Loading...
2008.07.16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/16/08) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JULY 16, 2008 INDEX Area Variance No. 11-2008 Debaron Associates by Debra Schiebel, 1. Partner Tax Map No. 239.18-1-47 Area Variance No. 13-2008 Jane B. Lowell 2. Tax Map No. 290.00-1-22.221 Area Variance No. 38-2008 Daniel Macero 5. Tax Map No. 309.6-1-34 Area Variance No. 39-2008 Ronald & Tabitha Bartwitz 8. Tax Map No. 301.17-3-17 Area Variance No. 40-2008 Thomas Benware 12. Tax Map No. 315.6-2-41 Area Variance No. 42-2008 Robert C. Fallmann 18. Tax Map No. 288.00-1-26 Area Variance No. 41-2008 Schermerhorn Commercial Holdings, LP 22. Tax Map No. 309.13-1-73 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 07/16/08) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JULY 16, 2008 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT JAMES UNDERWOOD, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JOYCE HUNT RICHARD GARRAND JOAN JENKIN BRIAN CLEMENTS MEMBERS ABSENT GEORGE DRELLOS ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI th MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. I’m going to call the July 16 meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals to order, and starting out I want to quickly go through our procedures, once again, for anybody that perhaps is new here. As we handle each application, I’ll call the application by its name and number. The secretary will read the pertinent parts of the application, the Staff Notes and the Warren County Planning Board decision, if it’s applicable, into the record. Then we’ll ask the applicant to present any information they wish to present to the Board. The Board will ask questions of the applicant, then we’ll open the public hearing. The public hearing’s intended to help us gather information and understand it about the issue at hand. It functions to help the Board members make a wise decision, but it does not make the decision for the Board members. There will be a five minute limit on all speakers. We will allow speakers to speak again after everybody has had a chance to speak, but not for more than three minutes, and only if after listening to the other speakers, a speaker believes that they have new information to present, and Board members, I’d suggest that because we have the five minute limit that we not interrupt the speaker with questions while they’re speaking, rather we should wait until a speaker has finished his five minute period and then ask the questions. Following all the speakers, we’ll read any correspondence into the record and then the applicant will have an opportunity to react and respond to public comment. Board members will discuss the variance request with the applicant. Following that, the Board members will have a chance to explain their positions on the application and then the public hearing will be closed or left open, depending on the situation, and finally, if appropriate, a motion to approve or disapprove will follow. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 11-2008 SEQRA TYPE: II DEBARON ASSOCIATES BY DEBRA SCHIEBEL, PARTNER AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING/MC PHILLIPS, FITZGERALD, AND CULLUM OWNER(S): DEBARON ASSOCIATES ZONING: WR-3A LOCATION: DARK BAY LANE, OFF ROUTE 9L APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AND ASSOCIATED WASTEWATER SYSTEM AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CONTROLS. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SHORELINE AND REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS AND STORMWATER DEVICES FOR MAJOR PROJECTS. NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED. THE BOARD MAY CONSIDER FURTHER TABLING. CROSS REF.: N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: MARCH 12, 2008 (NO COUNTY IMPACT) ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 0.45 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.18-1-47 SECTION: 179-4-030; 179-4-090; 147- 9B.2(d) MR. UNDERWOOD-We had previously heard this, and it was tabled to this date, and as far as I know, just reading through the Staff Notes here, this application was tabled by the Board on March 26, 2008 and May 28, 2008 to allow the applicant to pursue alternative project designs and file a Site Plan Review application with the Planning Board so a recommendation could be offered. To date, no submittals have been 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/16/08) provided to the Town, and the Board may wish to consider having Staff contact the applicant for project status update and inform the applicant that a denial without prejudice is a possible outcome for this application. Have we had any kind of, any response from them at all? MR. OBORNE-We’ve had no response whatsoever. MR. UNDERWOOD-Nothing. Yes. I think what we’ll do then is ask Staff to contact them and see what the status of the project is, if they’re going to continue, and in lieu of the fact that they’re not here this evening, I don’t see anybody here representing? You are here. Okay. MELISSA LESCAULT MS. LESCAULT-I’m Melissa Lescault. I’m an attorney for the applicant on that matter, and I was told to just also again ask for it to be tabled again. They are working on it. It’s not as if it’s something that we are going to stop the process. They certainly are moving forward. It’s just they’re trying to, I’m not the personal attorney handling it, but I know he is working on it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. I think then what we’ll do is we’ll table this for up to 60 days. So why don’t we put them on for the first meeting in September. MR. URRICO-Jim, do you want the attorney to suggest to the firm that they contact the office to let us know? I mean, if she wasn’t here, we wouldn’t know whether they were tabling it or not. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think what we’ll do is have Staff get back to them and Staff can contact them and tell them to get their information in to us, ASAP, so it can be reviewed by Planning Board. MS. LESCAULT-And it will be soon. MR. UNDERWOOD-I believe that they’ve got to go to Planning Board before they come back to us anyway. So 60 days might not even be enough time, but, if necessary, we’ll just move it up to October or something like that in the future. MS. LESCAULT-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-So does somebody want to second that motion, then. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 11-2008 DEBARON ASSOCIATES BY DEBRA SCHIEBEL, PARTNER, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: Dark Bay Lane, off Route 9L. Tabled to the first meeting in September. Staff will get back to the applicant and Staff can contact the applicant and tell them to get their information in to us ASAP so it can be reviewed by the Planning Board. th Duly adopted this 16 day of July, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Drellos MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 13-2008 SEQRA TYPE: II JANE B. LOWELL AGENT(S): MELISSA D. LESCAULT, ESQ. MC PHILLIPS, FITZGERALD & CULLUM, LLP OWNER(S): JANE B. LOWELL ZONING: SR-1A LOCATION: CHESTNUT RIDGE ROAD & COUNTY LINE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO FURTHER SUBDIVIDE THE JANE LOWELL SUBDIVISION INTO 3 ADDITIONAL LOTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENTS FOR THE LOT FRONTING ON COUNTY LINE ROAD. CROSS 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/16/08) REF.: SUBDIVISION NO. 4-1996 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: MARCH 12, 2008 LOT SIZE: 14.626 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 290.00-1-22.221 SECTION: 179-19-020 C MELISSA LESCAULT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. UNDERWOOD-We had previously also addressed this and we had sent it on to the Planning Board for their recommendation as to what they were requesting us to grant them a variance for. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 13-2008, Jane B. Lowell, Meeting Date: July 16, 2008 “Project Location: Chestnut Ridge Road & County Line Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 3 lot subdivision on 14.62 acre parcel. Relief Required: Applicant requests 99.95 feet of relief from Section 179-19-020 which requires all lots created that front on an arterial or collector road to have either double the minimum lot width or a shared driveway. The proposed lot 1B does not meet the minimum 300 ft. lot width requirement nor does it share a driveway with an adjoining lot. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to develop the property as desired. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include the acquisition of additional land from an adjoining owner or securing an agreement with the property owner to the south for a shared driveway, should that parcel (Tra-Tom) ever be developed. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The requested relief of 99.95 feet is a request for 33% of relief from the requirement. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: The neighborhood is made up of single family homes on similarly sized lots. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Subdivision No. 4-1996 Two lot subdivision Subdivision No. 1-2004 Two lot subdivision approved 2/17/04 Staff comments: Previous staff notes referenced a prior subdivision with no evidence in the Town Records. Subsequently, the approved subdivision files have been located (Dickinson, Sub No. 1-2004). Per NYS Town Law 277, subdivisions requiring variances must be referred to the Planning Board for recommendation prior to deciding on the variance application. Note: The recommendation from the Planning Board dated June 17, 2008 states that the proposed driveway be a minimum 200 feet from the driveway to the north. There are minimal issues regarding site distances. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. UNDERWOOD-This was a motion from the Planning Board to make the following recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals, in connection with Area Variance No .13-2008, as well as Subdivision 4-2008, Jane Lowell. “WHEREAS, on 4/16/08 the ZBA requested a recommendation from the Planning Board relative to access to the lot for this project; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/16/08) MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD FOR AREA VARIANCE 13-2008 & SUBDIVISION 4-2008 JANE LOWELL, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: The Planning Board would look favorably on approving the variances as submitted. We have considered the project history, the sight distance which we believe is good, other lots in close proximity, which have similar lot widths on an arterial, and we would recommend to the Zoning Board that the driveway placement be a minimum of 200 feet from the driveway to the north.” And that was a unanimous decision on the part of all the members of the Planning Board on that one. So anything you want to add to that? MS. LESCAULT-I just, it was almost two months ago that I was here last time. So I certainly don’t want to bore the Board in going through the same elements that I did the last time, but I also don’t want it to be something that we’ve forgotten. So if you’d just bear with me I’ll just quickly go through the elements in regards to proving why I believe my client should be granted an Area Variance on this project. Specifically the property is zoned One Acre Residential zoning, and my client has four times that amount of acreage in regards to the property size. Without having the double width requirement, we have 150 feet of road frontage. So we meet the requirements within the zone, except for the fact, obviously, of the double width requirement being on the arterial road. The first element that has to be considered is whether there will be an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. The neighborhood is predominantly residential. Thus, changing it to having an additional residential lot certainly will not make anything undesirable in regards to the neighborhood itself. The second element that has to be proven for an Area Variance is whether there is an alternative or some other method that can be achieved, rather than an Area Variance, and as we discussed or I mentioned before, we had approached both of the neighbors, the neighbor to the north and the south, and asked if we could sell this lot, so that it would merge with their property. We sent that letter to them in writing and did not receive a response from either property owner. In addition, we did reach out to Tra-Tom and left a couple of messages with them, as well as their realtor, and asked if we could even buy some of their land, and did not hear anything. Keeping in mind that we could not buy any property from the property owner to the north because it would create a substandard lot if we were to take some of their road frontage, but again, neither neighbor had responded to our phone calls or letters written in request of that. The third element that needs to be considered for an Area Variance is whether the variance itself is substantial. Like I mentioned before, we are within the zone. However, because of the double width, we are short the 99 feet, which is a 33% variance. However, as I mentioned earlier, we’d like to consider the point, the fact that the neighbor to the north, their driveway is approximately 100 feet from our northern point of our property line, which is why the Planning Board mentioned that we place our driveway at least 200 feet from their, the location of their driveway, the property to the north. The fourth element for the board to consider is whether an adverse affect or impact on the physical or environmental condition in the neighborhood will occur if this variance is granted, and certainly as I mentioned, the majority of the homes are single family dwellings. They’re all very similar sized lots. Some of them are even smaller than what we’re trying to create here. So obviously there’d be no physical or environmental impact. The last element for the Board to consider is whether this was self-created, this difficulty was self-created, and as I pointed out, the property currently is substandard. Both sides of the property front on roads, one being an arterial road, which still requires it to have the proper road frontage, and when my client, through their last sale of a piece of land, did a two lot subdivision, that was approved to make this lot substandard in regards to that road frontage. Now my client wasn’t necessarily the applicant on that, however obviously there’s imputed knowledge that they should have been aware of the fact that this was creating a substandard lot, but I just wanted to respectfully acknowledge that the Planning Board also was, helped in creating the fact that that lot was substandard. The economic considerations, which although are not an element to prove for an Area Variance, I do want to put them on the record, again, that my applicant was willing to sell this lot for $55,000 to either neighbor. We had a local realtor give us an approximate market value of the property. She determined that it was approximately worth $100,000, based on the fact that two doors down a two acre lot sold for over $300,000. That’s obviously an improved lot. We have a vacant lot, and that a second lot was sold in Kingsbury, and it was only one acre, and that sold for $60,000. So I think it’s a good approximation that my client would risk losing between $55,000 to $100,000 if this was not approved. The last things I just wanted to mention is that the road itself is not heavily traveled, as are most arterial roads, for example, Lower Warren, Glenwood, and Round Pond. The area is not commercial. It’s residential, whereas those other arterial roads are commercial for the most part. The road is particularly flat, and I know that Craig had some pictures there that he had on the computer, and that the sight distances are about a half a mile from the property line. Additionally, a driveway 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/16/08) with just two cars moving onto that road would certainly not hinder the safe or efficiency movement of the traffic. That’s our opinion. Therefore we conclude that the benefit to Mrs. Lowell certainly outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood. That’s it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I don’t know if we kept the public hearing open or if we want to re-open the public hearing. Is there anybody in the public that wishes to speak on this matter? Any correspondence new? I don’t think we have any. MR. URRICO-No. Nothing that I can see. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Board members, do you want to discuss it, or is everybody pretty comfortable with what’s been said so far here? Okay. Then I guess what I’ll do is poll you all. It appears everybody doesn’t have a problem with this one. Not really. Okay. All right. Then I guess I can make the motion on it. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 13-2008 JANE B. LOWELL, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Chestnut Ridge Road & County Line Road. The applicant is requesting 99.95 feet of relief from Section 179-19-020, which requires all lots created that front on an arterial collector road to have either double the minimum lot width or a shared driveway. That’s not possible because it’s only 200 feet wide this lot, and as a result we had referred this to the Planning Board. The Planning Board has basically signed off that this is a reasonable request that we can grant this variance for this subdivision here of this property. As per the recommendation of the Planning Board, the relief requested, we’re going to grant that 99.95 feet of relief because the lot does not meet the 300 foot lot width requirement, and as stipulated by the Planning Board, the proposed driveway should be a minimum of 200 feet from the driveway to the north and we recognize that as you suggested it’s 100 feet, that driveway, from their own property line. So it’ll have to be a minimum of 100 feet into the property, in that 200 foot stretch there. As far as effects on the neighborhood or community, it’s been mentioned that the neighborhood is made up of all single family homes. There’s no sight line questions that we had to deal with here. It’s a straight line of road here. It’s actually an arterial road, but it’s kind of on the far end of the arterial road. I mean, there is some traffic in the morning and evening on there, but during the daytime it’s pretty quiet out there for the most part, and as far as the self-created notion of it, it’s a reflection of the property being that narrow width. It’s just not possible to accommodate the 300 foot width there, based upon the 200 that’s present. th Duly adopted this 16 day of July, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Drellos NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 38-2008 SEQRA TYPE: II DANIEL MACERO OWNER(S): DANIEL MACERO ZONING: SFR-10 LOCATION: 31 SUNSET AVENUE APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WITH A NONCONFORMING FRONT SETBACK. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: BP 2003-104 SFD WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.23 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.6-1-34 SECTION: 179- 4-030 DANIEL MACERO, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 38-2008, Daniel Macero, Meeting Date: July 16, 2008 “Project Location: 31 Sunset Avenue Description of Proposed Project: Applicant 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/16/08) has built a 941 sq. ft. Single Family dwelling and is in need of 5.08 feet of front setback relief. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief of 5.08 feet from the minimum 30 foot front setback requirement for the SFR-10 zone per Section 179-4-030. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to have his existing house 5.08 ft. within the front setback for this zone. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited due to the fact that the house already exists. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The request for 5.08 feet or 16.9% of relief from the minimum 30 foot front setback requirement could be considered minimal relative to the Ordinance. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minor effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2003-104 Issued 4/14/2004 941 sq. ft. SFD Staff comments: The applicant’s setback issue is not unlike other houses in the immediate area as there are inconsistent front setbacks throughout the neighborhood. There is also an approximate 20 foot road setback or utility easement to the front property line. Further, this house is the last house on a dead end street. SEQR Status: TYPE II” MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Anything you would like to add or any explanation? MR. MACERO-Really nothing to add. I think everybody’s been out there, haven’t they? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. MACERO-And they’ve seen, you know, the old survey, and that’s the measurement I took on it, and then that’s why it’s been two years getting the final on it. So finally I get the surveyors back. First they came and set one pin, and left, said it’s okay. Then when you wanted a final survey, I went and got the final survey and then he moved one in eight feet on one end, fourteen inches on the other end, and that’s where we are, you know. Basically, I’m not having a good time with it, but I would like to get this thing over with. I’ve done my job I think. For a while I didn’t even want to appear about it. I was so upset, but. MR. UNDERWOOD-So has this been something that you guys have been dealing with for two years also? MR. OBORNE-I haven’t personally. Craig can answer that. MR. BROWN-Yes. Not an active kind of enforcement issue. I realize there was some issues trying to get the application together, and we’ve been giving them some time to do that. Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-So it sounds like, initially, that this appeared to be built in a reasonably close proximity to where it was supposed to have been built setback wise? 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/16/08) MR. BROWN-Yes. I can’t answer that. It sounds like it if there were certain pins relied on in the field and it turns out they weren’t the correct ones. MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, obviously with a utility right of way there, too, I mean, that adds the extra 20 feet on the front of there. So I would think in general we’re looking at the statutes we’re talking about setback from the road. Right? MR. BROWN-Property lines, yes. MR. MACERO-Yes, I don’t think the utility pole has anything to do with this right now. I think what we’re really looking at is the old survey, which I measured off. MRS. JENKIN-And the house was built according to the old survey, wasn’t it? MR. MACERO-That’s correct, and as the house was progressed, the building inspectors were there and laid out tapes for them and made sure everything was all right, and when I was requested to get the final survey, they moved one in eight feet and moved my neighbor’s in the back fourteen inches, in the front, okay. So what happened is, everything moved back. So, now I was 30 feet, 29.5, 30 feet. Now we’re 24.6. So, but, yes, there is a utility pole there, but I don’t think that really has anything to do with this. The only thing that has something to with that is that it is a capped rod with a license number on it, and the two lots were put together. I bought the two lots off my uncle, and we made one lot out of them, but the perimeter survey was there, except for one pipe. He came and set one pipe, then he came back again and did a photo shot of the hole that I dug and everything was fine so I went ahead and commenced pouring footings and laying block and stuff, and then the final survey came in just like that, and you requested it. That’s what came back. I just did what you told me to do. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Okay. Board members have any other questions or otherwise I’ll open up the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-Any correspondence? MR. URRICO-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I guess I’ll poll the Board. Brian, do you want to go first? MR. CLEMENTS-Sure, I’ll go first. Looking at the situation, and, you know, having you comply with everybody to begin with and then having the lines change, I don’t think that it’s a, I don’t feel that it’s a self-created kind of a problem. MR. MACERO-Neither do I. I just, I didn’t create this. This is something that happened after. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I’ve got to cut you off, because they’re only going to direct their comments to me. MR. MACERO-Okay. MR. CLEMENTS-So therefore I’d be in favor of this. It’s in line with it looks like the rest of the houses on the street. So I wouldn’t have a problem with this. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joan? MRS. JENKIN-I agree. I think that the house was built according to what you said were the property lines, and it’s been changed after that. It’s not substantial relief. There’s probably minimal effects to the neighborhood. So I would be in favor of the variance. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Rich? MR. GARRAND-A lot of times these applications come before us, and there was not an effort in house placement, in good faith, and we get a lot of after the fact variances. I think this is one of those rare occasions where somebody made a good faith effort with their house placement, put it where they thought it was compliant, and then to find out 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/16/08) later on the survey was erroneous. I don’t see this as being self-created whatsoever. So I’d be in favor of this. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m in favor of it. I think, had this come before us just the way it is, I would have been in favor of it. It’s minimal relief and considering the circumstances, I’d certainly be in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-I would agree with my fellow Board members. I think it’s a reasonable request and I would be in favor. MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t think there’s any doubt that you were trying to do the right thing from the beginning here on this one. If you go down the street, the houses are all over the map as far as their setbacks from the road, and, you know, to harp on you for this would be really improper on our part. MR. MACERO-Thank you. There has been some trouble on that street. There was a new house on the corner and they had the same thing happen to them. MR. UNDERWOOD-In any case, I think the Boards will give you the affirmative and go ahead and on that. Hopefully you’ll get your CO ASAP and be on your way. MR. MACERO-Very good. Thanks. MR. UNDERWOOD-So does somebody want to make the motion? MR. GARRAND-I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 38-2008 DANIEL MACERO, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Clements: 31 Sunset Avenue. The applicant has built a 941 square foot single family dwelling and needs 5.08 feet of front relief setback. The applicant is requesting 5.08 feet of relief from the minimum 30 foot front setback requirement for the Single Family Residential 10,000 square foot zone, per Section 179-4-030. On the balancing test. Can the benefits be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant? For this case, there’s no practical, feasible means to rectify this situation, short of an Area Variance. Will this produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood? None whatsoever. This request could be deemed nothing more than minimal. Will this have any adverse physical or environmental impact on the neighborhood? No effect whatsoever, and this difficulty is not self-created. So I move that we approve Area Variance No. 38-2008. th Duly adopted this 16 day of July, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Drellos MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re all set. MR. MACERO-Okay. Thank you very much. AREA VARIANCE NO. 39-2008 SEQRA TYPE: II RONALD AND TABITHA BARTWITZ OWNER(S): RONALD AND TABITHA BARTWITZ ZONING: SR-20 LOCATION: 5 FAWN LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES INSTALLATION OF A 15 FT. BY 30 FT. INGROUND SWIMMING POOL. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. BP 2008-226 POOL; BP 99-625 SFD WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.24 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.17- 3-17 SECTION: 179-5-020 RONALD & TABITHA BARTWITZ, PRESENT STAFF INPUT 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/16/08) Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 39-2008, Ronald and Tabitha Bartwitz, Meeting Date: July 16, 2008 “Project Location: 5 Fawn Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 15 ft. by 30 ft. in-ground swimming pool. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief of 13.5 feet from the minimum 20 foot rear setback per Section 179-4-030. 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 proposed 15 ft. by 30 ft. in-ground swimming pool 6.5 feet from the rear property line. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives would be to build the pool in a more compliant location and/or downsize the pool to make it more compliant. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The request for 13.5 feet or 67.5 % of relief from the minimum 20 foot rear line setback requirement could be considered moderate relative to the Ordinance. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minor effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. Further, the neighborhood has many in-ground pools as well as above-ground pools similarly located. 5. Is the difficulty self created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2008-226 In-ground swimming pool pending BP 99-625 Single Family House Approved 10-15-99 Staff comments: The placement of the pool is restrained by the location of the septic to the east and a fence to the west of the proposed project. The leach field is on common property, however, the separation tank is located in the middle of the back yard with the line to the leach field running northeast, away from the proposed pool. Relocating the fence toward the front in order to make the pool more compliant would be problematic as well, as a paved driveway abuts the fence. SEQR Status: TYPE II” MR. UNDERWOOD-Anything you want to add? MR. BARTWITZ-The only thing that I have is a copy of the letter from my neighbors, the Lipinskis on the west side of my property, that they are in favor of me installing. MR. URRICO-I have it. MR. UNDERWOOD-He’ll read it in in the public hearing. MR. BARTWITZ-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do Board members have any questions they’d like to ask? MR. GARRAND-Yes. Do you have to go through the homeowners association for this? MR. BARTWITZ-Yes. I had to acknowledge to them that we are anticipating putting a pool in, which was accepted by them. MR. GARRAND-Okay. Do they have anything in the covenant with respect to restrictions or anything as far as pools go? 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/16/08) MR. BARTWITZ-Either it has to be an Aquawood Pool, if it’s an above ground, in-ground, no, as long as it’s approved by the Zoning Board. MR. GARRAND-Okay. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody else? MRS. JENKIN-The fence really protects everything. You can’t see anything because the fence is all the way around the perimeter. MR. BARTWITZ-That’s all around the perimeter, the rear of my property. It’s stockade fence. It’s six foot tall. So, unless somebody climbs up to peek over, they really aren’t going to see in or us see out. MRS. JENKIN-I know, and it’s a tiny yard. MR. BARTWITZ-Yes, it is. MRS. JENKIN-Which means you don’t have much landscaping to do, or don’t mind. Grass cutting or. MR. BARTWITZ-That’s right. MRS. BARTWITZ-Well, there’s still the front yard. MR. CLEMENTS-And you have similar pools situated in the neighborhood? MR. BARTWITZ-Yes. I believe there’s about between 12 and 14 pools, or there’s a couple of more that are anticipating being installed. My neighbor was just granted a variance last year to install a pool on the east side of my property. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I guess I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on this matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you want to read that letter in, Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. This is addressed to Mr. Underwood. “We reside at 3 Fawn Lane in the Town of Queensbury. Our property shares a common boundary line with the Bartwitz property. We are writing to you in support of the above referenced application for a variance from the rear yard setback. We do not anticipate any negative impacts upon the neighborhood as a result of your granting the variance and allowing the proposed in-ground swimming pool to be installed. The land located directly behind the property of Mr. and Mrs. Bartwitz is a green area owned by the Sherman Pines Homeowners Association, Inc. The property located at 7 Fawn Lane already contains an in-ground swimming pool. Furthermore, we understand a number of these variances have already been granted to other homeowners within Sherman Pines for the purpose of installing in-ground swimming pools. We request that this letter be placed in the record. Thank you. Very truly yours, Bruce O. Lipinski Andrea Lipinski” MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I guess I’ll close the public hearing, then. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. GARRAND-Can I ask Staff a question? MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Go right ahead. MR. GARRAND-Site development page, percent impermeable, is that correct, 47.7% impermeable? MR. OBORNE-No, I’d say that’s not correct. I could take a look at the numbers real quick and see exactly what’s going on. MR. GARRAND-Yes, I was just curious, because I think the spec is 30%. Is the spec 30%? 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/16/08) MR. BROWN-Seventy. You have to have 30 green. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. BROWN-You can have up to 70 impermeable. MR. GARRAND-Up to 70 impermeable. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Because it’s different in the CEA’s, right? Okay. All right. I guess I’ll poll the Board, then. I’ll start with you, Joyce. MRS. HUNT-Thank you. Yes, I think we’ve been through this before, and though the request sounds like a lot, it’s mitigated by the fact that the property line is on a green area that will never be built on. There are no homeowners back there, and I would be in favor. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I think the argument against granting this type of relief for a pool in this neighborhood left about 12 pools ago. This is one of those cases where we’ve granted so many variances where the status quo is actually having a pool and not having a pool is not the status. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Rich? MR. GARRAND-I have to agree with Mr. Urrico on this. I’d also be in favor. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joan? MRS. JENKIN-And I have nothing to add either. I am in agreement of it, too. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-Yes. I agree with the rest of the Board. I’d be in favor of this application also. MR. UNDERWOOD-On these small lots, it appears that, you know, like where you’re placing the pool is the logical place to do it. I mean, you could put it a little closer, but then you’d be too close to the fence, and it seems to be right dead square in the middle there. It gives you more of a patio around the outside of it, too. So I’d be in favor of it also. So does anybody want to make the motion here? MRS. HUNT-I’ll make the motion. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 39-2008 RONALD AND TABITHA BARTWITZ, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joan Jenkin: 5 Fawn Lane. The applicant proposes construction of a 15 by 30 foot in-ground swimming pool. The applicant requests relief of 13.5 feet from the minimum 20 foot rear setback per Section 179-5-020. Whether this benefit could be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant, because of the size of the lot and the septic tank in the middle of the backyard, there would be no other place to do it. Would there be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties? I don’t think so. This has been passed before for other properties in the area. While the request might be considered substantial, the back property line is on a green area that will never be built on. Whether the request will have adverse physical or environmental effects. I don’t think so, and it’s self-created only in the fact that the Bartwitz’s want an in-ground pool. So I would request that we pass Area Variance No. 39-2008. th Duly adopted this 16 day of July, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Drellos 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/16/08) MR. BARTWITZ-Thank you very much. MRS. BARTWITZ-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 40-2008 SEQRA TYPE: II THOMAS BENWARE OWNER(S): THOMAS BENWARE ZONING: AT TIME OF SUBD. APPROVAL: SR-20 YR. 1990 LOCATION: 2 MOCKINGBIRD LANE, INSPIRATION PARK SUBDIVISION APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 576 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: BP 92-654 SFD WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.23 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 315.6-2-41 SECTION: 179-19 THOMAS BENWARE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 40-2008, Thomas Benware, Meeting Date: July 16, 2008 “Project Location: 2 Mockingbird Lane, Inspiration Park Subdivision Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes the construction of a 576 sq. ft. detached garage on the properties west side, adjacent to the house. Relief Required: The applicant requests eight (8) feet of relief from the minimum 10 foot side setback per Section 179-4-030 for the SR-20 zone. 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 proposed 24 ft. by 24 ft. garage two (2) feet from the side property line. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives to consider are to attach the garage to the house and/or reduce the size of the proposed garage in order to make the structure more compliant. As far as a more compliant location, the applicant is restricted by the size of the lot and the size of the proposed structure. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The request for 8 feet or 80% of relief from the minimum 10 foot side setback requirement could be considered moderate to severe relative to the Ordinance. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minor effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. It should be noted that the proposed action by the applicant would be in character with the neighborhood. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. However, the location of the existing home may be a contributing factor to the difficulty. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 92-654 Single Family dwelling issued 12/22/92 Staff comments: The proposed garage location is to the north side of the applicant’s house and abutting the Homeowners Association lands per the parcel survey. The aerial photo of this neighborhood show similar houses with attached and detached garages. SEQR Status: TYPE II” MR. UNDERWOOD-Mr. Benware. MR. BENWARE-Good evening. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/16/08) MR. UNDERWOOD-Anything you wan to add? MR. BENWARE-I think pretty much everything was covered. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Board members have any questions? Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-Yes. I notice in your plans here you have also a porch that’s located in between the garage and the house, on one set. On other sets it isn’t there. Can you explain that to us? MR. BENWARE-Yes, you’re referring to this one here? MR. CLEMENTS-Actually I was referring to this one here. MR. BENWARE-Okay, yes, and it’s not on the elevations. Yes. I don’t have an explanation for that, I guess. We are planning to put a porch there. The side door is approximately three and a half feet off the ground. So we’ll need to have something there to get out, you know, and down to the driveway. MRS. JENKIN-Why don’t you raise the garage up? MR. BENWARE-Raise the garage up and attach it to the house? MRS. JENKIN-You’d have to bring fill in. MR. BENWARE-Yes. I mean, we’re talking about three and a half feet. Right now we have a relatively flat driveway. The kids can ride their bikes in it, play basketball. If we raise it up three and a half feet, it’s going to create a pretty aggressive slope there. MRS. JENKIN-Yes, that would be a slope. MR. UNDERWOOD-Then you’ve got the balls rolling out into the street and the kids running out after them. Not a good situation probably. Right. MRS. JENKIN-Another question. This shows the, so you’re not going, it’s just a platform is it with stairs? MR. BENWARE-No, that was just a sketch I threw in there. I probably shouldn’t have. It’s a pretty informal sketch. MRS. JENKIN-Well, are you going to cover it or anything, this little porch? MR. BENWARE-We don’t have any intentions of covering it at this point. It would be coming out of the side down to a set of steps, and, you know, our plans are to have a side door into the garage at the bottom of the steps there. MRS. JENKIN-You will have a side? MR. BENWARE-Into the garage, right. MRS. JENKIN-On the porch side? MR. BENWARE-At the bottom of the stairs. Yes. MRS. JENKIN-At the bottom of the stairs. Okay. MR. BENWARE-That’s what we’re planning. MRS. JENKIN-Well, that makes sense. The other question I have is the trees. Your nice row of trees. Will they remain? MR. BENWARE-There’s actually two row of trees there. The first row is actually on our property. I’m not sure if we would have to interfere with those. It doesn’t look like we would have to. MRS. JENKIN-I noticed there was a tape around one tree. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/16/08) MR. BENWARE-Yes, that’s from the surveyor. That’s basically indicating that that row of trees is right smack, you know, on my line. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. Because they’re nice, and they provide a buffer. MR. BENWARE-Yes. We like the fact that there is a buffer there, for sure. MR. URRICO-Mr. Benware, you know our task is to provide you with minimal relief, that’s why considering an attached garage would be preferable to a detached garage, because it would pull you away from that property line. Why aren’t you considering that, again? MR. BENWARE-Basically the elevation of the house. Coming out of that side door, there’s approximately three and a half feet from the surface of the driveway up to the, to get to that door. We would have to raise the garage a substantial amount and therefore raise the driveway to match, otherwise, you know, we’d be coming out of that door and looking at the roof of the garage. MR. URRICO-What about a smaller garage? MR. BENWARE-I guess a smaller garage is our backup plan, but, you know, ideally we’d like to be able to park all our vehicles in the garage and have some sort of storage as well. MRS. JENKIN-Now, I don’t remember, but that side door, is there a step out from that, too, is that higher? MR. BENWARE-Yes, there’s a platform porch. It’s like a pre-fab concrete that they put in with all the development houses. So it comes out onto a, you know, maybe a three by three platform and then there’s two steps down to the sidewalk, and you can kind of see that the slope of the yard is it’s graded up to that point, and then the steps and the porch platform on top of that. MR. GARRAND-Sir, any project you do here is going to require some level of grading. Staff made a couple of good points that either a smaller garage or closer to the house would require considerably less relief. Situations like this, should the homeowners association ever want to build or do anything over there, basically, you know, you need space to go around your garage to maintain it. Snow coming off the garage in the wintertime shouldn’t be going on to other parcels. Also the fact that by putting a garage in there so close to the property line, you’re either going to have to limb those trees off or take them outright down because it’s going to be right up against your garage. That’s part of the reason for setbacks. MR. BENWARE-Well, as I said, you know, that first row of trees is right on my property. As far as the size of the garage relative to the property, as far as I’m aware, I don’t believe that the Association property is zoned for any sort of building. MR. UNDERWOOD-Is it forever wild property? They keep it green, right? MR. BENWARE-Right. It’s green space. In addition to that, there’s several garages around the neighborhood that are situated very similar to what I’m requesting. MRS. JENKIN-How wide is the porch? MR. BENWARE-There’s eight foot between the garage and the house, as indicated on the. MRS. JENKIN-Could you reduce it to six? MR. BENWARE-We probably could. Our plan with eight foot was to provide adequate room for the door to swing around and to get around with say a bag of groceries. MRS. JENKIN-Because that is an issue with the snow sliding off the roof and into those trees, because when I was looking at it, it looked like you probably have to take out at least two of the trees, the one that had the circle around it. It just seemed that that would, and I didn’t measure it or anything like that, but it looked like that would be very, almost too close to the garage, and then the one behind it. You wouldn’t. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/16/08) MR. BENWARE-Yes, you’re talking about the first row of trees which is on my property. There’s actually two rows of trees there. I don’t know if you can see from the pictures. MRS. JENKIN-Right. They’re staggered. MR. BENWARE-Right. The second row is on the Association property. The first row is actually on my property, as you get back into the driveway. I think when they planted those trees originally they were right on the line, and as they grew, they encroached on my property. MR. CLEMENTS-How about the, have you talked to the Homeowners Association about this? Do they have any problems? MR. BENWARE-There’s nothing in the by-laws that restricts a building like this, as far as I’m aware. I have not spoken with them. I don’t want to say that the Association is disbanded, but there’s really, there’s a Treasurer that’s really active and he pays the bills, and outside of that there’s really not much going on there. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anymore questions? Okay. I guess I’ll open up the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on this matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-Any correspondence? MR. URRICO-There is something submitted. I’m not sure if it was faxed or sent in, but it says we have no problems with our nice neighbors building a garage, signed Tom and Molly Kandora, and they’re at 1 Mockingbird Lane. Do you know if this was faxed in or how this arrived? MR. BROWN-Yes. Well, that’s the public hearing notice we send out to everybody within 500 feet. So they probably marked it up and dropped it off or sent it, faxed it in. MR. URRICO-Okay. Where is 1 Mockingbird Lane? It looks like all the houses around you are 21. MR. BENWARE-It’s across the street. MR. URRICO-Across the street. All right. Okay. That’s it. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. I guess I’ll close the public hearing, then. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-And poll the Board members. Joan, do you want to go first? MRS. JENKIN-I have a problem with the two feet. Two feet is not very much distance from the property line, but it is a common area, and as long as that stayed like that, then, you know, it wouldn’t even appear as if it was, but the property line is there. So I think I’m going to hold my opinion until I hear from everyone else. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Rich? MR. GARRAND-At this point I think there’s other options that should be explored here, rather than putting, you know, the side of the garage two feet from the property line. At this point I wouldn’t be in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Thank you. Well, I feel it’s a modest sized garage, and though the two feet is a very short distance, the fact that it’s Homeowners property I think mitigates that. I would be in favor. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I think when you measure all the criteria, the benefit to the applicant, obviously you would benefit from a garage, but I don’t know if you would benefit from a 24 by 24 garage. Obviously you would benefit from that, but there seem to be feasible alternatives in my estimation, and because of the size of the garage, it minimizes the, 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/16/08) well, actually it maximizes the relief that we have to grant to you. Eight feet out of ten feet is a lot, and it’s based on that that I would withhold my approval of this application. MR. UNDERWOOD-Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-I’d be in favor because I think it’s going to, with the Homeowners Association next to it, it really doesn’t look like it’s infringing on anything at all. The other thing is that it’s only a 100 foot lot. Probably, and there aren’t any measurements here, but if the house was moved over closer to the other line, you know, it could be more compliant, but that’s where it’s situated now, so I’d be in favor of this application. MR. UNDERWOOD-Joan? MRS. JENKIN-Yes. I think I stand by my, I think the two feet is too small, whether you could make the garage smaller, make the porch a little smaller, just to make it at least a wide enough area that you could walk around and make use of, you could use that, because it’s very, very close to the line, and with the trees there, it’s going to abut against those trees, and you really wouldn’t get around that. So I would not be in favor of this. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. As far as my vote goes, I think if we look at the size of the lot there, and keeping in mind, you know, the Subdivision Regulations, most all the places in that subdivision have attached garages on them. I can’t even think of another one that’s detached. Is there another one, Craig? MR. BENWARE-I have some information on that. There’s actually, on Mockingbird Lane, Number Three and Four have detached garages. On Goldfinch, 13, 3, 7, and 18 have detached garages. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay, and in most cases I think obviously with a 100 foot wide, you know, depth on your lot, and these lots being narrow lots to begin with, they’re smaller parcels, I probably would not be in favor of this, and I understand the negativity of the votes coming from the Board members here, because, you know, you’re looking at what are the possibilities for you? Obviously an attached garage would be a distinct possibility for you to consider, you know, and just have a set of stairs inside the garage that comes down to the garage, but that creates problems, too, because when you’re trying to walk up with groceries and make the corner, like you said, the addition of that porch in the middle between there and the garage being eight feet wide, if you slide the thing over eight feet closer into the edge of the house there, it wouldn’t require any relief at all for this project, but at the same time, as mentioned by the Board members that were in favor of it, it’s mitigated by the fact that you have Homeowners Association green space to the other side of you there. I know Joan suggested shrinking the size of the porch down, but it would be sort of a get to the point of ridiculousness if you’re having to turnaround like you’re pivoting like a robot or something out there. MRS. JENKIN-Well, six feet, come on. MR. UNDERWOOD-Six feet’s too little. MRS. JENKIN-Is it? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I mean, that’s like the space from here to the wall, you know, from the back of my chair to the wall. MRS. JENKIN-Yes, I know. MR. UNDERWOOD-But I would think that the request, even though it’s an excessive request in my mind, I could still go with your request here because of the Homeowners Association property. Obviously, if you had a next door neighbor on that side, there’s no way that any of us, I think, would accommodate your request here this evening, but in general I’d be in favor of it. So does that does that make us three to three and deadlocked? MRS. JENKIN-Three to three. MR. UNDERWOOD-So does anybody want to re-consider? Or what are we going to do here? MR. URRICO-We don’t have enough votes to approve it. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/16/08) MR. UNDERWOOD-We don’t appear to have any kind of an affirmative number for you to proceed as you wanted to do here this evening. So I think you have two choices. You can either come back to us with something different, and I don’t know if different’s going to make any difference. It looks to me like you’re either going to have to wait for a full Board with seven members here, again, and come back, but I think at this point in time you’re either going to have to consider the attached garage or, you know, if it’s a tie vote it’s a no vote, right? So, I mean, there’s no. MR. GARRAND-Reduce the size of the porch a little. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, if you reduce the porch down to six feet wide, is that going to help anybody change their? MR. GARRAND-It’s going to give him four feet. MR. UNDERWOOD-It’ll give you four feet over to the property line. Is that going to help you? MR. BENWARE-Yes. I mean, if that’s something that would, you know, get it to pass, I’d certainly be willing to consider that. Absolutely. MR. GARRAND-I’d be happier with four feet. At least with four feet you can get your standard riding lawn tractor around the garage. MR. BENWARE-I’m sorry, a seven foot porch with a one foot smaller garage, you know, a 23 foot garage or something. MR. UNDERWOOD-He said make the garage 23 feet wide instead of 24 feet wide so he would have a seven foot wide porch in the middle instead of eight foot. He would make up the two foot of difference with shrinking. MR. GARRAND-Four feet gives you ingress and egress from your backyard, okay. It also gives, you know, the snow some place to fall instead of another property, another lot for that snow to pile up on. We don’t want to create a situation here that, you know, in 10 years, the Homeowners Association says, boom, we can sell this lot and somebody builds a house here, you know, your snow’s falling on their lot or, you know, you might have some of your stuff on the side of the garage that’s into their property now. It would mitigate problems down the road. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So, in changing your vote, Rich, I think what we’re looking at here is the porch is going to shrink from eight feet down to seven feet wide. The garage width across the driveway is going to be 23. It’s still going to be 24 foot in depth going back towards the back. MRS. JENKIN-Had you thought about maybe making the garage a little deeper? MR. BENWARE-Yes, that’s certainly an option. MRS. JENKIN-And that would be, then you could put storage in the back. MR. BENWARE-If we’re just talking about one foot narrower, I don’t think we will need to. MRS. JENKIN-I would be okay with that, too. I think the four feet would be. MR. UNDERWOOD-So as far as the relief required in this instance, the applicant’s going to request four feet of relief or six feet of relief? MR. GARRAND-Six feet of relief. MR. UNDERWOOD-Six feet of relief from the minimum 10 foot side setback relief for the SR-20 zone. Does somebody want to make the motion, or do you want me to do it? All right. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 40-2008 THOMAS BENWARE, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/16/08) 2 Mockingbird Lane, Inspiration Park Subdivision. The applicant is proposing construction of a 552 square foot detached garage on the property’s west side adjacent to the house. The applicant is requesting six feet of relief from the minimum 10 foot side setback relief per Section 179-4-030 for the SR-20 zone. Under the benefit to the applicant, he will be permitted to construct a proposed 23 by 24 foot garage, and again, that will be set back four feet from the property line. Under feasible alternatives, we did consider an attached garage on the house which would have met the setback requirements, but he prefers to have a little bit of a porch breezeway through there between the garage. Is the relief substantial relief to the Ordinance? The request for six feet of relief is 60% of relief from the minimum side setback requirements. As far as effects on the neighborhood anticipated, it’ll have a minor effect on the property line, due to the fact that it’s half the distance that’s necessary. Again, it’ll be four foot to the property line instead of the two feet as originally requested. The difficulty is self-created by the fact that he wants to build this garage under those specifications of 23 by 24, and again, it’s somewhat mitigated by the fact that there is homeowner association lands to the side of this parcel on the near side of the garage from that four foot setback line. So, that in some way mitigates the impact of the project. th Duly adopted this 16 day of July, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Underwood NOES: Mr. Urrico ABSENT: Mr. Drellos MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. You’re all set. MR. BENWARE-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 42-2008 SEQRA TYPE: II ROBERT C. FALLMANN OWNER(S): ROBERT C. FALLMAN ZONING: RR-5A LOCATION: 346 GURNEY LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 960 SQ. FT. HOBBY BARN. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES (SECOND GARAGE) AND FROM MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR A GARAGE. CROSS REF.: BP 7962 YEAR 1983 2-CAR DETACHED GARAGE; BP 97-458 INTERIOR ALT. TO GARAGE WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: JULY 9, 2008 LOT SIZE: 27.57 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.00-1-26 SECTION: 179- 5-020 ROBERT FALLMANN, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 42-2008, Robert C. Fallmann, Meeting Date: July 16, 2008 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to construct a 960 sq. ft. Hobby Barn for equipment storage and woodworking. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from the number of allowable garages per Section 179-5- 020. Further, the applicant requests relief from the maximum allowable square footage per Section 179-2-010. 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 proposed 960 sq. ft. second garage. 2. Feasible alternatives: A feasible alternative would be to reduce the size of the project in order to be more compliant or use existing garage for storage. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The request for 60 square feet or 6.7% of relief from the 900 sq. ft. maximum allowable square footage for a garage per Section 179-2-010 may be considered minimum in relation to the Ordinance. The request for a second garage would constitute a 100% increase relative to the Ordinance. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/16/08) 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minor effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. The proposed garage will be situated on 27.15 acres and 340 feet from the nearest property line. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP97-458 Issued 8/19/97 Garage alteration BP7962 Issued 7/14/87 Two-car detached garage Staff comments: The property is located on 27.15 acres and the proposed garage location is 340 feet from Gurney Lane. The applicant states that the garage is for the storage of maintenance equipment and also to be used for woodworking tasks. Upon a field visit, it was notice that the equipment that is in need of storage is currently covered with tarps. Further, the surrounding area is made up of large parcels with many having more than one garage and more than one accessory structure. SEQR Status: Type II” “Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form July 9, 2008 Project Name: Fallmann, Robert C. Owner(s): Robert C. Fallmann ID Number: QBY- 08-AV-42 County Project#: Jul08-23 Current Zoning: RR-5A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 960 sq. ft. hobby barn. Relief requested from number of allowable accessory structures (second garage) and from maximum allowable square footage for a garage where 900 sq. ft. is the maximum allowable. The information submitted indicates the barn is to be used for storage of tractors and other garden equipment. The application indicates the lot is 27.15 acres, the structure is to be located 300 + ft. from the road, and neighboring properties have similar structures. Staff recommends no county impact based on the information submitted according to the suggested review criteria of NYS General Municipal Law Section 239 L applied to the proposed project. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Richard C. Merrill, Warren County Planning Board 7/14/08. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Mr. Fallmann? MR. FALLMANN-Basically what I want to do is build a place to get the mess out of sight. The older I get, I need a little bit more equipment to maintain the property. I can’t move a 24 inch log anymore myself so I bought a new tractor. I had an old tractor on there that I want to put both of them into that. I want to make the building look like it’s more like a barn than it is a garage. I only put one door on it, and the reason it’s going to be 40 feet deep is I want to be able to put both tractors in on that one side so that I can still get in with all the lawn and garden equipment on the other side. I have a, this is just a, I don’t know if you want to just pass this around. It’s a more recent drawings on what the barn’s going to look like. That’s not 100% correct because it’s not going to be a driveway connecting this to the road or anything else. It will be grassed in after that, but it’ll give you a little bit more of an idea as to what I want to construct on there to put this equipment into. I don’t really have right now the way it is, but this is basically for winter use so that I have a place to work in the wintertime. I’m a year round resident. I don’t go anywhere and it gets kind of boring in there when you can’t do anything, and by the time I get everything in the other, the patio equipment and everything in the cellar, you can’t move down there, and the house is also very tight, so that you open a can of paint down there and that’s throughout the whole house, everybody can smell that, and my wife doesn’t like the (lost word) because it gets dust all over the place. MR. CLEMENTS-Looking at that picture you’re sending, the rest of the Board hasn’t seen that yet, but the square footage that you had, does that include that external part? MR. FALLMANN-No. It does not include the porch. It’s 960 square feet. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/16/08) MR. CLEMENTS-Inside. MR. FALLMANN-For the building itself. It does not include that overhang. There’s an eight foot overhang that goes on one side, and it goes partially in the front. The purpose of that was, I did it, the walls on this thing are going to be 10 and a half feet high, and I didn’t want a big box sticking up on there. It’s basically been put on for aesthetic reasons, so it’ll look a little better on there and take the boxiness away from the building. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody else got questions? MRS. HUNT-Yes. Now this is a 27 acre parcel? MR. FALLMANN-Yes. I own 27 acres, then I own another 10, on this parcel it’s 27 and a half acres. MRS. HUNT-Right, but it’s a five acre zoning. Is there any chance that would be, you would subdivide that or? MR. FALLMANN-No. I’ve been there 30 years, and I won’t subdivide it. That’ll be the next guy that takes, buys the property. I don’t have any intention of doing that. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody else have a question? MRS. JENKIN-Just about the barn. This isn’t one of the barns that are coming out of New Hampshire are they? Or are you building this? This is your own design? MR. FALLMANN-No. I will be building this myself. MRS. JENKIN-Really? It’s very nice. MR. URRICO-You’re not planning on renting this out, I mean? Any residents living here? MR. FALLMANN-No. MR. URRICO-Any office space? MR. FALLMANN-There’ll be storage space up above. MRS. JENKIN-You will put a second floor on that? MR. FALLMANN-That’s what they call a roof truss system in there. I don’t know whether you’ve ever seen these Curtis buildings advertised. There’ll be, I think it’s going to be roughly about 12 foot wide by the length of the building, for storage only, light storage. MR. UNDERWOOD-Like attic truss up there? MR. FALLMANN-Yes. It’s an attic truss system that’s going to be, I plan to use on that, and it’s just for light, that’s where I’ll put the patio equipment instead of in the cellar. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Anybody from the public wishing to comment on this project this evening? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-Any public commentary? MR. URRICO-Yes. There’s one letter. This is to all of us. “Dear Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals: We are writing in support of Bob and Judy Fallmann’s application for an area variance to construct a “hobby barn” on their property lying northerly of our home in the Town of Queensbury. The Fallmann’s residence is located on a 27.5 acre parcel and they also own an adjoining 10 acre parcel of vacant land. Currently, only one primary structure, the residence with attached garage, and a 10 x 10 shed are located on more than 37 acres of land. Barns and out buildings are customary in our neighborhood. The Fallmanns have certainly constructed an extremely attractive home on their property. The addition of a hobby barn certainly will be in keeping with the character of our neighborhood. Bob and Judy have been exemplary stewards of their property in this Town and we whole heartedly support their application. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, Marilyn L. Mathias Wilson S. Mathias” 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/16/08) MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. URRICO-I have one other question, and I can’t remember what it was now. I’m sorry. I lost track. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I guess I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. URRICO-Yes. The other question is do you plan on keeping the current structures that you have, or is this replacing any of that? MR. FALLMANN-Yes. I live in one. One of them’s a house and the other it’s just a little 10 by 10 shed that’s back in the woods. MR. URRICO-And you’re going to keep that one? You’re going to keep that 10 by 10? MR. FALLMANN-Yes, that’ll be left. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I guess I’ll start with you, Rich. MR. GARRAND-Normally, you see a request like this it’s either for a business on someone’s property or it’s just something to store a multitude of cars or, normally it’s not something we see for the sole purpose of maintaining a parcel of property. The property you have here is nearly, when all totaled, almost 40 acres. I can see where you’d need a lot of equipment, I mean, with one acre, I know what type of equipment it takes to maintain that level of property, but with this amount of property, I can definitely see that you will need space for your equipment. I can’t, going through the balancing test, you know, there’s, your alternatives are limited here. You want to get that equipment out of your lawn. I can see why. You want to keep it out of the weather. I can also see that. Going around the area also there’s accessory structures for other properties up there, which, you know, given the rural nature of that neighborhood, you need them. I’d be in favor of this application. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-Yes. I’d be in favor of this application also. I mean, it’s a huge piece of property and I think that there’ll be no effect on the neighborhood at all. As has been said, there are some other parcels up there that are large that have similar type barns or extra garages. So I’d be in favor of this application. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I’d be in favor of this for the same reasons given. My only concern would be at some future point if this property were ever subdivided, it might be more crowded at that point, but even five acres would mitigate the size of this. I would be in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. I have to agree with my fellow Board members. I think it’s a reasonable request. I would be in favor. MR. UNDERWOOD-Joan? MRS. JENKIN-Yes. I think because it is rural up there, it is rural and I think a barn such as this will really add to your property, and it will add to the whole neighborhood because it’s definitely in keeping with the property. I think it’ll help you out a lot. It’ll give you a little bit more space. You can work inside in the winter, as you said, and I would be in favor of the variance. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think the last application that we had up in this area was Nelson Miller and when Nelson requested a second barn on his property for storing his tractors and snow removal equipment in the wintertime and, you know, as mentioned by Joan, it’s a compliment, you know, to put up a structure that looks nice and, you know, has some thought built into the process instead of just putting up a box on the side of a hill. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/16/08) On a parcel this large, and with the adjoining 10 acres on here, I would agree also, you know, that this is not something that’s going to have any harmful effect. No one’s even going to know you built it. You could probably go ahead and build it and the Town wouldn’t find it for two years until they came after you, but since you came in and asked us first, that’s good, but anyway, I need somebody to make the motion here. Does someone want to do it? MR. GARRAND-I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 42-2008 ROBERT C. FALLMANN, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joan Jenkin: 346 Gurney Lane. The applicant is proposing the construction of a 960 square foot hobby barn for equipment storage and woodworking. The applicant is requesting relief for the number of allowable garages per Section 179-5-020. Further the applicant also seeks relief from the maximum allowable square footage per Section 179-2-010. With respect to the test, can the benefits be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant? We don’t believe so, given the amount of equipment necessary to maintain this size parcel. An accessory structure is more than likely necessary. The addition of this structure will not produce any undesirable change in the neighborhood or to the character of nearby properties. It more or less will reflect the character of the neighborhood. This request may be deemed as substantial given the Ordinance. Will this request have adverse physical or environmental impacts? Quite the contrary. It may improve conditions, environmentally, up there, getting power equipment out from the elements. This may be deemed as self-created. So I move that we approve Area Variance No. 42-2008. th Duly adopted this 16 day of July, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Drellos MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re all set. MR. FALLMANN-Okay. Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 41-2008 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED SCHERMERHORN COMMERCIAL HOLDINGS, L..P. AGENT(S): J. LAPPER, ESQ. BPSR/BOHLER ENGINEERING, LLC OWNER(S): SCHERMERHORN COMMERCIAL HOLDINGS, LP ZONING: HC-MOD LOCATION: CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 3-STORY, 106 ROOM HOTEL. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: SPR 28-2008 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: JULY 9, 2008 LOT SIZE: 16.66 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.13- 1-73 SECTION 179-4-030 RICH SCHERMERHORN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 41-2008, Schermerhorn Commercial Holdings, L.P, Meeting Date: July 16, 2008 “Project Location: Corinth Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes the construction of a 53,700 sq. ft. hotel with a total height of 50 feet on 16.7 acres behind the McDonalds on Corinth Road. Relief Required: The applicant requests 10 feet of relief from the 40 foot maximum height requirement for the HC-Moderate Zone per Section 179-4-030. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct a fifty (50) foot high, 53,700 sq. ft., 106-room hotel. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/16/08) 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may be to build a hotel that is forty (40) feet in height and/or construct a flat roof. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The request for 10 feet or 25% of relief from the 40 foot maximum height requirement could be considered moderate relative to the Ordinance. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as there is a residential neighborhood to the rear of the project. Minimal effects on the community may be anticipated as a hotel is an allowable use in this zoning district. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Vacant Land Staff comments: The north side of the project has a 27 foot buffer running west to east along the residential boundary. The west side of the project has a 650 foot treed buffer and the Adirondack Northway Exit 18 ramp borders the east boundary. To the south resides McDonalds and Corinth Road. SEQR Status: Unlisted” “Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form Project Name: Schermerhorn Commercial Holdings, L.P. Owner(s): Schermerhorn Commercial Holdings, L.P. ID Number: QBY-08-AV-41 County Project#: Jul08-26 Current Zoning: HC-Mod Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 3-story, 106 room hotel. Relief requested from maximum height requirement. Site Location: Corinth Road Tax Map Number(s): 309.13-1-73 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes construction of a 3-story, 106 room hotel. Relief requested from maximum height requirement. The hotel is proposed to be 50 ft. in height where 40 ft. is the maximum allowed. The information submitted indicates the height will allow for peaked roof construction versus a flat roof. The elevation drawings show the architectural scheme of the roof and building. The submission included additional information about site development, parking road access, areas to remain wooded, stormwater and erosion control measures, and other site details. Staff recommends no county impact based on the information submitted according to the suggested review criteria of NYS General Municipal Law Section 239 L applied to the proposed project. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Richard C. Merrill, 7/14/08. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Do you guys want to explain what you’re going to go for here? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Rich Schermerhorn for the record. Jon Lapper, I think, is held over at a Planning Board meeting in Wilton. So we’ll have to do the answering, but the request that I have, obviously, is to be able to do a peaked roof. The hotel can be accomplished to do it with a flat roof, but knowing the Planning Board, I’d probably go in front of them and they’d probably ask me if I could do a peaked roof, and the answer would be yes, but I would need the variance for the peaked roof. I mean, I personally think it’s aesthetically more attractive. A flat roof does work. It’s actually less money for the developer to do a flat roof, but I, with Marriot, with the design that I think you have in front of you, the design has been a successful design that’s worked well all along the Northeast. I actually just visited a brand new one they just built in Augusta, Maine. They just did one in Bangor. They just did one in Manchester, and they’ve done them in several different towns where architectural design is a concern, like it is in most communities. So I would just hope that we could see where it wouldn’t be a substantial request. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/16/08) MR. UNDERWOOD-Have you guys, has the Planning Board looked at this at all, then? They’re going to see this next month or this month? MR. SCHERMERHORN-We’re in front of the Planning Board on Tuesday. I’ve been in front of Warren County. Certainly I’ve sat with Craig Brown and Staff, and we reviewed it, and it’s also kind of unique. The site sits down 18 feet from the Northway. So I think, well, if I did a flat roof, I don’t want to say for sure you’d see, but you may see, it may be less attractive when you’re driving by the Northway if you see the flat roof, but I think the peaked roof, aesthetically, may look better. That’s all. MR. UNDERWOOD-On the side along the Northway there, are you going to leave a buffer of trees there or are you taking everything down? I mean, it’s hard to tell from the drawings, you know, how much you’re going to. MR. SCHERMERHORN-There’s a substantial amount of growth that the State has along that fence line, on the other side, plus we do show some buffer as well, and naturally, you know, we do, we certainly would like to try and get some exposure to the Northway because it is kind of down in a low area of the Northway, and again, being that it’s a hotel, it somewhat helps to have the visibility. MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, I remember in the sense when we did the sports complex dome up the road there, they had a pretty substantial buffer, you know, so you couldn’t see it at all, and I don’t know, with your large chunk of property here, if the Planning Board’s going to tell you to move it back further or not. I mean, I don’t know what their feelings are going to be on that. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I certainly never can determine what they want. I’ve always been open to suggestions for everything. It’s not like this has to be it. It certainly is a great location, or good location. Marriot has a lot to do with the review, not that they’re the final, they’re marketing people look at it and they say this is where we feel it would be best suited if you can reach your approvals with the Planning Board. The dome, I was very familiar with that project when it went through site planning and I believe there was supposed to be a little more buffering that they ended up with, because I think there was a clearing, mismarking of a clearing limit line, but I also think that the dome is certainly a very visible, I mean, it’s very big. It’s white and it’s a big bubble, and the Planning Board will certainly hold me to architectural review on the hotel as well. The hotel as it stands, it’s presented, I’ve seen it in person. It’s very aesthetically pleasing. Like I said, one of the last places they just built one was in Manchester, New Hampshire where the architectural review is very important to the town, because they consider it I guess very historical, but again, the Planning Board may ask some things of me and I’ll try and do the best I can. MR. URRICO-Just in terms of comparison, how does it compare to some of the other motels that are located nearby, like the one across the road there? Do you know what the height of that one is? MR. SCHERMERHORN-That is a Super Eight, and I’m sure that’s within the 40 feet, because it’s a two-story hotel. MR. URRICO-What about the Six Flags lodge? MR. SCHERMERHORN-That, and again, I wasn’t going to bring those up because I know every application’s different and we’re talking about this particular application, but George Stark, the Comfort Inn and Suites on Route 9, he had to get a height variance, and it was granted. Great Escape Lodge did get a height variance. It was granted. I want to say there was one. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think that one across from Wal-Mart, too, you know. MR. SCHERMERHORN-That’s Sleep Inn. MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s almost about the same size. MR. URRICO-In this case, you know, I think there is a good way, this is the type of comparison, I think, that’s relevant because it’s similar. So the trees, basically, are going to be taller than the building, the tree buffer? MR. SCHERMERHORN-The trees, when you drive by, if you’ve seen the site, it’s very mature, the trees are very mature there. They’re quite tall. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/16/08) MR. URRICO-Are they about 60, 70 feet? MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I’d say more like 45. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, probably 40, 45. MR. URRICO-So it’s going to be close to the roofline? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. Certainly it won’t be, I mean, invisible. Warren County actually one of their requests they said is, gee, do you have enough parking? And I said, well, according to Marriot, 106 plus a few extras for the employee is plenty, because I have more room to do more, and they were concerned about that, in case buses come in, but generally if a bus comes in you know ahead of time, and let’s say there’s 50 people on the bus and out of that bus they take 25 rooms, well, you’re going to have 25 empty parking spaces. So you designate, you have cones and you designate for when that bus comes in. So we are able to, you know, not do a lot of macadam in this situation. They also asked me about tractor trailers, but typically you don’t want to discourage tractor trailers, but this is not the market where you really have 18-wheelers pulling in and they’re renting a hotel room, and I think the problem we’d have there is it would start to, then we might have problems with the neighbors because if they’re leaving trucks running and so I don’t want to say I’m making it friendly for trucks, but. MR. URRICO-Is this a Suites Inn? MR. SCHERMERHORN-There’s rooms and there’s some suites. There’s 16 suites, which, again, are just basically a room with a den, and again, the purpose for me doing is the location of it, I feel, is a great location. Marriot is very particular where they choose to put their hotels, and with Tribune and the Hospital down the road and the businesses we have in Glens Falls mills and stuff, not that we don’t have other fine hotels, but this is a very well known brand across the country. That’s why I chose it, too. MRS. JENKIN-The corner of the property is just 20 feet from your property line, the corner of the hotel itself. There’s 20 feet. MR. SCHERMERHORN-From the parking lot, you mean? MRS. JENKIN-That’s from the parking lot. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. MRS. JENKIN-So you, essentially, and I understand why a hotel wants to be visible when there are people driving down the Northway, they want visibility there. So you will essentially clear cut most of the trees that are next to the Northway now, right? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, he actually has a blow up. MRS. JENKIN-And then if it’s 18 feet below then actually there’ll be 32 feet of the hotel up in the air next to the Northway. If the Northway is 18, if the property is 18? MR. SCHERMERHORN-If the math adds up, yes, that would be approximate. MRS. JENKIN-Yes, about 32 feet. So it would be quite visible. CHRIS BOYEA MR. BOYEA-I’m Chris Boyea with Bohler Engineering. To answer your question, we’ve actually got approximately, it’s 52.9 feet. So it’s about 60 feet from the corner of the hotel to the property line here. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. MR. BOYEA-And what we’re proposing to do is clear a lot of the trees right up to the right of way or to the property line. You’ll see another line over here to the left. This is actually the fence of the State DOT, Department of Transportation, and what Rich was indicating is that there’s some large growth that’s not within our control, that isn’t shown here. I’ve got an aerial photograph here, that kind of shows where that fence is down in here. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/16/08) MRS. JENKIN-Okay. MR. BOYEA-So there are some trees left in here and here. So we would not be able to clear those out. MR. UNDERWOOD-So that’s the Travel Corridor Overlay margin line there? MR. BOYEA-That’s correct. MRS. JENKIN-And then you’ll be clearing right up to the back, up McDonald’s? MR. BOYEA-That’s correct, right here. McDonald’s basically, their curb line is about eight inches off of our property line. So they’re probably mowing a little grass strip over there that’s on this property. MR. URRICO-So that dog walk is on your property? MR. BOYEA-The dog walk? MR. URRICO-There’s a dog walk back there. Is that on your property? MR. BOYEA-Well, they’re welcome to walk dogs. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. Renee Reardon from McDonald’s, that owns McDonald’s, called me today and she was mentioning the dogs. I guess she’s got a lot of people that walk their dogs in there. So she said be careful. I did notice, and, I mean, if the State didn’t have a great deal of buffer along that fence line, it probably would be to my advantage, because I could always trim the trees to get the visibility if I was looking for that, but I did just notice that Queensbury Parks and Recreation, if you saw the clearing that they’re doing for the new park area for the expansion, they had no trees on the other side of the fence, and they’ve opened up the whole thing. So you get a, there’s no buffer when you drive by. So, in this situation, we’re fortunate, there is a great deal of trees on that State line, and my understanding is the State is not flexible with people clearing any of their trees. MRS. HUNT-I have a question about the height of the trees in the back of the property. Do you have any idea? MR. SCHERMERHORN-I would say at least 35, 40 feet. They’re very mature trees. This property’s been, and they’re mature, a lot of Eastern White Pine trees, too. MRS. HUNT-So they fill in. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. It’s not the hardwoods where they loose the leaves and that’s it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Have you got any kind of response from the neighborhood back there? Have they got any kind of concerns at all that they’ve talked to you about? MR. SCHERMERHORN-I believe there is one neighbor that’s here tonight that did contact me, and my understanding is there’s no issues, but certainly I’ll let him speak about that. I’ve had absolutely nobody out there. We’ve done all kinds of tests, soil tests. People have seen us moving around. My understanding is, is behind me, directly behind me on Maine Avenue, there is one mobile home there, and from what I understand, some of those are rentals back there, and it may, I was also told that it may be up for sale, they would entertain looking at that, because that whole corridor was interesting, around all my property. It’s all MR-5 land, which is very high density. It’s 5,000 square feet per acre. So it’s very, very dense development all around that property I’m buying. So the likelihood of that 18 corridor, the way I would see it over time, is you’ll probably see pieces of that be bought, especially with sewer coming now. These people have some value, some real value there because it is zoned for a developer to do some high density development there. MR. UNDERWOOD-Are you going to be on septic to begin with then until the sewer comes over? MR. SCHERMERHORN-No. Chicago Tribune, and where I built the complex on Pine Street, BBL and myself split the sewer cost and it’s right now at the bridge by Arrowhead. Mike Shaw has given us permission and Town Board has granted verbal permission that 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/16/08) I can run a force main up to the hotel and bring it right down through Maine Avenue. We’ve showed that on our Planning Board design, but Mike Shaw called two weeks ago, spoke to myself and Chris, and he said just show the line on your access road out to Corinth Road because there’s a good chance that we’re going to have it in by the end of April of next year, and that will save you the work and the cost of running that force main. Because I also agreed that if we do the force main, I would disconnect once the sewers are on the Corinth Road corridor. I just, I guess they’ve just had some delays because of. MR. UNDERWOOD-Is that going down to their industrial sites on the left there, on the south side? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. They’re going down, I think they’re stopping at Stewarts or just shy of that Carey Industrial Park, but I have sewer one way or the other. MR. UNDERWOOD-How about the stormwater stuff you’ve got out front there, where you’re going to clear that all for your stormwater prevention structures on the, towards the McDonald’s side there. That seems pretty huge, like a large amount of it for the site. MR. BOYEA-What we’ve designed there is nothing that would require any mechanical separations or units. We have enough land available at this location, which is not usually the case with development. Usually we’re trying to fit things under parking lots or something of that nature, and at this location we can actually take advantage of best practices, which is utilization of vegetation and ground surface cover and more exposure to ground surfaces. So we’re relying completely on the movement of stormwater through vegetative basins, swales, etc., and not relying on any under parking lot infiltration, etc. The basins also will handle the road system that’s put in, even though the road might be shared eventually with some future development that may occur down the line. We still need to design for that road system that’s out there. There is some additional capacity in that basin for some additional parking expansions if they were required at a later date, where we would not have to come in and modify something that was done. MR. UNDERWOOD-So I would assume the Planning Board’s going to look at that and decide if they like that or they want you to put it into your parking lot. I mean, that’s their choice, and we’re not involved in that. MR. SCHERMERHORN-And I’m sure they’re going to, you know, as me to screen and landscape, which I’m always agreeable to. MRS. JENKIN-So you’re thinking that, in the future, this might be developed as well, this area? MR. SCHERMERHORN-I would hope so, because it’s, there’s 17 acres there. MRS. JENKIN-It’s a good area for it. MR. SCHERMERHORN-It’s a great area. I don’t have high hopes in the immediate future, just because of the state of the economy that we’re in right now. A lot of retailers, a lot of, I mean, I know the business because I’m in it. I definitely have seen a slow down. I’ve seen a pick up in the multifamily stuff, but as the commercial stuff goes. Like I have a bunch of office lots that I have around on Bay Road and over on Meadowbrook, and it’s been very quiet lately. So I don’t anticipate any, but then again, who knows. I’m hoping somebody comes along. MR. UNDERWOOD-Is Marriot going to set stipulations as to what you can do next door or anything? I mean, they’re not going to let you put any old place up next door? MR. SCHERMERHORN-They would stipulate that another hotel doesn’t go next to them. That’s one thing. They certainly encourage either office use, retail use, basically what the property is zoned for, because it only enhances what’s there now. What Marriot looks at when they do these market studies for the area, to even consider letting a developer have the brand, they look at the surrounding businesses. They look at the traffic corridor, the Adirondack Northway. Their type of client is basically, it’s the business traveler. You will get some recreational travelers that maybe will pull over there just because it’s convenient or whatever. So, I mean, they look at all criteria of different things, but they haven’t stipulated, other than a hotel, but they’re very strict. I will tell you one thing about Marriot is they make you, I own the hotel, but I have a management company that manages it, and the management companies are qualified through Marriot, and the one I’m going to use does the courtyard down in Saratoga. They do a bunch of 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/16/08) them in Albany, and they require that we actually put reserves aside, and what I mean by that is for every room that you rent, let’s say it’s $90 a night, they will require that $10 a room is set in a reserve account because Marriot is big into making, every seven, eight years, they make you go in and re-do the wallpaper. They might make you put all new bedspreads. They change with the, they keep them updated. They don’t want rundown, and I’ll give you an example. Holiday Inn. We used to all, I mean, there’s Holiday Inn Express now, which is their new brand. They’re trying to get their image back because the Holiday Inn used to be, I know when I grew up everyone stayed at the Holiday Inns. Some are very nice, but some are very rundown, and that’s because the owners had a lot of latitude on how they ran them. Marriot is very strict with their franchisees. We have to keep up with their requirements, because they don’t want the product to let’s say get, I don’t know, dated. MR. GARRAND-Is this going to be exactly like the one in Manchester? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Actually the one that I saw in person was the one in Augusta, Maine. I saw pictures of the one in Manchester. Manchester they made them do some brick on it, and they did a few, I think it was a different color they wanted instead of their prototype cream. This is like a cream color, but again, I’ll get to the Planning Board and they may say, Rich, we want you to do almond and burgundy, but they’re all very, very similar, just depending on the size. MR. URRICO-Is there a restaurant in the future also? MR. SCHERMERHORN-No. It’s limited. What Fairfield, what they’re very big in is limited service, which I mean is they have the coffee bar in the morning, the danish and that sort of thing. Now McDonald’s is very excited about it. Renee Reardon called, because of course they love it. I think it’ll, for Tribune, and this was one thing I found out. Eamon Hobbs happens to be a tenant over at the Airport where I have some hangers. When the people come in from out of town, a lot of them go down to the Courtyard Inn at Saratoga at Exit 15 because it’s Marriot product. Tribune, it’ll be very convenient. I’ve already gotten an e-mail from George Farone, which is the Director over at Tribune, and he said it’s going to be a great asset for our, you know, our new office facility, because they employ I think 350 people. So MRS. JENKIN-Considering that the variance that we’re supposed to look at tonight, and the height of it, I think, architecturally, it would be a real detriment to put a flat roof on this, that it wouldn’t be good for the neighborhood at all, that to put a peaked roof on would be absolutely the only way that, it would help the neighborhood. It would make it aesthetically much, much nicer. So I think that that’s an important consideration to make is the type of building that you’re building, and how it’s going to improve. It will improve that neighborhood and that area if you put in a nice, and a Marriot is a very good name. It’s a positive thing that you’re doing, putting this hotel in right now. I think it’s good. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I guess we’ll open up the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak? Okay. Do you want to come up? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED BILL VAN NESS MR. VAN NESS-I apologize. I have a letter here that I wrote. I didn’t get a chance to mail it out, but I’ll leave a copy for part of the file. My name is Bill VanNess. I live at 244 Corinth Road, the corner of Corinth Road and Ohio Avenue. I was born and raised in this area all my life. I was born actually on Connecticut Avenue and raised there on Connecticut Avenue which is actually two streets from where Mr. Schermerhorn’s building a, I think it’s fantastic. Believe it or not, I watched the dirt floors on the west end go from dirt floors to wood floors to where we’ve got some pretty decent residences down there now, and I think this is going to give an opportunity for some kids down in that area of Town to get employment, to get jobs. Obviously they’re going to have to employ them. I hope that they’re going to give these kids down there the chance to work there, and I agree with you 100% on the flat roof. I think the flat roof would totally diminish what this building is going to look like. I’ve traveled a lot in my life and stayed at Marriot’s, and I think they’re a very reputable company, very nice looking company, and a very well maintained company. I’ve also dealt with Mr. Schermerhorn and some of the buildings that he’s built as well, and I think he does a nice job in his building. He maintains them well, and as far as the trees, cutting the trees down, they’re only going to be cutting down scrub pines. I know they’re trees, trees are trees, but they’re scrub pines and I’d like to see maybe some of those scrub pines come down and maybe nice 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/16/08) maples or something for a buffer zone go up there or something like that, but I just wanted to say that I’m in favor of it, and I hope it goes well for him as well, and I intend to be at the Planning Board to voice my opinion, and I know there’s one of my other neighbors that you’re probably going to be very interested to hear from is Mrs. Gregory and it’s her property that borders the hotel. So I’ll step out of the way. MRS. JENKIN-Thank you. MARILYN GREGORY MRS. GREGORY-I’m Marilyn Gregory. I live at 10 East Avenue. We live directly behind this project. We have no objections whatsoever to the project. My only concern was the buffer zone, and I see by this paper it’s a 27 foot buffer zone, which I wasn’t aware of. I was curious about. That was our only concern, and in that buffer zone would there be clearing of trees? MR. UNDERWOOD-Not, as it’s depicted on there, I don’t think that would be any clearing at all on the north side there, and keep in mind, too, that when the Planning Board reviews the project, I mean, they can require them to create more of a buffer if they don’t think 27 feet is enough. MRS. GREGORY-Well, 27 feet is probably substantial, it is quite substantial. It’s very thick woods there, and there are several oak trees as well as scrub pine. So I also own, I live at 10 East. We own 4, 6, and 8 East, which is that whole side of East Avenue, and your 650 foot buffer, is that the dead end of Maine Avenue? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MRS. GREGORY-Yes. Okay. Well, we have no objection to the project at all, except for the buffer, and would there be fencing at the buffer, and which side of the buffer would it be? MRS. JENKIN-That’s a good question. We can ask them when they come back. MRS. GREGORY-Okay. The buffer zone, would there be fencing at either side of the buffer? On our side of the property or on your side? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Certainly if you’d like a fence. MRS. GREGORY-No, I wouldn’t need a fence, but I was just wondering if you were going to have a fence? MR. SCHERMERHORN-This won’t be, this area right here won’t be touched. That’s the buffer zone right there. There’s Maine Avenue. So we didn’t plan on putting a fence, but we certainly could put one. MRS. GREGORY-Right. It’s very woodsy there. No, I wouldn’t require one. I just wondered if that was your intention. MR. SCHERMERHORN-It wasn’t to put a fence at this point. MRS. GREGORY-No, because those woods are very thick right there. The only thing in the wintertime we’ll see through. We’ll see them and they’ll see us. MR. URRICO-Well, will that be a problem that cars pull in and the headlights? He’s offering to put a fence up. I wonder if that’s something you want to take advantage of. MRS. GREGORY-Well, no, is your parking at the rear of the? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, there’s parking in the rear and some in the front. MRS. GREGORY-No. We live right next to the Northway right now. MR. URRICO-But they’re traveling that way. MRS. GREGORY-And you mention that Dome. I can see that from my driveway, way over there. Yes, and that’s all I have to say. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Thank you. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/16/08) MR. URRICO-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Anything else you guys want to add? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Just that if Mrs. Gregory decides that she does want a fence or something in the near future, I’m certainly willing to do it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I would imagine the Planning Board will ask that question, and, you know, in a sense, like when Wal-Mart went in I know they made them put the fence along that residential area there, just as a buffer to keep people from walking through and short cutting it and stuff like that, but that’s not really our purview here this evening. I guess I’ll close the public hearing, then, and poll the Board. MR. URRICO-Do you want me to read the letters in? MR. UNDERWOOD-You do have a couple of letters? MR. URRICO-This has raised another question, though. I guess the Dome might be a destination for people staying at the hotel. Will there be a path or either prescribed path or one that develops on its own as a result of that proximity? I mean, how will you handle that? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Someone asked me that, but the Dome is over on Sherman Avenue, and you’d have to cut through Arrowhead Equipment. There’s no way to get to it. So you wouldn’t be able to walk to it. MR. URRICO-Well, people are very creative when it comes to short cuts. Okay. The first letter is to the Queensbury Town Board members, Schermerhorn Holding representatives and the general public. “In reference to the proposed Area Variance for the new 106 room hotel at Corinth Road and other buildings for proposal at a later date, we do not have any specific issues with the variance as to the height of the building. Our main concern within the local area is the quality of life. We have all seen and/or read in the local media the use of the hotels in the exit 18 corridor used for illicit activity, mainly the sale of drugs. We hope to see that this does not happen with this hotel or any other structures in the said area in the future. Our children need a safe area to play and enjoy the outdoors and we hope the local town board, the Schermerhorns’ and the public back the need for our children to remain safe. With that said we wish the best for Schermerhorn Holdings and their future plans. Respectfully, Andrew and Helen Cordiale 54 Massachusetts Avenue Queensbury, NY 12804” And then this is the letter that was submitted tonight. “Members: We reside at the corner of Ohio Avenue and Corinth Road in Queensbury. We have both been lifelong residents of this area. We received the notification of the planned Hotel on Corinth Road near our residence. We are both glad to see the employment and development moving into this area. We understand there may be some issues until the new 3 lane corridor is completed but the benefits that will be provided by this Hotel will help boost the economy and hopefully allow employment positions for locals in our area. Please let it be known we have no objections to the construction or height of this building. We are very familiar with Mr. Schermerhorn’s building and feel it will compliment our area. Sincerely, William T. VanNess Connie L. VanNess” PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. All right. Then I guess I’ll poll the Board and see where you’re all at here. Joan, do you want to go? MRS. JENKIN-As I said before, I feel that if you didn’t get the 10 feet of relief, then the flat top would be the consideration for the building, and I just don’t think that that would be aesthetically pleasing at all. So I feel that it’s important to build as you have suggested and as Marriot wants, and I think it’s going to have a positive effect on the neighborhood. I think that you probably will do minimal clearing of natural areas, as you’ve said in the plans. You have buffers against the private roads to the north and to the, at the side of the Northway. I think it’s important for the Hotel itself to be shown and visible because they want people to stop and stay there. So I think that that is also good planning. So I would be in favor of the variance. MR. UNDERWOOD-Joyce? 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/16/08) MRS. HUNT-Thank you. Yes. I have to agree with my fellow Board member. I have no problem with this. I think the flat roof would be a detriment. I think a peaked roof is important, and it seems to be buffered from the residential area. So I would have no problem. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I think sometimes we need to look at the overall picture and I think the overall picture is very good for something of this nature. I think obviously the benefit to the applicant is that he can build a 106 room hotel, which, in the grand scheme of things, is not really large, in comparison to some of the other hotels in the area. The feasible alternatives, building a flat roof really isn’t feasible. I think we all understand what happens to flat roofs in this neck of the woods, and you would pay the price down the road if it’s not, and a smaller hotel, I don’t know if that really is profitable or a kind of hotel that is demanded right now by the market we’re in. The relief is substantial relative to the Ordinance, 25%, well, moderate I would say, but I understand why it’s needed, and in terms of the effects on the neighborhood or community, there’s a lot of potential benefits from having this type of structure in that location, obviously it’s proximity to Saratoga/Lake George businesses in the area, plus establishing some work environment for people that already live in this area are among the benefits. I might also add that people that come visit this area and stay for a while may want to settle in this area, and that’s another positive aspect that would have on an effect on a neighborhood or community. So I think that extends beyond that little corner of Corinth Road and the Northway. It’s really much broader than that, and I think the difficulty may be considered self-created but I understand why it is. I’d be in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-I also would be in favor of this application. I don’t know why anyone would build a flat roof in the North Country anyway. I think we’ve had a lot of positive public opinion here. It looks like a great project. Marriot’s definitely a premier hotel chain. So I would definitely be in favor of this application. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Rich? MR. GARRAND-I think this hotel, the Marriot, the basic character of these Marriots that I’ve seen are they’re all peak roofed. They’re very nice establishments. At a very minimum the presence of a Marriot in this area will add to this neighborhood, not only aesthetically, but also I economically. I think the applicant did a good job as far as traffic studies, as far as Level of Service before development and post development, with the inclusion of controls at Big Bay Road. I think everything is an improvement for that area. So I would also be in favor of this application. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I, too, have no problem with what you’re requesting here. I think the preferred is the pitched roof on hotels. I mean, that’s really been the norm for quite some time now with our Board, and we’ve always granted the excess relief needed. In this case here, I think the location is suitable for what you’re proposing. I mean, subject to Planning Board review, I mean, if they want to move things around it’s not really going to affect what we’re granting you permission for here tonight anyway. That’s their game that they play with you. So, in any case, I guess it looks like you’ve got unanimous support for it. So does somebody want to make a motion? MRS. HUNT-I’ll make a motion. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Excuse me. You need to do a SEQRA. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. We need to do a SEQRA because we’re Unlisted. All right. Can I just do that Short Form thing you gave me, Craig? All right. Okay. Has everybody reviewed the Short Form Environmental Assessment Form that was submitted with this application? So everybody has to say yes. MRS. JENKIN-Yes. MR. CLEMENTS-Yes. MRS. HUNT-Yes. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/16/08) MR. GARRAND-Yes. MR. URRICO-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. If so, I’m going to make a motion, then. MOTION THAT BASED UPON A REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM THAT WAS SUBMITTED WITH THIS APPLICATION, IT IS MOVED THAT THIS PROPOSED ACTION WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. AS SUCH I HEREBY MOVE THAT WE ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND FURTHER MOVE TO HAVE PART III OF THE SUBMITTED SHORT FORM TO BE COMPLETED AS SUCH, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joan Jenkin: th Duly adopted this 16 day of July, 2008, by the following vote: MR. UNDERWOOD-And again, that’s subject to Planning Board review. I mean, if they want to modify ours they can because that’s more their purview there. AYES: Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Drellos MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So do you want to make that motion? MRS. HUNT-Yes. I’ll make a motion. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 41-2008 SCHERMERHORN COMMERCIAL HOLDINGS, LP, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: Corinth Road. The applicant proposes the construction of a 53700 square foot hotel with a total height of 50 feet on 16.7 acres behind the McDonalds on Corinth Road. The applicant requests 10 feet of relief from the 40 foot maximum height requirement for the HC-Moderate zone per Section 179-4-030. The benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be permitted to construct a 50 foot high, 53,700 square foot 106 room hotel. The feasible alternatives were a flat roof which was not considered aesthetically pleasing. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The request for 10 feet of relief, 25%, is moderate, and the effects on the neighborhood are moderate. The north side of the project has a 27 foot buffer, running west to east along a residential boundary, and the west side has a 650 foot treed buffer and the Adirondack Northway exit is on the east side. McDonalds is on the south. The difficulty might be considered self-created only in the fact that Mr. Schermerhorn wishes to build this hotel. So I would make the motion that we approve Area Variance No. 41-2008. th Duly adopted this 16 day of July, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Drellos MR. BOYEA-Thank you. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Thank you. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, James Underwood, Chairman 32