Loading...
2007-09-26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/26/07) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 26, 2007 INDEX Area Variance No. 59-2007 Schermerhorn Residential 1. (Cont’d Pg. 14) Tax Map No. 288.00-1-63 and 64 Area Variance No. 55-2007 C.R. Bard, Inc./ 4. Glens Falls Technology Center Tax Map No. 302.8-1-3; 302.7-1-43 Area Variance No. 57-2007 Ronald G. Bacon 8. Tax Map No. 301.17-2-17 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/26/07) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 26, 2007 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHARLES MC NULTY, ACTING CHAIRMAN JAMES UNDERWOOD, SECRETARY JOYCE HUNT ALLAN BRYANT ROY URRICO RICHARD GARRAND BRIAN CLEMENTS, ALTERNATE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER-BRUCE FRANK STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. MC NULTY-Let me welcome you to the September 26, 2007 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Before we get started, I want to review quickly what our procedures will be and then we have one change in the agenda that we’ll get to. For normal applications, I’ll call the application by name and number. The Secretary then will read in the pertinent parts of the application, Staff Notes, and Warren County Planning Board decision if applicable into the record. At that point, the applicant will be able to present any additional information they wish to present to us. Then the Board will ask questions of the applicant. After that, we’ll open the public hearing. I would note that the public hearing is not a vote. It’s a way to gather and understand information about the concerns about the project and it’s a way to gather insight into the general issue at hand. Public hearing should function to help the Board members make a wise, informed decision. It does not function to make the decision for the Board members. We will have a five minute limit on any comments from the public. So the message there is tell us everything you want us to know in five minutes. Be concise. However, if after listening to other speakers, you believe you have new information to present, you can have a second chance to speak to the Board. Correspondence will then be read into the record, pertaining to the application. Following that, the applicant will have an opportunity to react and respond to the public comment, and Board members will discuss the variance request with the applicant, and I would suggest to the Board members that that point is the time to discuss compromises, changes or whatever. Following that, the Board members will be polled to explain their positions on the application, and at that point, the discussion is between the Board members and the Chairman, and we are not looking for any outside input, and if the Board members can avoid it, we shouldn’t be asking for outside input at that point. After that, depending on what the situation looks like, we’ll probably close the public hearing, or if it looks like we’re going to table the application, we’ll leave the public hearing open, and then finally there’ll be a motion to approve, disapprove or table. AREA VARIANCE NO. 59-2007 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED SCHERMERHORN RESIDENTIAL HOLDINGS, L.P. AGENT(S): J. LAPPER, ESQ. BPSR/MILLER & ASSOCIATES/NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S): SCHERMERHORN RESIDENTIAL HOLDINGS, L.P. ZONING: PO LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF GURNEY LANE & WEST. MT. ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN 85,340 SQ. FT. OFFICE BUILDING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM PARKING REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: SEPTEMBER 12, 2007 LOT SIZE: 0.90 AC.; 16.12 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.00-1- 63 AND 64 SECTION: 179-4-040 MR. MC NULTY-First thing on the agenda tonight, we’re going to spend a minute on Area Variance No. 59-2007 the Schermerhorn project, and, Mr. Secretary, would you read in the letter that we received. MR. UNDERWOOD-This letter was received this afternoon around quarter of two. It’s addressed to Chairman Abbate. On behalf of the applicant, I hereby request that the parking variance scheduled to be heard at this evening’s Zoning Board meeting be tabled until one of your October meetings. Last night we presented this office building project to the Planning Board and the Planning Board requested that the applicant consider making some significant modifications to the proposed Site Plan in order to address issues raised by members of the Planning Board and by the neighbors. The applicant anticipates that we will be able to submit a revised Site Plan on October 15, 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/26/07) 2007, which will further reduce the project impacts. However, the result of these Site Plan changes will not change the proposed number of parking places, so that no modification of the pending Area Variance application will be necessary. I further th request that your tabling resolution provide that the applicant has until October 15 to submit revised Site Plans to the Zoning Board of Appeals. It is our belief that is does not make sense for the ZBA to open up the public hearing tonight because the public hearing should address the revised Site Plan rather than the current Site Plan. We expect that the intended revisions will be viewed positively by members of the ZBA. Thank you for your consideration. Signed, Jon Lapper. I guess we need to decide when we’re going to. MR. MC NULTY-Yes. The first question, I guess, for the Board, the applicant’s requesting an October hearing before us, but they’re also requesting that they have until the middle of October to submit anything new. If they follow through with what they’ve said in the letter, their request before us probably will not change. It’s just that the underlying application, which might have a very non-impact on the neighborhood. So there’s a few things that still could come up that we legitimately should consider. The thth question is, is October 15 to the final meeting in October which is, what, the 26 maybe, something like that. MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s that week, yes. MR. URRICO-Do we know when they’re meeting with the Planning Board yet? MR. MC NULTY-I don’t know. Do you know when they’re scheduled for Planning Board again? MR. UNDERWOOD-Someone in the audience seems to know when the date would be. JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-A point of order, Mr. Chairman. The applicant has admitted in that correspondence that there will be no change in the parking plan, and that’s the only issue before this Board. There seems to be, a public hearing was announced, was noticed for tonight. People are here to comment on it. We’ve done our homework. There seems to be no reason to table this for another month. I think you should open a public hearing. The applicant should come here and in the public hearing request this. They can, however, in the alternative, withdraw their application. That’s something they can do, but this tabling, to me, is out of order. MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, I just want to comment on that. Mr. Salvador makes a good point. MR. FRANK-Could I cut in for a second? If you’re going to consider what Mr. Salvador has to say, he needs to get on the mic, because none of this will be picked up. MR. BRYANT-I’m going to repeat it. MR. FRANK- All right. If you want to approach is that way, it’s fine. MR. BRYANT-Unless Mr. Salvador wants to say it again. MR. UNDERWOOD-Why don’t we do this. Let the Board, let us, and then we’ll let you put in your. MR. SALVADOR-I have an issue of point of order and that has to be addressed before anything. Parliamentary procedure. As I said, in their letter, they have admitted that there will be no change in the parking plan, and that’s the only issue before this Board, and a public hearing has been announced for this, and people are here ready to participate and to testify. The applicant can, in the alternative, withdraw their application, but they haven’t intended to do that. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I guess another point for the Board to consider, but while we would only be considering the request before us whenever we consider this, which will be the number of parking spaces, nevertheless, some of the questions that we have to answer, things like whether there’s an undesirable change going to be produced in the character of the neighborhood, and whether there will be a detriment to nearby properties. That could be influenced by traffic plans, traffic lights and things of that sort. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/26/07) MR. UNDERWOOD-Let me just interject, too, though. I think that we’re hypothetically discussing changes that might occur, that might alter our perceptions. MR. MC NULTY-Exactly, we don’t know. MR. UNDERWOOD-But, nonetheless, this was scheduled tonight. We didn’t get any notification until we arrived here at the meeting that they’re going to pull this off the meeting. So, I mean, it would have been nice if they were here to explain why they’re doing this, Number One. I think it’s improper. I don’t know if we’re beholding to the public. I think we are beholding to the public, too, to a degree. It was on the schedule. We’re prepared to deal with it. MR. MC NULTY-It was on the schedule. We’re prepared to deal with it. On the other hand, we would be at risk if we dealt with it adversely. MR. URRICO-Well, I don’t think we have to deal with it. We just have to hear your viewpoints, and that’s what we’re here for. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Now, the other factor, and one legitimate choice is whether we open the public hearing open the public hearing or not. However, if we open the public hearing, people comment, they’re not commenting to the Board mix that’s going to make the decision. So the impact of their comments is going to be less. The impact, if they spend their time tonight making comments to this Board, there’s going to be at least one or two different people on the Board when it theoretically is heard in October. Those people won’t have the benefit of the in person comments. Naturally, they can presumably read the minutes, but they’re not going to have as much of an impact. So there’s arguments both ways, but there’s one argument for saying no, let’s not discuss any of it. The applicant isn’t here to hear or respond to the public. MR. UNDERWOOD-Let’s individually poll the Board and get comments. MR. MC NULTY-Any other thoughts before we go and poll the Board? MR. URRICO-Well, my concern is that there are people here tonight that may not be able to make the next meeting. They should have the opportunity to speak, and we didn’t find out until we got here tonight that they wanted to poll the application. I think we can table it, but I think we should open the public meeting and hear what people have to say. I also want to hear what the Planning Board has to say as well. I would like the opportunity to see their notes from tonight and from whenever their decision gets made. There’s a lot of information that was public. MR. MC NULTY-Any other thoughts? MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman? MR. MC NULTY-Yes, sir. MR. BRYANT-I agree with Mr. Urrico. An individual who’s hear tonight to speak tonight because it was advertised as such may not have the opportunity to come to the real meeting, whenever that transpires, and at least their comments will be part of the record, which is what we base our decisions on. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. So I’m getting the feeling that majority of the Board would like to open the public hearing at the proper time. Okay. At that point, then, no action’s required at this point. We don’t need to take any formal action. We’ll leave it on the agenda until we get to the third item, then, and I guess my only comment to the public that’s going to be here to speak, you’re going to end up with two options. You can speak now or you can come back when we meet on this again in October and speak, or you can opt to wait until October if you want to. Because you obviously will have a chance to speak then, but bear in mind, too, when we get to that point, that the only thing that we’re looking at is whether or not we should grant additional parking. We don’t control traffic. We don’t control traffic lights. We don’t control time schedules or anything else. All that being said, then, I guess we can move on. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. MC NULTY-In which case, Mr. Secretary, we’re looking at Area Variance No. 55- 2007. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/26/07) NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 55-2007 SEQRA TYPE: II C.R. BARD, INC./GLENS FALLS TECHNOLOGY CENTER AGENT(S) WILLIAM J. KELLER OWNER(S) C.R. BARD, INC. ZONING: LI LOCATION: 289 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES INSTALLATION OF AN EMERGENCY STANDBY GENERATOR AND ASSOCIATED SWITCH-GEAR. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: MANY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING BOARD: SEPTEMBER 12, 2007 LOT SIZE: 6.72 AC.; 7.90 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-030 BILL KELLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. UNDERWOOD-Just so that everybody understands what this is all about, I’m going to read the letter in that they sent to the Zoning Board, and this was dated July 2, 2007. “We are coming to you for a rear yard setback variance. We are proposing to install an emergency standby generator and associated switch-gear at the Glens Falls Technology Center at 289 Bay Road. First I would like to give you a brief history of C.R. Bard. In 1940 USCI was founded in Glens Falls by Norman Jeckel. USCI was the first of many medical manufacturing plants to become established in what today is known at the catheter valley. In 1943, with 35 employees, USCI received the Army/Navy “E” award for excellence in manufacturing. USCI continued to grow and in 1966 was brought by C.R. Bard. C.R. Bard still owns the facility at Bay Road and is celebrating 100 years in business. The facility at Bay Road is Bard’s largest manufacturing operation in the United States, and one of the area’s largest employers. The Glens Falls Technology Center employs 895 people at present. The Queensbury Facility is a 7 day a week 24 hour manufacturing operation. The products manufactured in this facility are class one medical devices. These devices could be critical in saving someone’s life. Therefore it is of utmost importance that we can continue to manufacture even during power outages. Our proposal is to install a 22.5 KW emergency standby generator and associated switch-gear adjacent to our existing high voltage switch-gear near the Warren County Bike Trail. The property is zoned LI. The required setback is 30’. We are asking for a relief from this requirement. We are asking for a 8’ x 8” setback from the property line. This equipment would be in line with an existing nonconforming structure. The equipment would be 34’ from the edge of the bike trail. The border we are asking relief from is along the Warren County bike trail. C.R. Bard owns the property on the other side of the bike trail also. Attached: 1. Plot plan with generator and switchgear location 2. Photos of existing Bard switchgear building 3. Photo of similar generator at Warren Co. Jail 4. Elevation drawings Sincerely, Bill Keller Facility Engineering Manager 289 Bay Road Queensbury, N.Y. 12804” STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 55-2007, C.R. Bard, Inc./Glens Falls Technology Center, Meeting Date: September 26, 2007 “Project Location: 289 Bay Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of an emergency standby generator. Relief Required: Applicant requests 23.7 feet of relief from the 30 minimum rear setback requirement of the Light Industrial (LI) zone. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to install the generator in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternative locations appear to be available to the applicant. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The request for 23.7 feet of setback relief from the 30 foot requirement may be interpreted as substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/26/07) Minimal to moderate impacts regarding the construction are anticipated as the proposed location appears to be centered on the property. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created as there appear to be alternative locations available. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Site Plan Review 45-2007--Additional lights, Stormwater and Generator-- pending AV 65-2002 - 900 sf addition approved 8/21/02 SP 36-2002 - Modification to site plan approved 10/21/03 Staff comments: Consideration may be given to seeking input from the Planning Board relative to the location of the generator as the applicant currently has a Site Plan Review pending before the Planning Board. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I see the applicant is at the table. Would you identify yourself. MR. KELLER-Good evening. My name is Bill Keller. I’m the Facility Engineering Manager for C.R. Bard, acting as his agent. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Anything else you would like to tell us about this project? MR. KELLER-Just one point I’d like to point out. You can probably see it on the map that’s projected where the arrow is. Just in front of there is our switchgear room, and that’s the primary reason for locating our power generator there adjacent to our switchgear room. Also another reason is, centrally located as it was stated in the notes, and some of the buildings will help block any noise that is generated. The generator will have a fully enclosed sound attenuating enclosure that reduces at least 30 decibels from the diesel engine and the operation of the generator itself. Also it has a larger muffler, with some extra sound production, and the muffler itself is pointed upwards. So that the noise will be directed into the sky instead of bouncing off of buildings or towards the neighborhood. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Now this is an emergency generator. MR. KELLER-Right. It’ll only be run during a power outage, and occasionally when preventive maintenance will be needed. Once a quarter you’ll need to fire up the generator to make sure it works. Otherwise, you know, if it doesn’t work when the power’s out it’s kind a waste of money. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. So even if it is heard from the neighboring properties, it’s not going to be something that is going to be heard for any great length of time normally. MR. KELLER-No. It’ll run for approximately an hour for the preventive maintenance, maybe an hour and a half. We’ll run it during the day. During what I’ll call normal working hours at some point during the week. MR. UNDERWOOD-Can I ask a question? Currently if the power goes off does that mess up the whole process over there? MR. KELLER-Well, we have many processes, and we, you know, for instance we’ll have C & C lathes that will have programming in there, and, yes, power bumps, power outages, losing a phase can mess up, and has cost us, you know, thousands of dollars then to go repair that equipment, get it back up and running. You miss your production time, etc. So, the answer to that question would be yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/26/07) MR. MC NULTY-Any other questions? MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman. The setback is from the bicycle path, right? MR. KELLER-Right. MR. BRYANT-Okay. If the bicycle path weren’t there, you own the other side of the bicycle path. So, there aren’t really any close neighbors who are going to be affected by this. Is that correct? MR. KELLER-No. It’ll be on the other side, you know, of the wood line, if you go to the west, and of course you’ve got your Bay Road, cross the Bay Road and some housing up to the north end of it. Then you have, I believe, zoned Highway Commercial, where Frank Collins has a warehouse, and then the Hannaford, and of course on the south side you have another wood lot, and it’d be bordering the Garrison Road properties, and behind Mullen’s machine shop. MR. BRYANT-So in reality, in its present situation, it’s not going to really affect anything in that area. There’s nothing really to affect. MR. KELLER-You wouldn’t be able to see it from any of the roads, you know, any of the houses, only going down the bike trail. MR. BRYANT-What about hearing it? MR. KELLER-I have to supply some noise calculations from our engineering firm to the Planning Board, but I have some information that I’d like to share. At the property line, the closest property line is like between 302 and 350 feet would be on the southern end of the property going towards Garrison Road. The noise exposure would be something around 64 decibels, and I’d like to, okay, 64.2 decibels. Okay. A refrigerator in your home runs at 45 decibels. An average home noise, the general noise in the home is 50 decibels. The average normal conversation is 60 decibels. A clothes dryer runs at 60 decibels. A dishwasher runs at 65. So that’s a similar noise, then, at 64. some decibels at our property line. You also have the wood lots and the 50 foot setback along the Garrison Road property. It’s wooded. You also, you’ll have some sound absorption and reflection off the buildings. So, you know, it’ll be something around that 64 decibel range until you really start it up and do some measurements, what the equipment’s designed for, what’s in our specification. MR. BRYANT-Thank you. MR. GARRAND-The visible impact will be only from the bike trail and from your plant? MR. KELLER-Yes. Well, if you look at, you might be able to catch a corner across from Collins’ property. If you look at just above that, right where that arrow is, that’s the approximate distance. So if you’re looking at any of the residential properties, I don’t believe you’ll be able to see it. MR. GARRAND-Okay. Are there going to be any plantings between the bike trail and this generator? MR. KELLER-We weren’t planning on any. I mean, that would be planting on County property. If you’re at eight foot, you don’t want to get it right next to the generator. MR. UNDERWOOD-The original right of way was the railroad line through there? MR. KELLER-Yes, the old railroad track. MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, this really, the bike trail’s just one little lane out in the middle. MR. KELLER-It’s a 60 foot swath through the center of the property. MR. URRICO-Did Bard own the property on both sides prior to the bike path, when the railroad ran through there? MR. KELLER-Yes. I’ve been at the plant for 22 years, and they’ve had that property ever since, and longer. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/26/07) MR. CLEMENTS-Is this a picture of what it’ll look like? MR. KELLER-This is the generator that’s currently up at the Warren County jail, and it’s a typical, we wanted to add a picture. You see the muffler on top, etc. There’ll be a slight difference. I think ours is a little longer. It’s a little larger generator, and I don’t know what type of sound attenuating enclosure that is. MR. URRICO-We hear it. I live up there, and I hear that when it kicks in. MR. KELLER-Well, like I said, we specked out a sound attenuating enclosure that gives you a 30 decibel drop. I don’t know what theirs is. MR. GARRAND-But this will not be tested at night at all? MR. KELLER-No. The only time it would be run in the evening would be if there was a power outage. MR. GARRAND-Okay, because it’s the kind of situation where during the day those buildings the blowers and everything on these buildings, you can hear them. I don’t think the generator would be a whole lot different from what you hear coming off the buildings, but at night time it seems a lot quieter down there. MR. KELLER-Well, the bulk of our working population is on the day shift, and then we cut down to a few hundred people on the second shift, and then, you know, 100 or so. We have flexible work hours. So some of our first shift people come in early, and it would be considered on the third shift, you know, at five o’clock in the morning say. So you’ve got about 100, 150 people on that, you know, off hours. We have 50 people on our third shift officially. So, that’s why you hear less noise during the evening today than you would during the day, for instance. MR. GARRAND-Thank you. MR. MC NULTY-Any other questions? Okay. Then I guess let’s move on to public hearings. Does anybody here from the public wish to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC NULTY-I don’t see anybody. Mr. Secretary, do we have any correspondence? MR. UNDERWOOD-There is no correspondence that I know of. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Then I guess we’re up to the point, anything else you want to? MR. KELLER-No. MR. MC NULTY-Anymore Board questions? Last chance. None. Okay. Let’s see where people are thinking, then. Allan, would you like to start and give us your thoughts? MR. BRYANT-Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Because the setback requested here is along the bicycle path and really doesn’t affect any, the structure doesn’t affect any properties, it’s not visible from the surrounding properties, and the noise is going to be minimal, and I’m sure the Planning Department will, Planning Board will address the noise issue at their next meeting. I actually have no problem whatsoever with this application. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-Yes. I also have no problem with this. All that I can see is that Warren County is the only person that would be anyone that would be interested in this. You could probably put this on another spot on your land, but as far as the impact to anyone else, I don’t think it would make any difference. So I would be in favor of this also. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Rick? MR. GARRAND-Thank you. This is a Light Industrial area, and this is pretty much what you would expect somebody to want to put in that area. Given the fact that they’re not going to be running this thing at night. It’s not a very large building. It’s not going to have any real substantial impact on the neighborhood. I’d be in favor of this. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/26/07) MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Thanks. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Thank you. At first I was concerned about the Staff Notes saying that there were alternative locations available, but you seem to have answered my questions about that, that this is the place to put it, and I would be in favor. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Thanks. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think it’s a benefit to the applicant to place this where they want to place it. It’s located next to all their other switchgear for the plant. It wouldn’t make sense to move it elsewhere. It’s nice having everything right in one close knit area to flip switches and get the thing up and running when you need it. As far as the encroachment on the bike trail, I mean, whether the bike trail was there or the railroad was there, it would not be any concern to me whatsoever. I think that the noise factor is something the Planning Board will deal with, and I think it’s in the center of the property. So moving it anywhere else would move it closer to everybody. So that’s the best place for it. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. This is a good application. I would be in favor of it. MR. MC NULTY-Okay, and I basically feel the same way. On the one hand, it would be easy to say, no, make it compliant, there’s plenty of room on your property, but you do have two other buildings that are just about as close as to the bike trail right there, and moving the thing 20 or 30 feet one direction or another is not going to have any real impact on sound or any of that. So I’ll agree with that. Okay. Having done that, then I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC NULTY-And ask the Board if somebody would like to make a motion. MRS. HUNT-I’ll make a motion. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Thank you. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 55-2007 C.R. BARD, INC. – GLENS FALLS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: 289 Bay Road. The applicant proposes installation of an emergency standby generator and associated switchgear. Relief requested from rear setback requirements. The applicant requests 23.7 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum rear setback requirement of the Light Industrial zone. Whether this benefit could be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. I think the applicant has proven that this is the best location for many reasons for the generator. Will there be an undesirable change in neighborhood character or to nearby properties? I don’t think so. It’s bordering on the bike path. The request might be considered substantial, but there are other buildings that are buildings that are as close to the property line. The request will not have adverse physical or environmental effects, and the alleged difficulty is self-created only in the fact that C.R. Bard wants a generator to use in case of power outages. th Duly adopted this 26 day of September, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty NOES: NONE MR. MC NULTY-Okay. You’re all set. Thank you. MR. KELLER-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 57-2007 SEQRA TYPE: II RONALD G. BACON AGENT(S): DONALD DEAN OWNER(S): RONALD G. BACON ZONING SR-20 LOCATION: 73 JOHN STREET APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A 360 SQ. FT. GARAGE ADDITION. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: BP 2006-858; BP 8176 YR. 1983 2-CAR DET. GARAGE WARREN 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/26/07) COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.49 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.17-2-17 SECTION: 179-4-030 DONALD DEAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; RON BACON, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Ronald G. Bacon, Meeting Date: September 26, 2007 “Project Location: 73 John Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has constructed a 360 sf garage addition to the rear of the garage on the property. Relief Required: Applicant requests 24.53 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum rear setback requirement of the old R-3 zoning district. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to maintain the addition in the constructed location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include an addition to the garage the street side of the structure.. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The request for 24.53 feet of setback relief from the 30 foot requirement may be interpreted as substantial (82%). 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: No letters of support were submitted with the application materials. Photos submitted with the application appear to show that the addition, as constructed, may not be conspicuous to the neighborhood. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None applicable Staff comments: If the addition is to be used or capable to be used for vehicular storage, then additional relief for an oversized garage may be necessary. If the location of the addition is approved, perhaps a modification to the structure to eliminate the possibility of vehicular storage should be considered in order to alleviate the need for an additional variance. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I see there’s applicants at the table. Would you identify yourselves, and tell us anything else you would like us to know about this. MR. DEAN-My name’s Donald Dean. I’m the one that built the structure for him. The only thing I see with this is if it’s built towards the garage, the roadside, that you would be changing the two car garage into which we’re trying to keep it as far as storage, you would be eliminating two car garage by, you know, making a carport off the front of it. As far as the garage being away from the house right now it’s 26 feet right now, and if we were to put the overhang on the front, then we would be 10 feet away from the structure of the house, which would mean more of a fire hazard or, you know, as far as that, and if 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/26/07) needed we will close in 10 feet of the 16 feet as far as the bays. That way it would eliminate vehicular storage. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. MR. BACON-I’m Ronald Bacon, and I’m the owner of the property. I only built it to put my stuff in the back, get the yard cleaned up, you know. If I wanted to build a bigger garage, I would have built a bigger garage, or tried for it, because I really want a 40 by 40 garage. Everyone wants a big garage, regardless, because I know a friend of mine just went through this like six month ago. He had his garage up here, and it took him a while to do it. I just want to put my tractor in there, put my cut grass in five barrels. It gets stored until I take it away. I’m going to put my wood in there this winter so I don’t have to cover it with a tarp. That’s all I can say. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Board members? MR. URRICO-When did you build it? MR. BACON-About six months ago, seven months ago. MR. URRICO-Was it after the letter you got from the Zoning Administrator saying you’d probably have to come before us first before you built it? MR. BACON-Yes. MR. URRICO-So you got the letter first and then you built it anyway? MR. DEAN-No. We didn’t get that until after. MR. URRICO-You said, the letter is dated January 5, 2007, a copy of the letter. MR. BACON-I don’t understand the question. MR. URRICO-So when was it built, the structure? MR. BACON-It had to have been built, six, seven months ago. Because it was in like the winter. MR. URRICO-Because there was a letter that I have in the record here, and I don’t know whether it’s accurate or not, but it’s dated January 5, 2007, and it says this structure has already been built. Am I reading this right? MR. DEAN-It was built and then they had the stop work order on it. MR. BACON-Yes. MR. URRICO-Okay. Thanks. MR. MC NULTY-Mr. Bryant? MR. BRYANT-I’m confused. You applied for a building permit, which, by the way, is not listed in the history, and that’s before you started the construction, okay, and then you got this letter in January saying that you need a variance, and now you’re building, and you don’t have a, I’m not following the. MR. BACON-We stopped building on it. MR. DEAN-It was already built first before we got. MR. BACON-Before we got the letter. MR. BRYANT-But you didn’t have, your building permit, obviously, do you have a building permit? MR. BACON-Yes, and then the guys down at the Code place put it as a shed as a lean- to, and they keep changing it down there. So I have no clue. Do you want me to bring this up? 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/26/07) MR. BRYANT-I’d like to see that, Mr. Chairman. Well, you paid for the permit, but where’s your actual permit? MR. BACON-They won’t give me one until, we had to stop. They won’t give me one until I came before the Board. MR. BRYANT-So we never really got a permit. We’re waiting for a variance, and you just went ahead and built it anyway. MR. BACON-Well, we thought we were under specs. It was just a lean-to. It wasn’t a garage addition really like they keep saying it is. It’s just an open overhang, no concrete floor. No, you know, there’s no openings in the garage. It’s just a lean-to. MR. BRYANT-Are you a contractor? MR. DEAN-Yes. MR. BRYANT-Okay, and you’ve built before in the Town of Queensbury? MR. DEAN-Everywhere. MR. BRYANT-Okay. Then you know you have to have a permit for this type of structure before you build it? MR. DEAN-Yes, but I really didn’t think it made any difference, being an open overhang, and I mean, it only took us a day to build it anyway, and afterwards one of the neighbors complained and so on and so forth and we’re trying to get it straightened out now. MR. BRYANT-The, well, there was one other question, and it alludes me now, but I’ll get back to it, Mr. Chairman. MR. MC NULTY-Anyone else? Rick? MR. GARRAND-Certainly. That shed, according to the drawing here, it’s over on the neighbor’s property? MR. BACON-That was there when I bought the house. MR. GARRAND-Okay, and they don’t have issue with it at all? MR. BACON-No. The letter that I handed in, those are the two neighbors on each side. They have no problem. MR. GARRAND-What’s in the lean-to now? MR. BACON-I have a lawnmower in there. I have some bicycles. I have one of my four- wheelers in there. I have some grass clippings in there. I have a couple of car parts because I have a restoration shop in Glens Falls in the City. I own a repair shop. So I have a couple of my parts there, but they’re out of the way. They’re under cover, until I get a chance to bring them down to the shop. We just rented another storage unit on Maple Street. MR. GARRAND-Do you have plans to put a concrete floor in underneath this? MR. BACON-No. I plan to sell the house and move out in the country. So I have no problems to put a big garage up. MR. GARRAND-Thank you. MR. BACON-Thanks. MR. MC NULTY-Any other questions? Well, then I guess, okay, then we’ll move on to the public hearing. I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anybody here that would like to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-I do have some letters. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/26/07) MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I don’t see any hands. So we’ll move on to correspondence. MR. UNDERWOOD-This first one was sent, and it was sent by fax today and received today. It says, to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board, subject, the application for setback requirements for Ronald Bacon at 73 John Street. “Dear Sir/Madame: We live directly behind Ronald Bacon at 73 John St., so I feel this matter affects us directly. Our concern in this matter is that the structure is used to work on cars, at times there are as many as 5-7 cars on the property. The structure is so close to our property line and our stockade fence, that should the structure catch on fire, we are afraid it may also take our fence/trees and make its way to our home. So it is at this time we must state our objection to the variance for the setback. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Thomas & Janet Nygard” And then the other letters that were received this evening. This is in regards of support for the lean-to that was built off the back of the garage residing at 73 John Street, and it’s signed by Diane Beaudette at 79 John Street, Arlene B. Paish at 69 John Street, John and Gladys Montaleu, that’s at 74 John Street, and also Amy Breault at 66 John Street, and that’s it. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Let’s see. Any other comments about the? Okay. In that case, I guess we’ll move on. Has the Board got any other questions? No other questions? Then we’ll move on to polling the Board and find out where we stand, and let’s start with Mrs. Hunt this time. MRS. HUNT-Thank you. Well, I was over there today, and there were a lot of cars in the yard, and you did mention about repairing some of them in that lean-to, which kind of makes it a garage, and I think it is much too close to the back property line, and I would not be in favor of this. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Mr. Underwood. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think everybody always needs more room, and I think the logical way for you to approach this would have been for you to come in and get the permit and, you know, either put an addition on the garage. I mean, it’s been suggested by Staff that you could add on the garage out towards the street. Increase the depth. It’s a pain, you know, moving cars and jockeying them around and things like that. As far as the space, you already do have one shed in the yard and you’re allowed one shed. You’re not allowed more than one shed. As far as the lean-to goes, it appears that the lean-to is only being used for storage, and it’s understandable that you would want more storage on your property. I mean, I think most people are hard pressed to fit everything in their garage that needs to go in the garage, but nonetheless, but the thing could have been done more properly, you know, with an addition off the side of the garage or something so it didn’t affect the neighbors, or something, you know, maybe you’ll have to take it down and move it over on the side or something like that, or come in and get an application to add an addition on to the garage that way, but I can’t vote for it as it is. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Mr. Urrico? MR. URRICO-Yes. Just so we understand, a variance is basically an approval of a violation of the Zoning Code, and when you come to us after the fact, it doesn’t give us a chance to really look at it properly. Had this come to us with clean hands, and we looked at this in the very beginning, I would not ever approve this. This is way too close to the property line. There are ways it could have been put in locations that would have been more feasible, but I think, due to the circumstances and the change in the neighborhood, I think there’s a definite possibility that this will establish a difference, enough of a change in the Zoning Code in that area that if we granted the variance, it could be seen as a new standard for that area, and we don’t want people putting their garages so close to the property lines. So I would be against this. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Mr. Bryant. MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would have to agree completely with Mr. Urrico. Generally in this type of application, you know, when we have after the fact kind of application, we treat it as if the structure were not up, and how we would react, and 82% relief is very substantial, and I would have voted against it. That being said, I’m dismayed because here we have a contractor that has built before in the Town of Queensbury. He knows that he needs a permit. He gets a stop work order. The building is built. I mean, I don’t understand this whole concept, or the sequence of events, and I think it’s a blatant disregard for zoning and the law. So I’d be totally against this project. MR. DEAN-I’ve always been against the law anyway. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/26/07) MR. BACON-Thank you. MR. DEAN-You’re welcome. MR. MC NULTY-Mr. Clements? MR. CLEMENTS-I guess I’m going to have to agree with the rest of the Board. I think there would be a better place to put this, and so I’m going to also say that I’d vote against it. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Mr. Garrand? MR. GARRAND-My concern here is with the placement. It’s not with the structure itself or the size of the structure, simply the placement of the structure where it affects the property owner on the opposite side the most. There’s plenty of other places this structure could have gone and basically not needed setback requirements here. I mean, it could have gone towards the center of the property and been fine right there. At this point, I wouldn’t be in favor of it. MR. MC NULTY-Okay, and, regrettably, I’m going to have to agree also that I think the placement is poor. The one advantage to your placement is it’s kind of out of sight from the street, and that’s a good thing, but I’ve got to agree in the same way that if you’d come to us to begin with, I would have said put it somewhere that’s compliant. So I’m also going to have to be opposed. With that, I need somebody willing to make a motion. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you want to give him the option to withdraw it and take it down and apply? MR. BACON-No, I’m just going to put a portable garage up, because that’s what Hatin said I could. So, I mean, if they complain about that, there’s nothing they can do about it. I can put one big portable garage up out back. I’m allowed that. So I can do that. MR. MC NULTY-All right. Then let’s move on. I don’t think I closed the public hearing. So I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC NULTY-And now I’ll ask for a motion. MR. GARRAND-Mr. Chairman, I’ll make a motion. MR. MC NULTY-Thank you. MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO.57-2007 RONALD G. BACON, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 73 John Street. The applicant has constructed a 360 square foot garage addition to the rear of the garage on the property. The applicant requests 24.53 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum rear setback requirement in the R-3 zoning district. Can benefits be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant? In this case, they can be achieved by other means feasible. The placement of this lean to could have been in another spot more compliant. Will this cause an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or to nearby properties? By being so close to the property line, it can possibly set in motion a series of other neighbors wanting property additions close to the property lines, or near other property owner’s boundaries. Is the request substantial? At 82%, I would say that the request is substantial. Will the request have adverse physical or environmental affects on the neighborhood? At this point, I’d have to say no. Is the difficulty self-created? Yes, the difficulty is self-created. So at this point I would make a motion that we deny Area Variance No. 57-2007. th Duly adopted this 26 day of September, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty NOES: NONE 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/26/07) MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Then we’ll move on to Area Variance No. 59-2007, and ask the Secretary to read that into the record. AREA VARIANCE NO. 59-2007 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED SCHERMERHORN RESIDENTIAL HOLDINGS, L.P. (CONT’D) MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. We’re in a little bit of a quandary here tonight as to what we’re going to do this evening, so I’m going to read in. We have no representation here from Schermerhorn Residential Holdings, specifically Mr. Lapper, Miller and Associates, or Nace Engineering. The Town and our Board received notification this afternoon at approximately quarter of two. We didn’t know anything about this letter until getting here for the meeting here this evening. So I’m going to read the letter in, and then I’m going to start the process in order here, and I think what we’re going to do is, because the public is here, I don’t feel, and I’m not making the statement for the whole Board, but I don’t feel that any applicant has the right to blow off the public or the Board in the manner that this has been done. I think they should have shown up themselves here tonight and explained the situation to both the public and the Board, and I think, you know, I’m just saying that I think that we’re caught between a rock and a hard place. I think that, you know, in representing the interests of the community, we don’t always, I mean, our interests are for both the applicants and the community itself, and the community at large should have a right to be heard here this evening. I think I will read the letter and let you digest that first. “Dear Mr. Abbate: On behalf of the applicant, I hereby request that the parking variance scheduled to be heard at this evening’s Zoning Board meeting be tabled until one of your October meetings. Last night we presented this office building project to the Planning Board and the Planning Board requested that the applicant consider making some significant modifications to the proposed site plan in order to address issues raised by the members of the Planning Board and by the neighbors. The applicant anticipates that we will be able to submit a revised site plan on October 15, 2007, which will further reduce project impacts. However, the result of these site plans changes will not change the proposed number of parking spaces so that no modification of the pending area variance application will be necessary. I further request th that your tabling resolution provide that the applicant has until October 15 to submit revised site plans to the Zoning Board of Appeals. It is our belief that it does not make sense for the ZBA to open up the public hearing tonight, because the public hearing should address the revised site plan, rather than the current site plan. We expect that the intended revisions will be positively viewed by the members of the ZBA. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, Jonathan C. Lapper, Esq.” Before we start, I think that we should discuss amongst ourselves, without public input, whether it would be proper for us to discuss the project. I mean, they have said distinctly that they’re not going to change the application. They’re still going to be asking for 531 parking places. MR. MC NULTY-Right. I’m going to make a judgment call, based on the Chairman’s prerogative, I guess. I think two things we should do. Probably read in the Staff Notes, just like we were going to start, to provide a basis for what the discussion is, recognizing that some of these details may be changed with their submission in October. Then, without discussing it, I guess based on the fact that this letter indicates that they’re request before us probably is not going to change. Then I think it’s appropriate to allow the public the opportunity the opportunity, if they wish to take it, to make public comments, and then at that point, we will pass a tabling resolution and close it out, without discussion. MR. UNDERWOOD-Are we improper at all? I mean, do we have anything to worry about because they’re not here representing their interests? MR. MC NULTY-I don’t think that there’s a big risk with that. Whatever’s said tonight will be in the minutes of the meeting. So they’ll have an opportunity to review that, and I think, as the point’s been made, they had the opportunity to come and request a tabling tonight, instead of simply sending in a letter, and I think there’s some valid points that if there’s somebody here in the public that is ready to make a presentation or make th comments and they don’t feel that they might be able to be here on the 24 of October, then we certainly want to give them the opportunity to do that. So let’s read in the normal things you would read in at the beginning of the meeting, and then we’ll go directly to the public hearing. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. What initiated this was a letter that was received on August 15, 2007, and this was RE: Schermerhorn Residential Holdings, the applicants, and this is a proposed office building on the corner of Gurney Lane and West Mountain Road. “Dear Chairman Abbate and Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals: On behalf of Schermerhorn Residential Holdings, L.P., the owners of the 17.82 acre site, I am 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/26/07) hereby submitting an area variance application to permit parking in excess of the required parking under the Town Zoning Code. The office building is designed to accommodate the relocation of an existing business office. Under the Zoning Code 285 parking spaces would be required based upon the parking ratio of one space per 300 sq. ft. The proposed parking is for 537 spaces. The additional spaces are necessary for the actual employees of the business. This type of office use utilizes small cubicles for the employees so that the density is far in excess of 300 sq. ft. per employee. As is indicated on the site plan, the site more than complies with the Town’s 30% permeability requirement so that the requested variance for additional parking spaces does not in any way impact the environment by creating excessive impermeability. A traffic study has been prepared by Creighton Manning and is being submitted to support the application. The study concludes that a traffic light will be installed by the applicant at the Gurney Lane intersection with the south bound Northway ramps. This traffic light will address the pre-existing traffic issues and accommodate additional traffic generated by this project. With the exception of the necessary parking variance, all other aspects of the proposed development comply with the Town Zoning Code and no additional variances are being sought. Please place this project on your agenda for one of your September meetings. Very truly yours, Jonathan C. Lapper, Esq.” STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 59-2007, Schermerhorn Residential Holdings, L.P., Meeting Date: September 26, 2007 “Project Location: southeast corner of Gurney Lane & West Mt. Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of an 85,340 sf office building and associated site improvements. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief from the Parking and Loading Regulations; §179-4-040 for the construction of 537 parking spaces where 285 are allowed. Upon approval by the Planning Board, the allowable number of spaces may be increased by up to 20% for a total of 341 without the need for a variance. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired parking spaces. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited. The parking space requirements are driven by the building square footage. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The request for 88% relief above the requirement may be interpreted as substantial relative to the code. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: An Archeological Study along with a Traffic Impact Study both prepared for the benefit of the applicant were submitted with the application. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Site Plan Review 85,340 sf office building -- pending AV 2-2006 92 Townhouse units Withdrawn by applicant Site Plan 72-2005 92 Townhouse units Withdrawn by applicant Pet. for Zone Change 6-2003 approved per TB res 271-2004 SFR-1A to PO 5/17/04 Staff comments: 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/26/07) The proposal calls for the use of two parcels for this project. Parcel consolidation will be necessary and should be a condition of approval. Limited information has been submitted with the application regarding the rationale for the excessive parking request. Are all employees on one shift? If not, how many shifts are there? Given the amount of land disturbance associated with such a large single story building and the parking spaces requested, consideration may be given to seeking input from the Planning Board relative to the potential for a two story building thereby reducing the building footprint by nearly an acre and subsequently maintaining an additional acre of greenspace on the site. Consideration may be given to a Coordinated SEQR review given the proposed NYS DOT involvement, PB Site Plan Review and the sewer line construction through the Northway ROW. SEQR Status: Type Unlisted” MR. UNDERWOOD-I think that what we could do here to alleviate this would be to allow the Planning Board to hear this revised plan, allow the public to comment on that revised plan, and I would like at least one month of separation between the time that the Planning Board peruses the next plan that they’re going to come up with here. I think all of us were well prepared tonight. Everybody probably spent a considerable length of time running through this in their own minds about what was proposed here on site, and I think that, if we open up the public hearing, we’re going to be hearing comments from the public. I don’t want to, in any way, shape or form be aiding the applicant, you know, by being overturned by saying we did something improper because they were not present here tonight. I mean, I’m willing to listen to people, to what you say, and I know what you’re going to be saying out there in the audience, too, for the most part, but I think that we probably should have the applicants here if we’re going to start talking about this, because there’s no way for them to come back or to give us their spin on what they’re trying to do. MR. MC NULTY-Exactly. That’s the proposal I was making is that, we’ll open the public hearing. Let anybody that wants to speak speak. The Board itself will make no comments. We won’t discuss it or anything. We’ll just simply let the people that want to speak tonight speak, and table it at that point. MR. UNDERWOOD-Or we can ask the public, too. MR. URRICO-We’ve had situations where the applicant has come forward, at the night of the meeting, and requested a tabling, and we’ve opened the public hearing at that point. I don’t think we should digress from that procedure. I think everybody has a right to speak. They had the opportunity to be here tonight. They elected to fax it in rather than be here. I don’t think we should punish the public who are here. MR. MC NULTY-That’s the judgment call I’m going to make as Chairman. I’m going to open the public hearing, give anybody that wants to speak an opportunity to do so. With some caveats and warnings. I’ve got some background in public involvement, and there are a couple of concerns I have. One is anybody that speaks tonight is losing the ability to impact the applicant because the applicant is not here, and some of the benefit to making public comments is not just to sway the Board that’s making decisions, but if that Board should happen to vote different than what you would like, sometimes you can still influence the applicant if they’ve heard you, and they’re not going to hear you tonight, and as I’ve already mentioned, the Board that will be making the decisions on this probably is going to be a slightly different mix than what’s sitting here tonight. We have an alternate on with us tonight. Our regular Chairman is not here. He probably will be here next month. So my guess is probably about five of us that are here will be here, and there’ll be a couple of extra new people on when this is heard later. Another concern with this kind of thing with public involvement is those of you in the public have a certain amount of energy you’re willing to expend on this project, and it’s going to be different for each one of you, but you’re only going to come to a certain number of meetings, and at that point you’re going to get burned out and say that’s enough. I hate to see you use your energy now and not later when there’s something else where you’d have more effect. Having said all of that, if you wish to speak, just bear in mind that a public hearing is not a vote, and so we don’t so much need to hear I’m against it or I’m for it as what are your concerns, what do we need to worry about, in particular in regards to parking, because that’s what the question is before us, do we allow the extra parking. Having said that, I’ll open it up. Does anybody wish to make a comment? Come on up. Tell us who you are, where you live, and then proceed. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/26/07) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED LOU BUCK MR. BUCK-Good evening. My name is Lou Buck. My wife, family and I live on Gurney Lane, 251 Gurney Lane. We’ve lived there for the past 26 years. In January and February of last year, many of the residents of Mountain View Road, West Mountain Road, Lehland Estates, Old West Mountain Road, Gurney Lane and Courthouse Estates voiced their strong opposition to the townhouse project then proposed for the northern end of West Mountain Road near the intersection of Gurney Lane. The opposition stemmed from a variety of concerns. One concern regarded the impact such a large scale development would have on increasing traffic congestion at the already taxed I-87, Route 149 and Route 9 interchange. The stark reality is this. As the congestion caused by traffic to and from Vermont, coupled with the traffic caused by the close proximity of three popular destination spots, situated in close proximity to one another worsens, the traffic has dramatically increased on Glen Lake Road, West Mountain Road, and Gurney Lane, as local residents attempt to circumvent the congestion around Exit 20. These roads are ill-suited to accommodate a significant increase in the volume of traffic. Another concern involved the irreparable damage the townhouse project could have potentially created to the environmentally sensitive area of Rush Pond and ultimately Glen Lake. A third concern was the adverse effect such a project would have on the aesthetic and rural nature of the only remaining Queensbury exit off the Adirondack Northway left with a relatively rural character. When this area of Queensbury was re- zoned Professional Office space, I think the underlying intention was to foster the development of a cluster of professional offices, similar to the development of professional office space John Hughes had created a number of years ago on the west side of Bay Road. When the developer withdrew his townhouse project in the face of opposition, the Town’s Planning Board suggested that he return to the Planning Board with a project which consisted of attractively designed clustered professional office space because it was something upon which the Planning Board felt and the area’s residents could look favorably upon as well as support it. This project is a far cry from that. When this area of Queensbury was rezoned, it certainly was not intended to spur the development of a monolithic 85,000 square foot building with parking to accommodate over 500 vehicles. The significant concerns related to a project of this scale still remain. Exceeding the Town’s Zoning Code to permit a project like this to proceed defeats the purpose which the Zoning Code was initially intended and written. Thank you. MR. MC NULTY-Thank you. Anybody else? Come on up. JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Good evening. My name is John Salvador. I’m a resident in North Queensbury. A couple of procedural things. I trust that the public hearing will remain open, regardless of what you’re? MR. MC NULTY-The public hearing will remain open. MR. SALVADOR-And there will be a record of this hearing that everyone? MR. UNDERWOOD-Absolutely. MR. MC NULTY-We’re taking minutes. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. To have accepted that letter from the applicant today is a violation of your own rules. Mr. Abbate has said repeatedly you’re not going to accept new information on the day of a hearing. So, take it from there. The 88% relief that they’re requesting smacks of something being drastically wrong with the concept of this project, that it doesn’t fit our Zoning Ordinance by that magnitude. I submit that there’s a difference between an 85,000 square foot office building and a professional office. As Mr. Buck mentioned, the concept of a Professional Office Zoning District morphed out of what we have on the west side of Bay Road. We didn’t always have that. We had people parading in here for variances to run a home occupation, and it didn’t fit. It didn’t fit, and so the Town put together what they considered to be the criteria for a Professional Office, that is a professional sits in the office and is serviced by a Staff and has clientele, customers coming and going, and that’s where we get this parameter of one parking place per 300 square feet. One employee is not expected to occupy 300 square feet, but attendant facilities, the professional, secretary, what have you, that’s the kind of space you need, but you also have provision for clientele coming and going. This 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/26/07) operation we’re talking about is nothing like that. It’s an office building. There’s nothing professional about it. The applicant has stated, and it was talked about, somebody like Travelers Insurance occupying the building. That’s just a barracks type thing. There are no clientele coming in doing business selling anything. It’s strictly employees, and that is not the spirit and intent of a Professional Office Zoning District. I believe that the Staff and the applicant has mischaracterized this project. It is not a Professional Office in the true sense of our Zoning Code. It is nothing more than a gigantic office building. They talk here about the fact that this is being built in close proximity to the Northway. It’s a whole new set of problems. We went through this with The Great Escape, the Lady Byrd Beautification Act. We have, the New York State DOT has designated scenic corridors, scenic roads. The Northway is one of them. We don’t pay any attention to the rules. We just don’t pay any attention to them, but in any case, I believe that the whole project is mischaracterized, is mischaracterized. For truly Professional Offices, there should be a mix of Professional Office and Residential, very similar to the west side of Bay Road. This idea of Professional Office has morphed into what we have on the east side of Bay Road. That wasn’t the intent. Not at all. I mean, how much bigger and higher are we going to go, still call them Professional Offices. They’re nothing more than office buildings, and that’s, I believe, how we should treat them. Thank you, Mr. McNulty. MR. MC NULTY-Thank you. Anyone else wish to comment tonight? RICHARD LINKE MR. LINKE-Hello. I’m Richard Linke. I live up on Gurney Lane. I’ve been there since 1969 I guess, and I have a couple of procedural questions as well, and also I would like to talk tonight, last night I was kind of emotional. Tonight I’d like to be 100% talking about the facts, and if you hear me say something that is not a fact, I would like you to interrupt me, please, or someone from the rest of the community. I would like to talk about just the facts, and in this case, though, before I begin that, I’m curious whether this is a fact that I’m stating what I think the reason for having the zoning laws and planning. Is this true? And I’d like your response on this, that I believe that planning and zoning laws are supposed to protect the quality of our community, and to control uses that are thought to be incompatible, and to prevent new development from being harmful to existing residents or businesses. Now I believe that to be a fact. You know, it’s in the minutes. You can read it over. You can think about it, or am I mistaken? MR. MC NULTY-Let’s just leave it that we’ll look at it in the minutes. Because I don’t want to start any interaction tonight with the applicant absent. MR. LINKE-Okay. One of the most important things that I wanted to try to help myself and Schermerhorn, although he’s not here. I’m sure he doesn’t want to hear it anyway, but for the Board, to try to help people understand what 500 car spaces or parking is, and so I would like to just hold up briefly a picture, if anybody wants a copy of this, but this is Wal-Mart’s parking lot, and I went down there today, thinking, I wonder how many parking spaces are at Wal-Mart, and I started counting, and I started adding up the math, and I started crying, because I saw 520 some parking spaces in the main front part of Wal-Mart. I’m not counting the side over there on the north side, but what you see from the road, I was stunned, and I was shocked, and I think that the community. I think that, I don’t even think Schermerhorn has really thought about what that looks like, what the impact is. This is a huge, huge, huge, major change to that land and I think it’s monumental, and I think it’s stunningly monumental. I don’t think the, Schermerhorn last night at midnight was saying, gee, where’s the opposition. Where is everyone. They used to be against this proposal. Well, it was midnight, and most people have day jobs, and a lot of people had left, and also an awful lot of community members, and we had petitions last time, and all of that stuff that’s part of the public record, people thought that the Town government heard them before, and if they were upset before with 90 apartment buildings and, you know, 180 parking spaces, certainly they would be upset by this 500. Now, I also looked at thinking about this zoning and allowing so many additional parking spaces, what that impact is on the parking lot situation, and I dug out one of my old diagrams from last time when I gave a key note presentation, and it’s from the U.S. Geological Survey Maps, showing that this property, the Schermerhorn property, is .3, three-tenths of a mile, from Rush Pond, Queensbury’s, you know, water district. Three-tenths, and that it’s 100 feet higher. The land slopes down, three-tenths of a mile and this is all sand. Well, you could say, sand is good, you know that can filter out particulate matter, but salt on these huge and extra parking spaces that we hope that you don’t allow, the amount of salt, over the years, salt stays in solution, and if you’ll notice, as you get on the Northway right there at Exit 20 going south, there’s a bank between the ramp and the Northway and it’s sand, and it’s so loose that in 30 years, very, very few, even the worst kinds of weeds have not been able to take hold. That 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/26/07) whole area is just sand, and it’s just going to percolate downhill. Now, I mentioned that I wanted to talk about facts. Wal-Mart parking lot, if you’d like to check my math, I’d welcome you to go down there, to your horror, and count those spaces. Fact that water runs downhill. I don’t think that any of Schermerhorn’s engineers or whatever, I don’t think anybody can dispute the fact, and I don’t think the Board here, no one would want to risk saying that, gee, we won’t really worry about that because these engineers have this new cess pool technology that they’re going to use. Well, eventually the water is going to go down. The groundwater’s going to go towards Rush Pond and we’re fouling our own nest. I don’t think any of you would be welcome to, or wanting to go for that. MR. MC NULTY-You’ve hit your time limit. MR. LINKE-Okay. May I ask, and I certainly would like to defer to other people talking, but as they do in the Senate and the Congressmen and whatever, would anyone defer their time? MR. MC NULTY-No, that’s not our rules. Five minutes. If anybody else wants to speak, they can have five minutes. MR. LINKE-Okay, so how much time does Schermerhorn have? MR. MC NULTY-He’s an applicant. We’re not going to argue the rules. AUDIENCE MEMBER-He can have my five minutes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Give him five minutes. That’s all right. MR. BRYANT-You’re also going to have another chance to come back. MR. LINKE-I want you to be able to think about this in advance, right now, and I think that I’ve just demonstrated that this is very important. It is very monumental. Please don’t cut me off. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Well, the other thing that strikes me is because of the detail that you’re going into, I think it’s important that the applicant have an opportunity to hear it. MR. LINKE-I will go over this again. MR. MC NULTY-Well, again, but that’s the other factor here. MR. LINKE-There are other Board members that need to hear this. Are you saying that I can’t have an opportunity to speak to them? MR. MC NULTY-I’m saying that the applicant is going to be concerned about what you said. MR. LINKE-He can read the minutes, and he can ask me questions. Please let me continue. I’ll try to speed it up. MR. BRYANT-Our rules generally are five minutes, and we allow them to come back for two after, you know, everybody else has spoken. I mean, that’s what our rule is. MR. MC NULTY-Yes, and I think that’s what we’re going to do is we’re going to stick to with it for now. MR. LINKE-I’m not going to sit down. I’m going to keep talking. This is important. MR. MC NULTY-Sir, I’m sorry. We have rules. MR. LINKE-The rules are fuzzy rules that you bend whenever you want. MR. MC NULTY-We explain them at the beginning of the meeting. They’re explained at the beginning of every one of our meetings. MR. LINKE-I have seen many, many people talk much longer than five minutes. These rules are to be interpreted. MR. MC NULTY-Nevertheless, for tonight, the limit is five minutes. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/26/07) MR. LINKE-I’m going to continue talking, and if you’d like to call someone else, or I would defer to someone else. Otherwise, I’m going to continue talking. MR. MC NULTY-No, then you’re out of order. We have other business to conduct. No one else wants to speak tonight? One more. MR. LINKE-Okay. I will defer, but I think you. MR. MC NULTY-Identify yourself and where you live. TANYA BRUNO MRS. BRUNO-Good evening. My name is Tanya Bruno. I live at 119 Gurney Lane. I am a member of the Planning Board, and I thank you all for your desire to review last night’s minutes. I know that we are certainly trying to remain consistent with your rulings as well. It’s a lot of information. However, last evening I recused myself because in 2006 I spoke as a member of the public against the townhouse project. Although this is a different project, it is the same site and the same developer, and I would like to keep the lines clear. That having been said, I am also curious about what portion of the project is being reconsidered this evening, or for the next month or so. I am skeptical about it being extensive enough to become appropriate for this site, and neighborhood, wary and skeptical, because during the 2006 site review, the public and the Planning Board, at that time, gave very specific recommendations to the applicant, such as desired project size, architectural style, etc., which in this office proposal has not been taken into consideration by Mr. Schermerhorn at all, and now he is saying he will revisit last night’s proposal. Number One, Benefit to the applicant. He would be able to develop the property for the company which is currently interested. We all have a good idea of which company is looking for a new facility. Last evening we had the Warren County Economic Development speak and a number of other public. I agree that it is important to the County’s economy and to the company’s employees, who will need to relocate somewhere. However, I would like to request that this particular company return to some of the other sites, such as in Glens Falls, you can read those in the minutes from last evening, and perhaps re-discuss moving to those areas. I think as the public awareness becomes more prevalent, perhaps some of these other facilities might re-consider. Feasible alternative for Mr. Schermerhorn. Wait for another interested company with a proposal that meets Queensbury’s vision, rather than max out the project for maximum profit. The relief for parking is very substantial, at risk to the CEA, which this project encroaches upon. I’m not an engineer. I understand how stormwater management works, how the parking lots effect that. Not only do we have the parking lots, you know, they can figure out all the stormwater and everything, just the simple fact that in that area the number of trees, basically the entire site, will be cleared, and the effects on the neighborhood, the public outcry has spoken. Thank you for your time. MR. MC NULTY-Thank you. Anybody else? Yes, sir. JOHN SACORICK MR. SACORICK-My name is John Sacorick. I live at 1161 West Mountain Road, which is approximately five tenths of a mile from this project. I’m really concerned about school bus traffic. We have three buses that come through there every morning. One going to Lehland. One picking up the kids on Old West Mountain Road and West Mountain Road. Right now there’s quite a bit of heavy traffic on that road in the morning as there is. We’ve got construction vehicles, a lot of heavy trucks, things like that, logging trucks come down that road. I can’t even understand how we can manage anything more than what we’ve got on that road right now, and now we’re talking about 88% more, on top of just adding 100 some odd parking spaces and cars to that situation there. They’re going to travel the same time we’re traveling, seven thirty, eight o’clock in the morning, and I saw them do the traffic studies. The traffic studies weren’t done at a good time. I mean, you know, I had one of the counters right across from my house, and I’m thinking to myself, it was only there for a day, and that was it. I had the pleasure, today, of being at Home Depot when the people we think are going to be in that location, Travelers, left. It was very hard to get out of that Home Depot parking lot, and that’s pretty controlled there. There’s a traffic light there and so forth. The lanes aren’t that wide, the turning lanes and so forth. I thought to myself, this is ridiculous. I come down Exit 20 every night to come home, and I’m fortunate because I make the right hand turn off Exit 20. If I had to make that left hand turn, I’d have to go down, turn around in the parking lot, the Warren County parking lot, and come back around, which most people do all the time, not to mention that emergency vehicles travel that road all the time. We have the Warren County old person’s home, whatever you want to call it there. I mean, I see them 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/26/07) rolling all the time down my road. Any ambulances rolls there, the fire trucks have got to roll at the same time. It’s just amazing that he even wants to develop this project in that area first of all, because this is the second time around, and parking was a problem before we talked about it, and now, you know, he wants to put a Wal-Mart parking lot in a residential area. It’s amazing, and like I said, I thought more about the school buses when I was sitting there, because I talked last night also. I was very emotional last night, too, but then I got thinking about it, and I’m thinking about the kids that are all standing there waiting. There’s not much shoulder on West Mountain Road. We’ve got bicycles there every day. I mean, that is a popular destination every morning. The same people every day, too. Weekends are amazing, and I know that Travelers may not have Sunday hours, but there’s a possibility that they may have Saturday hours. It impacts that area greatly. I thank you for the time. MR. MC NULTY-Thank you. JUDY FALLMAN MRS. FALLMAN-Good evening. My name is Judy Fallman, and I live on Gurney Lane. We’ve been there over 25 years, and over those 25 years, we have seen the traffic grow and grow. We need to look at this development of this area carefully. This project will not fit the area as it stands now. A rural area, in which there is not much left in the whole Town, should be preserved. There are big problems already existing in this area with traffic. Gridlock occurs at many times of the day, and 500 cars are just too many to put in this area. On cloudy days the road is jammed. On rainy days, it’s worse, and I’m talking about Route 9 now, and on sunny days, there’s The Great Escape. You can’t move on that road. I can’t get home on my lunch hour, and I work down by Lowe’s. To come up to Gurney Lane is almost impossible and to get back in the space of an hour. Also that bridge over the Northway next to the project handles all of the traffic that is going and coming to Vermont, and it is a very busy bridge. So I also question when this traffic study was done. The DOT studies, from what I had heard, were based on 1999 to 2002. So that needs to be looked at better. Thank you. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? BUTCH REHM MR. REHM-Very quick. Butch Rehm, Gurney Lane. About a mile from the project. I was here last night, had an opportunity to make a comment, and I would guess, and I may be very wrong, but I would say at least 80% of the people who spoke last night to the Planning Board exceeded their five minute limit. No one said a word at all. Thanks. MR. MC NULTY-Yes, sir. SAM BUTTO MR. BUTTO-My name is Sam Butto and I live on 75 Gurney Lane. I was also here last evening, and heard extensive discussions from Mr. Schermerhorn regarding his want to cooperate with the neighborhood, and I also was at last year’s meeting when he indicated he was looking for input from the community and was willing to work with us. At that time, he was given the opportunity to review the projects that were on the west side of Bay Road, and that’s what we wanted him to put in there. That’s what we wanted him to put in there. We understand that this project that he’s doing, there will be something there some day, but what it is and how it impacts on our community is of vital interest to all of us. He’s trying to sell to you that he’s going to put up a traffic light and add 500 vehicles to that area, and he’s going to make it better, and that is something that you’ve got to do the math. That’s ridiculous. There’s no way that that’s going to happen, and he knows it. Thank you. MR. MC NULTY-Thank you. MR. LINKE-May I have two more minutes, please? MR. MC NULTY-You may have two more. MR. LINKE-Please tell me as soon as it’s up. My name is Richard Linke. I live on Gurney Lane. There are just another couple of things that I want, and first of all, I really should apologize to the Board. You are right. Everybody, and I’m glad everybody had a chance to speak. It’s my passion, and I apologize. There are many things, though, that we still need to cover. One of which is that if this new traffic light comes in, because of 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/26/07) the additional parking spaces, I want the Board to realize that this means that there are going to be five, and in the future six traffic lights within three-quarters of a mile. Five or six traffic lights within three quarters of a mile. That is not good planning. That is not good sense. That is not good for anyone, and how did this happen? Well, overbuilding, poor planning. You go from the ramp of the Interstate, you go two tenths of a mile to Route 9, have a light. You can turn, left or right, within a tenth of a mile, there’s another light. Now, when everyone, 500 cars are coming from the Northway, people are going to be backed up on the Northway, because even with the light, they’re going to have to stop, and a lot of people coming in. Then you’ve got people from the south. They’re pretty soon going to find out that that’s gridlock up there, and they’re going to start getting off at Exit 19. They’re going to go up Aviation Road. They’re going to zoom by the Prospect School, not a good idea, and then they’re going to come up West Mountain Road. They have the right of way to make a right hand turn into the access of this property. Meanwhile, everyone else coming from the Northway bridge, they’re going to have to sit there in the road, backed up, waiting for some little space that they can get in when the people coming from West Mountain Road have the right of way. There’s going to have to be another light there. It’s absurd. Thank you very much, and again, I do apologize, and I hope to talk to you again. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes. KATHY FRANKLIN MRS. FRANKLIN-Hi. My name is Kathy Franklin. I live on an adjoining property to the proposed site, and my, I know we’re supposed to be addressing only parking spaces, but parking spaces means there’s cars. So I’m going to include traffic, and I hope that’s okay. A traffic light stops and traffic needs to go again. It doesn’t add any room for traffic. If something like this project should go through, you’re going to need an additional lane off the south bound ramp. You’re going to have to raise that ramp, you being our County. Okay. If we’re making the tax benefit from this, then it’s incumbent upon us to make it safe for the neighborhood, and in order to do that, you’re going to have to increase the lanes on Gurney Lane. You’re going to have to have a right turning lane right in front of the Warren County old folks home, sorry, I guess that’s improper. You’re going to have to have four lanes going up to where that entrance to this project is, because you’re going to need people turning out of that, and you can’t have stop and turn, stop and turn, stop and turn on a 45, right now, a 45 mile an hour road without somebody getting rear ended. So you’re going to have that turning lane there. Then there’s persons coming from the other direction who are going to have to cross against traffic into that place. I’m just thinking about what it would be like to drive to work in this environment. So the only thing that would possibly work would be to expand those roads. So if we’re talking about a $58,000 traffic light, we’re talking up our buts. I’m sorry, that’s not going to do it, and there’s no chance that’s going to make any impact on this problem, this proposed problem, and the other thing I wanted to say is we’re an F I think they said last night. We have six minutes of wait, I’m sorry 10 minutes of wait, 600 seconds, and that’s going to be improved to, I’ve forgotten, maybe it was 140 seconds. I can’t remember. So we’re still an F, was what he said, but we’ll be a lesser F, and it occurs to me that we might, as a group, think that with the Town contemplating putting a larger building where the services building is, and on the opposite side of the road, that we might want to improve the traffic there without any project going in. It might be something that we ought to be thinking about anyway, and maybe we could even creep it up to a D. With any luck and a lot of investment, we might make it to a D and maybe half the accidents. Who knows? Thank you. MR. MC NULTY-Thank you. Anyone else? Okay, then, I think we’ve exhausted our supply of commenters for tonight. I appreciate your comments. They will be in the minutes. Obviously, be sure to come back when we have more meetings. MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, can I make a suggestion? MR. MC NULTY-Yes. MR. BRYANT-It seems that some of the public had a lot more to say than their time allotted. In certain cases we’ve had the public provide packages with data, photographs, documentation, and made a sufficient number of copies for them to be distributed to the Board members, prior to the meeting. I don’t mean the night of the meeting, but with our packages, so that we have time to study the data and it becomes part of the public record, and that seems to be a lot more effective than trying to present all this documentation, data, figures, pictures, in a five minute squish time. So that’s just a suggestion. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/26/07) MR. MC NULTY-Good point to bring up. I don’t know if all of you understood what he was saying, but he was saying it’s difficult with a five minute limit, obviously, to hear everything that everybody wants to say, and yet it’s kind of necessary at times, because, as the Planning Board’s found out, these midnight meetings, and as we found out, they don’t work well. Everybody is tired. So the public commenters are not doing their best job. The Board members are having trouble concentrating, the applicant’s having trouble. So we like to avoid that somewhat. The suggestion was that some of you that have got extensive material, if you want to make extra copies and get them to the Community Development Staff before our meetings, preferably a couple, three weeks before, and you’ve got time now to do at least for this issue that’ll be before us probably towards the end of October. If you want to get it to us ahead of time, that gives us a chance to look at it. Then you can come in with a five minute presentation planned, hitting the key points, and that’s the point I was trying to make earlier tonight is figure out the most important things you want us to know, that pertain to the issue that we’re looking at, and make sure you can get them into that five minutes if you can, because that’s also the most effective because that’s when we’ll be paying the most attention. Somebody that goes on and on, after a while it gets harder and harder to remember what they’ve said and concentrate on the night of the meeting. Having said that, I think we’ve gone as far as we should tonight, especially with the applicant not being here. So we’ll suspend the public meeting. We will leave it open so that they can continue when we consider this application again in October, and we need to do a tabling motion. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think that we need to discuss amongst ourselves, prior to doing that, when we think it’s appropriate, because I feel like, you know, we’re operating as two separate Boards with a great big black sheet between us that no one’s able to see through or to listen to what’s going on here. I know it’s somewhat, most of these comments are going to be made at both meetings, but at the same time I think it’s valuable for us, as a Board, that if the Planning Board’s going to hear this again prior to us, I mean, it would make more sense to have a lag time between Staff Notes being produced so we can read them before we render our decision. MR. MC NULTY-Right. I’m inclined to agree, unless somebody else has got problems, and I hadn’t thoroughly formed my thought yet, but my thought was to do some sort of tentative tabling here, rather than trying to pick a date. th MR. UNDERWOOD-If they’re not going to submit their revised plans until October 15, I think it would be very short notice. I mean, the Planning Board, that may be the meeting date. MR. MC NULTY-Yes. I think maybe what I’m going to suggest is that we do a tabling for up to 60 days, because my other thought is the Chairman will be back in a week or so, and he’s been setting the agendas. He’ll have a better idea of where he feels we were at, and maybe he can sit with Staff and with Planning Board Chair and figure out what the logical sequence is, when’s the best time for us to be able to do this. MR. UNDERWOOD-When and where, and everybody who lives within neighborhood distance will be notified again of when those meetings are going to be. MR. MC NULTY-Right. So let me do that. MRS. BRUNO-Mr. McNulty, I just want to let you know that I think the Planning Board’s pretty backed up for October. So we might even be looking at November. MR. MC NULTY-Right. You may be later than that before you get to them again. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think if we went 30 days after that Planning Board meeting, whenever that was. That would give us ample time. MR. MC NULTY-Let’s just leave it. If we do 60 days now, if that turns out not to be long enough, it just means re-advertising, and that’ll give ample time for the Chairman to come back to us and ask for an extension on the tabling. So, we’re not locked into that. BOB FALLMAN MR. FALLMAN-My name’s Bob Fallman, Gurney Lane. Last night at the meeting, as I understood it, they were going to have a Special Meeting. They kind of tabled what was st said last night for a Special Meeting, and it’s tentatively going to be on the 1 of November. I think it’s the first Thursday of November, and that’s all contingent upon 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/26/07) them being able to get this room. They didn’t know at the time whether or not, they said st if they couldn’t do it on the 1, they were going to re-advertise. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. We’ll do the same thing, I think. If we do the 60 days, then if it can occur within that length of time, it saves some advertising, but otherwise, we’ll just extend it again. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do we have anybody here from Bartlett, Pontiff tonight? MR. MC NULTY-I don’t believe so. I think we would have heard from them long ago if we did. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 59-2007 SCHERMERHORN RESIDENTIAL HOLDINGS, L.P., Introduced by Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: Southeast corner of Gurney Lane and West Mountain Road. Tabled for up to 60 days at this point, and leave the scheduling for the Chairman to work out with Staff and the Planning Board Staff for appropriate sequence of meetings. th Duly adopted this 26 day of September, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Clements, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty NOES: NONE MR. MC NULTY-Before everybody disappears, we’ve got some minutes to approve. APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 15, 2007 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 15, 2007, Introduced by Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: th Duly adopted this 26 day of September, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty NOES: NONE August 22, 2007 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 22, 2007, Introduced by Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: th Duly adopted this 26 day of September, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Clements, Mr. McNulty NOES: NONE August 29, 2007 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 29, 2007, Introduced by Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: th Duly adopted this 26 day of September, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McNulty 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/26/07) NOES: NONE MR. MC NULTY-One last thing, people. Mr. Salvador caught me at a soft moment at the beginning of the meeting, and he wanted to talk for five minutes. JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Thank you for the opportunity. I received in the mail this letter, and I believe maybe some of you folks on the Board also received this letter from Ralph and Rosalie Macchio. I intend to prepare an answer, myself, to this letter, and I’m working on gathering information right now. However, there are two things in this letter that should be of grave concern to a Board like this. Mr. Macchio complains about being forced to close the business because of the harassment he was getting from certain people. Take it from me, as far as I can tell, he had no business plan to open that business. You don’t decide, from one day to the next, to close a seasonal business, particularly at a time when you’re facing the large cash flow opportunity. That’s just plain stupid, and yet he claims to have been forced to do that. At the present time, this man has anywhere from 20 to 30 people working on that site. Materials are flowing in and out. Construction work is going on. The best I can tell he has no permits whatsoever. This is in the Town of Lake George, okay. More importantly, though, he states in this letter that he has, the road was designed and built in strict compliance with the State Department of Environmental Conservation SPDES Permit requirements. DEC has inspected the road on multiple occasions and confirmed this. Mr. McNulty, I believe you’re a former employee of the DEC. MR. MC NULTY-Yes. MR. SALVADOR-Do you know of any Codes, rules, regulations, standards, by which the DEC approves roads? Any kind of roads, logging roads, trails, highways, what have you? MR. MC NULTY-Off the top of my head, no, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there were some guidelines for logging roads at least, somewhere. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. I am in the commercial timber harvesting business, and I can tell you they don’t, but in any case, he purports to have this approval, and it’s just poppycock, that’s what it is. The other thing that occurred before either this Board or the Planning Board, this project came before one of the Boards. Was it the Planning Board? MR. UNDERWOOD-We’ve never seen it here. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. They had an application. When that application came up for review, Mr. O’Connor, the attorney, made the point that the project was not subject to SEQRA review before there was an enforcement action. Okay, and SEQRA does exempt projects from review if it’s a subject of an enforcement action. Now, where does this come from? If a tank truck overturns over here filled with fuel oil, you’re not going to do a SEQRA review to determine how you’re going to clean up the mess. Cleaning it up is an enforcement action, okay, and that’s where that comes from. The point I’d like to make here tonight is that an applicant has absolutely no standing to come before any Board seeking a permit if they are non-compliant. If they’ve got an enforcement action against them, you’ve got to take care of the problem, mitigate the problem, then come in, and that’s why SEQRA doesn’t address, does not require a review for an enforcement action. It’s not expected that you will be seeking a permit. MR. BRYANT-I’ve got to disagree with you? MR. SALVADOR-Why is that? MR. BRYANT-Because we get applications all the time, like we had tonight. A guy builds an expansion on to his garage, doesn’t have a permit, has a Stop Work Order. He continues, he builds the garage, and here he is tonight for an application. MR. SALVADOR-Enforcement. They have no standing. Enforcement. I mean, the issue of the SEQRA review is what I’m addressing. The issue of the SEQRA review is not required if a project is under an enforcement action. That’s clear, but it’s understood that at the same time you’re mitigating the problem, you’re not seeking a permit, and that’s what’s gotten us into this mess. Okay. Nobody will shut them down, but anyway. We’ll continue. I have here all of the advertising that this operation has undertaken, and in 2005 they did advertise their business in the various local Lake George Guide, Warren 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/26/07) County Guide, Lake George Chamber Guide, but in 2006 they ceased to advertise, and it tells me that they had no business plan to open. I can’t tell that they had a liquor license this past year. Don’t open a restaurant without a liquor license, and yet their blaming our public officials for being forced to close. They had no intention to open, gentlemen, but in any case, we’ll. Thank you. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Thank you. If there’s no other business, that’s it. We’ll adjourn the meeting. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Charles McNulty, Acting Chairman 26