Loading...
2002-04-17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/02) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING APRIL 17, 2002 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY CHARLES ABBATE ROY URRICO ALLAN BRYANT JAMES UNDERWOOD, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT PAUL HAYES NORMAN HIMES CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-BRUCE FRANK STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: SIGN VARIANCE NO. 2-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED U-HAUL PROPERTY OWNER: U-HAUL OF EASTERN NY AGENT: U-HAUL OF GLENS FALLS ZONE: CR-15 LOCATION: 112 MAIN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES AN ADDITIONAL FREESTANDING SIGN AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SIGN ORDINANCE. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 1/9/2002 OLD TAX MAP NO.: 135-1-4.2 NEW TAX MAP NO. 309.14-1-81 LOT SIZE: 0.46 ACRES SECTION: 140 ROBERT REED & RUSSELL DUMAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. STONE-This has been considered on a previous occasion, and it was tabled at the last meeting. Please read. MR. MC NULTY-Okay, the tabling motion, “MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 2-2002 U-HAUL, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Norman Himes: 112 Main Street. To the first meeting in April, and I would like to make a recommendation to the Staff that they would place that first on the agenda, to aid the applicant. Duly adopted this 27 day of March, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Himes, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone” MR. STONE-Gentlemen. Good evening again. State your name for the record, and anything you want to add. MR. REED-Robert Reed. MR. DUMAS-Russell Dumas. I have not attended yet. MR. STONE-You have not attended, okay. MR. DUMAS-Correct. I’m here in place of Mark Zoller. MR. STONE-Okay. You’re up to speed on what you’re trying to do there? MR. DUMAS-Yes. MR. STONE-Do you have anything you want to add to the application? MR. DUMAS-No. We’d very much like to remove the westbound side and leave the east side there. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/02) MR. STONE-Okay. You say remove the westbound sign. What will be left on the west side? MR. DUMAS-White. MR. STONE-It’ll be all white, no warnings, no placards? MR. DUMAS-I think there is one small flammable diamond on the right hand corner of that, just for safety purposes. MR. STONE-No, I understand. That’s why I asked the question. MR. DUMAS-Yes. No. We’ll gladly get rid of the propane tanks filled seven days a week. MR. STONE-Okay. Of course I wasn’t here the last time, so gentlemen who were here, any questions, any feelings that have changed since they were last here? No questions? One comment I did want to make, in looking at the minutes, Mr. Zoller said, and I would quote, and I’d like some comment about it, “The only thing I would like to point out again, and I pointed it out at the last meeting, you know, this sign is to identify to the people on our lot that we sell propane. Very similar, I wish I had thought of the gas pump issue before.” Now, he says your customers on the lot. Any customer who is a customer of the U-Haul operation is going to have to go inside to sign papers, are they not? MR. DUMAS-Correct. MR. STONE-What would be wrong with having a sign inside, for your customers that says, we sell propane? MR. DUMAS-A lot of people don’t necessarily, well, you’re bombarded with signs, as you know. MR. STONE-Yes, we know that. MR. DUMAS-Everywhere you’ve got signs. You walk into a building, we have signs like you wouldn’t believe in there, we rent this, we rent this, we rent this, we rent this. People don’t always ponder propane because they need it once every month or two tops, throughout the summer season. So, if they’re doing something else there, and they see this on the propane tank itself, as they’re like coming in the lot or leaving the lot, and say, oh, they have propane here, and there’s no other sign surrounding it saying, we do this, we do that, and so on and so forth. So it identifies to them, when they’re not bombarded with the other signs, that that is what we do. MR. STONE-Having said that, would you say the public is bombarded by all the signs on your trucks, which I know are not signs under the Ordinance, but they’re there. You would like there were no trucks there, I know, that every truck was out on the road. MR. DUMAS-Exactly. MR. STONE-I realize that, but it’s not true. MR. DUMAS-As a reply to that, because U-Haul has been around for 50 some odd years now, and we have had that for so on and so forth forever, the rolling billboard per se, people don’t even look at them anymore. They see them but they don’t focus on them. They don’t care what’s on the side. So it’s not a focal point to them. My opinion, opinion of people I work with, nobody even recognizes what’s on the side. If we have like four trucks that say New York State, greatest State on the face of the earth, they don’t even look at it. MR. BRYANT-That’s why I look at the truck, to see Colorado and Montana. I look at the trucks for that. MR. DUMAS-Okay. So not everybody has just written them off in their view, but something stating what we do. They know we rent trucks. They know we have trucks all over the country, but something outside for them as an afterthought, hey. MR. STONE-But we are charged, as you know, in any variance that we grant, I mean, that’s why we bring this up, with a balancing test. There is judgment involved that each one of us brings to these decisions. It’s not, let’s see, we’ve got one sign, then we’ve got two signs, and it doesn’t work that way. I mean, we have to look at the whole thing. That’s the only reason I bring it up. I can’t speak for the rest of the Board, but, no other further questions, gentlemen? MR. ABBATE-Well, it’s really an observation rather than a question. I’m assuming that your statement this evening was in response to the request to have an alternate plan? MR. DUMAS-Yes. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/02) MR. ABBATE-And your alternate plan, that the left side will be white with no logos? And that is your alternate plan. Am I correct? MR. DUMAS-That is correct. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. MR. STONE-Thank you. Did we leave the public hearing open? Does anyone know? If not, we’ll open it. MR. MC NULTY-I think we closed it because we did the Impact Statement. MR. STONE-Since there is a new offer on the table, so to speak, yes, it was closed, let me open a public hearing again. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application, in favor of? Anybody wishing to speak opposed to the application? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Okay. Let’s talk about it. Chuck, let’s start with you. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I think my position’s basically where it was last time. After I thought about the entire thing, I recognize the offer to remove signage from one side of the tank, which certainly would be an improvement, but when I think about, if they had come to me before the signs were put up, would I have approved a variance with the additional sign up, and the answer has to be no. I think I would have said, no, put a sign in the window, and that’ll cover the people on premises. So on that basis, I’m still opposed. MR. STONE-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I’m going to be just the opposite. I still think it’s a minimal request to begin with. I didn’t have a problem when you had it on both sides, and if you’re going to take it off the one side facing west and keep it on the east side, I think that’s a reasonable compromise from your original intent. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Allan? MR. BRYANT-I’m going to basically stick to my guns. I don’t know, and I don’t even know if it’s appropriate to say, but I don’t believe that this should be considered a freestanding sign, and I would be in favor of the application as I was at the last meeting. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-I’m having a difficult time. I’m attempting to be very fair. I’m attempting to use the proper standards of balance. I hear one Board member indicate that, as a freestanding sign, one has already been opposed to it. The applicant has come before us with an alternate plan, as they promised to do. I am attempting to deal strictly with facts, rather than emotion here, and I think I probably will support the position of Allan, in that this is a freestanding sign. The only problem I have with that statement is that you constructed it prior to requesting permission. Am I correct on that assumption? MR. DUMAS-My understanding is everything went through for the installation. I, unfortunately, wasn’t in on it. Everything came through the proper channels for installing the actual tank itself. Whether it was considered at that point, what type of labeling was going to be on the tank, I honestly can’t say. I think it was perceived as a given on our behalf. MR. ABBATE-Well, keeping the interest of justice in mind, what I’m going to do is reserve my position, pending the position of several of the other Board members, and digest all of it, then base a decision on that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. STONE-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. Like Allan, I’m going to stick by my guns. I supported the applicant the last time, based on basically two things, one, that the decals, to me, represent the same thing that a gas pump might have, and we don’t view the gas pump decals as excessive, but we could, if we thought about them in the same way. The other thing is I think the applicant has made an effort, in removing the sign from the west. The one from the east is barely visible. I mean, I’ll be honest with you, I wish it wasn’t U-Haul coming before us, 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/02) because given the fact of the signage that’s there legally, it’s hard to ignore that, but, that being the case, those trucks get stacked up. If you’re driving east, I don’t even think you’re going to be able to see this sign from the road. If you are, then I hope I’m not driving in front of you. MR. STONE-You mean west? MR. URRICO-Driving west, but the east side sign. So I would be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, I haven’t heard all of the arguments, but my thinking is basically colored by the fact that the trucks are there, and quite frankly, I think it would be very difficult to even see this, but that’s your problem and not ours, except it does mitigate the fact that this is a second sign. I think it’s small enough. I think when you figure the placards that have to be on there, I, reluctantly, I would go along with granting this variance, particularly because of the fact it won’t add to the clutter, even thought it is clutter, in a sense, because there is so much on the property, activity over which we have no control, we recognize that. So, I surprise myself, and I will support the application. Having said that, it appears that we have at least four yes votes, so I would like a motion to approve Sign Variance No. 2-2002, keeping in mind, when you make the motion, that the applicant has stated there will be nothing on the east side of the tank, with the exception of the legal placard number. MR. ABBATE-West side. MR. STONE-West side, excuse me. Okay. I need a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 2-2002 U-HAUL, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 112 Main Street. The applicant wishes to keep a sign on the east side, totally removing the west side signage that says propane sold here, and in lieu of the fact that it will only be viewed from his lot, I make a motion that we approve this variance. Duly adopted this 17 day of April, 2002, by the following vote: th MR. STONE-Does everybody understand the motion? Bruce, are you happy, you understand the motion? MR. FRANK-It sounds great. AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. McNulty ABSENT: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Himes MR. STONE-There you go, gentlemen. MR. DUMAS-We’re all set? MR. STONE-All set. MR. DUMAS-Thanks, guys. Any paperwork or anything? MR. STONE-The paper comes from them. We’ve done our job. MR. DUMAS-Okay. Appreciate your time. Thank you very much. AREA VARIANCE NO. 102-2001 TYPE II RANDY BARRETT PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE AGENT: N/A ZONE: CR-15 LOCATION: 10 NEWCOMB STREET APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A MODULAR HOME ON THE PROPERTY AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE CR-15 ZONE. OLD TAX MAP NO. 130-1-12 NEW TAX MAP NO. 309.10-1-68 LOT SIZE: 0.48 ACRES SECTION 179-24C RANDY BARRETT & ELIZABETH WALWRATH, PRESENT MR. MC NULTY-Okay. This was tabled also. “MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 102- 2001 RANDY BARRETT, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: For up to 62 days, in order that the applicant has time to furnish an as built survey, so that we know exactly what relief is being requested. I would also ask that we be provided with the information about any compliance action which is currently underway, and further a statement from the building inspector as to how 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/02) this misconstruction can happen within the Code of Queensbury. We would like to see a history of this project, from beginning to end. Duly adopted this 19 day of December, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McNally” MR. STONE-Mr. Frank, did we get all the information that was asked for in that tabling motion? MR. FRANK-You do have a signed survey that was part of the application, and the additional information I addressed in my Staff notes. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. MR. MC NULTY-We do have new Staff notes. MR. STONE-Yes, why don’t we read the new Staff notes. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 102-2001, Randy Barrett, Meeting Date: April 17, 2002 “Project Location: 10 Newcomb Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has placed a modular home on the property. Relief Required: Applicant requests 12 feet 4 inches and 9 feet 2 inches of relief from the 20-foot minimum side setback requirement of the CR-15 zone, § 179-24. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to keep the modular home as constructed in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives seem to be limited due to the home being placed on a block foundation basement. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 12 feet 4 inches and 9 feet 2 inches of relief from the 20-foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate to substantial, considering relief is being requested on both sides. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. Public Comment has been submitted. 5. Is this difficulty self- created? While difficulty may be interpreted as self-created, a portion of the difficulty could be attributed to the pre-existing lot configuration. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 102-2001: 12/19/01; tabled until a survey can be provided. Town Board Res. No. 198-2000: revocable permit issued (Mobile Home Outside a Mobile Home Court). AV 60-2000: 9 feet of relief granted for both side setbacks (same home in current application). Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The applicant applied for this variance due to enforcement action from a formal complaint by Mr. Klein (neighboring parcel to the south). The applicant claims the foundation for the modular home was constructed in the wrong location because of human error. The Code Enforcement Officers during their inspections did not discover the human error, as it is not their responsibility to check setbacks. The Code Compliance officers have the responsibility to check setbacks; however, a survey is necessary to accurately check setbacks. The Code Compliance Officers would have discovered the setback error when the final survey was eventually submitted, as required by Town of Queensbury Code. Part of the tabling motion of 12/19/01 includes a request for the status of the current enforcement action against Mr. Barrett for violations of the junkyard ordinance. According to Dave Hatin, Director of Building and Codes, Mr. Barrett has until 04/19/02 to bring his site into compliance. This includes removing all of the debris from the demolished trailer and the removal of all junk vehicles that are in excess of those allowed by Town of Queensbury Code. A trial date is scheduled for 04/22/02 where Mr. Hatin will report his findings to the court. A fine of $250.00 may be imposed should the parcel not be in compliance. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-Mr. Barrett, do you want to comment on some of these statements and what’s going to happen later in the week? MR. BARRETT-I can only do what I can do, but I’ve already been told by Klein that I’ll never get a permit. I didn’t know he worked for you, but, apparently he does. He told two officers in the yard the other day that were there that I’d never get a permit. So we’re wasting everybody’s time, I guess. MR. STONE-Well, I don’t know why he would say that. I mean, obviously that’s our job, not his. Does he work for the Town, Mr. Klein? MR. FRANK-Who are we referring to? 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/02) MR. STONE-Mr. Klein, the neighbor, or is he just commenting that, is he trying to read us and say we’ll never give you one? MR. FRANK-I really can’t say what his intentions are. He submitted a letter. Mr. Hatin has enforcement action pending. MR. STONE-Right. I mean, the question I was asking, Mr. Barrett, is, you’re faced with legal action this coming, the end of the week or next week, and there are certain requirements that were made to you or certain requests made to you about the property. Have you accomplished any of those things, in terms of cleaning up the property? I know the thing in the back is still there, to some, to a large extent. MR. BARRETT-Well, like I say, yes, because at one time I was told I could go up and down the road with it, so he put it out back, and then he gets pissed off, so a fence goes up, so I don’t have helicopters. MR. ABBATE-I have some questions. May I? MR. STONE-Go ahead, sure. MR. ABBATE-Good evening, Mr. Barrett. Last time that you were here, you indicated to us that you would accomplish a number of objectives. One of the objectives would be the removal of that trailer that you have on your property. Did you remove that? MR. BARRETT-The only thing that’s left is the metal frame. MR. ABBATE-Did you remove the trailer, not the parts, did you remove the trailer? Did you remove everything that’s part of the trailer? MR. BARRETT-The metal and the wheels are still there and still on it, yes. MR. ABBATE-So you haven’t accomplished that. MR. BARRETT-But if I wanted to, I could take it down and have it weighed and put it on the road, so there’s no sense. MR. ABBATE-That’s not my question. Did you accomplish the removal of the trailer and all the parts, from the last time that you were here? MR. BARRETT-Not yet, 80% of it, yes. MR. ABBATE-The answer is no. The answer is no. MR. BARRETT-I guess not. MR. ABBATE-All right. Well, we also indicated, you indicated to us, that you would remove all the debris from the demolished trailer. That’s what you told us, and you haven’t done that. MR. BARRETT-I’m only one person. MR. ABBATE-I’m just going to ask you facts and questions, okay. We’re not interested in personal affairs here. MR. BARRETT-That’s not a fact? MR. ABBATE-So you didn’t meet those objectives. MR. BARRETT-Not yet. MR. ABBATE-Not yet, and you indicated to us, because I was one of the ones that asked you specific questions that you would take care of all of that, and to this date you haven’t, and also I note here that you have until April the 19 to bring this site into compliance, and again, we go through this old rigmarole again th which include removal of all the debris from the demolished trailer and removal of all the junk vehicles that are in excess of those allowed by Town of Queensbury Code. Did you remove all those vehicles that are in excess of the Town Code? MR. BARRETT-I can remove them in 10 minutes. They all run. MR. ABBATE-Did you remove those as of this moment? MR. BARRETT-No. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/02) MR. ABBATE-You didn’t do that either. MR. BARRETT-Well, yes, there’s, I don’t know what, you tell me what’s junk and what’s not, and I’ll remove it. MR. ABBATE-So you haven’t accomplished any of the things you promised this Board that you would do. Is that correct? MR. BARRETT-Yes, not that I didn’t, I did. MR. ABBATE-Okay. That’s fine, Mr. Barrett, because, obviously, you know that I’m not going to support this application. MR. BARRETT-Well, right now you know that I’m just about fed up with Queensbury, and Mr. Klein and all this, that he’s in your pocket or something, or your in his pocket or something. He’s telling me that I’m never going to get a permit. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions? MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, in fairness to Mr. Barrett, he did submit supply the as-built survey, which was the main thing that was requested by the Board. MR. STONE-Right, and that’s what you based the relief on, right, the 12’4” and the 9’2”? And you were satisfied with the survey? MR. FRANK-That was correct. The Zoning Administrator also reviewed it. I asked him, was that an acceptable survey, he said it was. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. ABBATE-Is that the bank survey? MR. FRANK-It was provided by the bank, but it’s a signed and sealed survey. MR. ABBATE-And do we have a copy of that? Because a bank survey doesn’t do it. MR. FRANK-It was part of your application. MR. STONE-Here it is. MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. MR. FRANK-That was the main document that we were waiting on, and reviewed by myself and the Zoning Administrator, and supplies the information that we needed for this application. MR. STONE-Basically what is in front of us is an application by Mr. Barrett for variance to permit the house that he has constructed to stay. Is that correct? MR. FRANK-That’s correct. MR. BARRETT-And until I know that one can stay, I shouldn’t even have to dismantle the other one. MR. STONE-I understand, but that’s what our, that’s what we have on the table, is can this new modular home be permitted to stay where it is placed currently. MR. FRANK-That’s correct. MR. STONE-That’s correct. That’s the only thing that’s on the table. We have these other factors, but the only thing on the table for us is the relief from the side setback requirements. MR. FRANK-That’s correct. The other factors were provided to the Board at your request. MR. STONE-I understand. MR. ABBATE-Is this the survey you mentioned to me earlier, you showed me earlier? MR. BARRETT-Yes. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/02) MR. ABBATE-This is not a boundary survey. This is not a boundary survey. This is a mortgage inspection. Legally, this is not a boundary survey. MS. WALWRATH-Then why did Mr. Craig Brown accept it and say this is what I need? MR. ABBATE-I don’t know, because it says right on here, this does not constitute a boundary survey. I’m not making this up. It’s right here. MR. FRANK-Again, it was the Zoning Administrator’s determination that it was adequate for this application. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. STONE-I mean, we can argue with that, if you want, but that’s the determination, and it was on the basis of that acceptance that these particular numbers, the 12 feet, 4 inches and the 9 feet 2 inches, were put as the variance request. Any other comments or questions of Mr. Barrett? If not, I will go back into the public hearing, because we do have a letter from a Mr. Klein that, well, I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody opposed? Why don’t you read the letter. These are individual by name. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC NULTY-Yes. It’s the same letter, it’s just addressed differently. We also have a handwritten comment from Ben Aronson at Double A Provisions, and he says “This will not affect anybody adversely. It’s okay with us.” MR. STONE-And where is he. Does it say? MR. MC NULTY-Well, he’s Double A Provisions. MR. STONE-I know that, but he was within 500 feet? MR. MC NULTY-Apparently. MR. STONE-Well, that’s the notice, yes, okay. MR. MC NULTY-He’s got it written on the bottom of the notice. MR. STONE-Okay. Does he own the parking area in your? MS. WALWRATH-Not that I’m aware of. MR. STONE-It’s within 500 feet, he would be noticed. MS. WALWRATH-Honestly, I don’t know. I just deliver papers at five o’clock. I don’t know whose boundary’s where. MR. STONE-Okay. Your name, by the way? MS. WALWRATH-Elizabeth Walwrath. MR. STONE-Okay. Why don’t you read this letter. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. And we have a letter from Mr. Wilfred Klein. He says, “I’m writing this letter to stand in my stead, since I will be out of town on the date of the Zoning Appeals Board meeting. My concern, as you may already know, is with the situation regarding Randy Barrett and his disregard for the town codes and laws. Also, again, voicing my concern regarding his access to the rear portion of his property. Randy Barrett has been told that he did not comply with the Town of Queensbury codes but did nothing to bring his property to compliance. This all started last summer. Instead of making any progress, the situation deteriorated as the amount of clutter increased. Not the least of which was his old trailer. As the amount of clutter increased, Mr. Barrett’s use of my property increased. I asked that he not use my property but he seemed to think that my driveway was public domain and that he could do as he pleased. I waited until November, still hoping that he would tow the trailer off the property. Finally I could wait no longer, and frustrated with his incursions onto my property, I had a fence installed. Since the fence has been installed Mr. Barrett has stated that I denied him access to my property so that he could remove the trailer. I put to you, if his access to that portion of his property has so hampered his clean up efforts, maybe he should move his new trailer to where it was supposed to be in the first place and he could get a big enough vehicle in to remove it. Furthermore, I urge you, at the very least, table this request for variance until such a time as he can comply with the Town of Queensbury codes. If he again states that his clean up is hampered by the 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/02) fence that I installed it will merely solidify my stand that perhaps the new trailer should be moved to where it originally should have been placed on the property. Mr. Barrett’s disregard for the town codes is further illustrated by the fact that he was given sixty-two days to supply you with documents and that time was dragged out to ninety days. He still lives in his new trailer, he still lives in squalor, in his mind nothing is wrong with that and so he does nothing. Now, I know he is being dealt with by Mr. Hatin by way of the court system. I was at court when Mr. Barrett was there. There again, he stated that my fence had hampered his clean up efforts. I also know that there is a considerable cost to moving the trailer. But I also know (having built my own house) that there is owner/contractor responsibility. Mr. Barrett knew where the property line was. He knew how far away he was supposed to be and so did his contractor. It is not, in my opinion, the job of the zoning administrator to baby-sit these people. If there is responsibility it is in the hands of the contractor (Providing he was given the right information by the homeowner) to make it right. I also strongly believe that this is necessary for Mr. Barrett to have adequate access to the rear of his property. It is no secret that Mr. Barrett and I have had many disagreements. The latest of which illustrates the problem. In an attempt to remove a small trailer piled with debris from his back yard he not only hit his trailer but then hit my new fence. He obviously has an access problem here. He has a total disregard for other people’s property and if I could have foreseen the problems that have arisen in the last few months I would have fought his first variance. The only way we can expedite the cleanup of Mr. Barrett’s property is in a concerted effort to put pressure on him from all sides. If he is granted a variance, and then his c.o., there will be less incentive for him to clean up the mess. Sincerely, Wilfred P. Klein” MR. STONE-Anything else? MR. MC NULTY-Nothing else. MR. STONE-Then I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Anything you wish, based upon that letter? MR. BARRETT-No. He’s going to be like that all the time, because his problem is he thought he was going to end up with the whole place when my mother was alive, but he didn’t, and Fishes across the way on the other side of me will actually tell you that, and told me that, too, when the place was, he thought he was going to end up with six or eight, ten, twelve acres there, but he didn’t, give them to people up on the hill. MR. STONE-Any other questions, gentlemen, of Mr. Barrett? I mean, I can’t say it’s simple. The thing before us, and we can put any interpretation on it we want, the request before us is to grant relief for the house, as built. Was built so that it does not meet setback requirements of the particular zone, and according to the Zoning Administrator, the material that was supplied by Mr. Barrett was sufficient and correct enough to say that he needs 12 foot 4 inches and 9 foot 2 inches of relief from the side setback. That’s the only issue that’s before us. That does not say we are, we cannot use our own judgment and our own feelings about this particular piece of property to balance the request either way. I mean, we have the same, it’s an Area Variance, requires a balancing act with the benefit to the applicant versus the detriment to the community, and that’s what’s before us. MR. BRYANT-Can I ask Staff a question? MR. STONE-Sure. MR. BRYANT-This is additional relief on both sides, above and beyond what was already granted? Is that correct? MR. FRANK-It’s different than what was before, that’s correct. MR. BRYANT-It’s additional relief on both sides. MR. FRANK-I believe on one side it’s definitely additional. MR. ABBATE-It’s going from 9 to 11.5. MR. STONE-No, one went from 9 to 9.2. MR. FRANK-That’s correct. MR. STONE-And the other went from 9 to 12.4. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. MR. BRYANT-So basically it’s 10 inches on one side, 11 inches on the other side. Is that correct? 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/02) MR. STONE-11? No, 3 feet 4 inches. MR. FRANK-That’s correct, 3 feet 4 inches on one side, and 2 inches on the other. MR. ABBATE-Now that’s in addition to the original request? MR. STONE-That is correct. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, that’s in addition. MR. STONE-Okay. Why don’t we talk about it. Jim, let’s start with you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I think we have to reflect upon where this house has been built and the amount of relief that’s been requested in addition to what was originally granted. At the same time, I think that the onus is on you. I mean, I don’t know what your intentions are, as far as cleaning up, whether you intend to, are you going to have it done by the time of the due date? Or, I don’t know, what’s your plan? MS. WALWRATH-It’s just about done now. MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, are you going to cut the thing up and move it out by pieces, I assume, would be the logical way to do it. MR. BARRETT-I can go out by the other guy’s place, but he’s so nice, I don’t want to. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I would just say that if you do intend to clean it up, I assume that you do. I mean, there wouldn’t be any reason to keep it back there. MR. BARRETT-All there is is a frame there now. MR. UNDERWOOD-Just the frame is all that’s left. MR. BARRETT-And if I wanted to, I could take it down and get it weighed, and put lights on it, and just like everybody else does, all these contractors, Galusha and everything else, and put plates on it and drive it up and down the road. MR. UNDERWOOD-I would say that we could condition this that we would grant the relief based upon the fact that you have it done by the 22, as you agreed to do beforehand. I mean, I assume that you’re a man of nd your word and that you can handle that. MR. BARRETT-I’m going to be bringing the torches home from work this weekend. It’ll take about four hours to do. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So we can consider it that it will be done on time? MR. BARRETT-And a couple of people want to buy it. So that’s why I didn’t cut it up either. A couple of people, you know, it’s junk to some people but it’s worth money to other people, just like anything, just like a pair of shoes. I don’t want it there either. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Well, I would be agreeable to granting the variance to you, if you would agree to have it out of there by the 22, as you had previously said you were going to do. nd MR. ABBATE-Actually it’s the 19, isn’t it? The 22 is the court date. thnd MR. BARRETT-It’s coming out this Sunday anyway, no matter what, if that makes any difference. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. By Sunday then? MR. BARRETT-If I knew he wasn’t home this week, it probably would have been out already. MR. STONE-We won’t go there. MR. BARRETT-I took the other stuff first, the stuff, you know, priorities, I could have cut that up first, versus taking the stuff away, but there’s about one more load of wood and the metal, but like I said, I could put it right on the road tomorrow. All you’ve got to do is take it down and have it weighed, but it’s being cut up Sunday. MR. BRYANT-Well, Mr. Chairman, I don’t know. I know you’re kind of caught between a rock and a hard place. The deed is already done. The foundation’s in, the building’s in, but on the other hand, you know, 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/02) based on Mr. Barrett’s previous testimony, he can’t get the trailer out in one piece because he doesn’t have access to the back yard. So, I don’t know what to say on this one. This is a tough one. I’d like to hear what the other Board members have to say. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Thank you. The Chairman put it earlier, we have a responsibility, not only to the applicant, but also to the effect on the neighborhood, and in my opinion, sir, you have been remiss in your duties and responsibilities. MR. BARRETT-The neighborhood, or just one person? MR. ABBATE-Let me try it this way, what’s in the best interest of the Town of Queensbury. MR. BARRETT-The Town, yes. You notice there’s no other problem with the people on all sides of me, on the other side of the road. MR. BRYANT-Are we going to have a debate here, Mr. Chairman? MR. STONE-Let’s not have a debate. MR. ABBATE-We’re not going to debate this. Let me state my, you can accept or reject what I say. I believe you’ve been remiss in your duties and responsibilities. MR. BARRETT-I don’t know what that word is. MR. ABBATE-All right. I believe that you have not fulfilled your promises to this Board. MR. BARRETT-As in taking the trailer down? MR. ABBATE-You have not fulfilled the promises to this Board that you made, and based upon this, sir, I am not going to support this application. MR. STONE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m trying to put some perspective on this and remember that it was about a year ago that we granted relief for this applicant of nine feet on each side. I understand the error was made when they placed the trailer down, and that’s why we’re back here. That being the case, I feel what I’m looking at is two inches of relief that’s different than the original application on one side, and three feet four inches on the other side, and given the tightness of the property to begin with, I don’t see that as being a big deal. However, I do feel that you haven’t really made the effort that you could have to get this lot cleared up. So I’m going to agree with Jim on this and say that we’ll make this contingent upon that being done, that trailer being removed, and without that, you know, I would not be in favor of the application, but with the contingency, I would be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Well, like the other members, I’m finding this a tough one, because looking at the basic question that’s before us, it’s just a case of whether we grant the additional relief for the trailer or not, and in one sense what’s on the property, otherwise, is an enforcement action, and not a part of this, except that we are called to consider the effects on the neighborhood or community of an action. I think, as far as the location of the modular home, it’s unfortunate that it was placed the way it was. We already agreed to nine feet on each side, and certainly two inches isn’t a big deal on one side. The three feet four inches is more significant, but I probably could go along with that. However, looking back at the effects on the neighborhood or community, and the junk that’s still on the property, I, too, get hung up on that. However, given that there still is material on the property, after several promises, I don’t think I’m willing to go along with a contingency, because I’m not convinced that that will get the material removed. I would be willing to go along with a tabling for reconsideration after the excess material is removed from the property, but otherwise, I’m going to be opposed. MR. STONE-All right. Listening to what everybody has said, I’m, obviously, conflicted, just like everybody else is. However, as I read that note, and I accept what’s in here, and it says, according to Dave Hatin, Director of Building and Codes, Mr. Barrett has until 4/19/02 to bring his site in compliance. This includes removing all of the debris from the demolished trailer and the removal of junk vehicles that are in excess of those allowed by Town of Queensbury code, and there’s a trial date of 4/22. My position on this thing, that is if you satisfy both Mr. Hatin and the courts, I would be willing to grant the variance. Now, I, however, don’t want the granting of this variance to have any undue influence on the decision that will be made Friday and Monday, and, therefore, I could support a motion that makes that very clear that we are willing to grant the variance with the stipulation that we, it is null and void if you are not clear of any encumbrances by the 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/02) Town and by the court, and so, I can go with that. So, having said that, I think we have an opportunity to make a motion to approve this variance with that kind of condition in there. MR. BRYANT-Can I ask a question, Mr. Chairman? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. BRYANT-Based on what you just said, wouldn’t it be more logical to postpone this until after the resolution of the other issues, and then once the applicant has complied with all those other issues, and we absolutely guarantee that he’s complied, then we can look at this application in a fresh light, as opposed to having all these maybe, if’s, and. MR. STONE-That’s a good point. MR. ABBATE-You make an excellent point. MR. BRYANT-Supposing this thing on the 22 is postponed for some other reason, and then postponed nd again, and it’s dragged out, and this goes on, and the neighbors have to suffer this thing. I would suggest, and I would be willing to look at the application again, after all these other issues are cleared. MR. URRICO-And that removes any undue influence. MR. STONE-Okay. I have no problem with that whatsoever. MR. ABBATE-Good points. MR. STONE-Do you understand what we’re saying, Mr. Barrett? We’re inclined to grant you the variance. I say we. I’m looking at the numbers. There seem to be four of us who seem to be inclined to grant you the variance, assuming the property is cleaned up to Mr. Hatin’s and the court’s satisfaction. Having said that, the Board seems to say, we want to hold our approval so we don’t have to encumber the variance to the degree that we obviously would. So I’m going to say, I’m going to ask the Board to table your application, which should have no effect on you, in terms of what you have to do by Friday and Monday. Your house is there. It’s going to be there. You’re still going to have to come back next month and if we’re all satisfied, I think that’s the consensus that appears to be, we can approve this, but we’re not going to do it with the encumbrance that I suggested, and I certainly agree with the rest of the Board. So, having said that. I’m going to table Area Variance No. 102-2001. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 102-2001 RANDY BARRETT, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 10 Newcomb Street. For one month, no more than one month, until such time as the enforcement action and the subsequent court action is completed to the Town’s satisfaction, and then we’ll take it up again. Duly adopted this 17 day of April, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Himes MR. STONE-Mr. Barrett, what that means, has no effect, right now, on you. You still have to go through with what you’ve been asked to do by Mr. Hatin, and subsequently by the court system, and if you don’t do it, you can be assured that we are not going to grant the variance, and that you’re going to have to move the modular home you have on the property. MR. BARRETT-Well, then the contractor in Queensbury is going to be paying a lot of money, aren’t they? MR. STONE-May be. That’s your problem. MR. BARRETT-That’s my next step. MR. STONE-Good, and I agree, you should be following that up. If it was put in the wrong place, you have, I can’t say that, because I’m not a judge, I’m not a lawyer, but it would seem to me that you have some course of action, if that’s what happened, but, having said that, we’re tabling it, and I wish you well in getting this property clean to Mr. Hatin’s and the court’s satisfaction, and by inference, to our satisfaction. Because if you don’t satisfy them, you’re not going to satisfy us. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/02) MR. BARRETT-My mother was going to do all this and stuff, but she said it was in the Town of Queensbury, and it would be a waste of time, and she’s dead now, but, guess what, she was right. MR. STONE-It’s not a waste of time. MR. BARRETT-Yes, it is. MR. STONE-Okay. Next on the agenda. AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-2002 TYPE II DAVID & LINDA JOHNSON PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE AGENT: WD WILLIAM CONSTRUCTION, INC. ZONE: WR-1A, APA, CEA LOCATION: 347 CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A 1,000 SQ. FT. RESIDENTIAL ADDITION. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR-1A ZONE AND FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 43-99, BP 99-709 9 (BEDROOM,KITCHEN, BATH) ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 2/13/02 OLD TAX MAP NO.: 14-1-9.1 NEW TAX MAP NO.: 226.12-1-48 LOT SIZE: 0.47 ACRES SECTION: 179-16F, 179-79 MR. STONE-For anybody who was waiting for Area Variance No. 9-2002, that’s been tabled to the second meeting, it’s been delayed by the applicant until the second meeting in May, that’s David & Linda Johnson. DETERIMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE AREA VARIANCE NO. 24-2002 TYPE II DONALD & LYNN KING PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE AGENT: JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ. AND JIM MILLER LOCATION: 23 ANTIGUA ROAD ZONE: WR-3A APPLICANT REQUESTS THE BOARD TO FIND THIS APPLICATION SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT FROM THE PREVIOUSLY DENIED VARIANCE REQUEST (FILE NO. AREA VARIANCE NO. 90-2001). APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 900 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING GARAGE WITH LIVING SPACE ABOVE APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR-3A ZONE. CROSS REF. AV 90-2001 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 4/10/02 OLD TAX MAP NO. 1-1-7 NEW TAX MAP NO. 239.17-1-7 LOT SIZE: 0.37 ACRES SECTION: 179-16 JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. STONE-Next we have a determination if significant enough of a change has been made in Area Variance No. 24-2002, Donald & Lynn King, 23 Antigua Road, and, gentlemen, before we start, I want to say something to my Board, because we have to determine if this is a significant change. According to the Random House Dictionary of the English Language, copy write 1967, which happens to be the one in my house, significant is an adjective which is defined in the number one definition, important, of consequence. It’s not judgmental, that’s what the definition of significant is. Having said that, gentlemen, convince us. MR. MILLER-Good evening. My name is Jim Miller, I’m a landscaping architect representing the owners, Don and Lynn King. Unfortunately, Mr. Lapper is away on vacation and can’t join us, but from his firm, with me tonight is Rob Techler, attorney. If you’ll recall, the application that was denied was a request for three variances, to replace an existing, in the process of replacing an existing carriage house, essentially in the same location, we were asking for relief from the front setback. So the new carriage house could be located in the same location. The carriage house was being constructed to have some living space above, but did not have a kitchen, so was not considered a residence, and if you recall, that triggered a variance for height of a garage. At the time we were requesting 25 foot and 9 foot of relief, and the third variance that we asked for was to construct the garage over 900 square feet. That application was denied, and it’s my understanding that there was some discussion between Mr. Lapper and the Board, about resubmitting the application and that the major concern at the time of the variances was the size of the garage was one of the major stumbling blocks the Board had. So we got back with the owners and we reviewed the application, and what I’d like to do is briefly show the modifications that we’ve completed. MR. STONE-Okay. Something I should have said earlier, Mr. Miller, for the record, for everybody to know, to get a determination of significant change, you need have to convince every one of us on the Board. We have to be unanimous. Six, zero. I don’t mean to scare you. MR. MILLER-Well, you did. MR. STONE-Those are the rules. MR. MILLER-Okay. Well, we’ll give it our best shot. Looking at the site plan, what was being proposed was the existing garage that’s in this location, plus an existing cabin which has a bathroom and it was a guest cabin, and they’re both being removed. So that the area of the buildings being removed is 940 square feet. The new proposed carriage house to be constructed in essentially the same location, and it’s 984 square feet. So it’s 44 square footprint larger than the buildings that are being removed. The location for that carriage 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/02) house was essentially on the same footprint as the existing one, and having reviewed the options to us to locate the building, this is the one that we felt had the least impact, not only on the neighborhood, because of the existing trees and vegetation along Antigua Road, but it also would have the least impact on the site, taking advantage of all the existing driveways. So we would like to locate the carriage house in the same location and since it’s an existing nonconforming structure now, we’re asking for relief from that front setback to locate the carriage house in the same location. The building has been redesigned, and made smaller. The garage has been reduced down, the original building was over, was 1178 square feet. So it’s reduced down about 240 feet in size, the footprint on it. As a result, the garage space is now a three bay garage with a stairway to the upper level. The garage space has been reduced down below the 900 square feet, to 896 square feet. So we are no longer asking for relief for the size of the garage. We designed it so we would avoid the need for that variance. In shrinking the building down, we’re able to reduce the height of the building by approximately a foot. Now the existing building that’s there, we were trying to get an accurate dimension. The building is over 20 feet, the one that’s there, and the second story, it’s not quite as large as this second story, but this building is 24 feet. We believe the existing building is approximately 22 feet, 21, 22 feet, and what we had indicated on the plan is that the 16 foot height is that red line that you see across the elevation, and the building has been designed in a way to, you know, we’re asking for a variance for height, to mitigate that impact, the eaves of the building is down at a 10 foot level. So actually the majority of what you see above that 16 foot level is the peak of the roof that’s pitching back away from you, with the exception of the dormers on the ends. This is a view, as you would see it entering from the driveway. This is a view you would see from the road. So the portion of the roof that’s above the 16 feet is the dormers and, you know, the very top of the peak, and even that has been hipped to try to mitigate the impact. The character of it is very similar to the garage that’s, the structure that’s there, with chaffed roof and with siding. One of the other things I’d like to add is that, you know, having visited the site, the road is higher than this building. Obviously it drops down as you head toward the lake, but the road is a minimum of two foot above the elevation of this structure. So, you know, the relative height to the road is less. So we feel that the changes have been substantial. We’ve eliminated a variance for the size of the garage, which, it’s our understanding was the biggest problem, and we’ve also reduced the size and reduced the height and tried to mitigate the height concern, as much as possible, and still maintain some usable space on the second floor. MR. BRYANT-The reduction of the building, how did that affect the living space? MR. MILLER-I think it reduced it by, I forget what the last number, it’s down to 700 square feet, if I’m not mistaken, I think the previous application was 750 square feet. MR. STONE-I’ve been remiss, gentlemen. Let me, there were Staff notes with sort of a combination of next week’s notes and this week’s notes, but the important thing is that the comparison of the variance that was denied, and if you don’t, I’ll see if you agree with these numbers, and the variance that you will seek next week, if we think it’s significantly different, the front setback relief was 14.75 feet for both, the one that was denied and the one you will submit. MR. MILLER-That’s correct. MR. STONE-The height relief on the one that was denied was 7.6 feet of relief. The current one would require 6.9 feet of relief. MR. MILLER-That’s correct. MR. STONE-Okay. The garage area and the other one was 1121 square feet, which required relief. This one has 900, or 896, one of those two numbers, but it’s certainly, no relief is needed. Staff also went on record here, it appears the differences between Area Variance 90-2001 and Area Variance 24-2002 seem to be minimal, with the exception of the garage area, which is listed as a 19.7% reduction, and wanted that in the record, that we didn’t read the whole thing because a lot of it talks about next week we’ll use the same notes. You agree with that? I mean, you agree that that’s the difference between the two applications? And it is up to us to determine if that is a significant difference. Any other comments that you wish to make? MR. MILLER-Not at this time. MR. STONE-Any questions? MR. URRICO-Why can’t you bring the height down to a lower level? MR. MILLER-Well, it’s just for getting the clearance to have some usable space on the second floor, to have that second level usable, and to come down to the 16 feet, you would have no usable space. It would essentially all be attic, and what we’ve tried to do is reduce the roof down and just try to maintain the center portion of the building as usable, you know, and using dormers as opposed to trying to raise it substantially higher. The other thing that we tried to do is maintain an interesting character to the building, so it’s a fairly steep pitch, rather than sort of a flat, plain looking building. So, I mean, some of the relief is actually, you know, we’re looking for an attractive building to add some of the height to that, and that was my point in that what we’re looking at is really at the very peak of that roof, for most of the variance. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/02) MR. ABBATE-That living space, you indicated, does not include a kitchen? MR. MILLER-That’s right. MR. ABBATE-I’m assuming that’s the second floor we’re speaking of? MR. MILLER-That’s correct. MR. ABBATE-Does that second floor contain any windows? MR. MILLER-Yes. Looking at the elevation, on the two gable ends there’ll be windows, and then where the two side dormers are there’ll be windows. MR. ABBATE-Does that second floor have a doorway? MR. MILLER-A doorway? Yes, the stairway that comes from the ground level up, I believe there’s a door down at the ground level as you enter, and then the stairs are open coming up. MR. ABBATE-So the second floor has a doorway as well as windows? MR. MILLER-Yes. The doorway is at ground level, though. You’ll see the doorway is down at the ground level, and then comes up, and this would be open. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. MR. STONE-I have a question. I think you said, and just for the record, you believe the current building is 24 feet, 8 feet higher than code? MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. STONE-And this, therefore, would be. MR. MILLER-Yes, we were trying to confirm that, Mr. Chairman, and unfortunately, we haven’t been able to. MR. STONE-They could tell me that a golf hole is 205.67 yards from a particular ball in the middle of the fairway, you can’t tell me that, with the equipment we have today? You’re saying this would be approximately 1.1 feet lower than it is now, if your 24 is correct? MR. MILLER-I mean, that’s based on some discussions I’ve had with the owner and we thought if we had that confirmed, I mean, we certainly would have that confirmed by next week. MR. ABBATE-So in fact it’s a reduction in height? MR. MILLER-No. It’s slightly higher, but the existing building is. MR. STONE-It’s a reduction from the existing building, I think. MR. ABBATE-That’s what I’m referring to. MR. MILLER-No. It’s slightly higher than the existing building. This is going to be. MR. STONE-I thought you said it was 24, the current building. MR. MILLER-No. I said I believe it to be around 22. MR. STONE-Okay. So this would be higher. I’m sorry. MR. ABBATE-Okay. I see it now. I see it. So the existing height, they show here 24 plus or minus, and the proposed is 25.0. Are those the figures we’re referring to? MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Well, all right. It comes out to about one, whatever, all right. Close enough. Okay. Thank you. MR. STONE-How do we get to 25, if you’re only asking for 6.9 feet of relief? That comes out to be 22.9. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/02) MR. MILLER-It’s 24.9, is the height. The elevation that’s shown by the architect shows a height, from the finished floor to the peak, of 22 feet 10 or about 22.9 feet, and then we’ve added a foot to that, because grade will be approximately a foot below the finished floor around the building. So we’ve measured from the finished grade around the building. MR. STONE-So you’re going down. Most people go up, around the building. MR. MILLER-The grade is a foot lower than the finished floor. So we added that extra square foot in height. That’s where the 24.9. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. ABBATE-Okay. I’m understanding that now. So you merely lowered the existing foundation, basically? You lowered it. MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. ABBATE-So it’s been lowered, but you have to include that into the overall height is what you’re saying. MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. I understand that now. I was confused. Okay. Thank you. MR. STONE-Okay. All right. So it’s going to be higher than the current building? MR. MILLER-Yes, it is. MR. STONE-Okay. This doesn’t require a public hearing, I don’t believe, Mr. Frank, does it? MR. FRANK-I don’t believe so. MR. STONE-I don’t think so. Let’s talk about it. Let’s start with Allan. MR. BRYANT-I think, I’m recalling this from memory, Mr. Chairman. I think my major objection in the discussion at the last meeting, was the size of the garage. I know we only have to determine now whether or not it’s substantially different. In my view, getting rid of that issue, the oversized garage, is substantial enough to say, yes, go ahead. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you. I’ve got two points here. I think, gentlemen, that you have made a good faith effort and attempt to come up with a reduction, and it’s approximately 20%. I think it’s 19.7. Twenty percent, to me, is a significant reduction. Twenty percent of a dollar is twenty cents. You can go all the way up there. So 20% of a pay raise for years is substantial, as far as I’m concerned. So two points, I think you made a good faith effort. I understand, now, but you lowered the floor, so I can perceive what you’re speaking about, and I agree with Allan. I think, based upon your good faith effort and 20%, I think I would support the application. MR. STONE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I support the application being reviewed further, but I am still bothered by the height. MR. STONE-Okay. That’s next week, if we go that far. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I think I, too, would say that probably this is a significant change, the reduction of the size of the garage, and I tend to discount the setback relief on the front because the proposal is to put the building where the existing building is. If I were going to be here next week, which I’m not, I would still have a problem with the height, but that’s beside the point, especially since I’m not going to be here, and I’ll agree, the garage is a significant difference. I’d say yes. MR. STONE-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I would agree that the, you know, it’s been changed significantly from what it originally was, but I think the one point that we’re still not addressing is the fact that we’re going to be creating extra living space on this property here, and again, this lot’s a .37 acre lot in an RR-3. I’m still troubled by the creation of that living space with the septic tank. I mean, I don’t see any reason why you can’t have a camp where the kids are going to use it for whatever, but to create a whole new dwelling on site, per se, to me, I’m still a little troubled with that, but I’m sitting on the fence. I’ll listen to what everybody else says. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/02) MR. STONE-It does appear, and I’m certainly willing to go along, that this constitutes a significant change, significant, if for no other reason than the area has been reduced by almost 20%, and I think Mr. Abbate made a telling case for that. I, like the rest of the Board, have some reservations. I suggest that you, your client and your colleague hear what we’re saying. I mean, I have heard concern about the living quarters. I have heard concern particularly about the height, which is next week’s discussion. We’re not going to go there, but I think that a significant change has been made from the application that was denied, and I would call for a motion to agree to that fact, that the Board has determined. MOTION THAT A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE HAS BEEN MADE IN THIS APPLICATION, AREA VARIANCE NO. 24-2002 DONALD & LYNN KING, FROM THE PREVIOUSLY DENIED AREA VARIANCE NO. 90-2001, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Duly adopted this 17 day of April, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hayes MR. STONE-So you’ve got your work cut out for you to convince us, next week, that we should grant this variance. MR. MILLER-Okay. Thank you. I appreciate it. If we were not successful tonight, in the absence of Mr. Lapper, we would have never heard the end of it. MR. ABBATE-My confidential sources indicate he’s in the Bahamas. MR. MILLER-The Grand Caymans. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 25-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED AFTAB (SAM) BHATTI D/B/A FRACHISE MOTEL PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE AGENT: JARRETT-MARTIN ENGINEERS, PLLC LOCATION: 543 AVIATION ROAD ZONE: HC-1A APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 48 UNIT BUILDING AND ADDITIONS TO THE EXISTING ECONO LODGE FACILITY. APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE OFF- STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS AS WELL AS THE MINIMUM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 4/10/2002 OLD TAX MAP NO. 72-5-13; PARCEL NOT FOUND; PARCEL NOT FOUND; NEW TAX MAP NO. 302.05-1-51; 302.05-1-52.12; 302.05-1-52.13 LOT SIZE: 1 ACRE; 0.83 ACRES; 0.39 ACRES SECTION 179-23, 179-66, 179-70 MR. STONE-Next on the agenda, under New Business, according to the agenda there was Area Variance No. 25-2002, which has been pulled by the applicant. So we will not be looking at that tonight. AREA VARIANCE NO. 27-2002 TYPE II JAMES GRANDE PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE AGENT: N/A LOCATION: 3222 STATE ROUTE 9L ZONE: WR-3A APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 3-CAR GARAGE (26 FT. BY 38 FT.) WITH RECREATION SPACE ON THE SECOND FLOOR. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 4/10/02 OLD TAX MAP NO. 2-1-8 NEW TAX MAP NO. 239.18-1-48 LOT SIZE: 3.27 ACRES SECTION 179-16 JAMES GRANDE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 27-2002, James Grande, Meeting Date: April 17, 2002 “Project Location: 3222 State Route 9L Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 988 sq. ft. 3-car garage with 475 sq. ft. of recreation space above that does not include a kitchen. Relief Required: Applicant requests 9 feet of relief from the 16-foot maximum height restriction for a detached accessory structure per § 179-16. Additionally, the applicant seeks relief from the 900 sq. ft. maximum for the construction of an oversized garage (988 sq. ft.) per § 179-7. 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 structure in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/02) include constructing a garage within the allowable 900 sq. ft. and 16-foot maximum height requirement. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 9 feet of relief from the 16-foot maximum height requirement could be considered moderate relative to the Ordinance. 88 sq. ft. in addition to the 900 sq. ft. allowed for a garage could be considered minimal relative to the Ordinance. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created, as there are other feasible alternatives such as constructing a new garage within the maximum 900 sq. ft. of area and the maximum 16 feet of height allowed. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None. Staff comments: Minimal to moderate effects may be anticipated as a result of this action. The applicant could construct a compliant garage. However, should the Board approve this application, consideration might be given to removal of the 400 sq. ft. cabin in place of the proposed living area above the garage. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form April 10, 2002 Project Name: Grande, James Owner: James Grande ID Number: QBY-AV-27-2002 County Project#: Apr02-26 Current Zoning: WR-3A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 3-car garage (26’X38’) with recreation space on the second floor. Relief is sought from maximum square footage for accessory structures and height restrictions. Site Location: 3222 State Route 9L. Tax Map Number(s): 239.18-1-48 Staff Notes: The applicant proposes construction of a 990 sq. ft. garage with recreational space on second floor, see attached drawing. The applicant requests 990 sq. ft. of relief. 900 sq. ft. is the maximum size allowed. The applicant also requests height relief 25 ft. is proposed where 16 ft. is required. Staff does not identify any county impacts. Staff recommends NCI with a condition that the second story is constructed as recreational – no living space. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact, with the stipulation that the second story is constructed as recreational only with no living space.” Signed Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board 4/11/02. MR. STONE-Mr. Grande. I’m very glad to see that, very rarely do we get conforming lots on the lake. So it’s nice to know that you have over three acres in the three acre zoning. MR. GRANDE-Thank you. MR. STONE-But go ahead, tell us anything more you want us to know. MR. GRANDE-Well, I bought this property in 1984. It’s my primary residence. It’s a three season camp. There’s a complete guest cabin the property. At some point in the future, I would love to take the guest cabin and put it up over the garage. MR. STONE-Define guest cabin. MR. GRANDE-It’s like a studio apartment. It has an eat-in kitchen, a full bath, and a living room/bedroom combination. It’s approximately 400 square feet, and the upstairs of this garage is not much bigger than that. We put a new septic system in here. It was designed in ’87. It was installed in ’88, and at that time, it was built adequately to maintain the existing buildings. The reason we’re going this big is, Number One, the house is 32 feet in height. The house was built in the early 1900’s, and I feel that a hip roof building of 15 or 16 feet in height, built 10 feet away from a building that’s 32 feet high, is not proportionate. I mean, it would look sort of silly, in my opinion. So when we started to try to copy the shape of the house, and make it sort of a semi-substantial structure, we decided to put some living space on the second floor, and that’s how we arrived at this plan here. So, presently now I have a little, a shed that I put miscellaneous hand tools in and what not, and I bring my lawnmower to and from, so I don’t leave it there most of the time, but everything that I bring there has to stay outside, and I’d like to be able to put my vehicles inside, my lawnmower, snow blower, whatever. I don’t know if I said this, but it’s my primary residence. I live there from May through Christmas. MR. STONE-Okay. I was going to ask you that question. You said something like that, and yet you’re talking about bringing that lawnmower back and forth from somewhere. MR. GRANDE-Well, I have a house in Saratoga Springs, which I lease for the summer. MR. STONE-I would, too, if I could get away, yes. MR. GRANDE-So, I live in the house. Since this is only a three season camp, I live in Saratoga like end of December, January, February, March, and then we start going, the water’s turned on back there now, and we’ll start going back and forth. MR. STONE-Is it heated, though? MR. GRANDE-It has a propane furnace in it, yes, and it’s adequate. I mean, if you were to stay there in January, you’d probably have to leave the propane truck hooked to it. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/02) MR. STONE-Okay. MR. URRICO-What will you be doing with the upstairs space above the garage? MR. GRANDE-Well, presently, I just want to build it as one large room, maybe put a pool table and a ping pong table. It would be 38 feet long, approximately, and 12 foot 6 inches wide. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Grande, I don’t really have a problem with this, but I do have a question for you. When you originally purchased the house, April 12 or 14 in 1984, there was a stipulation in your deed that th indicated that there would only be one residence on the property. That was, I think, Paragraph Two of your contract. MR. GRANDE-And there were two residences at that time. MR. ABBATE-Yes, but not more than one residence with auxiliary out building for the accommodation of a single family. Now my question, basically, is this. In the event that this application is approved, would there not be a possibility that there might be a violation of this Paragraph Two? MR. GRANDE-I don’t think so, because I’m not asking to move the guest cabin now, but I mean, I’d love to move the guest cabin, and I’d only have the same as when I purchased it. I mean, it would just be like a little, a modest kind of kitchen where if somebody was staying there they could make coffee or whatever. It’s not like they’re going to live there. I don’t want that kind of thing. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. GRANDE-If my sister comes from Florida and she wants to stay for the weekend, I want her to be able to stay there. MR. ABBATE-Of course. MR. GRANDE-Whatever. MR. ABBATE-Yes. We all have different perceptions of what may possible occur, and I just wanted to get it on the record from you. MR. GRANDE-By the way, the tax bill says multiple residence on the tax bill. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. STONE-Staff, Bruce, define, again, what constitutes a living area, kitchen, define kitchen. MR. FRANK-The way it’s been explained to me is appliances, a stove, refrigerator, running water. MR. STONE-Okay. So what I’m really saying is that what you have pre-dates the current Waterfront zoning. If you were to put something up there, you’d have to come to this Board for a variance, in all probability, and that’s, because it would be a second, forget the deed. The deed has no effect, as far as the Town is concerned. That merely is something between you and the person you bought it. The Town does not, as we have said on many occasions, does not enforce things in deeds. It’s not our job. Okay. Any other questions, gentlemen? MR. ABBATE-No. MR. STONE-Again, to help me, because one of the notes I put down here is I don’t like the idea of a 25 foot high garage. We have been particularly zealous, you might have heard discussion just ahead of you, in terms of height of garages. We believe that a garage is a garage is a garage, primarily, the way we’ve been, which is 900 square foot, 16 foot high on property, which is why you’re here, because you need relief from that thing, but anything more you can tell me exactly why it has to be 25 foot high? You said design. You said you want to put a pool table up there. MR. GRANDE-But in order to get like an eight foot door, and then I need room for the turning of the door, and then a floor system, and then another eight foot ceiling height, and then some kind of a little pitch over that that, I mean, has some architectural quality, then I’m going to get up there to approximately 25 feet. Now, the house that sits right next to it is 32 feet. So, if you analyze it, 25 may be huge if it’s sitting next to a ranch, or, you know, something like that, but it’s. MR. STONE-Do you have any plans, and obviously one cannot predict the future, having taken a boat ride around the lake today, and seeing what’s going on, in terms of construction. Mr. Salvador, you’re laughing at me. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/02) JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-It’s wild, isn’t it? MR. STONE-It certainly is, and I see houses that have been around for a long time being taken down because they’re just not structurally sound anymore. Do you have any plans, in your wildest dreams? MR. GRANDE-No, I do not. In fact, this house is too big for me, but, I mean, I love it there. I mean, I have a beautiful view. I don’t know if you were there. MR. STONE-Yes, you do. MR. GRANDE-I mean, it’s like being in heaven when you look out the window in the morning. MR. STONE-I thought it was my side of the lake that was heaven, except I have to see Mr. Salvador’s property, but it’s not his. That’s okay. MR. SALVADOR-You’re looking at heaven. MR. ABBATE-But anyway, we have it on the record that that’s your position. MR. STONE-Yes, that’s all. So you really have no plans? MR. GRANDE-No, I don’t. MR. STONE-That was one of my concerns. It is a high building. No question about it, and you are going to be behind it. Okay. Having said that, let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN MATTHEWS MR. MATTHEWS-John Matthews, adjacent neighbor to the east. I’m in favor of Jim’s application. I have no problem with the height. My request is that the cabin be removed at this time. The thing that really bothers me is this two family situation that might happen to progress down the future, and we are in a single family zoning, and my property is single family zoned, and I really know that the zoning for the neighbor next to me is single family, and I just don’t want it to be construed, down the road, that it is a multiple family property. The only other thing that I would like to bring up is that if Jim were to add this garage to the house, it would be part of the original, part of the structure, and then the height wouldn’t be restricted by a separate building, and I just was wondering why that wasn’t thought of, and it also would lend the occupant to walk right into the house without getting wet or shoveling snow or what not. That’s really my comments, but I’m sure it will be nice. I look forward to having it there. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MR. STONE-Anybody else wishing to speak against or for, or whatever? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. MR. STONE-Then I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Do we have any other questions from the Board? If not, let’s start with Chuck, and let’s talk about it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Grande’s application is pretty straightforward. His presentation has cleared up a couple of areas that I had some questions about, and like the neighbor, I was concerned. That’s why I raised that issue about second residency. I was being a little coy about it, but it was a genuine concern, and Mr. Grande has indicated on the record that he loves the place. It’s almost like heaven, second heaven, and that he has no intention of having a second family on a permanent basis on your property, and, you know, I look at this, and we’re talking about such things as moderate relative to the Ordinance. We’re talking about such things as minimal relative to the Ordinance, and based upon what Mr. Grande had to say, and his next door neighbor’s concern, I would support your application, sir. MR. STONE-Okay. Roy? 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/02) MR. URRICO-I do agree you have a lovely piece of property. I was up there yesterday. I almost didn’t make it back to work, and also I appreciate the way you staked it out. It was very easy to see where you’re going to locate it. Taking the five criteria that we judge applications by, I’m going right down the list. The benefit here obviously you would be able to construct your desired structure. Feasible alternatives, I think the construction of the garage itself, larger than 900 square feet, there may be a slight feasible alternative there, but I think in the case of the garage height, I think there are alternatives, and there’s 56% relief requested, whereas the size of the garage is only 10% relief. That leads me to the third criteria, and that’s is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance, and I guess here’s where I really get bogged down. I really feel that the height of the garage is a stumbling block for me. I understand the architectural incongruity of it, but I feel this would set a dangerous precedent, because the lake itself needs this kind of zoning, and effects on the neighborhood or community, I don’t think they would have a lot of effects on that specific spot. You’re pretty much hidden away, and I don’t think it would have an effect on that neighborhood specifically, and then five is whether this difficulty is self-created, and I feel the height especially is self-created. So based on the weight of the criteria, I would be in favor of the size of the garage, but I would not be in favor of the height of it, at this point. MR. GRANDE-Can I comment? MR. STONE-No. When we get done, I’ll be happy to let you. I don’t want to get in dialogue. MR. GRANDE-Okay. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Looking at the height, I can understand what the applicant’s saying about the garage being shielded from the lake by the house, and certainly there’s nothing behind it where the height would be blocking somebody’s view or anything, and the 88 square feet, in addition to the 900, is not really significant. However, while we’re considering this under the old zoning code, I have to keep in mind the new zoning code, where the Town Board and the Town has spent a lot of time looking at all the requirements and when I look at the garage requirements in the new code, it’s still 900 square feet. It’s still 16 feet high, and that says to me that they’ve considered it and they feel that that’s appropriate for garages. So unless there’s some compelling reason to provide a variance, and frankly I haven’t heard a compelling reason to allow either the additional square footage or the additional height, so I’m going to be opposed. MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I guess I’m going to have to go on the record as feeling the same way. I think that the garage itself, I don’t have a problem with the three bays. I think that you have adequate room back behind there, it’s not going to effect the lake as far as viewing it from the lake, but the height variance, you know, granting that much seems to me a little bit excessive, and I think that you have quite a bit of living space there. You do have that other little cabin, and I think your neighbor’s concerns about what happens in the future, we have to be concerned about whether these things morph into secondary dwellings on site, you know, maybe 20 years down the road or even closer. Who knows. So I would not be amenable to the height variance. MR. STONE-Allan? MR. BRYANT-I have to agree with Chuck and Jim. The previous applicant, the Kings, have been before us a couple of times, and I think you heard tonight there was some discussion among the Board members about, they were happy that he had reduced the size of the garage, but they were still concerned about the height, and he was looking at six feet nine inches, and you’re looking at nine feet. I would be satisfied with a 900 square foot garage, 16 foot high, not withstanding the height of the existing building. Anything more than that, I wouldn’t be satisfied with. MR. STONE-Well, I think what you’re hearing is our longstanding concern about new construction on the lake that comes under our purview, and garages are an auxiliary building. I think Mr. McNulty said it very well. The new zoning code, which we will begin using next month, is no different in Waterfront zoning three acre or Waterfront zoning one acre than the code under which we’re working tonight. A garage is supposed to be a garage, and while I appreciate your well thought out arguments, in terms of you have a very high building, why can’t this building be more like it, a garage is supposed to be a garage, and we have been particularly concerned, as I say, you heard it earlier, we have been particularly concerned with potential living space. You may call it a recreation area. We’re concerned with potential living space, and for that reason, and I think Mr. Urrico went through the balancing test very well, which is what we’re supposed to do, it obviously benefits you, but some of the other things we think go the other way, and so I would ask for a motion, and before I do, you have the option of asking us to either table it, or I would ask for a motion to deny, which if we deny, would put you in the situation of the previous applicant. You would have to come back and convince us that any new application is significantly different from the previous application. On the other hand, if we table it, and you see your way free to make some modifications based upon what the Board has 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/02) been saying, then we can consider it next month, or two months from now, a revised application, and that’s your call. I mean, right now, I will ask the Board, give you a chance to speak first, I will ask the Board for a motion to deny. Now you wanted to respond to something. You certainly can do that. MR. GRANDE-Can I, just for a second? MR. STONE-Sure. MR. GRANDE-There seems to be a problem with the living space aspect, and I already have, as I’m paying taxes on, a multiple residence. I mean, that’s what my tax bill says, and I wouldn’t be asking, even if I had taken the guest cabin, which John would like, I’m sure he would like me to do, and put it up over the garage, I would not have anymore living space than I presently have. I mean, when I bought the camp, I bought it with an accessory building with a kitchen in it, and I’ve been being taxed on that ever since. Now the other thing is, I didn’t, when we designed this, I did not want, if I took and connected this garage to the house, in an enclosed breezeway, I wouldn’t even have to come here, and I could build it 28 feet high. MR. STONE-Well, is that true, Bruce? I’m not sure that’s true. MR. FRANK-I don’t believe so. If it’s attached directly to the principal dwelling. MR. GRANDE-If I move this garage right down, touch the back of my house, and put it so that I have a door from my garage or an enclosed room between the garage and the house, I can build the garage 28 feet high without a variance, but I’m not looking, when I come out my back door, to walk all the way around my garage to get to the other side of my house. So I’m liking to have like an open area there, where I can walk back and forth, and that’s the reason for this. I mean, I know I can build a, I can push the garage down, put it up against the back of the house, and build it 28 feet high. I mean, that’s the law, I think. MR. STONE-Well, that, you’re saying, there’s some concern to that. MR. FRANK-I think there’s been some discussion about the connection in between a garage and the principal dwelling. If it’s directly up against it, I think it’s, the allowable height is okay. A breezeway, I’m not exactly sure. I know we’ve had some discussions about this. MR. GRANDE-My architects, who started to design this, came to the Planning Department and the discussion was, as long as the breezeway was completely enclosed, then the garage could be 28 feet in height, but my connection, would want it to be completely open, so that when I came out of the kitchen door of the house, I could like pass through this area, rather than have to walk all the way around the garage to get to the other side of the house. MR. STONE-Well, you bring up a point to which I do not have the answer. We should, but we don’t, which gives us one more alternative. We might just want to table it to investigate that. Because I don’t, Staff doesn’t have the answer here. I don’t have the answer. MR. FRANK-Actually, Mr. Chairman, I know the Zoning Administrator did have discussion, now that I recall that it was with Mr. Grande, that his original proposal was to make an open-sided breezeway, and I don’t think that the way the Zoning Administrator interpreted it, that wouldn’t be allowable, and what he said is correct. If he enclosed it completely, then it would be allowable. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. GRANDE-So I could put some kind of a porch there with a little enclosed room alongside it, and then I would be able to build this garage 28 feet in height. MR. STONE-And we could say, be our guest. I’m not trying to be flip. You certainly, if you could do that, that’s fine, but the current, the Board’s feeling right now, as I read it, and as they stated, is a concern about a freestanding garage 25 foot high, and a couple of the members were concerned that it was larger than 900 square feet. MR. ABBATE-Let me ask a question. Make sure I get this straight. Obviously you have an option, the Chairman made it quite clear you could table it if you wished, but you indicated to me, and it seems to me that Bruce supported this. If you were to attach this to the current structure that’s there, you would not need to come before this Board. MR. GRANDE-Well, probably for the 900 square feet. MR. FRANK-That’s correct. MR. ABBATE-For the 900 square feet. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/02) MR. URRICO-Well, it wouldn’t be 900 square feet any longer, if it was 28 feet high. MR. GRANDE-Well, the garage would be over 900 square feet. MR. STONE-The square footage of the garage. MR. GRANDE-I mean, if I reduced the size of the garage to 900 square foot and pushed this garage up against the back of the house, cut a door into the kitchen, it’s my understanding that I can build a building 28 feet, and I’m thinking like the guest cabin is old and whatever, and it seems like, rather than, and this is only my thinking, obviously, it seems like, rather than limiting me to 16 feet in height, if you said to me, you know, the guest cabin is 40 years old, and it would be a much nicer piece of property if you took the guest cabin and put it up there, I mean, that would seem to be the actual way to go with this, since I can build that height anyway. I mean, you’re restricting me, but only to the point where if I build an enclosed breezeway I can do it anyhow, and I’m thinking that the other way around would be much nicer, and much more desirable for the neighbors. MR. MC NULTY-You’re only problem with that, though, is if you put what’s in the guest cabin on top of the new garage, then you’ve got to get a variance for a second dwelling on the property. MR. GRANDE-I have a pre-existing condition. MR. MC NULTY-Right, but if you tear that down, then you’re starting from scratch. MR. FRANK-That’s correct. MR. GRANDE-But I can’t trade that? MR. MC NULTY-You can’t trade it off. MR. STONE-You could try to convince us, based on that, but you’d have to come to this Board. MR. MC NULTY-You’d still have to get a variance. MR. STONE-And get a variance. MR. ABBATE-It would seem to me that the Chairman has mentioned it might be in the best interest of everyone to re-think this thing and table it, because you don’t lose anything. We don’t lose anything, and there may be some re-shuffling which we can all agree upon, which would still meet your requirements, and give you additional time to re-think this thing. MR. GRANDE-Would you make comments that would help me to go in the right direction? MR. STONE-We’ve made a lot, but we can certainly make more. I mean, I can ask for a motion to table, and the tabling motion will hopefully put in some of the conditions that we would like addressed, both by ourselves, by Staff, and by you. We could do that. I mean, the concerns as I heard, and anybody that wants to jump in, gentlemen, because I don’t want to, we’re talking about the position that has been taken, concern by most of the members on the height and maybe one less on the square footage of the garage, and we have one person who is in favor of it, and five us who feel it was either too high, all of us, I think felt it was too high, and four of us though it was too large. MR. GRANDE-I just want some level of comfort here, obviously. If the gentlemen down at the end. MR. STONE-Well, I don’t want to go into that, because then we get into brow beating. MR. GRANDE-No. I don’t want to brow beat anybody. I’d just like to know. MR. STONE-Well, if somebody wants to offer their thought to you, then that’s their prerogative, but I don’t want to address the question, I mean, I can ask them if anybody wants to provide any input from their standpoint. They don’t have to. I don’t want to get into a. MR. GRANDE-I obviously don’t want to brow beat anybody. I just want to know, if everybody is adamant about the 16 foot height, and nobody feels like they’d like to see the guest cabin removed up over the top, and they’re saying, you know, that the 16 foot height is just it, then, I mean, I can reduce it to 16 feet and build it. I mean, if that’s where we’re going, that’s what I should do. MR. STONE-We would get you a copy of the minutes in which everybody stated their position. I, as the Chairman, must defend my Board. I don’t want to allow them to be questioned. They’ve made their statement. It’s in the record, it will be in the minutes, and you certainly can review the minutes in time for the next meeting. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/02) MR. GRANDE-But all I’m saying to you, if everybody feels adamantly about that height, then we’re going nowhere, and tabling this is a moot point, so to speak. MR. MC NULTY-Right, to be fair to the applicant, if that’s where we’re at, we should tell him that. MR. ABBATE-I agree. MR. GRANDE-If there’s any room for negotiation, I’d like to pursue it, but if everybody’s saying, absolutely not, 16 feet’s the height, then why should we pursue anything? MR. MC NULTY-That’s where I stand. MR. STONE-Go ahead, offer. MR. URRICO-I’m not stating that 16 feet is optimum for me. I mean, there’s, to me, there’s wiggle room. There has to be some give and take. MR. GRANDE-But 25 feet you think is? MR. URRICO-Twenty-five feet, to me, is too much. I can’t tell you what would be enough. I mean, I would have to see the plan. I would have to see what you put forth, but nine feet, fifty-six percent, is a lot. MR. GRANDE-So there couldn’t be a second living story in the building. MR. URRICO-I’m just judging it on figures. MR. STONE-Well, we have had proposals where there is space up there. It maybe doesn’t have a eight foot ceiling, and it may have a hip roof, but there is certainly living space, certainly recreational space, within less than 25 feet. Anybody else want to make a comment? MR. BRYANT-Yes. I want to express my view. Basically, the height is somewhat a concern, and I understand what you’re saying about the attached garage. If you went to a 20 foot, 900 square foot garage, and you eliminated the cabin, you know, you’re offering something to make it attractive, and I would probably consider that. Generally, I don’t, when I’m here, I generally vote against anything over 900 feet on a garage, and sometimes I’m in the minority, but it has to be a give and take kind of situation. Would I go 25 feet? Probably not. 20 feet is 25%. It’s a little bit more reasonable. You brought the garage down to 900 square feet. That would be an offer on your part that would be reasonable in my view. MR. GRANDE-Would you support moving the guest cabin up there, and demolishing the guest cabin? MR. BRYANT-And get rid of the guest cabin, I’d like to see the guest cabin go. MR. GRANDE-But moving that same space up over the top of the house? MR. BRYANT-I would suggest that we discuss it, but that’s a possibility. MR. ABBATE-Let me offer this, if I may. The previous applicant had a 19.7, I call it 20%, and the Board pretty much agreed that was a significant change. Well, 20% really is only reducing it by five feet, and apparently, if you were to do that, 20% would be a significant change, in my opinion. I’m just throwing that out. You can do it, you don’t have to do it. MR. GRANDE-I mean, I’d like to see just where I’m going. If I’m going to make nobody happy by making these changes, but if I can make a few and make a lot of people happy, that’s where I’d like to go. MR. ABBATE-Well, you can start with 20%, to me, as the Chairman, he took the wording from a dictionary, 20% is a significant change, which the Board, apparently, would accept. MR. STONE-Does anybody else want to offer any thoughts? No pressure. MR. UNDERWOOD-If you’re going to talk about changing that living space, taking down the cabin and moving it up there, is the LGA going to have an input on that? I would imagine they’re going to have some concerns. MR. STONE-It seems to me that what you’ve heard from the Board, and I certainly would entertain a motion to table to, one, to get clarification on what would be allowable with a permanent connection of whatever. That would be of importance to the Board. Two, I think you want to give a time for you to think about what you’ve heard here tonight from our members, and you’ve heard anything from, I don’t like anything over 16 feet to maybe 20, maybe, who knows, but you’ve heard all this thing, just the way I have and 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/02) I have no greater insight into my Board’s thinking than you do. Having said, my Board, I don’t mean it that I control the Board. I don’t want anybody to think that. They are not my Board, so I would propose that we table this motion, to give you a chance to review, for the Board to think about it, and for Staff to prepare a full explanation of what is allowable and what is not allowable. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 27-2002 JAMES GRANDE, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 3222 State Route 9L. For no more than 62 days, in order to allow the applicant to review the comments made by the Board during tonight’s hearing, so that Staff can prepare a position visa vie an attached garage, in terms of size and height allowable, and for the Board to consider some of the discussion that has taken place tonight, as far as your interest in this particular piece of property. Duly adopted this 17 day of April, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Himes MR. STONE-There you go. We’ll see you, when you’re ready, you talk to Staff. MR. GRANDE-Thank you very much for your time. AREA VARIANCE NO. 26-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED ANGIO DYNAMICS, INC. PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE AGENT: RICHARD E. JONES, ASSOC. LCOATION: 543 QUEENSBURY AVENUE ZONE: LI-3A APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 24,867 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO THE COMMERCIAL BUILDING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM ACCESSORY STRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS AND PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. SPR 19-2002 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 4/10/2002 OLD TAX MAP NO. 55-2-19.52 NEW TAX MAP NO. 297.08-1-26 LOT SIZE: 2.82 ACRES SECTION 179-26, 179-67 RICHARD JONES & RANDY BODKIN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. STONE-We’re going to read Staff notes, but before we start, I was informed by Staff, at the start of the evening, that there is a slight complication, in terms of the fact that there are four properties here, rather than one, and that we’re going to be interested in consolidating these properties to grant the relief that is necessary. MR. BODKIN-I was going to consolidate these (lost words) and rather than muddy the waters at this point, I didn’t dare touch it, with the Empire Zone and everything else changing, I didn’t want to create any mess. MR. STONE-Okay. So you’re amenable, probably, to consolidating, which helps us, as far as Staff is concerned. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 26-2002, Angio Dynamics, Inc., Meeting Date: April 17, 2002 “Project Location: 543 Queensbury Avenue Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 24,867 sq. ft. addition to the commercial building. Relief Required: Applicant seeks 21 feet 10 inches of relief from the 50-foot accessory structure distance requirement of the LI-3A zone (179-26). Note: It was advertised incorrectly that the applicant was also seeking relief from the permeability requirements. 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 structure in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include constructing a narrower more compliant structure. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 21 feet 10 inches of relief from the 50-foot 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, as there appears to be sufficient room to construct a narrower more compliant addition. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): No history of variances or site plan issues. However, numerous building permits have been issued since 1990 consisting of construction of the warehouse shell, interior build-outs and alterations. Staff comments: Minimal impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. Even though there appears to be sufficient room to construct a narrower more compliant addition, the overall negative impacts of the proposal seem to be minimal. Construction of a narrower more compliant addition might require developing more of the undisturbed area west of the existing gravel than what is already proposed (a narrow strip of trees (approximately 0.13 acres) will be removed to facilitate a portion of the rear access road). SEQR Status: Type: Unlisted” 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/02) MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form April 10, 2002 Project Name: Angio Dynamics, Inc. Owner: Angio Dynamics, Inc. ID Number: QBY-AV-26-2002 County Project#: Apr02-20 Current Zoning: LI-3A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 24,867 sq. ft. addition to the commercial building. Relief is sought from accessory structure distance requirements and permeability requirements. Site Location: 543 Queensbury Avenue. Tax Map Number(s): 297.08-1-26 Staff Notes: The applicant proposes a 24,867 square foot addition to building One of Angio Dynamics, see attached drawing. Relief is requested for the separation distance between building 1 addition and the existing building 2. The applicant proposes 28 feet where 50 feet is required. Staff does not identify any county impacts. Staff recommends NCI. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board 4/11/02. MR. STONE-Gentlemen, it’s your turn. MR. JONES-Good evening. I’m Richard Jones, representing Angio Dynamics. Basically what I’d like to do is just briefly show you what the existing site consists of, and what we’re proposing. What you’re looking at right here is a site which does encompass the four parcels that we were discussing earlier. The existing building is identified as Building One. This is a wood frame structure. There’s a series of wood frame sheds, Building Two, which is the one that we’re looking to currently keep, building identified as Number Three will be coming down. There’s a building shell here, or excuse me, Number Five, which is partially down now, and Building Number Four which will be coming down. Basically, we’ve looked at a bunch of various options for the owner in regard to the additions and renovations to the building. Currently, the manufacturing portion of the plant occurs in this back corner. Originally, when we were looking at the building addition, we were looking to add warehouse space. They currently have warehouse space off site, and we were looking to provide an addition, which would incorporate new research and development, R and D space, for the facility as well. The existing building, as I said, is a wood frame structure. It is not a tight envelope structure, which is something that is very, very critical to medical devices type production. In thinking about how we were adding on, rather than adding on space for research and development and warehouse space, we felt it would be more advantageous for Angio Dynamics to actually construct an addition which incorporated their manufacturing. So this allowed us, basically, to come in here, we had identified a requirement for the space required for their equipment, and then the warehouse which would be on the back side of that facility, and that would then allow us to basically be able to place loading docks for the facility on the back side, which would be in this general area. The basic space, it’s almost 50/50. It’s 50% manufacturing, which is the front half, and the warehouse storage portion is in the back 50% of the building. The building separation that we’re looking at is currently right here. This is what the separation would be between Building Two, which is existing, and our proposed addition. In looking at how we would orient this, if we were to take and actually separate the 50 feet requirement here, it would take this building and actually make this building approximately 50 feet longer, to be able to facilitate what we’re trying to do. If you look at the grading plan, which you have in your packet, I don’t have it up here, but this really starts to fall off. There’s a large drainage structure that comes across the back side of the site. There’s an existing tree line that currently comes out into here. We’re clipping off a little bit of that, and developing the new drive on the back side. If we were actually to widen this and narrow the building down, we would start to push everything back into the backside of the property, which we did not feel was really to the benefit of the client, nor desirable for the site development as well. In trying to develop this, we need enough space back here to be able to do turn around and back up for semi-tractor trailers, so that they can back up to the overhead doors. So we felt that this was really the most reasonable solution to the site problem, as well as the development. In reference to the 50 foot separation, it is a requirement of the Zoning Ordinance, but actually the building code allows you to provide the buildings closer together, dependent upon the facing materials of the structures. The facing material for the new building addition will be metal, and currently we’re going to be putting metal siding on Building Two as well. So we’ll be in conformance with the building code, even though we may not be in conformance with the separation required by the Zoning Ordinance itself. Basically, that’s what we’re proposing to do. We have, as I said, the existing building, the proposed addition, and then we’re trying to keep this as cold storage space, at the same time developing additional parking for the additional staff and workforce that’s required, plus also trying to get relief on the backside for the trucks coming in for deliveries to the warehouse area of the building. That’s pretty much what we’re proposing, and I’ll be happy to answer any questions. MR. BODKIN-Randy Bodkin, Director of Manufacturing and Engineering. If you go from the inside out and try and design a facility to meet our needs with the number of people and product through (lost word) by narrowing this structure up, would, in effect, reduce at least two of our, what we call packaging line, our ability to put a package device from the production area through into the warehousing area. Currently proposing six of our internal packaging lines and reduces it by a third, has a direct impact on our ability to meet our demands of what we have to manufacture. So it wouldn’t be a proportional, take 20 feet off the side of the building and put it on the overall length, it’s impractical, and we just plain couldn’t function as we intend on. BEN PRATT 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/02) MR. PRATT-My name is Ben Pratt. I’m a principal at Bartlett, Pontiff, and it takes two of us, apparently tonight to replace Jon Lapper, if he had not been on vacation, but just in sum, in terms of what Randy said, the reason that the building is not longer and skinnier, but it wider, is three fold. The first is that there, it’s the least environmental impact, in terms of removing trees and changing the terrain. Second, in terms of the operation of the facility, if the building is narrower, their operations are significantly impacted, and thirdly, there’s the expense of the building. It’s cheaper to build a building that comes closer to the square than it is to one that is long and skinny, in terms of the support columns and the other analysis, and Randy’s going through that with the Butler Building folks who are doing this building, and as you know, this is an Empire Zone project. Although we don’t want to supplement the application, at this point, and I’m sure you’ve all read about it in the paper as well as having seen the application, as part of the public hearing matter, Randy has prepared, basically, a thumbnail sketch of what the project is going to be like, in terms of it’s adding over 200 jobs, consolidating the space of Angio Dynamics, and providing for a dynamic future for the company and the community. So we think it’s a good product, a very good project, and obviously we would like your approval. MR. URRICO-Can you go over, again, where the trucks would come in and how they would turn around? MR. JONES-What we’re looking at, Hicks Road is to the side, which is folded around. This is the north end of the building site, Queensbury Avenue, the old County Line Road to the top of the sheet. Right now, trucks come in off of Hicks and back into the loading dock area right here on the back side. As I said, most of their warehousing is off of site. When product comes out of the building, it goes off site to a rented warehouse. They’re trying to consolidate, by building the warehouse back portion of this. We would be looking at this coming in and this going out. We’re under the understanding that Queensbury Avenue is about to be widened and reconstructed for additional truck traffic. So we would be having an outlet onto Queensbury Avenue, inlet/outlet, and inlet/outlet on Hicks. This would allow the trucks to come in, basically pull forward and then back up to the six loading docks or five loading docks that are on the backside here, and still be able to have enough room for vehicles to get by them as well. MR. URRICO-And that strip that separates the buildings, what would that be used for? MR. JONES-This area right here? MR. URRICO-Right. MR. JONES-Currently it’s a gravel surface area. We would just leave it as gravel surface at this point. MR. STONE-Are you going to close in Building Two, the front part of it, or is that going to be open? Those boats in there, I mean, you want to protect them from the winter. MR. JONES-On what would be the north side? MR. BODNIK-In some of our preliminary meetings with Dave Hatin, we, I guess this was identified as being a possible issue with the distance. So at that point we kind of said, well, let’s fix it, and fixing it is putting metal siding on it. So the entire perimeter, the backside looks unsightly, no doubt about that at all, if anybody’s driven by there. We’ve made some enhancements over the years, invested a lot of money in a new roof for that structure, removed some tattered sliding doors off the backside, and we’re going to further enhance it by completely sheeting, next year, the building with metal siding. MR. STONE-What’s that little building that said, it didn’t say consignment shop? MR. BODNIK-Bargain Barn? That’s a Bargain Barn. The original sign left from PBS when they vacated the site. We left it there, and we refer to it as the Bargain Barn. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BODNIK-So at this point it’s cold storage in half of it and heated storage in the other half for records. MR. STONE-But I can’t go in there and buy medical equipment. MR. BODNIK-Well, you stop by, we’ve probably got some deals for you. MR. STONE-Okay. Anybody else got any questions? MR. URRICO-I just want to get back to that area again. Will that be used for vehicular traffic of any type, or be a pedestrian area? What exactly, that gravel area between the two buildings. MR. JONES-We don’t see it as something where we’re going to have vehicular traffic. We basically, there’s a sliding door which would be toward the end of that existing storage building toward Queensbury Avenue, and there’s one on the backside as well, where the gravel comes around the backside. We don’t envision 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/02) traffic going through there because we would have access into the dry storage from either end, just fire truck access, basically. We didn’t want to put a lot of planting in there because 25 feet is not a lot of space, or 28 feet is not a lot of space to be able to try and put maple trees and that type of thing. MR. STONE-Anything else, gentlemen? Having said that, I will open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of the application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador. It might take three of us tonight, in the absence of Jonathan Lapper. He’s the only guy I know that represents a client that illegally cut trees on Cooper Island and the stumpage fee exceeded the fine. So they made money on the deal. In any case, with regard to this project, the consolidation you speak of, that will be something more than just some tax parcel number changes. The variances that you’re requesting are going to be dependent upon these four parcels remaining intact, forever and ever and ever. This may, I don’t know how the title is held on these four parcels, but it could, in fact, mean a change in title. So that they are all consolidated into one entity. If they aren’t already. I don’t know. MR. STONE-Anybody wishing to speak opposed? Then I’ll get clarification from Staff. So, be ready, but anyway, any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. MR. STONE-Then I will close the public hearing. Would you comment on that, Bruce, in terms of what you told me. MR. FRANK-Mr. Salvador was correct. If they combine these parcels, then they will not need any further variances from what they’re requesting right now. So if you’re going to approve this application, it should be contingent upon the parcels being combined into one parcel. MR. STONE-Do I hear agreement on the part of the owner? MR. BODNIK-That was our original intent from the get go. MR. STONE-Mr. Pratt can handle that tomorrow. MR. PRATT-We can do that simply, and it’ll be necessary, in terms of the financing and everything else as well, to do that, I’m sure. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. URRICO-How many parcels is that? MR. STONE-There are four right now. You can see them on the yellow, the four. MR. JONES-May we submit these to you folks? MR. STONE-Sure, you absolutely may. MR. BODNIK-Just to give you a little idea of what Angio is all about, what we’re doing. MR. STONE-I’d appreciate knowing that. It’s always nice to know what people do in Town. Anyway, any other comments, gentlemen? If not, let’s talk about it. Let’s start with Roy. MR. URRICO-All right. I’m going to take it down the criteria again, and again, the benefit to the applicant, they would be permitted to construct the desired structure in the preferred location. Feasible alternatives, as discussed earlier, the feasible alternatives might include constructing a narrower more compliant structure, but in doing so, that would bring them to an area that probably would have more of an environmental impact than the current location. So I think that that weighs in favor of the applicant, I believe. Regarding the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance, it’s 44%, but in this particular case, I really don’t think it’s going to have an undue hardship on anybody else in that area, and regarding the code, I think there has to be some leeway for businesses such as Angio Dynamics, which has added a lot to this area, and so I think the relief there is moderate and assuaged even further by the fact that, as a business, I think they need a little bit more stretch in the belt. As far as the effects on the neighborhood or community, again, this is zoned three acres. With the combining of the parcels, I don’t think this is going to have a major impact on the neighborhood. It’s where there’s a lot of businesses, a lot of manufacturing, and I think this corridor is obviously developed into a major industrial area for this Town, and as far as the difficulty being self-created, again, it’s interpreted as self- 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/02) created, but I really don’t think they have any other place to put this. I think this is a good plan in a good location, and I would approve it. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I’m inclined to agree with what’s been said so far, basically, I can’t see that it’s going to affect hardly anybody else. I took a quick look, while we were talking, at the new code to see if there was any indication of why there’s a 50 foot separation requirement, and there’s no explanation in the code, again, as to why that rule is there. The only reason I can think of, in an industrial setting, is fire control, not to allow fire equipment in, but if one building were to burn, 50 feet is a much nicer distance than 28 feet, but it’s the applicant that’s taking on that risk. The only risk that we’re passing to somebody else is the additional risk that might be impacted on firefighters if they had to fight fires in the two buildings, but I think, all told, the detriment is minimal, and as has been said, I think the benefit to the applicant is clear, and the benefit to the community is clear, that the applicant can proceed. So I’d be in favor. MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I, too, would be in favor of this application. I think the fact that you’re going to put the metal sheeting on the wood frame building there is probably going to negate the fire danger dramatically from what the present concerns are, and I think that, you know, the whole purpose of the Empire Zones was to encourage local businesses to expand, and this is what we’re going to do here, and at some point if the business continues to grow, I would imagine that the shed building would be the first to go. When you expand, you’re going to go in that direction anyway. So, I’d be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Allan? MR. BRYANT-Some of the people that come before the Board, you know, we see often, and we appreciate the work that they do, and Mr. Jones is one of the ones that always comes before us with a well thought out project. I’ve never seen him come with a bad project. He’s not using as much green as he used to, though. I’m in favor of the project. It’s a good project. I have a question, not relating to the project, but relating to the overall operation of your company. You show this increase in manufacturing personnel, and now you’re increasing the building, and so forth and so on. Why do you have such a dramatic reduction in sales and marketing? MR. STONE-Yes, I was wondering the same thing? MR. BRYANT-How are you going to accomplish the additional volume required to pay for all this? MR. BODNIK-They’re going to stop golfing on Wednesdays. MR. BRYANT-I’m in favor of it. MR. ABBATE-I guess I’m next here. MR. STONE-Yes, go ahead. MR. ABBATE-I agree with everything that they said, but particularly what Allan said, but anyway, I wish I had received this ahead of time, and I wish I had known your organization in 1991, because I would have bought a lot of stock. What impresses me with your organization is that, and I’m assuming it’s authentic in here, that you are the world’s leading supplier of barium sulfate contrast medium for the parent, and that your sales went from 360K in 1991 to $30 million, and as I said, I’m just sorry I didn’t know you in 1991. I would certainly support your application. MR. STONE-Well, I certainly am in agreement. It’s always interesting to me, I think Al Bryant said it right. It’s always the things that I find easiest to make a decision that the applicant comes best prepared. It’s amazing. I mean, I think this is a very easy decision to make. I think Mr. McNulty expressed the only concern that possibly could be expressed about it, is that the fire situation, and I don’t think that’s a real problem. I think it’s a, my comment was, just looking at it, it’s no problem. I mean, I think it’s a good project, and I think it falls afoul of the zoning only because you’ve got to have some number in the zoning, and I think this is a well thought out design. Having said that, we need to make a determination. MOTION THAT A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM SHOWS THAT THERE ARE NO NEGATIVE IMPACTS CAUSED BY THIS PROJECT, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Duly adopted this 17 day of April, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/17/02) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Himes MR. STONE-Now I need a motion to approve. MR. URRICO-I’ll take it. MR. STONE-Go ahead. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 26-2002 ANGIO DYNAMICS, INC., Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: 543 Queensbury Avenue. The applicant proposes construction of a 24,867 square foot addition to the commercial building. The applicant, in doing so, seeks 21 feet 10 inches of relief from the 50 foot accessory structure distance requirement of the LI-3A zone, 179-26. The benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be permitted to construct the desired structure in the preferred location. Feasible alternatives may include constructing a narrower or compliant structure, but in doing so that may provide less relief, in an environmental way, than the current structure. The relief is moderate, 21 feet 10 inches of relief from the 50 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate, but in this area we feel the relief is mitigated by the location and the expected combining of certain parcels, which I’ll refer to in a minute. The effects on the neighborhood or community are minimal, and the problem is self-created in a sense, but it’s also created because of the, there is not sufficient room in an area that would provide as nice a structure as this. I would also like to make this motion contingent upon the four parcels being combined into one parcel. Duly adopted this 17 day of April, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Himes MR. STONE-Go and be successful, gentlemen. MR. BRYANT-I just have one more question. What kind of vehicle is underneath that draping? Who owns that? Is that your car? MR. BODNIK-No. The President of the Company has a Porsche. MR. STONE-Gentlemen, before we, I am told that I should have made a motion to table Area Variance No. 9-2002 David & Linda Johnson. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-2002 DAVID & LINDA JOHNSON, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 347 Cleverdale Road. Until the second meeting in May. This tabling is at the request of the applicant. Duly adopted this 17 day of April, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hayes MR. STONE-Thank you, gentlemen, that’s the end of the meeting. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Lewis Stone, Chairman 30