Loading...
2001-11-28 (Queensbury ZBA 11/28/01) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 28, 2001 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT PAUL HAYES, ACTING CHAIRMAN CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY NORMAN HIMES ALLAN BRYANT CHARLES ABBATE JAMES UNDERWOOD, ALTERNATE ROY URRICO, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT LEWIS STONE ROBERT MC NALLY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-CHRIS ROUND CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-BRUCE FRANK STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 88-2001 TYPE II DONALD R. & JOYCE A. BODAK PROPERTY OWNER: DONALD R. & JOYCE A. BODAK PROPERTY LOCATION: FIVE BULLARD AVENUE ZONE: SFR-10 APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A CHAIN-LINK FENCE AND REQUESTS RELIEF FROM FENCE ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS. OLD TAX MAP NO. 101-2-10 NEW TAX MAP NO. 302.14-2-52 LOT SIZE: 0.21 ACRES SECTION 179-74 DONALD & JOYCE BODAK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 88-2001, Donald R. & Joyce A. Bodak, Meeting Date: November 28, 2001 “Project Location: Five Bullard Avenue Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has constructed a chain link fence and requests relief for that section of fence in the right- of-way. Relief Required: Applicant requests 16.75 feet of relief for that section of anchor fence apparently erected in the Bullard Avenue right-of-way per § 179-74(B5). Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to keep that section of fence in the right-of-way. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include removing that section of fence back to the front property line. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 16.75 feet of relief from the requirement may be interpreted as moderate. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal 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.): None. Staff comments: Minimal impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action being the fence extends along the side property line with the end of the fence 6.5 feet from the road. The Bodaks filed this application after being informed of the town code violation. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-No County. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Mr. and Mrs. Bodak. MR. BODAK-My wife is going to hand out a script that I’ve got, so you guys can follow me along as I read it, so there’ll be no misinterpretation. As, again, I want to mention, my name is Donald R. Bodak, my wife Joyce. My wife and I have lived at this address for the past twenty-five years and we are very private people. My wife and I have always had the greatest respect for the law and the safety of the residents. That is why I was in the fore-front some years back to have working fire hydrants in the Broadacres area, that was known then “as a no-man’s land”, not recognized by the Town of Queensbury nor the City of Glens Falls. Because of a near fatal auto accident two and a half years ago, my wife and I are here this evening still suffering from the injuries we sustained in that event. We may have to get up and leave frequently because of continuing problems associated with those 1 (Queensbury ZBA 11/28/01) injuries. SUBJECT We are here this evening to seek relief from the fence ordinance requirements. The wooden fence and post are three feet from the street and are legal. The chain link is six feet and is allegedly illegal. Does not make any sense. The Fence The fence is chain link installed by a professional from Lake George. It is four feet high, with green vinyl coating. It was installed this year during Labor Day week. This fence replaces a wooden rail fence that had deteriorated beyond repair. This particular fence was there for many years.” I have some pictures here my wife will distribute and show you in a few minutes, here. MRS. BODAK-I already did. MR. BODAK-You did? Okay. Fine. Thank you. “The Purpose is Many First, this fence prevents encroachment by the adjoining property residents. The residents in this area would like to have their property and yours, too, if you let them. Mr. Martinez is one of the complaining residents likes to pull up surveyors stakes so no one can tell where the property lines are. A part of his back fence is on my property. This particular issue will be addressed at another time. Second, It should prevent the owners of dogs and cats to keep their pets on their own property. After the fence was installed, one Mr. Martinez’s family was caught with his dog on our property at night. This is covered by law and that also will be addressed at a later time. Third, It should prevent the residents’ children and friends from playing on our property. Mr. Martinez has no respect for property lines. He will charge onto my property with no regard for my rights to retrieve a ball after his children are told to stay off. That, too, will be addressed at a later time. Fourth, An attempt was made late last spring to plant bushes on my property by Ms. Gaiser, with the help of the Martinez family. Encroachment was in process and I had to go out, ---- even though I was recovering from shoulder surgery, --- to tell them to get off my property. Fifth, Bullard Avenue is a speedway. It is not uncommon to see cars exceeding the posted speed limit of thirty miles per hour. This fence prevents drivers from using my yard as a turn around or as a passing lane. (Exhibit A) ARGUMENT The fence as it stands, does not interfere with traffic flow, the snow removal or anything else that may come to mind. If the Town of Queensbury came to me and said, “Mr. Bodak, we are going to widen Bullard Ave., and we want you to move your fence”…..I would do it in a heartbeat. It would cost me money, but it would cost everyone else, also. From my vantage point, I could see at least twenty other violations of the variance law and I could do that without even trying. Everyone who has a fence, a bush or a tree or some sort of rock-type thing in the right of way, is in violation. By driving around the Broadacres area and around the Town of Queensbury, there are numerous violations of this law. Some even constitute a hazard to the driving public, like branches overhanging the road, blocking out the view of a stop sign or a directional sign. Mr. Martinez is quick to point out violations of the law by others. This is the same guy who enters your property without permission, sometimes at night. Pulls up legal survey stakes, and laughs at me when I am in my wheelchair or when I am trying to walk with a walker or with a couple of canes. Not very representative of a Vice- President of a local National Bank. Kind of makes you wonder what the bank standards are today. And he’s concerned about a fence that keeps him and his family off our property. Really, now!!! IN CONCLUSION This complaint was filed by Mr. Martinez in malice. This fence does not interfere with traffic, snow removal or anything else that may come to mind. It was put in place to show the adjoining property owners where the lines are. Mr. Martinez should be concerned about his own tree overhanging the Town right of way. Respectfully Submitted, Don and Joyce Bodak Five Bullard Avenue Queensbury, NY 12804-2112 (A Very Private Family) November 28, 2001” Any questions? MR. HAYES-Thank you. Does the Board have any questions for the applicant at this time? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone that would like to speak in favor of the application? Is there anyone here that would like to speak in opposition to the application? Please come forward. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DENNIS MARTINEZ MR. MARTINEZ-My name is Dennis Martinez. I’m the individual that made the complaint against the fence. I have some illustrations to hand out. I’m sorry I don’t have enough for all the Board members. I was unaware of the number of Board members that were there. So you may need to share those. What you have in front of you is a schematic drawing of Bullard Avenue, Mr. Bodak’s property, and the fence, where the fence sits in question. There’s safety issues here that I think the Town needs to consider, relative to the proximity of these fences and pre-existing fences that are on Mr. Bodak’s property, and that being due to the fact that directly across from Mr. Bodak’s property there is fire hydrant. The Highway Superintendent has asked that there be no obstructions within 10 feet of the edge of the road. The fire hydrant is four feet six inches away from the road. Obviously, there’s nothing we can do about that, but what that does in the wintertime is, due to the fact that the highway stays away from the fences that are on Mr. Bodak’s property, and one fence post is two feet eight inches off the roadway, so you have a very narrow margin of safety there, if someone tries to get off the road if a pedestrian is walking, because of a fence post. Another post is just about another four inches away from the road. The six foot fence sets back a little bit farther so that it’s 2 (Queensbury ZBA 11/28/01) not quite as critical, but in the wintertime that becomes a one lane road because the Town cannot plow close to the hydrant and then cannot plow close to the fence and possible damage to it. We run into that, has happened since the fence has been in place. An issue that happened with an individual this past summer, 911 was called on Bullard Avenue. Fire trucks responded and ambulances responded. Fire trucks parked on the opposite side of Mr. Bodak’s property. With the fence where it’s at, the ambulance could not get past the fire vehicles because of the posts on Mr. Bodak’s property, of the two existing fences that are just a little over two feet away from the property. So there is a safety issue there that unfortunately no one, I mean, fortunately nothing’s happened because of that, and, you know, the ambulance was able to get through to the residents that needed to be taken care of, which just happened to be a child at my residence. That’s why I have a concern with this. Mr. Bodak put up on the other side of his property, he also put in a chain link fence on the other side of his property, which is to Code. I don’t understand where one side of the property, the fence is to Code, but the other side of the property, the fence is not to Code. If Mr. Bodak had replaced, my understanding of the Ordinance is if he had replaced the existing fence and repaired the existing fence, there’d be no cause for action this evening, but since he changed the use and the style of the fence, that then change had to fall under the Ordinance. Other fences that he may be talking about may be pre-existing to the Ordinance, and you’re going to find that in any community, that there’s going to be things that were there prior to the Ordinance. So if you go around the community, you will see that, but it is on Town property. The Ordinance stipulates the length the fence can be from the Town property. There is a safety issue involved, not only in the wintertime but in times of individuals not being able to pass for ambulance service, and yet Bullard Avenue is a dead end street with only one access off to the side. So you can’t come from the other way to get to it if you have to, and seeing that they’re on Town property, I don’t know if the Town would have any liability if they don’t address this issue and then something does happen, but you’ve got two posts on Mr. Bodak’s property that are just over two feet off the edge of the road. I don’t know if I have the availability to submit, I have other letters from other residents. One of the residents was in Florida, and wasn’t able to be here. I have a copy of a letter from that individual. There were two other individuals that were working, and I have letters from those individuals as well, if that can be entered into discussion as well. So, I feel that the Ordinance should be followed, because it’s been set in place, and the safety issues are the more concern that’s involved there, combined with the hydrant and the proximity to the posts. So those are the concerns that I bring to the Board this evening. MR. HAYES-Thank you. MR. FRANK-I’d like just to point out that the posts are not at issue here. What the applicant is requesting relief from is for the fence that’s installed. MR. HAYES-That’s right. MR. FRANK-Just for the record. MR. HAYES-They were previously existing. MR. FRANK-As far as my investigation could tell, that’s correct. MR. MARTINEZ-But I was just, to address the Board that we’re talking about fence issues on the property that maybe you weren’t aware of the proximity of these posts. You’re talking posts this far off the roadway that obstructs an individual walking on the roadway, and there’s opposing traffic from one direction and the other, an individual on the roadway has no relief to get off, whether they’re riding a bicycle or walking. These are issues that are obstructing an individual’s safety path to get out of the way of traffic. So those are just concerns I thought would need to be, since we’re addressing fence issues, that they need to be brought forward as well. MR. HAYES-Okay. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-May I, please? Mr. Martinez, you certainly are to be commended to bring to the attention of the Town any safety issues. Perhaps that should probably more appropriately be addressed by those in the safety area, such as fire departments, etc., etc. Do you have any correspondence from these folks addressing this issue, and if you do, I suggest you submit them to the zoning officer. MR. MARTINEZ-From the fire department stating that they’re concerned with this? MR. ABBATE-Yes. MR. MARTINEZ-No, I do not. MR. ABBATE-Okay. 3 (Queensbury ZBA 11/28/01) MR. MARTINEZ-Just my own personal visual seeing of the property. MR. ABBATE-Well, perhaps that might be the appropriate venue to go through, then, and as the Chairman pointed out and the zoning officer, our major concern tonight is addressing the application. MR. MARTINEZ-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else opposed? Please come forward. PETER MC DEVITT MR. MC DEVITT-Good evening. My name’s Peter McDevitt, and my mother-in-law has lived at 9 Bullard Avenue since 1957. This is a clear cut and specific example of somebody who knowing, willingly puts a fence in place in violation of an Ordinance, comes to you after the fact, and asks for a variance. If everyone in this community adopted that posture, we’d all be in deep trouble. So that’s really the issue. After the fact, we come to a Zoning Board. We ask for a variance, after we knowingly and willingly violate the Ordinance, and that’s really, in my opinion, the only issue. If you permit it to occur, everyone should have that right. So I would ask and strongly urge you to vote against Mr. Bodak because he does not deserve to play a game, a shell game with this Board. MR. BRYANT-How does the fence affect your property? MR. MC DEVITT-The fence, I don’t think there’s a significant impact, other than an obvious negative visual impact, but I would say that it would have a negative visual impact. It looks bad, and if everyone on Bullard Avenue did what Mr. Bodak did, we’d have a very ugly street. So if that’s, you know, how does it impact a person two doors or three doors up, probably more visual than anything else, but again, the question is, at least in my opinion, do we, after the fact, give someone a variance when they clearly know what’s going on. This was a fencing contractor that installed this fence. These people know what ordinances are. They know what setbacks are. So don’t bless a clear cut violation. MR. HAYES-Any other questions, Allan? Okay. MR. MC DEVITT-Thank you. MR. HAYES-Thanks. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in opposition? BARBARA BENNETT MRS. BENNETT-Barbara Bennett, 101 Dixon Road. I live around the corner from Bullard Avenue. I’m here as a spectator, neither for, I don’t know Bodaks. I’m a spectator on it, but I would add something. One of the previous speakers said this is a dead end street, Bullard Avenue. I drove down the street to see what it looked like down there. There is a side street off Bullard that connects Fire Road through the Park, and that’s a couple of houses down from Bodaks. So it can actually be reached from the Fire Road through or from Dixon Road through, because the Bodak house is before you get to the side street. So it is reachable both directions. That’s the only thing I wanted to say. MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in opposition to the application? MR. MC NULTY-We’ve got some correspondence. MR. HAYES-We have some written correspondence which we’ll read into the record, now, and then I’ll call you back up. MR. MC NULTY-We have one note from a Kathleen Gasier, 3 Bullard Avenue, regarding Area Variance 88-2001, “I feel strongly that Mr. and Mrs. Bodak must comply with any and all fence ordinances and that no variance be granted. I welcome the chain link fence as a more aesthetic alternative to the string between two stakes that was there before. However, one end of the fence is not even with the other and looks asymmetrical and strange. I’m not in favor of the longer side (between #5 and #7 Bullard) due to the fire hydrant across the road and due to the limited maneuverability it gives to emergency vehicles. One of the reasons for the fence was because my tree leaves were hanging over Mr. and Mrs. Bodak’s property line. Their solution was to cut back the trees and throw the remains into my yard followed by the installation of the fence. The Bodak’s have a deck built on the front of their home so that the property lines can remain under their constant 4 (Queensbury ZBA 11/28/01) surveillance and when an animal or a person crosses they do contact the sheriff’s department for clarification. The long fence seems a bit extraneous to his long-standing efforts. The length of the fence between #3 and #5 seems more reasonable. It is a safer alternative to the string and stakes while giving them the protection they feel they need without interfering with access to the road. I watched emergency vehicles get into a knot at precisely the location of #5’s driveway and the fence when a young neighbor was injured and the ambulance, sheriff and volunteers needed access. It is a narrow road which otherwise is quite suitable for the neighborhood needs. Again, I feel strongly the variance should be denied as the fence serves no useful purpose to others in the neighborhood, it detracts from the beauty of the neighborhood and restricts emergency traffic when needed. Kathleen Gaiser 3 Bullard Avenue Queensbury, NY 12804” And we have another note from a Shirley M. Burgess at 4 Bullard Avenue, “This is in regards to the request by Don Bodak for a relief from the Queensbury Fence Ordinance. I do not feel that the Bodak’s should be granted the ordinance. The fence is a safety issue in that there is a fire hydrant directly across the street. In case of fire the fence would hinder the parking of fire trucks and other emergency vehicles. This is the third “spite” fence that Bodak’s have had put in during the fifteen years that I have lived across the street – at 4 Bullard Ave. Shirley M. Burgess, 4 Bullard Ave. Queensbury I am unable to attend the meeting but hope that this note will be taken into consideration” And finally, we have a note from Robert J. Aronson, at 6 Bullard Avenue, “I would like to take this opportunity to have my voice heard on the issue of a request for a variance for a fence made by Donald Bodak, 5 Bullard Ave. I have been apprised that a hearing is scheduled to be held Nov. 28, at which time I will be unable to th attend in person, but hope this letter can be used and considered by your Board Members when rendering a decision. This letter is written in opposition to said request for a variance for a fence. Reasons for opposition are as follows: 1. There is a fire hydrant at the northern corner of my lot which is directly across the road from Mr. Bodak’s driveway and fencing now in violation of the Town Code because of its close proximity to the edge of the road. There has been a problem in the winter with plowing of snow by the Town because of this fence and a post at Mr. Bodak’s southerly corner of the lot, also in violation of the Town Code, forces the plows to plow closer on the easterly side because of the closeness of the post and fence on the westerly side of Bullard Ave. and thereby the plows have torn up my lawn for a foot and a half from the edge of the road, which had to be repaired, once by the Town Highway Department, and once me at a cost of $150.00. After a heavy snowfall, it is not unusual for the fire hydrant to be nearly buried in the snow banks created by the plows, and I feel this is a safety hazard caused by Mr. Bodak’s fence standing in violation of the Town Code. 2. There is a fence corner post standing at the south corner of Mr. Bodak’s lot that is so close to the road’s edge that a young girl on a bicycle was trapped with nowhere to go when two cars passed each other going in opposite directions at that post location and there could have been a tragic accident. 3. I would object to allowing those sections of this green chain link fence to exist and illegally stand on Town property in violation of the Queensbury Code; namely, that portion on the north side of Mr. Bodak’s lot. I see no realistic need to approve a request for variance that would allow fencing to exist in violation of Queensbury Town Codes. I thank you for this opportunity to voice my opposition to this proposed request for a variance. Respectfully, Robert J. Aronson” MR. HAYES-Thank you. Is there something new to add? MR. MARTINEZ-I have another letter from another resident on Bullard Avenue. MR. HAYES-Okay. Please bring it forward. MR. MC NULTY-This is a note from Paul Fracchia, 15 Bullard Avenue. “I am not in favor of granting a variance as requested by Donald and Joyce Bodak for their fence. The fence is an eyesore and there is no compelling need for it. Queensbury has adopted these ordinances to help keep the town as open as possible – enforce the ordinance. Sincerely, Paul Fracchia 15 Bullard Ave. Queensbury, NY 12804” MR. HAYES-Okay. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor or in opposition to the application before I close the public hearing? If not, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HAYES-Mr. and Mrs. Bodak, will you please come forward again? Before you respond to the public hearing, I’d request that you limit your comments the facts of the case, not as far as the apparent neighbor disputes that are going on there. Our test is very specific and charged to deal with its impact on the community and the amount of relief that’s requested, and if you could keep your comments to that, I would appreciate it. MR. BODAK-Well, I’ll tell you. I’ve heard an awful lot of BS here tonight. You’ve got pictures of my fence up there. Does that look like an eyesore to you? I mean, really, there’s a lot of chain links. Speaking of chain links, there’s one right down the street from me, the guy just got done fixing it. The same distance from the road as mine. It is not, he doesn’t have green vinyl on his. I do on mine. Mr. McDevitt doesn’t live anywhere near me. His mother-in-law did. He’s got an ax to grind 5 (Queensbury ZBA 11/28/01) because I kicked his mother-in-law off my property. The other people that worry about safety issues, if we’re going to go to the letter of the law about safety issues here, as you see, I’ve been hurt. There’ve been ambulances. There’ve been doctors. There’ve been everybody coming to my house the last two and a half years, and even prior to that. I’ve had a fire truck, I’ve had two fire trucks over at my house at one time. I had an electrical fire, and I’d have ambulances there. Nobody got congested. There is no congestion, no problem whatsoever there. If they’re worried about fences being too close to the road, if I remember the way the law states, it says rocks, bushes, trees, fences, whatever. Mr. Aronson responded by mail. He’s got a bush which is in violation, I pointed out to the Code Enforcement Officer. Ms. Gaiser, who complained about my fence, she has a bush who’s in violation of the code ordinance. I just, it’s just, it’s neighbor politics. There’s nothing wrong, there’s no safety issues there, involved. I’ve been there 25 years. I’ve yet to see a problem with snowplowing. The way the Town of Queensbury comes down and plows, they come down one side and they come up the other, and it all depends on how they plow, whichever the plow goes down first, that’s what gets most of the snow. MRS. BODAK-It’s always the other side. MR. BODAK-It’s always the other side. So, you know, I can’t tell the Town of Queensbury how to plow their highways. If they want to plow it the other way and put the snow on my yard, fine. I’ve got a snow blower, no big deal. So, you know, that’s where it stands right now. We’re looking at, they’re hitting on my wooden fence there, which is, granted, that’s there for a reason, to keep people from coming up in my yard. That post that was there is a left over from a fence that I had going across the yard. That keeps people, to let people know just where the hell they are, and they just keep wanting a piece of my property, and I’m not going to let them have it, and that’s why I’m here fighting for it tonight. That’s why that fence went up, because I used to have survey stakes there, but last year they got pulled up. MRS. BODAK-I have pictures, if you want to see them, of the survey stakes that are missing now. MR. BODAK-I have pictures of the surveys here, if you want to see that, but anyway, that’s where it stands right now. I spent a lot of money putting that fence up. That’s not a cheap fence. MR. BRYANT-Can I ask a question? MR. BODAK-Sure. MR. BRYANT-When the fencing company put the fence up, and you told them you wanted a fence at this location and this length, did they ever indicate to you that here was a possible violation? MR. BODAK-No, they did not. They said to me that I’m replacing a fence. I’m replacing a wooden fence. As you can see how dilapidated that thing is. MRS. BODAK-In fact, it’s about a foot back farther than the original. MR. BODAK-Yes. The chain link is a foot back further than the original fence was. MRS. BODAK-They took the (lost words) and sawed them in half and dropped them down and filled the holes. So therefore you see the place where the hole was, and then the fence starts at that, closer to our home. So it is farther away from the road than the original was. MR. BODAK-So when he put the new fence up, I questioned him about that, and I said, because they keep hitting on how come I put one length on one side and one length on the other. Well, I had a budget of X number of dollars. Chain link fence costs, that one there costs quite a bit. Anyway, I said, cut it off at an even amount. So he did. I put 75 feet up on one side and replaced that wooden fence, and I put 125 up on the other side, and that was it. I wound up at 200 feet. That’s what I bought, 200 feet of chain link fence. That’s the reason why the difference in length, not because I wanted to violate the Town Ordinance. I don’t violate laws. I don’t deliberately or knowingly, as it was stated here tonight. I’m a law abiding citizen. My record is clean. I just replaced the fence, and that’s where it stands, gentlemen. MRS. BODAK-And we didn’t know that there was a variance that we had to go by, until we were complained about, and we’re just replacing it. That’s all there is to it. MR. BODAK-When Mike Brandt was up here, we went around and around this thing, when Mike was here, and they had a meeting back then when Mike was still in office, and they said now we’ve passed a resolution. He called me up and says, don’t worry about your fence, he said, it’s okay, and that was it. That was supposed to have been back on Mike Brandt’s record. So I have no idea what transpired since then, that the Town Code came up, and I spoke to Bruce about this when he came over to measure the fence and whatever. He said your wooden fence is fine. So that’s where it is 6 (Queensbury ZBA 11/28/01) right now. If they’re speaking about wooden fences being close to the road, you go over onto Parkview and there’s several wooden ones over there closer to the street than mine, and if they’re worried about snowplows going over it, snow’s going to plow those over, too. No matter how much snow you get, if you get 20 feet of snow, you’re going to have 20 foot drifts or more. So, you know, that’s the way the fences are, and the Town of Queensbury is loaded up with those wooden fences, and they’re all close to the road, okay. MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. MR. BODAK-What about the deck? What was brought up about the deck? I kind of wondered about that one. So we can keep an eye on the property? That was brought up as an issue. Before you close the meeting, I want to bring that up, make it a point on public issue on that. I’m a paraplegic, okay. I can walk a little bit and I can get around a little bit, but I mainly walk with canes. When I have to go distances, I have to use a wheelchair. That deck was put up by my wife because I can only go into two rooms of my house, and she put that deck up out there, and it’s only a 12 by 8 foot deck out there, so I wouldn’t have to come for a variance. She put it out there so I could enjoy myself, go out there and read in the summertime or at night to get some air, because that’s all I can go into is two rooms in my house. I can’t even go up and down stairs. MR. HAYES-The deck is not at issue here. MR. BODAK-I know, but they brought it up here. I just want to clear up the deck. I’m not, I didn’t put that deck up to keep an eye on my neighborhood. I couldn’t care less if they all dropped dead anyway. MR. HAYES-Right. As far as Mr. Brandt’s comment to you, there’s no man, one person in Queensbury that can grant you a variance in that fashion. MR. BODAK-No, it wasn’t. It was all brought up to the Board, because I was up to the Board at that time. I was up to the Board meeting at that time, going over it. MR. HAYES-Just so long as you understand, we have to entertain this on its merits. MR. BODAK-I know that. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. BODAK-Okay. Fine, no problem. MRS. BODAK-But we’ve had many ambulances and fire trucks. MR. BODAK-I’ve had two doctors and four nurses over at my house at one time in the last two and a half years, and nobody had a problem parking, plus an ambulance. MR. HAYES-All right. Thank you. MR. BODAK-Okay. Thank you. MRS. BODAK-Thank you. MR. HAYES-I should say, is there any further questions for the applicant by any Board members? No? Okay. Thank you. MR. BODAK-Thank you. MRS. BODAK-Thank you. MR. HAYES-All right. With no further questions, I guess I’ll start the polling process, and to keep the order in good shape tonight, I’ll start with Allan. MR. BRYANT-Well, I want to address the issue from a couple of areas. First off, from a visual impact, which really has nothing to do with the setback or the right of way, those fences are visual, you can see them once you turn off of Dixon Road you can see these fences. I knew which house it was right off the bat. I did notice the fire hydrant, and there are other fences that are close to the road, but I think we have to take into consideration what some of the neighbors have said relating to this. Mr. Bodak mentioned about neighbors wanting to take pieces of his property, but some of the letters come from neighbors across the street. So I believe, in this case, most of those side fences generally go to face the house. If they want to enclose the yard in particular, they’ll then it turn it 7 (Queensbury ZBA 11/28/01) towards the house. I don’t see the necessity of those fences beyond that point. so as far as I’m concerned, I think we ought to stick to the Ordinance. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes. Thank you. I agree with what Al has said. Many of the things, critical situation as well as in favor of it, are informational, but what I see is the need for the fence as it is is not substantive from a community standpoint, in my opinion. So I would not be in favor of the application. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Roy? MR. URRICO-It’s unfortunate that the issue we’re dealing with tonight has sort of been clouded by what I think is a neighborhood dispute, because it’s made it more difficult to really focus on what we’re dealing with here. So I’m going to focus on the five criteria that we’re asked to look at when we weigh the applicant’s request. The first being the benefit to the applicant, and I believe the benefit is pretty obvious to the applicant. He would be able to keep that section of the fence in the right of way. The second criteria would be the feasible alternatives, which may include removing that section of the fence back to the front property line. I’m not sure about that. I mean, yes, there is a feasible alternative, but if we take it back to the front of the property line, that really doesn’t leave much room for a fence for anybody. So I’ll keep that on a balance right now. Three, is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? And, yes, 16.75 feet of relief is, it’s probably moderate, maybe even more so. So I think that weighs against the applicant as well. The effects on the neighborhood or the community, we’ve heard from a number of neighbors tonight. I’m still not sure how it impacts the neighborhood. So I’m going to put that, I’m on the fence on t hat one, too. Is the difficulty self-created? I think, yes, it was self created. So in my mind, it weighs two against the applicant, one for the applicant and two I’m still not sure about, but if I were to vote right now, I’d vote against it. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I was kind of doing the same thing Roy had done, looking at the benefit to the applicant, and obviously the applicant’s got some reasons for wanting the fence there, and that’s definitely in his favor. Feasible alternatives, one alternative is complying with the Ordinance, and taking the fence back to the front property line. If the concern is to protect the yard, another alternative is to put a fence across the front of the property on the property line. So I think there are some feasible alternatives. Is the relief substantial? Yes, I’ll agree, I think it is substantial. 16.75 feet of relief is a fair amount. Effects on the neighborhood or community? I think there is a visual effect, if nothing else. I’m inclined to agree that it looks a little odd with two different lengths. It’s a little hard to make a good judgement on the arguments about the emergency vehicles and some of this business, without being there, but I think there is, obviously, an effect on the community, and the difficulty certainly is self-created because the fence did not have to be installed. So I think, when you look at just on balance, I have to agree with the rest of the Board. I would be opposed. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think that we’ve been a little bit clouded with the issues of the post and the split rail fence that exists on the property also, but, I mean, that’s more of an issue for Rick Missita and the Highway Department than it is for us here tonight, and I think that, in looking at the new fence, these are all very narrow lots up and down the street here. Most of them are 75 feet, and there’s a few 100 footers and even a couple of 50 foot lots, and if everybody ended up putting a fence on their lot, it kind of cookie cuts the whole lot down the whole length of the street, and I just think it’s a little bit excessive, the request, and it would look better, to me, to have the fence cut back to the same length as the other fence. I don’t think it’s that onerous that people are going to be trespassing up and down the street. There are no sidewalks on the street, and certainly there will be occasions where people have to step off the pavement, and it’s a lot easier to do so when there’s something that’s a little bit further back. So I guess I would be opposed. MR. HAYES-Thanks, Jim. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. I always raise concerns in my own mind when an individual comes before this Board, after the fact, that is an individual, regardless of whether he or she has indicated they had no knowledge of the law, has committed some sort of an act, and then comes before this Board and requests absolution. Here is a case in which, in fact, a chain link fence was constructed without a permit, after the fact. Several of the neighbors have indicated, and some of this has been clouded with civil issues which is none of our concern, but some important facts have been brought out that somewhere along the line some sort of precedence and standard has to be set. In this particular case, there are five or six, or whatever there is, criteria for balance, and I take a look at the substantial relief which Mr. and Mrs. Bodak has been requesting, is requesting, and I take a 8 (Queensbury ZBA 11/28/01) look at the effects on the neighborhood and the community, and there’s been no doubt in my mind that the neighborhood and the community have voiced their opinion, or their opposition to this application, and then the difficulty, is it self-created? There can be no doubt that when an act has been committed after the fact, in violation of the Zoning Ordinance, the difficulty is, indeed, self created, and based upon this fact, I would not be in support of this application. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Well, I would agree with the positions of the rest of the Board members on this matter, and particularly Norm. Normally to go out and set a precedent that could be dangerous to the aesthetics of this neighborhood or other neighborhoods in Queensbury, as far as an example, there would have to be a reason, a very compelling reason, in my mind, and in this particular case, I just don’t see that reason, to go for that. I think that there are alternatives available to you to have a legal fence there, to get that protection that you can get, and, outside of that, there’s other remedies that you’ll have to pursue, whether they’re civil or law enforcement or whatever, but I think when you look on the whole application on balance, I think it falls against your application. So, having said that, I have seven apparent oppositions to the application. So is there a motion out there? MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 88-2001 DONALD R. & JOYCE A. BODAK, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: Five Bullard Avenue. This disapproval is based on a number of facts, but in particular the facts on balance. There has been considerable opposition to the request for an Area Variance. The application has been submitted after the fact. The 16.75 feet of relief, in my opinion, is significant. The effects on the neighborhood, I do believe, have a negative impact, and finally, the difficulty is indeed self-created, and based on these facts, I move that the application be disapproved. Duly adopted this 28 day of November, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Himes, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone MR. HAYES-The motion, or the application is denied. AREA VARIANCE NO. 87-2001 TYPE II DIANE COUGHLIN PROPERTY OWNER: MARK H. & SARA B. MANNIX PROPERTY LOCATION: 986 RIDGE ROAD ZONE: SR-1A APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE MINIMUM 40 FT. ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENT. CROSS REF. AV 34-1996 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 11/14/2001 OLD TAX MAP NO. 54-1-8 NEW TAX MAP NO. 290.10-1-29 LOT SIZE: 4.70 ACRES SECTION 179-70(A), 179-19 DIANE COUGHLIN & MARK MANNIX, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 87-2001, Diane Coughlin, Meeting Date: November 28, 2001 “Project Location: 986 Ridge Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a single-family dwelling. Relief Required: Applicant requests 15 feet of relief from the 40-foot minimum required road frontage per § 179-70(A). Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to buy the parcel of their choice on which to build a home. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include the possible acquisition of additional lands to allow for the minimum required 40-foot road frontage. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 15 feet of relief from the 40-foot minimum required road frontage may be interpreted as moderate. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal 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 34-1996 resolved 05/23/01, same as this application. Staff comments: Minimal impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. However, a feasible alternative may include investigating whether additional land could be purchased to allow for the 40-foot minimum road frontage requirement. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form November 14, 2001 Project Name: Coughlin, Diane Owner: Diane Coughlin ID Number: QBY-AV-87- 2001 County Project#: Nov01-13 Current Zoning: SR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a single-family dwelling and seeks relief from the 9 (Queensbury ZBA 11/28/01) minimum 40’ road frontage requirement. Site Location: 986 Ridge Road. Tax Map Number(s): 290.10-1-29 Staff Notes: Copy of Town’s previous approval of this variance. Staff is unsure why this application is before the board as variance stays with the land and not the property owner. Staff has not identified any issues significant at the County level. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Thomas E. Haley, 11/15/01. MR. HAYES-Thank you. You’re on. MS. COUGHLIN-It says it there. I want to build a house on this property. MR. HAYES-Okay. Are you under contract to buy this property, or you purchased it? MS. COUGHLIN-I have a deposit on it. MR. HAYES-Okay. MS. COUGHLIN-And Mark’s the owner of it. MR. HAYES-Okay. I wanted to get your name on the record if I could, sir. MR. MANNIX-I’m Mark Mannix and I’m the current owner of the property. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. MANNIX-The property, when it was subdivided years ago, was divided with that strip being 25 feet. There wasn’t any zoning then. When the property was initially subdivided, the current zoning wasn’t in effect. So that that, it wasn’t made to be the 40 feet at this point. When, I had come here five years ago, to the very same thing, and the variance for the driveway was granted because of that. I didn’t realize that the variance would expire after a year, which I guess is the case, and now that I want to try to sell the property to Diane, we need to go through this again. MS. COUGHLIN-Why did he just say the variance stays with the land? MR. HAYES-No. That’s not entirely true. If you don’t use it, it expires. So we have to kind of entertain this on its merits tonight. Are there any questions for the applicant? Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. It’s a pretty good sized lot. I think I saw it here. The figure is four and a half acres? MR. MANNIX-Correct. MR. HIMES-So one of the things I’m concerned about, with the, you know, the access being what it is, is what is going to happen with the entire lot? Whether that might be further subdivided. In other words, you might have quite a bit of traffic coming in and out of there. MS. COUGHLIN-No. I just want to build my own house and I want that for privacy, because actually there’s a stream in the back of it. So that’s my plan is just to have that for view, basically, and I want to build as close to the opening as possible, because I’m already going to have a 350 foot driveway. MR. HIMES-Yes. It just poses a bit of a dilemma in my mind. MR. HAYES-Would you agree to a contingency? MS. COUGHLIN-That it can’t be subdivided? MR. HAYES-Yes. MS. COUGHLIN-Sure. MR. HAYES-Okay. MS. COUGHLIN-That’s the reason I want it is for privacy. MR. HIMES-Well, a lot of things could happen over the years. MS. COUGHLIN-Right. I understand that. 10 (Queensbury ZBA 11/28/01) MR. HIMES-You could sell the property, and then somebody else, that’s why I asked, and I would be interested to see if there are neighbors here that, you know, the snow removal and things like that, a small driveway going down between the properties that have frontage on the road. I hope we hear something about that. That’s all I have, Mr. Chairman. MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. Are there any other questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak in favor of the application? Anyone opposed to the application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JAMES GREY MR. GREY-My name is James Grey. I live at 984 Ridge. MR. HAYES-He’s to the south, essentially. MR. GREY-I’m not ecstatic about having a dirt road on my northern boundary, having traffic go through there. Our neighborhood consists of houses, with residents that have been there for quite a while. We all have 3 to 500 foot road frontage in our neighborhood. This is, would be an eyesore, as far as I’m concerned, in our neighborhood. MR. URRICO-An eyesore which way? MR. GREY-To have a dirt road on your property. MS. COUGHLIN-It’s crushed gravel. MR. GREY-It’s quite a length we’re talking about. We’ve worked hard on our neighborhood. If you’ve read the Post Star in recent months, since 149’s been worked on, a lot of the traffic has been re-routed through our neighborhood, and there’s been nothing but good comments about the way our neighborhood looks. It’s a reflection upon us. We work hard there. We want to keep it that way. The Ordinance is 40 feet. Your forefathers set that for a reason, to protect us, and we’re asking you to protect us. MR. HIMES-That’s your only objection is the surface of the driveway? MR. GREY-No. I don’t want a driveway on my northern boundary, no. I’m not for the traffic going through there. MR. HIMES-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Have you seen the design, the architectural design of the proposed construction? MR. GREY-No, I haven’t. MR. ABBATE-Well, perhaps maybe you should take a look at it. I think, quite frankly, it would be a positive addition and I would be more than happy to share this with you if you’d like. MR. GREY-Sure, but still you have to access to get to the house. MR. ABBATE-It certainly can be no eyesore in any stretch of the imagination. MR. GREY-I wasn’t talking about the structure itself. I was talking about the access to the house. MR. ABBATE-Yes. I understand. MR. GREY-I’m not against somebody building a home. Not at all. I just don’t like where the access point is. MR. HIMES-What about the maintenance now? I mean, there’s just undeveloped land between. MR. GREY-It’s swamp land. MR. HIMES-Coming right out to Ridge Road? MR. GREY-No, I’m talking about the property itself, sir. 11 (Queensbury ZBA 11/28/01) MR. HIMES-Where the driveway is, the thing you object to, there’s a, it belongs to the present owner now. How is it maintained? In other words, there’s no driveway there now. MR. GREY-No, it’s grass. MR. HIMES-And who takes care of that? MR. GREY-My neighbor mows it. He wants it to look nice. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Grey, so I can get a better appreciation, because we really listen to what folks have to say. So I can get a better, I can’t grasp it yet. So help me. So I can get a better appreciation of where you’re coming from, would I be correct in assuming that you’d prefer that this never be developed? MR. GREY-No. I would like a different access point, if it was. MR. ABBATE-So it’s just the access point that you’re having a problem with? MR. GREY-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Now that helps me out. Thank you very much. MR. GREY-Okay. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in opposition? VINNY SPERO MR. SPERO-Vinny Spero. I live at 972 Ridge Road. The potential buyer spoke of wanting privacy and wanting her seclusion. What about our seclusion and our privacy? We bought that property with the intention of maintaining a nice piece of property with a nice home, and what’s going to happen now is we’re going to have a driveway which would be several hundred feet, right outside my neighbor’s bedroom window, going down into the woods, which will be torn up behind our prospective lots, prospective properties, and have a parcel, a house built there. I don’t think the potential buyer realizes the property back there is predominantly wet most of the year. Very wet. It’s pretty much swampy back there. There’s also utilities to consider. Electrical poles will have to be put up. Trees will have to be taken down along that strip, telephone lines run in, power lines run in, heavy vehicles going in and out. I don’t think you would want that outside of your bedroom window. We don’t want it outside of ours. We work very hard to make that place nice, and I’m sure, down the road, it would be subdivided. A variance would be asked for later on, and they would probably get it. Besides the visual part of it, it would look very bad. It would also create more problems with traffic on that road that we already have now, with all the work going on 149. I just don’t think that the potential buyer realizes, right now the property is very dry, because we’ve had a dry spell, but in the spring and early summer, it’s really just swamp back there. There’s septic needs to consider, also. There’s a creek that runs into Halfway Brook back there. All that has to be taken into consider. Once you give a variance for that road to be torn up, that narrow strip between the two homes there will be torn up and turned into a dirt road. That would be, well, besides being an eyesore, it will become a very big expense for the future owner. MR. ABBATE-Excuse me out. MR. SPERO-Yes, sure. MR. ABBATE-What would be your feasible alternative for a property owner wanting to sell a piece of property in a legitimate way to a potential buyer who wishes to have a rather lovely home built on this property? What would be a feasible alternative which you would accept? MR. SPERO-An alternative to having her build there? MR. ABBATE-Yes. MR. SPERO-Well, like I said, I don’t think that the buyer, potential buyer, realizes what the property is actually like most of the year, and not being in construction myself, I couldn’t tell you all of the problems they would have in constructing a home there and creating a safe and effective septic system. Besides that, we all have wells there. We live off well water. We don’t want anymore contamination or waste in the ground that’s already there. There already is a development on the other side of that narrow strip of woods there, the Stonehurst. 12 (Queensbury ZBA 11/28/01) MR. ABBATE-Yes, but you haven’t answered my question. On this particular piece of property, that’s the issue at hand. Okay. How would you help and what would you suggest as a feasible alternative you could live with, how a person could have a home constructed which would meet your satisfaction? MR. SPERO-I really can’t say. I wouldn’t like to see anything built back there. Well, if they did, how about having access through the other side of the woods. There’s already a road on the other side of the woods MR. ABBATE-Okay. So you’re basically saying you would be very content if no construction, if that was never developed in the first place. Is that what you’re saying? MR. SPERO-Sure. Wouldn’t you? Would you want a house built in your back yard? MR. ABBATE-But I’m asking you. MR. SPERO-That’s what I said. MR. ABBATE-So you would be content if there was no construction forever and ever? MR. SPERO-I’m sure. I offered to buy the property, but they would not sell it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. MR. HAYES-Is there anyone else in opposition to the application? JOHN VANDERWARKER MR. VANDERWARKER-John Vanderwarker, 996 Ridge Road. I live north of this right of way, which the right of way doesn’t affect me too much, but they also mentioned building a house back there. It’s 4.7 acres, and it goes from behind my house all the way to Ray Buckley’s house, which is quite a span, and it’s not very narrow. Where she wants to put this house, I have no idea, but just behind my house there’s a brook, and it ends right there, and it goes into wetlands, from there all the way, just before Ray Buckley’s house, then it goes back into a stream again, and then it goes into Halfway Brook. So wetlands, as far as I know, they’re kind of sacred, and where is she going to put a house like this, you go back in the woods and it drops right off. How is she ever going to build that up to put a house there? And where is the water going to go once she puts this house in there? It’s either going to go into that development on the back side, which is not that far away. I can’t see it coming And where is the water going to go once she puts this house in there? It’s either going to go into that development on the back side, which is not that far away. I can’t see it coming our way towards Ridge Road because our ground’s a little bit higher than hers. MR. HAYES-You understand, sir, though, that we’re just charged with the amount of relief that’s requested, versus the impact on the neighborhood or community? The issues that have to do with whether she can build a house back there or not successfully, or the septic system, they’re all enforcement issues which the Town is very diligent about. I can tell you. MR. VANDERWARKER-That’s another issue all together? MR. HAYES-Yes. MR. VANDERWARKER-She’s going to have to submit another application? MR. HAYES-Absolutely. Before a building permit is issued, she’ll have to. MR. VANDERWARKER-I mean, she’s looked at this property this summer, when it’s been very, ver dry. MR. HAYES-But that’s. MR. VANDERWARKER-I mean, I don’t think she’s seeing the whole picture here. MR. HAYES-That very well may be, but we’re charged with a very specific test here tonight, and that has to do with the relief that she’s requested, as far as road frontage on a Town road, and that’s it. Those issues are enforcement issues, and we don’t get involved with those, because that’s not our job. Not that we’re not interested, but it’s an important separation. So tonight we’re charged with the impact of granting this relief. That’s what your testimony really needs to apply to. MR. VANDERWARKER-Okay. Thank you. 13 (Queensbury ZBA 11/28/01) MR. HAYES-Yes, thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in opposition to the application? Is there any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. MR. HAYES-Then I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HAYES-Are there any further questions for the applicant? MR. ABBATE-There may be. MS. COUGHLIN-Can I respond to these guys? MR. HAYES-Only as it relates to what I tried to focus on. MS. COUGHLIN-Yes, well, to what they said. Like Mr. Grey, worried about the concern of how it looks. No, he doesn’t mow it. His neighbor does next door. And that neighbor has only been there recently because the old woman that lived there died. So he’s been doing it since he’s been there because it was overgrown. Mr. Grey’s looking about how bad it looks. The guy on 282, 272, nowhere near him. He’s way down at the end. I’m looking to build behind 288. Okay, and as far as the wetlands go, of course I’m going to investigate that. I already have. I’ve had a perc test done. The man who told me that, Mr. Maine, said he thinks it is wetlands. So I’ve called DEC. They said, no, you have to call Army Corps. No, I don’t want to build there if it’s going to be swamped out. The place that I’m looking at is level with their back yards, then it drops off. So, yes, it would be tight, but I’m looking to build a one family home. There’s no traffic. There’s no subdividing. I’ll have a back, enclosed back porch. I don’t even like going outside. I just want a view of the privacy. I understand, they just don’t want anybody to build back there, but if I don’t, someone else will, or the Town gets it, right? MR. ABBATE-The Chairman asked you earlier, and I just want to confirm this, that you would consider a contingency that there would be no subdivision of your property. Is that correct? MS. COUGHLIN-That’s correct. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. MR. HAYES-That would alleviate some of the Board member’s concerns about overtaxing an already small entrance to the property. MS. COUGHLIN-Right. I understand. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. URRICO-I’m just going to note, also, in the previous variance that was granted, that was also a contingency at that time. MR. HAYES-Also a condition. Okay. Are there any further questions for the applicant at this time? Okay. Let’s talk about this now, and I guess we’re going to start with Norm on this one. MR. HIMES-Thank you. I recognize, of course, that the Code specifies what it does, but I have to recognize, too, that the lot that you’re considering is landlocked. You only have one way to get in and out, and that’s with the land, the 25 feet that you have going to Ridge Road, which, from previous testimony, if it is accurate, such was set up as 25 feet because at the time, some years ago, it met the requirements of the Town. Does that sound right to you, Bruce? MR. FRANK-I believe so. MR. HIMES-Well, it sounds reasonable that those lots were separated, years ago, and I think they were. I mean, that condition’s been there, I think, for 10 or 15 years at least, maybe longer. So, for that reason only, and the aspect of the conditions of not subdividing the land, I tend to be favorable towards the application. MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. Roy? MR. URRICO-I think the beauty of the Zoning Board of Appeals is that it gives citizens a chance to question Town law, or at least ask for a variation, which is what this is. Town law shouldn’t exist as a 14 (Queensbury ZBA 11/28/01) straight jacket. It should allow some flexibility for members like us to consider that there is some flexibility that we could put forth, in considerations such as these, and we have to be careful and make sure that we don’t change the law in such a way that it’s detrimental to the rest of the area as well. That being said, I’m going to have to go back to the criteria, and, going down the list, the benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be permitted to buy the parcel of their choice. Feasible alternatives. I don’t believe there are many feasible alternatives, if any, to where the house is being placed. They have a right to buy the property and put a house there. It’s a legal lot. Three, is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? It might be considered substantial, perhaps. I don’t know if it’s a lot, but I’ll weigh that against the applicant. The effects on the neighborhood or community. I know there’s been some community objection tonight, and that’ll be a consideration on my part, but it doesn’t sway me enough. Is the difficulty self-created? It could be considered self- created, but I don’t really think it is. I think it’s, the lot configuration is what’s creating the problem here, and on the basis of that weight, I’m in favor of the applicant. MR. HIMES-Mr. Chairman, could I add to my remarks, just something that I, just very briefly? MR. HAYES-Of course. MR. HIMES-I wanted to recognize what the people who live nearby had indicated in connection with their objections, and aside from the fact that they don’t like to see a house built out behind them, I don’t think that’s a valid objection. In connection with the driveway, and the fact that it’s going to be in close proximity to their property and they look upon it as being a possible eyesore, they would have that same problem, or very much the same, if the amount of land available was 40 feet, and there wouldn’t even be any need for a variance. That problem, in my opinion, would still be there. That’s all I wanted to add. Thank you. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I basically agree with what’s been said so far. I don’t think there’s much, in the way of a feasible alternative, for access to this property. It strikes me that the 40 foot minimum lot width requirement probably can be taken literally, that way. For a lot that fronts on a Town road, 40 feet’s a reasonable minimum. This lot, in essence, doesn’t front on a Town road. It needs access, and it strikes me that a 25 foot wide access strip is certainly adequate for emergency vehicles and ingress and egress. It’s always tough when you’ve had a piece of undeveloped land behind your lot for years, and all of a sudden somebody proposes to do something with it. It’s a shock, and a difficult position for landowners certainly, but, on the other hand, it seems to me the landowners did have an opportunity to buy that piece of property. It was listed in the multiple listing system since September. So it was available for sale. I think the benefit is to the applicant. I don’t think there’s going to be a big impact on the neighborhood, and has been stated, I think really it’s not a self- created problem. It’s a pre-existing problem. So I’d be in favor. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I’m pretty much in agreement with everyone else. I think that this, you know, is a previously nonconforming lot, and the only access to it is via this 25 foot passageway, and if it were 40 feet, it would be only 15 feet wider. So I don’t see that it would have that much of a big impact. At some point you may want to plant trees along it or something, when you’ve got more time on your hands, but at the same time I think we could condition this variance the same way that the original one was, so it would not allow any future subdivision of that property back there, which would get rid of those concerns for the neighbors, and you’re going to be far enough back away from them that you’re still going to have your privacy and they’re going to have theirs. I’m sure you’re going to respect their privacy, too. So, I’d be in favor of it. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to address the facts, rather than the emotional aspects of this. The facts are quite clear. The applicant is requesting 15 feet of relief from the 40 foot minimum requirement road frontage, and I believe that the application request is a reasonable request. I don’t believe this Board is empowered to arbitrarily deny any type of legal transactions which take place within the Town of Queensbury. As I indicated, I believe it’s a reasonable request, and I also note, Mr. Chairman, that there is, in fact, a contingency on the previous documentation preventing any subdividing in the future, and the applicant has agreed that we could use this as a contingency in the event that the application was approved. So, I think, based on a standard of fairness, I would support the application. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Allan? MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think there are two conflicting issues here. One being that the Board cannot deprive an owner of the use of their property, but on the other hand, I’m 15 (Queensbury ZBA 11/28/01) thinking about a 25 foot space, and obviously your driveway’s not going to be 25 feet wide. You’re going to want to landscape it to avoid conflicts with the neighbor and what have you. You’re going to have a 350 foot driveway that goes back to your house, far enough away from the road, in the case of an emergency, you’ll have fire trucks back there, ambulances. We had this discussion in the previous thing, and it could be a dangerous situation, and I think that Code, in any Town, is developed primarily to protect the citizens from this type of danger. I have to agree with what most of the Board members say, as far as this being a minimal request, but in view of the configuration of the lot, it really is not a minimal request, because most normal lots don’t sit 350 feet back in the woods. They have 40 feet of frontage and the house is there, and so any kind of emergency vehicle, County vehicle, power vehicle, whatever it is, can get back there without any difficulty. He can get to the house. So I think, primarily, I don’t know what the solution is, because I don’t think Mr. Mannix created the problem, and I don’t think Ms. Coughlin created the problem, but I would have to be opposed to the application. MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. Well, I essentially agree with the rest of the Board. We’ve run into this problem often. The entire concept of a pre-existing, nonconforming lot is difficult, at times, to understand, but this lot, when it was created, was in compliance, and I guess we can undo permissible subdivisions in the past, in essentially zoning a piece of property out of useful existence, in this case, I don’t think that that’s possible or even proper. So, I don’t think there’s a great deal of feasible alternatives that are involved. Obviously, this lot is what it is. It’s created. It’s a key hole type key shaped lot, but I agree with the rest of the Board members that 25 feet is enough for emergency vehicles. The relief is moderate or minimal in this particular case. It’s 15 feet of relief, but the 25 foot strip is certainly wide enough to do the job that’s required for emergency vehicles, and that’s part of the rationale behind the Ordinance. Effects on the neighborhood or community, I believe it’s a single family home on a four acre plus lot. I don’t think that, I really don’t think that that’s a major impact in this particular case. By your plans it looks like the house is set back pretty significantly into the lot, and the rest of the issues of wetlands and stuff, that’s your problem. As far as I’m concerned, there’s going to be no negative impacts on the neighborhood or community that I can point to, and I don’t believe the difficulty is entirely self-created. Being that it’s a pre-existing, nonconforming lot. So, on my count, we have six in favor, one opposed. Could I get a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 87-2001 DIANE COUGHLIN, Introduced by Norman Himes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 986 Ridge Road. Applicant proposes construction of a single family dwelling. Applicant requests 15 feet of relief from the 40 foot minimum required road frontage per 179-70A. Benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be permitted to buy the parcel of her choice on which to build a home with the driveway access to the Ridge Road across the land reserved for this area some years ago. Feasible alternatives, about the only thing possible might be acquisition of land on either side, and evidently this is not something that has panned out or that, from the testimony given, that would be acceptable to the people who do neighbor the driveway. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? 15 feet of relief from the 40 foot minimum required road frontage may be interpreted as moderate. However, we feel that the 25 feet that is available is okay for emergency vehicles. The effects on the neighborhood or community, the proposed driveway will have minimal effects on the neighborhood, and it might be noted that this same relief was granted in 1996 but expired because of no action. Is the difficulty self-created? Well, the lot is landlocked except for the 25 feet to Ridge Road. The applicant really had no influence on that at all. The lot, therefore, is a pre-existing nonconforming lot. I move that we approve the application as submitted with a contingency or condition that the applicant agree that this variance is granted with the understanding there will be no subdivision of the land, the four and a half acres which you are purchasing. Duly adopted this 28 day of November, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes NOES: Mr. Bryant ABSENT: Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone MR. HAYES-The motion is approved. MS. COUGHLIN-I just want to tell those guys, phone wires and NiMo, that would all be underground. MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 89-2001 TYPE II STEVE MILES – MILES CUSTOM HOMES, INC. PROPERTY OWNER: JENNIFER AND GARY RANDALL AGENT: STEVE MILES – MILES CUSTOM HOMES, INC. PROPERTY OWNER: 3 ROBERTS COURT 16 (Queensbury ZBA 11/28/01) (SOUTHERN EXPOSURE) ZONE: SFR-1A APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. OLD TAX MAP NO. 150-1- 6.63 NEW TAX MAP NO. 308.18-2-69 LOT SIZE: 0.46 ACRES SECTION 179-20 GARY RANDALL & STEVE MILES, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 89-2001, Steve Miles – Miles Custom Homes, Inc., Meeting Date: November 28, 2001 “Project Location: 3 Roberts Court (Southern Exposure) Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of an addition to a single family dwelling. Relief Required: Applicant requests 2 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum rear setback requirement of the SFR-1A zone, § 179-20. 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 addition in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: The alternate floor plan design depicted in BP 2001-648 may be a feasible alternative. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 2 feet of relief from the 20-foot requirement may be interpreted as minimal to moderate, relative to the Ordinance (10%). 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.): BP 2001-648 issued 9/11/01 3322 sq. ft. Single Family Dwelling Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The proposed construction appears to be a modification of the original plans submitted with BP2001-648. This plan has been modified from the previous application before this Board. This request for relief is for the same portion of the home and the applicant seeks 2 feet of relief as opposed to the previous request for 6 feet of relief. No approvals have been issued for the additional construction proposed. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-No County. MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. Before we begin the process, I just want to point out to the Board members, as a matter of clarification, that we had established, in the last meeting, that they had not begun construction of this portion of the addition, in violation of going before a variance. That was established. So we don’t need to go into that part of the application. Other than that, please identify yourselves. MR. RANDALL-Gary Randall. I’m the buyer. This is Steve Miles, the builder. Actually, everything, I had 100 notes here, and everything was pretty much clarified there. We are not looking to do an addition. It would be a modification. As you all well know, we were here looking for six feet before, and now we’re only asking for two feet, which is 10% relief. Again, last time, when we were here, I guess our problem was, and I don’t want this to sound like I’m here to argue over interpretation again, but as far as, I just want to answer on the part about difficulty created. We feel it was not self- created because of the homework we did and the paperwork that we had that pertained to that area. Are we a third of an acre or a half an acre? We’re .46 acres. I’m still not sure if that’s an interpretation or, you’re not a half, you’re not .5 so you’re not a half or you’re .46, that’s closer to a half than it is to a third. We felt we were not a half acre. We went by the third acre rules which said that the rear was 10 foot, and also we had some drawings showing the 10 foot clearance, minimal lot clearance on the back. Again, I’m not arguing anyone’s interpretation over that, but we felt, without going far and beyond, that we did our homework, and we felt that was the amount that we needed, and we tried to stay within that. Again, everything, I guess, was already mentioned. There’s been no negative response in our neighborhood. The neighbors that have stopped by said it was a nice house, nice job, wish you the best, and I guess that’s about it. We’re looking for two feet, and as anybody could see, that’s been over there, that portion of the building is pretty much on hold until we can get it resolved. MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions for the applicant at this time? MR. BRYANT-Yes. I have a question. You mention in your application that the neighbor to the rear is not opposed to this application? MR. MILES-Correct. MR. BRYANT-Is that neighbor here tonight? MR. MILES-No, she is not. MR. BRYANT-Is there a letter, do you know? 17 (Queensbury ZBA 11/28/01) MR. MILES-No. She said that she was going to come to the original meeting, but stated it was a beautiful building and it’s not necessary for her to even show. It’s a lot harder to get someone to come and give you a positive response, as you well can see, than to just have someone come up and give you a negative. MR. HAYES-That’s probably true. Any other questions for the applicant at this time? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here to speak in favor of this application? Anyone opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HAYES-Let’s talk about this application. I guess now we’re going to start with Roy. MR. URRICO-Yes. I am satisfied that they meet the majority of the criteria, and in fact the two feet seems very minimal to me. I still don’t understand your argument, but, either way, I’d be in favor of it. So, that’s it. MR. RANDALL-Again, I wasn’t making an argument. MR. HAYES-That’s another discussion. MR. RANDALL-It’s another discussion, and I don’t want to present his argument. My only point was that we don’t feel that it was self created. We felt that we did what we needed to do to, without, it’s like how far can you go, how much can you spend to go into depth and to homework as far as what should be or shouldn’t be. Thank you. MR. HAYES-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I guess, on balance, I’m in favor of it. I’ll have to admit, my first reaction was, new house, new lot, comply, but as you’ve explained, I can see where there was some fuzziness in trying to determine, perhaps, what the requirement really was, and has been stated before, two feet is relatively minor, compared with what’s needed. So I think, on balance, it’s a minimal request, and I’d be in favor. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I would agree with Chuck. I think, on balance, this is a very minimal request. Two feet down from the original six feet that you requested, you know, I have no problem with it. MR. MILES-Could I interject just one thing? I could also add the problem we ran into is the radius involved there and the side lines lead you to believe that there’s another 10 feet there. However, I originally put this in, Craig Brown was going to pass it and he said just move the thing five feet. Well, I got to thinking there’s a radius involved, and then I got my surveyor out there and that’s when we found it. Otherwise we would not have been here until we got the final CO, and then it would have come about. MR. RANDALL-We thought we played it safe the building moving it back a little bit, to play it safe, and obviously we ran into some problems. MR. HAYES-Okay. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Randall, would I make your evening if I said that I may not agree with the fact that it’s self-created? Would that help you out? Well, you can dwell on that, but basically I agree with my previous Board members. I think, right now, under these circumstances, I think it’s a reasonable request and I would not have any problem supporting the application. MR. RANDALL-Thank you. MR. HAYES-Allan? MR. BRYANT-I agree with the other Board members. I think 10% is a minimal request. I disagree with your assessment of the creation, however, because, you know, if there was some kind of variation at that point, you should have had it verified, you know, we’re going to go with the third or 18 (Queensbury ZBA 11/28/01) we’re going to go with the half or whatever, and I think I would have clarified that before the fact, but it’s not a discussion tonight. It’s minimal request, and I would vote to approve it. MR. HAYES-Mr. Himes? MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. I, too, agree with the other Board members, have little to add. I think I would like to believe that there was some honest misunderstanding when things got going and, you know, they tend to keep going that way, and also, to give recognition to the fact that it has been squeezed down to probably a practical minimum. So I think that’s another indication of your effort to do the best you can to comply. So I would be in favor of the application. Thank you. MR. HAYES-Thank you. I would agree with the rest of the Board members. I think a request was made to reduce the amount of relief that you were requesting, and such a request was honored. This is certainly a minimal amount of relief, in this particular case. I think two feet on a twenty foot requirement is very minimal, especially considering the overall size of the home and the fact that it does appear to be a nice home. So, the effects on the neighborhood or community, I don’t see any, in this particular case. You’ve commented that the most impacted neighbor is in favor of the application, and I guess we’ll have to take your word for that . She’s not here tonight. Is the difficulty self-created? I’ll stay away from that argument, to save some time, but in this particular case, I’m in favor of the application. Having said that, is there a motion? Would someone like to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 89-2001 STEVE MILES – MILES CUSTOM HOMES, INC., Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 3 Roberts Court (Southern Exposure). The applicant proposes construction of an addition to a single family dwelling. The relief required, the applicant requests two feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum rear setback of the SFR-1A zone, Section 179-20. The benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be permitted to construct the addition in the preferred location. Feasible alternatives, we discussed this in depth before, but the alternatives appear to be limited, other than not putting it up to begin with, but I think that it’s a given that you guys really want this thing on the back of your house. Is the relief substantial? Two feet of relief I don’t think is substantial at all. I think it’s very minimal. It’s at 10% or so. The effects on the neighborhood or community, I don’t think there’s any real effects. The nearest neighbor in the back doesn’t seem to have any concerns over it, so I don’t think we should either, and is the difficulty self created? Maybe yes, maybe no. I don’t think so. I make a motion that we approve this as requested, for the two feet. Duly adopted this 28 day of November, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Himes, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone MR. HAYES-The motion is passed. MR. RANDALL-Thank you, gentlemen. I look forward to having you all over for breakfast, now that we have the room. AREA VARIANCE NO. 92-2001 TYPE II CUMBERLAND FARMS, INC. PROPERTY OWNER: V.S.H. REALTY, INC. PROPERTY LOCATION: 127 QUAKER ROAD INTERSECTION OF RIDGE AND QUAKER ROAD ZONE: HC-1A APPLICANT PROPOSES A COMMERCIAL ADDITION (1,392 SQ. FT.) ONTO EXISTING GASOLINE SERVICE STATION AND REPLACE EXISTING CANOPY WITH A NEW 2,090 SQ. FT. CANOPY. APPLICANT SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW CANOPY. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 11/14/2001 OLD TAX MAP NO. 109-3-36 NEW TAX MAP NO. 303.05-1-24 LOT SIZE: 1.25 ACRES SECTION 179-23, 179-28 MARTIN AUFFREDOU, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MC NULTY-Mr. Chairman, I should make a point, at this point, that this application and the following three I’m going to abstain from any comment and from voting, but I’ll do the secretarial portion, since we have no other member to take my place, to give a full seven members. MR. HAYES-Thank you. 19 (Queensbury ZBA 11/28/01) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 92-2001, Cumberland Farms, Inc, Meeting Date: November 28, 2001 “Project Location: 127 Quaker Road intersection of Ridge and Quaker Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of an addition to the existing store and a new gasoline canopy. Relief Required: Applicant requests 44.3 feet of relief for the canopy from the 50-foot minimum setback requirement of the HC-1A zone, § 179-23(C) and 69.3 feet from the 75-foot minimum setback requirement of the Travel Corridor Overlay (TCO) Zone, § 179-28(B6). 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 canopy in the desired location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include constructing the new gas island and canopy in a more compliant location than that proposed. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 44.3 feet of relief from the 50-foot minimum front setback requirement and 69.3 feet of relief from the 75-foot minimum setback requirement of the TCO may be interpreted as substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action being the proposed location of the new gas island and canopy is the same as the existing location. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 47-2001: review in December 2001; 1392 sq. ft. addition to existing 2952 sq. ft. gasoline service station and replace existing 1104 sq. ft. canopy with a new 2090 sq. ft. canopy. SV 93-2001: review 11/28/01; setback relief for freestanding sign. Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action due to the proposed location of the new gas island and canopy being the same as the existing location. However, a more compliant location for the new island and canopy might be considered in the undeveloped east end of the parcel. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form November 14, 2001 Project Name: Cumberland Farms, Inc. Owner: V.S.H. Realty, Inc. ID Number: QBY- AV-92-2001 County Project#: Nov01-19 Current Zoning: HC-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes a commercial addition (1,392 sq. ft.) onto existing gasoline service station and replace existing canopy with a new 2,090 sq. ft. canopy. Applicant seeks relief for the construction of the new canopy. Site Location: 127 Quaker Road. Intersection of Ridge and Quaker Roads. Tax Map Number(s): 303.05-1-24 Staff Notes: The applicant’s drawing indicates the canopy will be 5’7” from the property line. The applicant’s application indicates a request for 6’1” and that 6’1” is what currently exists. The existing canopy does not impact County resources therefore, the property canopy is not seen to have any significant impact on County resources. Staff is recommending discussion to determine the exact relief sought. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board 11/15/01. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Before you begin your application, I’d just like to ask Chris. Are you going to make comments prior to the application, or just answer questions? MR. ROUND-No. We’re just here normally, as we would, to answer questions. MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. Fire away. MR. AUFFREDOU-Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members, my name is Martin Auffredou. I’m with the law firm of Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart and Rhodes in Glens Falls. We represent the applicant, Cumberland Farms. To my left is Rob Spiak from Bohler Engineer, Bill Goebel from Bohler Engineer, to the rear is Steve Knopftl. He’s a regional manager for Cumberland Farms, and to Steve’s left there is Brian VanBuren. He is an area sales manager for Cumberland Farms as well. We’ve got a number of applications before you tonight for a couple of different locations, but, obviously, this application, we think, presents itself as the easier of the two. What we’re essentially asking to do here is to replace the 1560 square foot store with a 2,952 square foot store. We’re updating or improving. This is part of the company’s overall attempt to modernize and improve a number of their sites. They’re doing that on a selective basis. They’ve chosen this site and obviously the Main Street site, for some upgrades at this particular point. With respect to the canopy, that’s obviously where the variance comes into play, and what your jurisdiction is here this evening. We are 5.7 feet from the property line. Let’s make that clear. That’s something that’s existing. It’s nonconforming. If you visited the site or frequent the site, you’ll know that, although it’s 5.7 feet from the property line, it really is quite a distance away from Quaker Road, and where the property line is sort of, in our opinion, insignificant. There’s quite a bit of buffer area between the canopy and where actually Quaker Road is. The canopy right now extends about 23 feet in length along Quaker Road. We’re going to about 44 feet in length along Quaker Road. Again, it’s our attempt here to modernize, to upgrade. We think the property calls out for some help. It’s an older property. It needs to be improved. We don’t really see any impacts to any of the neighbors. We’ve got Heber Travel Agency to the west of the property. We’re really not impacting anything over there. We are doing some building to the rear, in addition to the existing structure. The property to the rear is a 20 (Queensbury ZBA 11/28/01) vacant piece. It’s also owned by the Hebers as well, and again, we’re looking to upgrade. We’re looking to improve. Right now what I’d like to do, that’s our benefit. Essentially, as you know, the test is what’s the benefit to us versus the detriment to the character of the neighborhood or the community. We see this as a desirable, not an undesirable change, in the character of the community. We think it brings obvious benefits to us and to the Town. What I’d like to do now is to have Rob and Bill talk about some of what’s existing at the site, and then we’ll talk about what we’re proposing. MR. GOEBEL-I think everyone’s familiar with the site. We’ve already, you’ve had information read to you. Again, my name is William Goebel. I prepared the plans that are before you this evening. My company is Bohler Engineering. We’re located in Albany, and I’ll just give you a quick run through on a couple of, some of the details of what we’re doing here. This plan is just a colored rendering of the existing condition, the plan that was in the package that was submitted. The existing canopy is this darker brown section closer to the north side of the property, and this dark black line is the right of way line. We’re about 70 feet from the travel lanes, as far as the setback goes, from the actual travel lanes out on Quaker Road to the canopy, and that’s that significant green space, that Martin was talking about, relative to the canopy setback. Right now there’s two islands there, parallel to Quaker Road, with one dispenser on each island. The reason for the construction of the new canopy is we just find that we can’t service our customers enough with the two dispensers that are there. The canopy that’s going to be proposed is four dispensers, or the fueling configuration is going to be four dispensers, and I’ll show you that, in a second, with the proposed site plan. The existing building is the dark brown building here. Sort of oriented towards the corner, wooded and scrub brush and grass area behind it, and as far as access to the property goes right now, you’ve got two driveways from Quaker Road that are coming in to the site. You have one driveway from Ridge Road, which is almost right at the intersection right here, you may be familiar with that, and then one other driveway from Ridge Road, further to the south. As Martin has mentioned, it’s a tired site. It’s been around for a number of years without any real improvements. The tanks are older. It’s underground storage tanks that are there. The pavement is somewhat disturbed and broken up. There’s really no effective landscaping or real aesthetic value to the property right now. Not to talk negatively about my client’s site, but that’s the reality of what they have there now. As far as the proposed conditions go, what we’re looking to do is replace the canopy that’s there, the new canopy versus the 23 foot dimension, which runs along the right of way now, will be about 44 feet. The reason for that is going from two islands with two dispensers to four islands with four dispensers. The same exact traffic configuration, as far as the movements through the property. The canopy is at the same exact location, as far as the setback goes, as discussed, basically just trying to provide a better gas offering to our customers, less queuing, people can get in and out of the property quicker if they don’t have to wait for it. It also gives people more options, depending on which side of the car the gas tank is on, with the additional dispensers. The building is getting expanded about 1400 square feet, or 1500, 1600 square feet to the rear. Again, it’s just going directly back off of the existing building. There’s some other improvements we’re doing to the site also. We’re going to be putting in new underground storage tanks, double wall fiberglass tanks and double wall fiberglass piping to the new dispensers as part of this improvement. We also looked at it, and after initial meetings with Staff, agreed to remove the driveway at Ridge Road, at the intersection. It’s dangerous, to say the least, in its current condition right now. It doesn’t have a significant value to the property, as far as that access goes. We can still get people in off of Route 9 over here, and we have the access that we need for a configuration like this, where your pumps are parallel with the roadways. You absolutely have to have that two driveway configuration so you can get into the dispensers and out of the dispensers easily, without having to drive in circles around the property to get out. So we’ve eliminated that, created a lot of additional green space up here, about two or three thousand square feet of additional green space along the frontage here. We are proposing a new freestanding ID sign. Currently it’s on the eastern side of the property, which really doesn’t do much good for the facility, as far as the location of it goes or identification of it, as a Cumberland Farms, identification of the gas pricing for it. It’s basically in the wrong spot for a facility like this. We’ve got it proposed up at the corner. We’ve oriented it at a little bit of an angle. So instead of having a lot of sign clutter of multiple freestanding ID signs to try and let people know what you’ve got both on Ridge Road and Quaker Road, we’d do it with one sign. We want to make sure it’s very competitive. We need our customers to be able to identify the pricing, identify that it’s a Cumberland Farms so they know what the offering is. It’s at a 10 foot setback versus the 15 foot setback that would be required, basically just, since we’re so far back from Quaker Road, we’re trying to pull it a little bit forward. We can’t, obviously, put it out in the right of way, but we are looking to pull it a little bit forward to help the visibility along Quaker Road in that area. We propose landscaping around it, again, additional green space where the curbing is being removed. We’re going to overlay the entire parking lot also, as far as a fresh coat of pavement goes. So the goal is to take the facility, upgrade it, and make it look like a new property by the time we’re all done with it. It’s not just a patchwork of throwing one canopy in here or putting a new ID sign up there, basically an overhaul of the whole property, and an upgrade of the entire facility. MR. HAYES-Have you got any questions? 21 (Queensbury ZBA 11/28/01) MR. HIMES-Yes. The sign I won’t comment, because we’ve got another session coming up on that next, a Sign Variance. I would be interested in the comment, Staff said that there’s, the pumps, and I see there might be room for the pumps to be put in a compliant position or location. Would you address why that can’t be done? MR. GOEBEL-It may be a little bit difficult to see, but right here is the 75 foot setback line. We couldn’t physically put them on this property at the 75 foot setback in the current configuration, keeping the existing building, and actually keeping circulation around them. They’d have to be 70 feet further back. We wouldn’t be able to fit them on the property and get the circulation around them. MR. HIMES-All right. Thank you. MR. URRICO-Can you tell me what the space is between the corner, I guess on your map, the upper right hand corner of the building, and the lower left hand corner of the canopy. MR. GOEBEL-That distance right there? MR. URRICO-Right. MR. GOEBEL-It’s approximately 30 feet, 31 feet. MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant? MR. ABBATE-Perhaps not so much a question as a concern, if you’ll indulge me for just a few seconds here. If my calculations are correct, you’re request for the Cumberland Farms at 127 Quaker Road, in effect you’re seeking 181% relief from a 200% requirement, and I broke it down as follows. Your initial request is for 88.6% of relief, that is 44.3% from 50 foot. That represents the figure I just gave you, and in addition to that, there is the other 33% of relief from the five foot of fifteen foot, and of course I did a whole page worth of statistics, only to receive in the mail a letter from Mr. Round which would have saved me all the work that I’ve done. I’m assuming that you have a copy of this letter from Mr. Round? Okay. I’m very concerned with what I consider to be substantial relief, and I would like to be convinced that this would be in the best interest of the Town and of the adjoining property owners, and finally I’m very concerned with the statements that were presented by Mr. Round and submitted to Mr. Goebel. Thank you. That’s the Main Street one, excuse me. Right now we’re talking about the Quaker. My problem is, again, I’ll go over it briefly, you’re requesting, basically, a total of 181% relief from the 200% requirements, and that’s substantial. MR. AUFFREDOU-I think what you have to bear in mind, here, is that we’re not coming in here and saying, this is what we want to do, brand new. This is an existing use, and what we’re doing is we’re saying, look, we recognize we need a variance. I don’t know about the percentages, sir, but we recognize that we need a variance. This is already existing. I think you’re really not going to, as you drive by this property, I don’t really think you’re going to say, oh, my God, look at what they did there. You’re going to drive by and you’re going to say, that was already there, and they’ve expanded. You’re not going to come upon this property and say, look how close this canopy is to the property line, and again, I think you have to bear in mind what the test is. The test is, what’s the benefit to the us versus the detriment to the character of the community, and I don’t think that this is going to have any detrimental impact to the character of the community. I grant you that the degree of the variance, and how substantial or insubstantial it is, is one of the factors that you must consider, but if you look at it from our perspective, and that is that canopy is already here. We are enlarging it. Why? Because we need to upgrade. We need to improve. We think that it makes us more competitive in the market place. We think it’s in the best interest of the Town to make this improvement. This is going to be much safer. There are containment things that Cumberland Farms does now with respect to gas bills, safety. We think the lighting will be better. We think there are a whole host of reasons why this improvement is needed. So, yes, we are increasing the nonconformity, but the nonconformity already exists. We’re not increasing it. We’re not coming to you and saying, can we put this canopy at this location for the first time? This canopy already exists. We’re saying it’s here. It works for us, let us expand it by an additional 44 feet, and I don’t think, again, as you drive by, you’re going to say. MR. URRICO-So that doesn’t really exist as you’re saying it does. It’s going to exist as something quite different than it currently exists. MR. AUFFREDOU-Well, it’s 5.7 feet away from the property line. It’s going to stay at 5.7 feet away from the property line. We’re just saying, give us more at 5.7 feet at the property line. That’s what we’re saying. MR. URRICO-And Mr. Abbate asked if there were a feasible alternative, and that’s one of the tests that we’re required to ask you, and I still haven’t heard an answer to that. 22 (Queensbury ZBA 11/28/01) MR. GOEBEL-Again, for this facility and this configuration, we could not take this canopy and physically put it at the 75 foot setback. Again, because of the significant depth. MR. URRICO-You could move it closer to the easterly property line. MR. HIMES-Back and to the east. In other words, maybe that would make things a little better from the standpoint of Quaker Road. Just one question that I asked was in that regard. I feel the same, I don’t mean to interrupt you, Roy. I’m not convinced, and I don’t feel it’s, I’m not going to suggest what be done, but there wouldn’t be some alternative that wouldn’t require, let’s say, as much relief, and while we’ll talk about the sign later, might make room for the sign even to be compliant, if moved there. So I would like to see that addressed a little more thoroughly, in terms of what impact it would have on your business or the customers, that kind of thing, by having it at another place. Some of us may feel that it might be a little better to have the, be a little further away from the property line, and yet maybe a little closer to the other setback requirement on the east. You think about that for a moment. MR. GOEBEL-I can respond to it to some degree right now. The site’s a little bit, not a little bit, it is somewhat unique in that we’re working with certain existing conditions and parameters that we have. We have an existing building that we’re working with. We have existing curb cuts and driveway configurations which we’re maintaining and working with. For that reason, to try and take this, basically it would have to be relocated in this back, far back right corner of the property, the southeast corner of this white area here is about the only area that, physically, you could take this canopy and drop it in and be within the setbacks. Critical for us is the circulation patterns for the customers. For them to make close to a seven figure investment in a property like this, to try and upgrade the entire property, not just the canopy itself, but new underground storage tanks, building expansion enhancement and driveway modifications to it, they’ve got to make sure that they’re comfortable that their customers will be able to get into the site and out of the site, move smoothly through it, that they’ve got adequate fueling facilities, which is really what’s driving this. In this case, they don’t have adequate fueling facilities. As far as the number of positions for their customers, they’ve got to make sure that they’ve got adequate fueling facilities for it. The reason we’re here to put the canopy in, we could go out there and just look to put new pump islands in, get rid of the two dispensers that are there, put four new dispensers in. They wouldn’t quite be covered as much as we’d like them to be, by the canopy that’s there today. So the purpose of the new canopy is basically for the safety and the welfare of the people that are fueling at this facility. That’s why we’re looking for the new canopy, again, just to expand the coverage, make sure we provide adequate coverage for the customers that are there, provide a facility that, working within the constraints of the existing building and parking around it, the existing driveways that we looked at and reviewed with the County already, that it still works within those parameters. MR. BRYANT-I don’t think that moving the canopy and the islands to that corner, I think you’re going to create more problems. You’ll have fuel lines going underneath the building or close to the building. You’ll have difficulty at a later time. Right now everything is out in the open, away from the building. To move that canopy and those islands back into that corner, from the storage tanks, you’re going to have fuel lines all around that building, and if you have a problem with one of the fuel lines, you’ll be having to deal with the building. So I really think, from a practical perspective, I think that this is really the only solution. MR. AUFFREDOU-The other things that the company points out, I failed to mention, is that, and it’s something maybe all of us don’t think of, but it’s important for public safety and for security that there be a direct line of view here for the clerk in the store to the pumps to see what’s going on. If you put this at another location, you may not have the ability of those store clerks to be able to look at those pumps and find out what’s going on. MR. URRICO-Well, if that were the case, shouldn’t you turn it so that the clerk could actually see down the rows? MR. BRYANT-You’d have to turn the building around, because the. MR. URRICO-Not the building, the aisles, because the back row, the row closest to the road is going to be blocking, is going to be blocked from the front pumps. Somebody’s there with a car or a truck, you’re not going to be able to see the back anyway. MR. GOEBEL-The reality is with any pump island, with the exception of if it was just one dispenser with one car on each side of it, you will always have a situation where some vehicles can provide a little bit of a blockage of this building to it, no matter where you put a canopy. The important thing is that they’re able to generally see it so they know when there are customers at the facility, and again, one of the other elements is green space, also. The more you push the canopy around, or to try to push it further back into the property or into that corner, we would have to start also eating at the 23 (Queensbury ZBA 11/28/01) green space requirements. There’s wooded areas in the back there that we’re looking, basically planning on maintaining all of that and trying to, we’re trying to add green space to the site and increase it, actually, up in the front area where it’s most visible. MR. HAYES-I have a question for Staff. Chris, I know the crystal ball thing is a dangerous thing, but what are the plans as far as two lanes going, you know, past that, that’s obviously where the two lanes stop. I mean, are there any plans or any ideas going on there? MR. ROUND-The County is examining some highway improvements to the Quaker Road. It might be an additional turn lane at this particular intersection. I would have thought they would have commented in the Planning Board notes. I know the County Highway Superintendent no longer attends those meetings. So they lack that kind of input. Quaker Road is already four lanes with some sections has room enough for a scramble lane or a continuous left turn lane. You’re probably not going to see that kind of expansion, and we’ve actually, and I’m throwing the applicant one, here, is that our Travel Corridor Overlay provides for 75 foot along this segment of the highway. Our new Zoning Ordinance is going to eliminate that 75 foot corridor overlay, at least on this section of Quaker Road, at least. MR. HAYES-It’s going to reduce it or it’s going to eliminate it? MR. ROUND-It’s going to eliminate it. So you would only have just a building setback, at that point. The purpose for Travel Corridor Overlay is related to access management, something we’re going to talk about later, and it’s to preserve right of way so that you can provide for improvements. We’re just not gong to see, you know, I don’t think that we’re going to see the kind of growth on the corridor that’s going to require, it’s very difficult to go from two lanes, you might see an additional lane in either section, so you’re going to three lanes in either direction. That’s, you know, think about the urban areas that you look at where you need that kind of a capacity, and I don’t see it happening in at least our lifetime. MR. HAYES-Okay. Well, that just clarifies that, which is good. Are there any other further questions for the applicant on this application? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone wishing to speak in favor of the application? Is anyone opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HAYES-Gentlemen, let’s talk about it. I believe, Mr. Underwood. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think that we need to reflect upon what’s there at the present time, and what they’re proposing to put there, and I think that, you know, this is a first generation Cumberland Farms store, and I think that we’re looking at a major upgrade here that’s going to really look a lot nicer than what’s there. I think we also need to think about the position where the current gas pumps are. I mean, that’s what we’re deciding tonight, besides the new store. The elimination of that one curb cut that goes out right on to the corner there is a big plus. The landscaping is going to be a big plus, and I think that the increase in the number of pumps there is not going to be any detriment to the community. It’s probably going to be a benefit to the community, and I don’t really have a problem with this. I think it’s very reasonable, and as far as the TCO being eliminated in the future, it’s going to relieve that, and as they pointed out, they’re 75 feet back from the edge of the road at the present time, and I don’t think it’s any kind of a hindrance to traffic or the ingress and egress right now. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. This, obviously, is a major renovation for Cumberland Farms, and certainly I would think that any major renovation would be in the best interest of the community. I’m not sure that I would have any problems supporting this initial application, Mr. Chairman. So I would like to be on perhaps. I would like to hear what the rest of the Board members say. I need some guidance on this. MR. HAYES-I’ll put down “F” for fence, all right? MR. ABBATE-Okay. Please. MR. HAYES-All right. Allan? 24 (Queensbury ZBA 11/28/01) MR. BRYANT-Thank you. I just want to make a couple of comments before, on the front of your drawing, you have a zoning analysis table, very helpful. I wish more architects and engineers would do that. Secondly, I wish you’d be a little bit more optimistic. You show the gas prices at $1.39. MR. HAYES-They’ve got to pay for this. MR. BRYANT-Yes. I know. I have a problem with that. MR. AUFFREDOU-We’re holding our cards on that, because the next application I think we show a $1.09. So there’s some strategy there. MR. BRYANT-Mr. Underwood makes a couple of good points, not only the landscaping, but eliminating that dangerous driveway, I think, is an added plus feature. As far as the rest with the canopy and what have you, the setback. It’s really existing, and I think that there wouldn’t be any negative effects on the neighborhood or the community. Most people probably wouldn’t notice it. So I would be in favor of the application as it’s presented. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. I, too, would like to say that I’m pleased that the company is investing money in our area and your facilities, two of them here. That certainly brings a cheer from me, and everything is going to be an improvement. In a perfect world I’d say I’d still like to, there’s got to be some excavating done because you’re replacing the storage tanks anyway, so a matter of the pipes and all that. I don’t know. I still think it’s possible to do something with that canopy, but I don’t know that pressing that is going to be worth the expense and cost associated with it. So I think I’m in favor of the application. Thank you. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m going to go along with the majority and be in favor of it. I think it’s an improvement over what’s currently there. It’s also an improvement over recent applications where we’ve been asked for zero and sometimes negative setback on that road, and so I think this application is well put together, and I’d be in favor of it. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Since everybody but Chuck abstaining, I’m essentially in agreement with the rest of the Board on this particular matter. I think I agree with Counsel’s argument that this property, from a competitive and style perspective, cries out for a certain degree of recycling. It’s clearly a dated property, and an investment in it would benefit the neighborhood, I believe. I also think that the idea of abandoning the second entrance off Ridge Road is clearly an addition to the safety. I know I’ve cut that one myself, kind of a, can you make it type entrance, and that’s a little bit dangerous, but the plan itself seems fairly attractive to me. The Staff comment that there’s going to be an elimination of the TCO in that area tells me that the Town, in itself, is comfortable enough with setbacks from the property line as they exist today. This particular canopy is not that far off that property line, but it is there. The question now is expanding that canopy, is that going to have a negative impact on the neighborhood or community, and I, personally, don’t think that it will. I think, when you couple that with the overall recycling of this property, and the overall quality and character of, you know, the commercialism on Quaker Road, which is substantial, I don’t think that the size of this canopy is overly troubling, particularly in that it’s not going any closer to Quaker Road than it already is, and certainly, improving the looks of the store itself, and the line of visualization, those type of issues on the site, I would agree also with the applicant that that traffic has to flow through this, and this seems to be a reasonable attempt to have a logical traffic flow, and also one that’s good for business, which is not always the same, but in this case I think is. So all that considered, on balance, I would be in favor of this application. Having said that, I believe we have five yes’s and a fence. Is there a motion out there? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 92-2001 CUMBERLAND FARMS, INC., Introduced by Norman Himes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: 127 Quaker Road, intersection of Ridge and Quaker Road. Applicant proposes construction of an addition to the existing store and a new gasoline island canopy and pumps. Relief required. The applicant requests 44.3 feet of relief for the new canopy from the 50 foot minimum setback requirement of the HC-1A zone, 179-23C, and 69.3 feet from the 75 foot minimum setback requirement of the Travel Corridor Overlay Zone, paragraph 179-28B(6). The benefit to the applicant would be permission to construct the canopy in the desired location. Feasible alternatives. There may be feasible from a positioning standpoint, but from a functional standpoint, placing the canopies elsewhere would move them further from the store, making it an inconvenience to customers, a little more difficult from a security standpoint, and in addition, the present canopies are in the same location and the modest expansion is going to not encroach any further on the roadway. 25 (Queensbury ZBA 11/28/01) Is the relief substantial to the Ordinance? 44.3 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum front setback requirement and 69.3 feet of relief from the 75 foot minimum setback requirement of the Travel Corridor Overlay may be interpreted as substantial. However, again, it has to be recognized that all these exist at the present time, and, two, in addition to this, that to alleviate any possible future problem, we understand from information given us tonight that the Travel Corridor Overlay in this particular area of Quaker Road may be reduced or eliminated. Effects on the neighborhood or community we feel are going to be positive in their entirety, especially with the modification to eliminate the curb cut on Ridge Road close to the intersection. All in all, we feel this is going to be a benefit to the appearance of the neighborhood and to the community in general. So I move we approve the application as submitted. Duly adopted this 28 day of November, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Himes, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. McNulty ABSENT: Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone MR. HAYES-The motion is carried. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 93-2001 TYPE: UNLISTED CUMBERLAND FARMS, INC. PROPERTY OWNER: V.S.H. REALTY, INC. PROPERTY LOCATION: 127 QUAKER ROAD INTERSECTION OF RIDGE AND QUAKER ROAD ZONE: HC-1A APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 48 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE SIGN ORDINANCE. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 11/14/2001 OLD TAX MAP NO. 109- 3-36 NEW TAX MAP NO. 303.05-1-24 LOT SIZE: 1.25 ACRES SECTION 140-6 MARTIN AUFFREDOU, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 93-2001, Cumberland Farms, Inc., Meeting Date: November 28, 2001 “Project Location: 127 Quaker Road Intersection of Ridge and Quaker Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 48 square foot freestanding sign. Relief Required: Applicant requests 5 feet of relief from the 15-foot minimum requirement of the Sign Ordinance per § 140-6(B1). Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to place a freestanding sign in the desired location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include placing the sign in a compliant location. Also, the applicant may want to consider choosing a monument-type sign as depicted in the proposed new zoning ordinance as opposed to a freestanding pylon-type sign. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 5 feet of relief from the 15-foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 47- 2001: review in December 2001; 1392 sq. ft. addition to existing 2952 sq. ft. gasoline service station and replace existing 1104 sq. ft. canopy with a new 2090 sq. ft. canopy. AV 92-2001: review 11/28/01; front setback relief for new canopy. Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. However, compliant locations for the sign placement are available. The existing sign is located in a compliant location at the east end of the parcel. Additionally, the applicant may want to consider choosing a monument-type sign as depicted in the proposed new zoning ordinance as opposed to a freestanding pylon-type sign (see attached examples). SEQR Status: Type: Unlisted” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form November 14, 2001 Project Name: Cumberland Farms, Inc. Owner: V.S.H. Realty, Inc. ID Number: QBY- SV-93-2001 County Project#: Nov01-18 Current Zoning: HC-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 48 sq. ft. freestanding sign and seeks relief from the setback requirements of the Sign Ordinance (15’ required, 16’exist, 10’ proposed). Site Location: Intersection of Ridge and Quaker Roads. Tax Map Number(s): 303.5-1-24 Staff Notes: Staff recommends discussion County Planning Board Recommendation: No Action 4 ayes, 1 nay. No Action is the result of the Board being unable to come to a consensus on the issues presented by a particular project. The County Planning Board is composed of nine members and must act with a majority of the Board, not a majority of the quorum.” Signed Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board 11/15/01. 26 (Queensbury ZBA 11/28/01) MR. HAYES-Is there any impact on the vote, Chris? MR. ROUND-No. Just when you see a negative action, the County Planning Board, you need a majority plus one. MR. HAYES-So that really acts the same as a No County Impact, essentially. Okay. Gentlemen? MR. AUFFREDOU-Thank you. Again, this is an application that we had filed. I thought I heard some of the Board members say that there was not a separate rationale in our application for this sign? MR. HAYES-The responses to the questions asked in the application appear to be the same as. MR. ABBATE-Right. There is no specific response, at least. MR. HAYES-If you have one, we’d be happy to read it into the minutes. We stipulated that the answers were the same. MR. AUFFREDOU-All right. That’s fine. Essentially, what we’re doing, is as was pointed out earlier in the presentation on the Area Variance, is we need, we think, to put the sign at that location, because of where the property boundary line is, visa vie Quaker Road. We need the exposure. In all other respects, the sign is conforming. We are asking for five feet of relief. We don’t think that’s a tremendous amount, given the location of the sign, but also point out that, under the Code, we’re entitled to a lot more signage than what we’re asking for. We could have two attached signs. We’re only asking for one. So we’re giving up a sign. We think that ought to be in consideration of the mix as well. The County considered that point. obviously, the County, four out of the five members there didn’t have a problem with what was being proposed here. So we don’t think we’re asking for all that much in the way of relief. We think the sign works in the particular location where it’s been designed. That’s the benefit for us. We don’t think that as you approach this property you’re going to notice that this sign is in any way nonconforming with respect to five feet. I think that from a precedent standpoint, if you’re concerned about other applicants coming forward and saying, well, you gave Cumberland Farms on Quaker Road an additional five feet. We should have it, too. We think the property can be distinguished because of the location of where we are, that we do border, on two corners, and that we are quite a bit back from Quaker Road and we do need that extra visibility. The signs are obvious, that we need to attract customers. That’s what it’s there for, and the engineers have designed it at that location because we think that’s where it’s going to work. Also, the other distinguishing feature of it, again, is that we are not asking for all the signage that we could have. We could have quite a bit more, but we’ve decided that we don’t need that. We do need the sign at this location, and that’s what we’re asking for. MR. HAYES-I have a question. It has to do with the suggestions made in Staff notes. I’m wondering what your position is on that? Obviously, our Sign Ordinance is going to change, sometime in the near future, and how do you feel about leaning that way? MR. AUFFREDOU-Regarding the? MR. HAYES-Monument-style signs, yes. MR. GOEBEL-Along the lines of what was just said, relative to the setback, this sign is at a large intersection. There’s four lanes of traffic, as was previously mentioned on Quaker Road, as well as the turning movement lanes that the sign itself is 70 feet back from the closest travel lane. We feel that, from a safety standpoint for our customers, and benefit to the surrounding community, we’d like to have it slightly elevated about 16 feet high to the top of the sign. So there’s approximately a seven or eight foot clearance area underneath, for visibility purposes. As drivers are approaching it, there aren’t other cars that could be potentially blocking it, like a monument sign may be, at an intersection like this. We need them to be able to identify price. People shop for different reasons. They may shop for, a lot of people shop for price, very specifically. So it’s very important for us that they see that early on, as they approach the property, so they can make a decision, and not at the last minute when they see the sign that’s they just passed by the cars that are waiting at the intersection or queued up in front of it who are blocking the monument sign, at the last minute they see it and make a decision to come in or not and they stop and then accelerate, someone is trying to pass them on the left or something like that. We want to make sure they have ample time to see what the prices are, see what the product is that is offered, as far as being a Cumberland Farms, that comes with a certain expectation level, as far as the quality of service that’s going to be there and the quality of the product that’s going to be sold in the store, versus, there’s a lot of mom and pop shops out there that don’t sell quality products or not as nice and well kept as a Cumberland Farms. So we want to make sure they can identify that it’s a Cumberland Farms and it’s a good, clean, safe facility that they can see the gas prices. The concern is that they’re not going to be able to see that as well with a monument sign, 27 (Queensbury ZBA 11/28/01) for a facility such as this. It’s unique in that people are shopping and that sign is helping them make the decision of whether or not they’re going to come use this facility. So we need to get the information to them quickly, versus if it was a casual dining restaurant, you know, something along that line where it’s more just getting identification for it. It’s not so much the people need to see it right as they’re approaching it. This is a little bit of a, a gas station is a unique use in that. MR. ABBATE-When do you anticipate starting construction of this? In particular the sign? MR. GOEBEL-The sign would go with the rest of the facility. They’d do it all at once, basically. MR. ABBATE-And what date are we talking about? MR. GOEBEL-Probably as early as they could in the springtime, March, April. MR. ABBATE-As early as they could in the spring of 2002? MR. GOEBEL-2002. Going into the winter months, they don’t want to start something now. MR. ABBATE-I have a question for Staff. When do you anticipate the new Zoning Ordinance going into effect? MR. ROUND-We’re hoping for January/February of 2002. Monument signs are not a requirement and they’re probably not going to be a requirement on Quaker Road. They are a design guideline, and we’re looking more to focus on the Bay Road corridor and the Main Street corridor for monument signs, and a couple of other activity notes on 149. So pole mounted signs are not as much of an issue on Quaker Road as those other areas. MR. ABBATE-Then one other question to Staff, then. We have been alerted to the fact that construction will be started approximately spring of 2002. You have indicated that possibly a new Zoning Ordinance would go into effect prior to that construction. Do we have an obligation to follow which line of reasoning? MR. ROUND-The current regulations. All we do is we’re trying to bring to the attention what the community plan is going to be, and that relates to the Zoning Ordinance. Any project that you entertain, approve and grant relief from has a vested right to be grandfathered, as long as they obtain their approval., and keep that approval current. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. That helps me out. Thank you. MR. HIMES-Mr. Chairman? MR. HAYES-Certainly, Norm. MR. HIMES-Thank you. What about the sign where it is? Who, I mean, the company put the sign up where it is, and it’s compliant, and I can understand it doesn’t agree or follow with some of the things which I think make sense that you said, in defense of moving it to where you want it, from the barn building there, possibly it could interfere with seeing it down the road a little bit to the east, not too much but a little, but there it is, and the company put that sign there, where it is. So do you have any comment on that? MR. AUFFREDOU-We’re not going to answer for the sins of the past administrations before this. MR. HIMES-A moment of madness, or something like that. MR. GOEBEL-I don’t think you could have picked a worse spot for it. It’s blocked by the buildings and the store. It’s blocked by our own canopy. You can’t see it from one of the two roadways. MR. HIMES-Yes. I thought the answer would be something like that. I just thought I’d ask. Thank you. MR. GOEBEL-Why they put it there? Someone wasn’t paying attention. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m not so much concerned about this sign as I am on the next one that’s coming up, but you must, somewhere throughout New England, have a monument sign that’s in a store somewhere, don’t you? I mean, I assume there must be at least one someplace in the realm out there. MR. GOEBEL-Cumberland Farms owns hundreds of stores there. I couldn’t pick one and say this site in this town specifically has one. 28 (Queensbury ZBA 11/28/01) MR. UNDERWOOD-But I just wondered if you had any examples? MR. GOEBEL-Not offhand. A lot of times it’s also a function of the site. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MR. GOEBEL-The parameters around it. There’s a lot of smaller, they own a lot of smaller properties that are downtown sites, maybe one lane in each direction, 30 mile an hour road, something like that, where a sign like that might be more appropriate and more visible and doesn’t have, isn’t set so far back from the road. MR. ABBATE-Help me out on this one. MR. GOEBEL-Sure. MR. ABBATE-What would be the difference in a monument type sign versus a freestanding sign? How would each impact your business differently or adversely, or positively? Could you help me with that, please? MR. GOEBEL-Sure. The visibility of it. The purpose of the ID sign is to identify to the customers, A, the pricing, so they can make a choice whether they want to go there or not, and primarily it’s, one, to let them know what the prices are, so they can make a decision as to whether, instead of having them drive into a site and then out of a site, if they don’t like the prices, and for safety purposes, also, so they can make a decision, and they have adequate reaction time to look at it and say, yes, I do want to go there. I like the price, you know, it’s less than the guy up the street, and I do want to go there. We need to have them be able to see that, early enough so that they’re not making a last minute, knee-jerk reaction and stomping on their brake with somebody coming up behind them to turn into the site because they just saw the sign because it wasn’t visible. That’s the reason why, and to let them know the offering, too, that it’s a Cumberland Farms. Like I said, there’s a lot of facilities here where people just take an old service station, they close up the bay doors. They go to a BJ’s and buy a bunch of bulk things and the stuff sits in there for months and they sell it as, not in that type of fashion. That’s not what Cumberland Farms is all about. It’s a very well run, large organization that’s got excellent product. They keep it very clean. They want to make sure that their customers know that it’s a corporate Cumberland Farms facility. There’s an expectation level of quality that goes with that, and that’s why they want to make sure that the Cumberland Farms portion. MR. ABBATE-And you’re saying that a monument type sign would probably create all kinds of traffic chaos? MR. GOEBEL-It’s not going to have the visibility that the sign that we have proposed does. It could very easily be blocked by other vehicles or cars at the intersection, and in that vicinity, and because of a setback on the roadway, it becomes almost lost in the landscape, as you look at it, in that area. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. MR. URRICO-Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions. MR. HAYES-Sure. MR. URRICO-What was the thought process in putting the sign right there, rather than in a compliant location? MR. GOEBEL-They just wanted to try and get it a little bit closer, as close as they could, reasonably, without, they’ve got to do excavation there, to put the foundation in, but the 15 foot versus the 10 foot choice? They wanted to try and pull it as close as they could, because they’re so far back from that intersection, but they also want to make sure they can build it and not create problems. When you put a sign in like this, there’s a foundation, obviously, that goes with it. The foundation goes, actually, underground, beyond the edges of the sign poles, and they’ve got make sure that that lands within the property, and that they can do the excavation and install it without going outside onto the County or Town’s right of ways. MR. URRICO-They couldn’t do that in a compliant location? MR. GOEBEL-Again, could it physically be constructed at a 15 foot setback? Yes. Do they think that it better serves the purpose of the sign and the community and the business, basically serves all 29 (Queensbury ZBA 11/28/01) parties involved by being 10 foot versus 15 foot? They believe that that is the case, and that’s why we’ve asked for it at that location. MR. URRICO-Is there going to be a wall sign as well? MR. GOEBEL-There’s one sign on the front of the building. MR. URRICO-What about on the canopies? MR. GOEBEL-On the canopies there’s just a Gulf logo that’s going to be proposed. MR. URRICO-And the pumps there will be Golf logos as well? MR. GOEBEL-There’s some very small decals, basically, on the dispensers themselves. MR. URRICO-Okay. Thank you. MR. HAYES-Any other questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? Opposed? Correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HAYES-Let’s talk about it, gentlemen. Chuck, you’re first. MR. ABBATE-Okay. I don’t, this is a straightforward application. I was curious, in terms of monumental type sign versus freestanding pylon sign, and what kind of impact, positive or adverse, it would have on your business, and we certainly don’t want to cause chaos, traffic chaos. So, consequently, we’ll keep away from the monument sign. We don’t want accidents in the Town of Queensbury, but I don’t, based upon your presentation, I don’t really have any serious objections to approving the application. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Allan? MR. BRYANT-I, too, don’t have any reservations with the application. I do disagree with this whole sign philosophy thing, because, and I think you disputed it yourself when you said that Cumberland Farms, you know, is a well run company and they service the customers and everybody knows Cumberland Farms. Frankly, when you come down Quaker Road, you’re going to see that canopy and you’re going to know it’s a Cumberland Farms before you even recognize the sign. So, I like their chocolate milk. What can I tell you. I have no problem with the five feet on the setback on the side. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Mr. Himes? MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. I think Al brought up a good point about the canopy being quite visible, and I’m not, haven’t been convinced, by the information provided, that the five feet, that a compliant location would have any adverse impact on your business or anything else for that matter, functionally or visually or that the impact of the five feet would make that much difference in the effectiveness of what you’re trying to accomplish with the sign. So I would not be in favor of the application. Thank you. MR. HAYES-Mr. Urrico? MR. HIMES-Yes. I agree with Norm. I think, had it not been a pylon sign, I think I’d be, if it were a monument sign, in that current location, I might be more acceptable of it, because I would think it would be less obtrusive, but being that, you know, you’re electing to go to a pylon sign, which is fine, that five feet back is not going to make a big difference in visibility, in being able to market the store. So I would be against it, as presented. MR. HAYES-Thank you, Roy. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. The only suggestion I would make is that if we keep it a pylon sign, you know, I can’t imagine that there’s anybody in this area that, you know, doesn’t end up either going to Stewarts or Cumberland Farms to buy gas, you know, for the vast majority of the times, just because 30 (Queensbury ZBA 11/28/01) they’re so convenient and there’s so many of the stores around, but at the same time, you know, when you’re, you know, probably when you come for site plan review, I imagine they’re going to come up with the same idea but I think that if you remove the, your price sign underneath it, you’d have to lower your sign down four feet lower, you could still have your Cumberland Farms sign. I don’t have a problem with the setback, but I’m saying that I think it’s something you should consider. I don’t think it’s that important to have your price out there on the sign. I don’t think it’s really a big point, and $1.39, you know, $1.09, whatever it happens to be on the next one, it would lower the sign down somewhat and get rid of a little bit of the gaudiness. So I don’t think it’s that big of a deal for you guys to give that up, but anyway, I’d be in favor of it MR. HAYES-So you’re saying you’re in favor of it as is? MR. UNDERWOOD-As is. I’d like to see the $1.39 or, you know, the price sign go. It would lower it down four feet lower. It’s still going to be 12 feet up in the air, so everybody’s going to see it, but just as a compromise, as opposed to the standard. MR. HAYES-Okay. Well, I think, I essentially agree with a lot of what the other Board members have said in this particular circumstance. I think I have a little bit of a concern, I think that there’s a position for some kind of compromise on the part of the applicant that would certainly carry the day here, whether it’s in the style of the sign or possibly the total image, if you want to have it out the extra five feet. My sense is, though, that you’re kind of against that. You just want it the way it is. So I guess we’re probably going to have to resolve whether as is is going to carry, in this particular case. I think I agree with Jim. I don’t mind the extra five feet if there could be, you know, a certain amount of softening involved with the sign. I would prefer to see a monument sign there anyway, in this particular case, and then I would be happy to grant the relief, but I guess I’m kind of torn on this one. I think that, in these particular circumstances, I think of the impact on the neighborhood, as far as the recommendations that have been made in our future Zoning Ordinances. I’d like to see, when you’re asking us for a lot of relief on this site, I’d like to see a little movement in compliance with that. So that’s kind of all I have to say. Is there anything you want to add or? MR. GOEBEL-Just one comment. We had discussions with Cumberland Farms, relative to the canopy, and there were comments from you gentlemen that you think that the canopy is going to tell everybody it’s a Cumberland Farms, because of the color scheme of the canopy and the look of the canopy. The canopy that’s on our site plan now, that the façade of the canopy wasn’t part of the variances. So that’s why I didn’t bring this up earlier, but it seems like it is an item that’s relative to the ID sign, that’s why I’ll bring it up now. They’re going to be changing the type of façade that they put on the canopy. Right now it’s supposed to be the blue and orange, flat metal fascia on the canopy, that very distinctive Cumberland Farms colors that I think you were talking about, that tells you, hey, this is Cumberland Farms, as you approach it. What they’re going to be doing is actually putting up a canopy fascia that’s similar to the decorative style that’s proposed over at Main Street. If you looked at the canopy elevations and the plans on that. There’s some articulated details, and a little more of a historic type looking canopy elevation on the Main Street plan. So you’re not going to see the blues and the oranges and those colors that go on that canopy. It’s going to be a much different canopy than what you’re used to seeing at the Cumberland Farms, and again, that’s something that we were going to revise and resubmit to the Planning Board because it seemed like the elevations were more site plan, but that’s why I’m bringing it up now. Initially they were planning on using the style canopy you see on the plans, but that’s going to be eliminated. It’s basically going to be a white, architecturally detailed canopy, versus the orange and blue. So I’d just like to offer that up as something that’s changing and may affect the way that the applicant’s looked at, the building itself is probably about 180 to 200 feet back from the roadway, so that the Cumberland Farms sign is more, not necessarily intended to catch the roadway people, but to identify the façade and the front of the store. The canopy is not going to be the signature colors, if you’d call it that, that identify it as a Cumberland Farms, and if that has any impact on the feeling of the ID signs. MR. HAYES-Mr. Himes? MR. HIMES-Yes, if I could just add something, I thank you for that information. I would just, again, in my opinion here, I would not, I feel that the price being displayed out where it can be seen is important. I know, myself, that’s what I’m looking for. You’ve got four lanes of traffic, and this way moving, being able to recognize that prices change every other day and what not, all over the place, and I think that, in that respect, I could give in to what I’d certainly rather see from an aesthetic standpoint would be the monument type sign, but I don’t think it would accomplish the thing that I just said, which is a matter of information and, to some extent, safety. So, I wouldn’t vote in favor of a monument sign. MR. HAYES-So you’re saying you’re in favor of the pylon sign, but you still want a compliant location? MR. HIMES-That’s right. 31 (Queensbury ZBA 11/28/01) MR. HAYES-But that’s still a no, then, essentially? MR. HIMES-That is a no. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-The only other comment I would make would be that, you know, you’re the only gas station on that corner within a country mile of there, at least, in any direction, and I think if you were in a price war situation with a gas station on four corners all around there, you’d have a little bit more ammunition that way that you needed to show what your price is, but I think everybody, you know, obviously sees your lower price point usually as the record reflects. MR. AUFFREDOU-We hear your concerns, and I think the Chairman pointed out, trying to reach some type of a compromise or middle ground is well taken, and often we find ourselves in a situation, and we really don’t know, I mean, we can’t predict how you feel. We don’t have a crystal ball or we can’t get the tea leaves out. So we don’t know what your reaction’s going to be. We know what Staff’s reaction is and the County’s reaction is, but we can’t predict what your concerns are going to be, but we could, in talking to Mr. Knopftl, there is a couple of things that we could suggest here. One is we could make this sign look a little bit more like what we’re proposing at Main Street which is a little more homey, country. It has the pitched roof on it, with the clapboard sides. I don’t know if you’ve seen that sign with that prototype. We could do that at this location, which is not a monument sign, but it’s, you know, it certainly is more aesthetically pleasing than this. This is more akin to what Stewarts has out on Main Street. I don’t know whether you reviewed that sign or whether that sign presented any variance requests. This is the new Stewarts out by Corinth Road. Did you review that sign? MR. FRANK-That was in compliance with the setback. MR. HIMES-That’s compliant. Yes. MR. ABBATE-Would your suggestion result in the lowering of the height requirement? MR. AUFFREDOU-Yes. We’d probably talk about 14 feet. MR. ABBATE-Fourteen feet. MR. AUFFREDOU-I’ve got to tell you, the comment from Mr. Himes is very critical to us. We need to have that price displayed, and your point about the competition is well taken, but that’s really what attracts our customers. We’re in the primary business of selling gas, gasoline. Our other sales is secondary, and that’s our position. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. AUFFREDOU-So we would be willing to dress this sign up and make it look more akin to what we’re proposing at Main Street. It’s not a monument sign. I don’t want to kid anybody there, but it is more of the, it goes along with their colonial style approach, New England style. MR. HAYES-Does everybody understand the change that’s been proposed? Do we a have a picture of that, just to make sure we have an idea? MR. ABBATE-With the canopy on it, yes. MR. HAYES-It’s lower. It’s enough. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. HAYES-Okay. Does anyone have any further questions for the applicant on this matter? All right, then as I see it right now, I have four yes’s, based on the modification, two noes. So would anyone like to make a motion, so noting the changes that applicant has suggested? How about we do the SEQRA first? I guess I can just do the overall motion. MOTION THAT BASED ON THE REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM FOR UNLISTED ACTIONS, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT OR ADVERSE IMPACT, BASED ON THE PROPOSED ACTION, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Duly adopted this 28 day of November, 2001, by the following vote: th 32 (Queensbury ZBA 11/28/01) AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Himes, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. McNulty ABSENT: Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone MR. HAYES-So would anyone like a motion considering the Sign Variance? MR. ABBATE-Question. The applicant has agreed to a modification, I just want to make sure this is clear, of the sign to include a canopy type? MR. HAYES-You could make a reference to the sign depiction in Sign Variance 95-2001. MR. ABBATE-And the height of the sign, did you indicate, would be 14 feet? Is that correct? MR. AUFFREDOU-That’s correct. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 93-2001 CUMBERLAND FARMS, INC., Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: 127 Quaker Road, intersection of Ridge and Quaker Road. The applicant is requesting construction of a 48 square foot freestanding sign, and at this point, I would like to interject the fact that the applicant has modified his request that the height of the sign will not exceed 14 feet, and the modifications will be in compliance with the Sign Variance located on 95-2001, as depicted. The applicant requests five feet of relief from the fifteen-foot minimum requirement of the Sign Ordinance Section 140-6B(1). The benefit to the applicant, the applicant has stated quite clearly and compelling that they would be permitted to place a freestanding sign in the desired location. Feasible alternatives, I do not believe that based on the argument presented by Counsel and the architect that there would really be any feasible alternatives that would provide the kind of emphasis, in terms of sales, location and recognition. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? Five feet of the fifteen-foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate. Minimal to moderate impacts on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. I also would like to interject the fact that this renovation, I do believe, would be in the best interest of the area and would have a positive impact, and based upon that, I move that Sign Variance No. 93-2001 be approved. The sign that I’m requesting be approved will remain and will not exceed 48 square foot. Duly adopted this 28 day of November, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Hayes NOES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Himes ABSTAINED: Mr. McNulty ABSENT: Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone MR. HAYES-The variance is carried. MR. AUFFREDOU-Thank you. MR. GOEBEL-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 94-2001 TYPE: UNLISTED CUMBERLAND FARMS, INC. PROPERTY OWNER: V.S.H. REALTY, INC. PROPERTY LOCATION: 110 MAIN STREET CORNER OF MAIN AND RYAN STREETS ZONE: CR-15 APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF EXISTING CONVENIENCE STORE AND 2 RETAIL STORES AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 3,816 SQ. FT. CONVENIENCE STORE, A 3,840 SQ. FT. GASOLINE CANOPY STRUCTURE AS WELL AS A SEPARATE 2,000 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE. APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS THE MINIMUM SEPARATION DISTANCE BETWEEN THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED DRIVES. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 11/14/2001 OLD TAX MAP NO. 134-6-31 NEW TAX MAP NO. 309.14-1-80 LOT SIZE: 1.87 ACRES SECTION 179-24, 179-28, 179-66 33 (Queensbury ZBA 11/28/01) MARTIN AUFFREDOU, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 94-2001, Cumberland Farms, Inc., Meeting Date: November 28, 2001 “Project Location: 110 Main Street corner of Main and Ryan Streets Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes demolition of the existing facility at the location and construction of two freestanding structures and a gasoline island canopy. Relief Required: Applicant requests 50 feet of relief for “Building A” and the gas island canopy from the 75-foot minimum front setback requirement to Main St., 59 feet of relief for “Building A” from the 75-foot minimum front setback requirement to Ryan St., 1.5 feet of relief for the gas island canopy from the 25-foot minimum rear setback requirement, 9.3 feet of relief for “Building B” from the 25-foot minimum rear setback requirement of the CR-15 zone, § 179-24(C), and 50 feet of relief for “Building A” and the gas island canopy from the 75-foot Travel Corridor Overlay requirement for Main St. Additionally, the applicant requests relief from the Off-street Parking and Loading Regulations, § 179-66. Specifically, the applicant seeks 68 feet of relief from the 150-foot minimum curb cut separation distance in order to construct a new curb cut 82 feet from the existing one. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired buildings, gas island canopy, and additional curb cut at the desired locations while increasing their gasoline service and maintaining their other existing uses (convenience store/sub shop). 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives for the proposed number of buildings (at their proposed size) and the large gasoline island canopy seem to be limited due to the shape of the lot. Feasible alternatives for the proposed curb cut locations may include eliminating the second entrance, constructing a shared entrance with the adjacent property (U-Haul) and/or providing secondary access to Ryan St. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 59 feet and 50 feet of relief from the 75-foot minimum front setback requirement may be interpreted as moderate. 68 feet of relief from the 150- foot minimum separation distance for curb cuts 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 regarding the relief sought for the setback requirements. Moderate to substantial effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action regarding the relief sought for the minimum separation distance for curb cuts. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 49-2001: review in December 2001; replacement of existing 5040 sq. ft. gas station and two retail stores with new gasoline service station, convenience and separate store. SV 95-2001: review 11/28/01; setback relief for freestanding sign. Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action regarding the front setback relief being sought. The proposed structures and their location fit in with the proposed Main St. design guidelines. The Main St. design guidelines propose an approximately 25-foot building setback from the proposed sidewalk. However, moderate to substantial impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action regarding the minimum separation distance for curb cuts when considering potential increased future traffic. The new zoning ordinance includes an access management section establishing greater minimum separation distances for commercial drives. The Corinth Road Corridor Management Plan (CME – 1999) suggests access management principles be employed on the corridor to alleviate congestion. These include sharing of driveways and providing access to secondary roads as suggested. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form November 14, 2001 Project Name: Cumberland Farms, Inc. Owner: V.S.H. Realty, Inc. ID Number: QBY- AV-94-2001 County Project#: Nov01-16 Current Zoning: CR-15 Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes to demolish an existing convenience store and 2 retail stores and to construct a 3,816 sq. ft. convenience store, a 3,840 sq. ft. gasoline canopy structure as well as a separate 2,000 sq. ft. freestanding commercial structure. Applicant seeks relief from the setback requirements as well as the minimum separation distance between the existing and proposed drives. Site Location: 110 Main St. Corner of Main and Ryan Streets. Tax Map Number(s): 309.14-1-80 Staff Notes: Staff discussed this project with the Town of Queensbury and concur with a proposal by the Town to eliminate the eastern curb cut on Corinth Road and to require a curb cut onto Ryan. The Western curb cut on Corinth Road should be widened to allow two exit lanes and one ingress lane. Staff recommends discussion. County Planning Board Recommendation: Approve Both the request for setback and the separation distances proposed were approved.” Signed Thomas E. Haley Warren County Planning Board 11/15/01. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Mr. Auffredou, Mr. Goebel. MR. AUFFREDOU-Martin Auffredou, Bill Goebel, again, on behalf of the applicant. We obviously, with the summary that Mr. McNulty placed on the record, we need a host of variances for this property. This is, again, part of the ongoing effort of the company to improve some selected sites. This property, perhaps even more than the other property that we discussed earlier, really cries out for some attention. It’s a tired property. It is a property that warrants improvement, and we are 34 (Queensbury ZBA 11/28/01) proposing a colonial style structure here. You may have seen this in some of the other communities. If you’ve traveled about, there is a similar structure in Woodstock, Vermont, on Route 4, and this is what we’re proposing. This is a major significant substantial investment that the company is making, at this particular location. What I’m going to do at this point, because I don’t think there’s really a need to go through, unless you’d like us to, to go through the specific requests for variances. What I’d like to do is to have Bill tell you a little bit more about what’s there now, and then turn to what we’re proposing to do. Based upon that we can then get into, obviously, the benefit to us versus the detriment, if any, to the character or community. Bill? MR. GOEBEL-As Martin stated, I’d like to run through a description of the existing conditions, an overall description of the proposed improvements to the site, and then get to the specifics of some of the variances and what we’re looking at there, just to give you the whole picture of what we’re looking to do, coming out of the gate. The site’s east of Exit 18 on the Northway, and if ever there’s a site that meets the definition of a tired, rundown piece of property, this one hits it, and it’s kind of a patchwork of a project, relative to a site that’s got gas on it. It basically looks like something that was originally developed a long time ago for strip retail, for just spec strip retail. Cumberland Farms came in and appears to have added a canopy and a gas island in front of what was, again, just a conventional strip retail facility. There’s head in parking along the building, head in parking along the roadway, but they’ve dropped this fueling island and a canopy that they extended out from the building in here that in my opinion is quite frankly a pretty unsafe situation. You don’t have near the clearances that you need for cars to circulate around those dispensers. If there’s a car at the dispensers, on the outside of the fueling islands, closest to Main Street, a car can’t back out of the parking spaces that are there, and a car can barely get by the space that’s left between the fueling vehicles and the parked cars. The access on the western side of the property is immediately adjacent to the U-Haul driveways. So you’ve got the proximity of these two driveways right on top of each other, plus people pulling in, and fighting for space to get through the property because of fueling positions immediately out in front. This, in my opinion, is just an extremely unsafe situation as it exists today. You’ve got a sea of asphalt over in an area that immediately abuts a residential neighborhood here, on Ryan Street, which is basically a small feeder street to a small residential neighborhood in the back portion of the property. To the south, there’s a second existing curb cut to Main Street, which is up near the vicinity of Ryan Street. We also have a Ryan Street access here, which basically takes all of the commercial traffic and dumps it into a residential road, and really takes this site, and the whole development of the parking lot over in this area, the existing parking lot and that curb cut into Ryan, really takes a commercial use and starts to intrude it towards a residential area. What we’re proposing, again, you’ve got very limited green space along the front of this site. My (lost words) operator took some liberties by showing you this green space along the front here. If you’ve been out there and looked at it, it’s basically dirt out there and about eight or nine dying shrubs. I’ve been there myself five or six times already recently with this application. So there’s really nothing to speak of, as far as aesthetic value of the site that’s out there now. It’s old, it’s tired, it’s rundown. The paving is in poor condition. It’s an unsafe situation right now. As far as the on- site circulation, you’ve got two driveways on Main Street that are in very close proximity to other intersections, Ryan Road as well as the U-Haul drives, and you’ve got a lot of activity over in this area of the site, this eastern side of the site right near the residences. What we’re proposing to do is to raze the entire site. We’re going to blade the entire property and basically start over. Staff has been great, as far as affording us time to sit down and meet with us and talk about, look at our preliminary layouts, preliminary concepts, give us ideas and thoughts about what the goals of the Town are, as far as the Main Street corridor and what they’re trying to achieve there, and we’ve tried to take a lot of that information and work it into the layouts. They met with us before we filed. We took a lot of that information, incorporated it into the plans, when we filed them. Basically what we’re doing is constructing a new 3800 square foot Cumberland Farms store, that’s going to be on the eastern side of the property (lost words). The only two operations that are going to be left after this renovation will be the Cumberland Farms store, the gas offering, and Building B, which is the proposed Subway. It does a nice job of taking them, separating them, distributing the activity, as far as the traffic goes on the site, so that they’re not right on top of each other like they are right now, and creating a lot of competition for parking in a bad area, right by the dispensers, which is what you have out there in the current conditions. This works very well because, again, it takes all the activity and basically breaks it up across the site, the C Store with the gas, the Subway store. It spreads it out. The general configuration is one that we’re providing still two access points. We’re actually eliminating, and I want to correct, the application, I think, indicated that there was going to be an additional access from Main Street. There’s not. We have two access points on Main Street now. We’re going to have two access points with our proposal. We’re eliminating the curb cut to Ryan Street, and we’re basically cutting off and buffering ourselves to the residential neighborhood, and turning Ryan Street back into what we think it should be, which is a residential side street. The driveways are being reconfigured so that they are more evenly distributed across the front of the site. The western most driveway is being pulled away from the U-Haul facility by approximately 30 feet to 40 feet. The second driveway is going to be pulled further away from the intersection of Ryan Street. So those two driveways aren’t competing. We’re basically trying to spread the driveways out. So, again, we’re not introducing any new access points to Main Street. We are reconfiguring them. We are making them more complying, as far as providing greater distances between them relative to the 150 foot 35 (Queensbury ZBA 11/28/01) separation requirement. Why are we doing that? Why do we have two access points? Because of the limited depth of this property, we’ve got the same type of configuration that we were talking about over on Quaker Road where the pumps are parallel to the right of way, and as we discussed on Quaker Road, and I think some of the Board members even mentioned it or said it, that for that type of configuration, for a property where the pumps are toward the front of the site, where they’re parallel with the roadway, you ought to be able to have customers make a smooth movement into the property where they move into a driveway. They’ve got easy access into the dispensers, and then can just continue on the same path and leave the property. Again, that’s the reason for the driveway configuration you see here, the two driveway configuration. It’s really the only option that we have with this facility and with the canopy configuration. We’ve taken the building, put it over on the corner, pulled it up towards the roadway to try and achieve the Main Street theme there, as well as the canopy also, but because of the limited depth of the property here, you’re only about 140 feet deep, which is not a very deep piece of property to try and have cars and vehicles maneuvering on it. We’ve had to orient the canopy in this configuration, so that the customers can get in conveniently and circulate through the property. What we don’t want to do is have confusion or chaos on the site itself, as far as people not being sure where to go or having to re-circulate or loop around and pull U- turns on the property or things of that sort. They’re going to invest close to two million dollars on this property. So for Cumberland Farms it’s very important that they have a site that they’re confident is going to work well for them as well as be an improvement to the surrounding area and make sure that it’s a safe design, not only for their internal site circulation, but for their access points to the roadway, too. We’re adding green space along the frontage. It’s going to be a landscaped corridor along the front. There’s a lot of green space along the front here where there’s none now right at the building area. Landscaping and green space over in this vicinity on the western side of the property where there’s none now. The ID sign, as was discussed, it’s going to be, well, basically Quaker’s going to be the same as this one. The ID sign is proposed to be 10 foot back, in this area, from the property line. We’ve got some similar situations, as far as visibility difficulties and issues because of our neighbor next door, with U-Haul who parks trucks right up against the property lines and blocks visibility in this area, but again, that’s going to be on the western side of the property, along with the planter bed around that. We’ve tried to work in as many of the items that we’ve discussed. The building originally was set further back on the property. We’ve pulled it forward and tried to make a lot of accommodations, based on our meetings. As far as truck circulation goes, we’ve designed the site so that the underground storage tanks are on this side of the property, this light gray area, here. The tankers will come in, drop their product here on the tanks, and then they can circulate around the dispensers and exit back out. So it’s critical for us to have the curb cuts in this configuration for the truck circulation through the property also. Some of the other items, why we’ve laid it out this way, we discussed the visibility of the dispensers to the attendants. The storefront here faces the dispensers, and it also works well because customers come in and get gas but then might choose to use the store, can just make a direct, can just drive directly forward to the store and utilize the parking spaces in front. The other thing, not so much that it’s part of the variances, but we got into talking about the architecture of the canopy and the design of the elevations. They put a lot of time and effort into working on the elevations for this facility also, and if you’ve looked at them in your plan, I think you’re going to see something that’s, A, a dramatic difference from what’s out there today. You will not find any structure along that immediate area that’s even close to looking like this building is, as far as a nice, New England type theme facility. Not only that, but if you look at this and compare it to other gas stations, don’t look just at gas stations. If you look in the area around us, you’re not going to find anything like it. If you look at gas stations around us, you won’t find it. You look at gas stations in general, in areas, you don’t find buildings that are this nice. I work on a ton of gas stations. I’ve worked on more than five or six hundred applications in my career for various gas stations. This is, bar none, I think, the best looking building I’ve seen, and I don’t make a statement like that lightly. They’ve introduced all of the brick facades on it and made it a four-sided building, basically because of its visibility. They’ve got inlaid brick patterns on it so that it looks aesthetically pleasing to the back, to Ryan Road, and that area, as well as to Main Street. They’ve introduced, one of the things that was requested was providing a side door. So there’s a customer door that goes right out towards Main Street, even though the main door faces the interior of the property. It’s been designed to face out to Main Street. They’ve got hipped roofs. They’ve got gables. They’ve got cupolas on top of the building. They’ve got extended gables over top of the doorway with columns and decorative brick faces on them. So that’s one of the things that I just wanted to discuss, as far as talking about the variances. When you talk about a variance and a building that’s going to be closer, 25 feet when 75 feet’s required. I think it’s important to recognize the type of architecture that’s going with that building when it’s going to be at that location. The Subway is going to be the same, the same style of architecture, the same brick moldings, dental moldings, peaked roof, hip roofs, all of those items, so that, again, it looks consistent with the rest of the property, and the canopy itself also has the same architectural detailing on the façade of it as the architectural detailing that you see on the buildings here. So they’ve put a lot of time and effort into the architecture, to look at that, we’ve put a lot of work into the layout to try and come up with a layout that’s going to work for both the Town, for the County. It’s a County right of way obviously, and we have the County approval. They’ve met and approved the configuration, actually endorsed it. They liked the layout and design of it. 36 (Queensbury ZBA 11/28/01) MR. BRYANT-Can I ask you a question, please? MR. GOEBEL-Sure. MR. BRYANT-I’m not understanding the whole philosophy between splitting Building A and B, because it seems to me if I’m a customer, and I pull up to the pump, and I buy gas, and I think, well, I want a sub, but I’ve got to go into Building A to pay for the gas, and then I’ve got to go to Building B. Because I’m facing Building A, I’ve got to go out onto Main Street, which is heavily traveled, to get back to Building B, and I’ll tell you what, I’m not going to buy a sub there. I don’t understand why that whole structure is split, when you have similar chains, like Ammirata Hess that they have Blimpie’s in their buildings, right in their building. So I think that you could, you will still require relief, because of the configuration of the lot, but I think that you would be more compliant, not necessarily compliant, by combining the two buildings and maybe flipping that island, that canopy 90 degrees and taking use of that back space a little bit. I don’t understand the logic behind the whole layout. MR. GOEBEL-As far as looking at some of the other ones, you’re right. There are other gas stations you go to, (lost words) they have different offerings, Blimpie’s, Taco Bells, things like that. In this case, Cumberland Farm is not doing that, and I’m not sure if they have that offered even at any of their other facilities. I haven’t worked on one where they’ve had a joint venture as a term that they use in the industry to call that when they put two of those together, but it’s also a very limited offering that you wind up in those. If you look at a menu, at a Blimpie’s that’s in that Hess, and you compare it to a full size facility, a full sized Blimpie’s when you go into it. MR. BRYANT-There’s no difference between the Blimpie’s in the Hess, and a Blimpie’s that’s standalone. There’s absolutely no difference in the menu. MR. AUFFREDOU-Maybe I can just chime in. If you look at, Subway’s an existing tenant now, in that little strip plaza there that we’ve been talking about, that needs to be replaced. I think what the company is doing is they’re saying, you know, we’ll continue to have a relationship with Subway. The lot is 1.95 acres. In the zone, you can have one principal building per one acre. So we’re just shy of having the allowed, or the requisite acreage for two principal buildings, just a little bit shy, and we’ve applied for a variance to that degree, but if you look at this building, I mean, this has got to be, I mean, I’ve been to a lot of Subways. This has got to be the nicest Subway on the face of the earth. I think what the company is doing is they’re saying, look, yes, Subway’s a tenant there now, but they may not always be a tenant, and this building, the way that it’s designed and laid out, and it’s architecture, I think, would also lend itself to some other future tenant, other than Subway, down the road. So I don’t think that we’re going to presume that Subway’s going to be there forever. I mean, who knows what it could be. It could be a bank. It could be whatever. So, I think that’s part of the reason why they wanted to separate that out, and I think there’s also a desire to keep that use separate. MR. BRYANT-That only adds to the complexity of the issue, because if Subway is not a permanent fixture, and then you have a bank in there, and you’re going to have considerably more traffic in a very congested, already congested area in a very confined area. MR. AUFFREDOU-Well, I mean, we meet the parking requirements, and as far as congested area, I mean, I think what the engineer is telling you is that we’ve done, what they’ve done is the very best that they can do with layout and with circulation. I mean, maybe it’s not a bank, maybe that’s a bad example. I’m only pointing out to you, sir, that Subway is here. They’re a tenant of ours, but it may not always be Subway. It may be somebody else, down the road. When that is, who knows, five years, ten years, twenty years, I don’t know, but they’ve decided that they wanted to go with a separate building. They feel they have the room to do that, and should somebody else, should Subway leave, go out of business and somebody else wants to come in, we think it lends itself easily to some other tenant. MR. BRYANT-It is possible to switch the position of A and B building? Because the B Building is a smaller building, wouldn’t require as much space, and the possibly flipping that canopy? Is that? I don’t have a scale, so I can’t work it out. MR. GOEBEL-For this, it’s important for them to keep that configuration as is, because of the uniqueness of this property, this L-Shaped piece of property that they’ve got, and the size of the building, our building is bigger than the Subway, and the intent is to, again, to have a facility where it’s an easy maneuver in to get to the dispensers or to the C Store and out, but also when a customer comes in, it’s easy to get over to the Subway, too. MR. AUFFREDOU-The other thing to bear in mind is, again, we’re not just coming at your with this. We’ve worked with Staff, tirelessly reviewed this thing. I think Staff would tell you that they want the Cumberland Farms store, this design, up close to Main Street. This is in keeping with what 37 (Queensbury ZBA 11/28/01) your zoning proposal is. So we’re going to be 25 feet off of Main Street, that’s going to comply with your new Zoning Ordinance. Right now we’ve got a 75 foot overlay district. We’ve got 25 foot rear setback here. We’ve got about 40 feet that we can work with in a compliant way. No matter what we do with this property, at this point in time, we’ve got to come to you for variances. MR. UNDERWOOD-Can I interrupt? I just want to ask Staff a question. Chris, I know they were considering those access lanes in the back, like a lane in the back for funneling traffic between, and I know it’s not your position, I mean, I assume that you must have tried to, or at least looked into buying the property in the back there, to increase the width of the lot, or you haven’t? MR. AUFFREDOU-No. I don’t think we have, and, I mean, if we were, I mean, that would be something that would come before you, but I think we come to you with what we’ve got. MR. URRICO-I have a few questions. First of all, the pumps are not pay at the pump, right? So you’d want people to come into the store. MR. GOEBEL-I think you can. You can pay at the pumps, with credit cards. MR. URRICO-Okay. Now, to the naked eye, either side of the pumps open to cars, the far right? MR. GOEBEL-Yes. You can fuel on either side of the dispensers. MR. URRICO-What about the far right? MR. GOEBEL-On the far right over here? MR. URRICO-Right. MR. GOEBEL-Yes. MR. URRICO-Now you said if there’s a fuel delivery that a truck would use that area to get by, but they would not be able to if there was somebody parked there, right? MR. GOEBEL-There’s actually adequate room for by-pass through there, but likely they’re going to probably wait, I’m not going to lie to you, it would be tight. They’re likely going to wait until that area is open. They’re also going to come at non-peak hours when the site’s quietest, just for that exact reason. You like to, if you’re going to have that truck on there dumping product, you want it to be at the least busy time on the site. MR. URRICO-Now the on the two driveways, what is that, west and east. The western driveway, I presume, people will come in and swing in to the gas island or Subway, whatever that’s going to be there, and then when they are done paying at the pump, they’re going to swing out of the eastern driveway. The cars that just want to go to Cumberland Farms are going to come in to that same driveway. It seems like Staff has a good point about the proximity of the two driveways. Have you given consideration to trying to work out a deal with the U-Haul to expand and move that southern drive, I mean, the western driveway a little further down a little bit, clear up a little bit of room? MR. GOEBEL-Well, right now they’re looking to basically try and provide a site that’s freestanding, under its own merits. They don’t, the problem is getting tangled up with another property owner, another user. You’re not sure what’s going to happen with them in the future. Who it’s going to be, how long U-Haul’s going to be there or what they’re going to do with it. So, basically. MR. URRICO-But you’ve done such a good job, up until this point, of trying to comply with the future zoning requirements, and this is something that they specifically have asked for. MR. GOEBEL-They’ve asked for or suggested it as another alternative, but unfortunately, we don’t have any control over U-Haul. We don’t have any control if they feel that they’ve got us over a barrel and want to charge us a million dollars to create some kind of a cross, or a joint driveway between the uses. So our intent was to take what we’ve got right now, and we know we can work with, but the property that’s within our control, and work with that. MR. UNDERWOOD-Can I ask Chris, with the Subway in that position, not out as the Main Street guidelines, you know, wanted, is that where, does Staff see that as a logical place to put the Subway, back that far? MR. ROUND-Ideally, it would be logical to have it at the street. It’s kind of a work in progress as well, and we haven’t had a chance to present the Main Street plan as developed. We really see Main Street as three separate segments, as you progress from west to east and the western most end, which we’re talking about right here, is really more automotive oriented, and although it’s ideal to have it 38 (Queensbury ZBA 11/28/01) become more pedestrian friendly, it’s still going to be, you know, you’re within 1,000 feet of the expressway, interstate highway which has 40,000 vehicles on it. You’ve really got to cater to the automotive use. So it’s not as critical in this section, and we think the applicant’s done a terrific job in coming forward with a request for a variance, and proceeding through this process, in bringing the building out to the street. So we think it’s a, you know, it’s always a collaborative, a negotiating kind of process. So we think, we think it’s a win/win in this instance, you know. Would we like to eliminate it? Sure, but I think if you look at the property, you’ve got nearly two acres of land. So it’s difficult to eliminate that off the list when we’re trying to negotiate some other elements on this. MR. UNDERWOOD-As far as traffic, though, getting from the gas station, if they’re trying to get back on the Northway, how are they going to get across the three lanes that are going to be created there on Main Street? Because I would think that it would be more logical to create a light on Ryan Street there where you could cross back over to get back out into traffic, because I think, you know, it’s going to get busier as time goes on, and I think eventually it’s going to reach the chaos level. You’ll pull in there, you know, somebody will pull off the Northway to get gas, and then you’ll have no way to get back. You’ll be stuck there. You’ll have to go down, hit one of the side streets with a light, so you can get back out into traffic. I would think we would want it, as a community, if we’re going to do this, at some point you’re going to have to create some kind of an access road behind all those businesses, to funnel traffic to some kind of a light to circulate you back the way you want to go. MR. ROUND-There’s two things that we’re trying to work on. One is, and we’ve talked about it in our correspondence to the applicant, and some notes to the Board, is access management principles, and one of them is just that, Jim, is that you try to eliminate curb cuts. You try to provide, if a property is fronting on two streets you try to provide access to the lower classification, the functional classification of a road. So this Ryan’s Street’s a local street. You try to put the access on to the local street so you don’t negatively impact traffic on the arterial. The lots on the south side of the road are really not deep enough to construct that service type of interconnection. We’re looking on the north side that we’d really like to lay out that plan. Say here’s a dedicated area 24 feet or 36 feet wide where we want all the interconnects to occur, and then as it gets developed, it would have a service road. So it’s probably more appropriate on the north side of the road. Those are the kinds of things we want you to be thinking about when you look at these projects. MR. HAYES-When you say negotiate back and forth, what is it the Town, I mean, what is it about this application the Town has concerns about? Obviously, from Staff notes, the two curb cuts on the. MR. ROUND-The two curb cuts I think are probably the main point of contention between the Town’s desires and the applicant’s desires. MR. HAYES-So the setbacks are? MR. ROUND-The setbacks, I think, we’re in favor of setbacks, because what we’re proposing is that this building does comply with the 25 foot setback. It happens to work out that that’s a very efficient use of the property for the applicant. So I think there’s a win/win situation there. The driveway locations, we’d like to see a single access. Our access management guidelines that are in our new Zoning Ordinance, our proposed Zoning Ordinance, say, Number One, you’ve got to provide access to a property. It says that you don’t have to provide access to the main highway. It says you provide it to the lower classification. You provide one access point. If an applicant desires to, they make a case to say that there’s not going to be any impacts on the main highway, and that comes in a couple of different fashions, I think. When you talk about adding a new driveway, you’re talking about conflict points, and conflict points are where two vehicles want to occupy the same space. It’s a potential impact. The addition of a turning lane on main street is adding capacity. So we’re removing vehicles from the through lane. So you’re creating, you know, it can move through, and you won’t have a turning lane, somebody turning slowing you down, but when you add another access point, you’re adding more conflict points and you’re slowing down the traffic on the main corridor. So we’re trying to eliminate that. So I think that’s going to be the real, you know, from Staff’s standpoint, we can work with the setbacks. We can work with the two principal buildings. They’ve done a terrific job, so far, on architectural amenities and green the street with the building, but traffic circulation, I don’t think, the highway system shouldn’t have a, you know, we shouldn’t have to accommodate on-site circulation needs with the highway system. I think you’ve heard that from DOT, when you talk to Aviation Mall, just because you have an on-site circulation problem doesn’t mean you punch another hole in the curb so that you can facilitate vehicle movement on your site. Change your site configuration. Look at shrinking the pump. Look at shifting the building around, and those are all things that present difficulty from the applicant’s standpoint trying to accommodate those on-site movements. So that’s where we’re going to go. MR. UNDERWOOD-Did you make an actual suggestion other than this as to what might work as a single, then? 39 (Queensbury ZBA 11/28/01) MR. ROUND-Single location, I think, you know, we prefer, ideal world, one location on Ryan Street. That’s not feasible in this case. This is an auto service orientation. So we realize there’s a practical impact there. They need access to Main Street. So we said, one location on Main Street. You want two driveways? I think the next alternative, probably, from a traffic impact standpoint is one of two alternatives, either a second location that’s shared with U-Haul, or two single movement entries, an enter only and an exit only on your site. So you still have the same number of conflict points with those single movement entries, as you would with a. MR. HAYES-Cumulatively. MR. ROUND-Cumulatively, but you’ve helped with their on-site circulation needs. They’d be able to enter and exit, but that’s not the most convenient, they have a case to make, and I can appreciate all the arguments, but we have a case to make that, you know, for this very important project that we haven’t been treating them. MR. ABBATE-What is your argument against the single full movement access on Main Street? MR. AUFFREDOU-I want to correct what may be a misunderstanding there are two curb cuts now, okay, and Staff notes indicates one benefit to the applicant, and an additional curb cut. We’re not asking for an additional curb cut. MR. URRICO-You actually have three curb cuts now, right? MR. AUFFREDOU-That’s correct, one on Ryan and two on Main. MR. ROUND-They’re not reducing the one on Main, just to correct Mr. Goebel earlier, is that they said they were improving the separation distances. The current separation distances are closer to 120, or 150 feet right now. They do comply with the regulation today. So by shrinking the access separation, they don’t have the right for a second access point given these current separation requirements. MR. UNDERWOOD-Would the Ryan Street exit work then? MR. ROUND-Yes. I believe it does provide, it’s good access management. It does provide an alternative circulation pattern that might not be as favorable, as far as the applicant’s objectives. It does, as you said, as traffic grows and you dump both, you know, you dump all the land uses onto the secondary use, people are going to come back out to Main Street. It would allow for controlled, a control movement. You could put a signal in on Ryan Street at some further point in the future. They do have two access points, to use the applicant’s term. We’re not trying to explain the sins of our past. There have been mistakes in planning previously. We’re trying to mitigate some of those. MR. ABBATE-Would you do me a favor and help me understand this a little bit more, please? Could you diagram up there the flow on a single full movement access on Main Street, and how that would effect your business? Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that we’re going to go along with what Mr. Round has suggested. Could you show me the movement on your property? MR. GOEBEL-I couldn’t show you one definitively, because we don’t have a design for a single movement driveway on the property right now. What we’re presented with and have in front of us is two driveways, the concern being if you did make one single movement driveway on this site, with this configuration of land, which we’re pretty much tied into because of a number of things, the uniqueness of the property, the limited (lost words) the desire to have the buildings up along the frontage to create the Main Street (lost word). If you do put a single driveway in there, what you’re going to inherently do is create a situation where cars have to basically drive in circles around the property, and it’s not very clear and not very simple for vehicles to maneuver in and out of the properties. Meaning if you had, just to take an example, if you had just this one curb cut over here, people are going to have to come in here, in here, back around and compete against other cars, compete against every other car that’s coming into the property to get back out to the property, versus. MR. ABBATE-But surely it can’t be as complicated as that. I don’t think a recommendations would have been made, if it were as complicated as that. There’s something here that hasn’t been said, and I can’t put my finger on it yet. Let me try it this way. Explain to me why a single full movement access on Main Street would have an adverse impact on your business? MR. GOEBEL-Because what’s going to happen, it’s going to create a situation where people would come to use the site, or even drive by the site, see it as a congested, confusing or difficult site to maneuver around. If you’re going to invest two million dollars in a piece of property, you want to make sure that it will function for the people who you’re building for and designing it for. What’s 40 (Queensbury ZBA 11/28/01) going to happen, people will not come back. As you all know, there’s other gas offerings in the area. If you have the slightest hint of an unsafe situation or a problem site or a difficult site, there are other offerings out there. They’ll say, you know, this place is just always a headache to get in and out of. I’m going to go someplace else. MR. ABBATE-Would your recommendation result in an unsafe situation? MR. ROUND-We’re going to exchange opinions here, I think. There are ways to accommodate traffic on site. All our commercial sites across the Town have vehicles backing out of parking stalls, and so the argument of somebody pulling into a gas stall and pulling out of a stall is going to create an unsafe situation, and unsafe situations exist all over the Town. I think the idea between two curb cuts on a main street is just that, it’s two. It’s double. It’s two opportunities to enter the site versus one opportunity, and that means a customer drives by and the miss the first one, they get to go to the second one. That’s a convenience to the customer, but it’s a convenience that’s facilitating shopping at a particular location. I think if you look at other instances, we’ve made mistakes, we continue to make mistakes with access management, and it’s something I’ve been trying to drive home with you. Lowe’s Home Improvement Center. Does anybody know how big Lowe’s is? It’s 120,000, 150,000 square feet? Do you know how many driveways they have on Quaker Road? MR. ABBATE-They have one. MR. HAYES-One half, really. MR. ROUND-It’s a right in, right out. Okay. They have a traffic signal an controlled access. So I don’t think it’s a big stretch to argue that a gas station on Main Street can accommodate business with one driveway on it. MR. AUFFREDOU-But they also have a light that I think was installed on Bay Road. Let’s compare apples and apples. MR. ROUND-Well, no, I think we have Stewarts on Main Street has one access point on the same property. Apples to apples, it’s closer to the interstate, but. MR. GOEBEL-Every gas station in the world does not have two driveways on it. If you happen to look in the immediate vicinity of this one, every gas station does have two driveways, except for the Citgo, which is just 150 foot long continuous driveway along the front, but in this case, I don’t want to stand here and say that every gas station always has to have two driveways on Main Street or it dies. Okay. As stated, there’s a Stewarts, just on the other side of the Northway, that’s got one driveway. What’s the difference between this site and that site? That site is dramatically deeper than this property is. That makes a large difference in how you can lay the property out. If you have the opportunity, you take a canopy, turn it 90 degrees, put it further back into the site, so when a car comes in, they have the opportunity to see the whole canopy in front of them and make it an easy movement to the dispensers, versus if they have to make sharp right hand turns on the site, as soon as they come into the property, and try and figure out the dispensers and where to go. So we’re hindered by the depth of the property here, as far as that configuration goes. MR. ROUND-It’s the size of the canopy, you might argue, as well, though. There’s eight pumps. How many are there at Stewarts or how many are there at this site today? MR. AUFFREDOU-Our business, primary business, is selling gasoline. Okay. That’s not Stewarts’ primary business. MR. ROUND-I think there was an article last week that said they make, you know, their primary source of money is coffee, gasoline and cigarettes. I think Cumberland Farms is probably very similar in that instance. MR. ABBATE-All right. Let me continue just a little bit. Be a little patient with me. So for the sake of argument, let’s say that we approve everything up there except, you see that northern portion of the curve, right there? Let’s say we say, no, to that, but, yes to everything else. I don’t really see a tremendous impact. MR. GOEBEL-There would be a devastating impact. MR. ABBATE-All right. Explain it. MR. GOEBEL-From what I said before, if everybody’s got to circle around this area, to get back out over here. 41 (Queensbury ZBA 11/28/01) MR. ABBATE-Yes, but I’m going to go to your store because you invested this significant amount of money, and it’s a beautiful. MR. GOEBEL-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-I’m going to go in there, and gas is $1.90, we’re going to go in there, and I’m going to turn left into the canopy. I’m going to pump my gas, and I’m going to make a decision, obviously, too, I have to pay my gas to Building A, and then perhaps I might want to go to Subway in Building B. So I do go. I leave my car there and I pay my bills, pick up my merchandise, and I drive through there, and around, and back out again. Is that not feasible? MR. GOEBEL-Can a car physically do it? Yes. MR. ABBATE-A tractor trailer can. MR. GOEBEL-A car can do it, yes, but intensity of the activity in this area, the number of vehicles (lost words) dispensers, now you’re forcing every car that comes out of here to cross the path of every single car that comes in and enters from there. You’ve created. MR. ABBATE-You know what, you both have good arguments. I’m not saying that one is better than the other, but let me, this is the bottom line, ready? If we were to say to you, yes, we’re going to approve everything up there except we’re going to close down that second exit, entry, would you say wrap it up, we’re not going to accept it? MR. AUFFREDOU-I’ll address that. MR. ABBATE-Go ahead, Counsel. MR. AUFFREDOU-The answer to that, we’ve talked to corporate, because of Chris’ recommendations, and the Company is investing a substantial amount of money here. Bill has reviewed this. Rob’s reviewed it. Cumberland Farms’ staff, out in the Boston area, has reviewed it. They’ve designed, I think, over 1,000 of these stores, and they know how these stores work. They know how these gas areas work. They’ve indicated to us that this is what they need, and they have other properties that they can invest two million dollars in. We think that we’ve come a long way and met a lot of your requirements. We understand your concerns. We think that putting this in should be a catalyst for other properties to improve in the area, this’ll be, I guarantee, this’ll be, by far, the nicest structure in that corridor. Nothing can compare, nothing can compare. MR. ABBATE-I agree with you. I don’t have a problem with that, I think, architecturally. MR. AUFFREDOU-But what we’re saying is that we can’t, from our perspective, we truly believe this, we can’t do this with the single curb cut on Main Street, and if we don’t have the second curb cut, what I’m told from Corporate, is that they will just leave it the way that it is and put that two million dollars in a project in Schuylerville or in Troy or somewhere else. MR. ABBATE-You see, I understand your position, and I understand the Town’s position. I don’t have any problems with that at all, because I can acknowledge both concerns, and so my dilemma, basically, is what is, in the final analysis, is going to be in the best interest of the Town, not in the best interest of your business, but in the best interest of the Town, not that we’re not concerned with this, don’t misunderstand me. Okay. Thank you, gentlemen, for your patience. I appreciate it. MR. HIMES-I have a couple of things. One, I guess, for whatever benefit it might be, the place over in Woodstock, I’ve been there many, many times. It is quite nice, and it has some similarity to what we’re talking about here, except that Route 4 isn’t as congested or highly traveled as this place. MR. AUFFREDOU-I travel that road a lot, and I beg to differ with you. I think there’s a lot of congestion at that “L”. MR. HIMES-There’s congestion. I know, the sharp corner with the Mobil. MR. AUFFREDOU-Right. MR. HIMES-But I don’t think it’s as highly traveled. MR. AUFFREDOU-I think during peak hours. MR. HIMES-I know it is. MR. AUFFREDOU-I think during peak hours, you have a point. 42 (Queensbury ZBA 11/28/01) MR. HIMES-It is very nice and all. It only, does not have a secondary business activity on the site like this Subway thing, and just as a matter of curiosity, I’m wondering, are the pumps angled? Are they positioned the same way, in relation to the building, as this plan? MR. AUFFREDOU-Is Woodstock, is that your question? MR. HIMES-Yes. MR. GOEBEL-I don’t know the answer to that. MR. KNOPFTL-The pumps in Woodstock face the store. MR. HIMES-This is what’s happening here. Well, anyway, it’s pretty busy in there, but the point of the two curb cuts, to me, okay, it doubles the points of entry and exit, but it doesn’t double the amount of traffic. The amount of business you have coming and going from the site, maybe depending on who your tenant is here, might increase, or whatnot. So, to me, one entry, one exit, the probability of you access is such and such, double, maybe, as it would be at either of two, that’s my opinion. So I don’t have a, I don’t think, a problem with the two exit. I think that it makes sense the way you’ve described it, and that’s the way it works over there. It’s a little hard to turn left, coming out, no matter what exits, whether you’ve got one exit or two exit or twenty exits, you know, as it will be here, too. What impact this thing, we’ve heard comments about Ryan Street, and I don’t understand how we can do anything to have what’s going on on your property exit on to Ryan Street, with the building where it is, and it looks to me like the garbage things here are accessed from their parking lot, not from Ryan Street. So there’s no consideration from Ryan Street, as far as I can see. MR. ABBATE-Well, maybe I don’t understand something. Suppose we said this. We block off that second exit. You have a total of eight pumps. Reduce it to six pumps, move that small building to the right, and make an exit to Ryan Street and that would resolve the problems, and you’d be compromising, and I don’t think it really would be jeopardizing your business. Am I wrong? MR. GOEBEL-The problem with that exit to Ryan Street, it’s like some shopping centers when you look at them. You look at them in plan view, and I look at a lot of parking lot layouts and parking circulation issues, comparing gas stations to Lowe’s sites. They (lost words) you get down there (lost words) and you look at them and they’re confusing and difficult to follow. The problem with this design, going out to Ryan Street, is it’s hidden, and it’s not very obvious or clear to the customers that that’s an exit and intended to be a way out of the site back to that Ryan Street intersection, versus if there was no building here at all, like it is right now, and it’s just a clear, completely paved area right up to Ryan Street, where you see the curb cuts, but in this case it doesn’t, it’s not what you’re used to, as a gas station customer, and everybody buys gas and everybody’s used to certain traffic flows and movements on the sites generally, for fuel facilities, and for something that looks more like an alleyway type of design. MR. ABBATE-For the sake of argument, let’s assume that most people that drive automobiles are literate. Why not just put up a sign, exit? MR. GOEBEL-You can sign these things as much as you want, sir, in cases like that, but people still have difficulty when they pull out, if they’re not looking right at that sign and recognizing it, unless I take this whole side, if I take this brick portion here, and put the exit with a huge blinking arrow on the tip, to that side, people are now, instead of following the typical movement of (lost words) they’re going to pull out here, worry about other people that are pulling out from there, cars backing out trying to find the signs that say where the exit is and they’re braking, they’re going slow, they’re stopping. MR. ABBATE-Suppose you agreed to reduce the pumps by two and close off that other one? That would certainly give you sufficient entrance and exit, right? What would be the problem with that? You would still have six working, active pumps. MR. GOEBEL-This distance isn’t the critical distance here. It’s the continuous conflicts and crossing of traffic movements with everybody pulling out and trying to move around. It’s the crossing of everybody doing this, and these guys coming around and having to cross that traffic. That’s the concern. This isn’t the critical connection right there, as far as that. MR. ABBATE-I understand. See what you folks are seeking, and rightfully so, if I were in your position, you’re seeking a perfect solution. It’s possible that the perfect solution is not going to be available. You may have to do some modification. MR. GOEBEL-What we’re trying to do is come up with something, Staff has been great with working with us. They’ve given us some good ideas. We’ve tried to implement as many things as we 43 (Queensbury ZBA 11/28/01) can with them. It’s been one of the most open and honest exchanges I’ve had with the Town in a long time. So your Staff’s to be commended as far as taking an applicant and willing to sit down with them. I’ll make that as a matter of record. We’ve known that this is the one issue that we haven’t been able to come to terms on or to meet on. We’ve known that going in from Day One, but for us it’s, if there was an answer, I’d love to be able to sit up here and be able to say I’ve got an answer that addresses everybody’s concerns and put this thing to bed and walk out of here, but unfortunately, from a business standpoint, they’ve got to be confident that this site will work. They’ve got, these are people who have designed, permitted, built thousands of gas stations. Cumberland Farms knows what’s going to work for them. MR. ABBATE-They have the expertise, is what you’re saying. MR. GOEBEL-They have the expertise. MR. AUFFREDOU-I don’t think we’d be proposing something that we thought wasn’t going to work. MR. ABBATE-And my statement is not indicative of how I’m going to vote. I’m just trying to get things cleared up in my own mind. I’m trying to come to a win/win situation for everyone. MR. ROUND-Can I make another couple of comments? Because the applicant’s indicated that there would be conflicts on site if a driveway was closed, and how many vehicles do you consider visit the site on an average day? I think, would our sales manager know, corporate would know, maybe? Do you know how many vehicles or how many customers you have? MR. KNOPFTL-I’ll answer that. I’ll preface it with, we have a significant difference than Stewarts. Stewarts tends to have more fast food service, dipped ice cream. The average transaction tends to be three to ten minutes. They’ve got some booths where you can sit down inside. So customers spend a longer time at a Stewarts location. At a Cumberlands, everything is self service. They make their own coffee. They do everything. Our transactions tend to be much quicker. I know, for a fact, that we triple Stewarts on soda volume. We’re five times the volume on beer volume, and we’re significantly higher in gas volume. That’s why we’re going for eight pumps. Stewarts, in most of the new locations, goes for two. Some, very few of their locations, have three pumps. We have a different customer base. It’s a quicker turning. So we actually service more customers through the 24 hour period. We would typically have about 1,000 cars in a day that would travel through there, but most of those transactions are quick, pay at the pump. We don’t want them coming into the store to create another conflict. We want them to pay for the gas at the island and leave, because, when the lot’s full, more cars don’t come in. We want them in, we want them out. So, we do have, we do have some significant differences than Stewarts, but we do have a lot of traffic. MR. ROUND-I just was trying to get a handle on vehicles on the site because we’re talking about trying to eliminate conflicts on the site, okay. So if you’ve got 1,000 vehicles, there’s not going to be 1,000 conflict incidents on the site because there’s not 1,000 vehicles at one time on the site. So there’s maybe, there’s 10 at a busy time, or 15 at one time. So maybe you have 15 vehicles that are conflicting with one another, okay. You’ve got one driveway. You have 1,000 vehicles all day long. We have 10,000 to 12,000 vehicles on the highway. Adding another curb cut doubles the number of conflicts that you’re providing an opportunity to happen. Okay. A conflict with a typical two lane highway and a driveway, there’s typically eight conflict points at a driveway. Typically it’s those left hand turn movements. So that’s an opportunity for an accident. That’s an opportunity to slow down traffic on the main street. So you take those 1,000 vehicles introduce them times 10,000, and you can’t, it’s not a simple relationship, but there’s 10,000 conflicts waiting to happen, times eight, times 1,000 vehicles. So there’s opportunities for conflicts, versus 1,000 on the site, and there’s not near that magnitude. So when you double the driveways, you’re doubling those opportunities to happen. I think the drive lane, as they have it laid out, with the dumpsters, we’ve shown a little schematic how the dumpster could be relocated. The paved area that leads up to the dumpster is 22 feet. We require 22 foot drive lanes in our parking lots. It’s adequate to provide access to Ryan Street. We haven’t talked about a single access movement and how that would allow circulation. What I mean by single access movement, that’s, let’s just, for instance, argue that the westernmost entrance is enter only. All vehicles could enter at the westernmost entrance. They could proceed to the pump, travel through the pump, and exit at the other entrance, allowing for simple vehicle movement. Anybody pulling into the Subway enters into the western entrance, goes to Subway, comes out, goes through the pump, enters at the eastern exit and enters the highway. It just allows on site circulation. It’s done in other locations. I asked the applicant how many entrances are there at the Gloversville location, that’s a newer facility. There’s one entrance on the Main Street. It’s on a corner lot. It’s a really small facility. So it can be accommodated. Is it the most desirous? No, it’s not, but I don’t think it’s, you know, what’s going to impact our highway system is another driveway to another relatively high frequency vehicle generating facility, and it’s something we’ve got to pay attention to. We give these guys two, the next guy’s going to want two. Citgo is not going to want to close their wide open curb cut. It’s a snowball effect. 44 (Queensbury ZBA 11/28/01) MR. AUFFREDOU-We’ve got two. I want to make that clear. We’ve got two. When Chris says an additional curb cut, that’s an incorrect statement. We have two, and he’s asking us to take one away. MR. ROUND-No, we’re not. Let’s not mix words. The applicant said we’re razing the facility. We’re going to build a new project. This new project is only allowed one curb cut. They’re asking for two. So they’re asking for a second curb cut. So we can’t discuss it on one hand, in one fashion, and then flip it when it’s convenient on the other hand. Let’s keep it all on the same level playing field. MR. ABBATE-Look, this can’t be that difficult. There’s a space right here. Is this correct? Why can’t this be moved up there and have it incoming and outgoing? Separated, similar to what they have at Lowe’s? MR. ROUND-That’s what I mean by a single access. MR. ABBATE-Right. Why can’t this entire portion here be moved up to here, that right there you will have the ability to have cars coming in and cars coming out, similar to what we have at Lowe’s. MR. ROUND-Well, what I’m talking about is cars come in, enter and exit. Cars could come in, come in, and exit. That’s a simple movement and that’s what we do in other installations. Gas stations are, it’s designed for the convenience of, and trying to track customers, and that’s what we’re talking about. Two driveways is going to provide another opportunity for a customer to visit the site. I can appreciate every argument made, but I’m just trying to make the argument for the Town’s standpoint and for preservation of the highway system. MR. ABBATE-In and out wouldn’t work, on the same, separating as I suggested? MR. ROUND-They have in and out at the same. You mean two of them right next to one another, two entrances, or a double wide throat? I don’t think that’s going to satisfy the desires of the applicant either. MR. ABBATE-Well, but it would meet the requirements of the Town? MR. ROUND-Certainly. MR. ABBATE-Okay, and that would be impossible, from a business point of view, to make that suggestion? MR. ROUND-I think you’re asking for a 48 foot wide driveway versus a 24 foot wide driveway. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. URRICO-Chris, I have just a couple of questions, directed at you. There’s going to be three lanes out in front of there? MR. ROUND-That’s correct. MR. URRICO-One will be a turn lane? MR. ROUND-Right. MR. URRICO-Right. There’s two through lanes and one turn lane, and we’re going to be running up against this kind of situation in the future, where a new business or a new structure is going in, and we’re going to ask them to share a driveway with an existing business. Now how is the Town going to deal with the existing business when the existing business may not be interested in accommodating the new business? MR. ROUND-That’s a difficult thing. It’s what any community struggles with. New York State DOT has certain authorities that they’re granted, and they can purchase access rights. They can close, they can say, we’re not going to provide you access. They do it with interchanges. We’re not going to provide you access within 300 feet of an interchange. So you can get into where you acquire access rights and then grant reciprocal access easements to adjoining land uses. You can do it through official mapping. You could designate an area where, here’s the area where we’re going to provide a written plan for access management and lay it out on an official map and designate areas where we will provide access and where we won’t provide access. We could lay out areas and maps, say, we are not going to provide access to these locations, and so you put the burden on the applicants to reach cooperative agreements. You provide incentives to adjoining landowners, you know, we are only going to provide you a single access point, and we’ll provide you with a second 45 (Queensbury ZBA 11/28/01) access point if it’s a shared location. So you try to make incentives. So there’s different strategies that you can use to do that. It’s not simple. The project we had back here was the Hannaford right over here on Quaker and Bay, and the CVS. We wanted to provide interconnection. CVS was willing to cooperate and not have a curb cut on Quaker Road. They said, we will gain access, well, Hannaford thought there was a competitive, it put them at a disadvantage because there’s a pharmacy at CVS. There’s a pharmacy at Hannaford. So you’re going to run into those competitive things. It’s when Boards like this make decisions and say no, and then there’s the incentive to go get a second driveway and seek cooperation with your adjoining land owner. MR. URRICO-Well, in this case, if they were able to establish a shared driveway with U-Haul, U- Haul would have only that one access. So you, basically, would be closing down one access. MR. ROUND-U-Haul has two, or it’s not clear from this map, but it’s not as, it’s one of those broader openings along the corridor that we are trying to deal with. MR. URRICO-So, in an optimum situation, we would lose one driveway between the two businesses? MR. ROUND-Yes. My objective is to lose driveways along the corridor, and so what you do is you say you give everybody one, and that’s what our new regulation says, we’re going to give everybody one, okay. We’ll give you two, if it’s a shared driveway or you can make some other accommodation on your site that’s going to improve the traffic system, and that hasn’t been the case with this application. So we’re trying to. MR. HIMES-It’s too bad there isn’t some way to encourage the cooperation of the businesses that have been there and are going to be there, or be replaced by others that are going to have the same attitudes, in connection with say the U-Haul, that allow their trucks to park right up on the sidewalk in there, and saying to someone who’s, let’s say for the sake of argument is doing such an improvement and so on and so forth, and putting the noose around their neck, and then there’s nothing done to encourage U-Haul and the other places like them to cooperate. MR. ROUND-You only get an opportunity when somebody comes in for an application, and Jeff Kelley, Lox of Bagels, was in front of you guys. Jeff’s got a very viable business. I think you’d all say that it’s a successful business. They’re very busy, do a lot of vehicles. Jeff has an enter only and exit only. He cooperated with the Town, saw the benefits of that. He’s making a big investment in the corridor. The Town’s making a big investment in the corridor. We’re spending three and a half million dollars in highway funds. We’re going to be spending two million dollars in water and sewer funds. We’ve already spent another $150,000 in engineering for re-development of the corridor. We’re going to be building a million dollar connector road. So that’s why, you know, I’m here, and I’ll stay as late as this takes, and it’s not going to go away. You’ve got to make these kind of things, it’s difficult. The first one through the gate often sets a precedent, and that’s why we’re here. MR. ABBATE-Yes, but, Chris, come twelve o’clock, I become crotchety. MR. HIMES-I’d go along with this, if this could be something done with the Ryan Street thing that was, let’s say, someone could wave a magic wand where people would look at that and say, that’s where I’m going to go to get out of here, and let’s say there was a traffic light there at Ryan Street, which would ensure that people, when they get there, would have, could turn left or right, and I have my own thoughts about the statistics and all with these conflict points and everything else, and I’m going to say, I didn’t get the material that you put out until this afternoon that I’m studying, but I’m not sure I agree with the conclusions you’re making from that, but then I could say, all right, I think I could go along with that idea. Otherwise, I think the activity around these gas pumps, the purpose, with all the places we’re comparing them to, Lowe’s, the bagel place and other businesses, their activities are people going in, getting out of the car, walking into a place, coming back out and driving away, and the activity isn’t around this gas pump business. So the movement, whether you come from this way, you’re going to have, theoretically, 50% of your cars coming in. They’re going to be facing west, and 50% of your cars coming in are going to be facing east. So, two curb, two cuts on this street here, to me, well, that alleviates some problems in connection with that trying to turn around and get back. MR. ROUND-If you close one of those, you’re going to have them all facing one direction. They’re not going to be facing east and west. You’re going to get rid of those conflicts because they’re all moving in one direction, but you can’t, it’s difficult to predict customer behavior, behavior of a driver. There’s guys that make a science out of it and make a living and say, if you paint it red, they’re going to buy it. So you could make any argument people aren’t going to find Ryan Street exit. Well, people are creatures of habit. People learn, people do change. This is going to be a brand new site. They’re going to be ready for brand new things. 46 (Queensbury ZBA 11/28/01) MR. HAYES-I have a question for Mr. Goebel here. I mean, just how fatal is that idea of Ryan Street, in reality? MR. GOEBEL-Closing one of the curb cuts on Main Street and opening Ryan Street? MR. HAYES-Yes. MR. GOEBEL-Fatal. This application will likely be going away. MR. ABBATE-Why? MR. GOEBEL-Because the concern is it’s going to have that significant an impact on their business that people will not be as comfortable as they need to be. There’s enough other offerings in the area where they can go to where there’s wide open curb spaces. MR. ABBATE-Who made the decision that it would be a significant adverse impact on your business, based upon customer behavior. Who made that decision, based on what facts? MR. GOEBEL-The people at Cumberland Farms who own and operate for ten and twenty and thirty years, hundreds of the facilities. MR. ABBATE-Well, that’s a prejudicial point of view, then, isn’t it? MR. AUFFREDOU-They are the applicant. I think they’re entitled to that opinion. MR. ABBATE-No, no. I don’t mean it in an adversarial, I mean, it may not be true, is what I’m saying. MR. GOEBEL-They’ve owned and operated enough of the facilities that they recognize certain patterns that will work for them and certain patterns that won’t work for them. They recognize closing that curb cut and leaving that with one access point is one that won’t work for them. MR. ABBATE-Yes, but you see, from a business point of view, you know, it seems to me that good business acumen would dictate I would be happy to accept 99% of the pie, than walk away with no pie at all. MR. GOEBEL-They’d be comfortable, not accepting any of the pie at all and coming in strong arm, or we’re going to get what we want and that’s it, would be us coming in with the original plan that we had and not making any of the, not taking any of the suggestions relative to layout, and not taking any of the suggestions relative to architecture. There’s, you referenced the memo that was prepared before. There’s a lot of items, you’ve got lighting, landscaping, things like that, that still need to be addressed at site plan, and we’re confident that we’ve looked at those issues. We’ve met and talked about those and we can come to resolution on those. This is really the only one issue that’s, it’s that important. Are they going to let an application die on something that maybe isn’t really that important to them? No. They feel that strongly about it and are that committed to it. They’re that serious about it, and a gas station is different than a retail use. There’s been a lot of talk about this, compared to a CVS or a Lowe’s, and a CVS, you pull into the site, you pull into a parking space. How do you get out? You pull out by backing out and reorienting your car, pulling out of the parking space. When was the last time you backed out of a gas station, backed out of a fueling facility, where you know there’s people coming up directly behind you to pull in right behind you? That’s the reason it’s different. If this was just a retail facility and I just had a big long strip and had a building here with CVS and an entrance here and a long strip of parking that went like this, it’d be a no brainer. A single ingress and egress makes sense because everybody’s got to pull in there, pull into the parking space, and then when they’re coming back out, they pull out of the parking space and that’s how they turn around. We don’t have that situation. That’s what makes gas stations different than the other retail uses. MR. ABBATE-You’re putting up a good argument. What’s the name of the President of Cumberland? What’s his name? MR. KNOPFTL-Lily Bentas. MR. ABBATE-I’ll bet you if Mr. Bentas were right here, and I would say, come on, this is yours. All you have to do is open up Ryan street, do you know what he would say? I’ll take it. MR. AUFFREDOU-We’d bet against it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Chris, the Hess Station on Quaker Road, when you get off by the Silo, there, or if you pull off, coming off the Northway from the northbound lane, you’ve got to pull onto that 47 (Queensbury ZBA 11/28/01) side street to get back out into traffic, either way. It’s the same situation. I don’t see it’s any big deal or any hindrance. MR. HAYES-How about the in and out proposal? MR. GOEBEL-It’s not something that was put on the table. It was in the review letter, as one option that might bring this to resolution. As of right now, they don’t feel that they can support that either. MR. HAYES-This is Cumberland Farms? MR. GOEBEL-Cumberland Farms, and it’s not because they want to do it, or because they think they’re a 300 pound gorilla and can sit wherever they want. It’s, again, all the other things they can try and work with. MR. ABBATE-I wonder if it would not be in the best interest of all parties if this were to be tabled for about 60 days, and rethought. MR. HAYES-Well, there’s a procedural flaw with the application anyway. MR. ABBATE-Yes. MR. HAYES-We’ll go over that later. It wasn’t advertised correctly. We can discuss all the issues, up to that one issue. That’s the two principal buildings. MR. AUFFREDOU-We don’t have any problem with it being tabled. I don’t know whether we want 60 days. MR. HAYES-That’s up to. That’s the max. MR. AUFFREDOU-When do you next meet, by the way? MR. ABBATE-Hopefully it will be the 13, right, Chris, of December. th MR. URRICO-You keep referring to this as a gas station. Does Cumberland Farms consider itself as a gas station, or is that a grocery store or a gas station? MR. AUFFREDOU-It’s a gas station that sells convenience items, also. MR. GOEBEL-A convenience store/gas station. MR. URRICO-I’m just curious, are you going to be competing with Subway? Don’t you sell some of the same products that they do? Don’t you sell, you sell sandwiches? MR. KNOPFTL-As Subway? Yes, we will sell sandwiches. MR. URRICO-So you’ll be competing head to head. MR. GOEBEL-I think the difference is, correct me if I’m wrong, yours are basically pre-prepared? MR. KNOPFTL-Yes. MR. GOEBEL-That it’s a small offering of some pre-packaged sandwiches. MR. AUFFREDOU-They’re already there, too. Subway’s there. MR. UNDERWOOD-Have you discussed this with Planning Board, as far as their recommendations at all, I mean, informally, or did you get any sense of where they’re going? MR. ROUND-We haven’t. This is the first time the application’s been in front of a Board. You saw that same letter went to the Planning Board. I think there’s a question whether, if you granted the variance, are they granted two access points? I don’t think that’s a done deal. I think it’s still subject to, it’s access management, but it certainly gives it a lot of credibility if you did approve it. So that’s why we’re asking for it. MR. HAYES-If we don’t, then it’s obviously. 48 (Queensbury ZBA 11/28/01) MR. ROUND-Yes. Then if you don’t, it’s not. So then that helps, and they are kind of combined, because, you know, the variance is related to the site layout, which they have complied with, and I applaud them for their efforts. So it’s difficult. They are really intertwined. MR. UNDERWOOD-Can we informally poll here, you know, the buildings and their setbacks and the canopy and their setbacks, and the access thing, just so we can get a general trend as to how people are, what things we think are okay. MR. HAYES-Well, we can go beyond that. We can act upon any portion of the application that we choose to, as far as, there doesn’t seem to be a problem here with the setbacks at all. MR. ABBATE-No, I don’t have a problem with the setbacks. MR. HAYES-But you guys were conferencing. Did you come up with anything new. MR. ROUND-I don’t know if you ever opened the public hearing. MR. HAYES-Absolutely. MR. ROUND-There is somebody here. It is pretty late at night. If you want to offer him the opportunity to speak. MR. HAYES-You’ve earned your stripes, as far as that. All right. At this time, the questions have been answered. I’d like to open the public hearing. Is there anyone who’d like to speak in favor of the application? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Please step forward and state your name for the record. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JIM MURRAY MR. MURRAY-My name’s Jim Murray. I live on Ryan Avenue. I’m just one guy against a company here. So I’ll make it brief. I came for information and I came just to know what’s going on, basically, and by looking at the layout and the design, I do have a concern. One is with the setback of, I think it’s Building B, which is their Cumberland Farms. MR. ROUND-B is Subway. MR. MURRAY-I think it’s A, then, the one towards the back, the one on Ryan Avenue. As you can see, there’s an arrow pointing right directly, as far as the traffic flow, and, you know, it’s bad enough now with the lights and the noise and the trash and things. Now it’s in my back yard pretty much. With my children there, you know, and the traffic flow, I mean, at night I’m going to be seeing directly headlights, right in my window, because my bedroom’s right there. MR. URRICO-Where are you in relation to this? MR. MURRAY-I’m the second lot in. MR. ABBATE-The second lot in. Could you point it out? MR. MURRAY-Sure. This one right here. I mean, there’s an arrow pointing right there where the traffic is going to go out. So that’s headlights in my room, and I don’t know how much barrier is between here and here. You see a little shrubbery, but I mean, if you look at the shrub itself, it’s not going to block out noise, sound, lights or garbage, which I deal with now, and the property is pretty much all one strip, which is blocking most of it. That’s my one concern, and another concern was you guys were talking about a traffic light here. I think it’s a good idea. We can’t get out of the street as it is right now, and with two entrances or exits, whatever you want to call them, competing with each other, people don’t stop. They try to get out as soon as they can, okay. So if you’ve got two of them, now you’ve got two cars trying to cut out in front of each other. There’s a bus stop right here. I’ve got 15 years for my kids to get on that bus. So, I think the idea of a street light here and maybe another exit or entrance on Ryan is a better idea for the community, and as far as where we’re living, I mean, we’re always looking out our rearview mirror, we’re going to get hit from behind because people are trying to get into that Cumberland Farms entrance, or even Ryan. So I’m not even looking to try and turn into my street anymore. I’m looking in my rearview mirror, and I think a traffic light there would be an excellent idea, and I think (lost words) think so, too. My big concern was just the building in my back yard, the lights and the garbage and the noise that comes from traffic and the people going in and out of there. I love Cumberland Farms. It’s an easy access for me to go get some milk or whatever, but I really don’t think it should be put back that far. That’s just my two cents. 49 (Queensbury ZBA 11/28/01) MR. URRICO-Thanks. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MR. HAYES-Is there anyone else that would like to comment on the application? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. MR. HAYES-Then I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HAYES-I guess, at this point, if there’s no further questions for the applicant, we need to discuss what, we want to table the application in its entirety. Do we want to deal with certain parts of the application? Does the applicant want us to poll the Board now so you can get a direction? I mean, we just need to get a direction, as far as how we’re going to handle the. MR. AUFFREDOU-I think that’s fine, Mr. Chairman, as far as polling to see where we go. We’ve got to report to our clients out in Massachusetts. They’re going to want to know what’s going on, whether this is worthy of pursuing or not. MR. HAYES-All right. What I’m going to do, then, is I’m going to poll the Board members in two ways, one is the setback relief, okay, and the other one is obviously the more contentious issue here of the separation of the entryways. Okay. So you just let me know where you stand on those two, they’ll at least have a direction on where they’re going to go. I think that’s permissible, isn’t it, Chris, to give them a general direction on how the Board feels? MR. ROUND-Sure. That, and from a simplicity standpoint, if you’re going to table it, just table it and act on everything at once, because if you deny one aspect, or you look like you’re denying it, it might involve a site layout change. MR. HAYES-Correct, it could be pointless. MR. AUFFREDOU-That’s fine with us. MR. HAYES-Okay. That’s fine. Okay. I guess, Allan, you’re scheduled to be first here. MR. BRYANT-As a couple of the Board members have mentioned, I really don’t have a problem with the setbacks. It’s not that I don’t approve the curb cut in that area. I think I’d like to have some time to think about it, to go back and visit the site. So basically if we’re just going to vote on the setbacks, I would be in favor of it, but I would really like to wait to have more time. MR. HAYES-Okay. We’re not going to vote on anything tonight. That’s been the decision. I think Chris’ recommendation is correct. We’d be better off tabling the thing and dealing with it completely, but they’re requesting us to poll us as far as the setbacks, One, and the curb cuts, Two. Now if you’re undecided about the curb cuts, that’s an answer. MR. BRYANT-I’m undecided. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. BRYANT-I’m not opposed to it, but I’m undecided. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. I’m okay on the setbacks. I feel, in connection with the curb cuts, I think I agree with Staff that I don’t agree for all the reasons, one, appropriately placed, as long as sufficient access, entry can be made off onto Ryan Street. That’s it for me. MR. HAYES-So that’s a conditional yes. MR. HIMES-Yes. MR. HAYES-Or a conditional no, depending upon how you look at it, I guess. Mr. Urrico? MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m also okay with the setback. I think the Cumberland Farms is to be commended for working with the Town to achieve what the Town is trying to achieve on Main 50 (Queensbury ZBA 11/28/01) Street. As far as the curb cuts, I’m with Allan on this. I’m kind of unsure of what the dynamics of the two curb cuts and how it would affect the site. I see a problem there. I know you cannot make a left coming out of there now. I don’t think that’ll be rectified by this. I’d just like to see some more thought give to it, and I’d like to think about it a little bit more myself. MR. HAYES-Okay. Mr. Underwood? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I’m basically all set with the setbacks. The curb cuts I’m unsure of. I really think the Ryan Street thing with the light would work better, realistically speaking. The gentleman who just spoke about Ryan Street there, too, I think that Building B, it might make more sense to set it back even further, just so you had access to dumpsters in your delivery vehicles in the back of the store there. You could have a double set of parking out in front, between the gas, you know, your gas storage facility and the Subway store there. So that might be something to consider. That’s a minor change in area. MR. HAYES-Okay. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. I have no problems with the setbacks, none whatsoever. However, in the interest of fairness and justice, I really would like to take some time to consider the curb cuts and what have you. Because I really am undecided. I feel we should encourage business, and this is a beautiful plan. I think it’s going to make a tremendous contribution to the community, but also I have concerns with what Chris says, in terms of safety and what have you, and I really would like some time to think about it, please. MR. HAYES-All right. Well, no, I’m not sure we’ve clarified anything, as far as the curb cuts for you. MR. AUFFREDOU-Actually, I think you have. MR. HAYES-Okay. There’s a lot of undecided, but I think that the Cumberland Farms and the planners involved should be commended for trying to comply with the idea behind the Main Street thing. It’s very important to this Town. There isn’t anybody around that thinks that that’s less than it should be, that whole area down there, including U-Haul, but I’ve been involved with property development myself, and I know that sometimes this idea of gaining access through somebody else’s property is great until you’re required to do it, and then when you go to see them, they have a far different approach than cooperation. There’s usually a lot of profit taking involved with that whole idea. So I don’t, personally, view that as realistic, even though I know it’s a good plan for the future, but to compel an applicant to do that, to me, is, from a business point, is unrealistic, but I do, I also have an understanding and a large agreement with your idea about the, I understand the convenience and stuff. These are, they seem like small things in business, but they’re everything nowadays. I mean these subtle changes in traffic patterns and stuff have a major difference, but the competing idea, or argument that the Town is making is where do we draw the line. When do we start making this better. We could go on forever listening to arguments about convenience. So there’s really a real quandary there for me. I mean, I think Chris is entirely right that we could go on forever saying that this just doesn’t make sense for us, and we need it. I mean, I’ve made the arguments myself. So it happens. I think we need some time to dwell on the curb cut issue on this, as you can tell, and also, at the next meeting there’ll be seven members instead of six, which will also provide another vote. I’m not saying which way, but it might add the catalyst in one direction or the other. So, that’s where I stand. I can say, as some of the other Board members, if the Ryan Street thing was possible, I would have no problem granting that in my mind whatsoever. I think, to me, that would be a done deal, because I think it will be a dramatic improvement in that building, in that corner, than what you’ve proposed here, and I think we have to consider, then, what we decide, but having said that, I’d like to make a motion. MR. URRICO-Could I just add one thing? I’m sorry. MR. HAYES-Sure. MR. URRICO-I just wanted to ask. Is there going to be some sort of a visual barrier, back by Building Two? Some sort of shrubs or blocking lights from Mr. Murray’s land and some sound deadening? MR. GOEBEL-There were some comments in the review letter about adding additional arborvitae along there to provide a landscape buffer, as well as looking at the lighting to make sure there’s no spillage over there. MR. AUFFREDOU-I think you’re going to find that Cumberland Farms is very sensitive to those issues, and they’re a big enough company where we can accommodate those concerns. 51 (Queensbury ZBA 11/28/01) MR. URRICO-And I also just like to add to my viewpoint that as a resident of Queensbury, I think this is a very positive project, and I think you’d be a welcome addition, a welcome change in that area, and I would hate to see Cumberland Farms just walk away from it because we can’t get together on something that’s very important to the Town, because the Town is trying to achieve something for this corridor, that I think if they understood what they’re trying to achieve, I think a compromise can be reached here, if it’s needed to be a compromise, because I don’t think it’s something that either side’s going to benefit from by one walking away from it. MR. AUFFREDOU-We hope we can reach a meeting of the minds with the Town. I would say that, personally, represent a lot of municipalities and a lot of developers throughout the region. I think that this is a better application because of what Staff has recommended in many ways. Plain and simple, it’s a better proposal because of what your Staff has done. We do differ on the curb cut issue, and that, obviously, is a make or break issue for us. MR. HAYES-All right. I’d like to make a motion. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 94-2001 CUMBERLAND FARMS, INC., Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 110 Main Street, corner of Main and Ryan Streets. Tabled until the first meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals in December, which is December 13. th Duly adopted this 28 day of November, 2001, by the following vote: th MR. HAYES-Do you want the first meeting of next month? MR. AUFFREDOU-If I may, we’re fine with December 13. We’d be happy to be here, and maybe th we’ll know some more by then. It would be disingenuous for me to tell you that, if there’s additional time that’s needed, beyond December 13, which is not that far away. It’s a couple of weeks. If the th Board needs time or we need additional time, I mean, we can come back in January. Our construction schedule is such that the project would be approved, and we’d be looking at a spring construction, commencement. MR. HAYES-What’s the second meeting, Chris, scheduled, or is there a second meeting? MR. ROUND-The 19. It is just a couple of weeks. th MR. AUFFREDOU-Let’s put it on for the 13, and if for some reason there’s a problem, we can th send some correspondence or make you aware in advance. AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Himes, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. McNulty ABSENT: Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 95-2001 CUMBERLAND FARMS, INC., Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 110 Main Street, corner of Main and Ryan Streets. Tabled until the first meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals in December, which is December 13. th Duly adopted this 28 day of November, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Himes, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. McNulty ABSENT: Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone MR. AUFFREDOU-Will the advertising issue be addressed? MR. HAYES-Absolutely. It will not impact you on the next. MR. GOEBEL-Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you very much. 52 (Queensbury ZBA 11/28/01) MR. AUFFREDOU-We thank you very much. MR. HAYES-Okay. Did everyone get a chance to review the minutes from the November 15, 2001 Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals meeting? Any changes, deletions, alterations? MR. ABBATE-No. MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT THE NOVEMBER 15, 2001 MINUTES, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Duly adopted this 28 day of November, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Himes, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty ABSENT: Mr. Stone MR. HAYES-I move that we adjourn the meeting. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Paul Hayes, Acting Chairman 53