Loading...
2002-02-20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/20/02) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 20, 2002 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT PAUL HAYES, ACTING CHAIRMAN CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY NORMAN HIMES ROY URRICO, ALTERNATE JAMES UNDERWOOD, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT LEWIS STONE ALLAN BRYANT CHARLES ABBATE CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-BRUCE FRANK ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-CHRIS ROUND STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 13-2002 TYPE II DONALD R. AND JOYCE A. BODAK OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE AGENT: N/A LOCATION: FIVE BULLARD AVENUE ZONE: SFR-10 DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGE FROM PREVIOUSLY DENIED APPLICATION. APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A CHAIN-LINK FENCE AND REQUESTS RELIEF FROM FENCE ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS. PREVIOUS AV 88- 2001 WAS DENIED BY THE ZBA ON NOVEMBER 28, 2001. CROSS REF. AV 88-2001 OLD TAX MAP NO. 101-2-10 NEW TAX MAP NO. 302.14-2-52 LOT SIZE: 0.21 ACRES SECTION 179-74 DONALD & JOYCE BODAK, PRESENT MR. HAYES-As a matter of procedure, we’re here to determine whether the Bodak’s application is a significant enough change to warrant a rehearing. If we do not find that fact, then there won’t be a rehearing. We’ll make a motion whether there’s a significant enough change to proceed with this application to the next meeting. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 13-2002, Donald R. and Joyce A. Bodak, Meeting Date: February 20, 2002 “Project Location: Five Bullard Avenue Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to remove one section of chain-link fence and requests relief for that section of the fence in the right-of-way. Relief Required: Applicant requests 6.75 feet of relief for that section of chain-link fence that apparently proposed to remain in the Bullard Avenue right-of-way per § 179-74(B5). Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to keep that section of fence in the right-of-way. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include removing that section of fence back to the front property line. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 6.75 feet of relief from the requirement may be interpreted as minimal. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 88-2001: denied request for 16.75 feet of relief of fence in Town of Queensbury Right-Of-Way. Staff comments: Minimal impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action being the fence extends along the side property line with the end of the fence proposed to be 16.5 feet from the road. Town of Queensbury Highway Superintendent Richard Missita has stated the proposed location of the fence will not hinder the maintenance of the roadway nor will it pose any safety concerns (see note dated January 2, 2002). Additionally, the Bodaks have proposed to remove a section of split-rail fence and a wooden post, both 3 feet from the road, even though these sections of fence are pre-existing nonconforming. Consideration to remove the split-rail fence and post was made because of the negative public comments made during the public hearing on November 28, 2001. Another consideration might be given to the larger than normal right-of-way for Bullard Avenue (66 feet). Typically, roads with a 20-foot width would have a right-of-way of 50 feet. If Bullard Avenue had a 50-foot right-of- 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/20/02) way, the Bodak’s proposal to remove one section of chain-link fence (ten feet) would not require a variance. Summary of different between applications: AV 88-2001 (denied November 28, 2001) requested 16.75 feet of relief, and AV 13-2002 requests 6.75 feet of relief (proposed removal of 10 feet (one section) of chain- link fence). SEQR Status: Type” MR. HAYES-Mr. and Mrs. Bodak, welcome back. MR. BODAK-It’s good to be back. I was just telling Bruce, if nothing else, we’ve got a good lesson in civic affairs here. My name is Don Bodak. My wife and I are here this evening to further our case on the alleged right of way violation. I have a letter from Rick Missita, the Town of Queensbury Highway Superintendent. On January 2 Mr. Missita sent me a letter, and he says, “As I previously indicated to you, the placement of nd the Bodak fence 16 feet from the edge of the blacktop does not hinder the maintenance of the roadway nor does it pose any safety concerns.” In our last hearing, my “good neighbors”, said that we had a problem with an ambulance and a fire truck and something else going on. As you can see, I’m in a wheelchair and I have ambulances coming to my house quite a bit, and I never had a problem. I checked with 911 and with the Warren County Sheriff’s Department, and I had them go back all the way to April 1 of last year, 2001, and st according to the Deputy on duty at the time, I don’t recall his name, I think it was Bob, but I’m not sure, but anyway, he tells me that there were no calls for Bullard Avenue in the timeframe that the people who came up against me last November claim. There were no 911 calls, no fire, no ambulances, no anything, no accidents, no anything for that area, and so I would say, you know, somebody’s blowing smoke in this. So in light of the letter from Mr. Missita, I can’t understand what the big problem with the fence is. If he doesn’t have a problem with it, I don’t know what my neighbor’s problem is, but I don’t like what my neighbors do either, but I don’t take them to the Board, at least not yet anyway. To settle this issue, I propose to take out, there is the fence post right there for the chain-link. That’s about six something feet off the road, six something, maybe seven feet off the road, and then we’ve got a wooden ten foot section of fence right here. I left that up for a reason, people used to come down Bullard Avenue and cut over my property and come across and kind of dig up the yard, and plus I had kids at the time, and I didn’t want anybody getting hurt. So I put up a wooden fence here. I had a rail fence right through here one time, which is okayed by the, I had a regular rail fence right through here, and that post was a left over from the rail fence, and I put that there because people were coming, like I say, coming down Bullard and using the yard for a turnaround spot. So I left that post up, and then I left this section of fence up, but to make people happy, I’m willing to take that section of fence down, that old ten foot section of wooden fence right there, take that down, and where that post is, that’s the end of the chain-link, they say like six or seven feet off the road, and take it back maybe six or seven feet . That leaves me a variance of like maybe six feet I’m asking for, and get this back to about here, and that’ll give me a variance request of say six feet to make me in compliance with the Town of Queensbury, and take out this post right here, okay, and that’s where my new application stands at this point in time. Like I say, the reasons for this is for my own personal safety and for my family at the time, and I just didn’t appreciate people coming down there and pulling in to my yard at night and having a couple of beers and throwing their cans out in the middle of the road, and all that kind of stuff. MRS. BODAK-Well, the last meeting, the last application we brought pictures showing how they (lost words). MR. BODAK-That’s where our difference is right now. If that will please the Board, we’ll do that, but for the life of me I can’t see the fuss over this, because this neighbor who lives right next door to me, this guy right over there, lives in that house there. He’s objecting. It’s not going to affect his property one way or another. He’s just being miserable about this thing. So, whatever pleases the Board. If you want me to move it, okay, fine, I’ll take it back. If not, Mr. Missita says there’s no problem. So that’s where it stands right now. MR. HAYES-You understand tonight that we’re just here to determine whether your application can be heard next month. MR. BODAK-Yes, I know. MR. HAYES-And I think you’ve summarized your changes very well. I think everybody’s pretty clear about what your changes are. MR. BODAK-All right. MR. HAYES-So what I’ll do now is take a quick pole of the Board to see if they feel this is a substantial enough change to warrant a rehearing, and if they do, then we’ll have that, and if they don’t, we won’t. So I guess I’ll start right down at the end with Jim. Is this enough of a change to warrant? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think it is. MR. HAYES-Okay. Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes, I do. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/20/02) MR. HAYES-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. MR. HAYES-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Yes. MR. HAYES-I agree. I don’t think there’s any need to belabor this any longer. It represents basically a 60% reduction in the variance that you’re requesting, and that’s a significant change, I think. So what I will do at this time is make a motion. MOTION THAT, BASED ON THE NEW EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE BODAKS, THAT THEIR APPLICATION, THE CHANGE IN THEIR APPLICATION, REPRESENTS ENOUGH OF A CHANGE TO WARRANT A REHEARING BY THIS BOARD, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Duly adopted this 20 day of February, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate MR. HAYES-Thank you. We’ll see you. You need to file your application with the Town Staff and they’ll tell you when you’re on the agenda. MR. BODAK-Okay. MR. HAYES-All right. Thank you for coming. MR. BODAK-Okay, thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 4-2002 TYPE II RICHARD AND WENDY DE SILVA AGENT: JONATHAN C. LAPPER, JIM PERKINS PROPERTY OWNER: RICHARD AND WENDY DE SILVA LOCATION: 139 SEELYE ROAD, CLEVERDALE ZONE: WR-1A, CEA APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE WITH A STORAGE AREA ABOVE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 1/9/2002 OLD TAX MAP NO. 16-1-37.5 NEW TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-58 LOT SIZE: 0.49 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-79 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MC NULTY-We had a tabling motion from last time, “MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 4-2002 RICHARD AND WENDY DE SILVA, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 139 Seelye Road, Cleverdale. For up to 62 days, in order for the applicant to prepare modifications that might meet some of the objections expressed by the Zoning Board of Appeals members. Duly adopted this 16 day of January, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hayes” STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 4-2002, Richard and Wendy DeSilva, Meeting Date: February 20, 2002 “Project Location: 139 Seelye Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 352 sq. ft. garage with a storage area above. Relief Required: Applicant requests 11.8 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum side setback requirement as well as relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure per the WR-1A requirements; § 179-16, § 179-79. 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 garage with a storage area above, in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/20/02) Feasible alternatives may include constructing the garage without a second story storage area. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 11.8 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum 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 due to the proposed structure being built in the footprint of the existing carport. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 4-2002: tabled 1/16/02; same application as this application with respect to the relief sought. BP 2001-857: applied for 11/20/01 (never issued); 144 sq. ft. sunroom and 16 by 22-foot modification of carport into a garage with storage area above. Staff comments: Minimal impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The proposed garage/storage area will occupy the footprint of the existing carport. Additionally, the neighboring parcel 8.2 feet from the carport is an undeveloped 35-foot lake access lot. However, due to the negative comments at the last public hearing (mostly concerned with the height of the storage area above the garage), the applicants have proposed to lower the height of the storage area over the garage by 2 feet. The new proposed structure also consists of different style upper windows and roofline, which may be considered more aesthetically pleasing. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. HAYES-Thank you. Mr. Lapper? MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper and Rick DeSilva. I know that most of you were here at the last meeting. I think that the Acting Chairman was not, if I recall. MR. HAYES-That’s correct. MR. LAPPER-And the way the Board left it with us we had the neighbors behind who were opposing, and the way the resolution went, the Board asked us to go back and reconsider to see if there was something that we could do to reduce the request for the variance, and we did go back to the drawing board to some degree, and lowered the roof by two feet, and while two feet doesn’t sound like a lot, in and of itself, it substantially changes what’s proposed, and one of the issues that the neighbors had raised was, hey, what you’re really trying to do here is make this into another bedroom. We thought that we had covered that issue by explaining that there is a shower and a bathroom upstairs, adjacent to where the upstairs storage area would be here, so it wouldn’t be feasible to use it, but now this is something that wouldn’t meet Code. I mean, their intention is just to have a small storage area above the garage and so it would be five and a half feet at the eaves, I guess, and seven at the peak, so that wouldn’t meet the Code, and they’re not trying to do anything that they’re not talking about, and that’s the first thing to establish, but the reason why we incorrectly thought that this would be pretty simple and the neighbors wouldn’t be concerned about it is because this is the case, of course, where there’s this existing shed which is not very attractive, which was granted a building permit by the predecessor, the owner who sold it to the DeSilvas, and they got the building permit and they built the roof, and supported the roof, but they didn’t side it. So the first place we started was to say that that shed is not an attractive structure, that the house is sided in T111, which is not attractive, and this, their request to update that carport and turn it into a garage is part and parcel of their plan which you’ve seen, which is to completely reside the whole house in a peeled log look, which is a real upgrade and something that we figured that the neighbors would be very pleased with. I mean, this is not just a substantial expense, but more importantly a substantial aesthetic improvement, compared to what’s there now, and as the Staff notes pointed out, we think that the modified garage is more attractive because of the new roofline, compared to what was proposed to begin with. If you just look at it from the neighbor’s perspective, the impact on the area prong of the Area Variance test, this is, in our opinion, a substantial improvement from what’s there, and what’s there now is not attractive. We discussed the issue last time whether or not they would have the right to just side the shed and leave it there, which is certainly not their preference, because it wouldn’t be pleasing to look at, but the point was just to say that you have to compare that to the proposal which is not very different in mass, but it’s just different in style, and I know that there is a letter from the neighbors where they concede that, okay, if that’s what they want to do, we’ll let them side the shed, but I mean, I don’t understand that position, because the difference between siding the shed and doing this is very little in mass, but it just will look a lot better, and that’s the point with the Area Variance. The neighbors have a 35 foot wide right of way that gets down to their dock. So to the extent that they’re walking by this and looking at it, it’s only the width of the carport, some 20 or so feet, and it’s next to their 35 foot access parcel. It just doesn’t seem to us that this is much of any impact, just that it’s going to improve it, and in good faith Rick has now reduced his proposal. I have a panoramic picture that Rick took from across the lake, or the bay, and one thing that was sort of disturbing to us at the last meeting was that the neighbors presented you with a photograph showing that this shed was right in their view shed. It’s a picture just like this, and this was taken from the right of way. The neighbors access to their 35 foot lake access parcel comes across the DeSilva property. The parcel is to the left, but the access is right where this picture is taken, the right of way across the DeSilva’s property, and my point is just they’re showing this, wow, look, that’s right in front of us, but this is taken from the perspective of on the DeSilva’s property. The neighbors’ property is some 20 feet above it. So they’re looking over the garage, and Rick took this. I want to just, because of the tree you have to really look to see (lost words) with the green roof, but you can see the elevation is substantially higher. Rick, would you like to comment on that? MR. DE SILVA-Yes, if I could just comment a little bit on that. The picture that you see there is from across the bay. You can see, fortunately enough the snow is there and you can see that they’re substantially 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/20/02) higher than us. I even have a USGA geologic map that shows that they are at least 20, if not more feet, higher than that, and I only point that out because what we proposed the last time was almost 20 feet, and we’ve dropped it to 17 and a half feet from our base. So it in fact sits lower than from their view from their home. It doesn’t, in our estimation, I think, mess up their view at all. I want to thank you for giving us the opportunity to come back in, but I’d just like to say something, if I can, about my wife and myself, who’s not here tonight. My wife and I are both very civic minded people. Although we’re hoping somewhere down the line to make this our permanent home, we currently live in North Jersey, in a town that’s one of the fastest growing towns in North Jersey. I sit on the board of education. My wife is president of the board of health. I only say that because we understand what we’re asking for, and what we’re asking you to do for us, and we certainly wouldn’t propose something that was out of character or that would really cause an adverse effect on the area. Unfortunately, I think last month, I think we were (lost words). I’ll tell you the truth, when I left here I felt a little bit like Charles Manson when I left here, as compared to, you know, a person who is a tax paying citizen trying to really improve something, but we got your message loud and clear. I can go item for item of the things that were said last month, but I don’t think we want to go there because what started out as a setback variance rapidly became something else, and although I am prepared to go item by item through what we talked about, and an inference was made that we want to make that a room. Gentlemen, I don’t wan to make it a room. I need storage. There was an inference that we don’t need storage. Well, I’ve got a downstairs basement, and in my basement is the oil tank, in fact, I wrote it all down, the oil tank, the furnace, the hot water heater, the washer and dryer, and the only access that I’ve got to that, the freezer, a small work area, the only access to that is a regular 32 or 34 inch door. So to utilize that as our storage space is just not enough for us. The garage is. I’ve got a boat and I don’t intend on putting a boat with a blue tarp outside. I want to put the boat away. I don’t want to stick it outside. Upstairs is storage area. There is no access to that room upstairs other than through the garage, as we discussed the last time. To the peak it’s seven feet, but with the rafters it’s a headroom of five and a half feet. It’s not a livable space and I’ll say it again that it’s not our intention to do that. We just, we read what you told us loud and clear, what you expected from us, and that’s why we came back with a different approach that we thought might be palatable to you, and that is 17 and a half foot. It’s not in anybody’s way, as you can look at that picture, you can see that. It’s clearly lower than their foundation on the house, and another statement was made that the people strolling up and down the street, it would block their view, and all due respect, and I’m going to tell you that I have no intention in doing that, but that right of way is our private property. It’s a sign on that that says private drive. We have to give access to the two people who live there, but that’s all we’re required to do. I would never stop anybody from walking down that road, but I’d just say, please don’t use that against us, that, you know, that people, and it’s not exactly the bucolic country setting that people make it out to be unless you’re going to their parking lot to the marina. So, I wouldn’t stop anybody from coming there, but we want to be good neighbors. We want to do the right thing, and that’s really it, and I’m just hoping that in the spirit of cooperation that you respectfully approve what we have here. MR. LAPPER-I guess just finally, from the standpoint of the Area Variance, just to remind the Board, that the footprint of what we’re talking about is the identical footprint of what was the subject of the building permit and what is constructed there for this shed roofed carport. We believe, and Craig, as Zoning Administrator, backed us up, that when you get a building permit, and you construct, move dirt in New York, the rule is you have vested rights and you continue the project. The fact that the two years have expired so you couldn’t start a project, but once you half build it you could continue to build it, that would give them the right to side it the way it is. That’s not their intention, that would not look attractive. This is a nice way to do it, to reside the whole house, and tie it all together architecturally, and the difference, if you’re talking about whether the neighbors can see around this, the difference in the shed roof completed or what’s proposed is not dramatic at all. It’s very minimal. MR. DE SILVA-It is an architecturally challenged structure. There’s no doubt about that. MR. LAPPER-Yes. It’s not an attractive structure the way it is, and finally I just have a picture of the neighbor’s right of way with their boat on it and the picture of their view from the lake, from their dock. MR. DE SILVA-And while you’re looking, there was a statement that the house was turned over six times in the last ten years. That’s absolutely incorrect. The same owner who originally, and I’ve got the original building permit. The same owner who originally applied for the building permit with the garage on it owned the home up until April of 2000, and sold it to a gentleman who I bought it from in October of 2000. So why he flipped it quick, we probably all know why he did that, but that original person who originally pulled out that permit owned that house up until April of 2000, and we took it over in October of 2000. So the house was not turned over six times. The houses behind us, the house in question behind us is, and I’ve got a picture of that too. The way it’s set up is offset on the property so that they’ve pretty much got view down the 35 foot right of way as opposed to, they do not sit directly. MR. LAPPER-That’s what the photos show, but why don’t you hand that up to them, also, as part of the record. MR. DE SILVA-These are not to scale, but these are hopefully as best. The shaded in area is our property and the house in question there is. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/20/02) MR. HAYES-Are you saying that you own that right of way that’s there? MR. DE SILVA-Yes, sir. MR. HAYES-They just have a deeded right to use it? MR. DE SILVA-Yes. They have a right to use it as does the person coming from the lake to my left has the right to utilize it, and we have to give people the right to the lake access on the 35 foot. The one side to them is a non buildable lot. There’s actually four lots down there. MR. HAYES-Anything else? MR. LAPPER-Not at this time. MR. HAYES-Does anyone have any questions for the applicant? Okay. If there’s no questions by the Board, I have one question. You’re saying that there is no access to this room above the garage from inside the house? MR. DE SILVA-That’s correct. MR. HAYES-And you’re willing to stipulate that? MR. DE SILVA-Absolutely, and the way the house is constructed, on that side of the house, it’s physically impossible, without doing a major, major job, to open that up because on that side of the house is where the bathroom is. You just couldn’t do it. You’d have to walk through the bathroom to get to house or redo the whole thing, and we knew that that was going to be a question from the very beginning. So it made it real simple, and hopefully that would put the idea of this becoming a room up there to sleep because we specifically had that the only access up there is from the garage. You’d have to go outside into the garage to get upstairs into the room. MR. LAPPER-There’s no access into the garage from the first floor either. MR. DE SILVA-No. You mean from the house itself? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. DE SILVA-The only way you can access the room above the garage door is to go out the garage. MR. HAYES-You’re saying to go outside the house and go into the garage? MR. DE SILVA-That’s correct. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. DE SILVA-And I’ll stipulate it, however you want to do it. MR. HAYES-Well, I think that’s important because, quite frankly, we’ve seen miracles happen. MR. DE SILVA-And that’s why I went through that little dissertation about my wife and myself because I understand your position and what you’re dealing with and what goes on on a regular basis, and that’s why we had proposed right from the get go, we hoped things wouldn’t bring up these questions. MR. LAPPER-And also it doesn’t meet Code now. With dropping the roof down, it wouldn’t meet Code. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. URRICO-Just to re-clarify, what is the peak of the shed as it is right now? MR. DE SILVA-As it is now, when you say the peak? MR. URRICO-The highest point of that shed. MR. LAPPER-Rick has scaled this out. MR. DE SILVA-It’s one of these things, over the last month you get the time to think about a lot of things in the shower. This shows what the roofline is right now, and what the difference would be. The roofline is connected at 15 feet to the side of the house and it comes down to about 8 feet. This is, and I know this doesn’t mean a lot, but this is a copy of the original building permit, if I’m repeating, I’m sorry. We always 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/20/02) kill a tree doing these things, and that just gives you an idea of what is being added, height wise, as far as the structure is concerned. MR. HAYES-The changes in the siding that you’re proposing, to what extent are you willing to stipulate those, timing wise, to the completion of this addition? MR. DE SILVA-We’re going to do everything, we want to do everything all at once. We sort of dragged our feet to try to do everything all at once at this point. MR. LAPPER-So you could stipulate to that, that you wouldn’t do the garage without doing the siding? MR. DE SILVA-Absolutely, absolutely. MR. LAPPER-There’s also a porch on the front. MR. DE SILVA-We’re going to put a porch on the front. The decks are in bad shape. We’re ripping off the decks, putting new decks on it, putting new, we’re going to re-roof it, put all new soffits on it, you know, soffits that don’t need a lot of maintenance. It’s going to be skip peeled siding on the whole house. We’re trying to make the house look like it really should be in there. There’s no doubt that it would definitely be a plus for the area, in my estimation. MR. HAYES-Are there any further questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here that would like to speak in favor of this application? Anyone opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DOUGLAS MERRIGAN MR. MERRIGAN-Jim and Mary Ellen Merrigan are my parents. Douglas Merrigan is my name. I live at 16 Aberdeen Way in Gansevoort, New York. Jim and Mary Ellen very much wanted to be here. They are currently on a family vacation which was planned far in advance of this hearing. What I have is some letters from them that I would like read into the record. MR. HAYES-That’s fine. MR. MERRIGAN-Would you like me to read them? MR. HAYES-Actually, why don’t you have the secretary read them in. MR. BROWN-They may already be in. MR. HAYES-They may already be in. Do we have copies? MR. MC NULTY-Just make sure they’re the same ones. Yes, we’ve got both letters. MR. HAYES-Okay. If there’s no one else here to speak opposed, I’ll have him read them in right now. Is there anyone else here to speak opposed to the application? Okay. We’ll move to correspondence then, please. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. We have a total of three new letters. The first one is from Mary Ellen Merrigan, she says “After the January meeting, I spent time at the Town office reviewing the application and any possible changes. There are two particular concerns: 1. The information supplied on the SEQR in questions 1 and 11 is inaccurate. The applicant did not build the existing carport. It was built by someone two owners before the current owner. The current project does not have a valid permit. The permit that is referred to expired some twenty years ago and was only for a garage. 2. The applicant is still seeking a room above the garage. A large room, with windows on 3 sides and a height of 8 feet in the center is a living space. Even if it would benefit from a dormer in the future, it is still properly considered a living space. In terms of storage, the house already has a full basement and it appears from the plans submitted that additional storage space is to be built under the sunroom addition. In making its decision, we ask the Zoning Board to consider these 2 points: 1. Zoning protects the entire community. You can see by looking at Rockhurst what happens to the beauty of the neighborhood when lots are overbuilt and the lake is walled off. A variance should be an exception based on need, not just want. 2. When we purchased our lot, the subdivision called for one lakefront lot. This was later renegotiated, to cut it into two narrow lots. The sizes of the lot is reflected in its price. There are probably no bargains left on Lake George. The house being proposed is quite large and attractive but it requires a larger lot that would cost even more money. We don’t feel that someone should be able to put such a large house onto a narrow lot at our expense, compromising both our view and our property value. Over the year, 3 different families rented the property in question and decided not to buy it, but bought other places in the neighborhood where they could built bigger without compromising anyone’s view or property value. Our conclusion in talking again with Craig Brown is that even filling in the current 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/20/02) carport would require a variance. At this point, even though we have our objections, for the sake of peace, we will follow the recommendation of the Zoning Board and withdraw our objection to filling in the existing carport, if the Zoning Board feels that it is appropriate. Sincerely, Mary Ellen Merrigan” The second letter is from James P. Merrigan, PhD, and he says, “I would like to indicate my continued opposition to the variance requested by the DeSilvas to build a new two storage garage and storage room. The recent changes in the design of the proposed garage/storage addition do not significantly change the project’s impact on our view of Lake George or the effect on the neighborhood. The current proposed structure would significantly block our view of the lake and wall off the view for neighbors walking on the road or friends visiting Cleverdale. Adding a second story storage area to the house does not seem necessary given that the house has a full basement. The project would also produce a house that is too large for the lot size of less than ½ acre. The variance request does not represent a hardship in any way and does not benefit the neighborhood but only the applicant. I would also like to address the issue that the current carport is esthetically unpleasing, structurally unsound and can not be converted into a garage within its current dimensions. Enclosed is a picture of the garage of the house next to the DeSilva’s owned by Sonny and Julie Bonaccio. The Bonaccio house has the same type of shed roof garage design and was originally constructed by the same contractor as the DeSilva residence. It was recently renovated and the garage received structural repair, a new garage door and entrance door as well as trim and siding to match the main house structure. The renovation created a house that is beautiful, structurally sound and recently sold for around $600,000. No variance was requested to complete the renovation project. I would have no objection to the applicant enclosing the existing carport, as long as they stay within the current dimensions. This could certainly be done in a way that would match and enhance the main house. Again, I strongly oppose any addition to the existing structure. Finally, I would like to compliment the DeSilva’s on their efforts to improve their home and hope that they will not take my opposition to the variance personally. We look forward to the completion of their project and hope that we can continue to be good neighbors. I would like to thank the Board for their time and their service to the community. Sincerely, James P. Merrigan, PhD” And we have a third letter from Robert L. Evans and family, and they say “I am against the construction of the DeSilva home for a number of reasons. I know the Merrigans well and I currently jog and walk through this area of Seelye Road on a bi-weekly basis. Any new construction that would block anyone’s view of the lake is completely unacceptable. It sets a precedent for further building in the area and obstruction of views of the lake, the mountains, etc. is why we are all here! It is a detriment to the neighborhood as well as our natural surroundings. I think the zoning rules need to be upheld especially in a beautiful area like the lake with its unique characteristics. I am completely against this project and hopefully the DeSilvas can redesign it so it can be acceptable to the Merrigans and does not obstruct the current view of the lake. Respectfully submitted, Robert L. Evans, D.O. and family” MR. HAYES-Is that it? MR. MC NULTY-That’s it. MR. HAYES-Do you have anything to add, Mr. Merrigan? MR. MERRIGAN-Yes. I just have one quick question. Would you please flip back to the second, the previous picture. Okay. Yes, that’s it. Who took this picture? MR. HAYES-Our Town Staff. MR. MERRIGAN-Okay. MR. FRANK-I did. I’m the Code Compliance Officer. MR. MERRIGAN-Who’s property is this shot from? MR. FRANK-I believe I’m on your parents’ property. MR. DE SILVA-No, you’re on the DeSilva’s property. MR. MERRIGAN-Okay. It must just be by a couple of feet. MR. DE SILVA-No, and that’s a little (lost words), but it’s not the case. MR. FRANK-Actually, I stand corrected. The previous photo I was partially up on your parents’ property. I believe I’m on Mr. DeSilva’s property on this one. MR. MERRIGAN-Okay. Well, in any event, the property obviously starts, you know, it starts pretty soon, and I just wanted to make the point that that’s a pretty accurate view of what it would look like from the bottom of the property, and if you fill in that carport and put something on top of it, it would obviously, you know, it takes away quite a bit from the view, and that’s what makes the property on Lake George, that’s what makes it so attractive, and just, I know that’s the Merrigans’ feeling that improvement is great but it shouldn’t, improvement shouldn’t happen at someone else’s expense. That’s all I have. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/20/02) MR. HAYES-Thank you. MR. HAYES-Is there anyone else here to speak in opposition to the application? If not, I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HAYES-Are there any further questions for the applicant at this time? MR. URRICO-No, but I’d like Bruce to put that slide up again from the Merrigan’s property, please. MR. FRANK-That was approximately halfway up the hill of the neighbor’s property. MR. URRICO-Their driveway? MR. FRANK-I wasn’t on the drive. I was actually more in line with their house. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. DE SILVA-The property is offset to the one side of the property. There was a statement made last week that the house is not in context with the rest of the houses, in so far as the garage is on the side. Mrs. Merrigan took pictures of everybody’s house but her own. Her own, her house is built just like that, but not only is the garage access not in the front, it’s in the side, and I only point that out to say that shows you how far offset the house is on the property towards the view of that right of way, and another thing that’s really small, has nothing to do with this, but, and maybe, I think it’s going to be an education for everybody, that the right of way as it sits right now is all the way down on our property. The right of way as it really should be, should be much further up on the Merrigan’s front yard, which has nothing to do with this, and that’s certainly not our case, but taking pictures from what you see here, even the second picture was probably still from our property. MR. HAYES-You’re saying that road should be further up the hill then? MR. LAPPER-It’s right there. It’s the road right after the white ends. That’s where it’s supposed to be. MR. DE SILVA-Okay. It doesn’t make that left. The road goes straight. MR. LAPPER-It continues at the same angle. MR. DE SILVA-The road goes straight, at the same angle that Seelye Road goes. MR. LAPPER-We have a survey that shows the two. MR. HAYES-So it doesn’t pear back down there then? MR. LAPPER-That’s crushed stone. MR. DE SILVA-Can I show this to you? MR. HAYES-Sure. MR. DE SILVA-And again, this doesn’t have a lot to do with it, just so that I can get you an idea from, this is the road that the picture was taken from. This is where Merrigans’ property starts and ends. Their driveway is here, and see this is all our property. This is the right of way here, but actually everyone is utilizing this as the right of way at this particular point in time. It goes straight with the angle of Seelye Road. MR. HAYES-But you’re saying it should actually be like this? MR. DE SILVA-Yes, and it’s in the deed that at any time if we want to we could push it in a westerly. Everybody, when this thing was originally all carved up, they knew where everything was and we still have the right to move that up there if we want to, and I only point that out to say that as you’re taking pictures, which is still our property, and that’s why I say that, we wouldn’t stop anybody from walking down the street, but just don’t hold it against us that it’s our property that they’re walking on, on our right of way. MR. HAYES-Are there any further questions for the applicant, or, Jon, did you want to say something else? MR. LAPPER-Just quickly. Could you guys go back to that last shot, photograph. I just want to leave you with one thought, that the Merrigans say that they think this looks okay. We don’t think it looks okay. Rick didn’t buy the place because of this aesthetic beauty and his plan is to do a modest improvement by residing it, but to really make it look better. That shed roof is not and that’s really all we’re talking about, and the one 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/20/02) that he showed you, where he drew in the line of the shed roof, compared to what they’re proposing now, is our best case to just compare what’s there now versus what’s proposed. It’s a minor construction project, but a major improvement. MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions of the applicant? Okay. Then we’ll poll the Board. I guess, Mr. Himes, you get the pleasure of starting first on this one. MR. HIMES-Thank you. I have to admit this was a tough one, anyone trying to make everyone happy to some extent, and I think that, in my way of thinking, a pivotal factor in it is the existing footprint being used, and I think that there may be any number of suggestions, so to speak, as to how something should be constructed, whether it looked like this or it looked like that, and so on, that neighbors or anyone who might pass by could offer, and the fact that, I don’t know that it’s a majority, but a certain number of people have come together suggesting that the thing be placed somewhere else, I don’t know that that’s something that necessarily a person occupying a piece of land has to do, and so I do think that now the aspect of all right dropping the roof down so that the likelihood of there ever being any occupancy in the upstairs portion of the garage is remote or it would be out of Code. There’s no access from the house directly into the garage at either level. So I tend to look at this now as something that may impair the view of one neighbor slightly, but again, weighing the value of what’s lost and what’s gained, and the aspect of whose rights are affected, I’m thinking that that applicant has shown some degree of trying to compromise, as we talked about at the last meeting, and the letters, of course, that I heard read still show the feelings of the people that were here, I guess, at the last meeting, where I’m feeling somewhat sympathetic to the application and I believe that I would approve it. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m in agreement with Norm, and I’m going to take a little different route to get there. I’m going to take the five criteria which we’re asked to judge an application by, and as to the benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be permitted to construct the desired garage with a storage area in the preferred location. Feasible alternatives, feasible alternatives may include constructing the garage without a second story storage area, but I feel he’s somewhat limited in doing that. He could close off what is there now. I don’t think it would be as attractive, and I really don’t see that as being a feasible alternative. Another feasible alternative would be not to do anything. The third, is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? And 11.8 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum, on the face of it, would seem to be moderate at best, but again, as Norm said, this is occupying a previous footprint, and in my mind, the only space in question is the space above what’s currently there, that whole, this triangular piece, and so I don’t think of it as being moderate. I think of it as being somewhat minimal or relatively unchanged to what’s there now. I know it’s going to block off some of the view, but from some of the angles that we’ve seen, I think it’s not going to be as bad as has been depicted. That being said, I think the effects on the neighborhood or community will be minimal. I think it will not significantly change the view, and as far as being self-created, I think Mr. DeSilva inherited this situation. He’s trying to make the best of what he inherited. I just see it in favor of the application. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-At this point I’m inclined to agree with what’s been said. If the shed garage was not there, I think I’d be inclined to say no, if this was an entirely new request, but that is there. Admittedly it’s debatable whether the applicant can or cannot legally enclose the garage, but assuming that he would accomplish that one way or another, what’s being proposed, as has been pointed out, is just a little bit more on height, and I think is going to make a significant difference in appearance to the better. So, given that, and the applicant’s willingness to lower the height by the two feet that he’s proposed, I’m inclined to approve. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I would be in agreement with the other three Board members that previously spoke, too. I think that, you know, we’re looking at a minor alteration. It’s not a major big deal, and the amount of height that you’re going to go up higher is certainly going to take away a little bit of their view, but there is quite a bit of an offset between those two homes, and I think that it’s reasonable to assume that with the upgrade of your property, it’s going to be a benefit to the neighborhood. I don’t think there’s any detriment in that respect, and I think that it’s, I’m okay with this. MR. HIMES-Could I add something, Jaime? I don’t know if this violates our rules of order, but there was a point in the last discussions in connection with the septic tank, and one of the things put the garage behind the house and all. In fact, the septic tank was out this side of the doorway there I guess, somewhere in that area, and given now that, okay, it’s going to be lets say a garage there, there was some question as to that being nonpermeable, you know, where the leach bed would be, and whether we should address that in terms of there may be parking and all going right over on top of where that is. Should we address that as something that should be addressed since it was brought up. John Salvador was here and had his comment on it, but it came up before his comments, and I’m wondering whether or not that’s something that should. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/20/02) MR. HAYES-We can check with Staff, but it would appear to me that if it’s in the existing footprint, that the roof is nonpermeable now, as is the compacted surface in front of it, right, essentially? MR. BROWN-Yes. I think Norm’s question, as part of this application, can we look at the septic. MR. HIMES-Yes. Should there be something, whether that just be put grass in there. I don’t know where it is. I don’t know if anyone knows exactly where it is, but it’s very compact, but should it be something that should be considered here as long as work is going to be done anyway. MR. BROWN-I don’t mean to interrupt. I don’t think you can tie the septic into this application. It’s not an increase in living space where you’re required to do it. MR. HIMES-Okay. MR. BROWN-I think if you want to consider that area for a feasible alternative to locate the garage there, and then if the argument is, my septic’s there I can’t do that, that’s probably the only way you could really consider this. You can’t really make them do anything to it at this point. MR. HIMES-Should I say then that this should be referred as some kind of an enforcement or what have you thing. Is that septic thing a problem, given the way it is, independent of this house? MR. BROWN-I don’t know. That’s a completely separate issue that you really, you can’t tie it to this one. MR. HIMES-Okay. I just wanted to bring it up for the record. MR. HAYES-That’s fine. MR. BROWN-It’s a valid concern. MR. HAYES-Yes. We might as well touch everything we can, but you’re saying the Town, at this point, is satisfied that that really isn’t part of this application? MR. BROWN-We’re satisfied it’s not part of this application. MR. HAYES-Right. MR. BROWN-We’re making no claims to the legitimacy of it. It’s not part of this application. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. LAPPER-What we know is just that it was pre-existing. Rick didn’t do that, but that the location of the leach field is far from the lake. So the benefit is that it’s on the right side of the house, the upland side. MR. HAYES-Okay. Anything else? You’re all set? MR. HIMES-Yes. MR. HAYES-Okay. Great. I think I feel similar to the rest of the Board, particularly with what Norm said, and others. I was greatly relieved that there wasn’t going to be any interior access to this thing, so this would be an increase in the usage, and certainly if, in terms of precedent or impact on the neighborhood, if we allowed increases of usage and blocked views, and that was the reason behind it, that would be a great concern, but I’m satisfied, at this particular point, that that’s not what’s being attempted here. I do agree with that applicant’s argument that as I look at the pictures and as I visited the site this afternoon, that the house of the objectors is significantly higher than your house. I mean, it’s not at the same level. It’s not even really close to the same level and the view shed issues, which were pointed out here by the other Board members, seem to be the pivot thing here, because I don’t think the dimensional relief being the same as it was is a problem, at least it isn’t for me. I think it’s the view shed issue that’s really being considered and I think, I don’t think that their view shed is being impacted to the extent that would trouble me, based on the benefit to you to acquire this storage space that you say you need. It also struck me, as I visited the site, that an update to this structure, aesthetically, is a positive for the neighborhood, and that’s part of our test, what’s the implication or the impact on the neighborhood, and I think that as you depicted here, an I’m going to stipulate that that’s what is accomplished, that I think there is a benefit to the neighborhood, as far as an updating of this property, and I think, finally I also agree that the fact that you let neighbors walk on your property and use that, I think that’s a thing that we should encourage in our neighborhoods in this Town, and the fact, I don’t think that should be held against you in a legitimate attempt to improve your home. I think that’s kind of a dangerous precedent to set. I’m not sure that I would feel satisfied, as Norm pointed out, of having others comment to that aspect of developing my property. So as I look at the criteria for the test, I think it falls in favor of the applicant. I think this is a clear case of balancing test being applied. Obviously, if it was a strict test, you wouldn’t pass every criteria here. We have other tests where you’ve got to carry all 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/20/02) parts, but I think this is truly a balancing test, and I would vote in favor of the application. Having said that, is there a motion out there? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 4-2002 RICHARD AND WENDY DE SILVA, Introduced by Norman Himes who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: 139 Seelye Road, Cleverdale. The applicant proposes construction of a 352 square foot garage with a storage area above. Applicant requests 11.8 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement, as well as relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure per the WR-1A requirements, Section 179-16 and 179-79. Benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be permitted to construct the desired garage with a storage area above it in the preferred location, which I might add is the same location as the existing lean-to roof garage that is there presently and has been there for some time. Are there feasible alternatives? They’re limited because of the location of the septic tank in the remaining open area that would be available with direct access from the road. However, from a practical standpoint, the choice of the site as depicted in the application is preferable. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? 11.8 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum requirement may be interpreted as moderate. However, again, we must remember that this is nonconforming, being that the foundation and so forth has already been there. So it’s really continuing something that has existed. Effects on the neighborhood and the community, minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated. There may be a very modest effect on the view from the neighborhood from behind. We believe this is minimal. Overall, we think that the applicant’s attempt to improve the property has some value, and the applicant does have some choice in the type of architecture and the location on which it is to be constructed, and in connection with the variance, the important point being that it is expanding very slightly something that is already there, and as was said in one of the letters, too big a place and so on and so forth. However, the permeability calculations and the floor area ratio calculations that we have in the file indicate that there is no excess there. In other words, it is all right as far as the Code is concerned. So, with that, I think we should approve the application as submitted. That the siding and the garage and the house are going to be completed to be congruent or the same as one project. Duly adopted this 20 day of February, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate MR. HAYES-The motion is carried. MR. LAPPER-And I’d like to compliment the Planning Staff. The technology, this is the first time I’ve seen this. It’s a big help. MR. DE SILVA-Thank you, gentlemen. I appreciate it. AREA VARIANCE NO. 94-2001 TYPE: UNLISTED CUMBERLAND FARMS, INC. PROPERTY OWNER: V.S.H. REALTY, INC. PROPERTY LOCATION: 110 MAIN STREET CORNER OF MAIN AND RYAN STREETS ZONE: CR-15 APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF EXISTING CONVENIENCE STORE AND 2 RETAIL STORES AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 3,816 SQ. FT. CONVENIENCE STORE, A 3,840 SQ. FT. GASOLINE CANOPY STRUCTURE AS WELL AS A SEPARATE 2,000 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE. APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS THE MINIMUM SEPARATION DISTANCE BETWEEN THE PROPOSED DRIVES. CROSS REF. SPR 49-2001 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 11/14/2001 OLD TAX MAP NO. 134-6-31 NEW TAX MAP NO. 309.14-1-80 LOT SIZE: 1.87 ACRES SECTION 179-24, 179-28, 179-66 MARTIN AUFFREDOU, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HAYES-It’s my understanding that Mr. McNulty is going to excuse himself again from this application, but based on necessity, we’re going to have him read the application into the file and then he’ll excuse himself. MR. MC NULTY-Right. This variance application was tabled at the last meeting. “MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 94-2001 CUMBERLAND FARMS, INC., Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 110 Main Street. For up to 62 days, so that the applicant can consider a revised plan in which there is one curb cut on Main and one curb cut on Ryan. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/20/02) Duly adopted this 13 day of December, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE” STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 94-2001, Cumberland Farms, Inc., Meeting Date: February 20, 2002 “Project Location: 110 Main Street corner of Main and Ryan Streets Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes demolition of the existing facility at the location and construction of a 3,816 sq. ft. food store and a second 2,000 sq. ft. building (Subway) and a 96-foot by 40-foot gasoline island canopy. Relief Required: Applicant requests 50 feet of relief for “Building A” and the gas island canopy from the 75-foot minimum front setback requirement to Main St., 59 feet of relief for “Building A” from the 75-foot minimum front setback to Ryan St., 1.5 feet of relief for the gas island canopy from the 25-foot minimum rear setback requirement, 9.3 feet of relief for “Building B” from the 25-foot minimum rear setback requirement of the CR-15 zone, § 179-24(C), and 50 feet of relief for “Building A” and the gas island canopy from the 75-foot Travel Corridor Overlay requirement for Main St. Additionally, the applicant requests relief from the Off- street Parking and Loading Regulations, § 179-66. Specifically, the applicant seeks 60 feet of relief from the 150-foot minimum curb cut separation distance in order to relocate two curb cuts 90 feet apart. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired buildings, gas island canopy, and two curb cuts (on Main St.) at the desired locations while increasing their gasoline service and maintaining their other existing uses (convenience store/sub shop). 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives for the proposed number of buildings (at their proposed size) and the large gasoline island canopy seem to be limited due to the shape of the lot. Feasible alternatives for the proposed curb cut locations may including eliminating the east curb cut on Main St., and changing the remaining Main St. curb cut to two-way access. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 59 feet and 50 feet of relief from the 75-foot minimum front setback requirement may be interpreted as substantial. 60 feet of relief from the 150-foot minimum separation distance for curb cuts may be interpreted as moderate to substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action regarding the relief sought for the setback requirements. Moderate to substantial effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action regarding the relief sought for the minimum separation distance for curb cuts. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The placement of the Cumberland Farm Store at this location was done at the request of the Town Planning staff; therefore, not self-created. The relief requested for driveway separation is interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 94-2001: tabled 12/13/01; current application with changes to relief sought for Main St. access points. SV 95-2001: review 2/20/02; setback relief for freestanding sign. SP 49-2001: pending; replacement of existing 5040 sq. ft. gas station and two retail stores with new gasoline service station, convenience and separate store. Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action regarding the front setback relief being sought. The proposed structures and their location fit in with the proposed Main St. design guidelines. The Main St. design guidelines propose an approximately 25-foot building setback from the proposed sidewalk. However, moderate to substantial impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action regarding the minimum separation distance for curb cuts when considering potential increased future traffic. As discussed previously, the new zoning ordinance includes an access management section (179-19) establishing greater minimum separation distances for commercial drives. The Corinth Road Corridor Management Plan (CME – 1999) suggest access management principles be employed on the corridor to alleviate congestion. These include sharing of driveways and providing access to secondary roads as suggested. This revised application proposes that the Main Street access points be established as enter only/exit only curb cuts. The applicant has also added an access to Ryan St. The modifications are an improvement over the previous proposal. The Board should consider requiring the applicant to provide cross-easements to the property west of the site as identified on the plan. If the Board entertains granting the request, Staff recommends the approval contain a condition that the applicant will close the western most drive, and share the cost of constructing a shared (common) drive with the “U- Haul” property in the event the Town obtains permission to do so. SEQR Status: Type Unlisted” MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Auffredou. MR. AUFFREDOU-Yes, Mr. Chairman. Good evening. My name is Martin Auffredou. I’m here on behalf of the applicant. To my left is Bill Goebel from Bohler Engineering, the project engineers. We also have some Cumberland Farms representatives here this evening. Steve Knopftl, Pat Ovitt, Brian VanBuren. I think they were here last time as well. We’re glad to be back. It’s been probably I guess two months since we were here last time, and the project has seen some substantial revisions. It was our understanding, we were all talking about this earlier, that it was sort of the consensus of the Board last time that in respect to the density setback variances that are sought, and there are a number of them that are being sought, the consensus was that you could live with those, and you found support for those in the record. What you had some concern about was the Main Street access and what we had proposed there. Initially what we had proposed was obviously, didn’t include Ryan Street, and that was something that I think you all felt pretty strongly about is that we should go back and consider Ryan Street, and the company had some concerns about that, and I 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/20/02) think frankly still have some concerns about that, but I think it’s fair to say that collectively here, at least the local brain trust for Cumberland Farms, has convinced the out of state brain trust for Cumberland Farms that if this project is going to get approved, we’ve had to make some major modifications. The modifications, we just didn’t wave a wand and say here’s what we want to do. We worked with Craig and Chris, and as always they were very open and had a lot of good suggestions and we worked closely with them over the course of the last, I’d say 30 days or so. It took us some time to figure out what we were going to do here, but we are, in connection with some of the plans that you have, we are going to have shared access or reciprocal easements here, two on the site, actually. One at the corner here, should access or shared access with U-Haul ever become available, and on that note, I know that Bohler Engineering made a contact with U-Haul. That was unsuccessful. They were not able to get them to agree for shared access at this particular point, but hopefully someday in the future that may become available, but in any event, we’re willing to commit to a shared access, reciprocal easement area here, certainly stipulate to that, no problem with that at all. The other thing that was pointed out by Staff, and again, Cumberland Farms is willing to accommodate this, is a shared access or reciprocal easement area here, so that in the event the U-Haul property, it’s ever reworked or reconstructed, there would actually be sort of a direct access or shared access into the Cumberland Farms property, into the U-Haul property and the customers and patrons using the U-Haul property could access Main Street from Ryan Street by using our property, and we would also be able to directly access the U-Haul property without accessing Main Street, and I think that goes along with your corridor management and some of the things that you’re trying to get accomplished through your proposed zoning changes and through your traffic engineer’s recommendations. What we’re proposing at this point, I’m going to let Bill talk about the specifics and what not, but Ryan Street would be exit onto Ryan and also ingress into the property. We think that the ingress on the property works at this location because the traffic coming west on Corinth heading towards the Northway may likely enter the property by using Ryan Street. This is where the entrance is to the property off of Main Street at this point in time. This would be egress from the property as proposed. Bill has some signs that they’ve put together which would be in only out only signs, and Bill, if you want to hand those out to the Board at this particular time. Essentially, the property, as you know, is a little under two acres. It’s 1.95 acres. It is a tired center. It is in desperate need of updating. The company is committing a two million dollar capital investment into updating this property, as we discussed last time, and they’re still obviously very interested in trying to get the necessary variances so that we can move on to site plan. You may know that the Quaker and Ridge property, the site plan for that was approved, and this is all part of the company’s overall efforts to update and modernize some of their sites. They view this as an important site. You’re going to be hearing a little later on from Pat Ovitt, the store manager, about what she has planned for the store and why the application and the variance application is important to her and to the company. So that’s my presentation, at this particular time, and, Bill, if I could just turn it over to you and talk to the Board about the specifics. BILL GOEBEL MR. GOEBEL-Again, my name is Bill Goebel with Bohler Engineering. My company prepared the plans before you this evening. A lot of my thunder has been stolen. A lot of the information is out there already. I’ll just run through some of the details and the specifics of it. As discussed, we provided access to Ryan Street. That’s a 24 foot wide drive aisle, which is the standard as far as two way traffic movements go, and we’ve also got sidewalk provided along the side of the building in that area. One of the things that’s also been added to the plan that I don’t think was mentioned, as a result of discussions with Staff, fencing along the residential property lines. We are going to be providing a six foot high board on board fence along all of the disturbed area of the property that’s adjacent to residential property. So that’s going to be included in the application also. Relative to Main Street, again, we took away, you know, the discussions last time, a lot of concern about that and the desire to just have, effectively, one curb cut on Main Street, or one access point, which is, effectively, what we have. We have one point of ingress, one point of egress, just because of the nature of a gas station, that the cars want to come in, go to a fueling facility or to the store, and then out through the other driveway. It’s just basically been split up. It’s like a divided ingress and egress. So, again, they’ve been narrowed, the driveways in width. So they’re 24 feet wide right now. It was 32 feet on the western side. So we’ve gone to 24 feet. That gives us another eight feet of driveway separation. So actually the driveways are still not conforming with the separation requirement, but they’re closer. They’re at 90 feet now, versus the 82 feet that they were previously, and the details I’ve provided you are basically some signs, instead of putting a lot of one ways or do not enters and enter exit signs, we tried to come up with something, working with Staff, that’s a little bit more decorative, a little bit more effective and a little more consistent with the overall architectural theme and what we’re doing with the site. They’re not illuminated signs, and they’re going to be proposed on each side of the driveway, for both the ingress and the egress, in the appropriate locations. The easements were discussed. We’ve run through that. I really don’t have much to add there, and we think that, overall, it will still function well. It’s a great site and I think it’s going to be a big plus, and some of those, the photos really do it justice. What you have right now are extremely large driveways, two driveways, extremely large, uncontrolled, right up on top of the intersection at Ryan Street and right next to the driveway for the U-Haul facility. So I think that bringing it down to effectively one driveway on Main Street and the Ryan Street access is going to be a significant benefit for that whole corridor. MR. AUFFREDOU-Okay. I’ll let Pat speak here in a minute, but just let Staff speak for themselves, but in working with them, we certainly got the feeling that we were making some progress here with them in addressing their concerns in a very significant and substantial way. So that was at least the impression that we 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/20/02) had, and hopefully that will come through tonight, but at this point, I’d like to turn this over to Pat, who is the store manager, and I know she has some words that she’d like to share with you. If that’s okay, Mr. Chairman MR. HAYES-Certainly. PAT OVITT MRS. OVITT-Good evening. My name is Pat Ovitt, and I am the manager of the Cumberland Farms at Exit 18, on the corner of Main and Ryan in Queensbury. I’ve been with Cumberland Farms for 10 years, and I’ve been in the retail business 22 years, mostly in the convenience store business. I attended the last two meetings that were held on this application, and I sat quietly through the first one and I watched as the plans were being displayed and the discussions were being held, and an idea that was in my head just came alive. It came to life, and I was so excited and so anxious by the end of that first meeting. At the second meeting, I literally had to bite my tongue, because I wanted to just jump up and tell all of you, this is such a great thing for Queensbury, and for me personally. I am a Queensbury resident, and I grew up just down the street from the store that I work at, and as we all know, there has been very little development in this particular area for 30 years. In fact, it looks about the same as it did when I was 16, and we’re not going to discuss how long ago that was, but as a resident, a new store with a look this one is going to have is so exciting to me, my employees and my customers, and a lot of them have come up and asked me, when are you getting your new store, are you getting your new store. I’d love to tell them it’s a go. I’d like to explain a little bit about how the new store would help me serve my customers better. With regard to parking, people like to get in and out quickly. That’s why they call us a convenience store, and as the store sets now, I have no convenient parking to my customers. I have minimal parking on the side of the building, and if I get a delivery, people can’t use them. There’s just no room. The rest of my parking is out on the front road in front of the store, and customers have to pass through my gas island to get into the store, which is neither convenient or safe. In fact, last Tuesday, I had an accident with a customer who was backing out of one those road spaces, and he ran smack dab into a car that was parked pumping fuel. That’s a dangerous situation, and I think, with the new store, we’re going to have in-store front parking, which sounds like a little thing to some people, but to me it’s a major thing. It’s going to make it safer and more convenient for my customers. Once you get inside the store, the existing store, it’s old and it’s tired, and it’s not customer friendly. I have big, bold colors. I have long directed aisles, and I have a checkout that’s neither convenient for the customer or the employee. I like to give a mom and pop type service to all my customers and relate to them personally to make them feel comfortable. The new store will have brighter, natural light, due to more windows. It’ll have warm, friendly colors, brass fixtures, ceramic tile and plants that will make it a more comfortable atmosphere for shopping, and I’ll also have a center checkout which will make it even better to serve my customer. We want to create a happy place to shop, not only for the local residents, but travelers as well. I’d like someone who’s traveling to come into my store, have a pleasant experience shopping, and walk out of there and remember, I was in Queensbury, and hopefully come back again. We’re right off the Northway with people going north, people going south, people coming from Corinth, and people coming out of Glens Falls. This is a dynamite location for growth and enhancement. Cumberland Farms is a great company to work for, and I’m proud to be one of their employees. I take pride in my store, and I take care of it as if it were my own. I also take responsibility for everything that happens there. Therefore, I’m very interested in what happens there. That’s one reason why I’ve been to the last three meetings. I do the best job I can to make it profitable, but this new store will give me the opportunity to be competitive with the new Stewarts that went in down the street on Corinth Road, as my bonuses and my pay are based on my store sales and my sales performance. We’re all out to make money and to take care of our families, and it’s not just the big guy. It’s the little guy, too. This’ll give me a higher goal to set for myself as a manager. This company is willing to spend two million dollars on a new store they’re entrusting me to run. This is very exciting for me, and it’s not only going to help the company, but it will also expand beautification that the local residents desire. I, personally, see this as a win/win situation for both the community and the company, and it can only be good for all of us. Thank you very much for hearing me. MR. HAYES-Thank you for coming. MR. AUFFREDOU-Just a couple of more words from me, Mr. Chairman. I think by everyone’s standard, this is going to be a major improvement, not only to the subject site, but also to the corridor. As I expressed last time, I know it’s certainly my belief that this is the kind of growth and development that Queensbury should be encouraging. This store should act as the catalyst for other properties along this corridor to improve, and I’ve got to tell you, that corridor is in dire need of improving, and I know that’s one of the reasons why you were looking so carefully at your Main Street Corridor guidelines. Those are proposed guidelines. We’re meeting many of those guidelines. This project is designed with Staff’s input to meet many of those guidelines, even though they’re not even in place yet, and that, I think, is very noteworthy. If you look at the standard under 267B, the benefit to the applicant versus the detriment to the public health, safety, welfare, etc., and as you go through those five standards, obviously, I believe that the standards weigh in favor of granting this variance application. We’ve come a long way since last time. We’ve made major modifications to accommodate your concerns. This is a property that is in dire need of upgrading. We’ve worked closely with Staff and we’re looking for your support tonight. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/20/02) MR. HAYES-Thank you. Are there any questions for the applicant at this time? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here to speak in favor of this application? Anyone in opposition? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HAYES-Time to poll the Board members. MR. URRICO-I have a question for Staff. MR. HAYES-Certainly. MR. URRICO-I’m a little unclear about the last sentence. It says if the Board entertains granting the request, Staff recommends the approval on condition that the applicant will close the western most drive and share the cost of constructing a shared common drive with the U-Haul property, in the event the Town obtain permission to do so. Do what? MR. HAYES-Require U-Haul to grant that easement to Cumberland Farms. MR. URRICO-And you’ve also sought conversation with them. MR. AUFFREDOU-Yes. We did, and, Mr. Urrico, we consent to that, that’s not a problem, as far as we’re concerned. I mean, that’s a winning situation for us, should it ever become available. That’s fine with us, should it ever become available. That’s why we’re willing to put it on the map. We’re willing to make it a contingent, or a condition of. MR. HAYES-That’s closing one of the entrances if you get such cross circulation. MR. AUFFREDOU-That’s correct. MR. HAYES-Okay. You understand, Mr. Auffredou, that with Mr. McNulty excused, that you’re going to need four for four here. MR. AUFFREDOU-Yes. That’s why I think, Mr. Chairman, I like your sort of procedure of polling the Board. I mean, obviously, we may decide that we have to come back here, depending upon where we’re going. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Can I ask a question of Chris? Is that, is the 50 foot request, does that still provide enough of a setback if sidewalks have to go in at some point along there? MR. ROUND-Certainly. Are you talking front setback relief? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, your setback off of Corinth Road. MR. ROUND-The setback is going to be 25 feet from the sidewalk, and we’d asked the applicant to show the current street section. I don’t know that the current drawing shows that, but it would accommodate construction of sidewalk. MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, I know our new standards aren’t in effect, but when they do come in. MR. ROUND-Right. What we anticipate, the street section that the County is going to be constructing hasn’t been finalized yet. The applicant’s showing the property line as it currently exists. There may be some narrow takings along Corinth Road, from what we understand, and the sidewalk would be pretty close to where the property line is right now, that inner edge would be right in that same area. MR. HAYES-I had one question now, we can assume, then, or for the record we can assume, that outside of the change to Ryan Street, there’s no, the pumps are the same, the store locations are the same. I mean, there’s been no other alterations of the plan? MR. AUFFREDOU-That’s correct. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/20/02) MR. HAYES-All right. So we don’t have to re-examine that, I guess, at this point. Okay. I guess, Chuck, you’re excused, so we’ve got to start back with Jim. MR. MC NULTY-Remember this is an Unlisted Action, so at some point you do need to do a SEQRA. MR. HAYES-Okay. We’ll do that after we poll. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do we want to individually break this down because we have a whole bunch of things to grant here. I mean, are we doing it that way, or are we doing it as a package deal, or? MR. HAYES-Well, it’s one application, so we’re either going to approve it or deny it. So you should address what you think you need to. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Do want to just do each one down the row, the four of us, then, because I mean it probably makes more sense to do that then have each person do it separately. MR. HAYES-Yes, no. I mean, I think you should complete your comments and indicate your intention as far as the overall intention. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think that you’ve worked hard at this to try and come to some reasonable conclusion with it, and I think that what you’ve done here is reasonable with the in and out access and keeping the Richardson Street, leaving open the access over to U-Haul, the two site (lost words) there in the future, whether they ever come into fruition. The other thing we need to keep in mind is it is a gas station. If you don’t have flow through there, it’s kind of illogical to make it a cul de sac where you’ve got to turn around and do a 180 to get back out again. So I think that what you’ve done is fine and I would be in favor of it. I don’t see any real hang-ups here as far as me as far as that goes. MR. HAYES-Is that it? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. HAYES-Mr. Himes? MR. HIMES-All right. Thank you. As last time, I have no problem with any of the setbacks and so on, that’s fine, and again, it was the Ryan Street and the curb cuts, and I’ve thought considerably about this since the last meeting, and I came down a little hard that time, and I may want to ask Chris a bit of a dialogue here if we could, but before we do, I’d like to refer back to the minutes where I made some comments about the U- Haul people and whether or not, you know, you guys could all get together and so on and whether we could kind of twist arms somehow and Chris was good enough to answer my question. I’d just like to read it if I could. This comes from the meeting, the notes at the last meeting, Mr. Round, I quote, in answer to our pressing someone into doing something, “You have it, when they’re in front of you, for a permit, for a site plan review, etc., that you can do that. When they construct a highway improvement, there is a possibility there, if during the highway construction process, the County is the permitting authority for curb cuts, that they could close each of these folks curb cuts and just limit Cumberland Farms to a single location, and limit U-Haul to a single location. That would provide motivation for a shared curb cut.” And I see now that you’ve shown that you would look to the possibility of that happening, and that’s why you’re looking for the possibility of a shared, and what I’m thinking, in connection with this, and (lost words) what we’re looking at, but this is what bothered me, and not only with this application, but with some others, the way we proceed, you drive down the street and you see three or four locations that have end to end access. Two or three of them I don’t know what can be done about them. They’re the diners and they’re the pretzel place, they’re right there. So I thought, okay, what about the competition these folks have, and before I see what has developed tonight, I see the one place to the east there, Hess I guess it is, and hen there’s two or three others, that all have at least two accesses direct, big ones, and I’m thinking, well, what is going to be done here to bring all of these other places into line, that if it’s not done, and we come down hard on these people trying to get agreement to one curb cut, where are we? I’d still like to leave it that I would wonder when the Highway Department comes along with the expansion, whether or not, since these folks are making some overtures to maybe going to one, whether the others be brought into the conformance of one access. It won’t hurt Hess because they’re right on the corner there, and they’ve got two accesses to that little road, the side road there, but I just wanted to bring that up from a point of view of mine that a few months or a year from now, we’ll be looking at some other one, and it’s going to be the same problem all over again. So you were very concerned about the precedents. All right, after all my huffing and puffing, now I’ll say that I would be in favor of this application. Thank you. MR. HAYES-Thank you, Norm. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I think the applicant is to be commended for the improvements and the changes they’ve made, modifications they’ve made, and for the effort they’ve made to conform to a future zoning regulation rather than the current one. Rather than going down the list of the criteria, I think it boils down to two things, the access and the space between the two access points on Main Street, and in both cases, the 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/20/02) applicant has demonstrated their willingness to bend, and they’ve also indicated they’re willing to bend further, with some help from U-Haul, should the opportunity present itself to create one access for both properties. So that being the case, if we can contingent this application with that possibility, then I would be in favor of it. MR. HAYES-Thank you, Roy. Well, I think I agree with the rest of the Board members in this particular case. As Chapter 267 of Town Law indicates, this is a balancing test, and I think that in the first application that the applicant brought forward, I think myself and other Board members indicated that they didn’t think it was, that the relief requested was exceeded based on the Town’s goals the benefit to the applicant, but I think the revisions in the plan that have been submitted here today represent a change in that balance, and that’s why I’m in favor, and I think that the applicant has now provided a lot of consideration to the Town’s admirable goals of improving and changing the Main Street, which is acknowledged by almost everyone to be a problem, a difficult problem. In this case, we don’t want to zone businesses or properties out of existence, but there is important public goals involved with improving Main Street and getting access points and choke points reduced. I think the new plan balances those things to the extent possible. Certainly the entrance onto Ryan Street, as I spoke to earlier, provides, that coupled with the two one way entrances and exits, provides me with enough faith that the recycling of this property and the benefit thereof is not going to be overcome by the problems created by traffic. The applicant’s engineer has indicated that they have even shrunk the width of the curb cut another eight feet at one of the sites, and I just see a continuation of effort here to compromise and provide the Town with some of its goals as well. So, having considered that, on balance, I think the test falls in favor of the applicant, and I would be in favor of the application. MR. HIMES-Could I add something? MR. HAYES-Certainly. MR. HIMES-I don’t know if this is appropriate, but we did have some good input from Zoning/Planning Administrator Chris the last time, and I meant to, when I was talking before, as to, in terms of, I placed a lot of currency on what you said about the curb cuts and so on and felt that, this is without Ryan Street being part of it at the time, and I don’t mean to put you on the spot, and maybe I shouldn’t be asking, but how do you feel about, you know, the aspect of the two curb cuts now, even though they may be a little farther apart a little smaller, and being one way each. How do you feel? MR. ROUND-I think the Staff Notes reflect our position. Ideally you want a single cut. That eliminates the number of conflicts there. We think this is a win/win situation. We’ve got a single direction, access point. So that cuts down the number of conflict points that, basically to be equal with a single driveway, and the fact that the applicant’s willing to close a facility when a shared access point comes in. That’s a big plus, and that’s the kind of thing that we’re looking for from applicants, and the applicant’s been cooperative all the way through this process. I think, you know, we are setting a new standard. We’re looking for the home run. We think this is in the spirit of collaboration, that this is a win, and this is really, this is one of your most auto intensive type of uses. You might have other facilities that might generate an equal amount of traffic and have an equal number of vehicles visiting this site, but this is servicing autos. So there’s a unique use, and I think the applicant made that case at their first meeting, you know, for a gas station, you really need to provide us with some mobility issues that don’t affect other uses. So we think this is a win for the Town and for the applicant. MR. HIMES-Thank you. MR. ROUND-Thanks for asking. MR. HAYES-Well, you’ve heard our poll. Would you like us to proceed? MR. AUFFREDOU-I think we would, yes. MR. HAYES-Okay. Is there a motion out there, gentlemen? MR. URRICO-I’ll take it. MR. MC NULTY-Remember, you’ve got to do SEQRA first. MR. HAYES-Yes, let’s do that. MOTION THAT AFTER REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM THAT THIS BOARD FINDS THAT THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT BASED ON THIS PROJECT OR THIS APPLICATION, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/20/02) Duly adopted this 20 day of February, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone, Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 94-2001 CUMBERLAND FARMS, INC., Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Norman Himes: 110 Main Street, corner of Main and Ryan Streets. The applicant proposes demolition of the existing commercial facility at the location, and construction of a 3,816 square foot store, a second 2,000 square foot building and a 96 foot by 40 foot gasoline island canopy. The applicant requests 50 feet of relief for Building A and the gas island canopy from the 75 foot minimum front setback requirement to Main Street, 59 feet from Building A from the 75 foot minimum front setback requirement to Ryan Street, one and a half feet of relief from the gas island canopy from the 25 foot minimum rear setback requirement, and 9.3 feet of relief for Building B from the 25 foot minimum rear setback requirement of the CR-15 zone, and 50 feet of relief from Building A and the gas island canopy from the 75 foot Travel Corridor Overlay requirement from Main Street. Additionally, the applicant requests relief from the Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations 179- 66. Specifically, the applicant seeks 60 foot of relief from the 150 foot minimum curb cut separation distance in order to relocate two curb cuts 90 feet apart. I’d like to add that these setbacks reflect the current zoning ordinances, and the building is being built with an eye towards the future zoning ordinances. I feel that they meet the criteria that we’re looking for. The benefit to the applicant, feasible alternatives, and is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance. It is to the current Ordinance. Future ordinances it’s not as significant. There is a moderate to substantial relief relative to that Ordinance as well, but we’d like to make that mitigated by the fact that the applicant is willing to close down one of the entrances, the entrance, and replace it with a shared access, the neighbor to the west, U-Haul, should that process avail itself to the applicant. As far as the effects on the neighborhood or community, it’s minimal. In fact, it would be a vast improvement. It’s the kind of model project that the Town of Queensbury is looking for to set the standard for the rest of the corridor, and I think this will do that, and is this difficulty self-created? No, the Town and Cumberland Farms have worked together to come up with a plan that will represent that corridor well and also that will fit into the future development for that corridor. I’d like to cover the two easement criteria, one being that the Board will require the applicant to provide cross easements to the property west of the site, as identified on the plan. The second one being that if the Town obtain permission to do so, that a shared common drive with the U-Haul property be constructed which would allow the second access, sole access to Cumberland Farms to be closed, permanently. Duly adopted this 20 day of February, 2002, by the following vote: th MR. ROUND-Just to talk to the applicant on this one, if it’s all right, if you could provide that kind of language as a part of the site plan review process. So we could make sure the language is acceptable to both of us. MR. AUFFREDOU-That’s fine. Chris, with respect to the findings that the Board must make, on the substantialness of the variances, the motion is indicating that it relates to the Town’s proposed zoning. We don’t know that that proposed zoning is going to be passed, and I don’t mean to tell the Board’s business, but I was wondering if there could be some finding in the record with respect to the current configuration and dimensions of the lot with respect to the substantialness upon that aspect of things. I guess I’m a little concerned about finding about, that the variances are not substantial because of the proposed zoning. MR. ROUND-Right. MR. BROWN-I thought I heard him say that the relief was based on the current Zoning Ordinance. MR. URRICO-Right. MR. HAYES-And I guess we’re saying that for the record, that the test was examined. MR. ROUND-They identified it as substantial, but they felt the mitigating factor was that this was consistent with a future standard. MR. AUFFREDOU-Okay. Thank you. AYES: Mr. Himes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone, Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/20/02) MR. HAYES-The motion is carried. MR. AUFFREDOU-Thank you. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 95-2001 TYPE: UNLISTED CUMBERLAND FARMS, INC. PROPERTY OWNER: V.S.H. REALTY, INC. PROPERTY LOCATION: 110 MAIN STREET CORNER OF MAIN AND RYAN STREETS ZONE: CR-15 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 64 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SIGN ORDINANCE. CROSS REF. SPR 49-2001 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 11/14/2001 OLD TAX MAP NO. 134-6-31 NEW TAX MAP NO. 309.14-1- 80 LOT SIZE: 1.87 ACRES SECTION: 140-6 MARTIN AUFFREDOU, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 95-2001, Cumberland Farms, Inc., Meeting Date: February 20, 2002 Project Location: 110 Main Street corner of Main and Ryan Streets Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 60 sq. ft. freestanding sign. Relief Required: Applicant requests 15 feet of relief from the 25-foot minimum setback requirement of the Sign Ordinance per § 140-6(B2a). Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to place a freestanding sign in the desired location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include placing the sign in a compliant location. Also, the applicant may want to consider choosing a monument-type sign as depicted in the proposed new zoning ordinance as opposed to a freestanding pylon-type sign (see attached examples). 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 15 feet of relief from the 25-foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate to substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SV 95-2001: tabled 12/13/01; setback relief for freestanding sign AV 94-2001: review 2/20/02; setback requirements and minimum separation of curb cuts. SP 49-2001; pending; replacement of existing 5040 sq. ft. gas station and two retail stores with new gasoline service station, convenience and separate store. Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. It appears the proposed freestanding sign could be placed in the same general location and still meet the minimum 25-foot front setback requirement. Additionally, the applicant may want to consider choosing a monument-type sign as depicted in the proposed new zoning ordinance as opposed to a freestanding pylon-type sign (see attached examples). SEQR Status: Type: Unlisted” MR. MC NULTY-And there was a “Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form November 14, 2001 Project Name: Cumberland Farms, Inc. Owner: V.S.H. Realty, Inc. ID Number: QBY-SV-95-2001 County Project#: Nov01-14 Current Zoning: CR-15 Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 64 sq. ft. freestanding sign and seeks relief from the requirements of the Sign Ordinance (required setback: 15’, 10’ exists and is proposed) Site Location: 110 Main Street. Corner of Main and Ryan Streets. Tax Map Number(s): 309.14-1-80 Staff Notes: The proposed sign includes a brick planter base. The location of the sign raises concerns regarding sight impediments for exiting traffic. Given the location Staff recommends discussion. County Planning Board Recommendation: Approve” Signed Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board 11/15/01. MR. HAYES-Welcome back, Mr. Auffredou. MR. AUFFREDOU-Mr. Chairman, Martin Auffredou, and, again, Bill Goebel on behalf of the applicant. We certainly don’t want to construct a sign here that’s going to be a blemish or a detriment to the corridor. That’s not our purpose. That’s not our intent. We’re not making this investment in this area for a sign that is going to be out of character or is going to be adverse. I think, frankly, our position at this point is that we need the sign at that location because of the nature of the uses next door, and we also need to have the sign at that location because we need to be competitive. There are a number of gas stations in this corridor, as you know, and the sign, we need to attract customers off the Northway. That is our goal. We are down the road a little bit from Mobil and I think there’s a Citgo across the street, as I recall, and we feel that we need the sign at this particular location in order to attract the Northway customers and in order to have some visibility for the sign because of the neighboring use, the U-Haul. They customarily will park their trucks right up along the property line here and right up in front, but we have a deal for you, and the deal is this, that it may be that this sign someday has to disappear, if the shared access with U-Haul ever comes along. There may come a time when the company feels that it is certainly appropriate to do a monument type sign at this particular property. As other properties and other companies are restructuring or developing, and what not, along the corridor, it may make a lot of sense for there to be monument signs, and in keeping with the Town’s proposed zoning, I think Cumberland Farms is willing to work with the Town on doing that at some point, but we think that it’s a little too early to do that for this particular business at this particular time, with the way the corridor is set up right now. So our need is now. The need is for us to do this at this particular 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/20/02) time, and we need the relief that we’re seeking. We don’t think it’s substantial. We think it’s in keeping with the character of the neighborhood, and we think that the sign, obviously, will compliment the property. We think it will be probably the nicest sign that’s in the corridor at this particular time, but there may come a time when we can work with you on a monument sign. We’re willing to talk about that with you. MR. HAYES-Where is the sign proposed to go now, as far as the overall site drawing there? MR. AUFFREDOU-This area here. MR. HAYES-Okay. BILL GOEBEL MR. GOEBEL-It’s the portion of the property with the planting bed around it. The sign, we tried to incorporate a lot of the elements that are on the site. It’s got a brick face to it. It’s got column treatments that are consistent with the architectural theme of the building. It’s got a peaked roof on it. It’s not the prototype sign. It’s not the standard sign. I think the other site, the Quaker Road site, was the one that initially you saw what their prototype was, but just similar to things you see up, (lost words) poles with the sign panels in there. So they’ve added a lot of the elements. They’ve done a lot of things with the site from an architectural standpoint. They want to make this as aesthetically pleasing as possible, but right now it’s what’s going on on the U-Haul site next to us that’s driving us to need this at this point in time in this fashion. I guess the only real disconnect is that clearance, the height portion of it. We’ve got all the elements of a monument sign in there, the brick planter face and things like that, but it’s just because of the way U- Haul runs their business and the things they do on their property now that we’re seeking that relief. MR. URRICO-What are your plans for building signs? MR. AUFFREDOU-The only other sign is a modest Cumberland Farms sign right on the front. MR. URRICO-You mean the front facing the parking lot? MR. AUFFREDOU-Correct. MR. GOEBEL- Facing the parking lot, correct. Basically the width of the doors. It’s not internally illuminated. It’s just a small graphics on the face of the building. STEVE KNOPFTL MR. KNOPFTL- You won’t even know it’s a Cumberland Farms. MR. HAYES-They were talking about just something, it’s that little thing that you can’t read right there? MR. GOEBEL-Yes. A lot of these now days you see with illuminated panel graphics that wrap the entire building and things like that. None of that’s proposed or indicated here. Plus the canopy doesn’t have any signage on it either. A lot of the, most all the oil companies, their prototypes and their standard canopies have a logo that go on the canopy also. We don’t have that here. Basically it’s just a white architectural canopy façade. MR. URRICO-So there won’t be any identification on the canopy at all? MR. GOEBEL-Correct. MR. HAYES-Are you stipulating that now? MR. AUFFREDOU-It’s on the plans that we’re submitting. MR. HAYES-I just want to be clear. MR. AUFFREDOU-The plans just show the blank façade for the canopy. I think you drove past the one in Woodstock Vermont. MR. HIMES-Yes. I was over there, as a matter of fact, the day before yesterday. MR. AUFFREDOU-Okay, and is that on the canopy there? MR. KNOPFTL-It’s far more subtle than Woodstock. Woodstock was built about five years ago. Now it’s very attractive. Communities love what we do. We have one built in Gloversville and one in Rotterdam, and I didn’t bring one with me. I wished I had known about the power (lost words). I had beautiful slides of everything. I think this rendering here shows that, that it is very subtle. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/20/02) MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here to speak in favor of the application? Is there anyone here that’s in opposition to the application? If not, any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HAYES-Let’s talk about it, gentlemen. I guess it’s you, Norm. MR. HIMES-Okay. Thank you. In short, I would be in favor of this application, for principally one reason, and it’s the same as the other one, up there on Ridge Road, and Quaker I guess it is, and I think that probably more than a lot of other businesses signs, maybe with the exception of a movie marquee, the people have to, drivers in this case, have to be able to see the sign and read it. They’re looking, if I’m down the street, and probably you see two or three gas stations, and I know I do this all the time, I’m going by, even when I don’t need gas, and I look and see, what are they charging for regular and so on and so forth, and it’s one of the reasons why I agreed with the other application, and I think in this case, that such a sign certainly as nice as the way you’ve described it it’s going to make it nicer than most, perhaps, but I think there’s a functionality that’s needed with that kind of a sign, and as long as it isn’t a terrible looking thing or hanging right over the street or something, I would tend to think that it serves a business purpose, but especially on the road where this is going to be that it’s maybe even a safety one. So I’m in favor of the application. MR. HAYES-The sign is in the same spot as that the one is in now, essentially, from this picture? MR. GOEBEL-No. The one that’s out there now is more central along the frontage, and it’s also right up on the property line, if not a little bit over it, possibly, the one that’s there now. MR. HAYES-It’s going to be back from there. MR. GOEBEL-It’s going to be back at least 10 feet MR. HAYES-Okay. Sorry to interrupt. MR. HIMES-I’m all done. MR. HAYES- Thank you. Roy? MR. URRICO-I have to admit, I’m torn about this one, because I understand where the applicant’s coming from, especially given U-Haul’s propensity to park their trucks out front, and we went through that last month when they were here, and I wish we could wave a magic wand and start all over again with all the signs, but I think in the element of fairness I think I would also be in favor of the application, but reluctantly. I really feel we have to start somewhere to move those signs back a little bit and make them more accommodating to the community, but I think in this case given the overall design and the fact they’re not really inundating us with the signage, I think I would be in favor of it. MR. HAYES-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. At the same time, I think we have to look at the benefit to the applicant. When you pull off the off ramp on the Northway, you look down that way, with the U-Haul trucks parked right out to the edge of the earth, it’s awful hard to see anything down the street there. So I think that there’s a good case for their sign being that close out to the road. So people can view it. My only question would be on the sidewalk, if the sidewalk goes down through there, is that going to be right in the middle of the sidewalk? It’s pretty close to the road, isn’t it? MR. BROWN-No. Actually, within the existing right of way that’s there. They may take a couple of feet onto the properties along Main Street, but that’s my understanding it’s going to be a planted area. MR. UNDERWOOD-Other than that, I think it’s a reasonable conclusion to this whole process that you’ve been going through and the fact that you’ve got that much smaller sign on the building and nothing on the canopies, it’s not a major request. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Well, on first blush of this application, obviously 15 feet of relief on a 25 foot requirement is certainly moderate, heading towards substantial, but I guess, you know, we have to entertain every case based on its merits, and that’s what we’re charged with here. I think that the other Board members 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/20/02) have adequately pointed out that unfortunately, U-Haul, by the way they park their vehicles, kind of puts this steel wall up there that’s difficult. I drive that intersection 10 or 15 times a day, and if anybody’s violating the Sign Ordinance they are, I guess, indirectly, but that’s legal and I understand that. I will agree with my other Board members in this case, that, on balance, I think the benefit to the applicant is obvious. They’ve established, through testimony, that this is essentially a petroleum business that sells convenience items outside of that. So, certainly, as Norm pointed out, the clearness of their sign is a paramount issue in this case. It’s not a secondary issue. It’s paramount. I think the feasible alternatives are limited, based on the overall site plan as it’s been depicted, and also based on U-Haul’s continued placement of these high cube trucks in order out in front of their property. It makes the height of this sign, which would have been one of my concerns, a necessity for any kind of effectiveness whatsoever. Is the relief substantial? I certainly think it’s a concern, in this particular case. I would say as far as the test was concerned that would probably fall against the applicant in my opinion, but I think that, having coupled this with the application before, I think the effects on the neighborhood or community, in the overall sense of this project, are positive, and I think that that’s kind of been alluded to by other Board members, and I think we need to consider that in our criteria in this particular case, and is the difficulty self-created, yes and no. I mean, U-Haul is creating some of the difficulty and also the prior nature of this lot, which we’ve already all spoken to the fact of the recycling aspect of this is positive. So, on balance, considering all the factors, I think it falls in favor of the applicant, and I could vote for this application. Having said that, is there a motion out there? MR. MC NULTY-You’ve got to do the SEQRA. MR. HAYES-We’ve got to do another SEQRA. MOTION THAT HAVING REVIEWED THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM, THAT THIS APPLICATION CREATES NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Norman Himes: Duly adopted this 20 day of February, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Himes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone, Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 95-2001 CUMBERLAND FARMS, INC., Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Norman Himes: 110 Main Street, corner of Main and Ryan Streets. The applicant proposes construction of a 60 square foot freestanding sign, and relief specifically required, they request 15 feet of relief from the 25 foot minimum setback requirement of Sign Ordinance Section 140-6. Benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be permitted to place this freestanding sign in the desired location, and feasible alternatives may be available, but this seems to be the best fit that we have for this particular sign, based upon the fact of the occluded view looking from the west through the U-Haul site, and it’s what the applicant wants, and it’s still a reasonable distance from the Main Street corridor, so I don’t think it’s going to impede traffic viewing or anything like that. So I would approve what we’ve proposed here. Duly adopted this 20 day of February, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Himes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone, Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate MR. HAYES-The motion is carried. MR. AUFFREDOU-Mr. Chairman, I’d just like to take a second to thank Chris and Craig for their time. They spent a lot of time on this project, and I know I spent a lot of time with them, and it’s a better project for us, as a result of their input, and it’s a better project for the Town as a result of their input, and just let the record show that Cumberland Farms does appreciate very much the time that they took and the effort that they put in to this project in working with us. MR. HAYES-So noted. Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 5-2002 TYPE II BEVERLY C. TOBIN PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: MICHAEL J. O’CONNOR, ESQ. LOCATION: 196-200 LAKE PARKWAY, ASSEMBLY 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/20/02) POINT ZONE: WR-1A APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF EXISTING PEAKED ROOF ON EXISTING DOCK AND BOATHOUSE IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A SUNDECK. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE SHORELINE AND WETLANDS REGULATIONS. CROSS REF. SPR 8-2002 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 2/13/02 OLD TAX MAP NO. 8-1-5 AND 8-1-27 NEW TAX MAP NO. 226.19-1-88 LOT SIZE: 1.06 ACRES SECTION 179-60, 179-16 MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 5-2002, Beverly C. Tobin, Meeting Date: February 20, 2002 “Project Location: 196-200 Lake Parkway, Assembly Point Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to remove existing peaked roof on existing dock and boathouse and construct a new 550 sq. ft. sundeck. Relief Required: Applicant requests 6 feet 2 inches of relief from the 20-foot minimum side setback requirement of the Shoreline and Wetlands Regulations per § 179-60. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired structure in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives seem to be limited other than leaving the existing structure as is. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 6 feet 2 inches of relief from the 20-foot requirement may be interpreted as minimal to moderate. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2000-733: issued 10/13/00; construct single-family dwelling. BP 2000-734: issued 09/28/00; demolition of existing single-family dwelling. AV 59-2000; resolved 07/26/00; demolish existing main residence building and construct a new residence and seeks relief for a second principal building on same lot. BP 97054: issued 03/10/97; septic alteration. AV 1-1989: resolved 01/18/89; side setback relief and expansion of a nonconforming structure to construct a 10 foot by 20 foot open porch on the west side of the cottage located at the southeasterly corner of the lot. Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The proposed setback is the same as the existing setback, and the height of the proposed sundeck railing is only 10.5 inches higher than the height of the existing peaked roof. Additionally, the proposed sundeck does not appear to be out of character with the neighborhood. Consideration should be given to the three existing trees (two Norway Spruce, one white-cedar) adjacent to the boathouse. If pruning of the trees is considered, it should be limited to only those limbs hanging over the boathouse. The pruning should be limited to a height that will accommodate standing. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form February 13, 2002 Project Name: Tobin, Beverly C. Owner: Beverly C. Tobin ID Number: QBY-AV-5-2002 County Project#: Feb02-30 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes removal of an existing peaked roof from an existing boathouse in order to construct a sundeck. Site Location: 196-200 Lake Parkway, Assembly Point Tax Map Number(s): 226.19-1-88 Staff Notes: Copy of applicant’s narrative included. Staff does not identify any issues significant to County Resources. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board, 2/14/02. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Mr. O’Connor? MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, I’m Michael O’Connor from law firm of Little & O’Connor, and with me is Mr. Tobin and Mrs. Tobin. I think the application pretty well speaks for itself. It’s not that complicated. We do have the Lake George Park Commission approval. They will issue a permit based on your approval. We have no objection to following or having an approval conditioned per the recommendation of Staff as to the trees that are near, in the proximity of the boathouse. We wouldn’t be here except that we are pre-existing. Maybe I should say for the record, we wouldn’t be here except that we have a pre-existing boathouse that was built a long time before we thought of the rule that you’ve got to have a 20 foot no build or no occupation zone from the extension of your adjoining property line into the lake. We’re not talking about extending the actual construction of the structure any closer than what’s there, except instead of being a peaked roof it’ll be a sundeck, and it’s the exact measurements of the peaked roof, as far as the footprint of it, if you will. They put the stairs on the back of the dock. So that it will come down behind the boathouse to the dock itself. It’s not a land bridge. The stairs won’t be visible. They don’t plan on changing the construction of the boathouse itself underneath the deck. Any questions you have, we’d be glad to answer them. MR. HAYES-Are there any questions for the applicant at this time? Chuck, I guess you’re back in the action? MR. MC NULTY-I’m back in the action. MR. HAYES-Okay. Any further questions? If not, then I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone wishing to speak in favor of the application? Anyone opposed? Any correspondence? 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/20/02) MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HAYES-It’s time to poll the Board members. I believe it’s time to start with Chuck. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I don’t see any problem with this. I think as the applicant has indicated, it seems to be in character with the neighborhood. I don’t think the additional 10 inches is going to make any difference on height in this case. It seems a reasonable request. I’ve got no problem with it. MR. HAYES-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I, too, would be in favor of this application. I think that, to a degree, I think that we have created this problem for ourselves by requiring this 20 foot side setback thing, and in a lot of respects, I think if we kept our boathouses off to the side, next to each other, we would, by doing so, create more open space in front of all these sites up around the lake, and I think it’s something we need to consider, maybe in the future at a some point when we revamp the rules, I think that the site’s a good example of a tastefully re-done camp that’s been done the right way. We’ve preserved the trees in front, and I think it’s a real benefit to the lake and a feather in your cap, too. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. HAYES-Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes. Thank you. Yes, I also would be in favor of the application. I don’t see anything bad about it. Another thing that I thought was, the land, it’s on kind of a slope, and it fits in quite nicely, and I think the sundeck would be desirable anyway. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. HAYES-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m willing to go along with the rest of the Board members. I think it’s a reasonable plan, a reasonable application. Mr. O’Connor has also suggested that they would be willing to follow along Staff recommendation regarding the tree pruning, and I have no problem with this. MR. HAYES-Thank you. I’m essentially in agreement with the rest of the Board members on this particular case. I think that there is little or no impact. I would just like to comment that the Tobins have gotten a fair amount of relief on this property cumulatively, and hopefully this kind of satisfies your need at this parcel, because I’ve been part of the approval process for some of these. Looking at this just on its merits, I obviously think that there’s no doubt in my mind that the balance falls in favor of the applicant in this particular case. The benefit to them is clear, and I think the relief, as already stated, is, there’s no additional dimensional relief being requested here. This is a pre-existing boathouse, and I don’t think there’s any negative effects on the neighborhood or community, and we haven’t had any input to that effect. So, on balance, I’m in favor, a little bit reluctantly on the cumulative side, but I’m certainly in favor of this particular thing. Knowing that, do I have a motion out there? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 5-2002 BEVERLY C. TOBIN, Introduced by Norman Himes who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: 196-200 Lake Parkway, Assembly Point. The applicant proposes to remove existing peaked roof on existing dock and boathouse and construct a new 550 square foot sundeck. Relief required, the applicant requests 6 feet 2 inches of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement of the Shoreline and Wetlands Regulations per 179-60. The benefit to the applicant would be he would be permitted to construct the desired structure in the preferred location. In terms of the rest of the measures, I think there’s really no impact on the community. There hasn’t been any voiced here, and there wouldn’t look like there would be because it’s something that has been in existence. It’s just that a new, different type of roof is being put on and it will be used as a sundeck, and I think that this is probably going to, it’s not going to harm the community or the neighborhood whatsoever, and it has been agreed that if there’s any pruning to be done on the trees that are nearby that it be limited to a height that would now allow people to get back and forth to the boathouse and docks. I move that we approve the application as submitted. Duly adopted this 20 day of February, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/20/02) MR. HAYES-The motion is carried. Thank you for coming. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 10-2002 TYPE II BENJAMIN L. ARONSON DOUBLE A PROVISIONS PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE AGENT: MICHAEL J. O’CONNOR, ESQ. – LITTLE & O’CONNOR LOCATION: 64 MAIN STREET ZONE: CR-15 APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED AN ADDITIONAL PARKING AREA ON THE PROPERTY. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM THE PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS OF THE CR-15 ZONE. CROSS REF. SPR 49-99 MODIFICATION; AV 83-1999 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 2/13/02 OLD TAX MAP NO. 134-6-2 NEW TAX MAP NO. 309.10-1-10 LOT SIZE: 1.27 ACRES SECTION 179-24C MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 10-2002, Benjamin L. Aronson Double A Provisions, Meeting Date: February 20, 2002 “Project Location: 64 Main Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has constructed an additional parking area on the property, and a stockade fence on property owned by James and Judith Fish. Relief Requested: Applicant requests 6% of relief from the 30% minimum permeability requirement of the CR-15 zone. The applicant also requests to maintain the stockade fence on the Fish property without the landscaping required as a condition of the approval of AV 83-1999. 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 additional parking area. The applicant would also be permitted to keep the stockade fence (south facing section) as built, which is entirely on the property owned by James and Judith Fish), without the required landscaping as per AV 83-1999. 2. Feasible alternatives:Feasible alternatives may include removing a section of the stone parking area in the southwest corner of the parcel (Area E) and replacing it with permeable area, or returning the parking area (Area F), which was constructed without approval, back to a permeable area. A feasible alternative for the fence concern would be to move the stockade fence back to the property line to the point where it meets the fire lane and install adequate landscaping as described in AV 83-1999. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 6% of relief from the 30% minimum requirement of the CR-15 zone may be interpreted as minimum to moderate. Relief to keep the stockade fence on the Fish property without installing any landscaping may be interpreted as substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction, site plan, variance, etc.): AV 83-1999: res. 10/20/99; setback relief, relief from permeability requirements, and relief from buffer zone requirements. SP 49-99: tabled 5/16/99; 3330 sq. ft. expansion, improvements to graveled parking area, planters and green area. AV 19-1997: res. 7/30/97; setback relief and buffer zone relief. SP 22-1997: res. 7/30/97; warehouse addition & site improvements. UV 18-1997: res. 7/16/97; expansion of a non-conforming use (wholesale meat distribution). Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action with regard to the permeable area issue. However, there appears to be enough available area in “Area E” that could be converted to permeable ground to raise the percent permeable area for the parcel to compliant levels. Also, the area converted to customer parking, without approval, (Area F) contains 3401 sq. ft. According to the calculations of W.J. Rourke Associates, before conversion to parking, this area comprised 6% of the 30% needed to meet the minimum requirement of the CR-15 zone. The application suggests that the required emergency access road, which covers an area of 3151 sq. ft., might be considered permeable area. According to Fire Marshal Chris Jones, emergency access roads need to be able to support the weight of fire apparatus, which may weigh between 35,000 and 70,000 pounds (see attached memo). If the emergency access road is indeed not compacted at this time, it appears as though it will become so, as an access road must be maintained year round. Therefore, it is the staff position that the road should not be considered in the calculations of permeable area. No supporting documentation has been submitted on behalf of the applicants’ position. With regard to the fence and landscaping issue (AV 83-1999), moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The applicant has submitted a document signed by James and Judith Fish (August 23, 1999) granting him the right-of-way across a portion of their property for a fire lane and fence. However, such an access road is not required around the rear of the building. Elimination of this portion of the access drive would not create a violation of the Building Code. Area Variance 83-99 granted the applicant setback relief and relief from the buffer zone requirements, with the condition that the applicant, on his property, create an area, fenced and landscaped, to effectively provide some form of a buffer/separation between the applicant’s commercial use and the adjoining residential zone. The current proposal, to further expand the site and provide a minimal buffer at the expense of the adjacent property appears to be a substantial request. To allow the inclusion of adjacent lands, which are not under the control of the applicant, is strongly discouraged. Staff recommends conformance to the approval granted by Area Variance 83-99; no permeable relief and the construction of a buffer area on the subject property. While there may have been some confusion with regards to the accuracy of previously submitted information, the current request for relief appears to be strongly self-created. SEQR Status: Type II” 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/20/02) MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form February 13, 2002 Project Name: Aronson, Benjamin L. Owner: Benjamin L. Aronson ID Number: QBY-AV-10-2002 County Project#: Feb02-22 Current Zoning: CR-15 Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant has constructed an additional parking area on the property and seeks relief from permeability requirements. Site Location: 64 Main Street. Tax Map Number(s): 309.10-1-10 Staff Notes: Staff does not identify any issues significant to County Resources. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board 2/14/02. MR. HAYES-Mr. O’Connor? MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor and with me is Ben Aronson, who is the owner of the property. The operates Double A Provisions on the property. I’m not sure where to begin, and I guess it’s kind of a chicken and an egg, horse and cart. When I became involved a few months ago, with the project, I couldn’t tell what had been approved, what hadn’t been approved, what were the conditions of the approval, in all honesty, looking back on it, or even the timetable of some of the things. There’s a lot of things that I would put in the category of a moving target with this project since it started, I guess, in ’95, and then came back in ’97, and then started to come back again in 1999. What we did was we went out and got an accurate survey. That’s the first time, I think, that we’ve had that information submitted that I can tell you that the square footage is as shown, the permeability is as shown. The building is as what’s shown, and everything is located where it’s shown to be on that particular draft that you have or map that you have from Bill Rourke’s firm. Some place along the line, and I’m not 100% sure, in ’97, ’98, the applicant received a variance to build what I call the propeller type portion of the building, it’s the southeast corner. It’s got a flag at the top, comes down a long alleyway, and then there’s flag on the bottom, it looks like an airplane propeller or a kid drawing of an old airplane propeller, and I’m not 100% sure when, where, or whatever, and I just say it for maybe information purposes at this point, not for justification, that some place along the line in that process, after the approval, I don’t know when he went for the building permit or whatever, he was told that the building Code needed to have him have a fire access lane, entirely around the building, and I think some place, this is also the property where he had a contract to buy the adjoining property and the people backed out of it, and came back to you and got some relief because he no longer met the buffer separation in the back, and he no longer met the back setback. Some place else along the line, somebody came along and told him that because he stores food in there he can’t put landscaping against the buildings, and we have letters to that effect, for rodent control. So I think we’re here, and the other thing is, when he went to put up the fence, the neighbors said, and he already constructed this road before he found out that the back portion of the road wasn’t really required as they thought it was first required, because of the size of the building, you only need to have access on three sides of the building and not four sides. So if you used Main Street, Second Street, and the easterly portion, you didn’t need to come around the back of the property with the drive that he’d already built. He actually, and I think at some of these meetings, and earlier tonight, Mr. Winslow and his wife were here to speak in support of the application. They are the people to the immediate east of the property. They left because they couldn’t stay. They saw where we were on the agenda and they left. They have a letter in the file, though, I think that says that they had no objection to the fencing. They kind of made side agreements, as to the fencing along their side line and whether they were happy or not happy, and the same thing happened with Fish’s in the back. Because Fish’s felt back or whatever, they allowed him this driveway through their property and said you can build the fence on our property line, and we have that, which kind of gets us, from our point of view, where we are. If I read the approval that was given in October of ’99, we are not in compliance as to the fencing or the landscaping. The fence is supposed to be built along our back property line, and it’s supposed to be landscaped in front. When I got involved with it, I said, let’s find out where we have to build a fence, and then say we will landscape it, and that’s basically what we’re here for tonight. Staff indicates that we’re looking for relief from the landscaping. I’m not looking for relief from the landscaping, just tell us if we can leave the fence where it is, and I’m willing to stipulate, as part of the approval process, that we leave it there only as long as we have valid permission from the neighbor to leave it there, and we will landscape it. The question on the fencing is, do we move it back in or not move it back in. We’re not trying to expand this site. I’ve been up to this site a couple of times. I kind of question the validity of having landscaping against that fence. If the fence and landscaping is to protect or act as a buffer between the commercial zone and the residential that’s behind it, we have the permission of the residential owner to do what we’re doing. That residence actually isn’t used as a residence. It’s used as part of Jim’s Glass. I got an Area Variance for Jim’s Glass. There is a small house in between, but it’s owned by the Fish family. I got variances for Fish’s years ago, when they rebuilt their building over there. So you’re protecting it from a non- residential operation. I would think, and Mr. Aronson is willing to do the landscaping along the fence if that’s what you want. It’s not highly visible. I don’t know if you go back to your slide from Corinth Road. I would think you’d be better off saying, okay, as a compromise, stick some more landscaping in the island, in Area A, that’s out on the corner, if you want, you know, to have some meaning, or even I suggested to him, and it’s completely out of the box, as far as thinking, he’s got parking lots across the street with no landscaping, wasn’t required to put landscaping there, put some landscaping over on those parking lots, between the road and that parking. I’m not sure what the purpose of the landscaping is. The fence itself, I think, is adequate, as far as a demarcation. BEN ARONSON 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/20/02) MR. ARONSON-Could I point out where we were planning on landscaping? MR. BROWN-There’s a laser pointer there, if you want to do it from there. MR. ARONSON-This is the Winslow property, and they’re in full agreement with what we’re doing. We have a berm, I had Podnorski put in, we would like to landscape that fence. That is visible from the road. Very visible from this direction. The fence that you’re talking about is way back here. The one that’s in question. It’s hardly visible from the Corinth Road. USDA won’t let us put any landscaping around the edge of the building. We have documentation of that. I don’t object to it. I just can’t do it. So, we will make the front attractive. That’s the visible area. MR. O'CONNOR-We have two different requests for you. One is a request for, and they both have to do with the conditions of the 1999 Area Variance. It said fence the back line. We fenced the back line, but a good portion of it is six feet within the neighbor’s property, with his permission. Are we going to be required to move that fence back to the property line? Or will you accept our position that we will stipulate an additional condition, that if we are ever required to take that fence off his property, we will then establish it on the property line, and we show the fence on the survey, the actual fence is shown there. That’s the fence that we have in question. Probably the important part of the fence, as best I could tell from what I read before, you’re talking from Second Street in to the end of the building. I don’t think anybody was concerned with the fence as it went along the back of the back corner, which you see in this particular, no, you don’t see it in this particular corner. I guess this piece here. This piece here, to orient you, I guess, is the nearest piece to Winslow. They’ve got some type of temporary garage in there, it looks like they use it in conjunction with that business. I’m not sure what. They have an open parking lot right in here that they use in connection with the glass business. I mean, that’s not residential property (lost words). MR. UNDERWOOD-The current house is not occupied, is it, that one that’s back there? MR. O'CONNOR-It doesn’t appear to be. MR. ARONSON-It hasn’t been for 15 years. MR. O'CONNOR-That’s why we thought we were buying it, and then they backed out of it. So we acknowledge total review, October 1999, we were told to put a fence along the back line. We were told to do landscaping. The fence went up, but it didn’t go on the back line. If you want us to move it, and we are willing to do the landscaping as it’s described there, or my suggestion maybe let’s look at the site and actually do some landscaping that would be meaningful to the Town. If necessary, I think the application said stockade fence should be at least six feet and vegetation start at least four feet across the whole back right up to the property line. We’re willing to do that. It doesn’t seem to make a lot of practical sense, as far as impacts, but that’s neither here nor there. The other part of the application, if you want me to do the whole application at this time, is our request for a variance for permeability. This zone requires 30% permeability. We have, if you include the emergency drive as being non-permeable, 24%. We’re six percent off, I think it is, in fractions of six percent. I think I rounded it off to six percent. I’ve got Tom Jarrett, as part of the site plan application which will follow this, doing a stormwater analysis, and he has had difficulty, apparently, getting information as to what was on the site before, before this addition in ’97, ’98. He now has that information. There was a house. MR. HAYES-A single family house, wasn’t it? MR. O'CONNOR-A single family house with a macadam drive and with a good sized garage. That drive, that house probably contributed as much to stormwater as this addition did, or does, simply because of the location and the relevancy as to where they’re located on the lot. He’s doing that calculation for me. I ask him, is this considered permeable or non-permeable, and I can get a letter from him, that that’s not a paved area, and I’ve gone through this, and maybe I’ve sat on both sides of the fence. If you look at, we don’t have a definition in the Ordinance for non-permeable. Even the new Ordinance doesn’t, and I commented on that when I wrote my little epistle on the new Ordinance saying where I thought we had some shortcomings of it. What we have is a definition of pavement, and it begins with a compacted surface intended for the pedestrian or vehicle use, through which drainage is impeded, surface material could be compacted, sand or gravel, bituminous compound, concrete or other material. This is not, this has crushed stone on it. It’s never been compacted. It’s not used. If you went out and looked at the site, they’ve got a chain across it so that it’s not used on a regular basis. It is not a compacted material. If you look at the definition of permeable, it says ground surface through which water can percolate in a natural manner. I don’t think that the water has any difficulty getting through this crushed stone any more than it does through the natural earth that’s there. I think that’s a commonsense type determination. I also can back that up with a letter from Tom Jarrett. It says, said surface ground can be undisturbed natural terrain or landscaped area, and will be generally unpaved surface areas. This is an unpaved surface. It’s not a paved area. It’s there simply to come into compliance with the building code that says that you have access on three sides of the building. Initially, I think the applicant was told four sides of the building, but then it was determined, no, only three sides were required. Now, last week I got a letter, or a copy of a letter, from the Fire Marshal to Craig Brown, and that begins with, it’s my understanding that there is a question as to whether the drive is compacted or loose gravel. It 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/20/02) doesn’t say it’s paved or not paved. I’m also told by Tom Jarrett that it’s condition will, because it’s on a sand, will hold a fire truck if they drove a fire truck off. With due respect, I used to be in the fire company. They’re not going to drive a fire truck in the back of that building. They don’t take them off road. They take them off road, they get all kinds of problems. If it’s a private driveway, you’re not going to see a fire truck up there, and that may be too close to Code interpretation or not. I did call and didn’t get an answer on that, tried to find out exactly what the purpose of that letter was. I don’t know if it’s in your packet. That issue came up when the applicant was issued a building permit. That was the purpose of that, putting gravel around there, is to qualify for, not a building permit, certificate of occupancy. He has gotten that certificate of occupancy, but that doesn’t change the characterization of that portion of the site as being still non- permeable, at least by definitions in our Code, in the present Code and in the future Code. Those definitions aren’t changed, and if you take that 3151 feet and put it back in, he needs .004 or .006, I’ve got it in my letter, if you’ve seen the letter that I’ve written, variance. It’s less than one percent for qualifying for the 30%. We do intend to apply for site plan review. We will have a stormwater management plan as part of that site plan review, that will show that we meet the qualifications for site plan, but before we go there, we have to determine how much non-permeable we have, how much permeable we have, and that’s basically it. I’m trying to clean up a file that I see goes back to ’83, ’85, and that’s not necessarily the applicant’s fault, not necessarily Staff’s fault. In ’95 or ’99, they began talking about permeability variance, and then said, no, they don’t need a variance, that they could comply with 30%. I don’t think at that time the fire road was on the table. I think the fire road came into play when he went in for the building permit after he got the variance, but I can’t pin down all the timetables of exactly what went on or what didn’t go on. MR. HAYES-The fire road is off the table now, as far as a requirement, though, essentially. Right? You’re saying that, Mike? MR. O'CONNOR-No, they still want this drive on the east side of the property. They don’t require it to go all the way around the back of the property, but they still require it on the east side of the property. I haven’t really explored, or gone deep into that, other areas say you need a cleared area, so your fire personnel can get in there, and I haven’t looked at the building code to really chase that down, because it’s not an issue. They’ve got a certificate of occupancy. It’s dirt that was there. It’s got crushed stone spread on it, and it’s purposely kept so that it’s not. It’s supposed to be an emergency type use. It’s not supposed to be a regularly traveled. It’s not an area that, if I use the terminology, that is regularly used for vehicle or pedestrian traffic. So it’s not going to become a compacted area. So it’s six one, half a dozen of another, but my feeling is probably we need a variance of .006. I applied for a variance of six percent. I included that in my calculations when I came in for the variance. MR. HAYES-Six tenths of one percent. MR. O'CONNOR-No, six percent, we’re looking, I applied for six percent. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-But I think we actually, if you agree with my interpretation that this is not non-permeable, it turns out to be .006, six tenths of one percent. MR. HAYES-So are we being asked to determine permeability? MR. BROWN-No, I don’t think so. I think you’ve got, and I don’t want to interrupt your presentation here, but you’ve got an application that says I want six percent of relief and then an argument that goes along with that that says I don’t really think I need six percent. So you can choose what you think you want to give, but the request is for six percent right now. MR. O'CONNOR-The request is for six percent, the request for it as it’s built, and my argument goes to two things, one, I think I’m correct on the interpretation, but, two, it certainly means that what we’re asking for, even at six percent, given the circumstances of this site, is very insubstantial, has no impact on anyone. It’s not material, and it helps us qualify, in great part, for the Area Variance, which is basically what we’ve asked for. As far as alternatives go, Staff has suggested that we trade Area E on the map for Area F. If we trade Area E for Area F, we have no place for tractor trailers to pull in. If you go up and look, that’s the area that they pull in off of Second Street, and back into those tractor trailer slots. They would have to go out onto Second Street and back in, if we turned that into lawn, basically. You could squeeze a couple of other feet, some places. We make this island a little bit bigger, if we had to make the island a little bit bigger up front, but it’s not going to be substantial. It’s not going to be 3150 feet. I’m not sure how it got so far and how we got along so far to where we are, but we’re trying to get this thing so that it’s straight, and I’d ask you to look at it in the sense of what is the impact on the community. I mean, if I came in her, pre-construction, and said Code requires us to do this side road, and we’re not going to be able to do it unless we impinge upon the permeability, would you approve it or not approve it. If it has no impact on anyone, I don’t know the barrier to approval. We also, and I’d say this, too, were involved with the corridor. I’m not exactly sure, I’ve got maps from the engineering firm as to what they will take or what they won’t take when they widen Corinth Road. It’s really kind of fuzzy. It looks like a small strip on some maps. On other maps it doesn’t look like a 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/20/02) small strip, but that’s something we’re going to have to deal with when we get there, I think, and that probably will affect us all the same. MR. UNDERWOOD-I had a question on your, what was the specific language about the vegetation on the site? Do you have that in a letter or something? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, we do. MR. UNDERWOOD-From the USDA? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, that you can’t put vegetation. MR. UNDERWOOD-Against the building? MR. O'CONNOR-Next to the building, because of rodent control. MR. HAYES-And that’s for the distribution, you’re a meat distributor, essentially? MR. ARONSON-It’s a USDA requirement. We have the number of the law and whatever, if you want to check it out. MR. HAYES-Because, obviously, restaurants have it, but, I mean, they’re probably viewing you as a greater volume of distribution there, or whatever. I mean, obviously restaurants have vegetation around their places, but you’re saying they require that because of your? MR. ARONSON-They’re not under federal regulations. We’re under, federal laws are much different than State. MR. UNDERWOOD-Because you’re processing there, right? MR. ARONSON-Well, we don’t process, basically, but we are a federal inspection. In order to sell single pieces, if we want to sell a single piece of meat out of a sealed box, we come under federal requirements. There’s a federal inspector in there every day of the week. Every day. I should say we do process. We cut chickens. We’re not a full fledged processor. We’ve kind of given that up. We’re under the jurisdictional. MR. O'CONNOR-This was an inspection report, it was August 10, 2000, and it says breeding and hiding spaces for rodents have been observed around the perimeter of the establishment. Tall plant growth and several sections of fence were observed near the building, not allowing the proper inspection for possible entrance of rodents. This situation has also created a place of hostile harborage for rodents and insects. All potential sources of rodent harborage must be eliminated to preclude possible event of rodent entry as per above quoted USDA regulations. Failure to take action…and they’re talking, and the guy who did this told him, you can’t put your shrubbery in next to your building, like you typically would see. MR. ARONSON-We have a code number somewhere here. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, it’s right here, I think, some place. MR. ARONSON-There was another letter with a code. I know we have it. Mansac Regulation Number in the USDA Handbook. MR. O'CONNOR-If it means anything, it’s Manual Subpart 8-G Regs-318;P Subpart H. MR. HAYES-It sounds like a federal law. MR. O'CONNOR-I’m not sure, and actually there’s a written part here, I guess. There is a written part. MR. ARONSON-Yes, we’ve got it right there. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. HAYES-I think we’re willing to stipulate that that condition exists. MR. O'CONNOR-Other alternatives, you know, we tear down part of the building. It doesn’t make a lot of sense. If you went up there today, we need a separate parking spot for pedestrians that come in. There are like six or seven trucks that are parked along this front, and the problem was with the old parking people parked behind him, and it was always creating a traffic problem. Somebody that’s going to go in for a few minutes, but the other truck is ready to go out, and all of a sudden it paid to separate vehicle parking over here and keep the truck traffic on this end of the site. We could cut down one parking spot, maybe. I don’t know if somebody’s gotten into a foot calculation as to how much building we’ve got and how much parking 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/20/02) we’re supposed to have on site. I didn’t go down that road. Nobody seemed to raise that, but we can give up a parking spot if we’ve got to give up a parking spot. We want to come into compliance. We want to end what has been a two or three year back and forth, and sometimes I think the applicant thinks that Staff has been uncooperative. Sometimes Staff thinks that the applicant or the applicant’s consultants have been uncooperative. I think the record supports a lot of unnecessary work here. MR. ARONSON-My mistake is that I thought that my contractor could take care of this with you people. He wasn’t able to. There was just too much involved, and I ended up having to hire a lawyer to do it for me. MR. HAYES-Nobody likes that. MR. O'CONNOR-So the application is simple, in my mind it’s simple, in the sense that we understand that the 1999 application said the fence is along the back line and shrubbery starting at least four feet, I take it in height. It doesn’t say, really doesn’t say, along the fence. Can we leave the fence where they built it, with Mr. Fish’s consent, which I’ve got a letter in the file for, and you have a letter, I think, as part of the application. Do you want us to put the landscaping against the fence where it is? We understand we’ve got to do some landscaping, or do you want us to put the landscaping someplace, does it make more sense to put the landscaping some place else on the site, and, secondly, we need a permeable relief, and I think that that’s because we’ve included in the non-permeable area the fire road, but we don’t have the authority to eliminate the fire road, and we don’t have an alternative on the site. MR. MC NULTY-Mr. Chairman, a couple of questions. MR. HAYES-Certainly. MR. MC NULTY-I’m trying to figure out, when we did the previous variance, we talked to, Mr. O’Connor said about vegetation against the fence. MR. HAYES-Right. MR. MC NULTY-Which side of the fence were we talking? Were we talking on the building side, or were we talking the residential side? MR. HAYES-What is your understanding? MR. BROWN-Yes, it was on the building side, and I’m fairly familiar with the application. MR. HAYES-The same with me. MR. BROWN-Because I’ve been involved with it before and I’ve had it out several times with the applicant’s agent. There was a fence and a ten foot wide landscaped area associated with that in that area, and within that area was where that planting was to take place. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Second point is you’re talking about the fire road which includes, I presume, the portion that goes behind the building. MR. O'CONNOR-No, that’s not included in the calculation. MR. HAYES-Not on this site. MR. MC NULTY-But that was my point, the part behind it is not on site. MR. O'CONNOR-The calculations that I made are only of the area within the footprint of the ownership. There’s grass outside. There’s grass actually inside the fence toward Corinth Road. I didn’t include that. I also didn’t include the fire road as being either way. I played with that for a while and tried to figure out whether to include it or not include it, but we don’t own it, and I acknowledge that. So I didn’t think it was something I could include. MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open up the public hearing. Is there anyone wishing to speak in favor of the application? Opposed? Correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC NULTY-I do have correspondence. I don’t believe I have copies of the letter from, I think you said Wilsons? MR. HAYES-Winslows. MR. MC NULTY-Winslows. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/20/02) MR. O'CONNOR-Winslows. MR. MC NULTY-No. I do have a Record of Telephone Conversation from Mr. D’Angelico, with Sue Hemingway of the Zoning Office on February 15, and he’s located at 80 Main Street, called the Zoning th Office and left a voice mail, stated that “Ben Aronson is a big asset to the community and that he gives his okay on the project.” And we have a letter from Holly Wheeler, at 16 Richardson Street. She says, “This letter is in response to the application of Benjamin L. Aronson, Double A Provisions, Area Variance No. 10- 2002, Type: II. Mr. Aronson has been consistently improving his property at 64 Main St. which is improving the appearance of the Main Street area. The additional parking area has not in any way affected the look of the business or area. I hope that the Board will grant him this variance. Sincerely, Holly W. Wheeler” And then we have the letter from Chris Jones, the Fire Marshal, directed to Craig Brown, on February 12, and in th that he says, “While attending the plan review meeting with you and your staff, I became part of a discussion related to the gravel drive at the rear of the building, reportedly provided for fire department access. With your permission, I would like to present some concerns: It is my understanding that the access drive is pre- existing. It is also my understanding that there is a question as to whether the drive is compacted or “loose” gravel. I would like to point out that if this drive is indeed provided for fire department use, the weights for fire apparatus that could be expected to travel on this drive range between 35,000 pounds and 70,000 pounds. It may be inappropriate at this point to require the applicant to compact the pre-existing gravel, however, I think it is important for all parties involved to realize that “loose” gravel may not support the weight it is intended to. Thank you.” And that’s all I have. MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. MR. ARONSON-There is one more letter. I guess you didn’t get it. MR. BROWN-I think it’s part of the application. I think it was part of your application materials, from Candy and Randy Winslow. MR. ARONSON-Randy Winslow, yes. MR. HAYES-Can you read that? MR. MC NULTY-If I can find it. MR. BROWN-It’s part of the application. I’ve got it right here if you want me to read it. MR. HAYES-Yes. If you’ve got a copy, you might as well. It’s from Candy and Randy Winslow, dated September 12, 2001, to the Town of Queensbury Zoning and Planning, “As adjoining neighbor to Ben Aronson, Double “A” Provisions, we were in the past critical of the changes made with the removal of the former Whittemore house and garage. Since the removal, he has made positive changes much to our approval. He has provided a fire road that could be beneficial to our home in case of an emergency. He has constructed an attractive fence to isolate us from his customer parking. He has graded and planted a very nice lawn in the front and side of the building. Best of all, he has constructed a berm that prevents rainwater from coming across our driveway and is planning to put attractive green shrubs near our property line. We feel his property is an asset to the immediate area. Signed, Candy L. Winslow Randolph L. Winslow” MR. O'CONNOR-Did everybody get a copy of my letter of January 30? th MR. BROWN-It’s part of the application, right? MR. O'CONNOR-It was a cover letter that came in day after the application. MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MR. HAYES-Okay. I guess at this time I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HAYES-And let’s talk about it, gentlemen. It’s time to start with James Underwood, once again. MR. UNDERWOOD-There’s a couple of points I think that we need to address here. On the back part, where the fence was constructed on the Fish property, I mean, I recognize the fact that your business will probably continue to expand in the years ahead. I mean, I don’t anticipate that you’re going to shrink up or anything like that, but, you know, I’m looking at that property back there. It’s obvious to me that it’s not really a residential property at the present time, and I really don’t think that, in the future, somebody is going 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/20/02) to be remotely wanting to move into that parcel, and live there between the glass place and your place there. Do you have any plans for the purchase of that property in the future then? MR. ARONSON-As soon as he wants to sell it to us. I don’t know exactly what his problem is. We had a signed agreement, and I think it was a family problem. I think that there was a family argument that precipitated him backing out. I brought it up to the Town that we could sue him, but I just think it’s counterproductive to sue your neighbor. I mean, I could have taken it to court and probably forced it. MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, I would assume that at some point either the glass place is going to buy it or you’re going to buy it back there. It’s going to be more of a commercial use. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, it’s owned by the people that operate the glass place now. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. I knew that. The other point is, as far as the fire lane. If the fire lane in the back is not really needed, you know, that one back there, I don’t see that that couldn’t be eliminated, or even what you created over on the eastern side of the building there, I don’t know if that really has to go back to the very margins of the property. I mean, you could even cut off 20 feet of that and probably leave it as grass back there, because I think the intent of a fire lane is for fire hoses to go back there, but like you said, they’re not going to drive the truck back there in a cul de sac without getting into trouble with it. So that’s a possibility that might be considered as an alternative, you know, taking out some of that and replanting it as grass. Other than that, as far as the permeability issue, you know, with the new Main Street regulations that are probably going to come into effect, I’m going to guess that you’re going to be limited as to the amount of access that you guys get off of Main Street. At some point you’re probably going to get one curb cut or an in and out like we described earlier this evening with Cumberland Farms up the road, and at that point in time, you know, you’re probably going to have to do some kind of a planting strip or something in there, but maybe you could do a little bit of landscaping out front on the Main Street side just to make it look a little nicer. It’s kind of, you know, industrial right now, and I think as far as. MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t think he has an objection to do that, but I have the actual maps from the County’s engineering firm. We don’t know where. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I know they’re going to take three to five feet. MR. O'CONNOR-Where they’re going to be. MR. UNDERWOOD-So to do it now would be kind of ridiculous, not knowing where it’s going to end up until they actually do the improvements, but I think it would be, you know, would improve the looks of the property. I mean, you’re kind of built out. It’s kind of, you know, all macadam or all crushed stone out there. So there’s not a whole lot of, you know, it’s not very appealing when you drive by, so to speak. MR. O'CONNOR-I guarantee you you’ll be pleased. MR. UNDERWOOD-Good. Other than that, I’m going to guess that when they do site plan review, they’re probably going to make you put a couple of water traps in the ground there, you know, some kind of drainage, because I think that right now it appears to me that it’s just running off everywhere, you know, other than where you created your berm on the east side there. MR. ARONSON-No different than it’s ever been. MR. UNDERWOOD-Absolutely. MR. ARONSON-It’s no different than it’s ever been, from when the house was there or from when we’re there. We haven’t changed a thing, as far as where the water runs. In fact, I think we’ve improved it. MR. UNDERWOOD-As far as the fence goes back on the Fish property, you know, I’m going to wait to listen to what everybody else has to say. Building a fence on somebody else’s land, irregardless if they give you relief for that, I don’t know, it kind of sets a precedent. I don’t know how comfortable I am with that, but I’ll listen to what everybody else has to say first. MR. O'CONNOR-Have you read their letter? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MR. BROWN-If I could, just so it doesn’t get lost in the mix of this, the fence, again, was part of mitigation due to the fact of the buffer zone relief. The back property line here, as it goes to the east and then jogs south and then continues east, that’s the zoning district line between the residential zone and the commercial zone. So my recollection is the intent of that fence in landscaping was to provide some sort of buffer that’s 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/20/02) not there now between the zones. Practically it works out between properties, but it’s really intended to be a buffer between zones to protect not only this property but the whole zone. So that was the intent of the fence, and the landscaping. MR. HAYES-Okay. Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. I, starting out with the fence, vegetation back there, I kind of agree with what’s been stated. I mean, it is kind of some distance from the road, and I noticed, I think you pushed snow back on one side there, and I don’t know how long the vegetation would survive that, how many winters. There’s really hardly any place to push snow. So it goes back up in there, and I think something in other areas, as has been suggested, would be more beneficial. So, and in terms of the placement of the fence, I would think if it was a stipulation that, as you’ve already said, I believe, that if something happened with that other property and they said move the fence back that you’d do it. So, leaving it, I don’t have a problem with that kind of arrangement, and the permeability thing, I do sort of feel that the, no use on that thing going around there, the fire access or what have you, and I can think of another application we had some time ago where I felt the same way, that it’s there, water’s cascading off, you know, onto some other area, it’ll lay still there, if it doesn’t permeate, but I think it will. So I’m not concerned, awfully, with even the six percent. If it’s double-oh-six, that would be even better. I think in terms of maybe, although if you’re not using the thing at all, what difference does it make if you go in back and change part of it over to grass, maybe that would help. MR. O'CONNOR-That doesn’t change the calculation because the piece in the back we didn’t include in the calculation. MR. HIMES-Yes. No, I meant along the side. I didn’t mean around the back. MR. HAYES-He’s saying reduce the extension to the back, which you might not be able to do, though, based on the fire requirement. MR. HIMES-So I think, in terms of the kind of, because vehicles coming and going, and I think a real challenge if they do get into curb cuts here down the road, with all the vehicle, big trucks and little trucks going in and out all the time. MR. ARONSON-I’d just like to mention, we did provide areas for tractor trailers to come in on our property. MR. HIMES-Yes, I know. MR. ARONSON-Right, to keep them off second street and keep them out of people’s driveways and whatever. I’ll give you an example of one you’ve got right now, Dunkin Donuts. When their tractor trailers come in, they don’t have any provisions at all on that property to get a trailer in. They block Corinth Road. You’ve got an emergency vehicle going up there some day and that driver’s, he’s struggling to back in there, you’ve got a problem. We did a good thing. MR. HIMES-I’ve noticed that, in spite of all that, the property is probably about as attractive as it could be, given the kind of activity that goes on there. So it’s an attempt to keep it clean and so forth. So I tend to be in favor of approving the application as submitted, but with the stipulation on moving the fence if it’s a requirement at some point in time. Thank you. MR. HAYES-Roy? MR. URRICO-Well, I agree with Mr. O’Connor. It took me a long time to sift through all this, and reading it over and over again, I think I’m finally starting to understand what’s taken place. I do agree with my fellow Board members regarding the permeability issue. If it’s six percent, I would still go along with granting the variance. If it’s less, it would be even better. I do have a question about, the area that the Fire Marshal was talking about is the area around the back? Is that what he was concerned about? MR. BROWN-No. My understanding it’s the area that’s called Area G. MR. ARONSON-No, no, that chain is plastic, in case a fire vehicle ever has to go through there, he can break right through it, but it just keeps people from using it. MR. URRICO-His point about the fire trucks weighing so much, I mean, God forbid they should go in there, I’m sure they’re not going to be going back and forth many times to really compact it. So I’m not sure that even that is a valid point about the fire trucks. MR. O'CONNOR-I can tell you that I was in the fire company for probably 10, 12 years. You take a piece of equipment off road, other than 106, if that’s still the same number, if anybody else has been in the fire company, you pay for it for a long time, and that’s considered off road. 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/20/02) MR. URRICO-The point being that the fire truck going on to that would compact it enough it’s not going to be going over it enough times to make it make a difference, hopefully not, and regarding the vegetation issue, I’m going to defer to my two fellow Board members to my left. Since they were part of the original decision, I’m really curious to see what they have to say about what took place. Since Mr. Hayes introduced the variance itself, the approval, I’d like to hear what he has to say and what Mr. McNulty has to say. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I’m going to be the negative on this. I’ll agree that the property behind is in effect commercial now, but it’s zoned residential, and I think we’ve got to pay attention to buffer zones. We’ve granted substantial relief to the buffer zone. If that was undeveloped property, there’d be a 100 foot buffer there, 50 feet on the commercial side, 50 feet on the residential side. That’s what the zoning requires, and right now there’s four inches for a fence. It’s hard to predict what’s going to happen with the glass shop at some point, whether it’ll stay commercial or whether it’ll revert to residential, but I think it’s important to provide a buffer between the two zones. I’m also disturbed that when the approval was given two years ago, there were requirements there for a fence and vegetation, and the applicant only did part of it. Apparently did what he felt was suitable to him and he skipped the rest of it. I’m also disturbed, from the Staff notes here and the Staff comments, that the area converted to customer parking without approval, and certainly I think this applicant, by this point in time, should know the need for approval before he does something requiring a permit. All of that disturbs me. So I’m going to be negative. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Well, as Roy pointed out, I was part of this application before, and it was a tricky application as I recall being that Mr. Aronson originally wanted the addition to the back of his building, which he said he needed to purchase more beneficially, economically, and I believe that to be true. I believed it then. I believe it now. Post that fact, the Fish’s reneged on a contract, which put Mr. Aronson in a difficult circumstance of having constructed the building and now being in violation of the buffer zone requirements, as Chuck has pointed out, and at that time, I felt that it would be kind of Draconian to have you have to take down part of that building because somebody backed out of a contract. I thought that would have been an unfair remedy at that particular point, but as I recall the criteria of the other Board members and my own as well, we all felt that we had offered Mr. Aronson a lot by allowing such, you know, a small amount of dimensional relief, and also a violation of the buffer zone requirements, and I know it doesn’t happen that often, but I agree with Chuck in this circumstance. I think that we made it a balanced decision to allow the addition to stand as it was, based on difficulties created by the Fish’s, and I think that Area Variance was granted with the criteria that we all agreed upon at that time, and that I think we have to support going into the future. I think that, in this particular case, that the fence needs to be moved, and it should be landscaped, if only to honor the determination that was made by the Board at that time, by the members of the Board at that time in the overall process. I think that Mr. Winslow’s letter actively points out the fact that Mr. Aronson has substantially improved his property, in my mind, over time. There’s no doubt about that, and he’s been a good citizen with his neighbors, as far as trying to meet their needs and meet, you know, mitigate some of the impacts of the development that he’s created here on the neighbor’s. When he’s needed to acquire land, he’s tried to acquire land. So I think the fence needs to be moved, based on the criteria that was used in the Area Variance that was in question. As far as the permeability, I agree with the rest of the Board members in this particular circumstance. I would have no problem at all, knowing the history of the change in position on the fire lane from a complete circle to an incomplete circle, that I would be comfortable granting the relief, if necessary, for the six percent. I’m not sure that it is needed. I would agree with Counsel’s argument in this case that it might not qualify as compacted surface to the extent that it was non- permeable. I mean, that was (lost words) or at least in effect, but in this particular circumstance, I wouldn’t have any problem granting the six percent of relief because that, I think that, on balance, that is not an issue for me, based on the fact that the fire lane was a creation that was not Mr. Aronson’s intention for this lot. So, that’s where I stand. MR. O'CONNOR-Can I comment a little bit? MR. HAYES-Certainly. MR. O'CONNOR-Part of the fence issue is the same thing as the permeability. If I understand which was the cart and which was the horse, the approval came without the fire lane being shown on any maps at all, and it was intended and thought at that point you could build a fence right along the back of the property. Now he didn’t go short on the fence. The fence goes the full length of the property, but someplace in between, I don’t know where, and I couldn’t tell from looking at all the files. I mean, there’s a box on this thing. It is, it at least came out when he came in looking for a building permit. It’s on a stamped, it is on a building permit plans that were submitted, that in order to qualify for the building permit, he then needed the fire lane. It’s then that, and at that time, it was thought that the fire lane had to go all the way around the property. I think it made sense, at that time, and in honesty, maybe he should have come back here and said, look, as long as I’ve got to put the fire lane all the way around my building, and he does it, let’s run the fence along the outside of the fire lane, which is basically where this fence is. They got the letter from Fish saying it was okay. Why the landscaping wasn’t put in front of the fence or not, I can’t tell you, and probably, this has been going on with Staff, the best I can tell, for at least the dispute on whether a variance is required or not required, for permeability, and it started out with permeability, I think, I’m not 100% sure, for probably the 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/20/02) last 10 months, and he wasn’t going to do, I know he wasn’t going to do landscaping. We argued back and forth. I can tell you, my office opened up a file in August, last August, and then I got into it and tried to convince Staff by basis of the definitions and what not that what they were thinking about wasn’t necessary. It’s the same thing, this is like an old file that doesn’t have a stormwater plan in there. I can’t find a stormwater plan in any of the past eight applications, and I don’t know why. I don’t know if Staff knows there never was. It was always a requirement. It was a requirement in ’99 that you put a stormwater plan in. So, I mean, I’m kind of, and I’m trying to soften the request by saying, we understand the fence wasn’t put up right. We thought we put it up the way the neighbor wanted it, and we’re willing to stipulate that, if for any reason we have to remove the fence, we’ll put it on the property line, and that’s the point of it. The guy says we can keep the fence there. I mean, if he wants us to move it, we’ll move it, but we’re willing to stipulate that you will have a fence, which is what the requirement was. I differ with Staff’s idea thinking that we’re protecting some zone. That property in the back is commercial. It’s going to stay commercial. Look at the size of the building that Fish has. How would you convert that to residential use? You would never get the economics out of it, of his investment in that property and try and make that into a residential. So I think that you have a zone line. You have a buffer requirement, but it doesn’t serve a purpose there. So, I would ask you to consider the question on moving the fence. If we have to move the fence, we have to move it, but the offer that I’d make is that we will move the fence, if it’s ever to be, if we’re ever told to take it off the Fish property. Ultimately we hope to incorporate the Fish property. It maybe helps us keep a little leverage on Fish if we’ve got a fence down the middle of his property. That’s a selfish motive. MR. HAYES-All right. MR. UNDERWOOD-Could I ask a question of Staff? On the parking lot area, that was added with no permitting or any kind of study whatsoever? The general feeling is that that’s going to remain? MR. BROWN-In the original approval, and when I say original approval, I mean the one that included the Fish property, ’97, ’96, whenever that was, there was both a variance acknowledging the fact that the Fish property was going to become part of it. So that the setback relief that you see now, and that was granted in ’99, wouldn’t be necessary, and further that no permeability relief would required, because of all the green space, the undeveloped area in the back. It would be an additional lot. MR. O'CONNOR-That was ’95. MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Then there’s another set of applications in ’99. MR. BROWN-A parking area was shown on that original approval. Subsequently, the Fish property never came, the purchase of the Fish property never came to fruition and we made the determination that, you’re not in compliance with those approvals, you need to go back through the process, since your project has changed, because your property’s smaller. So they went through the Area Variance application in ’99 all over again, and that’s when the landscaping came up. There was no permeability relief granted at that time because, through a process, and as confusing as it was, the Staff worked with the applicant’s agent at the time, did some calculations based on some sketches, I guess, is a good characterization of the drawings they were using. This is a much preferred type of drawing, and that’s probably where some of the confusion came in with permeability numbers and areas for landscaping and parking. The quality of the application that was put together at that time was lacking, I guess we could say, but to answer your question, but the fire road was part of that application at that time, and they did calculate that as impermeable at the time. MR. O'CONNOR-I’ve not seen that one, then. MR. BROWN-And the calculations showed that the site could support 30% permeable area. Again, we were relying on a drawing that was, you know, based on a survey for the out bounds, but all the other calculations were scaled off the drawing, which were inaccurate, and I acknowledge that. I mean, we promoted the application with the applicant before both of the Boards to get the thing approved and get the project finalized, but I guess to answer your question, the parking area out front, as it’s configured right now, hasn’t been finally approved through site plan review. So I would suggest, and you can consider this or not, that while your approval may issue permeability relief, it doesn’t necessarily support the configuration, because, in looking at it, I can bet that the Planning Board is not going to like the increase in curb cut along Main Street. They’re probably going to want to limit that. So, the existing configuration, I would suggest you just acknowledge it’s not an approval for the configuration, but just a permeability number. I don’t know if that answers your question or not. MR. O'CONNOR-You’re kind of getting to the heart of why Mr. Brown and I had about four or five months of discussion before I filed anything, and also the beginning of my, I don’t know if I did it on this one, yes I did. We file this application without prejudice and with full reservation of rights and not an admission of violation. I don’t think because he ended up with a buffer problem, and came back with a variance on the buffer problem, it changed the rest of the application that was approved, and that’s where we got into all these issues and side issues and what not. I’ve said we’ll clean this up, and at Mr. Aronson’s 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/20/02) expense we will, we’re filing the application. I’ve identified everything that I can think of that, technically, somebody may raise as being a requirement for a variance, and I’m going to go through the site plan review. I’ll stipulate on the record that your approval of the two variance, or the modification of your conditions on the earlier variance, and your variance on the permeability gives us no grandfathering as to the parking, and we are planning on filing with the Planning Board and go through that. That’s not, that shouldn’t be an issue. MR. BROWN-I just want to avoid any confusion, and I’ve tried to answer Jim’s question at the same time. MR. HAYES-And that’s good, and now it’s on the record from them and from the Town. So we’re okay with that now. MR. O'CONNOR-There was a parking lot approved in front of that building, and it’s different in location of this because it was up, it was closer to the building. MR. ARONSON-We actually put more grass than was on the original. MR. O'CONNOR-So I’m not 100% sure. We’ll go through the process. MR. ARONSON-This is actually smaller than what was approved. MR. O'CONNOR-This thing may shift in toward the building, and some of the grass that’s here go out toward the road, if we can work out a travel pattern, and we’ve got to work that out from a travel thing. So we need six percent relief for permeability, I guess, if you strictly interpret the Ordinance. Do we need to remove the fence, or will you accept our stipulation that we will put the fence on the back property line when, if we’re ever required to move it off the Fish property, and do you want us to landscape the north side of the fence, I take it from Second Street back to the building, either in it’s present location or where you tell us to locate it, or do you want us to do some landscaping some place else that’s maybe more practical? MR. HAYES-Okay. So that everyone understands, we’re not dealing with the parking up front anymore. That’s a site plan issue, okay, and everybody’s agreed to that. I think it’s important, in order to arrive at a motion here, ultimately, that we do segment your comments into the two different variances that are in question. You have a permeability issue, and you have an Area Variance, a compliance with an Area Variance issue that was granted in ’99, essentially. So when you make your comments, so we can at least have a direction for a motion. I believe it’s time to start with Mr. Himes. You can do them both at once, but identify how you feel about both things, only because if we have a motion that people disagree with half of it, we’re going to end up with a problem. MR. BROWN-So you’re going to go through again? I think you’ve been through once already. MR. HAYES-Have we? MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. HIMES-Yes. I was for it with the six percent, and leaving the fence where it is, not necessarily with shrubbery and all, because of the snow matter and storage, I mean, whether there be some grass there or something, that would be fine, but shrubbery and all I don’t think would make it through the winter, and I went along with the stipulation that they move it back, if there’s some change in the property ownership. MR. HAYES-I’m going to list you, Norm, as yes, yes? MR. HIMES-I’m yes, yes. MR. HAYES-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I was yes on the permeability. On the fence, I’m okay with leaving the fence where it is, unless the Fish’s want it moved. MR. HAYES-So that’s a yes, yes, and yes, too. MR. URRICO-As far as the vegetation, I think I’d like to see the vegetation on the north side of the building, up to the point where it swings around the back side of the building, at the very least. MR. HAYES-So your for some partial vegetation. MR. O'CONNOR-The west side of the building, to Second Street. MR. UNDERWOOD-Facing north, though. MR. URRICO-From Second Street. 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/20/02) MR. HAYES-It’s facing north. So it’s on the south side of the building, really, right? MR. O'CONNOR-No, it’s on the west side of the building, on the south property line. MR. HAYES-Okay. Running along the Fish property line. MR. URRICO-But the north side of the fence, is what I meant. MR. ARONSON-You’d like some vegetation there? MR. URRICO-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-And do you want the vegetation on, well, I’ll tell you, you ought to put it on your property line, on your property, in case you have to move it. You’re going to have it six feet in from the fence, or whatever the distance is. MR. BROWN-It’s about 10. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MR. HAYES-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I’m going to be no, no. MR. HAYES-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m going to be, I guess I’ll be no, yes. MR. HAYES-All right. So that’s no on the permeability and yes on leaving the fence where it is. All right, and I’m yes, no. MR. O'CONNOR-So I’m asking for a tabling motion, until you have a larger Board. MR. HAYES-I think so. I think you’ve got three votes in either direction. Well, it’s a complicated. MR. O'CONNOR-Did I understand Mr. Underwood right, you were no on permeability? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, because I’m still, I mean, no, I guess that would be wrong. I would be okay on the permeability because I think the fire lane isn’t an issue. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-So I would change that. MR. HAYES-So you’re a yes on the permeability, and how do you feel about the fence? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think leave the fence where it is. MR. HAYES-So you’re a yes, yes, then. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, yes. Sorry about that. MR. HAYES-All right. MR. ARONSON-I’m just trying to keep everybody happy. MR. HAYES-That’s true, and I think we’re trying to arrive at that the best way we can. I think you are, too. So, basically, I think a motion will carry on permeability, and it appears that it won’t carry on the fence. That’s where you’re at, Mike. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. HAYES-Okay. I mean, so if somebody wants to make a motion on the permeability, you’re still going to be in non-compliance with the Area Variance, unless you want to table. You’d get a bigger Board. MR. ARONSON-It’s better for us as a business where the fence is. It gives us more room for snow. It gives us more room for parking. Fish doesn’t care. 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/20/02) MR. HAYES-I guess the biggest concern that I have is if Mr. Fish does make disposition of the property, you know what I mean, that could create a little bit of a mess. MR. ARONSON-Then it comes back to where you want it, at that time. We would have no choice anyway. MR. HAYES-Theoretically. MR. URRICO-Can we make it conditioned upon that? Would that make a difference? MR. HAYES-I just think that it was a very narrow passage even at that time, a lot of relief, the building is right to the property line, there essentially is no buffer. I was in favor of the addition and I still am, but I’m trying to keep in consistency with the spirit in which it was passed when I was on the Board, and I think that’s an important thing to do when you’re on a board. MR. O'CONNOR-The fence makes it narrower, by moving the fence in. MR. HAYES-I think it does, but I think that you’re not necessarily encroaching further into a buffer zone, whether that buffer zone is important or justified, I think that was considered at that time by the Board that passed it. I think that’s what I’m trying to maintain, but I guess I just need to know, Mr. Aronson, we’re going to make a motion here in the next five minutes. So I just need to know whether you want me to table this application. You will have two more votes for the fence. You’ve already got, as far as the carrying, my sense is you’re carrying the permeability issue now. You’re going to get a variance on that, based on what the gentlemen have indicated so far. MR. ARONSON-Where do we stand with the fence? MR. HAYES-The fence right now, you need one more vote to keep the fence where it is. MR. O'CONNOR-What’s the stand on landscaping the fence if it’s moved? MR. HAYES-I didn’t get that. I think you’re not carrying now, not complying with the Area Variance. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, but say you get to the point, we say, okay, we withdraw our request to leave the fence as is, and you have only before you the requirement, does it need to be landscaped, that fence? MR. HAYES-I think it needs to comply with the Area Variance that was granted. That’s my position. I don’t know, there’s another no here to the fence. MR. MC NULTY-That’s mine, and I would say the same thing. I think it’s got to comply with the previous approval. MR. O'CONNOR-Right, but does the landscaping on that side of a six foot fence serve a purpose? I would question that, if you had made that a condition, if I were sitting here when you made your approval. MR. HAYES-Yes, but I think that kind of begs the question, that that was what the approval was based on, was all those considerations made by the people on the Board at that time. MR. O'CONNOR-But does every time you apply, which is one of the benefits of applying again, as opposed to coming back and simply arguing an interpretation of a prior application. MR. HAYES-I understand, it’s a new Board. MR. O'CONNOR-It’s new circumstances. I mean, I don’t think the fence was put where it was facetiously. I think it was put there after they told them that you need this road around the back of it, and the road was constructed, and it was put there in agreement with the neighbor, who probably understands that he screwed this thing up from Day One, and, you know, there’s not a motive here to run around the decision of the Zoning Board, and I would have argued, then, that condition. A lot of times you suggest conditions, I argue them because I wonder what the purpose of it is. Take a look at the pictures that you’ve got here. You can’t see the fence from the road. So the landscaping serves who’s purpose? It serves those people that park in Ben Aronson’s parking lot, his truck drivers. That whole side is used for his truck’s purpose. It serves maybe people that drive down Second Street for a short ways, but it really doesn’t serve, it’s not the typical benefit to the community that you typically get from landscaping, is my point, I guess. I don’t know if I convinced you or not. MR. HAYES-How do you feel about that, Chuck, as far as the shrubbery there? MR. MC NULTY-I think I’m still in the same position, and I would be disturbed if the landscaping did end up under the snow banks. I think the intent clearly, originally what we asked for was a fence and landscaping 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/20/02) to provide at least some kind of a buffer, and I’d expect the landscaping to survive. So I’m not going to change my position. MR. HAYES-I guess that’s our story and we’re sticking to it. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Who are we missing? MR. HAYES-We’re missing Mr. Stone, Mr. Abbate, and Mr. Bryant. MR. O'CONNOR-Will they be back? Will they be here at the next meeting, do you think? MR. HAYES-Mr. Stone will not be. MR. BROWN-Mr. Bryant will not be here, either. MR. HAYES-So all three of those guys are going to be gone? MR. BROWN-I talked to Mr. Bryant today. MR. O'CONNOR-When’s your next meeting? MR. HAYES-Next week, same time. MR. BROWN-And that’s jammed with an appeal and a Use Variance. So that’s pretty full right there. MR. MC NULTY-You’ve got seven. Probably next month. MR. HAYES-I know Lew will be back. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Brown, do I have another problem with you if we wait? MR. BROWN-Absolutely not. MR. O'CONNOR-Our adjournment doesn’t bother you? MR. HAYES-It’s a pending application. They’re trying to deal with the issue at hand, right? MR. BROWN-I wouldn’t have any problem with any further adjournments. MR. URRICO-You’d have at least one more person that sat in on that original meeting there, too. MR. HAYES-Well, Bob has resigned. He was one of them, and a couple of the other guys aren’t here anymore. So I don’t know. MR. O'CONNOR-The funny part of that approval is it really doesn’t tell how much you’re going to do. Again, this is part of what I argued with Staff. Maybe I shouldn’t argue with the Board members, but it says the stockade fence should be at least six feet with vegetation starting at at least four feet, across the whole back, right up to the property line. MR. HAYES-Are you sure that that vegetation was supposed to be inside the fence toward his property? Because I kind of thought it was toward the buffer zone. That’s why we did it. MR. BROWN-No. The fence, my recollection is, and we can pull the file out, is the fence was to be on the property line, and the plans showed a 10 foot wide landscaped area there, and the intent, or the reason for that was to get the property up to 30% permeability. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. BROWN-So that, and I think if you go through the minutes, there’ll be some more support. As to the motion, I think there was some discussion about the landscaping, in more detail. It might not have made it al into the motion, but it’s definitely in the minutes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Was the Fish property rezoned so it could be bought, initially? MR. BROWN-No, I think there may have been a Use Variance granted to go to commercial. 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/20/02) MR. URRICO-It says, I would say that there should be year round, permanent landscaping at least six feet high initially, and maintained accordingly. That’s the sentence right before, the stockade fence should be at least six feet. MR. HAYES-But what size does the vegetation, it doesn’t say what size. MR. URRICO-It doesn’t say what size. MR. HAYES-Who made that motion? Who was that rookie? MR. O'CONNOR-We’ll come back. MR. HAYES-That’s fine. Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Would it benefit anybody if I came back with some concrete landscaping plans for the other portions that I talked about? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, sure. MR. HAYES-I think we would consider that, I mean, obviously, with the interest of the community or what is at stake. MR. MC NULTY-Yes. I’m not sure that it would change my position or not, but it sounds to me like it would be a good idea, because I don’t know how Lew’s going to stand. It might help. MR. O'CONNOR-We’re not trying to chintz on the thing, and I don’t think there’s any real definition here. I mean, it says whole back. Well, does that mean we put in two trees or we put in four trees? What’s the spacing between the trees. MR. UNDERWOOD-It says six foot high, substantial. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, but one or two? MR. HAYES-That’s not substantial. MR. O'CONNOR-Who said substantial? MR. HAYES-I made the motion, Mr. O’Connor. All right. I will say that I would certainly entertain an alternate landscaping plan to the point that we’re certainly not bound to not making improvements in our own decisions. I mean, I would entertain that at that time. So, Mr. O’Connor has requested a tabling motion which I’ll now make. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 10-2002 BENJAMIN L. ARONSON DOUBLE A PROVISIONS, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: 64 Main Street. In lieu of the Board having the additional members from five to seven. Duly adopted this 20 day of February, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone, Mr. Bryant MR. O'CONNOR-Have you folks seen the maps for the takings? MR. HAYES-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-We just got them the other day. MR. O'CONNOR-Did you get them? MR. UNDERWOOD-They came the other day. MR. HAYES-The meeting is adjourned. On motion meeting was adjourned. 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/20/02) RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Paul Hayes, Acting Chairman 42