Loading...
2010.09.22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/22/10) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 22, 2010 INDEX Area Variance No. 20-2009 Mary Sicard 1. Tax Map No. 289.6-1-1, 2, 3, 5, 17/ 289.10-1-4 Area Variance No. 45-2010 Inwald Enterprises/Robin Inwald 2. Tax Map No. 227.17-1-16 Area Variance No. 32-2010 Meredith Kerr 2. Tax Map No. 309.6-1-69.1 Area Variance No. 49-2010 Maureen Ireland 3. Tax Map No. 308.16-2-4 Area Variance No. 50-2010 William J. VanGuilder 9. Tax Map No. 308.11-1-53 Area Variance No. 51-2010 David & Tanya Bruno 19. Tax Map No. 288.00-1-85 Area Variance No. 52-2010 Tom Wessling & Roger Brown 24. Tax Map No. 296.17-1-50 Sign Variance No. 53-2010 Tom Wessling and Roger Brown 31. Tax Map No. 296.17-1-50 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/22/10) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 22, 2010 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT JAMES UNDERWOOD, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY RON KUHL BRIAN CLEMENTS JOAN JENKIN RICHARD GARRAND JOHN KOSKINAS, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’m going to call the September 22, 2010 meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals to order, and starting out I want to quickly go through our procedures, once again, for anybody that perhaps is new here. As we handle each application I’ll call the application by name and number. The secretary will read the pertinent parts of the application, Staff Notes and Warren County Planning Board decision if applicable into the record. Then we’ll ask the applicant to present any information they wish to present to the Board. The Board will ask questions of the applicant, and then we’ll open the public hearing. The public hearing is intended to help us gather information and understand it about the issues at hand, and it functions to help the Board members make a wise decision. It does not make the decision for the Board members. There will be a five minute limit on all speakers. We will allow speakers to speak again after everybody’s had a chance to speak, but not for more than three minutes, and only if after listening to the other speakers, a speaker believes that they have new information to present, and, Board members, I’d suggest that because we have the five minute limit that we not interrupt the speaker with questions while they’re speaking. Rather we should wait until the speaker has finished his five minute period and then ask the questions. Following all the speakers, we’ll read in any correspondence into the record, and then the applicant will have an opportunity to react and respond to the public comment. Board members then will discuss the variance request with the applicant. Following that, the Board members will have a chance to explain their positions on the application, and then the public hearing will be closed or left open depending on the situation, and finally, if appropriate a motion to approve or disapprove will follow. We do have some requests for tabling motions, and so I’m going to make those motions right now. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: FURTHER TABLING REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-2009 SEQRA TYPE: I MARY SICARD AGENT(S): JARRETT ENGINEERS, PLLC OWNER(S): MARY SICARD ZONING: RR-3A & WR LOCATION: NACY AND JAY ROADS, GLEN LAKE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE 6 PARCELS TOTALING 42.38 ACRES INTO 16 LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 0.35 ACRES TO 11 ACRES IN THE WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL ONE ACRE ZONE ADJACENT TO GLEN LAKE AND THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL THREE ACRE ZONE TO THE EAST OF GLEN LAKE ROAD. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM LOT SIZE, LOT WIDTH, ROAD FRONTAGE, ROAD ACCESS, SHORELINE FRONTAGE, SIDE SETBACKS AND MORE THAN 1 ACCESSORY STRUCTURE PER LOT REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2008 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 40.97 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.6-1-1, 2, 3, 5, 17 / 289.10-1-4 ; SECTION: 179-3-040; 179-4-050, 179-5-020D MR. UNDERWOOD-We were scheduled to hear Mary Sicard, the project over at Nacy and Jay Roads, Glen Lake. They have requested a tabling until the November meeting. Did they request which one they wanted, Keith? MR. OBORNE-I don’t see how they could request. I would go for a December date. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Can I back that up, please? I apologize for that. Could you make it November? I apologize. I was a month ahead. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/22/10) MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-2009 MARY SICARD, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: Nacy and Jay Roads, Glen Lake. Until one of the meetings in November. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of September, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-2010 SEQRA TYPE: INWALD ENTERPRISES/ROBIN INWALD AGENT(S): JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ. BPSR OWNER(S): INWALD ENTERPRISES/ROBIN INWALD ZONING: WR LOCATION: 38 GUNN LANE, CLEVERDALE APPLICANT PROPOSES A BOATHOUSE WITH A 697 SQ. FT. SUNDECK ADDITION WITH ACCESS RAMP BETWEEN TWO EXISTING DOCKS. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE > 100 SQUARE FEET (ACCESS RAMP) WITHIN SHORELINE AND SIDELINE SETBACKS. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION. CROSS REF.: AV 68-2008; SP 39-2010; AV 26-2010 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: SEPTEMBER 8, 2010 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 0.54 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-16 SECTION: 179-5-06A7 MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Also the second item that was on our agenda this evening was Inwald Enterprises/Robin Inwald, and their agent now is Jon Lapper. This is at 38 Gunn Lane in Cleverdale. They’ve also asked to be tabled. MR. OBORNE-They’re requesting an October meeting. MR. UNDERWOOD-But they haven’t submitted. MR. OBORNE-They haven’t submitted anything. So you’re just going to table them again in October. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. All right. Let’s just table them until November, the first meeting in November. th MR. OBORNE-The 17. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-2010 INWALD ENTERPRISES/ROBIN INWALD, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: th 38 Gunn Lane, Cleverdale. Until the first meeting in November, November 17. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of September, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE AREA VARIANCE NO. 32-2010 MEREDITH KERR AGENT(S): VAN DUSEN AND STEVES OWNER(S): MEREDITH KERR ZONING: NR LOCATION: 212 SHERMAN AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION; LOT A TO BE 0.26 ACRES; LOT B TO BE 0.23 ACRES. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT FOR THE NR ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF.: SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2010 SKETCH PLAN WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: AUGUST 11, 2010 LOT SIZE: 0.49 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.6-1-69.1 SECTION: 179-3-040 MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay, and then we also received a letter from Little & O’Connor, Attorneys. You guys may recall that we met last month and I think we discussed the Kerr Area Variance which was 32-2010, all right, and because that vote was not going to, they basically had a negative response from the County Planning Board at the time, so they needed a supermajority and because we only had five members here, when we polled the Board, they did not have enough to register the five vote to proceed with their project. We tabled them, and now we’re being asked to table them to a November meeting. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/22/10) MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 32-2010 MEREDITH KERR, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: th 212 Sherman Avenue. Tabled until the first meeting in November, November 17. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of September, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE AREA VARIANCE NO. 49-2010 SEQRA TYPE: II MAUREEN IRELAND AGENT(S): JON A. KELLEY – COLDWELL BANKER COMMERCIAL OWNER(S) NDC REALTY, INC. ZONING: CLI LOCATION: 319 CORINTH ROAD (PARTLY LOCATED WITHIN CAREY INDUSTRIAL PARK) APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE 12.95 ACRES WITH 3 WAREHOUSE/OFFICE BUILDINGS INTO 3 LOTS EACH WITH A BUILDING AND A VACANT LOT (TOTAL OF 4 LOTS). RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT, SIDE AND TRAVEL CORRIDOR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION CROSS REF.: SUB 10-2010 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: SEPTEMBER 8, 2010 LOT SIZE: 12.95 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.16-2-4 SECTION: 179-3-040C1b, (iii) JON KELLEY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. UNDERWOOD-And we do have a Planning Board recommendation that they went through last evening. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 49-2010, Maureen Ireland, Meeting Date: September 22, 2010 “Project Location: 319 Corinth Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 12.95 +/- acre lot into 4 light industrial lots of 4.16, 3.94, 2.62 & 2.23 acres respectively in the Carey Industrial Park. Relief Required: The following relief is required: Lot 1 1.Applicant requests 5 feet of relief from the 30 foot north side setback requirement for the existing warehouse. 2.Applicant requests 7 feet 8 inches of relief from the 30 foot south side setback requirement for the existing warehouse. Lot 2 1.Applicant requests 11 feet 11 inches of relief from the 30 foot south side setback requirement for the existing warehouse. Note: All relief as per §179-3-040. 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 impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 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 nature of the proposal and the existing conditions on the parcel preclude any feasible method other than an area variance. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The requests for 5 feet or 17 percent relief for lot 1 from the 30 foot north side setback requirement per §179-3-040 may be considered minor to moderate relative to the ordinance. Further, the request for 7 feet 8 inches or 26 percent relief for lot 1 from the 30 foot south side setback requirement per §179-3-040 may be considered minor to moderate relative to the ordinance. Finally, the request for 11 feet, 11 inches or 40 percent relief for lot 2 from the 30 foot south setback 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/22/10) requirement per §179-3-040 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 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.): SB 10-2010 Pending 4 lot industrial subdivision SP 56-2010 Pending Wholesale and retail electrical sales facility with associated warehouse Pending Staff comments: Planning Board recommendation dated 9/21/2010 in handout form. The applicant has submitted an Assessment of Site Stormwater Conditions accomplished by C.T. Male Associates dated June 28, 2010. According to this report there appear to be no issues in regard to stormwater and erosion and sedimentation control. If subdivision approval is forth coming, the Planning Board will review a submitted site plan on September 30, 2010 for a proposed wholesale electric business to be located in the existing warehouse on proposed Lot 2. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. URRICO-And then as far as the Planning Board resolution, they reviewed it and the Planning Board, they reviewed and discussed the application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community and found that they had not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal, and this was duly adopted on September 21, 2010, and it was unanimous. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Mr. Kelley? MR. KELLEY-Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the Board. For purposes of the record, my name is Jon Kelley and I’m with Coldwell Banker Commercial. We have had this property listed for sale for about a year and a half, and it’s been vacant for a little over a year. We did not have much interest from prospects for 70,000 square foot plus on nearly 13 acres, but during that time people wanted to know, could I just buy the 40,000 square foot building or could I buy the 10,000 square foot building. So we did convince the property owners that we could take and design something on this site that would be manageable and lo and behold we got a contract for sale on the building to the west side, and we have numerous prospects that are waiting for us to go through the governmental approval process. I believe that back in the days when Jack Carey built these buildings, if he knew in the future that he needed to move them seven feet or ten feet, whatever the distance was, we probably could have done it. I did not do the research as to what the Ordinances were back in that particular time when it was designed. However, we have taken and used as a litmus test current conditions and have tried to be as practicable to minimize impacts. One that probably we would take and look at the most would be transportation. I think we’re going to be less in there because of the numerous beer delivery trucks that did go in and out of that facility, and I think also if you look at the alternative of continued vacant buildings and possible hazards to the community, what we’re proposing is going to be positive because the number of jobs created there will be high paying, good quality jobs for the community. That Exit 18 corridor is developing, and I believe that what we’re proposing is positive to what is in keeping with the overall long range scope for economic development in the County. I’d be happy to answer any of your questions. I do want to make one note that I believe that under the Staff’s comments that relate, under the relief required, some of the north/south, etc., are off slightly, and I would take and say that the building does sit pretty much square to north. So if that’s confusing at all, I’ll be happy to walk you through the process. MR. OBORNE-Yes. If I could add to that, it’s off by 90 degrees to be exact. MR. KELLEY-Okay. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/22/10) MR. OBORNE-The way this is laid out, for some reason I didn’t pick up the north arrow there. So basically your relief for Lot One is going to be, if you look up on top, under Relief Required, just put, under Lot One, under Number One would be west instead of north, and Number Two would be east instead of south, and the Lot Two would be east instead of south. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do Board members at the present time have any questions that they’re interested? MR. CLEMENTS-I just have one. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MR. CLEMENTS-On this Site Development Data Sheet for Lot Two, I’m assuming that down at, where it says maximum height 60 feet, that the greater than 60’s on all three of those sheets, or all two of those sheets, should be less than 60? MR. KELLEY-You are correct. MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. MRS. JENKIN-Yes, that would be something. MR. KUHL-Everything that, the way it sets now with all the asphalt is all going to remain the same? You’re not breaking up any asphalt or anything? MR. KELLEY-No. As a matter of fact, when you take a look at the parking requirements for Lot Two, in order to meet the number that we require, it would be gravel, and if there are any additional changes to any of the Site Planning, we’ll come back before the Planning Board for Site Plan Review. MRS. JENKIN-You mean it would be gravel rather than the blacktop? MR. KELLEY-If you take a look at Lot Two, we are basically saying that we need a total of 35 parking spaces, and in order to achieve that, we need to do it out behind the building, and not all of that area behind is paved. So we’re going to put down blue stone gravel in that area. There are, on the site, if you read the C.T. Male report, there are dry, catchment basins, and that particular soil over in that area, you can have a hard rain and it sucks it right up pretty quick. MRS. JENKIN-All right. MR. UNDERWOOD-I had a question. In the past, Keith, down on Aviation and Quaker, you know, we’ve had businesses that were there that got sold, turned into other businesses, and because, when we had these relatively narrow margins between the buildings like we do on this site here, are you going to have any kind of language that speaks to the fact that it’s shared between, you know, even though there’s property lines implied down there. MR. KELLEY-Could I take and draw your attention to the map and I’ll point out to you the areas of shared easement. The first one is between Lot One and Lot Four. There will be basically a shared ingress and egress easement that comes off from Corinth Road. Also for future possible ingress and egress, so that we don’t overtax Corinth Road, you’ll notice behind Lot Four and Lot One there’s a 60 foot wide easement for a possible road to go back there in the future. That would service not only Lots One, Two, and Four, but we’re also proposing a vacant lot on Lot Three which could also be possibly serviced from that. If you look between Lot Two and Lot One, in my narrative I indicated that the reason we didn’t split the lot line exactly in half is that we found where the septic tank for Lot One, we wanted to keep the tank totally on the Lot One property. However, there was an encroachment of the septic field. So there will be an easement that’s retained in that particular situation. So, yes, I think we’ve got five or six, and fortunate my surveyor said that this would make a very good practical question on the State surveyor’s examination. So there’s a lot of information on this map. MRS. JENKIN-So the septic is in the front? Drywell. MR. KELLEY-Of the drywells? The drywells are situated around the parcel in several different locations, and they are marked. If you take a look at the Lot Two out front, you’ll see there’s writing that goes vertical, 75 feet front yard setback, just below and to the left, there’s a circle. There’s a drywell there. There’s another drywell coming down on Lot One. You see the entrance into the office building, there’s a circle, and there’s a line that goes DWTF. MRS. JENKIN-Right. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/22/10) MR. KELLEY-I mean, the nice thing, I, when we purchased the survey, I didn’t think that they were going to do as much topography as they did. We were fortunate that we got as much as did come about. There’s also, out in the, towards the back of the 9,813 square foot building, the southwest corner, there’s a circle and it says no pipes visible. There’s a sump there. Also over on Lot Two, in the loading dock area where the low area is, there’s a circle and there’s a catchment basin there. Also the loading dock area for the back of Lot One building, it says loading dock and there’s a square, and I believe there may have been one other one, but it’s pretty well detailed in the C.T. Male report, and it’s more than evident when we walked around the site, that the sheathing of the water off from the blacktop that there’s no erosion because of the nature of the soils there, and I went back and I checked back when the property was originally subdivided. There was a stormwater study and map prepared back then. So that’s probably one of the reasons why we haven’t had problems here over the past 40 years. MR. KOSKINAS-On Lot Two, the building, when you get in the back of it, there’s a very large depression back there, on the blacktop surface. What’s that? MR. KELLEY-I can’t answer that, except, you know what, and let me stand corrected on that, and I don’t know this by first hand, sir, but last evening there were two people here that were neighbors, and they didn’t speak at the public hearing, but they had questions for me afterwards that I attempted to answer, and he told me that as a boy, he lived there, and this area hadn’t been developed yet, and it was a place where they used to take sand out. So maybe when these buildings were built, they didn’t totally get it filled back in again, but that’s only a supposition on my part. MR. KOSKINAS-Are you familiar with what I’m talking about behind that building? It’s on the blacktop surface, and it is a very large bowl that is a depression in the blacktop. MR. KELLEY-I will take a look at it the next time I go. The thing that did make it curious, though, that none of us could figure out, if you go back to Lot 13, there appears to be like at one time or another like a railroad trolley line or something that went down through. You’ll see it, it looks like an earthen berm, as a matter of fact it’s labeled earthen berm. MRS. JENKIN-Which lot? MR. KELLEY-Lot Number Three, which is the vacant lot way in the back. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. MR. KELLEY-So it’s kind of curious. I have a philosophy with the land use work that I do is that the land talks to you, and so there’s probably something there that we should take a look at if what you say. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m pretty sure that that relates back to when they did Spire Falls Dam. Spire Falls Dam they had a railroad line that ran all the way up there. MR. KELLEY-Did they? That’s interesting. MR. OBORNE-John, is that the depression? MR. KOSKINAS-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. KOSKINAS-It doesn’t have a drain in it. It’s just a big depression, and when you drive in it, you realize it’s deep. MR. KELLEY-Okay. If you wish, if we continue to be successful through the subdivision th process, we will be in before the Planning Board, hopefully on the evening of the 30, for Site Plan Review, and I will take and ask the engineers and the surveyor to take a look at that particular location. MR. KOSKINAS-I’m sure any buyers you have will, will ask about it. MRS. JENKIN-Where did you say that the access road is for Lot Four? MR. KELLEY-Lot Four currently is coming off from the Corinth Road. MRS. JENKIN-Right. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/22/10) MR. KELLEY-However, when this site gets fully developed, on full build out, it’s the anticipation that over between Lot Three and Lot Four and One there’s a 60 foot wide easement, and it’s a hopeful that that will be the roadway that will come in, that will service Lot Four. MRS. JENKIN-That’s a good idea. MR. KELLEY-But we did not show it on the map because the current owner does not intend to build it right now and I believe that’s one of the reliefs that we’re asking for, that we didn’t show a roadway going in there, but you can see there’s a lot of frontage onto Carey Road that we can build a road there if we have to. MRS. JENKIN-So right now the existing road is shared. The lot line goes right down the middle of the existing road that goes back between One and Four? MR. KELLEY-That is what is proposed, and over the years, that’s the way the normal traffic on the site took place, and I think it’s also in keeping with your master plan, which asks to have as much interworking between parcels from a transportation standpoint. MR. URRICO-How many different owners are there on these properties, in this industrial park? MR. KELLEY-Currently right now there’s just one owner that owns all 12.95 acres. MR. URRICO-So when you say the current owner of Lot Three, is that, that’s the same as the current owner of Lot Two and One and Four? MR. KELLEY-That is correct, and it’s not, it hasn’t been subdivided, of course, yet, but when we went in to develop this site, we developed it from the standpoint that we would have four, potentially four different owners, and we wanted to make sure that we lessened the amount of conflict, if there was ever going to be any, between them, transportation wise. MRS. JENKIN-Is there any kind of a divider planned, as you break up the properties, that there’s any kind of demarcation between the properties planned at all, fence, trees, anything like that? It’s all blacktop right now. MR. KELLEY-I think that from a practical standpoint, and still keeping in mind that it would be much wiser, from a transportation ingress and egress, that if somebody from Lot One wanted to go over to Lot Two or go over to Lot Four, like a delivery truck, that it’s better for them to go internally on the campus, rather than having to go back out to Corinth Road, going down the road 20 feet and then going back in again. So to answer your question, no, we don’t anticipate doing that, and I don’t believe that that would be in keeping with the community’s overall master plan of the way that I read it. MR. OBORNE-Yes. We definitely encourage interconnects, absolutely, between parcels. It’s highly encouraged for traffic flow and safety purposes, and emergency vehicles and the like. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. If there’s no other questions, I’m going to open up the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on the matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-Any correspondence, Roy? MR. URRICO-I didn’t notice any correspondence. No. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-Before I poll you guys, the Planning Board basically signed off on this as a pretty reasonable thing to do here, and I think everybody recognizes that a lot of these large parcels are unsalable at this point in time because the chance of somebody wanting to buy all those buildings at one time probably would be pretty out there, unless you came up with another beer/soda distributor or something like, but that seems to be shrinking back, too, otherwise they wouldn’t have left here to begin with. Do you guys have any questions or any concerns at all at this time? MR. KUHL-It seems straightforward. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/22/10) MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Do you guys want me to poll you, or do you guys just want to vote on it? MRS. JENKIN-Well, I think it definitely, it’s going to be an advantage to the neighborhood to break them up into smaller pieces, because trying to sell a piece with the size of the warehouse, well, as you say, it doesn’t work, but it just doesn’t seem to be practical, either, and definitely it is an area that’s being developed, and is developable, and I think it would be positive for the neighborhood, if you do this, break them up. MR. KELLEY-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody else want to add anything? MR. KUHL-Well, you talk about these easements. They will be in the deeds for each one of these lots, there will be an easement from four to three, I mean, from four to one, and from one to two? MR. KELLEY-Yes, and not only will they be written metes and bounds descriptions, but there will also be enlarged eight and a half by eleven maps that actually become attached to the deeds, and the reason for that is that this map has gotten to be pretty cluttered the way that it is, and it would have been impossible to have shown all the bearings on this particular map. MR. OBORNE-I will say the process after subdivision, if this is to be approved, it’s required that a mylar and a paper copy is sent up to the County to be filed with the County. MR. KUHL-Yes, well right now if we take Lot One with the bigger building, are there enough parking spaces to afford that size building or are they going to have to build more? MR. OBORNE-I think it’s going to depend on the use. When you’re dealing with warehouses you’re dealing with mostly vehicular use, it’s one per vehicle, one parking space per vehicle and one parking space per employee. MR. KUHL-It’s not per square feet? MR. OBORNE-Correct. It’s not per square footage. MR. KELLEY-And I think it was an item that was brought up at last night’s Planning Board meeting is that because this property has not undergone a Site Plan Review within the past seven years, that as we split off each one of these units, that particular user will have to come in before the Planning Board and go through another introspection on the part, and to make sure that such things and concerns that you have will take and be addressed. MR. KUHL-Keith, if somebody buys one of these buildings and wants to turn it into an insurance agency, that goes to the Planning Board for use? MR. OBORNE-Well, we’d have to see if it is, yes, I would think so. I don’t know if office is an allowable use. I mean, it is in this zone, but that would be an issue. MR. KUHL-Yes. Okay, but that’s not for you. MR. OBORNE-Right. MR. UNDERWOOD-And as far as this goes, with Carey Industrial Park in the back, is this Heavy? I mean, could you have manufacturing in any of these buildings, too? MR. OBORNE-Sure. MR. UNDERWOOD-Absolutely, right? MR. OBORNE-No, it’s not Heavy Industrial, now. MR. UNDERWOOD-No, but it’s Light Industrial. MR. OBORNE-Right. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. The only thing I would foresee would be if somebody bought the big building, you know, like where are you going to, if you had a lot of trailers that were delivering and stuff like that, it’s probably going to create friction with somebody who has maybe a retail business or, you know, wholesale business next door, but I mean, it has been wholesale all 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/22/10) these years. I don’t foresee any big problems regardless of what goes in there, and anybody that buys it is going to have to work it out for themselves, and if it’s not going to work, they’re not going to buy it obviously. All right. Does somebody want to take this one, then? MR. KOSKINAS-Sure. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Go ahead. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 49-2010 MAUREEN IRELAND, Introduced by John Koskinas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Clements: 319 Corinth Road. The applicant proposes subdivision of a 12.95 acre lot into four light industrial lots of 16, 3.94, 2.62 and 2.23 acres respectively in the Carey Industrial Park, with the following relief required. Per Lot One 5 feet of relief from the 30 foot west side setback requirement for the existing warehouse, and 7 feet 8 inches of relief from the 30 foot east setback requirement for the existing warehouse, and for Lot Two, 11 feet 11 inches of relief from the 30 foot east setback requirement for the existing warehouse, all per Section 179-3-040. In making a determination the Board considers the five elements of the balancing test as follows: One, minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. Two, the nature of the proposal and the existing conditions on the parcel preclude any feasible method other than an Area Variance. Three, the request for five feet, or 17% relief, for Lot One from the 30 foot requirement may be considered minor to moderate relative to the Ordinance. Further, the 7 feet 8 inch request for relief may also be considered minor to moderate. Finally the 11 feet 11 inches relief for Lot Two may be considered moderate. Four, minor effects on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated, and, Five, the difficulty may be considered self-created. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of September, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re all set. MR. KELLEY-Thank you very much. MR. UNDERWOOD-Good luck with it. MR. KELLEY-Appreciate it. MR. OBORNE-You may want to grab four of the copies, because you’re going to have to submit it for final approval. You’ll need four to submit to the Zoning Administrator for final signoff, for the Area Variance. MR. KELLEY-Thank you very much. AREA VARIANCE NO. 50-2010 SEQRA TYPE: II WILLIAM J. VAN GUILDER OWNER(S): WILLIAM J. VAN GUILDER ZONING: MDR LOCATION: 397 LUZERNE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES 2-LOT SUBDIVISION OF A 3.529 ACRE PARCEL INTO A 1.529 AND 2 ACRE PARCEL WITH SHARED DRIVEWAY. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF THE MDR ZONING DISTRICT INCLUDING; SIDE SETBACK, LOT SIZE AND ROAD FRONTAGE. ADDITIONALLY, WITHIN THE MDR ZONE, “FLAG LOTS” ARE PROHIBITED AND RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM THIS PROPOSAL. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION. CROSS REF.: SUB 11-2010 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 3.529 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.11-1-53 SECTION: 179-3-040 WILLIAM VAN GUILDER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. UNDERWOOD-And we do have a Planning Board recommendation from last evening. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 50-2010, William J. Van Guilder, Meeting Date: September 22, 2010 “Project Location: 397 Luzerne Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 3.529 +/- acre lot into 2 lots of +/- 2.0 acres & 1.529 acres. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/22/10) Relief Required: Both lots will require area variances as follows: 1. Lot size: Request for 0.47 acres of relief from the 2.0 acre minimum lot size requirement per §179-3-040 for Lot 2. 2. Road frontage: Request for 50 feet of relief from the 100 foot minimum road frontage requirement per §179-3-040 for Lot 2. Note: The proposal calls for a shared access drive. 3. Side setback: Request for 18 feet 4 inches west sideline setback relief for existing frame garage on Lot 1. 4. Relief from the flag lot configuration for both lots as per §179-4-010B(1)(b). 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 impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 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 configuration of the existing lot and the nature of the proposal preclude any feasible method by which to avoid an area variance. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The requests for 0.47 acres or 23.5 percent relief for lot 2 from the 2.0 acres requirement as per §179-3-040 may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. The request for 50 feet or 50 percent relief for lot 2 from the 100 foot road frontage requirement per §179-3-040 may be considered moderate to severe relative to the ordinance. The request for 18 feet 4 inches or 73 percent relief from the 25 foot side setback requirement for the existing frame garage on lot 1 may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. Finally, any request for relief from the flag lot configuration must be approved by this board as per 179-4-010B(1)(b). 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.): SB 11-2010 Pending 2 lot subdivision Staff comments: The proposed subdivision will require not only dimensional relief from the Zoning Board of Appeals but also flag lot configuration relief. Both lots are accessed by a shared drive. Planning Board recommendation dated 9/21/2010 under separate cover. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board met last night, and based on its limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. However, for the Zoning Board’s information, during the public hearing portion of the Planning Board meeting, a few neighbors expressed concerns regarding the driveway and the exposure that will come with clearing for the proposed driveway and the resulting small buffer between the driveway and the lot line, and this is duly adopted September 21, 2010, and it was a unanimous vote. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Do you want to tell us about why you wanted to subdivide it? MR. VAN GUILDER-Good evening, members of the Board, I’m William VanGuilder. The reason that we want to subdivide is that we’ve chosen to put a single family home in the back lot. My father has owned this property for, actually I just confirmed today it’s over 50 years. We 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/22/10) originally wanted to do it in the front and not subdivide anything, but he doesn’t want to remove his house and he wants to live independently on his own for as long as he possibly can, and I have to respect that. So that left us with an alternative, is to subdividing it and putting a house in the back. This has been something that I’ve wanted to do for quite some time. It’s not just a spur of the moment. We own a house now, but we’re in a position where could move to where we want to be. So this is why we’re requesting the subdivision. We want to be in Queensbury. We want the seclusion, and everything that you see here is pretty much the only alternative that I have to allow this to happen. MR. UNDERWOOD-So you are going to occupy the house if we allow this? MR. VAN GUILDER-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Okay. MR. VAN GUILDER-Do I have plans for the front? No. My father’s leaving it to me. You can see my son is sitting here behind me. I fully expect to just keep it in the family. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Okay. So, Keith, what was our zoning down here? We were one acre zoning before the last change and now we went to two? Was there some thought process in this neighborhood why we did that? MR. OBORNE-You’d have to ask the powers that be. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. OBORNE-And to answer the question, yes, it’s for open space. That’s the whole idea behind it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Again, we’re sort of faced with these long pencil lots I call them where I don’t know why they didn’t add more streets going east and west, you know, it would have broken it up better. MR. OBORNE-We had one of these last month, the very same road. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. OBORNE-So I agree. MR. KUHL-What’s the width of the driveway after you come down from the 50 feet of frontage? What’s that going to be, 20 feet wide? MR. VAN GUILDER-Yes, sir. MR. KUHL-And the shared access is just something you want to do because right now you’ve got a crushed stone drive coming off of Luzerne Road. Correct? MR. VAN GUILDER-Correct. MR. KUHL-You’re just going to. MR. VAN GUILDER-There’s an existing driveway there now, which he has a picture of it, you can see right there. MR. KUHL-Yes. MR. VAN GUILDER-In time that driveway will eliminate. We’re not going to use it. This way he still has access to his garage, and it’s not hindering anything of his normal life. MR. KUHL-And will that shared driveway go away should you sell the front property, is that what you’re saying, or it’ll always be shared? MR. VAN GUILDER-It’ll always be shared. MR. KUHL-Once we do this, it’ll always be shared? MR. VAN GUILDER-Yes. MR. KUHL-Okay. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/22/10) MR. VAN GUILDER-On the right hand side of the van there is where the proposed driveway is going down. Once it gets past the garage, it’s just straight down. MRS. JENKIN-I did go on the property today and walk down, and it looks like it’s nice flat property and it’s completely wooded and you’ll have to take trees down, but my question was also what the Planning Board’s question was. There is not much space for the neighbors behind, on the other side of the driveway. Wouldn’t it be possible for you to move the driveway over and leave some of the trees there to act as a buffer zone? It would be much. MR. VAN GUILDER-I talked about this last night, and I agree with you that a buffer zone in between the driveway and the back yards is desirable, you know, for me also. To put this driveway in and to create that lot in the back without, I mean, I’m already going back 500 feet. To move it over and take a few more and diminish the size of what’s in the back, talking to my surveyor after the meeting last night also, right now there’s proposed, there’s about three or four feet in between the driveway and the boundary line as it is right now, and we kind of agreed that that would be enough room for us to leave shrubs or trees later in time. MRS. JENKIN-It’s something that this will impact on the neighborhood, you putting a driveway so close to the lot line. It will impact on your other neighbors, and it seems to me that now is the time that you could probably, it wouldn’t really hurt the properties at all to move it back another, so that you have at least 10 feet between the property line, so that you could grow trees there. With a shrub with three feet, three, four feet, that’s not much space at all. MR. VAN GUILDER-I would think three feet on one side, mine, three feet on the other side, now you’d have six. Maybe you do four feet on each side. Now you have eight feet of trees on both sides. MRS. JENKIN-You still have snow removal in the winter. MR. VAN GUILDER-Yes. MR. URRICO-You said your intention is not to sell the first lot. MR. VAN GUILDER-Correct. MR. URRICO-Then why would there be a problem in moving the driveway, if there wasn’t an intention down the road of, because it looks like you have it going straight down that property line. MR. VAN GUILDER-Yes. MR. URRICO-And if I were doing it, that’s what I would do if I intended to sell the first lot, at some point. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think part of the problem you get into, though, is because the lot goes back and it does sort of get narrower. I mean, it’s not parallel lines that are going back north to south there. MR. URRICO-But once we grant a variance of this type, it stays forever. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure, but the flagpole part of the flag lot that’s being asked, that they’re asking to create here is, you know, if you make the flagpole wider, it’s going to encroach on Lot Number One, probably going to get that down below two acres, then you’re going to need relief on that one, too, right? MR. VAN GUILDER-That’s correct. MR. URRICO-But you’re protecting the neighbors. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, right. If everybody looks at the map on the plot, the property to the west there, there’s a private drive that goes back there, American Way, right? Is that right on the property line, Keith? MR. OBORNE-Well, that’s on an easement. MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s on an easement. Yes. It’s unfortunate, to me, the Town, over all the years we’ve had a Zoning Code, hasn’t tried to like go down to the neighbors down there, because, you know, all that back lot property which is green space now, but nonetheless, if you 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/22/10) were really trying to do something constructive, you know, by creating a roadway through there that would access those things, it would have made a lot of sense. It wouldn’t have cut corners. It would have made things, streamlined things, I think, for people to develop all those properties, but you can just see every single one of these lots on the road there coming in and asking for the same thing, and it’s, to me it’s ridiculous. The Town ought to come up with a solution for people. MR. KOSKINAS-Every time we grant one of these, we’re making that solution more complex. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right, but given what we have to work with, we can either say no, yes, or, you know, we can allow it, you know, based upon, you know, it’s not an unreasonable request for anybody to develop their property. MR. URRICO-No, but by continuing to grant this kind of relief, then we’re becoming a defacto, change, we’re making the defacto change for the law, which is really not our job. MR. UNDERWOOD-Exactly, you know, and it’s something that probably should get worked on, but this isn’t the only area like this either. There’s plenty of them. MR. OBORNE-There seems to be a preponderance of these long lots in this area. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MRS. JENKIN-But even if we’re granting variances, and we are granting variances, to make it amenable to the neighborhood, when we are granting less than two acre lots, I think from the very beginning it would be better to grant variances to have two substandard lots than to encroach on, to have a road that goes right behind a neighbor’s house and there’s no privacy for the neighbor. I think we have to consider the neighbors. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m just thinking, too, of the lots where we have even narrower lots, look at the map, you know, and t hose lots, you know, you couldn’t possibly do a flag lot on those. Most of those people are just going to be stuck with, you know, limbo land that, you know, you can’t do anything with, or you just pay taxes on it, I guess. MR. KUHL-Well, the other thing, you say road. It’s really a driveway. MRS. JENKIN-Yes, it’s a driveway. MR. KUHL-The only thing I take exception to is it says whether alleged difficulty was self- created. You are creating it, and you said no, but that’s okay. MR. VAN GUILDER-This is my first time coming before the Board and also filling out the application. So it was a little above me. Not being familiar with it. MR. UNDERWOOD-No, and we’re not trying to use you as the whipping boy here either, you know. It’s a matter of, I don’t know if the Town has any inclination to do anything, or. MR. OBORNE-Well, I mean, he is here before you for relief, obviously for dimensional relief, and then you could also say, further, that the flag lot is a dimensional relief to a certain extent. So I will say, and I’m not supporting or negative aspect of it. He is sharing a driveway, and a true flag lot would have a single driveway coming out of it. MR. KUHL-But your intention, William, is to build a house in the back and that you’re going to occupy? MR. VAN GUILDER-Yes. MR. KUHL-Okay. How old is your dad? MR. VAN GUILDER-Seventy-seven. MR. KUHL-I have a 91 year old mother-in-law I’ll give you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Let’s do this. Let’s open up the public hearing, because there may be some people from the public that want to comment this evening. So I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody that wishes to speak on the matter, would you raise your hand and I’ll have you come up. Do you want to come up, sir. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/22/10) DANIEL HUNT MR. HUNT-Good evening. MR. UNDERWOOD-If you could tell us who you are, too, for the record. MR. HUNT-I’m Daniel Hunt. I am one of the neighbors on American Way. In fact I own all the homes on American Way. There’s three of them. The current map does not depict all three homes on American Way, and I’m totally in agreement with the Board members that had thoughts about that creating issues for the neighbors, because it’s definitely going to create issues for me, and also for the other two homes that are on American Way, because the lots as they are now on American Way, my two lots, the first two lots in, prior to me buying them, were already cut out, and they were right back, pretty much close to the property line. So they were clear cut almost to the property line. So if Mr. VanGuilder does put that driveway in, right up through, and he’s got to be, let’s face it, right on the property line, because it’s only 20 feet wide, I’m very concerned about having a driveway that close to the backyards of all those homes, and I think that’s going to have a very negative impact on that, and also I think that the purpose of the zoning regulations on the whole is to protect the community and look out for everybody in the community, and I totally agree with the flag lot ruling, because in this situation it’s totally going to have a major impact on my properties and me. So I believe that the flag lot ruling should be upheld here and this project should not go forward. MR. UNDERWOOD-I have a question for you. Did you develop those properties, then, back there on American Way? You put up those homes? MR. HUNT-The two furthest ones out, yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, the two furthest ones, okay, and as far as that goes, what if there was an access that came across from American Way onto that property where he wants to put a house back there in the back? Would that be something that might be reasonable to do? I mean, you’ve got it as a private right now, but I’m just thinking, on the property line between the house that’s furthest back, you know, I don’t know who owns it, whether you do, or you rent them out or how it works. MR. HUNT-No, I live in them, in the farthest on out. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m just thinking, you know, as far as an access point, it might not be such a bad thing to have a home back there, but the access thing seems to be the issue. MR. HUNT-I totally agree. MR. UNDERWOOD-And I don’t know if that’s something that you would want to talk to him about, as far as, if he could come up American Way and come up near your home, you know, at right angles to your house to access that, you know, that, to me, would be a logical solution, but, you know, of course, that would be your prerogative to do it. I’m not telling you you have to do it or anything. MR. HUNT-It’s funny you mention it because last evening after the meeting last night we were speaking outside, Mr. VanGuilder and I, and I actually do excavating, and such, lot work, site clearing, and I offered him that I would give him my free physical help with my machine to put that driveway on the other side of his property, the east side, because the neighbors on the east side are in favor of the project, and that particular driveway should be on the east side, in my opinion, if it is allowed. Number One, I don’t think it should be allowed because it’s going to be a nonconforming flag lot, to begin with. However, if you folks do allow that, then I think that the least you should do is make them put the driveway on the east side of the property, because that neighbor is fully in, she fully wants them to have that house go out back. However, last night, when I spoke to Mr. VanGuilder, he said he already made up his mind, he’s not changing his mind. End of conversation, and he walked away. So that’s where I got with that. MR. KOSKINAS-This is not a question to badger you, but really just to understand. I know how difficult it is. Change is a constant in our lives. No one’s ever open to it. Looking at, except for those two stat garages on American Way, on Lot Two, there’s a lot of room between that driveway and any structure off American Way, except for those garages. So there’s lots of room for trees to grow, and those are big, wide lots, and you’re right about the Zoning Board upholding the law, but I’ll tell you, if we stuck to the letter of the law, we’d never have a meeting. This is all about variances. People come hopefully to have some leeway in things they’d like to accomplish in their lives, too. So we have to be sensitive to that, and I’m trying to look at the compromise. There seems to be plenty of real estate there for trees to grow, whether you plant 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/22/10) them or Mother Nature does it, and I have given no thought to the other side of the lot, but even in that concept, American Way and this driveway, the proposed driveway, look a lot alike. MR. HUNT-Can I add something? MR. KOSKINAS-Sure. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MR. HUNT-American Way was from, as far back as you can follow the deed back, was always the way it was, other than one minor boundary line adjustment in the back, to create the third lot. I’m sorry, not to create it, but to just adjust the boundary lines. It was always three separate deeds from Day One. I’ve never got a subdivision there, nothing. I’ve always conformed to all of the Codes at the times when I did my projects. So I’ve never gone for any other type of variances for that property. It is the way it is because that’s what was allowed at the time. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNT-Thank you. I appreciate it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody else from the public wishing to speak on the matter? Do you want to come up, please. NANCY NICHOLSON MS. NICHOLSON-My name is Nancy Nicholson and I am on the other side, okay, and I am in favor of Bill VanGuilder getting a chance to have a single family home, his own home, on his father’s, however he’s worked it out with his father. We’ve all lived there all our lives pretty much in this area. We all grew up there. Originally American Way was just a driveway to the, the first home was a seller, and somebody built a house on top of it. The second was Gregory’s, originally, when we grew up. It was just a long driveway, then, as Dan built more homes, then it kind of became a road, and as far as being on, the driveway being on my side, I’m sure Bill has his own reasons as to why he chose what he chose. The thing is, is they talked, last night, about keeping some of the trees and keeping some of the barriers, and as you can see, American Way, and that isn’t even an updated picture, all the trees are pretty much gone off of that lot, and they’re almost using the VanGuilder lot as their own buffer for their own homes. I don’t think it’s fair that they’re saying that Bill shouldn’t be able to build and come along with a driveway on that side if he wants to. Because they’ve been using his property as kind of their buffer. If I go outside my backdoor, I can see the old, the former Gregory lot. The lights are on, things like that. Because his father has a little bit of a clearing in the backyard for his garden, and if you like just run down the road, Luzerne Road, I’m a runner, you can just look down the pole lines, and American Way, of course, goes with the pole lines. It’s all pretty clear, you can see even the back house from there. So, I’m just kind of wondering why, all of a sudden, we want a buffer zone, when there’s no trees left on the back of those houses on American Way. That’s my first thing, and, I kind of lost my train of thought, but I think that’s my main thought. My dad here, he lived across the street. He grew up with us all. RICHARD NICHOLSON MR. NICHOLSON-I live across the street. I’ve been there over 50 years. My son-in-law, another son-in-law, lives across the street, and he’d like your card, because he would give you input if you cared for it, but he has to work nights. MR. OBORNE-Sir, could you state your name for the record, please. MR. NICHOLSON-Yes. Richard Nicholson. MR. OBORNE-Thank you. MR. NICHOLSON-You’re welcome. I live right, well, right across, my daughter, my land is across, that big piece right there, and the other piece on the left is my son-in-law’s. So we’ve been good neighbors. MS. NICHOLSON-And we’ve all been neighbors. MR. NICHOLSON-But Billy and I, we were in the Korean conflict together. He’s sickly now. MS. NICHOLSON-But he’s been holding up really well. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/22/10) MR. NICHOLSON-Of course I know Danny and all them. The grandfather lived right across the street from me. The Kingsley place was right across from my property, you know, and so we all know one another. I just think that, you know, we never came up and complained when Danny was doing all this stuff. You never saw us up here. I don’t understand why there’s any complaint. I mean, it is his land, why he can’t put a house back there. MS. NICHOLSON-Personally, what Bill wants is what, you know, I mean, I think he has a right to his property. Danny had a right to do what he wanted with his property, as far as building homes, but as far as keeping it on the left side, there’s already very few trees there, very few trees would have to be taken down, and in the process, you’re not eliminating because, I mean, I think, I like the woods, but if you come in from the right hand side, you’re going to make it even more of an open space, and right now we’re already seeing where there’s been so much development in Queensbury that we’re starting to see the foxes come down and things like that. I would actually like to leave more of the woods there where we can, like in the back of mine, and in the back of Bill’s, and just get the driveway on that side or wherever Bill wants it, have his home there, and not have open space all over the place, on both sides, because, you know, I think Bill’s got a really good plan going here. MR. NICHOLSON-And Danny’s built a couple of nice houses. I mean, he has people. MS. NICHOLSON-He’s done a nice job. The Gregory home is beautiful, really. MR. NICHOLSON-The Gregory house he had done over, you know, it was a house that was there. I mean, the guy wanted to have a trailer park there years ago, Gregory did, and I’m sure Billy, I know Bill. I know his father. I’m sure his house will be nice. I mean, I would think that it would actually do good to Danny’s home, because I’ll bet you he’ll build as good a house as Danny did. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Well, thank you. MS. NICHOLSON-Thank you. MR. CLEMENTS-I had a question, Mr. Chairman. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MR. CLEMENTS-Your property that’s next door there, there’s a shed and there’s an addition there. Does that go over on the other property? MS. NICHOLSON-Yes, it actually does, and Bill VanGuilder, his father has never complained about that. He mentioned it when I bought it, and he said there’s nothing we can do, and we had it surveyed. I had it surveyed first, and we found out that it did, and, you know, Bill’s been very great about it. I try not to infringe, but when you’re mowing your lawn and you know that it’s kind of going on his property. MR. NICHOLSON-He’s just a good neighbor. MS. NICHOLSON-He’s just a very good neighbor, an excellent neighbor, and that’s why I’m in favor. MR. NICHOLSON-You don’t find many good ones anymore. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody else from the public wishing to speak on the matter? Any correspondence, Roy? MR. URRICO-I don’t see any correspondence. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I guess I’ll close the public hearing, then. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-We never had a copy of your deed. Was there anything, nothing restricting anything in your deed or anything like that? I mean, you’ve had the property in the family for years, right? MR. VAN GUILDER-Did I not submit a copy of the deed? MR. OBORNE-You submitted a copy. You should have a copy of the deed. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/22/10) MR. UNDERWOOD-Rich didn’t get one, I guess. MR. VAN GUILDER-I apologize for that. The deed originally, that my dad’s had stored in a fishing tackle box forever, was tethered in Warren and was in old language, dealing with rods. We had this re-done a couple of years ago when we exchanged the Life Estate. Other than that, there’s nothing in it. In fact, the dimensions were so hard to read, you would have to be a surveyor to understand how many rods, and what they were talking about. MRS. JENKIN-Do you have a reason for not putting it on the other side yourself? MR. VAN GUILDER-I do. The garage, as you’re looking at, coming in from the proposed driveway, the current driveway is there already. If I put it on the left hand side, somebody else just asked the question about the properties being over the line. If I put it down that side, I mean, now we’re going right through the shed and it’s causing more of a problem. They talk about a buffer in between the properties. As you mentioned earlier, there’s quite a large, substantial buffer in between the houses and where the proposed driveway is. On the left side, there’ll be absolutely none. That is going right down the side window, and then of course you can see it goes through a little bit of the shed. This is something that we’re in the understanding of. When I have this resolved, this is something that we can take care of later. I don’t have a problem with Mrs. Nicholson, and it’s not anything that was unforeseen, but until I had the survey done, we weren’t sure exactly where it was. Once I had the survey done, and he did the proposal of where the driveway should be. This is what he recommended, and this is what we have. MRS. JENKIN-And you can’t move it over a few more feet? MR. VAN GUILDER-Like I said, going down right now there’s approximately a four foot buffer in between the driveway and the property line. MRS. JENKIN-It doesn’t look like it. MR. VAN GUILDER-No, it doesn’t, and I was caught off guard by this question last night, which is why I called the surveyor last night, and I needed more information. I said how much room are we actually talking there, and he said we did it approximately four feet. Now, it’s also my, and I explained this. I would like to leave as many trees as possible. I don’t want to come down my driveway and look at anybody’s house, no more than I want somebody looking at mine. I’m going way in the back, 500 feet, and I’m not clearing my lot. I’m leaving a large majority of trees, because that’s what we want. So, I mean, our main reason in moving here is privacy, and the niceness of, and not hearing the noise. MRS. JENKIN-And you’re going to leave the back of your dad’s lot as is, too, correct? I mean, you’re not going to clear any of that property. MR. VAN GUILDER-No. MRS. JENKIN-Because that’s nicely wooded, too. MR. VAN GUILDER-Absolutely. MRS. JENKIN-It really is. MR. VAN GUILDER-No, I have a rabbit living in my garden all year. It doesn’t eat all the vegetables. So I let him stay. So, I mean, that’s the kind of stuff we want, and we don’t look at affecting that adversely at all. MR. UNDERWOOD-Any other questions from you guys? All right. Then I guess I’m going to poll you. I’ll start with you, Ron. MR. KUHL-I continue to look at this as a good project. The driveway is going to be, how many times are cars going to go in and out? I understand what Mr. Hunt is saying about that, but, I mean, if you’re going to lose 15 feet of trees, that’s, I don’t think it’s going to be that great, and I don’t think it’s going to be a raceway in and out. The other alternative would be to use American Way, and that would have the VanGuilders using Mr. Hunt’s property, but then you really couldn’t chop that off either, right? I mean, a flag lot has to have road frontage on Luzerne, right? MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. He’d still have to get relief from. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/22/10) MR. KUHL-So that, I mean, I honestly believe, for the tearing down of the trees to make the driveway, I don’t consider it that big a deal, and John had a very good point, that you could plant trees behind your houses, Mr. Hunt, but, no, I think it’s a good project, and it looks like at Mr. VanGuilder’s time of life, he wants to help his dad. So I’m in favor. MR. UNDERWOOD-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. Overall I think it’s a very good project. I guess our task is to provide minimum relief wherever possible, and in fact that’s our charge and I think when you look at possible change to the neighborhood, in terms of the driveway being a little too close to those properties, and then also there seem to be some feasible methods that the applicant can use to mitigate that, I think that’s two strikes for me, and then this is being self-created. It’s a third strike. So I’m going to be against it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. John? MR. KOSKINAS-I recognize that we’re, it’s not the last time we’re going to visit this subject, and given the size of the lot and the other ones in the neighborhood, the other things we’ve seen up and down the road, I think you’ve made a fair effort, and I don’t think any detrimental impact is so severe that it can’t be overcome by the adjacent homeowners or even neighbors working in concert to put some blind up. So I’d be in favor of it as it’s proposed. MR. UNDERWOOD-Joan? MRS. JENKIN-I like the idea of you putting your house behind there. I think it’s nice. It’s good use of the property. You have space for it. I think that the lot is, even though you need a variance for it, I think it’s a nice, large lot, certainly doable in that area. I listened to your neighbor, and actually the fact that putting a driveway on this side does lessen the amount of open space you’re making, you’d have to really create a lot of open space if you put it on the other side. So that was a good argument. It bothers me that, I think it will have an impact on the neighborhood, on the neighbors, but then I agree with the fact that they can grow trees in the back, their backyard, too. They could do it. They don’t have to have a clear right to the lot line. So, considering all the factors, and the road is going to be, it’s a private drive, so you’re not going to have semi-trailers driving down there or anything I hope, and it won’t be a lot of traffic, so I think I am in favor of this. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Rick? MR. GARRAND-I have some reservations about creating these flag lots all over. I do recognize that we have a couple on Luzerne Road and at least one I know of on Aviation Road. The relief, side setback relief, I think that’s a non-issue, for the 18 feet 4 inches for the garage. That’s pre- existing. The road frontage is pretty much, for me, is taken care of a lot by the shared driveway. The lot size is minor to moderate relief. Weighing on the balancing test, I can only see two out of the five negative on this. Reluctantly I’d have to be in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-Yes. Thank you. As I look at this, and I look at the neighbors who have four lots down through there, and this being broken up into two lots, you’re under the new Zoning Law, and I think that the variance would be the least relief required, of course, because you have one lot that’s two acres. If it was me, I would have made the two acres on the back lot and then your driveway wouldn’t be as long, but that’s totally up to you. I agree with some of the other Board members here that the neighbors have the right to put buffers in on their side if they like also. So, generally, I guess, I would be in favor. I think you’ve made a good effort here, so I’d be in favor of this variance. MR. UNDERWOOD-In looking at this project, as far as the amount of relief that’s required, you know, if we were going to hold you to the two lot per acre, two acres per lot requirement, I think that would be a burden on the property, and the fact that this is a family subdivision. It’s not a speculative subdivision, per se, and, you know, it’s a family that’s held the property for many years. It’s a wooded lot. Most of the lot is going to remain wooded. It’s not going to get clear cut and the neighbor to the west, I think, is going to have to plant trees if they don’t want to look at the driveway. I would agree with most everybody else’s comments, that the driveway’s not going to generate that many car trips per day, that it’s going to be that offensive, any more than anybody else’s driveway is in a shared situation like this one here. As far as the road frontage requirement, it’s a shared drive, and I think on any place in Town, the less driveways we have the better, and Luzerne Road’s kind of a beltway drive anyway. So it’s one less drive than if we had moved the access point to the east side of the property line. So I’m going to fall in favor of this project also. I think part of the difficulty is because the Town has not addressed the flag lot 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/22/10) situation appropriately. We can say we don’t like flag lots. Well, we don’t like them, there’s not a whole lot of substance there as far as I’m concerned, because you’re not giving anybody any options. You’re not trying to work towards a solution that might work here, and I think that my suggestion of using the other drive, the American Way drive, to access your property back there would seem to me very logical to do it that way, but since you don’t own that property, Mr. Hunt owns that property, I don’t think that, you know, that’s an option at this point, either, in time, but it’s something that should be investigated, because, you know, we’re going to have these until Kingdom come, and every single one we’re going to say the same exact thing, and we’re either going to say yes or no, and, you know, these narrow lots we’re going to have to say no to them, obviously, because you’re not going to be able to put anything in there but a trailer, and even a trailer’s probably going to need relief on those. So does somebody want to take this one? MR. CLEMENTS-Yes, I will. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay, Brian. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 50-2010 WILLIAM J. VAN GUILDER, Introduced by Brian Clements who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: 397 Luzerne Road. The applicant proposes the subdivision of a 3.529 +/- acre lot into two lots, one of two acres and the other one of 1.529 acres. The relief required is both lots will require Area Variances as follows: Number One, the lot size request for 0.47 acres of relief from the two acre minimum lot size requirement per Section 179-3-040 for Lot Number Two. Number Two, the road frontage request for 50 feet of relief from the 100 foot minimum road frontage requirement per Section 179-3-040 for Lot Number Two. A note, the proposal calls for a shared access driveway there. Number Three, the side setback request for 18 feet 4 inches west sideline setback relief for existing frame garage on Lot One, and, Number Four, the relief from the flag lot configuration for both lots as per Section 179-4-010B(1)(b). In making the determination, we should consider whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to the nearby properties will be created by granting of this Area Variance. Minor impacts are anticipated. Number Two, 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 configuration of the existing lot and nature of the proposal preclude any feasible method by which to avoid an Area Variance. Number Three, is the requested Area Variance substantial? The request for 0.47 acres or 23.5% relief for Lot Two from the two acre requirement as per Section 179-3-040 may be considered moderate. The request for 50 feet or 50% relief from Lot Two, from the 100 foot road frontage requirement per 179-3-040 may be considered moderate to severe. However, there’s really no other option. The request for 18 feet 4 inches or 73% relief from the 25 foot side setback requirement for the existing frame garage on Lot One may be considered severe relative to the Ordinance. Finally, any request for relief from the flag lot configuration must be approved by this Board as per 179-4-010B(1)(b). Number Four, whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Minor impacts may be anticipated, and the difficulty may be considered self-created, and I move for approval. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of September, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood NOES: Mr. Urrico MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re all set. MR. VAN GUILDER-Thank you very much for your evening. AREA VARIANCE NO. 51-2010 SEQRA TYPE: II DAVID & TANYA BRUNO OWNER(S): DAVID & TANYA BRUNO ZONING: RR-5A LOCATION: 119 GURNEY LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES THE CONTINUATION OF AN EXISTING UNAPPROVED AGRICULTURAL USE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM LOT SIZE AND PROPERTY LINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE RAISING OF POULTRY. CROSS REF.: SP 57-2010 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: SEPTEMBER 8, 2010 LOT SIZE: 2.89 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.00- 1-85 SECTION: 179-5-040 B DAVID & TANYA BRUNO, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 51-2010, David & Tanya Bruno, Meeting Date: September 22, 2010 “Project Location: 119 Gurney Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant is 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/22/10) conducting an agricultural use, the raising of poultry, on a 2.95 acre parcel adjacent to Gurney Lane. Agricultural use in the RR zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Relief Required: Relief requested from minimum lot size of 5 acres and property line setback of 50 feet for the raising of poultry as per the requirements of §179-5-040. 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 impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 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. A feasible alternative would be to have the coops moved to a compliant or more compliant location. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. Applicant requests 2.05 acres or 41 percent relief from the 5 acre minimum as per §179-5-040 and may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. The request for 15.3 feet or 31 percent relief from the 50 foot minimum setback requirement as per §179-5-040 and 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.): SP 57-10: Agricultural Use Pending AV 82-03: Setback relief for accessory structure. Approved 10/22/2003 SB 8-0146: 14 ac. into 3 lots of 5.92 ac., 12.69 ac. and 27.53 ac. 10/16/2001 Staff comments: Planning Board recommendation dated 9/21/2010 under separate cover. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. URRICO-The Planning Board met, briefly reviewed and discussed this application and relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community and found that, based on its limited review, did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that was adopted September 21, 2010, and that was a unanimous vote in favor. MR. UNDERWOOD-Good evening. MRS. BRUNO-Good evening. MR. UNDERWOOD-How did you make out with the Planning Board? They had no major problems I guess? MRS. BRUNO-It didn’t hurt at all. Yes. It was pretty quick. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think everybody on the Board’s pretty familiar with this, since we just had this a short time ago, and this is phase two and I think, if we dispense with this this evening, we can probably, it’s got to go back for Site Plan Review? MR. OBORNE-Yes, it does. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/22/10) MRS. BRUNO-Next week. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So you’re still jumping through hoops eventually with this anyhow. Last time we met, I think everybody was aware that the chicken coop in there, there was quite a history of the chickens having been on site there for quite some period of time, and how this was brought to our attention was a little bit dubious at best. So I think that it was in the interest of fairness that we appreciated that these, that the chicks that live up there are happy at all times. Right? MRS. BRUNO-They need a new house. They’ll be happier once they get a new house. MR. UNDERWOOD-Everybody probably had a chance to visit the site, at least one time, biking by or driving by or something. They’re pretty obvious when you see them, but they’re not really creating a nuisance, and we don’t have to worry that they’re trying to cross the road or anything like that, for whatever reason they might be doing that. MRS. JENKIN-But there’s no way that you can move them to the other side of the garage and move them farther away from the road? MRS. BRUNO-Well, that would be closer to the house, and it’s, also where we’ve got them is kind of more of a work area, you know, we do the chopping of the wood and everything down there. I mean, they are animals. MRS. JENKIN-Because they are close to the road. MRS. BRUNO-Yes, they are. They are absolutely even with the front of the barn. I call it the barn. It’s a garage. I noticed in one of the notes, I don’t remember if it was ZBA or Planning Board, I call it the barn. It’s really just the replacement garage that I designed. It looked like a barn because we like the atmosphere of the neighborhood. The chickens fit right in. If we actually, and I have another reason for that. We have had a new septic system designed, just knowing that the house is as old as it is, and even though we’ve had no failure or anything, we just felt that it was good to have that design in our back pocket, and because of the setback from the stream, which that squiggly part of the left over, like behind, that’s all a stream coming down there. The 100 foot setback from the stream puts the septic right next to the studio window. It’s a funny shaped lot. We went through this when we put the barn up, that, you know, we don’t want to cut into the trees, and you really don’t, the chickens are really, they’re next to the trees as it is, and we’d prefer, we don’t want to cut into the trees, and with the barn, if we had put it at the proper setback, we would have been way into the woods. It’s just not an appropriate set up. MR. CLEMENTS-How long have they been there? MRS. BRUNO-We have had them on and off, not those ones in particular, on and off since, you know, 15 years at least, well, no, that’s wrong math, but since my kids were in day care. A day care provider hatched eggs and then they needed to go somewhere. MR. CLEMENTS-And do you have a rooster? MRS. BRUNO-We do, actually. MR. CLEMENTS-I thought I heard him when I was up there. MRS. BRUNO-Yes. We have one. He, we actually have a few. There’s the one large one that I was telling the Planning Board last night, when we ordered our 24 chickens, we got one for free, try this one out, and it turned out to be that large rooster. The smaller ones are of a different variety. Everyone in my family got to pick out their own variety, and I forget what those are. You might remember, Jim, yes, the banties. You can’t determine their sex when they’re chicks, you know, at all, I guess. The other ones it’s kind of a hit or miss. So we have a few of the smaller ones, too. MR. UNDERWOOD-Usually when you order chickens, they come in a little box, and they’re all put in there like this, and they’ve never seen any people or anything like. MR. GARRAND-Like peeps. MRS. BRUNO-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-They’re like peeps, but you can’t put them in your mouth, but anyway, when you pull them out, the first thing you do with them is you dip their beak in water so they know to drink. They don’t go up and down like those things you had as a kid anyway. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/22/10) MRS. JENKIN-What if you wanted to expand, though? You’d have to go into the woods if you wanted to expand. MRS. BRUNO-Expand the chickens? MRS. JENKIN-The chicken area. It’s not that big. MRS. BRUNO-We don’t want to. No, that’s as large as we would go. MR. CLEMENTS-Do you still own the property to the west? MRS. BRUNO-Yes. MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. MRS. BRUNO-And that actually, I was kind of figuring somebody was going to bring this up, SP 8-0146, I don’t know if you did this, Keith, but this is the other piece of property, 14 acres into 3 lots. I just want you to know so that if there’s some confusion about why our lot was divided from that, and it’s substandard, it’s just the other piece of property. Hunt Lake Land Holding had subdivided it. Actually Gretchen’s was one of those. MR. UNDERWOOD-So that five acre lot is not your lot? Yours is, I wondered the same thing when I read it. MRS. BRUNO-Say that again? MR. UNDERWOOD-The previous subdivision, your lot was pre-existing as that size? MRS. BRUNO-The little, yes, the one that the chickens are on, yes, that’s been that way for as long as I know. I don’t remember when. It was long before we had moved in. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Do you guys have any more questions? Well, I guess I’ll open the public hearing up. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on the matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-Any correspondence, Roy? MR. URRICO-No correspondence. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you guys want to get polled on this one? I’ll start with you, Brian. MR. CLEMENTS-I have no problems, since the neighbors aren’t complaining about the rooster. It’s okay with me. MRS. BRUNO-No, they actually, one of the little girls was asking why it stopped in the afternoon when they were outside playing. So they’d prefer to have it making its noise. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joan? MRS. JENKIN-Yes. Your reasons for keeping the roosters there are good ones for yourselves. I just think that they’re probably getting all this traffic on Gurney Lane. They’ll be getting pollution from all the cars going by. No? I’m in favor. MRS. BRUNO-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Ron? MR. KUHL-Are the chickens going to picket? No, I have nothing against this. MRS. BRUNO-Well, actually I think they’re nervous, because the past two weeks, for some odd reason, they have stopped laying. I don’t know why, but some people have told me. MR. UNDERWOOD-Lights, got to have lights. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/22/10) MRS. BRUNO-Well, they have a little window, but they’re outside so much it’s the winter that’s more of the problem. MR. UNDERWOOD-But if you have, if you put a light bulb in there, that’ll do the trick. I used to live by a poultry farm. I knew all the tricks. MRS. BRUNO-In all honesty, Jim, I’m kind of fearful of fire, you know, after what happened to the garage. The idea of a light bulb in there, we don’t even do that in the winter. MR. UNDERWOOD-Just get an LED, you know, something that’s like solar powered or something. MRS. BRUNO-We, the way we’ve built the walls, I put rigid insulation in, and they also keep each other warm. MRS. JENKIN-Interesting. MR. UNDERWOOD-So, Ron, you’re all set with it? MR. KUHL-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Rich? MR. GARRAND-I can’t see any adverse effects from this. MR. UNDERWOOD-John? MR. KOSKINAS-I’m fine. MR. UNDERWOOD-Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m good with it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Everybody’s happy that the sky is not falling, and that the chickens are going to get to stay up there, because I’m sure everybody in the, the near neighbors who like the chickens would be sad to see them go, and it’s nice to know that they can continue to live out their lives there in peace in happiness. Do you ever take them to Gurney Lane park for a walk or anything? MRS. BRUNO-Not when it’s closed. That’s illegal. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. Okay. Does somebody want to take this one? MRS. JENKIN-Sure, I’ll take it. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 51-2010 DAVID & TANYA BRUNO, Introduced by Joan Jenkin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Clements: 119 Gurney Lane. The applicant is conducting an agricultural use. The raising of poultry on a 2.95 acre parcel adjacent to Gurney Lane, and agricultural use in the Rural Residential zone requires Planning Board review and approval. The relief required. The relief requested from minimum lot size of five acres and property line setback of 50 feet for the raising of poultry as per the requirements of 179-5-040. The criteria, in making a determination, the Board must consider whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties, and in this case the property is following a use of most of the other properties. Many of the other properties up there have farm animals and chickens, and so they’re right with the character of the neighborhood. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue. With the size of the parcel that they have, it’s not possible to have a more compliant location. The location could be set back, but right now it’s the best possible location for the chickens, right beside the barn. Whether the requested variance is substantial. The 2.05 acres relief from the five acre minimum is fairly substantial, but it’s really not when you consider the property around it. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Minor impacts on the conditions may be anticipated. The alleged difficulty is probably self-created. They don’t have to have chickens, but because they have decided to have them, it’s just fine. So I move to approve Area Variance No. 51-2010. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/22/10) nd Duly adopted this 22 day of September, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re all set. MRS. BRUNO-Were there waivers on this that they needed to address, or was that just Planning Board? MR. OBORNE-Waivers are for the Planning Board. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you want any of your surveys? MRS. BRUNO-Sure. AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-2010 SEQRA TYPE: II TOM WESSLING AND ROGER BROWN AGENT(S): JEFFREY R. MEYER, ESQ. OWNER(S): ESTATE OF CHARLES MOORE ZONING: CI LOCATION: 10 MONTRAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES ON THE PROPERTY AND CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO LEVEL 6,000 SQ. FT. COMMERCIAL BUILDING AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM FRONT REAR SETBACK AND TRAVEL CORRIDOR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS PARKING SPACE MINIMUM AMOUNTS, SIZE, AND ACCESS AISLE WIDTHS. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION. CROSS REF.: SP 59-2010; SV 53-2010 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: SEPTEMBER 8, 2010 LOT SIZE: 0.52 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.17-1-50 SECTION: 179-3-040; 179-4-090 JEFF MEYER & LUCAS DOBY, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 52-2010, Tom Wessling and Roger Brown, Meeting Date: September 22, 2010 “Project Location: 10 Montray Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes removal of two existing residential structures on a 0.52 acre parcel and construction of a 6,000 +/- square foot building for retail business and karate studio. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: 1.42 feet of Travel Corridor overlay relief per §179-4-030. 2.48.16 feet of West front setback relief and 26.17 feet of North front setback relief. Both setback requests as per §179-3-040. 3.9 feet of South rear setback relief per §179-3-040. 4.Reduction of 11 spaces from the 29 space requirement for retail as per §179-4-090. 5.2 feet of length relief for all 18 proposed parking spaces and 1 foot of width relief for 15 of the 18 proposed spaces as per §179-4-090. 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 to moderate impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated as the proposed parking for the usages are under designed and in need of relief. 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. Concerning setback relief, lot limitations and the nature of the request preclude any feasible method other than an area variance. Concerning parking, the applicant could potentially reduce the footprint of the building in order to accommodate additional parking. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The requests for 42 feet or 56 percent relief from the 75 foot Travel Corridor setback requirement as per §179-4-030 may be 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/22/10) considered moderate relative to the ordinance. Further, the request for 48.16 feet or 64 percent from the 75 foot front setback requirement per §179-3-040 may be considered moderate to severe relative to the ordinance. Additionally, the request for 26.17 feet or 35 percent relief from the 75 foot north front setback requirement per §179-3-040 may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. Finally, the request for 9 feet or 36 percent relief from the 25 foot rear setback requirement per §179-3-040 may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. Concerning parking space requirements, the request for the reduction of 11 spaces or 38 percent relief from the 29 space minimum requirement per §179-4-090 may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. Finally, the request for a reduction in length size of 2 feet for all 18 spaces and width size of 1 foot for 15 of the 18 spaces may be considered minor to irrelevant 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.): SP 59-10 6,000 +/- square foot retail building Pending SV 53-10 Setback relief Pending Staff comments: The parking issues relative to this proposal may be mitigated by the proposed uses. The Tae Kwon Do use will primarily be in the late afternoon and evenings and as such may interfere minimally with the morning and afternoon operating hours for the retail use on the main floor. However, this mitigation potential is relegated to the proposed use and not any potential future usage for the property. Planning Board recommendation dated 9/21/2010 under separate cover. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. URRICO-Last night the Planning Board reviewed this application and the applicant proposes removal of the two existing residential structures and the construction of the 6,000 square foot building for retail business, karate studio, professional offices, and for other permitted uses. The Planning Board briefly reviewed and discussed this application, and based on its limited review has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and they adopted that unanimously. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Anything you guys want to add at this point? I think everybody’s pretty familiar with what you’re proposing here. Maybe you want to give a little bit of background because some people may not be aware of what the current business is and how many cars are generated there at any given time during the day and things like that because those are sort of germane to the issue that we have before us here. MR. MEYER-Just quickly, before Tom Wessling, one of the owners of R & T, discusses the actual business of R & T, my name is Jeff Meyer, I’m an attorney with Fitzgerald Morris on behalf of the applicant. Behind me is Tom Wessling and Roger Brown, the owners, and with me is Lucas Doby of Hutchins Engineering. TOM WESSLING MR. WESSLING-Our current location is right next to the proposed location. At that location we currently operate with four parking spaces, pretty close to Route 9, for the past eight years. In that time period we’ve never had any issues or accidents or any problems with our very minimal number of parking places. So we see this, of course, as a great improvement, but our use has shown historically that we don’t have a lot of foot traffic at one moment. Usually just a couple of few cars at a time. We’ve never had, you know, we never had 10, and even with the expansion, I think with the 18 parking spaces and keeping the downstairs use somewhat minimal impact also would work well. Of course the site’s very limited because it has frontage on two sides, 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/22/10) which then leaves the actual buildable envelope to be just a little area. So we think we’re proposing a good plan for the site, and trying to propose as many parking places as possible while maintaining green space and space for stormwater and septic and I think it’ll be a net positive as the current existing structure is two old buildings that will be fully demolished and then this will be built according to the Queensbury Design Standards and fitting in for what we want to see for the master plan and for the future of this commercial area in Queensbury. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you guys have any questions right now? MRS. JENKIN-Is someone currently living in the back, in the house at the back? It looks like they are. MR. WESSLING-Just the lower house. That’s the same gentleman who has the outdoor wood carving up on the hill. MRS. JENKIN-He’s the same one? MR. WESSLING-Yes. MRS. JENKIN-So that’s the house that’s going to come down also. MR. WESSLING-Both of them, yes. He currently has a lease through December. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-So as far as the access to this, they’re going to have to turn onto that and go down the hill to access. So safety wise it’s probably going to make a lot more sense. I’m wondering if traffic should be directed, like when they leave, to go around the horn and come out by Gambles up at the light. It might make more sense when people want to go left and then turn out. I mean, even now, the situation, like you said, where you currently are next door is sort of like suicidal for anybody to back out there at any given time of day, because of the traffic on Route 9. So this’ll be an improvement as far as that goes, but the Planning Board will probably address that. MR. WESSLING-Yes, we discussed that last night and offered that as, I guess that would be a Planning Board, but we offered that as a condition, some ways to direct traffic to take a right and maybe educate them of how you can come out to the light there, maybe a sign on the exit door or something showing a little sketch of how to re-enter Route 9 safely rather than trying right there in front of Wal-Mart. MRS. JENKIN-I don’t think it’s going to take long for people to realize, when they come out, that, I think maybe I’ll just turn around and go the other way. MR. WESSLING-It might be helpful to try to educate and direct the traffic. MRS. JENKIN-No. Absolutely. I tried to come out there today. It was fine, because it wasn’t busy, but if you’re coming up the hill, and it could be a problem. MR. UNDERWOOD-It won’t work in the wintertime. That’s for sure. MR. URRICO-I have a question about the spaces. I know there is enough for you, but what about the karate business? How many spaces are required by them? MR. MEYER-Roger may need to speak on this to some extent. It’s, what’s envisioned is essentially taekwondo classes. You’re not going to have that many people there. It’ll be a mixture of people dropping off and people actually staying, but we’re not anticipating more than a half dozen at a time. I mean, this isn’t, it’s not a really large building or a really large use. There’s not going to be a huge studio space there. MR. URRICO-They’re modest spaces. MR. MEYER-Correct. MR. WESSLING-And an interesting point, the downstairs, there’s 600 square feet of storage, which’ll also include a secure area for like our jewelry and stuff. There’s, in our space, you have the architectural rendering. In our space, there’s office space where we sell items on e-bay. So that’s not really people area, and then there’s a waiting area and then a room for kind of appraising or looking at items. So if you kind of calculated that out, the actual square footage 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/22/10) that, quote, is retail would match the number of parking places proposed, and I think Roger wants to say something. ROGER BROWN MR. BROWN-To your comment, with the studio with the school. As we noted before, that it would be after hours. Usually the taekwondo studios or karate classes would attend after five o’clock and we would be closed at that time. So we’d have ample parking space with the 18, and most of the time, again, as a student myself and a teacher, that most of the time the parents drop their kids off and it’s, you know, an hour or an hour and a half class. They come back, pick them up. Most of the parents do not stay and watch the whole time. So you’d have a lot of free spots for that area. So it wouldn’t be, you know, you’d have 20 people at one time. MR. URRICO-They would have access in and out? MR. BROWN-Yes, sir. So they’d have access in and out, drop their students off and then come back and pick them up. MR. KUHL-The parking area is going to be crushed stone? MR. DOBY-No, sir. It has nominally a five percent pitch following Montray Road, five percent going towards Montray. So with that slope, we’d want it to be asphalt surface. MR. KUHL-That’s my question. How are you going to designate your parking spaces on asphalt, but it’s going to be paved. MR. DOBY-Yes. Paint on stone doesn’t work too well. MR. GARRAND-What do you propose doing with all the stormwater? This size building and this parking area is going to generate a considerable amount of stormwater relative to what’s there now. Now you have a lot of trees that mitigate that. So what’s the actual plan? MR. DOBY-We have about a net increase of impervious around 10,000 square feet, and, yes, we’ll lose a lot of the pine there, down in the back. There still will be, right now there’s a fair amount of slope on the site, with no management. So it is running down towards the Home Depot. Well, what we propose is, along the low side of the parking, a wing swale to capture it on the perimeter into a series of catch basins, and I’ve got a good sized drywell in the middle of the parking. Then roof leaders from the gutters for the building. The north side will feed into that drywell that’s in the parking area. The south side will feed into our lower catch basin, which ultimately discharge into a grassed retention basin with a drywell in the base of that, with the theory being try and get it into the ground as quick as we can, because we recognize to the east side we have that good size retaining wall for Home Depot which obviously we don’t want to direct any water to that for erosion and any future problems. MR. GARRAND-That’s kind of what I’m worried about is you get one of these 10, 50 year storms in here, and you get everything flowing down that way, you might cause an impact on their landscape there. MR. DOBY-Right, and I believe your engineer asked us to beef it up, if you will, to the 100 year storm, which we designed to the 50 year. The 100 year is an additional half a foot of rain. I looked at that real quick yesterday, and we can meet that without a whole tremendous effort by deepening the basin another foot. So we’d go from 18 inches of depth to two and a half feet, just basically drop the drywell down, and we’re probably going to put some more stone trench in it, just as an extra infiltration area, and I’m quite confident that we’ll be able to work that through to where we have zero runoff out of that basin. Everything will be infiltrated through it. MR. UNDERWOOD-All the parking that’s behind where you are now, and that the other businesses there, I guess you’ve got a pizza place next door and the mattress store, and Subway is there, too. Was any thought given to tie into their parking and having it come out onto that road in back? Or that would probably impact all your wastewater, your drywells and all that for the stormwater runoff, I would imagine, but it kind of jumps up onto your property. You’ve got a pretty big hill there to climb. MR. OBORNE-That’s something that I looked at during my Site Plan Review, having been out on the site, and it’s like, I don’t even see how they could put an interconnect in there, without using spaces. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/22/10) MR. UNDERWOOD-Plus that would generate a lot of traffic on your property and if you’re going to be tight with parking, you’re not going to want more people zooming through, taking the short cut. MR. WESSLING-We’re considerably raising that grade. So it would be a steep drop for that. MR. GARRAND-Another question. You have sewers out on Route 9. Has the Board of Health said anything about, or asked you guys to tie into the existing sewer there, or? MR. WESSLING-We’re not in the district, so it’s on the other side of the five lane road, unfortunately, if it was accessible. The only sewer is by the Wal-Mart, and there’s none on our side or on Montray there is (lost words) but it’s not as easily accessible (lost words) under five lanes (lost words). MR. UNDERWOOD-Plus you’d have to pump all the way up hill and across to get there, which that would be tough to do, too, in a power outage. MR. OBORNE-You’d have to be an out of district user, or tie into the system with the approval of the Town Board, at this point. MRS. JENKIN-So, the slope concerned me when I was driving there, but you’re going to build everything up, and then you’ll have a slope coming down to the lower parking lot, with a retaining wall. MR. DOBY-That’s correct. MRS. JENKIN-Will the, the upper parking lot will be fairly flat, will it, or will it still be sloping? MR. DOBY-The trouble is, Mrs. Jenkin, is Montray Road comes down nominally at 10%, and we’re trying to design for good practice to five percent for our parking lot. So we’re chasing grade, and we’re building our site up with a retaining wall on the low side, and then, particularly on the lower parking area by the karate studio, that comes up six feet or something above existing grade, the retaining wall, or we don’t have a retaining wall on that back side. We can do it with fill and taper the fill down to our little pond area. So it’s a fairly extensive site work. There’s no question about it, but it’ll look like it’s elevated above Montray Road. So we really need to design to five percent. MRS. JENKIN-So it still will be sloping? MR. DOBY-That’s correct, or else we’d be tremendous retaining walls. I think the standard for sidewalks or something for handicap accessible is five percent without a railing. So that’s what we tried to design to. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. How high is this retaining wall? MR. DOBY-The highest point, I believe, is just north of the septic tank. Excuse me, it’s just above the distribution box of the septic, right where I say segmental retaining wall. I’m at finished grade on the parking lot is 191, and existing grade is 185. So six feet, and that’s why we show a wooden guardrail there to keep anybody from driving off and causing trouble. MRS. JENKIN-That’s a good idea. MR. UNDERWOOD-Any other questions from you guys at this point? All right. I’ll open the public hearing up. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on the matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-Any correspondence, Roy? MR. URRICO-I didn’t notice any correspondence. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. All right, I think I’ll, unless you guys want to add anything else, I think everybody recognizes the topography drops off precipitously, and as far as the history of the area there, when Northway mall first went in, you know, that was just a big hole in the ground. It was basically a wetland that got dumped, a million dump truck loads worth of whatever, everything in Town got thrown in there, and I think a lot of us were on the Board, Roy and I were on the Board when Home Depot got done, and the huge, monster retaining walls went up, and some of them fell down, you know, so everybody recognizes that it’s not an easy thing to deal with, but it seems to me like if you’re going to keep everything down to the 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/22/10) minimum slope, and five percent, which that would make sense to accomplish what you’re trying to do, as far as the absorption fields and all that in the back, to get rid of the stormwater runoff and things. The septic, to me, doesn’t seem like it’s a big deal, because you’re not going to generate that much. Day to day business is going to be minimal if any, and after hours when the taekwondo is in there, that’s going to be probably minimal, too, because kids are paying for their time at class. They’re supposed to go to the bathroom before they get there, not during class. If everybody looks at the Travel Corridor Overlay, I think it’s a little bit better than what you’re in right now as far as the store right now. It’s maybe five feet more or four and a half feet or something like that. The difference, and the other major difference is that, everybody recognizes the Travel Corridor Overlay is in case they want to expand the highway at some point in the future, but Route 9, I think is pretty set as what it’s ever going to be. I don’t think it’s ever going to get wider than what it is. They’ve grabbed as much as they could over the years. If sidewalks ever go in on your side over there, I think that that could easily be accommodated, you know, on that side, all the way up through that corridor there. The only problem they’re going to run into is when they get down by the mall there, coming up the hill there, where it’s built into the hill, but as far as, I don’t think we’d be looking at an issue with traffic going over the sidewalks to access the driveway, because you’re going to be around the corner on that one, too. MR. OBORNE-Yes, we wouldn’t want that. MR. UNDERWOOD-The setback relief on the property, I mean, everybody recognizes it’s a pretty narrow patch down through there, and the building, to me, looks like you’re making it about as minimal as you can make it. Thirty feet wide’s not that wide for any commercial building. I think you’d be hard pressed to find one in Town that’s that narrow anywhere. The parking space requirements, I think under normal circumstances, you know, we’ve got, we’ve raised the issue before with parking that we’ve got too much parking in some parts of Town, i.e. like K-Mart parking lot, you know, where you could accommodate hordes of people, and you never see more than one-tenth of it ever being used, even at Christmas, and as far as your business goes, I think daytime use, you know, it’s only going to be, probably at the most, five or six cars out there, including your own, you know, in the mix at any given time, because the nature of the business is people come and people go. It’s not like they stay there for hours perusing the merchandise like they do across the road at Wal-Mart. As far as the parking space size and the relief requested for the width of that, you know, that’s a suggested width that we have now, and I don’t know what the basis for that is going forward, if cars are going to get narrower, or we’re all going to be driving smart cars. MR. OBORNE-Just to let you know that when the Zoning Code was changed, the original Code, the 2002 Code, stated 18 feet in length, and for some reason 20 feet got put into the Code, and that was an oversight. That’s going to be reverted back here in the near future. MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s going to get revised again. MR. OBORNE-Down to 18. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. MEYER-Actually, Keith corrected this last night. The width is correct. It doesn’t need the variance for that. MR. OBORNE-Yes, and I think, you know, my notes state that it’s irrelevant at this point. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure, and I think the Planning Board, in their summary although it was brief and we didn’t hear the gist of it all, they thought it was something that was reasonable and could be worked out. It wasn’t any major big deal either. So, as far as that goes, I don’t know what you guys want to do, or if you have any suggestions or you think there’s something, feasible alternatives that could be suggested, but it seems to be a pretty thorough plan, and like you put some time and effort into it so you didn’t have to come back 15 times, like some people that come in here. Do you guys have anything you want to add? Otherwise I’m going to poll you guys, see what you think about it. MR. KUHL-The only thing, I don’t understand why everybody on that corridor just doesn’t tie into the sewer? I thought that was the reason for a sewer line. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think it’s partially because if you made everybody do it, you’d have to like either dig a great big trench across the busy Route 9, so that could hook up, the people, because it goes up the left hand side going north. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/22/10) MR. OBORNE-Ron, if they were in the sewer district, they would have to do that, or get relief from the Town Board. Typically my understanding, and we do have an expert in the audience on this, is that the Town Board grants relief every year for properties to not tie into it, and in some cases two years they give relief, to not tie into it, especially if it’s a property that doesn’t have an intensive use on it, and it’s a monetary issue also. MR. UNDERWOOD-Is the hotel up the road, is that hooked into it? MR. OBORNE-That’s an out of district user, right. MR. KUHL-Are you suggesting that the sewer district, or that sewer trunk line, was put in specifically for the amusement park, and nobody hooks? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think Wal-Mart was why it went in, as far as I remember. MR. OBORNE-Yes, and again, I’m not an expert on the sewer districts, and who’s tied into it. I don’t have that data at hand. MRS. JENKIN-But is there no one on that side that is tied into it? MR. OBORNE-I can’t answer that question. MR. WESSLING-I might get some of this wrong, but I did call to the sewer district person, Mike Shaw, to talk about it a little bit, but we’re out of district. Subway next to us is out of district. The building with the outdoor wood carving’s out. Sleep Inn, because they would have a lot of use, and Hutchins office did that application, but since they had a lot of use, they directional bored under Route 9. MRS. JENKIN-You can do that? MR. WESSLING-It is very costly, yes. MRS. JENKIN-It is costly? MR. WESSLING-Very costly, but maybe if they continued the sewer line down Montray and then brought it down Route 9 on that side, then it would be economically feasible for more people to hook in and hopefully that would come in the future, but for the time being, and since we’re such a minimal use, you know, obviously we wouldn’t want the tens of thousands to get under the road and hook in and have pumps that could fail and all that, just for a couple of bathrooms and some retail stores, but if it comes our way, we’d gladly hook up to it. MR. KUHL-I don’t agree with your comment about pumps that fail. I had a property for 15 years, and it failed once, and there was a red light and we got it replaced. The pumps are made to work, and I also realize you only have two bathrooms because you have to, and they’re limited use, and it’s a non-issue, but I mean, those pumps are made, and they do function. Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Rick? MR. GARRAND-I think they’ve put a lot of time into this, and they’re also going to put a lot of money into this, between the grading and all the other site work that’s going to have to be done here. I think they’ve done a pretty good job on the design. I just, I hope that the stormwater control is enough. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. John? MR. KOSKINAS-I like what I see. I like your thinking over there. I hope you set a standard for the immediate area. I used to live up on Wincrest Drive, years ago. I used to walk my dog down through there, before Home Depot, and I always hoped someone would set a good standard there, and I think you gentlemen have an opportunity to do that, and I hope you carry it through, just like it looks. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joan? MRS. JENKIN-Yes. I also feel that it is really improving the character of the neighborhood, because some of those old houses are not terribly wonderful, and they really don’t look good in a business district. So this building will. I also feel that, my feeling is that you should have as few parking places as possible, just because you want to keep the amount of concrete down as much as possible and keep the green space off. So I would, if you think that you are going to have that number of visitors, and people necessary there, if it can’t be made even a little smaller, 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/22/10) that would make me happier, but right now it looks like an extremely good project, and you’ve done all the engineering, and you have answered my questions, as far as slope and the runoff , and everything going down toward that property down below. It’s very steep, but anyway, I think that it’s a good project. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-Yes. I think that it would be a desirable change. I agree with the rest of the Board. It’s a good plan. It’s a good use of the property, I think. I had some reservations about the parking spaces, but this isn’t a K-Mart parking proposal, and I’d actually rather see less, as Joan was saying, too, so I’d be in favor of the project. MR. UNDERWOOD-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I agree. I think a really good design went into this project. I think even considering that you didn’t need all those parking spaces, and that actually benefits the community. I think that’s a great, great thing. I’d be in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-I have no problems with it, either. I think it’s well thought out, well engineered, and, you know, it’ll be a big success and wish you well with it. MR. WESSLING-Thank you very much. MR. UNDERWOOD-Does somebody want to do this one? MR. GARRAND-I will. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-2010 TOM WESSLING AND ROGER BROWN, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joan Jenkin: 10 Montray Road. Applicant proposes removal of two existing residential structures on a .52 acre parcel and construction of a 6,000 square foot building for retail business and karate studio. The relief required, 42 feet of Travel Corridor Overlay relief as per Section 179-4-030; 48.16 feet of west front setback relief and 26.17 feet of north front setback relief. Both setback requests as per 179-3-040. Also requesting nine feet of south rear setback relief as per 179-3-040, reduction of 11 spaces from the 29 space requirement for retail as per 179-4-090, and two feet of length relief for all 18 proposed parking spaces as per 179-4-090. In making the determination, the Board shall consider: Whether benefits can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. Given the size of this lot and the topography of this lot, we think the applicant has done a decent job of designing this retail space. To get a building of that size in there on that topography I think that the applicant has done the most logical thing. Will this produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood or character to nearby properties? No, we think it’s an improvement to the neighborhood. Taking out two old structures and replacing them with a new, modern structure, all with modern amenities, stormwater control and septic should be an improvement. Whether this request is substantial, given the magnitude of this project and the number of variances, this might be deemed substantial. Will this request have adverse physical or environmental effects on the neighborhood? Given the stormwater proposal and the information provided by the engineer at hand, from what we can tell, this won’t have any adverse environmental impacts on the neighborhood. Is this difficulty self-created? Because it’s the applicant wishing to come before us with this application to build this building, it may be deemed self-created. So I move we approve Area Variance No. 52-2010. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of September, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 53-2010 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED TOM WESSLING AND ROGER BROWN AGENT(S): JEFFREY R. MEYER, ESQ. OWNER(S): ESTATE OF CHARLES MOORE ZONING: CI LOCATION: 10 MONTRAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 50 SQ. FT. MONUMENT SIGN WITHIN THE 15 FT. MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR NEW COMMERCIAL USE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIGN SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: SP 59-2010; AV 52-2010 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: SEPTEMBER 8, 2010 LOT SIZE: 0.52 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.17- 1-50 SECTION: 140-6 JEFF MEYER & LUCAS DOBY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/22/10) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 53-2010, Tom Wessling and Roger Brown, Meeting Date: September 22, 2010 “Project Location: 10 Montray Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 50 sq. ft. monument sign within the 15 ft. minimum setback requirement for free standing signs. Relief Required: Applicant seeks 13.35 feet of setback relief for a proposed 50 square foot freestanding sign fronting on State Route 9. Criteria for considering a Sign 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 impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 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 topography of the lot makes it necessary to place the sign in the proposed location for exposure and for this reason feasible methods appear limited. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 13.35 feet or 89 percent relief may be considered severe 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 not be self created as lot topography appears to dictate the proposed location of the sign. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 59-10 6,000 +/- square retail structure Pending AV 52-10 Front, rear & travel corridor setbacks and parking space size relief Pending Staff comments: The proposed location of the sign is approximately 27 feet from the shoulder of State Route 9 and 37 feet from the shoulder of Montray Road. SEQR Status: Type Unlisted” MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Anything you want to tell us about the sign, or it’s pretty straightforward? MR. WESSLING-Yes, it’s pretty straightforward. The only thing this will add is, when the County reviewed this, they asked a question about, you know, are you still going to be able to see traffic both ways, and the answer is yes. The car that’s at the intersection will have a clear view of everything they need. MR. UNDERWOOD-And there are some of those in Town where you pull up to the intersection, you go like, I guess I’ll just take my chances. MR. WESSLING-This isn’t the case. There are enough limitations already to making a left out of there. MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, you’re well back. MR. KOSKINAS-What other signage do you anticipate for the enterprise? 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/22/10) MR. WESSLING-The only other signage is the stuff that’s shown on the building, on some of the other drawings, which I hope you guys have. I believe it was submitted with, attached to the buildings, yes. MR. OBORNE-They could actually, legally, have four separate wall signs. Because they’re on a corner, and there’s two businesses in there. MR. WESSLING-And we’re not proposing that. MR. UNDERWOOD-We don’t need the two signs like we gave on Home Depot down there, you know, the ones twelve feet apart. MRS. JENKIN-I guess I wonder why you can’t put it farther back, because you would still have good visibility if you did have it within the 15 foot setback, wouldn’t you? Because you would have it closer to the building, but it would still have access to Route 9 and also to Montray on the corner. MR. WESSLING-But let me clarify the location, because we show it on here. This first pink marker there is the location of the edge of the sign that’s closest to the road. The existing poles are actually here and here. So we’ve actually backed it up, but as you look at the survey map there, what happens on the corner is the State right of way then cuts here like that. Actually this pole would be on the State right of way. So the setback is actually more extreme because of hw that State right of way cuts the corner there, but the physical distance from the road is further than most any sign. That’s, what was that, 15 feet was the physical from that pole. So it’s actually 15 feet off the road, but the setback is relative to the right of way, which hugs the corner there, and kind of makes that look like an extreme setback, but as you look at the location and what’s here, it’s actually behind the utility poles already, and it’s really out of the area, you know, it’s really set back off the road considerably, and like I said, further than the utility poles, and this is more littered with utility poles here, and actually the sign would be a nice looking sign, and it would be considerably set back there. MRS. JENKIN-So if I understand correctly, the pole you see right, the sign will be behind that pole? MR. WESSLING-That’s where it’ll start, and then it’ll go further from the road from there. MRS. JENKIN-No, the main utility pole, the big one. MR. WESSLING-Here’s the main utility pole and here’s where our sign starts. So we’re behind the utility poles, yes. MRS. JENKIN-So it’ll be behind the front utility pole as well? MR. WESSLING-Yes, it’ll be further from the road. MR. UNDERWOOD-Kind of in line with that big pine tree with the carving on it down there, now, almost. MR. WESSLING-Yes. MRS. JENKIN-All right. Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Any other questions you guys have? Okay. I’ll open the public hearing, I guess. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on the matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-Any commentary, Roy? MR. URRICO-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. What do you guys think? Is there any problem you guys have with this one? I mean, I guess you could move it back two feet more, but, I mean, is that really going to accomplish anything by doing that? I think, in general, if you look at the corridor there, it’s going to be set back further than most signs, and we’ve gotten into other issues, not so much here, but as we go further up, and when we get above the miracle mile there, we had some that were, you know, like way closer to the road than this. 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/22/10) MRS. JENKIN-Well, that’s true, but we’re still trying to improve things. We’re not trying to compare them with what they are now. MR. KOSKINAS-But in fairness, these gentlemen have, if you look at the landscape plan, I hope you do this, the landscape really does the things around the sign that we would look for. It’s pretty robust. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. We’ve got to do SEQRA on this one. MR. OBORNE-Yes, the Short Form is fine. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. They gave us the Short Form with their packet, right? Yes. Okay. I’ll go through the Short Environmental Assessment Form. Again, the project information is all on the form that they submitted, and project applicants are Tom Wessling and Roger Brown, for R & T Antiques, and the project location is Queensbury in the Town of Warren, and it’s, again 10 Montray Road, the corner of Montray and New York State Route 9. In describing the project briefly, the placement of a sign to accompany the construction of the new retail building which encompasses both their current business and the karate studio, professional offices and/or permitted uses. The sign will be in the front on Route 9. Parking and setback variances will be required in the back, but that, we’ve already granted the relief for those. We’re just talking about the sign here. As far as, does the aspect of the action have a currently valid permit or approval. There currently is no sign on the premises where they’re proposing to place the sign, but, and as a result of the proposed action, will the existing permit approval require modification? I don’t believe so. They submitted what relief was necessary here, and that’s what we’re going to be granting them, as far as the process goes. Does the action exceed any threshold as far as we’re concerned? It apparently does extend into the corridor that’s provided, the Travel Corridor Overlay, but as far as, it has been identified the amount of relief that’s being requested is minimal and it’s less than relief than for almost every other sign along the corridor there, I think, with the exception of maybe one or two that are set back the proper distance. The hotel up the road I think is at proper distance and I think also the restaurant just up the road also. As far as the project having an impact on the environmental characteristics that cause the establishment of a CEA, I don’t think we’re dealing with that here, because we’re on a relatively busy commercial corridor. So I don’t think that that’s going to be a problem, and as far as any environmental impacts as far as the sign goes, I don’t believe there are any. I think the traffic issues have been dealt with, and it’s set back for a reasonable distance so that any traffic exiting Montray Road would be able to see the flow of traffic coming from the north or the south at that point in time. So, based upon the analysis having been done, I would give it a Negative Declaration. MOTION THAT BASED UPON THE ANALYSIS HAVING BEEN DONE, I WOULD GIVE THE SIGN VARIANCE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: 10 Montray Road. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of September, 2010 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MS. HEMINGWAY-You need to close the public hearing. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I’ll close the public hearing. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-Then I’m going to make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 53-2010 TOM WESSLING AND ROGER BROWN, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: 10 Montray Road. They’re proposing construction of a 50 square foot monument sign within the 15 foot minimum setback requirement for freestanding signs, and they’re seeking 13.35 feet of setback relief for a proposed 50 square foot freestanding sign fronting on State Route 9. As far 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/22/10) as undesirable change, we feel that the sign will be, because of the nature of it being a monument sign, it’s not going to be a detriment to the neighborhood. The topography of the lot makes it necessary to place the sign in the proposed location for proper exposure of the business and most businesses require signage to be identified by passing traffic, and whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district, the nature of the sign as proposed seems to be very adequate for their needs, as far as advertising the business, and also with the addition of the shrubbery and vegetation it’s going to look quite nice, and whether the alleged difficulty is self- created, the difficulty may not be self-created as the lot topographically appears to dictate the proposed location of the sign. So I would move for its approval. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of September, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re all set. MR. WESSLING-Thank you very much. MR. UNDERWOOD-Good luck with it. MR. URRICO-Do you want any of these plans? On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, James Underwood 35