Loading...
2007-06-20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/07) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUNE 20, 2007 INDEX Area Variance No. 29-2007 Irish Bay Partners LLC c/o John Lefner 1. Tax Map No. 227.10-1-1, 2, 3 Area Variance No. 28-2007 Steven Greene 25. Tax Map No. 253.3-1-25 Notice of Appeal No. 2-2007 Warren Tire Service Center, Inc. 26. Tax Map No. 303.19-1-71 Area Variance No. 37-2007 Jeffrey Howard 26. Tax Map No. 296.7-1-10 Area Variance No. 38-2007 Brian and Vicki Warner 31. Tax Map No. 308.15-1-5 Area Variance No. 39-2007 Joseph and Clementina Soprano 34. Tax Map No. 296.14-1-49 Notice of Appeal No. 3-2007 Adirondack Girl Scouts 39. Tax Map No. 296.16-1-10 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 06/20/07) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUNE 20, 2007 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHARLES ABBATE, CHAIRMAN JAMES UNDERWOOD, SECRETARY ALLAN BRYANT CHARLES MC NULTY RICHARD GARRAND ROY URRICO JOAN JENKIN, ALTERNATE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN TOWN COUNSEL-FITZGERALD, MORRIS, BAKER FIRTH-MATT FULLER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. ABBATE-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals hearing dated 20 June 2007. Prior to setting this hearing in motion, I would like to acquaint you with the information that will familiarize you with the responsibilities of this Board, the mandated legal requirements we are guided by, and the procedures for a hearing before this Board. The function of the Zoning Board of Appeals is to listen to and consider all evidence that appears on the record, and may bear upon the issue we are deciding. The Zoning Board of Appeals can grant (or deny) two types of relief; interpretive and variance. In either case, this Board will affirm, reverse or modify the enforcement officer’s decision. In doing so, the Board will either permit or deny the requested relief. If the appeal is for an interpretation, this Board’s decision will be based on the Town of Queensbury zoning regulations. If the appeal is for a variance, this Board’s decision will be based on the standards of proof contained in NYS Town Law 267-b. Additionally, the Zoning Board of Appeals may only authorize the minimum variance necessary to relieve the applicant. Other than administrative items, public comments will be invited on each appeal, however, in the interest of time please be crisp, organized and limit your comments to only the facts and information given this evening. On opening the public hearing the public will be allowed a maximum of 5 minutes to comment on a specific appeal. The purpose of this time limitation is to provide each member of the public an opportunity to be heard, and also to limit the length of the hearing to a reasonable time frame. All questions from the appellant and the public will be addressed only to this Board. All dialogues during the hearing will be between the appellant and this Board. Mr. Secretary, I’m going to request that you monitor the time. AREA VARIANCE NO. 29-2007 SEQRA TYPE: II IRISH BAY PARTNER LLC c/o JOHN LEFNER AGENT(S): JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ./LA GROUP OWNER(S): H.W. FISCHER INC. c/o HOWARD W. FISCHER, JR. ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: BEAN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES DEVELOPMENT OF A 20-LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION STRADDLING THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY/TOWN OF FORT ANN LINE WITH 6 PARCELS WITHIN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE, LOT WIDTH, AND MINIMUM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: IRISH BAY PARTNERS, LLC SUBDIVISION BP 95-053; BP 93-034; BP 92-022 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: APRIL 11, 2007 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 9 ACRES +/- TAX MAP NO. 27.10-1-1, 2, 3 SECTION: 179-5-050; 179-4-090; 179-4-030 JON LAPPER, KEVIN FRANK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s incorrect here on Staff. I kind of looked at this before. It’s actually the part that’s in Queensbury that we’re specifically talking about is 4.5 acres, and I believe there’s some encumbrance of wetlands. I believe it’s like .37 of that or something to that effect. We had previously heard this and we had passed it on to the Planning Board for some more information. I’m going to read Staff Notes, because they are different than they were last time, and I think that that will interject some change into this. MR. ABBATE-Okay. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/07) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 29-2007, Irish Bay Partner LLC c/o John Lefner, Meeting Date: June 20, 2007 Project Location: Bean Road Description of Proposed Project: The Applicant proposes a residential subdivision consisting of 20 residential lots, some of which will contain docks with a total acreage of 97.7 acres (in both Towns - Queensbury and Fort Ann). [The site was previously used by Fischer’s Marina.}” And still in use as Fischer’s Marina. “The property in the Town of Queensbury is subject to the zoning requirements of WR-1A District. The Applicant is requesting a subdivision of 6 lots in the Town of Queensbury—3 single Family building lots and 3 non-building lots. The property straddles the Town of Queensbury / Fort Ann boundary line (Warren and Washington Counties) and Matt Fuller, Esq., our Town Counsel for Planning and Zoning Work is representing for both communities. Approval is also required by the APA. Relief Required: - Lot numbers QB-1 QB-2 QB-3 QB-4 5 6 Proposed Lot Size 1.52 1.0 1.287 .096,.380,.21 (min required 1 acre) Proposed Lot Width 105 87 160 90+/-, 120, 50 (min required 150 ft) Proposed Shoreline 183 160 281 0, 90+/- , 0 (min required 150 ft) Proposed Road frontage 0 0 0 0,0,0 (min required 40 ft) Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: The proposal would allow the applicant to redevelop the existing commercial marina in to a residential subdivision and create parcels for sale. 2. Feasible alternatives: While there may be an opportunity to redesign the subdivision layout in order to keep the same number of lots while reconfiguring the Queensbury lots to be more compliant with Town Zoning, the result would likely be fewer lots in Queensbury; however, no such revision has been submitted or reviewed by the Town. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance: The cumulative requests for relief, when coupled with the quantities of relief requested from each regulation, the overall request may be interpreted as substantial when viewed against the Town Zoning requirements. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Anticipated impacts related to the change from a commercial marina to a 20 lot residential subdivision with a formal lake lot/beach house and a substantial marina for the homeowners are expected. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? A portion of the difficulty can be interpreted as self created, however, given the location of the Queensbury lands and the public highway, the necessity for road frontage relief has not been created by the applicant. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Building Permits 95-053, 93-04 and 92-022 – Fischer’s Marina Staff comments: 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/07) See attached Planning Board Resolution, as requested. SEQR Status: Should the Adirondack Park Agency classify this project as a Class A Regional project (which it appears as though they will) then it will become a Type II action with the Town of Queensbury. No determination from the Adirondack Park has been presented to the Town. Has the applicant requested or received a Jurisdictional Determination. It does not appear as though review of this project can be performed without first determining SEQR significance.” MR. UNDERWOOD-There was a motion to recommend that the Zoning Board not recommend the variances for lot widths and side setbacks regarding Irish Bay Partners, and that was Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by th Steven Traver. It was Duly adopted this 24 day of May, 2007 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Traver NOES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger ABSENT: Mr. Ford. I guess that’s about it for the moment. MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. Well, since you went all through that work, we just might as well hear the appeal for Area Variance No. 29-2007. What I will do, after we hear this appeal, then I’ll go through my administrative function I have to perform. We have the gentlemen before us. Would you be kind enough, please, to speak into the microphone, identify yourself and your relationship to this appeal, please. MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper, project attorney. Kevin Frank, from the LA Group, and John Lefner, to my left, on behalf of the Irish Bay Partnership. We were here last time, and then you referred us to the Planning Board and you read what the Planning Board’s recommendation was. I’m just going to step back to remind everybody, conceptually, what we’re talking about is an opportunity to remove a pre-existing, nonconforming commercial marina and to replace it with a residential subdivision. Most of the Staff Notes I think are pretty straightforward, but we disagree with their statement that there might be more impacts with the 20 lot subdivision, which is actually only 17 house lots, but compared to the Marina, because we think that traffic, noise, visual impact of the existing marina far exceeds what would be a residential development of that size, and we’ll get into that in a few minutes, but what we submitted last time and reviewed with the Planning Board was what we considered a large number of somewhat technical variance requests because, for example, some of the lots that Jim just went through were undersized, but they’re not building lots because they’re not part of a back yard that would be on a house lot in Fort Ann. So we don’t see that that is a significant variance request, and in general the concept was that to justify the expense of buying this successful commercial marina and acquiring the lakefront lots and turning it into a residential subdivision, the applicant felt that they had to get three lakefront lots to justify the investment. After we met with the Planning Board and heard their recommendations, we’ve been talking about it for the last couple of weeks, and based upon what you’ve said at the last meeting, and what the Planning Board said, we’re here to withdraw all of the variance requests except for one, which is the lack of frontage on a Town highway, and as the Staff Notes pointed out, that’s because the Town highway, the highway is actually in Fort Ann rather than in the Town of Queensbury. In order to reconfigure the lots, as Staff just mentioned as well in the notes, we would have to lose a lot in Queensbury, excuse me, lose a waterfront lot in Queensbury. So we would still have three lots in Queensbury, but to make those three lots conforming in every respect, except to have road frontage on a Town road, we would only have two lakefront lots and one non-lakefront lot. In terms of the density, I know that that came up last time. We have four and a half acres, approximately, in Queensbury. So there could be four homes, and what we’re talking about is three homes. So the density is less than what would be maxed out, what would be allowed on the Queensbury side of the project. We hope that what we present will be what you consider the minimum variance that you can grant, because of course that’s your charge under Town law. We think it’s far more minimal than what we started with, since we’re only seeking one variance, but at this point I’m going to ask Kevin to just go through the plan that we’ve proposed initially with all of the variances, and our revised plan, which only requires one variance. MR. FRANK-Thank you, Jon. Just to refresh folks’ memory as to what was before you last time, there are six lots proposed in the Town of Queensbury, three building lots. You can see where the houses were located, Queensbury One, Two, and Three. There are two non-building lots, and the last lot was to be the road, private road that was to be owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association. What you see in pink, on top of the previously proposed layout plan, are the existing structures that are present at 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/07) Fischer’s Marina at this point, and, Craig, if I could ask you, please, if you could just, we’ve got a few photographs here, just so folks who may not be as familiar with this site, just to give you a flavor for what the existing character is. This first slide is looking down Pilot Knob Road. From the north, on the left hand side, you can see the open field area proposed for the community wastewater system, and just out of the photograph, on the right hand side, is the main shop building, located here partially within Queensbury. Next one, please, Craig. What you see in this photograph are the barns that are in the very northeastern portion of the project site, in Fort Ann. Next slide, please, Craig, and there are a couple of smaller barns associated with that. Next slide, please. The interior, a shot of the interior of these barns. Basically storage of boat parts and all the by-products that go along with running a marina. Next slide, please. Again, another shot of the interior of those barns. They’re basically used for storage at this point. That’s the main shop building, which is the large building located here, partially located within the Town of Queensbury. A couple of shots of the interior of the shop. Next slide, please. These are boat repair, boat cleaning. This is the building referred to as the lean-to, which is entirely within the Town of Queensbury, primarily used for boat storage. Again, just a shot of the interior of that building. That’s the existing single family residence and detached garage, located in this portion of the project site, and these are within Fort Ann. This is a view to the marina office or the commercial aspect, the view from the lakeside looking up at the back. This area in the right hand side of the photograph is the crushed stone parking area or access located in here. Next slide, please. Just a shot of the interior. This is the boat storage building located towards the southern property boundary. View out towards the docks approximately from this location. The shed’s located in the very southwestern corner, interior of that. You can’t see in the back very clearly but that’s a 3,000 gallon gasoline tank, and a 500 gallon septic pump out tank that was in the foreground of that shot. These next three photographs are really just to respond to some comments that we heard from the public and also from the Board in the previous meeting, regarding the character of the homes that would be built in Queensbury. These were part of the application, and they’re merely, really just character sketches to give you a feel of the exterior character of the buildings. I apologize for the quality of that was not the best, and then the last one. Generally those are the type of houses we’re looking at, from an architectural standpoint. Again, these pink buildings reflecting the existing development that’s on the site. As Jon mentioned, we’ve taken to heart your comments in previous meeting, as well as those of the Planning Board. There were concerns about the density of the buildings, the suitability of the site as it is configured to support this layout. You’ll see the Town and County line makes this a very narrow strip of land within the Town of Queensbury. The previous proposal was to get lake frontage for all three of these homes by creating the lots as you see configured here, long narrow lots. Minimum lot frontage was an issue. We took that to heart and we’ve come up with a re-design, as Jon mentioned that results in still having three lots in Queensbury, but only two of those three being lakefront lots, and I’ll hand out copies to the Board now. Let me just have you take a look at them before I start describing them. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thanks. MR. FRANK-The plan that I gave you shows the portion of the project that’s west of Pilot Knob Road. Nothing’s proposed to be changed on this side of Pilot Knob Road. These are lands of the Town of Fort Ann. You’ll see how we re-configured the three lots in Queensbury. You’ll also see in the upper left hand side of this drawing, there is a table that summarizes the lot size, average width, and shoreline frontage for each of these three lots in Queensbury. Lot sizes are 1.29, 1.48 acres, and 1.14 acres for Lots QB-1, 2, 3, respectively. Average width, you’ll see that we meet the requirements now, with a range of 192 feet is the maximum of QB-1, and to 157 on QB-3. Shoreline frontage, QB- 1 is (lost word) lakeshore lot. QB-2 and QB-3 have lake frontage of 214 feet and 215 feet respectively. We still are proposing a lot QB-4, which is part of Lot FA-4, and this is a lot that will be part of the same lot as FA-4, but you’ll see we’re still below the one acre. So we still will need an Area Variance for that non-building lot. On this lot, we would spell out on the drawing that that is to be a non-building lot. There’s no other structures proposed within Queensbury besides the three single family homes as they’re shown on Lots QB-1, QB-2, and QB-3. The access has been revised. We’ve previously proposed a Homeowners Association owned and maintained roadway. That would have required a separate lot. Right now we’re just proposing this to be a shared driveway. Obviously there are going to be easements required over some neighbor’s properties to gain access to QB-2, QB-3, and QB-1 for that matter. Again, the variance for the required frontage on a public road is still required. That’s what we are proposing, as opposed to what we had presented to you two months ago. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/07) MR. UNDERWOOD-Are you still proposing boathouses on all three of those lots? MR. FRANK-Right now we still are contemplating, we still show three lots in that area. We were focused more on the lot configuration, location of the buildings, realizing there probably are going to be some variance issues associated with the docks, but as per Staff’s recommendations, we’re tackling the issues of the building lots first and their variances, as they pertain to the subdivision, prior to getting into the issues of the dock. MR. UNDERWOOD-Because on QB-3 I think you’re going to be running into difficulties with your depths there. I mean, you’re kind of up the creek there, so to speak. MR. LAPPER-That would have to be carefully looked at, but the concept is to have the three docks for each of those three building lots. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Have you concluded, temporarily, your? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Good. Any members of the Board have any questions for the appellant? Mr. Bryant, please. MR. BRYANT-This new plan that you’ve presented tonight, you didn’t present this to the Planning Board? MR. LAPPER-No, this is our reaction to what we heard at the ZBA meeting and at the Planning Board, at their meeting. They recommended against the average lot width variance, and against the side setback. So we wanted to seek a way to remove those variances from being requested, and that’s what, we just came up with this. MR. BRYANT-Well, you see all the Board members are really at a disadvantage because we didn’t get the Planning Board minutes in our package. Did anybody get them? We got the resolution, but we didn’t get the minutes. So we don’t really know what. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, the minutes are there. MR. BRYANT-I went through it, I didn’t see them. MR. ABBATE-You didn’t get a copy? MR. BRYANT-No. The calculation of Queensbury Lot One and Three, you took into consideration the wetlands? MR. FRANK-Yes. From an overall density standpoint, we’ve always subtracted out the area. MR. BRYANT-So my question is, Lot Number Three, you have 1.14 acres. That’s after the subtraction of the wetlands? MR. FRANK-I believe it is, but I did not design it. So I’d have to get confirmation on that. MR. BRYANT-It’s going to make a big difference. MR. LAPPER-Let me just go into that, because the issue would be that, in Queensbury there are 4.5 acres. So you take the wetlands off at the top of that, and we’re still only seeking three building lots. So there’s no issue with density. I mean, we’re far in excess of three acres, even after taking off that little wetland. MR. BRYANT-Well, there might not be an issue with density, but if the lot, after deducting the wetlands, is less than one acre, than there’s an issue with lot size. MR. FRANK-If at all necessary, I see your point. That’s a 1.14 acre lot. The adjoining lot, QB-2, is well in excess of the minimum one acre, 1.4 acres. It would be a matter of adjusting that lot line to compensate for any loss of area. MR. BRYANT-I was just questioning the calculation. That’s all. MR. BROWN-Mr. Bryant, maybe I could clear it up for you. I guess I’d probably disagree with both of you. What you do when you do a density calculation, you take the entire 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/07) acreage in the Town of Queensbury, 4.5ish acres, is that what you said? Subtract out the total wetlands, and come up with say four acres. So in the minimum, or the district minimum lot size is one acre, that would entitle you to four building lots in that district. That doesn’t mean that each lot has to have an acre of buildable land. You could have one of the lots contain entirely that half acre of wetland, and only have half an acre of buildable land, but because the land including the wetland is an acre, that’s acceptable. The density requirement just tells you how many lots you can have. With respect to the number of lots here, I still think this is a four lot subdivision in Queensbury. You have one parcel now. You may be making only three building lots, but it’s still four separate parcels that you’re making in Queensbury. So you still need the density for a four lot subdivision, and in looking at this table, on the plan that was just submitted, lot sizes are here, which is great. The only thing that’s missing is the total wetland area, so we can determine if there’s actually four buildable acres to start with. MR. UNDERWOOD-The other question I would have for you is, you know, the last time you came before us, I was concerned about the Fort Ann lots on the west side of the road there that are adjacent to the Queensbury property, and I don’t see that you’ve made any type of movement on those, as far as bringing those into conformance. I don’t know what the APA’s going to say. In other words, if we have a one acre standard for Waterfront Residential, I don’t think that the APA is going to look kindly on the fact that you’ve got such substandard size lots, and you’ve got them at .38, .51, .76, you know, the FA-4 one where you’ve got your communal usage, you know, in combination with the QB-4 one makes a little more sense to me, but I’m seeing the other three houses up there stacked up there. It kind of, you know, it kind of flies in the face of reality what you’ve done on our side of the line, just because you’re simply over on the other side of the line that you can ignore what we asked you last time. I understand where you’re coming from, as far as monetarily and the number and the density that you’re trying to achieve here. MR. LAPPER-I’m not going to make a monetary argument there. I mean, we’re just simply saying that that complies with what the rules are in Fort Ann, and they’re not waterfront lots, so to speak, because they’re not lakefront lots. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I mean, in essence they are waterfront lots because you’re requesting waterfront usage in the Town of Queensbury, which we asked you about last time also, and I think it does come into the formula that you consider, you know, the impact of those. MR. LAPPER-Well, we certainly have looked at it under the APA’s overall intensity guidelines for the whole project, and we meet their, you know, so the APA is looking at the overall project and how many building lots were allowed and Fort Ann has different rules than Queensbury, and certainly Queensbury has, we compromised this time significantly by giving up that waterfront lot to reduce the variance request, and we hope you’ll see it that way, but we left Fort Ann in compliance with the rules in Fort Ann. MR. URRICO-How will the docks at QB-4 be assigned? Is it going to be like a dock-a- monium or? MR. LAPPER-Well, everyone would have two slips, and it would be probably on a first come, first serve basis when the houses are sold. JOHN LEFNER MR. LEFNER-Well, we’re going to try to assign. This is John Lefner. We’re going to assign the docks per the lots. So a homeowner will know exactly what dock they’re entitled to with each lot, and we plan on having plenty of guest docking as well. MR. URRICO-Craig, would that need another variance? Because I thought docks have to be built on a legal building lot. MR. BROWN-Yes. I think the dock configuration, not only on the three single family lots on the north side of the stream, but the whole dock complex that’s going to be the common area is going to require several variances, yes. MRS. JENKIN-I have a question about those three docks on the north side. Are they going to still be three docks there? MR. LAPPER-Yes. Because the three houses in Queensbury would each have a dock, even though one of them doesn’t have frontage. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/07) MRS. JENKIN-How are they going to get to it, though? MR. LAPPER-They would have to have an easement across the, probably down the center property line to get to that dock, a pedestrian easement. MRS. JENKIN-Down the center? MR. LAPPER-Yes. So QB-1 would have a pedestrian easement to get to the water, to walk down. MRS. JENKIN-So it’s not a road. It would be just a? MR. LAPPER-Certainly not a road. MRS. JENKIN-Just a walk. MR. LAPPER-A path, yes. MRS. JENKIN-On the lot line? MR. LAPPER-Yes, probably five feet on each side of the lot line, at most. MR. GARRAND-I had a couple of quick questions. Since the configuration of this project has changed, where are the septics going to be for each individual lot, and also, when I was out there, QB-1 and QB-3 also had a bunch of trees near the shoreline. Are those going to be removed? MR. FRANK-The plan for wastewater disposal hasn’t changed under this option. What we had proposed before and what we are continuing to propose is a community wastewater disposal system up on this lot. We’ll need to change the collection system obviously to get the wastewater up to this area, but there will not be individual wastewater disposal systems on any of the Queensbury lots. MR. GARRAND-Will you be building like a central pump house? MR. FRANK-Similar to the utility plans that were submitted with the original application. There may be need for locating a small lift system or pump station somewhere in that area to get the wastewater up to that area. We located one on the previous version. I don’t have that with me. You should have that in your application, but it may mean a slight adjustment to where that was located, as compared to the original plan. MR. GARRAND-Okay, the trees along the shoreline, are they going to be removed for QB-1 and QB-2? MR. FRANK-That’s something that, no, we don’t anticipate having to do any tree removal. There are no trees. There may be some over the very western portion of QB- 1, but at this point, we just plan on maintaining the existing views from that part of the property. MR. LEFNER-I think one of the concerns that our neighbors had is that what do we do with this foliage along here? The lake’s not here. This is Bean Road where a lot of us live right here, so the lake is here. So they won’t be able to see through these trees. We’re not going to clear those trees, and then there is some wetlands in there and kind of a swale to take care of any water runoff. So I don’t want you to think that this is the lake here. This is where we’re looking, and there’s all houses along in here, along Bean Road, and that right there we don’t touch. MR. ABBATE-Anybody else have any questions? MR. BRYANT-I just have a question for Staff. MR. ABBATE-All right. Go ahead, Allan, please. MR. BRYANT-Well, you mention that there are going to be variances required with the docks. Why aren’t we doing that now, too? 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/07) MR. BROWN-Well, I think the approach here is to seek approval for the creation of the lots. If you don’t get the lots created, the issues of the dock variances aren’t even on the table. MR. BRYANT-Yes, but you may get the lots created and then the docks denied. MR. BROWN-That’s the risk they’re running, yes. MR. BRYANT-And that’s the risk you’re going to take? MR. LAPPER-Well, we have a pre-existing marina configuration with sufficient number of docks. We’re trying to make it better, but because this is an existing commercial marina, we’ve got plenty of slips right now. So we don’t see that as complicated. We understand that we need to, we’ll need to talk about it, but that’s of secondary importance to the subdivision. MR. UNDERWOOD-What is your total acreage up there where you’re going to have all your septic leach fields and all, your drainage. What is that total amount that you’re proposing? You’re basically going to stay within the field area that’s there now? MR. FRANK-Yes. The septic disposal system as it’s laid out on the plans that we provided as part of the application are on a portion of Lot FA-18, which are these lands here, as well as a small portion here, which will be under HOA, well, actually Transportation Corporation ownership. The total of these two parcels are approximately three and a third acres. So you’re looking at approximately two acres here and an acre here. MR. UNDERWOOD-Because my question for you is this. I mean, we just got a thing from, I know DOH’s requirements are one thing, but you know, it seems to me that, given the fact of what your soils are up there, and the fact that you have bedrock close to the surface, not necessarily down through the whole parcel, but in parts of that parcel, with adjacent wetlands there also, if you’re talking about very fast perc soils up in that zone up there, I think that one of the things, the recommendations is that you have a minimum amount per household that’s going to be receiving the wastewater from the 20 parcels, total. I would think it would be in your interest to take off some of the impact of what I think was construed as in the millions of gallons per year of effluent, possibly, you know, at the high end of it. I don’t understand why you’re not proposing your own septic down. If you’ve created more conforming lots in Queensbury, why our Queensbury lots aren’t going to have their own septic down on them and their own water down on their own lots, as you have on every other camp on the lake. MR. FRANK-I guess a couple of points to raise. For many environmental concerns. This is approximately 600 feet away from the lake. Number One concern. Number Two, in terms of the soils there on the site, we performed deep hole test pits. We performed perc tests. They were submitted to the Park Agency. They shared some of the same concerns as you did, as far as the percolation rates. We went back out with the Park Agency about six weeks ago. They wanted to come out and experience first hand additional test pits, additional perc tests. They walked away happy. The APA’s happy. We have to make DOH happy. So if we can’t make them happy, t hen we have to go to an alternative plan, but right now the agencies that regulate wastewater disposal, including DEC, whom we had a pre-application meeting with, have not expressed concerns about using a centralized system at that location, and frankly, to put individual on site systems in proximity to the lake, from our standpoint, wouldn’t be good land planning. If we have an area available that’s suitable and can meet the needs and meet DOH requirements, can pass muster with the APA and DEC, we kind of see that as a no- brainer. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. ABBATE-All right. Do we have any other questions? MR. URRICO-Yes, I just want to sort of re-cap where we are. MR. ABBATE-Yes, please, Roy. MR. URRICO-So, right now you’re seeking variances for the Lots QB-1, QB-2, and QB-3, regarding minimum road frontage? MR. LAPPER-Right. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/07) MR. URRICO-There’s nothing on the table right now for QB-4? MR. LAPPER-Well, no. What Craig said is that he’s considering, QB-4 would be hooked to FA-4. It would be, you know, in one deed. It would be the Homeowners Association lot, and what we’re saying is that QB-4 would be restricted. That it would always have to be with FA-4, and it would not be a building lot a residential building lot, as a Homeowners Association lot, but Craig is saying that as he interprets the Ordinance, it would still be considered a lot. So technically that would have to receive a variance for being less than an acre, even though we think it’s mitigated by the fact that it’s not a building lot, and it’s hooked to another lot in Fort Ann. MR. URRICO-And the reason you need that is in order to get the docks? MR. LAPPER-No. The reason why we want to keep that as a Homeowners Association lot. MR. URRICO-The reason it needs to be a building lot. MR. LAPPER-No, it’s not a building lot. MR. URRICO-But it will be if it’s hooked into the Fort Ann lot? MR. LAPPER-No, it’s not a residential building lot. It’s just a Homeowners Association lot, and the docks are there now anyway, but the point is that when you talk about density and you talk about principal building per lot, there is no residential building on that lot. It’s just the accessory use of the Homeowners Association lot. MR. UNDERWOOD-What are you going to have a changing room or something down there on that lot, or just a small bathroom? MR. FRANK-What’s proposed now is you’re having a community center, which provides restrooms for folks, a changing room, etc., in association with the pool. We anticipate that a small portion of that building will be dedicated to water treatment, prior to distribution, because as you’ll recall from our last presentation, the wells for the site will be located in proximity to that area, but both the community center and pool that are shown and the community center and the pool are both located within Fort Ann. MR. UNDERWOOD-Are the wells going to be on the Queensbury side or on the Fort Ann side? MR. FRANK-I believe the Fort Ann side. MR. UNDERWOOD-And that’s going to be your supply for the whole project, all 20? MR. FRANK-That’s correct. MR. LEFNER-And I’d also like to add that presently the gravel driveway and parking area is right at the water’s edge. We’re going to take that parking area, shrink it considerably, and put it out on, just off of the Pilot Knob Road, which will allow all that green space from the parking lot and all the way to the water will act as a buffer to anything that goes into the lake, because it’ll be forever green space, nothing we can build on. Nothing we can do, other than to have somebody sit in the chair. MRS. JENKIN-QB-4 now is wooded, right? MR. LEFNER-No, it’s bare. MRS. JENKIN-Well, where does that creek come down? Doesn’t the creek come down? MR. LAPPER-It’s on the other side. MR. FRANK-QB-4 is what’s shown as QB-5, on the old plan. Right now the creek flows down through here, empties into this peninsula of the lake, for lack of a better term. This is where the boat storage building is. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/07) MR. FRANK-This is where the gas tank, pump out, port-a-pottie. Here’s the marina store. This area all in here is all gravel. This is all graveled, including the entrance from here, which is graveled. MRS. JENKIN-So then south of that is wooded? It looks like wetlands. MR. FRANK-Yes. Once you get behind the boat storage building in here, this is additional area of wetlands where the wooded area starts and continues off the property to the south. MRS. JENKIN-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-All right. Do we have any other questions for the appellant from members of the Board? All right. If not, then I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 29-2007, and would those wishing to be heard please raise your hand and I will recognize you and ask you come forward to the table. In the meantime gentlemen, if you would recuse yourselves, I would appreciate it. Do we have any members of the public who would like to be heard on Area Variance No. 29-2007. Would you be kind enough to raise your hand, please. Would you be kind enough, please, to tell us your name and where you reside. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador. I’m a resident in North Queensbury, in the vicinity of Dunham Bay. What I have here is a composite of all of the tax maps on the same scale, and what I’ve, the reason I’ve done this is that Warren County considers basically the waters of Lake George to be in the Town of Bolton, and therefore Bolton would have jurisdiction in that area. Then there’s this area of Queensbury here and then Fort Ann here. The other thing that I’ve shown here in dark is the road, and this, you see Bean Road here. I think Lot QB-1 has 77 feet of frontage on Bean Road. There should be no reason to get, are they not going to use Bean Road as an access to QB-1 right there? But more importantly, Mr. Chairman, you’re deviating from your own procedures when you allow the applicant to come here at this late date and submit all this new information that no one has had an opportunity to review and comment on. I, for instance, have not seen it, and I can’t tell you how many times I have witnessed you send applicants packing because they have done that. So I think you should, in the interest of fairness, adhere to your own procedures. Secondly, I gave you, before the meeting started, evidence that this major portion of this property, at least in the Town of Queensbury, is in the Lake George Park Commission Critical Environmental Area. Now that subject came up the first time you reviewed it, but it slid under the radar once again. This is very, very important, and it throws all new light on your review process, the fact that it’s in a Critical Environmental Area. Our Code addresses that. I don’t know that this procedure of segmenting the project and addressing, in a salami fashion, each of these little variance requirements, whether it be lot size or road access or whatever it is, I just don’t see how you can review a project that way. One impacts the other, and it’s just, it’s not fair to the applicant to go down the road with an expectation that they’re going to get one slice after another. That puts tremendous pressure on the Board. I don’t think it’s proper, least of all in a SEQRA process it’s not. So I would suggest that you table this application until the Planning Staff and your own Board has had the sufficient time to review these late submissions. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Salvador. I believe I said the lady was next, please. Yes, ma’am. Would you be kind enough to come to the table, and tell us who you are and where you reside, please. SUSAN WEBER MS. WEBER-I’m Susan Weber and I am at 50 Bean Road, and I’d just like to take a peek at the changed layout here. MR. ABBATE-By all means. MS. WEBER-Could I go next, so I have a chance to look at this? MR. ABBATE-If you wish. MR. UNDERWOOD-Certainly. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/07) MR. ABBATE-By all means. MS. WEBER-I’ll cede my time to this gentleman. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Sir, would you like to come up, please. Speak into the microphone, tell us who you are. HAL HALLIDAY MR. HALLIDAY-Good evening, gentlemen. My name is Hal Halliday. I live at 2599 Ridge Road, up in North Queensbury. I’ve lived there for 33 years. This is my first time in tonight to talk about this project, and the reason I’m here is I’ve been friends with the Fischer’s for a long time. I’ve been a fireman up there. I’m glad to hear that we’re going to keep our water site at this marina, should things change. I have to first of all tell you that, sitting at one of these meetings, I haven’t been here in a long time. I have never felt so much pressure in a room before my Town elected officials ever before. It’s very negative in here. I’m glad I’m not the applicant coming in tonight, because I would not feel like I was getting a fair share. It’s very negative in this room. It doesn’t sound to me like some people in this room are even considering what’s going on. It seems like they’ve already made up their mind and it’s over. I look at this that it’s 97 acres and they want to build 20 houses, and I know a lot of it’s in Fort Ann, but we’re talking about an average of five acres per house. In the Queensbury side, if I’m correct, it’s about nine acres with three homes. They could build four homes. I don’t think that it sounds that outrageous, as a citizen, for somebody to be coming in here like this. I’m going to ask, somebody read earlier, I believe Charles read that what your job is, to look at the facts. As one resident in the Town of Queensbury, I would like to see this project go through. I think it would make my neighborhood a nicer place, take all those steel buildings out of there, all the barns out of there. My son lives directly next to this property. I’m not representing him tonight, but I think that his property will go up in value if this project goes through. I don’t think they’re being outrageous with their plans, and they’ve already admitted that down the road they might have to get a variance for the docks or variance for something else. Right now they’re just asking for a variance for the road frontage. I’m proud of them for coming in here and asking you to do this before they do it. Other people in the Town of Queensbury put docks in, fill in lakefront property, build buildings that they call boats. I mean, these people are in front of you telling you what they want to do. I’m going to just ask you as one citizen to please listen to them, be fair, and be a little bit more open minded. Please don’t make up your minds before they get through the whole process. I think it’s a good project. I think we’ll get a lot of commercial traffic out of the way and I think it’s really going to look nice, from what I’ve seen, and if it wasn’t nice, believe me, I’d be in here telling you that also. So please listen to them and give them a fair shot. Okay. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Miss, would you be kind enough to come to the table, please, and tell us who you are. MS. WEBER-Sure. I’m Susan Weber. I live at 50 Bean Road. My family’s been there since my grandfather found this property in 1937 and built a house on the lake. I’m very luck to be there, and I’m very, very concerned with the degradation of the lake, and the quality of the water and excessive building that we see around the lake. I’m all in favor of the zoning regulations that limit, control and make development okay, but when you allow it, you make it safe for everybody, make it so it has a low impact on the lake, and that’s what we’re hoping will happen here. I am very glad that Mr. Lefner and his partner, and the developer’s consultants have changed this plan to address the concerns of the Board. They were also the concerns that my neighbors and I expressed to Mr. Lefner in the last couple of days, and the changes have been significant. The lots are more normal shaped. The sizes have been changed. The sizes of the houses are a little changed, and I really think the access roadway, the shared driveway change, is a great idea, and I think you should grant this variance, this one remaining variance, and let them go, continue on through the process. I know it’s a long and arduous process. It’s hard for them, it’s hard for all of us to go through this over and over with hearings, but this will make the project a fine project for the lake, and I’m hoping that you grant this variance, this last only variance they’re seeking here, so the project can go forward for further reviews and fine tuning and to make it a really lovely project for the lake, and for our neighborhood. Thank you very much. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Do we have anyone else in the public who’d like to be heard? Sir, would you please speak into the microphone, tell us who you are. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/07) DOUG SMITH MR. SMITH-My name is Doug Smith and I reside at 4 Bean Road, and I’m the third generation living within 500 feet of this project. My father and grandfather started, they’ve been established since 1938, and like I said, I’m the third generation. I am very, very concerned about the quality of the lake, the ecology, the impact that the project might have on the lake quality. I have had numerous discussions with Mr. Lefner. I am in full support of this project. I feel that he has paid a great deal of attention to the neighborhood, neighborhood concerns, and I feel as though he’s addressed all of my questions to my satisfaction, and I feel that the Board should grant this variance and I’m very much in favor of this project as well. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much, and I believe that gentleman in the back of the room, please. Speak into the microphone and tell us who you are. NICK IRACHI IRACHI-Hi. My name’s Nick Irachi. I’m the Fischer’s neighbor for about three weeks. I just have some concerns and I’d like to preface my conversation by saying I’m not against the project. This was forwarded to me very recently and I just came up today, drove 200 miles to be here. My main concern is runoffs, and particularly for selfish reasons, I’m worried about contaminants, further contaminants, going into the lake. The levels, the person that’s owned the house before me had applied for a dredging permit, which came through and he had engineering done and so forth, and apparently it’s not a natural occurrence that the levels have risen in that particular little bay. I have continued the dredging permit process, but there could be maintenance associated with this. So down the line I’m worried about investing this insane amount of money to begin with and then ten years from now having to do it all over again, not particularly with the Queensbury side stuff but with the Fort Ann side stuff, and I’m hoping that there is correspondence between the two, and again, I’m not against the project. I think it is going to be a nice project. That’s one of my concerns. Another concern is selfish again on my part. I’m right next to the Fischer’s and I actually don’t mind their boat storage building. It gives me sort of privacy there. I was hoping to urge John and whomever’s in charge to push the Clubhouse as far away from me as he could, obviously for selfish reasons. I don’t want to hear the noise levels increase. There’s very little noise, actually. They run a pretty good tight ship, you know, so that’s another concern that I had. The wells. It’s a common well system from what I’ve gathered, and I was wondering, with 21 or 22 houses on a common well, is there a chance that perhaps they could dry up my well? You know, or neighbors wells. It’s just a concern. The concentrated form of septic in one area, that troubles me as well. I’m sure they’ve done their homework like everybody else, but I wondered if it could contaminate the water in some way or if perhaps I’d get effluent flowing down. There’s a wetland between me and the Fischer’s, and, you know, maybe that might affect something. I don’t know if these are issues that you can take in here or in Planning, but like I said, I was just informed about this and had a brief time to look at this stuff. I’m not against it. They seem like good people, and I don’t want to spoil any of their plans, but for obvious reasons, I just paid a chunk of money for this property and I want to, you know, I want to maintain it. I don’t know if I’m the most affected by it, but the road that John proposes is already there. It’s a logging trail I guess now. It’s right in front of my property, and I know that the Smiths next door to me have had flooding issues with a home that was built across the street, and they’ve had less than desirable results dealing with Fort Ann. So the only thing I could urge you is that somehow there’s some correspondence between you and Fort Ann and try to make things, you know, how do you propose to do the runoff? MR. ABBATE-Okay. Now, here’s the problem. When we ask questions, because we’re a quasi judicial Board, everything must be on the record. So if you’re going to ask questions, what I would like you to do is ask the question and then you’ll have an opportunity to rebut anything that you’ve heard and then you’ll have an opportunity to answer his question. Please. MR. IRACHI-Okay. How do you propose to route the runoff. MR. ABBATE-Okay. That’s a question. Fine. MR. IRACHI-Also has, I’m sure engineering’s been done, but who would be responsible in such an event that there are wells drying up or, you know, I don’t really know the mechanics of it, and I don’t profess to, but I’m just curious. I guess that’s pretty much it. There’s a boat storage area there, and I thought that they were going to cease marine operations. Is that normal? I don’t know. That’s about it. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/07) MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. We appreciate that. Is there anyone else who’d like to be heard on Area Variance No. 29-2007? Yes, sir, please. BENJAMIN SMITH MR. SMITH-I’ll keep it brief, I promise. Seven years in the Navy kind of helps you do that. My name’s Benjamin Smith and I will be the fourth generation to Bean Road, as soon as my father hopefully gives it over to me. I want to bring up one point that I haven’t heard brought up tonight. I just got back myself, and I love the Lefners. They took care of me down in South Carolina. Beyond that, I came home recently and heard about this project. I want to just propose this one simple thing. They are local. They own property on Bean Road. Their partner also has grown up on Lake George. These are not people coming in from a foreign or a different State asking to do something very difficult. I’ve grown up with them, like I said, I know them. I’m very impressed by them and I’m very impressed by this plan. I’ve heard all your comments and concerns, and trust me, they are not, they don’t fall on deaf ears. These people understand what you’re talking about and they hear that. Trust me I know them. With that said, that’s all I wanted to say. Thank you very much. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Do we have anyone else who’d like to be heard on Area Variance No. 29-2007? I see no other hands raised, then we’re going to move on. MR. UNDERWOOD-I have two letters and they may want to answer some questions on them. MR. ABBATE-Yes, go ahead. th MR. UNDERWOOD-This one was received on June 19, “To Whom It May Concern: After viewing the plans for Irish Bay development, we are completely comfortable with the subdivision proposal. John Lefner has always taken the high road and done things in the best of taste, always taking into consideration the environmental impact. He has our vote of approval. Sincerely, Rita and Bob Whiteman” And the other one, this one was th also received on June 19, RE: Fischer’s Marina being sold to Irish Bay Partners, LLC and used for residential use “To the Town Board of Zoning Appeal: We are writing to ask that the Town of Queensbury approve the future plans to use the property of Fischer’s Marina for residential use. In 1961 my family bought a camp on the shoreline in Warner Bay, second property to the north of what is now Fischer’s Marina. At that time Fischer’s Marina was owned by the Ward family. Our family was not concerned with the closeness of the marina to our property, as the marina was small and boats were quieter. The marina was eventually sold to the Fischer family and they expanded the marina as the demand for boating steadily increased. In 1999 we renovated our camp into a full-time residence and live here all year. Warner Bay is a very small residential bay. From our dock to the adjacent western shoreline in front of Fischer’s Marina, it is a little over 300 feet in distance. Many boats come in for service (gas & toilet pump out) that are not docked there creating more boat traffic in this small bay. Boat noise is an annoying problem on busy weekend’s, which is largely created from boats leaving from and going to Fischer’s Marina. Many of these boats are noisy high speed oats that are brought in on a weekend, and have no regard for the people that live on this bay. A few of these boats would not pass the New York State sound restriction imposed on boats, but have a very small chance of being ticketed for the short period of time they are here. Another environmental problem created by the high boat usage in this bay is water clarity and silt build up. The bay is very shallow in front of the Marina, 4’ to 5’ on average. In the 1970’s when boat traffic was low we had a sandy bottom in front of our house between our dock and the dock to the south toward the Marina. It is now filled with 6” of mud that has been stirred up by boats over the years. During the week in the summer when boat traffic is light, we can see the bottom of the lake at the end of our dock which is about 5’ deep. On a busy summer weekend the bottom of the lake cannot be seen. Having Fischer’s Marina sold and used for residential use would only restore the bay’s environmental quality. We have reviewed the future original residential plans for the Fischer’s Marina and would recommend the following be considered for the land in the Queensbury District: 1) The proposed club house be removed from the plans even though all the new residents would have to approve and pay for its construction. this club house could create noise and partying. 2) The proposed community pool be removed from the plan for the same reason as above. This would create a safety and insurance issue. Most likely people that could afford these high priced homes could afford to build a pool in their own back yard. Also, these new residents would have access to the lake for swimming. 3) Limit the size of the largest three homes closest to the water, in the original six home Queensbury plan, to 4,000 sq. feet of living space, 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/07) which is quite a large house. We would appreciate your timely consideration of our thoughts on this matter. Sincerely, Roger Epworth Claire Epworth” That’s it. MR. ABBATE-All right. Gentlemen, you have an opportunity to address or rebut any of the information that you’ve heard this evening. MR. BROWN-Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I believe we have a correspondence from the Fire Department. Was that read in in April? MR. ABBATE-We’d be more than happy to read it into the record. Sure. MR. UNDERWOOD-This one is dated May 31, 2007, to Matt Fuller, RE: Irish Subdivision, “Dear Matt: Attached is a letter I received from the Pilot Knob Fire Department. As you will note they are requesting that a hydrant be installed. Would you please note t his for the record and forward on to the applicant from the Ft. Ann Planning Board. If there are any questions, please keep me posted. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, John Pettica, Jr.” And the second one is from John Pettica, Chairman of the Fort Ann Town Planning Board. “Dear John: The Pilot Knob Volunteer Firefighters Assoc., Inc. has benefited by having easy access to obtain water from Fischer’s Marina. We would like to continue to have access as the fire department takes on additional responsibilities of about 15 new structures being proposed for this parcel. We would propose having a dry hydrant installed near the road on the location. The Fire Department can provide specifications. Regards, Jeffery Lindsey, Chief, Pilot Knob Volunteer Firefighters Assoc., Inc.” That’s it. MR. ABBATE-That’s it? All right. Thank you very much. All right, gentlemen, you have an opportunity now to address or rebut any of the information you’ve heard this evening. You’ve heard this evening. MR. LAPPER-I guess I’m going to hand this over to Kevin, but in general most of the people who spoke acknowledged the reduced impacts on the area from less boat traffic, less car traffic, removing the boat buildings. Certainly we can add a dry hydrant for the benefit of the Fire Department, but I’d like to ask Kevin to address the stormwater issues. Right now there are no stormwater controls whatsoever on that facility, and of course this would be compliant. That would be another big plus, but let me have Kevin give you the details. MR. FRANK-To address Mr. Irachi’s concerns. From a stormwater perspective, what we’re proposing in Queensbury right now, in terms of buildings, roadways, pathways, is about half of what’s on the ground there right now. Right now there are no stormwater basins, infiltration areas, anything of those sort. Everything is either infiltrating into the ground or sheet flowing into the lake. The plan that was previously submitted with the old layout shows stormwater controls located throughout the property, and will be located in series. So it’ll go from one stormwater basin to another to another, polishing as it goes, prior to discharge at the low point. Eventually things are going to end up in the lake. We need to meet three jurisdictional requirements on stormwater controls, Town of Queensbury, Lake George Park Commission, and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. So we’ve got a lot of folks watching us as far as the stormwater management aspect of this project is concerned. In particular, in the area, we haven’t designed the whole system fully yet. We’ve identified areas where these things can happen, and you’ll see on the plan we’ve identified areas with circles and P’s. Those will be our stormwater ponds or our stormwater control areas. Again, those situated in series so it’s going from one pond to another to another, before discharge. The concern about moving the clubhouse to the north, that’s certainly something we can look at. Some of the constraints that we have, as you well know driving up and down Pilot Knob Road, especially once you get up around this curve area here, the sight distance aren’t that great. So when you’re pulling out of your driveway, I’m sure you’re hitting the gas pretty hard as you jump out. So in terms of the access for the parking for this area, once you get up in this area here, we’ve got somewhat limited sight distance. We’ve got a wetland area here to the north of the clubhouse and the pool, and another wetland here. We will take a look at pushing that to the north to see if that will work, to try and move it away from your property line. On the surface it looks like it might be feasible, but again with this wetland area here and a buffer off of there, as well as the sight distances for people pulling in and out of the parking that’s associated with it, that’s just a few of the things we have to deal with, when looking at that, but I’ll certainly bring that back to the office tomorrow and have the guys look at it and see if it’s feasible to be able to push that a little bit further to the north. The wells, you’re correct that it’ll be a central system. It’ll serve all the homes, and it will be located down here in this area. One of the things that we’re going to be required to do for approval of that, we’re going to 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/07) need to conduct a 72 hour pump test of that well. Constant pumping rate at the rate that we’re going to need to supply these homes. So for three days straight we’re going to be pumping whatever wells go in there. Oftentimes the Department of Health will require us to monitor wells that are nearby, and that’s something we can talk to you about as we go and set up this pump test. We may end up putting a well sensor down in your well to see how your well reacts. We fully anticipate that, the water that we’re going to be drawing out of here is really going to be lake water. I mean, we’re looking at shallow wells. We’re looking at having to do treatment because it is going to be coming somewhat from the lake, through the sand and gravel in between, and I don’t know if you’re in a shallow well situation or if you’re on a bedrock well, but if you’re on a bedrock well, then really we’re pulling out of two different pools of water. You’re pulling from down below and we’re pulling kind of out of the lake, but that’s something we’ll take into consideration as we go ahead and set up the pump test for that, the Department of Health is going to require. The septic system, like I said before, we’re located up in this area, and your house is sitting down in here. As the crow flies probably about 1,000 feet. MR. IRACHI-Yes, easy. MR. FRANK-But I understand your concerns. I mean, that’s where your water’s coming from and that’s. We talked about before, maybe not in this room, but with some other folks, there’s going to be pre-treatment, even before this stuff goes into the ground, there’s going to be a biological control system, or biological treatment system. So it’s not going to be just a straight septic tank into the leach field. So there will be some advanced treatment before that, and again, we’re going to require Department of Health approval, DEC approval, and they have already asked those questions, where are your neighbors’ wells, because we have a neighbor who’s got a well right about there. So that’s something that we’ll take into account as well as we move forward, not only with the folks here in Queensbury, but the other agencies that we’re dealing with, and again the driveway across, approximately across from where your house is located in this area here, again, we go back to the sight distance issue. We’ve got some vertical issues with the road. We’ve got some horizontal issues with the road, and really this is the best spot for it. I would imagine that, as far as entering and exiting, we’re probably looking at these two houses that are probably going to be going in and out from that location. I would venture a guess, well, this person may come in from here, but I think most people that are coming in to this portion of the site are going to utilize this road here, because it’s easier for them to get into, and I think those are most of the points that you raised. If I missed anything, let us know. MR. ABBATE-Do you have any other comments, Counselor? MR. LAPPER-I guess just one final comment, in terms of, it’s our view that the balancing test of the benefit to applicant versus the impact on the neighborhood, we think that this all in all will have a positive impact on the neighborhood, because of what we’re removing, not that the Fischer’s don’t run a very clean operation. They do. It’s just comparing a commercial operation with a lot of business on the weekends to what we’re proposing with the house lots. So we think that we’re really net positive here. We think that there’s, on the balancing test and also the practical difficulty test with the APA, that this is just a unique situation where, with the road access, it doesn’t make sense to put in a big road and have to treat stormwater to put in a Town road if we can just use a driveway and not have it have frontage on a Town road, because it’s just a unique situation where the road, Pilot Knob Road, is in the adjacent town. So we hope that you view that and the fact that the Lot Four is going to be attached to Fort Ann Lot Four, that that’s not a building lot, that that mitigates that, so we believe that these are now relatively minor variance requests. This is a pretty significant change. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. All right. This is classified, Mr. Secretary, I believe, as a Type II. So we’re not going to be concerned with that. So I’ll continue on here. I’m going to ask the members of this Board to offer their comments. I would like to inform the public that the comments offered by the members are directed to the Chairman, and the comments expressed by Board members to the Chairman are not open to debate. May I respectfully remind the members that precedence mandates that we concern ourselves with the evidence which appears on the record to support our conclusions, and the evidence relied upon should be specifically stated. Additionally any position you may take must be based on the regulatory review criteria of our laws and not simply on subjective preferences or not liking a project, and Board members are obligated to make decisions on reliable evidence contained in the record of the Board’s deliberations. I will now ask members to please offer their comments on Area Variance No. 29-2007. Mr. Bryant, please. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/07) MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome. MR. BRYANT-First of all, I want to congratulate the applicant on revising the drawings based on the original concerns of the Board. I do have some issues with the whole, not necessarily with the project, but the way the project is presented. First off, receiving this drawing at such a late date creates a number of problems. We sent this project to the Planning Board for their comment, and they haven’t seen this drawing. So whatever they’ve done in the past is irrelevant at this point. Secondly, we sent this project to the Planning Board for their comment, and we got, in return, a one sentence motion with no information. There are no minutes, Planning Board minutes, in our package. MR. BROWN-Mr. Bryant, the minutes were sent out under separate cover, previous to the Staff Notes that you got for tonight’s meeting. MR. BRYANT-Not for us. MR. BROWN-From the Planning Board, we sent them. MR. ABBATE-Well, let me explain something, gentlemen. Half the Board received them and the other half did not receive them. So apparently it did go out. MR. BROWN-I don’t believe they went out in the Staff Notes, they were under separate cover, back in May when the minutes were finished. MR. ABBATE-No, right. Well, the folks down here don’t have them and the folks up here do have them. MR. BRYANT-So, that being said, it’s really moot at this point. Because any comments they made during that meeting don’t apply to this drawing. MR. LAPPER-Well, we were directly responsive to what their comments were, and we eliminated the two variances that they didn’t recommend. MR. BRYANT-Well, I understand that, but I don’t see anything in black and white. I don’t know what their. MR. LAPPER-It’s black and white. MR. ABBATE-Wait a second now, please. I made it quite clear that when Board members make comments, the comments are offered to the Chairman, and they’re not going to be subject to debate. You’ll have an opportunity later on if you wish to extend, but not right now. Go ahead, Allan, please. MR. LAPPER-Certainly. MR. BRYANT-With regard to these new drawings that were presented tonight, I mean, the Staff Notes that we received in this package don’t even relate to these drawings, because Staff didn’t see them. So, you know, we don’t have that advantage point. th There were issues in the original Staff Notes, dated April 25, that we discussed in great detail, relevant to the drawings being based on the latest survey. I mean, is this drawing based on the latest survey? There was also a discussion about the wetlands, which, in our package is very small, and none of that has been addressed. There was also a discussion about pollutants and testing the site, which you touched on lightly during our last encounter, and then we see pictures on the screen with a giant gas tank with all kinds of junk in a barn that is two feet away from the lake. Do you follow my thinking on this? So, Mr. Chairman, you know, again, I appreciate the fact that the applicant has revised the plan based on the comments that this Board made, but I still feel as I did the last time that the Planning Board should give us positive input, that Staff should have the opportunity to look at these new drawings and provide their input, so that we’re all playing on the same playing field. That’s all I’m saying. The project is a good project, but I would like to see if this new plan negates all the Planning Board’s issues and how the Staff is going to approach this project, and then I can make an intelligent decision, and that’s where I’m at. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Underwood, please. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/07) MR. UNDERWOOD-You wouldn’t, by chance, have a copy of the Fort Ann zoning code book with you? MR. LAPPER-No, I didn’t bring it. MR. FULLER-Let me clarify for the record, there is no zoning in the Town of Fort Ann. MR. UNDERWOOD-There is no zoning in Fort Ann? MR. LAPPER-They have zoning ordinances, but not a code. MR. FULLER-That’s a good point. There’s no zoning applicable to lot sizes and things like that. There is a zoning code or zoning ordinance within the Lake George basin but it deals solely with commercial uses. MR. LAPPER-And there is a subdivision code in Fort Ann. MR. FULLER-And site plan. Somebody just said site plan. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. To go on with my commentary. I think it’s a grand improvement over what you’ve presented to us the first time, but I would have to echo also my associate’s comments that I think that it would have been nice to have had this ahead of time for Staff to look at. I think that in the interest of continuity here, we should defer our decision making process until the Planning Board has an opportunity to get back to us as to whether they think this is more reasonable. I think that my question sort of cuts right to the quick, and that is we do have a zoning code here in the Town of Queensbury, and I think that one of the things that we’ve tried to do through the years is in previous instances where we’ve dealt with other communities that have differing zoning codes, that we defer to the community that does have a zoning code ordinance because that is a tried and true document that does have great appeal for creating situations on the lake that are going to be positives and not negatives. I think there are still questions regarding the Fort Ann properties, and even though it’s not our jurisdictional place to comment on them, I think that it would be in the interest for Queensbury to be the lead on this project in totality. I think that there are some concerns, and it’s easy for us to dismiss them. I think that you’ve made great progress as far as bringing the lots into conformity, at least Number One, Number Two, and Number Three. However, you’re going to end up with two docks, or two boathouses down on one of those lots, and I don’t think that we’re going to buy into that, because we’ve never created a situation like that anywhere in the Town. I think that also in dismissing QB-4 and saying, well, we’re just going to throw that in with Fort Ann who has no rules whatsoever, I think that’s a big mistake on our part, too. I think that we need to make sure that the dockage that’s created in totality for the project is a reasonable number, and I think that, you know, you’ve come in before us previously and said that you’re going to have two slips for each one of those houses that’s going to be created, and you’re talking in total of 43 dock spaces, I believe is what the number is, and at that time I think that it’s still excessive compared to what we would allow in any other Waterfront Residential property lot in the Town. I think that segmenting it, so to speak, and removing the docks out of the quotient, as if somehow magically you’re going to get all those docks, is a mistake on your part. I mean, I don’t think it’s going to be a drawback if you get one. I think that previously I’ve made comments, Lakewood is just up the road, which straddles Fort Ann and Queensbury. Each person has one dock space, and I think that you’re stretching the imagination saying that, you know, we’re trading off a marina for two docks for each residence doesn’t quite swing with me yet. So I think that at this point in time, I don’t want to vote on this tonight. I’m very happy with what you’ve done so far, but I think that I want to see a total picture, including the docks. You can work on that before you submit it to the Planning Board, and then the Planning Board’s going to get back to us with their commentary. I’m happy with what you’ve done in Queensbury. I think it’s a step in the right direction, but I think that it’s unfair to you, it’s unfair to us to, it’s unfair most of all to the Critical Environmental Area of Lake George to ignore the fact that you could make things the best possible situation. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. McNulty, please. MR. MC NULTY-All right. I’ve been trying to focus on this. There’s always the temptation, when you’ve got a large project like this, to look at the whole thing and kind of react as though you’re being asked to approve the project, and that is not what we’re being asked to do tonight. We’re being asked, basically, as I understand it, to approve zero road frontage for three lots, or four lots if you count the stub end of Lot Four that is in the Town of Queensbury, period. Now, granted, we need to consider a little bit of 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/07) effect on the neighborhood, because that’s one of our obligations, and normally it might bother me that the approval is kind of being segmented, but in this case I feel I can see what’s coming, and I’m going to have no qualms about going one way now perhaps and saying no to the next or the one after that, or even the final variance request, if it doesn’t look good. I think that’s something I can do. So, based on that, getting back to the point that strikes me as we are being asked tonight, whether or not I would approve zero road frontage for these lots, in this case, I would say yes, I would approve it, that I can see the reason. There’s no Town road nearby, in the Town of Queensbury. There’s an adequate road that these will connect to. I see no problem with emergency vehicle access or whatever, and for this particular variance, I see no negative impact on the neighborhood of saying, okay, it’s okay to have those lots. So I’d be in favor. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Let’s see. Mr. Urrico, please. MR. URRICO-Yes. I agree with Mr. McNulty. I think, in retrospect, this Board probably made a mistake in sending this back to the Planning Board. We talk about due process all the time, and here we’re bouncing an applicant from Board to Board, in hopes of getting some approval, and to their credit, they took the information that the Planning Board gave them and they made changes to the plan that now require basically three variances or a variance for the minimum road frontage, which is a vast improvement over what we saw at the first meeting, and I think that’s a better plan than what we’ve seen. There may be more variances coming down, but this is what we’re faced with tonight, and I am bothered by the lateness of the application or at least the map, but I can understand why it happened. They could have very easily come here tonight and said this is what the Planning Board suggested, and here’s what we have in mind, but, no, they came with a plan. So they’re trying to cut some steps out and make it easier for us to make a decision. So, if that’s what’s on the table tonight, and that’s what we’re voting for, I’d be in favor of it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. Let’s see. Mr. Garrand, please. MR. GARRAND-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome. MR. GARRAND-Previously, cumulative requests for relief were what I would deem as significant, but when I look over the first question on the balancing test, whether benefit can be achieved by other means feasible, I think that’s just exactly what the applicant has done here. I’m considering only the proposed road frontage and the request for relief there. I think they came to us with a proposal that’s definitely feasible, and it looks a lot better than asking for variances on the lot width and shoreline and all that. Based on that, I would be in favor of this application. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much, and Mrs. Jenkin, please. MRS. JENKIN-Because it is our job to focus on the job that you’ve put in front of us, there’s a lot of other considerations to make. Personally, I think that the configuration of the lots is much, much better. That really, really had me concerned before when they were long and narrow. I think that’s a real, and so the road does impact on what you have done for the lots, too. So the road itself, I think that that is something that definitely will be to your advantage and also to the neighborhood around it, too, because it does protect the people, your neighbors, from, well, there isn’t a lot of traffic there, but there will be, it’s in between the two roads, north and south, which is good. I still have concerns about QB-4 and the amount of traffic that’s going to be there, and the amount of use that that’s going to get, with all the other homes, but that’s not the variance that’s in front of us. So as far as I am concerned, I would like to see also that the Planning Board saw these changes before we had a chance to vote on this tonight, but when it’s just the road, too, I would be in favor of granting that variance, and we just have to go through the rest of the process, I suppose. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Well, obvious, Counselor, if you’ve taken a tally, it would appear, tentatively appear, that there are four members of the Board, at the present time, who, if we only address the zero road frontage, would probably vote in favor of the appeal. I have concerns as well. No question about it, there is an improvement. You folks have made an improvement over the last presentation, no question about it. I would like to have seen more constructive, no, I would like to have seen constructive criticism. The Planning Board has issued a motion indicating that we should not approve it, but I would have preferred, and I would have been a heck of a lot happier with why, one, two, three, four, and that was not the case. So I was a little 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/07) disappointed there. The comments by Mr. Bryant, by another Board member, are relevant. There’s no question about it. The total plan was not submitted, at least this evening, to the Planning Board, but nonetheless, you have submitted a revised plan to us this evening, no question about that at all, and my initial reaction was going to be, well, let’s defer this to the Planning Board, and I waited until I listened to everyone this evening, and give them a second chance, but Mr. Urrico kind of shoved it in my face, because he knows I always say due process is really the name of the game, and I have an obligation for due process and I’m afraid that if I move to move this back to the Planning Board, I would be violating my own principals on due process. You have, indeed, only requested us this evening, and I want to make sure I get this correct, you only are looking for a zero road frontage. Is this correct? MR. LAPPER-Well, not exactly. I started out that way, but when Craig indicated that he viewed QB-4 as being, because it’s under an acre, even though it’s going to attach to Fort Ann 4, he feels that that also requires a variance because it’s under an acre. I think that’s technical because it’s not a building lot, but, you know, certainly we’ll defer to him that we still need that variance as well. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Now, does that affect the position of any other Board members, now that I’ve had that clarified? MR. URRICO-Yes, it does. MR. ABBATE-It does, okay. Mr. Urrico, may I please hear your position, please. MR. URRICO-Well, I wouldn’t be ready to rule on that tonight, then. MR. ABBATE-You would not. MR. URRICO-No. MR. ABBATE-I love when the Board puts me in this position. Mr. Zoning Administrator, please. MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, I may be able to clear up at least some options available to the Board. I think, in an effort to be fair, not only to the applicant but to potentially the public, and I know we’ve had quite a bit of public inquiry on this project. There’s a number of FOIL requests in the file. We did receive a late submission from the applicant, and again, in the effort of fairness, it may be reasonable to table this to allow members of the public to present comment, to allow Staff to review this most recent proposal, and provide the Board with an updated set of Staff Notes. I know, in the comments that we’ve received, or maybe they’ve been sent to the Planning Board, but I have seen a letter from the Town of Fort Ann Planning Board, expressing an interest to participate in a joint meeting with our Planning Board and the Fort Ann Planning Board, and I may kick myself for saying this, logistically, it may not be a bad idea to have our Planning Board, our Zoning Board and their Planning Board come to some agreement, come to some meeting, you know, all in the same room, which would be probably a nightmare, but at least everybody’s on the same page at the same time and you don’t have to worry, well, I wish I had asked the Board for this or I wish they had told me this. Now is the time to ask for that information, not after you’ve made the decision. So I think there’s no rush to make a decision. I mean, this is obviously my opinion, but there’s certainly time to have the information reviewed by Staff. We haven’t certainly even identified it, does this project or does this revised portion of the project, require a density variance? The plan submitted tonight does show total acreages for the lots, but there’s no wetland calculations. We don’t know if there are actually four buildable acres that would qualify this project for four lots. It hasn’t been submitted. They may want to submit it tonight. I’m not in a position to consider it tonight. I’m not going to issue a determination tonight. MR. ABBATE-We’ll give you a chance. MR. BROWN-So if this goes forward without the wetlands density, or the density variance, if they, in fact, need a variance, they’re going to be back before you for another variance, and rather than do the, I guess to quote somebody from the public here, the salami slicing of issuing approvals, it makes the most sense, and in time’s sake, too, to just do it all at once, rather than back and forth several times, as well as the docks as well. MR. ABBATE-Well, you know, I don’t know whether you’ve been reading my notes or not, but I also have here that I would be more comfortable if the Planning Board and Staff 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/07) reviewed the new information and I also have a little note here that I would be very comfortable, because I would like to have a liaison with members of the Fort Ann as well. MR. BROWN-Well, certainly you can always send this back to our Planning Board for another recommendation. If you want specific comments from them, in your referral motion to the Planning Board, request specific information, and they’ll respond and answer those questions for you. My recollection, I don’t have the old plan in front of me, but my observation with this current plan that was submitted tonight, the lot configuration in Fort Ann has changed. What’s Fort Ann’s position with this? Has Fort Ann even seen these? I know that they may have not seen it for several months, and maybe Mr. Fuller can address that as he’s Counsel to Fort Ann, but I don’t think that they’ve even seen this change that we just saw tonight. MR. ABBATE-Yes, well, that was one of my problems here when I said liaison with Fort Ann in their review and what have you, because I’m a little uncomfortable that I have no feedback from Fort Ann, quite frankly, but anyway, you’re right. We’re going to give you an opportunity to respond, folks, but I think it’s important that there is no rush to make a decision, because once we make a decision, it’s basically in concrete, unless the Supreme Court overrules us. Would you folks like to respond? MR. LAPPER-Yes, I mean, there’s nothing that we’re hearing that we’re upset about, because we appreciate that the Board is supportive of the changes. We came in here thinking that you would view this as a significant improvement, and you do, so we appreciate that. If we had come in with something that was substantially different, we would have obviously resubmitted as a new application. We felt that we were taking things off the table, that this was what we came with last time, except that we just made the lots bigger and we got rid of almost all the variance requests. So that’s why we handled it this way, because it was like sitting up here on any other night and saying, okay, we’re going to modify the request and remove the request, and so that’s why we handled it this way. Also, this was responsive to the Planning Board, and we met with them and we’ve been talking about it since then, and we felt this was the appropriate approach to come back to you. In terms of the joint meetings, I mean, we’re just afraid of this never getting to a decision. We understand that the Planning Board’s might want to meet, but the Zoning Board’s role is sort of separate because the variances are quasi judicial and a different standard than Planning. I think that here it’s unique because we’re going to have APA reviewing environmental issues and planning issues separate and apart, and we also have both Planning Boards. So I guess if it’s your prerogative to defer this to another night, you know, we didn’t necessarily expect that you would vote tonight. We hoped that you would, but we’d hoped that we could deal with the Zoning Board’s variance issues separate from the planning issues, because we could be a number of months at the Planning Board and we need to know that we have the variance so that we can move forward with the project. MR. ABBATE-Well, let me do this, then. I knew once I used the road zero frontage, there were going to be some questions raised. Let me go back and re-poll the Board again, please. Again, you know, I think we do well in due process. Now that we’ve had additional information, ladies and gentlemen of the Board, let me re-poll you and get your position again. I’ll start out, again, with Mr. Bryant, please. MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome. MR. BRYANT-No, I agree with you, Mr. Lapper, that you’ve made significant change, and that it is quite an improvement, but I also agree with Mr. Brown that, you know, Staff has not the opportunity to review this. Maybe, since we’re reducing the variance number and type, maybe we don’t necessarily need the Planning Board, but I would like some time to digest the information. I’d like some time for Staff respond to the changes. If it does go back to the Planning Board then we should get all the minutes so we understand what their psyche is when they say we want this and we don’t want this, and so forth and so on, so, frankly, Mr. Chairman, I’m not in a position to vote on this tonight. If a motion goes forward, I’ll vote against it, but I don’t really want to see the project go down, because it is a good project. I’d just like my questions answered. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Underwood, may we go back to you, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think we need to take Staff’s comments to heart here. I believe that we’re comfortable with what you’ve done, the changes you’ve made there. I, frankly, don’t have a problem with the variance that you’re asking for tonight, but I think that, you 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/07) know, you need to be up front about the docks. We heard Molly’s okay with the docks and comments to that effect, but, Number One, deal with all the issues up front, all right, we’re not going to segment this thing into little tiny pieces of bologna, as Craig has mentioned, and I think that it’s better to just throw them all out on the table, have at it and get it all done with, and I think that we’re going to give you something reasonable to work with. I don’t think it’s going to affect your numbers up there. I think that if Fort Ann decides to go with our Code book, it’s going to take some changes as far as lot sizes that you have in Fort Ann. You might not get 20 houses up there, but you might get 18 or something like that. That’s something that you may have to live with, or find some other area up on the hill that you can build further up the hill on and still get your 20 houses in there that you need, but I think at the same time, it should go to the Planning Board. It should be a total package. You worked very hard to get this package to us tonight, and it made a big improvement over what you previously submitted, and I think that if you go for the docks and get that taken care of, you’re over and done. You’re over the hurdles. I don’t think you want to put yourself in the position where somebody’s the bad guy for saying, no, you can’t do that, and I think that you’re kind of painting yourself into a corner if you don’t deal with the issues at hand. So I think we should hold off. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. McNulty, please. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Well, while this is not the Planning Board and I’m not sure that we can properly make a decision on a zoning issue by basing it on Planning Board issues. Nevertheless, if we were dealing only with the road frontage on the lots tonight, I’d be willing to go forward. Now that we’re adding in the question of possibly needing to offer a variance for a substandard sized lot for Lot Number Four, then I, too, would like to have Staff’s analysis of just what’s involved there. Do we really need that, and if so, what’s the significance and so on. So I’m not necessarily wanting to wait for the Planning Board to make their move, but I would like to have Staff to have time to look at this and come back and give us an opinion, and so I’d just as soon wait. MR. ABBATE-Sure. Thank you very much. Mr. Urrico, please. MR. URRICO-Yes, as I stated earlier, if we’re dealing with just the minimum road front issues tonight, I would not have a problem. The shared driveway seems to be in a good location, and I think the plan is a good plan. Dealing with the QB-4 and the docks there, I would really need more time, not only to hear the Planning Staff’s opinion, but I would want to look at it myself. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Fine. Rick, please. MR. GARRAND-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With respect to QB-1, 2, and 3 and the relief requested there, I’m all in favor of that, but like many of the other Board members have said, Staff input would be very valuable with respect to the minimum lot size for QB-4. So at this point I’d be more comfortable voting at a later date on that. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Joan, please. MRS. JENKIN-Yes. I also agree with everyone, and I especially thought that Craig put it in good words, that he would like a chance to look at the wetlands and those lots also, and I think that that’s important information for us to look at, too. So, I’m in favor of tabling, or whatever we’re going to do. MR. ABBATE-All right. Well, I, too, feel the same way. I would like to add just a couple of things. This is for our Town Counsel and our Zoning Administrator. I would like to have a liaison with the folks at Fort Ann. I don’t even know who these folks are, and I don’t even have any of their correspondence. So I’m going to try and get together with the Counsel for Fort Ann, and hopefully we can come up with something. MR. FULLER-Yes, to clarify on that point, both logistically and legally, what I think we envision is a joint Planning Board meeting. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. FULLER-And certainly the ZBA would be invited to attend that, and you could. You’re a member of the public, and participate on that basis, but having a joint Planning Board and Zoning Board meeting, logistically we could probably work it out. Legally, I think it would get a little hairy. MR. ABBATE-Yes, it would be a nightmare legally. I would strongly vote against that. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/07) MR. FULLER-Yes, but there will be, it is envisioned, both Planning Boards have communicated back and forth that they are interested in having a joint Planning Board meeting to address cumulative issues. MR. ABBATE-I’m going to have to take a couple of minutes. I’m sorry to hold everybody up, but the other problem I see there, you say a joint meeting, and even if we don’t participate, if we have a quorum, we may have logistic legal problems as well. MR. FULLER-If you’re attending a meeting as a Zoning Board of Appeals and meeting on it, yes, you’d have a quorum problem. If you were going to the meeting to attend it, we cannot stop you from attending that meeting. MR. ABBATE-I understand, but based on the most recent Supreme Court decisions, I’m kind of reluctant to do anything. MR. FULLER-If you don’t want to go, I won’t stop you, but I also won’t stop you from going. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Let me say this. Counselor, please. MR. LAPPER-Yes, if I could. What I’m hearing, I’m summing up what everybody’s saying, and I think it’s pretty much similar, and what I would propose and hope you would agree with is if we, if you want us to submit with the docks, I mean, we didn’t because we met with Craig and he felt, Kevin, that it was better to wait, that this was primary, but if you want us to deal with the docks, what I would ask is that if we could submit to Staff, deal with the variances and let Staff look at it, we’ll come back next month to the Board, let the Chairman interface with the Chairman of the Planning Board, just to get, have some discussions, but let the zoning process go forward after Staff has commented so we can address the variances, and then let the two Planning Boards get together, because it may not be two or three months before we have a joint Planning Board meeting because we’re going to be to the APA first, but the variances are kind of crucial in terms of knowing what we have for a lot configuration. So that’s what we would ask, and again, we weren’t necessarily expecting a decision tonight. We weren’t trying to jam it down your throats. We just hoped that you like what we showing you. MR. ABBATE-Okay. You know, I have no problems with that. It’s certainly not, as you know, it’s not our purpose to hold up any application, but there are circumstances such as this evening where we have to have additional data. I would be more than happy to have some interface with the Chairman of the Planning Board. I would ask that Town Counsel set that up if you will. I have no problems with that at all. What I’m going to ask you, Counselor, to do, is consider, by asking me officially, a tabling of Area Variance No. 29-2007. MR. LAPPER-Absolutely. I’d just like to establish what date you’d like to see us. MR. ABBATE-I can work that out right now before I do the motion. Let’s see, is July convenient? MR. LAPPER-The second meeting. MR. ABBATE-The second meeting in July. Okay. Let me do it this way. Okay. So Counsel has asked the Chair to table this motion. So I’m going to move that. MR. BROWN-Given the fact that we still haven’t ironed out the density issues, and the applicant hasn’t submitted a wetlands calculation. MR. LAPPER-No, we have. It was on the original plan. It didn’t change. It’s right there. I should have pointed that out when I responded. MR. BROWN-Okay. Let me ask this question. Is there any other information that you’re going to submit before the meeting that’s about to be scheduled? MR. LAPPER-It’s just what we did tonight, what we submitted tonight, and we’ll submit the docks this way, and then we’ll talk about it. MR. BROWN-Okay. So you’re going to be seeking variances for the docks as well? MR. LAPPER-If that’s what the Board wants us to do. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/07) MR. BROWN-Okay. When would we like to have that submitted? MR. ABBATE-You tell me. MR. BROWN-Well, if we’re scheduling for next month’s meeting, the deadline has already passed. th MR. ABBATE-Well, that’s the 15. MR. BROWN-For next month’s meeting. MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s okay. We can handle that. MR. BROWN-Well, you may be able to handle it, but we have to deal with it at the Staff level to review it and prepare notes for you in time. I don’t want to have that information thth come in July 15 and the meeting’s the 16. MR. ABBATE-Okay, Counselor, this is going to be the problem, okay. The deadline’s on thth the 15 of the month. So if we don’t hear it on the 27 of this month, which is next th meeting, then I’m going to have to request that you submit it no later than the 15 of July, which means I can’t hear your case until August, the first meeting in August. MR. LAPPER-Well, we could get this to you in a couple of days, really. MR. ABBATE-I’ll tell you what, quite frankly, before I make any motion, is it possible to take a five minute or so break and work this out with the Zoning Administrator? Because I want a definite decision this evening. MR. LAPPER-Sure. MR. BROWN-Yes. If they’re willing to get it to us inside of a week. MR. LAPPER-Absolutely. MR. BROWN-I think that still allows us to, before we finalize their July agenda, as long as we have the information, we know that it’s here, we’ll save a spot for them on July’s agenda. MR. ABBATE-Okay, Counselor, for the record, you’re going to submit the information within a week to the Zoning Administrator. Based upon that, then I’ll move a motion. Fair enough, do you agree to that? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Here we go. I’m going to move that Area Variance No. 29-2007 be re-scheduled for a hearing. Is there a second? MR. URRICO-I’ll second it. MR. ABBATE-It’s been seconded by Mr. Urrico. MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman. MR. BRYANT-The date. MR. BROWN-There was no specific date you picked there. MR. ABBATE-Well, I’m going to get to that. MR. BROWN-Well, that should be in the motion before you vote on it. MR. ABBATE-Well, no, we’re going to, all right. If that’ll make everybody happy, let’s do th it this way. Within seven days and we’ll hear it on the 25 of July. th MR. FULLER-July 25. I just have one comment for you. MR. ABBATE-Go ahead, Matt. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/07) MR. FULLER-Your motion is to table. I just don’t want you to re-schedule it. Because th that’s a whole new notice. You’re just going to table it to the July 25 meeting, for the th materials to be submitted by the 26 of this month. MR. BROWN-Whoever made the motion said re-schedule. MR. FULLER-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, you said re-schedule. That’s all. I see what you’re saying. MR. ABBATE-All right. Yes, I understand. I just used the wrong word in there. So you’re going to have it within seven days. We’re going to move it and hear it on the first th meeting in July, the 25. Okay. So we’re going to, you asked for a hearing, then I make a motion that you submit the information to the Zoning Administrator within seven days, th and then based upon that we will hear your case on the 25 of July 2007. Is there a second again? MR. URRICO-I’ll second it again. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Urrico has seconded it again. MR. BROWN-Hold on. One more time. MR. FULLER-Your motion is to table. MR. ABBATE-Didn’t I say table? MR. FULLER-No, you did not. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Let’s try it again. I’m going to move that we table Area Variance th No. 29-2007 for a hearing on the 25 of July 2007, with the proviso that the Counsel for Area Variance No. 29-2007 submit the required documents within seven days to the Zoning Administrator. MR. BROWN-And those required documents are, specifically. Say the list. MR. ABBATE-Well, what were they? I didn’t hear them. MR. BROWN-Well, the information on the docks. MR. LAPPER-And what we handed in tonight. MR. BROWN-And the information you handed in tonight. MR. BRYANT-Wetlands calculation. MR. ABBATE-Well, let’s be specific, wetlands calculation. MR. BROWN-A revised subdivision layout. MR. ABBATE-And a revised subdivision plot. MR. BRYANT-The other question I have is, Staff, before you finish your motion, this sketch that they did, you know, they didn’t put their seal or anything on it. Shouldn’t the subdivision plot have the architect’s seal on it? MR. BROWN-Well, as you know, and everybody on the Board is I’m sure aware that a requirement of an Area Variance is that it be based on a survey. If the Board hasn’t granted a waiver from that, and I don’t remember, I think the original submission had a survey as part of the base mapping. MR. FRANK-As part of the base mapping, Craig, yes, you’re correct. MR. BROWN-Was there a stamped survey submitted for the out bounds? So, that’s at the discretion of the Board. If you want the subdivision map to be represented as a survey map and be prepared by a surveyor and stamped and signed as such, that’s up to you. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/07) MR. BRYANT-Well, this is a new subdivision plot. So shouldn’t it be sealed by somebody? MR. BROWN-Sure. MR. BRYANT-Because eventually it’s going to be filed with the County I’m sure. Isn’t that the process? MR. BROWN-Well, that’s way down the road after subdivision review by the Planning Board, but if you’d like. MR. BRYANT-I mean, this is the LA Group. They’ve got architects and engineers here, they could just stamp it. Go ahead. MR. ABBATE-Are we finally set? All right. I’m assuming now you want me to include, you want information on the docks. You want information on the wetlands calculations, and you want a revised subdivision plot. Is this correct? Is that all encompassing? Okay. Then we’re going to disregard my motion to table earlier, and I’m going to start from the beginning. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 29-2007 IRISH BAYPARTNER LLC c/o JOHN LEFNER, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Tabled to the July 25, 2007 hearing, with the proviso that the Counsel for Area Variance No. 29-2007 submit within seven days the information as follows to the Zoning Administrator: 1.Information concerning the docks. 2.Wetlands calculation 3.Revised subdivision plot th Duly adopted this 20 day of June, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MR. ABBATE-The vote to table Area Variance No. 29-2007 with the provisos as stated is th seven yes, zero no. The motion is carried. We will hear your case on the 25 of July 2007. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Okay. I would like to take care of some administrative items first of all. AREA VARIANCE NO. 28-2007 SEQRA TYPE: II STEVEN GREENE OWNER(S): STEVEN GREENE ZONING: SR-1A LOCATION: 1 KNOLLS ROAD NORTH APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,200 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING GARAGE WHICH CONSTITUTES A SECOND GARAGE ON THE PROPERTY. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR A SECOND GARAGE AND FROM THE MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR GARAGES. CROSS REF.: BP 2006-392 POLE BARN; BP 2005-369 DECK WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: APRIL 11, 2007 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 0.92 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 253.3-1-25 SECTION: 179-4-030; 179-5-020 MR. ABBATE-The first administrative item I’d like to take care of concerns Area Variance No. 28-2007, that’s Mr. Steven Greene, and Mr. Greene has not addressed issues by submitting additional information as requested by not only Staff, but by this Board as well. So as a result, I’m going to move a motion that we table Area Variance No. 28- th 2007 to August the 20, allowing the appellant to submit the required information no later th than the 15 of July 2007. th MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, as of the June 15 submittal deadline, last week, Mr. Greene did submit information. When this agenda was prepared, he hadn’t yet, but he has. So he’s on the schedule for July. I think it was tabled to this meeting specifically. So you want to at least table it to a July meeting. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/07) MR. ABBATE-Sure. We can do that. th MR. BROWN-I would pick the 18. That’s the first meeting. th MR. ABBATE-The 18. All right. I can do that. MR. FULLER-Are you leaving that public hearing open. You should table it to a specific date. MR. ABBATE-Yes, the public hearing has remained open. Absolutely. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 28-2007 STEVEN GREENE, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: Tabled until July 18, 2007. th Duly adopted this 20 day of June, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE th MR. ABBATE-The vote is, to table Area Variance No. 28-2007 to the 18 of July 2007 th hearing date, is seven yes, zero no. Area Variance No. 28-2007 is tabled to the 18 of July 2007. NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 2-2007 SEQRA TYPE: N/A WARREN TIRE SERVICE CENTER, INC. AGENT(S): LITTLE & O’CONNOR OWNER(S): WARREN TIRE SERVICE CENTER, INC. ZONING: CI-1A LOCATION: DIX AVENUE/K-MART LOCATION APPELLANT IS APPEALING LANGUAGE FROM SECTION 179-13-020; DISCRETION TO PERMIT A NONCONFORMING USE TO CONTINUE. CROSS REF.: N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: N/A TAX MAP NO. 303.19-1-71 SECTION: 179-13-020 MR. ABBATE-I received a letter from Little & O’Connor, Attorneys at Law, and I would like to read it into the record, or you can. It doesn’t make any difference to me. It’s addressed to the Chairman of the ZBA, and it says “It’s my understanding that the Town Board has changed the zoning for the K-Mart Property now allowing auto service onto that property. This renders moot the question that we were presenting to the Zoning Board so please consider our appeal as withdrawn.” And so the appeal is definitely withdrawn. I see no action that we have to take on it. Okay. The other item I have is a letter that I have sent to Mrs. Jean M. Hoffman and her attorney, William J. Keniry Area Variance No. 46-2005, which I extended an invitation to appear before the Board this evening. Is Mrs. Hoffman or her Attorney here this evening? Would you raise your hand so I can recognize you, please. I see no hands raised. So I’m assuming that they are not here this evening. Counselor, would you make note of that, please. Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 37-2007 SEQRA TYPE: II JEFFREY HOWARD AGENT(S): NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S): JEFFREY HOWARD ZONING: PO LOCATION: 625 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 900 SQ. FT. SECOND STORY ADDITION AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENS OF THE PO ZONE AS WELL AS THE TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE. ADDITIONALLY, RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES. CROSS REF.: AV 19-1999; SPR 12-99; BP 2000-250 COM’L BLDG.; 2001-681 SIGN WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.34 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.7-1-10 SECTION: 179-13-10 TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 37-2007, Jeffrey Howard, Meeting Date: June 20, 2007 “Project Location: 625 Bay Road Description of Proposed Project: The applicant proposes a 900 sq. ft. second-story addition to an existing 916 sq. ft. office building. No other site improvements are proposed with this project. Relief Required: 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/07) The applicant seeks the following area variances per §179-4-030 for the PO zone: Front setback relief of 19.6-feet, where 50-feet is the minimum required and 30.4-feet is proposed. Side setback relief of 7.2-feet, where a minimum of 20-feet is required and 12.8-feet is proposed on the north side. Shoreline setback relief of 40-feet, where the minimum is 75-feet required and the proposed is 35-feet. In addition: Travel Corridor Overlay setback of 44.6-feet, where 75-feet is the minimum required and 30.4-feet is proposed, §179-4-060 for the Bay Road Corridor. And, expansion of a non-conforming structure, §179-13-010 is required. 1. Benefit to the applicant: The applicant would be permitted to construct the desired 900 sq. ft. second-story addition to the existing office building. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited due to the site constraint of the existing stream in the rear of the site and the zoning limitation of the TCO district. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The requests for front and side setback relief are both considered moderate at 39.2% and 36%, respectively. The requests for shoreline and TCO setback relief are considerable at 53% and 59.5%, respectively. Cumulatively, the aforementioned requests, combined with the additional request for expansion of a nonconforming structure, should be deemed substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate adverse impacts on the neighborhood or community may be anticipated as a result of this action. The proposed is an expansion of an existing office building in the PO zone, where other professional office buildings in the Bay Road corridor are two-story. The applicant states that, “Building will still fit with neighborhood character”. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2001-681: Issued 9/26/01, ADIRONDACK REGIONAL INSURANCE 18 SQ FT FREE STANDING SIGN. BP 2000-250 ADIRONDACK REGIONAL INSURANCE COMMERCIAL BUILDING / 900 SQ FT COMMERCIAL BUILDING. SP 12-99: Approved 05/17/1999 for Jeffrey Howard. Staff comments: While the cumulative request for relief is substantial, the applicant’s proposal appears to be the minimum relief possible to achieve the benefit sought. No additional site work is anticipated and, with that, the overall site permeability will remain constant. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/07) The FAR was completed for the existing condition, but not for the proposed. 1800 would be the total area, subtracted from 9310 (30% of total lot area), resulting in the remaining area (potentially developable) of 7510 sq. ft. The submitted building elevation drawings show closets in all of the proposed second- story rooms, are these to be used for residential living space? Site plan review and approval by the Planning Board is required, an application has been submitted. The applicant has not completed the landscaping proposed and approved in 1999; site plan review should discuss the appropriateness of an as-built approval. The design guidelines of the Bay Road Corridor call for a professional office theme, generally composed of one-two story buildings that are residential in appearance, with large, attractively landscaped yards, per §179-7-040.” MR. ABBATE-Good evening, gentlemen. Would you be kind enough to tell us who you are. MR. NACE-Good evening. Tom Nace of Nace Engineering, and Jeffrey Howard, the applicant. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Go ahead and proceed. MR. NACE-Okay. I guess, real briefly, what we want to do is add a second story to an existing office building that was constructed, seven, eight years ago, and it was constructed with setback relief at the time and with minimum lot size relief. Since then, the PO zone has taken over the place of the MR-5 zone. So we originally had a side setback requirement of 10 feet. Now it’s 20 feet, and that’s the request for the side lot setback at this time. So that’s the only new setback we’re asking for. We want to put a second floor on, strictly for office space. To answer one of Staff’s questions regarding the closets, I believe that’s for file cabinets. Is that correct? JEFFREY HOWARD MR. HOWARD-It’s going to be for file cabinets, and even though the insurance industry is supposed to be innovative and on the cutting edge for technology, we still have a lot of manuals. We need a lot of storage space for offices where business would be conducted, and so that’s basically it. MR. NACE-Okay. The question or the comment regarding landscaping, I’m not sure exactly what that’s addressing. I looked at the landscaping this afternoon and compared it to the approved plan. There were two clumpings of landscaping that had a burning bush and some junipers I think in it. They weren’t put in, but they were replaced with additional other landscaping and plus the applicant has landscaped around the front of the building, which was not in the original proposal. So he’s actually put in more landscaping than was on the approved site plan originally. MR. ABBATE-Do we have any members of the Board who have any questions for Area Variance No. 37-2007? MR. BRYANT-I have a question. Where’s the bathroom? I don’t see any bathroom on this sketch. I mean, if I worked on the second floor, I’d want to know where the bathroom is. MR. NACE-Well, let me looked. I haven’t looked at it for that purpose. MR. HOWARD-Right there. MR. NACE-Okay. MR. HOWARD-Do you want me to show it to them? MR. NACE-Sure. It wasn’t labeled. MR. HOWARD-This space right here. MR. BRYANT-Yes, that’s the first floor. MR. HOWARD-Yes. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/07) MR. BRYANT-That’s existing. MR. HOWARD-Yes. MR. BRYANT-Okay. That’s where I thought it was, but there’s nothing on the second floor. MR. HOWARD-It’s not labeled on the drawing. MR. ABBATE-All right. Do we have any other questions? Yes, please, Joan. MRS. JENKIN-Will you need more parking? MR. NACE-No. We, I think, require six spaces, and we have seven. MRS. JENKIN-With the addition? MR. NACE-With the addition, for the full 1800 square feet. MR. ABBATE-All right. Any other questions from any other Board members? MR. BRYANT-I have one more question. MR. ABBATE-Yes, please, Mr. Bryant. MR. BRYANT-You’re not expanding the footprint of the building, it’s exactly what’s there now, you’re just going up? MR. NACE-We’re going to chop the roof off, and take the walls up and put another roof on. MR. BRYANT-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Any other questions? Okay. All right. I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 37-2007. If we have any members of the public who would like to address that issue, would you be kind enough to raise your hands, please. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. ABBATE-I see no hands raised. So I’m going to continue on, and I’m going to ask at this point that members offer their comments. I’d like to inform the public that the comments offered by members of this Board are directed to the Chairman and are not going to be subject to debate. I have already respectfully reminded the members about precedence and about our duties and obligations concerning evidence in the record. Having said that, do I have a volunteer who would like to address or ask any questions concerning Area Variance No. 37-2007? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I’ll go first. MR. ABBATE-Please. MR. UNDERWOOD-Although it appears you need lots of relief here, I think it’s just reflective of the change in the zone there from the MR to the PO and the Professional Office zone allows two story buildings. You’re just simply going to be adding on a second floor on here. It’s not going to have any effect on the neighborhood. It’s going to allow you to grow your business, and I think I’m fine with it. It’s not a problem at all with any of the requests. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Having said that, Mrs. Jenkin, please. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. I think that this is a good feasible alternative to adding more space which you need. I think that it’s a great idea to go up rather than out. I think that it will definitely improve the neighborhood, well, it will be in keeping with the neighborhood. It may not improve it, but it will be in keeping with it, and it’s not a substantial request, and I would be, it’s probably self-created because you need more space and you have to do something to it. So I would be in favor of it. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/07) MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. Urrico, please. MR. URRICO-I’d be in favor of it. I see this as the same building that’s there now, times two. I don’t have any problem with this. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Mr. Bryant next, please. MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What Mr. Underwood said, ditto. I agree with it 100%. You’re not increasing the footprint. It’s the same building, and I’d be in favor of it. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Garrand, please. MR. GARRAND-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the increased nonconformity is just a result of the Town rezoning the area. I’d be in favor of this application. MR. ABBATE-Okay, and Mr. McNulty, please. MR. MC NULTY-Yes, I, too, would be in favor. As I recall, when we granted the variances for this building originally it was because this was a small, nonconforming lot and this was the only thing the applicant could do at the time, and I think he’s proposed the only thing again that he can possibly do to expand this. So it’ll be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. I’d be in favor. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Board members, thank you for your observation and comments, and I, too, agree with the majority of the Board, and I would also support the application. I’m going to close the public hearing for Area Variance No. 37-2007. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ABBATE-And again, I’ll respectfully remind the members about our task of balancing the benefit of the variance against the impact on the area. Do I have a volunteer for a motion for Area Variance No. 37-2007? Okay. Mr. Garrand, please. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 37-2007 JEFFREY HOWARD, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joan Jenkin: 625 Bay Road. The applicant proposes a 900 square foot second story addition to an existing 916 square foot office building. No other site improvements are proposed with this project. The applicant seeks relief for the following Area Variances. First, Section 179-4-030 for the Professional Office zone, front setback relief of 19.6 feet where 50 feet is the minimum required, and 30.4 feet is proposed; side setback relief of 7.2 feet where a minimum of 20 feet is required, and 12.8 feet is proposed on the north side; shoreline setback relief of 40 feet where the minimum is 75 feet required and the proposed is 35 feet. In addition Travel Corridor Overlay setback of 44.6 feet where 75 feet is the minimum required and 30.4 feet is proposed, Section 179-4-060 for the Bay Road Corridor. Also, the expansion of a nonconforming structure, Section 179-13-010 is also required. First off, can the benefits be achieved by any other means feasible to the applicant? Well, given the lot size and the configuration, and the zoning for that area, there does not seem to be any other means feasible to the applicant. Will this cause an undesirable change in the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties? No undesirable change can be anticipated by adding a second floor. Is the request substantial? At best we could consider the request moderate. There should be no adverse environmental or physical effects on the neighborhood. At this point, we may deem this as self-created since it is the applicant coming forward with this proposal. So I’d make a motion that we approve Area Variance No. 37-2007. th Duly adopted this 20 day of June, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 37-2007 is seven yes, zero no. Area Variance No. 37-2007 is approved. Thank you very much, gentlemen. MR. NACE-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/07) AREA VARIANCE NO. 38-2007 SEQRA TYPE: II BRIAN AND VICKI WARNER OWNER(S) BRIAN AND VICKI WARNER ZONING: SR-1A LOCATION: 3 VAN DUSEN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES AN ABOVE-GROUND POOL. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: BP 2007-127 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: JUNE 13, 2007 LOT SIZE: 0.85 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.15-1-5 SECTION: 179-5-020 BRIAN AND VICKI WARNER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 38-2007, Brian and Vicki Warner, Meeting Date: June 20, 2007 “Project Location: 3 Van Dusen Road Description of Proposed Project: The Applicant proposes an above ground pool. Relief Required: - Applicant requests 4 feet of relief from the minimum 20 foot rear yard setback requirement for a pool. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: The proposal would allow the applicant to relocate the pool to a location entirely on their property as well as offer an additional recreational area on the property. 2. Feasible alternatives: Given the location of the structures on the property relative to the property lines, and the fact that the parcel is surrounded on three sides by roads, alternative locations are limited. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance: Four feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum setback requirement (20%) may be interpreted as minimal to moderate when viewed against the Town Zoning requirements. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal adverse impacts to the neighborhood are anticipated with this proposal. Apparently, the original location of the pool straddled the property line from which the applicant is now seeking setback relief from. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? Given the location of structures and the surrounding roadways a variance would likely be required for almost any sized pool. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2007-127 Above Ground Pool, not yet issued Area Variance needed. Staff comments: The applicant’s submittal includes a letter of support from the affected neighbor to the west ( Howard ) as well as a waiver letter relative to the survey requirement. Minimal, if any, adverse impacts are anticipated from this project. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. ABBATE-Good evening, Mr. and Mrs. Warner. Are you prepared to present your case to us? MR. WARNER-Yes. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/07) MR. ABBATE-Okay. You haven’t come before us before, so let me just explain a couple of things to you. Just tell us basically why you feel we should approve your request for a variance, and if at any time during the hearing you don’t understand something, raise your hands, we’ll be more than happy to explain it to you, and later on in the hearing, if there’s something else you feel you may wish to add to your appeal to add to your support, bring it to our attention, please. Okay. All right. Now I’m going to ask you, if you’re ready, just tell us why you would like us to approve your request. MR. WARNER-We’re asking for relief for the setback so we can enjoy our pool in the warm weather. We recently sold the adjoining property, and I need a four foot setback relief. That’s all I know. I need to move the pool about 20 feet from where it was, about 16 feet actually. I’m going to only have 16 feet from my property line to the edge of the pool. That’s it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Well, if anything else comes up during the hearing, let us know. MR. WARNER-Okay. MR. ABBATE-Okay. I’m going to move on and I’m going to ask the Board members if they have any questions for Mr. or Mrs. Warner? MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Bryant, please. MR. BRYANT-I have actually a question for Staff. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. BRYANT-Once that pool passes the front projection of the house, isn’t it in the front yard? MR. BROWN-That portion that passes the line is, that’s correct. MR. BRYANT-Okay. So shouldn’t that be part of the variance, is it? Did I miss something, or are we just looking for setback relief? MR. BROWN-In this case, my interpretation of the front yard would be where the garage is, from the garage forward to the road, because the garage is closer to the street than the house. That’s where I’d start the determination of their front yard, is from the garage. MR. BRYANT-But doesn’t it have nothing to do with the garage but have to do with the principal structure on the property? I mean, if they had a shed up there, that would be the front of the yard? I mean, that doesn’t, I’m just saying my interpretation of the Code, and I’ll look at it during the time there, my interpretation is that the principal structure is what determines that issue, and not the garage. MR. BROWN-Okay, and I’ve offered you mine. I’m going to go with the garage. MR. BRYANT-No, but I’m just telling you my train of thought. MR. BROWN-I understand. Yes. So to answer your question, does this also require relief for being in the front yard? My determination is no. MR. BRYANT-I may just file an appeal. MR. BROWN-You certainly have that option. MR. ABBATE-Unfortunately you’re not authorized to do that, by law. Okay. Any other members of the Board have any questions for Mr. or Mrs. Warner? There are no other questions, so I’m going to continue. I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 38-2007. Do we have anyone in the audience who’d like to address this issue? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. ABBATE-I see no hands raised. MR. UNDERWOOD-I have a letter. 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/07) MR. ABBATE-You have a letter. Well read it into the record, please, Mr. Secretary. MR. UNDERWOOD-“To Whom It May Concern: I have no issues or concerns with Brian and Vicki Warner putting up a swimming pool at 3 Van Dusen Road in Queensbury. I am the closest neighbor and own the adjoining lot.” And that’s signed David Howard, I believe, but I can’t read the first name. MR. WARNER-Correct. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. I’m going to ask members now to offer their comments, and again, as I have said earlier, the comments being offered by the members are directed to the Chairman and not subject to debate. I’ve also respectfully reminded the members about our precedent mandating we concern ourselves with the evidence which appears in the record. I don’t feel I have to do it again. I’m going to ask members now to please offer their comments on Area Variance No. 38-2007. Do I have a volunteer. MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Bryant, please. MR. BRYANT-The relief requested is minimal. As far as feasible alternatives, based on telephone lines, gas lines, leach fields and other activities on the property, I don’t see any place where they could place the pool unless they put it in their driveway. So with that in mind, I’d be in favor of the application. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. McNulty, please. MR. MC NULTY-I basically agree with Mr. Bryant. I don’t think there’s any other practical location from what I can see to place the pool. Additionally it looks like it will be well shielded from the road. So I don’t think they’re going to be encroaching on any neighbors or anybody’s sense of scenery or whatever. So I think this is one of those cases where this is why we have variances, and I’d be in favor. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Garrand, please. MR. GARRAND-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t see how the benefits could be achieved by any other means feasible to the applicant. I would be in favor of this variance. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Underwood, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-I have no problem with this request. I think it’s the only logical place to put your pool, and I think the concerns that Mr. Bryant had were, you were trying to move it as far away from the property line as you could so you wouldn’t need more relief. So I think it’s reasonable what you’re doing. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mrs. Jenkin, please. MRS. JENKIN-Yes. The way you’ve set up your play area, with the fences on both sides, and it wouldn’t make sense to put it anywhere else. You’re not going to put it in the woods behind the garage and you’re not going to put it in the front yard. So I definitely am I favor of the variance. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Urrico, please. MR. URRICO-I’d be in favor of the application for all the reasons given before. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much, and I, too, will support the application for the reasons given. This is a category two, we don’t have to be concerned about that. The public hearing is now closed for Area Variance No. 38-2007. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ABBATE-And again, I’d remind the members of the Board of the task of balancing the benefit to the applicant versus the impact on the area, and the five factors to take into consideration. Having said that, is there a volunteer for a motion for Area Variance No. 38-2007? 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/07) MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 38-2007 BRIAN AND VICKI WARNER, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joan Jenkin: 3 Van Dusen Road. The applicant is proposing moving their above ground pool and the applicant is requesting four feet of relief from the minimum twenty foot rear yard setback requirement for this pool. As far as the benefit to the applicant, it appears that the applicant’s attempt to re-locate the pool, after selling the lot next door, is the only reasonable solution to where the pool could be placed, other than putting it in the front yard, which we don’t allow. There don’t appear to be any other feasible alternatives. The relief is insubstantial. It’s only four feet of relief from the twenty foot required, and as far as the effects on the neighborhood or community, the nearest neighbor has signed off that they have no problem with this. So I don’t think we should either. It’s somewhat of a tough situation because they have roads on three sides there. So I would move for its approval. th Duly adopted this 20 day of June, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 38-2007 is seven yes, zero no. Area Variance No. 38-2007 is approved. Thank you very much. MR. WARNER-Thank you very much. AREA VARIANCE NO. 39-2007 SEQRA TYPE: II JOSEPH AND CLEMENTINA SOPRANO AGENT(S): JARRETT-MARTIN ENGINEERS, PLLC OWNER(S) JOSEPH AND CLEMENTINA SOPRANO ZONING: SFR-1A LOCATION: 54 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A RESIDENTIAL ADDITION (2,050 SQ. FT.) RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: SPR 34-2007; FWW NO. 1-2007 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: JUNE 13, 2007 LOT SIZE: 3.2 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.14- 1-49 SECTION: 179-4-070 TOM JARRETT & DAN VALENTE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 39-2007, Joseph and Clementina Soprano, Meeting Date: June 20, 2007 “Project Location: 54 Country Club Road Description of Proposed Project: The Applicant proposes a 2050 sf residential addition. Relief Required: - Applicant requests 39.70 feet of relief from the minimum 75 foot shoreline setback requirement applicable to the SFR-1A zone. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: The proposal would allow the applicant to expand the existing dwelling with additional living space as well as garage space. 2. Feasible alternatives: Given the location of the structures on the property relative to the property lines, and the fact that the parcel is surrounded on three sides by roads, alternative locations are limited. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance: While a portion of the existing home appears to be within the 75 foot shoreline setback and even a smaller addition to the northerly side of the home would require a similar variance, has consideration of an addition to the westerly (back) of the home been 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/07) investigated? It appears as though the septic system is to the south and east of the home, leaving the backyard open for addition and potentially a lesser variance request? 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: No letters of support or opposition were submitted with the application. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created to some degree. There appears to be area on the site for a more compliant addition. Was the pond created by the applicant? If so, the location of the shoreline setback line has been created by the applicant. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2007-084 Residential addition, not yet issued Area Variance needed. Freshwater Wetlands Permit (Town) pending 6/26/07 PB meeting Site Plan Review: filling/hardsurfacing within 50’ of shoreline pending 6/26/07 PB meeting Staff comments: Consideration may be given to the apparent self created difficulty, if the pond was created by the applicant. Additionally, an addition to the house to the west and or south appears, at least on the plans submitted, to be an alternative. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Would you folks be kind enough, please, to speak into the microphone and tell us who you are. MR. JARRETT-Certainly. Good evening. My name is Tom Jarrett of Jarrett Martin Engineers. With me tonight is the owner and applicant, Tina Soprano, and Dan Valente is the builder. I think the application is self-explanatory, so I’ll go right to the Staff Notes and probably answer a couple of questions that are in your mind as well. The location of the addition was chosen by the designer, actually and you’ll see in your packets who that is, but it was based on the fact that that’s the most practical location for the addition, both internally and externally. Internally it provides, I think, the most functional layout for the house, and I could let Dan address that issue, but externally an addition on the south part of the house, the south side of the house, would also require a variance. There’s not enough room there between the house on the existing side setback, the side yard, to put an addition on the south side. The west side is potentially feasible. However, it removes a lot of the play area in the rear yard and it would create more impermeable surface on the property, and likely would still, it would still encroach on the adjacent area of the wetland. The front of the house, which was mentioned in Staff Notes as being unavailable, is where the leach field is. So we think the most practical location is the north side of the house where it’s shown on our application. There’s another question regarding the self-created nature of this application, and I don’t believe the original wetland that surrounded that drainage path or stream was documented. The pond was dug by the applicant and owner some five or six years ago, and there was a permit from DEC to do that, but we don’t have those limits documented in relation to the wetlands. So we can’t answer that question. It may be somewhat self-created. The pond may be slightly larger than the wetland, but we can’t answer that question exactly. Do you want to add anything? DAN VALENTE MR. VALENTE-One of the main reasons why the addition is also to the northern side of the property is also aesthetics. With, again, going back to the design of the addition. From the street, keeping the addition in conjunction with the style of the rest of the structure. So that is part of the reason why it’s also there. The designer ultimately had the input on what he created there. MR. ABBATE-All right. You know the routine. If there’s anything else you’d like to say during the hearing, let us know. All right, ladies and gentlemen of the Board, you’ve heard what the folks from Area Variance No. 39-2007 had to say. Do we have any questions from members of the Board? 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/07) MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Bryant, please. MR. BRYANT-Your comments relative to building the addition west of the original, the existing structure, I want to re-visit that a little bit. MR. JARRETT-Certainly. MR. BRYANT-Because in reality, without getting too much into the detail or what have you. I mean, the lot is big enough that, you know, given all the other amenities, that building could easily go there. I think it would actually improve the overall appearance because then it’s not going to, it’s going to be barely visible. It’s going to be hidden by the existing structure from the road. I mean, I just want you to go a little bit more into depth about the west side of the building. MR. VALENTE-Part of the design of the garage and entry into the house is flow, use, making it more feasible. To add it to the direct rear of the home, you would end up putting your living space against the house and then the garage would be even further away. So you would have to, in essence, come through your garage, through a living space, into what is now the kitchen which is literally then now close to 100 feet from your garage or, you know, if you were backing your vehicle in to unload groceries, so on and so forth. So it’s a practicality, design, flow, of the design and the flow of the house. So, it’s more the usage and how they use the space. So it’s a little more efficient. MR. BRYANT-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Any other Board members have any questions? Yes, Mr. Garrand, please. MR. GARRAND-I have a question for Staff. Can you tell me how many square feet this garage is? MR. BROWN-Give me a couple of seconds, I’ll come up with it for you. MR. GARRAND-Okay. MR. JARRETT-It’s 24 by 31. MR. BROWN-It’s roughly 600. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. MC NULTY-This is a DEC wetland we’re talking about? MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. So it’s a significant wetland. It’s not just a little wet area. MR. JARRETT-It’s actually part of a larger wetland that has been declared jurisdictional by the DEC. When the pond was first excavated, there was a DEC permit in place. That has since expired, and that’s why we’ve reapplied for a new permit to do this. Our discussions with the Department suggest that there should be no problem getting that. That’s in the works. MR. ABBATE-Any other questions? MR. BROWN-Seven hundred and forty-four square feet. MR. ABBATE-Seven hundred and forty-four square feet, Mr. Garrand. MR. JARRETT-I’d like to add one thing that we didn’t emphasize during our discussion. The application mentions that we feel the net impact of the wetland and the pond will be less after our improvements because we’re proposing not only a stormwater swale to divert stormwater to the east, but then a landscaped berm which will isolate the wetland from the lawn area, and I think it’ll be a vast improvement, you know, environmentally. MR. ABBATE-Okay. 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/07) MR. URRICO-Will that re-direct some of that wetland to somebody else’s property? MR. JARRETT-No. Actually what it’s going to do is slow the runoff down from the Soprano’s lawn and let it seep in. It won’t directly runoff into the wetland. It’ll seep in either through the berm or into the lawn. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Any other questions? All right. If there are no other questions, I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 39-2007. Do we have any members of the public who would like to address that? Yes, please, sir. Approach the table, speak into the microphone, and tell us who you are, please. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED BOB DAWSON MR. DAWSON-Yes. My name is Bob Dawson. I live at 60 Country Club Road, and my property borders Dan’s property. We share the common side property line. I’m to the north of their property. Mr. Bryant, if you’re recommending them putting their garage out their back, aesthetically, I agree with Dan. It’s not going to work out. The flow of things, according to Dan, in the front is where it needs to go. I’m basically all in favor of the addition. I believe that that piece of property, their piece of property, if they can get by the variance, the variance that actually we’ve created, because I was part of the pond, I believe that that’s their piece of property, they should be able to do what they want to do, given permission from you guys and your variance. I don’t know if I can authorize this or put this in the wording, but I would like an update, once a week, if you give permission for the variance and they get approval for their addition, for either Joe or Tina to come to my house and let me know how they’re making out with their addition. I’d appreciate an update if they could do that. If they don’t mind, maybe I could go over there and ask them how they’re making out. MR. BRYANT-I have a question for you. You live to the north? MR. DAWSON-That’s correct. MR. BRYANT-Okay. So you border the wetlands area? MR. DAWSON-That’s correct. MR. BRYANT-And you don’t have any fear that they’re encroaching too closely to the wetlands? Is that going to destroy your? MR. DAWSON-Personally? No. MR. BRYANT-No. MR. DAWSON-No. I’m involved with a lot of environmental issues from the place I work, and to me it’s not a problem. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Any other comments? Do you have anything else you’d like to add? MR. DAWSON-I don’t think so. No, I think I’m good for right now. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in the audience who’d like to address Area Variance No. 39-2007? Would you be kind enough to raise your hand, please. I see no other hands raised. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ve got one letter. MR. ABBATE-Yes, would you read that into the record, Mr. Secretary. MR. UNDERWOOD-This is addressed to the Zoning Board. “Dear Sirs: As we reside at 153 Sweet Rd. Queensbury, New York, we have no objections to the Soprano application for construction of a residential addition to their existing home. The Sopranos have always been kind and respectful neighbors and a welcome addition to our development. Very truly yours, Liz and Dan Valente” 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/07) MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. Now you’ve heard what was said this evening. You can address or rebut any information. Do you have anything else you’d like to add? MR. JARRETT-I realize I’m new to this business. I’ve never quite heard that request before at a public hearing. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. VALENTE-I would like to just say one thing. I just think that the scenario we have, as far as stormwater there right now, will be significantly improved with this new addition, with the added stormwater controls. So as much as we are encroaching, I think it will be ultimately a better scenario for them. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. I’m going to close the public hearing for Area Variance No. 39-2007. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ABBATE-And I’m going to address the Board members and again respectfully them of our duty and obligation of balancing and the five factors. Having said that, do we have a volunteer to move a motion for Area Variance No. 39-2007? MR. BRYANT-I’ll volunteer. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Bryant, please. MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m not totally convinced that we’ve explored all the possibilities with the Staff Notes and the westerly building and what have you. However, in view of what your neighbors are saying, the relief that you’re requesting is substantial, okay. It’s more than 50% and in my view it’s substantially, and generally I’d fall on the negative, but in view of the testimony of the neighbor who’s the most closely affected, and he also shares the wetland with you, and after also viewing the existing property, I’m going to be reluctantly in favor of the application. MR. ABBATE-No, I need a motion. MR. UNDERWOOD-Mr. Chairman, you’re polling. MR. ABBATE-We haven’t polled yet? You should have reminded me, Mr. Bryant. Okay. Mr. Underwood, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-I drive by it almost every day. So I get to see it either riding in a car or riding on a bike or something, and it’s a very nice layout in the lot there. All those properties are well kept along there. I can imagine why you probably want to go to the north because the Valente’s are so wild over on the other side of the house there all the time, making noise, too, but in general I think it’s self-created by the creation of the pond, and it’s a definite improvement. I think that the stormwater protection plan you have in mind is a good one, too. It’s probably going to help the longevity of the pond and keeping the algae levels down and things like that, too. So I’d be all for it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Urrico, please. MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m going to be in favor of the project. I think the applicant has demonstrated the benefit to themselves, regarding this project. I think I’m convinced that they have looked at feasible alternatives, and this is the best location for this. The request is substantial, and I will admit I was a little concerned about the encroachment on the wetlands, given some of the problems they’ve had on Meadowbrook Road as a result of expansion and any effects that that had, but I don’t think this is going to have the same problem here, and the difficulty is self-created only because you’re looking for more space, but I’d be in favor of it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. McNulty, please. MR. MC NULTY-Well, I’m going to take an opposite tactic. The intrusion on the wetland bothers me, in this case and also in a number of cases that we’ve had in the Town. We keep chewing at the wetlands. This is a DEC wetland, and they may or may not give their own permit for this, but DEC has 100 foot buffer zone around a wetland. It’s not there to protect people. It’s there to protect the wetland. It’s there because it’s been 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/07) determined that anything that goes on within 100 feet of a wetland effects the wetland. So this definitely is going to effect the wetland. I hear the murmurings about improving the stormwater and what not, but I think there needs to be a voice raised in protection of the wetlands, and so therefore I’m going to be opposed. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you very much, Mr. McNulty. Mr. Garrand, please. MR. GARRAND-Well, I also share Mr. McNulty’s concerns about proximity to the wetland, but I also think that the effects, or this request is not, I wouldn’t consider it substantial. I’d consider it moderate. We’re still going to have some distance away from the wetlands and I don’t think it’s going to add a whole lot of impermeability to a lot that’s 3.2 acres. So I’d be in favor of this application. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Mrs. Jenkin, please. MRS. JENKIN-I think it will make definitely a desirable change to the neighborhood. Your plans really look nice, and they’re certainly going to make your house more useful. Most of it will be on the first floor, and having a master bedroom on the first floor is good. It is substantial because a 2,000 square foot addition is almost doubling the size of your house, and as far as the wetlands, I feel, after looking at that pond, I doubt (TAPE TURNED) I would be for the variance. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Did I miss anyone. I don’t think so. I would agree with the majority. Of course I’m concerned also with wetlands and what have you, but I suspect what you have submitted really takes that into consideration and I will support the application as well. Let’s see, this is two. We don’t have to worry about that, Jim. Now, I’m going to ask a volunteer for a motion for Area Variance No. 39-2007. Do we have a volunteer? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 39-2007 JOSEPH AND CLEMENTINA SOPRANO, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 54 Country Club Road. The applicant is proposing a 2,050 square foot residential addition. The applicant requests 39.70 feet from the minimum shoreline setback requirement applicable in the Single Family Residential 1-A zone. Now, can the benefits be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant? At this point, this seems like the most practical place to put the garage. Will this result in an undesirable change in the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties? Given the size of this property, I can’t see where this would make any undesirable change to the neighbor’s properties, or to anything else in that area. I would say this request is moderate, the relief requested. Will the request have any adverse physical or environmental effects on the neighborhood? I do not believe it will at this point. Like I stated before, I think we’re only adding a small amount of impermeability to a 3.2 acre lot, and this could be interpreted as self-created, since the applicant is here with this request. So, I’m making a motion to approve Area Variance No. 39-2007. th Duly adopted this 20 day of June, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate NOES: Mr. McNulty MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 39-2007 is six yes, one no. Area Variance No. 39-2007 is approved. Thank you very much. MR. JARRETT-Thank you very much. TINA SOPRANO MRS. SOPRANO-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome. NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 3-2007 SEQRA TYPE: N/A STEFANIE BITTER, ESQ. FOR ADIRONDACK GIRL SCOUTS AGENT(S): STEFANIE BITTER, ESQ. OWNER(S): ADIRONDACK GIRL SCOUT COUNCIL, INC. ZONING: SFR-1A LOCATION: CORNER OF MEADOWBROOK AND CRONIN ROADS APPELLANT IS APPEALING A DETERMINATION REGARDING THE NECESSITY FOR A USE VARIANCE PRIOR 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/07) TO THE PROPOSED EXPANSION TO THE “NATURE LODGE”. CROSS REF.: UV 12- 2002; SPR 24-2007 (NATURE LODGE) WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: N/A TAX MAP NO. 296.16-1-10 SECTION: 179-2-010 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. UNDERWOOD-Just to familiarize everybody, I think I’ll read the letter in that was sent by the Town of Queensbury. This was dated April 24, 2007 to Kit Huggard, Executive Director of the Adirondack Girl Scout Council. RE: The Adirondack Girl Scout Council Nature Lodge Site Plan Review Application at 412 Meadowbrook Road. “I am writing you in response to an April 2, 2007 letter to the Town from Jonathan Lapper on your behalf with regards to the above-referenced application. As I understand your proposal, you wish to construct a 754 sf addition to the existing Nature Lodge on the camp property in Meadowbrook Road. The property in question is within a Single Family Residential (SFR-1A) zoning district within the Town of Queensbury. As discussed previously, a Group Camp is not listed as an allowable use within the SFR -1A district. As such, a Use Variance will be required from the Zoning Board of Appeals prior to the commencement of your project. Please refer to my April 26, 2005 letter to you in which this same determination was rendered and agreed upon by your signature. We allowed the Winter Lodge development to occur as the construction was planned in an area that was, at that time, being used as an activity area. With the Nature Lodge expansion, the construction to the rear of the building and the addition of water and sewer lines to the building are all considered to be new activities in areas not currently occupied with scouting activities and therefore constitute an expansion and justify the need for a Use Variance. I have attached a copy of my April 26, 2005 letter, with your signature of agreement, for your reference. Should you have any further questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Town of Queensbury, Craig Brown, Zoning Administrator” And specifically that letter. MR. LAPPER-I have it if you don’t have it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I’ve got one here. They’re just kind of out of order. This letter was addressed to Kit Huggard also. It was dated April 26, 2005. “This letter will serve as notice of our determination relative to your proposed activities associated with the above referenced topics as shown in your recent submittal seeking a modification of your previous Site Plan 30-2002 approval.” And this was specifically the Winter Lodge and Splash Pad. “While your Site Plan Review application has been found to be missing a significant amount of information, (addressed in separate correspondence) I am confident that I understand your proposed projects for the purposes of this letter. As I understand your proposals, you are seeking a modification to your previously approved site plan, in order to “clean up” several deficiencies with regards to your original approval. Additionally, you are seeking approval for a “Splash Pad” water feature and a screen porch area adjacent to the Winter Lodge. As both of these areas appear to be currently actively occupied with Girl Scout activities it does not appear as though a Use Variance will be necessary for these proposed activities. However, future projects that include expansion of activity areas into locations not currently occupied with active scouting events will be subject to the Use Variance review process. If any future development or construction is contemplated, you should request a determination of whether your proposal would result in an enlargement or extension of a non-conforming use or structure. In order to avoid delays in the review and processing of future applications, please contact this office several months in advance of any tentative starting date. This determination is based upon my review of this project and may not serve as precedent for any other project or proposal. I am including a signature line for you so that you can confirm that my assumptions regarding your projects are correct. If I have mischaracterized your intentions please provide clarification, as any changes in circumstance may significantly alter our determination. If you agree with my assessments please sign and return this letter prior to your upcoming May Zoning Board of Appeals meeting so that these issues can be adequately addressed in time. Sincerely, Town of Queensbury Craig Brown, Zoning Administrator I Kit Huggard accept the terms and conditions of this letter and agree with the assessments rendered relative to the current and future projects for the Girl Scout Camp at 213 Meadowbrook Road.” And that’s signed Kit Huggard, Executive Director. That’s it. I better read Staff Notes. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Notice of Appeal No. 3-2007, Stefanie Bitter, Esq. for Adirondack Girl Scouts, Meeting Date: June 20, 2007 “Project Location: corner of Meadowbrook and Cronin Roads Description of Proposed Project: Appellant is appealing to the Zoning 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/07) Board of Appeals relative to a May 2, 2007 decision made by the Zoning Administrator that the proposed expansion to the facility requires a Use Variance. Staff comments: The initial decisions relative to future projects on the subject property was rendered by the Zoning Administrator on April 26, 2005. Subsequently, the appellant received a copy of the decision and agreed, by signature, to the content and direction provided in the determination. Please note: “However, future projects that include expansion of activity areas into locations not currently occupied with active scouting events will be subject to the Use Variance review process.” in the April 26, 2005 letter. The Zoning Administrator has determined that the proposed Nature Lodge expansion constitutes and expansion of the use and that a Use Variance is necessary. The February 27, 2002 Use Variance granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals to the appellant was specific to the expansion of the Administration Building only. Please see attached resolution.” MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you. Counselor, would you be kind enough to tell us who you are, and your relationship to Appeal No. 3-2007. MR. LAPPER-For the record, I’m Jon Lapper, attorney for the Girl Scout Council. I think that our case and our argument is extremely simple tonight. It just comes down to what was in Craig’s letter in ’95, that Kit, the former Executive Director, signed, that future projects, this is what Jim just read, that include expansion of activity areas into locations not currently occupied with active scouting events will be subject to the Use Variance review process. It is our position, which we will support with testimony, that the area that we’re asking to add this enclosed porch and to re-do the bathroom on the Nature Lodge is an area currently occupied with active scouting events, and therefore it should not be subject to a Use Variance review process. We’re seeking the exact same treatment that we got for the Winter Lodge, when we expanded the Winter Lodge to add a porch. I want to just show you on the maps and the plans exactly what we’re talking about, and then ask Donna, who has been involved in the Girl Scouts since the 50’s, to come up and testify about the previous use. MR. FULLER-Just real quick, can I clarify one thing procedurally? So you’re not appealing the 2005 determination? MR. LAPPER-We think the 2005 determination supports us. We’re just distinguishing the facts. MR. FULLER-Okay, but I just want to be clear that your appeal is on that nature, that you say that property was used for scouting purposes? MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. FULLER-So you do not appeal that 2005 determination. Okay. MR. LAPPER-No. We signed Craig’s letter. We understand that if it was an area that is in scouting use, if we cut the trees down and go into the woods, that would be a different situation, but this is an area of the field that’s immediately adjacent to the cabin. What happened here is that there are two cabins, the Winter Lodge and the Nature Lodge. I presume that all of you were up at the camp and you saw the Winter Lodge which has the new porch. Just because these things were built in the 50’s and don’t have ventilation, it just gets painfully hot. So their very simple plan for, especially on rainy nights when the girls are sleeping over on Thursday nights, the one night a week when they have the sleepover, if they have a screened in porch, it just makes it bearable, and it’s the exact same plan that they did for the Winter Lodge where they changed the roofline, built a screened porch, and just like with the Winter Lodge, it’s immediately adjacent to the cabin itself, and it’s an area that was previously grassed up until when they covered it with tarp to get ready to start the project. So we just want to establish that it was an area in accordance with Craig’s previous 2005 determination that was an area that’s been in active scouting use since the 50’s, and that’s why the use is already in the Girl Scout use, it’s a prior nonconforming use, and then we would just need site plan review for the building change, and in fact, you know, we’d submitted it, we submitted this in the winter for site plan review, and it wasn’t until after we submitted it that Craig had made the determination, and then beyond that, the Planning Board asked us a year ago to do a Master Plan for the whole camp, which we did, which included the 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/07) expansion of the Nature Lodge. So there’s nothing new here. We just tried to convince Craig that this was an area that was previously devoted to Girl Scout use, and we brought him up to the camp probably in May to walk around and show him and obviously he didn’t agree with us on the facts, but what I want to show you, the overall site plan for the whole camp is dated, this was late updated in ’05, and this shows the entire site plan, and it shows the existing Nature Lodge, and it shows the area of tree clearing is some feet from the building on all sides, and also the splash pad area that I’m sure you all saw. Where we’re talking about now is the area in between the building and the splash pad is where the screened in porch will go. So I want to show you that on the map. This is the Nature Lodge. Here’s the tree line, and here’s the splash pad, and Craig also made the determination in 2005 that the area where the splash pad is is an area that was previously devoted to Girl Scout use, and the area that we’re talking about now is closer to the building, and so obviously the building’s been there since the 50’s. They had to use the field outside of the building to get to the building. So what I’m showing you is that area here, splash pad, and Nature Lodge. The Nature Lodge and the splash pad and the tree clearing limits existing, and what we submitted to the Planning Board for Site Plan Review, on this map you can see, here’s the splash pad, here’s the existing Nature Lodge building with the bathroom in the back, and this is the area, the “L” shaped addition, for the screened in porch in front. Donna, would you come up so I could just ask you a couple of questions. MR. UNDERWOOD-So is it primarily day use in there now? It’s not lodging in there? MR. LAPPER-Well, I mean, I think the question is whether that area has been devoted to Girl Scout use, and they have night programs. They still do sleep in that cabin at night, the one night. MR. ABBATE-Before she starts, Counselor, I have a question. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Are you suggesting that the acceptance of the terms and conditions of the letter signed by Kit Huggard is not included in what you’re proposing this evening, that it was previously there? Is that what you’re suggesting, that the terms and conditions, well, she waived and agreed with the Zoning Administrator, doesn’t pertain to what you are asking this evening? MR. LAPPER-No. I’m saying we acknowledge what she agreed to. We agree with Craig’s determination in 2005. There are conditions that are very specific that if it’s an area that was not previously devoted to Girl Scout use it would require a Use Variance, and we’re saying that that letter gives us cover. It’s based upon that letter that we don’t need a Use Variance because this is an area that was historically, since the 40’s, really, devoted to Girl Scout use. Because that was the determination, if you carefully read what Jim just read, Craig’s 2005 letter, we’re saying that we’re conforming with that. We’re in compliance with that. That’s the exact same reason why the Winter Lodge was approved, because the expansion of the Winter Lodge is into an area that was already devoted to Girl Scout activities, and it’s the same thing with the Nature Lodge, and Donna’s going to put that on the record. MR. ABBATE-So then you’re basically, then you’re agreeing with me. When Kit Huggard accepted the terms and conditions of this letter, that her conditions and terms of the letter that she agreed to with the Zoning Administrator, okay, excluded that area. Is that what you’re saying? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. ABBATE-You’re just saying the opposite? MR. LAPPER-The letter was generic. The letter said, if you’re going to expand into areas that are not devoted to Girl Scout use, then you will need a Use Variance, and I’m saying that we are not proposing to expand into areas not devoted to Girl Scout use, we’re proposing to expand into areas that have historically always been devoted to Girl Scout use, and that was on the basis, it was on the exact same basis that Craig approved the Winter Lodge. So we’re asking that this should have the same treatment. Is that clear? MR. ABBATE-Okay. Go ahead. MR. LAPPER-Okay. Would you introduce yourself and your title now. 42 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/07) DONNA GELDER st MRS. GELDER-I’m Donna Gelder. I was President of Adirondack Council until June 1, when I became a Board member for our new Council, Girl Scouts of Northeastern New York. MR. LAPPER-Okay. Now you’ve previously explained to me your familiarity with the property years ago and the activities in the 50’s. If you could just testify for the Board and explain that to them. MRS. GELDER-I’ve always been a Girl Scout in Adirondack Girl Scout, and Adirondack Council, and in the Fall of 1952 I had my first camp over in this area we’re talking about. It was, tents were put up and we slept in tents. MR. LAPPER-Okay, and then in terms of that, when was the Nature Lodge built? MRS. GELDER-The Nature Lodge was built in 1957. So I was sleeping in the field where the Nature Lodge was built in 1952. MR. LAPPER-And there’ve been continuing activities in that area right up to the building? MRS. GELDER-Yes. MR. LAPPER-What have you devoted that area to, in terms of, what Girl Scout activities happen right outside of the Nature Lodge? MRS. GELDER-Well, a lot of different things. Most recently it would be the splash pad, but up until that time there were, there’s games and a course to, a fitness course is right outside there. MR. LAPPER-And that’s happened continuously since the 50’s? MRS. GELDER-Yes. In the 50’s, we had a pump there and we brushed our teeth at the pump, but, you know, that was still, it was still in use. It’s always been for girls. MR. LAPPER-Okay, thank you, any questions for Donna? MR. UNDERWOOD-Can I ask a question of Craig. Craig, when they came in with their full plan for the whole thing, did they anticipate expansion of most of the buildings or hooking up to water and sewer? I mean, I don’t recall that was the case. I think it was more generic to what was proposed at the time, which was the Winter Lodge. MR. BROWN-Yes, I don’t recall the specifics of the Master Plan. I don’t know, maybe Mr. Lapper has a copy of it with him tonight. MR. LAPPER-I don’t have the Master Plan with me. MR. BROWN-Yes, I don’t know. MRS. GELDER-Well, I was on the Committee that helped write that Plan. So I know that we had specific, we said what we really wanted to do with that building. That we knew that the girls didn’t like the (lost word) bathroom in there. They wanted water and flush toilets. They did not want, and even a year ago I was giving a tour to some people of the camp and the girls had left a note on the fireplace, please get us a real bathroom. So, they really want that. MR. ABBATE-I don’t think we have anymore questions for your witness, Counsel. Do you have someone else that wants to testify? MR. LAPPER-No, I think that’s it. MR. ABBATE-Anybody on the Board have any questions for Counsel? MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to understand what you’re saying, okay, because I’m not quite clear on this. You’re referring to that little paragraph that the Executive Director signed saying that it if wasn’t for Girl Scout use, we were going to have to go through the Use Variance process. 43 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/07) MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. BRYANT-Okay. So that means that anything you build on that property, primarily, that’s for Girl Scout use, is saved by that clause. Is that my understanding is correct? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. BRYANT-Okay, but how did we get to that point? I’m waiting to hear Mr. Brown’s side, because he hasn’t had the opportunity. When the Use Variance that was granted in 2002 was relative to the Administration building. MR. LAPPER-I’m not going there. I’m not using that argument. I mean, I could make the argument that when we did the Use Variance in 2002 that it was clear that the whole Girl Scout camp was on the table, but I mean, specifically Craig has said that he views that as only dealing with the Administration building. So I’m leaving that alone, and I’m just going with the determination that he made in 2005 that he said these are the rules that we’d apply to the Winter Lodge, and I’m just asking that the exact same rules that we signed on to and said we acknowledged that we did a minor expansion of the Winter Lodge because the area outside of it was obviously devoted to Girl Scout use, and Donna’s just said the same thing for the Nature Lodge. MR. BRYANT-On the other hand, I believe that Use Variance is the basis for the whole thing because in reality once you achieve or you get your Use Variance, theoretically, it’s no longer a nonconforming use. It is then conforming to that use that the variance is granted for. MR. LAPPER-Well, we submitted it with both arguments. We submitted the application with both arguments, but I think the simplest case is just to agree with Craig in 2005 and say that we have the same facts that we had in the Winter Lodge, and, you know, to answer your question, we’re not talking about building a 5,000 square foot horse stable or something. This is, you know, a tiny addition to just change the roofline and add a screened porch, but I just think it’s covered most simply under Craig’s letter, that we all agreed to what it says, it’s just a question of how it’s applied. MR. BRYANT-Okay. MR. ABBATE-All right. Does anyone else have any questions? MR. GARRAND-I have a question for the Zoning Administrator. MR. ABBATE-Well, let’s wait for a second, because we’re going to give him an opportunity. Let’s get his argument out of the way first, because our procedures are completely different. Okay. Anything else you’d like to add? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Now let me continue. For Board members, there are four items we have to be concerned with. Number One, the jurisdiction of the Zoning Board of Appeals to construe the Ordinance includes the power to determine the application of the Ordinance to specific property. Number Two, the Zoning Board of Appeals has jurisdiction to interpret the zoning regulations upon an appeal from the issuance of a permit by an enforcement official, and as such interpretation by the ZBA will not be disturbed, absent showing that it is irrational or unreasonable. Number Three, the Zoning Board of Appeals’ jurisdiction to review the zoning decisions of enforcement officers is exclusive. It cannot be exercised by any other administrative officers or by the legislative authority of the municipality, and Number Four, the ZBA may, after appropriate notice and hearing, reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, or may modify the order, requirement, decision or determination appeal from as in the ZBA’s opinion ought to have been made. Having said that now, I’m going to ask the Zoning Administrator to please respond. MR. BROWN-Okay. In addition to the Staff Notes, I guess I would just offer, and I guess I find myself in a little bit of a strange position here trying to make the argument for the appellant, but just in the interest of fairness, I just want to make sure everybody’s clear. My determination was, and still is, that if the area has been used for active scouting activities, any development in those areas or expansion into those areas does not require a Use Variance. I think they’ve agreed to that. In this case, my position is that the addition to the Nature Lodge is in area that has not been used for active scouting 44 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/07) activities, and their argument is that area is, and that’s the only small little area that we disagree on. MR. LAPPER-Right, that’s right. MR. BROWN-So that’s what the appeal is, that the area that they want to do the addition is, or has been used, as active scouting activities. So if everybody’s clear on that, then I’ll go forward. MR. ABBATE-Yes, please. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. URRICO-Except one thing, you used the term events, not activities in this quotation that’s pulled out. It says active scouting events, not activities. MR. BROWN-I mean, to me they’re interchangeable. Events, activities. I mean, if you have a different definition for either. MR. URRICO-I’ll let you go on. MR. BROWN-Okay. I did visit the site with Mr. Lapper, Mr. Aurelia, Ms. Huggard. I think Stefanie Bitter was there with us at the same time. We toured the site. I believe it was early May. They made all the same arguments and I did consider them, and I didn’t, you know, unfortunately I didn’t get back to them right away. It took me a few days, and then I issued a determination, I believe, closer to the end of the month, but I just have a, the reason I made the determination, I see a bit of a flaw in the logic. If you look at the photos that were submitted, their logic is the area outside the building has been used for active scouting activities. Therefore we can put an addition here. Well, if you use that logic, every place there’s a picnic table, every place they cut the grass and run around and fly kites, they can build buildings, because those are active scouting activity areas, and it’s just, you know, the determination was made in order to basically, you know, draw a line in the sand and say, you’re putting a building where there wasn’t a building before. That’s an expansion of the use and the activities on the site, and that building that you’re adding on to, you’re now running water lines and sewer lines to those buildings that weren’t there before. That’s an expansion of the intensity the use there. Have they had overnight sleep there? I believe that they have. They’ve testified that they have. Will they now be able to have more that, with the improvements that they want to make to the building? Possibly. I don’t know that answer, but, you know, I could go on and on, but I think that that’s the basis for my decision is that, have they walked around the building and ran around the building and played hide and go seek and tag around the building? Sure. Is that an active scouting activity? Like at the Winter Lodge, there was a, kind of like a patio graded kind of area with some picnic tables in it. I don’t want to go too far into that activity because the events that unfolded there, you know, aren’t going to shed any positive light on either side of the topic here. So, if you have any questions, I’d be happy to try and answer them for you. MR. ABBATE-I have a question for Counsel. Counselor, you used, in reference, you described, use the case, the matter of Angel Plants vs. Scofield, and I’ve checked that out. As a matter of fact, I happen to have that here in front of me. How does that apply? MR. LAPPER-Well, that argument goes to whether or not the variance in 2002 applied to the whole camp or just to the Administration building. I mean, we presented that before this Board at the time. Most of you were still here. That was dealing with the issue when you apply for a Use Variance for a not for profit charitable entity it goes by the more relaxed Area Variance standards, the balancing test, rather than the hardship test for a Use Variance, so we, because that building had previously been a house and then it was made into the Administration building, we had to get a Use Variance for that building, and I think part and parcel of that was that the whole camp had pre-existed. We had to establish, at that time, that the whole Girl Scout camp was there since the late 40’s, and so we dealt with the whole camp in terms of the Use Variance. We got a Use Variance. So Use Variance deals with the use. It doesn’t mean that you might not need Area Variances, setback, etc., but in terms of the use, we had to establish that it was okay to use the Girl Scout camp as a Girl Scout camp, even though, subsequent to the building of the Girl Scout camp it’s been zoned residential. So the Angel case that you’re referring to says that once you have established a use as not a nonconforming use but as a Use Variance use, an expansion, building another building doesn’t require another Use Variance, once the use is established. Tonight I’m making the argument because Craig already made it in 2005, that once the use is grandfathered, that we’re talking 45 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/07) about use tonight, not really intensity of use, but whether it’s devoted to the Girl Scout use, that it has been, and I’m just trying to get the same treatment we got for the Winter Lodge, but I think the Angel case deals with getting the Use Variance, and this deals with the grandfather. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Now, having said that, our Counsel, what is the impact of this statement that was signed by Kit Huggard, who, at the time was Executive Director, please. MR. FULLER-That’s a very good question, and I think it leads right from the discussion that you just had. In essence, Mr. Lapper’s analysis is correct. When you get a Use Variance, it applies for that property for that use. Other variances may then apply. In this instance we have an intervening factor, if you will, and I’m going to use something that we just saw out of a decision we got yesterday, law of the case. The intervening factor is that in 2005 the status of the Use Variance was somewhat clarified, and clarified by the Zoning Administrator and by the property owner, property user, in that, as Mr. Lapper just put it, I would consider that now the intervening factor. Future projects, as Craig very succinctly said, that include expansion of activity areas into locations not currently occupied with active scouting events will be subject to the Use Variance review process. The Girl Scouts have agreed to that. The Zoning Administrator has agreed to that, that is the standard now that applies to this property. I think that distinguishes it from the cases that have been cited. Had this intervening factor not have been there, then the legal argument from those cases and the precedent would be very compelling, but this, I guess you could say agreement, between the property owner and the Zoning Administrator, therefore the Town, is an intervening factor that somewhat modifies that precedent. So I think clearly the question, both sides agree, is that Craig specifically said, was this area used for active scouting events, that’s truly it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. That’s the question. MR. BRYANT-Yes, but I disagree with that opinion completely, because frankly the Zoning Code supersedes any agreement that these guys have, okay. So they can agree to build the Empire State Building on the property, that’s fine, but the Zoning Code takes precedence, and in reality, once you’ve granted a Use Variance, it’s no longer a nonconforming property. It conforms to that particular use. I have questions about the whole verbiage that we’re talking about. When we talk about expansion, and your response just now, saying well then they can build a building any place, but that’s not what they’re asking to do. They’re expanding an existing structure. You mentioned gas lines or water lines. This is a porch, right? MR. LAPPER-Yes. The bathroom’s going to be upgraded, though, to comply. There’s going to be a waterline but that’s been done elsewhere on the property. The sewer line went up Meadowbrook Road. They previously connected to the sewer line. They’re just connecting this new building, or this building, this existing building to the sewer line. MR. FULLER-Just to clarify one quick thing on that, I didn’t mean to imply at all that you can agree around zoning. You cannot. That’s not what was done. If the applicant, the Girl Scouts didn’t like this determination back in 2005, this is a determination that the Zoning Administrator made. They could have appealed that, within 60 days of the date of this determination. Since they did not, it’s now law of the case, so to speak. It’s binding. It intervenes, and they didn’t appeal it. So now we’re dealing with, sure, prior to this, Use Variances, they could have made that argument that it applied to the entire property. Subsequent to that, this determination arose. It was never, it was not appealed. It’s now binding. MR. UNDERWOOD-So, if, indeed, they have to come to us for a variance now, they’ve got to come in and get a variance for expansion of a nonconforming use. Is that what you’re going to ask them to do? That’s the determination. MR. ABBATE-One other question. What’s the Statute of Limitations on that? MR. FULLER-Sixty days. MR. ABBATE-Okay. If there’s no other questions, let me continue on. I’m going to open up the public hearing. MR. GARRAND-Could I ask a question? Could this be interpreted, I mean, when this was written, I believe the gist of this was so that there wouldn’t be rampant construction on the property, this is for the Zoning Administrator, so there wouldn’t be rampant 46 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/07) construction on the property? Couldn’t they just arbitrarily say anything they’re doing on that property is active scouting activities, which allows them to use it to expand it? MR. BROWN-I think that’s exactly their argument. MR. GARRAND-Okay, and this stipulation here might be a little overly broad, and allow for things like that. MR. ABBATE-Well, it all depends on who you talk to. MR. BROWN-That’s why we’re here tonight. MR. ABBATE-It all depends on who you ask the question of, see, but anyhow. Do you have any other questions? All right. Then I’m going to open up the public hearing, and to meet the obligation of the Public Officers Law Section 3, for a fair and open process, the public hearing is open for Appeal No. 3-2007. In the interest of time, do we have any folks in the audience, in the public who would like to address Appeal No. 3-2007? Yes, sir. Would you please come forward, have a chair, speak into the microphone and please tell us who you are. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JIM PIPER MR. PIPER-My name is Jim Piper. I live at 206 Meadowbrook Road which is across the street. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. PIPER-I’m a former Board member of the Adirondack Girl Scout Council. I think if you take and look at the fact that this property has been a Girl Scout camp since 1949, pre-dated any zoning. Now I realize zoning has been put in place to control some of the sprawl in the Town of Queensbury. Since this property has, the addition that they’re trying to put on, this porch, and they’re talking about water lines. Sewer line was already brought up to the splash pad. That was mandated by the State of New York just last year. So the sewer line is already there. It’s not that you’re going to have to do a major expansion here, and I see no problems whatsoever in the granting of this Use Variance or affirming the fact that they already have a Use Variance and that they don’t have to come back here to get a Use Variance. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Do we have anyone else who’d like to address this issue, Appeal No. 3-2007? I see no other hands raised. MR. UNDERWOOD-Could I ask Craig a question? MR. ABBATE-Sure, by all means. MR. UNDERWOOD-Craig, are they going to have to go through Site Plan Review for the expansion, or is it just going to be a building permit? MR. BROWN-No, Site Plan Review. They’ve submitted a Site Plan Review application. That’s kind of been on hold until we figure this out. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Sure. MR. ABBATE-No other questions? Okay. I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ABBATE-And I’m going to request the Board members to offer their commentary, and I’d respectfully remind the members that precedence mandates we concern ourselves with the evidence which appears on the record to support our conclusions. Having said that, who would like to state their comments first? Do we have a volunteer? MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll go first. MR. ABBATE-Would you please, Mr. Underwood, please. 47 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/07) MR. UNDERWOOD-I think Mr. Brown is correct in his interpretation, based upon Ms. Huggard’s signature, and the specific language that was created there. However, at the same time, we’re all familiar with the Girl Scout’s mission, and, you know, what the camp is all about, and I don’t think that we’re here to like throw a wrench in the works every time you want to do every little thing up there, but it is a expansion of a nonconforming use. I don’t think it’s any big deal, and I think if you came in and said we want to do this project, I don’t think any of us would really flinch and say it’s some massive project that’s going to alter the neighborhood or the camp and be a detriment to the community, but at the same time, I think that we need to be careful. You went through all the process of doing the plan, acknowledging the fact that there’s probably going to be future expansions there, but Mr. Brown was very specific in his language in asking that when you come in for something new, that what you did in the past has nothing to do. It’s going to be thoroughly reviewed and if it is an expansion, then you’re going to have to get relief for that expansion, and I think it’s more of a, it’s not a complicated issue. I think you come to us. You ask for us. I don’t know if we can dispense with it tonight because it’s not advertised as such, but we’ve never had an negativity regarding the Girl Scouts from the community that I can recall, and I think that, I don’t have a problem with what you’re doing here, but I would have to back up Mr. Brown and his interpretation. I think if you do come in for relief, I don’t have any problem giving you relief from what you’re proposing here. I think it’s a reasonable addition to that building, and I would agree with you on the point that the Girl Scouts have continuously used that building since the 50’s. That’s to your credit, but it is an expansion. You are bringing water in. It is an issue. So I think it’s something that should be reviewed. Site Plan Review is going to go through that. I don’t think they’re going to bother you with it either. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Garrand, please. MR. GARRAND-Looking just at the wording of this, I think it’s what the Board member for the Girl Scouts stated. That area has been used for active scouting events. Therefore, and I do think it’s a very, very broad statement. It’s an overly general statement. I would have been a lot more specific with saying something that anything that required any excavating or, you know, anything of that sort of, laying lumber, whatever. By the same token, this is also an area where we’re subject to a lot of flooding, and we have to be very careful of what we allow to happen here, but at this point, I’d have to disagree with the ZA’s determination here. I just don’t think the wording is explicit enough to restrict this. MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Mr. Urrico, please. MR. URRICO-Yes. I’d just like to say how well presented that first motion was. I thought the Number 12-2002, I thought I introduced it very well. I think the important thing is that in this case, in this case, I think the applicant has convinced me that they are not expanding use of this. They’re using it as it’s been used for many years. Even events where they had camps there without a lodge. So I would be in favor of overruling the Zoning Administrator, but I think the warning here is that we shouldn’t accept this as carte blanch to do any expansion on the property based on this one decision that we reached in 2002. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. McNulty, please. MR. MC NULTY-I don’t know where I stand. This is a puzzling one. Obviously part of what’s happened here is here’s a camp that’s been there from way back, and it’s been surrounded by residential area. So, in some sense, looking at fairness, it isn’t fair. They’re being held to higher standards and they were the first guys present, and it’s a little difficult to really know whether the area in question’s been used and what the term is, or what the definition of used is in that case, by Girl Scouts, but the other thing I think of is, well, I’ll wager that some Girl Scout in some year has probably walked almost every square inch of that property. So therefore, if we take the appellant’s argument, they can do anything anywhere on that property, and probably argue that it’s been used before by a Girl Scout, and I don’t think that’s what’s intended either. At the same time, I really don’t want to see them nickel and dimed every time they propose to do something, and perhaps part of the function of keeping track of that is something that belongs to the Planning Board with Site Plan Review, rather than to this Board, but I guess, when I balance all of that, I come down supporting the Zoning Administrator by a whisker, but I, and I’ll agree with what, I forgot who it was that said it, but I’ve got no real problem in approving the proposed screen porch, and I guess my preference would be to see that come back as a Use Variance request in some term that maybe we do a more broad Use Variance for the property, to avoid the nickel and diming, and make things easier on the Zoning Administrator, too, of not having to make this decision every time there’s a 48 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/07) proposal to expand something, but anyway, sorting it all out, I think I’ve got to edge over just a little bit and support the Zoning Administrator. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Bryant, please. MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d like to just ask Staff, in your determination letter, the one in April, where you refer back to the original agreement signed by Kit Huggard, how did you determine that that area was not continually used for Girl Scouts? In other words, is this a question that you just wanted to draw the line in the sand, at this point, is that what we’re doing? MR. BROWN-That’s a portion of it, yes. MR. BRYANT-Okay. So in reality, you alluded to your agreement with the Girl Scouts back whenever, okay, and you used that argument to negate the expansion when in reality you acknowledge that that property has been used continually for Girl Scout purposes. MR. BROWN-Is that a question? MR. BRYANT-Yes. Do you want me to re-state it? MR. BROWN-Yes, if you could, so I can give you an answer. MR. BRYANT-Primarily what you said was, okay, in your determination, was you’re alluding to that agreement that specifically states that, you know, if it’s other than a Girl Scout expansion, that they’d have to come back to re-visit the Use Variance issue. Okay. You’re alluding to that, but then with the other hand you’re saying that, you’re acknowledging that it’s been a Girl Scout use, and therefore, you follow the direction I’m going in? Give me a little bit of clarity here. MR. BROWN-Yes, I understand what you’re saying. I do acknowledge that the property has been used as a Girl Scout camp. When it comes to expanding the buildings on the site and expanding the uses on the site, the determination was, if you’re, I’ll use the splash pad for example. If you’re familiar with it, and there’s a good photo of it, actually, in the application materials. MR. BRYANT-Yes, I saw it. MR. BROWN-If you’re going to go out there and play tag or play hide and go seek in the area and run around and play, and you want to construct another area where you’re going to go out and do that except there’s going to be water splashing on your head, that’s not an expansion. You’re out there, you’re activity. You’re outside and you have an outside play activity. So that’s not an expansion of the use. When you’re going to put a building up where there wasn’t a building before, and there wasn’t even a deck or a patio or a platform that you had a lean to or put your tents on, that’s an expansion of that building. That’s an expansion of the use, where there weren’t activities in the past. MR. BRYANT-Well, in reality, we had testimony from an individual who said that they put their tent in that location. So what we’re having now is we’re a little bit more st sophisticated in the 21 century and we don’t want to sleep in tents. So we sleep under a screened porch. So, in reality, we’re doing the same thing. I just want to understand what the real intent is at this point, you know, not the legal verbiage. Okay. So I’m ready to make my comment. MR. ABBATE-Make your comment, please. MR. BRYANT-I disagree with what our Counsel has said regarding the agreement, okay, th simply because the April 24 letter re-opens that, and so that is all part of the determination. When you allude to it in a particular letter, okay, then it’s open for grabs. I understand the intent of what the Zoning Administrator is trying to accomplish, but the explanation doesn’t necessarily fit my definition. As far as I’m concerned, the Use Variance was relatively clear that it’s no longer a nonconforming use, in my view. If we’re going to go back to that original agreement where we’re going to expand part of a building or something, but it’s still the Girl Scout activity, I think the original agreement covers that, okay. So in that regard I disagree with the Zoning Administrator. I do want to preface that comment, though, by saying that I could understand where he’s coming from, that all of a sudden we’re going to have a Girl Scout megalopolis with all kinds of buildings and all kinds of facilities, and that’s what we don’t want to see. A small 49 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/07) extension of a porch, then I think he might be a little bit overzealous in his determination. So at this point, with this explanation, I’m going to side with the appellant. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Fine. Thank you very much. Mrs. Jenkin, please. MRS. JENKIN-I think, reading the paragraph, that I really agree with what Mr. Garrand said, that looking at the language of the paragraph, it’s quite clear, and it is very broad, and it’s probably too broad, and it probably should have been made much more specific, but because it does say that expansion of activity areas into locations not currently occupied with scouting events, well, the Nature Lodge has always been used for events, and the addition of a covered porch, they’re still using it for more or less the same use. I don’t see that there’s a change there, and I would have to disagree with the Zoning Administrator. I would go with the appellant. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. MRS. JENKIN-I would hope that, is it possible to make the language, to change it, it’s not possible to change the language now, is it, now that this is there. MR. ABBATE-It’s done, it’s done. MRS. JENKIN-Is it possible to make any more specific language in the future? MR. ABBATE-Well, that would be something we could discuss later on. I did not come to the Board tonight with a predisposed position. Trust me, I did not. I did a lot of research on this thing, and I bounced back and forth. I listened to what one Board member said, and I said, well, that’s a pretty good position. I listened to what another Board member said, which was just the opposite, and I said, well, gee, that’s a pretty good position, too, but ultimately I have to make my own decision. This comes as a shock, but I think I’m going to have to agree with Mr. Bryant. I think that whoever made the statement that the language was somewhat vague with Mrs. Huggard, I was very concerned about that, and the legal implication of that, but as I reviewed it again this evening, I think the letter of 2005, depending upon how you perceive it, I think, and her acknowledgement of the terms and conditions I think are somewhat vague. Also the Zoning Administrator indicated to Mr. Bryant that he acknowledge its use as a Girl Scout camp. That probably, by a whisker, moved my position from supporting the Zoning Administrator to supporting the appellant. Now, having said that, is there a motion for Appeal No. 3-2007? We can only do one of two things, ladies and gentlemen, A, support the appellant’s challenge to the Zoning Administrator’s decision, or, B, to uphold the Zoning Administrator’s decision. Nothing else. Is there a motion? Do I have a volunteer? MOTION TO APPROVE THE APPEAL NO. 3-2007 ADIRONDACK GIRL SCOUTS SUPPORTING THE APPELLANT’S CHALLENGE TO THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S DECISION REGARDING A MAY 2, 2007 DECISION, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: th Duly 20 day of June, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate NOES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood MR. ABBATE-It has been seconded to support the appellant’s challenge to the Zoning Administrator’s decision. It’s moved and seconded to support just that, in a vote of five yes, two no. The vote is five yes, two no to support the appellant’s challenge to the Zoning Administrator’s decision. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. Good night. MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome. All right, now, ladies and gentlemen, we’re going to move into an Executive Session as requested by the Town Attorney. MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: th Duly adopted this 20 day of June, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate 50 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/07) NOES: NONE MR. ABBATE-The vote is seven yes, zero no to move into Executive Session. This Board is now in Executive Session. MOTION TO COME OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: th Duly adopted this 20 day of June, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MR. ABBATE-All right. The vote is seven yes, zero no to come out of Executive Session. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Charles Abbate, Chairman 51