Loading...
2003-09-17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/03) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 2003 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY ROY URRICO ALLAN BRYANT NORMAN HIMES PAUL HAYES CHARLES ABBATE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. HIMES-Mr. Chairman, before we start, the first two items off Old Business from previous meetings. I was absent from both those meetings, and haven’t had access to the minutes either. I’d like to step down and let the alternate. MR. STONE-Well, actually only the first one is, because the second one is going to be moved beyond, going to be the third one, in all probability, but you can do the same thing for both of them if you so choose. So, thank you for your forthrightness. Mr. Underwood, would you, since you were there. AREA VARIANCE NO. 65-2003 SEQRA TYPE: II COORDINATED REVIEW Y. OZBAY, USA GAS AGENT: RICHARD E. JONES ASSOCIATES OWNER: SANDRI REALTY, INC. ZONING: HC-INT. LOCATION: 651 UPPER GLEN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES CONVERSION OF GAS STATION WITH REPAIR BAYS TO A SELF-SERVICE GAS/CONVENIENT MART WITH TWO (2) NEW COVERED GAS ISLANDS AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, AND THE BUFFERING REQUIREMENTS BETWEEN ADJACENT USES. (NOTE: JULY 16, 2003 THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS GRANTED LEAD AGENCY STATUS TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR PURPOSES OF SEQRA EVALUATION FOR THIS PROJECT.) CROSS REFERENCE: AV 57-2002, SPR 34- 02, SV 58-2002, SPR 37-2003 LOT SIZE: 0.14 ACRES, 0.20 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.07-1- 32, 31 SECTION: 179-4-030, 179-4-060 C SECTION: 179-8-050 RICHARD JONES & PAUL HYOMEA, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. STONE-Would you read the tabling motion and the SEQRA determination. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. This was a motion to table, “MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 65-2003 Y. OZBAY, USA GAS, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: 651 Upper Glen Street. Until the first meeting in September. So that the Zoning Board has a chance to totally review the file, including the SEQRA determination made by the Planning Board. I’d also ask that this be re-advertised and that the appropriate neighbors be notified. Duly adopted this 27 day of August, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/03) NOES: NONE”, and the Planning Board’s resolution determining the significance here, Resolution 37-2003 “RESOLUTION NO. 37-2003, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: Y. OZBAY, USA GAS WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 26 day of August 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: None” STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 65-2003, Y. Ozbay, USA Gas, Meeting Date: September 17, 2003 “Project Location: 651 Upper Glen Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes conversion of a gas station with repair bays to a self-service gas/convenient mart with two new covered gas islands. Relief Required: Canopy 1 (southernmost canopy): 1) 56 feet 1.5 inches of relief from the 75-foot minimum Travel Corridor Overlay Zone for State Route 9, per §179-4-060(C). 2) 31 feet 1.5 inches of relief from the 50-foot minimum front setback requirement for the State Route 9 frontage, per §179-4-030 for the HC-Int Zone. 3) 36 feet 11.5 inches of relief from the 50-foot minimum front setback requirement for the Glenwood Ave frontage, per §179-4-030 for the HC-Int Zone. Canopy 2 (northernmost canopy): 1) 63 feet 6 inches of relief from the 75-foot minimum Travel Corridor Overlay Zone for State Route 9, per §179-4-060(C). 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/03) 4) 38 feet 6 inches of relief from the 50-foot minimum front setback requirement for the State Route 9 frontage, per §179-4-030 for the HC-Int Zone. Note: Relief based on the two parcels being combined. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 37-2003: pending this application. SV 58-2002: tabled 07/18/02, setback relief for the replacement of the existing freestanding sign and relief for the number of allowed signs (including two new canopy signs). AV 57-2002: tabled 07/18/02, setback relief for the construction of a gas island with a 48’ x 36’ canopy. Staff comments: While it does not appear that a compliant location is available for the construction of a gas island canopy, would minimum relief be more suitable to allow only one canopy? As noted above, the relief identified herein is based on the consolidation of the subject parcels. A condition that requires the applicant to consolidate the parcels would be appropriate if approval is considered. SEQRA findings status: The Planning Board has made a Negative Declaration finding with regards to an Environmental Impact Statement for this project. Please see the attached Planning Board resolution. ” MR. STONE-Nothing from the County. MR. MC NULTY-The County, we, I think, read in the last time. MR. STONE-We probably did. MR. MC NULTY-There was a County, and they said No County Impact. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, before we start, may I ask a question, because I’m a little confused with the Planning Board’s resolution. It may be perceived that the wording of the Planning Board indicates that there’s going to be an impact, however, it’s not going to be significant. Would that be fair? Would that be a fair analysis? They say there’s no significant impact. Well that leaves open the fact that there’s going to be an impact, but it’s not significant. MR. STONE-Well, I think SEQRA understands that there’s always an impact on anything that’s done. The question is, in this case they’re saying there’s no significant negative impact. I assume that’s true, Mr. Strough. JOHN STROUGH MR. STROUGH-Minimal. MR. STONE-Minimal. MR. ABBATE-That’s not what it says, Mr. Chairman. It doesn’t say that either. MR. STONE-It says not significant. MR. ABBATE-Okay. It says no significant, but it leads me to believe that it can be perceived as the fact that there’s going to be an impact. So the Planning Board notes, I think, should be clarified. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/03) MR. STONE-All right. Let’s go, gentlemen. Introduce yourselves. Tell us anything you want to tell us. MR. JONES-Good evening. For the record, Richard Jones, the architect for the project. With me here is Paul Heilmann, from Valley Equipment. He’s the consultant for the fueling equipment on the project, and my owner, or the client for the project, Mr. Ozbay, is here as well. Basically what we’re proposing to do, the existing building is a three bay service station with fueling islands that are located approximately in the area of the green space that we’re creating. You can see on the site plan it’s along the eastern property line. We’re proposing to remove the islands that exist in that location. There’s currently six pumps at that location, and create two new pumping islands, one to the southernmost part of the property, which is on the corner with Glenwood Avenue and Route 9, with a canopy. The second would be running linear to Route 9 and located just forward of the other location where the existing pumps occur. Basically, we’re looking to renovate the building into a convenient store, having self-service gas pumps under canopies located at two locations as indicated on the plan. Basically, the existing property as it exists does not currently have the required green space. We are increasing that to above 30% so that we’re not looking for a variance for that type of a use. The variance that we’re looking for is in relation to the two canopy locations. The existing parcel is a pre-existing, nonconforming property. It is not even 75 feet deep so there’s no way that we could even come close to matching or meeting the 75 foot setbacks. We looked at various options of locating canopies and gas islands on the property, and felt that the locations that we’re demonstrating here tonight are the best locations for the new pumps. They give us accessibility from both Glenwood and Route 9. They provide good flow of traffic on site. They provide for safe ingress onto the property, both from Route 9 and Glenwood, and they provide for safe exiting as well from the property onto Glenwood on the south side and Route 9 on the north side. Basically the canopies, we had submitted some pictures, which I’m hoping are part of what you have here tonight. They demonstrate the facades as being basically a panel type system. They have colonial trims. We’re looking at a cornice type trim around the top. They would be white. There would be no signage on them. So we’re not looking for any type of signage on the fascias for the gas canopies. The building itself would be fully renovated. We’re upgrading lighting on the property. We’re creating new lighting poles at various locations. We’ve redistributed parking, brought the handicapped parking up to the, and adjacent to the building. We’re doing new walkways, new handicapped access into the building. The building, basically, will be completely renovated. The brick work on the outside will be cleaned up. The existing overhead doors are being removed. We’re infilling with aluminum tube frame and glass windows and we’re doing white trims and that type of thing on there, to replicate the colonial trims that are existing on the building right now. All the other trims would be painted. The dumpster is being brought to a location on the south side toward Glenwood, enclosed in a complete enclosure. We’re adding landscaping. We’re increasing the landscaping that currently exists on the east side as part of the buffer to the residential zone on that side. Then we’ve been in contact with DOT, and we are continuing the sidewalks along the Route 9 side of the property, which would be a continuation of a walkway just to the north, the northernmost entrance onto the site. We’ve also received permission from them to remove all of the blacktop from the islands that are not on our property, and we would then be bringing in topsoil, seeding, and then doing street trees, maple trees, along the Route 9 side of the property as well. We feel what we’re doing is really increasing and enhancing the look of the property. We’re also taking into account all of the stormwater runoff. Currently, everything from this property runs either to the north side and eventually into the brook, or it’s collected in a stormwater trench along Route 9, and then it goes indirectly into the brook, but basically what we’re doing is as I said before creating new green spaces. We’re collecting all of the stormwater runoff that we conceivably can on site, and infiltrating on site, and that includes almost half of the north side of the property as well. We’re creating new infill trenches and drywells on site basically to infiltrate, so that we can cut down on all of the stormwater that is running currently directly into the brook. With that, I’d be happy to answer any questions. MR. MC NULTY-Do you anticipate any Sign Variances for this property in the future? 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/03) MR. JONES-There currently is a signpost on the northernmost side of the property. To be honest with you, we haven’t even talked about signage yet. I know they had some signage on the façade, the gable end of the building. I think it said Sunoco there, and I believe they had a Sunoco sign on that pole, but we really haven’t considered anything as far as signage. MR. MC NULTY-You don’t anticipate any on the canopies? MR. JONES-No, there would be none on the canopies. MR. STONE-You would stipulate that? MR. JONES-We would stipulate that, yes. MR. ABBATE-May I, Mr. Chairman? MR. STONE-Go ahead, Mr. Abbate. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Environmental impact. I think it’s important that I dwell on this a little bit because I believe it’s in the best interest of the Town, and the Town’s residents. The Planning Board indicated no significant environmental impact, but will there be any impact at all, and if so, specifically, what will it be? MR. JONES-The current use of the property is a gas service station. So it is currently pumping gas. It has underground tanks that have been tested, and they are in conformance with the EPA requirements that currently exist. It is our intent to leave those tanks intact. We would be relocating the pumping island so we would be basically be installing new piping from those tanks. The piping would be in conformance with the new regulations. Basically, the current gasoline station that’s there I think has more of a potential for an impact than what we’re proposing, and the reason I say that is because we’re providing a means of collection for stormwater on the north side of the property. As I said before, as it currently exists, almost half of the property now sheds to the north. There are no means for collection. If there is a spill on site from one of the pumps, it has the potential to end up in the stream. With the system that we’re proposing for the stormwater collection, we have an infiltration collection device that goes across the northernmost entrance. It then goes into a collection, a stormwater collection type device that will silt out the sands and deposit those in the bottom. We’d then have a flapper or gate valve type assembly that would control the flow to the two drywells that we’re proposing on site. If there is a spill on site, basically the owner has, or will have in place a detailed list of items that has to be basically done by the staff that’s on site for control of any spill. MR. ABBATE-Like a standard operating procedure. MR. JONES-Yes. MR. ABBATE-And they will follow that procedure. MR. JONES-Yes, and part of that will be the closing of that gate valve so that anything that flows in to the collection device along Route 9 will be stopped and be able to be basically taken out of that via pumping. Basically, with that in place, we feel that we’ve mitigated any potential for a major or a minor spill into the brook that runs along the north side. As far as any other impacts, the gasoline station had vehicles coming in and out. We would anticipate that we will continue to have vehicles coming in and out. Basically we’ve reduced the number of pumps from six to five. So instead of having 12 fueling stations, we currently would have 10. I honestly think that what we’re doing has really mitigated a lot of the stormwater concerns, and the potential for pollution from anything that might be going on as far as the usage of the site, fueling of vehicles. The canopies themselves would be equipped with a fire suppression system, and they really work well. I’ve seen them work, and I’m sure you probably have as well. The potential for impacts on the neighborhood, I don’t think are going to be any greater 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/03) as far as noise. I don’t think that there’ll be any greater as far as the parking or moving of vehicles on and off the site. I think that we’ve taken good measures in controlling both traffic flow on site as well as ingress and egress to the site as well. MR. ABBATE-Well, I’d like to congratulate you on your well thought out response, and the information you have provided is really nowhere in any of the documents that I have, and I think it was extremely important that you have clarified it for me. It’s unfortunate this wasn’t included in any other documentation, the sequence and what have you. MR. JONES-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MR. STONE-Mr. Jones, would you comment for me on the following. There is a similar type facility in the Town of Queensbury on a corner, namely the corner of Quaker and Ridge, Cumberland Farms, a convenient store, and one canopy off set in exactly the same way that canopy number one or number two, whatever the numbering is, would be. Comment why you feel, why your client feels, it’s necessary, particularly when one considers the fact, and I’m longwinded here, but considers the fact that this station has been inoperative for at least a year, if not more, and I don’t notice cars lining up at other pumps. There doesn’t seem to be a dearth of, I mean, an absence of enough pumps. Can you comment on that whole thing, particularly the lay of that station, which is very similar to this facility. MR. HEILMANN-This is Paul Heilmann for the record. How many pumps are at that Cumberland Farms store by chance? MR. STONE-Four. MR. MC NULTY-Eight fueling stations, right? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. HEILMANN-With the unique situation, unique property boundaries of this property, it’s difficult to have that style canopy on this property, whether you put them all on one, whether you put them all at a diagonal. This property just doesn’t flow for that. As far as, you’re looking for a need. You’re looking at a different, completely different travel route, okay. The travel corridors, and people are creatures of habit, with directions of travel and that kind of thing, you can have a station on the same end of the road, but instead of people just driving around the end of the road, in a different travel corridor, will initiate where people are going to stop and buy their fuel, buy their coffee in the morning and buy their donut. That is one of the main considerations. MR. STONE-Well, I wasn’t trying to, part of your answer seemed to kind of tie the two together in terms of the number of pumps, and that travel corridor, and I agree, there are different travel corridors. That’s not the point that I was trying to make, merely the physical aspect of that station is similar, and they’ve got an offset canopy, and the other comment just is, why do we need something I have to ask, why do we need USA Gas on that particular corner? Or any gas on that particular corner? MR. HEILMANN-Since last spring it’s been vacant. MR. STONE-One of our challenges is a balancing between the benefit to the applicant and the detriment to the community, and I think this is a viable point. MR. HEILMANN-Well, Yeltsin operates a business, he’s what they call a discount gasoline retailer. He’s generally eight to ten cents a gallon cheaper than the nearest competitor, and at today’s gas prices, if that isn’t a service to the community, you know, what is, and just along those lines, I mean, operating the business along those lines. Like I said before, it’s a different 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/03) travel corridor, and like you mentioned on that Cumberland Farms store, there’s not the depth of the property to stack those four dispensers. So it’s unique in how this is laid out, but basically with the, you know, you’re looking for a service to the community. Yeltsin’s been a good guy. He’s been a good community servant in Ballston Spa, in South Glens Falls, and if you look at any of his stations, they are pristine looking. They are not rundown. They have a great customer loyalty that’s developed among all of his stations, and a lot of people have actually been asking him to come further north because they’re sick of traveling around the border to go to South Glens Falls to the station down there. So there is a demand for a USA Gas Station up here. His customers, his clients want him to come up here. MR. ABBATE-Let me ask a question. What is your name again? MR. HEILMANN-It’s Paul Heilmann. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Heilmann, I want you on the record. You’re going to guarantee the Town of Queensbury in this area gas is going to be eight to ten cents cheaper a gallon? MR. HEILMANN-It all depends on current market rates. MR. BRYANT-I have a question for Mr. Jones. Realizing that the property is nonconforming, it’s a difficult layout, you’re replacing two islands that are existing? MR. JONES-Yes. That’s correct. MR. BRYANT-Okay. Has there been any thought to eliminating the one canopy and just going with the three little islands you have there? Or maybe adding a fourth island? The way I look at the design, the main entrance to this convenience store, where is that main entrance? Is that going to be on the south side of the building? MR. JONES-There’s actually two entrances. There’s one almost dead center on the west side facing Route 9. MR. BRYANT-Okay. MR. JONES-I think you can see the door swing there hopefully, and then there’s one also on the north end facing the parking lot, the parking area. MR. BRYANT-My question, wouldn’t it be prudent to maybe put four islands underneath that one canopy, eliminate this other canopy and put some more parking spaces in front? It might be a little bit more palatable. Do you know what I mean? Because you’ve got two big canopies on that corner. MR. HEILMANN-We’ve tried various layouts with this property, and like you mentioned, you need to have, when you’re considering, you need to have an active parking area fueling zone and a drive by area for someone else to drive out of the property. In order to have enough width on that, we have to keep the pumps in line. We put four pumps in line, you have two positions of parallel parking, so to speak, in order to get underneath those dispensers. It’s very difficult. Customers don’t like to do that. That’s one of the main reasons for that. The other one is, is you back that canopy up closer to the building, you cut down on the safety zone for traffic to pass through and to avoid other traffic that’s coming around. You really tighten up the property by putting that northernmost canopy with four dispensers in a line. There’s not enough depth on the property to put four dispensers in tandem, and allow for safe passage of thru traffic and pedestrian, that kind of thing. MR. BRYANT-Well, there might be if the parking area were moved underneath this smaller canopy and this whole thing were pushed back into that void. There might be enough space for your four islands. I realize that you’re not going to make the TCO, but, you know, you’ve got a canopy that’s encroaching on just the normal setback, and then not only that, but then you’re 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/03) asking for another canopy that’s encroaching on two setbacks. So all I’m saying is, isn’t there a more logical approach? Our charge is to give the least amount of relief possible. That’s our charge. MR. HEILMANN-Well, let me explain. If you put them in line, you would have to put what’s called dive islands, right, you’re going to have the dispensers in line, back, you know, side to side to side, so you’d have to pull up all in a row, you’d have to angle them in towards the building, what is considered in the industry called dive islands. You need a minimum amount of space of turning radius before and after the property for that. So you would have only a singular canopy. That amount of room is not required, or is not there. MR. JONES-Yes. I think what he’s trying to say is if we put four pumping islands together, you’d get somebody to come in the one way entrance off of Route 9, pull in to the first spot. The next person coming in to Route 9 couldn’t get to the next pump without going around them. So then you’re talking about people driving by and having to turn in to the island, and now you’ve got inefficient use. Basically with three, someone’s going to come in, if they pull on the end, we can still get to the other end, but if you put four in a row, it’s conceivable we could have two in the middle that no one could get to, because people are not going to pull up near the pump. They’re going to pull wherever they want, basically, and then to get by them you’re going to have to sneak in and turn in to be able to get by them and get to a pump. I think that’s why we’re attempting to, Number One, break up the two islands like we’ve done. MR. BRYANT-I understand that, but I just have a problem with all this relief, with the two canopies. I mean, it would be nice, we could all have 25 islands in every gas station and all the islands accessible, it would be great, but that’s not the reality, and especially in a lot that’s so difficult, and I know a lot of thought went into this planning, and I’m just trying to think out loud. MR. JONES-Yes. MR. HEILMANN-One of the bottom lines in this is that you can only pump so many gallons through a single hose, and in order for the site to be profitable, to be a viable business, we need to have at least eight fueling hoses, eight fueling positions in order to move enough product, at the bare minimum. If that hose is down, if that hose breaks, if that dispenser breaks, now we go from making it to not making it, when you consider the business plan involved with that project. That’s the reason why there’s 10 fueling positions. A, you need to have, be able to move that much product, have that much availability because you can only move so many gallons per minute, and you need to be able to do that in order to turn enough product in order to pay the bills at the end of the day. It really comes down to that. MR. BRYANT-I understand that. That’s in the Walgreens kind of world, but in reality, you go to all these gas stations, and they could have eight or ten or twelve pumps, and very rarely, very rarely, do you see eight or ten or twelve pumps occupied. You may see 50% of them, 20% of them, two, three, whatever, but you never see them, you know, that’s an ideal, and I understand what you’re saying. MR. HEILMANN-Well, pardon me for interrupting, but you have to design the station for peak times. Peak times are when you go to work in the morning, right, to when you get to work in the morning, right, morning rush hour, afternoon rush hour. Those are your peak times, that’s the busiest times, and if you look at any of Yeltsin’s gas stations, people are very routinely, his stations are very busy underneath the canopy. They’re very busy stations, as far as having a decent flow through traffic continually throughout the day. So it’s not a real big spiker here. He’s very busy in the morning. Very busy in the afternoon, but there’s a continually good flow throughout the day. That’s the reason that we need to have five dispensers. The other one is that you can’t really, considering the situation, like I had mentioned, you need eight fueling hoses minimum. Having a canopy with a single dispenser underneath is very cost inefficiency. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/03) MR. BRYANT-Well, I’m not saying that. I’m saying eliminate that whole canopy, move the parking over here. Do something to rearrange this in this big corner and leave this for parking in the front, at one of the entrances, and you’ll eliminate one of the canopies that encroaches on two streets, and you might be able to do a little bit better on the relief required on the other canopy. I mean, that’s the suggestion I’m making. I don’t know anything about the gas business or how many pumps you need, but all I do is buy it. I don’t sell it, but thank you. MR. STONE-But a question. You talked about if you have four in a row, that the two internal ones, so to speak, give a problem. Why doesn’t the third one in three in a row give a problem? Why don’t people dive in there, if I understood what you were saying? MR. HEILMANN-Because what will happen is that center island, people won’t get perfectly square. It’ll be kind of crooked in their stall, and if you have two people crooked in their stall, you know, a person that’s crooked in their stall trying to get fuel, it’s very difficult to get a second one in there. There are convenient stores where three in a row works. They try and put four in a row, and it doesn’t work. Don’t ask me why. It just doesn’t work. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. HEILMANN-There’s convenient stores down in Rotterdam that have tried it. MR. BRYANT-Let me ask one more question in that regard. I know that you’re the experts at designing gas stations, but if you eliminated that canopy and you put your parking here instead of here, and you added another pump here, is there any reason why the pumps have to face that way? I mean, can’t the islands go this way into the lot, since there’s no parking here, to have a way to get out. Does that work? MR. JONES-Could you repeat that again? MR. BRYANT-You know, I know you need eight hoses, okay. So assuming you eliminated this parking area, and that parking area now is in the front of the building where the smaller canopy is, let’s assume you could do that. If you put the other pump there, is there a reason why those islands have to run that way? Why can’t they run, you’ll have plenty of room to get out and turn around. MR. HEILMANN-The reason why you can’t do that is because that’s where the storage tanks, underground storage tanks are located, and you cannot build the canopy footings into the storage tank. MR. BRYANT-Where are the storage tanks specifically? MR. HEILMANN-They are just north of the northern canopy. MR. BRYANT-So you’re saying you can’t put anything else beyond that canopy? MR. HEILMANN-No. MR. BRYANT-That’s where the tanks are? MR. HEILMANN-That’s where the tanks are. MR. JONES-Yes. The tanks sit just north of that northernmost canopy, and to try and put the parking around the front of the building, I think we’re going to cut off the traffic flow coming to and from Glenwood Avenue as well, because right now that’s set up as an ingress/egress. MR. BRYANT-Not if there’s a pump in the way. If there’s a pump in the way, and you’re going to pump eight billion gallons a second, you’re going to have those islands all packed. So you’re not going to still have. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/03) MR. JONES-Yes, but we have drive by. MR. HEILMANN-We have drive bys so you can get through there. MR. BRYANT-You’re going to have to really squeeze to get by there, either that or run the poor old lady that’s coming out of the convenient store with a bottle of milk. MR. HEILMANN-No. There’s plenty of room so you don’t run her over. MR. BRYANT-It doesn’t look like a heck of a lot of room. MR. HEILMANN-No, it doesn’t, but there’s quite a bit there. The canopy’s a little bit oversized, as far as, for access between the dispensers. They’re a foot longer between the dispensers, by access ability for pedestrian traffic. MR. STONE-I just have a quick question. On Canopy B., front elevation, are the pumps that narrow? MR. JONES-No. What you’re looking at are the columns holding up the canopy. The pumps aren’t shown. MR. STONE-Well, therefore they come out further then? MR. JONES-Yes. They’re sitting, they’re actually sitting, on the small canopy, they’d be on the outboard side where the little vehicle is on the right hand side there. The pump would be to the right hand side of that column and on the other end to the left hand side of the. MR. STONE-Okay, on the pedestal that’s shown, there’s just no pump there. MR. JONES-Right. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. URRICO-Are there every any new gas stations built without canopies or smaller canopies than these? MR. HEILMANN-No. MR. URRICO-Why not? MR. HEILMANN-Because nobody wants to pump gas in the rain. MR. URRICO-There are no smaller canopies than this? MR. HEILMANN-And additionally with that, what’s required now, since the adoption of the International Building Code in New York State, it requires a UL listed fire suppression system within the canopy above the dispensers. If you look at what’s required, as far as the number of nozzles, bottles, powder bottles, and that kind of thing, in order to meet those requirements, you need quite a bit of surface area on the top in order to spread those nozzles out, in order to cover the hazard area, the hazard area being wherever the hose will reach out to, or where the spill will reach out to. So you really have to push that out quite a ways. Have any of you gentlemen been over towards Massachusetts at all and looked up at some of those canopies and they just have this map and spider web of nozzles sticking out it’s because the canopies weren’t large enough and they couldn’t put the nozzles, hide the fire suppression system up into the canopy out above, you know, above the fueling lane. MR. URRICO-Does that affect the depth of the canopy or the width and length of it as well? 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/03) MR. JONES-The width and length more than the depth. MR. HEILMANN-Yes. MR. JONES-The depth is actually fairly shallow on these. MR. URRICO-You had mentioned earlier this was an oversized canopy. What did you mean by that? MR. HEILMANN-Well, there’s a little bit of extra space between the two dispensers to allow, there’s 12 inches extra space between the dispensers. You want everything to look symmetrical, and with the center third islands in a row, in the northernmost one, you have to have room in order to pull in there and parallel park, and so there’s a foot additional in there to match, or the foot additional on the southern one to match the distance required on the northern one. It’s just so that all the dispensers are the same distance apart and everything looks pretty from the road, and pedestrian access between the dispensers and that kind of thing, between the bumpers of the cars and that kind of thing. MR. URRICO-I know we’re not charged with dealing with the ingress and egress, but since you brought it up earlier, I’m going to take the liberty to talk about that a little bit. I noticed that Mr. Strough, in his comments to the Planning Board, made reference to it, and I was kind of curious as well. If somebody traveling south on Route 9 comes in the northernmost entrance, fills up at the first pump or the second pump, they’re going to egress on to Glenwood Avenue. MR. JONES-Yes. MR. URRICO-That’s the plan. MR. JONES-That’s the plan. That’s correct. MR. URRICO-If they’re on the outside pump, the pump that’s closest to the building, they’re also going to be faced with traffic coming in from Glenwood Avenue as well? MR. JONES-I’m not sure which pump you’re talking about. MR. URRICO-Well, any of the pumps, I guess. I just don’t see much room to the inside where the State island if you’re going to be planting things in between that and the pumps, I don’t see much room to get around that side. So I sort of see them coming between the pumps and the building. MR. JONES-There’s basically a parking lane for the vehicles that are fueling under the canopy, and there’s also a pass by lane both on the Route 9 side and the building side of that canopy. So there’s room for a vehicle to go, and there’s quite a bit of room on either side of that. MR. URRICO-Even for the cars that don’t park straight? MR. JONES-Yes, even for cars that don’t park straight. MR. URRICO-The other question I have is to the size of the trees that would be planted. MR. JONES-Yes. MR. URRICO-What would they be? MR. JONES-The sugar maples are a three inch caliper. So they’ll be probably 10 to 12 feet tall minimally, I would say, and that is, I believe that’s out of the new regulation for the Town Planning and Zoning for planting. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/03) MR. URRICO-Thank you. MR. STONE-Speaking of Town regulations, the last applicant who wanted to use that space came before us and we mentioned to him the new zoning code with architectural guidelines for that part of Glen, can you tell me that you have considered those guidelines? MR. JONES-We have. We’ve basically taken the existing building, which when it is cleaned up will be a decent looking building. We’ve taken the overhead doors out. It is our intent to clean all of the brick. We’re infilling any openings that we’re closing up in the building that are basically a brick area with brick veneer to match. The overhead door openings, the aluminum entrances going in are all going to be replaced. It’ll have a white finish on the aluminum. They’ll be insulating glass panels. Full glass with the grids on them to mimic the colonial aspect of the building itself. We’re adding some small white canopies at the entrances so that we can provide lighting up inside of those to provide lighting at the perimeter of the base of the building for the ingress and egress out of the building. Basically, the site is going to be totally dressed up and we’re trying to bring everything that we can into conformance with the, both the green area requirements, the planting along Route 9 for the main thoroughfare, the street trees, plus the look of the building. MR. STONE-One further comment, one further question. We haven’t really discussed the relief you’re asking for. Fifty-six from seventy-five, thirty-one from fifty, thirty-six from fifty, sixty- three from seventy-five, and thirty-eight and a half from fifty feet. That’s an awful lot of relief. What if you could reduce that request? I’m not asking you to, but what kind of project, I mean, could you do a project that would be economically feasible? MR. JONES-I don’t think we could. There’s just, there’s no good location for a canopy that fits with the parking on the east side, the site circulation requirements, the ingress/egress requirements for getting out onto the main drives. There’s just no good, if we had another fifty feet in depth on the site, we could probably accommodate a heck of a lot, but there’s just not a lot of depth on the site to be able to do anything, and that’s why basically all of the pumping scenarios are long and linear, because we just don’t have the width on, or the depth on the site to be able to work with that. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other comments before we open a public hearing? I don’t want to cut anybody off. Okay. Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of the application? In favor of? Anybody opposed to the application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MARILYN VAN DYKE MRS. VAN DYKE-My name is Marilyn VanDyke and I’m the Historian for the Town of Queensbury. First I have a couple of questions, and then I would like to make a statement. If I understood your comments at the beginning of the meeting, you said that you had tabled the information that’s before the Planning Board so that the SEQRA determination could be examined further and the neighbors to be notified. Were the neighbors notified in regard to? MR. STONE-Of the Planning Board hearing? MRS. VAN DYKE-Yes. MR. STONE-Craig? MR. BROWN-I guess I could respond to that. What was tabled, this application was tabled last month before the Zoning Board, this Board. The Planning Board has made a SEQRA determination. What they have left to do is make a site plan review finding and review the site plan after this variance procedure if it’s successful for the applicant. So everybody that needs to 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/03) be notified for tonight’s meeting has been notified and the SEQRA determination from the Planning Board has been made. MR. STONE-And what will happen if we grant some relief, I mean, they’re requesting a certain amount. We can or cannot grant that or we can ask for modifications or we can deny it, but the finished project, when we get done with it, will then go to the Planning Board for site plan review, with any modifications we have possibly made to the application. Is that correct? If the applicant wants to go forward, when we get done. MRS. VAN DYKE-I think I understand the process all right, but I do have some questions about the SEQRA review that was done, in that I read the material from the Planning Board on that, and there was very little discussion about considerations related to the environment and historical and cultural considerations, and maybe that’s not in your bailiwick, but I just wondered if everybody has had a real opportunity to respond to those in the proper way. MR. STONE-I can’t comment on that. All I know is that, and that’s why I read it into the record. They passed a resolution saying it was a negative declaration, and Mr. Abbate questioned, what does that mean in terms of any effect at all, that they ruled that, per the New York State SEQRA law, that it’s a negative declaration. There’s no major impacts on the environment. MRS. VAN DYKE-All right. Now, in terms of some work that’s been going on in the Town, in terms of developing their master plan and so on, there’s been some discussion of late about how we view our community and some of the things that we do as we grapple with all of the problems related with growth and development, and we have a kind of a unique situation here at the corner of Glenwood and Route 9, and with all due respect to the individuals who have purchased the property and who have good intentions and some reasonably good plans in place, I wonder if they realize that they have, on their property, a piece of land that is of great historical significance within the Town, and it also happens to be located in an area where you are entering the Town of Queensbury from Glens Falls going north or leaving it if you’re going south on Route 9, and this is one of the things that I think we need to be paying attention to in our Town is how are we presenting ourselves as a community and how do we handle the historical significance that we have within the community, and I’d just like to mention a list that I’ve prepared today, relative to this particular area. First of all we are at Halfway Brook. MR. STONE-I just want to caution you that we allow five minutes for the initial comments. So if you want to get to a natural closing point, and then you can come back after others have spoken. MRS. VAN DYKE-All right. Maybe I should defer the ten items, then, and say that I do think that we have some historical significance that we need to consider in terms of this property and is a gas station convenience center the best possible use and way that we would want to have this property utilized. Okay. MR. STONE-Anybody else wish to speak opposed? BOB MC DONOUGH MR. MC DONOUGH-My name is Bob McDonough. I live at 8 Fort Amherst Road. I thought Marilyn was going to be able to list all of the historical significance. MR. STONE-She will. She’ll come back. MR. MC DONOUGH-And so I’ll leave that up to her. I have one question that I didn’t hear answered tonight, in terms of the hours of operation, as compared to what the previous business operated at, and I don’t know whether that’s been addressed or not. MR. STONE-That’s a good question. It is now posed, and the applicant, when they come back up, will hopefully supply that information. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/03) MR. MC DONOUGH-And again, my interest as a neighbor is as to the historical site. I thought once I saw the For Sale sign go up on the property I thought the Town, based on its budget situation, would have the opportunity to reclaim this property, in terms of its historical significance to the Town. These opportunities don’t come up very often, and we have the opportunity, perhaps, at this point, to deal with that. So that’s really my point. I’ll let Marilyn discuss all of the historical aspects of it. Thank you. MR. STONE-Okay. Anybody else wishing to speak? Mrs. VanDyke, you can come back up now. Nobody else seems to. Continue as if I didn’t interrupt you. MRS. VAN DYKE-That’s all right. Thank you. Well, briefly, just to look at the history here, we have Halfway Brook, and the fact that Johnson’s Military Road from Fort Edward to Fort William Henry crossed the Halfway Brook at this point where thousands of colonial soldiers passed on their way to the French and Indian War, and where wagon supplies carried equipment to Fort William Henry, and also where a significant massacre occurred slightly to the south of this area. This area was also traversed in the Revolutionary War by the Hessian Soldiers and by the Baroness who traveled through this area and chronicled the War. There were many fortifications at the Brook, the Block House, in which resided Jeffrey Cowprey and the Planning Board minutes that name was not spelled correctly. He was the first resident of the Town of Queensbury. There were other forts there, and especially Fort Amherst where we have the names for Amherst Road and Garrison Road today. Very near this site George Washington passed, and stopped and drank of the waters of our Town. Just going into the area of Glenwood Avenue, we have the site of a planned village which did not materialize over time, but nevertheless was a place where the village was to develop. We have Hovey Pond, which originally was Briggs Pond, where there was a dam and a slews way that was built. We also had the stagecoach passing this area on the Plank Road and a toll booth, which is still in existence on Glenwood Avenue. During the 20 Century this area opened up for travel and for th tourists and some of the first gas stations were, of course, on this site, and on a little know piece which some of you may have seen in the Queensbury Report is that we have the site of the World War II Honor Roll in this area, just directly north of the site. So this is a very rich area where a great deal of historical interpretation could be done, and we could take advantage of this, in terms of historical tourism for the community. So I just want to mention this as another possible option, and a consideration that some people might want to make, even including the people who are the current owners of the property. Thank you. MR. BRYANT-One question, Mrs. VanDyke. You mentioned a number of, you know, items relative to the area. Is there anything specific to this lot that you can cite, you know, relative to the historical significance? MRS. VAN DYKE-The fact that the Military Road was there and the Honor Roll most likely was on that parcel of land, those are the two major items. MR. BRYANT-Okay. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Excuse me. The Honor Roll was on that particular parcel of land? What do you mean by that? MRS. VAN DYKE-There was a World War II Honor Roll for the soldiers who went to war during the Second World War, and it was on the northern portion of that, and I’m not exactly sure yet because we’re still trying to locate it, but it was on the Frasier property, and it was in that immediate area. MR. ABBATE-Has that been removed, to your knowledge? MRS. VAN DYKE-Yes, we can’t find it. We don’t even have a picture of it. MR. ABBATE-No, no. That’s not my question. Has that plaque been removed? 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/03) MRS. VAN DYKE-Yes. MR. ABBATE-It has. So it’s no longer there. MRS. VAN DYKE-It’s not there. That’s correct. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. MR. STONE-Anybody else wishing to speak for or against at this particular point in time? Do we have correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-We have two pieces of correspondence. The first one is from William Gates at 1 Glenwood Avenue. He says, “In regards to the plans to be discussed Wednesday evening for converting the gas station on the corner of Glenwood Avenue and Glen Street into a convenient store, in the past, it has been a hotly contested issue whenever anyone has desired to place a commercial establishment along the east side of Glen or along Glenwood Avenue near the gas station property. The line of delineation has been clearly drawn here separating commercial development and residential. For the record, I am totally in favor of the conversion into a convenience store, however, it is my strong belief that adding additional pumps along Glenwood Avenue would create a new negative encroachment to all of the residential properties across the street and down the street on Glenwood Avenue in the following ways: --- It would be negative visually, in both their appearance from homes and in creating more unwanted commercial lighting; It would negatively create more congestion on Glenwood Avenue at the intersection and light; It would negatively create additional noise to the residential neighborhood, our homes across the street. Furthermore, the gas station was always closed early in the evening, did not make evening repairs, and was usually closed on Sundays, always on Sunday mornings. I repeat-I am in favor of the convenience store and will enjoy the convenience – I am totally NOT in favor of the added gas island near Glenwood Avenue. Thank you. Sincerely, William Gates 1 Glenwood Avenue Queensbury, NY 12804” And then the other letter we have is from Robert McDonough. He says, “I’m writing you this letter to express my opposition for the request for a variance by the owners of USA Gas who are planning a commercial operation at the corner of Glenwood Avenue and Route 9. Throughout the French and Indian War and the American Revolution this site represented a significant role in both wars. As you probably know this site was the approximate mid way point of the military road between Fort Edward and Fort William Henry. The armies of the French, Indians, British and Americans had to travel this road between the two portage points of the Hudson River and Lake George. The only military road used between New York and Montreal during the wars that formed our country to initially be English based (rather than French) and subsequently the free United States of America. This piece of property is historic and represents Queensbury’s role in these wars. George Washington visited this location at Halfway Brook in August of 1783. This visit is captured in a painting commissioned by the Glens Falls Insurance Company. Queensbury has no Fort Ticonderoga, Fort William Henry, Crown Point, but it does have this site which was the location of Fort Amherst and Halfway Brook. That was this town’s contribution to this formidable period of our history and it must be restored and preserved. As part of the town’s new Master Plan this property would be the ideal location to recognize and celebrate Queensbury’s role in our country’s early history and be a visitor center along a well traveled road – just as it was 250 years ago. In addition to the historic aspect to this property there are also questionable environmental concerns with its location next to Halfway Brook. I thank you in advance for your consideration. Regards, Robert McDonough” MR. STONE-Anything else? MR. MC NULTY-That’s all. MR. STONE-All right. For the moment, let me close the public hearing. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/03) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Gentlemen, come back up. I heard a couple of questions, and before you answer that one, I’m looking back at Staff notes. Have these two parcels been combined? MR. JONES-I didn’t realize there were two parcels. MR. STONE-Well, I’m reading Staff notes. Mr. Brown, are you aware of any? MR. BROWN-I’m not aware of any consolidation. It’s reflective of two tax parcels on our tax rolls. MR. JONES-If it hasn’t been consolidated, it would be. I guess that’s the best that I can do. MR. STONE-Okay. I just want to get that on the record. That’s all. So if it isn’t, it will be, and therefore the numbers that are quoted in Staff notes, written by Mr. Brown, I assume, apply to the consolidated parcel. Okay. Now go ahead. MR. JONES-In reference to the existing station that existed there, it closed in March of 2003. So it’s been closed for approximately six months now. In reference to the historic aspect of the site, we are aware of the historic things that have happened in that have happened in that area. Basically that site’s been a gas station for over 40 years. With what we’re proposing, we’re not impacting the northernmost side of the property closest to the Brook, and I think that we’re taking into account some very good engineering type systems to basically control runoff, control potential pollution of the Brook, those types of things. Hours of operation, basically all of the convenience stores and the gas pumping operations that are on Route 9 and Quaker Road, most of them run 24 hours a day. It is not the intent of the owner of this property to run it 24 hours a day. He’s looking at a seven day a week operation. His hours would start at five in the morning and they would run until midnight. With respect to the neighbors along Glenwood Avenue, basically the existing building pretty much shields their view of that front canopy from Glenwood. I’m not sure where this property owner is. I think he’s at 1 Glenwood, and I’m not sure which side of the street that actually exists on. It may be the south side of Glenwood, and he may be looking directly at that intersection. I’m not sure of that. The lights that we’re proposing, both in the canopy and on the site itself, are cut off type fixtures. The lighting and the canopy are flush with the bottom side of the soffit of the canopy. We have gone through all of the lighting calculations as required. We’ve discussed that. We’ve also talked about some of the other canopies that are existing and have been approved in the Town in the last two years, and in reference to the canopies that have been approved at other self service gas stations, we’re probably 20 to 30% below their foot candle levels. So we feel that we’ve done a good job in controlling both the light pollution and the wash that’s going to go off of our site. The added gas island, as we had said before, really the only way for us to make this site work is to break the two canopies apart, and that’s why we’re proposing it as we’ve demonstrated it on the plans. I’m not sure if there were any other questions that I didn’t address. MR. STONE-I just want, looking at your site plan and knowing my perception of north and south, can we agree, for the purposes of discussion, that Glen goes north and south? MR. JONES-Yes. Route 9, yes. MR. STONE-Route 9. So the two pump, or the two station one is the southernmost. MR. JONES-Yes, the one closest to Glenwood would be the one at the southern end of the property. Yes. MR. STONE-I just wanted to be sure. All right. Any other questions before we talk about it? Well, let’s do it. Jaime, let’s start with you. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/03) MR. HAYES-Well, I’ve been on the record in the past certainly of being in favor of positive recycling of business properties, even to the extent of cutting them a break or some relief to end up with a positive result, a change that’s better for the neighborhood or the Town in general. I voted for all three Cumberland Farms, and I’m assuming that’s what you’re alluding to as far as precedent, but in this particular case, I think this is different. That particular area of Town we already have converging traffic from two lanes to one there. The YMCA is undertaking a multimillion dollar expansion. The amount of traffic that is happening through and around there in my opinion has grown dramatically. Glenwood Avenue has become a cut over from Quaker Road for better or for worse, it’s become a small arterial to cut across there. The Planning Board reviews traffic patterns and pagination and all these type of things, but we do consider the effect on the neighborhood of granting relief, and in my view, in this particular case, this project represents an increase in density at this density that I can’t say I think is a positive thing for the neighborhood. I really can’t. If it had one island, I certainly would think that, you know, the fact that it’s a pre-existing property and these other things such as that, that we would have to consider that, and I would, but in this particular case, I think that we’re actually being asked to allow, you know, intensity to possibly be increased, and the amount of relief that’s associated with increasing that intensity is pretty heavy. As I look at what’s being asked of us, I think it’s quite a lot. I really do, in this particular case. I certainly sympathize with the fact that it’s an existing property, and that something needs to be done with it, but no matter where I go with it mentally, to me, the relief is very significant, and I could even envision, you know, if somebody pulled out wrong or if there was a wait at the pumps that somebody would be attempting to pull in on busy Route 9 and have to stop. I just think it’s just too much on this site. I think it’s over the top, and I think I’d only look at a plan that had a less intense use on this particular site, to be in favor of it. So I’m against the project. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I’m afraid I’ve got to agree with Jaime. I’m torn on this one, but I guess where I come down with it is the request is significant. There’s a lot of relief requested, and I think we’re trying to shoe horn a gas station in where probably a gas station should not be now. While the property traditionally has had a gas station on it, it dates back to when traffic was a lot lighter. I anticipate that there may be something more done with Route 9 in that area at some point, which is one of the reasons for the Travel Corridor Overlay, but I think the cumulative effect is just too much with all of the relief required, and I’m not sure even eliminating the southern gas island would change my mind. While Jaime was talking I was debating on that, trying to figure, but I guess it strikes me that it’s too much relief, and, to me, it’s a bad idea, and a little bad idea or a big bad idea doesn’t make any difference. So I’m going to regrettably be opposed. MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I’m going to take the opposite tact that my fellow Board members have used so far. I think that we have to consider several points, and that is that, you know, there was a time when we used to have gas stations on every corner around town, growing up when I was a kid and given the new environmental standards, I think that that’s a given that, you know, anything that’s done in this day and age is done with the environment strictly in mind, and I think that, you know, your plan as you’ve proposed it, and as you explained it, it very succinctly makes that point. I think, too, that, you know, looking at the neighborhood there, there’s been a gas station there basically forever. I’m sure there was one there prior to the one that was built 40 years ago, probably pre-existing that one, and I think that the neighbors, you know, who own property there probably most of them have moved in since the creation of that gas station. So they’ve learned to, you know, live with it. I think that what you’ve proposed with the colonial accents, you know, even though it is the entrance way to Queensbury, it is Route 9, and Route 9 used to be the primary corridor through north and south between here and there, and I think that your colonial accents as proposed are a positive. I think that, you know, as opposed to your standard Sunoco facade that you put on your canopies and things like that. I think you pretty much explain why you need the number of pumps that you have, and that any other kind of arrangement on the lot creates stacking and 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/03) leapfrogging of the cars, and that doesn’t make sense either. So I basically would be in favor of your plan. I think it’s well thought out. I think the vegetation that you’ve proposed on the site is going to be a positive also on that corridor. I think that’s somewhat going to mitigate the fact that you’re asking for so much relief on those two canopies. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good news and bad news. You folks, in my opinion, have done your homework. You’ve given a full disclosure environmental of what if a disaster strikes. As a matter of fact, I intend to use those questions and responses as a framework of questions to ask of future similar businesses. However, I have two areas in which I’m troubled. I’m troubled with the lack of detailed information concerning any environmental impact, small or large, on the part of the Planning Board, and in addition, particularly in view of the fact of the testimony stated to by our Town Historian. It would seem to me that many of the questions dealing with possible impacts should have been addressed before, and in particular, the impact on the historical significance of that parcel of land. Based upon that, I’m afraid, Mr. Chairman, I cannot be in support of the application. MR. STONE-Allan? MR. BRYANT-Well, in my view this is a typical Richard Jones application, well thought out, environmentally sound, well laid out, but frankly, I think I’m going to have to agree with what Mr. McNulty had to say, relative to the fact that you’re trying to fit ten pounds of feathers into a one pound bag. It’s a great site, but it may not be for this particular layout. I just think it’s way too much relief on that corner, and although a few of the Board members have mentioned it’s not that important that that’s the entrance of the Town of Queensbury, in my view, coming from that section of Glens Falls into Queensbury, I think it is significant. That’s the first thing you’re going to see when you cross the Town line. So, yes, it’s an improvement over the current Sunoco station, but I just think it’s way too much for the site. Nothing to do with the plan. Nothing to do with the layout, just the site, and so, Mr. Chairman, I’d be opposed to the application. MR. STONE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I agree with what most of my fellow Board members have said. I think what you’ve done is create a nice plan for basically a bad location, and when I consider the task before us and the Board of Appeals is given the task of balancing the benefit to the applicant with the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, and when I start looking at that specifically, I see the benefit, can the benefit be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant, and, yes, there are alternatives. There are other means, less pumps, no canopy. Those are feasible, maybe not putting a gas station there is feasible, and as far as the undesirable change in the neighborhood character or nearby properties, I think, yes, oversized canopies are not the kind of entrance way into Queensbury I think we want. We already are in danger of creating a glut of signs and canopies, if we are not careful. All we need to do is look up the road further, up Route 9 to see what’s happened there, and I don’t think I want that to the entrance way to Queensbury. Is the request substantial? Yes, it is. Quite substantial. I think we’ve all agreed on that, and as far as the adverse physical or environmental effects, I think it has the potential to have adverse physical or environmental effects. We’re not quite sure yet. We still haven’t gotten all those answers, and as far as the difficulty being self-created, I think there’s a yes and no here. Yes, it is a narrow, small lot, but the applicant has also created difficulties with the extra pumps and the canopies. So, all that being said, I am against this application. MR. STONE-Well, first I want to congratulate my Board, not on the decision they’ve made, but on the thinking that has gone in to their statements. There is a great deal of thought given. Obviously, it’s not an easy situation to say no. I am going to say no, and I’m going to say no primarily for the prime reasons that have been given. Yes, this was a gas station. It has been a gas station, let’s say 40 years, but it was not a large gas station. It was not a gas station with 10 fueling stations. It was not a convenience store. It was a garage where there was on site repair 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/03) work done and people came and bought gas and they left. Where certainly I think Mr. Hayes said it quite well, there’s going to be a lot more traffic than there’s been before. I think what Mr. McNulty said, that we are trying to shoe horn a modern, large station into an obsolete site. That may very well be, but our job is not to judge business reasons. Our job is not to say, well, it was a bad business decision to buy this, to run it the way it is, if that’s the case, and therefore we need this large station. It’s certainly self-created. This was a going business. Buying this business says, well, here’s a going business. Why can’t I make it go, rather than having to make it larger. Therefore it’s certainly self-created. I just think the other thing that has been talked about, when I see the numbers that I related earlier, 56, 31, 36, 63, 38, yes, some of those things are a little artificial in the Travel Corridor Overlay, but those numbers boggle the mind when you put percentages on them, and we have, as a Board, been quite concerned in granting more than minimal relief. We don’t want to grant more, and here, the relief sought, I can’t even consider that it’s, the word “minimal” even comes into play. So, I’m going to have to vote no, as I say, which puts the applicant in the situation, we can deny it, which means it’s got to be significant differences. You can withdraw it and there’s still got to be significant differences, if you’re going to come back, based upon what you have heard here. It’s really up to you people what you want to do. I mean, I can call for a denial. You may consult. Mr. Brown, just for clarification, while they’re talking, they could refurbish that building and they could use the pumps or modernize those pumps where they are, without, I mean, without relief? MR. BROWN-I think the answer is yes. MR. STONE-Yes. Okay. So the business could be made viable from an existing standpoint. MR. BROWN-Sure, no modifications, changes to the site, other than cosmetics. Sure. MR. STONE-Okay. I wanted the public to hear that, because sometimes that comes into play. MR. BROWN-Sure. MR. STONE-Yes, sir? MR. JONES-Could I ask a question of Mr. Brown? MR. STONE-You certainly may. Mr. Brown. MR. JONES-If we are to delete the canopies, but keep the gas pumps where they’re indicated on the gas islands with no canopies, we would not need a variance to the pump, because it’s not an accessory structure, correct? But we would still need a site plan review. MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. JONES-Okay. MR. STONE-But that’s only taking the northern most pumps, location. MR. BROWN-There’s only one set of pumps on the site right now. MR. STONE-There’s only one set of pumps now. The point that I made, Mr. Jones, was that. MR. JONES-No, there’s two sets. MR. HEILMANN-There’s two sets. MR. ABBATE-Yes, two sets, Lew. MR. STONE-Are there two? Okay. Sorry. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/03) MR. ABBATE-But didn’t you indicate earlier that those canopies were required to provide the fire suppression, and you’re saying you’re not going to have canopies? MR. JONES-We can do them without the canopies, but then you’re going to have an array of piping, rather than looking at a canopy, you’re going to be looking at this mass of piping hanging out. MR. ABBATE-I see, but the fire suppression units would still be there, by law? MR. JONES-Yes, they have to be. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you. MR. JONES-Mr. Stone, if you go to our Drawing R-1, you’ll see the location of the existing gas islands. MR. STONE-Yes, I know. I’m saying it’s basically, that’s the one area, though, to the north, and there is a diesel fuel pump in there, too. MR. JONES-Yes. That’s all the way down toward the brook. That’s correct. MR. STONE-Right, but there’s nothing on the southern end of the property? MR. JONES-Not at the current time, no. MR. STONE-Right. That’s all. MR. JONES-But we wouldn’t need any variances to locate gas pumps to the northern end of the island. We would only need site plan review. MR. HEILMANN-That sounds right. MR. STONE-What’s your pleasure? MR. JONES-Let’s withdraw the application. MR. STONE-Done. The minutes will be available, obviously, for your discussion. MR. JONES-Thank you. MR. STONE-All right. AREA VARIANCE NO. 69-2003 SEQR TYPE II DR. KEITH CAVAYERO & DR. ELYSA BARON AGENT: STEPHANIE DI LALLO BITTER ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 87 MASON ROAD APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED REVISED PLANS REGARDING ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO THE HOUSE, BOATHOUSE, AND SEPTIC SYSTEM ON THE PROPERTY AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR-1A ZONE AS WELL AS RELIEF FROM THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: NONE FOUND ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/9/03 TAX MAP NO. 226.12-1-21, 39 LOT SIZE: 0.22 AC., 0.08 AC. SECTION: 179-4-030 JON LAPPER & CURT DYBAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Read the tabling. MR. STONE-Read the tabling and the new Staff Notes. Right. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/03) MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Going back. There was a motion, “MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 69-2003 DR. KEITH CAVAYERO & DR. ELYSA BARON, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: 87 Mason Road. For a period of up to 62 days. So that, one, the applicant can investigate the combining of the two lots, and to consider the comments of the Board in relationship to the relief requested. Duly adopted this 23 day of July, 2003, by the following vote: rd AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Himes” STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 69-2003, Dr. Keith Cavayero & Dr. Elysa Baron, Meeting Date: September 17, 2003 “Project Location: 87 Mason Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes alterations and additions to house, boathouse, septic system and site work. Applicant seeks relief from the requirements of the WR-1A zone. The project plans have been revised to eliminate the freestanding garage on the east side of Mason Road and to eliminate the conversion of the existing garage to an additional bedroom. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief from the requirements of the WR-1A Zone, §179-4-030 as follows: Floor Area Ratio seeking 28% total versus 22% allowed ?? Side setback (boathouse) seeking 4.74 feet versus 20 feet allowed ?? Boathouse height seeking 14.71 feet versus 14 feet allowed ?? Exp. of a non conforming seeking 53% increase versus 50% allowed ?? (this relief does not appear to be necessary) Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None applicable Staff comments: As referenced above, the applicant has removed the freestanding garage and the existing garage conversion from the project plan. The application also refers to side setback relief for the house and both front and side setback relief for the existing garage conversion. The floor plans submitted appear to show interior alterations to the house along the southerly side. No relief is would be necessary for interior alterations. Is the plan to rebuild the structure or rebuild the second floor? Can the sundeck plan be altered to only expand to the south and require no relief? Site Plan Review will be required for this project.” MR. STONE-Mr. Himes has left the room, but I believe he indicated earlier that he was going to recuse himself on this matter also because he was not present for the first time and Mr. Underwood was. So, Mr. Underwood would be sitting in for this particular thing. Mr. Lapper? MR. LAPPER-Good evening. First I’d like to just explain that, in order to be polite to the Board, since I knew I had to start my evening at the Wilton Planning Board, I made arrangements with Mr. Richards to fill in as the second application if I didn’t make it in time and cleared that with the Zoning Administrator. So that’s what happened and thank you for your courtesies. For the record, I’m with my associate, Stephanie Bitter, Curt Dybas, the project architect, and Keith Cavayero, the applicant. As the Board will recall, we were here last month discussing this application in detail. The Board sent us off with some very positive thoughts. If I can just. MR. STONE-Sir, I have one request of your client. Would you please remove your hat, sir. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/03) MR. LAPPER-We were talking about that first of all, the boathouse, just to remind the Board, where the modification that’s requested was to go with the sundeck that’s existing, to bring it out just to the eaves, but no further than the eaves. So it wouldn’t appear visually different than it is now, and the height issue on the deck was just to bring the railings which are there now a few inches higher to comply with the new Building Code. The Board felt that those were pretty minor. With respect to the house itself, right now the house is a four bedroom dwelling, a small four bedroom dwelling, and they are proposing to add 413 square feet, which is very modest, as a renovation, and when we were here last time, the Cavayeros wanted to convert the existing garage into a guest bedroom, and they’ve since removed that. We investigated with the Zoning Administrator, after the Board sent us off to do some homework, the lot across the street could be separately sold because it is a separate parcel. So they have eliminated any plans to build the garage with upstairs on that parcel. So the only thing we’ve got now is three existing buildings, and a small renovation to the boathouse and a small renovation to the house, to go from four bedrooms to three bedrooms, and just that 413 square feet. Our numbers, we believe that right now we’re at exactly 22% Floor Area Ratio, and to add the additional 413 square feet, we go to 26.54. I know that the Staff notes say 28, but we did the math, and we think that it’s 26.5. Ordinarily 26.5 Floor Area Ratio would be something this Board would think that somebody would be asking for a lot. In this case, it’s only 413 square feet of space, because it’s, you know, obviously a small lot to begin with, but when you consider that, I want you to look at this, view this, in terms of all the other applications that we’re all aware of. Most of the time, people come in, buy a small lot and propose to knock everything down and build a mansion with very small setbacks, and this is a case where they’re keeping exactly what’s there, you know, adding 400 square feet, to just make it, to modernize the house, but we really feel that this is a very modest proposal compared to what most people have done on the lake, and we hope the Board will view it that way. Most importantly, there’s a nonconforming septic system that’s right by the lake. The septic system is going to be completely rebuilt beyond the 100 foot setback. So that it would be completely conforming. So, visually it’s going to look nearly identical to what’s there with a little upgrade and a few 100 square feet, and in terms of the impacts on the neighborhood, the new septic system is a big plus. So that’s what we would come back with, after listening to you last time, and I guess I just want to ask Curt to address the issue about the issue that was raised by Staff about whether it’s a tear down or a reconstruction. MR. DYBAS-Again, Curt Dybas for the record. The house, the existing house, will remain intact, including the second floor. The 413 square feet is a screened porch addition on the first floor off the existing living room, and the addition above, a second floor above that screened porch which will be a bedroom, and the rear portion, the north side of it is a new stair tower that’s obviously served the floors within the building. All the additions to the building fall within the zoning envelope. We are doing no additions which would require a setback variance. MR. BRYANT-A couple of questions. Relative to the calculation of the Floor Area Ratio, the discrepancy, because you were 24.2 in the last application, is it because you included this lot in the calculation, and now that lot is excluded? MR. DYBAS-Yes, well, there’s two, there were two things. We included the area of the lot and also included the new garage. MR. BRYANT-Right, but now you’re looking at a higher Floor Area Ratio. It’s only because you’ve eliminated this lot in the calculation. You’re talking about a, I’m just a little bit confused. You’re talking about adding to the living room. I don’t see anything on this. MR. DYBAS-No. There’s a screened porch that goes on the north side of the living room, on the first floor. MR. BRYANT-I don’t see anything on the sketch relative to that. MR. STONE-Yes, that was exactly my question. Where is the new 413 feet? 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/03) MR. BRYANT-Yes, am I missing something? MR. STONE-I’m missing it, too. MR. DYBAS-The first floor plan of the proposed building. MR. BRYANT-That was with the old application. MR. DYBAS-The addition to the building is this screened porch, and this rear stair and entry, which is on the north side of the existing building. The existing footprint of the building is this rectangular block. MR. LAPPER-And the north side is within the setback. MR. STONE-Where your fingers are, Mr. Dybas, right there, that’s new. MR. DYBAS-This is new, from this line up is new. MR. STONE-Okay, and that’s still going to be within 50 feet. MR. BRYANT-As you look at this plan, this corner is going to be the addition. MR. DYBAS-Sir, that corner is the stair, and toward the lake there’s the porch. MR. STONE-This drawing here, the one that was just submitted, this is the addition in here? MR. DYBAS-No. MR. STONE-Lakeside? MR. DYBAS-Along the north wall is the addition. MR. BRYANT-So that little corner is where the addition is? MR. LAPPER-It’s within the side setback, or it’s beyond the side setback and it’s beyond the lake setback. MR. BRYANT-It’s the same, yes, right. MR. STONE-So it’s encroaching more on your neighbor. MR. DYBAS-No. It’s coming closer. It’s not encroaching on the zoning setback. MR. STONE-Closer to his. MR. ABBATE-Can I ask a question, Mr. Chairman? MR. STONE-Sure. MR. ABBATE-Let me refocus the scene, Counselor. You said it was a modest, modest is subject. I just wanted to clear that up. MR. LAPPER-I think that the Board might have used that word last time. MR. ABBATE-Okay. The second I’d like to refocus that this is an expansion of a nonconforming building. I want to keep it in focus. Am I correct? This is an expansion of a nonconforming building? 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/03) MR. LAPPER-Well, the nonconformity is on the southern side. It’s nonconforming for side setback, and we’re not expanding it on that side. At the time that it was built, there wasn’t the 15 foot side setback, so it’s a pre-existing, nonconforming. So the expansion is not on that 15 foot side. It’s on the other side of the building. MR. ABBATE-Is that expansion a part of the nonconforming building? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MR. STONE-All right. Let’s resolve this 53 versus 50. You don’t think it’s over 50, Craig? MR. BROWN-I don’t think the addition to the building is more than 50% of the original floor area. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. DYBAS-I believe my calculations, it’s 20.2%. MR. STONE-Yes, that’s what it would seem to be. MR. BROWN-Right. MR. STONE-So why is it on here? MR. BROWN-Well, I think in the original application the applicant sought for relief from that Section of the Code, but I don’t think that’s necessary. MR. BRYANT-The garage. MR. STONE-Okay, because of the garage. So this is gone. Okay. MR. BRYANT-Craig, can you also confirm their calculations at 26.5? MR. ABBATE-Versus the 28? MR. LAPPER-Let me tell you how we did that. We’ve got the new, the proposed site information is 2453. MR. BROWN-What’s that include? MR. LAPPER-First floor 1298.5, second floor 912.0, and the garage of 242. MR. BROWN-And that first floor number includes the additions? MR. LAPPER-The existing is 2040.4, and we’re going up to 2453. MR. BROWN-So we’re adding roughly 385 square feet on the first floor. MR. STONE-He said 413. MR. LAPPER-Four thirteen on the whole thing. MR. STONE-On the whole thing. MR. LAPPER-Top and bottom. First floor. We went from 913.5 to 1298. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/03) MR. ABBATE-1298.5. MR. BROWN-That’s 385. MR. DYBAS-1298.5. MR. ABBATE-Right. MR. DYBAS-First floor existing is 913.5, and we went to 1298.5 for the first floor, and then the enclosed porch on the first floor. I’ll start again, first floor enclosed space is 913.5, existing. There is an existing enclosed porch of 167.64. Second floor was 717.16, and the existing garage is 242, which comes out to 2,040 square feet, existing enclosed space. If you divide that by the 9243, it’s 22% and a little bit, for existing building on the lakefront lot. We’re adding, if you go on the other side of it, the first floor goes to 1298.5, and that includes the new screened porch, and the second floor is 912, which gives you 2211, plus the existing garage is 242, which we come up to the 2453, and divide that by the 9243, and it comes up to 26.539. MR. ABBATE-Versus the 28. MR. DYBAS-Right. MR. STONE-A couple of questions that I have. The septic system will be rebuilt and brought up to Code. MR. DYBAS-That is correct. MR. STONE-Now, can you, you can’t guarantee this, but the house is stable enough to withstand without becoming a tear down, as we have seen on some cases where people get into them and all of a sudden, gosh, it’s rotted out. We can’t do anything. KEITH CAVAYERO DR. CAVAYERO-When we purchased the house, we had a licensed certified inspector go through the house very thoroughly and he said it was built like a rock. The foundation is, I mean, it was great. So that was the main reason for purchasing it. MR. STONE-Okay. That’s good. We’ve had a number of instances on the lake where, all of a sudden the houses don’t seem to be stable enough to do anything to them. Any other questions? You say the garage is going to stay a garage. So if I go up there within two years, I look in the window, it’ll be a garage, like it is now? Okay. I’ll go in two years, too. Anything else, any questions? If not, I will open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of the application? In favor of? Anybody opposed to the application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. LAPPER-I think there were a couple of letters from the neighbors. MR. STONE-Well, we’ll get there. You know the drill. MR. URRICO-Were they in favor of or against the applicant? MR. LAPPER-In favor of. That’s why I’m mentioning them. MR. STONE-Okay. We’ll read the letters into the record. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. We do have two letters. First one is from William B. Wetherbee, and he says, “This letter relates to the above-referenced revised variance application, scheduled for ZBA review and consideration on September 17, 2003. Quite obviously, the scope and 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/03) magnitude of this application is now significantly different from that which was discussed when this matter first came before the ZBA on July 23, 2003. It is my understanding that the not revised application does include some of the more compelling issues which were the subject of concern at the July 23 meeting. Nevertheless, the variances which are still required warrant comment and reflection. Cleverdale and Rockhurst, to cite two pronounced examples, are laced with instances of houses, docks, boathouses, and peripheral structures which are non- conforming, based upon current land-use provisions. Virtually all of these structures were erected at a time well before zoning regulations and statutes, and their density and configuration place alarming stress on the environment of the Lake George Basin. Zoning provisions and land-use planning were initiated to address the severe problems which over- exploitation of land created. No better examples of such excesses can be found than those which exist in parts of Cleverdale and Rockhurst. To grant variances for further expansion of houses and docks or boathouses in locations where structural density is already a problem simply exacerbates the very problems which zoning sought to address. Moreover, each such variance simply “lowers the bar” for ensuing applicants who await their opportunity to seek “modest” relief so that they, too, may achieve expansion of structures on their property. There is a rational and intentional basis for the land-use limitations which have been imposed on residential Lake George shoreline properties. It may sound both inhospitable and insensitive, but endeavors to bypass or surpass those limits jeopardize both the future of the Lake and the quality of life of the generations who will follow. Thank you for your attention and consideration. Sincerely, William B. Wetherbee” And we have another letter from Sarah W. Wheeler and D. Billings Wheeler, and they say, “We will be unable to attend the public hearing on September 17, 2003, regarding the application submitted by Drs. Keith Cavayero and Elysa Baron (Area Variance No. 69-2003). We note that the project description now reads that variances are being requested for alterations and additions to be made to the “house, boathouse, and septic system.” In my conversation with Mr. Craig Brown yesterday he confirmed that the plans for the guesthouse and garage have been deleted from the current application. If this is the case, then as adjacent property owners to the proposed garage lot, we have no cause for any complaint. In August we met with Craig Brown, the Zoning Administrator, and he listened very respectfully to our concerns about the building of the garage and the renovation of the present garage into a guesthouse. Should Drs. Cavayero and Baron anticipate pursuing those alterations in the future, we would again have major concerns. Increasingly there seems to be a practice with owners on Cleverdale to seek variances to the zoning code. New owners present a large number of requests for property variances, and while certain one are denied, others that do not follow zoning regulations are permitted. At the hearing we attended in July one of the zoning board members stated that compared to other requests that were presented to the board, the request by Drs. Cavayero and Baron was not that grandiose. Mr. Brown even said on the phone that “for now” the garage and guesthouse are not a consideration. We are concerned that a practice is being established whereby people present extravagant plans with the idea that certainly not all variances will be approved, but that certain other ones will. Then at a future date they return and request the other variances. We are wondering if this practice doesn’t undermine the point of having zoning rules. We hope that you can understand that consistently giving applicants just a couple of their requests still does not uphold the intent of the zoning rules, which are supposed to prevent negative impact on the lake, land, and community. Thank you for notifying us of this hearing and allowing us to voice our thoughts. Sincerely, Sarah W. Wheeler D. Billings Wheeler” MR. STONE-Anything else? MR. MC NULTY-That’s it. MR. LAPPER-We have one more that we thought you would have gotten. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. We have another one from John W. and Lee V. Tabner, at 89 Mason Road, and they say, “Please be advised that my wife, Lee, and I who are next door neighbors to Dr. Keith Cavayero and Dr. Elysa Baron, 87 Mason Road, have no objection to the granting of their variance application for improvements to their property located at 87 Mason Road, Cleverdale, New York. Very truly yours, John W. Tabner” 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/03) MR. STONE-Is that north or south? MR. LAPPER-North. MR. STONE-North. So that’s the one most affected. MR. LAPPER-Right. DR. CAVAYERO-And there should be a letter submitted from the south direct neighbor. He was also in, I don’t know if it made it to the Board, but he spoke verbally he was in full support. MR. STONE-That’s hearsay. Okay. I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any comments you want to make, Mr. Lapper, since he’s already, he’s seen through your tactics, that last letter. MR. LAPPER-Mr. Wetherbee, I think, who came and was vociferous last time, he doesn’t live anywhere near this lot, but he’s an advocate, obviously, on Cleverdale, and I think we tend to focus on the first part of his letter where he acknowledged that this was dramatically less relief than what we sought last time, although he’s opposed to variances in general, and I hope you’ll focus on that, that to describe this as a significant project, I think, is unfair, compared to what we all see here all the time, and, you know, the issue about the tear down, if Keith was going to have a house designed for this lot that would maximize his enjoyment of this, he would knock everything down and come up with a different design. He was attempting to take the house that’s there, make a few improvements, put the porch on, make the bedrooms bigger, but this is not a case where he’s building his dream home. MR. STONE-For the record, I want to assure the last letter writer that we do have a memory, and Staff keeps us very up to date on changes that we have approved and changes that come in the future, and, quite frankly, I don’t know of any that I can cite in recent years where we have granted a smaller request and then had people come back looking for more that we haven’t made a big thing about. So, I can assure the public that we’re aware of our actions and we’re aware of these kinds of things. Any questions of the applicant, agents? Well, let’s talk about it. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Well, overall, I guess this strikes me as relatively minor at this point. The applicants have removed the proposals that were the source of big objections. The Floor Area Ratio, percentage wise, that’s of some concern, but as the applicant’s pointed out, this is a pretty small lot. So relatively small square footage increase makes a fair difference in the Floor Area Ratio. The side setback on their boathouse, I guess that also, versus what could be done, doesn’t bother me a great deal. The height on the boathouse is absolutely minimal. So, I think balancing this, while there’s still variances here, the benefit to the applicant, I think outweighs any small detriment to the community that will occur because of these actions, and I’d be in favor. MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. As far as what’s requested here, the boathouse height I think has been explained as basically the railing height is essentially what that amounts to which is not going to make any difference. The side setback, it’s a pre-existing boathouse. So, I mean, it’s not like you’re rebuilding or building a new one. So I don’t have a problem with that, and the Floor Area Ratio, although it’s a little bit excessive, again, it balances on the fact that it’s such a small lot and that you are going to upgrade the septic system. I think the new septic system, you know, basically takes care of any expansion that you have planned. So I’d be in favor of it. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/03) MR. STONE-I have a question about that area of the table. Are you emulating Mr. Himes, I can’t hear you like I can’t hear Mr. Himes? Or is it that microphone. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Thank you. The applicant has made good faith attempts to meet the reasonable concerns of the, not only the Zoning Board of Appeals but I believe the Town, and then the other question I always ask myself would be this. If I were the applicant, what would I do? Would I do the same thing that he is doing, and the answer, quite frankly, is, yes, I would be requesting the same thing. I would only suggest that, based on approval, we have as a stipulation that the septic system is to be rebuilt and brought up to Code, and based upon that, Mr. Chairman, I would be in favor of the application. MR. STONE-Okay. Allan? MR. BRYANT-Mr. Lapper, you never cease to amaze me. What is that game that they have the three walnuts and the thing. In reality, let’s be honest, you haven’t made any real changes to the property, other than the fact that you’ve eliminated this lot in the calculation, and you got rid of that garage. That was a major change, but everything else is basically staying the same. MR. LAPPER-When you say we eliminated the garage, are you talking about converting the garage into a guest bedroom, because that was something that the neighbors complained about. MR. BRYANT-Complained. That’s still going to stay there. That’s still going to be a garage. MR. LAPPER-It is going to be. What we didn’t mention is that it’s going to be completely fixed up, because that’s kind of dilapidated. MR. BRYANT-Actually, I’m only jesting with you. I think you did a good job here, but I’m just amazed by the switch on the, what’s going to happen with this lot? MR. LAPPER-They don’t know. I mean, the truth is it can get sold. It could get sold to a neighbor. MR. BRYANT-Can you come back later on and build a garage? Is that what’s going to happen? MR. STONE-You can’t build an accessory structure without a structure. MR. LAPPER-Right. You can’t build a garage on it. I think that probably they’ll sell it, but we’ll see. I mean, prices are what they are on Cleverdale. MR. BRYANT-You’ve done a lot of work, and I’m sorry if I offended you. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. No, I’ll put my shells away. MR. BRYANT-Okay. I am in favor of the application. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. STONE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m in favor of the application. I think the, I’m satisfied you’ve made some adjustments and the Floor Area Ratio is somewhat skewed by the size of the structure. So that’s thrown off a little bit, but other than that, I think the side setback I have no problem with, and the height is minimal, and I’d be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Jaime? 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/03) MR. HAYES-I essentially agree. I won’t belabor the point. Essentially I think this is a modest proposal. What’s not being said, because it’s not always true, is we did ask the applicant to change their plans and reduce them, and they did. While that’s nice, it doesn’t always happen, in this case, particularly on Lake George, so I think all together the relief, the Floor Area Ratio is really a function of a small lot, as one of the other Board members pointed out, that the actual expansion of the home is relatively minor in square footage totally. So, I’m in favor. MR. STONE-Well, I agree, and I do want to congratulate the applicant for listening and this is why the process works. I mean, we had some very real concerns. You addressed them, and the result is that you’re basically going to get most of what you wanted on the main property. You are going to fix the septic system, and that’s very important as far as the lake. The other thing that’s very important is that this addition, you’re not asking to be any closer to the lake and you’re not asking to be any closer to your neighbor than the zoning allows, and that neighbor doesn’t have a problem. So I need a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 69-2003 DR. KEITH CAVAYERO & ELYSA BARON, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: 87 Mason Road. Applicant proposes alterations and additions to house, boathouse, septic system and site work. Applicant seeks relief from the requirements of the WR-1A zone. The project plans have been revised to eliminate the freestanding garage on the east side of Mason Road and to eliminate the conversion of the existing garage to an additional bedroom. The relief the applicant has requested, he has requested relief from the requirements of the WR-1A zone, Section 179-4-030 as follows: Floor Area Ratio, seeking 26.5% total versus 22% allowed; side setback boathouse, seeking 4.74 feet versus 20 feet allowed, and the boathouse height seeking 14.71 feet versus 14 feet allowed. Staff comments, benefit, can the benefit be achieved by the applicant by any means that would be considered feasible? Based upon the size of the lot, and the fact that the applicant has been before the Board before and has subsequently addressed our concerns, I don’t believe that they can. I think what the applicant has requested is reasonable. Is there any undesirable change in the neighborhood or the character or to nearby properties? I don’t think so. I think what the applicant is requesting is reasonable. Is this request substantial? Substantial might be considered subjective. In my opinion it is not substantial. Does the request have any adverse physical or environmental effects? Well, part of the stipulation for the approval will be that the septic system will be rebuilt and brought up to Code. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? I suspect most of the applicants that come before us is probably self-created. However, with the limited type of land that’s available there, and what the individual attempts to do, I think basically it’s going to improve the area, and so based upon that, I move that we approve Area Variance No. 69-2003. The relief is technical, in that they’re doing some modification to the railing of the boathouse. Duly adopted this 17 day of September, 2003, by the following vote: th MR. STONE-A question, just before we go further. The dock, you’re not changing it. I mean, that’s existing, that 4.74 is the way it is now. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. STONE-I just want the motion to reflect that that relief is technical, because they’re doing some work in terms of the railing. MR. ABBATE-The motion will be modified in that the relief is technical in that they’re doing some modification to the railing. MR. STONE-Of the boathouse. MR. ABBATE-Of the boathouse. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/03) MR. STONE-Okay. MR. ABBATE-Before I vote, Mr. Chairman, would it be appropriate to have another stipulation that that boathouse won’t be converted to living space? MR. STONE-No, I don’t think so. MR. ABBATE-Because, you know, we have Counselor here? You don’t think it’s appropriate in that case there? Then I’ll say yes. AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE MR. STONE-Thank you. DR. CAVAYERO-Thank you, gentlemen. NEW BUSINESS AREA VARIANCE NO. 80-2003 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED PYRAMID CO. OF GLENS FALLS AGENT: JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ. OWNER: PYRAMID CO. OF GLENS FALLS ZONING: ESC-25A LOCATION: 558 AVIATION ROAD, AVIATION MALL APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION OF THE MOST RECENTLY APPROVED AREA VARIANCES AND SUBDIVISION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DEPARTMENT STORE AT THE FRONT OF THE MALL FACING AVIATION ROAD. THE PROPOSAL IS TO MODIFY THE SUBDIVISION THAT WAS APPROVED ON JULY 22, 2003 ON ITS EXISTING 56.52 ACRE PARCEL, SO THAT THE SITE CAN BE DIVIDED INTO TWO PARCELS, ONE WHICH WOULD BE A 48.39 ACRE PARCEL, AND THE OTHER WHICH WOULD BE AN 8.13 ACRE PARCEL, RESPECTIVELY. THE REDUCTION IN PARCEL SIZE FOR THE NEW DEPARTMENT STORE IS DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE STORE HAS DECIDED TO REDUCE THE PARKING THAT WAS ALLOCATED BY APPROXIMATELY 60 SPACES. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB. 14-2002, AV 64-2003 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 9/10/03 LOT SIZE: 56.52 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.05-1-92.11 & 92.4 SECTION: 179-4-030 JON LAPPER & BOB ORLANDO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 80-2003, Pyramid Co. of Glens Falls, Meeting Date: September 17, 2003 “Project Location: 558 Aviation Road, Aviation Mall Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to subdivide the existing 56.52-acre parcel of the mall property into two parcels (48.39 acres and 8.13 acres) to facilitate a new major tenant’s requirements. Relief Required: 1) 16.87 acres of relief from the 25-acre minimum requirement. 2) 180 feet (approximately) of relief from the 800-foot minimum lot width requirement. 3) 10.6% of relief from the 14.5% minimum permeability requirement. 4) 30 feet of relief from the 30-foot minimum side setback requirement for both sides. 5) 30 feet of relief from the 30-foot minimum rear setback requirement. (1-5, per §179-4-030 for the ESC-25A Zone). 6) 40 feet of relief from the 40-foot minimum road frontage requirement, per §179-4-090. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Numerous BP’s, SP’s, and AV’s 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/03) Staff comments: Does the proposed lot configuration present an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood and nearby properties? A feasible alternative might be maintaining the larger parcel previously approved. It does not appear as though the proposed boundary line alterations will present any additional adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood.” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form September 10, 2003 Project Name: Pyramid Co. of Glens Falls Owner: Pyramid Co. of Glens Falls ID Number: QBY-03-AV-80 County Project#: Sep03-30 Current Zoning: ESC-25A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes modification of the most recently approved Area Variance and Subdivision for the construction of a new department store at the front of the mall facing Aviation Road. The proposal is to modify the subdivision that was approved on July 12, 2003 on its existing 56.52 acre parcel, so that the site can be divided into two parcels, one which would be a 48.39 acre parcel, and the other which would be an 8.13 acre parcel, respectively. The reduction in parcel size for the new department store is due to the fact that the store has decided to reduce parking that was allocated by approximately 60 spaces. Site Location: 558 Aviation Road, Aviation Mall Tax Map Number(s): 302.05-1- 92.11 302.05-1-92.4 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant requests a variance for the subdivision of a 56 +/- acre parcel into two lots; where one lot is to be 8.13 acres and the other lot is to be 48.39 acres. The minimum required lot size is 25 acres. The request is made so the tenant of the 8.13 acre site can own the land the building footprint is on and the parking area associated with the building. In addition relief is required for zero lot line setback so the new tenant’s building will adjoin the existing mall. The variance is similar to a previous variance seen in July 2003 where the lot size has been modified. Staff does not identify any impact on county resources and recommends no county impact. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Bennet F. Driscoll, 9/12/03. MR. STONE-You’re on, Mr. Lapper. If you can make us understand this, good. MR. LAPPER-Okay. For the record, Jon Lapper, Stephanie Bitter and Bob Orlando, the Mall Manager. I want to apologize to the Board because we’ve been back here too many times on this project, wasting your time, but in the final negotiations with the new anchor store. The ownership of these two parcels has changed a little bit. The site plan has changed not at all. We’re not seeking a site plan modification from the Planning Board. So the issue is whether the parking spaces will be owned by the new department store or owned by the Mall, but they’ll all be in the exact same location. We took, we sliced a half acre off of the new anchor store parcel and kept it with the rest of the Mall, but as we submitted to the Board the last time, this is a reciprocal easement agreement. It is seamless. No one will drive into the Mall and be able to see a property line. It will function as one property. Cars will park wherever they want to park on these two lots and this is just because of the deal between this national retail anchor that insists on owning its own footprint and I’m sorry that we didn’t know this when we were here over the summer, or we wouldn’t have had to waste your time, but it makes no difference, as far as the site is developed. MR. STONE-These are going to be called Lapper modifications, whether it’s Staples or whether it’s. MR. LAPPER-Only when they get built, that’s okay. MR. STONE-I just want to congratulate, take two seconds to congratulate, I hope, Mr. Orlando, and his company on letting Glens Falls get pure water. MR. ORLANDO-Thank you. MR. STONE-So this is merely, the property line is the same area. What about the 60 spaces? Does that mean? 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/03) MR. LAPPER-They’re the same spaces that were always there. It’s just a question of where the subdivision line is. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. LAPPER-Stephanie can show you on the map. It’s just along by the Penney’s side. So there’s nothing, I mean, it’s exactly the same site plan. It’s just a question of drawing the line on one side. MR. STONE-This is not Mr. Bryant’s, he’s not going to refer to this as the shell game, is he? MR. LAPPER-I hope not. MR. BRYANT-Actually, Mr. Chairman, I do want to go on record, and I’ve done this every time we have one of these mall things. I really think the Town needs to spell out what we’ll accept on these mall subdivisions, because this is going to happen, you know, every other week from now until whenever. They’re going to be, the mall owners or the store owners change hands, and they expand here, you know, and frankly there’s nothing in our zoning that covers that. MR. LAPPER-Didn’t you ask the Town Board, after we did this last time, to look into that? MR. BRYANT-Yes. I asked for every single mall doohickey that you’ve come before us and I’ve said it over and over again. The Town needs to address that, because what we’re going to accept as far as, you’re talking about taking away 60 parking spaces, and we’re going to have a setback of whatever. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. BRYANT-You know, we don’t have anything in our Code book that relates to this. MR. LAPPER-Well, it can be. I can tell you that, when I did the Wilton Mall, 15 years ago, we drafted a provision called the Enclosed Shopping Mall Anchor Subdivision Exclusion, and that’s in the Wilton Code, that if you’re, if you’ve got. MR. BRYANT-But this is not Wilton. This is Queensbury. MR. LAPPER-No, but I’m saying, it can be dealt with legislatively, and that’s where I think you’re going with this. MR. BRYANT-Exactly. MR. LAPPER-And you asked the Town Board to look into that. MR. BRYANT-And I think, on the record, again, I think that we should have a modification to the zoning code that relates to these mall subdivisions. MR. STONE-Zero lot, you mean zero setback from lot sizes. MR. BRYANT-Exactly. MR. STONE-Mr. Lapper, why don’t you, could you furnish us a copy, when you get a chance, there’s no hurry, of the Wilton thing. MR. LAPPER-Absolutely, yes. MR. STONE-We can attach it to our minutes, or something like that. 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/03) MR. URRICO-I’d like to go on record as agreeing with Mr. Bryant on this. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions before I open the public hearing? MR. URRICO-I do have a question of Mr. Brown. MR. STONE-Go ahead. MR. URRICO-In our zoning code, I do not notice, maybe I’m missing it, specific reference to ESC being minimum 25 acres. I notice it on the color coded map, but I don’t notice it in the zoning book itself. MR. BROWN-Okay. I think you’re going to find it in the Bulk Use Tables. You go to that zoning district and it talks about the minimum lot size. It’s right in the Table. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. STONE-Okay. Anything else? Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wish to speak in favor of this application? Anybody opposed to this application? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. MR. STONE-I wouldn’t think so. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-And let’s start with, Norm is back. Let’s start with Norm. MR. HIMES-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To make it short and sweet, I’m in favor of the application, and I also agree with what Al and Roy have said, and I’ve said it myself previously, that it’s difficult for us to even assess the impact of some of these things, in terms of what could happen in the future that’s going to be bad about it, no way of knowing, and it does seem to be cut and dried, and if anything, what’s happening here is, if there were any negative impact, it would be less than it was previously. So, I think there’s certainly no detriment to the community, and it’s going to be a convenience to the business parties involved, so I’m in support of the application. Thank you. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Thank you. I’d also like to go on record that I agree with Roy and Allan. I think the Town has to start addressing the issue. I think it’s a serious issue. If they don’t address it, I think it could have some very serious adverse ramifications in the future, but of course, Pyramid, this is not reflecting on the application, and if I could just add a little humor here, that I would ask for a side bar and ask if you are a U.S. Marshal. I see a badge on his thing or something, and the other thing, I’m surprised they’ve allowed you to practice for 15 years. Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I’m in favor of the application. MR. STONE-Allan. MR. BRYANT-I’m somewhat in favor of the application, too, and I understand that, functionally, it’s all going to be, it’s all going to look the same, and nobody’s going to be able to tell, but I am concerned about the long term ramifications. What happens if, you know, the store is not there anymore or, and there are different owners and it wants to change. What kind of hoops are we going to have to jump through 10 years from now? 20 years from now? I 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/03) won’t be here to worry about it, but, that being said, it’s another shell game, and I’m in favor of it. MR. STONE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Maybe it’s just coincidental, but Groundhog Day was on last night, and fortunately it’s given me a chance to revisit this, and with each, as Mr. Bryant pointed out, with each case that comes before us, where we’re dealing with reciprocity agreements, zero lot line, I’m becoming increasingly uncomfortable with it, and this one especially, because we have one ESC-25 minimum in this Town, and this is it, and now we’re essentially changing that to less than 10 acres, if my math is correct. MR. LAPPER-That’s right. MR. URRICO-And to me, that amounts to a massive zoning change. MR. LAPPER-But it’s still only one project. MR. URRICO-I know it’s one project, but to me, this is something that the Town needs to address the zero lot line and the reciprocity, and they also need to address a zoning change in the ESC. I think the project’s great and everything, but I’m very uncomfortable with this and I’m against it. MR. STONE-Jaime? MR. HAYES-Well, I spoke before that essentially I was in favor of the application. The applicant set forth reasons why this situation was necessary. I certainly feel confident that Mr. Lapper or other attorneys can draft reciprocal agreements that would hold to the test of time. It would be to their folly if they couldn’t, really, in the end. So, there’s certainly plenty of reasons for those things to be as good as they can be. The Town has changed a lot in the last 20 years. Certainly the increases in big boxes and other large developments in our Town have come upon us fast, but with that is going to come more complicated financing packages. That’s just reality. When you get into multimillion dollar projects, these type of securitized transactions that require a little more complicated footwork are going to happen, and they’re really not going to change. Maybe we should have some better understanding of them or additional guidance, but it certainly is reality at this point, and as long as they’re well constructed, and there’s no real impact on the neighborhoods that they’re involved with, which are highly commercial anyway, I think I’m okay with them as presented. I certainly would entertain each one on its merits, but as Mr. Orlando pointed out, or Mr. Lapper going to the Mall with this new store. Probably the only people in Town that are going to be aware that the property line is different is going to be us, and Mr. Brown. So I’m in favor. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Well, I can echo some of the comments that have been made before. These kind of changes bother me. I think it still leaves us with the potential, eventually, of one of these parcels being sold with, where we’ve granted zero lot line setbacks and minimal parking or zero parking or whatever, and it strikes me that we are changing the zoning, in effect, when we do this, and it’s something like other members have said, I think needs to be addressed by the Town Board. There needs to be some provision made for this, because certainly this is a reality and as Mr. Hayes has indicated, I think we’re going to see others, maybe not exactly the same, but similar types of things, and there needs to be something in the Town Code, so that we’re not changing zoning all the time, and I think it’s about time that this Board drew a line. I believe I voted in favor of the proposal last time. It looks to me like there’s going to be enough to vote in favor at this time, so I’m going to take a stand, on matter of principal, and be opposed. 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/03) MR. STONE-The only concern I have, and I won’t leave any suspense, I’m going to vote yes, but the unknown is troubling, and I think this is one of those cases where I know we, as a Board, as our Board and the Planning Board have surprised a lot of outsiders by our sophistication, and I’m not patting us on the back. That’s who we are, and we’re very sophisticated, but we don’t know everything, and when we get things like this, one worries, I think Allan puts it very well, what’s going to happen in 20, 30, 40 years. I don’t know, but I don’t think even, I can’t envision something bad happening from this thing. I mean, the thing is going to be hooked, I gather, hooked to the Mall. It’s going to be seamless like Penney’s is. You’re going to walk into it. They want ownership of the land under it. They will be an asset to the community. I see no problem in doing it. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, could I have a point here? MR. STONE-Sure. MR. ABBATE-It might be, this is merely a suggestion, but it might be wise at this point as Chairman to make it a matter of record and clear the record that the Zoning Board of Appeals is well aware of the fact that we cannot change zoning. In this instance, it is not the intent of this Board to change zoning in the approval of this application. MR. STONE-That’s a point well taken. Any time, and I don’t want to exacerbate a situation which I hear in your tone, which has nothing to do with the applicant, and I know what you’re saying, but any time we grant a variance, we have made a change from zoning. We haven’t changed the zoning. We’ve merely allowed relief from it, and that’s all we’re doing in this case, I think, is allowing relief from it. So, having said that, I need a motion to approve this. First of all, this is Unlisted. We need to do SEQRA. MR. BROWN-Right. MR. MC NULTY-Or reaffirm the last one we did. MR. BROWN-That’s right. MR. MC NULTY-Well, we did a SEQRA on the last one, I think. MR. HAYES-Is that all right, or do we have to go through it? MR. LAPPER-The Planning Board was Lead Agency, and you reaffirmed it was actually a Full Environmental Impact Statement. So you reaffirmed that the previous SEQRA, that no impacts were changed. MR. STONE-Okay. MOTION THAT WE REAFFIRM THE PREVIOUS ACCEPTANCE OF THE SEQRA RULING BY THE, DETERMINATION BY THE PLANNING BOARD, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Duly adopted this 17 day of September, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Himes, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 80-2003 PRYAMID CO. OF GLENS FALLS, Introduced by Norman Himes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/03) 558 Aviation Road, Aviation Mall. The applicant proposes to subdivide the existing 56.52 acre parcel of the Mall property into two parcels 48.39 acres and 8.13 acres to facilitate a new major tenant’s requirements, which are to own their building footprint and some area to allow for parking. Relief required, One, 16.87 acres of relief from the 25-acre minimum requirement. Two, 180 feet, approximately, of relief from the 800 foot minimum lot width requirement. Three, 10.6% of relief from the 14.5% minimum permeability requirement. Four, 30 feet of relief from the 30-foot minimum side setback requirement for both sides. Five, 30 feet of relief from the 30-foot minimum rear setback requirement. Six, 40 feet of relief from the 40-foot minimum road frontage requirement. I think the record shows that this particular application, not this application, but its predecessor, very much like it, got all its approvals from the Zoning Board and I believe the Planning Board, and what we have is here is a very minor change in certain of the dimensions which actually make the lot a little smaller than it was going to be, and I think the parking is going to be, requirements was going to be reduced, and these are technical in nature. There’s certain business reasons for this to be done, and I feel it’s in the minds of much of the Board here that this was of no negative impact to the community, and certainly would be of great benefit to the applicant and the new business tenant, perhaps the community at large. So with that I again move that we approve Area Variance No. 80-2003. Duly adopted this 17 day of September, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. STONE-There you go. MR. ORLANDO-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 75-2003 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED GEORGE & MARILYN STARK AGENT: JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ. & TOM NACE, PE OWNER: GEORGE & MARILYN STARK ZONING: HC-INT LOCATION: 1533 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A FOUR-STORY HOTEL. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM HEIGHT LIMITATIONS AND FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS OF THE HC-INT. ZONE. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 9/10/03 TAX MAP NO. 288.08-1-5 LOT SIZE: 9.57 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-030 JON LAPPER & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. LAPPER-If I could, excuse me. We’re going to withdraw the Floor Area Ratio. We’ve come up with an alternative plan where we can comply with the Floor Area Ratio by including the pool in the hotel rather than as a separate building. I had hoped that I would have had the plans before now, but. MR. STONE-That’s the stuff that we were given this evening? MR. LAPPER-Yes, and that was just a way to make it a simpler project. I just want to put that on the record, before you spend too much time on the Floor Area Ratio. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, may I also put on the record the fact that I haven’t had sufficient time to review any of these new documents. MR. STONE-None of us have, and we’ll talk about that when we get the application read into the record. Because I have some serious concerns also, but go ahead. STAFF INPUT 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/03) Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 75-2003, George & Marilyn Stark, Meeting Date: September 17, 2004 “Project Location: 1533 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a four story, 72,000 sf Comfort Suites Hotel. Relief Required: Applicant requests 14.5 feet of relief from the 40-foot maximum height requirement and 8,448 sf of relief from the maximum allowable floor area ratio requirement of the Highway Commercial, Int. (HC-Int) zone per, §179-4-030. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): It appears as though several parcels have been consolidated into one larger parcel. Recently, (7/3/3) the applicant has submitted a “split” request to the Warren County tax mapping office in order to create the parcel depicted in this application. New information regarding the consolidations and parcel “split/subdivision” was submitted to this office on September 11, 2003 and has not yet been thoroughly reviewed by staff. Additionally, the plot plan submitted is not easily discernable with regard to boundary lines, especially along the NYS Route 9. The additional deed plot map has been attached hereto. Staff comments: In addition to this variance application, this project requires Site Plan Review from the Town Planning Board as well as a New York State Department of Transportation work permit for a new curb cut to the site. The impacts, if any, from the proposed building may be better determined after a comprehensive review of a Site Plan application. Such a plan would show the entire site including topography, landscaping, and lighting. Staff is unable to accurately assess the potential impacts of this project without complete information regarding the entire project. Staff recommends a coordinated SEQRA review be performed on this significant project. Please see the attached August 27 letter to the applicant.” “Dear Mr. Lapper: I have reviewed the additional information submitted to this office regarding the above-referenced project. At this time we will place your application materials on the Zoning Board of Appeals agenda for review in September. The submitted information appears to be responsive to items identified in my previous; June 25, 2003 incomplete notice and further clarified in my July 21, 2003 incomplete notice with the exception of one item. Specifically, I requested that a “deed plot” be submitted in support of your position with regards to a parcel split versus a subdivision. Please submit such a map to this office so that I can make an informed decision regarding this matter. While two maps were submitted, neither map makes any deed references to existing parcels or the current status of the lots. Additionally, we previously identified the potential for historic and/or cultural resources on the site. While the Town Historian has provided comment on this issue, you are required to make an inquiry to NYS Office of Parks Recreation and Historic Preservation. The Town’s Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) routinely desire to conduct a coordinated environmental (SEQRA) review. Given the project requires approval of the ZBA and the Planning Board, the ZBA may choose to delay its action on the variance until such time as a coordinated review is performed. Alternatively, the ZBA is not prohibited from performing an uncoordinated review. Should you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Craig Brown Zoning Administrator” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form September 10, 2003 Project Name: Stark, George & Marilyn Owner: George & Marilyn Stark ID Number: QBY-03-AV-75 County Project#: Sep03-33 Current Zoning: HC-Int Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a four-story hotel. Relief requested from height limitations and floor area ratio requirements of the HC-Int zone. Site 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/03) Location: 1533 State Route 9 Tax Map Number(s): 288.08-1-5 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to construct a 4-story Comfort Suite Hotel with a pool and spa. The relief requested is from the bulk density requirements where the existing parcel site is 212,506. The project density total square footage is 72,200 sq. ft. where the maximum allowed is 63,751.8 sq. ft. The applicant proposes a density of 33% or 8,448.2 sq. ft. The information submitted shows detailed plans of the site layout, elevation, artist rendition of façade. The building is proposed to be 50 ft. in height where the minimum height allowed within the HC-Int zone is 40 ft. The plans do not indicate the amount of land to be disturbed specifically for the Comfort Suite property site. Staff recognizes the site may need additional permits such as phase 2 stormwater from NYSDEC for disturbance of more than an acre. Staff recommends discussion to request information of views from the Northway, Route 9 and other scenic locations. County Planning Board Recommendation: Approve with condition The County Planning Board recommends Approval with the stipulation that landscaping and appropriate buffers are implemented.” Signed by Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board 9/12/03. MR. STONE-Mr. Lapper. MR. LAPPER-You said that you have some questions, Mr. Chairman? MR. STONE-Well, I have a question, well, certainly the idea of a coordinated review is something that we have suggested on other occasions where we’ve asked the Planning Board, because of their expertise, to do a SEQRA review, and before we determine it. The other thing, I believe Mr. Brown, certainly in his Staff notes, has asked for a topographical map so that we know the exact position of this thing, visa vie the contours of the land, because in my investigation, I did notice a fairly high spot in the land. MR. LAPPER-That’s absolutely correct. We have that. We’re bringing it tonight for the first time. We just did it. The County Planning Board asked us for that. So we did it last week and we have that presentation tonight to show you, and the simple answer is that knoll is coming down, and if we were to build on that knoll, we could build it much higher than it is now, and it would be in conformance with the zoning code. So we’re leveling out the site and building from a lower level, which I think goes a long way to justify the height variance, but if the Board, since some of these things just changed and we have this tonight, I mean, if the Board wanted us to come back next week, we have not submitted the site plan application yet for the simple reason that we need to know that we can get the height variance before spending the money and going to the trouble to do the full formal site plans. MR. STONE-Until we know where it sits on the land with the contours, it’s very hard to grant a height variance. Because, I mean, height is from the ground, and we don’t know what the ground is where you’re talking about, necessarily. MR. ABBATE-And I have six areas of concern, too, Mr. Chairman. MR. BROWN-I was just curious if the applicant wanted to make a presentation before you started grilling him. MR. ABBATE-Well, because he may be wasting his time. MR. STONE-Can you answer the question about, I mean, you want to go to whatever the height is, you want to go to 54 and a half feet from where? I don’t know the lay of the land there. MR. LAPPER-We have done topos, and although we haven’t presented that as part of this submission, we can get you that information. MR. STONE-Well, any time, it seems to me that if you’re talking height, height is a visual thing, and I’d like to know from where we’re starting, personally. 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/03) MR. LAPPER-One answer is what we’re showing on the plan is that we did it from the pavement, the level of the pavement on the Northway, because that’s one of the receptors, and if you’re sitting on the Northway, on the pavement, the building at the highest point, or at the peak of the roof, would be 29 feet higher than the pavement, but that would be over 300 feet from the edge of pavement. So a distance of 300 feet, which is pretty dramatic, and only 29 feet, which is the height of a house. MR. STONE-Do we have that information? MR. LAPPER-We have. MR. STONE-No, do we have it? MR. LAPPER-No, you don’t have it. MR. STONE-Well it’s very hard for us to consider some of these technical matters when we’re sitting here. It’s not fair to you, and it’s certainly not fair to us. MR. LAPPER-Let me just make a statement that compared to when large companies come in from out of town, this is the case, George and Marilyn Stark are long time Queensbury business owners. Their Mohican property that they’ve built with their sons is just exquisitely maintained and they have a very good reputation, and the fact that they’ve purchased this property and that they’re proposing a six and a half million dollar project, in an area of the Town that’s somewhat underutilized now with T-shirt shops and other businesses that could be upgraded. This is a very significant project for them, and I think a very significant project in this corridor of the Town. MR. STONE-I held my tongue before, on a previous application. I don’t care who the person is who’s before me, if it’s a good application or a bad application, whether the person is the greatest person in the world, or the worst scum, is it a good application. I heard somebody else earlier say the same thing. Mr. Stark is a good man, has no bearing on this application in terms of what we consider. MR. LAPPER-Well, where I was going with that was that they want you to be comfortable with it, and if it means tabling it until the next meeting so that we can come back with the topo that you’re asking for. MR. ABBATE-Before he moves the walnut shells again, let me get in here. Our Chairman is beside himself this evening, but the kindest and gentlest way I can say this, Counselor, sir, plural, is that the application is incomplete, and as such, there’s no way I’m going to come to any intelligent decision. On the record, I’d like to commend the professionalism of the zoning officer and his staff, and they addressed many of the issues that I was going to address, because I was jumping up and down. There’s no coordination, and I think we have to have the coordination of a SEQRA. I think that there’s information that has been requested by the zoning officer that has not been submitted to him. You have submitted at least one set of information this evening at a late hour, and then you propose to submit additional information at a late hour, and I say, Mr. Chairman, we table this thing. MR. LAPPER-We have no problem with tabling it, but I would like to just have a discussion about SEQRA. The issue with coordinated review is that if you have a Type I Action, you have to do coordinated review. So you pick a Lead Agency and one Board does it, and generally it’s the Planning Board because they spend more time doing that than this Board. This is not a Type I Action, and the problem for the applicant is that we have to go and design the entire site in order to do, in order to be ready to present the site plan to the Planning Board. We have a conceptual site plan, which doesn’t have the detailed engineering, but it shows where the building’s going to be on the site, which I think is sufficient for this Board to make a determination about the height variance. We think that this is a very fine project, and we hope 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/03) that we can convince the Board of that, very important project for the Town, and for the Starks, and I was only pointing out that they have a reputation of running a business very well. MR. ABBATE-Yes, but the merit of the application is not in question. It’s the incompleteness that’s in question, of information submitted, not only to this Board, but to the zoning officer. MR. LAPPER-And if this Board, well, we’ve been working with the zoning officer for about three months to get this complete, and some of the stuff that he mentioned, the deed information, we did submit that, and that is part of this, in terms of how this was purchased and where the lot lines are, and we’re ready to discuss that, but we have no problem with tabling this and coming back with whatever information you want so that you want so that you can do a thorough review, but I would ask that you don’t initiate a coordinated review with the Planning Board, because we’re going to have to go home, do a whole bunch more work before we come back, before we know, if we don’t get the height variance, then the project’s probably dead because it’s not worth it to them to do a project that is not a hotel. MR. ABBATE-Okay. It’s not worth it to them? MR. LAPPER-In terms of their concept. MR. ABBATE-How important is this project to your applicants, to your clients? MR. LAPPER-Well, it’s important that it be done with four stories. It is important that it be a hotel product, not a motel. MR. ABBATE-If something were that important, it seems I would do 7/24 365 days a year to have the information prepared, because it would be important to me, no matter how much sacrifice I had to make, but anyway, maybe I’m missing the point here. MR. BRYANT-Before you go to table this, can I just add my two cents? I don’t see anything addressed in your paperwork relative to the comments made by the Town Historian, and some comments made by the Code Enforcer. MR. LAPPER-The Town Historian issue was the Old Military Road. MR. BRYANT-I think it’s also the Van Dusen house, and I’m not going to ask you a question. MR. LAPPER-But we did look into that. We’ve been working with the zoning staff for three months, and the Van Dusen house, the issue was raised as to whether that was a historic structure. It was built in the 50’s. It’s not a historic structure. MR. BRYANT-1950? It was built in 1852. MR. LAPPER-That was not the information I was given, and I talked to the Zoning Administrator about it. MR. BROWN-I didn’t give any dates. I have no idea when it was built. MR. BRYANT-Well, it would be interesting, you see, because one of our considerations, as you know, is how it affects the community, and I think our, you know, historic identity is part of the whole community structure, okay. It’s important that we maintain our historic identity, and, you know, there are so many projects that have been lost. I’m doing a thing now on the Erie Canal. You go down to Albany, it’s not even identified. Erie Boulevard, and nobody knows that. So, it would be a shame, if this is, in fact, a historical structure, one of the oldest houses in Queensbury, and I’m not saying that it is, okay, but it would be a shame to lose that completely. I see you still show it on your drawing here, but I’d like to see something said about that. MR. LAPPER-Okay. We will research that. 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/03) MR. BRYANT-Okay. MR. LAPPER-There’s no issue that we’re not willing to look in to, if the Board is concerned about. We would just rather have an independent SEQRA review by the Zoning Board so that we can find out if we can get the variance before we design the site. MR. ABBATE-And most important to me, Counselor, is the impact. This is a four story building. I would like to know, the next time you come before us, the impact on the community, if we construct a four story building. What kind of an impact will it have, positive, negative? I don’t know. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MR. BRYANT-How big is the Comfort Inn down the street? Is it three? GEORGE STARK MR. STARK-Are you talking about the Sleep Inn? MR. BRYANT-Is it Sleep? Isn’t there another Comfort down the street? MR. STARK-No. There’s no Comfort down the street. MR. STONE-It’s Clarion. It’s part of the same. MR. BRYANT-Yes. Okay. MR. STARK-It’s part of Choice Hotels, Sleep Inn is, it’s a lower end, and it’s three stories. MR. BRYANT-It’s three. MR. LAPPER-We have, you haven’t seen this yet, but this is an artist rendering, which is not the final, but they’re trying to do this in an Adirondack style. It may change slightly from this. This was the original one that they came up with, but this is essentially what it’s going to look like. MR. ABBATE-You see, that’s right. You said it right. You haven’t seen this yet. This application has to be completed. I think that’s very attractive, but why show it to us at the meeting? Why not provide it to us prior to the meeting so that we could intelligently come to some sort of a decision? MR. LAPPER-I think you have smaller versions. MR. STONE-We have a small version of it. MR. HIMES-We got that picture, Chuck. MR. ABBATE-You’re right. MR. STONE-But the point is, I cannot comment, the Board can comment, on being able to determine whether or not there should be a full site plan, SEQRA review, without knowing at least the topography of the land, I can’t comment to myself on the height without seeing where it stands on the property. MR. LAPPER-That’s a legitimate question, and we will provide that information. MR. ABBATE-And I withdraw my complaint, Counselor. 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/03) MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-I’m at fault, and I will acknowledge that. I do have a copy of that. MR. STONE-Just, if you would, if you want to comment on tabling it to get the completeness that Mr. Abbate talks about, particularly, I mean, I will hold in reserve the idea of whether or not we would ask for a coordinated review, until we make, until we see where this thing stands. Craig, you look like you want to say something. MR. BROWN-Yes, a little bit. I just would like to make a short plea about the coordinated review, and then a comment on one of the other comments from the Board members. The whole idea with the coordinated review is to get to the root of Mr. Abbate’s questions. What are the impacts of this project, and there’s more impacts than just a visual impact. There’s, you know, energy uses, noises, smells, economic, traffic, all those things are typically done through some comprehensive SEQRA review, which is done not just to look at the height, not just to put the building on a piece of property and look at the contours and see what it’s going to look like from the Northway, or if you’re going to see it from the neighbor’s house or you’re going to hear it from the Northway. There are a lot of other issues that are identified in the SEQRA review. So it makes good sense to do it one time, do the entire review, come to one finding and not individual findings, not one for this Board, one for the Planning Board, one for the DOT may want to do with the curb cut, even though it’s a lesser part of the package, but I guess it just makes the most sense to do it one time, and that’s all I want to say about that, other than, I would suggest that both for your benefit and the applicant’s benefit, is you decide tonight and not put them off a month and bring them back and say, no, we don’t like this. We want to do coordinated review. I think you should probably decide tonight. That would be the fair thing to do. MR. STONE-Well, the applicant suggested that he would like us to consider the height alone. That’s what he requested. I’m saying I can’t even do that without the thing. I reserve judgment in terms of whether I would ask for coordinated review. I probably would. I don’t disagree with what you’re saying, but the applicant has said, can you consider. I’m willing to consider with enough information to look at the height by itself. MR. LAPPER-I just want to make a statement, just on the law, because I agree with what Craig said. Whether it’s a coordinated review or an independent review, it has to do with whether this is considered a Type I Action, generally, and it meets certain thresholds, and this application doesn’t meet those thresholds where a coordinated review is required, but nevertheless, your SEQRA review can’t just look at the height. You have to look at the project. So for the purposes of SEQRA, you’re saying, what are we building on this site, and that’s why our permeability argument is important, the conceptual site plan that we submitted that shows where it’s centered and how far it is from the roadway, those are all issues, if there were energy issues here, noise issues, smell issues, whatever. I mean, those would all be issues for you to consider because SEQRA looks at all environmental impacts, but you would be doing that as the Zoning Board, and it would be perfectly appropriate for the Planning Board to do a separate SEQRA review when they review the project. MR. STONE-Well, see I think this project, in my mind, has more impact, potential impact, than the USA Gas for which we spent almost an hour and a half, an hour and forty-five minutes talking about the coordinated, the project for which a coordinated review was conducted. MR. HIMES-They do have some information on, Mr. Lapper pointed out that he had figures, details, as to how this would look from the Northway. I think most of us probably went out there, and saw the land and can appreciate it’s where the location of the structure is going to be in relation to Route 9 and the Northway, and the height being the height, for me anyway, with a lot of these other things, which I admire the Planning Committee so much for, on the work they do on them, kind of get a little hard for me to appreciate, and I’m wondering whether or not, if they have more information tonight that is substantive, in connection with what is the height impact itself, which is all we’re asked about, there may be the historic thing, but I’m not, I don’t 42 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/03) know where that historic building is in relation to the proposed site, but it may be, maybe we could come to some determination about the height requirement tonight. There’s just a possibility if we hear a little more about what they’ve got to say. MR. ABBATE-Yes, but, Mr. Chairman, I want to go back to the term, no significant impact. That didn’t tell me diddly do. I want to know the impact, not only on the height, I want to know the impact on the environment. I want to know the impact on the area of the individuals. I want to know the impact on the air. I want to know the impact, from A to Z. That’s what I call impact results. Not a term, no significant impact. There’s always an impact. MR. BROWN-I think there’s a method for you to do that, if you would, you know, enter the applicant’s position, do your own SEQRA review, do a complete review of the project. You could certainly come to those determinations yourselves. My only position is I don’t think you have enough information to do that. MR. ABBATE-I don’t, either. MR. BROWN-Typically that information’s found in a complete site plan review application, where you get a map of the property that shows contours and grading and stormwater and lighting and landscaping, and traditionally, that review has been done by our Planning Board who’s more adept at doing that, no disrespect to the Board, but they do it more often and they’re a better hand at it. That’s all. MR. ABBATE-No, I can appreciate that. I agree. MR. BROWN-And I don’t disagree that you can do your own. MR. STONE-And I don’t disagree with you, Craig. I think a coordinated review is what we need. I’m only listening to the applicant. I don’t want to steam roller him. He said could you consider, and I could consider. I don’t think I would vote in favor of it, but I could consider, and that’s all we do. MR. BRYANT-Can I make a comment, Mr. Lapper? I think this type of project is important to the Town, but if you recall, back in one of the Home Depot projects you did, you provided an artistic view or superimposed photograph or whatever it was of the approach from the north side, and, I mean, when we’re talking about height and the impact, the visual impact from the Northway, the visual impact coming north on Route 9 or south on Route 9, I mean, that’s the best presentation that you could possibly make. The other thing that you take into consideration, you look at these drawings that you have, you have no signs. I mean, that’s a pretty green area. It would be nice to know where your big sign is going to be. Is it going to be on the Northway side, or is it going to be on the Route 9 side? Just some things like that which would allay some of the concerns that some of the Board members have about impact, you know, visual impact, environmental, whatever. That’s my suggestion to you, because you know we’re kind of touchy on the height issue, but I think, I can understand where a project like this would need to be so high. You’ve only got 99 rooms in the whole building. Not a lot of rooms for a hotel. They’re suites, though, they’re not, it’s not a motel. MR. LAPPER-That’s right. MR. BRYANT-It’s a hotel, like a regular Comfort Suite Inn, where you get a couple of rooms per suite, right? MR. STARK-I have no idea what you’re talking about. What’s your point? MR. BRYANT-Well, that’s okay. My point is it’s important, but I’d like to see the visual impact. I think other Board members would, too. MR. LAPPER-We can provide whatever data the Board needs. 43 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/03) MR. BRYANT-Just a suggestion. MR. ABBATE-Well, I mean, I hear what Mr. Himes says, in terms of deciding now. I’m going to suggest that we do table it. I’m going to move that we table it for up to 62 days, so that the applicant can address our concerns about the potential impact of a building 54 and a half feet high somewhere on this piece of property, and I don’t know, again. MR. LAPPER-I just have to ask what Craig said. If the Board is compelled to do a coordinated review, we would much rather know that tonight, because it’s going to save about two months. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. ABBATE-That’s fair. MR. STONE-Let me just poll the Board. How many coordinated review. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I’m more inclined to do our own review. The coordinated review sounds logical, but what I found with some of our other coordinated reviews is what that’s saying is the Planning Board does a whole thing and I don’t know what they considered unless I go to one of their meetings. So I don’t have any background on what went into the review and the conclusion that it’s no significant impact or whatever. If we do it ourselves, then at least we’ve got exposure to what was considered. MR. STONE-That’s a valid point. If we did our own full review, do we get technical help from you and the rest of the Staff, or how do we handle that? MR. BROWN-Sure. We can assist you in whatever way you want to. If you’re going to go that way, you want to make sure you ask the applicant for exactly what you want, in order for you to perform that review, and what I was trying to say before is typically that information is found in the complete site plan review application, and it usually always defaults to the Planning Board. No question you can do your own, but make sure you’re going to get the information you need, so you don’t drag them out for six months. MR. STONE-Is it possible, the word “coordinated” suggests to me more than one Board. I mean, is it something we can have a joint meeting and 14 of us? MR. BROWN-It’s the whole theory behind determination of Lead Agency. MR. STONE-I understand that. I know what I was asking. MR. BROWN-Certainly, if you want to attend a Planning Board meeting and have some input on the process, through the public hearing portion of it, you can certainly do that, and gain whatever information you can, if you chose to do a coordinated review conducted by the Planning Board, but the Lead Agency is the Lead Agency. MR. STONE-Let me continue the poll. MR. URRICO-So the coordinated is really a misnomer? MR. STONE-Yes, it really is a misnomer. Yes. Jaime, what do you think? MR. HAYES-I feel similarly to Chuck. I think I would feel comfortable going forward with our own review. Certainly I would need to ask them very specifically what we needed to have, and that’s more than reasonable to make a good decision, but having, understanding the process, I know what the applicant has put forth, and there has to be some merit to that, is that what’s first here, the horse or the cart. In this circumstance, they need the relief to go forward, and possibly spends thousands of dollars developing a full site plan review. If they don’t get the 44 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/03) relief from us, then that would be a waste, and sometimes I think it makes it a little hard on an applicant to not know where they stand, as far the first step to go to the second step, but in this particular case, if there was more pieces of relief that was needed, you know, floor area ratio and setbacks and everything else, I would say probably a coordinated review would be compelled, but in this particular case, we’re down to just a piece of height relief, and that’s, personally, I think that we could manage that. MR. STONE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m confident that each Board is perfectly capable of obtaining the information it needs to make a logical decision here. So I think I would be in favor of conducting our SEQRA. MR. STONE-Well, you think you need more information however? MR. URRICO-Yes, I do. MR. STONE-And, Chuck, you think you need more information? MR. MC NULTY-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay, and Jaime? MR. HAYES-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. Allan? MR. BRYANT-Yes. I tend to agree. I think what they’re asking for basically is the height relief. They’re going to eliminate the Floor Area Ratio. I think we can proceed without a coordinated review. MR. STONE-But you feel you need more information before we do this? MR. BRYANT-Definitely. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Well, I feel the same way. We need more information before we can do this, but I would like to add that there is a standard of fairness, and I don’t expect your client to put out unnecessary funding. That would be unfair. So, based on the standard of fairness, I would go with an independent review by this Board, and quite frankly I would have more credence in our own review, quite frankly. MR. STONE-Okay. Norm? MR. HIMES-I agree, too, and again, I’ll go back to the point where they may have a lot of information that would answer our questions in connection with the height variance, and this isn’t a big company with deep pockets, from what I understand. So there’s a proprietorship type thing. We’re talking six, seven million dollars, we’ve got to do what we can to expedite the decision, whether it’s yes or no, and get them off the hook. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. ABBATE-Can I just add this? We should also give him some guidelines. I just wrote some notes. I would like to know the impact, the height impact, the economic impact, the environmental impact, and it goes down the line, so that they know what to address. MR. STONE-Well, that’s what we’re going to do, if we agree. I think we have agreed, and I’m certainly, if we want to try it ourselves, that’s perfectly fine. I would like each of you to 45 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/03) volunteer some information that you would like to see before you go into this, and, Chuck, you started, so keep going. Just say them again, we’ll get them in the minutes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. This is what I, jotting down these notes, I’m thinking to myself, and trying to be fair to the applicant as well, and take into consideration the charge before this Board, I would like to know what the impact, any kind of an impact, favorable or unfavorable, on the height of the four story, and of course when I say height, I’m talking about the surrounding area. If there are any residences or any businesses or anything else, what kind of an impact would it have on those folks? Two, I’d like to know any kind of an economic impact. Will it add to the business, will it detract from business? I don’t know. Three, I’d like to know any kind of an environmental impact, four stories, I think he said 99 rooms, something like that. Now we’re talking about a septic system, runoff, etc., etc., and I can almost go, use the notes that I used at that garage. What will be the impact of many disposals that are inherent in that type of business. I guess that’s it for now. MR. STONE-Okay. Anybody else have some? MR. URRICO-Just as long as the septic was brought up, will it be planned to be tied in to the Town Sewer District? MR. LAPPER-It’s a question of whether, absolutely it will be. The Sewer District is coming up into that area. It’s going to have to be extended a couple of hundred feet to get to this facility, and that is the plan. In terms of the timing of when the sewer system gets built, it may have to be on a septic system temporarily and then a year later get hooked up. It would be nice to do it once, cost wise, but ultimately within a year it will certainly be on the sewer system. MR. STONE-Any other thoughts? Allan? MR. BRYANT-I would like to see something visual. Okay. It doesn’t have to be fancy, but something that would give us an idea of what the impact is. I mean, we can go out there and imagine it, but, and what Mr. Abbate said, you know, as an alternative, what is the effect of dropping one of the floors? What is the economic effect? I mean, why did you come to that determination that it had to be four floors. There’s got to be some economic reason behind that. What would be the effect if you drop it down to three floors? MR. STONE-Well, that’s something you want to know. Okay. One of the concerns, somebody mentioned this to me the other day, not about this project, but about things that are higher, and taking out trees, is temperature differences in the neighborhood, because of wind patterns and things like this. Crazy little things, but somebody over in one area of Town noticed a marked difference with some development that’s gone on. Chuck, do you have anything? MR. MC NULTY-I think it’s pretty well been covered. I think what affect the height’s going to have, what the appearance is going to be, whether you’re going to cut down all the vegetation between the hotel and Route 9 and likewise between the hotel and the Northway, and I think that’s what addresses what we’re going to have to consider. MR. STONE-Also, address is Boats By George building staying there? MR. LAPPER-Yes. It’s on a separate parcel. MR. STONE-I know it is. I just wanted to be sure. So it is. Okay. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, were there any trees currently cut down? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. ABBATE-And I would like to know the number of trees and footage that was removed. 46 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/03) MR. LAPPER-That’s in the area of where the hotel is going to be, in the center of the site. MR. ABBATE-Yes, but I’d like to know how much was removed. MR. LAPPER-Sixty trees. MR. ABBATE-And any environmental impact on removal of those trees in terms of drainage. MR. STONE-I guess if we going to do, it’s more on the terms of the Planning Board, but if we’re going to put in a large impermeable area called a building, and stormwater is something that we have to consider, too, we have to know something about. Anything else? Do you have enough information? Do you think we’ve asked for enough, or should we be? MR. LAPPER-I think you covered it. You haven’t said traffic, but it’s not a big issue on the road. MR. ABBATE-Well, may I add traffic? Thank you, Counselor. MR. STONE-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 75-2003 GEORGE & MARILYN STARK, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 1533 State Route 9. So that the applicants, George and Marilyn Stark, can furnish information the information requested by the Board for purposes of doing our own environmental review, regarding height impacts on neighbors, economic impact of four floors, environmental impact, stormwater, septic, sewer, visual appearance, temperature impact, landscaping, buffer, tree removal, drainage impact, traffic. Duly adopted this 17 day of September, 2003, by the following vote: th MR. HIMES-I feel like abstaining because I think we could have pursued it further this evening, but since it appears to be unanimous, then I’ll go along with okay, we’ll table it. AYES: Mr. Himes, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE MR. STONE-Okay, gentlemen. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. We’ll be back as soon as we can. AREA VARIANCE NO. 76-2003 SEQRA TYPE: II PETER R. WEIDMAN AGENT: JOHN H. RICHARDS, ESQ. OWNER: PETER R. WEIDMAN ZONING: CURRENT: SFR-1A; OLD: R-4 LOCATION: LOT 63, 117 GLEN LAKE RD. COURTHOUSE EST. SEC. 2 APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WITH A FRONT PORCH. APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 2003-093 TAX MAP NO. 288.16-1-86 LOT SIZE: 1.84 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-030 JOHN RICHARDS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 76-2003, Peter R. Weidman, Meeting Date: September 17, 2003 “Project Location: Lot 63, 117 Glen Lake Rd. Courthouse Est. Sec. 2 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has constructed a single family dwelling in violation of the minimum front setback requirement. Relief Required: Applicant requests 8.4 feet of relief 47 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/03) from the 30-foot minimum front setback requirement of the R-4 (old) zone. The R-4 zone was applicable at the time of the subdivision approval. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2003-093 Single Family Dwelling Staff comments: Does the existing home and porch present adverse impacts on the neighborhood or community? There appears to have been ample area for compliant construction.” MR. STONE-Come forward. MR. RICHARDS-Good evening. My name is John Richards. I’m an attorney in Glens Falls. I’m here representing Mr. Peter Weidman. Mr. Weidman is sitting next to me and we’re here to obviously answer any questions the Board has. I would just briefly state our situation. We’re here because Mr. Weidman will freely admit that he made a mistake. It was an inadvertent and good faith mistake. He doesn’t hope to ever have it repeated. It’s been an expensive mistake just to date, but it arose when he mis-measured the front setback and he used the wrong marking in a rush because his excavator appeared kind of unannounced, and they needed to excavate at that time, and he thought he had allowed himself a good five feet of extra buffer, and instead he was two feet short on the house portion, roughly two feet short, and about eight feet short on the porch, and that is it in a nutshell, and we’re asking the Board to allow us this variance because the alternatives would be financially prohibitive and devastating. I would point out one thing. I did notice, I left out one word in the questionnaire that was read by the secretary, I said the lot was large, I should have said and no other residences in the immediate vicinity, at least in the immediately visual vicinity. If you’ve been out there, you realize, of course, that across the street is unimproved. It’s LC-42. It’s owned by The Great Escape. MR. BRYANT-Question. This survey map, when was this survey conducted relative to the building permit? Because the survey shows, you know, the porch being 21 foot 6. MR. RICHARDS-I didn’t understand the last part of your question. MR. BRYANT-When was this survey done relative to the building permit? The building permit says 2003. What’s the date of the building permit? Is this survey provided with the building permit? PETER WEIDMAN MR. WEIDMAN-No, it is not. That survey, that is a plot survey showing where the foundation was actually located after we built the structure. MR. BRYANT-After you built the structure? MR. RICHARDS-Yes. That was post permit or it wouldn’t have happened. Yes. MR. BRYANT-Well, that’s why I asked the question. MR. RICHARDS-There are some initial flagging along the boundary line, but there was no printed survey. MR. ABBATE-Just a comment. How refreshing to have an applicant and his attorney come before this Board and immediately acknowledge they made an honest mistake, a good faith mistake. That, in itself, is commendable. Thank you. 48 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/03) MR. URRICO-I guess my question is how the mistake was made. I mean, how do you go through this process without checking the Town Code? MR. WEIDMAN-Well, I’d like to answer that if I could. I had a surveyor come to actually do a preliminary survey on the property location itself, because it is a kind of an unusual, it’s not a boxed lot, you know, 100 by 200 foot lot. So I did have a surveyor come and he did a preliminary survey to give me a side property on the easterly side of the property, east end of the property, because I was concerned with making sure that I maintained proper distance when we were excavating there, that my excavator didn’t encroach on somebody else’s property, but he had not completed his physical location of pins for me, prior to us having to start. What had actually happened is I had talked to an excavator. My excavator had cleared the lot, had given me a tentative timeframe of when he thought he could actually do the excavating part of it. Well, his schedule changed, and all of a sudden at eight o’clock in the morning he calls me on his cell phone and he says I’m here at the site. I can dig it now. I was not prepared for him at that point, but the difficulty of getting contractors in today’s market is extremely difficult. So I certainly didn’t want to pass up an opportunity to get them there to do it when they were ready to do it, because the timeframe could put me back. So, I went to the job site, took what I believed to have been the property line and took my measurements from that. I was wrong. The property line, where I believed the property line to be, there was a stake at a telephone pole which typically indicates where a corner of a property line is, but if you look at that survey, you’ll see that the telephone pole really is not where the property line is. So, that, in a nutshell, is kind of how this chain of events came about. MR. RICHARDS-He followed the flags down. It looked like the pole was the corner. There was a pin in the pole, and he measured back from there which would have given him ample space, but. MR. URRICO-So you did this without checking with the Town at any point? MR. WEIDMAN-We knew what the setback requirements were. MR. URRICO-You just didn’t know where the property line was. MR. WEIDMAN-We just didn’t know where that corner property line was. MR. URRICO-Well, why would you place it so close to that corner anyway? You have a 1.85 acre lot. MR. WEIDMAN-Well, if you were at the lot. MR. URRICO-I live right down the road. I know exactly where it is. MR. WEIDMAN-The terrain gets very steep there, and there’s only really a small area where you could physically put the house without creating larger banks than what we already have. So that’s why we’re trying to locate it in that particular area. MR. URRICO-Can you also tell me what the frontage is on Glen Lake Road, what the width? MR. RICHARDS-On the map it’s just under 400 feet. MR. WEIDMAN-Four hundred. MR. STONE-Four hundred, yes. What’s the zoning there? One acre. MR. URRICO-SFR-1A. MR. RICHARDS-That’s correct. 49 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/03) MR. STONE-Yes. So there’s not two lots there, without a variance there aren’t two lots, and I know it’s very steep. I mean, I saw that. So there’s no concern that anything else is going to be built on this lot. The problem that I had looking at this thing is you just heard us talking about height, 54 feet, and this is very high, compared to Glen Lake Road. I mean, you built it, it’s up on a hill, and it’s a nice location for ignoring the traffic below, but it’s very imposing, particularly being too close to the road. That’s what gave me concern as I looked at it. It kind of looms over the road. MR. BRYANT-Just one point of clarification. You’re a builder by trade. Is that correct? MR. WEIDMAN-That’s correct. MR. BRYANT-Because there’s a sign, it’s not shown in your pictures, I think outside the house it says Weidman Quality Homes or, I don’t remember what it was, but it indicated that you’re a builder. That’s your regular trade. MR. STONE-One of the things that Mr. Abbate at least referred to, it’s nice to see people come in, mea a culpa all over the place, recognizing they’re wrong, but on the other hand, it gives us a great cause. I mean we don’t want to cause you, nobody wants to cause anybody financial losses, but it’s a dilemma. I mean, we’ve had a lot of people come in on much smaller projects who build where they shouldn’t build, and quite frankly we don’t like it, I think is an honest way to say it. We really don’t like it. Because we can be as skeptical as the next guy. I mean, you came in and you said, it was an honest mistake. Well, we’ll believe you and say it was an honest mistake. I mean, I commented earlier on the character of the person in front of me. I don’t know the character. I really don’t care, but in this case, character does get involved a little bit, strangely, because you’re telling us it was an honest mistake. Nobody else made it but you. I mean, you took an expedient step, and it could cost you. MR. RICHARDS-Mr. Chairman, the one thing I can assure the Board is we don’t like being here any more than you like having us here. MR. STONE-I’m sure that’s true, and we don’t like being put in this situation, quite frankly. I mean, our job is to decide whether or not we’re going to allow an applicant to get a variance from our zoning. We don’t want to be forced to grant a variance because here’s a home that you can’t knock the porch off it. You can’t knock the corner off. You can’t buy the right of way from whoever owns Glen Lake Road, I guess the Town. You’re in a situation and so are we, quite frankly. MR. HIMES-I agree with you, Mr. Chairman, too. We do have these from time to time, and they don’t all work out the same way, and credibility is a factor, too, but then you look at the word Mr. Chairman uses, the expediency, you certainly could anticipate what kind of spot you were going to be in, going ahead the way you did, and the fact that your tolerance with the bank and all, granted it’s steep, but, you know, there was a lot of excavating done there, a little bit more, you know, I was thinking, another comment the Chairman made, that you were very close to the road, would seem, I thought well maybe there’s an expectation to subdivide somewhere down the road, but, and you’re in the business, and so the factors of, well, why so, it would have been better, in my opinion and maybe some others, to have been back further from the road. You would have to cut into the bank a little more, but you picked the best part of the site to locate, to have gone that, I don’t mean extra mile, the extra 10 feet or 15 feet or 20 or whatever, to be comfortably back where you might be able to put some vegetation out there, you know, to keep it from hovering over the road. So, you can see the spot we’re in here in connection with saying, what are we going to do about it? Because you’ve just put us in a position where there isn’t any compromise. I’m just saying, I’m thinking out loud to myself that perhaps, you know, you should have thought of this when you knew your tolerances were that close. So that’s just a comment, thinking out loud. MR. STONE-Well, three things happened here. 50 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/03) MR. WEIDMAN-Excuse me. I don’t mean to interrupt you, but I just want to make a comment on that before, while it’s fresh in my mind. MR. STONE-Sure. MR. WEIDMAN-You made comment to the space that we have available. We didn’t actually have that as space available, or know we had that space available, at the time we were locating the foundation. Since the foundation was put in, we actually have done more excavating there, because we did realize that we could get back in to that bank farther than we had really anticipated in the first place. We didn’t expect that we were going to be able to get the space that we had. I was anticipating considerably less space than what we actually have right now. So that’s part of the reason why we were crowding as much as we did, because we didn’t anticipate we could get that space. Even when I met with my excavator, who is in the business of excavating, we didn’t anticipate getting back as far as we were. MR. STONE-Okay, but it seemed to me three things happened. The excavator came in and at least as I understand the term excavator, he dug a hole. Okay. He’s done. He’s gone. We’ve got plenty of time now before we put in the boards to put in the foundation. We obviously, you didn’t do anything obviously. You went and put the foundation boards up, poured the concrete, and even then you didn’t get a measurement. You didn’t go to the Town and get it checked out. You started building and almost completed building a house. MR. HAYES-The Town’s not going to check that, at that point. MR. BROWN-No, that’s correct. We don’t do that, but I guess if you’re saying they didn’t get a survey and check it at that point. MR. STONE-Yes, there’s plenty of, there were three opportunities, in a sense, to avoid being where you are today. No, the excavation I can understand. The guy came and dug a hole, but you immediately started working, and assumed, that famous old word, you assumed that the hole was in the right place, and built the foundation, and then started putting up wood. MR. WEIDMAN-I believed that I was in the right location, is what I really thought. I had no inkling in my mind that I was not in the right space. MR. ABBATE-Initially, and I still stand by how refreshing it is to admit you made a mistake, but the concerns of the Norm and of the Chairman, while the house is up, are we going to require you to take a chainsaw and bring it down? No. Well, that puts us in a dilemma. What are we going to do? We have really no choice, but the only consolation that I have, Mr. Weidman, I have a long memory. Okay. Thank you. That’s it. MR. MC NULTY-I’d like to talk about remedies for a minute. The thing is there, the mistake was made, and we have had several places over the last couple of years that have come in this way and the builder, for one reason or another, says, oops, I goofed and I’m over the line, and each time we say, boy, but the next time we need to tell the guy, jack it up and move it. That’s a little bit extreme, but it’s been done. I’ll go through my speech again. I live in a house that was moved 19 feet after the guy had the house about to the point where yours is. He was 19 feet too close to the road, and the Town made him move it. So it has been done in the past in this Town. That’s one alternative. Very expensive alternative obviously, but it could be done. Another possibility is we give you the variance for the front setback. Looking quickly at the house, I think possibly a third alternative would be to move the entrance around to the far end, opposite the garage. You could take the porch off. The stairway goes up stairs from that far end. Maybe you could talk a little bit about whether that’s feasible or not feasible and why, because that would be somewhat of a compromise. We could give you the 2.2 or whatever it is feet for the house, in a variance, and avoid giving you the eight feet for the porch. MR. WEIDMAN-I’m not quite sure what you were indicating there. Around to the east side of the house, is that where you’re talking about? 51 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/03) MR. MC NULTY-Yes. MR. RICHARDS-On the other side of the garage. MR. MC NULTY-Right, opposite side from the garage. It wouldn’t look like the house was intended to look originally, but it looks to me like there was an opportunity to put an entrance into the living room at that point, and reduce the variance needed by six feet. MR. WEIDMAN-I would think that it is feasible to do that. It certainly would alter the flow of the traffic in the house to be something other than what would be considered to be normal in a house of this style. One other alternative that has been discussed along the way is the possibility of just taking the porch off itself, and just having a regular entrance stoop there in the front. That was another alternative that I considered, right from the beginning. The possibility of doing that. MR. STONE-Or just adding a stoop type thing with maybe a small cover over it. MR. WEIDMAN-A small cover over a stoop area. MR. RICHARDS-I think we’d probably still need a variance though. MR. STONE-Yes, you’d definitely need a variance. MR. MC NULTY-Yes, you’d still need a variance. Looking at the picture brings up another point, now, the 2., what was it, 2.2 for the house that’s needed? MR. RICHARDS-Yes. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. MC NULTY-Is that measured to the front corner of the house, or is that measured to the part on the second floor that protrudes out? MR. RICHARDS-On the survey you can see, that was taken off the 27.8 measurement on the survey, which would be the southeast corner, I believe. MR. STONE-Yes, but that push out is right here where the porch is. MR. MC NULTY-If he took the porch off, he’s still got that there, so he’s going to need more than 2.2 for the house. MR. STONE-Yes. Well, the house is. MR. RICHARDS-The push out part is behind the porch. So I see what you’re saying, yes. MR. STONE-I don’t know what this is. Right now it’s 8.4, and you’re going to cut back, I mean, it would be some relief necessary. MR. MC NULTY-But this sticks out further than that corner, up here. MR. RICHARDS-That’s correct. I understand what you’re saying. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. MC NULTY-So he’d need relief for that, too, unless he sawed that off. 52 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/03) MR. RICHARDS-That’s, right now, it’s kind of within the porch jut out, if you want to call it. So if you pulled the porch off, you know, the one thing I would just point out, and we haven’t tried to sugar coat this, nor shift the blame, but any of these remedies, even if they appear somewhat feasible on their face, whether it be taking the porch off or moving an entrance way around, you’re destroying the integrity of the house as the plans were initially set up. You’re destroying a good bit of the marketability of the house, and I’m not belittling the fact that maybe they’re potentially doable, but all of which I would respectfully submit would create a financial detriment or a hardship to Mr. Weidman, far in excess of the amount of the variance request. Now that’s a judgment call only the Board can make, but that would certainly be our perception and our request that the Board take that into consideration. MR. STONE-My only concern with that statement, Counselor, is you’re not appreciating the anger of the Board. The Board is not happy, at least as I read it the Board is not happy, and just saying, well, it’s going to do this and going to do that, you’re leaving us yes or no, and I think Mr. McNulty is trying to say, well, maybe there’s some kind of modified yes. So I’m not happy with that statement because I think it’s a threat. MR. RICHARDS-It’s not a threat, I’m just asking, Mr. Chairman, that the financial considerations be kept in mind as well. MR. ABBATE-Yes, but Mr. Chairman, while you may be right, you know, we could go for, the line of punishment is incarceration or the sentence of death, and I think that there are mitigating circumstances here, and I would respectfully suggest that maybe we put him on probation or parole, rather than, I couldn’t justify it, morally, causing financial difficulty. I just couldn’t do it. MR. HAYES-Well, I’d like to comment that I think that the Counselor’s arguments, you know, I think that there’s some merit. The only thing I would disagree with is, financial difficulties possibly could, in this case, be an understatement, really. I mean, I think maybe disaster is more the right word in this particular case. Being in the home building business, I know that you have changed the interior of, you know, the whole flow of the house and also the entrance and a few other things, you know, it could be more than a little bit that could be lost here, and I would also be concerned that, I’m frustrated, like the Board, with the fact of these postmortems, you know, everybody, they’re bad news because it puts us in a very difficult situation, you know, we don’t like being leveraged for sure, and this kind of does that, but, I would be wary of having Mr. Weidman be the guy that takes the full wallop of the Board for, you know, just because he happens to be Number Nine on the list of, however number, that doesn’t excuse what he did, as much as it would seem that, in my mind, that that might be a little heavy, and that the other guys got off a little light, in this particular case. Mr. Weidman has not been before the Board previous to this application, and probably will never be again, I can imagine. So, and maybe that’s what is accomplished tonight, or could be accomplished tonight, you know, that if he’s not scared now, he should be. So, and again, I usually, on these type of things, look more for an angle, if you will, or something else, that the mistake may help the applicant with, on in the future or some other way, but this is less than a divisible lot in the future. So the placement of the house forward and where it is to me has probably with the function of, and with the slopes that are obviously there, that’s probably more a function of he had to move it forward, and it turned out he moved it a tiny bit too forward, but that, I think that we just have to be careful that we don’t make one guy pay the check for the whole thing. MR. ABBATE-Yes, you know, Jaime, here, here, and I like that term, I remembered that, we have a new legal term, an individual comes before us with only slightly dirty hands, I kind of like that. MR. URRICO-I have to admit that, I travel this corridor quite a bit, and this house appeared almost overnight, the way it seemed, I mean, especially the excavating, you know, one day it was a lot and the next day there was a hole there, and like Mr. Stone has said, it’s imposing. It’s an imposing house. All that, I think, is because of the height of it, which really probably gives it an optical illusion of being closer to the road than it really is. There are other houses on that stretch that are actually closer to the road, they’re older but they’re closer, but I think I’m 53 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/03) looking for something that you can give us, or at least me, that would help lessen the closeness to the road, either some sort of greenery there, some sort of a barrier that would sort of hide it a little bit more from view. Maybe not make it appear so, you know, so immediately close to the road. MR. WEIDMAN-I’m not sure what I could do to alleviate the fact that it is as close to the road as it is, but we certainly have more landscaping work to be done, which I feel will certainly probably possibly take your eye of vision away from the house because I have plans of landscaping and some terracing and whatever along that bank that will, in fact, change, hopefully change that line of view that you’re going to look at. Obviously we have basically stopped working on the project, pending what was going to happen here. So we haven’t moved ahead with where I would like to be on this project, but it is my intent to do further excavating on the front to take some of that grade away as you’re going up the driveway, so there’s not a bank there, and to do some terracing and landscaping down in the area where it is closer to the house, which I believe will. MR. URRICO-Put some arborvitae or something like that. Mr. WEIDMAN-Well, I’m planning on doing something along the line of a retaining wall, a retaining wall or walls that would be terraced up with some landscaping and whatever that would, again, perhaps that would catch your eye, rather than the house itself. I admit the house is a normal height house, but because of the fact that the property is designed the way that it is, it does give you the illusion or the appearance that it is a tall structure, when really the structure is not any taller than any other new house being built today. So, I do have plans of making it more visually appealing, as you’re approaching the house, and hopefully that would take away, like I said, the vision of, right now the house catches your attention because there’s nothing else to look at. MR. STONE-How are you going to side this thing? What’s it going to look like when it’s finished? MR. WEIDMAN-It’ll be a vinyl siding house. MR. STONE-What color? MR. WEIDMAN-I have not determined that yet, but, typically probably some kind of an earth tone colors and whatever. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, may I respectfully submit this opinion or position? I suggest that if we set new standards, then the new standards should apply to every applicant that comes before this Board, and I suggest that, without options on the part of the Board, the new standards might be catastrophic. Thank you. MR. STONE-May I ask for clarification? MR. ABBATE-Yes. I’m saying we need a standard of fairness. Is what I’m saying, and that if we are harsh with this particular applicant, we should have been just as harsh with particular applicants in the past, and we’re going to have to be harsh because we’re setting a precedent for applicants in the future. MR. STONE-Well, isn’t that our job? Our job, I mean, we have, and this is not a judgment. This is just a statement. Our bible is the zoning code of the Town of Queensbury. We are supposed to grant minimal relief when people come before us to this particular thing, and we’re supposed to do it before the fact. After the fact, I mean, if we do nothing, that means anybody who wants to get away with something, deliberately, not that this case was deliberate, but deliberately our hands our tied, we have no recourse. I mean, I’m concerned that Mr. McNulty presented a possible alternative, some remediation as far as the porch is concerned. 54 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/03) MR. ABBATE-But it’s not that simple. I think that there will be severe financial ramifications on this, is what I’m basically saying, and then I would raise the issue, Mr. Chairman, if I were in the audience, I would say what is the standard that we’re using? Why have we selected this particular applicant to be harsh? MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, can I make a suggestion? MR. STONE-Surely. MR. BRYANT-Before we go through this discussion, why don’t we just open the public hearing, then talk about it, and then we’ll understand how all the Board members feel. MR. STONE-I was thinking about doing that. MR. BRYANT-Okay. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. HIMES-I have one other question, that just popped in my head, for the applicant. How do you measure, I mean, I’m visualizing the steep bank there. How did you, when you got to that pipe, how do you measure a vertical, or I mean a horizontal distance with the, you know, you must have done something besides get out a piece of tape and walk up the hill a little bit. MR. WEIDMAN-Well, basically, we had a fairly level area there to work with when you’re up on the upper level, and basically just taking a tape measure from where you believe the property line would be, and then measuring from there. MR. HIMES-All right. Thank you. MR. STONE-Okay. Let me, to follow the suggestion, which is a good one, let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JIM UNDERWOOD MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m Jim Underwood. I would make the suggestion that you refer to the Planning Board, because a minimal site plan review might suggest some plantings in front that would include a couple of large trees, and they might also include suggestions such as painting the house a dark color to blend in with the trees behind it and the scenery, so it’s not like a light colored house that kind of sticks out like a sore thumb, but, you know, trees, plantings, things like that, are something that could be suggestions. I don’t know if that’s our domain to do that. MR. HAYES-Sure, that’s a reasonable condition. MR. UNDERWOOD-You know, but I mean, if you put a couple of big, you know, one big deciduous tree and one evergreen out front, and said, they can’t be trimmed or cut, you know, eventually they’re going to grow up and screen the house somewhat from the road, and, you know, mitigate what’s been done. MR. ABBATE-That’s excellent. If we desire to set an example, maybe we should cause the applicant to spend money in landscaping and what have you. That’s an excellent suggestion. MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s only two trees. It’s not going to be that much, but it will make a difference, as opposed to nothing now. MR. ABBATE-And that way there the ZBA has made its impact on this approval, is what has happened. 55 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/03) MR. UNDERWOOD-And it’s a positive thing. MR. ABBATE-And it’s a positive one at that. MR. STONE-Anybody else wishing to speak in favor of the application? In favor of? Anybody opposed to the application? Opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. MR. STONE-Let me close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Let me ask a question of Mr. Brown. Can we request site plan review on a single residence? MR. BROWN-I suppose you could. I think you could come to the answer without doing that, but I guess you could refer it to the Planning Board if you wanted to. MR. STONE-We can make remedial. MR. BROWN-Yes. If you’re going to refer it to the Planning Board, to ask them to tell you that it’s a good idea to plant trees, I think you can do that. MR. STONE-I agree. I’m just following through. MR. ABBATE-Yes, I agree. MR. STONE-Okay. Let’s talk. The planting idea, is that’s something that’s of sizeable trees? MR. WEIDMAN-I’m willing to do whatever it would require to get you people to be happy with what we’re trying to do. I am a quality builder, as you saw on my sign. We build quality homes. We do try to do it right. We did make a mistake this time. Believe me, it won’t be happening again. I’m open for suggestions. I am planning on doing extensive landscaping already. If a couple of more trees are in the winds or something that you would like to see, I certainly have no objection to that at all. MR. STONE-How many homes have you built, by the way? MR. WEIDMAN-In the Queensbury area, probably about 40 homes. MR. STONE-Okay. Let’s talk about it. Let’s start with Allan. MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree with some of the things that were said by the Board members, specifically as it relates to the fact that, you know, we’ve had a situation before, and builders have come before us and they’ve made mistakes, some of them legitimate, some of them questionable, but the way I always review the case is based on whether or not I would approve the variance if you hadn’t even broken ground yet. Before I address that, I do want to say, I know you’re never going to ever tell your excavator to go ahead, at eight o’clock in the morning, when you don’t have a survey. I’m sure that that’s the lesson that comes out of this meeting, but when I look at your property, you’re looking for about 20% relief on the front setback, and look at your property, your property already sets back I don’t know how many feet from the, I don’t have my scale with me, how many feet it sets back from the road, so I think when you take that into consideration, I don’t think that the variance that you’re requesting is significant. So, with that in mind, I’d be in favor of the application, Mr. Chairman. MR. STONE-Roy? 56 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/03) MR. URRICO-Yes, I’ll just repeat what I said earlier. At first, the starkness of this struck me quite a lot, but I think most of that was due to the height of this house as it sets up off the road, and not necessarily the house itself. Had this been at sea level, so to speak, it probably wouldn’t be as noticeable, especially given down the road a piece from there there are some houses actually sit on the road. There’s one staircase that actually leads on to Glen Lake, and I think I would be in favor of this with some conditions, and the conditions being that some trees, sizeable trees, as Mr. Underwood suggested, be planted, that would sort of mitigate the view, give us, you know, an idea that this is some attempt by you to offer a compromise, and also Mr. Underwood mentioned something about the color of the house that might blend into the neighborhood a little bit as well, which goes along with the recommendations that the Town has made anyway, in certain locations. So, if you’d be willing to do that, I’d be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Jaime? MR. HAYES-I agree. I mean, I think, you know, like I already stated extensively, we certainly do not like to see these items, and we don’t take variances or relief from the Code lightly, as you can tell over the last half hour, and we’re not going to in the future, but in this particular case, I think that, I really don’t think that the impact on the neighborhood is such that I would be concerned about granting this relief. Having driven by the property, as Roy said, while it looms in height, I’m not sure, by eye, that I would think that that was too close to the road, in this particular case. So the project itself is not so compelling that with some amount of forgiveness of leniency in this particular case, I couldn’t get there. Mr. Weidman hasn’t been before this Board before, and if he comes again for these similar circumstances, I can imagine that the results would be a lot different than they are tonight. Reluctantly, like the rest of the Board, I’m in favor. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Well, as I mentioned earlier, we’ve had a minor parade of mistakes like this come before the Board, and each time we go through, well, maybe the Town ought to have someone go out there and measure before they allow the house to be put up or the foundation to be poured after the forms are put up, whatever, and the Town Staff’s got more than enough to do, and that would add to costs. Likewise, a full survey by the builder before he started work would add the cost, and each time we say, well, about next time we need to draw the line. At the same time, I don’t think it’s fair to make a particular example of you with an honest mistake, but I think it is time that we started putting our foot down, and I’m convinced that the real answer to this type of problem is for this Board to start saying, no, you’ve got to do something different, other than just coming in and saying, oops, I made a mistake. It sounds to me like you’re going to end up with enough votes that you’ll get some kind of a compromise. At the same time, I don’t think, at this point, we should be giving unanimous approval to this kind of thing. So I’ve got some objections. I’ve got some concerns about it, and I think you’re going to end up with a somewhat favorable decision. So I’m going to be opposed, so at least it’s not a unanimous decision. MR. STONE-Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. I agree with what Chuck has said, certainly, and the others, and I’m in a quandary here. I wouldn’t want, if I were to approve this, to be taking the porch off and all that, because it would be an awful looking thing without it there, and I still have to say, like a broken record I’ve said it in every one of these we’ve had since I’ve been on the Board, although there are two that we made, up on Assembly Point, someone on Cleverdale, a significant financial, we went through with it, and the thing being I think the Town said this and every one, that the Town should have more responsibility in the matter. I know Staff has more to do than they can do. It’s the Town’s responsibility to give Staff the resources, because I don’t know that it’s ever going to change. We have professionals that make the mistakes, and we have an occasional novice that submits plans, and it ought to be questionable, I’m just looking at them, a couple that I can recall. So that’s my primary reason, not putting more work 57 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/03) on Staff as they are currently resourced, because I know they can’t handle all this extra work, but the Town has to come to grips with that, and that’s where I will put the blame, is right there. So, in that connection, I will approve this variance application. Thank you. MR. STONE-You’re voting yes, Norm, is that what you said? MR. HIMES-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. My decision is based strictly on facts. Number One, there was a mistake made. Number Two, the applicant came before this Board and admitted his mistake. Number Three, the builder has constructed, by his own admission, 40 some homes in the Town of Queensbury and has never come before the Board since I’ve been here, but more importantly is that I don’t believe that any applicant should be punished because of any inadequacies in procedures of the Town. I think any attempt to force this particular applicant to modify, structurally modify his home would be a financial hardship, and I, in my opinion, think it would be unfair. Based upon all these facts, Mr. Chairman, I would support the application. MR. STONE-Well, I’m going to take a contrary view. I’m going to go along with Chuck for a lot of the same reasons that he did. Maybe I have a free vote in this case, I’m going to take it. This is not personal. I just think that, I hear the arguments that when do we do something, and we’ve done eight and we’ve agreed, and we’re going to do nine, is nine going to be the magic number? Well, something has to be the magic number. I mean, I grew up in an industry where we used to get complaints from women particularly who laundered their clothes, and so often it happened that the time they switched to our product the dyes let go, because they had been washed so much and they blamed our product. Well, this is almost the same kind of situation. You’ve got to take a time and say, enough is enough. Now I don’t want to cause Mr. Weidman any severe financial hardship, but at least I want to be on record as saying, for me, this is the time that I’m saying no, as the same way Chuck is. We have five votes who say okay. I assume that when we make a motion, there will be a requirement that some heavy planting, a couple of big trees, at least that’s what I heard, and certainly earth tones, or even darker than earth tones, so that the house doesn’t sit, as you come around the corner, and obviously Tyvec’s or the insulating for, they’re the worst thing in the world when you’re building a home, pink wrap. They stare at you. No question. All right, but having said all that, I need a motion to approve, with certain stipulations. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 76-2003 PETER R. WEIDMAN, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Lot 63, 117 Glen Lake Rd., Courthouse Estates. Applicant has constructed a single family dwelling in violation of the minimum front setback requirement. However, we’re moving to approve this based on the balancing test, and whether this benefit can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant, no, we don’t think it can. Is an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties being created, and we’ve agreed that it won’t change the character of the neighborhood. This request is not considered substantial. It’s about 20% relief, and in many cases we’ve granted relief greater than this. There will be no adverse physical or environmental effects as a result of this application, and we all agree that the difficulty is self-created. As a condition to this application, we’re requesting that the applicant plant some mature trees in this location. One suggested is a deciduous tree, the size of three inch, but they should be at least two and of sizeable stature, and also that the color of the house be painted in earth tones. Duly adopted this 17 day of September, 2003, by the following vote: th MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, I was wondering, when you took the polling, I mean, I’m not really in favor of saddling the applicant with any kind of restrictions. Okay. He’s already stated that he’s going to landscape the property. He’s a quality home builder, and it’s not going 58 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/03) to be a shoddy job. I mean, you know, we’re not in the landscaping business. We’re not the Planning Board. So, you know, it’s one thing to, I understand where Mr. Urrico is coming from, and I agree with his sentiments. MR. URRICO-Vote against it, because I won’t approve it without this in there. MR. STONE-I mean, he’s made a motion. We can get a second, we have to get a second for it. We can amend the motion and vote on the amendment. I mean, we certainly go through Parliamentary procedure. MR. BRYANT-I understand that. Parliamentary procedure allows for the discussion of the motion. MR. STONE-We don’t have the motion on the floor yet. MR. BRYANT-Yes, he just finished his motion. MR. STONE-No, we don’t have a second yet. MR. BRYANT-Okay. MR. ABBATE-Second. MR. STONE-Now we have a motion. MR. BRYANT-My point, specifically, is that I don’t think it’s fair to saddle the applicant with specific tree types when we are not qualified to make that determination. I’m not an environmentalist. You can show me a pine from a banana tree, and I don’t know the difference. So I don’t think it’s fair to the applicant. He’s already stated. MR. STONE-Do you want to move to amend the motion? MR. BRYANT-Well, now Mr. Urrico says he’d vote against it. MR. STONE-Well, that’s why we have seven of us. MR. BRYANT-Well, then, basically, I’m going to vote against the motion because I don’t agree with this, I don’t think we’re qualified, as a Board. I mean, how can you make a statement on a motion about a specific type of tree? You can’t. It’s not in our purview as a Board. We’re not the Planning Board. MR. STONE-Okay. I hear you. MR. RICHARDS-May I address the Board for just one minute, Mr. Chairman? MR. STONE-Surely. MR. RICHARDS-If it’ll help smooth this along and bring some unanimity, at least, among most of the Board, we’re certainly willing to stipulate and even amend our application, if that would be helpful, to say that we would put at least two trees, as part of our landscaping efforts, as well as paint the house in earth tones, and I don’t know if that would take some of the onus off the Board on mandating those things. We would stipulate that we would do that. MR. STONE-Well, if you stipulated it, we would probably put it in the motion, just like we did. So the fact that you have, does that help you Allan, they’re willing to stipulate? MR. BRYANT-Well, they say mature trees, generic, and they say, you know, landscaping, which he’s already said in the record that he’d do. I don’t have any problem with it. I don’t 59 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/03) want to be specific about what type of tree and what color of the house. I don’t want to go there. That’s not our purview. MR. RICHARDS-The only question I would have, in making that, is what constitutes a mature tree? We are willing to stipulate and/or amend our application to say that, as part of our proposal, we would agree to plant two trees as part of the landscaping in front of the house, as well as paint the house or side the house in earth tone colors. The only question we had was what would constitute a mature tree as part of that. I did hear earlier this evening a three inch, and I think that would be fine, and so we would approach it that way, and that way the Board doesn’t have to force it on us. We’re willingly accepting that. MR. STONE-Well, we’ll note in the, Roy, are you willing to note? MR. URRICO-I’m willing to amend the motion to the specific type of tree, and replace it with the size three inch diameter. MR. STONE-Okay, and we understand that the applicant has accepted that. I have a second to that. Let’s vote on the motion, please. AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico NOES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone MR. RICHARDS-Thank you. MR. STONE-There you go. MR. BRYANT-This goes to the same issue that we had with the Planning Board, okay. We don’t do planning. We don’t tell them where to put trees or how to put trees. MR. UNDERWOOD-We did over at Sunnyside. Remember that guy that cut all the trees. MR. STONE-We’ve done that, Allan. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Lewis Stone, Chairman 60