Loading...
2000-05-17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING MAY 17, 2000 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN PAUL HAYES CHARLES MC NULTY ALLAN BRYANT CHARLES ABBATE NORMAN HIMES ROBERT MC NALLY CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 22-2000 TYPE II SFR-1A PROSPECT CHILD & FAMILY CENTER OWNER: PROSPECT CHILD & FAMILY CENTER 133 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES EXPANSION OF THE SCHOOL’S FACILITIES. THE PROPOSAL INCLUDES A 2,740 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO THE “MAIN CENTER” AND A 8,100 SQ. FT. TWO STORY ADDITION TO THE “SCHOOL” BUILDING. APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS OF THE SFR-1A ZONE. CROSS REF. SPR 10-2000 TAX MAP NO. 82-3-1, 2/82-2-6/90-1-2.2 LOT SIZE: 3.01 ACRES, 1.44 ACRES, 1.90 ACRES, 0.36 ACRES SECTION 179-20 JON LAPPER & RICHARD JONES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. STONE-Read the tabling motion and then read Staff Notes. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. This is regarding Area Variance No. 22-2000, Prospect Child & Family Center, Aviation Road. The matter was tabled on March 15, 2000, “Motion to Table Area Variance No. 22-2000 Prospect Child & Family Center, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally: Until the first meeting in April, at the request of the applicant. Duly adopted this 15 day of March, 2000, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Abbate, th Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Himes” STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 22-2000, Prospect Child & Family Center, Meeting Date: May 17, 2000 “Project Location: Aviation Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of an 8,100 sf addition to the school building as well as construction of necessary associated parking and drives. Relief Required: Applicant requests 21,014.5 sf of relief from the 73,062.5 sf maximum impermeable area allowed by the SFR-1A zone, § 179-20. The maximum allowable impermeable area is limited to 35% of the area of the parcel. The applicant’s proposal depicts an existing 34.3% coverage with a proposed 45.1% final coverage. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to expand the existing structure and potentially increase the quality and quantity of services provided. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include a smaller addition footprint and limiting the parking spaces and access drives. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 10.1% (21,014.5 sf) relief from the 35% maximum allowable impermeable coverage may be interpreted as moderate. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal adverse effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The existing impermeable conditions on the site are currently above the allowable limitations, any proposed increase of this condition should be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 4-93 res. 1/26/93 portable office trailer SP 36-98 res. 5/17/98 extension to maintain portable office trailer SP 11-2000 res. pending addition to school, parking and site improvements Staff comments: Minimal to moderate adverse impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The stormwater control report, submitted to the Planning Board for site plan review should address drainage issues related to this request. Will adding levels above the existing building be feasible; in order to limit lot coverage? SEQR Status: Type II” 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) MR. STONE-It should be noted, and I know you’re going to say it, Mr. Lapper. It should be noted that kind of in the tabling motion, it was tabled at the applicant’s request, and also why don’t you read this letter that we received about the addition of buying the 30 feet, just read it into the record, since we have it written. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. This is a letter from Jonathan C. Lapper, addressed to Laura Moore, Assistant Planner, Town of Queensbury, regarding Prospect Child & Family Center, Site Plan application and area variance application, “Dear Laura: The revised site plan maps which were delivered to the Town yesterday include the acquisition of a 30’ wide parcel which runs along the western property line by the administration building. By this letter I hereby request that both the site plan application and the area variance application be amended to include this parcel which is tax map number 90-1-2.2. The agency authorization form will be delivered to you by Dave Little, attorney for the seller, Trudy Van Dusen. Very Truly Yours, Jonathan C. Lapper” MR. STONE-And as I understand this is why the numbers were changed from the first application, and having said that, why don’t you tell us about it? MR. LAPPER-Certainly. Good evening. For the record, my name is Jon Lapper. To my right is Larry Gouge, the Executive Director of Prospect, and to my left is Dick Jones, the project architect. I’d also like to mention that I’m a member of the Board of Directors of Prospect School. We started the project out, we made a submission to the Planning Board, and at that time, we realized that we needed area variances for green space, and the area variance is required because, although a school is a permitted use in the SFR-1A zone, the zone provided for a 65% green space requirement. So it doesn’t distinguish, even though it’s a single family zone, and a school and a church are permitted uses, probably the Ordinance should specify that schools and churches are different than homes and have different site standards, but it doesn’t. So that’s really why we’re here, but nevertheless, since we know that we have a lovely residential neighborhood behind the building on the south side. After we had made our submission, we had a neighborhood meeting. Some of the neighbors were quite concerned because they’re right behind the project, and we had a two hour meeting at the Prospect School to try and talk about making some minor project changes, to try and accommodate them, mostly in terms of screening, visual issues, and at that meeting, it was suggested that, hey, since the City of Glens Falls Watershed has all this property to the north, maybe you could acquire some property and move some things around. Well, it turns out our neighbor to the west, I think it’s actually a 33 foot wide parcel, although my letter said 30 feet. We were ultimately able to get that under contract, which allowed us to increase the green space, and also to move the parking away from the neighbors to the rear. Dick will go through this in a minute, but as a result of that, we think we have a better project. We’re asking for less of a variance, but we also think that, under the circumstances, given the beneficial nature of this use, the fact that it’s going to be 55% green, rather than 65% green, is not significant, and part and parcel of this project is to add significant landscaping, which is really lacking, certainly on the south side of Aviation Road, and architecturally, the building is at least boring now and what’s proposed is an architectural upgrade that’s really nice. So I think, visually, it’s going to look a lot better than what’s there now. I’d just like to start off, turn the mic over to Larry and ask him to just explain why the Center has the need for the expansion. LARRY GOUGE MR. GOUGE-Good evening. I’m Larry Gouge, Executive Director of Prospect Child & Family Center, and we provide educational and other support services, mostly to children in the Warren/Washington and Northern Saratoga area, and we’re actually celebrating our 50 Anniversary. th So we’ve been around for a while, and we’ve been in this location for over 20 years. We’re experiencing some growth, mostly through referrals from Warren and Washington County for children with disabilities, and have been increasing the number of staff and others to support our programs, and this has been a problem for some time now, and this project has been developed to alleviate that issue, and with this project, we feel that we can adequately serve the children for now, and into the future years, for some time to come, who have developmental disabilities in our area. MR. JONES-For the record, my name is Richard Jones. I’m the architect for the project. What I’d like to do is give you just a brief overlay of what we’re proposing to do. I’ll start out by indicating what’s existing on the site plan. This block in here is the existing single story Prospect School. This building over here is the existing single story administration building. It’s a blue building that sits there on the site. We’re proposing a building addition to the Prospect School that would basically attach to the west end of the existing School and sit between that and the Administration Building. The front portion, this block right here, is a two story addition. This is a single story addition on the back side. The two story addition is a combination of offices and conferencing space for Staff. The single story addition on the back side is an addition for a therapy pool for the Center. The existing parking that you’re looking at here is currently existing on the site. It has both an ingress/egress on both sides. The existing parking on the west side of the property ends approximately there, and does not include this row of parking that we’re adding as part of the project. With the addition of the space, it is not a typical school, in regard to the zoning standards. The standards for the Town 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) indicate, I believe it’s three parking spaces per classroom for an elementary school and four for a high school. The Prospect Child & Family Center, the ratio of staff to students is much higher, and that’s one of the reasons that we’re adding additional parking to the site. Our requirements are more like eight to ten per classroom, versus three to four, which would be typical for either an elementary or a high school. We looked at picking up the property to the west side, this parcel in here that’s approximately 31 to 33 feet in width from end to end, and it runs from Aviation Road to the back side, which is adjacent to the residences on the back side. We’ve added that, which allowed us to add one row of parking along the perimeter or the west boundary of the proposed property. We’re still looking at approximately 25 feet from the edge of the parking to that property line. This property on this side I believe is currently owned by the Glens Falls Watershed. The property to the backside is residential, and the residences sit at approximately 80 feet to the back property line. This dotted line that I’ve shown here indicates the back side or the back setback for those residences on that property. I think the biggest thing that we’re looking at, currently, with the parking that we have in here, which is for the Administration Building, we’re looking to increase the parking in this area, which would allow us to have a direct access into the building addition, both for the therapy pool, and the staff and administrative areas within the building. The parking, what we’re attempting to do is set this up so that this is an enter only entrance into that parking lot. Currently, you can go in and out. One of our concerns is the sight distance to the west direction. The pumping station, the chlorine building for Glens Falls Water Treatment, sits very close to Aviation Road, and there is a natural kink in the road. So your sight lines to the west are very bad. So what we’re looking to do is create a one way entrance into it, provide parking on both sides of the entry drive, and then have a connection drive into the back side of this parking lot, so that people would be coming in, and this would be both ingress and egress for vehicles. This is ingress only for buses. All buses would come around and go out on this side. What we’re attempting to do is get traffic away from this entry, in an exiting situation, plus get traffic away from the Mountainview Lane intersection in an exiting situation also, so that basically, all exiting on the site will take place at this location. We’ve basically been able to limit all of the parking to the west side of the property. We have maintained as much green space as possible in the back. We currently have a fenced playground that we’ll be modifying slightly, and bringing the fence to the corner of the new building. We have existing septic fields in this general area for the existing building. Our proposed new septic is in the back area here. We have maintained and continue the on site drainage systems which are infiltration trenches along the parking areas. We’re doing infiltration, again, across the back side to collect any stormwater runoff that may be created. Basically, the building addition that we’re looking at, as I said, the front portion, or this block is a two story addition. The buildings will basically have flat roofs, but we’ll be looking to create some peaked roof areas on there as well, and maintaining the height below the requirement for the zoning in the Town. On the backside, what we’re attempting to do here is create a buffer zone. Before we were looking at being able to pick up this slim piece of property to the west side, we had created a drive around with parking on the back side. When we had that arrangement, we were actually within 55 feet of the property line. With the revised arrangement that we have now, we’ve been able to create a separation here of 70 feet from the drive to the back property, and we’re about 140 feet now versus 102 feet, I think, that we had originally on this side. The other thing that we’re looking to do is actually create a landscape buffer planted along the back side. We would also continue that through the existing high tree line that exists here along the back side of the existing parking, and bring it around onto the east side as well, supplementing this with low pine trees to create a natural buffer. This, I think, will help us on the back side and stop the infiltration of light through to the back properties. We’ve also taken and any new lighting that we’ve provided on site as strictly down lighting with cutoffs on them. We’re looking at light poles with motion detection sensing on them that will only come on when traffic goes through. We want to maintain as low a light level on the back area as we can. Lighting in the parking lot itself will be from a series of bollards along the walks, and existing light and new lighting on the building itself. So we’re going to be washing this parking area from these buildings only, to try and eliminate the wash of light into the adjacent properties. We have added a fair amount of landscaping to the site. The proposed building addition will be landscaping, both along the Aviation Road side will also be supplementing the planting for the existing building and creating a row of street sized maples along the roadway, along Aviation. We feel we’ve provided something that really meets the needs of the facility, for the long term, plus is able to buffer to the residential zones to the south and to the east as well. MR. STONE-Is that it? MR. JONES-Yes. MR. STONE-Any questions of the applicant? I have one, just for the record, Staff says will adding levels above the existing building or buildings be feasible? I understand the school building, I’m sure you’re talking one story, but the administration building, is it possible to go above that, and to? MR. JONES-Yes. The existing Prospect School is a single story steel frame building. Basically, the foundations have been designed for single story. The roof structure has been designed only to carry roof load. In order to convert that to a second floor above that space, we would basically have to reinforce the existing foundations and re-do the roof on that. The existing Administration Building 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) is basically a single story, stick framed, I think it was a BOCES structure originally. It was a prototype that BOCES had done for like a modular type building. It was utilized for an office building on site, and it was actually, at the same time a portion was added in the back, but it is all single story, and it is wood framed. It just has a wood truss roof on it. In order to make that two story, again, I think you’d have to tear the roof off, and it would be major reconstruction of the foundations as well, because basically everything is designed for single story, in both of those buildings. MR. STONE-You’re confident, and of course we have to talk about the permeability, but the Planning Board has to talk about how you’re going to take care of the water, but you’re confident that any water generated on the site will be disposed of on site? MR. JONES-Yes. We’re collecting and infiltrating everything on site, whether it be from newly created paved areas or newly created roof areas. Currently, the buildings themselves, the Prospect School is a flat roofed building, as I’ve said. It has a series of interior roof drains on the roof. We’ll be doing a similar thing on the building additions, and infiltrating everything to drywells on site. It has proved successful for the existing buildings, and the percolation in that area is very good. So we feel confident that we can do that with the building additions as well. This will give you an indication of what we’re looking at for the building. The lower elevation that you’re looking at, this to my left is the existing single story Prospect School. It’s basically a flat roofed building. Currently, this is the end of that building. This is the single story Administrator Building. It’s basically a single story wood framed building, peaked roofs. What we’re looking to do, as I indicated before, was a two story addition on the front side, which is this portion. Aviation Road is to this side. This is an actual elevation of the west side of the new building addition. We’re looking at creating some peaked roofs to tie it to the existing single story peaked roof building, plus the flat roofs carrying through the theme of the materials and the colors for the brick from this building. Part of the project also entails putting a new brick material on the existing Administration Building as well. So we’d be taking the blue siding off of that and re-siding that building, but as you can see, it’s a series of pitched roofs and flat roofs, arched windows. What we’re attempting to do is create more of a campus atmosphere for the buildings on the site, and try to unify them with colors and materials. MR. STONE-The only other question that I have is that trailer on site. That’s one the one that you got a site plan approval? MR. JONES-That is gone. That trailer is gone. That was a modular unit that was brought on. MR. STONE-Well, how about the box that’s sitting there, Fort Ann Express, sitting on the back of the Administration Building property? MR. GOUGE-That’s holding materials for our Festival of Trees, and that’ll be gone. MR. STONE-Okay, but it’s been there two months, since the last time we. MR. LAPPER-It’ll be gone when? MR. GOUGE-With the addition of the building. MR. STONE-Okay. It will not remain on the property? MR. GOUGE-Correct. MR. STONE-Okay. That’s the only question I had. Any other questions? MR. ABBATE-Counselor submitted a letter to the Chairman here, indicating that it may be possible to purchase an adjacent parcel of property. It may be possible. Has this come to a conclusion? You’ve actually purchased it? MR. LAPPER-Yes. We have it under contract to purchase it, and we’ll close after we receive site plan approval. We now have it under contract. MR. ABBATE-Has the stormwater control report actually been submitted to the Planning Board? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. ABBATE-It has, and it’s addressing all the issues that we’ve talked about here? MR. LAPPER-Yes. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) MR. ABBATE-There are a large number of residents, several I spoke to, who were concerned about this, and you indicated that you met with a large number of residential neighbors. Did you come across opposition to that? MR. LAPPER-Well, we met twice. We met the first time about five weeks ago, probably, and the second time last week. Last week most of the people we met with were very appreciative that we were able to buy the land and move the parking facilities away from them, and we talked about the screening that we have proposed, and I think that people were a lot happier at the same time I think that, even though the houses were built after the School was there, some people would prefer that they didn’t have the School there. At the same time, their complaints, their concerns didn’t really relate to the operation of the School at all. What they’re concerned about, as they expressed it to us, was kids coming in and using this property as an access to get into the City Watershed property to hang out and drink beer and ride motorcycles, which is certainly a trespass of our property. It’s nothing that is invited, and it’s not the employees of this facility. So it’s just an unfortunate situation because there’s a large wooded area next door owned by the City, really a police enforcement action, and that was really the biggest issue. One woman came in to the meeting last week with a plastic bag full of dirty beer bottles that she said the found in the woods on our property, but in the woods behind her home, at some point. So there is some activity going on, but that’s just because neighborhood kids are hanging out there. That was really the main issue, and it really didn’t have to do with the operation of the School adjacent to their property. I see some of them here, and I’m sure they’ll tell you about it. MR. STONE-All right. If you’re all right, Chuck, we’ll open the public hearing and let them speak. Any other questions before I do? MR. BRYANT-Have you gotten any correspondence from any of the neighbors? MR. STONE-We’ll get that with the public hearing. MR. BRYANT-Okay. MR. STONE-If we have any, we’ll find out when we open the public hearing. Okay. Everybody happy? All right. I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of the application? In favor of the application? Hearing none, anybody opposed to the application? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED LEVI BROWN MR. BROWN-My name is Levi Brown. I live at 37 Willow Road in Queensbury, and before I get to the comments that I had noted here, I’d like to publicly thank the officials of Prospect School for allowing about 15 of us to, we requested a meeting with them in February, on the 9. We went and th met with them once, gave them our ideas. They revised the plan a little bit, and then we met as Mr. Lapper said, I think it was last Tuesday on the 9, and again discussed issues and it was an amicable th meeting, and we appreciate the time that they gave us. I’d also like to say to any of the comments here, like I think one of the gentlemen just said, we all know that Prospect School does a terrific job, and it makes me uncomfortable sitting here talking about Prospect School and maybe making some proposals for changes when I know that it’s a terrific school. They do a terrific job, and they’re well thought of in the community. So with that in mind, I’d like to focus my comments on the site plan for the south side of Aviation Road for just a minute. First of all, I think that the building project is just too extensive for the lot size that they have. Being more specific, if this plan is approved as currently proposed, as it was stated earlier, the percentage of non-permeable land on the south side of Aviation Road will increase from 34% to 45.1%. This exceeds the non-permeable limit set by the Queensbury Zoning regulations for single family residential zones, by 29%. That’s a significant amount over the limit. Approximately, just short of an acre of trees and vegetation will be removed to build the parking lots and roadways and buildings that they propose on the south side of Aviation, and of course clearing land can increase runoff, can increase flooding that now occurs in the back yards and basements of a couple of the houses on the south side, and even in spite, as we all know, and I’m not an engineer, but even with sloping of a road and infiltration trenches, during the frozen season in the frozen North, which lasts maybe five months, those trenches are somewhat effective but not completely effective, and as you can see from the pictures I gave you, taken from the back of our, inside our house at the doorway, there’s flooding in our back yard, and occasionally a little bit in the cellar, but our neighbor to the right has had on, I think two occasions, several inches of water in their cellar, and with all the snow and with all the rain, and with the sloping as you can see on the contour lines on the site plan, I think it’s about a three foot decline from Aviation Road towards Willow Road. So it’s natural that when things thaw in the spring, that water would flow that way. Also, and this is, I think this is related to the permeable land. When you cut trees to build, you’re losing the noise and visual barriers that the trees and vegetation provide, and being that we’re 70 feet from our property line to the beginning of the road, as the pictures will show you, even in the winter 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) without vegetation you can see the buildings, and certainly we’ll be able to see a 35 foot high building, much more readily than a single story building that currently exists there. So what I’d like to do is make a couple of proposals for this Board to consider. One is to eliminate five spaces on either side at the south end of that Administration Building parking area. Right now, the Administration parking area allows ingress and egress. What they propose is to make that one way in with a back road across the back and have them exit on the east side onto Aviation Road. That will be a road. I know it’s technically called a drive, but it will be 20 feet wide, and I’m not sure of the measurement, I’m guessing, but it’s 200 and roughly 70 to 80 feet long, and that will be coming behind the existing buildings and the new building, and running along the length of three of the properties to the rear, and it just bothers me a little bit that I chose not to sit in my front yard in a lawn chair to watch the cars go by, and I really wouldn’t like to do that in the back yard, if at all possible. So if that Administration parking area which now I think has 26 spaces and it will be increased a proposal of 63, why can’t it be continued to be two ways? There is a small safety issue because the chlorine building just to the west of the entrance is there, and as you exit, it’s a little tough to see, but if you’re careful and sort of peek out, you can get a line of vision to your left and exit safely, and when we asked people from Prospect if they ever remembered an accident taking place at that entrance, they couldn’t remember if there was one there. Again, this is not a matter for this Board, but by having the Town or the County Highway Department erect a couple of school zone signs on Aviation say for maybe a 25 mile per hour speed limit, that would slow people down, and that would make the entrances and exits from Prospect School a lot safer for everybody. I did ask earlier for a consideration to reduce the number of parking spaces by 10, and I did, and I’m a little embarrassed by this, but I did, during the month of February near the end and early March, go around at different times during the day and count the number of parking spaces at Prospect School, and I did it at different times of each day to try to come up with a common average, and I think the copies that I gave you indicated that at certain times of the day there are from 19 to 35 available spaces for people to park, not including handicapped parking. I guess I’d like to conclude by saying that it’s important to remember that, I think, that all people and all facilities and all homeowners that reside within a certain zone should comply with those regulations, and as it states, as you’re well aware, in the Town of Queensbury Code book, the purpose for single family residential zones are established where the character is strictly single family detached residences on standardized lots. This character will be strictly enforced and preserved throughout the single family residential zones. I’d also like to point out that there are 68 single family homes that are within 500 feet of the property line of Prospect School. I think what they’re doing is terrific, but I think it will also have a serious environmental impact on the neighbors directly to the south of their property. So I would hope that you would consider my proposal and any others that might appear before you this evening. Are there any questions that any of you have about anything I’ve covered? MR. BRYANT-Would you mind showing us on the site plan which parking spaces you wanted to eliminate? MR. BROWN-I’m talking, I just called it the Administration Building parking area, because here’s the Administration Building, and this is the current parking, correct me if I’m wrong, but I think there are 26 spaces on the east side, and they’re lengthening it to about 31 or 32, and with their acquired parking, they’re running parking along the west side. What I was proposing was cutting back a few of the parking spaces to the rear, and omitting the road and keeping this area both ingress and egress. Granted it’s a little tough to see to your west or left when you exit, but it’s been safely done to this point. MR. STONE-Thank you, Mr. Brown. MR. BROWN-Any other questions? MR. ABBATE-Would you please be kind enough just to clear up your statistical information that you’ve submitted here? You indicate on Monday, February 28, an example, at 11 a.m., there were th eight unoccupied spaces. Now that does not include the four handicapped spaces, is that what you’re telling us? MR. BROWN-Right. MR. ABBATE-So eight plus four were unoccupied? MR. BROWN-Well, okay, I’m sorry. On February 28, at the School parking lot facility, and I call it th by my own name, the big lot to the east, there were eight unoccupied spaces. Most of those are filled most of the time because it’s more convenient for people to park there to get to work than in the other lot. Then the Administration Building, there were 18 unoccupied spaces. So that meant at that particular time on that particular day, there were 26 available. MR. ABBATE-I understand. Thank you very much. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) MR. STONE-But the handicapped, there were four. Were they occupied or unoccupied at that point? MR. BROWN-I honestly can’t remember. I didn’t count them because I didn’t think it was appropriate, because by law I think you have to provide handicapped parking, whether they’re taken or not. I assume maybe one or two might have been available. MR. STONE-Let me just ask a question for the record of the applicant. How many parking spaces are there in both lots currently? MR. JONES-At the Prospect School in the Administration site there’s currently 127, and at the Center on the other side there’s 22. Currently, for both buildings, there’s a total of 144. MR. STONE-And 26 at this point in time were unoccupied, according to Mr. Brown’s observation. Okay. Any other questions? MR. HIMES-Do you have any idea say the elimination of the driveway in back, and some of the parking spaces will have on the non-permeable percentage, and in connection with that, there were a couple of different figures mentioned in terms of single family residence, non-permeable. It’s 35% non-permeable? MR. C. BROWN-Correct, right, per Code. MR. STONE-That’s the Code, 35% in the SFR, just for the record, in the SR zone it’s 50% for one acre. It has no bearing on this thing, but since the applicant did talk about this is a school, and schools are allowed in both zones. It ought to be on the record, that’s all. MR. HIMES-It’s 45% is what’s being requested? MR. C. BROWN-Correct. MR. BROWN-And if the back road was eliminated with a couple of parking spaces, I believe it would be close to 42, 42 and a half percent, instead of 45. So it would still be over the 35%. MR. STONE-Any other questions of Mr. Brown? All right. MR. BROWN-Thank you very much. MR. STONE-Anybody else wishing to speak opposed to the application? Opposed? DON THORNE MR. THORNE-My name is Don Thorne, and I live at 41 Willow Road. I am one of the abutting neighbors on the south side of the Prospect School property. I did want to, I guess, agree with Mr. Brown’s comments, and also, likewise, thank the Prospect School for offering us the opportunity to discuss their plan with them twice. I do agree that their plan as presented now is certainly an improvement upon the original plan that was introduced back in February. My concerns are that the School itself, as Mr. Lapper said, the School was there before the residences were, and that is true. The School in its original form, which was a very tiny building on the north side. Since that time, since the homes were built, it basically, in the mid to late 80’s, there’s been several additions to the School already, and that parking lot, the large parking lot to the left side, has been expanded greatly. So there is some very real concern about the neighbors, that continued expansion is gobbling up the property, and is becoming a definite distraction to the neighborhood itself. I think also that the School, being a, I guess somewhat has special status in a residential area, but I think since it is in a strongly residential area, that I don’t think an automatic exemption for the School should be to the zoning requirements of the residences. I guess my third concern is the precedent that this building sets. This is a large, two story commercial appearing building, that is completely different from anything within a mile of this present site. My concern is that none of us neighbors has an objection to Prospect School and what they do, but if Prospect School should ever leave this site for whatever reason, there exists a large commercial building which will, I think, be automatically converted to commercial use, and not a school, and I would be very concerned about that. That’s all. Thank you. MR. STONE-It’s not a permissible use. School is a permissible use. Other things would require a variance or a zoning change or a lot more involvement, if it ever came to pass. The other thing, and your points are both well taken, but I want to remind everybody that we’re dealing with a very narrow point here. We are not discussing whether the School should be expanded, in the sense that it’s going to be a bigger building. We’re concerned here with, is there going to be too much impermeable area on the site. That’s the only point that we’re talking about, and you’ve been on point. I’m not saying you haven’t, but I want to remind everybody that this is not the forum to argue 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) whether the School should be expanded or not, except as far as permeability of the property is concerned. I just want everybody to recognize. I mean, there will be other forums to, if we were to grant this, there is still site plan approval that has to go through the Planning Board, and the opportunity to discuss concerns again exists at that particular point in time. MR. BRYANT-I’d like to ask a question. Your property is directly south of the lot, or is it behind the building? MR. THORNE-Okay. Looking at the map there on the wall, you’ll find my property is off the southwest corner. It abuts on the southwest corner, facing Willow Road. My property backs up to Prospect School property. MR. STONE-So you’re on the new property? MR. THORNE-Yes, my property abuts. MR. STONE-So your property line abuts the new 30 foot, or 31 or 32, whatever it is. MR. THORNE-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. So you’re in the extreme corner up there? MR. THORNE-Yes. MR. STONE-Any other questions? Okay. MR. THORNE-Thank you. MR. STONE-Anybody else wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? ANNE GOBBO MS. GOBBO-My name is Anne Gobbo. I live at 6 Dorset Place. I’m on the other side, the smaller part of the School, and I realize part of what I’m saying is probably irrelevant, especially after what you just said, it sounds as though I belong more at the Planning Board meeting or something. On the other hand, my understanding of the permeability is that it’s supposed to be not more than 35%, and the building that’s there now behind me is 37, and it would go up to 42%. So there is a concern in my neighborhood about the fact that we’ve already gone over a little, and people don’t want it going over any more, and I know that, now that I’ve gone out and asked some of the other neighbors, I know Gary DeAngelo, who’s two houses away from me, wrote a letter that probably maybe you read at the last meeting. I don’t know. MR. STONE-It’ll be read tonight, if it’s in the record. MS. GOBBO-Okay. I spoke to him. He had to work tonight, but he did write a letter a while ago. So, I don’t know, but I’ll speak my peace and probably next week I’d have to come back for a lot of my concerns, but I happen to live, my backyard abuts the playground of that area back there, and I’m looking through my backyard, for the last couple of years, their chain link fence which is right through to piles of kids playing. The last couple of years it’s getting really noisy, and that’s my main worry at this point. It used to be really quiet, but then a couple of years ago, nobody, you know, they just started using it a lot more, and they blacktopped certain areas, so the kids, it’s like a nursery school back there and a daycare, that area, and there’s like a blacktop area where they ride those plastic, you know, hot wheels and that kind of thing, and there’s basketballs and basketball hoops and there’s a lot of noise. It’s getting to the point where my parents who come down, they live in Chestertown, and they’re getting elderly, and when they get sick, they come to my house to stay for a few days, and it’s getting to be a regular thing, and they can’t sleep, because my bedroom windows come right out onto the playground, and it’s very noisy, and when I get out and ask some of the other neighbors about the addition, the building, they are concerned about the septic and the water runoff and the permeability, and also the fact that it’s a small area already and we’ve got a lot of kids out there playing, and it’s noisy, and we’re also looking right at it, and it’s just to the point where we really, I think it would effect re-sale value. I mean, if I went to show my house, and I brought somebody back there, they’d be like, hmm, we’ve got the firehouse already. Now we’ve got 20 kids out there yelling and playing, and it’s pretty bad, and I certainly think anyone who uses their backyard or would have a pool or anything would not pick my house, and I’m kind of concerned, too, if they build that building, the way I look at it on the map, it looks like that’s the area where they build a building, it looks like where the little kids play, and that’s going to push maybe the little kids over where I’ve already got all the older kids, and that small, you know the pre-school area and the sand there, that whole, that might get moved in my direction. Plus, I don’t want anymore swings or anything even more noise than it is already. So, yes, I think it’s too small an area for another 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) building, even though it’s mostly offices, and you wouldn’t be putting maybe more school kids there. The last couple of years I’ve been thinking of calling already because it’s so noisy, and I don’t know what can be done about it, but the thought of anything growing behind my backyard, and there’s three or four of us, some of us that couldn’t make it tonight who’ll make it the next time that feel the same way, and I think that’s basically all I had to say. Do you have any questions? MR. BRYANT-Your property is near the existing playhouse? MS. GOBBO-I’m on the north side. You know Dorset Place, cul de sac street? Yes, our backyards abut the playground of the School that’s there, the nursery school, the regular nursery school, the day care, on the north side, the day care, the nursery school. It used to be real quiet, and then it started creeping up, and the last couple of years, they’ve got the blacktop, the hot wheels, the basketballs, very noisy. MR. STONE-Yes, but that’s the other piece of property. MS. GOBBO-What do you mean other piece of property? MR. STONE-That’s across the street. That’s on the north side of Aviation. MS. GOBBO-This is all, we’re talking now about the smaller building. MR. STONE-Right, but it’s not on this piece of property we’re talking about. MS. GOBBO-No, but aren’t you also discussing the other one? MR. STONE-No. MS. GOBBO-Why not? MR. STONE-We’re talking only the south side of Aviation, the existing school building and the Administration Building. That’s the piece of property that we’re talking about. MS. GOBBO-Okay. Now when do you talk about the other side? MR. HAYES-They have to make an application for. MR. STONE-An application, that’s not before us. MS. GOBBO-So, what do we do, just show up at the Planning Board meeting? MR. STONE-Well, is there an application for that, too? Okay. That doesn’t require a variance. So that will come before the Planning Board, without coming before this Board. MS. GOBBO-Okay, but if it goes over the permeability of 35%, doesn’t it need a variance? MR. STONE-That’s the south side. Apparently, the north side does not require a variance for anything. MS. GOBBO-Yes. All right. So that’s next Thursday? MR. STONE-That’s another Board and another time, yes. MS. GOBBO-Yes. All right. Well, thanks. MR. STONE-Anybody else wishing to speak opposed? LENO SARTI MR. SARTI-My name’s Leno Sarti. I live at 8 Dorset Place. I’m probably a little out of line, too, but I’m going to say it because I endured a medical problem. I can’t make all the meetings. I’m in and out of the hospital, and the medical problem I’ve got requires me to be home two weeks out of the month for the last several months. They add on to this school in the back, I’ve 75, 80 feet that buts right up to the playground. The lighting is an issue. The noise level is a big issue, and if they add on to that, they’re going to put septic systems in. Are we going to be able to handle that? MR. STONE-Again, we’re talking a totally different application. I mean, you certainly have the right to speak. You’re here and you have the right to speak, but you’re not on point as far as this particular application is concerned. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) MR. SARTI-This only refers to the south side. MR. STONE-Yes, we’re only talking about the south side. We’re talking about, as far as we’re concerned, the permeability or impermeability of that particular piece of property, if they are allowed to build this 8100 square foot addition with additional parking that they’re talking about. That’s all we’re talking about. MR. SARTI-All right. I just wanted to get my point, in case I wasn’t able to attend the next meeting. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak opposed? KEITH COE MR. COE-My name is Keith Coe, and I live on Willow Road. As much as I respect all the work the Prospect School is doing and appreciate what they’re doing, I’m here maybe to speak on two neighbors who weren’t able to be here, but a certain part of their lot, the large parking lot in the upper east corner, is five feet away from the back property line, whereas on the west side, they’ve left a 30 foot buffer on those two strips. Those properties in back flood every spring, extensively, and I would feel that if they could put more parking on the west side, cut back the back road, so they don’t have to expand that parking lot so much, maybe they could avoid more flooding in that neighborhood, in those neighbor’s yards. MR. STONE-The only point, that particular, your point is a fine point, except they’re not talking about expanding in that corner, as I gather. MR. COE-They’re going to make that parking lot bigger, in back of that upper east corner, isn’t that correct? MR. STONE-No, the west corner. MR. COE-It was my understanding that they were going to extend that parking lot back a little bit to allow for the access of that road to come through the back. MR. STONE-They’ll address that. We’ll let the applicant address that. Okay. Thank you. MR. COE-Thank you. MR. STONE-Anybody else opposed? Any opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-There are a couple of old letters that I believe we read in last time. They’re dated March 13. th MR. STONE-Why don’t you just state who they were from and their address. MR. MC NULTY-Okay, and we do have a telephone conversation. There’s a March 13 letter from th Levi Brown, Jacqueline Brown, and there’s also a March 13 letter from Eileen and Jim Yovanoff, th and currently we have a telephone conversation that occurred on Tuesday, May 9 at 1:50 p.m., th between Floyd Pickett, 20 Mountainview Lane, and Sue Hemingway of the Zoning Office, regarding Area Variance No. 22-2000. They stated they were strongly opposed to the project, as increased traffic will tie up Aviation Road and entrance to Mountainview Lane. They’re very concerned about bus traffic and impact on the neighborhood, and that’s all I find. MR. STONE-Hearing no more public input, I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Mr. Lapper, do you care to respond to some of the things you heard? MR. LAPPER-Yes, certainly, and I guess my first point is just that, historically, not just in New York but in general, a school use is very common in a residential area because it’s one of the public services that kids that are living in a residential area need. So you often have a school abutting a residential area, and our zoning code provides for that. That’s why it’s a permitted use. The fact that we’re here asking for this technical variance for 10%, 55% green is still a very green site. It’s just that, in this zone, it’s that 65% requirement which really doesn’t relate to a school. That’s there for houses. The issue that’s been raised, I mean, if there was a, permeability relates to drainage, obviously, and so if there was a problem with permeability, that would be a legitimate reason to deny this or to modify it, but Dick has done a stormwater report, which we’ve submitted to Rist-Frost, and the infiltration is being provided for, so that all of the impervious surfaces will be properly 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) drained in accordance with the Town Code and I’m sure you could ask Craig to comment on that, as well. In terms of the few suggestions, especially from the first speaker, Mr. Brown, about permeability. I mean, obviously, they would like to come up with some suggestion that reduces the size of what’s proposed, but what’s proposed is the minimum that’s necessary to accommodate the needs of the school and the needs of the school kids. The reason why we’ve got that drive in the back which would be vacant, quiet most of the day, no one’s going to park there, but it really is a safety issue that Richard Jones mentioned, that you just can’t, that making the left turn out of the western entrance is dangerous. There’s a visibility issue, and we want to fix that. So we’ve put that drive in the back, but that drive is something on the order of 140 feet from the house on the west side, and it obviously gets a little closer on the east side. For that reason, we’ve proposed to buffer it with two rows of new trees. There are also these large pine trees that are back there now. So it’s just, we’ve mitigated the impact by buffering it, and it’s needed for safety, and that’s why we’re asking for the variance. This is not, going to 45% is not paving over the site. There’s still going to be a lot of green, the 55% green that we’re proposing. MR. STONE-Question. Take the School as it exists today, staff plus pupils, when this is built out, the way it’s proposed, would you comment on the number of people who will be on the site? MR. LAPPER-Larry is best to respond to that. MR. GOUGE-Well, in terms of the number of students served on site, there would perhaps be a small increase through the Aquatic Therapy Center. We are not actually increasing the number of classrooms, and haven’t for a number of years, okay. There have been classrooms that were used for staff, and have been re-converted back to classrooms. So the number of children actually served on site would remain virtually the same as they are now. There has been some small increase in the number of children, because we now have integrated services. Because of the fact that a lot of our children require a lot of specialized equipment, there’s a lot of space issues for wheelchairs and a lot of adaptive equipment, computers and other things, that didn’t really exist 10 or 15 years ago. So, the kids are a lot more plugged in, and there’s a lot of needs in those areas, so to speak. We also had to remove 40 therapists from our site that are currently now in rented space, about a mile down the road, and obviously, this project would allow them to return to site, so that they could provide services on site. Some services are provided out of our Center, but they would still need to have access to records and other things. MR. STONE-Okay. So that’s why you need more parking spaces? That’s the bottom line, you need more parking spaces to accommodate the staff that will be on site when the building is complete? MR. GOUGE-Correct. MR. BRYANT-When you say you’re going to add 40 therapists, they’re not there all the time. Is that correct? MR. GOUGE-Correct. They are not. Approximately a half to two thirds of them provide services other places in the Warren and Washington, Saratoga area, and they come for staff meetings, and may come there in the morning, gather they’re materials, and go to other sites. MR. BRYANT-And that’s approximately how many new spaces you’re adding? Around 40 or 50? MR. JONES-We’re adding 38 on the south side and I think 8 on the north side. So probably 46. MR. STONE-The south side is the parcel we’re talking about here. MR. JONES-The south side. MR. STONE-Okay. Let’s keep it clean if we can. MR. GOUGE-But the parking does impact, in essence, because of the flow back and forth. MR. STONE-I understand that. MR. GOUGE-Yes, and there definitely is an existing parking problem. I’m aware of it on an ongoing basis. People don’t often have places to park. MR. STONE-Any other questions of the applicant? MR. HIMES-Mr. Brown’s comment, (lost words) the site plan for Rist-Frost regarding the runoff as opposed to, you might even improve the runoff problem that may exist now, in terms of the water going back toward the neighbors. How is this, what kind of relief is going to give in terms of what many of the people perceive as being just about flooded out at certain times of the year because of, 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) or are already getting water which they think is from your property, and now the increase in impermeability is going to add to an existing problem? Could you speak whether it’s going to continue to be worse or be eliminated by the study you spoke of? MR. LAPPER-In terms of the stormwater management report, our requirement is to infiltrate what we’re constructing, so that everything that is becoming impermeable will infiltrate into the ground and not leave the site. The natural topography in the area slopes towards the residences, and there’s water that comes from the Glens Falls Watershed area that just runs across that area in the back and runs in that natural direction. Those are just reparian rights, just the water rights that the water just flows that way, and that’s not something that we created or that we’re alleviating, but that’s just a general answer. In terms of the stormwater management plan, we are definitely addressing any infiltration requirements, based upon our construction. MR. JONES-With the addition of the drive along the back side, the connecting driveway between the two parking lots, one of the things that we’re doing, with the natural topography that exists on site, this is the high corner of our site, and it is basically flowing this way. There’s probably, this is about 492. This is about 490. This is 489. So there’s about three feet of differential between the entire corner to corner on the site, from northwest to southeast. Currently, this is the existing parking lot to the east side. There’s infiltration here via catch basins in the center of the parking lot. What’s happening currently is that some of the snow is being plowed to the back side. That will not occur, because right now we have this parking lot configured with parallel parking or perpendicular parking along the back parking lot edge here. We’ve reconfigured the parking lot to allow the drives to come through, so they cannot just plow the snow to the back side. We realize that that’s creating part of the potential problem with runoff here in the back corner. With the creation of the new connecting driveway between the two, we basically have created infiltration along the entire south perimeter of the drive to collect anything that’s coming across the site. So, basically, we’re looking to stop it at that point. As Jon had indicated, there’s natural drainage and runoff coming this way across the site, which we can’t control, but it’s our intent to stop everything at that point, and infiltrate everything that we’re creating, as far as additional runoff on this portion of the site. We’re alleviating, we feel, the major problem that’s occurring currently on the back side of this property, by reconfiguring the parking lot, re-striping it. It currently has 102 parking spaces. We’re able to reconfigure it and still maintain 102. So we’re not losing anything in this regard, and we feel we’re helping the drainage on the back side by doing that. MR. MC NALLY-Your absorption trench detail is shown in that one portion of the drawing, and you’re planning on putting that along the new driveway? MR. JONES-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-One of the neighbors commented that in the winter time, something like that wouldn’t be effective to stop the runoff because of the frozen ground. Is there anything else in your plan that will prevent water from running off the property in that direction during winter? MR. JONES-No. We basically, when we created the parking lot here, we did infiltration trench along the perimeter, and we have not had a problem in this general area with that detail. Where they’ve had the problem is where we have the drywells in the parking lot. MR. MC NALLY-I understand, but I’m just trying to understand for myself. I understand what your absorption trench is, but is it less effective in the winter? MR. JONES-We don’t feel it is, because we have not had any problems in this area, and we haven’t had any problems on other projects that we’ve utilized it on. MR. MC NALLY-So you think that along this driveway, it should be just as effective in the winter time as it would be in the summer time? MR. JONES-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-And in the parking lot, the older parking lot, where you’ve got the drywells, is the parking lot actually pitched toward the neighbors? How can the drywells work if it’s pitched toward the neighbors? MR. JONES-There’s a dish, as you’re coming across, there’s, these are low spots. MR. MC NALLY-So it’s actually pitched toward the drywells? MR. JONES-Right, but from this point back, if snow is piled in there, as it currently was in the last winter season, it’s not coming back toward the drywell. It’s going toward the green space on the edge of the parking lot. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) MR. MC NALLY-Was there ever any consideration made to put the absorption trench along the south side of the existing large parking lot, or do you feel simply removing the snow from that area is sufficient? MR. JONES-We feel if we can remove the snow, that we’re going to mitigate 99% of the problem. Because right now what happens is the snow is piled into this area, and when it melts, it’s still moving that way. We know that we cannot do snow piling and storage. So we’re going to have to do a lot of on site removal, when snow starts to accumulate. We do have some snow piling areas over in here, and along the perimeter to the west, and we’re still able to control the flow that comes across, because of our infiltration trench on the east side, but we know that we can’t do it there, but we feel that by changing the direction of the parking and the drives, that we’re going to be able to mitigate that. MR. MC NALLY-Mr. Brown also submitted some pictures showing what it looks like, through his trees, across the large parking lot, then across Aviation, and I see there’s a picnic area that looks like it’s right in the back of the parking lot? MR. JONES-There is, correct me if I’m wrong, Larry. I think the picnic table sits out here in the woods right now. MR. MC NALLY-It’s got to be further over, because I can see across the street, looking across the parking lot. MR. JONES-I guess I’m not sure where it is. Right in here? MR. MC NALLY-Well, the point is you can see an awful lot, looking from these photographs and the trees. What kind of trees would be planted along that, and can you describe for me their height, their dimensions, how far apart they are? What kind of a screening effect they’d have? MR. JONES-We’re looking at planting 75 white pines from the intersection where we’re creating the new curve here, around to the east side. They are two to two and a half inch diameter, which means they’re going to be in the neighborhood of five to six feet tall, white pines. The spread on them is probably going to be in the neighborhood of four to four and a half feet, and we’re doing them in two rows, .and it’s a staggered fashion. We’ve increased it here into this area, but they’re probably going to be in the neighborhood of about probably, I’m going to say about eight feet on center, in a staggered. MR. MC NALLY-So that would actually improve the visual effect or at least lessen the visual impact immediately? MR. JONES-Yes. Most of the trees in this area are high canopy pine trees, and what we’re looking to do is clear no more than we have to. We need to install the drive, the infiltration trench, and then have room here for the planting. MR. BRYANT-Is it procedurally okay for any of these people that spoke about this being applied for to comment on the additional information that Mr. Jones has given, in connection with the runoff problems, since it’s been closed? MR. STONE-Not really, no. That’s up to us. Okay. MR. LAPPER-I guess I’d just like to say that many of the issues that were raised are site plan issues and will, of course, be addressed by the Planning Board, I’m sure in great detail, next week. MR. STONE-Having said that, let’s talk about it. Chuck? Chuck Abbate, let’s start with you. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Counsel is right when you indicate that many schools are in residential areas. I don’t have any qualms of that, but I am quite concerned with the fact that property owners have rights, too, and I’m also concerned with the fact, right now, whether it’s imagined or real, of the possible devaluation, if you will, in the minds of the residents surrounding this very large expansion project that you folks are doing. I try to put myself in both shoes here. I’m quite sure that you folks at the Prospect Child and Family Center do an outstanding job. I don’t have any qualms of that, but I must say, at this point, I have concerns, the same concerns that the property owners have, which may possibly effect their property, one way or another, either through additional drainage, through possibly de-valuation, and some other concerns that they’ve mentioned. So, at this point, I’m not sure where I’m at. There are a lot of doubts in my mind. Thank you. MR. STONE-Chuck? 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) MR. MC NULTY-Well, I can certainly echo what Chuck just said. I guess there’s two groups of comments I’d like to make. One, we’re supposed to be looking at the permeability on this, and this is the real issue that’s before this Board. The other issue is all the other things that were brought up, and while, technically, they may be not appropriate before this Board, I think it’s important that they do get brought up, because they need to be discussed, a variety of places, I’d say to those that have brought these issues up ought to use this Board as a sort of sounding board kind of a testing thing to get an idea of how people are reacting so when you go before the Planning Board, which is where most of these questions ought to be brought up, you’ve got some information about how to approach that Board. I am sensitive to the impact something like this has on the neighborhood. I live in a neighborhood that was impacted, and is being impacted, by a facility that started very small a number of years ago, 20, 30 years ago, has grown and changed nature, and is intruding on the neighborhood, and I feel very strongly about the Town needing to pay more attention than what it is to protecting neighborhoods in general against noise, intrusions, future potential problems. As somebody brought up, even though this is a school now, if it’s vacated at some time, while technically a commercial enterprise isn’t appropriate there, there may be a strong pressure to approve something commercial there since it’s going to be in a commercial type building. I think the only defense for that is get involved in Town government. So if that should ever happen, you’ve got some people involved that will stand up and say no at that point. Other thought in that vein that I have, too, is this is all single family residential area. If instead of having the Prospect School there, you had regular residential lots, there would be no buffer requirements at all, and you could be wide open to Aviation Road. So looking at the plus side of this whole thing, you’ve got somebody there next to Aviation Road now that is willing to put some buffer up for you that you might not have, if it was residential housing. Having said all that, and having said that it really doesn’t pertain to this Board, going back to the permeability, yes, there’s a requirement for 35% permeability in a single family residential area. It strikes me that that’s predicated on the average homeowner not having any special infiltration facilities, and I think the infiltration facilities that are being proposed perhaps mitigate the extra area that’s going to be covered by paving and roofs and things of that sort. So, on that basis, paying attention to what I’m supposed to be paying attention to here, my inclination is, I think, to approve the request for the variance on the impermeability, based on the fact that there’s going to be mitigation provided, and trusting that the Planning Board will also look at stormwater and make sure that it’s not going to get off the site. MR. STONE-Jaime? I skipped you. MR. HAYES-Well, I think Chuck certainly covered a lot of the points very well. MR. STONE-Which Chuck? MR. HAYES-Both actually. I guess, I think, you know, going to the test that’s involved with an Area Variance, I think that everybody that spoke has no problem with the benefit to the applicant. Certainly it’s a good cause and a good school, and everybody knows that. So I think that’s not even a concern in my mind. I guess, from that perspective, I would boil it down to feasible alternatives, is the relief substantial to the Ordinance, and effects on the neighborhood or community. I think I could handle them in that order. Based on the quality and quantity of services that the School is offering now and is, you know, the modern world I think that there are limited alternatives to increased staff that’s going to have to be involved with the School to accomplish the services that they want to handle on site, and I think, you know, obtaining parking spaces for those, for that staff to me is a lot of what we’re talking about here. I mean, are the total number of spaces proposed necessary? I’m not sure, but in my mind, we have to defer to the people that are experts about that necessity. So I think the feasible alternatives are limited. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? I agree with Chuck and Mr. Lapper in that the 35% maximum allowable permeable, or impermeable coverage has to do with an ordinance or a criteria that’s associated with home building in that zone, and not necessarily what’s involved with a school, which is permitted in that zone. Clearly, schools are going to have more paving and more parking spots, more access, more many things than a home would have on a typical basis. So I’m not really troubled with 45% versus 55%. I think 55% permeable space is still a very green site. As I look at that diagram, it’s fairly green to me, to this point. So I guess, going to the fourth criteria, which is effects on the neighborhood or community, I think there are some legitimate concerns, but as I look at this plan, and as I look, particularly, at what’s happening in the rear of the site, which is what most people seem to be concerned about, I think that, one, there’s been a fairly significant effort to mitigate that, and as I look through those trees, part of the fact of the visibility that was involved, putting the drainage aside, is a high canopy area. That’s part of the reason they call it the Pines. It is. It’s all pine trees with high canopy, and the coverage that’s proposed, to me, would significantly mitigate some of the site effects, and finally, as far as the drainage and the permeability, which is the primary focus here, I think some of the things that have been proposed by the applicant will, in fact, or could be successful in controlling any additional water movement that’s created by the buildings they propose. The buildings they propose are closer to Aviation Road than they are to the Pines, and in my mind, it does give them a significant amount of area and room, if engineered properly, to control this, to infiltrate this water to the point where the impact on the neighborhood to the south is minimal, if 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) any. So I guess, considering all that, I think the applicant has modified the proposal and has acquired additional land, and has cooperated with the neighbors to the best of their ability, as the neighbors pointed out. So, all those things considered, I would think the test would fall in favor of the applicant, in this particular circumstance. MR. STONE-Okay. Norman? MR. HIMES-Thank you. Yes, I think that some of the additional information that was provided in connection with the infiltration and so on helped to alleviate what I heard as being some of the observations or complaints made by the neighbors on the south side here. I was a little concerned in connection with, as time goes along, things tend to get bigger. More things are needed, and they appear to be pretty well maxed out on the property that they have there, and so what’s going to happen next year or five years from now. I guess we’ll have to face that when the time comes. Certainly I think the impermeability percentage is a factor, and whether it be single family residential or whatever it is, the fact is they’re supposed to try to prevent problems from excessive runoff, and I think what I heard you’ve pretty well taken care of what would be created, in excess of what is there now, and removal of the snow may actually help the spring problems. So, this is a tough call. I, again, sympathize with the people nearby. It’s something that’s been there. It’s being expanded slightly, and I think I tend to favor the application, with some reservations. MR. STONE-Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I generally think that Jaime’s position’s well stated, and I’m in favor of it. Benefit to the applicant is certainly they’re a not for profit, providing not only the applicant would benefit but also the community would benefit, as far as the educational services for handicapped and disabled children. No question at all. I don’t see that there really are too many feasible alternatives. I went out of that driveway by the Administration Building, and it is a little bit tight getting out, and I think that as a Board we should be trying to reduce that, not increase the number of dangerous intersections, and the other thing is, when you have a school, you don’t want to have two separate parking areas that you can’t get from one section to the next. As a practical matter and as a feasible matter, you’ve got to have a connection between the two of them. There’s no way around it. The relief I don’t think is substantial relative to the Ordinance. It is a moderate increase, and I think it’s well stated that the permeability standard is more related to a residential area than what would be a traditional school or a more commercial type structure. I don’t see too many adverse effects on the neighborhood, but I was struck by the number of neighbors that talked about flooding, and I think from, having visited the site and looked at some of the pictures, it’s clear when you have an upper canopy, everything below that canopy is pretty well seen. So you might say that there’s 50, 80, 100 feet of trees, but those trees have got nothing from ground level to about 50 feet up. Well, the other problem is drainage. I’m always skeptical about where you put in so much impermeable space, what is actually going to stop it, given the preventative mechanisms that you have. I would be in favor, under two conditions though, all right. One that they maintain the screening as they’ve planned. They’ve offered it, and I don’t think that’s a difficult thing to meet as a requirement. It would probably improve the visual effects than as they currently exist. So it would be less of an effect on the neighborhood than before. The other thing is the drainage. I think the onus should be on Prospect that that drainage is not going to effect their neighbors. So I would say, as a second condition, that they should be required that any of the drainage coming from any of the impermeable surfaces on that property be stopped before entering upon neighbors. If that means that their existing plan works, God bless them, and if it doesn’t mean that it works, then they should be required to fix it. This is more of a Planning Board problem, but when we’re talking about permeability, drainage is very important. So I think it’s the responsibility of both our Boards. . MR. LAPPER-We’re comfortable with both of those conditions, and just in terms of the plants that are being planted, what we talked about at the neighbor’s meeting was that we would prune them to keep them low so they’re not going to grow too tall. So they’d stay low and dense. MR. MC NALLY-Yes. That would keep, I think, the neighbors pretty happy and prevent any exacerbation of an existing condition. MR. LAPPER-That’s our intention. MR. STONE-Allan? MR. BRYANT-Well, a couple of issues that weren’t covered by the other Board members. I looked at this parking lot survey, and I can’t see where eliminating 10 parking spaces would make any difference in the plan. It wouldn’t really improve the condition. The other point that was brought up is, what happens down the road if Prospect School moves out of the building? From a long range planning view, I mean, how long is Prospect School going to stay there? I mean, is this building good for the next 10 years, 15 years? What’s your long range plan? 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) MR. GOUGE-We plan to stay where we’re located. MR. BRYANT-How long is this construction good for? I mean, you’ve been expanding over the years, and if this is approved, I mean, how many years do we have before you need another variance? MR. GOUGE-We don’t have any plans for expansion on this site. MR. LAPPER-It’s been 20 years since the last expansion. MR. GOUGE-Well, the blue Administration Building was built in ’92, I think. MR. BRYANT-Well, the third thing that I wanted to point out is that this new addition is primarily between two existing buildings, and I personally don’t object to the plan at all. MR. STONE-Okay. I think Mr. Hayes summed it up very well for me. The only additional thing that I would say is, and it doesn’t directly bear, but nevertheless, it is in the Code, if this were in the Suburban Residential area, one acre, it would only require 50% permeability, and we’re under, you’ll be better than that, even with the increase, and thinking about the conditions that Mr. McNally suggests, and which the applicant accepts, I have no problem in voting for this application Having said that, Bob, since you put the conditions out, would you do the motion, please. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 22-2000 PROSPECT CHILD & FAMILY CENTER, Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: Aviation Road. The applicant proposes construction of an 8,100 square foot addition to a school building, as well as the construction of necessary associated parking and drives. Specifically, the applicant requests 21,14.5 square feet of relief from the 73,062.5 square foot maximum impermeable area allowed by the SFR-1A zone, that is Section 179-20 of the Queensbury Town Zoning Code. The maximum allowable permeable area is limited to 35% of the parcel. The applicant’s proposal depicts an existing 34.3% coverage with a proposed final coverage of 45.1%. I move the approval of this variance for the following reasons: First, the benefit to the applicant. By allowing this variance, the Prospect Child & Family Center would be permitted to expand the existing structure and would be allowed to increase both the quality and quantity of educational services provided to children, disabled handicapped children, throughout our area. The second reason I move its approval is because there are no feasible alternatives. While there may be a smaller addition construction, or a limitation as to the parking spaces, I’ve taken the applicant’s testimony that the proposed structure is the minimum necessary in order to service children in our community, and also that the parking that they’ve proposed are the minimum requirements in order to allow people to come and go, to park during their normal day to day activities at the site. In considering this, I’ve considered that it would be possible, I suppose, to eliminate the connection road, but as a practical matter, I don’t see that as feasible, there has to be a way of getting around this lot from one section of the School to the other, and second, alleviating the roadway between the two parking areas would only result in a dangerous exit, which is something none of us wish. The relief is moderate, relative to the Ordinance, but I take into account that there are offsetting factors when you consider that in the Suburban Residential, this would be an allowable impermeable area, and also that the existing 35% requirement is really designed for residential structures, not for schools or churches which would, by necessity, have a greater impermeable area. The difficulty may be self-created, but all in all, given the existing character of the neighborhood or community and of the site, I don’t find this as a difficult problem. I move this approval subject to two conditions. The first condition is that the applicant be required to maintain screening as planned on the existing drawings that have been submitted tonight, to protect the southern boundary and the neighbors along Willow Street from being exposed too much to the traffic, the noise, the congestion and to the exposure to a more active intensive use. My second condition is that there be no drainage from the impermeable areas of this parcel to the southern boundary of the property along Willow Street, and that the applicant’s would be required to maintain on site trenches, drains, drywells or other facilities necessary to keep drainage from their impermeable areas on site. With those conditions, I move the approval. Duly adopted this 17 day of May, 2000, by the following vote: th MR. STONE-Any additions or corrections to the motion? MR. ABBATE-A comment. Mr. Chairman, I’m not so sure that we can impose restrictions and conditions on any successors. I may be in error, but I think that’s kind of pushing it a little bit. MR. MC NALLY-Well, I don’t have a problem withdrawing it. I just said that because it’s going to run with the land. MR. STONE-It runs with the land. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) MR. ABBATE-If you want to withdraw it, go ahead. MR. MC NALLY-I will withdraw the word “successor” because I think it’s taken anyway. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. STONE-Craig, is that acceptable? MR. BROWN-Yes, it’s acceptable. I’m not sure how you want to address the stormwater, if you want to say you’d like them to provide information to the Planning Board’s satisfaction that all the water’s going to stay on the site, or just that they have to deal with it, cut and dried. MR. MC NALLY-Make it cut and dried, as simple as can be. You represented that the drainage will remain on site. I take you at your word. The neighbors should do the same thing. To the extent it doesn’t, you should be required to remediate it. That’s a condition. AYES: Mr. Himes, Mr. McNally, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. Abbate MR. LAPPER-Thank you very much. MR. GOUGE-Thank you. USE VARIANCE NO. 30-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED RR-3A SBA, INC. & SOUTHWESTERN BELL CORP. OWNER: JAMES AND DIANE FOWLER 61 STATE ROUTE 149 APPLICANT PROPOSES PLACEMENT OF A 195 FT. TALL WIRELESS TELEPHONE TOWER ON AN 8.74 ACRE PARCEL IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL WIRELESS TELEPHONE SERVICE. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 4/12/2000 TAX MAP NO. 8-1-51 LOT SIZE: 8.74 ACRES SECTION 179-15 JON LAPPER, RON RUCINSKI, & GARY WEIS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. STONE-Since this was tabled, would you read the tabling motion and, Craig, the question I’m going to ask you, there was no new information in Staff Notes, same Staff Notes? MR. BROWN-Yes. There was new information submitted after these notes were prepared, which is in the file. MR. STONE-Right, which Mr. Lapper will talk about. Okay. So just read the tabling motion in. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Use Variance 30-2000, SBA Incorporated Southwestern Bell Corporation 61 State Route 149, the meeting date of Thursday, April 20, a MOTION TO TABLE USE th VARIANCE NO. 30-2000 SBA, INC. & SOUTHWESTERN BELL CORP., Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty: For more information. The minimum information to be provided is an idea of whether or not the FAA would require a light on this tower, a representation of what this tower would look like from 149, from the Lake George RV Park perspective, for example, and any other information of an alternate size. The applicant has asked that it be on the agenda for the month of May. Duly adopted this 20 day of April, 2000, by th the following vote: AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes MR. STONE-Okay. Mr. Lapper. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper, to my immediate left, Tim O’Donnell from SBA, Inc., to his left, Ron Rucinski who is the RF, Radio Frequency Engineer, for Cell One, and Gary Weis, to my right, from Cell One. We were here the week that it was a school vacation and many of you were not. So I’d like to just start out just repeating just a little bit of what was in the minutes last time, although I’m sure that you read it, and I have everybody here now to answer questions that were raised last time. So I think that we’re better prepared to address this than we were the last time, just in terms of personnel. This is kind of a unique siting for this Board, for this Town. Cell Towers, wireless communications facilities, are treated differently, under the law, than are other Use Variances, and I think that Craig Brown touched on that in his Staff Notes, but I differ slightly from his Staff Notes, and I think he now agrees with me, that the standards for approving a Use Variance for this use don’t really have anything to do with the Town law standards that you are all familiar with for a standard Use Variance, that what we’re talking about is the need. We have to establish the need for a facility in this location, to provide proper coverage for wireless telephones. Because it is treated as a public utility, and I think that we did a good job, last time, of discussing that 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) subject, and then some legitimate issues were raised about whether or not we had looked into alternative sites, which is something that we’re required to do, and the memo that I submitted addressed the alternative sites, and we’re here to, I think we should just start out by putting the engineer on to talk to you about why this site was chosen, in terms of why there is a deficiency of service, and you can stop us at any time throughout to ask us questions, because I think there’ll probably be a number of them. You all have a copy, I believe, of the red and green and white study. MR. STONE-Would you just, for the record, explain the two colors, again, so that, there were some members who were not here. MR. RUCINSKI-Okay. Hi, I’m Ron, an RF Engineer for Cellular One, and to explain the two colors to you, the red, as it says in the legend down here, is in building and hand held coverage, and green would be basically just the outside, mobile coverage. MR. STONE-In terms of wattage, what are we talking about? I think we’re more familiar with that. MR. RUCINSKI-Well, wattage isn’t really going to, in db I could explain it to you, on the other maps which I have here. MR. STONE-Well, I thought, I understood that mobile was three watts. MR. RUCINSKI-Okay. I understand what you’re saying. Right. A mobile obviously transmits more power, which is three watts, than a portable phone, which only does .6 watts. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. RUCINSKI-And that’s the difference. When you’re looking at the red, you’re looking at a better in building, you know, in building coverage, you know, more reliable portable coverage, and green you can pretty much guarantee you can get a good outside mobile call or, you know, to put it simple. Any questions? MR. HIMES-What’s the difference between a hand held and a mobile? MR. RUCINSKI-Mobile would be, hand held would be something like this. Mobile would be something you would, you’d need an external antenna on your car, which, you know, your handset would be inside the car, and the only difference it this does a little bit higher power, and the antenna is external to the vehicle. MR. STONE-On this chart, if it shows red, that’s good for the hand held. MR. LAPPER-Red means go, green means stop. MR. STONE-That’s what I’m getting at. MR. RUCINSKI-The reason we do it in red is to kind of put it simple, is, I don’t know, kind of like hot and cold, hot, the closer you are, you know. MR. STONE-But where the green shows, there is no red. That would be a dead zone for hand held. MR. RUCINSKI-Well, kind of, it’s questionable. There’s a lot of variables. This is just a propagation tool. MR. STONE-I understand, but if it’s red, then that’s coverage for the minimum watt of telephone, the hand held telephone. If it’s green. MR. HAYES-So the continuum goes red, green, white, then, basically? MR. WEIS-Good evening. My name is Gary Weis. I’m a Manager of Network Expansion for Cellular One New York, and essentially, just put another way, any red areas that appear on the propagation maps indicate a reliable level of service for hand held portable phone usage, either on the street level or generally speaking in buildings. Green, you will encounter difficulties using the hand held portable phones that most people do carry. Some of your, or people you know may still have the three watt hard wired car phones, which will offer a reliable level of call service in the green areas. However, the hand held portable phones, which about 95% of the phones we sell, of course, are portables. People put them in their purses and so forth, and our goal is to provide neg 85 or better hand held portable coverage between Lake George and Glens Falls, and throughout a sizeable portion of the Town of Queensbury, and along Interstate 87 and Highway 9. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) MR. LAPPER-I think that’s important, just to put it in practical terms. On the Northway, there’s a problem when you’re just south of Prospect Mountain and 149 there’s a problem. So when you’re in your car, you lose the signal, and that’s what this application is trying to correct, trying to address. MR. ABBATE-Let me try it my way. Does this represent your services, or your potential services, this map? This is current, correct, and what you’re basically saying is that you hope to make 95% of this area red. MR. WEIS-Over time. MR. ABBATE-Over a period of time. Is that correct? MR. LAPPER-This is the only tower that is required in the Town of Queensbury, in order to do that. When you look at that map, you see that there are some green areas over by Fort Ann, and that would be remedied by a tower that’s proposed for Kingsbury, but the essence of this application is that by co-locating as many as five carriers on this one tower, it’s going to make up for that deficiency, and it’s the only tower that would be required in this area of Town. MR. ABBATE-The only tower that would be required in this area of Town, and what do we do with the other three towers that are up? MR. LAPPER-Well, I’m saying that those three towers cover the southern end of the Town. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. LAPPER-But I guess just to back up for a second, and only because we’ve sort of split this between last time and this meeting. The reason why we’re here for a Use Variance is because the Town has a very thorough Telecommunications Ordinance, and what that Telecommunications Ordinance says is that you can have a wireless telecommunications tower in a Light Industrial zone, but it turns out, and that’s where all of the towers that you’re familiar with on the Northway as you cross over the Hudson around Exit 18, those are all in the Light Industrial, but there is no Light Industrial zone on the northern end of the Town, and there is a deficiency in service. So if we had a Light Industrial parcel to go into, we would just be at the Planning Board addressing the regulations for telecommunications towers, but because that doesn’t exist, we have to be here talking about a Use Variance, and we’re talking about a Use Variance in the context of service, rather than the context of financial hardship, which we’d usually be talking about. MR. ABBATE-And your proposal is to construct a 195 foot tower? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Which will be the largest structure in the entire area. MR. LAPPER-Certainly it will be the largest structure, because this area is trees and a few houses, and a very lovely RV Park across the street, but that’s what’s here, but this is the area that we need for service, and the standard, just to quote the standard for cell towers, Consolidated Edison vs. Hoffman is one of the main New York cases. Cellular Telephone Company need not satisfy typical Use Variance test. Instead, the utility must show that the proposed construction or modification of the facility is a public necessity in that it is required to render adequate service, and that there are compelling reasons, economic or otherwise, which make it more feasible to construct or modify the proposed facilities than alternatives. The utility has the burden to prove the public necessity on the record, which is an essential part of the test. Telecommunications regulations in Town say that if you have a tall structure, use a tall structure. There is no tall structure here, other than there’s an existing FM antenna off of 149. MR. ABBATE-Excuse me. What do you mean no tall structure? We have a water storage tank in the Town of Queensbury, and they’re considering negotiating leasing this. That’s a tall structure. MR. LAPPER-But that would not address the deficiency of service in this area, in the 149/87 corridor where we have a problem. MR. STONE-Let me ask you, Staff a question. Craig, you agree with Mr. Lapper’s legal interpretation there, I mean, the change in the test? MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. So the test is they have to prove to us, as I understand it, that we need this. MR. HAYES-Versus financial hardship. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) MR. STONE-Yes, for the public’s good, if you will, for telecommunications in this area, and that that’s the test that they have to convince us, and they have to do that, as I understand, with the minimum size tower necessary to provide necessary service. I mean, as I read, and correct me if I’m wrong here, 179-73.1J(2), “The maximum height of any new tower shall not exceed that which is necessary to provide service”. MR. LAPPER-I also want to point out, yes, I agree, and I also want to point out that, upon receiving this variance, if we receive this variance, which we’re hopeful that we will, we still go to the Planning Board to talk about the standards in the Town Code in terms of the site, but that would be in addition to the variance. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BROWN-This Use Variance could be for a two foot tower or a three thousand foot tower. It’s just the use, the subject site issues are dealt with at the Planning Board. MR. STONE-So in other words, we have to fall back on our friends at the Planning Board to make this a two foot tower, if we think. MR. BROWN-This is just to address whether you want to allow the use there or not. MR. LAPPER-And the reason, I think where you’re going next is, why this is 195 feet, and what the Town Ordinance, and what most sophisticated towns are doing, is requiring co-location, so that you don’t have every cell provider having a separate tower all over the place. MR. STONE-And the guy who gets there first gets the highest position on the tower. MR. LAPPER-Well, that is the case, which is this guy, but this guy’s business is to build towers and lease them out to all of the providers. So that this would be a co-location facility, so that there would be, you need 10 feet for each antenna, and the reason why, the trees are 85 feet. The reason why we need it to be 195 is to have enough room to put the various antennas, so there’s only going to be one tower. MR. ABBATE-And the bottom line is that your argument has to be compelling to this Board. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STONE-Yes, that’s correct. So go on. MR. LAPPER-Well, I think that that addresses those issues. I think that we should probably look at the memo that we sent in, because that addressed the other sites that we were asked to just explain who we went to and where we went and why we’re at this location, and I submitted that to Craig last week, and we talked there. MR. BROWN-It came in after the Staff Notes went out. So it didn’t go in with the packets, but did you bring any copies with you, Jon? MR. LAPPER-I have a copy, certainly. MR. BROWN-There’s a faxed copy in the file. MR. STONE-Then you’re going to have to read it in. Chuck, why don’t you read it in, if that’s all right with you. MR. LAPPER-Of course. I’m sorry. I thought you all had it. MR. STONE-No, we do not. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. This is the fax we’re talking about, dated May 12. Okay. This came with th a cover letter addressed to Lew Stone, from Jonathan C. Lapper. “Dear Lew: In accordance with the request of the Zoning Board of Appeals at your last meeting, I hereby submit a memorandum from SBA Inc. which addresses the issues raised. An RF engineering report which indicates suitable locations for coverage will be hand delivered later today. Very Truly Yours, Jonathan C. Lapper” MR. STONE-Let me just say before you start, I’m disturbed that we don’t have it. MR. ABBATE-Yes, I’m disturbed as well. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) MR. STONE-I am very disturbed that we don’t have it, and if you have to make a special trip to get it to us, it’s very hard to listen to two and a half pages of, I assume, somewhat technical. MR. LAPPER-It’s actually very simple to understand, because it says, this mountain, we talked to the guy. This mountain we talked to the guy, here’s why we’re here, but I apologize. I think I faxed it to you on Friday morning. MR. BROWN-It was Friday afternoon. It was after the notes had been delivered. MR. STONE-But Friday is our date to get notes. MR. LAPPER-And I thought that I had Friday, and I had to get it approved by my client. So I got it to you as soon as I had it. MR. STONE-But today is Wednesday. MR. LAPPER-Well, I guess what I would say is let’s read it. I think you’re going to find it pretty straightforward, and if you don’t. MR. STONE-Okay. Sorry, Chuck, go ahead. MR. MC NULTY-That’s all right. There’s, as he says, four sections to it. The first one’s titled “Radio Frequency and Network Design Parameters”, the second one, just to give you a picture, before I get into the details. The second one is “Propagation of Cellular Radio Frequencies”. The third section is “Justification of Need”, and the fourth is a “Summary of Alternate Sites for the Town of Queensbury”. The first Section, “Radio Frequency and Network Design Parameters”, “Over the past several decades the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has sold a range of radio frequencies that were once used for transmitting television UFH signals. The FCC sold these radio frequencies to private and publicly held communication companies and mandated that the companies would use these frequencies to provide wireless phone service to all areas, specifying required growth in rural areas as well. In 1996, US Congress passed into the law the Telecom Act that would allow the growth of wireless communication service as a public utility under local municipality. In order to provide reliable wireless service and collocation opportunities for wireless carriers, towers must be placed in locations that provide a strategic balance between cellular propagation and obtainable/suitable sites. SBA Communications Corporation is a leading independent owner and operator of wireless communications infrastructure in the United States. SBA has leased, zoned and/or constructed over 13,500 antenna facilities coast to coast. SBA actively seeks collocation of wireless carriers on a single tower. Although some wireless providers will seek tower approval for their own tower sites and agree to collocation, wireless providers are very competitive and paying each other rent is not actively pursued. This SBA site plan and tower is engineered to accommodate a minimum of five carriers.” Section 2, “Propagation of Cellular Radio Frequencies”, “Cellular propagation plots are the product of a computer-based predictive tool. This predictive tool uses digitized terrain databases available from the U.S. Geological Survey and takes into account the ground elevation, terrain, modulation, population densities and land uses of a particular locality. With data input including radio frequency, power range and type of antennas used, the propagation report produces a two dimensional model of the coverage generated from a particular site. Basically, different levels of signal strength are reflected in different colors: Red is optimal providing for service for all handheld units used in-buildings and out. Green indicates inadequate service that can only provide communication to mobile (outside antenna) users with hard mounted phones. Service is not reliable for PCS, analog, digital and cellular handheld units. White indicates call-drop or no service for all users.” 3, “Justification of Need”, “The primary coverage objectives of this site are: The I-87 Northway between exit 19 & 21 Route 9 between Wal-Mart in Queensbury and Magic Forest in Lake George (including Great Escape Fun Park) Gurney Lane Recreational Park Glen Lake Paradise Lake Adirondack Community College The Route 149 site is strategically placed using the current telecommunications infrastructure in Queensbury. The coverage provided by this site will overcome local terrain and signal fade problems. The site will provide “hand-off” capabilities to the south at Exit 18, to the north at Prospect Mountain and to the East to a new SBA tower being built in Patten Mills. The site will also overcome expected capacity problems in the years ahead. No other available or suitable location has been identified by SBA that would provide safe and reliable service to the coverage objectives listed above.” 4, Summary of Alternate Sites for the Town of Queensbury”, “The following is a summary of other locations that SBA has analyzed as alternates to the proposed site. Warren County Municipal Center SBA and Southwestern Bell submitted a proposal to the Warren County Board of Supervisors. The County Attorney, Mr. Dusek, advised SBA/SBC that the contract would have to be very limited. He also said the County would need a 3 month notice to terminate the lease that could essentially force the removal of all telecommunications equipment. The existing tower is not structurally suitable for multi-users and a wireless provider base station could not fit within or nearby the existing fenced compound. Buckbee Mountain SBA attempted to secure a lease in this area for 6 months with a great deal of effort spent on negotiating a lease or purchasing property with an existing radio facility on the top of the 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) mountain. The landowner has no interest in leasing land for this use. Moon Hill, existing FM Tower The existing tower would not be suitable for telecommunication antenna and multi-users. The owner had no interest in selling the tower. Locations west of Moon Hill on Route 149 Location does not provide coverage for the objective area (See RF Report). The Lake George R V Park and French Mountain Real Estate Owner The landowner has no interest in leasing land for this use. Light Industrial Zones, Ridge St. Gravel Pits, others: Location does not provide coverage for the objective area. Gurney Lane Mountain, Commercial Properties along Route 9 Landowners have no interest in leasing property for this use. (See RF Report).” And that’s the end of the communication. MR. STONE-Okay. Are you going to address the information sought in the tabling motion? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STONE-Any questions, by the way, on what we just heard? MR. MC NALLY-On the Moon Hill site, you were not able to purchase that. What if it was made to lease? TIM O’DONNELL MR. O’DONNELL-We had several different approaches. One was to buy the site. The other one was to lease a portion of the existing tower or replace it, and we’re not interested in that. We also pursued buying the entire site. Letting the owner keep the house and live in it, and let us rent space back on a tower that we would build for them for their FM use and put our antennas on it, and they declined to do that as well. MR. MC NALLY-So they basically refused to lease. MR. O’DONNELL-Yes. They’re not interested in that use. MR. STONE-Is that a commercial tower or a private tower? MR. O’DONNELL-Yes. It’s a commercially owned FM radio station. I think it’s a Christian Broadcasting station. It also has a facility farther to the east. MR. STONE-Okay. I never knew. MR. MC NALLY-So it wasn’t an issue of price or anything. They just flat out refused? MR. O’DONNELL-They were simply not interested. We spent many months attempting to make some kind of an arrangement with them, but the second problem was it was really outside the coverage objective in the first place, and in the second place, they really just were not interested. I spent an awful lot of time on that. Again, my name is Tim O’Donnell. I’m the Property Specialist for SBA who handles site development services with Southwestern Bell. I’m just going to address one of the tabling items here. The question was, whether or not the FAA would require a light on this tower, and the answer to that is that the FAA will not require lighting on this tower. According to the Federal Aviation Administration Federal Aviation Flight Rules, Part 77, and the FCC Rules, Part 17, there are certain standards for slopes and surfaces, which when penetrated by a proposed structure will result in notice to the FAA or FCC, and/or marking or lighting. This site does not fall within any of those scopes outlined in Part 77 and the FCC Part 17. MR. STONE-That’s your reading? MR. O’DONNELL-We have a company called Aviation Safety Analysis Corporation that consists mostly of former Aviation Specialists from the FAA who take the slopes and surfaces in the Part 77, and FAR 17, which are very, very straightforward, and they analyze them, and I have a copy of their analysis here. What the FAA does is once you prepare this initial Obstruction Analysis. They do not require notice to the FAA. They don’t want you filing on a site where you know you don’t need to file. MR. STONE-All right, and you submit that for the record? MR. O’DONNELL-Yes. MR. STONE-So there will be no flashing light anywhere on this tower? MR. O’DONNELL-There will be no marking or lighting of any kind on this tower at all. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) MR. ABBATE-Can I interrupt for just a second? Are you aware of any air traffic patterns in that area? MR. O’DONNELL-Yes. Well, the nearest airport, you know that it’s Floyd Bennett Memorial Airport, and what they do is they take the slopes and surfaces from the approach and also the fly over back approach for those airports, and the nearest runway is 22,589 feet. In general, the cut off for a runway of that length is 20,000 feet, but we’re at a point where you have a structure that’s 195 feet. There’s two reasons why it’s not lighted. One is the FAA requires all towers over 200 feet to be lit, not 199 feet, 200 feet, so that the pilots have an absolute assurance of where the lighting starts, and the second thing is, if you’re within a certain distance of that Floyd Bennett Memorial Airport runway, and we are too far away to have it lighted. MR. STONE-Okay. So, again, you’re saying, because we had a comment last month, there will be no lights on this tower. MR. O’DONNELL-There is no marking or lighting required on this facility. MR. STONE-There will be no lights or marking on this tower. MR. O’DONNELL-Not on the tower itself. There may be some small area lights on the equipment shelter, but not the tower. MR. STONE-That’s below the tree line. MR. O’DONNELL-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. I’m just trying to get you to say what you said, that’s all. MR. O’DONNELL-And I would give you this, as a copy for yourself, of our FAA determination. MR. STONE-Please, we would like that for the record. Anything else you want to say? All right, and that was the prime question that was asked about the, I think the appearance, and we’ll certainly let the public who spoke last time speak again, if they want. Any other questions of the applicant? MR. ABBATE-I do. It’s a basic question, so bear with me. SBA Incorporated is attempting to construct a tower, correct? We agree. Do we have mobile communications in the area at the present time? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Why do we need SBA to put up a big tower? MR. LAPPER-We have multiple communications in Queensbury, and we have towers that service that, along the Northway, but we have a problem at I-87 near Exit 20, and on 149. MR. ABBATE-This is true. I experience it myself. You’re absolutely correct. MR. LAPPER-Okay. So, there, it’s on the record. MR. ABBATE-Now, this installation, this is going to mitigate the other businesses in the telecommunications area? MR. LAPPER-It’s going to be available for all of the telecommunication providers. There are currently five, and this facility could handle seven, if two more come into the market, and SBA is committing, as a condition, that they will lease it out to all of these providers. MR. ABBATE-So if these folks want better communication in these areas that we just spoke about, they’re going to have to negotiate with you for a price. MR. LAPPER-But that’s what they do for a living. They build towers and they lease it out. So they have relationships with all of the cellular providers. Gary, on my right, works for Southwestern Bell Corp., which is Cell One, doing business as Cell One. So they are a provider, and they have a relationship. So we’ve submitted the application because we already have a commitment from Cell One that they want to be on this tower. MR. ABBATE-So if approved, this would resolve all the problems of telecommunications here in terms of mobile? MR. LAPPER-Yes. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) MR. WEISS-If I can just comment briefly on the background between Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems, d/b/a Cellular One, and SBA Towers, which, as explained, that that’s their business. They construct telecommunications facilities and lease space to wireless carriers. We approached SBA. We have what’s known as a Build to Suit Agreement. We’ve issued search rings across the State, strategically placed between existing sites, where we have coverage and/or capacity needs. The primary issue here is coverage, and they’re really one in the same. If you don’t have coverage, you have capacity needs, because you have very little business in that entire area. So the 190 foot rad center, which would be the center line point of our antenna, is at the top of this proposed structure. It is the minimum height necessary that we have engineered, given to SBA, authorized them to go forth and find a suitable location that’s going to address all of the coverage areas within the locality of Queensbury. MR. STONE-Let me address that, as a very parochial interest. There is still a very big dead spot in the Town of Queensbury, namely Bay Road, north of 149, all the way to Lake George. Coverage there, if it exists, it’s extremely spotty. There is no way you can hold a conversation. MR. LAPPER-The answer there is a tower in Fort Ann, that would not be in the Town of Queensbury, which is why we’re not talking about it, that SBA is also in the process of pursuing. MR. STONE-Okay. So there would be a guarantee of coverage? MR. LAPPER-Well, a guarantee? There is a proposal that is being entertained by a similar Board in the Town of Fort Ann. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. LAPPER-That would address that. MR. STONE-And their map would show this white area as coverage? MR. O’DONNELL-This is Tim O’Donnell again from SBA. SBA currently has three towers that we’re contemplating to provide mounting facilities for wireless service providers, to make their coverage objective, including that area north of Route 149 on Bay Road. We have a site in the Town of Kingsbury which currently has a building permit and is in the process of beginning construction. That site in the Town of Kingsbury, combined with our proposed site in Fort Ann, will provide enough infrastructure for wireless mobile users to do two things, one is to probably make a pretty good call all through that area. So, I think you could make a pretty good argument that this location in particular is going to resolve an awful lot of wireless communications problems here. I’ve talked to several different wireless service providers, all who have expressed the same type of coverage problem between Lake George Village and the northern end of Queensbury, in the 149 area and the area to the east. NexTel WIP, which is a wireless provider operating a slightly different radio frequency, has approached us to collocate on this location as well here in Queensbury. We’ve received a letter of intent from Independent Wireless One, who’s the Sprint Wireless affiliate for this location, with the understanding already that the overall structure height location for Cellular One has been reserved for them. So they believe that they can make this site work at 170 feet. NexTel thinks they can make it work lower than that. NexTel has already entered into a collocate application process with us for the Kingsbury site just to the east of us. So this is one instance where the different wireless needs for these different telecommunications providers tend to coincide, because of the terrain here. It’s kind of a lengthy answer, but what I’m starting to see is the wireless service providers lining up behind Cellular One saying, we really do need this site, and we want to collocate on this particular facility here. We’ve had the first approaches for Patten Mills, and we know that someone is going to have a facility in Fort Ann to make that connection between Kingsbury and this site, but Cellular One, right now, is our co-applicant. They need the overall structure height of 199 feet, but we are in the happy situation here of other wireless service providers who believe they can fulfill their coverage objectives in this part of Town by locating below them. MR. STONE-You just gave us a number that’s not on the table. MR. ABBATE-199 is below the FAA Regulations by one foot of having a light. Now let me say this, as a pilot myself, I have to tell you, there are, you don’t have to file flight plans, in many instances, okay, and I kind of relinquish flying around that area with a 195 foot tower with no lights or markings on it. I think it’s a very dangerous situation. MR. O’DONNELL-I’m not sure if I remember what’s the minimum flight floor for flying with an unfiled flight plan. MR. STONE-It’s 1500 feet. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) MR. ABBATE-1500 feet. How much more money would it cost to put a light, just for safety reasons? MR. O’DONNELL-The FAA, in general, does not like people to light towers that are below the 200 feet. MR. ABBATE-They don’t? MR. STONE-You’re going to hear, Chuck, somebody in the audience who’s going to comment about it. So that’s why the question was asked. MR. ABBATE-All right. I wasn’t here last time. MR. LAPPER-It’s a balance between the pilots and the residents, the homeowners, who don’t want to be looking at, there’s a light that we all look at on the FM tower up here. So it’s a balance. MR. STONE-That’s why we put it in the tabling motion. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. MR. O’DONNELL-I always say it would be nice to have it lit, and then everyone else says, why? MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions of the applicant? MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, I have a question. I think these gentlemen demonstrate the need for the tower, but I’m just wondering about the visual impact it’s going to have, like for the rec park that’s across the street, and the neighbors in that general vicinity. MR. HAYES-Right. We’re going to hear some. MR. STONE-We’re going to hear that. You’re going to hear it. MR. ABBATE-You weren’t here last time either. MR. LAPPER-We submitted, last time, some view shed analysis, which we brought to the meeting, which addressed that, and in terms of the 149 corridor, the trees are about 85 feet tall. So when you’re driving in your car, and you look up, you’re not going to see the tower, because it’s set back pretty far north of 149, a few hundred feet. MR. BRYANT-What about from the rec park? MR. LAPPER-From the RV Park. MR. BRYANT-Yes. MR. LAPPER-I think that the gentleman who owns the RV Park was here last time, and I recognize him here also, but what he was talking about was that they own the top of the mountain as well, and they have people hiking on the top of the mountain. So they’re going to look down from the top of the mountain, and see the part of the tower that’s above the trees, and that is certainly something that’s going to be visible, but you can’t make these things go away. You can try and eliminate them by making them as few as possible, by having everybody collocate, and picking a suitable location. MR. STONE-But do you have any other pictures like these that you submitted, as we asked in the tabling motion, like from across the road? MR. LAPPER-Well, we don’t have pictures from the RV Park, no, but what we did was we gave you the memo talking about all the sites we approached in terms of putting it somewhere else. MR. STONE-I understand that, but specifically we asked for a representation of what this tower would look like from 149, from the RV Park perspective, for example. MR. O’DONNELL-Well, let me, again, it’s Tim O’Donnell from SBA. In consultation with Ergman Anthony, who are the engineers who prepared this initial report, we asked them to follow the guidelines of the tabling motion, which was from the Lake George R Park perspective for example. So what we charged them with was, can you tell us where, considering the terrain, considering the existing tree height in that particular part of Route 149, which we all know becomes very narrow. The trees are right up on the road. It’s a very tight road. It’s very difficult to have any distance perspective from there, and one of the specific places that was mentioned that we did look at was the bikeway. Because of the terrain and the existing trees, both hardwood and soft wood, on the 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) bikeway, Linda Tarbucks, the Associate Engineer from Ergman Anthony who assisted in the preparation of the initial visual analysis, said I think the only place you could possibly see this from in that particular location is from the bridge on the bike path across Route 149. So I said, you need to go there and do, first you need to do a topographic analysis with an estimate of the existing tree height and see if it’s going to physically possible to see it from that bridge. She called me up today and she said, Tim O’Donnell, I just want you to know that, based on our analysis, it’s going to be difficult to see the top of the tower from the bikeway bridge. She prepared some topographic cross section analysis here, which I can give to you, which basically shows, you know, a person standing on the bridge, and again. MR. STONE-Are you saying I can see it from Frank’s, but I can’t see it from a higher point on, namely the bridge? MR. O’DONNELL-I’ll show you, and again, I think the bottom line is it’s going to be difficult to see this structure. It will be either partially or mostly blocked by vegetation and terrain from almost every location that’s currently in use. MR. STONE-And so why can’t you show us that picture? I mean, that’s what we asked. MR. O’DONNELL-Well, when I said, do you want me to show them a picture of a bunch of trees? Don’t you think that would be a little cute? And I said, you better give us the topographic analysis, which indicates why you’re not just going to take a picture of a bunch of pine trees and say, here you go. So I’d like to give you this cross section analysis. MR. STONE-Fine, whatever you have. MR. O’DONNELL-Yes. One of the things when you do visual analysis is that you never want to give a best case scenario and to just say, here’s a bunch of trees, see, we told you so. MR. STONE-I don’t want to get us in a very argumentative situation. This is something new for us, and we know there is a great deal of interest in the community, whether they’re here or not, in towers in Queensbury or anywhere else they are today, because as you drive around the Country, they’re there, and I, in the privacy of my own car, I have been heard to make some exclamations that only my wife is privileged to hear. MR. WEISS-One of the things, Gary Weiss, again, with Cellular One. One of the things that will mitigate the visual impact, obviously, there’s no tower you can make invisible. They’re tall structures. They’re going to be seen from some vantage points by some people in their ordinary course of travel. The fact that the back drop is French Mountain, you’re not impacting the horizon, so to speak. Everyone’s familiar with Prospect Mountain. All the towers on top of Prospect are at the peak of Prospect and have a direct view shed impact on the horizon. Here you’ve got the back drop of trees and the terrain being French Mountain. So we think that’s important. MR. HIMES-The pictures appear to be of 149 and Route 9, south of 149. That’s probably where most of the activity is. How about just north of that, on Route 9? MR. LAPPER-One of those photos is, I think it’s called maybe the bike path. One of those photos, I gave out all my copies last time, and I don’t have another one here, but I believe one of those is north looking south. MR. MC NALLY-Is the tower going to be painted any particular color? Steel? MR. O’DONNELL-The tower is flat galvanized. It’s a flat gray mat, with a nice finish. MR. ABBATE-Would you consider camouflage painting? Just ignore the question. MR. HIMES-If it’s over 50 feet, it has to be gray, doesn’t it, or over 80 feet, something like that? It’s in the. MR. STONE-It’s in here. It’s in the law. MR. HAYES-The tower that’s on Quaker Road, how tall is that, out of curiosity? That they’re depicting here, that’s near Quaker Road there, it would actually be on US Highway 9, maybe, just as an example, the one that’s right in the center of Town. MR. WEISS-That’s a proposed, what we call a micro cell. MR. LAPPER-How about the ones on the Northway? 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) MR. HAYES-Yes, Tim, I guess, what would be a typical tower? MR. LAPPER-At Exit 18 there’s one. MR. HAYES-What is a typical type of tower, what’s a prototypical type? MR. O’DONNELL-Those towers, you’re talking about the ones at Exit 18. MR. HAYES-Or other ones that are in Queensbury. I mean, it’s kind of an overall question. MR. O’DONNELL-What’s a similar type of this size? MR. HAYES-What is a typical height if someone were to say a tower? MR. O’DONNELL-Typical towers? We have towers that we’ve received, that we are currently under construction for for Southwestern Bell that are 300 feet tall. That’s the highest. The general range can be anywhere from 175 to 250 feet. MR. STONE-What are the ones down at Exit 18? MR. O’DONNELL-I don’t remember how big the one at Exit 18 is. The one on the left, I think, is an AM radio station. The one on the right is probably over 250 feet. MR. WEISS-I think that’s 275 feet. MR. STONE-That’s on the right side going south, west side going south? MR. WEISS-It’s on the west side of 87, heading south. MR. STONE-And that’s 250? MR. WEISS-I believe it’s 275. MR. HAYES-That’s at least 200 right there. MR. LAPPER-And that has a light. MR. HIMES-I don’t find the picture from Route 9, or I can’t identify it, Route 9 north of 149. MR. BRYANT-What would be the contingency plan if this proposal is rejected, just out of curiosity? What’s your contingency plan? MR. O’DONNELL-Contingency plan? MR. HIMES-Yes. MR. HAYES-The next option. MR. HIMES-The next option. MR. STONE-The next option, if we said no. MR. HIMES-How are you going to pursue it? MR. O’DONNELL-I can’t contemplate rejection. MR. ABBATE-You’re a very optimistic man. MR. LAPPER-Well, in all honesty, this is a case where the law gives a cell tower provider more power than a typical applicant coming before the Board, because it’s both a Federal issue, interstate commerce, telecommunications. MR. STONE-But we could make the determination that there is no need for this tower. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STONE-We could make that determination. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) MR. LAPPER-Correct, and if we did not establish that there is a need, then we have no right to get the approval. So, absolutely. Within the parameter, we could be denied. MR. STONE-Okay. I just wanted to know we had some basis for, some room for movement here. MR. LAPPER-We disagree with you, but. MR. STONE-I understand. Any other questions of the applicant? MR. MC NALLY-Just to summarize, you’re talking a 195 foot tower, and you’re going to lease it to how many different companies, or what capacity? MR. O’DONNELL-We’re contemplating a total of five wireless service providers. MR. MC NALLY-Do they take up any particular distance along the length of that tower. MR. O’DONNELL-It’s measured from the top down. It depends on the types of antennas that they use, but we’re pretty confident we can fit five wireless service providers on there and meet the required antenna separation. Some of the different carriers can be pretty close together. Some of them need to be a little farther apart. MR. MC NALLY-Is it fair to say it’s about 20, 25 feet per antenna? MR. O’DONNELL-You mean separation or length of antenna? MR. MC NALLY-Separation. MR. O’DONNELL-Well, the industry standard for separation on antennas is usually less than 25 feet, and the technical separation requirement may often be even less than that. MR. MC NALLY-Somewhat less than 25 feet? MR. O’DONNELL-It can be as small as several feet, or a minimum usual range might be 10 feet. With certain types of applications you might get up to 15 or 20 feet, but that’s probably not going to be likely in this location. Because of the types of the antennas these people are going to be using. MR. MC NALLY-Now, as part of trying to analyze the necessity of this antenna tower, was any study made as far as how much range you would cover at the different heights. If I knocked you down 25 feet, how much territory would suddenly turn to red on your map, and 25 feet below that? Because obviously there are some cellular companies at say 120 feet to 150 feet that are going to be living at that level, providing the service that you folks seem to require. MR. O’DONNELL-Well, let me just, before you, you’re talking about two different things. Your real concern is about people in the future that are going to be on this site and are going to have difficulties in meeting their coverage objectives because they’re lower? What’s the question? MR. MC NALLY-I’m trying to get an idea of what the necessity is from you, as an applicant, to have an antenna at 195 feet, versus 120 feet, where other cellular companies seem, from what you’re saying, to be able to survive. So my question is, is this that you want a big tower in order to lease to other companies? Do you want to be like first on the block? MR. O’DONNELL-We are contractually obligated to Cellular One, doing business at Southwestern Bell, to only build the tower to their maximum requirement. Any carriers who are collocated on there afterwards have to live with the maximum allowable structure height of the justification of need of Cellular One. MR. MC NALLY-Were studies done, though, at different heights, though, is what I’m asking? MR. LAPPER-Why do you need 195? MR. WEISS-The whole problem is structural height, which is the physical top of the tower, would be 190 feet. I think 195 has been filed to cover things like, that would be the center line of the antenna would be 190 feet. So 195 feet will cover, that would cover the overall structure height, and our RF Engineering Department had determined that 190 feet is the minimum height necessary for us to cover the target areas, including providing uninterrupted service between Glens Falls and Lake George on the Northway. Any lower than that, we would shrink back the red area on our coverage key. We don’t want to make it any higher than we have to, co-axial cable is expensive. There’s more line loss introduced. It costs everyone more money, essentially. So, we’ve determined that’s the minimum height necessary to do what we need for it to do. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) MR. ABBATE-So the 195 feet would also take into consideration future plans that you might have. Correct? MR. WEISS-Yes, if we can locate on this tower, and then collocate on. MR. ABBATE-That’s the question. In other words, the 195 is included, though it may not have been stated here, in future plans. MR. WEISS-I’m not sure I understand the question. MR. O’DONNELL-(Lost words) and then the antenna center line, it extends slightly above what they call the antenna center line. Let me also just jump in and say that, in response to that second question, we are providing site development services for Southwestern Bell. As a company that also does tower development, we’re going to spend the extra money in the hopes that other wireless service providers will be able to see this existing tall structure and make it work in their existing network plan. The truth of the matter is that no other wireless service provider may be able to justify need for this site. However, I can assure you that Independent Wireless One, I met with them today, they are requesting collocation on that site. So, that’s an indication from another carrier who believes that they can fulfill their obligations at this site. This site is for Cellular One. We are providing site development services for them, but we are not attempting in any way to justify the other collocation platforms on the site. We’re just going to spend an extra amount of money to have the capacity on the structure, so that if people do come in and say, I need a site at the intersection of 149, to cover the gaps between Lake George Village and the towers at Exit 18, then there’s going to be some capacity there for them, rather than just being, well, there’s no capacity on the tower. It’s not strong enough to support. MR. STONE-Let me just ask a question, looking at our law, where it says, where shared towers are not proposed, this is obviously somebody besides Cellular One, the applicant must provide documentation of the inability to utilize an existing tower or structure. You are stating for the record that you are building this tower so that it will be able to be used by competitors. MR. O’DONNELL-Yes. MR. STONE-It will be strong enough and relatively high enough for their use, to give them reasonable service? MR. O’DONNELL-Yes. MR. LAPPER-And as a condition, they will agree to lease it to other providers. MR. STONE-Well, I understand that, but I’m just looking at the Code, just to be sure. Craig, do you have a? MR. BROWN-Well, yes. This is more of a focus kind of comment, on the use and the subjective over, do they need it this tall, that’s handled at the Planning Board. MR. STONE-I understand. MR. BROWN-I realize this is good information to make a decision on, but it really doesn’t matter how tall it is for the decision that you have to make. MR. STONE-Any other questions that are vital? Let me open the public hearing, or we left it open last time. I’ll just re-open it, just in case. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of the application, in favor? Anybody wishing to speak opposed to the application? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN DAVID KING MR. KING-My name is David King. I’m the Vice President and General Manager of the Lake George R V Park Incorporated, who owns 110 acres across the street from the proposed location of the tower, owns 340 acres on French Mountain, including 45 acres at the end of the Town road French Mountain Drive, at the base of French Mountain, which is three acre residential property that has been invested by our corporation for future possible development of homes. So that, you know, it’s important that the Board remember that I’m not just speaking as the operator and owner of an RV Park, that obviously has an objection to the proposed site, but also as the owner and maintainer of a piece of forest property, the southernmost of the Adirondack Mountains, historically noted, in all history books throughout the world, as a site in the French and Indian War. It’s also important to 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) note that we also owned residentially owned property at the end of French Mountain Drive, which has access from a Town road, which also would be effected, in terms of property value, if a light industrial application is approved in this three acre residential area. To be very pointed, and I think it’s very important that we remember, as Craig’s bringing us back, that we’re only dealing with use here, and I think, after the last meeting, you’ve asked the SBA representatives to justify why other alternate sites were not feasible. I think what we heard, in the memo that was read, is that there’s a lot of objection by other property owners in this area to having the tower on their site. However, it was not mentioned the procedure by which they negotiated with these property owners. If my experience with the representative from SBA is any indication of the aggressiveness by the company to pursue alternate sites, I would say they didn’t go far enough. I was only approached indirectly by Mr. Newell, who is the SBA representative who dropped this brochure off with no meeting, no phone call, on the site when I was not on the property, and I believe it was in November of 1999. There was no follow up phone call. There was no attempt for a meeting for discussion on it. There was just simply kind of a, here, you know, are you interested in investing in a tower, so to speak. Months went by. There was no notification. I thought nothing of it. I really didn’t know what the intention of the company was, because all this is is a marketing brochure. No cover letter, no indication whatsoever of why this was dropped on the property, other than a remark made to one of my employees, who took the brochure, that somebody was here that wanted to find a location for a tower, wondered if we were interested. So, anyway, that was all that was said. Months went by. Another physical attempt was made at my property to see me, again, no phone call, 24 hour switchboard, voice mail, lots of way to contact me by letter or phone, no attempts were made. What I’m trying to suggest is the other properties on Route 9 and other commercially zoned properties in this area, were also approached and said they do not want this on their property. If they were approached in the same nonchalant fashion that I was approached, I would assume they didn’t go far enough. Also, I would like to say that their brochure indicates that they are in the Top 500 fastest growing corporations in the United States. They’re obviously here for more than one reason. Obviously to provide better cellular service, but also to obtain profits. I’m sure some of the property owners in the commercially zoned areas of this region, where other sites have been considered, obviously, they have not sat at the table and negotiated enough on the purchase price or the lease price, perhaps, and might I suggest that had they done that, they might have had agreements from other property owners that have property that is already zoned more consistent with this application. However, the three acre residentially zoned property, the eight and a half acres across from the R V Park, is being chosen because they expect the least resistance, obviously, from other property owners. It would probably be the least cost for them, the company, to develop on that site. Therefore, allowing more profits, and also they want to push it through quickly. It’s a competitive industry. Whoever gets to put that tower up has a monopoly. Okay. So, obviously, we need to push this right along. Therefore, the justification, approve it at the Zoning Board, get it to the Planning Board as soon as possible, because we’ve got to get this thing done before somebody else gets ahead of us. I must also mention, in terms of use, the Lake George RV Park was developed there in 1966. It has been long noted as one of the finest RV parks in the Country. I actually had a meeting this morning with representatives for Woodale’s Directory, which is a rating company for campgrounds throughout the United States. They rate over 14,000 campgrounds nationwide. They’re making their annual inspection of our facility actually today, and I asked them the question, if a 190 foot tower was constructed, across the Park on this proposed property, and it was visible from our entrance, which indeed it will be, because if you have visited our Park, as you approach into our entrance, that is the only area that has no trees. There is no barrier there at all. You can see, very clearly, the tree line and French Mountain beyond. So it would be very visible there. I said if that existed, would it effect our rating, as a campground? They said, absolutely it would, because they rate not just the campground, as a property on its own, but the surrounding aesthetics of the campground. Again, we’ve been rated in the Top 100 campgrounds, with their highest rating, which they rate five, give you five W’s, so to speak, for facilities, and five W’s for your recreational facilities. We would have the option of possibly losing a rating W from our rating which we’ve maintained for 34 consecutive years. We’re the only company in the RV Park industry that’s had that rating, the highest rating, for 34 consecutive years in the entire United States. They would put it in writing that it would effect our rating if that tower was constructed. It would be a bigger impact if there was a light on the top. There has been discussions here tonight that, no, it is not required. Perhaps it is not required by the FAA. However, I have spoken to, not officials with the FAA, but people that are very privy to the FAA’s ability to impose requirements when needed. In other words, I’ve spoken to people actually in aviation that have indicated, in traffic control, that if there was an incident with this tower, if there was a plane that touched the tower, if there was an issue that created a safety concern or a fatality, the FAA has every right to come in and put the light on the tower, if the tower is to remain at that location. So although by the written word in the written word in the FAA Regulations, under 200 feet it is not required, they’re absolutely correct, perhaps, if something occurs that makes that a concern for safety, FAA has every right to put a light on the tower. So obviously, that’s a big concern for us. A light is a beacon that you can see from everywhere, through the trees, at night. It can be behind the tree line. So what I’m saying that had they approached the other property owners in the commercially zoned districts on this corridor, the Route 9 corridor, had they negotiated longer, started the process earlier, whatever it might be, they may have found cooperation from those other property owners for the location of this tower there. To say that this is the only place for it, and that 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) the reason the can’t consider any of the alternatives is that everyone said, no, I don’t want it in my back yard, I think is really just too simplistic an excuse to say it must be located here, in a three acre residentially zoned area that has no other light industrial uses, has never had an intent for light industrial uses, is at the base of a historic mountain, that has hiking trails that you can view all that property as you look down from the mountain. The tree coverage from 149 back to the tower exists today, 15, 20 years from now there’s no guarantee that the tree coverage will be there. Natural attrition by nature can remove trees by ice storm or wind sheers or whatever. So you may see it from the bike trail system. You may see it from the RV Park, from 149, from Route 9, in the future. So what exists there today doesn’t mean it’s going to be as unobvious in the future. It would be much better to have it out in a commercially zoned area, and they didn’t show you the red maps for what it would be if it was, say, up in Dexter’s Shoe Factory Outlet. They didn’t show what the coverage would be if it was on County property on a different site next to the Municipal Center. They didn’t show you that, but I think if you actually went as far as asking for that information, you’d find that the coverage is just as good from any of those other locations as from this location. However, this seems the easiest way to get to Point B, and that’s what they’re here to do. The Zoning Board, obviously, we have zoning laws in this Town that we hope that all developers will take into account. Our business certainly has for 34 years. We’ve invested in property on the Mountain, at the end of French Mountain Drive, with the hopes that in the future, as real estate values increase, that will prove to be a good investment. Having this light industrial application 190 foot tower, within a quarter of a mile of 34 acres residentially zoned property that could be subdivided and houses built on is obviously, could cause strict devaluation of that real estate. So even taking the RV Park out of it, taking the mountain view out of it, we also have a stake in the residential property that is yet undeveloped at the base of the mountain, and I truly believe that that would, I could prove through litigation if necessary, that that would strictly devalue that property as well. So obviously I’m still strictly opposed to it. I don’t believe that the memo that they faxed to Craig last week and that didn’t get into your packets this week, or before this meeting for your review, is an answer to the questions that were brought up at our last meeting. However, it really doesn’t answer why the alternatives still can’t be considered. Did they go far enough in making the alternatives viable? And so I think that’s really the focus, what I leave with here tonight, is that I don’t believe all those alternatives have been exhausted. The property owners have just said no. I think if they go back to the table with some of them, maybe make a greater to attempt to justify why it would be a better location out on Route 9 than over in this residential area, that perhaps, and maybe for the right check amount, you know, if they’re willing to pay a little more, they would perhaps get that kind of cooperation. So, again, I thank you for your time. I know there’s a lot of people out here waiting to speak, especially a fellow next to me from New Jersey who drove two and a half hours to get here tonight. He has a tower in his neighborhood in New Jersey, and theirs looks like a tree. They obviously spent a lot more money to make it look like a tree in New Jersey, but we haven’t considered how to make this more aesthetically appealing in the Adirondack Park. So I thank you for your time. MR. STONE-Anybody else wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? Anybody else? MR. ABBATE-This gentleman from New Jersey drove up here and he’s not going to speak? MR. KING-No, not on this purpose. He’s here for another reason. MR. ABBATE-For another reason. MR. KING-He made a comment to me, just on the side, but it’s just interesting that he has that on his property. MR. STONE-Okay. Anybody else wishing to speak opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-Yes. We have a letter in the form of a memo from Marianne McGowan, addressed to the, I guess it was an e-Mail, from the appearance, dated May 12, “Dear Recipient: I th would appreciate it if you would forward this message onto the Queensbury Board of Appeals: I read the notification of the variance requested for a cellular phone tower on the north side of 149. As a resident of Queensbury I urge the Board to reject the appeal as an inappropriate proposal for the site. Queensbury must not continue to undermine its land use standards at the whim of every developer. Placing a cellular tower on this site in my opinion is inappropriate for the following reasons: 1. 8 acre parcel is zoned residential and surrounded by other residential homes on French Mountain Drive and 149. Placing a cell tower here will negatively impact these residents and home values. 2. Queensbury has a wise use policy of allowing cell towers on light industrial sites – this site DOES NOT meet that policy or Queensbury stated use standards. 3. Placing a cell tower at this location I believe would negatively impact businesses such as the Wild West Ranch and the LG RV Park who are presenting a rustic Adirondack atmosphere to their guests – which does not include looking at a 195 foot blinking cell tower. It would also negatively impact the Wild West French Mountain horse trips. 4. The site would visually negatively impact the nicest section of the Warren County bike path which has proven to have great tourism value to the visitors and residents alike. I urge the Board of Appeals to reject this request and direct the developer to pursue a cell tower in an 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) approved Queensbury light industrial location. Let’s adhere to the zoning guidelines! Sincerely, Marianne McGowan Queensbury resident” MR. STONE-Anything else? MR. MC NULTY-Nothing else that I find. MR. STONE-Let me close the public hearing for the moment. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any comments you wish to make on the basis of what you heard? MR. LAPPER-I guess just generally, like Lew said, I also drive around the Country. I remember being on Cape Cod where I thought that I saw one every quarter mile, and it’s not attractive. Nobody likes looking a cell towers. Everybody wants to have a cell phone, but the purpose of the Queensbury law and this application is to reduce the number, to have one tower that’s going to handle everybody in this area of Town. The main point is that it’s a utility, it’s treated as a utility. Wireless communications facilities are needed to have cell phones. There’s some statistic that SBA sent me that something on the order of 100,000 calls a day are made to 911 throughout the Country, that apparently that’s how people call the police, but it’s just, it’s important for public safety. It’s important for communications. Sure, it would be better if the technology were something else and it didn’t have to be on towers, but that’s the state of the technology right now, and that’s why the law gives extra room for these things. Certainly we can address some of the specific issues that were raised, and I think alternate sites is important. I think Gary can do a good job with that. MR. WEISS-Okay. Yes, first I just wanted to, another general blurb from the wireless industry, that currently there are 80 million wireless subscribers in the United States. In 1990 that number was something like three million, and the method of delivery is a line of sight technology, ergo towers, a basically honeycombing network of interconnecting cells, whereby height is the means of wireless delivery. So we really think it is here to stay. I mean, obviously not everybody’s happy about it. Some people it doesn’t bother at all, other people are very attune to aesthetics. We think the site we’ve selected here does have substantial screening from the main travel routes. Absolutely it’s not going to be invisible. We know that, and we’re trying to mitigate and address your concerns as best we can. There’s a substantial body of evidence, in fact, we just had a case in Tully, New York, we did an extensive study of seven areas in Onondaga County where one of the concerns raised, without any evidence submitted, is that they would have, a communications tower would have a negative effect on area property values, and in each case, whether they were electric transmission towers, cellular PCS telephone towers in the Syracuse area, in fact, one of them was a County 911 tower. It had no negative effect on home resale values, which is kind of the standard of valuation. People want to protect their investments. So presently the penetration rate is about 20% nationally for wireless. In parts of Europe, the Far East, other parts of the World, it’s as high as 75%. Wireless data is expected to really open up and burgeon in the next, by the Year 2005, another use of wireless communications. So we’re trying to provide not only basic cellular telephone coverage, but meet the technological needs of the area, area business, American lifestyle in general, by getting the infrastructure in place where we need it, and we did analyze each of the alternate sites that we were asked to look at by the Zoning Board last month, and I may need Mr. Rucinski’s assistance on some of these, but the first one we’re sending around is, what I believe you have in front of you now is our current coverage plat, which identifies the gaps in level of service in the Town of Queensbury and along the major travel routes. Next you had asked us to look at the Moon Hill FM tower. That does not clear up the deficiencies easterly far enough along and onto the Route 9 and Route 87 corridor. The other site we were asked to look at is Gurney Lane Road. MR. STONE-I’m only disturbed that we’re seeing this now, rather than 45 minutes ago. I don’t understand why we didn’t get this in your initial presentation. This is one of the things that we asked for, alternate sites, and we have to sit here and. MR. LAPPER-Only because this is a complex issue and we’ve been sort of fleshing it out. We gave you the written first, which told you who we’ve gone to, and this is really in response to the public comment. I mean, we had it here to give to you. It was just a question of how we laid it out for you. MR. STONE-Well, it was in response to our. MR. LAPPER-This doesn’t do much different than what the red and the green, in terms of, it has the current conditions, which it shows in detail, which we’ve just looked at, and we’ve got the proposed, and we’ve got two other sites that we compare, and we’re responding by showing you that with the alternate locations. One, we heard a comment about the Municipal Center. So we’ve got a Gurney Lane site across from the Municipal Center, and in response to that, that that still has a deficiency of 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) coverage on 87, and this one is the Moon Hill, which also, you know, so we’re just showing you that we did our homework. MR. STONE-Yes, but we did say any other information of an alternate site. I think it was a typo that said size. I assume, I’m sure we meant site. I apologize, noticing that there’s a typo on this tabling. MR. ABBATE-And, Counselor, I have to agree with the Chairman. It would seem to me that if you’re going to present your case, you should submit all the appropriate documents. This seems to be coming to us piecemeal. As soon as we hear a complaint from the public, now you say, wait a second, we’ve done this. Now we hear another complaint, now wait a second, we’ve done this. Why not get the package together? Why not give us one package? MR. LAPPER-I don’t disagree with that. It’s just that there are so many potential issues we’re trying to anticipate what we’re going to hear. MR. STONE-Let me go back to the potential issue, Mr. Lapper. You’re telling us that this is a public utility, and therefore a Use Variance is guided by a number of things, the need, which we’ll believe, I mean, there are numbers, we all know what cell phones are doing, but second, alternate sites are very important. This is not a light industrial or heavy industrial site. This is a site that requires a variance, and there are many sites that therefore require a variance. One might say an infinite number of sites. MR. LAPPER-The red and the green map shows why we need it, so we started out with the red and green map. That shows why there’s a deficiency, which is the main thing that you have to establish, and that’s what (lost words). MR. STONE-That’s your definition of why you need it, and. MR. LAPPER-The burden is on us to prove it. MR. STONE-And you’ve tried to prove it. All right. MR. MC NALLY-Mr. Chairman, are we arguing that there is no necessity for coverage, or are we arguing that there are no compelling reasons for the selection of this site or its height? MR. STONE-Height is not an issue. Height is not an issue, except for the public, in terms of visibility, but we’re arguing, is there necessity. They believe, using these two, they’ve shown there’s a necessity for coverage. MR. HAYES-I mean, I think that they’ve brought these out, though, based on Mr. King’s argument that there’s feasible alternatives. MR. LAPPER-Right. We gave it to you in writing, and now we’re showing it to you. It’s just a question of how much information. There’s a lot of information. MR. HAYES-This is like a feasible alternative argument, I guess, at this point. MR. MC NALLY-They have to show compelling reason why this alternative. MR. STONE-Why this particular location. MR. HIMES-I think, which Mr. Lapper referred to earlier, the Planning Board, I think, is the enabling authority, reviews and approves placement and operation. However, they’re here as the need for a Use Variance because it’s not a permitted use. So we’re concerned with whether we should allow a variance, and then all kinds of things that we’ve talked about, not non technical, come into play. Such as what the visitor spoke of, and some of the things that I and others spoke of at the last meeting. Now, the matter then is, are we going to approve a non permissible use in this zoned area. That’s what we’re concerned with as I see it. MR. ABBATE-That’s a simple issue. MR. HIMES-Now, in connection with that one related, I think we should focus on that. However, in support of the comments about Moon Hill, for example, and I guess as it looks here there is certainly a difference in the blue, but Moon Hill, if you had no choice, would you put a tower up on Moon Hill? MR. LAPPER-And the answer is no, because it doesn’t cover the Northway. 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) MR. HIMES-Because there is in here, in the matter of new telecommunications towers, one of the things that’s required in here, and that our visitor alluded to, I believe alluding to the Code, the applicant shall document good faith efforts to secure shared use from the owner of each existing tall structure or approved telecommunications tower and lot already containing a telecommunications tower. Such documentation shall include written requests to each owner, estimated expenses, and the explanation of the physical, technical and/or financial reasons why collocation on an existing telecommunications tower, shared use of an existing tall structure, or location on a lot already containing a tower is not practical in each case. So what response you might have gotten from the Moon Hill people, I think we’d like to see that kind of documentation. You’re saying that it doesn’t matter because Moon Hill. MR. LAPPER-I’m saying that it doesn’t matter in both cases, Gurney Lane and Moon Hill, because they’re not sufficient, but also the standards that you’re reading from are what the Planning Board asks us for when we get to the Planning Board. MR. HIMES-Right. MR. LAPPER-Similar but slightly different than what the standards are here, in terms of the necessity. MR. HIMES-Yes. The only thing we’re concerned with here really is the Use Variance. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. HIMES-Period. MR. STONE-Yes, but we’re granting a Use Variance for a tower on this specific piece of property. We’re not granting a Use Variance for a tower in the general vicinity, and you have to demonstrate, I’m not saying you haven’t. You’re going to have to demonstrate to us that it has to be where it is, that it couldn’t be anywhere else because, one, you couldn’t get anybody to put it there, or, two, that the others are deficient, in terms of your mission, if you will. MR. LAPPER-And that’s what we’re in the process of establishing. MR. STONE-I understand. MR. LAPPER-So we’ve given you two so far. MR. STONE-We’ve got two. I’ve got two. MR. MC NALLY-I’ve got the current and Moon Hill. MR. STONE-Right. MR. ABBATE-They have to demonstrate the use. MR. STONE-And the stronger the signal, the better it is. That’s why zero, minus seventy is, this is loss of signal when you go to minus. This goes down to minus eighty-five. Okay. Let me ask the Board. Are we doing something the Board wants to do here? I mean, I don’t want to preempt the Board. If we think we’ve got enough information. MR. BRYANT-Well, you know, I don’t understand why we’re talking, I know that these were alternate sites, but we’re only here to consider that specific site. This is all good information, but I don’t think it’s necessary. MR. ABBATE-But it is necessary because Counsel has to show a compelling reason why this site is better than these other sites. I happen to side with you. I think you’re right on this one issue, that he has to submit supporting documents to show us, in a compelling way, why this site where they’re considering which is a 195 foot tower, is better than these sites. I think that’s part of his argument. I think. MR. HIMES-Yes, it has a bearing on it. MR. STONE-Okay. So we’re still going? MR. MC NALLY-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) MR. MC NALLY-The Gurney Lane site doesn’t correct the Northway problem either? MR. WEISS-It doesn’t adequately cover I-87, 9, and then you’ll notice the substantial difference on 149 east of. MR. MC NALLY-Going east. MR. STONE-By Gurney Lane, you mean the County buildings west of the Northway? Is that what you’re talking? MR. LAPPER-Yes, that’s Gurney Lane. MR. STONE-Where the health center is? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. So we’re not talking about the existing tower at the Municipal Center, when you talk about Gurney Lane? MR. ABBATE-Is that the water storage tank you’re referring to? MR. STONE-No. MR. ABBATE-This is entirely different, okay. MR. STONE-This would be a new tower you’re talking about. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. STONE-But it would be over where West Mountain Road goes off, in that, okay, and this is the one you’re proposing now, right? MR. LAPPER-Yes. Gurney Lane isn’t flagged. It’s on the other side of the Northway, by the County buildings. There’s a little flag where the tower would be. MR. STONE-Right there? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. I’m glad you pointed it out. MR. WEISS-Yes. It’s my understanding the Gurney Lane site was a location furnished by the Board of Zoning Appeals at the last meeting that we were requested to consider as an alternative. So, this is the RF Propagation Map for it. MR. STONE-I thought we talked about the current existing tower at the Municipal Center? And Gurney Lane was not mentioned, that I know of, and nothing wrong with it, but I don’t recall it being mentioned. MR. O’DONNELL-There’s two issues here. Well, what about these alternate sites, did you take a look at them? Yes, we did. Did you talk to them? Yes, we did. Did they say yes? No, they didn’t. Well, I don’t believe you. Well, which is a Planning Board issue relating to that documentation. We have to address. The second issue is, are there sites in Queensbury that are existing tall structures that you need to look at? There are some which, yes, they’re kind of nearby. Moon tower, it doesn’t work, and they said no. Gurney Lane is so far away it doesn’t work at all. There’s no sense even talking to them. So, that’s the distinction between the different types of justification we’re giving here. One is that you’re asking for, well, any of these alternates that we talked about at the last meeting, did you talk to any of them? Well, we talked to every single one of them that could work conceivably. MR. ABBATE-And the Queensbury water storage tank would not work? MR. O’DONNELL-You’re talking, are you talking about the green tanks, the new ones built on? MR. STONE-That’s 19 you’re talking about. MR. ABBATE-19, yes, I’m referring to 19. MR. O’DONNELL-The two green tanks together? 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) MR. STONE-No. The Glens Falls tanks. MR. O’DONNELL-That’s much too far south. MR. STONE-The only thing that I would like to hear is a comment to, I think Mr. King said, did you negotiate with these other people differently than he thinks you negotiated with him, or he states you negotiated with him, which apparently was nothing? MR. O’DONNELL-Our agent is a guy, since his name already came up, his name’s Shane Newell. He was here last meeting. He grew up on French Mountain Road. He lives in Warrensburg right now, and maybe he wasn’t pushy. I don’t know. MR. KING-He didn’t even call me. I mean, there was no effort made for me. MR. O’DONNELL-And I can’t speak to, I’m not going to get involved in a hearsay discussion between his perception of our negotiations with him. It sounded to me that he was characterizing it as that he might have liked doing the deal, but, you know, I can’t say that because that’s me hearsaying stuff that he’s talking about that I wasn’t privy to those conversations. So I can’t comment. MR. STONE-But you believe there were good faith negotiations entered into with alternate site locations? MR. O’DONNELL-Based on my direct responsibility as Territory Manager of Shane Newell, I am stating on the record that all good faith efforts were made to pursue alternate locations in the area. The other thing is, wireless service providers, while they are public utilities under New York State Statute and law, do not share the benefit of imminent domain. So we cannot come in, you understand that as well. So we are in a situation of asking people if they want to make an arrangement. In instances, it’s not, I don’t want it in my back yard. Sometimes people have other reasons why they want to keep their own FM radio tower. Maybe they have a cash flow that they like to keep under their own control. So there’s a whole host of different reasons why people don’t want to do it. MR. STONE-Okay. If you had right of imminent domain, since you brought it up, where would this tower be located? MR. O’DONNELL-I do not have right of imminent domain, but if I could condemn a piece of property, it would just so happen to be Mr. Fowler’s property. It’s the best sited location I’ve ever seen, and I’ve probably done a thousand of them across the Country. It’s the best location to meet the wireless service providers needs of all the carriers, the PCS carriers, the lower frequency people. I’ve never seen a better site. MR. ABBATE-Now, Mr. Fowler, is that what I heard? He’s the property owner of the proposed site. All right. MR. HAYES-So you’re saying that it’s not a budgetary issue to try and find the most cost effective site, which is what Mr. King. MR. O’DONNELL-Well, the question is, too, if you think about it, if SBA’s motivation was financial, in terms of finding the easiest and cheapest site to go to quickly, if you looked at a zoning map of the Town of Queensbury, you’ve got these locations, which, in your Ordinance, allow the installation of wireless service facilities, and these are the light industrial areas marked in yellow. You’ll notice that all of the rest of the Town is off limits, including one of the largest areas set aside for light industrial use for telecommunications facilities in your Ordinance is the airport, as you well understand, is probably not going to be suitable. MR. ABBATE-Well, unless you have a light on it. MR. O’DONNELL-Yes. So you’ve got Exit 18, which we’ve already demonstrated there’s existing towers. Everybody knows we can’t go there. We’ve talked about it for hours. I mean, you’ve got one site on Bay Road. We’ve talked about that already. It’s practically downtown. You’ve got the airport, and you’ve got, I don’t even know if that must the James River plant or something. MR. LAPPER-It’s Ceiba Geigy. MR. O’DONNELL-Yes, it’s the Ceiba Geigy plant. So you’ve got almost the entire northern end of the Town is effectively prohibitive from wireless use unless you get a Use Variance, but if I wanted 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) to do it cheaply, I could talk to Ceiba Geigy and get a lease with them in 20 minutes, but it doesn’t work that way. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. WEISS-Yes, again, Tim just explained it eloquently. Our coverage needs are in the northern part of the Town. We’ve been trying to get to a place where we have the location that meets the coverage objective for a long time, months and months and months, with all kinds of different orders, from all over the place, and we have this property. It’s the only one available. MR. ABBATE-And again, let me go back to my other question which I said initially. This 195 foot tower will meet future technological requirements? MR. WEISS-I received, today, a commitment letter from Independent Wireless One, requesting collocation at the highest available mounted height below Cellular One, at 170 feet. I met with the guy today. Sprint PCS has a lower operating frequency, excuse me, a higher operating frequency and a lower power level, which means the signal doesn’t propagate even as well as Cellular One analog signal. They still think they can make their coverage objectives work there. We have the tower that’s currently permitted to the east in Patten Mills. Cellular One doesn’t need to be on that site because they don’t have the same coverage weaknesses to the east, but IWO’s going to be there. So they’re making that handoff. So in combination with other sites that we have, and then on the existing site on Prospect Mountain, and probably are existing sites down at Exit 18, with this site, they’re going to be able to make that connection. Specifically, this tower is designed, and we are providing site development services for an FCC licensed wireless service provider Cellular One. Contractually, we can only build as high as they want to be. We’re in the fortunate situation where wireless service providers, because of the perfect location, are able to make it work, and we were able to get a lease there, and that’s why we’re willing to go through this process of a Use Variance before the Board of Zoning Appeals in the Town of Queensbury which would be no developer’s first option here, unless we were required to by a particular standard of need. MR. ABBATE-So this 195 foot tower would (lost words). MR. STONE-Before you go one step further, since Staff was out of the room, Craig, were just shown, I just want to confirm, we were shown a map of the Light Industrial areas in the Town of Queensbury, and there are none, to your knowledge, in this part of Town. Would you agree? MR. BROWN-In the part of Town where this application is proposed? That’s correct. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. HIMES-9A, Route 9, coming up, before you get to Route 149, you know it’s a Highway Commercial zone, all those stores along the right hand side as you’re coming up north, and the bike trail comes down through behind them somewhere, that land back in there, right behind all those store fronts. MR. WEISS-It’s all wetlands. MR. HIMES-There’s nothing you could do with that either? MR. WEISS-There’s a pond on the north side of the road there. It’s all (lost words). MR. HIMES-You did check that out? MR. WEISS-Yes. I mean, I think it’s even shown. MR. MC NULTY-You’d probably have the same issue there, too. You’ve still got a 195 foot tower that’s going to be seen from the RV Park, whether it’s behind the Factory Outlets or it’s on French Mountain. MR. STONE-The only concern that I really have left in my mind, I mean, obviously, you have justified that there is lack of inadequate coverage, let’s put it that way, in that area, I know this. You certainly have established the law that this, in fact, is a utility and therefore comes under different standards. No question about that. I think you have now demonstrated, it took a while, but you’ve now demonstrated that this is a preferred site or the preferred site in your statement. You said you’ve never seen anything better. Okay. You’ve said that. You’re on the record. The thing that concerns me, the one concern that I have left has to do with the tabling motion, where we specifically asked for a view from the RV Park. As the owner or the General Manager said, it is open there. There are no trees at the entrance of that thing, and yet we have no picture looking to the north, simulated picture like you’ve furnished four other shots from Frank’s, and Dunham’s, 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) wherever you showed us, but you never showed us directly across the street, looking up the hill, and I hear what this woman said, that you’re quoting, but I would think that if you stand on the front of their driveway, and you look to the north, up the hill, you’re going to see the tower, and that’s what we asked, what’s it going to look like, as you showed us. MR. O’DONNELL-Let me make an admission that you might be able to see it from the middle of the driveway of the RV Park. How many people, in July, are going to be standing in the middle of the RV Park driveway? I don’t know. How many cars will be stopped in traffic that will be looking in that direction? I don’t know. There’s a question of perceived loss of value. A person coming to stay at the RV Park, when the tower is constructed, who’s driving down the road, who leaves to go in to Town to get a hamburger or go to the Pizzeria at Frank’s, and happens to see this tower, is that he or she going to consider that to be a negative? If you want us to provide a picture, you say, well, you didn’t give us that picture from the RV Park. Well, you can take any one of these other pictures, from a similar distance, and say, yes, you can see it from here. We’ve provided the FAA information, and they said, you know, the FAA told us we’re not going to have to light the tower. Well, they might anyway, I don’t believe you. Well, you’re going to be able to see it. MR. STONE-Okay, but the point is, we talk, and one of the things that we’re charged with, whether it’s a use or an area variance, is the detriment to the community, and sticking a tower in virgin woods, if you will, standing up there, is a concern that I personally, would like to see a representation. You provided them from four locations. We asked how about another location, and we never got it. MR. LAPPER-Well, I guess the only thing I would say in response is that the picture, the drawing that Tim showed you from the bike bridge is pretty close to the entrance to the R V Park, as it crosses the road. MR. O’DONNELL-Let me just say also that the tabling motion, since the feedback that I’m getting from you folks is that when I make a general comment, that you have a lot of specificity in the reply. Your comment was from the Lake George RV Park perspective for example. You didn’t say, we are tabling this because we want you to go stand in the driveway in the middle of the R V Park. Now, the engineer wasn’t at that meeting. I wasn’t at that meeting. So we went and said, well, you’re the engineer who’s charged with the responsibility and has the technical expertise and engineering training to do an analysis of view shed. Where you think would be the most logical location for the visual impact for the community? And she said from the bike path, and from the bike path, I don’t think you’re going to even be able to see it there. MR. STONE-But having been here, and certainly Mr. Lapper was here, and the comment was made, it’s going to have an adverse effect on the clientele at the RV Park. I don’t know whether it is or not, but I certainly would have liked to have seen the simulated shot. You showed us four of them, and it certainly was clear. Maybe we didn’t spell it out. Maybe we have to be, maybe I’m being testy because I was the one who made the tabling motion, but believe me, I certainly, we all assumed we were going to get a picture from the RV Park. Am I wrong on that one? MR. MC NALLY-That’s a fair assumption. The RV Park owner was the one that made the most objections as to the placement of this Tower because of the possibility of having a light on the top, the effect that would have on campers expecting an Adirondack type experience, from the way it would look from this property. I can’t tell from that property where the heck the tower is, because (lost word) turned around, but I think that was something that we had asked for. MR. ABBATE-And I think also, if I might add, that submitting a picture certainly would help Counselor’s case in a compelling argument. MR. LAPPER-I guess the only thing I want to add is that, if you’re asking about from the entrance on 149, which is certainly along the public route, and without permission, an engineer could be sent with a camera to take a picture, you’d be looking across the street at the trees, and see what’s above the trees from the entrance, but what’s probably more compelling is inside the campground where there’s lots of trees, where somebody’s going to have their RV parked, where they’re going to be looking up through a canopy, a word that we heard before, of leaves in the summer, where they’re probably not going to see anything, which is more significant because that’s where you’re camping, in terms of the experience, rather than when you’re on line, coming in the front gate. MR. STONE-Well, I can’t speak for the owner of the RV Park, but there are tennis courts down there. There is an open. MR. KING-There’s a pool. There’s a playground. There’s three tennis courts. There’s a trolley stop and gazebo where thousands of guests sit waiting for transportation. I mean, it isn’t just a parking lot. It’s a recreational area. 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) MR. LAPPER-I guess admittedly, it’s not going to be invisible, and it’s just a question of, in terms of this as a utility and need, which we’ve justified in this area. I don’t know what more you need to see, really, in terms of the standards that apply to this. MR. STONE-Well, if you felt compelled to give us this last month, why don’t we have five and six here? I mean that’s my only concern. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MR. O’DONNELL-Well, then if you have these concerns, then if you would have the owner take photographs from his property and provide them to us, we can do a view shed of one photograph, but I’m not going to send one of my engineers onto the RV Park’s property to take a picture. MR. ABBATE-Wouldn’t it be in your best interest? MR. LAPPER-If he gets permission, we could. MR. ABBATE-Why not negotiate in good faith with the RV operator? MR. O’DONNELL-Well, we’ve already demonstrated that I don’t think we’re going to have an ability to negotiate in good faith. Now I’d be more than happy to have him give me the picture. MR. ABBATE-It would be more appropriate in my opinion, humble opinion, that you take the picture. It’s your argument, not the RV’s argument. MR. HAYES-Yes, but he’s got to have permission to go on their property. MR. KING-You’re welcome to. MR. ABBATE-There you go. You’re on the record. You have permission. Fair enough, Counselor? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STONE-Having said that, I’m going to table it again. MR. ABBATE-Yes. I’ll be very specific this time. MR. O’DONNELL-Can I ask you if you could be, please. Where, without saying, okay, well now let’s come back next month and take them by the tennis courts. That’s what I’m trying to avoid. MR. STONE-No, I don’t think so. This is a motion to table Use Variance No. 30-2000, SBA Incorporated and Southwestern Bell Corporation. This is being tabled specifically to get pictures similar to those presented last month, namely Queensbury 2 Communications Facility prepared by Ergman Anthony and Associates, taken from various sites along 149, including the Lake George R V Park in as many locations as it is deemed necessary to show what the tower will look like from the tennis courts, from the driveway, from the bus stop, we don’t need all of these, but, do I have to be more specific than that? MR. O’DONNELL-Yes, you really do. MR. STONE-Since I’m not familiar with the property any more than what I’ve said. MR. O’DONNELL-They’re like $7, $800 a shot. MR. STONE-Okay, from the most, the place that would show the tower to the greatest disadvantage to residents and users of the Park. MR. BRYANT-Before we conclude this motion, the Counsel has already stated that we’re going to be able to see the tower from certain places, why are we going through this? Why table the motion? We have enough information. Let’s just vote on it and get it over with. Because they’ve already agreed it’s going to be visible. It’s something that we’re going to be able to see. MR. STONE-I will hold the motion. Why don’t we discuss it. We’ll go around. I have no problem with doing that. I’m guided by my Board. I’m not trying to be dictatorial. So having said that, Jaime, how about you start it. What do you think about this? MR. HAYES-Well, I think it’s obviously a very tight issue. There’s no doubt in my mind, I think it’s safe to stipulate that there is a problem in that corridor. I don’t think anybody here disagrees with that, that has a cell phone, and that there is a need, and I also feel very certain that wireless 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) communications are here to stay. They’ve gone, for me, they’ve gone from a luxury to a business and family necessity. So I think the need is demonstrated. The problem is demonstrated. Where I have, I’m uncertain, and I would certainly want to hear from the rest of the Board, essentially, is Mr. King’s argument, does this alter the essential character of this neighborhood, and therefore, is that the best site, all things considered. That’s, to me, that’s where the argument rotates, or the whole, you know, this particular variance rotates, and in the applicant’s favor, I don’t think that this hardship is self- created, even though is says that in the Staff Notes, because as Tim pointed out, there is no piece in Northern Queensbury. So there has to be a piece. Does that mean that this is the best piece, as Mr. King pointed out? I’m not sure. I’d like to hear what everybody else has to say about that, but to me, the legitimate argument against the tower has to do with the essential character of the neighborhood, the area, greater area around the RV Park. I mean, you certainly can’t just focus on their property because there’s other property owners there as well. So, for me, that’s what I would want to hear from the rest of the Board members. MR. STONE-Okay, Chuck McNulty? MR. MC NULTY-Well, I guess one of the first things I look at is, should we allow a tower anywhere in that area, and I think we all agree that, yes, we need some cellular coverage up there. Whether it’s this piece of property or some other one close by, I think a tower that’s somewhere around 195 feet is going to be seen from some areas. I’d rather have the coverage and not see the tower, but I think that’s one of those things that can’t happen. We all recognize that if you’re going to have cellular telephone coverage, you’re going to have some of those towers. We all acknowledge that there’s no appropriately zoned site in Northern Queensbury on which to put one of these towers. I can understand the concern of the RV Park. At the same time, if I think about camping in the wilderness, it strikes me that a swimming pool and tennis courts are in conflict with camping in the wilderness, too. A cell tower is something new. It hasn’t been there before. So people aren’t used to it, but I used to go camping up Fish Creek Pond, Rolling Ponds, up above Lake Placid, where you had tent sites, unpaved roads and a lake, period, and outhouses, with no swimming pools, no fancy stores or whatever. In that instance, a cell tower would be a conflict for me, a swimming pool would be a conflict for me, but I guess I come back down to, if we’re going to have coverage, we’ve got to have a tower. It strikes me that they probably have picked one of the better sites, as far as screening at least the lower part of the tower. I suspect anywhere else they go in that general area, the tower’s going to show more than it would where they’ve got it. So I’m inclined to go along with their request. MR. STONE-Okay. Norman? MR. HIMES-I certainly agree. Everybody talks on the phone. A lot of people think, well, it’s something you’ve got to have, and certainly the need has been proven, but again, I maintain that’s really not our concern. Take the Moon Hill, for example, as bad as that is, just a mile or a mile and a half down the road, but I guess you’ve got to move around the mountain to get to Lake George. However, it’s not that far away, and in our area in Queensbury, that’s an area, that side of the mountain, you look at it, it’s a pleasing view. Something we need to protect. Say you take a picture of it, and maybe this is an unfair comparison, take a picture of it with a tower, what’s wrong with this picture. I feel that what is being gained by the increase in service does not begin to compensate for what’s being lost in connection with the aesthetics of that part of our community, which can be viewed from considerable distances. So on that reason alone, I’m not in favor of the thing being placed in that area. MR. STONE-Okay. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-There’s no question that cellular service is a public utility. There’s no question that there’s a necessity to fill the gap in service in this location. I think that they’ve amply demonstrated that a tower, in the location that they’ve chosen, is going to fill that gap, and that the current test for Use Variances, regarding altering the essential character of the neighborhood, is really inapplicable. There is a necessity. This is a good space, as opposed to all the other spaces, and I can see the reasons for it, the reasons why they want to improve coverage along 149 and the Northway. I’m not pleased with the height of the tower. There’s no doubt in my mind whatsoever that they could probably fill the same service needs that they have with a lower tower, but that’s a Planning Board decision, and I don’t see that as necessarily a Zoning Board decision. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Allan? MR. BRYANT-Well, I want to say that I love my cell phone, and I think that everyone that has one loves theirs, too, and they use it all the time, and there are a lot of problem areas in Queensbury, but you know as you drive down the Thruway, when you go to pay your toll at Exit 16, there’s a dead zone there, too, and that’s a well populated area. I reject the notion that, because we need this, we, therefore, should sacrifice quality of life, and I would do anything to protect that corridor of Route 9. As far as the 80 million people who use cell phones, I happen to be one of them, but I’m more 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) concerned about the tens of thousands of people who visit that Route 9 corridor every summer, that visit the RV Park and go to The Great Escape, and go to all the outlets, and they visit this pristine area in the southern Adirondacks, and I’m more concerned about that. So I would be opposed to the proposal. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-I’m a cell phone user myself, and it certainly is a requirement, and an increasing requirement for telecommunications. No question in my mind, and I’m going to make my statement short. I’m opposed to it. MR. STONE-Obviously, this is a difficult decision for us all. We’ve heard comments about quality of life, and certainly as someone who has run for office in this Town and been asked the question, how do you define quality of life, it’s an important question for a lot of people around here. Why are we living in Queensbury? Why do we like the Town in which we live? Obviously, natural beauty has great deal to do with it. One can argue that, well, if it was all natural beauty, we wouldn’t have any stores. We wouldn’t have Great Escape, we wouldn’t have anything like that, but that’s not the case. We have those things. Some of these are necessary for quality of life. Is a 190 foot tower sitting at the edge of 149 one of our biggest thoroughfares, a thoroughfare which describes Queensbury to a great many people who drive back and forth between other places, and even Vermont, who don’t even know that they’re in Queensbury, but it certainly says to them, wow, look at that tower, I wish I didn’t have it. I understand all the reasons I think have been said here. There is a demonstrated need for the utility called cellular phones, no question about it. Obviously, you have demonstrated that you need, to give better coverage, you need a tower in this particular area. You’ve stated that this is the best location that you could have had, if you had a choice of imminent domain, as you said, you would love to have it here, but having said that, and the reason that I was interested in tabling this thing, is maybe personal concern, that I think you’re not listening to what we have asked. We made some very specific requests, and I don’t want to get personal about it, but I am the Chairman here. I have allowed this thing to go on for a long time because I think it’s very important, but I am concerned that the applicant hasn’t taken us seriously. I really am concerned that you’re not listening to the concerns we have. Right now, we have three people who, with all of your arguments, about the need, about the law and everything else, are willing to say, no, we are not going to grant this application, and we have a fourth one if my numbers are correct, who, I don’t know how he’s going to vote because he was undetermined, in terms of he was going to listen. Well, if he listens and there are three noes and two yeses, and I haven’t made my mind up yet, I don’t know where we’re going to go. It may very well be turned down. There is no County impact on this. Just four is enough? MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. LAPPER-The County approved it. MR. STONE-The County approved it. MR. BROWN-Four is sufficient. MR. STONE-Yes, we need four. Okay. MR. LAPPER-With all due respect, if the issue for you is that you want to see it from the RV Park, we’ll be back next month with pictures from the RV Park. I guess that I think that under the legal standard that I’ve quoted and the Craig is familiar with and I’ve talked to the Town Attorney about, that we’ve done what we have to do legally, and even though, with all respect to the three members of the Board that are opposed to it, they’re opposed to it under the normal standard of impact on the neighborhood. Of course there’s an impact. If you were going to build a power line corridor, there would be an impact also, but it’s a utility, so with all respect, we think that that’s not the standard, in this particular case. MR. STONE-And I understand we’re not applying that standard. We’re applying the standard of the detriment to the community, in this particular case. We’re saying, we’re concerned. I mean, I can vote no, and the application is defeated. I think you would like to provide me this one piece of information that I’d like to see, because we have a very articulate objector to this application. MR. LAPPER-No question. We would like to provide you with that information. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Counselor. MR. STONE-Having said that, I will table this application. Since we have no definitive, I hope I’m not preempting anybody. 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) MR. ABBATE-Not at all. MR. STONE-As I get the numbers, it was three noes, two yeses and a maybe. So I’m not, I know I would be, personally, happy to see this particular thing. MR. HAYES-Jon, you’re saying that the effect on the neighborhood is not part of the test under this special criteria? I’m just not clear about that. MR. LAPPER-Well, not the same criteria, in terms of the normal balancing test that you do. MR. STONE-Well, a Use application doesn’t have a balancing test. MR. LAPPER-Excuse me, you’re right. Yes. MR. STONE-A Use Variance. MR. LAPPER-Yes, but that is not, the only standard is the case law standard, and the New York State Town Law standard is out the door, but that doesn’t mean that you don’t take into account, because it is still, it is not a factor weighed. It’s not just the need, but it is still something that you are cognizant of. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BRYANT-But you know, also, cell phones, when you look at it in that perspective, I mean, if you put a tower every 10 feet, you’re going to get the best possible reception. So, I mean, you know, you’ve got to draw a line. I mean, they demonstrate what they believe is a need, and my question is, is it really a need? I mean, I use my phone all the time in the Town of Queensbury, and I used it on Route 9 today, right near the site. So, you know, is there really a need? So, if you look at it from that standpoint, I don’t necessarily agree that there’s a need. MR. ABBATE-Well said. MR. STONE-Well said, except that in this particular case, I hold the deciding vote. I at least would like to see this thing, so that I have a better appreciation of what it’s going to look like, because I don’t think I’m going to like what I see, quite frankly, but I would like to see it. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MR. STONE-And I will give you the benefit of the doubt, as far as my vote is concerned. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. STONE-So, having said that, I will go back again. MOTION TO TABLE USE VARIANCE NO. 30-2000, SBA, INC. & SOUTHWESTERN BELL CORP., Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: For specific information regarding the apparent appearance of the tower as constructed, taken from the perspective of the Lake George RV Park, namely the driveway or what is considered to be the most obvious place on their property, in terms of visibility, and I would ask that the applicant work in conjunction with Mr. King, if he is so willing, to help site the camera, in terms of where he thinks it would be most visible. Mr. King has agreed to work with the applicant, and this would be on the agenda for next month. That the applicant prepare a statement with specific sites and owners contacted and conversations that were held with these people and their particular positions, and that the applicant has asked that it be on the agenda for the month of June, any information to be submitted by June 9. th Duly adopted this 17 day of May, 2000, by the following vote: th MR. STONE-And I would ask that the applicant work in conjunction with Mr. King, if he is so willing, to help sight the camera, in terms of where he thinks it would be most visible. MR. HAYES-You should mark on the record that he’s acquiescing to that. MR. STONE-He’s acquiescing. MR. KING-I’d be more than happy to, because obviously, unless you’ve been in the facility with 1500 people, you don’t know where the high use areas are. 42 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, a couple of notes here, as you’re going through. I just want to be sure that you’re satisfied, when you’re asking for additional information, you’re satisfied that they’ve exhausted information on alternate sites. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. BROWN-They’ve exhausted collocation. MR. STONE-Yes, but that’s still a Planning Board. Well, no, the Planning Board, if we say they can put it there, it goes there. The question is, up and down. MR. BROWN-Right, and as part of allowing on this site, I think something that they could demonstrate to you that this is the best site for this because they’ve exhausted all these other uses. They’ve got a letter from Dave King that says, I don’t want to do this, not just their position that says, we talked to somebody, and they don’t want to do it. Maybe more substantial information, and it’s up to you, but more substantial documentation that says we’ve talked to these 20 people. MR. HAYES-That could be a little bit difficult, in a way, though. I know what you’re saying, but if when he talks to these property owners and they say, we’re not interested, and he says, well, I need a letter from you saying that. MR. ABBATE-Well, let me try something here that may satisfy everybody. May I add something to your comment, please. MR. BROWN-Sure. And that the applicant also submit any and all documentation to further support their argument, period, and leave it up to them. We can’t dictate to him what they should submit to us. The burden of the responsibility is on their shoulders. MR. HAYES-We can make a request. MR. ABBATE-We can make a request, as you did. I just want to add my comments to what you said. MR. HAYES-There has to be some business reality, though, to what we request. MR. ABBATE-I know. MR. STONE-I would ask that the applicant prepare a statement with specific sites. I know you have this thing, but again, specific sites and owners contacted and conversations that were held with these people and their particular positions. MR. HAYES-Mr. Newell’s a very credible guy. I mean, even something from him would mean something to me. MR. LAPPER-He actually drafted the memo that I submitted. That came from him. Whatever we submit we will do a week before the meeting next month. MR. STONE-Okay, and that the applicant has asked that it be on the agenda for the month of June. MR. ABBATE-And that we receive documentation prior to the meeting. MR. STONE-Well, that’s a given. We have to have that by Friday of the meeting, for the members. MR. O’DONNELL-May we have a return submittal date when you’d like everything back, prior to the meeting? MR. STONE-What’s the date, Craig? MR. BROWN-If we could have any information you want to submit by the 9. That’ll give Staff th time to review it and submit it to the Board by the 16. th MR. STONE-That’s assuming we have one meeting in June? MR. BROWN-That’s two meetings in June. MR. STONE-That’s the first one. 43 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) MR. BROWN-The first meeting’s the 21. The notes go out on the 16. So if we have it a week stth before the notes go out. MR. LAPPER-The 9 is fine. th MR. BROWN-We may have three. AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. Bryant MR. STONE-Sorry, guys. MR. LAPPER-No, that’s fine, thank you. MR. O’DONNELL-Okay. We were in the middle of a question I think the Code Enforcement Officer had asked you, Mr. Chairman, on alternative sites. Did you feel as though we had proven that the subject site was? MR. STONE-I think you’ve proven the site, but we would like to know that you looked at other sites. MR. O’DONNELL-So you just want documentation to finalize. MR. ABBATE-Right, please. That’s an excellent way to do it, repackage the whole thing. MR. O’DONNELL-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 38-2000 TYPE II WR-1A CHARLES R. CARDER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 93 FITZGERALD ROAD, GLEN LAKE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK COVER FOR EXISTING BOAT SLIP TO ALLOW STORAGE OF BOAT DURING WINTER MONTHS. SEEKS RELIEF FROM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. SPR 32-2000 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY TAX MAP NO. 42-1-4 LOT SIZE: 0.28 ACRES SECTION: 179-60 CHARLES CARDER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 38-2000, Charles R. Carder, Meeting Date: May 17, 2000 “Project Location: 93 Fitzgerald Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a sundeck cover for an existing boat slip. Relief Required: Applicant requests 14 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum sideline setback requirement of the Shoreline and Wetlands Regulations, § 179-60. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to utilize an on site boat storage area, as well as an additional recreation area near the shore. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited, as the sundeck is proposed above an existing boat slip. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 14 feet of relief from the 20 foot requirement 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 action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be attributed to the pre-existing location of the slip. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2000-210 deck pending BP 96-251 issued 12/2/97 shed BP 95-204 deck issued 5/17/95 AV 35-1996 res. 5/15/96 shed expansion Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The proposed sundeck is located above an existing, unconventional boat slip. The stone retaining wall located immediately behind the proposed sundeck is nearly as high as the proposed construction. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-Okay. Mr. Carder. MR. CARDER-My name is Charles Carder. I live at 93 Fitzgerald Road on Glen Lake, and all I want to do is put a cover over my deck. MR. STONE-Any questions of the applicant? 44 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) MR. ABBATE-I do have a question. Unless I didn’t read this properly, or I missed something, I don’t see a notation in here that the deck may be used for recreational purposes. MR. CARDER-It’s primarily going to be used to cover the boat. That’s primarily what it’s going to be used, to store the boat. MR. ABBATE-Okay, but I notice that, based on the mathematical calculations here, would I be correct in indicating that we’re going to have, above the deck, a railing? MR. CARDER-Yes. What it is, I felt that it would make the aesthetics of the lake, as far as the deck, look a lot better if there was a railing around it, and what I plan on doing is putting like, it’s not as high as the wall in the back. So there’ll be two steps to step down from the top. MR. ABBATE-Right. I saw that. Okay, but it will be used as a recreational area as well as a cover for your deck? MR. CARDER-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MR. STONE-There will not be stairs inside this covered area? MR. CARDER-No, there will not be. The deck will be completely open, and the only time that there’ll be anything that will, when you pull it up under to set it on the dock in the wintertime. During the, two or three of you have gone there and looked at it, and the boat is in the water all summer until October. MR. STONE-How high is this railing going to be up top? MR. CARDER-I think they’re 32 inches, I believe. MR. HAYES-Is that a Code issue, Craig? MR. BROWN-Yes, it has to be between 30 and 36 inches, I believe. MR. CARDER-Yes. I think it’s 32 inches. I think that’s the standard for a railing. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. ABBATE-In view of the fact that it’s a recreational area. Okay. That’s the reason I asked if it was going to be used as a recreational area. See, the reason I asked you is because I knew there were codes. If it were going to be used as a recreational area, then there are Codes that have to be met. Am I right, Craig, on the height of the railing? MR. BROWN-Yes. Any deck above 18 inches above final grade needs a rail. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. BROWN-Regardless of the use. MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. MR. CARDER-I think I was told that the railing had to be 32 inches. That’s what I was told. MR. STONE-Any other questions of the applicant? I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of the application? In favor? Anybody wishing to speak opposed to the application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DAVID ZACK MR. ZACK-My name is David Zack. I live at 95 Fitzgerald Road. Mr. Carder is my neighbor to the south. Mr. Carder is a wonderful man. He’s a wonderful neighbor. I hope he lives forever and I hope I stay there forever. I’m a year round resident on Glen Lake, 365 days a year. Mr. Carder goes to Florida in the winter. God bless him. I’m worried about several things. Number One is, I love where I live. I love the view. That’s why I bought and built where I am. With this being erected six feet from my property line, six feet is two steps, and look at it, turn around and look. This will block my view to the southern end of the lake, to the whole Bay, not completely because there’ll be posts. 45 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) It will block it. The railing, I don’t know what the effect of that will be. It will depreciate my property, obviously. I’m not in favor of that. The alternative is the same as before, pay for storage. I have to take my boat out and I have to pay for storage. I’m just opposed to the six feet. Mr. Carder can build anything he wants, go 20 feet away, but I don’t like six feet. I don’t want my view blocked. I don’t want my family’s view blocked. That’s the only complaint I’ve got. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-None. MR. STONE-I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Mr. Carder, do you wish to say anything? MR. CARDER-Well, that was a surprise to me. I never got any indication at all that anybody would object to it, and I understand what Dave says, but I really don’t know what to say. I’m really at a loss for words, folks, but, and he’s a great guy. I have no problems with him at all, but I really don’t, you know, he has an upper deck, and he can see the lake, and down on his beach, it’s going to be open, and I really don’t see how it’s going to possibly interfere with his view, but he’s him and I’m me, and I want you to understand, he’s a good neighbor. I have no problems. Dave and I are great friends, and like I say, if I had known that he was going to object, I probably would have reconsidered. I really am, I’m kind of at a loss for words. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BRYANT-Where exactly, from your property, will you not be able to see the lake, from the upper deck, will you still see the lake? MR. ZACK-I have an upper deck and a lower deck. MR. BRYANT-I saw the upper deck and I saw the lower deck, but will you still be able to see the lake from the upper deck? MR. ZACK-We’ll see the lake, what respect are you talking about? MR. BRYANT-Facing south? MR. ZACK-From the upper deck possibly, depending, but I couldn’t see, it’s up higher and it’s looking down. It would obstruct that view there. The lower deck would be down probably six feet above the water level, and that would interfere with that. The beach definitely. MR. ABBATE-There is an existing boat slip there at the present time, because I’ve seen the structure. MR. ZACK-Yes, absolutely. MR. ABBATE-So Mr. Carder is requesting that a cover be put on his deck. Correct? MR. ZACK-No, over the top. MR. ABBATE-Over his slip. MR. ZACK-Over the existing slip. MR. ABBATE-Right. Now, if he put just the cover on the slip, would that still obstruct your view? In other words, not putting up the rails, not using that as a recreational area? MR. ZACK-Well, there’d be posts. MR. STONE-There’d be posts holding up the roof. MR. ZACK-Absolutely. MR. ABBATE-So the deck itself with the railings would have no effect on what we’re really talking about? Your views are blocked, is what I’m saying? 46 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) MR. ZACK-Right, absolutely. MR. STONE-Now, let me ask you a question. You’re saying your view is blocked. From the house is it blocked? MR. ZACK-My whole front of the house faces the lake. MR. STONE-Right. MR. ZACK-To the right, to the north, south, except to the south, where this would be, this would be an obstruction in the way. MR. ABBATE-From that angle. MR. ZACK-Absolutely. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. ABBATE-So you’re 42-1 or 42-, where are you here? MR. STONE-He’s right here. MR. HAYES-Norma Zack is somebody from your family, apparently. MR. ZACK-That is my mother. She lives in the lower level. MR. ABBATE-I see. MR. HIMES-I’ve got a question for Mr. Carder. MR. STONE-Go ahead. MR. HIMES-When I looked, it appeared that you have a slip, and do you have a dock down at the other end of your property, so you’ve got the slip? MR. CARDER-The kids just swim off that dock. MR. HIMES-Yes. So you’ve got the two structures there, and some space in between. If this is something you really need, and I don’t know how it would interfere with the view. You said six feet was just a little too much. I mean, how about, I mean, could you build, just change the thing, make a slip out of your dock on the other end, maybe your (lost word) on the other side, but could you relocate this slip. MR. CARDER-No, the slip is made out of concrete and stone, which is covered with treated lumber. You can’t move the slip. MR. HIMES-Or rebuild, I guess I should have said, rather than physically relocate. MR. CARDER-The only way, to make another slip you’d have to extend it out into the lake, and right now the slip is about 80% into my property. Only about 20% of the slip goes out into the lake. MR. HIMES-I’m just trying to think of a way for you to have your slip and cover and satisfy Mr. Zack’s requirement to get a little further away from his land. MR. CARDER-And the slip is within about six feet of the dock. MR. HIMES-Yes. No, I just meant to say, forget that slip, make it a dock, give up the other dock and put the slip somewhere else on the property, but I guess that’s not something you want to do. MR. BRYANT-Mr. Carder, you’re going to remove the front walkway, and that slip, is that correct? MR. CARDER-Yes, there’s a, right now, in order to get the boat in far enough, so I can lift it up, there’s about a, it’s probably about a 26 inch walkway, and I’m going remove that wooden walkway, and then when we put the deck in, we’re going to put that walkway on top of where the stones are, in the back of the slip, so that we can move the boat in about another four feet. MR. BRYANT-So your deck is not going to go out as far your walkways go out now, is that correct? MR. CARDER-No. 47 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) MR. STONE-They’re not? MR. CARDER-No. Right now, the cover is going to cover the boat, and the cover is going to be about 24 feet, I think it is, and that’s four feet to the back, and it’s going to cantilever about three feet beyond where the end of the property line is. Right now the docks extend out on one side of about three or four feet. I can’t remember exactly what it is, but it’s in the sketch, but I can leave the railing off. That’s not a major problem. I mean, I was only putting the railing up just as aesthetics. So that’s what the deck looked like. That’s all. MR. HAYES-You realize you wouldn’t be able to have the walk from the stone onto it then. MR. CARDER-No. What I’d do is I would just have to just put something up there so the kids can’t jump down off the wall and that’s all, but I don’t really need the railing. I was just doing that as a, to make it look nicer. MR. STONE-Well, what Mr. Hayes is saying, though, you wouldn’t be able to use the top of the deck. MR. CARDER-No, I would not use it. If that’s a concern, I don’t have to use the top of the deck. I’ll just block it off. That’s all. MR. STONE-All right. Well, let me ask a question of Craig. Let’s say he put this in, and you’re talking, what, maybe a couple of feet down from the top of the wall? MR. CARDER-Yes. MR. STONE-Would that become an attractive nuisance? MR. MC NALLY-Sure, kids would be jumping off that all the time. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. BROWN-Practically speaking? Probably. MR. STONE-So you’d almost have to have the railing on it, whether you liked it or not. MR. BROWN-Well, no, you could put a railing along the back side of it. MR. STONE-High enough that you can’t get out there, technically. MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-Why are we even talking about allowing construction of a boat storage facility six feet from the line? MR. STONE-I was about to go around the room. MR. MC NALLY-I can understand the desire. I can understand how everyone likes to use their shore as intensely as possible, but in all honesty, I mean, he’s doing this at the expense of his neighbors and the lake. MR. STONE-I understand, Bob, but what we heard here was complete surprise on the part of Mr. Carder, that his neighbor objected, and I know when I talked with him, I asked the specific question on what his neighbor, and he said he hadn’t heard a thing. So obviously he is in shock, and we’re trying to help him out, but I think we certainly should go around the room and see what we think about it. Chuck, do you want to start? MR. MC NULTY-No, but I will. Well, it leaves me torn, because it struck me that it was a reasonable proposal with the sides being left open. So that somebody could look through underneath. I’ll have to admit, I did not think about the factor of the neighbor perhaps living there year round and spending the winter months looking through at a boat up on top, and plugging up part of that view, and I’ll agree, it strikes me that if you’re going to have a structure like that there, that a railing that would match what’s already there, fits in with the deck that Mr. Carder’s got would be appropriate. I really don’t know which way I’m going to go, because I can understand the neighbor’s concern. At the same time the structure would be set back. It’s not like it was a typical boat dock that sticks out from the shoreline that we normally deal with. A good share of this is a slip 48 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) that’s cut back into the land. I guess the answer is I’m on the fence, and I’d like to hear what the rest of the Board has to say. MR. STONE-Okay. Norman? MR. HIMES-Well, it probably would be a nice looking thing. (Lost words) as are most of the camps there, but, you know, in view of the voiced concerns, it is a nonconforming thing already, and so we’re aggravating the situation with approving the application. If everybody all around was in favor of it, neighbors and all, but I think we’ve got a problem. So I tend to say no. There are other alternatives. MR. STONE-Okay. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-The benefit to the applicant, he certainly would be entitled to use his property to the maximum extent possible to store his boat in the winter, but there are a lot of feasible alternatives. Off site boat storage is something done all the time. The other thing is, you have approximately 100 feet of frontage. On one end we have a swimming dock right on the line. On the other end, we’ve got a boat slip right on the line. There’s got to be like 80 feet right in the middle of your property where you could store boats or have a sundeck, whatever. I can understand that you don’t want to do that, though, because that’s going to ruin your view, or at least detract from the lovely lawn in the front of your home there. I think the relief is substantial. We’re talking about 14 feet from the 20 foot side line restriction, and there’s going to be effects on the neighborhood. The next door neighbor voiced some of them. It’s going to decrease his views. There’s going to be more congestion. Glen Lake is congested as it is. You’ve got a dock house, you have a dock house, you have a dock house. At least space them out enough. There’s increasing use of the shoreline, and in all honesty, this will be self-created. I mean, the only reason we would have this boathouse there is just a person has selected to put it on his property line, as opposed to in the middle where he has adequate space, and he’s doing that at the expense of his neighbors, and the community and the lake. I know it’s not intended and I know it would be a nice thing to do, but I think he should abide by the side line restrictions. MR. STONE-Allan? MR. BRYANT-Well, I’ve got to agree, somewhat, with what Bob just said. I think when you view the alternative, and that 100 foot space, if you look south down the lake, there are a number of boathouses there. They’re totally enclosed. There’s no visibility through them. They protrude out into the lake. Where this structure is going to be somewhat back, and close to the shoreline. I think that I would approve this boathouse. MR. MC NALLY-I would say that if he wants to use this for winter storage, and for a sundeck, but remember, he’s got 20, 25 feet of lawn in front of his house. He can build a deck for winter storage and a sundeck. The slip won’t be there, but the same effective purpose is achieved. I mean, (lost words) of the lake is what I’m saying, because it’s not there for a slip. It’s there for storage and for a sundeck. It’s not there for mooring a boat, if that’s what his intended purpose is. MR. BRYANT-But then wouldn’t that also detract from the view? MR. MC NALLY-Not from the neighbor who’s, since it’s further toward the middle of his property, somewhat on his line, you’re not going to have that obstruction of the view as they would as if it was on the line. That’s why the side setback is there. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Allan made an excellent point. He pointed out that there are, on this lake, enclosed structures which extend into the lake, and I’m just wondering if we shouldn’t give Mr. Carder the same consideration of these other folks. On the other hand, I’m listening to what else has been said. Would you have a problem with a recommendation that you build a deck in the middle of your lawn? This is an honest question. Do you have a problem with that? MR. CARDER-Well, the only problem is the cost. MR. ABBATE-It’s costly. All right. That’s a problem. MR. CARDER-The cost to put docks out into the, because in order to put something where, I wouldn’t have any problem with that, but you’d have to pour concrete piers, and then you’d have to put in where the docks can be lowered and raised out, you know, it’s. 49 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) MR. ABBATE-Let me move from you to this gentleman over here. I’m not sure how this deck, what percentage, if this deck is built, what percentage of the view of the lake you’re going to lose. I’m not sure of that. Could you help me out please? MR. ZACK-I was down on the beach today. Well, yesterday I should say, and I’m going to say, looking to the south, I’m going to lose probably 30%. MR. ABBATE-Thirty percent. MR. ZACK-Mr. Carder’s property already extends three feet out beyond my property now. Now if this is built, and it extends out like he says, it cantilever’s out farther, well, it’s going to be farther out. MR. BRYANT-How is that going to be? There’s only three stanches, there’s only three posts? MR. ZACK-The deck, the top has to go out. The boat has to come up in the wintertime. The boat is, what, 18, 20 feet long. Twenty feet is twenty feet. MR. MC NALLY-When they put the boat up for storage, they raise it on like a hoist. MR. ABBATE-Right. MR. ZACK-I’m outside, I ice fish all winter long. It’s beautiful there in the wintertime. If I didn’t like it in the wintertime I wouldn’t live there in the wintertime. I love it. I live there year round. My mother lives there year round. MR. ABBATE-So this construction, you would lose approximately 30% of your current view, plus or minus. I’m not holding you to a degree. MR. ZACK-Right, absolutely. MR. ABBATE-So in your opinion there definitely would be an obstruction. MR. ZACK-And from where the view would be, where the island, I wouldn’t see any of the Bay at all. I could only see from out, from the island out. MR. ABBATE-And at the present time you can see the Bay and the island? MR. ZACK-Absolutely. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. MR. STONE-So where do you stand? MR. ABBATE-I’m going to listen. MR. STONE-Okay. Jaime, they’re all listening to you. MR. HAYES-Well, I think in the overall sense I’m in agreement with Norm and Bob in this particular case. I think that we have obviously got a grandfathered situation here where the slip is only six feet from the property line, which is damn close, really, when you get down to it, and while it certainly is mitigated because of the contour of the land and the fact that there’s a stone wall there, I’ve had a lot of experience with boathouses myself. My parents have one, and while at the outset, we’re talking about three posts, boathouses tend to be collection areas for a lot of things, in my experience, tubes, water skis, gas cans, a million different things, and I’m not sure, if I was Mr. Zack, that’s not even speaking about the mass of the boat being up for whatever portion of the year. MR. CARDER-May I make a comment? None of that stuff, I’ve got everything like that stored underneath my deck by the house. MR. HAYES-And I’m sure that it is, but there’s no assurance that whoever’s after you will conduct themselves in that manner. MR. CARDER-There’ll be nobody after me. MR. HAYES-Well, you’re going to live forever? No, it’s just that being six feet from the property, I think there will be an obstruction that will be created. I think his, he has a right to expect, or I would have, if I owned the property next door, not to have what amounts to somewhat of a wall, or to whatever extent you’d want to consider it, and a collection area for whatever items you happen to use, or your successors, I would think that this goes over the line as far as the test. I think that the 50 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) relief is substantial, compared to the Ordinance, and I think that there is feasible alternatives that you could explore, if this was that important to you, under the circumstances. So I think it’s just too close to the property line to contemplate further development. MR. STONE-I think that’s the telling factor. I mean, one of our Board members said it’s, why, when you consider there are covered boathouses down the lake, why can’t we allow this. Well, the reason is that you’re asking for a variance, and the fact that this particular slip is only six feet from the line. That’s grandfathered. We can’t do anything about that, but it’s as tremendous amount of relief, particularly since Mr. Zack has come forward. I mean, my notes to myself, after looking at the property and talking to you, I said, well, it’s a reasonable thing, except that we have to consider your benefit, but also the detriment of the community, and the community is Mr. Zack, in this particular case, specifically, and other people, too. I think it’s been alluded to that view from the lake, but the more important thing here is that Mr. Zack is concerned. He has a right to be concerned. You are asking for a lot of relief, and as I say, the balancing test that we have to go through with an Area Variance says that the detriment to the community is just more than the benefit to the applicant. MR. CARDER-May I make a comment? MR. STONE-Sure. MR. CARDER-You know, if I’d have known that Dave was going to object to this, you guys wouldn’t even be talking about it. I wouldn’t even have brought the issue. That’s what really bothers me. Okay, and I really feel bad about that. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, I asked the question of you yesterday. MR. CARDER-I know you did, and I told you, I said, you know, I’ve discussed it with my neighbors and nobody gave me any negatives or said anything to me about it. Otherwise I wouldn’t even have brought it before you folks. MR. ABBATE-Did you discuss it with this gentleman? MR. CARDER-Yes, I did. I told him what I was going to do, and he did not tell me that he was against it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. CARDER-So I just naturally assumed that everything was fine. MR. STONE-We have two things that we can do. You can withdraw your application, without prejudice, or we can, it looks to me we can vote it down. MR. CARDER-No, I’ll just withdraw it. MR. STONE-Okay. We’ll note that the application, Mr. Carder has withdrawn. Is that acceptable to Staff? MR. BROWN-If he’d like to make a statement on the record, yes. MR. STONE-It’s on the record. Say it again, you’re withdrawing the application. MR. CARDER-I am withdrawing the application. MR. STONE-32-2000. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Carder. MR. CARDER-Thanks. AREA VARIANCE NO. 39-2000 TYPE II WR-1A CEA PETER & KAREN BOGERT OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 133 SEELYE ROAD, CLEVERDALE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A SUNDECK ABOVE AN EXISTING DOCK AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF. CROSS REF. SPR 33-2000 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 5/10/2000 TAX MAP NO. 16-1-35 LOT SIZE: 0.30 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-60 PETER & KAREN BOGERT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT 51 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 39-2000, Peter & Karen Bogert, Meeting Date: May 17, 2000 “Project Location: 133 Seelye Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a sundeck above an existing dock. Relief Required: Applicant requests 7 feet and 16 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum sideline setback requirements of the Shoreline and Wetlands Regulations, § 179-60. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct a boat shelter area as well as an additional recreation area at the shore. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include repairing the pitched roof and constructing a patio area on land. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 7 feet and 16 feet of relief from the 20 foot requirements 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. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be attributed to the pre-existing condition of the site. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2000-153 pending boathouse/sundeck SP 33-2000 5/18/00 pending boathouse/sundeck Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The proposed construction appears to be similar to the existing dock and peaked roof structure, as shown in the applicant’s photos. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form May 10, 2000 Project Name: Bogert, Peter & Karen Owner: Peter and Karen Bogert ID Number: QBY- AV-39-2000 County Project #: May00-24 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a sundeck and seeks setback relief. Site Location: 133 Seelye Road Tax Map Number: 16-1-35 Staff Notes: This proposal has also been referred by the Town for County site plan review (Agenda item 25). The applicant’s existing dock actually extends over the property line as extended into the water. The applicant has incorrectly measured a 4’ setback from the interior edge of the dock to the southern property line, and 15’ from the interior edge of the dock to the northern property line (see attached drawing). The setback deficiencies, therefore are more extreme than represented in the application, but since the drawings do not include the width dimension of the dock, it is impossible to say exactly how severe the deficiency is to the north. The applicant wishes to replace the existing gable roof with a sundeck, which appears to be accessed via a landbridge (see drawing). Staff is concerned about the impact to the lake’s shoreline posed by sundeck landbridges, but is even more concerned about increasing the intensity of use of this structure that not only does not meet setback requirements, but it actually crosses the property line. Staff recommends discussion. County Planning Board Recommendation: Approve with condition that the land bridge is removed from the plan.” Signed by Terry Ross, 5/12/00. MR. STONE-A question, before I get to the applicant. Your relief required, that flies in the face of what they say, and what the drawing shows, does it not? MR. HAYES-Is it grandfathered? MR. BROWN-We’d consider the relief from the property line to the new construction. MR. HAYES-Not the reparian right. MR. BROWN-Right, and on the southern relief would be four feet, as it’s shown on the drawing. The northern one would be seven feet relief, because we, and I discussed this with the applicant at one point, the property line is to be extended either an extension of the line or 90 degrees to the shore, whichever’s more restrictive, and in this case, a 90 degree extension from the shore is more restrictive to the applicant. So that setback is 13 feet on the eastern end of the new dock, rather than the 15 feet at the western end. MR. STONE-Okay. You’re saying the southern, this line is not 90 degrees to the shoreline, right? Okay. What about down here? MR. BROWN-The extension of the property line is more restrictive. Ninety degrees would be out here. (Discussion among the Board ensued) MR. STONE-Okay, Mr. and Mrs. Bogert, what do you want to tell us? MR. BOGERT-As far as the County meeting, as far as the Warren County meeting? MR. STONE-As far as your application is concerned. Anything you want to add to your application, is what I’m really saying. The question was here, in terms of, it looks like you’ve started construction. Do you wish to comment on that? 52 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) MR. BOGERT-Yes, we did. We started construction. The old boathouse was torn down in March, to start new construction, and that was because one of my elderly neighbors informed me that to replace something that’s existing, you don’t have to get variances or permits or anything. We were just repairing what was already there, because it was falling down. It was rotted. You can see by the pictures the condition of it. MRS. BOGERT-It was a misunderstanding or misinterpretation on our part. MR. STONE-Okay. I just wanted to get that on the record. We’ll chastise you later. MR. BOGERT-I took bad advice. MR. STONE-There’s the man you go to. He may give you bad advice, but at least it’s official bad advice. It’s getting late, what can I say. MRS. BOGERT-And I would have been the person who filled everything out. So when it came to the exact measurements for the variance, we kind of fluctuated somewhat. Craig explained that it was to the new construction, and I did the best I could, but it was the first time I was doing it. So, I know we’re a little bit off. MR. STONE-Well, the important thing is that there is considerable amount of relief requested. I mean, that’s the question that we’re here to decide. I mean, 16 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum is a fair amount of relief, even though the old dock existed there for a long time. Any questions of the applicant? MR. ABBATE-Several. Will this be used for commercial purposes? MR. BOGERT-No. MR. ABBATE-It will not, definitely not? Okay. MR. MC NALLY-Do you rent any of the slips out? MR. BOGERT-No. I have a neighbor from New Jersey who keeps one boat there, and I have another friend who keeps his boat there. I keep my boat there. I don’t rent them. We’re friends. I do it as a favor to them. MR. ABBATE-But you have two boats there that you do not own, correct? MRS. BOGERT-Correct. MR. ABBATE-Yes, okay. My other question is this. How high is that railing around the deck that you propose? MR. BOGERT-From the water level to the top of the railing is going to be. MR. ABBATE-No, not from the water level, from the deck of the cover. MR. BOGERT-Thirty-five inches. MR. ABBATE-Thirty-five inches. MR. BOGERT-From the top of the deck to the top of the railing. MR. ABBATE-Right, and that’s 780 square feet, what you’re requesting, right? MR. BOGERT-Yes. MR. STONE-And to the top of the railing from the water is going to be 13 feet, according to your drawing. MRS. BOGERT-That’s correct. MR. ABBATE-And the final question for me. The pictures that you submitted, is this an actual portrayal of what’s existing? MR. BOGERT-Which picture are you talking about? 53 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) MR. ABBATE-What used to be. MR. BOGERT-Yes, that’s what was there, yes. That was built in 1968, and was in very bad condition. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MRS. BOGERT-Those pictures were taken in February, just before we started taking it down. MR. ABBATE-And so that we can clear the issue there, have you discussed this with any of your neighbors? MRS. BOGERT-Yes. MR. BOGERT-Nobody has a problem with it. MR. ABBATE-You may be surprised. MRS. BOGERT-No, I don’t see any familiar faces. MR. STONE-I have a question, Craig, of Staff, one that I’m always confused with, no matter how familiar I am with the lake. How many boats can you have at your own dock? I thought you had to own them all? MR. BROWN-I think the definition of a private dock says a dock that facilitates no more than three boats, or maybe the commercial says if it’s over three. A commercial dock is a dock or a portion of a dock generally connected to the uplands which accommodates more than three vessels. A private dock is a wharf or a portion of a wharf extending along the shoreline and generally connected to the uplands which accommodates up to three vessels owned by the property owner. MR. ABBATE-Could you repeat that, please? MR. BROWN-A private dock definition is a wharf or a portion of a wharf extending along the shoreline and generally connected to the uplands which accommodates up to three vessels owned by the property owner. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. That answered my question. MR. BROWN-Canoes and rowboats, sailboats under 18 feet do not count. MR. STONE-Where did you read that? MR. BROWN-Under Definitions. MR. STONE-I know, I don’t find it. MR. BROWN-Private. MR. STONE-Dock, Private. I’m looking for Private Dock. Okay. That’s what I thought. Well, it says you have to be, owned by the property owner. That’s the, I mean, even though they’re not charging rent, technically, it’s not legal to have other people’s boats there. MR. BROWN-Historically the Park Commission would be the one who would regulate, is this a marina, are these slips for rent. We haven’t done that, only because it’s impossible to monitor. I mean, there’s thousands and thousands of docks on the lake in the Town of Queensbury. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Let me ask you this. You’re right. It’s impossible to monitor, but basically, if I heard you correctly, you stated that the boats up to three must be owned by the property owner. Did you not state that? MR. BROWN-That’s the definition in the Town Ordinance, that’s correct. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MR. MC NULTY-Although technically that has nothing to do with the request that’s in front of us. MR. ABBATE-True. MR. HIMES-How wide is the lot? 54 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) MRS. BOGERT-The lot is 50 feet wide. MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, can I ask a question? MR. STONE-Please do. MR. BRYANT-Did you consider the possibility of reducing the size of that structure, I mean, be half the size, just to accommodate your boat? MR. BOGERT-No, because we wanted to cover the two boat slips, the two center boat slips. MRS. BOGERT-As it had been. MR. BOGERT-That was the way it was before. MR. MC NALLY-You wanted to cover it as a group? MRS. BOGERT-Yes, that’s what we had. MR. MC NALLY-To replace it, and now you’re also asking to have a deck on top to be used for recreation? MRS. BOGERT-Right. MR. BOGERT-The roof prior was peaked, as you can see by the pictures, and we’d like to have it flat and use it as a deck. MR. STONE-You’re going to have two slips underneath the roof, just like it was? With a center pier? MRS. BOGERT-Right. MR. HAYES-Like an “E” pattern, essentially, with a roof over it. MR. STONE-Right, an “E” pattern. MRS. BOGERT-It’s an “E” shaped dock. MR. MC NALLY-You’re planning a land bridge? MRS. BOGERT-No, we weren’t planning a land bridge. We were just planning stairs, and it ended up being a land bridge. MR. BOGERT-Do you have this picture? MR. MC NALLY-Yes, I do. MR. BOGERT-Okay. What we’re going to do, as pursuant to the Warren County meeting, is, instead of going to the land, we’re going to come down onto the dock itself. In other words, all we have to do is move it over three feet to the right, in order to have it come down on the decking of the dock. MR. MC NALLY-What’s the problem with land bridges? MR. BOGERT-I don’t understand that myself. MR. BROWN-The County doesn’t like them. MR. STONE-The Park Commission doesn’t like them either. MR. MC NALLY-Did they give you any rationale? MR. STONE-It’s aesthetics. MR. BROWN-It’s an aesthetic thing, right. MR. STONE-Yes, it just blocks too much view. In addition to the dock itself, then you’ve got steps going back toward the house, so that people are more impacted. 55 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) MR. ABBATE-Is there a statute that prohibits this? MR. BROWN-Not in the Town Ordinance. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. STONE-Not in the Town Ordinance, the Park Commission. Again, I think the question was asked and I didn’t hear you. Your lot is 50 feet wide? MR. BOGERT-Yes. MR. STONE-And the dock is, the total dock, when finished, wood to wood, how big is that going to be? MRS. BOGERT-Including the decking part? MR. STONE-Including the decking part. MRS. BOGERT-I don’t know. MR. ABBATE-Well, it looks like 26 by 30 here. That’s just the surface of the deck. Okay. MR. STONE-No, it’s more than that. I’m just talking, even the existing piers that are out there. That’s a lot. MR. ABBATE-Do you have any idea what those measurements are? MRS. BOGERT-No, I don’t. MR. STONE-Craig, did you do it in your calculations? MR. BROWN-I have the building permit file there. I don’t know if it’s all in here. MR. STONE-The reason I ask the question, I mean, I’m concerned that there’s much too much dock for the piece of property. I mean, it’s like there is no anything else. Do we have any other questions? MR. MC NULTY-Yes. The deck surface as it is now, is that about the height that the eaves were of the other roof? MR. BOGERT-I believe it’s about the height of the top of the peak of the other roof. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. So with the railing then the whole structure is higher? MR. STONE-So it was a relatively low dock, low roof? MR. BOGERT-Yes. MR. STONE-Could you walk, if you could have walked from one dock to where the boats are, would you have hit your head? MR. BOGERT-No. You didn’t have to duck to get. MR. STONE-So it was more than six feet high at the low, at the eaves there? MR. BOGERT-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. HIMES-How many boats do you own? MR. BOGERT-I only own one. MRS. BOGERT-It looks like the total docking area is 38 by 40. MR. ABBATE-May I ask a question, please? MRS. BOGERT-Sure. 56 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) MR. ABBATE-What would be the ramifications, since you only owned one boat, what would be the ramifications of reducing this proposal to accommodate the one boat? MRS. BOGERT-We have a 27 year old son who also wants a boat. MR. ABBATE-He also wants a boat? MRS. BOGERT-Yes. He just, he’s just really gotten a good job. So he’s planning on spending more time up here as soon as he gets some weekends free. MR. ABBATE-Would that mean the total would be four boats? MRS. BOGERT-Probably not. The one gentleman that actually we extend some space to is periodic throughout the summer. He just put his boat in last weekend because he’ll be coming up camping in June, and then he actually stays at a cottage in July, and at that time, he takes his boat out of the water. So we kind of, we let him stay there. MR. BOGERT-Yes, that boat is temporary. He comes and goes. MR. STONE-Is this the one on the outside of the dock? MRS. BOGERT-Yes, and now our other neighbor, they don’t come up on vacation until July. They’ll put their boat in the water while they’re up here staying at the RV Park, and then they’ll be coming over, back and forth, and maybe spending a few weekends. So that might be in the water for four to six weeks, but that’s about it. The only other time the docks are getting used is when we get company, because we always keep one open completely at all times, but the rest of the time then you get, you know, a few more extra slips open. MR. STONE-You keep one slip open? MRS. BOGERT-Completely. MR. STONE-That’s one of the covered slips? MRS. BOGERT-No, the outside dock. MR. STONE-Those aren’t slips. MRS. BOGERT-I’m sorry. MR. STONE-By definition, those are outside. MRS. BOGERT-Right. MR. STONE-So in other words, have you ever had four boats at your dock? MRS. BOGERT-No. MR. STONE-Well, you keep one open all the time, you have a boat, and you have two people who use the docks. MRS. BOGERT-Periodically, yes. MR. STONE-They’re never there together? MRS. BOGERT-We might have had overlap last summer. MR. STONE-Do you ever put one on the south side of the dock? MR. BOGERT-No, the south side is the one we keep open for my nieces and nephews. MR. STONE-No, not the south slip, but the way south, outside of that area? MRS. BOGERT-No, we keep that open for swimming for the kids. MR. STONE-Okay. It’s not your property anyway, one could argue. 57 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) MRS. BOGERT-Well, you also have to remember, what you’re seeing variance wise, you’ve got to remember, the docks come out into the water, the way the water line goes. So if you look at the houses, it looks like everybody’s dock is right in front of their house, but it’s the property line coming down and being extended out into the lake that actually makes you go on your neighbor’s property. So maybe, you know, we might be closer to this neighbor next door, but he’s also closer to the person on the other side of him. So it’s kind of like, it’s just conformity, keeping all the docks going in the same direction. MR. BOGERT-The property lines come down at an angle, and the docks are constructed at right angle to the shore. So that’s why the property line crosses over the end of the dock, because it actually comes at an angle. MR. STONE-One could argue on a 50 foot lot the dock shouldn’t be that big so it doesn’t cross the property line. One could argue. I’m not saying that. MR. BOGERT-I didn’t build it. I bought the place that way. MR. STONE-I understand. MRS. BOGERT-That’s true. I realize that in the rules of the lake now you could not construct an “E” shaped dock on our property, but, you know, for money purposes, and, obviously, you know, we don’t want to take it down and build one straight dock going into the water. MR. BOGERT-This is what we bought and paid for three years ago, that particular dock. MR. STONE-Any other questions of the applicant? MRS. BOGERT-Any thoughts? Come on, what are you thinking? MR. STONE-We’ll get there. MR. MC NALLY-Give us a minute. MR. STONE-All right. Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor? Anybody wishing to speak opposed to the application? Opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-None. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any further questions of the applicant? If not, let’s talk about it. Norman, you start. MR. HIMES-Well, I think that it’s a big dock, or slip or whatever you want to call it, for the size of the property involved, and since it was evidently deteriorating, from what I understand anyway, and needing reconstruction, that it would have been a good time to do something that might have been with an effort toward being more compliant, rather than rebuilding the structure as it was, you see, that’s kind of my thought. The lots or docks are in close proximity there, that docks (lost words) the way the land is that one camp after another, there isn’t a heck of a lot of difference between any of them, and I don’t recall when I was out there a big (lost words). There were a couple of them up the lake a little bit that covered, looked boarded in, but I just feel that there was a time here that, as you know, when something is nonconforming, it does require a variance to continue the nonconformity, and I think we have an opportunity here to do that. That’s my thinking. MR. BOGERT-Can I ask a question? Is there such a thing as a grandfather act up here? MR. HIMES-Well, I think, yes, so to speak, but for something that’s nonconforming, and it’s rebuilt that grandfathering no longer continues, right? MR. STONE-That’s correct. That’s why you’re here, there is no such thing. MR. HIMES-So, you know, a paint job or something like that is one thing, but, or something in that area. Not a big undertaking like this. When the degree of the relief is what we’re faced with here, and again, the size of the dock, the uses it’s being put to. 58 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) MR. STONE-Well, technically, the reason we’re measuring from the new construction is that we can’t, it is new construction. The docks that are there, the two piers that you have going out, that were there, they’re in less conformity than what you’re looking for, but we’re not using those because those are there. You didn’t touch those, but you are putting new construction in the area, which still exceeds the normal setback. MRS. BOGERT-Right. MR. STONE-So, yes, part of it’s grandfathered, if you want to talk about that, and part of it isn’t. The new construction isn’t. So, having said that, Bob, what about you? MR. MC NALLY-Again, if it was a falling down roof, and just making repairs to an existing falling down roof, but to expand the use, in other words to use what was a roof now as a party deck, and also to construct a new structure on it, a party deck, that’s something that should have to comply with the current Zoning Ordinance, since it is a new structure. This is a narrow lot. This is a 50 foot lot, and that end of the Bay is pretty extensive, actually, but I don’t know if I’d be in favor, given the current circumstances, of making it any worse than it currently is. It’s just intensifying the use for no real reason, on a very small lot. MR. STONE-Allan? MR. BRYANT-I’ve got to say that I’m kind of on the fence with this one, because we just listened to the Carder application where he was six feet away from the property line, and your application is only four feet away from the property line. Granted, there’s an existing structure to contend with, but like I said, I’m on the fence on this one. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-I have to agree with my colleague next to me that we’re talking about four feet. If I had to vote right now, I’d have to say no. MR. STONE-Jaime? MR. HAYES-Well, in this particular circumstance, I think one of the unfortunate things is that by demolishing the building you kind of lost some leverage, at least from the perspective of the Board. That’s the reality of it, because, speaking personally, I think if the structure was up and you came and said I want to replace this structure with this structure, I would be okay with it, being that it’s the same footprint, it’s the same structure that’s been there for 35 years essentially, outside of maybe a little more usage on the top, and the structure needs to be replaced. It did need to be replaced. I agree with what you did. So, as I looked to the south, the boathouse that’s there with the peaked roof, you know, with the steep pitch would still be higher than your boathouse, at that particular time. I guess the counter argument is that we’re attempting to granting a lot of relief and pack a lot of building into a small area. So while I’m on the fence, I think that this is entirely different than the Carder application, being that there was an existing building there, and that your neighbors, when they purchased their property, which is presumably before yours, were aware of this deck, or this dock house or boathouse, and that their views are not going to be significantly impaired. So, I think in this case, I’m okay with it. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I basically agree with Jaime. I’m looking at this, like we said before, we do when we strike something that’s already built, or partially built, looking at it, what would happen, what would I say if they’d come in before they’d started work, and my reaction, like Jaime’s, is well, they’re basically replacing what was there. Yes, the use is changing a little bit, but I don’t think it’s going to be that significant. Given the boathouse nearby that’s more massive and closed in on the sides, I don’t think I’ve got a problem with this. I’d be in favor of it. MR. STONE-I do have a problem with it. I think, quite frankly, I think it’s too much boathouse for the lot. Now I recognize, as has been stated, that if you had come in ahead of time and said, we want to replace what we had, we’d have very little choice, in terms of, or the Building Department would have very little choice in saying, go right ahead. You opened the door, however, to relief, as far as the lake is concerned, and that, to me, is very important. We’re seeing a tremendous building wave, as far as the lake is concerned. We’re building bigger homes. I happened to build a bigger one than the cottage we tore down. However, we never changed the dock. The dock is still the same as it was before. You’ve given us an opportunity to say it’s too much, and when I get the opportunity to say something is too much, I’m going to take it, quite frankly, when the lake is concerned. I just think that a 50 foot lot, this dock is too big, even if you, well, obviously, I was going to say too big even if you had the setback requirements, but you couldn’t have the setback requirements because the lot is too small, and unfortunately, the fact that you proceeded without, in this case is to your detriment, 59 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) and I’m afraid I’m going to have to say no, because I think, while the benefit to you is very strong, I think the detriment to the community, to the lake properties and all around there, is just too great as far as I’m concerned. Having said that, I get four noes. So can I have a motion to that effect, and then we’ll see how the vote goes. MR. MC NALLY-Well, can we ask the applicant whether they would consider cutting back on their plans? Maybe there’s some kind of concessions they can make that might alleviate. MR. STONE-We’re always willing to listen to that. MR. MC NULTY-But you’re objecting, though, to the size of the dock, not to the size of the deck. MR. MC NALLY-But the deck covers the dock, that’s the problem. MR. MC NULTY-But the deck is there. So are you looking for them to pull up half the dock? MR. MC NALLY-I don’t know. I’m trying to get an idea of what way we can improve the side setbacks, at the same time. MRS. BOGERT-Well, I think we’re kind of stuck with them, just because of the size of the property. If we had come to you with the exact plans of what existed, without a sundeck, and just a roof, you would still have the same things in your mind that you have right now. So, yes, we are asking for a sundeck, and that would be an improvement, but we’re really not asking for much more than what we had before, as far as size, which is what you’re having a problem with. It was necessary for us to take it down because the six by fours that supported the roof had to be replaced. They had been supported prior to us buying the property, and we realized when we bought the property we would have to put some money into it at some point. It just took us three years to save the money, that’s all. So, I think what you’re kind of like trying to grasp is something that we can’t control. We can’t increase the size of the property. Mr. Carder before us had 80 feet of lawn in between his two structures. We don’t have that to work with. Would we take down? That’s kind of a big thing to ask. MR. STONE-Let me ask Staff a question. Craig, if they had come to you with this dock in disrepair, would a building permit have been issued, without a variance? MR. BROWN-For the construction of the sundeck or repair of the peaked roof? MR. STONE-For a repair of the dock the way it existed? MR. BROWN-Yes. They are allowed to maintain in reasonable repair any nonconforming use which is what they had. MR. STONE-So a dock with the pitched roof would have been? MR. BROWN-The structure you see in these photos here, they would have been allowed to repair in kind, yes. MR. STONE-So as I said in my comments, they’ve opened the door for us and for me, it gives me an opportunity to help improve lake situations. MR. BROWN-Sure. MR. STONE-Are you willing, anything you can entertain? MRS. BOGERT-Well, by improvement, where do you see the benefits from improvement? MR. STONE-I see you having to make a dock that is more in tune with setback requirements, a smaller dock, a smaller width dock. MRS. BOGERT-Because, being where we are on the Bay, and with the other dock houses around us, we’re not impeding anybody’s view. Our neighbors seem to be happy with the changes that we’ve made since we bought the property. We haven’t put a lot of money into it, but we’ve been able to do a lot of improvements. So, I mean, they were happy to see the boathouse come down. So I don’t think we’re being real unreasonable. MR. MC NALLY-I think our position is this. You eliminated an existing nonconforming structure, your boathouse that was oversized, it would no longer fit under the existing zoning code, and we might be willing to consider the balance between the community impact and your private needs, if you would make some concessions, whereby we’d make an improvement to that frontage, in terms 60 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) of the current zoning code, in exchange for some concession on your part, and that’s what the issue really comes down to now, is that I think building a sundeck on top of a boathouse which is way oversized is something we won’t approve. We might consider a sundeck of a smaller size, if something could be done with the side setbacks which are narrow. You’re close on either side, basically. Am I wrong in saying something like that? MR. STONE-No. That’s certainly my feeling. MR. ABBATE-Your position is well stated. MR. STONE-I think it’s well stated, Bob. MR. BROWN-Just to give them some direction, would you consider the same proposal over one slip? A covered sundeck? I don’t want to speak for you, but just so you know what you guys are looking for. MR. MC NALLY-You have options as far as, you have a lot of options, I think. You’ve got to tell us what you want to do. MR. STONE-There’s also the concern, I think, certainly in the back of my mind, is the number of boats that are stored on a 50 foot lot. That’s a lot of boats. That’s a lot of width, and I think as Mr. McNally has said, are you willing to consider something? I mean, you can do it now or we can table it. You can come back with a different application, because I suspect anything you build is going to require some side setback relief, almost assuredly, but I think what we’re saying, at least a number of us, the majority is saying, we think the relief that you’re requesting, even though you could have built it, you could have rebuilt it if you hadn’t torn it down, is too much, in light of today’s situation, as we view what’s going on on the lake, and we’re not trying to be, we’re certainly not being arbitrary and capricious here. We are trying to be, this is something that we’ve been looking for a long time as we go along. This is something we’ve been trying to see take place. So, as I say, you have three choices, two. We can vote on it, and I suspect it’s going to be defeated, because I see four noes in my thing, and we’ve got a couple, at least one maybe. I don’t know how he’s going to vote. You can say you’ll come back to us with an alternate proposal. I mean, that’s the two options you have. MR. HAYES-If you put it up for a vote and it’s defeated, then you have to wait a year, or substantially change the proposal. MR. STONE-Or substantially change the proposal. MR. HAYES-Which that would be, I guess. MR. STONE-Yes, it would be the same thing. Well, we have to determine whether it’s substantially, and then we get a different viewpoint at it. MR. BROWN-That’s basically what you’re asking for in the tabling. MR. STONE-I’m asking for the tabling because I want them to come back, if they’re willing, I mean, if you’re willing to take your chances on us turning down your application, which means you can’t do anything with your dock, or tabling and coming back with a modified proposal, one that we might find acceptable, in other words, a narrower dock. MR. BOGERT-Well, I can’t afford to tear up the crib docks and put new ones in. I can afford this boathouse. MR. ABBATE-So you’re suggesting, then, we put it to a vote? MR. BOGERT-I don’t know what else to say? MR. ABBATE-Okay. Let’s put it to a vote. MR. BOGERT-What do you think? I guess it’s a lost cause. MR. STONE-Well, the only thing is, if you put it to a vote, technically, it has to come down, right? There would be no building permit for that. MR. BROWN-We wouldn’t be able to issue a building permit for the construction, that’s correct. MR. STONE-So it would be illegal construction. MR. MC NALLY-You should think about it. 61 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) MR. BROWN-But you would entertain a tabling motion for them to modify the sundeck plan, say to change it to cover one slip. MR. STONE-To modify the plans, whatever, yes, absolutely. MR. MC NALLY-If you had one covered slip with a sundeck on top, a smaller sundeck. Maybe it doesn’t involve removal or construction of a crib dock. MR. HAYES-Keep two cribs out of three. MRS. BOGERT-Would you consider what we had, just a normal roof? MR. STONE-I wouldn’t, given the opportunity to say, to make the dock smaller. I mean, that’s the point that I made. You’ve given us an opportunity to attempt to improve the shoreline of the lake. MRS. BOGERT-Well, Mr. McNally and Mr. Abbate both said no, would you approve just a normal roof instead of a sundeck? MR. BOGERT-I don’t mean to be disrespectful, but how can you take away from me what I paid for, what I bought and paid for? When I purchased the place, this is what I purchased, that size dock with that size boathouse on it, and you’re going to tell me that I can’t have that. MR. STONE-I can only say you took it away yourself. MR. BOGERT-I took down a derelict to put up something that looked better, and my neighbors are happy with it, because it looked like a slum on the water. MR. STONE-And you could have probably done the same thing if you had left it exactly the way it was. You could have gotten a building permit to repair that, and repair might have been replace every timber, but it would have been, when you got all done, it would have looked the same as it does, as it did. You opened the door. Some of us are taking an opportunity, quite frankly, to improve the situation. I would certainly suggest that you at least, we table it, you go away with, look at the situation in the light of day, and come back to us. MR. BOGERT-All right. MRS. BOGERT-We’d like to table it. MR. STONE-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 39-2000 PETER & KAREN BOGERT, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: 133 Seelye Road, Cleverdale. The purpose of the tabling is to allow the applicant to submit a modified plan for their dock, which may include reducing the overall size of the dock, may include covering one slip rather than the whole dock, in every case, modifying the amount of side setback relief needed. We’ll table it until the July meeting, no later than the first meeting in July. Duly adopted this 17 day of May, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Himes, Mr. McNally, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE MR. STONE-Okay. We’ll see you in a couple of months. MRS. BOGERT-Thank you for your time. MR. ABBATE-Sure. AREA VARIANCE NO. 40-2000 TYPE II HC-1A KONOVER PROPERTY TRUST OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE FACTORY STORES OF AMERICA STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 20 FT. WIDE ACCESS ROAD AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. SPR 27-2000 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 5/10/2000 TAX MAP NO. 36-1-34.3 LOT SIZE: 4.82 ACRES SECTION 179-23 TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 62 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) MR. STONE-Mr. McNally is recusing himself because of an apparent conflict of interest with the applicant. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 40-2000, Konover Property Trust, Meeting Date: May 17, 2000 “Project Location: State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 20 foot wide access drive. Relief Required: Applicant requests a total of 5% relief from the 70% maximum impermeable requirement of the HC-1A zone, § 179-23. The applicant’s site currently is 73% impermeable. The proposed access drive will create an additional 6120 square feet of impermeable area, raising the non-permeable area to 75% total. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Apparently the proposed drive would fulfill an access agreement the applicant has with an adjoining property. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include a narrower driving surface or trade off of existing permeability area in lieu of the proposed increase. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: The proposed 2% increase, to a 75% total, may be interpreted as minimal, however, the proposed 5% total above the 70% 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 . Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Site Plan Review 9-2000 access drive withdrawn Site Plan Review 27-2000 pending 5/18/00 access drive Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The 70% impermeable requirement should be adequate for most commercial uses. The proposed access drive, not associated with the principal use of the property, increases an already excessively impermeable percentage. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form May 10, 2000 Project Name: Konover Property Trust Owner: Konover Property Trust ID Number: QBY-AV- 40-2000 County Project#: May00-29 Current Zoning: HC-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 20 ft. wide access road and seeks relief from permeability requirements – 30% permeability is required, 27% exists, and 25% is proposed. Site Location: State Route 9 Tax Map Number: 36-1-34.3 Staff Notes: The County Planning Board recommended approval of the site plan for this project at its April 12, 2000. Included with that referral was a stormwater management report that Staff and John McGilvray found to be satisfactory. Given that the stormwater management techniques have been deemed adequate, staff does not identify any impacts significant at the County level from the proposed 2% reduction in permeability. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed Terry Ross, Warren County Planning Board MR. STONE-You’re on, sir. MR. CENTER-Good morning. MR. STONE-Good morning. It is morning. MR. CENTER-For the record, my name is Tom Center, I represent the applicant. I’m from Rist- Frost Associates. I’m the Project Engineer. Today I’m here for this Area Variance for this easement, or for this access road which, by contractual easement that the property owner inherited when he bought the property, has to provide to the Boats by George. This is also a joint application with Boats by George. They’re both together. They’re separate applications. Tom Nace and Jim Miller will represent Boats by George, just to make that clear. There are two applications that go with this project, but they are separate. MR. STONE-But that’s for site plan approval. MR. CENTER-But that’s for site plan approval, just so that you understand, there are two. There was some miscommunication early on about this project. So, just to make that clear. The access, the easement is for a 20 foot wide road, and that’s strictly stated in the legalese of the easement. We went through, we provide stormwater for all the new pavement that we are providing, for permeability purposes, we have provided stormwater infiltration. We are not changing any of the existing stormwater for the site. Everything is working. We are actually going to improve that by pitching the parking area on the top in the northeast corner of the parking area, which that is all used for parking, pitching it back into the existing storm system, and if you were out to the site, you could see where it’s washed out, they put some rip rap stone on that slope. By doing this project, we are going to re-seed those areas, when we do place the fill in there, and that is also going to help to keep that slope stable and actually increase the permeability of the soil by seeding that and re-grading. We don’t anticipate any adverse impact to the site. Again, the only thing we’re creating is stormwater, which we are going to maintain, again, in the new infiltration trench. The proposed location is away 63 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) from view of the public. It’s in the back corner of the property. You can’t see it unless you physically go to the edge of the parking lot area and you have to look down on it, and the whole roadway, it actually will be an improvement, if you’ve been out there. Again, it’s a lot of overburden, over brush. There’s also a septic system down in the lower corner, and by re-seeding these areas, we’ll make it more aesthetically pleasing, and that’s about it for this project. Are there any specific questions? MR. STONE-This road is dropping 34 feet? MR. CENTER-Yes, sir, and we have worked with Boats by George, through the grades, to make sure the entrance grade and the exit grade will facilitate the transportation of a boat down the road with his vehicles, and they were in agreement with this. We have coordinated both projects with the future end user. MR. STONE-He has a building behind there? MR. CENTER-The new lot, to the lower end? That is a piece of property he cannot currently use, because he doesn’t have access to it. He will not be putting a building up there. He will be storing boats, I believe. MR. STONE-Outdoors. MR. CENTER-Outdoors, yes, but again, I can’t speak for him. MR. STONE-No. Any questions of the applicant? Does everybody understand the application? MR. HIMES-The road, I was looking for the place (lost words) it looks like it starts right there where Boats by George already has boats stored there, his building, and then he’s got a bunch of boats out there, and it looks from the drawing, like the road just ends. MR. CENTER-Well, it does on my site plan, but again, if you refer to the other site plans that will be presented in plan review, we have coordinated that road, and it does continue. If you look on, I believe it’s 27, Site Plan 27-2000, that continues the road up through his property. Our road, for this site plan, starts at the property line and ends at the property line, and his two site plans will pick it up on both ends of his property. MR. HIMES-So you’re going to go right out on 149 then? MR. CENTER-No. Again, a study was done early on with Mr. Round and the Planning Department and the Warren County transportation bureau, or whatever the name of that was, to look for the feasibility of a by-pass, and it was found that it would not work. This is not a by-pass. This is strictly for use of Boats by George to access his lower parcel. MR. STONE-Out of curiosity, the bike path, is that on his property or is that, his property goes up to the bike path over there? MR. HAYES-That’s east of his property. MR. BROWN-On the GIS map, you can see where it is. MR. STONE-We don’t have that. MR. CENTER-This is the bike path back here. This is the piece of property that I’m on, and this is would be the area that he would be storing his boats on. So, there is a wide setback between the edge of his property and the bike path. Here’s the road coming in that would go up. So this road will continue up here and back. MR. STONE-Any questions of the applicant? Well, you will have for the Planning Board the stormwater? MR. CENTER-Yes, the stormwater has been reviewed with, C.T. Male has reviewed it, and we got a letter today saying everything was acceptable, and all of their comments were met, and it was found to be. MR. STONE-Are you prepared to give us that, since we’re talking permeability. MR. CENTER-I got it from Staff this morning. 64 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) MR. STONE-The only reason, of course, we need it is because what does impermeable mean, it means that there’s not as much land to infiltrate water. So we want to be sure we have it. Has any consideration been given to tearing up some of the asphalt and leaving it permeable up on top there? I mean, are all those parking spaces needed, in the back of the building? MR. CENTER-We did not do a traffic count, as far as compliance, because we weren’t changing or adding, but as far as doing a count and having to remove asphalt, their parking currently goes right up to the edge of that slope, and I need that asphalt pavement in that area to re-pitch that area and re-curb around the edge to protect that slope. Again, I didn’t do a traffic count or do a parking count, but if you go around the back, a lot of the impermeable area that goes around the access road, which goes all the way around the south side of the building, is unparkable area. So I think that’s where maybe the nonconformance comes in, because they do have a lot of area where you can’t park. MR. STONE-Well, I meant that big circle there, right, where it says existing paved swale to be removed, in that area. MR. CENTER-Right. That is parking. MR. STONE-I know it is parking, but is it ever used? MR. CENTER-I believe so. There’s not a lot of parking along the front side. I haven’t done a study. I can’t answer your question, per se. MR. STONE-And right now it’s not being used, because there’s a lot of vacancies in that building, it appears. MR. CENTER-It’s off season, too. You go in there Memorial Day and Fourth of July. I can’t answer your question, truthfully. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, the only reason I ask the question is there any way to minimize, which is always our challenge, to minimize the amount of variance that we’re requesting, and obviously if you took out some of the pavement, if it wasn’t necessary, and left it permeable, then you’d need less relief, but having said that, I just throw it out there. Any other questions of the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? Anybody opposed to this application? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any other questions? MR. HIMES-I just want to clarify one thing. You say the only person using this road is Boats by George? MR. CENTER-Is Boats by George, yes. I believe that’s written in to the access agreement, that they can only use it for storing purposes. They can’t use it for retail. I can’t be exact on that, but I believe that’s in the easement agreement. MR. STONE-Will there be a barrier across the road at the top? MR. CENTER-There is a gate at the entrance from the Konover property, as far as that’s concerned. There is a gate there. Konover needs to have access to it because they have to maintain the roadway. So there’s a gate there. There’s also going to be a gate at the bottom of the hill, and I don’t believe there’s a gate at the top, from the Boats by George property, but I think he can sufficiently block that, but again, I can’t speak for them. MR. STONE-Okay. So the road will be, the public won’t be able to go whizzing down this thing? MR. CENTER-That’s correct, not from the Konover property. MR. STONE-Not from the Konover property. MR. CENTER-They will not be able to access it, through a locked gate. 65 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) MR. STONE-Okay. MR. HIMES-You’re going to pave it? MR. CENTER-It’s going to be a paved, 20 foot wide roadway, per the easement, 20 feet from the edge of pavement to the edge of asphalt, it’ll be 20 feet, and again, that’s set at 20 feet, due to the legal agreement in the easement. That’s written in the easement agreement, that it’s to be 20 foot wide. MR. STONE-Since I see Fire Department people here, I know they’re coming up next, is that road wide enough, if there were a fire down there, if a boat happened to catch on fire? Is 20 feet wide enough.. Okay. You’re assuring us that it’s wide enough to get equipment down there. Is that a requirement, Craig? MR. BROWN-It’s a site plan requirement that they make look at, sure. MR. STONE-Okay. So, we don’t have to worry about it, then. Okay. Having said that, Allan, let’s talk about it. What do you think? MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, I’m going to make it very brief. I don’t have any problem with the proposition. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-I have no problems with the proposition as well. MR. STONE-Jaime? MR. HAYES-I agree. It’s a heavy commercial area, and the permeability, based on you’ve got a lot of stores, a lot of parking. It’s a unique circumstance. I don’t have any problem with the application. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I feel the same way. I don’t have any problem. MR. STONE-Norman? MR. HIMES-I think I’m okay with it. It’s certainly, from a visual standpoint, it kind of looks like a dump back there, but with the good location, and the protection and all you have, it will make up for the loss, by square foot (lost words). I don’t have a problem with it. MR. STONE-I don’t have any problem either, as long the water, like any piece of property, is going to be contained on your property, even though there’s a nice, steep hill for it to flow down. Are you going to have diversion things, or somehow to? MR. CENTER-Along the road? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. CENTER-The road is pitched so that we will drain toward our designed stormwater. MR. STONE-Okay. So 98% of the water will hit your property, the permeable area of your property? MR. CENTER-Anything that hits the road is going to go down and will, Number One, be caught in the newly seeded grass, and then anything over that will go into our stormwater infiltration trench. MR. STONE-Okay. Having said that, I need a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 40-2000 KONOVER PROPERTY TRUST, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: State Route 9. The applicant proposes construction of a 20 foot wide access drive. Specifically, the applicant requests a total of 5% of relief from the 70% maximum impermeable requirement of the HC-1A zone, Section 179-23. The proposed access drive will create an additional 6,120 square feet of impermeable area. The criteria for considering such a variance, one, the benefit to the applicant, the applicant will be allowed to have the drive as it’s proposed, to provide access to the boat storage area in the rear. The feasible alternatives. I believe feasible alternatives are limited, based on the unique nature of the strip plaza, and the amount of paving that already exists which is contributing to 66 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) the total impermeable area. I think this driveway is, the additional percentage has more to do with the high level of impermeable area in the upper area. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? I believe that it’s fairly minimal, considering the nature of the properties in the strip plaza, or the Million Dollar Half Mile as it’s known. Effects on the neighborhood or community, I believe that the road and the additional impermeable area are to the rear and down a steep hill, and I don’t think there’ll be any impacts on the neighborhood really whatsoever. Is the difficulty self created? It is self-created, only that the agreement was reached to provide the access, so on balance, I think it falls in favor of the applicant. Duly adopted this 17 day of May, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Himes, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McNally AREA VARIANCE NO. 41-2000 TYPE II RR-3A BAY RIDGE VOL. FIRE CO., INC. OWNER: COUNTY OF WARREN BAY AND OLD BAY ROADS APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A FIRE STATION AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. SPR 35-2000 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 5/10/2000 TAX MAP NO. 48-1-15 LOT SIZE: 4.33 ACRES SECTION 179- 15 JON LAPPER, RICHARD JONES, CHIP MELLON, REP. APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 41-2000, Bay Ridge Vol. Fire Co., Inc., Meeting Date: May 17, 2000 “Project Location: Bay and Old Bay Roads Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a new Fire Station. Relief Required: Applicant requests 21,850 square feet of relief from the allowable 47,148 square foot maximum allowable impermeable area requirement of the RR-3A zone, § 179-15. The applicant proposes a 36.6% impermeable total, while the RR-3A requirement is for a maximum of 25%. Further, the applicant requests 25 feet of relief from the 75 foot minimum Travel Corridor Overlay setback requirement, per § 179-28. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the proposed facility in the desired manner. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include a downsized proposal. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 11.6% relief (21,850 square feet) from the requirement may be interpreted as moderate to substantial while the 25 feet of relief from the 75 foot TCO requirement may be interpreted as minimal to moderate. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: 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. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Site Plan Review 35-2000 5/25/00 pending Fire Station Staff comments: Minimal to moderate adverse impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The proposed building could be relocated to a more compliant location, however, the relocation could generate the need for additional hard surfacing. The proposed plan, while in excess of the permeability requirement and TCO setback does not appear to be an unreasonable use of the property. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form May 10, 2000 Project Name: Bay Ridge Vol. Fire Co., Inc. Owner: County of Warren ID Number: QBY-AV- 41-2000 County Project#: May 00-22 Current Zoning: RR-3A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes the construction of a Fire Station and seeks relief from permeability requirements. Site Location: Bay and Old Bay Roads Tax Map Number: 48-1-15 Staff Notes: This project has also been referred by the Town for site plan review (Agenda item 21). The proposed project would reduce site permeability to 63.4%, though 75% is required. The project may also require a travel corridor setback variance (it appears that 75’ are required and 50’ are proposed). Staff will investigate. A stormwater management report and sight distance analysis submitted with the application have been provided to Board member John McGilvray and DPW Director William Remington for their review. Staff recommends discussion. County Planning Board Recommendation: Approve” Signed Terry Ross 5/12/2000. MR. LAPPER-Good evening, very briefly, in light of the hour. MR. STONE-Good morning. MR. LAPPER-Good morning. Jon Lapper, Richard Jones, Chip Mellon. We think this is a very straightforward application and a very good use of the site for a quasi-public purpose which, like a 67 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) school, is treated somewhat differently in New York case law. There is a benefit. The two variances here are pretty straightforward. In the RR-3A zone, again, much like Prospect School. It’s a residential zone. Here is requires 75%, rather than the 65% we talked about six hours ago. So 75% is incredibly green, and what we’ve done here is 63% green, which is still substantially green. It’s a very nicely landscaped site. You can see the way it’s laid out with the green space on the sides and the building in the center. In terms of the neighbors that are living across the street, this has been a very ugly DPW site for years and years, with piles of dirt and sand, and salt, and it hasn’t been particularly well fixed up after DPW left. There’s still asphalt and weeds growing up through the asphalt. This is a very attractive building that Mr. Jones has designed, at least that’s my opinion, I hope you agree, and in terms of the 75 foot setback, in terms of the Travel Corridor, that, of course, is there so that the road could some day be expanded. There are no structures, no buildings at all across the street, even though there’s an embankment, if it had to be expanded, the 25 feet that we’re asking for, it could easily be done across the street, even though there would have to be some retaining wall. It’s just no big deal, in terms of expanding the road which, in the foreseeable future, is probably not going to be needed. MR. JONES-I’ll give you a brief overview of the project. As you can see, the building is located almost dead center in the proposed parcel of property. The Fire Station portion of the building is on the north end. This is Bay Road on the lower end, Old Bay Road on the upper loop, north is to my left. The Fire Station portion with the apparatus bays is located here on the north end. We have the apron in the front, which gives them plenty of room to pull out of the bays, get a direction, as far as which way they’re going, get good sight distances in all directions, and pull out and either go south or north on Bay, depending upon which way the response is required. The public portion of the building is on the south end. We’re looking at an ingress/egress on that side for parking. We’ve got parking on that side for approximately, I believe, 30 some vehicles. We have an additional eight or nine on the back which would be for the service area. We have a small service kitchen in the back side with a public space on the front side. Fire Company offices and meeting rooms would be in the front corner. We have a radio room here in the corner. The back apron is to allow trucks to come back through and drive through, these are actually drive thru bays so we don’t have people coming in the front side. This portion is only for access and exiting of fire vehicles. That’s the only purpose of that. The drive on the north end with the small parking lot is basically for Fire Company response, we have both ingress on the front and on the back side. This would be for responding firemen. We have an entrance directly into the end of the apparatus bay, so they could go directly in to basically get their gear and leave the firehouse. When you look at the site itself, currently, there are a row of trees in this general area. The rest of the site is basically clear. There are no other trees on site. What we’re proposing are road sized maples along both the Old Bay Road side and the new Bay Road side. We’re keeping them back to maintain our site distances for vehicles coming in and out of the site. We’re now looking to landscape all of the parking areas and the back area with hedges, that type of thing, to basically screen the parking and screen any of the other apparatus that would be coming onto the site. Basically, we have public parking here on the south side, public access into the area where the meeting room exists. We have a small gravel training area out on the north end of the parking, adjacent to that parking, where they can do some drills and that type of thing on site. Existing well is on the far north side. Our septic is back in here. We’ve incorporated all types of storm drainage for infiltration. Basically, the site is pitching from south to north. It’s dropping approximately, I think, 24 feet across the entire site. We’re terracing the parking. So this is actually going to be a bermed area around this to basically conceal the parking. So when we have headlights from cars coming in, they’re going to be into the bermed areas, and not shining on the houses on the back side, and that’s pretty much it. MR. MELLON-This is a project that we’ve been working on for several years. We feel it’s very important to our community as well as the entire Town of Queensbury, since we’re contracted to provide fire service to the entire Town. Approval of this site will benefit the Bay Ridge Fire Company because it will allow us to consolidate our operations into one centralized facility. We will have very good response routes to all parts of our district, north, south, east and west. We’re very close to the Route 149 corridor, as well as other areas of our district, Lake Sunnyside, Glen Lake, Dream Lake areas, and also the northern and southern parts of our district. So we believe that this is a very vital part of our operation, if we can get approval. MR. STONE-A question that just occurred to me. You service the north side of Glen Lake? MR. MELLON-Yes, we do. MR. STONE-Central does the south side, or do you go down there, too? MR. MELLON-We do part of the south and they do part of the south, the way the lines go. They cover of Mannis Road and Fitzgerald Road. MR. STONE-Both. Okay. 68 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) MR. MELLON-That’s where they cover, and then we cover basically the rest of it from the bike trail east. MR. STONE-Interesting, and you made the comment that you’ve got good roads to get everywhere, but obviously, the Glen Lake properties are going to be harder to get to than from Number Two, or whatever the. MR. MELLON-Basically, what we have to do at this point, we require all of our members respond to whatever station they’re closest to, so they can respond to calls. We have a minimum number of firefighters that have to respond on the apparatus. There are some times during the day or night where we are limited with manpower. We feel by having everyone respond to one station, we can actually reduce our response time. Instead of having two or three people come to each station, this whole nucleus comes to one station, we can actually get the truck on the road quicker. So actually what it will do, it will reduce our response time, because we can get a truck on the road quicker to respond. MR. STONE-Any questions of these gentlemen? MR. BRYANT-I have a question for Mr. Jones, and I don’t even know if this is a question that you can answer, but there are existing utility poles on that lot. What happens to those, do you know? There’s several of them. MR. JONES-Yes. There’s several along the Bay Road side of the property. There’s some power lines that bisect, I believe, the back corner near the parking lot on the south corner. The poles on the back side of the property are going to remain. Right now, we’re dealing with Niagara Mohawk in regard to relocating the poles and possibly going underground from the pole on what would be the south entrance into the public parking, underground across to the pole that we’re going to relocate on the north side near the Fire Company entrance. So they would be underground along the front side of the property, from pole to pole that would be relocated. MR. STONE-A question, Craig, looking at Type II. Under what does a Firehouse come? MR. LAPPER-I have that answer. MR. STONE-I hope somebody does, because it’s not listed here. MR. BROWN-Yes, it’s not listed in any zone. MR. STONE-It’s not listed in any zone. MR. BROWN-That’s probably a letter from Chris. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. It would be of interest to me, because all of a sudden I realize it’s not there. Let’s just read it in. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. This is a letter addressed to Mr. Jon Lapper, from Chris Round. “We’ve received the site plan application for the proposed Bay Ridge Firehouse to be located on Bay Road. The property is located in the WR-3A zone. Firehouses are not identified on the listing of allowed uses in the WR-1A/WR-3A zones. Firehouses are not identified as allowed or permitted uses in any of the Town’s zoning districts. I have examined the past practice of permitting firehouses and other public type facility uses in the Town of Queensbury. Several firehouses have been constructed and/or expanded over the last several years and there appears to be no consistent treatment of this land use. As you are aware, there is recent case law (Matter of County of Monroe vs. City of Rochester, Nanuet Fire Co. No. 1, Inc. vs. Amster) confirming the potential applicability of local zoning to firehouses. It is my determination that the omission of firehouses as allowed uses in any zone within the Town of Queensbury is inadvertent and that construction of a firehouse is an allowed use in all zones subject to site plan review. Site plan review is the proper mechanism to receive public input on the proposed project. If you have any questions or comments please feel free to contact me at 761-8221. Sincerely, Chris Round” MR. STONE-Craig, would you make a note, you may be making a note, that we, for the zone steering, that we consider that. MR. LAPPER-There’s just one other thing that you should read in, Chris just sent me today, about the RR. 69 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) MR. MC NULTY-Okay. This is also to Mr. Lapper, “Our Office issued a zoning determination regarding the proposed Bay Ridge Firehouse in the correspondence dated May 3, 2000. The property in question is located within the RR-3A zone, not the WR-3A zone, as indicated in the determination. All other aspects of determination show correct.” MR. STONE-Any questions of the applicant? MR. HIMES-Just one probably for Mr. Jones again. I think what we’ve got here is (lost words) runoff and all, and you’re describing where things are there. The thing kind of slopes from south to north? MR.. JONES-Yes. MR. HIMES-And you’re going to have the infiltration that you discussed earlier this evening, similar type thing here? MR. JONES-Yes. We have both a combination of infiltration trench and drywells in some of the parking areas. As you look at the south parking lot, the public parking lot, we’ve got infiltration trench along the bermed area, the base of the bermed area, collecting anything coming down off the embankment right there, and as you get into the parking areas, we’re collecting along the curb, which would run along the front side of the public area, and drain inlets and diverting that to drywells on site. As you come around the back loop, you’ve got a combination of drywells and storm drainage trench along the perimeter to the east, and then we’re doing the same thing along the perimeter to the north. So we’re collecting off all paved areas. MR. HIMES-So everything’s going right in and is going to run back down? MR. JONES-Yes. For the building itself, we have infiltration trench around the building, and we’re diverting everything to those trenches along the perimeter at the base of the building. MR. HIMES-Thank you. MR. STONE-Mr. Lapper, you made some reference to the fact that if Bay Road were to be widened in the future, they could take it from the west side? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STONE-Except, who owns that land? I mean, right now it’s County land on one side, easily taken if they had to go in that direction. Is that a Town Road or a County Road, by the way, Craig? MR. LAPPER-A County Road. MR. BROWN-It’s a County Road. MR. STONE-It is County? So, in other words, the County would have no problem in widening to the east? MR. LAPPER-Well, the overlay zone is done on private property rather than on County property, to say that if the County needed to do a taking, it’s always contemplated, you’re leaving 75 feet of your private property without a building. So that if the County takes it, it’s cheaper to take it because they don’t have to take down a building, but if you were going to widen that road, most likely you’d want to straighten out the curb, which would mean moving it to the west or, you know, down toward the bottom, as it lays out. So it’s just unlikely that anybody would want to make it more of a curb rather than less of a curb. So it just doesn’t seem practical that the County would ever want have the expansion go in the direction of the firehouse anyway. MR. STONE-You put two words in the same sentence that don’t always go, practical and County. MR. LAPPER-Okay. I’m not as eloquent as I was hours ago. MR. STONE-Okay. I just want that for the record, that’s all. All right. Any other questions of the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody wishing to speak opposed to this application? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED TOM NEWTON 70 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) MR. NEWTON-Good morning. I’m Tom Newton. I live on Old Bay Road. My house is the ranch structure to the south. There is no asphalt on the property now, as Mr. Lapper, and I have a couple of questions. This property originally, the County was going to sell it to the Fire Company as Highway Commercial. Now, on the letter I received from the Town of Queensbury, it’s Rural Residential Three Acre? Did they change the zoning on this property, or how did this come about? MR. STONE-Craig, it’s always been RR-3A? MR. BROWN-As far as I know. MR. NEWTON-October 1, 1999, in the Post Star. It was here. MR. STONE-If in fact it says Highway Commercial, that’s the newspaper’s reading of the Town Zoning Map, and our Staff is telling us it’s always been RR-3A. MR. NEWTON-Okay. Then that answers one question for me. I’d like to understand the Travel Corridor zone. Is that Old Bay Road or is that Bay Road? MR. STONE-No, that’s on Bay Road. MR. NEWTON-That is on Bay Road. Is there a setback requirement from Old Bay Road? MR. STONE-There is no. MR. HAYES-Not for a TCO. MR. STONE-Not for a TCO. MR. BROWN-There’s a setback requirement, and it’s 50 feet from the right-of-way for Old Bay Road, and they meet that. MR. NEWTON-Okay. What is the difference? MR. STONE-Well, TCO has been set up for certain roads in the Town, so called arterials or other definitions, major collecting roads, and it’s for future widening, just as Mr. Lapper said. It’s to protect the County or the State or the Town from having an undue expense in the future, if they have to widen the roads. In other words, you don’t want them to take half your house. No, you don’t want them to take either half your house or be (lost words), take anything. MR. HAYES-They just don’t want you putting expensive structures in an area that might be taken over some day in the future, that’s all. MR. STONE-And they’d have to pay a lot of money for imminent domain to get access to that property. MR. NEWTON-Okay. The elevation change you quoted, Mr. Jones, of 24 feet, that’s from south to north? My perception is a lot more than 24 feet. MR. JONES-From end to end, 24 feet. MR. NEWTON-From the south end to the. MR. HAYES-You’re talking about the lot. He’s talking about the developed area. MR. NEWTON-Yes, and I don’t understand what you’re talking about, just the developed area is zoned 24 feet. MR. JONES-When I say developed, I’m talking roughly 60 to, well, it’s 87 up in here, but the last major modification to a grade is 84, which would be 24 feet. End to end we’re looking at roughly 90 to 51 on the lower end. So it’s probably around eight to ten percent over the entire site. MR. NEWTON-Okay. MR. STONE-Anything else? MR. NEWTON-That pretty much answers my question. I’m not in favor of this, by the way. MR. STONE-Well, I thought you might want to say that. Okay. Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak opposed to this application? Opposed? Is there any correspondence? 71 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. MR. STONE-Then I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any other questions of the applicant? Hearing none, Allan, let’s talk about it. What do you think? MR. BRYANT-I was looking at the site plan, and, boy, those utility poles are really going to take away from the appearance of the building. MR. JONES-Yes, they do. That’s why we’re trying to go underground across the property. MR. BRYANT-I know, but you’re going to surround the building with all these poles, and really. MR. JONES-Right now we’ve got one existing pole here that would remain. There’s a pole here on the south end that would remain. There’s one on the opposite side of Old Bay that has to remain, and coming down Bay, once we get to this one, we would be going underground across the front of the property to this point. One of our concerns was the overhead wires, for trucks getting out. We’d like to have them relocate the poles to the west side of Bay, but they’re not going to do that. MR. BRYANT-Well, in any event, I don’t know whether I’m going in to diabetic shock or what’s happening, but I have no objection to this project that’s proposed. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-There were several key phrases that were stated this evening. One was closing the response time, making response time shorter than it is right now. Is that correct? MR. MELLON-That’s correct, it’s reducing the response time. MR. ABBATE-Yes, to me, that’s a wonderful thing. I think the area, and I’m partial, I live basically in that area, off Sunnyside. I think it’s needed. I think when you mention the word reducing response time, that’s extremely important, and I’m in favor of the project. MR. STONE-Jaime? MR. HAYES-I think this is just what it is, I think it’s a great recycling of the property that’s involved. There’s no doubt that the community would benefit from a new fire station for the Bay and Ridge areas. The permeability issue that’s in front of us has to do more with the RR-3A zoning, in my mind, than this being an area of project that has too much impermeable area. I mean, if you look at it, it’s a very green project. So it has more to do with the existing zoning that really is not designed for a firehouse application, which is fine, and as far as the Travel Corridor Overlay Zone, I agree with Counsel that there appears to be plenty of room to grab needed area, if that ever arises, which I doubt. So the 25 foot relief in that area is fine, too. So I really have no problem with the application at all. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Before I make my comments, Staff has pointed out that there are some comments here from the Planning Staff, one in particular regarding permeability, he’d like me to read in. MR. STONE-Let me open the public hearing again, so you can put that in the record. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED MR. MC NULTY-This deals with the adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. “The site does not appear to have areas susceptible to flooding or erosion. Staff would request confirmation that the proposed site plan will not cause areas on the site to flood or erode. The Town Board minutes indicate the water table runs 3-4 ft. high around the base of the building; is the site able to support the structure as proposed? The applicant is to appear before the ZBA 5/17/00 for relief from the permeability requirements. Max. is 25% impermeable total with 36.6% requested. There are ways to decrease this impermeable total. The northernmost curb cut off of Bay Rd. could be eliminated (unless there is an emergency management reason that can be explained). There is a drive through at the southernmost curb cut off of Bay Rd. that connects to the Old Bay Rd. side of the building. This drive could be 72 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) eliminated and the parking area access lane increased in width from 20 ft. to 24 ft. This would increase permeable area by at least 2,775 sq. ft. or 1.5%.” MR. STONE-Okay. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. LAPPER-I’ll respond to that. MR. STONE-Go ahead. That was from the Planning Department. MR. LAPPER-When you look at it as if it were flat, those comments seem like good changes that we could easily make, but because of the topography, how it steps down, to move the southern driveway over, it’s just not going to work, in terms of the grade as it reaches Bay Road. So it needs to be separate from the way you drive in. The 1.2% really doesn’t make a big difference in terms of the overall site, and as Mr. Jones described, on the north side, that’s the separate entrance just for the firemen coming in, to get into their gear. So that’s why those are just practical reasons why it was designed that way, which Craig and I didn’t discuss. He didn’t have the benefit of those answers. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-All right. When I see something like this, my initial gut reaction is, well, it’s a new piece of property. It’s a new building, why not design it so that it fits like it should, or find a new piece of property. On the other hand, if there’s some mitigating measures that can be taken to take care of the runoff from the hard surfaces, I think that relieves my concern that way. I also normally don’t like to see intrusions into the Travel Corridor Overlay, but I think, as the applicant’s pointed out, the logic says that if Bay Road should ever be widened, they probably will widen it on the other side of the road. So, given those considerations, I’d be inclined to go along. MR. STONE-Norman? MR. HIMES-I’m thinking favorably about the thing, especially in view of the infiltration, the facilities being made available to take care of water runoff from the proposed site, going from north to south. So that, as far as water is concerned, it shouldn’t be any different on the other side of Old Bay Road than it is now, maybe even improved. So I’d go along with it. MR. STONE-Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I agree. The variance should be approved for reasons the other Board members have already said. MR. STONE-I agree. My notes to myself, when I looked at this thing, the only problem with the permeability is because of the zoning type, and this could be zoned a variety of things. It happens to be RR-3A, but I don’t think, as Counsel had said, there’s a tremendous amount of green space there on top of this thing. I did have a concern about the Travel Corridor Overlay, but listening to the arguments presented, and being very familiar with that piece of road, and I’d like to be on it right now, on my way home, but it certainly would be straightened to the west rather than to the east, and having said that, I also know that the Planning Board, the capable Planning Board, will be looking at this thing, and if we have overlooked anything, in terms of possible mitigation of the amount of variance that we’ve granted, they’ll take care of it. Not that we fall back on them, but I think that they certainly can do that. Having said that, I’ll call for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 41-2000 BAY RIDGE VOL. FIRE CO., INC., Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: Bay and Old Bay Roads. The applicant proposes construction of a new Fire Station. Specifically, the applicant requests 21,850 square feet of relief from the allowable 47,148 square feet maximum allowable impermeable area requirement of the RR-3A zone Section 179-15. The applicant proposes 36.6% impermeable total. Whereas, the RR-3A requirement is for a maximum of 25%. Further, the applicant requests 25 feet of relief from the 75 foot minimum travel corridor overlay setback requirement per Section 179-28. The benefit to the applicant would be their fire department would be permitted to construct the proposed facility as depicted in the desired manner. Feasible alternatives, I think feasible alternatives are limited based on the unique shape of this lot and the RR- 3A zone requirement for substantial permeability. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? I believe that the relief is moderate, and I believe that it is also a function, again, of the RR-3A zone, versus I believe there’s plenty of green space in the cumulative sense. Effects on the neighborhood or community, I believe that the effects would be moderate or minimal. It’s a great recycling of the property and the depiction of the buildings look very nicely designed. So, if anything, it could be an improvement. Is the difficulty self created? I believe that the difficulty is partially self created based 73 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) on the desire to place the building s depicted, but I also, again, believe it’s partially due to the RR-3A zoning requirements for permeability. Therefore, on balance, I move for its approval. Duly adopted this 17 day of May, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. STONE-There you go. AREA VARIANCE NO. 42-2000 TYPE II CR-15 PIZZA HUT OWNER: PIZZAGATES RESTAURANTS, INC. 97 & 99 MAIN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A DRIVE-THRU ACCESS ROAD AND SEEKS PERMEABILITY RELIEF. CROSS REF. 36-2000 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 5/10/00 TAX MAP NO. 129-1-21 LOT SIZE: 0.77 ACRES SECTION 179-24 TERRY RYFA & BILL MAHER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 42-2000, Pizza Hut, Meeting Date: May 17, 2000 “Project Location: 97 & 99 Main Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of an access lane to service a drive-thru window. Relief Required: Applicant requests 2,766 square feet of relief from the 23,254 square foot maximum permeable area requirement of the CR-15 zone, § 179-24. The site currently has 77.4% of impermeable area and proposes an increase to a 78.3% level. The requirements of the CR-15 zone allow for 70% maximum permeable area. 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 access drive to facilitate the use of a drive-thru window. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include not paving the area and reducing the amount of hard surfacing on the site. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: A 1% increase from existing conditions may be interpreted as minimal, however, the total of 78.3% when the requirement is for a 70% maximum may be interpreted as moderate to substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: 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. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 23-99 res. 4/28/99 setback relief for shed BP 99-220 5/19/99 shed Site Plan Review 36-2000 pending 5/25/00 Drive-thru UV 1255 res. 5/20/87 restaurant Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The proposed addition of hardsurfacing might be mitigated by trading existing pavement for green area in order to make the site more compliant. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form May 10, 2000 Project Name: Pizza Hut Owner: Pizzagates Restaurants, Inc. ID Number: QBY-AV-42-2000 County Project#: May00-31 Current Zoning: CR-15 Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes to alter the existing Pizza Hut site to construct a drive-thru window. Paving of the drive-thru area and removal of some green area is proposed. Site Location: 97-99 Main Street. Tax Map Number: 129-1-21 Staff Notes: This proposed project was also referred by the Town for County site plan review (Agenda item 30). The local ordinance requires that parcels in this zone remain 30% permeable for stormwater management and aesthetic impact. The existing structure and pavement leaves only 22.6% of the site permeable, and the proposed drive-through lane would reduce that proportion to 21.7%, a reduction of .9% of the site. This is a small reduction, which might be outweighed by the hoped-for traffic benefits of fewer vehicles pulling in and out of parking spaces to pick up pizzas. Staff recommends a determination of No County Impact with the stipulation that the permeability of the site is not further reduced by projects in the future. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact with Stipulation that the permeability of the site is not further reduced by paving or building additions in the future” Signed, Terry Ross 5/12/00. MR. STONE-Hello, gentlemen. MR. RYFA-My name is Terry Ryfa from Pizza Hut, and this is Bill Maher, and basically what we want to do is, back in 1987, there was a variance approved allowing us to have a drive thru on the west side of the building, and in fact we constructed the drive through extension off of the building. When we went for our beer license, the liquor authority, at that point, told us that we could not have a drive through, and have open container beer being sold in the restaurant. So we sealed that off because we wanted to sell beer in the restaurant, and paved that, or made that area a green space. So 74 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) it’s about the size of a parking spot. Since then, we’ve talked to the liquor authority, and in Troy they’ve allowed beer to be sold and still to have a carry-out window, and I talked to them about two months ago, and they said that there is no longer a problem with us doing that. So as a result of that, we, basically, are coming back with the same plan we had back in 1987 that was approved and want to put a carry-out window on the side there, not for people to drive up and order their pizza, and then to wait in line to be picked up, but when they call for their pizza to come and pick it up, and it would be ready. In other words, not ordering at a window and then pulling up and getting the pizza. They will have already ordered the pizza from their house and will pick it up when they get there. The positives on that are on the east side of the building, instead of using parking stalls, people tend to pull up to the side of the curb and run in and get their pizzas, and it tends to create some congestion at that point. With the ability of people being able to drive through to the window, pick up their pizzas, I think it would create less congestion, and also get people off of the property quicker, and create more space on the property for additional cars. So it is decreasing our permeability and we know that we have already been given a variance for that, but back in 1987 they did approve it, and I understand things do change, but basically that’s what we’re trying to do, and we would be taking out two parking stalls on the other side of where the green space is on the west side of the building, but we would still be well within our requirements of, I believe, what is it, 100, one per 100 square feet, I believe, of building space, and we have 2800 square feet. So we only need 28 parking spaces, and we currently have 44. This will reduce it to 42. Other than that, that’s kind of where we’re at. MR. STONE-Let me ask you a very basic question, or at least it seems to me a dichotomy or something. You’re here for a request for permeability, impermeability increase, and yet you’ve got two dumpsters sitting on some of the permeable ground that you have. Doesn’t that sound, why should those dumpters be on top of the ground, instead of on the asphalt, so that you’re not taking away some of the impermeable land that you have? MR. RYFA-I’m not going to pull any punches, to be honest with you, we try to create as many parking spaces as we can, and I mean, if the Town required us to put them back on a parking stall in the back, we would do that. In this business we try to create parking stalls for people. I know it’s probably not the right answer, but that’s the truth. MR. STONE-I don’t know if anybody else noticed that, but I, they’re both sitting there on top of the ground, and you’re asking for more impermeable area. MR. RYFA-The area drains very well now. I don’t know if you’ve ever been there during a heavy rainstorm, but even during these past rainstorms that we’ve had, the storm drains take good care of the water on the property right now. We’ve never had any puddling or major puddling on that property. MR. STONE-I’m also trying to remember, when we gave the variance for the shed in the back, what did you say it was going to be used for? MR. RYFA-For storage. MR. STONE-Just for storage. It wasn’t supposed to have a dumpster in there? MR. RYFA-No, we said it was for storage. MR. STONE-Okay. I didn’t remember. Any other questions of the applicant? Anybody have any questions? MR. HIMES-Just, in spite of what you said about the parking spaces, (lost words) with the drive through window, what if you gave up in the far back here where the shed is, what have you, gave up the equivalent of a couple of parking spaces back there, to offset what the increase is going to be? MR. RYFA-I think that’s something that could be done. Obviously, we would prefer not to do that because we try to, I mean, it gets congested on a Friday night now, but I mean, I think the advantages of having the carry-out window and reducing congestion, we would probably concede to that if that’s something required, but preferably we’d prefer not to do that. Like I said, the area seems to drain very well now. Because of the cemetery next to us, it gives us the feel of larger than 30%, or whatever it is right now, 22% green space, and I know that they’re not going to be constructing anything next to that, in that cemetery in the very near future. On the other side, very possible, in fact, on two sides of the, on the north side as well as the west side we’re surrounded by cemetery, and we also, I remember when we did that building, we had to create some barriers there, which we did do with some green plantings going along the way. The east side of the building, that place has been for sale for a while, and I couldn’t tell you what’s going to happen there, but, I mean, I think it gives a feel of more than 30% permeability now, that that, I know what you’re saying. 75 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) MR. STONE-Any other questions? Any other comments? I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor? Anybody wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? Any correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC NULTY-We do have one note here, at least. It’s from William P. Gates, 1 Glenwood Avenue, he’s written on the bottom of his notice, “I vote in favor of the addition and improvement to the Pizza Hut which is owned by my brother. It is only a small change to the property, since the building was already designed for it. It will be a convenience to us all, including the neighbors nearby.” MR. STONE-I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-All right, any other questions of the applicant? Well, I certainly would like to see you keep the dumpsters off the ground, because a dumpster, by its very nature, is impermeable, and I’d just as soon have that area open. I also would wonder if you would consider Mr. Himes’ suggestion of taking out a couple in the lot, which is something that I wrote down. I mean, you say on Friday nights you need it. How about any other time? MR. RYFA-Friday night’s are primarily the big nights that we need it. That’s our highest volume period is a Friday night. We do 30% of our business on Fridays, and that, well, if we put a coupon out or if we have a promotion that’s going, the lot is full. I mean, it’s full. The other thing is, I realize I’m pleading my, our problems, and they’re not necessarily yours, but if we’re required to put the dumpster on a nonpermeable area that we’re probably going to take up two parking spots as it is now, and then to create additional nonpermeable, we’re probably looking at four, possibly. MR. STONE-You have those insets there, though, on the west side, aren’t there a couple of? MR. RYFA-Yes, where the cars back, whatever it is. MR. HAYES-Turning radius type thing or back out. MR. RYFA-Right, yes. I mean, we could do that. I don’t, the reason that was put in there was for cars along that edge to back into there and to drive out, I believe, and we probably could go across that and pick up some of that. MR. STONE-Anybody else concerned about what I’m expressing? MR. MC NALLY-I look at this Pizza Hut, and every time I’ve been there, I don’t notice the cemetery, I just notice how small it is out back, but it’s right off the highway, it’s Pizza Hut. It’s not that much of a big change, and traffic patterns may be improved, like you say, by people coming around, rather than stopping at the front door, which is always a problem. MR. STONE-All right. Well, let’s quickly go down the Board. Chuck Abbate, what do you think? MR. ABBATE-Okay. I visited your site on a number of occasions, and quite frankly, I agree with you. There can be a traffic problem there. It’s rather congested at times. No question about it, and the modification that you are requesting, I don’t believe it’s a request that cannot be fulfilled. You gave legitimate reasons, in my opinion, to justify your request, and quite frankly, I don’t have any problem with it. MR. STONE-Jaime? MR. HAYES-I agree. I agree with Bob’s comments, both of their comments. It’s a very commercial site in a very commercial neighborhood. The idea of possibly giving up the two parking spots may work, but in fact, I think if you got busy enough they’d park on the grass, if you pulled those up, and so I think it’s a little bit high on the permeability, but I don’t think it’s a substantial change, and I think, in balance, I’m okay with it. MR. STONE-Before I ask the next one, it just dawned on me, when that road goes to three lanes, are you going to be impacted, or are you close enough to the cemetery that they’re going to have to take it from the other side? MR. RYFA-I’m not sure how that stands. You went to those meetings. MR. MAHER-I had heard it was going to be the other side because there’s a retaining wall, our retaining wall is right there with the cemetery. 76 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) MR. STONE-With the cemetery, yes, that’s what I was thinking. MR. MAHER-There wasn’t much they could do with that. They don’t want to touch it, of course. MR. STONE-Right. Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I basically agree with the comments so far, that I’ve seen that place at times packed. So my reading is that they need every parking place they can get. I would like to see it have a lot more green space, but it just isn’t there, and there’s not that much green space they’re taking out. It’s only a short space that’s now grass there. So I’ve got no problem with it. I’d be in favor. MR. STONE-Okay. Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes. I think what we’re gaining, in connection with the traffic flow and convenience, for people in both business outweighs the loss, the very small amount that they’re going to create. So I’d go along with it. MR. STONE-Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I’ve already said my point. I don’t have a problem with it. MR. STONE-Allan? MR. BRYANT-I don’t have a problem with it either. There is an inconsistency here, though, where you say you need every single parking space, and yet, on the other hand, you say the congestion is caused by all the pick up people who are going to be eliminated by the drive through. It’s kind of an inconsistency, but I didn’t see any problem with it from the beginning. MR. STONE-Well, I agree with my fellow Board members. I think we would all prefer that you would take out some parking areas, but I hear what you’re saying, and I don’t think it’s the kind of thing that, for the small decrease in impermeable area, plus the fact that you’ve pointed out earlier, you did get a variance a number of years ago to do exactly what you’re trying to do now. I have no problem, and having said that, I’ll call for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 42-2000 PIZZA HUT, Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty: 97 & 99 Main Street. The applicant proposes construction of an access lane to service the drive thru window. Specifically, the applicant requests 2,766 square feet of relief from the 23,254 square foot maximum permeable area requirement of the CR-15 zone, Section 179-24. The site currently has 77.4% of impermeable area and proposes to increase it to the 78.3% level. The requirements of the CR-15 zone allow for a 70% maximum impermeable area. I move the approval for the following reasons. One, the benefit to the applicant is that he would be permitted to construct an access drive to facilitate the use of a drive thru window and by cutting down on traffic and also allowing them to return to the previously approved configuration. There are no feasible alternatives, given the minimal size of the lot, other than not using it as they’ve asked. Relief is not substantial relative to the Ordinance, being but a one percent increase from existing conditions. I don’t see any effect upon the neighborhood, given the commercial nature of this area, and while it may be self-created, all in all, I move the approval of the variance. Duly adopted this 17 day of May, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNally, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE MR. STONE-Gentlemen, you will notice at the bottom of the agenda, there is a thing called “Any Further Business That May Come Before The Board” Craig, would you like to explain what may come before this Board? MR. BROWN-Well, actually, first I’d like to apologize to both the Board and the applicant in front of you right now. I discussed a situation with Mr. Maschewski a week ago, two weeks ago, the condition that’s arisen on his site. I don’t know how familiar you are, if you remember the variance that was in front of you about a month ago, I guess. MR. STONE-February. MR. BROWN-A couple of months ago. . 77 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) MR. STONE-Well, I wasn’t here. That’s how I know. MR. BROWN-Conditions have arisen on the site where, he could probably explain better than I can, but we made the determination that it probably should come back to you for a clarification of your position, before he continues with any construction of the new residence. So that’s what he’s done. He’s prepared some drawings right here. I can give you copies of what he brought tonight, and he can explain it to you a lot better than I can. MR. STONE-Okay. Identify yourself. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Well, good morning. Kevin Maschewski. MRS. MASCHEWSKI-Mary Beth Maschewski. MR. MASCHEWSKI-In going forward with this project of basically upgrading the camp and putting an addition on it and putting a second floor, we ran into some difficulties with the structural aspects of the camp. It originally was built in 1934, if I recall correctly. I had previous visits with Craig and Dave Hatin, out at the camp, and the result was that, you know, the walls would be taken out and part of the floor would be retained. The floor that was to be retained was the little 18 foot by 20 foot bump out, if you’re looking at the drawing, to the right. That sub floor was to remain, and the crawl space to remain on the camp. We peeled the walls off it, and the actual sub floor was all rotted. The floor joists were rotted, and there was signs of cracking in the foundation. I had conversations with Craig and Dave Hatin, taking the sub floor and just putting a new sub floor on it, and keeping the foundation. Once we peeled the actual floor off the foundation, the block, actually it was eight inch block, did crumble, and all the mortar joints broke apart, and lo and behold the new septic system as put in last July. The old septic tank was underneath that floor, with the footing bearing on the septic tank, and the footing was only about a foot below grade, which, I can understand why that whole sub floor was rotted, because it was only about a foot and a half off the ground. There’s an additional 16 by 18 foot area that I would be requesting of a new foundation be installed, putting back to the foundation that was there, and just replacing the footing and the foundation. MR. STONE-That’s the lake side, right? MR. MASCHEWSKI-No, actually, that would be the roadside, and the side of Ernst, which is the north side, where the new house is built. MR. STONE-Where’s north. Yes, I’ve got that. Where’s the lake. MR. MASCHEWSKI-The lake is up top. MR. STONE-The lake’s up top. Okay. MR. MASCHEWSKI-And I don’t know if on your drawing, actually, I just had this highlighted, that little section that may be darker on your drawing is the foundation that basically crumbled. MR. MC NALLY-So you just need to replace the foundation where the existing one was? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-That’s all you’re here for? MR. MASCHEWSKI-That’s all I’m here for. MR. BROWN-Just to explain our position, why we’re all here. Historically, as you witnessed tonight on a couple of applications, when something’s removed, we like to have them start from scratch again and get relief. MR. STONE-Correct. MR. BROWN-So our position was, if the applicant knew at the time that he’d be removing this part of the structure, would you have taken the same position that you did, assuming that the foundation was going to stay? MR. STONE-And this was a side setback issue? MR. BROWN-This was a side setback issue, yes. MR. STONE-To the north? Okay. 78 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) MR. BROWN-To the north, yes, six feet. So do you have the same position, now that you know that there’s no structure there, the foundation’s gone, the flooring’s gone, it’s all gone? Do you make the same determination and give them that six foot side setback still? I guess that’s it. MR. STONE-Six foot of relief, or a six foot setback? MR. BROWN-Six foot setback, versus. MR. MC NALLY-The same relief we gave them before. MR. BROWN-Right. MR. STONE-Well, how wide’s the lot? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Sixty-five feet wide. MR. STONE-So that would be 15 feet. Okay. Why don’t you discuss it, because I wasn’t here. MR. MC NALLY-I think we were happy with him reconstructing the house, as it was. If he’s found additional damages, and has to do additional work, in the same place we gave him variance for, does anyone have a problem with that? MR. ABBATE-No, not at all. MR. BRYANT-I don’t have a problem with that. MR. MC NALLY-We hashed through this, through the setback before. MR. HAYES-Timing’s everything, too. MR. STONE-Bob, would you want to make a quick motion to that effect. MR. BROWN-Well, I don’t think there’s really an application in front of you to make a motion. If you just have the same position, you can just let it go. MR. STONE-Well, it should be on the record, though. MR. HAYES-It is, though. We don’t need a motion, though. There’s no real approval. MR. STONE-Well, we can just reaffirm. MR. BROWN-Sure, reaffirm your motion. MOTION TO REAFFIRM APPROVAL OF AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-2000 KEVIN & MARY BETH MASCHEWSKI, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally: The original setback variance, even as they apply to new construction, by definition, because of the fact that it had to be torn down because of its condition. Duly adopted this 17 day of May, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNally, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE MR. STONE-Meeting’s adjourned. MR. BROWN-And again, I apologize for the confusion. If I had remembered, it would have been a lot more detail. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Lewis Stone, Chairman 79 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/17/00) 80