I'm saying, in general, it's probably in the area of
about 37 feet wide or so?
MR. OBORNE-There's areas that, I think it fluctuates quite dramatically in places. Some
more than (lost word).
MR. UNDERWOOD-But I mean it does taper as you come out towards Quaker?
MR. OBORNE-Yes. Absolutely. Once you get out to that access and egress it does
taper down.
MR. HAGAN-There's approximately a 50 foot strip down from the property line to the
edge of the pavement, and the tree line varies along that. If you go along a significant
portion of it, there's probably no trees for probably at least 20 to 25 foot of the edge of the
pavement to the tree line.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Whereas you can see where you're going to add.
MS. HEISER-And it tapers, like right here, is actually.
MR. UNDERWOOD-There's less in that area, yes.
MS. HEISER-There's not, yes, the tree line is right here.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So you would be adding in to that area that's blank in there now.
MS. HEISER-Yes, we would actually be adding vegetation to where there is none right
now.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And it should do well there because it gets plenty of light. Okay.
Thanks.
MR. OBORNE-Jim, this is a, that's pretty much the area where you're coming in there.
28
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 03/18/09)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Any other questions from Board members? Anything else you guys
want to know? Okay. Just out of curiosity, I was concerned because I wasn't aware that
this was all one, the whole entire area that the mall's been created on here. So I did go
back and do a little research on this, and when, in 1962, all the land that the current mall
sits on was conveyed to Kale Development, you know, by the Town of Queensbury, and
again, that was a resolution that involved the Pine View Cemetery at the time. So the
Town at the time, the general mindset of the Town, if you go back and read through it,
was that it was surplus territory. I guess it was deemed that it wasn't going to be used by
the Cemetery Board at that time. There didn't seem to be any concerns that were noted,
and I did have the Town Clerk go back and even read through the Cemetery minutes to
make sure that was the case, and there were no concerns at that time, but since that
time, you know, in researching it, there were about 12 instances where other pieces
were granted, very small chunks at various times through the years, including the Home
Depot site further up on there when Home Depot was created also. So what people
need to keep in mind is that it was all Town property at one time, and it's sort of slowly
been carved and whittled away at. I think that the concern of the Cemetery Board, you
know, is a valid concern, but I think that, you know, what you're saying here tonight
strikes me as being something that's going to improve the situation, as it currently exists,
and I don't think there's any question in my mind, having listened to what you said, that
that's the case. Certainly it's going to be up to the rest of the Board members to make
your own decision, but, you know, I think it is important that you consider what's there
now, what's being proposed, and as we said before, you know, all these additions with
Walgreens, Chili's, the reconfiguration, the only question mark that I see, really, is the
travel lanes, and I don't know if that's going to become an issue with the Planning Board,
or if that's been presented to them. Because if it's 18 foot instead of 24 foot.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. The Planning Board has not seen this yet.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Are they going to be amenable to a single traffic going one way
traffic, that that's going to be adequate? I mean, I don't know what their parameters are.
MR. OBORNE-I think that's required, in this case, to be honest with you. If you, you
know, right now that is a bulk dimension issue. You have to get a variance for this under
our current Code. It is my understanding that the new Code, which doesn't apply in this
case, are 12 foot drive aisles for one way traffic.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So it's much narrower.
MR. CAPPER-But we're providing 18. That shows it's even more.
MR. OBORNE-But there is a minimum, per the Fire Code that they have to be 20 feet.
So there's a balance there that needs to be achieved. They need to have some sort of
access for fire apparatus.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And I'm sure the Planning Board's going to look at the issues of, I
don't know where the Post Office deliveries, if they come in off of 9 or if they come in off
the back way, you know, through here with 18 wheelers. I don't know how that works
either, or if they just come up from Downtown Glens Falls.
MR. CAPPER-Eighteen wheelers can get through the back, though.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. All right. I think that what we'll do at this point is I'll poll the
Board, I want to poll the Board, and what I want to ask the Board members is this. Are
you comfortable with what's been presented here that you can make a decision going
forward here this evening, or would you like more input from the Planning Board? Would
you like a final signoff from the Planning Board at this point in time, based upon what's
been proposed to us here this evening? Taking into consideration, you know, make sure
you give it a real thorough search as far as, you know, what the comments have been
from the public and the Cemetery Commission because they are the most affected party,
in regards to what we're talking about here, and also keeping in mind what Keith said.
We're being asked for permeability relief of one percent, and I think that the Planning
Board has pretty much signed off that they were comfortable with that, that these issues
were going to be worked out regarding the back parking there. I think you've still got to
go back to them, based upon what this plan is here. So, do you want to make a decision
now or do you want it to go back to the Planning Board first?
MR. URRICO-I'm ready to vote.
29
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 03/18/09)
MR. DRELLOS-I'm comfortable with this now. Is the fence a condition with this, or is that
a definite?
MR. CAPPER-We're offering that as a condition. Absolutely.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, I would gather that if we added the fence towards the
parking side and the re-vegetation, you know, there, that the fence may not be
something that's necessary, but I think the most important key component of what's been
proposed here is that re-vegetation of the lower story of, the understory underneath the
forest there. Because it's a mature white pine forest there, there isn't any real blockage
of your viewpoint through looking from the Cemetery, and I think if you look through from
the Cemetery and you're looking at new growth trees there, it's going to very quickly,
thickly grow up, especially if it's 20 feet of trees that you're going to plant there on
average.
MR. URRICO-Can I ask one more question?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure.
MR. URRICO-The runoff that comes off the back side, how will that be treated?
Because that's not going to be captured by the stormwater facility in the front, right?
MS. HEISER-It's going to be captured within the parking lot.
MR. URRICO-Within the parking lot, but it won't work it's way back to the?
MR. CAPPER-It gets directed away from the Cemetery.
MR. URRICO-Directed away from the Cemetery, away from Halfway Brook.
MS. HEISER-Correct. There's new catch basins to catch all of that water, curbing, you
know, there'll be all curbs back there. There's a whole system back there. There's a
whole system back there to catch it and actually treat it and it will go away from that area.
MR. URRICO-So the unit that's going to be up front that's capturing the stormwater
coming down Route 9 will be separate from this one? Right?
MS. HEISER-Correct.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
MR. HAGAN-There's three systems. There's a system down here on the corner of 9 and
Quaker that's taking the Route 9 water.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
MR. HAGAN-There's another system that will be buried under the parking lot to take care
of the re-development of this area, and then currently there's a system, a swirl chamber
back in here that takes care of the front of this center, but there's nothing really up in
here. So they'll be putting a third new system in, approximately in this location, that'll
collect this stormwater from this new parking and tie into this existing system.
MR. URRICO-Okay. Thank you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So I guess I'll start and I'll poll the Board then. Roy, do you
want to start?
MR. URRICO-Thanks, Jim. I think I'm looking at this project in the totality of it. Even
though we are addressing permeability. First shot, when we first looked at this, I was
really concerned that so much was being concentrated in this one area in the back, and
that created a problem in my mind, but since then, I've been satisfied. I think that the
project, when you look at the whole project, we're trading off a little permeability for a lot
of containment, especially in runoff, in perhaps what we're giving back, in terms of the
look back there and how we're handling the buffer. I mean, buffer, 50 feet is a lot. We're
cutting that almost in half, but I think what you're putting up in place of it almost, I think,
makes up for it, and probably surpasses it. So I'm satisfied that the benefit to the
applicant cannot be achieved any other feasible means. I think we've gone through
every possible scenario here, and I'm convinced that they can't do it any other way. The
change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties is something that bothers
30
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 03/18/09)
me, and I think what you've proposed, with the fence, will at least mitigate that to a large
degree. The request could be termed substantial in a sense, but I really don't see it as a
barrier, and what you're doing in terms of the stormwater runoff, I think, is a tradeoff. I
think that's a big deal, that you're improving the area and the environmental effects of
what the water might have coming down Route 9, capturing it, and we all know Miller Hill.
We all know what happens down that road, and I think that's going to be a big benefit to
the area. Obviously the situation is self-created, but so is the economy self-created, and
I think we have to realize where we are right now. So I would be in favor of it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-Thank you. Yes, I mean, if you use the balancing test, the pluses for the
community and for the runoff from water, all of these mitigations that you're making, I
think outweigh any of the problems that might be associated with it, and I do like the idea
of a fence and the plantings, and I would be in favor of it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Rich?
MR. GARRAND-I'd have to agree with my other Board members. I think when I first
looked at this application, and the proposal here, I thought it was basically an
abomination of the landscape. Having spent some time there, I notice that a lot of the
growth there is mature growth. It's a high canopy growth. It doesn't offer much privacy
from the Plaza whatsoever. I had to look at, you've got to look at the pluses and
minuses on this. I think Mr. Genier made some very, very good points on this, and in
totality I think the pluses do outweigh the minuses. Coming in here, you know, you look
at this and it's the first thing you think of is, you know, how could they, you know, why
would they want to do this? After hearing the presentation, I'd have to say that, you
know, my other Board members are correct. I would be in favor of it. I just hope they
don't put a plastic fence in.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Go ahead, George.
MR. DRELLOS-Yes. I would agree with what Roy said. His comments were well said.
I'm glad to see this plan. It was a lot different from the last one. It's a better plan, and I
would have to agree. I would be in favor of this project. On the fence, I don't know if we
would make that decision as to what we would want, or we could send that to the
Planning Board and let them decide.
MR. UNDERWOOD-No. I'm thinking in a sense that it ought to be a natural colored
fence, you know, like a wood fence, a nice quality wood fence, not some cheap, you
know, and I don't think you guys want to do anything but that either.
MR. DRELLOS-But I'd like to see that anyway. I'd be in favor.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joan?
MRS. JENKIN-I do realize that the variance does address the permeability, but I think
protection of the buffer area is really of prime importance, not only just for the Cemetery,
but for the quality of what the Comprehensive Plan is saying and maintaining the nature
of our community, but I also agree. I think you've made some considerable changes,
now, and your plan is much better. I think that the neighboring Cemetery, I think that you
have taken into consideration and with, if you're going to, it depends on what trees you're
going to put in, and how fast growing they are, and if they grow as quickly as possible,
you will provide even a better buffer than is there now, but I would request that you
actually do save any of the old growth that you possibly can. If you don't have to take it
down, or if you could move around a little bit, move around some of the old trees, they
really are beautiful old trees, but they don't last forever, either. Some of the pines do, but
I would be in favor of this now, too, with the changes you've made.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Brian?
MR. CLEMENTS-I have to agree with the rest of the Board. I think that the focus here is
the relief required from the permeability requirements, but I think you've done
considerable, have considerable concessions. I think that you've done a good job re-
engineering the parking. With the more lower growth in there, I think that's going to be a
benefit to the Cemetery. The Planning Board is comfortable with the permeability, also.
I think it's going to actually create a desirable change. I think that the benefit cannot be
achieved with another method, and I think that the requested Area Variance is moderate.
So I would also be in favor of this also.
31
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 03/18/09)
MRS. JENKIN-Could I add one more thing, too?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure.
MRS. JENKIN-It really is nice to see what you're doing with the whole Northway Plaza. I
think that it's a central area that needs to be developed, and be maintained as a central,
integral part of Queensbury, so I would like to see this happen, and more retail come in
here, and I think that the plans that you have are definitely going to help Queensbury
itself. So I think it's positive.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. As far as what has been requested here, the one percent
difference to me never really seemed that great, based upon what you were going to do
with stormwater pollution protection plan, and with the project on the corner there, too,
with Route 9. At the same time, I think that the comments of the Cemetery Commission
were very important to the process here, and I'm glad that you people were able to listen
to them. It's a give and take world, and nobody gets everything they want, but I think
that, you know, as presented to us in the first instance here, with the retaining walls, I
think everybody was greatly repulsed by them, and the way that they were going to look,
and I think that in this instance here, the retaining wall is going to be down on the lower
end towards the maintenance buildings, and I think that that's not going to be as great of
an impact as it would have been, had it been down the whole length of the whole lot
there where the parking was originally proposed. My suggestion to you is going to be
this, that this be a quality fence, that the Planning Board have some input into that fence,
and the way that it looks, that it be a naturalized fence, whether it gets stained a color
that's a neutral, you know, earthy color or something to that effect. As far as the tree
species that are planted there, rather than an arborvitae hedge or anything like, I think
what you ought to really do is look at the natural species present on site there, and you
know there are white pines and oaks, etc., you know, that grow in that part of
Queensbury, but it would make sense to have a mix of those two kinds of trees there, to
naturalize with the forest as it exists on site there, and I think that that's the key. I don't
think we want to see any exotic, wild species that don't belong in Queensbury, because
we know what happens when they get turned loose. So, I guess I'll have somebody
make a resolution.
MR. OBORNE-If I may, Mr. Chairman.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-I do want to agree with the applicant, and for the record, that the total
amount of permeability that is to be reduced is 33,939 square feet.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MR. HAGAN-I agree with that number.
MR. OBORNE-That's what was presented in this plan, and you are approving the plan
that is before you, for the minimal, or what is before you today, and it's 33,939 square
feet of additional impermeable surfaces.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. This is a SEQRA Unlisted action here, too. So I think we
ought to go through that. Can I just do it based upon the Short Form?
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MOTION THAT BASED UPON THE SHORT FORM, WE FIND THAT WE WOULD
MAKE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION IN REGARDS TO THIS PROJECT, AREA
VARIANCE NO. 77-2008 NPA II, LLC. I THINK, IN ESSENCE, IF WE'RE GOING TO
GO THROUGH WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED HERE, THE STORMWATER
INFILTRATION STRUCTURES, AS PROPOSED ON SITE, AND THE 33,939 EXTRA
SQUARE FEET OF IMPERMEABILITY THAT WILL BE ADDED BY THE CHANGES IN
THE PROJECT THAT OUR BOARD FEELS THAT WE CAN MAKE A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AS FAR AS SEQRA GOES, IN REGARDS TO THE PROJECT. THE
MITIGATING FACTORS ARE ALSO THAT, IN REGARDS TO THE PARKING THAT
WAS GOING TO BE PROPOSED HERE IN THE BACK PART OF THE SITE HERE
THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A NATURAL FENCE PUT UP, AND WE'RE ALSO
GOING TO HAVE APPROXIMATELY 20 FEET OF PLANTINGS DONE BETWEEN THE
32
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 03/18/09)
CEMETERY AND WE FEEL THAT THAT LOWER UNDERSTORY, WHICH
PRESENTLY DOES NOT EXIST, WILL BE GREATLY IMPROVED FROM THE
SITUATION AS IS ON SITE AT THE PRESENT TIME, AND OVER TIME IT SHOULD
GIVE THE CEMETERY EVEN GREATER PROTECTION. I THINK WE'VE GOT TO
KEEP IN MIND HERE, TOO, THAT AS PRESENTLY NOW THERE'S NO FENCE
THERE. WITH THE PREVAILING WESTERLY WINDS YOU GET A LOT OF STUFF
PROBABLY BLOWING ONTO THE CEMETERY, AND THAT'S GOING TO MITIGATE
THAT ALSO. SO THE CEMETERY SHOULD BECOME MORE SACROSANCT THAN
WHAT IT IS AT THE PRESENT TIME., Introduced by James Underwood who moved for
its adoption, seconded by George Drellos:
Duly adopted this 18t" day of March, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Drellos, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements,
Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
MS. GAGLIARDI-You need to close the public hearing.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I'll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. UNDERWOOD-Does somebody want to do the resolution, or do you want me to do
it?
MRS. JENKIN-Why don't you do it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 77-2008 NPA II, LLC, Introduced by
James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joan Jenkin:
820 State Route 9. The applicant is proposing construction of an approximate 14,820
square foot Walgreens Pharmacy and a 4,642 square foot Chili's Restaurant, as well as
reconfiguration of the former Traveler's space to include increased parking and
associated site work. Under the relief required from the minimum permeability
requirements, and that's in Section 179-4-030, the project, according to the plans
submitted, proposes the reduction of permeability from 22.40% down to 20%. The
minimum permeability for the Highway Commercial Intensive Zone is 30%, and the
Planning Board, we can recognize that the Planning Board issued a recommendation to
us concerning the decrease in permeability associated with this project, and they
basically signed off on that permeability issue. In granting this relief, we're going to be
creating approximately 33,939 more square feet of impermeability within the site of the
whole Plaza there. We're going to recognize that in working out the parking in the back
part of the Plaza there that the new proposal calls for 18 foot drive aisles and that at
some point in the future you're going to have to come back for relief in regards to that,
but at the present time, having given a Negative Declaration under SEQRA, the Board
does not feel that any real undesirable changes will be produced in the character of the
neighborhood. The impacts are moderate in the changes, because we are going to be
increasing parking there, but, because we've shrunk the size of the buffer between
Pineview Cemetery down from 45 feet to about 20 feet on average, but at the same time
we're mitigating that with a wooden fence to be constructed towards the parking side as
well as 20 feet of plantings that will increase the understory between there and the
cemetery. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant could be achieved by some other
means feasible. Some other plans have been put forward, and I think that we all
recognize that we could have, we tried to work out the parking up in the other part of the
Plaza there, but that did not seem that that was going to work out, due to the distance
from Per Se in the back, and that's in regards to the parking that we just spoke of.
Whether the Area Variance is substantial. According to Staff calculations, the request for
this additional 33,939 square feet is approximately one percent, plus or minus. We're
pretty close to one percent. We can call it that, of additional impermeable area could be
considered moderate to the Ordinance, based upon the 30% that we're supposed to
have on site, but I think that we recognize that the effect of the infiltrators on the
stormwater pollution protection plan is going to be a positive. Whether the variance
would have an adverse effect on the physical or environmental conditions. The Board
does not feel that the impacts will be negative. In fact, they feel that they will be positive
based upon the planting plan as agreed to in the back part of the Plaza, and whether the
33
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 03/18/09)
alleged difficulty is self-created, it could be considered self-created, but in addition, we
recognize also that the mall is in sort of dire circumstances and this is going to help their
bottom line and perhaps revive things and get things rolling again back the other
direction, and we recognize that you are going to go in for Site Plan Review with the
Planning Board going forward.
Duly adopted this 18t" day of March, 2009, by the following vote:
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. This will be forwarded to the Planning Board, however.
Right?
MR. CAPPER-Well, we have to go for Site Plan.
MR. UNDERWOOD-You've still got to go for Site Plan Review.
MR. OBORNE-And certainly this approval will be forwarded to the Planning Board.
Absolutely.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure, and make sure this does go to them, so they understand
where we're coming from.
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right.
AYES: Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Drellos, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements,
Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
MR. CAPPER-First of all, we really appreciate the Board coming around on this and
recognizing that we made this change, and we really appreciate it, but procedurally, we
still have a favor to ask. Because Bill would really like to get these tenants in the ground
before anything gets crazier in the economy, and hopefully we're going in the right
direction there, but would it be possible for us to make a re-submission, a submission for
the drive aisle, even though we just missed thel5t" by a few days, if we could get that in
next week and be on next month.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think we could do that.
MR. OBORNE-The agenda is light for the Zoning Board at this point, and again, it's the
will of the Zoning Board.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think everybody understands the situation and it's not like a major
issue.
MR. CAPPER-If we could have until maybe next Wednesday to get it in. It's nothing that
we haven't talked about, obviously.
MRS. JENKIN-Is that dependent on the Planning Board Site Plan Review or not?
MR. OBORNE-Yes, it is.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely, but I don't anticipate them getting through Site Plan Review in
one shot.
MR. CAPPER-Yes, but either way we'll get it submitted so we can be before you. It
might take two months at the Planning Board, sure, but at least it'll be submitted this way
with the.
MRS. JENKIN-Because we don't want to have to table it because they haven't made a
decision.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. You would have to go back to the Planning Board for
recommendation, just based on that.
MR. CAPPER-Not a recommendation, we just have to.
34
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 03/18/09)
MR. OBORNE-For the drive aisle.
MR. CAPPER-But we'll be at the Planning Board next week.
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely, and you certainly can discuss that.
MR. CAPPER-I mean, if the Planning Board says, no, we aren't going to consider that,
then we'll have to change something, but I don't think that's going to happen. So if we
get it submitted, we're in, and hopefully we're in here next month.
MR. UNDERWOOD-The drive aisle is currently 24. They're asking 18, and the new
Code's going to be 12. Is that what you said?
MR. OBORNE-Right, but I can't plan to the new Code at this point.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. All right.
MR. DRELLOS-The new Code is what, 12?
MR. UNDERWOOD-They're proposing 12, but that's not set in stone yet, either.
MR. OBORNE-That hasn't been codified.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So it could be 18, or 16.
MR. CAPPER-So if we could have until maybe next Wednesday to submit this.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So they're going to need six feet, based upon today.
MR. DRELLOS-But these plans show that 18 feet, now. Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. They do. So hang on to your plans. All right. Thank you.
MR. CAPPER-Thank you all very much.
SIGN VARIANCE NO. 1-2009 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED WAL-MART STORES,
INC./CRAIG STEINFELDT AGENT(S): BERGMANN ASSOCIATES/MARK PETROSKI
OWNER(S): FOREST ENTERPRISES MANAGEMENT ZONING: HC-INT.
LOCATION: CORNER OF QUAKER RIDGE BOULEVARD AND QUAKER ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES 4 WALL SIGNS. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM
NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE SIGNS AND MAXIMUM SIZE OF SIGNS. CROSS REF.:
SPR 61-2007; SUB NO. 11-2008; SPR 17-09 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING:
JANUARY 14, 2009 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: N/A LOT SIZE: 39.65 ACRES
TAX MAP NO. 303.15-1-25 SECTION: 140-6
MARK PETROSKI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. UNDERWOOD-We had previously heard this one, and we asked them to come
back with a slightly different plan than what they had proposed to us, and they have, in
the interim, submitted those pictures of what they are proposing this evening. So, Roy,
why don't you just read in Staff Notes.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 1-2009, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc./Craig Steinfeldt,
Meeting Date: March 18, 2009 "Project Location: corner of Quaker Ridge Boulevard
and Quaker Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes wall signs in
excess of number of allowable signs per the Sign Ordinance (§140)
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for the placement of four (4) additional wall signs of on a yet
to be built Wal-Mart store in southeast Queensbury.
Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
35
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 03/18/09)
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the
neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of
this sign variance. Minor changes to the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result
of this request. However, this proposal may initiate additional sign variance requests
from other businesses in the future.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,
feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance. The applicant could
erect less signs to be more compliant or 1 sign to be compliant.
3. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The request for 4 additional
signs or a 400 percent increase from §140-6(B)(3)(c) may be considered severe.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to moderate
impacts on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be
anticipated as the number of the proposed signs may have negative visual impacts.
However, these impacts may be muted as the distance to Quaker Road is in excess
of 800 feet and is further buffered by approximately 200 feet of brush and trees.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
SP 61-07 150,200 sq. ft. retail building with associated parking and utilities -
Approved 9/16/2008
SUB 11-08 39.65 acre parcel into two lots of 33.28 & 6.37 acres -Pending
Staff comments:
On February 18, 2009, the Zoning Board of Appeals tabled this application in order for
the applicant to receive guidance from the owner concerning signs (see attached
resolution). The applicant subsequently submitted updated plans on February 15, 2009.
The applicant proposes to construct a 150,200 square foot Wal-Mart store to include five
wall signs. One sign, a 220.79 square foot internally lit Walmart Spark wall sign was
increased 78.51 square feet to a revised size of 299.30 square feet. This sign is
proposed to be located on the front facade of the building and has been determined by
staff to be the one compliant sign per §140-6. The following 4 signs have been reduced
in size and will still require relief from the total amount of allowable signs per the
ordinance:
1. a 57.53 square foot `Home & Living' sign located below and to the right of the
proposed front Walmart Spark sign was reduced 21.79 square feet to a
revised size of 35.74 square feet;
2. a 82.15 square foot `Market & Pharmacy' sign located below and to the left of
the proposed front Walmart Spark sign was reduced 30.45 square feet to a
revised size of 51.7 square feet;
3. a 63.33 square foot `Outdoor Living' sign located on the far right corner of the
proposed building was reduced 23.98 square feet to a revised size of 39.35
square feet;
4. and a 4.94 square foot `Recycle" sign located to the left of the proposed
Market and Pharmacy sign was reduced 0.10 square feet to a revised size of
4.84 square feet.
The proposed total area of all four signs was 207.95 square feet and has now been
reduced 76.32 square feet to a revised total for all four signs of 131.63 square feet. With
the increase to the WalMart Spark sign of 78.51 square feet, coupled with the reduction
of 76.32 square feet total for the four noncompliant signs, the total sign package has
increased 2.19 square feet from what was initially proposed. Please note updated
Bergmann signage table submitted by the applicant dated February 15, 2009.
The Zoning Board of Appeals may consider seeking a recommendation from the
Planning Board concerning this application (see attached Planning Board Minutes and
resolutions).
36
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 03/18/09)
SEAR Status:
Unlisted -The Zoning Board of Appeals must make a SEAR determination concerning
this application."
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Go ahead.
MR. PETROSKI-Mr. Chairman, members of the Board of Appeals, my name is Mark
Petroski. I was here before you the last time. I'm with Bergmann Associates. With me
this evening is Mary Beth Slevin with Stockley, Green, Slevin and Peters, and also Jim
Nichols. Jim Nichols is an architect representing the design of the Wal-Mart store. Jim
is also with Bergmann Associates. The Board was very clear at the last meeting, and we
went away with very specific instructions and I confess my embarrassment a little bit,
and I wanted to address things head on with why our application came back the way it
did. Because I almost think you might have thought we didn't hear you. The last time we
were here, it was specifically discussed to reduce the size of the signs over the
entrances, and I think you can see from this application that we took that request back to
Wal-Mart, discussed it with them, and they said, yes, we can go with a smaller size sign.
We're still very, we very much would like to see the way finding program that we've
developed kept intact. So we're glad that the Board at least saw the importance of
keeping the signs above the doors to identify entrance points to the store, but the
elimination of the outdoor living sign, it just, it was a very difficult issue to deal with. They
felt that that was a very important part of the way finding program. It's still above an
entry door to the building, and they wanted us to come back and try again with the
Board, and so basically, you know, kind of a tradeoff there was we took away as much
square footage of those way finding signs as would equal that outdoor living sign. So it
was, you know, we came up with a reduction, but we would like to keep that sign, and we
put together, and it wasn't read into the record, but I would like the Board to acknowledge
that they did see our letter of February 15t". It was a two page letter which I thought gave
a very good explanation of the re-submission and put in perspective and characterized
how reasonable the application is, as it's been re-submitted. I would read it to you, if
that's necessary to put it into the record. I would hope that everybody had a chance to
read it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I could have the secretary read it in, if you want.
MR. PETROSKI-Do you think that's important to do that? I mean, it would probably save
time from me going and.
MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I think we understand where you're coming from. My only
question for you would be the change in the Wal-Mart sign. I assume that's because of
your setback from the road, you wanted it larger?
MR. PETROSKI-Well, the last time we were here, the focus seemed to be that you didn't
want us to come in and argue that the total sign package, as a whole, was only a small
increase over the total amount of signage allowed, that the one sign on the building,
that's your allowed sign. You get 300 square feet. Everything else is a variance. So,
and the thought process of reducing all the other signs, and if that signs going to be
allowed to be 300 square feet, then Wal-Mart said, well, why not make it 300 square feet,
if that's what is going to be allowed. Maybe that's a point of discussion here, but that's
kind of how that kind of, you know, came to light, and again, like I said, I didn't want you
thinking we didn't hear what you're saying, because you're trying to reduce the size of
signs, and we did that, but then we came back with the one bigger sign, but the bigger
sign was simply on the basis of, that's the allowed sign, and that sign could be 300
square feet, but again, the argument being, and I made a graphic here, which it's very
simple, and I think it kind of gives you an idea of what we're talking about. We're talking
about the setback issue and how the sign reduces in terms of perspective. If you have a
person out at Quaker Road and they're looking at this sign, that's how tall the Wal-Mart
Sparks sign is. It's six feet, six inches tall, and obviously, you know, it looks big when it's
right in front of you, but by the time you get to the 300 foot limit that the Town sets for the
cut off point for maximum sign size, the perception of that sign is it's now somewhere
around four feet tall. So it's lost 30% of its size in terms of perspective. By the time you
get out to 800 feet, you know, I'm saying less than one inch. You can argue on your
perspective. It could be one inch in terms of that actual visual, you know, what you see
out there, that field of vision is literally one inch tall, but, you know, for some comic relief,
you know, we also have a forest in front of the project, okay, and this is something we
worked months and months and months with the Planning Board, literally, to come to the
conclusion that we're going to preserve 10 acres of wetlands in front of the project, 10
37
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 03/18/09)
acres of wetlands that the Town didn't want us to disturb, and even through that process,
we talked about cutting fields of vision into the property. We talked about thinning the
trees. We talked about selective clearing, and all those things. They were on the verge
of saying, well, tell us which way you think, you know, will work the best, and we like one
way over the other, but we finally said, look, it was too important to you, we won't do it.
We'll leave it alone. We'll leave the trees and everything there. Eighteen inch trees
were particularly important, but every tree, we said, fine, we'll leave it alone, and not to
come back later and you can call me a liar, but we were in front of the Town Planning
Board again with a discussion about the pylon sign and trying to make it more visible. So
we are looking to do some very selective clearing out by the road. Some clearing which
is going to happen anyway because of the road widening that was required for the
highway mitigation, but we kept that there. We're working with the community trying to
preserve that, and that becomes a detriment to Wal-Mart, because when you're driving
along Quaker Road at the speed you're going through that section, even though I
showed you the simulation, you can't virtually see the signs on the building, when in
perspective they're as small as they are. So, it's a reasonable request here. Mostly
what we're doing is addressing issues that are strictly on the property itself. The
community is not affected by these signs, and we were just over at the K-Mart store.
MR. URRICO-I disagree with you there. The community is affected by the signs,
because it sets a standard. So when you say it's not affected by the signs, it is affected
by the sign.
MR. PETROSKI-But the test here, according to the criteria that Staff read, was, you
know, character of the community and what was the other one, about self-created
hardship. I think you'd have to agree that the hardship created here by leaving that
wetlands is something that isn't totally self-created. We worked with the community to
leave that there, and now we have to deal with it.
MR. URRICO-That wetland will be more, bring you more positive feedback than if you
had taken it out.
MR. PETROSKI-And I totally agree with you. You're absolutely correct, and then that's
why it's there. I mean, it was a concession to work with the community because
wetlands in this community are very important, and so that was, you know, but it does
create a hardship that is not something that we, we didn't create the wetlands there.
Probably if we had a choice we wouldn't have put them there, but they're there, okay. So
from that standpoint it is not the same as other applicants are going to face, and I believe
you were the one, sir, that had said to me last time, we don't want to make this look like
every other, just because somebody else got more signs, you shouldn't get more signs,
and I understand that, and I think we addressed it in our letter by saying that, even a
Wal-Mart that's up on Route 9 in Queensbury, there's less signs here than there are
there, and especially these are less, you know, these are some gratuitous signs there,
okay. You get in these sloganish type things, and, you know, these little one word type
meat, what does it say meat and grocery always, those kind of things are gratuitous.
We're really focusing here on the entrance and the way finding on the property itself, and
I think, if anybody else builds their buildings 800 feet from the road, consistently
throughout the Town of Queensbury, you're probably not going to have a sign problem.
You're probably not going to have a parking, you know, people parking their cars by the
road problem. You're not going to have a display problem. You're not going to have
RV's sitting out in front problem because everybody's pushing their stuff 800 feet away.
So it's a very unique situation, and I think the Board has an opportunity to recognize that
uniqueness and give us some relief. So I don't want to keep beating this up. I'd like to
keep addressing any questions.
MRS. JENKIN-But the thing is that you just said yourself that the signs on the building
are only for the people after they've come into the parking lot and they're directional
signs. So you aren't concerned that you're going to be able to see the large Wal-Mart
sign from the road because you have the pylon sign to show that it's Wal-Mart. So your
argument that it would be one inch at 800 feet, it really doesn't matter because you're not
trying to get visibility from the road from your sign on the building.
MR. PETROSKI-Well, the truth is is that we have a pylon sign that's to be located off the
road. That is a sign that is allowed by the Code.
MRS. JENKIN-So you don't need.
MR. PETROSKI-But the Code also allows for a sign on the building. There's the two
components of the Code which you can have one pylon sign and one building mounted
38
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 03/18/09)
sign, and the applicant is using that one allowed sign to identify who they are. I think it's
a very routine and normal thing to do. I mean, we had talked earlier that if this 500 feet
of store, which is a very large storefront, really, for this amount of signage.
MRS. JENKIN-It is one store.
MR. PETROSKI-If that was broken up into storefronts, like there's up in the Route 9, or
254, you know, right Aviation Mall and that area over there, you're talking about, you
know, lots of signs to identify each business, and we would probably think that's normal
because each business has its own sign. So, you know, I think this, for the size of the
building, and Jim is here to talk about the architecture, and I have to compliment the
work that he's done, because you can see the color difference, if you had the other
application. This is another, that's another positive benefit to the application. I mean,
last time we came in and we talked about this type of a design here, and you can see the
brighter colors and this, he doesn't like me calling this orange, but this orangish color,
copper, up by the Wal-Mart Sparks sign, and, you know, it starts to become that those
things become a sign, and really highlights the signage even more so than just the
words, but by going to these earth tones, you start to lose that big, you know, splash. I
mean, you know, Home Depot, orange is their color. There's other major retailers out
there using colors, and those really catch your eye, but that's not happening here. Earth
tones really blends in to the landscape. It's very conducive to this part of the Town,
especially with the swamp and the areas around the general area. It's a very favorable
color scheme, and I think because of those colors, we're taking away from the signs that
this other design did, too. So it's another benefit to the application that we're asking for.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Any questions from Board members? Any concerns?
MR. CLEMENTS-I asked a question, I think at our last meeting, about having other
vendors in here, for example, a bank, and I think we discussed that at the last meeting.
Do you have any more information on that?
MR. PETROSKI-I did check, and there's no intent to have a vendor in this store. If they
did want to be in this store, if that became part of the program, they would have to come
to this Board and ask for their sign specifically. So nothing's going to go up on this
building without you knowing it. Okay, but that's the best I can answer the question.
Right now there's no plan to have that kind of a tenant that would require a sign, but if
they did, they would have to come before this Board to request it.
MR. DRELLOS-Would there be room on the pylon sign for an additional sign, without
putting one on the building?
MR. PETROSKI-If anything was done to the pylon sign, it would require either a
complete re-design of it or a variance request. The sign is maxed at what is allowed by
the Code.
MR. DRELLOS-Well, could you not max it and have room for additional signs for the
future?
MR. PETROSKI-That's actually a possibility. It's something we've talked about.
MR. DRELLOS-Well, because that might help this, if you don't come in for an additional
sign for a bank, if you could put it on the pylon sign.
MR. PETROSKI-And that's an option.
MR. DRELLOS-If it's not up to max, and you plan for the future for a sign on that pylon
sign, where you wouldn't need one on the building.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I would think they'd be changing the whole concept of Plaza
Commercial from a standalone Wal-Mart store, you know. It's sort of a different
situation.
MR. DRELLOS-Well, they've got one in the other Wal-Mart, though, right?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right.
MR. DRELLOS-I think it's a bank.
MR. PETROSKI-Citizens Bank, yes.
39
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 03/18/09)
MR. DRELLOS-Citizens Bank, and it's on the building.
MR. UNDERWOOD-But I mean Citizens Bank would have to come in before us for that.
MR. DRELLOS-On the pylon sign?
MR. UNDERWOOD-They're not on the pylon sign on Route 9, are they? I don't believe
they are.
MR. DRELLOS-No, but my suggestion is, I'm just saying if they did not have the pylon
sign to a max, where they left room for additional sign, and not have to put one on the
building.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I can't really think of any other, I mean, you know, if we're going
back to the previous one with Home Depot's Plaza there, I mean, there's multiple signs
on those, but you pretty much have to re-design if you're at max.
MR. DRELLOS-I'm just saying if they didn't go to max, though. If they planned for the
future.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, it's their choice, I guess. If they were going to plan on it.
MR. DRELLOS-If you put a bank in there, now the pylon sign's at max. Now they're
going to want a variance for a sign on the pylon.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It would save you having to replace the whole sign, too. So, I mean,
that would be your guess.
MRS. JENKIN-The thing is, I'm thinking, is I appreciate the fact that you've reduced the
size of the signs, and the total square footage of the signs is less, now, and that helps us
granting, if we do grant, four extra signs. So that does make a big difference, but the fact
that you have made the Wal-Mart sign bigger sort of negates the others, because we're
trying to follow the Code, and the Code says one sign and one other sign, and you've
asked for four extra signs, and so it is our responsibility to uphold and do as much as we
can to try to follow the Code that Queensbury has set. So, the fact that you made them
much smaller is a very, very good thing to factor in your favor.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I'm listening to your argument, but what was the previous Wal-Mart
sign? I mean, that was 200, is that what it was?
MR. PETROSKI-It was 220.
MR. DRELLOS-Two twenty. So now it's 299.
MR. PETROSKI-I was just asking Jim about Wal-Mart's, you know, how they would treat
that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I mean, it's understandable that you're setback 800 feet. I
mean, you can understand why they would want it a little bit bigger, but it is, in every
instance, a conforming sign. So, I mean, we really don't have any, I mean, you could
make the argument that we wanted everything to be smaller.
MR. DRELLOS-It was smaller.
MRS. JENKIN-It was smaller.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, it was smaller, 70 square feet or 77 square feet smaller.
MR. PETROSKI-Mr. Chairman, if that's what the Board would like, I think we could take
that back to Wal-Mart and say, look, just go with the previous Wal-Mart Sparks sign.
Because that shows a true response to the issue of making everything smaller, and, I
mean, they could only draw and quarter us once.
MRS. JENKIN-I do understand your argument about the living center, and you do want
one, if there is a separate door over there, I didn't see a door.
MR. PETROSKI-There is.
40
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 03/18/09)
MRS. JENKIN-But there is a door, and that gives a little bit more balance to the building,
too, actually, if you're going to have more signs. It does balance the building out better,
so that you have the different areas where to go into. So, by making them smaller, you
kind of added that one in to what we asked you to remove, and so that makes it much
better, in my eyes. More conforming.
MR. PETROSKI-So that if we do keep the previous size of the Wal-Mart sign, then that
would be more acceptable?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Okay. Why don't we open up the public hearing. Anybody
from the public wishing to speak on this matter?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. UNDERWOOD-I don't see anybody. Any correspondence?
MR. URRICO-I'll take a look. Other than the letter from the attorney, no.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Why don't we go through the ranks, here, then and poll and
see how everybody feels about it. I'll start with you, George.
MR. DRELLOS-Well, by them reducing the Wal-Mart sign, and going back to the original
plan, and because they reduced the smaller signs, I recognize the need that you do need
directional signs, you know, it's 150,000 square foot building, I think it is. I mean, you
don't get too many of these buildings built in Queensbury or anywhere else, very often.
We understand that, and there is a need for directional signs. So I would be in favor of
this variance.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Rich?
MR. GARRAND-Well, when you look at on the impact, on the change to the
neighborhood, you do have to consider things such as, you know, potential requests by
other businesses, what it's going to look like from the road, and I think that reducing the
sign size of the other signs, like outdoor living and all that, I think that was a great idea.
I'd be in favor of it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-Yes. I like the new design. I think it's much more attractive. At first I was
kind of taken aback by the fact that you increased the one while you decreased the other
four, but I like the design, I like the combination of the signs, and if you went back to the
original Wal-Mart, I would be in favor.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I'd just like to compliment everybody for working with us on, I think it
really shows a sign of mutual respect for each other, and I really, I do like the building. I
think the building's very attractive, and what you've done, in response to our request, is
well appreciated. I think going back to the original Wal-Mart sign, the major sign, is a
great step, in addition to the reductions you've made. So I would be definitely in favor of
it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Brian?
MR. CLEMENTS-Thanks. Well, my concern at the last meeting, along with all the
people of the Board, I think, was the sign size and I think you've addressed that, and I
also think, along with my other Board members here, that if you reduce the size of the
main Wal-Mart sign to what it was before, I would certainly be in favor of this.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Joan?
MRS. JENKIN-Yes. I'll agree with all the Board members. I'd be in favor of this.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And I, too, will go along with it. I think if you go back to the 220
square feet on the Wal-Mart sign, I don't really have a problem with it. I think the palette
color choices are much more appropriate, and I think that they're actually real classy. I
mean, I'm saying, wow, what a difference, you know, from that yellow, and it was a little
gaudy. Quite a contrast to some of your competitors, that's for sure. So I guess what
we'll do here is, we've got to do SEQRA on this.
41
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 03/18/09)
MOTION THAT THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAKES A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION ON THE SEQRA REVIEW FOR SIGN VARIANCE NO. 1-2009 WAL-
MART STORES, INC./CRAIG STEINFELDT, THAT WE DON'T REALLY FEEL THAT
THE ADDITION OF THESE EXTRA FOUR WALL SIGNS IS GOING TO BE A
DETRIMENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR THE ENVIRONMENT. WE THINK THAT
BY SHRINKING THE SIGNS APROXIMATELY ONE THIRD IN SIZE FROM WHAT
THEY WERE ORIGINALLY PROPOSED TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AT
IS MORE APPROPRIATE, AND THAT THEY HAVE AGREED TO CHANGE THE WAL-
MART SIGN BACK TO ITS ORIGINAL 220 SQUARE FOOT OF SIZE AT THE SAME
TIME. SO, BASED UPON THAT, I WILL MAKE A NEGATIVE SEQRA DECLARATION,
Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by George
Drellos:
Duly adopted this 18t" day of March, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Drellos, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements,
Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
MS. GAGLIARDI-You need to close the public hearing.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I'll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Going on to the resolution here, then, do you guys want me
to do this one, again?
MR. URRICO-Sure, you're on a roll.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right.
MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 1-2009 WAL-MART STORES,
INC./CRAIG STEINFELDT, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
corner of Quaker Ridge Boulevard and Quaker Road. The applicant is proposing wall
signs in excess of the number of allowable signs per Sign Ordinance Section 140.
Specifically, the applicant is requesting relief for the placement of four additional wall
signs on a yet to be built Wal-Mart store in southeast Queensbury. The Board does not
feel that there will be an undesirable change in the neighborhood. The colors on the
building, they're going to go back to the Planning Board, I believe, with these color
changes. Also, we feel the colors and the earth tones are much more subtle. The signs
have been shrunk approximately one third from what they were originally proposed to us,
and also that the Wal-Mart Sparks sign is going to be a 220 square feet, as originally
presented to us previously. Whether the benefit could be sought differently by the
applicant. We could ask for a reduction in the number of signs to a compliant number,
but we feel that the size of this building, the 800 foot setback from the road is more than
adequate to minimize the size of these signs as proposed, and whether the Sign
Variance is substantial. Four additional wall signs would be considered substantial at
400%, but at the same time, the building is standalone. It's way off the main road, and
these are mainly for internal use once you get into their parking area. You really won't
see them from anywhere but there. As far as adverse effect or impact on physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood, they're greatly muted by the vegetation
between there and the road, which is approximately 800 feet of swamp, and pretty
heavily forested, which isn't going to be touched at any point in the future, and as far as
the difficulty, it is aself-created difficulty. Specifically, the signs and what they are going
to come in at, the applicant is proposing, on this 150,200 square foot Wal-Mart store, to
include five wall signs, a 220 square foot internally lit Wal-Mart Sparks sign will be the
main sign on the building. The other signs area 57.53 square foot Home and Living
sign, to be located to the right of the proposed front of the Wal-Mart Sparks sign, and that
was reduced 21.79 square feet to a revised 35.74 square feet. The originally proposed
82.15 square foot Market and Pharmacy sign located below and to the left of the
proposed Wal-Mart Sparks sign was reduced 30.45 square feet to a revised size of 51.7
square feet, and a 63.33 square foot Outdoor Living sign, located on the far right corner
of the proposed building was reduced 23.98 square feet to a revised size of 39.35 square
feet, and last, a 4.94 square foot Recycle sign, which was originally proposed, the Board
42
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 03/18/09)
didn't really seem to have any problem with that one. That was reduced by 0.10 square
feet to a revised size of 4.84 square feet. So the proposed total area of all of those
signs, of the four signs, was supposedly 207.95 square feet, was reduced 76.32 square
feet to a revised total for all four signs of 131.63 square feet.
Duly adopted this 18t" day of March, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Drellos, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements,
Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
MR. UNDERWOOD-You're all set. Thanks.
MR. PETROSKI-Thank you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 11-2009 SEQRA TYPE: II THOMAS D. HEISS AGENT(S)
KURT J. HEISS, L.S./TOMMELL & ASSOCIATES OWNER(S): THOMAS D. HEISS
ZONING: SFR-1A LOCATION: 13 WINCREST DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF A 286 SQ. FT. GARAGE ADDITION. RELIEF REQUESTED
FROM MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACKS. CROSS REF.: N/A WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.52 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.13-1-37 SECTION:
179-4-030
THOMAS HEISS, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 11-2009, Thomas D. Heiss, Meeting Date: March
18, 2009 "Project Location: 13 Wincrest Drive Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes a 286 square foot square foot addition to an existing 506 square foot
garage.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests 10 feet of sideline setback relief from the 20 foot sideline setback
requirement for the SFR-1A zone per §179-4-030.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the
neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of
this area variance. Minor changes to nearby properties are anticipated as a result of
this proposal.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,
feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The applicant could
build in a compliant or more compliant location. However, the location of the addition
appears to be the most logical given the restraints of the parcel.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 10 feet or 50
percent relief from the 20 foot side setback requirement per §179-4-030 for the SFR-
1Azone may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the
physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
43
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 03/18/09)
None since 1955
Staff comments:
According to the applicant, the expansion is for lawn equipment and a workshop. There
will be access through the garage via a steel door and further access through an
overhead door leading to and from the rear of the property. A cement ramp will be
installed in the rear to facilitate equipment movement from the addition. Existing outside
lighting will be removed from the rear of the existing home and installed on the rear
corners of the addition. Staff recommends all repositioned lighting be positioned to shine
inward and down and not toward any property lines.
The project will expand the garage from 506 square feet to 792 square feet, 108 square
feet less that the maximum allowable size for a garage of 900 square feet per the
ordinance.
SEAR Status:
Type II - No action necessary"
MR. UNDERWOOD-Mr. Heiss.
MR. HEISS-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Anything else you want to add?
MR. HEISS-No.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Does anybody here have a problem with this one?
MR. DRELLOS-No.
MRS. JENKIN-I just wonder why don't you expand it a little more to the maximum?
MR. HEISS-Well, that's all the room I really need.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay. It's just for your storage, for your equipment?
MR. HEISS-Yes. It's for lawn tractor, garden equipment, and the garden storage.
MRS. JENKIN-That sounds find.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. If there's no more questions from the Board, I'll open up the
public hearing. Anyone from the public wishing to speak? Any correspondence at all?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-No.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I guess I'll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. UNDERWOOD-I'll poll the Board very quickly. Anybody have a problem with this
one?
MR. URRICO-No.
MR. DRELLOS-No.
MRS. JENKIN-No.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. It seems pretty reasonable to me. What you're going to
add on to here is in line with the present garage. It's not going to change the setbacks
from what the garage is already at, the 10 feet. So, barring any unforeseen problems, I
don't see that it would create anything, and it's underneath the size that we would permit
you to build. So you could have built something even larger had you wanted to. So does
somebody want to do the resolution?
44
(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 03/18/09)
MR. GARRAND-I can make a motion.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Go ahead.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 11-2009 THOMAS D. HEISS,
Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian
Clements:
13 Wincrest Drive. The applicant is proposing a 286 square foot addition to an existing
506 square foot garage. The applicant requests 10 feet of side setback relief from the 20
foot side line setback requirement in the Single Family One Acre zone as per Section
179-4-030. We go on to the balancing test. Can the benefits be achieved by other
means feasible to the applicant without an Area Variance? The applicant would like to
build on to his garage. If he builds in any other direction, if he builds towards the
neighbor's property, he'll need a variance. He can't very well build down his driveway.
He'd need a front line variance. This is the most logical thing for the applicant to do. Will
this produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood or character to nearby
properties? I don't believe it'll create any adverse effects in the neighborhood or change
the character of the nearby properties since this is going to be on the back side of the
house, and people driving by probably won't even see it. I would deem this request also
as minimal, given the possible impacts. Will this request have adverse physical or
environmental impacts? To the best of my knowledge, this will not have any
environmental impacts on the neighborhood whatsoever. Is this alleged difficulty self-
created? I'd say this difficulty is created by the fact that the zoning was enacted for this
neighborhood after the subdivision was already built. So I move that we approve Area
Variance No. 11-2009.
Duly adopted this 18t" day of March, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Drellos,
Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
MR. HEISS-Thank you very much.
MR. UNDERWOOD-That's it.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
James Underwood, Chairman
45