Loading...
1999-06-16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/99) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUNE 16, 1999 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS THOMAS, CHAIRMAN LEWIS STONE PAUL HAYES CHARLES MC NULTY ROBERT MC NALLY DANIEL STEC MEMBERS ABSENT BONNIE LAPHAM SENIOR PLANNER-CHUCK VOSS STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: CONSIDERATION FOR ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF APPROVAL OF AREA VARIANCE NO. 34-1998, QUEENSBURY PLAZA. JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. THOMAS-The applicant is asking for an extension of one year on his variance approval. Does anybody on the Board have a problem with extending the variance for one year? No? Is there anything you want to say, Jon? MR. LAPPER-Just that, as you’ll recall, this is for the significant modifications to the Queensbury Plaza to justify the addition of a new 30,000 square foot building, which includes substantial re- working of the traffic pattern and a lot of landscaping improvements. We’ve been working with the Town Board, because it requires the closure of a small portion of Bank Street that is not used, just part of the “T” intersection, and we’ve reached agreement as to price with the Town Board in the last two months, and now the Town, the Attorney’s Office, is working toward closing that portion of the road and selling it to my client. As soon as that happens, we’re very close to a lease on the building, and we should be back within the next two months before the Board for a slight modification of the site plan, which will probably not require a variance before this Board, and then we’ll get the project underway. So we’re asking for a one-year extension, but we don’t expect it’s going to take anywhere near that long to get the project going. MR. THOMAS-All right. Any questions for Mr. Lapper before we make a motion? Would someone like to make a motion? MOTION TO EXTEND AREA VARIANCE NO. 34-1999 QUEENSBURY PLAZA, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Daniel Stec: This Area Variance was approved and the applicant has asked for an extension to finish up some details on land acquisition. Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stec, Mr. Stone, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally MR. THOMAS-You’ve got one year, Jon. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. THOMAS-All right. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/99) DISCUSSION ITEM: WILL ZBA CONSIDER APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL AS A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE? AREA VARIANCE NO. 81-1998 TYPE II DAVID DUFRESNE OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 24 BRAYTON ROAD, CLEVERDALE APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED AN ENCLOSED PORCH ADDITION TO AN EXISTING BUILDING AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF BOTH THE WR-1A ZONE AND THE SHORELINE AND WETLAND REGULATIONS AS WELL AS RELIEF FOR EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. THE TOWN BOARD APPROVED THE SEPTIC VARIANCE REQUEST. ALSO, RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. AV 21-1999 SEPTIC VARIANCE NO. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 11/11/98 TAX MAP NO. 11-1-24 LOT SIZE: 0.13 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-79, 179-60 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. THOMAS-A discussion item for a variance that was submitted earlier this year, that was refused, and the applicant has come back, and all we have to do is determine if there is a significant change in the application. Jaime, read the letter from Mr. Dufresne. MR. HAYES-Okay. This letter is dated May 26, 1999 from Jonathan C. Lapper, Attorney, Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart and Rhodes, P.C., Mr. Christian A. Thomas, Chairman, Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, Queensbury, NY, re: David Dufresne, Cleverdale “Dear Mr. Thomas: By this letter, on behalf of Mr. Dufresne, I hereby request a reconsideration of a modified application for an area variance. As you will recall, the Zoning Board denied the prior request for construction of an enclosed porch on the existing deck which violates the lake setback and the building coverage requirement. This proposal is to remove the portion of the existing deck which lies between the porch and the lake. A landing will be constructed the width of the sliding doors which will meet the building code requirements in order that the porch will have stairs to the ground. It is the applicant’s position that this is a substantial modification from the prior application as the pre-existing nonconforming setback and building coverage will be reduced from what presently exists. As further justification for the grant of this requested area variance, Mr. Dufresne will construct a brand new septic system in accordance with the prior approval of the Town Board of Health. The new septic system will be in compliance with the 100 foot setback from the lake which is a significant change from the existing antiquated nonconforming system. As indicated in the enclosed letter from Dave Hatin, this new system will be a benefit to the neighborhood. I hope that the Zoning Board will consider this a substantial modification and grant Mr. Dufresne the opportunity to seek the modified variance. Very truly yours, Jonathan C. Lapper” MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is there anything you want to tell us about this, Jon? MR. LAPPER-That I realize that this has been a difficult issue for the Zoning Board, but that by slicing off and removing a substantial portion of the deck, this is a real change from what’s there now, and as I said in the letter, from what’s grandfathered and can stay there, and that coupled with adding this expensive septic system that meets Town standards, I think that it’s going to be a major improvement to the neighborhood, and I think that that justifies the grant of the variance, and tonight the decision is whether or not this is a substantial enough change for a reconsideration, and I would ask that you vote that it is, and give us the opportunity to present this next month based upon taking the deck down, which was nothing that was ever on the table before. MR. THOMAS-Okay. You don’t have a drawing or anything like that with you tonight, do you? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. HAYES-These are the old pictures, if you want to pass those down and refresh everybody’s memory. You’re referring to like the gray deck part of the current? MR. LAPPER-Yes, what’s there now in the photos. MR. STONE-Okay. So you’re talking the fiberboard, that would be the end with stairs going down? MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. HAYES-Would you refresh everybody’s memory, that was over an existing deck or patio? MR. LAPPER-The porch was built on top of the deck. So Mr. Dufresne did not consider that he needed a building permit because he wasn’t putting footings in the ground. He just enclosed part of the deck, and that’s how we got into this situation. I also have the letter from Dave Hatin, if you don’t have a copy of that. The variance was only because of side setback from the house itself, but 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/99) the system complies in every other respect with the 100-foot setback from the lake, and more importantly the new standards for a septic system. MR. STONE-Was this septic system required by the Town? MR. LAPPER-It wouldn’t be if he doesn’t build the addition. It’s only, it wouldn’t be required. MR. STONE-Because it’s nonconforming. MR. LAPPER-Right, it’s nonconforming, grandfathered. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. LAPPER-But it’s not the kind of system you want to have on the lake. MR. THOMAS-Any questions about it? I don’t think I’ll open a public hearing, because it’s really just up to us to hear it or not. Would you read the letter Dave Hatin wrote, just so it’s in the record. MR. HAYES-Okay. This is a letter from David Hatin, Director of Building and Code Enforcement, the subject is David Dufresne Sanitary Sewage Disposal Variance, dated April 8, 1999 “Dear Jon: This letter will confirm that Mr. Dufresne received a variance from the Town Board of Health on December 21, 1998 for placing an infiltrator system under the parking area, allowing the absorption field to be located four feet from the property line rather than ten feet, and allowing a new septic tank to be installed five feet from the dwelling rather than the required ten feet. The system that is currently on the property is an antiquated system, which was installed most likely in the 50’s or 60’s and is located within 100 feet of Lake George. The new system will meet the setback from the lake for all new systems, and will bring the sewage disposal system into compliance with the Town Sanitary Regulations, and therefore replace an older, antiquated system. As you and I discussed, this system will not only meet today’s standards, but also reduce any potential pollution to Lake George. I trust this will answer all your questions, if not please don’t hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, David Hatin” MR. THOMAS-There’s also planning staff notes. MR. HAYES-Okay. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 81-1998, David Dufresne, Meeting Date: June 16, 1999 tabled Nov. 18, 1998, Jan. 20, 1999, Mar. 17, 1999 “Project Location: 24 Brayton Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has constructed a 276 square foot enclosed porch addition on to an existing two story camp. The applicant contends that this current proposal is significantly different from that which was denied by this Board on March 17, 1999, and seeks the Board’s permission to re-present this “new” proposal. Relief Required: Background Discussion: Applicant requested 4.98 feet of side setback relief and 16.12 feet of shoreline setback relief as well as relief from the floor area ratio 22% requirements of the WR-1A zone, Section 179-16. The applicant proposed a total floor area ratio of 37%, a 4% increase above the existing 33%. Applicant also sought relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure, Section 179-79, as the existing structure does not meet the setback requirements. The applicant will be presenting the specifics of their “new” information at the public hearing. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to complete the proposed addition and occupy same. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include downsizing the addition and no construction. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: 4.98 feet and 16.12 feet of setback relief may be interpreted as moderate, however, this proposal calls for expansion of a site on which the current Floor Area Ratio is 33%, the proposal calls for a total Floor Area Ratio of 33%, which may be interpreted as substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this construction. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The proposed expansion may be interpreted as self created, however, the difficulty may be related to the pre-existing non-conforming nature of the parcel and buildings. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Sanitary Sewage Disposal Variance: Board of Health res. no.: 60,98 12/21/98 Staff comments: Moderate impacts on the neighborhood and community, in relation to the relief from the area requirements, may be anticipated. Relief for the addition of floor area to a site with a FAR already well in excess of the requirements may have impacts in the form of additional requests for similar relief. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. LAPPER-I’d just like to point out that the Staff Notes didn’t contemplate what we’re proposing now, in terms of the reduction of the deck. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/99) MR. STONE-It’s a combination of the old and the new, I take it? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STONE-It also doesn’t mention the denial in the parcel history. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. STEC-Mr. Chairman, I had a question, to refresh my memory. If it’s a screened porch, does that still contribute to the Floor Area Ratio, or not? I can’t remember if it did or not. If it’s just a porch, does that get factored in or not? MR. THOMAS-If it’s not habitable space, it is not factored in as a part of the Floor Area Ratio. An enclosed room would be factored in. An enclosed porch would be factored in. An open porch, that’s a deck with a roof on it, would not be. MR. STEC-Okay. That’s what I thought. MR. THOMAS-Well, are there anymore questions for Mr. Lapper? If not, we’ll talk about it. Do you want to hear another application on this or not? Lew? MR. STONE-As the one who did the motion the first time, I think that this is worthy of being heard again. I cannot say at this time, obviously, how I will vote the next time, but I think the applicant has made an honest and large enough effort, to me, so that I’m willing to hear it again. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Dan? MR. STEC-I agree with Mr. Stone. I think it’s significantly enough different. I’m encouraged by the willingness to bring the grandfathered non-conforming septic in. I think that that certainly mitigates it, and all and all, I think that contribution to the betterment of the lake merits at least hearing it again. So I could support hearing this. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I can support hearing it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jaime? MR. HAYES-I mean, the question is, is this a significant change, and I think that it clearly is. So I have no problem re-hearing this one. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I have no problem because I do believe it’s a very significant change from the last application. So, having said that, I would ask for a motion. MR. STONE-I just have one question of Staff. I’m looking at the definition of Building Square Footage, because the question did come up. It says living space as described in Section 711 and 712 of the New York State Building Code. Can we get that when this thing comes up, just so that we have it? MR. VOSS-Certainly. MR. STONE-Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Would someone like to make a motion? MOTION THAT THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT REPRESENTS ENOUGH OF A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE TO RE-HEAR THE APPLICATION AT THE NEXT POSSIBLE MEETING, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stec, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally MR. LAPPER-Thanks a lot. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/99) MR. THOMAS-So, we will hear a new application. AREA VARIANCE NO. 30-1999 TYPE II HC-1A DECKER & COMPANY, INC. GETTY PETROLEUM MARKETING, INC. OWNER: LEEMILT’S PETROLEUM, INC. CORNER OF STATE ROUTE 149 AND 9L APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING FACILITY AND RECONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SERVICE STATION AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF FROM THE TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE. CROSS REF. SPR 27-99 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 6/9/99 TAX MAP NO. 27-3-7.22 LOT SIZE: 2.78 ACRES SECTION 179-23, 179-28 SIGN VARIANCE NO. 48-1999 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-1A DECKER & COMPANY, INC. GETTY PETROLEUM MARKETING, INC. OWNER: LEEMILT’S PETROLEUM, INC. CORNER OF STATE ROUTE 149 AND 9L APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 106 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN AND 3 WALL SIGNS AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SIGN ORDINANCE. CROSS REF. SPR 27-99 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 6/9/99 TAX MAP NO. 27-3-7.22 LOT SIZE: 2.78 ACRES SECTION 140 MR. THOMAS-We have a request to table two variances that were supposed to be heard tonight for the Decker & Company, which is Getty Petroleum at the corner of 149 and 9L. The applicant has asked that these be tabled until a future meeting. MR. STONE-Do you want to read the letter? MR. THOMAS-Yes, would you read that letter in there, Jaime, this one on Decker. MR. HAYES-Okay. This letter is from Decker & Company, Inc. Commercial Real Estate Development Consultants, to the Town of Queensbury, Queensbury New York, Zoning Board of Appeals Chairperson, re: Getty Petroleum Marketing, Inc., Route 9 and 149 and 9L. “Dear Chairperson: I have a conflict with the hearing scheduled for June 16, 1999, which the Zoning Board of Appeals is hearing for an Area and Sign Variance, which would impact the Planning Board hearing scheduled for June 22, 1999. I am sorry for any inconvenience this may cause. We just received the Rist-Frost report for the septic and plan notation and will be working on including this material in whole or in part. We would like to be heard at your next available scheduled meeting. If you have any questions or comments regarding this request, please feel free to contact me at your earliest convenience. Very truly yours, Ronald J. Fortune, for Getty Petroleum Marketing, Inc.” MR. THOMAS-Okay. Any questions about that? All right. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 30-1999 & SIGN VARIANCE NO. 48-1999 DECKER & COMPANY, INC., Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: Until no later than the August meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. The applicant has requested that this application be tabled because of a conflict in the meeting date of today. Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stec, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally MR. THOMAS-That takes care of that one. AREA VARIANCE NO. 24-1999 FRANCIS R. KOENIG MR. THOMAS-Another request for tabling. It’s not on the agenda tonight, but the tabling will expire after next week. It’s Area Variance No. 24-1999, Francis R. Koenig. That was the? What was the request for? MR. STONE-For setback from the front of the house, or on the lakeside of the house. MR. HAYES-Do you want me to read the tabling into the record? MR. THOMAS-Yes, just read that tabling in, and we’ll just extend the tabling on it. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/99) MR. HAYES-Okay. This letter refers to the Koenig application, 24-1999, a request for tabling, dated June 16, 1999, Mr. Christian G. Thomas, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Queensbury “Dear Sir: Enclosed, please find a copy of the record of resolution for Variance File No. 24-1999, meeting date: April 28, 1999. While I have received a variance from the Board of Health, I am still awaiting information from the New York State Department of Health. To this end then, I respectfully request a continuation of the motion to table Area Variance No. 24-1999 until your July meeting. Thank you in advance for your consideration. I remain, Very Truly Yours, Francis R. Koenig” MR. THOMAS-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 24-1999 FRANCIS R. KOENIG, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Daniel Stec: Until no later than the second meeting of August of the Zoning Board of Appeals. The reason for the tabling is at the request of the applicant, Francis R. Koenig. Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Stone, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally MR. THOMAS-All right. AREA VARIANCE NO. 12-1999 TYPE II WR-1A CEA WILLIAM P. HUNT OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE FIELDING LANE APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED AN ATTACHED DECK AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 3/10/99 TAX MAP NO. 12-1-6 LOT SIZE: 0.21 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-79 WILLIAM HUNT, PRESENT MR. THOMAS-Have you got the tabling motion on that one? MR. HAYES-This is a re-tabling. So you want me to read that in? MR. THOMAS-Yes. Read that in, because that’s the latest one. MR. HAYES-The one for May, this one? MR. THOMAS-No, there’s another tabling. This one here. MR. HAYES-That’s the resolution that we tabled it on March 17. th MR. THOMAS-Yes, read that one in. We’ll just take it from there. MR. HAYES-Okay. Zoning Board of Appeals Record of Resolution, to William Hunt 25 Deer Run Hollow, Clifton Park, NY Meeting Date: March 17, 1999 Variance File No. 12-1999 Area Variance Tabled Motion to table Area Variance No. 12-1999 William P. Hunt, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: Until no later than the May 19 meeting of th the Zoning Board of Appeals. This means that any new information requested by this Board must be submitted by the filing deadline for that month. The applicant may appear on the agenda in the previous month if the filing deadline for that month can be met. The reason for the tabling of this application is for an accurate survey of the property lines, and to determine whether Fielding Lane is a private right-of-way or a Town owned right-of-way. Duly adopted this 17 day of March, 1999, by th the following vote:” MR. THOMAS-Mr. Hunt, you sent us this survey here? MR. HUNT-Yes, sir. My architect did that. MR. THOMAS-Okay, and it shows the porch that’s been built, and it shows the property line that goes through the porch, stuff like that. MR. HUNT-Right on the corners, yes. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/99) MR. THOMAS-Okay. Did anybody have any question for Mr. Hunt about this? MR. STONE-I think it’s fairly obvious. I do have a question, not of the applicant, but I’ll ask it later. I guess the idea of rights of way, private rights of way. In one place in the notes it says, this is a Town right-of-way. The other one says it’s a private right-of-way. I have to admit, I’m confused. MR. HUNT-Sir, I’m confused, because they tried to find the road, with the Town owning it, and nobody can find it at all. So there’s no, I’m not sure what it is, to be honest with you. MR. STONE-I understand. I heard another story about that today from another applicant who will be on the program today about another road the County couldn’t find. MR. HUNT-One of the things, when we built this, and this gentleman was the builder, we didn’t attach it. We didn’t put any footings in. We just kind of laid it there, and we thought that was okay. I mean, I didn’t think we were doing something wrong. It wasn’t until, I guess Dave said it was wrong, that it came up. So I just would like to figure out how I can just take care of this. I didn’t, this wasn’t intentional. I didn’t try to do something illegal. It’s taken me a tremendous amount of time to get, even this paperwork done, and now my architect won’t even come. So, I mean, I’m kind of sitting here alone getting shut out, and it’s kind of hard, believe it or not. MR. THOMAS-I believe it. MR. HUNT-It’s been a long three months, I can tell you that. MR. STONE-Well, he built it as an extension of the house. I mean, it’s on the same line as the wall of the house. MR. HUNT-Yes, sir. I didn’t know that that line existed at all. I didn’t. I wish we could just figure out what I need, if you could just help me out a little in whatever I need to do, of course, I will do that, but I need a way to get out of my house. Most of those are stairs. It is a long stairway, because I told you last time, I was operated on my knees. So it’s hard for me to go up and down stairs. MR. STONE-That’s why they’re so long. MR. HUNT-It’s a California style. I had both knees operated on. MR. STONE-I have to admit, I looked over the, I think, too high fence, but that’s another issue. I think it’s supposed to be five feet, and it’s at least six-foot, because I couldn’t see over it. MR. HUNT-It was there when I got there. MR. STONE-Well, that was a question I raised the last time, I think. MR. THOMAS-Well, does anybody have any ideas on what they want to do about this? MR. HUNT-Sir, if I cut that little corner off, would that help out? MR. THOMAS-That’s what I’m thinking. It would give you a zero setback on that, because we can’t give you, if that is actually a Town road within there, we can’t give you. MR. HUNT-I understand. I would prefer doing that, and then just kind of leave here and never come back again. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. STONE-What is the situation, Chuck, private right-of-way? I mean, what does that really mean? MR. VOSS-Technically, I can’t answer that. However, as far as I know from Director Round, it was described as a private right-of-way, not a Town right-of-way. MR. THOMAS-Does the Town do any maintenance on that? MR. HUNT-No, absolutely not. Somebody rented a tractor this weekend and leveled the whole road because it was all, it’s in terrible shape. MR. STONE-You say “someone”. You have a homeowners association? 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/99) MR. HUNT-No. Somebody just on the road. I don’t know who it was, but they take care of the road. They maintain it. They shovel it in the winter, or they plow it. We fixed it. I had some stuff put down on it because the dust just gets into everything in the house. Actually, if you see that drawing, there’s another little driveway behind it that says a right-of-way, and somebody had asked me to name that, and the reason I didn’t name it is because it’ll be yours, and then I’ll be in here fighting you again on building another deck on some other camp. MR. STONE-Well, we did have one, what, last month on another piece of property, right adjacent there. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. STONE-With that right-of-way that goes between the properties, with some name on it as I remember. MR. THOMAS-Yes. So I do believe I left the public hearing open. Is there anyone that would like to speak in favor of this variance? In favor of? Would anyone like to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Is the status of the road an issue here? MR. THOMAS-Yes, it is. Nobody can tell us if it’s privately owned or if the Town owns it, since the Town doesn’t do any maintenance on it. MR. SALVADOR-There’s one man responsible in the law to tell you, and that’s the Town Highway Superintendent. MR. THOMAS-Mr. Naylor, yes. Do we have anything from Mr. Naylor on that? MR. HAYES-I think we do. Yes. MR. HUNT-This must have come during the week. MR. HAYES-Well, it’s dated March 15, and it doesn’t provide any enlightening. It just says, “To th Craig Brown, Code Compliance Officer, From: Paul H. Naylor RE: William Hunt Variance Please have the legal department research this and get back to us.” MR. SALVADOR-If I’m not mistaken, there’s a street sign on the corner there? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. SALVADOR-At the intersection, and it does not indicate that this is a private right of way. It just says Fielding Lane. MR. STONE-That is correct. MR. SALVADOR-Mr. Naylor put up those signs, and he was not supposed to put up a sign that was a private right of way, unless it said so on it. You’ll see them. MR. THOMAS-Yes, you see them around Town. MR. SALVADOR-So Mr. Naylor has already stated and said, by the erection of that sign, that that’s a Town road. MR. THOMAS-Well, if he doesn’t do any maintenance on it, if he doesn’t plow in the wintertime. MR. STEC-Well, that doesn’t mean it’s not a Town road. Traver Road, up above Butler Pond, he doesn’t do any maintenance on that. It is a Town road. MRS. SALVADOR-Dunham’s Bay Road doesn’t get any maintenance, either. MR. SALVADOR-It’s a Town road. MR. STEC-Right. If he doesn’t’ do any maintenance, that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s not a Town road. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/99) MR. STONE-Well, but that’s another reason why we can’t give relief over the right-of-way. MR. HUNT-So, sir, I would cut that, then. We could do that. MR. THOMAS-Yes, just cut it off and give it the zero setback. MR. SALVADOR-If the public has an interest in that road, you can’t have a zero setback. MR. THOMAS-Why not? As long as it’s on his property. MR. STONE-If he’s asking for a variance for zero setback. MR. THOMAS-From his property line, between himself and Fielding Lane. It shows a property line. MR. SALVADOR-Who owns Fielding Lane? MR. THOMAS-Well, that’s what the big question is. MR. SALVADOR-Well, how do you know the property line is accurate? MR. THOMAS-A survey. MR. HUNT-There was a survey done. MR. SALVADOR-I've got a survey, too. MR. THOMAS-Well, we’ll talk about that in two weeks. MR. STONE-That’s two weeks, John. MR. THOMAS-So, to me, if Mr. Hunt just cuts off that one corner that goes over the property line, whether it’s Town or private, that would resolve the issue right here, and it’s a zero setback to his property line. We don’t care who owns the road, private road or public. MR. STEC-I agree with you. My question would be, what about the fence? MR. THOMAS-The fence is a different story. MR. HAYES-That’s Code Enforcement. MR. THOMAS-That’s Code Enforcement MR. STONE-But however, certainly I will say it now or I’ll say it later, and this is to everybody in the room. If you’re going to build, come in and see the folks in Town Hall. They’re very helpful and they avoid a lot of these problems. I mean, we chastised you the last time, but I think it’s important to everybody that we have a zoning office, and they’re very helpful, and they’re very capable, and go in and see them before you contemplate doing anything. It makes it a lot easier. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. HUNT-I can honestly say I learned a lesson here. MR. STEC-You’re not alone. Far too large a fraction of the variances that we hear are variances after the fact, and unfortunately, sooner or later, it starts giving the impression that, hey, if I go and do it, I spend money on it, they’re going to be hesitant to tell me to take it down, and that sends the wrong message. Your situation is small. We’ve had entire buildings that have been erected that we’re hearing, and it sends a scary message to the public, where you’ve got to start wondering, well, what is their motivation? Is the motivation an honest mistake, or is the motivation something a little more? You don’t know. MR. HUNT-Right. I understand. I will have that taken down tomorrow, sir. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there anymore questions for the applicant? I think we’ve all talked about it. So I would ask for a motion, to get this thing rolling. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 12-1999 WILLIAM P. HUNT, Introduced by Daniel Stec who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty: 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/99) Fielding Lane. The applicant has constructed an exterior deck onto a nonconforming camp and seeks relief from the rear yard setback requirements of the Waterfront Residential One-Acre zone. Additionally, the existing deck extends approximately four and a half feet over the property line into a right-of-way for Fielding Lane, the status, private or Town, is unknown. The relief required, the applicant requests 10 feet of relief from the 12-foot minimum side and the rear yard setback requirement of Waterfront One-Acre zone, Section 179-16. Additionally, relief is sought to allow the deck to extend approximately four and a half feet over the property line into Fielding Lane right of way. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, the benefit to the applicant would be that the applicant would be permitted to maintain and utilize his nonconforming camp and deck. The feasible alternatives would be to, and in fact to remove the portion of the deck that extends into the right-of-way, thus granting a zero setback for the remaining deck. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? Ten feet can be considered substantial. However, the effects on the neighborhood or community are minimal, by comparison, and is the difficulty self-created? It is self-created. However, I think that we have shown that the benefit to the applicant and the feasible alternatives can support granting a zero setback for the relief sought. So I move that we approve this variance with the stipulation that the portion of the deck that extends over the property line be removed, at the earliest possible moment. Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stec, Mr. Stone, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally MR. THOMAS-There you go. MR. HUNT-Thank you, sir. MR. THOMAS-You’re welcome. MR. HUNT-Thank you, gentlemen. AREA VARIANCE NO. 31-1999 TYPE II WR-1A CEA HAROLD A. SMITH OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ROUTE 9L TO HANNEFORD ROAD APPROX. 1.2 MILE, NEW CONSTRUCTION ON RIGHT SIDE OF ROAD APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF; BUILDING IS IN VIOLATION OF SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. SPR 21-94 SPR 30-94 AV 52-1993 AV 27-1994 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 6/9/99 TAX MAP NO. 19-1-57.4 LOT SIZE: 0.23 ACRES SECTION 179-16 HAROLD SMITH, PRESENT MR. THOMAS-Have you got the tabling motion there? MR. HAYES-Yes, I do. “Zoning Board of Appeals Record of Resolution Town of Queensbury TO: Harold Smith, 43 Hanneford Road, Queensbury, NY Meeting Date: May 26, 1999 Area Variance No. 31-1999 Tabled Motion to table Area Variance No. 31-1999 Harold A. Smith, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally: Until no later than June 16, 1999 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. This means that any new information requested by the Board must be submitted by the filing deadline for that month. The applicant may appear on the agenda in the previous month if the filing deadline for that month can be met. The reason for tabling this application is to re-advertise the fact that the existing building has nonconforming setbacks. Duly adopted this 26 day of May, 1999, by the following vote:” th MR. THOMAS-Okay. We already read the Staff Notes in at the last meeting, and there’s no change to it. So, really, we had this thing all hashed out, and all we had was to re-advertise because the building does have nonconforming setbacks as built. So, are there anymore questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-Well, again the question, and I will give credit to Mr. Salvador on this one, the question of where is the right-of-way on this particular road? Obviously, we have determined that the setback is illegal, as constructed, and what is the width of the road at this particular point? Do we know that? MR. HAYES-I think last time, didn’t he locate the rods? MR. THOMAS-Yes. There was a survey in there, iron pipes. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/99) MR. SMITH-Yes, there was a survey done, and it really stems from the time we were doing it before, we were measuring back from the road, and when the survey was done, it showed the line come in there, and brought us within six inches. There is a survey. MR. HAYES-I think the survey is what kind of demonstrated that. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. SMITH-And if you remember, that was done because we did do some jostling around because of running into rock and water. MR. THOMAS-So I think that it’s just a moot point, the setbacks. All they have to do is for the porch, the setbacks on that, and, they’re going to move the porch to the north end, the side porch to the north end, and leave the front porch where it was, and the stairs were going to be on the north end. MR. SMITH-Correct. MR. THOMAS-That’s what we talked about last month. Does anyone have anymore questions for Mr. Smith? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Would anyone like to speak in favor of this application? Would anyone like to speak opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-I’m not necessarily opposed to this application, but I would like the Board to know last Monday night’s Town Board meeting, Mr. Koenig’s septic variance application came up and was approved by the Town Board, but at that meeting, it was presented, I presented these facts. Mr. Naylor lists Hanneford Road as a 20 foot wide road on his highway inventory. This is an inventory of roads that he is required, on an annual basis, to submit to the Department of Transportation. This is the list that is used by the Comptroller of the State of New York to pay CHIP’s funds to this Town for the paving of roads. Twenty feet. The Town Clerk has this road, Hanneford Road, on the Town Clerk’s inventory of property in the Town, 15 feet. The map that was presented to support Mr. Koenig’s application by Van Dusen and Steves, showed Hanneford Road as eight feet wide. MR. THOMAS-Wait a minute. We're doing Mr. Smith, not Mr. Koenig. MR. SALVADOR-Well, I’m telling you, will the real Hanneford Road please stand up. That’s all. It’s 20, 15 or 8. Those are all evidenced before your Board. MR. THOMAS-Well, I’m going to go by the submitted survey, and wherever that property line is would be the relief from that property line back, and then we’ll let the Town Clerk and the Highway Superintendent and the Town Board hash out how wide that road is and how much they own. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor of or opposed? I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-There’s no additional correspondence, is there? MR. HAYES-No. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Anymore questions? MR. STONE-Yes, I have a question. There’s a pipe on the south side, through the foundation. What is that, what’s it going to be? MR. SMITH-There’s an electrical inlet and pipe out to go to a holding tank, for sometime in the future. MR. STONE-Okay. Because it’s empty now. MR. SMITH-Yes. There’s nothing there now. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there anymore questions for Mr. Smith? If not, we’ll talk about it. Dan, what do you think? 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/99) MR. STEC-Well, I don’t have the benefit of the minutes from the last meeting that I was absent. So I don’t really feel comfortable to cast a vote tonight, but certainly, again, I've seen us grant greater relief in the past, and from what I've gathered tonight, it sounds like you had already talked about, you had already worked out some compromise about moving the stairs and whatnot, which would mitigate, certainly, the amount of relief sought. Two feet is not a lot. Like I said, I would feel comfortable if the Board passed this, but again, I don’t think it would be right for me to cast a vote without at least having the benefit of reading the minutes from the last meeting. So that’s how I feel. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I’m torn both ways, but I’m inclined to approve. It bothers me to continually approve variances for somebody that’s building something too close to the lot line, but on the other hand, I can see where it would be easy to make a mistake on the placement of the main building, and I think that building is going to look a lot nicer with the proposed deck on it than it would to be just a plain, vertical box, like it is now. So, on that basis, I’d be inclined to go along with it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jaime? MR. HAYES-I think that the relief is relatively minimal. I mean, I agree with Chuck, there’s certain problems with approving these things posthumously, but it’s minimal relief. I think that the project, that this is the finishing touches of the project itself, which means it, in my mind, will be an improvement to the neighborhood, it’ll finish the building pre se, and that way I think the balance of the test falls in favor of the applicant. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew? MR. STONE-Before I make a statement, I’m just looking at your survey, and would you please tell your surveyor that Queensbury is in the County of Warren, not the County of Washington? I’m sure he’s using his normal imprint thing, and he didn’t think to change it. I don’t know if that has a legal standing or not, but we know where Queensbury is. The applicant, I could give the same old story, that we really don’t like this. However, the applicant has shown a willingness to make concessions, based upon our last meeting, in terms of moving the south part of the deck or whatever we want to call it, porch, to the north side, therefore, taking that variance out of play. I think it’s unfortunate that this mistake was made. I mean, we are talking from the property line, we’re talking a maximum of 1.7 feet, in terms of the placement of the original building, or also a tenth of a foot on the other end. So we’re talking a very minimal thing. I don’t like it. Again, I’ll make the speech I just made five minutes ago. Come in, get help. I mean, I know we don’t require foundation surveys, but I wish we did. I wish we made sure that people got the foundation where it was supposed to be, but having said that, in consideration of the willingness of the applicant to make these changes on the deck, I would reluctantly agree. MR. THOMAS-I agree with the other three Board members, that we don’t like to see them built after the fact, but as Chuck said, this would add some kind of architecture to the building, so it just wouldn’t look like a box sitting there. I was on the Board back when we gave relief for the construction on that lot, and back then there was a lot of rock, water, and other things that forced Mr. Smith to put the building in where it is now, otherwise, he could have had a conforming building on that lot. So I think the lay of the land had a lot to do with the placement of this building, and I don’t see a problem putting a four foot deck on the front of it, and he’s agreed to move the side deck from the south to the north. So, having said that, I would ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 31-1999 HAROLD A. SMITH, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty: Hannaford Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 240 square foot wraparound deck onto a nonconforming single family dwelling structure, and seeks setback relief for the building as well as the new proposed deck. The applicant proposes approximately two feet of relief from the thirty-foot minimum front yard setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, Section 179-16, for the recently constructed home. Additionally, the proposed wraparound deck will require approximately six feet of relief from the same 30-foot front minimum setback requirement. As this proposal, this 4 by 60- foot wraparound deck, will not extend around to the south side of the building as originally proposed, no side yard setback relief will be required. The benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be permitted to maintain the house as built, and to construct the accessory deck in the location that we have agreed to, which is a change from the original application. Feasible alternatives. Feasible alternatives are limited, I believe, at this particular point, because the home is already built, and by moving the deck around to the north, and eliminating the deck on the side, I think all feasible alternatives have been explored and even agreed upon. Is the relief substantial to the Ordinance? I don’t think that the two feet of relief for the main building or even really the six feet of relief for the wraparound deck represents a lot of relief. I think it’s fairly minimal. Effects on the neighborhood or community. I believe that the deck represents the completion of the project, in 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/99) a logical way, and therefore, I believe that the approval will amount to a positive impact on the neighborhood. Is the difficulty self-created? It is a little self-created, being that the owner moved the building into noncompliance, but I think in some ways it was not self-created, because he moved it into a nonconforming position to solve problems that were there with the land, problems with the lot, problems with water runoff. So, I don’t think so, no. Therefore, I move for its approval. Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Stec ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally MR. THOMAS-There you go. MR. SMITH-Thank you. MR. THOMAS-You’re welcome. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 42-1999 TYPE II WR-1A/CEA KIM & BRUCE HANSON OWNER: KIM T. HANSON 33 HANNEFORD ROAD, PILOT KNOB ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 400 SQ. FT. DECK AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 6/9/99 TAX MAP NO. 19-1-7 LOT SIZE: 0.24 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-79 BRUCE HANSON, PRESENT MR. HAYES-There’s a letter to the Zoning Board of Appeals, from Kim & Bruce Hanson, the subject is the Area Variance application in question “Dear Board Members: We respectfully request approximately two feet of relief on the zone 30 foot setback from the 50 foot right-of-way on Pilot Knob Road, based on the following criteria: The proposed project is in compliance with all other zoning requirements. The front yard and access are on Hanneford Road. Pilot Knob Road passes through the rear yard (without access). The project is in compliance with rear yard and shore setbacks except that Pilot Knob is a County road and claims a 50 foot right-of-way through the property’s rear yard. The two foot (approximately) encroachment onto the 30-foot setback from the right-of-way poses no adverse effects, especially because the area of setback is a steep outcropped ledge with the deck positioned well above the road level (approximately 35 feet). The existing septic system necessitates extending the deck to 20 feet so as to not excavate and/or disturb the existing system (see structural drawing of deck). The proposed deck would be in harmony within the surrounding community. Most neighboring camps have similar decks. The camp has no existing deck, and no other reasonable or practical place to locate one. The deck is an improvement on a here-to-fore blighted property. Thank you for your time and consideration of our application. Yours Truly, Kim & Bruce Hanson 33 Hanneford Road Queensbury, NY” STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 42-1999, Kim & Bruce Hanson, Meeting Date: June 16, 1999 “Project Location: 33 Hanneford Road, Pilot Knob Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 400 square foot deck and seeks setback relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure. Relief Required: Applicant requests approximately 2 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum rear yard setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, § 179-79, and relief for the expansion of a pre-existing nonconforming structure. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct an accessory structure in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may appear to be limited to no construction, or the construction of a deck along the front (Hanneford Road) side of the site. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 2 feet of relief from the 30-foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate 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. However consideration should be given in light of the fact that the existing structure is pre-existing and that the existing septic system is located directly under the proposed deck location. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. An as built 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/99) survey, necessary for new construction, will yield accurate setback dimensions and relief requested. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. HAYES-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form 3 June 1999 Project Name: Kim & Bruce Hanson ID Number: QBY-AV-42-1999 County Project #: June99- 32 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicants propose to construct a 20’ x 20’ open deck, attached to camp, and are seeking approx. two feet of relief from the zoned 30 foot setback from the 50 foot right-of-way. Site Location: Hanneford Road, first two-tone beige camp (w/screened porch), just after beginning of Pilot Knob Rd. Staff Notes: A copy of the applicant’s drawing is included with the summaries. The applicant is required to have a 30 foot setback and can maintain a 28-foot setback. The applicant’s property does not front directly on a County or State Highway, therefore, Staff is recommending that this application does not significantly impact County resources. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Terry Ross. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. Hanson? MR. HANSON-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is there anything else you want to say, add, tell us about this deck? MR. HANSON-Basically, if you review the structural drawing, you’ll see that there’s a retaining wall that’s, with fill behind it, which necessitates the deck being 20 feet in length, including the two foot cantilever, which is an enhancement for both structural and architectural, aesthetic. So therefore we ask for a two-foot variance. Further, in researching the fact of whether or not Pilot Knob Road does, in fact, have a right-of-way, I spoke with the Highway Department, George Van Dusen, Warren County Highway Department. Their maps do not show a right-of-way on Pilot Knob Road. However, he said they would claim the right-of-way, based on Highway Law. So that led us to come here with the variance. MR. THOMAS-So they’re going to claim the 25-foot from centerline. MR. HANSON-From center line. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any questions for Mr. Hanson? It seems to be pretty cut and dried. The septic system, with the deck over it, is that going to effect it? MR. HANSON-No, because we purposely are avoiding disturbing that or any of the other natural landscape. There still is a lot of free light and air, space under the deck to keep that land permeable, and undisturbed. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any other questions for the applicant? No? I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? Is there any correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HANSON-I believe there was. The Hoppers, our north neighbor, did send a memo of support. MR. HAYES-Okay. Yes, “TO: Bonnie M. Lapham, Secretary We, Dave & Jane Hopper, live next to the applicant at #36 Hanneford Rd. We have no objections to this project and hope you approve the application. Thank you, Dave & Jane Hopper” MR. THOMAS-Okay. That’s it? MR. HAYES-That is it. MR. THOMAS-All right. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-All right. Are there anymore questions for the applicant? It seems to be pretty cut and dried. MR. STONE-Did you get a measurement on the Hopper’s house? MR. HANSON-Yes, not to the exact inch, but it’s basically within a foot or two of the twenty foot deck that we’re intending to build. So, in other words, it’s about equal. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/99) MR. STONE-It’s about equal. Okay. MR. THOMAS-Any other questions? If not, lets talk about it. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Well, I’m torn again. I guess the only thing that leaves me with hesitation is it certainly looks prettier on a deck to have the two foot cantilever, but if that two foot cantilever wasn’t there, he wouldn’t need a variance. So, I’m not sure. I’m inclined to think a 20 by 18 foot deck is a pretty big deck, and it would seem as though there ought to be some way to compensate for the slight structural enhancement that that extra two feet gives, but I’ll keep an open mind for a little bit and see what other members of the Board have to say, but I have an inclination to deny this, based on the fact that all he’s got to do is cut two feet off the deck and he doesn’t have to move the support pillars, in order to have a deck. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jaime? MR. HAYES-Well, in my mind, the right-of-way that the County is claiming, based on this road which is creating the necessity for the relief, has in its vision the County having the ability to improve roads or expand them or widen them as needed to accommodate traffic or safety or any of the above, but in this particular circumstance, I don’t see any possibility of that ledge and all that rock and the lake down below, of them doing that, and I think that if they tried, it would be a disaster. So I believe that the applicant’s invasion of that or needing relief based on that right-of-way is extremely minimal on this particular occasion. Additionally, as I walk the property, I think that this deck would be entirely consistent with the other camps, particularly upon Hanneford Road. There’s decks, more or less right down the strip, and this deck appeared to me to be exactly within a few feet of the same length, width, final position as his immediate neighbor, and so I think it is a natural extension of this camp, and as I walked the property, it appeared to me the applicant was doing a lot of wonderful work there, and had a lot of respect for the environment, in a critical area. So I think the relief is minimal, and I think the effects on the neighborhood and community are going to be positive. It appeared to me that Mr. Hanson was working hard to improve this camp. So I’m in favor of it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew? MR. STONE-Well, I have a question before I start. You say the County claims 25, or do they claim, is it 49 and a half feet? I keep hearing three rods. There’s different numbers? JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-I’m not aware that Counties have the power that Towns have, to open a road to three rods, a road by use. I’m not aware of that. Towns have that power. MR. STONE-But three rods is 49 and a half? MR. SALVADOR-That’s correct. MR. STONE-Okay. I mean, so it isn’t 50, even if they did it. MR. SALVADOR-It’s my understanding, don’t forget, the Warren County Sewer Project, in the right-of-way. MR. STONE-Well, having said that, one, when you consider that the telephone pole in front of Mr. Hanson’s property is in the right-of-way, as it appears on this drawing. I concur, I think, with Mr. Hayes’ comments that they’re probably never going to go that way, the sewer notwithstanding, and if the sewer goes in there, that would be great. We’ll face that when it comes to it. Looking at the property, I think the relief is minimal. I asked Mr. Hanson today when I was there, that’s why I asked him, did he look at his neighbor’s deck, because it looks about the same place as his deck’s going to be. I think this deck, from a lake standpoint, is going to be even less visible than the other lakes on Hanneford Road. Yes, I think we could ask him not to put the two feet on, but maybe it would be better to ask that he puts the support as close to that retaining wall as possible. I know we looked at it and we tried to figure where the best place would be, but I think if Mr. Hanson would agree to place those supports as close to the retaining wall, and still be structurally sound, and then put the two feet, we’re probably talking less than two feet relief anyway, when we come down to the actual construction. I agree with Mr. Hayes that I think this is a good project. I think it is going to improve the appearance of the house because along with the work that he’s going to be doing, because he’s obviously going to care for his house, I’m sure the path down to the lake is going to be improved. I mean, I went down there today, taking my life in my hands, but I think it’s a good project and I think the relief, when you actually get all the numbers, if we’re talking three rods, we pick up a quarter of a foot there, I don’t think it’s a very big encroachment on the setback. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Dan? 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/99) MR. STEC-Well, while Mr. McNulty makes a good point, that there is a feasible alternative, again, looking at the litmus test that we’re given, the five factors to consider, I think that clearly the benefit to the applicant and the minimal nature of relief sought outweigh the fact that, yes, there is a feasible alternative, but the effects on the community are so minimal, I agree with Mr. Hayes and Mr. Stone that I think it’s a good project. I have no problem with it. MR. THOMAS-All right. I agree with the other Board members that have stated their opinion on approving this application. If you look at the property, it does sit way above the lake. It is on a rock ledge. I think the setback is minimal, the two feet, and I would say that there’s really no problem with this, as long as he doesn’t get into a septic system, and that’s the only thing I would be afraid of, by moving any of those posts around, would be the getting into that septic system. Then you could have a real mess. So I think that the posts should be out there where the applicant has asked them for, and have the two feet overhang. MR. STONE-Well, the posts, wherever they are, are not on the septic system. If he got them closer back, it still wouldn’t impact the septic system. MR. THOMAS-It still wouldn’t, but he doesn’t know exactly, you never know where exactly these septic systems are. MR. STONE-It’s probably not down that next level though, Chris. It could be, though. Who knows where it comes out. You’re right. It’s a good point. MR. THOMAS-I just don’t want to get close. The farther away you can stay the better off you are. So, having said that, I would ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 42-1999 KIM & BRUCE HANSON, Introduced by Daniel Stec who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: 33 Hannaford Road, Pilot Knob Road. The applicant proposes the construction of a 400 square foot deck and seeks setback relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure. The relief required is that the applicant requests approximately two feet of relief from the thirty foot minimum rear yard setback requirement of the Waterfront Residential One Acre zone, Section 179-16, and relief for the expansion of a pre-existing, nonconforming structure, Section 179-79. The criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Town Law, are, the benefit to the applicant would be that they would be allowed to construct the desired sized deck in its preferred location. While there are feasible alternatives, specifically perhaps going with a less steep deck of approximately 18 feet, the two foot of relief that is sought from the thirty foot requirement is minimal, and there are very minimal effects to the neighborhood anticipated as a result. Is the difficulty self-created? The desire to have a deck this size makes it self-created. However, the topography of that portion of Pilot Knob Road certainly contributes to the situation. So, again, with these five tests that we apply, I recommend that we approve and grant the two feet of relief from the thirty-foot minimum setback. Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stec, Mr. Thomas NOES: Mr. McNulty ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally MR. THOMAS-There you go. MR. HANSON-Thank you, Board members, for your time this evening. MR. THOMAS-You’re welcome. AREA VARIANCE NO. 47-1999 TYPE II WR-1A/CEA WILLIAM BLACK OWNER: WILLIAM & PENNY BLACK 13 FIELDING LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BOATHOUSE AND RECONSTRUCTION OF A SUNDECK/BOATHOUSE STRUCTURE AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF. CROSS REF. SPR 26-99 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 6/9/99 TAX MAP NO. 12-1-12 LOT SIZE: 0.13 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-60 JOE ROULIER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/99) Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 47-1999, William Black, Meeting Date: June 16, 1999 “Project Location: 13 Fielding Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes demolition of an existing boathouse roof and the reconstruction of a flat sundeck/boathouse roof structure and seeks side yard setback relief. Relief Requested: Applicant requests approximately 17 or (11’? as measured from the property line to the dock, or the building?) feet of relief (on the south side of the existing boathouse structure) from the 20 foot minimum side yard setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, § 179-79, and relief for the expansion of a nonconforming boathouse structure. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct an accessory structure in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may appear to be limited to no construction, or the removal of the existing roof structure only and replacement with a sundeck within the prior boathouse footprint…i.e. no further modification to the existing boathouse. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 11 feet of relief from the 20 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate to substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action, due to the fact that the existing boathouse structure will have less of a visual impact as a result of the proposed modification, and other such structures exist in close proximity. 5. Is this difficulty self- created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. However, consideration should be given in light of the fact that the existing structure is pre-existing and overall visual impacts of the structure will be reduced. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SPR 26-99 Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. An as built survey, necessary for new construction, will yield accurate setback dimensions and relief requested. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. HAYES-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form 3 June 1999 Project Name: William Black ID Number: QBY-AV-47-1999 County Project #: June99-18 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant seeks setback relief for the proposed demolition of an existing 16’6” x 35’ peaked boathouse roof and the reconstruction of a 16’6” x flat sundeck/boathouse structure. Staff Notes: A copy of materials from the application are included with the summaries. These materials depict a land bridge to the upper level sundeck. The Board has historically had a negative view of land bridges. All other issues with the application do not appear to have a significance at the County level sine they are a one-for-one replacement of an existing unit. Staff therefore, is recommending discussion regarding the land bridge issue. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Terry Ross MR. THOMAS-All right. Before we get started, back in the Staff Notes there, under “Relief Required”, the WR-1A zone is Section 179-16, and the Nonconforming structure is 179-79. MR. STONE-And it’s also the east side of the boathouse. MR. THOMAS-The east side. Anyway, Mr. Roulier. MR. ROULIER-Good evening. We have not begun construction yet. MR. STONE-I noted that. MR. ROULIER-I’m sorry to say. I would like to make a correct, the relief, the current boathouse, as it exists right now on the dock, is nine to 11 feet from the property line. I believe that when you read that you said that it was, we were looking for 11 to 17 feet, and I think if you go back to the survey map, and I’m hoping you have a copy of the survey map, it’s indicated on there that the boathouse section is nine to eleven. So no matter how you interpolate those numbers, it’s both still the same. MR. HAYES-It’s a little confusing in the way it’s written in the Staff Notes there. MR. STONE-Right. MR. THOMAS-So you’re looking for eleven to nine feet of relief? MR. ROULIER-That’s correct. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. ROULIER-Which is what the current boathouse is right now. MR. STONE-The current dock is now, or the boathouse? MR. ROULIER-The boathouse. MR. STONE-The cover is at nine, or the dock itself is at nine? 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/99) MR. ROULIER-The dock is closer than the nine feet, but the boathouse is nine feet on the south end of it, the southeast end of it. MR. STONE-I’m sorry. With all the lines here, Joe, I couldn’t see the. MR. ROULIER-Right. It’s confusing. The dotted line that’s on that survey map indicates what the boathouse is. MR. THOMAS-And that’s the only thing you’re going to touch, right? MR. ROULIER-That’s it. The dock that’s, the U-Shaped dock that’s there now, is closer, obviously, than the nine to eleven feet but because of the, they’re crib docks, and there would be a hardship, in terms of the location of new docks, if that were to be the case. MR. STONE-Has this gone before the Park Commission? MR. ROULIER-The application was presented to the Lake George Park Commission, and I believe that they have sent out notices for comments, and at this date, I do not have the permit from them. MR. STONE-Okay. So their project review has not met on this, right? MR. ROULIER-I don’t know what the time frame is on that, but I do not have any response yet. MR. STONE-Okay. So the extension of this deck is going to be exactly where the eaves of the current covers are now? MR. ROULIER-That’s correct. We are not altering, the width is 16 feet 6 inches, and the overall length of it I believe is 35 feet. We are not changing that. There would be a substantial reduction in the overall height of it from the peak down to the grade level of the deck. That would be the only significant change. MR. THOMAS-As far as the height on this, the existing peak will be the same height as the top of the rail on the new? MR. ROULIER-Probably within inches. Yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. STONE-Where are the steps going to be? I have to admit, I’m very confused by these two drawings that I have here. MR. ROULIER-The stairs, if you refer back. MR. STONE-I see it there, but I have this drawing which is kind of confusing, these two drawings. MR. ROULIER-Okay. Yes, they have to be put together. Per the request of the Warren County Planning Board, the stairs that we originally showed on the survey map going back to the land have been altered, so that the stairs, per their request, will go down to the dock. So the stairs that you see coming at the southeast corner of the boathouse, they didn’t want to have what they referred to as a land bridge, and we made the concession that we would take the stairs and put them from the surface of the boathouse down to the existing dock. That was the only stipulation that they requested. MR. HAYES-So if we’re looking out the back of the camp, the stairs are going to be right coming off the top back toward the camp or? MR. ROULIER-That’s correct. The stairs will be coming in the area of the southeast corner of the boathouse. Similar to the way it’s depicted on the survey, but they will be in a slightly different configuration, per the request of the Warren County Planning Board. MR. STONE-So they won’t be normal tread and riser? MR. ROULIER-Yes. They’ll be normal in every detail. It’s just that instead of coming parallel in a parallel direction of the boathouse, they may well be turned in at a 90 degree angle and go down to the surface of the dock. MR. STONE-So the dock’s here, you walk up this way? MR. ROULIER-That’s correct, Mr. Stone. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/99) MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for the applicant? MR. ROULIER-I’d just like to make a couple of more comments. I know that the neighbor to the west, Mr. Paul Thomas Van Schaick, he has written a letter, and he has, at this juncture, no problem with the proposal. The neighbor to the east, Mrs. Kearns. MR. HAYES-I can read those in. There are several letters. MR. ROULIER-Yes. They don’t have any problem with the proposal either, and I actually spent quite a bit of time over there today, literally standing on the dock and trying to get a feel if this would obstruct or in any way be detrimental to the neighborhood, or create a problem for any of the adjoining neighbors, and there are so many hedgerows in that area, that, in conjunction with the decreased height, overall, of the boathouse, I don’t feel as though, and I’m sure the adjoining neighbors don’t feel as though, it would have any detrimental effect, but I would be happy to answer any additional questions. MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for Mr. Roulier? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-I’m not necessarily opposed to the application, but I do note on your agenda here that Mr. Hunt, who appeared before you previously, had his dwelling simply on Fielding Lane, which sort of smacks of being a private right-of-way, whereas William and Penny Black live at 13 Fielding Lane. I don’t think these parcels get that kind of a number on a street unless it’s considered to be a public thoroughfare, a Town road. There seems to be a little confusion there. It’s not your problem, Joe, but the Board. MR. STONE-It could be 911, that they gave it numbers just so that they could find it. MR. SALVADOR-They give them tax parcel numbers on the 911 if it’s a private, there’s no public thoroughfare. This 13 Fielding Lane, to me, says it’s a public thoroughfare, but you can check with the Community Development Department. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak opposed? Correspondence? MR. HAYES-Yes. We have a small note here from Mr. Harley P. Austin “It’s okay with me.” We have another letter from Gary P. Moore, 9 Moorwood Drive, Queensbury, NY, considering the application of the Blacks, Town of Queensbury Community Development Department, “Dear Town of Queensbury: In reference to William and Penny Black’s request for setback relief, we feel their proposed reconstruction of a sundeck/boathouse structure will improve their neighbors’ views and aesthetically add to their property. The Blacks previous improvements have been completed expertly and tastefully. We completely support this new construction. Sincerely, Gary P. Moore Carolyn C. Moore” June 14, 1999. A letter dated May 15, 1999, from Mr. and Mrs. P.T. Van Schaick, 22 LaMond Avenue, Chestnut Ridge, NY, Mr. Craig Brown, Town of Queensbury “Dear Mr. Brown: I am writing you this letter in support of a request by Mr. & Mrs. William Black to replace their current boathouse roof with a flat sun deck. My wife and I own the property adjacent to the Black’s property on the westerly side. We feel that the flat deck will not only enhance the property, but the view of the lake for us as well as the neighbors since a flat roof is less obstructive than the current peaked roof. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Paul T. and Camille M. Van Schaick” We have a letter dated May 17, 1999, from Mr. D. Hopper “Dear Craig Brown: My neighbor, William Black, has told me he plans to build a sundeck on his dock. My husband and I have no objections at all. We are pleased that the Blacks will be making a modification that clearly will suit their needs and add to their pleasure. Sincerely, Sherry M. Kearns” And that’s it. MR. THOMAS-That does it for all the correspondence? MR. HAYES-Yes. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for Mr. Roulier? If not, lets talk about it. What do you think, Bob? 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/99) MR. MC NALLY-I think the applicant’s proposal is something we should accept. The construction that they’ve proposed is minimal. It’s on an existing footprint. Overall, it’s not going to have any effect on the neighborhood. In fact, the neighbors are supportive of it. So as far as I’m concerned, I would be in support of it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Dan? MR. STEC-I agree with Mr. McNally. I think that, generally, it’s going to improve the visual aesthetics, which is one of the critical considerations of this kind of request, and again, I’m encouraged that it’s on the existing footprint. So, I’m in favor. MR. THOMAS-All right. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I can basically echo those comments. The existing footprint, I think it’s going to improve visibility. I’m in favor of it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jaime? MR. HAYES-I agree. I mean, there’s no expansion of the nonconformity, and it’s actually, appears to be a good idea. The neighbors love it. So the effects on the neighborhood or community are accepted and even appreciated, so I’m in favor of the application. MR. THOMAS-All right. Lew? MR. STONE-I concur. Because I think it is a good project. I think the sight lines for the applicant are certainly going to be improved, and for the neighbors, because there’ll be open poles to look through, and it won’t be a roof there. It looks like a good project. It is certainly in conformity with the neighborhood. It is going to have no negative impacts from a visual standpoint. Certainly, from Sandy Bay, those people aren’t looking to the land anyway. So I think it’s a good project. MR. THOMAS-Yes. I agree with the other Board members. It’s a good project. I think the view from the lake back into the land will be much improved because they will be taking a peaked roof off a house and putting on a deck with spindled railings on it that would more or less improve the view, plus it’ll be a flat roof, not a peaked one, no objections from the neighbors, and I don’t see where they could do anything else to it because the dock is existing. Having said that, I’ll ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 47-1999 WILLIAM BLACK, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Daniel Stec: 13 Fielding Lane. The applicant proposes demolition of an existing boathouse roof, and the re- construction thereof, consisting of a flat sundeck/boathouse roof structure, and seeks side yard setback relief. The relief required is 11 feet from the 20 foot side yard setback and this requests relief from the WR-1A zone, 179-16, and also relief for the expansion of a nonconforming boathouse structure, 179-79. In considering this Area Variance, we note that the benefit to the applicant is such that the applicant will be permitted to construct an accessory structure in the preferred location. Obviously, there are feasible alternatives which would include no construction or removal of the roof in its entirety, but obviously, with a boat and the dock, it is nice to have a roof over the boats and since one exists now, they should be permitted to keep that. Eleven foot of relief from the twenty- foot requirement may be required as moderate, but considering the size of the lots, the existing docks in the area, it is normal for the neighborhood. There will be minimal effects on the neighborhood, as noted by the comments made in the public hearing by neighbors that they think this is a good project, and it’s certainly true that the new boathouse structure will have a better visual impact, both from the lake and from the neighbors, since the peaked roof will be no longer in position, and while this difficulty may be interpreted as self-created, when all of the factors are considered, the neighborhood, the close proximity of the docks, the size of the lot, it appears that this is not a strong consideration. Having said all that, I move that we grant Area Variance No. 47-1999. Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham MR. THOMAS-There you go, Joe. MR. ROULIER-Okay. Thank you very much. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/99) MR. THOMAS-You’re quite welcome. At the opening of the meeting, we made a motion to table Area Variance No. 30-1999, Decker and Company, and Sign Variance No. 48-1999, Decker and Company, at their request. AREA VARIANCE NO. 56-1999 TYPE II SFR-1A LI-1A CALVARY ASSEMBLY OF GOD OWNER: PATRICIA ZOLI BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A RELIGIOUS AND CHURCH EDUCATIONAL FACILITY AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE MINIMUM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS AND RELIEF FROM THE BUFFER ZONE REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. SPR 28- 99 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 6/9/99 TAX MAP NO. 106-3-2 LOT SIZE: 9.85 ACRES SECTION 179-20, 179-26, 179-70, 179-72 PAUL CUSHING, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 56-1999, Calvary Assembly of God, Meeting Date: June 16, 1999 “Project Location: Bay Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes the construction of a 12,024 square foot religious and educational church facility on a currently vacant parcel of land on the west side of Bay Road adjacent to the Muller & Muller Offices. Relief Required: The applicant is requesting relief from the minimum road frontage requirements and relief from the buffer zone requirements. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Access to the property can be increased by up to 50’ w/a license agreement w/Warren County totaling 73.54’ of frontage. The elimination of the 50’ buffer zone requirement on the north side of the property due to the LI-1A zoning designation on this property offers church use of more of their property. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives would include reducing the overall size of the building, or relocating the structure elsewhere on the property. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: The relief requested from the minimum frontage requirements can be considered as minimal. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: The only anticipated effect upon the surrounding neighborhood will be the loss of some wooded area within the parcel. 5. Is this difficulty self- created? This difficulty can be considered as not being self-created in that the hardship is due to the unique circumstances of the property, and not because of some widespread condition throughout the zoning district. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SPR 28-99 Staff comments: The granting of a lease agreement from Warren County should be approved prior to any final site plan review. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. HAYES-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form 3 June 1999 Project Name: Calvary Assembly of God Project Description: Applicant proposes to construct a religious and church educational facility and seeks relief from minimum road frontage requirements and relief from the buffer zone requirements. Adjacent parking and access drive from Bay Rd. are included in this project. Site Location: Bounded by Warren County Bike Trail on Northeast; bay Road on East; 150’ north of Garrison Rd. Staff Notes: A copy of the applicant’s site drawing is included with the summaries. The applicant has sufficient road frontage on Bay to allow for a 36’ wide access road to the parcel. Staff feels that this is adequate access from a County perspective. The parcel’s frontage has been impacted by the Warren County Bikeway and the previous Delaware and Hudson – Canadian Pacific rail line usage. Staff is unsure of the issues with the buffer zone and is therefore requesting discussion. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact With Comment that the Town’s Emergency Response Teams be made aware of the change of use of this property neighboring the C.R. Bard parcel which stores hazardous waste materials on site.” Terry Ross. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. Cushing? MR. CUSHING-Good evening. Do you have a copy of the letter from Warren County Parks and Recreation as part of your package? MR. STONE-No. MR. THOMAS-I didn’t see it come in. No, we don’t have a copy of that in the folder. MR. CUSHING-Well, I've delivered it to the Town and to the County, to the Town’s good offices. I’d be happy to read it to you and give you a copy of it here right now, if it would be helpful. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Go ahead. MR. CUSHING-This is from the Warren County Parks and Recreation Department of the Department of Public Works, “Dear Mr. Cushing: I have reviewed your site plans for The Calvary Assembly of God. I see no conflicts with the driveway entrance on a portion of the County Bikeway 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/99) property. The County requires a Bike Trail Right-of-Way Private Use Licensing Agreement. The annual fee for the license is $50.00. I will review the request at the next Parks and Recreation Committee meeting and should have the appropriate resolution authorizing the agreement by the Board of Supervisors meeting in July. If you have any questions please call me. Sincerely, Patrick Beland, Director Warren County Parks and Recreation” MR. THOMAS-All right. Can we keep that copy for our file? MR. CUSHING-You certainly can, and I’m surprised that it didn’t come down. MR. THOMAS-Yes, like I said, we didn’t see it. We didn’t have it in our packets, and nothing was delivered today. MR. CUSHING-In fact, I think that really addresses the one part of the variance request from my client, relative to the frontage aspects of the property from Bay Road. MR. THOMAS-Okay. That would be the $50.00 licensing agreement with Warren County? MR. CUSHING-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. CUSHING-Okay. With regard to the buffer zone, as we’re all aware, the buffer zone between light industry and residential (lost words). This buffer zone is a little special, in that the zone line is 50 feet south, into my client's property. Consequently, CR Bard, being the light industry, has its buffer zone on our property. If we, in turn, added another 50 feet, to comply with the strict regulations of the buffer zone on our property, that would reduce our property by 100 feet depth by the length, which is in the order of 750 feet, which is pretty close to two acres. As a positive aspect of granting this request, it allows us to develop our project further north and further away from the existing residential areas that front on Garrison Road. We are about 130 feet to the parking line, and another 35 feet to the (lost word) line. So that’s 165 feet, which is deeper than the normal lot in residential areas within this district. MR. THOMAS-Are there any questions for Mr. Cushing? I’m going to throw this one in to Staff. The buffer zone, in a light industrial area, in a light industrial area, isn’t the 50 foot required on their side and not on the SFR side? MR. VOSS-Technically it’s required on both sides of the property line. Fifty feet, basically, on both sides. MR. THOMAS-Both sides? Okay. All right. Are there any questions for Mr. Cushing? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MICHAEL MULLER MR. MULLER-For the record, my name is Michael Muller. I’m one of the occupants and owners of 257 Bay. That’s the property that would be next adjacent to the access point off of Bay Road for this project. I think that I’d like to ask the Board to consider that, in my opinion, the use that’s proposed here is a good transitional use between the residences and CR Bard, and I suspect that Patty Zoli, I've watched that property for about 10 years since I've been there. I don’t think that she, she tried to market this property for quite a while, and I suppose one of the uses would be residences, but it never looked practical for a residence, because I thought that I would like to do something to protect that property, too, and the Church seems to be just a modest effort to use the property. The one difficulty would be its access off of Bay. I wrote you a letter, and I was never really sure whether it was successfully faxed. So that’s why I came this evening. The width of the access driveway or roadway, private roadway into the property, I just would like you to pay special attention to that, because we’re really going to be butting up a driveway that I think, minus 20 feet, there’s got to be some sufficient space there, and then their driveway’s going to be there. Another consideration would be take into account that it’s got a lot of nice trees still left on it. Unfortunately, it got pretty severe logging by Patty Zoli, but maybe if we can have these buffers and some assurances about trees being there, it may placate some of the residential concerns, because we share that. We keep about 700 feet of property depth behind our office that we don’t ever do anything with. So that tends to protect some of the people that are on Garrison. We understand their needs, but I want to remind this Board, and I don’t think anybody who sits on the Board tonight sat on the Board nine years ago when John Carusone, my brother Robert and I came before the Zoning Board seeking relief to put our office there, and there was a great deal of opposition from people on Garrison. We were able to win their support, and I think we’ve continued with their support, because the property is kept up, 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/99) but I think the key to our property is that we are an excellent transitional use between residential and CR Bard. I’m convinced that this Church can do the same thing, and then we just have to worry about cleaning up some other sloppy pieces of property that are out there along Bay. So, it deserves your support, and I suspect I may be in the minority. Mr. Stone may vote in favor of what I say tonight, he’ll break his perfect record of always voting no on everything I've said. MR. STONE-That’s not true. MR. THOMAS-Would anyone else like to speak in favor of this application? Would anyone like to speak opposed? Opposed? JOYCE THOMPSON MRS. THOMPSON-My name is Joyce Thompson, and I live on Garrison Road. I've lived there since 1971. So I've seen lots of changes. I did send a letter to the Zoning Board, a brief letter. Would you like me to read what I wrote? MR. THOMAS-We usually read the correspondence after the public has spoke. It’ll be read in anyway. MR. HAYES-Your letter was received. MRS. THOMPSON-Okay. I was just going to say a few other comments. I say, I have filed a letter with the Zoning Board with my objections, but in addition, I’d like to add that the proposed Church operation will definitely increase traffic, and will change the residential character of the neighborhood. As I said, I've lived on Garrison for quite a few years, and with all the development going on around us, Garrison and Fort Amherst have become cut through streets. Nobody wants to deal with the traffic on Quaker Road, so we are cut throughs, and with Lowe’s and Hewitts, and all the new stores, we’re definitely seeing a tremendous increase of traffic. I feel sort of that we’re a neighborhood within, you know, a great, big bustling area, and we have lovely homes. We pay very high taxes, and I think a lot of us are concerned that the complexion of the neighborhood is changing because of this development that’s going around us, and I do think that a Church facility, I don’t know the size of the congregation, but Sunday morning services, you might have, you know, 200 cars cutting across Garrison and Fort Amherst to get to the services. During the week, Sunday school and choir practice. I just can see tremendous traffic impact in our area, and I also did say something in my letter that I just wanted to repeat. I said that Queensbury has a valid and acceptable Ordinance, and there’s no basis, I think, for you to grant the variance. Buffer zone requirements and minimum road frontage requirements are extremely important to maintain the Queensbury Master Plan, and I don’t think they should be compromised, and I don’t believe there’s any hardship here that can justify these requested changes. Anyway, I’m just one of many neighbors that really want to keep our neighborhood as nice as it is, and it’s a struggle with the traffic, and there’s lots of young children living on our street now. Years ago, we were more toward the elderly and, you know, now there’s lots of young kids, and the traffic going back and forth is a real concern. In fact, I've heard of someone that’s thinking of moving off because they’re so concerned about the traffic. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak opposed? JIM TOWNE MR. TOWNE-My name is Jim Towne, and I’m not as close to the problem as some of the other people in the neighborhood, but one thing that really concerns me is property value. Where I came from and grew up, we lived in a house, and right next door they built a church, and the property value went down 20%, and I don’t think that putting a church in a neighborhood back yard is the right thing to do. There’s plenty of property that has the proper footage, front footage on a street, to build, without having all these variances, and traffic is a problem. MR. THOMAS-Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak in opposition? ED KERR MR. KERR-My name’s Ed Kerr. I live at 47 Garrison Road. My wife Beverly and I are the co- owners of the property, and we speak against this proposal. One of the reasons we speak against it is about 12 years ago or so Mr. Theodore Zoli came before this very Board to change the zoning of that property from commercial to R-1. We did not argue against that because we thought that that was a good use for this property. Now R-1, to me, means single family residential. Therefore, we did not argue against that change of zoning. As a matter of fact we supported it. Now, 12 or so years later, they want to take this property, which is R-1, and as far as I’m concerned, even though a church is, I guess, eligible to go into an R-1 property, basically, lets face it, it’s a commercial piece of property when a church does that. You have a large building or buildings in this case, because as I 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/99) understand it, it’s going to be a church as well as an educational school. So there’s going to be at least two buildings, maybe more. I haven’t seen the actual proposal. So I can’t speak to exactly what’s happening here, but it’s going to be more of a, to me, to my way of thinking, and to my wife’s way of thinking, more of a commercial venture than what we envision as a residential venture. So that’s one of the major reasons we’re against it. As Mrs. Thompson mentioned, it’s going to be the increase in traffic in our area. When we bought our property, almost 30 years ago, after I bought it, I was amazed at the amount of traffic that went up and down Garrison Road, and that was 30 years ago. So you can imagine what it is today. We have a Lowe’s. We have Hanneford. We have all these commercial ventures over on the Quaker/Bay area that have only increased our traffic, and this is going to be just one more thing that’s going to increase, especially if they have day school or whatever they have. I’m not even sure of what they’re having yet, because I haven’t heard exactly what they’re whole proposal is, and this would be helpful, if we as neighbors knew what was exactly going to happen. We do know, I guess from what I've heard, nothing official, but I've heard that there’s going to be certain setback requirements that they’re not going to be able to meet, namely on the Bard property, and also entryway requirements on the Bay Street side. This also, the entryway also has to cross the newly renovated bike path, and I think that’s going to be a problem. You have traffic going in and out across the bike path, which you don’t find anywhere else on the bike path except where a street crosses, and this is going to be an entryway into essentially a semi-commercial type property. So, I think that’s going to be a problem for the bikers on the path. We're also, as I said, concerned about the increase in traffic, but one of the things that really bothers us is the fact that when we voted for this property to be R-1, we thought R-1 meant single family residential, and that’s the only reason we were in favor of it back then. Mr. Muller mentioned the fact that this would be a good transitional zone between CR Bard and Garrison Road homeowners. I don’t think it is. When Mr. Muller and Mr. Carusone came before this Board, we supported their efforts to put their law office on Bay Road. Why? Because it was a single dwelling, not a large complex with traffic and a large amount of traffic, parking lots, probably lighted parking lots at night. It’s going to be a very severe impact on our neighborhood. It’s going to change the character of our neighborhood, and we are absolutely opposed to that. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak opposed? JON LAPPER MR. LAPPER-For the record, my name’s Jon Lapper, and I’m here on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Detrich, who live at 27 North Road. I would like to keep my comments focused to traffic, because I know that attorneys Lebowitz and Clements are going to speak on a number of SEQRA issues. I think that before the Board can make a decision one way or another on this, that you really need to request a traffic study be done here, that this is, it was said previously that this is really a commercial use, more than a church and educational. In terms of traffic generation, the traffic that’s going to be generated is akin to a commercial use. This is a very intense facility, in terms of traffic, and without speaking to whether or not this is an appropriate use in that zone, just in terms of the potential traffic issue on Bay Road, which is one of the main traffic corridors, in the Town, that coupled with this diagonal intersection of the bike path, right at that location. The fact that it’s a very narrow road, if you will, for the entrance to this property, makes it a real potential problem there. You’ve got the bike path, which is used by, I think the number is 100,000 people last year, without taking into consideration that the bridge across Quaker is going to open up to everybody in the Glens Falls community, which would significantly increase the traffic. You’ve got Bay Road as a major thoroughfare, and then you’ve got this diagonal crossing of the bike path right there. To have a three-lane exit and to have a significant number of cars turning on to Bay Road there, could be a real problem, in addition to what’s there already, with Garrison Road and the people turning, using Garrison as a cut through and turning on to Bay Road. I think that, in terms of the configuration there, in terms of the narrow width, in terms of the people on bicycles, that there’s a real safety concern, and the only way the Board can address that, and to go through a SEQRA review before getting to a decision here, you really need to have more facts. The application itself, on the SEQRA short form that was submitted says that as a result of the proposed action, will existing permit approval require modification? And it says no, except future expansion as church may grow. Right there they’re contemplating that there’s going to be a larger facility than what’s approved now, and in terms of the SEQRA review, so that this isn’t segmentation, since we know that there’s going to be an expansion, they would have to do a traffic analysis that contemplates what the maximum use of this could reasonably be, what kind of trip generation that’s going to occur, and what the impact is going to be on the Bay Road corridor, and I just think that the neighbors are concerned because of the potential size of this development and impact and traffic I think is the biggest potential impact, and you really need to take a good, hard look at this before you make a decision. I think that it would not be unreasonable to ask them to prepare, to have a traffic engineer prepare a report, and then we can all come back before the Board and look at those impacts and see what we’re talking about. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Would anyone else like to speak opposed? 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/99) JACK LEBOWITZ MR. LEBOWITZ-Yes, Mr. Chairman. As Jon Lapper just said, I’m Jack Lebowitz. I am another attorney. I’m also a resident and owner/occupant. I live at 39 Garrison Road. I would like to make a statement in opposition, but I also was asked by neighbor, my neighbor is Dr. John Rugge and his wife Virginia, to present a statement as well. They couldn’t be here tonight, and they gave this to me in the way of correspondence, and I can either read it into the record, or I can give it to you, Mr. Chairman, and it can be read in as correspondence. MR. THOMAS-You can go ahead and read it in, since. MR. LEBOWITZ-“We are, regrettably, out of the country and unable to attend the June 16 hearing th concerning this application but we wish to register our vehement objection. The construction of a religious and educational facility and the wholesale paving of the Zoli property will bring noise and traffic as well as obliterate the small wildlife that now finds sanctuary there. Approval of this proposal would represent an immediate devaluation of the property of adjacent homeowners. Even more important than the economic concerns is the impact, in real terms, on day-to-day quality of life issues. The tranquil, pedestrian-friendly atmosphere of Garrison Road is increasingly threatened by the growing commercialization of the surrounding area and the traffic that that brings. Your consent to this variance would set a precedent leading to the destabilization in the character of a long- established residential neighborhood. The residents here pay premium tax assessments. Negating the buffer zone requirements would change all equations. The official Town of Queensbury stationery contains the quote “HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY…..A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE”. We residents depend upon you, the Zoning Board, to uphold the safeguards designed to preserve the quality of life in Queensbury and the investments we have in our homes. Please vote to deny this variance. Sincerely, John Rugge, M.D. Victoria Palermo Rugge” I share the same general concerns voiced by many of my neighbors, and also the letter that I just read. I also have some technical concerns that sort of dovetail with these, that deal with the standards that this Board has to apply to this variance, which the Board knows from its work in reviewing many other variance requests, and from my own work as a land use lawyer. Generally I am concerned about the impact on the Garrison Road neighborhood, particularly visual, the issue of screening, traffic and noise, community character of one of the older, oldest established residential neighborhoods in Queensbury, which was subdivided in the early 1930’s. I’m also concerned about the safety and the potential conflict with the Warren County Bike Trail, and I was one of the people who approached the Town in 1992 and worked toward the resolution that gained the abandonment from the Delaware and Hudson Railroad, and was also on the committee that approved the Federal aid to this project, and I’m an avid cyclist and very excited about the construction of the bridge over Quaker Road and the completion of this bikeway facility that we’ve been working on for 10 years. I think that Mr. Cushing was a little bit incorrect, or at least not up-to-date with his first statement about the concurrence of the Warren County Recreation Director, Mr. Beland, with the current proposal. I've spoken to Mr. Beland in the last day, after reviewing the plans at the Planning Board Office, and Mr. Beland has authorized me to say that they want to take a second look at this. They had no idea that the applicant was asking, in addition to the 23 feet of frontage that it owns, and they see the three turning lane proposal as a direct conflict with the intersection of the bike trail and Quaker Road, which is one of the more troublesome intersections. There’s a traffic light there that was purchased from the railroad, with the idea that it might need to be energized at some point, which will cost some money. The current study says you don’t need to energize it, but Mr. Beland is very concerned about this idea that, you know, 50 feet, three lanes, doesn’t think that that can be done, and in fact, thinks that one of the turning lanes is going to take out the pedestrian plaza in front of the bollard. It just, you know, it can’t even be done the way it’s shown on the proposal, and he is asking for, or is going to be tabling this until this Board speaks on the variance, and until the applicant’s consultants get back to him with a dog that’ll hunt, a little more than the variance they’ve asked for. I also have some, they may seem like technical quibbles with the Staff comments, with all due respect, and perhaps with the way the applicant has put forward the four or five tests that you have to apply for a variance, but starting from the top, I don’t see this variance request as insubstantial in relation to the requirement. They have 23 feet of frontage that shows on the application, and I’m told that there may actually be less frontage than the 150 feet that’s required. Even with a license from Warren County for maybe another 10 or 20 feet, that that’s a substantial variance, particularly when you consider that the idea of the 150 foot frontage requirement, in a residential area, is this idea that you have a lot that’s 150 feet wide and there’s maybe one or two cars that generate trips. Not the 78 that are initially shown on the application, which brings me to the second question which was touched on a moment ago by Mr. Lapper. The issue of SEQRA compliance. The Staff has categorized this as a Type II application. After reviewing the Type II list, I do not believe, I believe this should properly be considered an Unlisted application, and requires a determination of significance, and a hard look by the Board as to whether there really are some serious impacts from this proposal that ought to be mitigated, and I refer the Staff and the Board to the Type II list that says that granting of individual setback and lot line variances are Type II actions, but I’m not sure, and I don’t think, that a minimum frontage variance to go from 23 feet to 150 feet, to create a flag shaped lot, where all the traffic is going to enter through this 30, 50 foot driveway, and then go on to the back, is an insubstantial 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/99) variance, in terms of the requirements of the Ordinance. I’d also take issue with the Staff comments that no alternatives are feasible here. Well, one alternative has already been touched on by many of my neighbors, which is conforming development of this property for single family homes, up to nine homes by current zoning, something which would generate a lot less traffic and a lot less impact, and lastly, in terms of why I think there should be an environmental review and you’ve got to take a hard look at this assessment form, also which was touched on by Mr. Lapper, the applicant says here that the amount of land effected, and this is on the EAF that he filed, is initially four acres, and it was ultimately 9.84 acres, and 9.84 acres is this entire parcel, and while the applicant has touched on the buffer requirements on the north side, between residential use and light industrial use with CR Bard, there’s nothing said about the buffer requirements on the south side, and next to Garrison Road in the back yard of my neighbors across the street, and in fact, that’s because there aren’t any requirements under the Ordinance. As an SFR-1 use, this church could come in here, through that driveway, expand as they say they’re contemplating doing, as the church may grow, to pave over every square inch of this property on the south side, right over to the property line, and cut down every tree, and while I don’t know what their future plans are, it seems to me at least a good question to be raising if going in there and building this 12,000 square foot facility for 78 cars is where it’s going to stop, and since this is the only time that this Board is ever going to be looking at a variance, and since, as the church may grow, it’s going to be pretty infeasible for Warren County to later revoke the temporary revocable license that it talks about across the bike path, I believe that both under SEQRA and under your Ordinance, in terms of the various standards that have to be applied, this plan, even if it can fly, needs a lot more detail to show that it can be conditioned to protect the character of our residential neighborhood. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Would anyone else like to speak opposed? TOM CLEMENTS MR. CLEMENTS-.Good evening. My name is Tom Clements. I’m also an attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Detrich. The first thing I want to point out to the Board tonight is the number of people. As you know from your file, notices of this hearing were sent out to a number of neighbors in the Garrison Road neighborhood, and there are a number of people here tonight that are in opposition to that project, some of whom may feel uncomfortable speaking publicly, but I do want to call the Board’s attention to that, and I think the vehement opposition of the neighbors to this project backs what Mr. Lebowitz just said, that this is the sort of project that deserves a hard look under SEQRA, and should not simply be rolled through this Board at all. My second and third comments go to what we’re trying to do here as far as having three lanes of vehicular access to Bay Road from this property. Somebody once said to me, I find it humorous, trying to pack 10 pounds of sugar in a five-pound bag. There’s just not enough space here for this proposed use. Now the one thing, the first part of that that I want to point out to you is that all of the deed restrictions that I've seen for this parcel of property describe 8.5 feet on Bay Road. A year and a half ago, my client Mr. Detrich, and his wife, made an offer to Mrs. Zoli to purchase this property for a substantial sum. So at that time, I was furnished with the deeds to this property, and it shows 8.5 feet. Just tonight I looked at the abstract for the subject property, again, 8.5 feet on Bay Road. So I don’t know who’s pulling rabbits out of hats, or what’s happening here, but somehow this has, on the application, has gone to 23 feet, and again, when we’re talking inches here, I mean, this is a very tight space, I think that’s important, and the applicant, at a minimum, should be required to furnish some sort of a survey to explain this discrepancy. Secondly, I’ll also verify what Mr. Lebowitz said about Pat Beland. I spoke to him, not today but yesterday, and he apparently does have some trouble with what’s proposed, and I think he’s back-peddling from that letter. The letter, of course, pretty much gave a glowing report of this project. He’s not that in favor of that, and what he told me is that this is not going to appear on the next Committee meeting for the Parks and Rec Committee of Warren County, that he’s going to table it. That he’s going to pull it from the agenda for further study by his Staff. What I believe he did not consider was the fact that the bikeway there is crossing at an angle, and therefore the angles increase everything by a factor of I believe the square root of two, if that’s a forty-five degree angle, and therefore, he did not account for the space he’s going to need for the width of the bikeway itself, of 10 feet, and I think he said 3 foot shoulders, or a little bit beyond that. So it’s my understanding, my honest report to this Board, that he is not going to recommend a license, as the applicant is under the impression he is going to give them at this point. My last comment is that, as you’re familiar with the legal standards you apply here to the granting of a variance, you can consider hardship, and whether the hardship is self-imposed, and in reviewing this matter very intensely for the last three days, I've come to the conclusion that whether you look at this from Mrs. Zoli’s viewpoint, or you look at it from the church’s viewpoint, if there’s any hardship here, it’s a self- imposed hardship. I have a deed that I will, after I get done speaking, I’ll put in your file. The deed from the Day family to Mr. and Mrs. Zoli, back in 1977, and in that deed, they agreed to restrict access to this parcel of property from North Road. So at that point, they themselves created this reduced access situation by foreclosing any possibility of access from North Road, and I also want to point out that in this deed it also references this 8.5 feet. So to the extent this was a nonconforming lot, it was well known to the Zoli’s back in 1977, and they’ve had it ever since. With respect to the church, the hardship is also self-imposed on the church, because there’s nothing saying this church 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/99) has to build their new church on this piece of property, which is a nonconforming piece of property. All right. There must be other pieces of property in Queensbury where they can build a church and they don’t have to come here and change the character of this neighborhood, and try to fit 10 pounds of sugar in a 5-pound bag. Now, a lot of people have talked about what feasible alternatives there are. This morning, on behalf of my client, I delivered a purchase offer to Mrs. Zoli’s attorney, Mr. Judge, and that purchase offer was for a sum that’s equal to the purchase offer that we understand the church has made to her. So she’ going to be held harmless, really. She’s going to sell her property for as much as what she’s going to sell it for now. As a matter of fact, that purchase offer was without any conditions, and I assume that the purchase offer from the church is with the conditions of having approvals. So, I don’t think Mrs. Zoli can complain if this variance is denied, and I think the church can expect to find some other more appropriate spot for their new church than this lot in the middle of a residential neighborhood. I thank you. MR. THOMAS-Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak opposed? STEVE JACKOWSKI MR. JACKOWSKI-My name is Steve Jackowski. I live at 21 Garrison Road, which is on the corner of North Road and Garrison. I am probably the neighbor that Joyce Thompson referred to in thinking of selling my home due to the increased traffic on Garrison Road. In the evenings, and in the early morning hours, we hear numerous cars that speed through the stop sign on North Road and Garrison. While I realize this Board is not in charge of traffic control, and I have been told by the Highway Department, Paul Naylor, and in fact we have joked about this, that paving the second section of Garrison Road between North Road and Bay Road, would basically create a drag strip. It is a very serious concern to the neighbors of Garrison, North and Fort Amherst that we control the traffic that will use Garrison Road and Fort Amherst Road as a bypass of the Quaker Road corridor. So I beg this Board that when you do grant zoning variances, you pay particular attention to how the traffic effects the quality of the neighborhood. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak opposed? CARLEEN SAWYER MRS. SAWYER-My name is Carleen Sawyer, and I live at 36 Garrison, and I feel I’ll probably be one of the most effected because in a storm years ago, our entire back yard, the woods were wiped out, and when Pat Zoli had Keith Harris take down the trees to log it, I had to fight to keep that 100 foot buffer so that we wouldn’t be looking at the building, C.R. Bard, and I believe it’s 100 feet from C.R. Bard in that was protected, that is supposed to be the buffer. MR. STONE-On the north side. MRS. SAWYER-Right, and they had trees marked in that buffer, and they did take some down toward Bay Road, but I was able to protect those trees, and if they’re talking about going into that buffer, there go the trees, and we have nothing between us. I mean, some of the other neighbors have some trees, but we really have, we’re wide open, and we do have a pool, and it would be, it’s a scary thought, and as far as traffic, getting off of Bay, or getting off of Garrison turning on to Bay and heading north is, most times of the day it’s almost impossible. You sit there and you sit there and you sit there, as it is, and so, I guess that’s about it. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-All right. Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak opposed? If not, go through the correspondence. MR. HAYES-Okay. This letter is from Mr. Thomas E. Meath, 36 North Road, dated June 16, 1999, re: Application of the Calvary Assembly of God, Board of Zoning Appeals “We urge that you not grant the requested relief from the minimum road frontage requirements and the requested relief from the buffer zone requirements. We have two primary concerns in mind. First, the very narrow property frontage on Bay Road is bordered by a new Bike Path, freshly paved and just opened. This path cuts diagonally across Bay Road directly in front of the property and its narrow access. This path would undoubtedly be experiencing its heaviest usage from bicyclists and walkers, adults and children, at the same time periods as vehicular traffic into and out of the property for Church activities would also be at its heaviest usage. Serious accidents are inevitable with this dual activity. Minimum road frontage requirements should not be reduced. Second, this property is bordered on the south and on the east by a very stable long-standing neighborhood of single family residences, enjoying a quiet and peaceful existence. The introduction of church and religious education facilities, with paved parking, would destroy the nature of this particular property and degrade the enjoyment and value of the family neighborhood properties at the south and west. Any relief from buffer zone requirements should not be granted and under any circumstances the proposed use of this property would destroy the integrity of the existing neighborhoods. Respectfully submitted, Elizabeth V Meath and Thomas E. Meath 36 North Road” We have a letter from Mr. James McMaster, 20 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/99) Garrison Road, Queensbury, NY, also dated June 16 “Dear Zoning Board Members: We are th concerned over proposed changes in zoning that further encroach on our small neighborhood and reduced the already beleaguered values of properties. There has been considerable commercial development within a short distance within the past few years. It is close enough, if not too close. We would prefer to see the area which is presently residential or wooded stay that way if at all possible. The new bike trail extension will then enjoy at least one side which abuts a wooded area, even if the other side is light industrial. As you know, the residential area is bounded by two increasingly busy streets, Bay and Glen. The noise from the streets rises every year, and development nearby continues to “shrink” the residential area. Traffic on our street, which is used as a crossover, has increased, and in spite of the stop signs at North Road, there are still some speeders (some don’t bother to stop). Zoning regulations are put in place to control growth and protect existing neighborhoods. Please honor the existing regulations and help to protect existing property owners. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, James A. McMaster” We have a letter here from Margaret Meath, 19 Garrison Road, “Dear Zoning Board of Appeals: I would like to urge that you not grant the requested relief from the minimum road frontage requirements and the requested relief from the buffer zone requirements for the above mentioned applicant. The concern that I address here is the increased traffic that the neighboring residential streets would be forced to bear if the Calvary Church is allowed to build on the Bay Road property. The neighborhood of single family homes that borders the property in question has seen a dramatic increase in traffic as it becomes a cut-through for those trying to find the fastest route to travel between Glen Street, Bay and Quaker Roads. As the surrounding area has become more densely congested with businesses and the traffic that result, the residents of Garrison and Ft. Amherst Roads (and Webster in the City of Glens Falls) have seen a marked increase in the number of vehicles, and the type and weight of vehicles, the speed at which vehicles travel and the number of vehicles ignoring stop signs. I feel that the Town of Queensbury has a valid zoning ordinance which it must enforce. Changing the usage of this property would devalue the existing neighborhood, increase the traffic flow in a neighborhood with existing traffic issues and increase the risk to safety of those that live through the neighborhood. Respectfully submitted, Margaret E. Meath” This letter is from Jay Miele, 13 Garrison Road “Dear Zoning Board of Appeals: I would like to go on record as being against providing relief, for minimum frontage and minimum buffer zone requirements, to the above referenced party. The town has adopted rules and bylaws regulating buffers and set back and I would like to see these rules followed in this case. One can imagine this church and educational center as having a lot of pedestrian and automobile traffic in and out of the facility where proper space (buffer and frontage) is important not only for safety but for the consideration of property owners adjacent to the facility. Furthermore, I am concerned about the impact such a facility will have on the amount of traffic on Garrison Road. The traffic on Garrison Road has increased markedly over the past several years, this increase in traffic is beginning to effect the quality of life in one of the nicest and oldest residential areas of Queensbury. Sincerely, Jay J. Miele 13 Garrison Road, Queensbury, NY 12804” Continuing. We have a letter here from Patrick Beland, did we already read that in? He’s from the County. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. HAYES-All right. So that’s already been read into the record. I have a letter here from a Robert J. Parry, 17 Garrison Road “Gentlemen: Please be informed that I am against any change in the current zoning ordinance – re: Garrison Rd., North Rd., Fort Amherst Rd. We have enough traffic now. I am against the proposed construction of the Calvary Assembly of God facility and by owner Patricia Zoli application for change. Sincerely yours, Robert J. Parry 17 Garrison Rd. Queensbury, NY 12804” Okay. Continuing. I have a letter here from Ethel Wynn, Zoning Board of Appeals, re: Zoning Variance by Assembly of God “Residential areas such as ours should not be considered for any use which would affect our quality of life and lower the value of our homes. 1. If this variance is allowed, our property values are certain to decline, followed by a reduction in taxes and fewer tax dollars from our area – a disservice to us and to the Town. 2. Additional traffic and noise would deny us a basic right to peace and quiet and freedom from all the problems that increased traffic brings. 3. Residents settled in this area because of its residential nature and deed restrictions. Residents conform and expect the same from all concerned. 4. Zoning laws should be strictly upheld and working for us to insure that Queensbury will continue to be the “Home of Natural Beauty…A Good Place To Live” There are always areas outside of residential ones, where non-residential projects would fit nicely and where they are legally entitled to be. Thank you for upholding our variance laws. Sincerely, Ethel Wynn (Mrs.)” I have a letter here from the Rugges which was read in by Mr. Lebowitz, I believe. So I’ll go over that one. We have a letter here from Mrs. Jane Morrisey, 22 Fort Amherst Road “Dear Zoning Board of Appeals: It has recently come to my attention that relief from the current zoning requirements for a piece of property on Bay Road (Tax Map No. 106-3-2 in an SFR-1A and LI-1A zone) is being sought by Patricia Zoli. The applicant has made this request so that the property may be used as a site for a religious and church educational facility. I strongly oppose the proposed utilization of this property. As a resident of Fort Amherst Road, the amount of “cut through traffic” has been escalating every year. I have no doubt that the construction of a new church so close to our neighborhood would result in more traffic, additional speeding problems, as well as congestion and parking problems. The Town of 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/99) Queensbury has effective and necessary zoning ordinances in place and I must trust that they will be enforced to protect our neighborhood and its residents. Sincerely, Jane Morrisey 22 Fort Amherst Road Queensbury, NY 12804” I have a letter here from Mr. James V. McKiernan, 15 Garrison Road, To: Zoning Board of Appeals “As a resident of Garrison Road we strongly oppose any variance in the Zoning Ordinance as now proposed by Patricia Zoli concerning her property. We feel that any change of Zoning would be a detriment to the character and safety of this neighborhood because of the increase in traffic caused by such a change. Thank you for your consideration to this matter. James V. McKiernan Robert L. Bruno” I have a letter from Mrs. Catherine LaBombard, actually, this is to the Queensbury Planning Board from Michael Mills. Should I read it? MR. THOMAS-No. That’s Planning Board. MR. HAYES-Yes. I have a letter here from a Mrs. Hubert C. Brown, 10 Garrison Road “To the Zoning Board of Appeals: I understand the “Calvary Assembly of God” is requesting a variance to construct a “religious and church education” facility at 742 Bay Road. I feel that it will seriously affect many houses on Garrison Road as it implies a large parking lot, more noise and especially more traffic. There are many acres in Queensbury that would seem to be available for such a development. I strongly request you do not grant this variance. Sincerely yours, Mary G. Brown” This letter is, Mrs. Thompson, do you want me to read your letter in? MRS. THOMPSON-No. MR. HAYES-Okay. So stipulated. Okay. I have a letter here from Edwin and Elizabeth Hillman Matthews, 24 Amherst Road “Dear Zoning Board of Appeals: We are writing to you to express our views in on the Area Variance No. 56-1999, Type II, requested by Ms. Zoli. As property owners on Garrison Road and Fort Amherst Road, we are strongly opposed to the construction of the Calvary Assembly of God Church and the variances requested. We opposed this variance for three reasons: (1) increased traffic, (2) safety concerns, and (3) failure of notification of public hearing.” And there’s a note here that there was no such failure based on the landowner is outside of 500 feet. The letter continues, “INCREASED TRAFFIC: As anyone knows who lives in this section of Queensbury, Garrison and Fort Amherst Roads serve as cross roads between Bay Road and Glen Street. These two roads currently bear heavy traffic in a residential area, both day and night. The construction of the Calvary Assembly of God Church will adversely impact this residential area by increasing traffic on these roads and reducing what is left of our tranquil streets. SAFETY ISSUE: The Calvary Assembly of God Church will no doubt bring overflow parking down Garrison Road, and this road is not wide enough to allow both overflow parking and through traffic. As it is now, Joggers, cyclists, and people walking along Garrison must walk on the edge of the road, because this road does not have sidewalks. The addition of church-related traffic will make it even less safe for those of us who live here. NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING: Finally, as co-owners of land on Garrison Road (Elizabeth Hillman Matthews, Lucille Hillman, and Elaine Hillman Moroney), we are upset that we were not notified in writing of this public hearing notice. We learned of the request for the area variance through our neighbors. Please be sure that any further communications and information on hearing notices on this matter be sent to our attention at our other residence in Maryland (Edwin J. Matthews, 14300 Fairdale Road, Silver Spring, Maryland 20905) Very truly yours, Elizabeth Hillman Matthews and Edwin John Matthews” I have a letter here from Patricia Giardinello, Dear Zoning Board Members: In reference to Section 179-103 of an Ordinance of the Town of Queensbury I am asking that you do not grant a variance to the valid zoning ordinance that Queensbury has in effect. The area in question is a very busy place at this time and the addition of a church and religious center would create a terrible traffic problem. Thank you for taking my concerns into consideration. We rely on you to turn down this variance. Yours truly, Patricia Giardinello, 3 Garrison Road, Queensbury, New York” Okay. We have a letter here from John & Ellen Caffry “Dear Mr. Thomas: We are concerned about the proposed variance application for the Calvary Assembly of God to construct a church and education center on property owned by Patricia Zoli off of Bay Road, and in particular its potential effects on persons using the new Warren County bike trail which adjoins the property’s Bay Road frontage. These concerns include public safety impacts and visual impacts. We live in the City of Glens Falls, only a block from the bike trail, and have already used it, along with our children. Dozens of people, including many children, already use it daily for riding, walking, rollerblading and other such activities, even though construction is not yet complete. Once it is complete, and the bridge over Quaker Road is built this summer, usage is likely to increase substantially. The location where the bike trail crosses Bay Road is already a safety concern, as shown by the enclosed article from the Post-Star. From personal experience, we know that the high traffic volume and relatively high speed limit (which is often exceeded by motorists), combined with the width of the road, make it difficult for cyclists, particularly children, to cross the road safely. We understand that the Zoli property includes only a narrow frontage on Bay Road, that immediately adjoins the bike trail. Allowing this narrow piece of property to be used as the ingress and egress for a high volume use such as a church and education center will significantly exacerbate the existing safety hazard. Not only will cyclists and pedestrians need to watch out for passing vehicles, they will now need to watch out for turning vehicles. Also, it is likely that persons turning in and out of the church will have difficulty seeing cyclists and pedestrians, especially given the traffic volume and the 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/99) width of the road. Motorists on Bay Road may be distracted by turning vehicles and not notice cyclists. Unless the project can be redesigned so as to prevent such a safety hazard, the variance application should be denied. Queensbury Code § 179-88 and Town Law § 267-b(3)(b) (3) & (4) require you to take into account, when reviewing an area variance application, whether or not the variance will be a detriment to neighboring properties such as the bike trail, and whether the variance will adversely affect conditions in the neighborhood. If the property had more frontage on Bay Road, as required by the Code, then the safety hazards created by the project may not be so severe, as the access road could potentially be designed to reduce such hazards. Thus granting the variance without eliminating the safety impacts would contravene § 267-b(3) (b). It is also possible that the problem is self-created, if the property configuration was caused by Mrs. Zoli or her predecessor in title which is another factor that you must consider under Town Law § 267-b(3)(b)(5). Nowhere else does the bike trail cross (at grade) a road with Bay Road’s combination of traffic volume, speed limit and roadway width. Therefore, the types of signage used for crossings of less-traveled roads or city streets is not likely to be adequate at this location. One possibility that may work would be to require the applicant to reconfigure the existing traffic lights at that location, so that they control the access road, as well as Bay Road, and then put the lights on a pedestrian controlled system, so that at appropriate intervals, pedestrians and cyclists could activate the light and cross the road safely. This system would probably also require that the intersection be designated for “no right turn on red.” Needless to say, this or any other traffic safety measure that may be considered would have to be designed and reviewed by qualified traffic engineers, for both the Town and the applicant, as well as by Warren County, which controls both Bay Road and the bike trail. Assuming that the project does go forward, we hope that the site plan will require the applicant to maintain a 200 foot buffer along the bike trail, to avoid adverse visual impacts on the bike trail and its users. A buffer of this size is required to effectively screen visual impacts. If necessary, the ZBA should table the application to allow for further examination of these issues. This new recreational resource is being constructed by the County at great expense, and has been eagerly anticipated and quickly embraced by many Glens Falls and Queensbury residents. We hope that the Zoning Board of Appeals will take all necessary actions to ensure that this project does not jeopardize the safety and enjoyment of its thousands of future users. Sincerely, John W. Caffry Ellen N. Caffry” I have a letter here from Mr. Muller. Do you want me to read that, or? MR. MULLER-That’s fine. MR. HAYES-Okay. That’s it. MR. THOMAS-That’s it? MR. HAYES-I think. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Mr. Cushing, you’ve heard all the public input. Would you like to respond to any and all of it? MR. CUSHING-Well, first of all, the SEQRA questions, it is a permitted Type II situation, first of all. Number Two, the letter that I received from Pat Beland, relative to his review and apparent approval, according to the letter that I received, and his going forward to his Committee and the Board of Supervisors is still valid as far as I’m concerned, because I've received no communications from him in so far as the mail is concerned, up to and including this date. Anything that the other gentleman may have put in is purely their conversations, and I don’t have any valid response from the County. The buffer zone, we are trying to alleviate a situation by moving our project further north, away from the residential area. If we are required to put the other 50 feet in, we’re forced to develop closer to the southern property line of the property. Frankly, I thought we were trying to be good neighbors, and evidently, we’re getting hit over the head by the fact that we’re asking for an elimination of the buffer zone on our north property line. The buffer zones by definition you cannot do anything with. You can’t reforest them. You can’t do anything. You can’t build on them, as the Board well knows, and so, frankly, I thought that we were trying to be helpful, not trying to be in a hindrance, in that light. The aspect with regard to the questions relative to the survey, we have a copy of a property survey that was made by Van Dusen and Steves relative to this property, a meets and bounds survey. Van Dusen and Steves, as you know, is the Town Surveyor. They’re showing 23.54 feet on Bay Road. I assume that they are correct, that they have gone through the background check through deeds, and that’s the correct situation. With regard to our working out situations relative to the bike path, I’m sure that the Parks and Recreation Committee is going to put some sort of restrictions on what we can do. We're going to have to do some very extensive grading in that area in order to protect everything, in order to extend some of the existing conditions. That ditch is on their property, and the bike path is on the northeast corner of the side of their property. So it really is not a real problem. It’s more a visual situation, at this point. Somebody made a remark 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/99) about the light situation. The lights are there. The lights are owned by the County. The lights are on the County property. Whatever the County wants to do about the lights are really something that they have to generate some input on that end of it. In so far as the traffic aspect is concerned, there’s no question about the fact that on Sundays, which is the big day for any church, there’s going to be a large preponderance of activity at the church. We have provided the number of parking spaces with regard to the size of the proposed structure. Obviously, Mr. Lebowitz’s comment that we added caveat about expanding in the, some time in the future, if he was our client, he would have insisted that we add language like that in, just to cover any eventualities that may come down within 50 or 100 years, that certainly still would be apropos to the application. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any questions for Mr. Cushing or any members of the Church? MR. STONE-Well, I have all kinds of questions, all kinds of comments, but one of the things I think I need, and it’s going to color anything I say beyond that. I need a blown up section of this intersection with Bay Road. I mean, we have this huge piece of paper, and the point that we’re arguing about, whether it’s eight feet or twenty-two feet, is about an inch and a half, and there’s so many lines on it, I, quite frankly, can’t really understand it. I mean, I can understand it. That would be helpful if you got something of this little section here. Because this is not very clear. MR. CUSHING-This is the survey from Van Dusen & Steves dated ’98. At least it’s not obliterated. MR. STONE-Okay. It’s not obliterated by a lot. Okay. Have you guys seen this? MR. THOMAS-No. MR. HAYES-There’s some question about the overall intensity of usage, as far as traffic. You said there’s 78 parking spots on the plan now? MR. CUSHING-Yes. MR. HAYES-Mr. Frank, exactly how many members are in your Church now? REVEREND DAVID FRANK REV. FRANK-About 40 members. It’s not a large church. I wish we had 200 cars. It’s a small church. The anticipation is to build for the future enough space, 300 people come for church, that’s fine. The church is 60 years old. It’s never had that many people, but we’re projecting. So we’re looking at just enough space to be able to get their cars in and out. You’re looking at a time frame of 15 minutes after the church service is dismissed for everybody to be gone. So the traffic, most of it going toward Glens Falls, going southbound, because most of our families are Glens Falls families, that way, you know, 15 minutes an increase in traffic. MR. CUSHING-Gentlemen, if I may, the other gentleman on my right is Kevin O’Shell who is a parishioner of the Calvary Assembly, and also their attorney. He might have some comments that he’d like to address to any questions that any of the Board members might care to ask. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I’ll start out. One of the lawyers that got up and spoke gave us a deed. Have you got that in there? MR. HAYES-Yes, I do. MR. THOMAS-That says that the road frontage is 8.54 feet, or whatever it is, according to this thing here on the sale. MR. CUSHING-What date is that deed, sir? MR. HAYES-It’s the 9 of August 1977, from Richard G. Day and Elizabeth Day, to Ted Zoli and th his wife. REV. FRANK-I can’t speak specifically. I have the abstract to that parcel of land. It has not been updated yet, and the last deed that I have is that deed, and I understand that it does state 8.5 feet or something thereabouts, but my understanding was that during the subsequent history of that parcel, there was some arrangement made that deeded additional road frontage to Mr. or Mrs. Zoli, I’m not quite sure who owned the parcel at that time, but that, as it currently stands, there is the 23.45 feet of road frontage. I don’t have a deed with me that will show that. I will at a later date, when I have the abstract updated, but like Mr. Cushing said, the Van Dusen & Steves used the current and the most up to date deeds at their disposal in order to draft this survey, and I believe it’s accurate. MR. THOMAS-And that’s this map that’s dated July 2, 1998? 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/99) REV. FRANK-Yes, sir. MR. THOMAS-It’s about a year old. MR. STONE-But what that map doesn’t show is exactly the driveway configuration at the point of intersection between the bike path and Bay Road, and that, to me, is a very critical thing. I need to see that. I need to see it laid out to help me. REV. FRANK-The blue print will show you what we’re proposing. I did meet with Pat Beland twice at the property. He measured with me exactly over the bike path. They own a 66-foot wide parcel of property. Pat’s comment to me was, the bike path requires only eight feet in the center. He said, we can work with you to get so much space. We did not satisfy either one’s requirements, at that point, for an exact number, but when I met with Mr. Cushing and we started laying out the plans, he communicated with Pat, and those numbers went back and forth, as far as I know. I think maybe Pat’s feeling some pressure here that he didn’t know was going to exist. Simply put, we are willing to be flexible on this. This property doesn’t even belong to us at this point. We're just trying to be sure that in the future, should be get ready to develop it, that we’re not going to create a problem. One thing that I do want to say, if you look at the plans that are before you, we already were given permission by the owner on the other side of the property for entryway on his property, a 99 year easement to be able to cross the bike path, so that our driveway would immediately cross over, 100% of our traffic would be over the bike path. We opted not to do that, and chose to make a purchase offer on the property when we found out that we could arrange for property so that it ran adjacent to the bike path, so that our cars don’t have to cross it. We don’t want someone getting injured on a bicycle. Our interest is in the whole process. The clearance there in both directions is phenomenal. In fact, I would invite you to cross most of the County roads and Town roads between Queensbury and Lake George. You don’t have one-tenth the visibility, sight of line, as you have on this piece of property. If our people come out of the driveway, they can see 250 feet in both directions on the bike path. You don’t find that most places where the bike path crosses any Town roads. It’s 250 feet, and it’s very wide, and our plan is to level it, put some picnic tables there, green it up and make it very nice, and people could stop there and have a picnic lunch. So we don’t want to create a problem with that at all. MR. STONE-But you will agree that the statement by Warren County is, you’ve got a piece of paper, and we’ve got two officers of the court who are saying they’ve talked to this person and there’s a question? REV. FRANK-Yes. MR. STONE-And I’m, personally, not ready to make a decision one way or the other until I know exactly where the County stands on this. REV. FRANK-Right. Exactly. Sure. KEVIN O’SHELL MR. O’SHELL-If I just might interject. During the County Planning Board hearing, they made a determination that there was No County Impact, and in that determination, they would have taken into consideration the impact that the entryway would have upon the bike path, and they were satisfied with Mr. Beland’s letter and our proposed entryway. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any other questions for the applicant? MR. STEC-I've got a question for Staff. The road frontage requirement, 50 feet, 150 feet? What is the road frontage requirement here that we’re talking about granting relief from? MR. VOSS-I believe it’s 150 feet, technically. MR. THOMAS-The minimum lot width is 150 feet. MR. STONE-Yes, but lot width is defined as the average distance between the side lot lines of the lot. MR. VOSS-Technically, it’s 150 feet at the setback line. MR. STONE-That’s not the way the Code reads. I mean, it says 40 foot on the highway. That’s not 23, but there is confusion here. I wrote down a note here, is it 40 or is it 150, one is road frontage, one is lot width. Lot width is defined in 179-7 as the average distance between the side lot lines of 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/99) the lot. So, to me, there’s a number of confusing comments in here, and I would like time to sort them all out. MR. STEC-Lets just say that I think we’re going to find that we’re going to have some unanswered questions, and before we rush into something with such obvious public opinion, and impacts, traffic impacts, that we’re going to need these answers before we act on it, but specifically, one of the questions that I see leading us along the path here is we need to establish what the road frontage requirement is, and then if in fact, and now apparently there’s a question raised as to the status of the license agreement, though I’m not an attorney, but to me, I would think that that letter is how it stands right now. Apparently there’s a question raised as to how final that letter is. MR. STONE-Except the letter didn’t give any numbers. MR. CUSHING-It referred to our plans. MR. STEC-Well, the question is, if the license agreement puts them over the road frontage requirement, do we need to, at that point, still grant a relief from that? If they have 23 feet, and that’s under question. Is it eight feet, or is it twenty-three and change? But if it is in fact 23, and they’re going to get fifty feet, and the requirement’s only for forty feet, then do they need a variance? That’s where I’m going with these questions, and I think that we need to have all these answers before we can, I think it’s going to be tabled, and I think there’s going to be some frustration that, you know, from people here that they want this resolved and they feel pressured to perhaps when we vote on this again, but I mean, I think that these are the kinds of questions that I think really need to, this question on SEQRA was reviewed. I know the Staff did a determination, but again I think that it warrants maybe total clarification. MR. STONE-I think the other thing, the point that I want to make, I mean, I heard a lot of comments about a church in this area. A church is an allowed use. I want to get that on the record. A church is an allowed use in Single Family Residential One-Acre. A school is also allowed. They’re both allowed. That’s not the issue that we are trying to decide here. I don’t want to usurp the Chairman’s role, but that’s a given. There can be a church. The question is, we have two questions on the table. Is the road frontage sufficient, and it’s obviously not, no matter what number we use, and that’s where the variance process comes in, and should be buffer zone be eliminated or reduced. Those are the two questions that we have to ask. I have questions on both of them, but nevertheless, that’s the questions that we’re addressing. MR. THOMAS-As far as the traffic study, you say you have 40. MR. CUSHING-I assume that you’ve already done a traffic study relative to Garrison Road and Fort Amherst, and Bay Road relative to the presentation the Lowe’s made to the Town for their review use and what they might have added to that. I’d be happy to look at those, in light of what we may modestly add to it. MR. HAYES-Their attorney is here. MR. THOMAS-It has to be at this intersection, not the intersection where Lowe’s comes out on Bay and Quaker. MR. CUSHING-Well, the reference has been, all evening, to them, and others on Quaker Road. So I assume that the Town has those studies in hand. MR. STONE-The Town didn’t make those comments. The public made those comments, and I think there’s some valid concern, but there’s no (lost word) numbers. I mean, we’re talking anecdotal. They’ve seen more comments. There’s more businesses there, but we don’t know what those numbers are, obviously. MR. CUSHING-Nor do they. REV. FRANK-If I may also interject, I believe it was Attorney Lebowitz who suggested that one of the possible uses for this parcel would be a subdivision of nine separate individual lots. I think what we’re proposing is one of the most unobtrusive possibilities that are available to this parcel. Regardless of how this parcel is utilized, there’s going to be a requirement for a variance for the road frontage. If it’s 40 feet, if it’s 150 feet, there’s still going to be the requirement for the variance, and what we’re proposing is basically two pounds of sugar in a fifty-pound sack. I mean, if you look at it, the size of the construction that we’re proposing is nominal in comparison to the overall area of this parcel. We anticipate and also propose to do several rows of trees between our proposed structure and the residential structures to help mitigate any concerns that were presented with respect to the visual impact that the structure is going to have. Also, I have to agree with Attorney Muller when he 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/99) suggested that this is a perfect transitional proposed project between a residential and a light industrial, and like the honorable Mr. Stone suggested that this is a permissible use. MR. STEC-Mr. Chairman, I really think that we’ve got several outstanding questions. I don’t feel comfortable, myself, acting on it tonight. Unless somebody’s got something to add. MR. STONE-I agree with you. MR. THOMAS-Yes. I think you’re going to find a consensus of the Board that there’s some questions to be answered before we even take this up again, and I do believe that we will table this, pending the information that we’re going to request. So far I've got a letter from the Warren County Parks and Recreation, confirming what they’ve planned to do. MR. STONE-I’d like a blow-up of this. MR. THOMAS-I think we need a traffic study for this intersection, in light of the bike path that goes through there. MR. STEC-I agree. MR. THOMAS-Okay, and Lew has said the question of the lot front on Bay Road, how wide really is it. MR. STONE-We need an unencumbered view of how, where the roadway is going to go, relative to your property, and relative to what you’re asking from the County and the bike path. Does it cross the bike path? Do you actually have to go on the bike path’s macadam to get on the highway? I need to know that, because I can’t tell from your drawing. MR. HAYES-I think there’s a definitional issue as far as the lot width, too. MR. STONE-And the lot width, too, yes. That’s another question. MR. THOMAS-Well, if you read the definition, it’s like you read, the average distance between the side lot lines of the lot, which comes out to about 254 feet. MR. STONE-Correct. MR. CUSHING-Well, if you use the back lot line, the west lot line is 445, so then there’s no question. MR. THOMAS-Yes, well, it says the average. MR. STONE-It goes from 25, your numbers, to 445, you divide that by two. MR. THOMAS-So you’re talking 250 feet on the lot width. So there’s really no problem there, but it’s, the Ordinance also calls for 40 feet of road frontage, and in this case, being a collector road, it has to be double, 280. MR. CUSHING-Mr. Chairman, technically, as I understand it, the bike path ends at the right-of-way for Bay Road, and picks up on the other side of Bay Road. MR. THOMAS-Technically, you’re right. It does. So, between the highway and the private, that lot line there is where the bike path ends, technically, and then it picks up, like you say, across the road, but then again, too, that’s a County road across there. So who do we talk to, Pat Beland or Mr. Remington? MR. CUSHING-Exactly. MR. THOMAS-So that’s another question we need answered. MR. STONE-Yes. I’m sure there’ll be some, there’ll be buffers like there are on Sweet Road, for example, on either side of the highway. I understand that, and that’s one of the questions that I wrote down. I mean, you can “block” the traffic, but I just need to know where these are going to be located, and where your driveway is going to be located. MR. CUSHING-At the time we were doing our work up, there was no indication from the County, from Parks and Recreation, where they were going to be placing signs, what the signs might say, what devices they might be installing. Since that time, it’s all been paved, Number One, and Number Two, there’s a zillion signs that have been installed along the bike path recently. 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/99) MR. STONE-I propose, Mr. Chairman, that we table this for this information. MR. THOMAS-Do you want to make a motion? All right. So we want the letter from Warren County Parks and Recreation. We need traffic. MR. STONE-We need the definition, does it have to be 40 on a Town road. MR. VOSS-Technically, it is 40, 179-70 Part A is 40 feet. MR. THOMAS-Yes, okay, but we need to know, is it 23.54 or is it 8.54? MR. STONE-We need to know that. MR. THOMAS-We need to know that. What else, is there anything else? MR. STEC-The requirement for 40, it does double to 80 because it’s a collector? Are we sure of that? MR. THOMAS-Well, it says. MR. VOSS-179-70 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, “Frontage on public streets, every principal building shall be built upon a lot with frontage upon a public street improved to meet the standards of the Town of Queensbury.” Part A, “The required frontage for one principal building shall be 40 feet, and such frontage shall provide actual physical access to and from the lot to be built upon for purposes of ingress and egress to the lot by emergency vehicles, such as fire trucks and/or ambulances. B. Where private roads are proposed or where multiple principal buildings are proposed for one (1) lot, such as garden apartments or an office park, the minimum frontage on a public road for such use shall be the width of the right-of-way for a public collector street. Such development shall provide actual physical access to and from each principal building to be built upon the property”, and it just goes on to discuss access for emergency vehicles. So, technically, it does not, according to this, double just because it’s a collector street. MR. STEC-And again, I know I asked before, but I think it’s important for Staff to try to get an answer. If they’re granted the balance of that 40 feet by a license agreement, do they still need a variance, or do you know the answer to that? MR. VOSS-I think that’s probably a question that legal counsel could address. MR. STEC-Because I mean, that’s key to this. MR. STONE-Another definition we don’t have “Collector Street”. MR. THOMAS-They don’t have a definition for it because they’ve got them listed. MR. STONE-They’ve got them listed. MR. THOMAS-Yes, right, it’s 179-30. MR. STONE-Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Arterials, local arterials, collectors, all kinds of good stuff. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. THOMAS-And this is listed under “Regional Arterial Road”. MR. STONE-Right. MR. THOMAS-All right. So far we’ve got the letter, traffic study, question on the lot front on Bay Road, and access for emergency vehicles. We’d have to get a letter from Kip, or whoever’s taking his place. MR. LAPPER-Mr. Chairman, I know this isn’t a public hearing, but I found the Section about two times the lot width, it’s under 179-30C. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. THOMAS-So what that’s saying is the lot width in that zone is 150 feet. 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/99) MR. STONE-No, it’s 80 feet, it has to be 80. MR. THOMAS-It says two times the lot width. We just read that the lot width is the average between the two sidelines. So we averaged. MR. STONE-No, two times the lot width permitted in the zone. MR. THOMAS-Yes, right, which is 50 feet. MR. VOSS-I believe it refers to residential lots. MR. THOMAS-It says residential lots. This is an SFR-1 zone. MR. STONE-Another question. MR. THOMAS-Yes. So, there’s another one, Number Five. Okay. I’m ready. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 56-1999 CALVARY ASSEMBLY OF GOD, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: Until no later than the August meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. This means that any new information requested by this Board must be submitted by the filing deadline for that month. The applicant may appear on the agenda in the previous month if the filing deadline for that month can be met. The reasons for tabling this application are: One, a letter from the Warren County Parks and Recreation Committee stating that the applicant has a right-of-way across the bike path and any other right-of-ways owned by Warren County. Two, a traffic study at the intersection of the applicant’s proposed entrance and exit and Bay Road. Three, the question of the lot front on Bay Road, exactly what is it. Four, a letter from the Fire Marshal in the Town of Queensbury, considering the access for emergency vehicles into and out of this site, and Five, clarification from the Town Attorney as to the width of the lot required for an arterial road, which is Bay Road. Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Stone, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. McNally ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham MR. TOMAS-So we need to get some information and you need to give us some information. MR. CUSHING-Will that letter be available tomorrow, hopefully? MR. STONE-The tabling motion? MR. CUSHING-Yes. MS. GAGLIARDI-The motion’s done tomorrow. MR. THOMAS-Yes. AREA VARIANCE NO. 57-1999 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-1A THE SLEEP INN SANJAY KAPOOR OWNER: D & C MANAGEMENT ASSOC., INC. 43 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN 82 UNIT MOTEL AND SEEKS HEIGHT RELIEF. CROSS REF. SUB. NO. 10-1999 SPR 32-99 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 6/9/99 TAX MAP NO. 71-2-2 LOT SIZE: 7.03 ACRES SECTION 179-23 PETER LOYOLA, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 57-1999, The Sleep Inn, Meeting Date: June 16, 1999 “Project Location: 43 State Route 9, Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes the construction of a 13,690 square foot, 82 unit hotel on the east side of New York State Route 9 between Sweet Road and Montray Road. Relief Required: The applicant is requesting approximately fifteen (15+/-) feet of relief from the HC-1A maximum height allowance of forty (40) 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/99) feet to construct a fifty-five (55) foot high “tower” structure on the south end of the hotel building. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: The building will be more visually appealing and there would be no modification required to the elevator and stair systems or the proposed signage. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives might include reducing the overall height of the proposed tower, but the applicant notes that this would constitute a major modification and cost as well as alter the corporate identity that the tower structure represents for Sleep Inns. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: The relief requested from the minimum frontage requirements can be considered as minimal to moderate due to the fact that only the tower structure will exceed the height requirement while the majority of the building will be under the forty (40) foot height maximum. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: The granting of the requested variance would have a positive aesthetic effect on the character of the neighborhood. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? This difficulty can be considered as being self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Sub. No. 10-1999 SPR 32-99 Staff comments: Because the proposed tower structure height is not representative of the entire building’s height, the requested relief would appear to be minimal. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. HAYES-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form 3 June 1999 Project Name: Sleep Inn County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact With Condition that the building site is kept as low as possible and the trees remain on site to help mitigate any visual impact.” Signed by Terry Ross, Warren County Planning Board MR. THOMAS-Okay. I guess we’re ready to go on this. Who’s going to speak? MR. LOYOLA-Essentially, we’re buying in to, my name’s Peter Loyola. I’m with Continental Landscape Architecture. Essentially, we’re buying into a franchise. There’s quite a strict standard of quality for Sleep Inns. They’re a prototypical type of structure. It’s very important that the scale and the style of the building be maintained, primarily because the goal of the Sleep Inn brand name is to create the perception of a hotel rather than a motel. So, by making it a three story structure, we’re giving the perception that it’s not just a run of the mill motel, that it actually is more of an experience of a hotel. The structure of the tower would actually help the scale of that. This is still a very small structure. We did adjust some of the roof lines to meet the Queensbury Code of 40 feet. We reduced the slope of the roof lines, also with the towers, to reduce the tower somewhat. So we did do a little bit of work on the building itself. With regard to the site, we came up with, we think it’s an ideal site for the proposed building. We do have a lot of existing evergreen vegetation, white pines, that are, I think, well over 55 feet, 60 feet to the south. To the north and at the frontage of Route 9, there’s a significant amount of evergreen vegetation that’s approaching 50 feet in height. I think it’s probably about 40 to 50 generally. We're going to try and maintain as much of that as we can. We have shown the existing evergreens that are going to remain and we are going to have to take down a few, just to make room for the building, but there’s also vegetation to the back portion of the property, substantial vegetation, very dense. It’s primarily deciduous, but there is quite a bit of buffer area to the rear that we will not disturb. Any disturbance to the site will be existing, will be part of existing disturbance. It’s mainly disturbed area now, with some slopes, and there are green spaces that we’ll just be creating parking areas with. That’s basically it. With regard to the grading and the finished floor elevation, when we met with the County, that was one of the requirements, that we keep the building as low as possible. The location of the tower is actually to the south, and I’ll just point this out real quick. There’s approximately a five to six foot difference from the southern portion of the property to the northern portion of the property. So the purpose they put the location of the building to the south is so they could keep it as low as possible. We are going to have to bring in some fill at the rear portion of the property. There’s a little bit of a ravine in here. So the lower we keep the building, the less fill will be required for the site. So it’s advantageous to us to cut approximately three and a half feet in this area, to balance out some of the cut and keep the building as low as possible. So that’s part of the objective of our site grading anyway, and that, I think, will help to mitigate any impact for visual of the height of the tower. MR. THOMAS-All right. Are there any questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-We're talking about the Area Variance, right? The whole thing, that includes the sign? MR. THOMAS-No, it doesn’t include the sign. We're not talking about any signs. MR. STONE-Well, except that this tower has a sign on it. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but that needs to be a separate variance. Needs to have a sign variance for height. MR. STONE-Yes, we agree that it’s not a legal sign. Is that what you’re saying? MR. THOMAS-Yes. 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/99) MR. STONE-Okay. Then I’m not going to ask. I mean, if we agree that that sign on the tower requires a variance. Are you aware of that? MR. LOYOLA-No, we aren’t. MR. VOSS-It’ll require a variance, technically, if you approve this area variance application, under a separate permit application. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. THOMAS-And I think they’ve got, the number of signs may have something to do with it, too. MR. VOSS-Perhaps. MR. STONE-So, in other words, if we gave you what you wanted tonight, that sign that is on the façade is probably too high and too big, as I look at it, looking at the sign code. MR. STEC-I think they’re trying to make you aware that approval of this does not mean. MR. LOYOLA-Necessarily that we will get the sign. MR. STEC-That would be another application for another variance from the Sign Ordinance. MR. LOYOLA-Okay. MR. VOSS-Yes. Technically this application is simply for the structure of the tower itself to be 55 feet. It does not include any kind of signage or anything like that. Signage on their elevation plan is probably only illustrative only, of maybe potentially proposed signage for that tower. We have seen no sign applications yet for the site. MR. HAYES-But you can comply with that. That’s your choice, at that point. MR. LOYOLA-Right. MR. THOMAS-But the applicant stated in his opening statement that this is typical, an A-Typical building of the Sleep Inn chain for which they propose a franchise, and you said that they all look the same, or want to stay the same, which would mean that sign would be right where it shows on this. MR. LOYOLA-It’s a very good assumption that we are going to come in for a variance for the sign, if we get the tower, and even if we don’t get the tower. Well, I guess that would be moot. MR. STONE-What is the function of the tower? You gave one, the philosophical, if you will, psychological. Is the elevator housed in there? MR. LOYOLA-It houses the elevator and the stairwell. MR. STONE-And where is the mechanism to operate the elevator? Do you need that height for that? MR. LOYOLA-Not necessarily. That’s a piston driven. MR. STONE-It is piston driven, okay. So you don’t need the space above the elevator shaft to get the elevator to go up and down? JAY KAPOOR MR. KAPOOR-Some of it, but not all of it. You need some buffer in there, but you don’t need the whole thing, no. MR. STONE-Okay. So it needs something more than 40 but less than 55 to house the elevator. Okay. So it’s decorative. MR. LOYOLA-Somewhat. MR. THOMAS-Is there anything in that space above the elevator shaft? MR. LOYOLA-Storage area. 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/99) MR. THOMAS-Is the storage area under that roof? MR. LOYOLA-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-Just a thought that I had, looking at their drawing, you can have parking in a TCO? I know that’s not our call. It appears that they’re showing parking spaces in what would be the Travel Corridor Overlay. You can have parking? MR. VOSS-Yes, correct. You can’t have any structures within that setback. MR. STONE-That’s what I thought. MR. THOMAS-If there’s no further questions for the applicant, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AL POTENZA MR. POTENZA-I own the property to the south of it. My name is Al Potenza, and I’m a resident of Queensbury along with the fact that I own the property probably 70, 80 yards to the south of this. My concern doesn’t stem from what they want to do. I mean, it’s a commercial piece of property. I think they should do whatever they want to with their piece of property that fits within the Code. The height of the tower doesn’t bother me in the least either. What I’m more concerned about is what impact it’s going to have on the water runoff. I sit at a very low point, and when the water comes off the top of the crest at Miller Hill, right at this particular point, I have some genuine concerns as to what’s going to happen and what’s going to happen to my property with the runoff of the water. . Right now, if you ever watch the water come down that hill, it pours into our parking lot. In fact, it even enters some of the building. Where Northway Car Care is, they have an overhead door there, and when the rain comes, they panic and close the doors and sandbag that door to stop the water so it continues on, and it’s a horrible situation right at this particular point. If it has no impact on the water, I have no problem with them building whatever they want to build, and I think they should be allowed to do whatever they want to on that piece of property. MR. THOMAS-Well, the map they’ve submitted shows a proposed detention pond in the back. So I imagine that’s where all the runoff will go. Can you point it out? This is where all your runoff? MR. LOYOLA-Yes. Everything that we have coming off of the building and from the parking areas will be diverted to a detention pond, retention pond. So we are actually going to maintain the existing levels of runoff and most likely slow down the peak. I don’t have the exact calculations with me, but a stormwater report was submitted with the site plan application, and it addressed stormwater. I think it’s actually, you’re going to see a little bit of an improved condition. I don’t know necessarily, if this is the property you’re talking about. MR. POTENZA-We're further south. MR. STONE-Below, south of Ponderosa. MR. LOYOLA-Toward the traffic light, there would be no impact regarding water. MR. POTENZA-Okay. MR. STONE-Is that pond going to be a filled pond, or is it going to be just? MR. LOYOLA-Dry. MR. STONE-It’ll be dry. MR. LOYOLA-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Would anyone else like to speak in favor of this application? Would anyone like to speak opposed? Opposed? Is there any correspondence? MR. HAYES-Yes, there is, but I have a question for the applicant myself. Mr. Kapoor, I've done some investigation into the flagging of motel units myself, and I was amazed at the amount of plans that were available for, even within franchises, that they had available, you know, computer driven. I guess my real question is, is this really an aesthetic, I mean, what is the real rationale? I mean, is 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/99) storage kind of illusionary, or is this really to comply with Sleep Inn’s demands, or are you really shooting to draw customers? MR. KAPOOR-No. What happens is Sleep Inn is a part of Choice Hotels International, which is a big, the second largest. MR. HAYES-They have four or five different flags within that group, right. MR. KAPOOR-They have Comfort Inn, Clarion Suites, that kind of thing. Like with a Comfort Inn, say, for instance, you owned an existing hotel and it was Jay’s Motel, okay, and you wanted to convert it into a Comfort Inn, there’s certain criteria you have to reach with them, but then you’d have to retrofit the hotel with some of the elements that they want to have, okay. MR. HAYES-They consistency. I guess I’m asking what your rationale is. I understand, I mean, they’re looking for consistency. MR. KAPOOR-Right, but what I’m saying is with Sleep Inn, it’s all new construction, and they’re very strict. I mean, down to, you can only pick three doorknobs, I mean, out of the specs. Everything is so specked out on Sleep Inn. They want to be like the McDonalds of hotels. You go to McDonalds in Saudi Arabia or you go to McDonalds in South Dakota, it’s the same thing, the same colors, the same kind of tile on the floor, the same color booths, same uniforms on the people behind the counter. MR. HAYES-Only new construction then, only? MR. KAPOOR-Yes. Sleep Inns are all new construction. It’s a new brand that they’re coming out with. There’s a few of them down South, but they’re much more strict on their specifications for this particular brand than they are with anything else, and we didn’t go with them because of that. We went with this concept because it’s so state-of-the-art, it’s a smart building. Everything from the computer system to the way people check in, to the way they check out, to our reservation system is completely state-of-the-art. That’s why we wanted to go with this kind of building. Being new construction, we’d start off with something really nice and fancy, I guess you would say. So that’s the reason why, we’re not just doing it because we want to bring in customers, I mean, it’s just, it’ll be a big fight for us to go to the other side of the coin and fight with Choice Hotels first of all, then pay our architect to lower this tower down, and that’s what we’re up against. MR. STONE-What price point are you talking about? What are you going to rent rooms for? MR. KAPOOR-It depends. On peak probably $60 to $80 a night, which is right in the demographic of what most people are charging around here, and actually maybe a little lower than others. What we’re trying to give you is superior service and amenities at a sensible price. That’s the whole concept. Kind of like Ponderosa. That kind of deal. Did I answer your question? MR. HAYES-Yes, you did. MR. KAPOOR-Okay. MR. HAYES-The correspondence, we have one letter from Marilyn J. VanDyke, Town Historian, Town of Queensbury Planning Board “Dear Board Members: I am writing in response to D & C Management Assoc. Inc.’s application to subdivide Tax Map 71-2-2 into a two lot subdivision. On the proposed Lot #2 I would ask that you please note the existence of the historic Blind Rock site just off the curve on Montray Road. Blind Rock has a legendary history as a stopping place midway between Fort Edward and Lake George. That travelers were often waylaid here is difficult to prove from first hand accounts. However, there are many references to the site in history and in land records to show it to be of historic significance. Many people in the town have requested that the site be preserved and noted for its importance on or near the old Military Road. A few years ago I presented the idea of creating a pocket park at the site to preserve the Rock and to note its importance in the community’s history. Such a park, if so dedicated, would be a good way to present to the public and to tourists to the area this important landmark. As the land parcel is being subdivided this would be a good time to consider the Blind Rock site. Sincerely yours, Marilyn J. Van Dyke, Ed.D. Town Historian” MR. THOMAS-Okay. What’s the date on that letter? MR. HAYES-The date is June 9, 1999. MR. THOMAS-Okay, and that’s it? MR. HAYES-That’s it. 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/99) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-Do you know where that Rock is on that? MR. LOYOLA-Yes, and we had an archeological study done, Phase IA done, conducted by Hardken Archeology, and there’s nothing in the State records that confirms the location of Blind Rock. They think that it’s a local, I don’t know what the exact term is, mythology, folklore, but since our hotel property is on the other side of Ponderosa, and is in a disturbed location, it really doesn’t effect the Blind Rock in any way. MR. STONE-I understand that. I was just curious as to where it might be on Lot 2. That was all. DAVID KAPOOR MR. D. KAPOOR-I have been trying, since I bought the land, to find it, but it’s just a piece of rock. It’s an interesting story that they used to bring people up there and take their eyes out and let them die until they starve to death. That’s the story I have heard. Now we were forced to do a Phase I study, and that says that we don’t have any indication of that in our geological letter, but we have gone to that statement when we developed the rear. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So you do own both these lots? MR. D. KAPOOR-Yes, the Ponderosa, we own that whole parcel. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Have you subdivided this yet? MR. D. KAPOOR-No. We are going to. MR. THOMAS-Yes. You have to get Planning Board approval to subdivide. MR. D. KAPOOR-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Does subdivision depend on this variance? MR. LOYOLA-No. MR. THOMAS-No? Okay. MR. D. KAPOOR-This is a very nice building You will be proud of it to take a look at it. It’s just been lying there for so many years, untidy, not nice looking. It will be a nice hotel. I think it will be a change. MR. STONE-There’s also one up on 20, also. MR. D. KAPOOR-Correct. MR. STONE-Two actually. MR. D. KAPOOR-Believe me, this is state-of-the-art, very fancy stuff here. I think time is also of the essence. We are pushing for it so we can start digging. MR. THOMAS-Yes. On this thing that you submitted with your application, this picture, it says, Sleep Inn, three story. Does Sleep Inn make a two story? MR. D. KAPOOR-No, sir. Sleep Inn goes to 5, 10, 11 stories. They’re all in the Mid-West and also in Orlando, but hotels are known as more than two stories. Two story means motel, and a motel has a different feel and approach. A hotel is different. You come in the lobby. You are taken to the right place, you take an elevator and to go your room. MR. STONE-You have to go through the lobby to get to your? MR. D. KAPOOR-Yes, sir. That’s the idea, and we are going to have (lost words) so it looks like something nice there. MR. STONE-You’re going to send all your guests to the Ponderosa? 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/99) MR. D. KAPOOR-Hopefully. MR. THOMAS-I think in the application you said this is 82 rooms? MR. LOYOLA-Correct. MR. D. KAPOOR-This will include suites, and also we will be having a swimming pool attached, a big sized swimming pool, and a meeting room, and as is, I am paying taxes on this property from the last 12 years. Now is the time to get something back on this property. MR. HAYES-It seems like a pretty good investment to me. MR. D. KAPOOR-Thank you, sir. It took me 10 years to decide that I should diversify from my line of business, from restaurants to hotels, and my son, Jay, now, he’s driving me. MR. STONE-But there will be no food in the hotel itself? There’s no restaurant? MR. LOYOLA-No. There’s a continental breakfast in the morning with just muffins and coffee and bagels. MR. STONE-That goes along with the room? MR. LOYOLA-Actually, there’s a little area that they serve it, in the lobby. MR. D. KAPOOR-Continental breakfast. It’s very nice. You can’t get in the room unless you pay for it. Special locks. Your own card will work on it. MR. STONE-I see, there’s a separate locked room. MR. D. KAPOOR-Right, and if you are only there for a day, and you have to check out by 12, if you come back at 1, you can’t use that card again, and each lock is about $900. It will be a nice thing for Queensbury to have. Queensbury deserves that type of fancy stuff. MR. THOMAS-The only thing that pops in mind on this is traffic and stuff like that. Because the proposed primary ingress and egress is between the traffic light and Weeks Road. MR. MC NALLY-That’s the Planning Board. MR. THOMAS-Yes. We heard it in the last meeting, though. MR. STONE-Well, we keep talking about doing something on Weeks Road, guys, realigning it or something like that with Sweet. MR. LOYOLA-Yes. The improvements that they’re doing on Sweet Road, the light that they’re putting on I think is going to help our situation out a little bit. We're proposing, obviously, no left hand turn out, just a right only, and we’re going to make use of, I think, once people come in to the property, they’re going to make use of the internal connections at both lights to use those. I think that would be in their best interest. Without the left hand turn out, I think we’ll. MR. STONE-So you can only go north out of there? MR. LOYOLA-Correct. MR. STONE-Just out of curiosity, this is, again, not our call, but you’re going to have people maybe coming off the Northway at Exit 19 looking for you. They’re going to come in, and then you’re going to send them to hell and gone to Exit 19. MR. LOYOLA-Well, it was a concern, but because it’s such a tight, the light is right there and is visible, I think inherently, people are going to go to the light. It’s the type of thing where it’s not something that they’re going to have to navigate through a lot of different parking areas and secondary access roads. MR. STONE-You’ll send them through Ponderosa? MR. LOYOLA-Ponderosa, yes. There’ll be a connector on Ponderosa. MR. D. KAPOOR-See, we have an advantage, because we own the Ponderosa. Otherwise, I wouldn’t be able to touch that property. 42 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/99) MR. STONE-Okay. MR. LOYOLA-So we think the internal circulation is going to work quite well. MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions? If not, lets talk about it. I’ll start with Dan. MR. STEC-Well, I don’t have a tremendous problem with it as proposed, I mean, I understand exactly what they’re asking for with that tower as far as its part of their corporate identity, and I imagine their hands are tied, to some extent, as they’ve already referred to, as to how far they can deviate to that. I’d like to see the tower a little lower, but in any event, if there’s a tower at all, there would be a variance because the peak of the building is a quarter inch below our height limit. So if there is a tower, there’s going to be a variance needed, and like I said, less is better, in my opinion, but if push comes to shove, as proposed right now, because of its, the same amount of footprint that that tower takes up, and it’s not the entire hotel, but just the one corner, I could be supportive of it. I think the benefits outweigh any detriment, but again, if the rest of the Board feels that they’d like to push for a compromise between 55 and 40 feet, I’d support that too. MR. THOMAS-All right. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I don’t have any problem with the tower. As Dan said, it’s not the whole roof, it’s just a small portion. I think it’s going to add to the appearance of the building, and I’d be inclined not to try to get a few feet off the top of it. I think if you’re going to have a tower there, you might just as well have the tower and balance it with the rest of the building, have it look right. So I’d be in favor. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jaime? MR. HAYES-I think I agree with Chuck and Dan. If this was a proposal for a two story motel and they wanted a 55 foot tower, I think it would represent a challenge along the lines of what they were attempting to accomplish, but in this particular circumstance, the tower is only marginally higher than the rest of the project, and it does occupy only a small amount of square footage. So on balance, I think that the benefit to the applicant, being that they’re going to be able to go with a flag that they choose to, and I’m presuming that they can make a good business decision along those lines, outweigh any negative impact on the neighborhood, which I personally don’t think there would be a lot of. It’s a heavily commercial area. They own the Ponderosa next door. So that’s the most immediately impacted neighbor, and so they’re only impacting themselves. So I can go along with this. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew? MR. STONE-I’m quite comfortable with the physical aspects of this variance. As I stated earlier, I am concerned that this be used as a billboard, and that we’ll discuss when the Sign Variance comes up. My first blush is that I don’t like a sign that high in the air in Queensbury. We’ve avoided those for a long time with our Sign Ordinance, and I probably will work very hard to keep it that way, but I still have to hear all the facts when we get there, but in terms of this particular physical tower, on a 40 foot high motel, I think it’s a good project. I think it will be a benefit to the immediate area and hopefully you will do well with it, maintain it and do good business, and I can go for this variance. MR. THOMAS-Okay, Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I agree with the rest of the Board members that the proposal to put this tower where it is on the plan is not going to have any substantial impact on the neighborhood or the community, and while it certainly exceeds our 40 foot requirement, all in all I’m in favor of it. MR. THOMAS-All right. I agree with the other Board members. In light of the fact that the tower is 55 feet high and the rest of the building is 40 feet high, I don’t think it’ll be much of an impact, and I also think the benefit to the applicant outweighs the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, and I think this is a good project for this site, something that’s been needed for a long time, and I will vote yes for it. Having said that, I would ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 57-1999 THE SLEEP INN, Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Daniel Stec: 43 State Route 9. The applicant proposes the construction of a 13,690 square foot 82 unit hotel, on the east side of New York State Route 9, between Sweet Road and Montray Road. The applicant has requested a 15-foot variance from the HC-1A maximum height allowance of 40 feet, so that they can construct a 55 foot high tower structure at the south end of the hotel building. The benefit to the applicant is that the building would be more visually appealing, that it would be in conformity with the franchise operation that they’re buying in to, and that there would be no modification required to 43 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/99) the elevator and stair systems contained in the tower. The feasible alternatives include reducing the overall height of the proposed tower, but this would constitute a major modification in cost as well as alter the corporate identity that the tower structure represents for the Sleep Inn chains. The relief, in my opinion, is minimal, due to the fact that the tower itself is only a small portion of the overall structure, and in and of itself, will not exceed the height requirement except to a minimal degree. The granting of this requested variance would have no effect on the neighborhood or community that anyone could characterize as negative, and given the fact that this is an empty lot, and something of an eyesore, would probably have a positive aesthetic effect on the character of the neighborhood. I do not find that the difficulty is self-created. For these reasons, I move that we approve this Area Variance. That by passing this motion, we’re not approving the depicted signage on the drawings that they’ve submitted with this application, that’s not part of the application before us. Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 1999, by the following vote: th MR. THOMAS-Okay. Before I ask if there’s any question on the motion, and ask for a second, this is an Unlisted Action, if I’m not mistaken. So we have to go through the Short Environmental Assessment Form, of which I do not find the applicant made out the first part. Am I right or wrong, Chuck? MR. VOSS-I believe you’re correct. MR. THOMAS-Okay. We can’t do the environmental assessment form until after we get one from them, but we can go through with the motion. MR. VOSS-Certainly. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Now, I will ask, is there any question on the motion? MR. STONE-Do we want to, since drawings were submitted with this application that show a sign on the tower, should be put a caveat in there? MR. THOMAS-You could if you want. They’re still going to need the variance, anyway. MR. MC NALLY-Well, what you’re asking, Lew, is that the motion include a provision that by passing this motion, we’re not approving the depicted signage on the drawings that they’ve submitted with this application? MR. STONE-Correct, that’s what I’m talking about. MR. MC NALLY-That’s not part of the application before us. MR. STONE-That is correct. I recognize that, but your statement is a good one. MR. MC NALLY-Then I modify my motion accordingly. AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham MR. THOMAS-And would you also note that we need to do a Short EAF on this, after the applicant has filled one out? All right. So we just need a Short Environmental Assessment Form to make everything nice and legal. So you’re all set. MR. LOYOLA-Thank you, sir. MR. THOMAS-You’re quite welcome. AREA VARIANCE NO. 58-1999 TYPE II LC-42A CEA MARGARET W. BOLEN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 2445 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT HAS BEGUN CONSTRUCTION OF A 93.5 SQ. FT. ADDITION AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 6/9/99 TAX MAP NO. 20-1-11 LOT SIZE: 9.89 ACRES SECTION 179-13 ROBERT BOLEN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT 44 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/99) Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 58-1999, Margaret W. Bolen, Meeting Date: June 16, 1999 “Project Location: 2445 Ridge Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes the construction of a 93.5 square foot addition on to their single family home for use as a combination laundry, bathroom and second entryway. Relief Required: The applicant is requesting approximately seventy-one (71 +/-) feet of relief from the LC-42A minimum frontage allowance of One Hundred (100) feet, by proposing to construct a 93.5 square foot structure on the east side of the existing, nonconforming single-family dwelling. This new addition will be only twenty-nine (29 +/-) feet from the front property line (Ridge Road). Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: This 94 square foot portion of the building will provide a covered entry and exit, first floor laundry and small bathroom off the existing kitchen/family room area. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives might include relocating the proposed addition to the west side of the building, or not construct the addition. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: The relief requested from the minimum frontage requirements can be considered as moderate given the fact there had been a porch structure at this location previously, and that no additional encroachment into the right of way will occur as this end of the dwelling is situated farther back from the front property line than the southern end of the structure. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: The granting of the requested variance would not have an adverse effect upon the neighborhood due to the fact that the proposed addition will be within the previous footprint of an existing porch structure. Additionally, the proposed modifications to the dwelling will potentially increase the home’s value and that of its surrounding neighbors. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? This difficulty can be considered as being self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Staff comments: The requested relief does not appear to be significant, nor does it affect any right of way issues on Ridge Road. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. HAYES-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form 3 June 1999 Project Name: Margaret Bolen County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Terry Ross” MR. THOMAS-Mr. Bolen, nice to see you again. MR. BOLEN-Hi. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is there anything else that you want to add to the application there? MR. BOLEN-I did want to publicly thank Craig Brown. Once it was determined that we did need a variance, he was extremely helpful and very patient with us. I did share a couple of concerns with him. One was the fact that my folks were hoping to move in in July, and the second was that I voiced a concern that once again, since it was determined that the variance was needed, and we had that part of the structure up, that you guys were going to be ticked off at us, but he assured me that because of the extenuating circumstances here, and I’m not sure if you folks were all aware of that, that that most likely wouldn’t be the case, hopefully, and the other thing was, once it was determined that the variance was needed, he asked that we not do anymore on that part, which we haven’t, and I told him that when you guys went over to look at it, it kind of looks like a box. There’s a Dutch door going in the end, and we have another smaller window going in the front. So I wanted to bring that out, and that’s pretty much it, other than it’s already been pointed out that the house was built around the 1860’s. My folks have had it for about 18 years, and there was a 300, give or take, square foot enclosed front porch on the main part of the building that was almost right on top of the road, and it had a concrete slab. That was taken down. We removed the concrete slab about two years ago, and the smaller porch to the side, where the present building is for the entry, that was taken down, too, for safety reasons. We provided Craig with some pictures, you know, showing that there was something there before, and I guess that’s all that we have to say, unless you guys have any questions. The one other thing I wanted to mention, we had no idea we weren’t in compliance here. We got footing inspections for that, framing inspection, and we weren’t doing anything that we thought we shouldn’t have been doing. So, here I am. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Any questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-Okay. The Town did inspect your footings? MR. BOLEN-Yes. Do you need to see that? MR. STONE-No. I’m just surprised, if they did and they didn’t tell you you needed a variance. MR. BOLEN-I guess there’s a part of the law that says that if you had a structure there before, that it was taken down a year and a half ago or more, that it’s not considered. MR. HAYES-It was grandfathered probably. 45 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/99) MR. BOLEN-Yes, right. This is not encroaching on anything that wasn’t there. MR. STONE-Is it possible, I know this is a condition of the lot. There’s a lot of blue tarp around. There’s an old car there. Is it possible that these can be cleaned up some way? MR. BOLEN-Yes. My dad’s been asking me to do that for a couple of weeks. MR. STONE-Well, we could put it as a condition of the variance, if you want. MR. BOLEN-No. The tarp directly in front is covering the siding that’s going back on that house. Okay. That’s not junk, and the other tarp on the other side is covering, if not garbage, it’s wood that’s going to be removed. I could do that tomorrow. MR. STONE-You look at a piece of property, and obviously it’s a very old piece of property, and you hate to see what happens in other parts of town on this piece of property. MR. BOLEN-Absolutely. Right. MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-I want to know where you got this survey from 1930. I think it’s wonderful, Fort George to Braydon, whatever that is. Where’s Braydon? MR. THOMAS-All right. If there’s no more questions for the applicant, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? Any correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HAYES-Yes, there is. Okay. I have a letter from Robert L. Schultz, 2458 Ridge Road, Queensbury, NY, dated June 16, 1999, to Bonnie M. Lapham, Secretary, Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Queensbury, re: Area Variance No. 58-1999 “Dear Mrs. Lapham: We are in favor of the renovation work underway by the Bolens at 2445 Ridge Road, and would expect the Board to approve any and all variance requests.” Signed the Schultzs. Okay. I have another letter dated June 14, 1999, from Ronald W. Williamson, “As proprietor of the County Store across from the Charles Ward Farm and Homestead currently being restored by the Bolen Family, I am pleased to note and compliment the very fine accomplishments, to date, with the restoration of this 1860 Homestead. We all knew and respected Charlie and Bernice and are confident they would be pleased with the good restoration work being done by the Bolens’ son Robert who also compliments our area with his fine efforts as Vice Chairman of the Lake George School Board. I am pleased to support this restoration. Ron Williamson” June 14, 1999, Town of Queensbury, “To Whom It May Concern: I have a business adjoining the former Charles Ward property that is being restored by the Bolen family of Pilot Knob, in very good taste, with traditional colonial styling. As a businessman with both personal and business interest in our area, I would say that the Bolens have made a good start with very fine efforts with the old place which dates back to the mid-1800’s. In all respects I’d say that the restoration has been done in good taste, and I understand that the Bolens are most anxious to avoid further delays, complete the work, and move in. I would urge the Town to approve and compliment their work that has been completed because, in my view, it compliments our beautiful area by the lake. I am pleased to express my view. Sincerely, Michael DiPalma, neighbor of the Bolens.” That is it. MR. THOMAS-That does it? I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for the applicant? All right. Lets talk about it. We’ll start with Mr. Stone. MR. STONE-Well, it’s so interesting to know all of this background, which obviously I did not have when I looked at the property, and my only concern about the property was, can we clean it up a little bit, and that's what’s going on, and I think it’s great. Obviously, it’s too close to the road, but it was there. It’s been too close to the road, too close to the property line. Lets not talk about the road, because if we talk about the road, then we have to get into the right-of-way. We're talking to the property line. I think it’s a fine project. I wish that, if in fact as you say, that you were inspected, that someone told you you should get a variance earlier so that you wouldn’t have to have waited this long, but I certainly can go along with this variance request. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob? 46 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/99) MR. MC NALLY-I think the relief is substantial, but given that it’s an existing structure, and that the addition’s really not going to impact on Ridge Road whatsoever, I have no problem with it. MR. THOMAS-All right. Dan? MR. STEC-I agree with the other Board members. It’s also mitigated, in my mind, by the fact that it’s over top of an old footprint, and the rest of the structure is that close. So I've got no problem with it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I basically feel the same as the other members of the Board. It’s in the former footprint. I think it’s going to add to the attractiveness of the building. I don’t have a problem with it. MR. THOMAS-All right. Jaime? MR. HAYES-I agree. I mean, as far as the effects on the neighborhood, everybody seems to be very pleased with the renovation, and I think it looks good. It’s a great job, and I have no problem at all. MR. THOMAS-All right. I agree with the other Board members. This is an existing house. There was, at one point in time, a porch at that point. This is in an LC-42 zone, which means that the setback is 100 feet from the road. I do believe with the new zoning that this is going to be changed to conform more with what’s there, and I don’t see any problem whatsoever with it. So, having said that, I will ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 58-1999 MARGARET W. BOLEN, Introduced by Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally: 2445 Ridge Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 93.5 square foot addition on their single family home for use as a combination laundry/bathroom, and second entry way. The relief required specifically is the applicant needs approximately 71 feet of relief from the LC-42A minimum footage allowance of 100 feet, by construction of a 93.5 square foot structure on the east side, with the existing nonconforming single family dwelling. This new addition will be only 29 feet from the front property line. Criteria for considering the Area Variance, according to Chapter 267 of Town Law, Benefit to the applicant is that this 94 square foot portion of the building will provide covered entry and exit for laundry and a small bathroom along the existing family room area. Feasible alternatives might include relocating the proposed addition to the west side of the building, or no construction. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The relief requested from the minimal footage requirement could be considered moderate, given the fact that there had been a porch structure at this location previously, and no additional encroachment into the right-of-way will occur as this end of the building is situated farther back from the front property line than the southern end of the structure. The granting of the requested variance will not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood, due to the fact that the proposed addition will be within the previous footprint of an existing porch structure. Additionally, the proposed modifications to the dwelling will potentially increase the home’s value and that of its neighbors. Recognizing that this difficulty could be considered self-created, nevertheless, I recommend we approve this variance. Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stec, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham MR. THOMAS-There you go. So you’re all set. MR. BOLEN-Thank you very much. MR. STONE-Now, clean it up, too, make mom happy. MR. THOMAS-We have two or three minutes to approve. CORRECTION OF MINUTES January 20, 1999: NONE 47 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/99) MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 20, 1999, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stec, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham April 21, 1999: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE ZONING BOARD MINUTES OF APRIL 21, 1999, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption seconded by Paul Hayes: Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stec, Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham May 19, 1999: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE ZONING BOARD MINUTES OF MAY 19, 1999, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Daniel Stec: Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stec, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Thomas, Chairman 48