Loading...
1997-04-16 L FILE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING APRIL 16, 1997 INDEX Notice of Appeal No. 1-97 Tax Map No. 10-1-19.2 John F. Schriner 1. Area Variance No. 15-1997 Tax Map No. 8-5-19 Chris Carte 12. Use Variance No. 16-1997 Tax Map No. 36-1-1.3 Mike Barber 21. Area Variance No. 17-1997 Tax Map No. 48-3-31, 39.1 43, 44 The Michaels Group 23. Use Variance No. 18-1997 Tax Map No. 134-6-1 Ben Aronson 54. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. -,.. ""--" J (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/16/97) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD FIRST REGULAR MEETING APRIL 16, 1997 7:00 P.M. OF APPEALS MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS THOMAS, CHAIRMAN BONNIE LAPHAM, SECRETARY LEWIS STONE ROBERT KARPELES BRIAN CUSTER MEMBERS ABSENT DONALD 0' LEARY PAUL HAYES CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-JOHN GORALSKI STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 1-97 JOHN F. SCHRINER APPLICANT IS APPEALING A DETERMINATION FROM JIM MARTIN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, CONCERNING PARKING OF AUTOMOBILES BY EMPLOYEES OF THE DUNHAM'S BAY BOAT COMPANY AT THE BOAT STORAGE FACILITY WHILE WORKING AT THE MARINA. LOCATION: OFF OF ROUTE 9L, SOUTH OF THE DUNHAM'S BAY BOAT COMPANY MARINA, TAX MAP NO. 10-1-19.2 IN A LC-42A ZONE. JOHN SCHRINER, PRESENT MR. THOMAS-The public hearing has already been held, and I do believe it's been left open. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. THOMAS-So I'll ask anyone who would like to speak in favor of this to come forward and speak now. This is your last chance, in favor of? Anyone opposed? Come forward and speak. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. STONE-Is that in favor of the appeal or opposed to the appeal? MR. THOMAS-In favor or opposed. MR. STONE-Yes, but in favor of the appeal is opposed to the action. KATHLEEN SALVADOR MRS. SALVADOR-That was my question. Are we in favor or are we opposed to whatever, is it Dunhams Bay Boat Company, or is it John Schriner? MR. THOMAS-I'll read you what it says on here. "The determination of Jim Martin concerning the parking of automobiles owned by Dunhams Bay Boat Company employees at the boat storage facility while working at the Marina". Jim Martin says it can be done, and Mr. Schriner wants to know why. MR. GORALSKI-Before we get too far, could you please identify yourselves for the record? JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador, and this is my wife - 1 - '-- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/16/97) Kathleen. We are residents of North Queensbury and neighboring property owners of the Dunhams Bay Boat Company, Inc. We're here tonight because, fundamentally, we disagree with Jim Martin's interpretation that employee parking can be allowed at this site as a result of the site plan review that was held in 1990. As I said, we're concerned with the Zoning Administrator's interpretation concerning a particular type of parking at Dunhams Bay Boat Company boat storage facility in North Queensbury. We're here tonight because we own property on the west and south side of the parcel of land which supports the Boat Company storage facility. We have owned this property since the storage facility was first constructed and put into operation in 1973. We have experienced the continuous, uninterrupted abuse of the privileges granted to the Dunhams Bay Boat Company, Inc. under Special Permit No. 35 from residentially zoned three acre lands. That is to say, we border this facility and own three acre residentially zoned lands. Our property has always been zoned in one form or another residential. This is from the beginning of zoning in 1967, '68 in this Town. The property on which the boat storage facility has been erected was first zoned residential. The zoning was changed to LC-42 in 1982, and remained as such in spite of the issuance of a Town Comprehensive Plan and map filed in 1989, which designated the land moderate density residential three acre, the same as our abutting three acre land. As I understand, this hearing is being held because Mr. Schriner is appealing the Zoning Administrator's determination that the Dunhams Bay Boat Company be allowed to park their employee's vehicles, and only their employee's vehicles, on the storage property. As I understand, customer parking is expressly prohibited as an allowable use. Is that clear? Am I correct in that assumption? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. SALVADOR-Customer parking is expressly prohibited, and we're here tonight because employee parking was not expressly prohibited. Is that correct? MR. GORALSKI-I assume that's what Mr. Schriner is saying. MR. SALVADOR-Well, what was the basis of Mr. Martin's determination that employee parking is allowed? MR. GORALSKI-Do you want me to answer? MR. THOMAS-Yes, go ahead. MR. GORALSKI-The fact that there's a commercial business there and that an accessory use for any commercial business would be parking for employees, and since that was not expressly not allowed, it is Mr. Martin's determination that because that is a customary accessory use for this commercial operation, that it's allowable. MR. SALVADOR-This property has never been zoned for commercial use. Never been zoned for commercial use. It has been zoned for boat storage. Boat storage. Although you fail to define boat storage in your regulations, that is it, and you define very clearly commercial activity, and you have never defined boat storage as a commercial activity. So if that's the basis for his determination, it just has no foundation. I would like to continue. A site plan review and final approval by the Queensbury Town Planning Board on November 14, 1990 specifically addressed the issue of customer parking, and it was stated that the site plan did not include customer parking. I think we've affirmed that. I have read the minutes of the last two Zoning Board of Appeals meetings of February 19, 1997, at which we were unable to attend, and I understand the application for the appeal of the determination was tabled such that the Zoning Board members could make themselves aware of the circumstances which lead to the site plan approval of - 2 - '- --/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/16/97) 1990. In this regard, I believe you've all received the minutes of that proceeding, and I guess it was tabled because you needed an opportunity to review those minutes. MR. KARPELES-Yes, and look at the site. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. I'd like to ask two questions. One, have you, each of you read those minutes, and have each of you visited the site in the last couple of days? MR. STONE-Not in the last couple of days, to answer your question specifically. MR. SALVADOR-How recently? MR. STONE-Within two months. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. You got through the snow all right? Okay. MR. STONE-It was actually, I think before the snow. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. Good. Mr. Karpeles, you have? MR. KARPELES-Yes. I was up there today. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. Mr. Thomas? MR. THOMAS-I was up there within the last two months, and I have read all the Planning Board meeting minutes. MR. SALVADOR-Mrs. Lapham? MRS. LAPHAM-I was up there when the original hearing was scheduled, back in, whenever the very first one was scheduled, I went before that. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. I will assume it is just to conclude that the site plan review and approval process of 1990 is then germane to this interpretation, as to whether or not employee parking is allowed by said site plan approval. Also, then, if that be the case, the Special Use Permit No. 35, issued to the Dunhams Bay Boat Company in 1972 is also germane to this interpretation. Said Special Use Permit No. 35 was issued after public hearing and comments and contained some pertinent provisos. How were these provisos arrived at? Some background information is necessary and should be a part of this record. I reviewed what I believed to be the first or at least the first one of the earliest official Zoning Ordinances adopted by the Town of Queensbury. It was adopted in July 1967. This is the Zoning Ordinance that was in effect and governed the issuance of a Special Use Permit in 1972, and specifically the Special Use Permit No. 35. This was the Ordinance which granted the Town Zoning Board of Appeals the power to allow so called nonconforming uses, or non-permitted uses within certain zones, residential in this case. Now, lets frame the picture at that time. We have a virgin piece of land in North Queensbury. A virgin piece of land zoned R-1, the highest level residential zoning on the books. Mr. Schriner's predecessor owns R-1 land surrounding this parcel, and we own 130 acres of R-1 zoned land on the south and west side of this parcel. Okay. So what we're going to do now with this Special Use Permit, is we're going to interrupt the zoning plan of this whole neighborhood, okay, with a non- conforming, non-permitted use. R-1, single family residential is the zoning. Let us bring into focus the zoning philosophy and ordinance in North Queensbury, at the time the Special Use Permit No. 35 was issued to the Dunhams Bay Boat Company. Significant parameters in the R-1 zone at that time. The Town only had five residential zones, five. That early zoning plan wasn't a bad deal. We might better have stuck with it. There were five residential - 3 - ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/16/97) zoning districts. There were three commercial and two manufacturing. Specifically the R-1 permitted use was, as I said, the single family detached dwelling. However, several other uses were allowed, provided they could meet certain specified conditions, those constraints and requirements of the Special Use Permit. What the Dunhams Bay Boat Company's intention to store boats there were only two uses of those listed that could come close to qualifying for such a permit. Of course Marina and Boat Storage. Boat Storage. The absence of water at the storage site precluded this Special Use from qualifying as a marina. There was only one other thing they could do, boat storage. Neither nor boat storage were defined in the 1968 Ordinance. I guess it was left to everyone to apply their own definition and common sense to these activities. Therefore, the setting within which the Special Use Permit was applied and granted, one, all lands in the neighborhood zoned R-1, one single family dwelling. Boat storage allowed with a special use permit, and only boat storage. Parking of any description is not mentioned in the application, was not addressed in the subject of the provisos. It was not provided for. It was not discussed in any way, shape or form. The Special Use Permit application filed for in 1972 was for a boat storage building of 11,200 square feet in a residential neighborhood, R-1, the highest class residential neighborhood, 11,200 square feet. No mention of parking for customers or employees, no parking plan was submitted, no parking was discussed. No parking expressly allowed. In addition, the Zoning Board of Appeals found that appropriate provisions for access were available, access facilities adequate from public streets or highways were available, full and adequate parking areas and off street loading spaces were provided for. All in conformity with the proposed parking requirements of the Town of Queensbury. However, there were apparently concerns that the character of our residential neighborhood might become somewhat damaged in spite of the presence of a building somewhat similar to those not permitted at the Mooring Post Marina today. Most of you know of what I speak. The neighbors, our predecessors in title, Mr. Schriner's predecessors in title, agreed to those conditions which they thought necessary to protect their residential neighborhood, and it goes without saying, their property values. Remember what we are doing here is allowing a non-existent, non- conforming use to get started in a residential zone. Imagine trying that today? Boat storage, these are the provisos, now, that are in Special Use Permit No. 35. Our neighbors agreed to them, in writing, okay. Excuse me, our predecessors agreed to them. Boat storage. All boats would be under cover, boat storage, under cover. This proviso alone placed an operating level on the storage facility being permitted. We knew the square footage of the building and we knew the height of the building. How many ever boats he could get in there of whatever size, that was it. That was the limit of operation, in a residential neighborhood. The volume of the building as well as the operating level of 130 boats was fixed with that proviso. In addition, no mechanical work was to be done outside the building. What do you think of it today? What do you think of what you saw up there today? No boats over 24 feet. Now, lets look at what they got initially with the permission of the neighbors. The neighbors agreed, concede to impact their residential neighborhood and their property values with a storage facility, okay, providing we lived with these three conditions. That wasn't much to ask for, was it? There was no mention of seasonal boat storage, summer time up and all. The concept of boat storage at that time was, and we've talked to our predecessors about this. They're understanding. The boats went up in October and they came down in May. The rest of the time you didn't know it was an impact. There's a steady stream of traffic today. It wasn't a marina operation. It was a boat storage, and we distinguish between the two, because you're not a marina unless you're on the water, according to the Town. No parking provided for, and no covered parking. On top of all of this, some time after our predecessors gave their consent to the proposed invasion - 4 - -- -t (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/16/97) of their residential neighborhood, the location of the storage building was changed, for what reason I can't tell you, but it is now in close proximity to our lands, and on the first plan, it was over on the other side of the lot, 13 acre lot. It got changed for some reason. I can't explain it. The next significant happenstance that takes place is we roll the clock forward to 1979, and pertinent to this interpretation is the fact that on December 12th, Dunhams Bay Boat Company applied for and was granted Special Use Permit No. 87 for an 1800 square foot showroom addition. This is down at the Marina, but I bring up this subject because the application was filed with an unsigned and undated evidence of compliance, which states in relevant part, "the extent of expansion 1800 foot showroom," a showroom, okay, and "the purpose for which it is proposed, a sales area, is such that the applicant believes that there are existing sufficient access facilities adequate for the estimated traffic from public streets and pedestrian walkways so as to ensure that public safety will be preserved and traffic congestion avoided." The applicant believes that presently there are full adequate parking areas and off street loading spaces at the site, that's down on the water, this site of this project. Is adequate, he stated that. The Zoning Board of Appeals found that the Board determines that there is appropriate provision for access facilities, adequate for the estimated traffic from public streets and/or highways and that there are pedestrian walkways so as to ensure public safety and avoid traffic congestion. Further, that there are full, adequate parking areas and off street loading spaces in conformity with the proposed parking requirements of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Queensbury and all other related Ordinances. I think they address the parking issue then, don't you? They said no problem, and they went ahead and gave Special Use Permit No. 87. The Planning Board conducted a zoning review and found that the type of business, retail sales, will not create significant additional traffic or parking requirements. We, therefore, recommend approval. The Planning Board also approved a sign, not to exceed the limits of the Lake George Park Commission Sign Ordinance. The Lake George Park Commission Sign Ordinance has a height limitation of 20 feet above grade, and an area of 41 square feet. Have you checked their sign lately? Since 1982 that sign has not been in conformance, and no one, no one will enforce the Ordinance. This is what we get. This use was billed as an expansion of a marina, which was allowed with the Special Use Permit. You see commercial sales room, retail sales, isn't allowed. So we bill it as a marina expansion, okay. See, there are different parking impacts with retail sales than there are with a marina operation. That's why we're in this pickle. In reality, it was an expansion of a commercial use, a showroom, C-1, retail business, or C-3, boat storage sales and repairs, neither of which was allowed under any condition in the then R-4 zone. Be that aside for the moment, in 1982, a revised Town Zoning Ordinance becomes effective on July 11th. This Ordinance does not define commercial boat storage, which is what we are dealing with here, nor is there any supplementary regulation in this Article VII that deal with commercial boat storage. However, the subj ect of parking is addressed at length in Article VII, Supplemental Regulations. I have a copy of it here. It's a full page type written. I'm not going to bore you reading it. It probably reads the same as our parking regulations do today, but we knew what we were talking about when we said parking was not a problem. This is what they were measuring it against. There it is. More significantly, the zoning definition for land on which the storage facility was located was changed from R-l to LC-42. What does this mean? LC-42 is still a form of residential zoning. The only stipulation being that one needs 42 acres of land for each principal dwelling, but it is a residential form of zoning. In reality, the zoning has never changed. The perception has changed, but the zoning has never changed. Different levels. So fundamentally the residential character of such development should be maintained. In this process, our lands got zoned from R-1 to RR-3A. Right next door, - 5 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/16/97) and the underwater lands in this vicinity were very thoughtfully zoned RR-1A. You're familiar with that. What does all this add up to? Basically a fine tuning of the residential zoning, now allowing, not as a permitted use, not as an accessory use, but as an allowable use under site plan, commercial boat storage. The zoning picture in North Queensbury and our neighborhood remains as such until the late 1980's when the Town embarks on a new Comprehensive Plan. This is a copy of the Town's Comprehensive Plan from 1989. In 1989, the Town zoned this, this is the area they're talking about. Basically the Town continued to respect the residential character of this neighborhood. We have MH is moderate high density residential one acre in this area, okay, and M is moderate density residential three acre here. Now if you look at this plan closely, you'll see a structure there. That's the storage structure. It's well within the moderate density residential three acre, and the rest of this land around here remained Land Conservation, but fundamentally this area we're talking about remained with the intent of being residential. The Comprehensive Plan states, for North Queensbury Neighborhood Number One, "Marina development on Lake George in this neighborhood is located in residential neighborhoods and is a pre-existing non- conforming use. As these facilities expand, they are changing the residential resort character of the area. In addition to Marina development, boat storage on residential lots is also becoming aesthetically degrading to year round residential living in this area. Boat storage in residential areas should be limited. This is in 1988. Increased commercial activity in general is changing the character of the neighborhood. The growth of non-conforming, pre-existing uses in residential neighborhoods, in spite of zoning controls, resulting from increased tourism and population growth, should be controlled, and focused into specific areas to service the neighborhood while encouraging sound, environmentally responsive residential development, continued vigilance to the growth of nonconforming uses is essential to maintaining the integri ty of the residential zoning in this neighborhood. Now this plan was prepared by, I think if you'll remember Dick Roberts was Chairman of our Planning Board at that time, and he's on this Committee. Mr. Cartier is a member of this Committee and served on the Planning Board that granted the site plan approval in 1990. So they were fully aware of the intent to preserve the residential character of that neighborhood. They worked on the Plan. I've taken the trouble to read and digest a few documents here I'd like to share with you. I have, from the Government Law Center, a manual here on inter-cooperation in land use planning. I have here from the Town Law for Town Officials manual, Zoning and Planning. I have here from the Secretary of State's Office, Guide to Planning and Zoning of New York State, and I have here a manual, "All You Ever Want to Know about Zoning", and I believe you people have all been given a copy of this, by virtue of being on this Board, right? Lets refer to Page 28. The statutory requirement that zoning be in accordance with the comprehensive or well considered plan reflects the concept that zoning exists as a means to achieve community development objectives. Our object was to preserve the residential character of that land. It is the only significant substantial requirement imposed on zoning by the State enabling statutes, and it is really another way of saying that zoning must be reasonable. The courts have interpreted this requirement by defining the relationship between zoning and planning as one in which the zoning carries out a land use policy which reflects the needs of the community as well as the region. Now that was in 1988 we did that. This site plan came along in 1990. The zoning at that time did not reflect that plan. The zoning at that time was still such that that structure was in LC-42, a class of residential land use. Now, you've all read, I mean, that was quite a story, that series of meetings we went through to get that site plan through. Significant during that process is the fact that, as I had mentioned before, Mr. Cartier and Mr. Roberts participated in this Comprehensive Plan, and there is nary a word mentioned in here. - 6 - '- '--' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/16/97) There is nary a word mentioned of Comprehensive Plan. We got into this site plan review simply because the applicant had been, for years, in non-compliance. He was violating every rule in the book. He had clear cut the land, stored all those boats outside. That wasn't allowed. You see the junk that's parked up there. Mechanical work, I mean, the notes here are filled with a scenario on oil storage. In a residential zone? Oil storage? That just can't be. Those are red herrings. That oil problem, that was a red herring in here. The materials on the road to keep the dust down, red herrings. The issue here is the permitting of a nonconforming use in a residential zone. That's what's at issue here. Also in these minutes you probably read the scenario where we had asked Mr. Caimano to recuse himself. He did recuse himself initially, and then he, because the votes weren't available for his poli tical ally. The votes weren't available, so Mr. Caimano had to come back into the fray. Also, you'll notice in the minutes here, that Mr. Hagan mentioned the fact that he served with Mr. Howard on various Boards. One of those Boards was the LGA, and Mr. Hagan should have recused himself also, okay, but he did not. As we go through these minutes, you know why Mr. Caimano recused himself. He had a relative working for the Boat Company, and it's no secret that an operation like the Dunhams Bay Boat Company buys a lot of advertising space in the Post Star. There's no question about that. Mr. Caimano's the advertising manager. We ran in at the County, this project ran into, at the County, for the first time, we showed up at a County Planning Board meeting and were told, no public participation. For the first time. Mrs. Bitner was Chairwoman of that Committee. Mrs. Bitner's the wife of Bill Bitner, former bank president. You know where an operation like Dunhams Bay Boat Company finances its floor plan. You know where they do that? You think she might have recused herself? No. No. So we go on, and you know, it's the failure of the Town to enforce the conditions of the Special Use Permit, and not have to wear the black hat. I mean, that operation should have been shut down. I mean shut down. No. We try to find a way, in this maze of zoning, to legitimize a wrong doing, and by God we did it. It took a while. It took a few meetings, took a few hearings, but we did it. In that site plan review, there was absolutely no discussion of parking. There was no parking plan submitted, absolutely none. It was not on the agenda. It wasn't needed. It wasn't needed, okay. It if was on the agenda, it was a whole new use, because you have parking regulations, and you have to meet certain standards to park, and let me tell you something, when you're parking employees vehicles, you've got Federal regulations to meet. It's called OSHA, okay, handicapped parking, and all that nice stuff. That was never addressed. Now, there's one more thing I'd like to mention, and that is that if, in fact, Mr. Howard is allowed to park his employee's vehicles there, then he's going to be running cross ways with his, Mr. Howard applied for and received a Class A Marina Permit from the Lake George Park Commission, and when he first submitted that permit, he had just indicated his land parcel down on the lake as qualifying for this Marina permit. The Park Commission came back and said on Parcel 10-1-19.2, that's the storage area, there's a Marina operation there, and that's got to be permitted, okay. Now, as the Park Commission defines Marina, okay, Marina means any facility located in whole or in part within the Park which provides services for berthing, places for vessels, by engaging in any of the following: the sale of marine products or services, except for such sale as part of a dry land facility which does not quick launch. Now that pure boat storage, up on the hill there, with all the vessels in the barn, okay, is a dry land facility, and Mr. Howard was able to get his Class A Marina Permit without listing that parcel on his permit, because that's all it is, is a dry land storage facility. Because a Marina, okay, if it's a Marina facility, it has to do this. Does not quick launch vessels or regularly service vessels berthed on the waters of Lake George. Well that facility supports the services of boats berthed on Lake George. Now he must, I was not present at these meetings. - 7 - I l (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/16/97) We were away, and I haven't seen the testimony, but I assume that this parcel of land was dropped off of that Marina permit simply because it's considered a dry land facility which does not regularly service vessels berthed on the waters of Lake George. Now you can't have employee parking and still not service vessels on Lake George. What are the employees doing? If, in fact, Mr. Martin's decision is upheld, then there is a provision in the Park Commission Regulations for re-opening the Marina application, Marina permit application. Also, they also, in granting this permit, the Marina Permit, the Lake George Park Commission Class A Marina Permit, they addressed parking also. They addressed parking also, and the Commission was kind enough to prepare for Mr. Howard a parking plan showing 42 parking places in that area down on the Lake. I have the plan, but I can't find it. This is the parking plan that the Park Commission prepared for Mr. Howard. There are 42 parking places in that little area down there. All of them on a Town road. Okay, and their regulations say "on the premises". Some day, somehow, some way we're going to have to address these issues. I don't know where it's going to be, and I don't know where the forum is going to be, but those are my views. Are there any questions? MR. THOMAS-Any questions for Mr. Salvador? MR. SALVADOR-Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Would anyone else like to speak in opposition? MR. SCHRINER-My name is John Schriner. I have property over on Lake George. The only thing I want to add to what John is saying, the previous owner of the camp I now own, Mr. Shortsleeves, when that showroom application was in, he came down here along with another neighbor, Mrs. Woodin. They objected to this. Because of the height of it, the camp I now own, Shortsleeves old camp, we lost the view, complete east shore view of Dunham's Bay. Completely. That's why he objected to it, but it didn't make any difference, and over to this map that John was just looking for, this Class One Marina application, I happened to go to that in the winter, I don't know, three, four years ago, whatever it happened to have been, and I brought up the subj ect of them not having parking available for 42 customer vehicles, which this map shows, and I also brought up the subject of, Roger also had nine or ten employees, plus vehicles that were company owned, and Roger assured that Board that he had plenty of room for everybody, employees and all, and he admitted that he knew that there was no parking up at the boat storage facility at that time, and so that's about it. He got this permit anyway, and the only thing I'd like to say is that right-of-way road, as I stated back here in February, that goes up through my property, right close to the camp, the whole bit. I have to put up with this dust, me and my family, and I've got grandchildren that play over there, and these kids don't care about speed, and they're not even on his payroll at the time they're going to be using this road, that's the point, and there's no way to control them. I don't care what anybody says. They go up there after work, have a few drinks. They come down through. They could care less of what goes on, and I feel that all this activity has devalued that property, and if this does go through, as I asked once before, who's going to enforce it? Who's going to determine which car belongs to the employee, which car belongs to the customer? There's no way to do this. It's not possible. This all takes place on weekends. Nobody in the Town is working on the weekend. So who's going to enforce it? And at this time, I would like to thank this Board for postponing that last month's meeting. Because I was unable to attend. I had pneumonia and I just couldn't come up. So I appreciate your extending that until tonight. That's about all I have to say. MR. SALVADOR-I want you to know that with regard to this Park - 8 - '- -.J (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/16/97) Commission Class A Marina Permit, the Park Commission does send the Town the applicant's application, and the Town has every opportunity to comment on it. I haven't seen the Town active in this area. Our permit is coming up for renewal shortly. We'll see if there's a change in attitude, but they tend to duck this, and that's what's causing some of the problem here. If we're going to have these rules and regulations, by God we're going to enforce them. I don't like them any more than anyone else does. I don't like them. I like to think the free system can work, freedom can work, but others feel we need this, and you have a monopoly on law and justice, and it's up to you to get out there and do the job. MR. THOMAS-Anyone else? I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-All right. Lou, what do you think? MR. STONE-Thanks. Well, first of all, the matter before us is a very simple matter. I understand Mr. Salvador's historical review, and obviously there is a great deal of anger, a great deal of concern that has occurred over the past 24 years, and I certainly don't condone a lot of the problems that may have occurred, but the matter before us tonight is very simple. Do we agree with the Zoning Administrator as the fact that customer parking is allowed on that parcel. MR. GORALSKI-Employee parking. MR. STONE-I'm sorry, employee parking, that employee parking is allowed on those infrequent occasions, according to the owner of the property, stated in the record at the February meeting, that it's only on two or three occasions a year. Is that determination all right as far as this Board is concerned? That's the only thing that is before us this evening. The fact that it may be on LC-42 land, it may be residential property. All of these are important facts, but not to this particular determination that we have to make tonight. That's what we're asked to do, pure and simple. MR. SALVADOR-If I might, the regulations don't speak to levels of use with regard to parking. MR. THOMAS-No, the public hearing's closed. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. MR. STONE-Well, the information given to us in a public hearing is that it's used infrequently. The Zoning Administrator has said employee parking is allowed. That's the question we have. I also here Mr. Schriner say that the kids go up there on weekends. I really don't think that's a matter of this Board. That is an enforcement situation, but it sounds to me like a police enforcement situation, to me. MR. SCHRINER-Can I just answer that? MR. THOMAS-No, I'd rather not, since the public is closed. MR. SCHRINER-When I said kids, I don't mean outside kids. I call them employee's kids, because they're kids to me. I'm talking about employees. MR. STONE-But you did say they're there, as I heard you, on weekends when they're not being employed. Therefore, they're not employees. You said that, sir, I didn' t say that. Your words, but the point is, that's what we, and quite frankly, I think we're dealing with a very limited action here, and that, if according to the owner of the property, it's only once or twice a year, I don't - 9 - \ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/16/97) have a problem. MR. THOMAS-Robert, what do you think? MR. KARPELES-Well, I tend to agree with Lou. I think that we are just dealing with the parking issue, and the parking issue of employees. I also read that it's only several times a year that the employees want to park up there. I think we ought to stipulate just exactly what times of the year they are allowed to park up there, if it's two times, if it's Fourth of July, if it's when they're going to have a boat show. I think that would ease the enforcement, and I think that would make the owner of the facility happy because he has stated in public record that it's only several times a year. MR. SALVADOR-We've gone from one or two tò several now. MR. THOMAS-Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-Well, I tend to agree with Lou, in that being a neighbor there, I pass through every weekend and so forth, and I have not found it impossible to get through to Dunham's Bay to my property, since it is several times a year, and the other thing I found was that it seems to me we've heard very little from the property owner's, other than Mr. Schriner, and what we're hearing a lot from is one of the three nonconforming uses. I mean, there are three on Dunham's Bay, that I'm aware of, and that's who we're hearing from. MR. THOMAS-Brian? MR. SALVADOR-We're living within our regulatory program. Okay. There have been no complaints to this Town regarding (lost words) . MR. THOMAS-The public hearing is closed. We're trying to make a decision up here, and we've got to get going, it's almost eight o'clock. Brian? MR. CUSTER-Well, the first thing that comes to mind with me is the site plan that was reviewed in 1990 has been approved, and yet the first notice of this complaint is 1996. That's six years have transpired, and I'd like to know what happened in six years, has this problem been going on, and why hasn't it been brought to the Board's attention earlier? MR. SALVADOR-They just started doing it. MR. CUSTER-Six years is an awful long time for something not to have developed and been discussed with the Board. I agree with Lou. I think it's an issue with the parking. It's our understanding that parking is allowed there, from our interpretation, and if it's restricted to one or two, three times a year and controlled, I don't think that there's any need to discuss it further. MR. THOMAS-I agree with the rest of the Board. On Site Plan No. 28-1990, Introduced by Nick Caimano, seconded by Carol Pulver, a resolution was made to grant the storage of 70 boats and up to 25 trailers without boats on Dunham's Bay Boat Company on the east side of Route 9L with four stipulations. It was passed unanimously that Dunham's Bay Boat Storage Company could have a boat storage facility in an LC-42 zone, which they gave by Site Plan Review use, and under the parking regulations, for a marina/boat storage at one space for every one and a half boats stored. So to me, if they give them approval, site plan approval for a boat storage, then the parking goes with it, and the only thing that was mentioned about parking in there was after the motion was made, Mr. Cartier said, There is no patron parking on that property up there, correct? - 10 - ~ --- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/16/97) Anybody who uses the Marina does not park up there in that area at all, correct? Mr. Rehm, the lawyer for Dunham's Bay, said that's my understanding, that's correct. Mr. Cartier said, okay, but that was after the motion was passed. So, to me, the parking would be allowed up there. Would someone like to make a motion? MOTION TO DENY NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 1-97 JOHN F. SCHRINER, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham: Affirming the determination by Jim Martin, Zoning Administrator, concerning parking of automobiles by employees at the Dunham's Bay Boat Company, at the boat storage facility, while working at the Marina. Duly adopted this 16th day of April, 1997, by the following vote: MR. KARPELES-You're not going to specify any length of time? MR. STONE-I'm certainly willing to, and that this employee parking occur no more than two to three times a year per the testimony of the owner of the Marina. MR. THOMAS-I don't know about that. MR. STONE-I don't know if we can put that in there. MR. THOMAS-I don't think we can, if we're just making a determination, yes, can he park; no, can't he park, yes or no. I would take off that last part. MR. STONE-Okay. MRS. LAPHAM-My question is what we're affirming is whether or not we're believing in Jim Martin's decision. MR. GORALSKI-That's correct. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes, rather than whether there's parking or not. MR. THOMAS-Yes. So we can't put any stipulations on there. Either parking yes, or parking no. MRS. LAPHAM-That we agree with his decision or we don't. MR. KARPELES-Well, we might agree with it if it has stipulations and restrictions and disagree with it if it doesn't. MR. GORALSKI-That's the way you would have to vote, then. MR. STONE-Can we make a separate motion as a recommendation? John, it would have no effect? MR. GORALSKI - No . MR. STONE-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-You don't have any jurisdiction to do anything but either agree with Jim Martin or agree with the appellant, Mr. Schriner. MR. THOMAS-Yes, so you can strike out that last part about the two times a year stuff. MR. STONE-Strike out the last part. AYES: Mr. Custer, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas - 11 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/16/97) NOES: Mr. Karpeles ABSENT: Mr. O'Leary, Mr. Hayes MR. THOMAS-So the Zoning Administrator's decision is upheld. The parking can be allowed up there per the Zoning Ordinance. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 15-1997 TYPE II WR-IA/CEA CHRIS CARTE OWNER: ERMA AND CLYDE CARTE THIRD HOUSE ON LEFT PAST SUNSET LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A PRIVATE GARAGE/STORAGE BUILDING AND REMOVE AN EXISTING STORAGE BUILDING. THE NEW CONSTRUCTION WILL NOT MEET THE REAR AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS OF THE WR-IA ZONE. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE SETBACKS LISTED IN SECTION 179-16, WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL ONE ACRE ZONE. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 4/9/97 TAX MAP NO. 8 - 5 -19 LOT SIZE: 0.66 ACRES SECTION 179-16 CHRIS CARTE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 15-1997, Chris Carte, Meeting Date: April 16, 1997 "APPLICANT: Chris Carte PROJECT LOCATION: 213 Assembly Point Rd. Proposed Project and Conformance with the Ordinance: The applicant proposes to construct a private garage/storage building. The new building will be placed in the northwest corner of the property on Assembly Point Road, and will not meet the side and rear yard requirements of the WR-1A zone. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: The applicant states that relief would enable the replacement of an existing storage building which would not limit adjacent property owners' view of Lake George. 2. Feasible alternatives: The applicant may be able to construct the new building behind the existing home on this property. This would allow the applicant to build a storage building which would meet rear and side yard setbacks and would not effect surrounding property owners' views of Lake George. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The applicant is seeking 15 feet of side yard setback relief and 11 feet of rear yard relief. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? No negative impacts are expected with this application for relief. The construction of the building in the proposed location will improve views of Lake George from the property to the west. 5. Is this difficulty self created? The desire of the applicant to improve the view for the property owner to the west makes it difficult to construct this new building in the location of the existing storage building. Staff Comments & Concerns: Staff believes relief would benefit the adjacent property to the west by improving their view of Lake George. The applicant should indicate what the height of this building will be. Detached accessory buildings are limited to 16 feet in height by the Zoning Ordinance. SEQR: Type II, no further action required." MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. Carte. MR. CARTE-My name is Chris Carte. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is there anything you want to add? Other than what's read in the application? MR. CARTE-No. I think I covered most everything. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Any questions for Mr. Carte from the Board? MR. STONE-I have a few. I think it's to your credit that you say the benefit will help your neighbor, but I, quite frankly, don't - 12 - '--" -../ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/16/97) think that's part of the benefit to the applicant. The relief that you're asking would enable you to replace an existing thing. Secondly, on inspection of your property, it appeared to me, when I was there today, that the number of trees on the back property line already prevent the neighbor from seeing the lake very well. There are a number of trees. I counted at least six. Of course there's one in their yard which is not quite in front of the window, but almost, but there are six trees along the back side that at least two of which are in the sight line as you drew it on your application. I'm concerned that you did not mention those in your application because they're obviously there. They obviously have an impact on the benefit that you were talking about. There is also, why isn't it feasible, in your mind, to put the thing in the back of your property within the side setback and far enough away from the line? MR. CARTE-Well, it's not my property in the first place. It's my parents. MR. STONE-But you're the applicant, though, are you not? MR. CARTE-Yes. MR. STONE-And what basis are you the applicant? concern here, Mr. Chairman? Do we have a MR. GORALSKI-No, there's an authorization to act as agent. MR. STONE-I'm sorry, there is. I forgot to look. You're right. MR. CARTE-Obviously, it is possible to locate the garage in the location that you're talking about, but I have three concerns about putting it there. One is we have a leachfield in the back yard that we need to steer clear of as per the Town. You're not supposed to drive vehicles over the fingers of the leachfield. The second thing is that there are already established, six established raised garden beds in that location. Granted they could be moved, and the third thing is I'm not sure how difficult or easy it would be to maneuver, this building would be primarily used for storage of ~ boat in the winter, along with some lawn furniture, a lawn mower, whatever, and I'm concerned about being able to negotiate up in that area with a 20 or 21 foot boat which sits on about a 25 or 26 foot trailer, pulled by a 16 or 17 foot long truck. MR. STONE-Could you show us where the leachfield is? It would be helpful, because we don't have it. You didn't put it on here. MR. CARTE-Right. Well, the leachfield extends out. I don't know how I can show you, other than describe it. MR. STONE-Well, you can come up and just draw it on, an approximation at least. MR. THOMAS-Unless you've got it drawn on that one. MR. STONE-Unless you've got it drawn there. So we can just have an idea where it is. MR. CARTE-Basically, the leachfield, or the septic line comes out of the house somewhere in here, and extends over in this direction, and then kind of, fingers of it kind of extend out like this. MR. STONE-Where's your tank? MR. CARTE-Well, that's right in here. MR. STONE-Okay. - 13 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/16/97) MR. CARTE-Somewhere kind of in that area there, and if we hug the line here, if you were up there, you saw the gravel. MR. STONE-Right. Yes. MR. CARTE-You can avoid those. I'm not sure exactly how easy it would be. I never tried it, you know, it's one of those things that's kind of hard to tell, but I'm not sure how easy it would be. There's a big pine tree somewhere right in this area here, how easy it would be to negotiate. I assume you're talking about locating a garage in this area here. MR. STONE-Well, that's what the Staff suggests, somewhere back of the house. MR. CUSTER-You've got boats there now. MR. STONE-You have a boat there now. MR. CUSTER-Two. MR. CARTE-There's a catamaran there now. The other boat is not there. It's at my house now, being prepared to be put in the lake, and that catamaran is not going to be in there either. That's my brother's, and it shouldn't have been there for as long as it has. MR. GORALSKI-Just to be clear on this, when George wrote those notes, he did not know where the leachfield is, and certainly we ar not proposing that he locate the garage where he would have to drive over the leachfield to get to it. If that's a constraint, then it shouldn't be placed there. MR. CARTE-Well, I mean, that's one of my concerns. I have those three concerns I just told you about, but the other thing is, Mrs. Fraiser is here tonight, at the meeting, and I think when you say that she currently has a limited or, I don't know if you said no or limited view of the lake, I think, you know, perhaps you can let her speak for whether or not she thinks she has a view of the lake currently and whether or not she would if we located the building 25 feet from the property line, because I think she does currently have a view. Tree limbs can be trimmed. A building cannot, and I also have no opposition from the Laraia family which is located directly to the north of us, and without opposition from either of those property owners who would be most effected by this, I'm not sure what the big deal is. ERMA CARTE MRS. CARTE-You mentioned the six trees. We took down at least three right after we got the property and Mrs. Fraiser said that was very nice of you. Now I can see down through and I can walk down through. MR. STONE-I also had a concern which we may address when we get to a motion. I was concerned with the materials along side the existing A Frame, the old tires. MR. CARTE-As am I, yes. That whole area needs to be cleaned up. We definitely should have done it before now, and I intend to do that, when we have a building that will contain the things that are usable, and the rest of it goes to the dump. MR. STONE-Okay. No further questions at this time. MR. THOMAS-Anyone else? Questions for the applicant? I have just one. How high is this proposed building to be? MR. CARTE-Well, it will be less than the limit, and I don't have a - 14 - ~ --- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/16/97) firm building plan in place at this point, but I would suspect probably 14 feet to the peak. MR. THOMAS-Is there any storage above the main floor? MR. CARTE-In the peak? Possibly. I might possibly make provisions for putting light weight things up in the top. MR. THOMAS-You're not proposing any living quarters up there, are you? MR. CARTE-No, sir. It's boat storage and lawn furniture. MRS. LAPHAM-When we discuss feasible alternatives, is there some reason why it couldn't be moved down and closer to the house? Then it would avoid your leachfield all together and it would be in conformance and not necessarily block in her view. MR. CARTE-I'm not sure where that would be. MRS. LAPHAM-More attached to the house on the north side. On the north side of the house, so it would be northeast, or east of where you propose. MR. CARTE-Well, access to it would be extremely limited since there's a pretty good grade there leading up to the house. I'm not sure exactly how I would use it. It would be, I think it would be difficult to use, avoiding that leachfield. MRS. LAPHAM-Even down in that area, you think it would not be feasible to do that? MR. CARTE-Are you suggesting that the 30 foot dimension extend out north of the house? MRS. LAPHAM-No. MR. CARTE-There would be no way that you could make that corner with a truck and a trailer, to get a boat in there. Absolutely no way. MRS. LAPHAM-I was thinking of it the same way you have it, but attached to the house, and it would come down, and you'd swing in from your existing gravel drive, and I'm just asking if that's feasible or not. I mean, I don't know, I'm not building it. MR. CARTE-I wouldn't say that it is. I can see a number of problems with that. I'm just thinking about it quickly here, and it kind of, an attached garage is not what we're interested in doing. It kind of changes the whole character of the house, for one thing, to stick a garage on the end of it like that. MR. STONE-John, I don't want to belabor the point that I asked about what his role is. I don't have it in my packet, the authorization, and if it is, I don't see it. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. Well, the point is, even if it's not, I believe it is, but even if it's not, Mrs. Carte is here, I believe, right? MR. CARTE-She is. MR. GORALSKI-And she can certainly come up here and say that her son is speaking on her behalf. MR. STONE-Agreed. MRS. CARTE-I think if you look, you'll find out that the property is listed in the name of Kelly, Cindy, Lindsey, John, Cathy, and - 15 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/16/97) Chris Carte. MR. CARTE-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-It's not an issue. MR. CARTE-It certainly shouldn't be an issue. MR. THOMAS-Any more questions for the applicant before I open the public hearing? I'll open the public hearing. Those wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed to this application? Opposed to? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. THOMAS-Is there any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-Let me look. No, there is none. MR. CARTE-You didn't receive a letter from Mr. Frank Adamo? MRS. LAPHAM-No. According to this file, we haven't received any letters at all. I mean, I'll look through quickly. All right. Okay. This is from the APA that says approval of the Carte variance would apparently not be subject to our review because neither shoreline requirements, density nor other program approval standards are found. Okay. Public comment. Excuse me. I wasn't noted where it usually is. Frank Adamo, JR., 124 Old Stone Hill Road, Pound Ridge, NY 10576-1560, April 14, 1997 "Dear Mrs. Lapham and Members of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals RE: Chris Carte's Variance application, Area Variance No. 15-1997 I am an adjoining property owner to the Carte property and have received your public hearing notice dated April 9, 1997. I am the owner of Block 3400 8. -9-10 and the owner of Block 3400 8. -5-21 which adjoins the property on which the proposed alteration is to be made. Please be advised that I have no objection to the Carte's application and by a copy of this letter I wish my neighbor's well and the best of luck in the successful completion of their project. Very truly yours, Frank A. Adamo, JR." And there was a copy to Erma and Clyde Carte, Assembly Point Road. MR. THOMAS-All right. That's it? I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-I'll start down with you, Brian. What do you think? MR. CUSTER-I think there's plenty of room on that property back line to build this garage where the existing boats are being stored, when I was there to visit it, and at this point in time, I'd like to see the design, too, before I commit to something like this at this stage. I'm not in favor of it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lou? MR. STONE-It's crystallized some of my thinking. I think lacking a three dimensional view of this particular piece of property, this building, I think it's very difficult to grant a variance without knowing what they're going to put there. I also think, I guess I would like to see further study on whether or not we could put a garage behind the leachfield and have ease of access. Just the fact that the applicant is saying he doesn't think it would be easy to get the boat in there, that's not good enough for me. I've gotten boats in strange places, and it's once a year getting it in and getting it out is usually relatively simple. MR. THOMAS-Bob? - 16 - ~ - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/16/97) MR. KARPELES-I agree with the other two members of the Board. I think our mandate is to grant minimum relief, and I'm not convinced this is minimum relief. MR. CARTE-Regardless of neighbor's comments, effected property owner's comments? MR. KARPELES-That's right. MR. THOMAS-Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-Well, actually, I don't have a problem with this if I could see what he was going to build. The placement of it, if it is not exceeding any height limitations, as I say, I really don't have that much of a problem with it, and I think it would be aesthetically more pleasing to have a separate building back a little bit. I mean, I'd actually prefer it behind the house where you can't see it at all, than I would attached or closer to the house on the north side. I do agree with the applicant that that would distort the architectural aesthetics of the house as it is now, but I don't want to vote on anything until I see what it looks like. MR. THOMAS-Yes. I have the same feelings, that I'd like to see what that building is going to look like, and I'd also like to see if you really could put that somewhere else, like up in the back, without getting anywhere near that leachfield. My suggestion to you is to have us table this until you can get us a drawing of it, because it doesn't sound like it's going to go through. MR. CARTE-Yes. That appears to be the right thing to do at this point. I'm frankly amazed at this, because it's my understanding that the purpose for setbacks, to a certain degree, is to make sure that adjacent property owners, I mean, I understand that it's an attempt to maintain a certain character of a neighborhood or a development or something like that, but also to attempt to ensure that neighboring property owners do not step on each other's toes, so to speak, and I have, this is an instance where there's no opposi tion, and no one is concerned about the fact that I'm crowding these lot lines, except for you folks. MR. KARPELES-Yes, because we have to worry about the next fellow that's coming in here. MR. STONE-The Town of Queensbury recently within the past six months. MR. CARTE-The next fellow that comes in where? MR. KARPELES-The next fellow that comes in and wants to crowd the property line, and his neighbors might object, but they might not come up here and object, and you've set a precedent. MR. CARTE-I don't see that as being a problem for you. neighbors object but do not voice their objection. If his MR. STONE-That's our job. The Town of Queensbury recently enacted a Waterfront zoning law. The idea to make more lots like your lot. That's one of the things, the purposes behind it is to get larger sized lots on the lake, and if we're going to say, here's a person with a large lot, and without more consideration grant a variance that pushes buildings right next to the property line, then we're not doing our job, visa vee the new law. That's why we'd like to, one, see, certainly, what it's going to look like, and, two, any possible alternatives that don't require us to grant a variance. MRS. LAPHAM-And you're also, you said you were amazed. Don't forget, you're also asking your one affirmative vote, to vote for - 17 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/16/97) a pig in a poke. I mean, I have no idea what it's going to look like. MR. CARTE-It's going to look like a typical one story garage with a peaked roof. I mean, it's going to be square. It's going to be 14 by 30 with a six/twelve pitch, peaked roof. MRS. LAPHAM-Metal roof, shingle roof, slate roof, plywood, siding, aluminum siding, what? MR. CARTE-Obviously, our intention would be to make it look appropriate, to belong with the house that's already on the property, and appropriate to its surroundings. Your concern is whether or not it has wood siding or vinyl siding? MRS. LAPHAM-I want to know what it's going to look like, that's all. MR. CARTE-Well, I can submit a blueprint. I didn't know that that was going to be necessary at this stage of the game, otherwise I honestly would have. I thought that your concern was with the footprint, how much property is it going to sit on and where is it going to be located? Not how many windows it has in it and what kind of siding we're going to use. MR. THOMAS-Yes. We take that into account, the height, what it looks like, because we have to determine. MR. CARTE-I told you what the height's going to be. I understand that I can go to 16 feet. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. CARTE-It won't be 16 feet. It'll be something less than that. MR. THOMAS-What's less than that? MR. CARTE-Probably 14 feet. MR. THOMAS-You're saying probably. You're not telling us it's qoinq to be. See, we have to consider benefit to the applicant versus the adverse effect on the neighborhood or the district. MR. CARTE-And there is no adverse effect to the neighborhood. You've got a letter there from one applicant. I have another one here who I'm sure would be willing to come up here, I mean from one neighbor, and another one here who I'm sure would be glad to come up here and tell you the same, and the Laraia's would be here, too, except for the fact they live in North Carolina. They don't live in the area. It's not convenient for them to be here. MR. THOMAS-Your neighbors had a chance to speak when I opened up the public hearing. MR. CARTE-Well, I can assure you, since I spoke with them before the meeting, that they are not in opposition. They probably didn't feel that it was necessary to come up here and convince you that they're not in opposition. They're here and they did not say that they are opposed to it. MR. KARPELES-Didn't we table this? Aren't we deciding to table this? MR. THOMAS-It hasn't been tabled yet. MR. STONE-No, we haven't. MR. CARTE-Well, you might as well, because obviously you've all - 18 - '-' --,' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/16/97) made up your minds. MR. THOMAS-We're leaving our minds open, because like most of the Board members have said, we want to see what this thing's going to look like, with measurements, height. MR. CARTE-Well, then I guess there's no sense in going any farther. We have to table it, and I will provide you with a pretty picture of what it's going to look like. MR. KARPELES-Well, we also want to see where the leachfield is, make sure that it can't fit behind the house and clear the leachfield. MR. STONE-That's one of the things we need to have is where the leachfield is, exactly where it is. MR. KARPELES-I don't want to see you come in here and get annoyed the next time. We're telling you what we need. MR. CARTE-I understand your need to see where the leachfield is, and I would have provided that if I thought that this was going to be, if I thought it was going to be necessary, if I thought I was going to run into this much opposition, even though there is no opposition. MR. STONE-By offering to table, we're not denying it, and that's the thing you have to understand. MR. CARTE-I understand. MRS. LAPHAM-And it's not opposition. that's needed. It's just more information MR. STONE-Chris, we have a balancing test that we have to conduct. MR. CARTE-I understand. MR. STONE-That's what we're doing. MR. CARTE-Yes, except that you're balancing it, me against some undetermined, I guess the only thing can be that if some time in the future some neighbor, some two neighbors don't agree with each other, and you have to resolve that situation, too. MR. STONE-But this is what we have to go by. This is the codified zoning laws of the Town of Queensbury. Granting a variance from this, we have to be convinced that that's the minimum, that we have to do that in order for you to do what you want to do, and we're not convinced of that. MR. CARTE-And is there anyone particular piece of evidence that holds the most weight for you, when you try to make that determination, or are they all equal in your eyes, all equal? MR. STONE-We'd like to think everything is equal. MRS. LAPHAM-Equal. MR. STONE-We look at it objectively and come to a conclusion based upon our charge. MR. CARTE-So property owners, the people who are actually effected by the variances you grant, have no more, what they have to say about it has no more value in your eyes than things like what kind of siding the building is going to have? MRS. LAPHAM-No, that's not true. - 19 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/16/97) MR. THOMAS-No. MRS. LAPHAM-No, basically that figures, the input from the neighbors figures very heavily in our decision. MR. CARTE-Sure it does, as I would expect that it would. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes, for example if several of your neighbors came and were totally against it, I would have to think very hard about whether or not. MR. CARTE-I would hope so, because some day I might be one of those neighbors doing the complaining, certainly. MRS. LAPHAM-The fact that there was no opposition and one letter for it, does make me a little bit more lenient. Now I can't speak for the rest of the Board, but I also cannot vote for something when I don't know what it is, and what I'm trying to do is just give you another chance, to not deny it, and bring in what we need to look at, and then we'll look at it again with an open mind. MR. CARTE-There is no option to re-open the public comment so that Mr. Potvin can come up and here and speak on behalf of Mrs. Fraiser? MR. THOMAS-I can re-open it at the next meeting, or even if he wants to send a letter or something like that, we could read it in, if he doesn' t want to be here. You can either write a letter or be here in person, but I'll re-open the public hearing. MR. STONE-But not now. MR. THOMAS-Not now. Next month. MR. CUSTER-The decision's not based on your neighbor's input so much as I think we need just more information about the lay of the land and how this thing could be better situated, if possible, and until we have that I know at least ~ can't make a final determination. That's not a negative or a positive. MR. CARTE-No. I understand. It's just a hassle, is what it is. MR. STONE-If we were totally committed against it, we'd deny it. We wouldn't offer to table it. MR. CARTE-That's very nice of you. MR. GORALSKI-The additional information that the Board is looking for, so we can all be clear on this, is elevations of the garage, so you can tell what it's going to look like, as well as location of the septic system, and any other features that might preclude the garage from being placed behind the house. MR. STONE-I think it's also important if you put on this map where that big tree is. I mean, there is a big tree, and that certainly has an impact, but I think we'd like to see. MR. GORALSKI-Right, any elements that preclude from putting the garage back there. MR. CARTE-Okay. I can attempt to do that. I can't really attempt to park a large boat up in the back there to see whether or not that's going to work. MR. STONE-I understand that. MR. CARTE-Unfortunately, I may not find that, I mean, if you insist that I put the garage in that location, I may not find that out - 20 - '-- . -' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/16/97) until after the garage is already built, that I can't get the boat in there, but never the less, I'll do my best to provide you with the information that you need. MR. STONE-I think one of the things you should put on this is your second driveway. I mean, we obviously all saw it, but it's not on here. MR. CARTE-Well, to be honest with you, I didn't realize that this was going to be this big of a problem, or I would have provided you with, you know, every blade of grass, to be honest with you. MR. STONE-And your mother was out there raking today I noticed when I was there. MR. THOMAS-I'll make a motion. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. l5-1997 CHRIS CARTE, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham: For further information. Duly adopted this 16th day of April, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Custer, Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. O'Leary, Mr. Hayes MR. THOMAS-All right. It's tabled provided to the Planning Department. within, what, two weeks? until information can be So if you can get it to us MR. GORALSKI-The last Wednesday in April. MR. THOMAS-The last Wednesday in April, we can get you on the May agenda. MR. GORALSKI-It would be the third Wednesday in May. MR. THOMAS-All right. project on the agenda? Do you want to tell us about the next MR. GORALSKI-Barber? MR. THOMAS-Yes. Would you like to tell us about it, John? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. I will tell you about it. Because of the incorrect Tax Map number being on the application, we incorrectly advertised the notice to the neighbors. Therefore, we would recommend that you open the public hearing. If you'd like to, you can listen to the applicant's presentation. The only thing, we would recommend that you don't make a decision on this until it's properly noticed. I would recommend that you read it into the record, open the public hearing, and go as far as you want, but you really shouldn't make a decision until it's properly noticed. USE VARIANCE NO. l6-1997 TYPE: UNLISTED RR-3A MIKE BARBER OWNER: CANDACE BARBER 254 ROUTE 149, SOUTH SIDE OF ROUTE 149 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY HOME WHICH WILL RESULT IN A TWO FAMILY HOME, ON PROPERTY ZONED RR-3A. THE USE OF A TWO FAMILY HOME IS NOT AN ALLOWED USE IN THE RR-3A ZONE. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE USES LISTED IN SECTION 179-15, RURAL RESIDENTIAL 3 ACRE ZONE. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING TAX MAP NO. 36-1-36 LOT SIZE: 0.70 ACRES SECTION 179-15 - 21 - òJ i " U (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/16/97) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 16-1997, Mike Barber, Meeting Date: April 16, 1997 "APPLICANT: Mike Barber PROJECT LOCATION: 254 Route 149 PROPOSED PROJECT AND CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE: The applicant proposes the construction of an addition to an existing single family home which will result in a two family dwelling on property zoned RR-3A. Two family homes are not an allowed use in the RR-3A zone. Relief is being requested from the allowed uses listed in the RR-3A zone. REVIEW CRITERIA, BASED ON SECTION 267-b OF TOWN LAW: 1. IS A REASONABLE RETURN POSSIBLE IF THE LAND IS USED AS ZONED? The applicant should address this issue by providing adequate information, including financial evidence which indicates that a reasonable return is not possible at this location. 2. IS THE ALLEGED HARDSHIP RELATING TO THIS PROPERTY UNIQUE, OR DOES IT ALSO APPLY TO A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD? This property is unique due to the fact that wetlands cover a large area of the parcel. 3. IS THERE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD? It appears that the construction of an addition which would result in a two family home would not have any negative impacts on the character of the surrounding neighborhood. 4. IS THIS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NECESSARY TO ADDRESS THE UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP PROVEN BY THE APPLICANT AND AT THE SAME TIME PROTECT THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY? It appears that allowing a two family home on this site would be minimum relief to address the stated hardship. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: The amount of wetlands on this property are substantial and seem to limit the development of this property under the current zoning. The ZBA should determine if all criteria for a Use Variance have been met by the applicant. SEQR: Type Unlisted, short EAF attached" MRS. LAPHAM-IIAt a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 9th day of April 1997, the above application for a Use Variance for an addition to an existinq sinqle family home to create a two family home. was reviewed, and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact" Signed by Tracey M. Clothier, Chairperson. MR. THOMAS-All right. Is the applicant or his agent here? Applicant, agent or property owner? MR. GORALSKI-They may not have come because they were aware of the mistake in the advertising. I would still recommend you open the public hearing and if there's any neighbors that wish to speak. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I'll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed to? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. THOMAS-Any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-According to this, letters from the public is blank. So I assume there is none. MR. GORALSKI-I don't believe there are. I'd recommend you table it. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MOTION TO TABLE USE VARIANCE NO. 16-1997 MIKE BARBER, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Custer: - 22 - ',-, \ '-..-/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/16/97) Until somebody shows up. Duly adopted this 16th day of April, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Custer, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. O'Leary, Mr. Hayes AREA VARIANCE NO. 17-1997 TYPE: UNLISTED SFR-IA THE MICHAELS GROUP OWNER: DR. RICHARD BARBER DANIEL BARBER BEHIND CEDAR COURT TOWNHOUSES, WEST OF BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEVELOP A CLUSTER SUBDIVISION WITH COMMON OPEN SPACE IN A SFR-IA ZONE. THE DEVELOPMENT OF LOTS SMALLER THAN ONE ACRE THROUGH CLUSTERING IS NOT ALLOWED IN THE SFR-IA ZONE. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED IN ORDER TO ALLOW A CLUSTER SUBDIVISION WHICH IS NOT ALLOWED IN SECTION l79-20, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 1 ACRE ZONE. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 4/9/97 TAX MAP NO. 48-3-31, 39.1, 43, 44 LOT SIZES: 32.80, 13.59, 3, 1.84 AC. SECTION 179-20 JON LAPPER & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 17-1997, The Michaels Group, Meeting Date: April 16, 1997 "APPLICANT: The Michaels Group PROJECT LOCATION: Bay Road, northwest of Cedar Court Proposed proj ect and Conformance with the Ordinance: The applicant proposes to develop a cluster subdivision with common open space in an SFR- 1A zone. The development of single family homes under the Town's cluster provision is not allowed in the SFR-1A zone. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law. 1. Benefit to the applicant: Relief will allow the applicant to develop residential lots which will not meet the minimum lot size for the SFR-1A zone while providing a substantial amount of open space for this neighborhood. 2. Feasible alternatives: The applicant may be able to modify the lot size and setbacks from what is shown on the plan in order to provide larger lots and increased setbacks. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The applicant is seeking to modify the dimensional and area requirements of the SFR-1A zone. The amount of relief will be determined by the ZBA during review of this application. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? Warren County DPW has indicated that the connection of this development to Bay Road may require information on site distances for review at the time of subdivision of this property. Comments on other possible impacts may be provided at the public hearing. 5. Is this difficulty self created? Natural features and the topography of the subject property makes it difficult to construct homes and infrastructure on the rear portion of this site. Staff Comments & Concerns: The applicant seeks to cluster single family homes on this property while providing a large amount of common open space with this development. Staff is not opposed to the idea of a cluster development in this location. In Staff's opinion it would be beneficial if the lot sizes were increased in order to provide increased space, light and movement of air on each individual property. Increased lot sizes would have the ability to accommodate individual septic systems on each lot, as opposed to locating septic systems on common property to be owned by a Home Owner's Association. SEQR: Type Unlisted, full EAF attached" MRS. LAPHAM- "At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 9th day of April 1997, the above application for an Area Variance for a cluster subdivision with HOA ownership of common qreen space. was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Approve Comments: With the condition that trails come to the property lines for pedestrian and bicycle access - 23 - i~ \ J (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/16/97) between parcels." Signed Tracey M. Clothier, Chairperson. MR. THOMAS-Mr. Lapper. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, my name is Jon Lapper. I represent The Michaels Group. With me tonight is Dave Michaels, a principal of The Michaels Group, and a resident of Queensbury, and Tom Nace, the project engineer. To start with, just a few comments. You're probably all familiar with The Michaels Group's two proj ects in Queensbury, Hudson Pointe, over on the Corinth Road, which is a project that they started from scratch, designed themselves, and represents a lot of things about how they perceive developments and the kind of communities that they create, and Cedar Court, which is the adj acent property to our application tonight. Cedar Court was a project that was started, designed by another developer, and The Michaels Group came in, took it over, cleaned it up, we believe, and is in the process of finishing it. That doesn't represent a project that they designed from scratch, and what we have tonight is a project that is more similar to Hudson Pointe in a lot of ways, in terms of the design and the type of community. Dave will talk more about The Michaels Group and about their concept here, and Tom will be talking about the engineering, the traffic issues that were raised, the septic issues that were raised, and the general engineering and design of the project. To begin with, I'd just like to talk about clustering in general. We have to distinguish this project from other cluster developments in Town, because this is not a case where we're trying to change the density in any way. The average density is about 1.9 acres per dwelling unit. We're not asking for a change of zone, a change of density. We're just taking exactly the number of houses that we could do on the whole property and moving them to the part of the property that is more appropriate for development. This has a benefit of creating an extremely large buffer of 65 acres here, and a large buffer along the neighbors, the existing neighbors both on Cedar Court and Suzanne Court to the north. If this were done in a traditional non-cluster subdivision development, we could have the same number of homes on larger lots that would abut these neighbor's properties. So would have people right in their backyards, and here they're going to have a substantial area of a field and trees and a great distance of 150 on the south and probably more than that on the north, and that's a big distinction. Beyond that, just because of the nature of these particular six parcels that The Michaels Group has amassed to do this project, a lot of these parcels, it's not that they're not suitable for development, it's that development would be difficult. It would involve a lot of cutting and filling, a lot of tree removal, and it wouldn't be left in this wooded area. What we've proposed as the 65 acres in the back and in the center island would all be left the way it is, with trees. It's also the Glen Lake buffer and the Critical Environmental Area, a portion of this, and we're staying completely away from that. In terms of clustering, most of what you see that's green is in the RR-3 Acre zone, and in that zone, clustering is permitted. So we could cluster on most of the parcel. What's unique about the zone line here, and part of the justification for an Area Variance, is that we have a zone line that is very irregular. I don't know if you can see that on the maps that YOU have. If not, I can point it out on our map. MR. STONE-I see tree lines. It's hard to tell. MR. LAPPER-Okay. If you can see where I am, everything back here is the three acre zone where clustering is permitted, and it comes down in almost a triangle, right to here. So the property line, or the zone line is right here. So the only portion of the property that would be clustered, that is in the zone where clustering would not be permitted without this Area Variance, on this whole parcel here, we're just clustering right here, and on the parcel to the south, the parcel line is right here. So we could cluster, in any - 24 - ',,-- ----./ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/16/97) case, up to here, and we could cluster back here. That's just sort of an anomaly on the zoning map, and it also, it's just this SFR-1 Acre zone, this particular one acre zone, where for some reason the Ordinance says that clustering is not permitted, but for most of our parcel, clustering is certainly permitted, and for most of the other zones, clustering is permitted, and it's a policy of the Town that clustering is positive planning, because it leaves these large buffer areas. We were very pleased that the County Planning Board unanimously approved this, and the County Planning Department and Planning Board said it was their policy to support cluster development as well. The specific justification here for granting an Area Variance, the benefit to the applicant is because of the unusual design of the zoning district, it would be very difficult to layout a project to comply with that provision, to do it within the three acre zone, but not in the one acre zone. In addition to that, just because we have steep slopes, some wet areas. Those are primarily the site constraints and by leaving them the way they are, it also complies with the Town goal to protect the Glen Lake wetland, and we're staying, the 500 foot buffer is the squiggly line toward the back on that plan, and we're staying well away from that, from the Critical Environmental Area around Glen Lake. I guess that's it for a general overview. Dave Michaels. DAVE MICHAELS MR. MICHAELS-Thanks, Jon. As Jon gave an overview of the reason why we're here, I'm going to let it be mY role to explain what our concept is for this area and what kind of project that we would want to put forth, if we were allowed to get the variance that we seek on a portion of the land to allow clustering. If you look at the site map that we have there, what we envision here is what we call cluster single family homes, small lot singles. They would still be 70 foot at the building line. We would be looking for a New England theme. We have a couple of elevations that you can see right on the board itself. Price ranges of the homes would probably average somewhere in the 130' s to 160' s. It would definitely be a quality, high end type of project. We see, just from our experience now at Hudson Pointe as well as Cedar Court, there's a tremendous demand by many residents in the community that really the idea of maintenance free living appeals to them. The idea of having to take care of the yard, the idea of having to take care of snow removal, those kinds of things, for many, many people, as we all age, or we get smaller households, it's a burden. A lot of people have, want a vacation. They want second homes in Florida, etc., and it's just substantial, the demand that we're seeing for this kind of product in the Town. What drove us to this kind of thinking, instead of maybe proposing clustering town homes, we still feel there's a very strong need for town homes, especially the two unit buildings like we've transformed over at Cedar Court, but there's also a strong desire by many people to still have a detached single family home, but it still has the maintenance. So our concept here would be not SO foot lots. We're talking 70 foot lots at the building line, still a substantial size lot, but there would be total maintenance of the front elevation. The fronts of the homes would be heavily landscaped. There'd be a lot of work with buffering, berming and fencing that would work each unit to create a natural street scape. We haven't gone into the architecturals and brought in our land planners yet because we really have to see where things are here before we take it that step, but that would be what we would want to present when we got into the planning process. The site itself, when we went out and we looked at the parcels of land, and as Jon said, we had a massive, a number of potential properties to put this together. There's 85 acres here total. We're not looking to present more density than what would be allowed here. We're just looking to cluster, to get the housing in what we think is the most buildable area of the site. When we went out and walked the site numerous times, the area that we're proposing the housing is all in the - 25 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/16/97) vacant field areas that there exist. You can see the topography where the slopes go up. You can see the green, which really describes the natural treed vegetation as it exists on the site. What really intrigued us was that we could build and create adequate buffering, what we feel is adequate, to the surrounding homeowners, and not disturb the natural and topographic lands that surround it. It'll create a very nice back drop for these homes, and with the green space that we have immediately around the homes themselves, not counting the green space of common area to the rear, which is about 65 acres, we think it would make a very marketable and very nice community. Another issue that was a concern of ours was ingress and egress to the site. Dr. Barber, on his property, had a SO foot right-of-way connecting to Bay Road which contemplated his potential for accessing that land for some kind of future development. With that in mind, and for this type of community, a secondary access would really be, would have been required, of which the natural route would have obviously been to try to connect a connector road into Cedar Court. That was not something that we thought was at all viable and something that we were adamant in not taking that approach from a design standpoint. So we looked into other alternatives. The best alternative was to put a purchase agreement on Dan Barber's home, right adjacent, to the south of the SO foot right-of-way, which now allows access of 163 lineal feet, plus or minus, where we would remove the house and actually create a divided boulevard entry into the project, which would preclude our needs of having a secondary access. We presented this to the Highway Department. We got some initial, very positive feedback on the layout as we proposed it. The beauty of a boulevard is many. One is, is that you have a road going in and a road going out. It's a lot safer. Number Two is we plan on, what we would ultimately propose would be some natural street lighting, not natural, but nice street lighting, something similar that was done at Hudson Pointe to create a theme into the community. It also helps for security. It also helps just that night exiting the project, going in and going out. The boulevard itself would be heavily landscaped. We would consider irrigation, again, for the island area going in. Again, all maintained by the Homeowners Association. It would have a very nice project entry way, nice signage. It would be done in a very high class manner. The site itself, interior, there's a village green in the center of the site. What we envision in there is possibly some picnic tables, maybe a gazebo. We envision some walking trails in the back areas around the site, just for casual walking. We don't see the common areas being used for anything other than very passive recreation like walking trails, or picnic tables. When this project, the notice went out for the public hearing, I, personally, was contacted by a number of people, and responded to some of their concerns, one of them being that this parcel, Dr. Barber's piece to the north, you'll notice there's a 16 foot piece of property which is a right-of-way which also accesses Bay Road. Can you see that on the map? And it was brought up to me by some of the homeowners on Susans Place that right now this is, indeed, a right-of-way, and right now it's being used by different people for motorcycles or other vehicles going in and out as a right-of-way, and it ends up to be a real negative from their standpoint, in terms of how it's currently used, and it's a concern of theirs how it could ultimatelY be used with our project going in, and I said I'm going to make it, you know, for the public record that's it's our goal that that remains as part of the forever green space, that we would either be open to for that 16 foot either sell it directly to those homeowners, pass title on to it, or we would be willing to deed restrict it through the Homeowners Association that would ensure their feeling comfortable that nobody could ever use that, in terms of our subdivision, for ingress and egress of any kind whatsoever, recreational vehicles, etc. A couple of other points, I just want to make sure I hit them all. I think, as far as, again, it's our concept for the project, we know we're here for the purposes of seeking a variance to the zoning as it exists to allow our - 26 - ""--' -- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/16/97) clustering, but I think it's important that you know what we have in mind and what our reasoning is behind it, and maybe with that, I'd like to put on Tom Nace who's handling the engineering for this site to date, and I think Tom can bring up some of the engineering issues concerning water and storm and other issues that are appropriate. MR. NACE-Okay. For the record, my name is Tom Nace. As Dave has said, this is just in the very preliminary stages. We have taken preliminary looks at all the engineering concerns, but engineering still has to be done during site plan review process, or subdivision review process. What we have looked at so far, I'll just go down through, the water supply for the project would be through the municipal supply. It would require an extension of the existing district, which would be done as part of this project, and would entail bringing a main up Bay Road from the end of the existing main at Cedar Court and adding this particular parcel or parcels into the current consolidated water district. It's feasible. The Town has plenty of water at this stage. The main's large enough, and they'd be glad to sell it to us, I'm sure. For sewage, we would use, proposing to use individual subsurface disposal systems, in keeping with the theme of reduced maintenance for the homeowner and maintenance by the HOA of as much as possible, what we're proposing is that with the lot size we keep a septic tank for each individual house on, located on the lot, then behind the lot on the common HOA property, we would use septic or disposal fields, absorpt ion f ields that would be combined. We would combine two or three properties into one subsurface field. It utilizes the available area a little better, and it would be maintained by the HOA, for a more positive maintenance of the systems. Drainage, we have, well, let me back up. On the septic systems, we've taken a look at the soil conditions there. There were some test pits done on this property, back around '92 or '93, and we have those results. We've also gone out and done some additional test pits ourselves. The soils are a fine, loamy silt. Some light clays mixed in with it. It's not real sandy, but it is acceptable. In fact, it's, in some ways, better for septic in that the percolation rates are a little slower than some of the very rapidly permeable sands around Queensbury. We've also done percolation tests to confirm what our thoughts were from soil classifications. The percolation rates varied from about two and a half minutes up through 10 minutes for the predominance of them. There was one percolation rate that I believe was just a little less than 15 minutes. All of those are in the very acceptable range for subsurface disposal systems. The drainage, the details of the drainage have not been worked out, obviously. That will be done at subdivision review process and design. The drainage will have to follow the mandates of the Subdivision Regulations which says that the post development runoff cannot exceed the pre- developed conditions. What we envision at this stage of the game is a collection system along the wing swales of the road, some limited infiltration devices with those, but also some low collection areas where peak runoffs are detained and the low swales and very shallow dry, not wet but dry detention ponds, where the pond is simply used to buffer the flow going downstream. We would make especially sure that the runoff from this site is handled in such a way that it does not impact the adjacent Cedar Court's properties and also the rear of this site drains south behind Cedar Court. Both of those drainage channels would be protected against any increase in runoff rates. The other issue that came up is highway access. We have looked at this particular access point onto Bay Road. Obviously we will require a permit from the County for a curb cut at that location. I've taken a preliminary look at site distances. It appears that the site distance to the south is a little over 800 feet, and the site distance to the north is somewhat beyond that, somewhere between 800 and 1,000 feet. Both of those are more than acceptable. Acceptable minimum site distances for this Bay Road, for the travel speeds on Bay Road, are - 27 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/16/97) around 350 feet. Desirable is about 750. We're beyond both of those. That's all ~ have. MR. LAPPER-After the public hearing we'll address any concerns and your questions, unless you want to ask any questions now. MR. THOMAS-Any questions for the applicant or his agent, from any of the Board members? MR. KARPELES- Yes. I've got a question. How many acres, total, are involved here? MR. LAPPER-Eighty-five. MR. KARPELES-That doesn't seem to reconcile with the application, which says lot size 14.06 and 12.76. MR. LAPPER-Because it's only those two parcels that I identified on the map that are the SFR-l Acre zone. All the rest of the parcel is the RR-3A, in which the clustering is permitted. So when I did the application, I only addressed those two little pieces, or not little, but the two pieces on which we have to ask for the variance. MR. KARPELES-Okay. Well, that's my next question. Can you explain to me the clustering being permitted? This is a new concept to me. MR. LAPPER-Being permitted or being not permitted? MR. KARPELES-Being permitted. You said it was permitted in these? MR. LAPPER-Clustering is permitted in almost every zone, residential zone, in the Town of Queensbury. There are some exceptions to that if you're near a body of water, but in the Single Family Residential One Acre zone, there's a provision in the Ordinance that says that clustering is not permitted in that zone. I don't know what the history of that is, as a general policy. In almost every residential zone you can cluster, as long as you don't change the density. MR. KARPELES-Do you need a variance for that? MR. GORALSKI-No. Article VII of the Zoning Ordinance addresses clustering, and there's also related provisions in Subdivision Regulations for cluster developments. The reason they need a variance is because in the SFR zone, under maximum density, it says the provisions of Section 288 of Town Law for clustering do not apply to the SFR zone. That's the only zone in the Ordinance that has that language. So for example here the RR-3A zone does not require a variance for clustering. Where it's an SR zone they wouldn't require a variance for clustering, but because it's an SFR zone and that statement is in there, they need the variance. MR. KARPELES-So how many units could you get in without a variance? MR. LAPPER-Well, we can get 43 units in no matter what. It's a question of where they go. They would just have to be pushed into the back, into the area that's more sensitive for development, but we would have to do one acre lots in that weird shaped zone, which would be the SFR-1A, and then the rest could be clustered. MR. STONE-Let me ask you a question, along that line. On this thing that we have, you have shown that there are 84.55 acres, and SR-1 is 26.78, less road is 24.2, divided by one. You get 24. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. STONE-The RR-3 you have 57, take out a little bit for roads, - 28 - ""--' ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/16/97) you have 57 left, divided by three you get 19, 43, and I understand that's the number of units. How many, when you consider the CEA and you consider the topography, could you actually build on those 84 acres using those minimums. MR. LAPPER-I have two answers to that. We think that we can still do the 43. Just because you can't cluster in that strip in the back that's within 500 feet in the CEA, you could still put the houses such that you would still use it utilize that zone without doing a cluster because of where you locate the house. So all of that can still be used for the calculation of the 43 acres. MR. STONE-Enough spaces extend outside that, using three acres, that you could put the house on? MR. LAPPER-Yes, because it's only that little loop. MR. STONE-Okay. Let me ask you another naive question, because that's the kind I like to ask. The pond, that's not counted in the 84 acres? MR. LAPPER-That is. MR. STONE-You certainly can't build on the pond. MR. LAPPER-But we could build lots so that part of the pond would be, the house would be away from the lot, but the pond would be owned on a number of lots, and there's nothing wrong with that. Those are reasons why you want to cluster, to protect those, but beyond that, we have a concept here with 43 lots. The Planning Board, in a detailed review of a cluster subdivision, we might not, at the end of the day when we look at the Planning Board considerations, for just the exact design of this, we may not have 43 lots. That's what, we're showing you what the maximum buildout for the cluster concept, but we have to go through a whole process, if this Board grants the variance, and it may not look exactly what we have proposed. MR. STONE-I understand that. I just want to be sure in asking you that you can layout on this parcel of land 43 conforming lots? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STONE-That's the question I ask, and you're saying you can? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STONE-I obviously can't challenge you. MR. LAPPER-Well, those would be in the three acre zone, also, where the pond is. So, I mean, it wouldn't be so many lots that would have part of the pond on it. MR. STONE-But you'd have 43 conforming lots. That's what you're saying. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MRS. LAPHAM-And if they're conforming there wouldn't be a variance necessary? MR. STONE-That's right. MR. LAPPER-Lou, we could also cluster on all those areas without a variance. - 29 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/16/97) MR. STONE-I understand that. MR. THOMAS-Any other questions for the applicant? MR. CUSTER-Tom, for the drainage, help me picture the dry retention ponds. Where would they be on this map? It seems like a natural (lost word) this way. MR. NACE-There's drainage that comes down through here. This is a low area that comes in behind Cedar Court, and we want to protect that. That's a low, wet area now. We don't want to increase any runoff into that area. There will be a little area in here that has to drain that way, but there'll be some soils and some low buffers in here to retain water long enough to let it go through slow. There's also a drainage that comes down through the back here, and that will, again, have drainage coming around here and some low buffers in here. So we'll use these buffer areas in between and maybe even some down here in the middle to do that. MR. CUSTER-Are these all proposed models right now? What's the frontage, approximately? MR. MICHAELS-We see the square footage going anywhere from 14 to 2200 square feet, living area. MR. CUSTER-So the front facing is what, about 45 feet, maybe a little bit more, maybe 40 feet? MR. MICHAELS-The width of the front elevation? Forty-four feet. MR. CUSTER-On lots that you're saying are about 70 feet? MR. MICHAELS-Yes. Our goal would be 70 feet at the building line. MR. CUSTER-Do these footprints on the back represent a pretty accurate representation of that? MR. MICHAELS-Yes, they do. That conceptual layout was based on, the parameter I gave Jim Miller was 70 foot at the building line. MR. THOMAS-Any other questions for the applicant? If not, I'll open the public hearing. I'll open up the public hearing for those who wish to speak in favor of this project, please come forward and state your name for the record. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN MCFEE MR. MCFEE-My name is John McFee. I have property adjoining the area. I have a map here which was given to me in this building, next door. Is this what everybody's looking at, the way this map looks? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. STONE-It appears to be, yes. MR. MCFEE-Okay. The first thing I would like to address is the 16 feet. Now when I built my home here, we went through all the records of the Town, all the records of the County, and they said they have no idea who owns the property. It's been untaxed for years. Now we had another situation that came up, another person wanted to build a house back there and use that 16 foot as an access to the house. The property, to this day, I would like the Town to find out who owns it, whether it's owned, or whether anything can be done with it as an access or not an access. If it's not owned by anybody, I'd like to see it blocked off, not to - 30 - --- '--/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/16/97) pedestrian, but to vehicle traffic. That's the first thing. They're talking about deeding this to people. As of now, I may be wrong, but they still have not showed me where this road is owned by anybody. The reason this man lost his opportunity to go in there. That was his only means of getting in the place. He couldn't use it. So he had to build somewhere else. That's Number One. Number Two, when you look at this map, all these, it looks like homes sitting around the house, what do you call them, that's the drainage areas? The leachfields. It seems that that's pretty pre-dominant. It's the thing that stands out most on the whole map, nothing but leachfields. That back area is surrounded by leachfields. The village green is full of leachfields. What kind of village green is it? It's going to be soggy. I have a leachfield in illY place, and I can tell you exactly where they are by walking on the property, and it's been put in by Code, done the right way, and there's only two people using it, and it shows up as soggy. There's an awful lot of leachfields back there. The next thing is, they say that they're going cluster housing here, because it's not to their advantage to put the houses in the back, and that will be all your vision back there and everything else. Why, if that's so great back there, do they have to force them all on a little area? The cluster housing, there's 43 houses here, and how many vehicles are going to be used by this 43 houses? Right now every family of two people, 90% of them have two cars. So that makes 86 cars in and out of that driveway all day long. Bay Road, right now when I cross the street to get my paper in the morning, I almost feel like I've got to, like in the supermarket, get a ticket so I can cross the street. When I pull in to my driveway, I have been called everything, given every hand signal, because I slowed down, turned by turn signals on to try and turn in my own driveway. According to them, I'm supposed to turn doing 45 miles an hour. Now this is 50, 100 cars coming in here now. I can't see any need for it. There's a lot of property in Queensbury. I moved up here to go into the country. This is not what I call country. Whether that's a good excuse or not, but for that purpose, I'm against it. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Would anyone else like to speak in favor of this? BOB PALING MR. PALING-My name is Bob Paling, and I live in the Cedar Court subdivision just south of this property, and I want to speak in favor of this because of the plans that were submitted and the builder that's going to do the work. He does the work in our subdivision, does a fine job, and I think we can work with him there as well as in our own subdivision. Having said that, I would like to state some conditions that we hope are maintained, some of which have already been answered. No access to Cedar Court from this subdivision, that's as called for here, which we don't want. There's a buffer zone, and we're concerned mostly with the south side of the property, and I'd like verification, from the applicant, that from the corner of Lot 24 to the property line is no less than 100 feet. That from the corner of Lot 23, drawing an extended property line to their property line, is no less than 80 feet. We've measured this, walked it, and if it's, we scaled it right and they maintain the trees, or most of the trees that are behind us, and it keeps a nice looking area back there. We'd ask the applicant hopefully to comment on that. They've talked about drainage. There can' t be any runoff water come from this new subdivision to us. In that area between the two subdivisions, where you'll see between Cedar Court and the new subdivision, we have a standing water problem, which the builder is working on, and we hope to have solved very shortly. However, there is standing water. It's been there about four weeks now, and we ask that they be very careful that the leachfields that are in that area are okay, that the right borings, drillings have been done, and that there is no problem created by putting leachfields in wet land. I - 31 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/16/97) don't think there is because the property rises at that point, but we would like verification of that. The applicant has stated that they're single family homes and has answered the question that we had of price range and square footage. So we're okay there. I understand Staff's comments in regard to the leachfields, but they're individual tanks and somewhat shared leachfields, we'd rather see it stay the way it is, because that gives a better buffer zone in our opinion, illY opinion. So in summary, we'd ask the one specific question to be answered about the measurement to the two property lines, that if there's no changes in this plan, then I'm in favor of it. I think quite a few others are, but if there are changes, then I would like to come back, after we've seen the changes. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-I think the only changes that you'd see would be before the Planning Board, depending on what their input is to it. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Would anyone else like to speak in favor of this? CATHY SONNABEND MRS. SONNABEND- I also live in Cedar Court, and I generally do support the project as proposed. Cathy Sonnabend. Basically my concerns are the same as Bob's. An awful lot of trees had to go down to do our development. More than, I think, any of us really expected. The boundary between us and the Schermerhorn property is basically one tree wide. So I would be very concerned, also, on this southern border of this project, that no more trees go down, and it doesn't appear that it'll be necessary, according to this proposal, but I'd like some kind of assurance that it's going to be monitored and that will be the case. The other concern I have is about drainage. As Bob already mentioned we have some serious problems that are being worked upon. My unit is very close to the retention pond, which is supposed to be dry, but it hasn't been dry since it's been developed, and I'm not sure it ever will be dry. So now I have behind me something that could be a potential liabili ty . I have a young daughter. Also something that's probably going to attract more black flies and mosquitoes for us. So I definitely don't want to see any more drainage coming down to us, and I'm hoping that they don' t have to put any more of these so called dry retention ponds in, especially when it's going to border our property and probably mean a lot more trees are going to go down. When I bought my place I had no idea. All the maps ~ saw indicated the trees would still be there, and when I moved in, suddenly there was a huge gap behind my place, and I really don't want to see that happening again in this new development, and that sums it up. MR. THOMAS-Thank you. speak in favor? Is there anyone else that would like to MARIE PALING MRS. PALING-My name is Marie Paling. I live at 29 Cedar Court, and I, too, want to speak to approval of this. I feel that as long as the property is going to be developed, we're in good hands with The Michaels Group. We're very happy with our townhouse at Cedar Court, as the other people are. It's proved to be a wonderful neighborhood. My concern is that we do have standing water in the back, and I know that The Michaels Group is working on that, and I appreciate that, but I want to be very sure that there's no further water coming down and making our problem worse. Thank you. JULIA HENDRICKSON MRS. HENDRICKSON-My name is Julia Hendrickson and I live at 25 - 32 - ""--' ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/16/97) Cedar Court. I am along that southern buffer where the drainage problem exists, and I also am concerned about the loss of the trees. I came from Long Island originally to move up here, and I came here to enjoy the scenery. So I am concerned about that. Michaels Group has been very cooperative, and they do care about what happens, and they do care to satisfy their people. So I do vote in favor. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak in favor of this variance? ANNE GAGLIARDI MRS. GAGLIARDI-My name is Anne Gagliardi, and our property at Cedar Court borders right on the proposed development. I, too, am in favor of this. I feel that some day or other this probably will be developed by someone, and I would like to see it done by The Michaels Group. I feel they're doing a good job, but my concern, too, is the drainage, and I believe they said the drainage had not been worked out. Is that what they said? MR. THOMAS-No. He said they had a drainage plan, but it hadn't been finalized yet. MRS. GAGLIARDI-But I understand that a lot of this is swamp area, and I'm just wondering what they possibly can do to prevent water from seeking its own level. I mean, drainage systems may be fine, but eventually it's my feeling that it will seek its own level, and that's my only concern, besides the buffer zone, as everyone else has spoken. MR. THOMAS-Okay. back up here. I imagine they will answer that when they get MRS. GAGLIARDI-Thank you. MR. THOMAS-You're welcome. favor of? Would anyone else like to speak in PETER GARVEY MR. GARVEY-Good evening. My name is Peter Garvey. I also live at 37 Cedar Court. I am also in favor of the proposed subdivisions, with the basic reservations that most of the other people have. My land is adjacent to the southern part of the subdivision, proposed subdivision, and there is a lot of water down there that's still standing. I'm concerned about the fact that a lot of these trees are going to be cut out and all the housing is going to be clustered in one area. I want to make sure that the water doesn't drain back down into the area that already has standing water in it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Anyone else in favor of? Last chance. DAVE JARVIS MR. JARVIS-My name's Dave Jarvis. I live at 6 Susan Place, or 1 Susan Place now. The Town keeps changing numbers. I'm more neutral than anything else. I bought my lot 10 years ago, built my own house. It took me a lot of time doing it on my own, and I knew that some day they would develop the field. So I really don't have a problem with houses going in the field. I do have a couple of questions. The size of the house was answered tonight, which seemed pretty nice to me, and I'm curious if this is, is Hudson Pointe the same sort of development as this, a neutral sort of thing? And the thing about the common green areas, when you were reading, you said something about someone developing it into bike paths and footpaths and stuff like that. Now is that like a - 33 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/16/97) general use, or is that for the people in there? I mean, to take the common ground and just have bike paths and trails and everything going through it all, I'd be just as happy to have a neighbor. Do you know what I'm saying? With the one acre lots. If it's going to be just limited to them, that's a different story. My understanding was someone said the Town could take it over at some point and make trails and use it as recreation area and stuff like that. To me, that would be unfavorable to me. I mean, I'd just as soon have a neighbor as have that, but that's about all really, but I knew they would develop the field some day, and I really don't have a problem with that, and I do know people that live in Hudson Pointe, and The Michaels Group does do good work, but I am questioning that, as far as using the area for a buffer zone, and not having the buffer zone in the final end of it. I wanted to know what kind of guarantee there was to something like that, to actually staying a buffer zone, never being developed, and as far as like the Town coming in and putting in a ball field or anything like that sort of thing, but that's about it. MR. STONE-Which one of the properties is yours? MR. JARVIS-The one at the very, below the pond, the big one. That's mine. MR. THOMAS-Concerning what you mentioned about the trails came from Warren County Planning Board. In their comments it says, "With the condition that trails come to the property lines for pedestrian and bicycle access between parcels". When the applicant gets back up here, I'm sure he'll explain that to us. MR. JARVIS-The Town's saying that? MR. THOMAS-No, the County, Warren County. MR. JARVIS-Okay. MR. THOMAS-I have no idea what it means. MR. JARVIS-Right. That's where I'm having a problem. When she read that, that's something that's bothering me. I mean, I'd just as soon have a one acre lot with a family next to me than having everyone's brother-in-law going through there, walking, riding bikes and everything else. That's what I'm saying. MR. THOMAS-Yes, well, the applicant will answer that because they were at the Warren County Planning Board meeting. MR. JARVIS-Okay. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-One more chance in favor of. FRANK HARDICK MR. HARDICK-My name is Frank Hardick. I live at 51 Cedar Court, and I'd probably be looking partly over into this wilderness area. My only concern is wetness to the area and how it's going to be controlled, and I understand that The Michaels Group is working on that, and I'm satisfied that they'll take care of it. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Thank you. Anyone else in favor of? All right. I'll open the public hearing for those opposed. Would anyone like to speak opposed? DOUGLAS JONES MR. JONES-I'm Douglas Jones. I live in Country Colony. It's my understanding that the land in question has been owned for years by the same people, the Barbers, and adherence to the current zoning - 34 - '-' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/16/97) would not be detrimental, therefore, to the owners, we've know what they've had. The open spaces are not around the proposed homes, but consist of about two thirds of the acreage and one large area to the rear of proposed development. If clustering is allowed, lot sizes should be increased to 30,000 square feet. Setbacks from other properties held by other homeowners should be substantially increased. Under RR-3, if clustering is allowed, I don't understand how the rule for calculating clustering could permit homes an idea of one per three acres in general, to be placed so close together. Persons recently building on one acre lots abutting the parcel in question would have expected further development of one home per acre lots in their area. The greater home area and proposed housing area does not provide the same aesthetic or environmental value. People live in Queensbury for the environmental atmosphere that exists and can continue to exist with the current Zoning Ordinance additional forethought and imagination. We do not need this area to look like Long Island, the one that New York City is attached to, that is. Just because the lands are not conducive to construction on all acreage doesn't automatically mean very high density housing is acceptable on a portion of the land. Therefore, I am opposed to the development as proposed, regardless of the fact that The Michaels Group has apparently put a great deal of thought, and has some positive aspects to it. MR. THOMAS-Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak opposed? J. ARTHUR NORTON MR. NORTON-Partly opposed and partly clarification. I agree with my son-in -law. J. Arthur Norton. I have property adj acent to this at the north. One of my concerns is that there is a 100 foot right-of-way or area owned by the Barbers from Alice Drive. They have used that as a road in and going along the ridge there to lumber off a couple of years ago. I am concerned that there would be restrictions against any use of the common areas, the green space, whatever you want to call them, that there will be no possibility of, in the future, someone being able to put a road in there, someone being able to put additional into the green areas down here, and that's generally one of the concerns. I also am speaking for Mr. Otto, who has the lot on the corner of Country Colony Road and Alice Drive, the house is shown there which was developed by Dan Barber, also. He also was concerned, but he had to go to pick up his son and couldn't wait. I am concerned, also, on the mentioning of the water table, the concern of the water table. In the original discussion of it, that there was a high water table. That was one of the restrictions in this area, and how the sewage, the concentration of septic systems and the leachfields would effect this, the water table, etc., and the possibility of pollution in that area, not only for adjacent areas for the people living in there, would it give a problem to the Town, similar to what we've had out West Mountain Road area. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak opposed? BRIAN MURPHY MR. MURPHY-I'm Brian Murphy. I live at 823 Bay Road. I live at the, if you look at the finger portion that comes out, that the Barber's own, that Mr. McFee had a question on, in the way of who owned the property there, in other words, pay taxes, things of that nature. My question is the Barbers have been passing over that for years. It's a right-of-way. It was, for quite some time, used for farm land in the back. Dan passes over it quite often. It's been used by myself, you know, pass over it with a snowmobile. I have permission from Dr. Barber himself. My question is, and I'm not really, I'm in the neutral part of it on the actual building of it. - 35 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/16/97) Would that right-of-way there be used as access for machinery to get in and out of there, is one thing, when they build the place. The other question on top of that, would that be used as pedestrian walkway afterwards, for people to come in and out, and if so, I don't know if my liability would cover that if someone got hurt. That's my question. So I'm neutral on that, but I have some concerns on top of that. I missed a little bit of before on the actual buying of the property or deeding the property over, and I would like to have some pricing on that. Actually the people adjoining the property on that if they could buy the property and what that would be. So that would be something addressed to The Michaels Group. MR. THOMAS-On that 16 foot? MR. MURPHY-On the 16 foot, yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Would anyone else like to speak opposed? RICH DALLEK MR. DALLEK-I'm Rich Dallek. I live at 833 Bay Road. I have vacant property on Susan Place, and my family has two adjacent parcels next to mine. I'm sort of neutral on the project, but my concern is access through that agricultural road that has been used by the Barbers in the past, and that my family has access through also. What's going to be done with that in the future? Is that going to be used for access to that property in any way? Also, there's an extension of Ellis Drive through Susan Place that the Town, I gather, has access to as a road, if necessary, and I'm wondering, is there any reason why that would not be used as a road in the future? And if not then I would assume that at some point The Michaels Group would probably want to use it as an access at some point. Susan Place was intended to be a quiet dead end road, and if it turns into an access road for this property, I think it'll probably turn into sort of a highway, as just another access point, and if we're going to get 1,000 cars a day through these roads here, I don't see anybody being interested in buying that property there, with so much traffic on it, and I'm also concerned about the increase in traffic along Bay Road, and as the man said before, crossing the road takes five minutes just to get your mail, across Bay Road, especially during the summer with all the tourist traffic and everything. Those are my main concerns. MR. THOMAS-Thank you. BILL THOMPSON MR. THOMPSON-Good evening. Thank you. My name is Bill Thompson. We're directly impacted by this project. If you'd refer to the maps, you see the property of Harry Prutsman,Bill Thompson, my sister and my wife, the four of us own it. For those of you who are familiar with the property, it's the white house with the little solar room, big garage. The garage is bigger than the house, right over here, and already we have Cedar Court on one side of us. The property's been in our family for over 20 years, and just recently my family and I have decided to move back to the Queensbury area because we certainly enjoy this area, and we're coming back for those reasons why most of us live in this area. Having grown up in the Adirondacks and being part of the beauty and understanding that you do have some movement and freedom, our prior home was in a development and it was a lot high traffic area and so on. So we made a family decision to move back here for, frankly, the peace and quiet. It is with the deepest concern that this project should go forward as a cluster home, recognizing that you're going to have significant density within a very small area of homes. That particular entrance and exit is literally on our property, and I have to share with you, I shuddered when I heard - 36 - --' --'~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/16/97) street lights. Not to mention the noise and everything else that will be on the back side of our house, which is the bedroom side. Just before I came over here, could I ask, have you been into the Cedar Court area recently? I have to say, before I came over here this evening, recognizing that I learned that The Michaels Group was a part of that, and lets say for sake of this example they are a very fine organization. That's all well and good, but I was stunned, as I drove through there, that the completion, which I believe is The Michaels Group responsibility, of the Cedar Court literally wiped out a beautiful stand of pine trees that was basically in the central court, what I would call the common area, which ~ thought, as they were developing, it looked like it was going to be the common area, and I could understand, that really looked nice. It's gone. The other part of it, as I drove around the circle, is recognizing there's a very thin fence, no trees between, or very few trees, between that property and the other development that also sits there across the street, which is pretty hard to miss, because there's not a tree in either development, other than the small common area in Cedar Court. I'm not sure exactly what the green areas respond to, but if that's an example, I think it's going to be, frankly, fairly appalling to the environment. The other part is traffic. With 43 units, one to two cars, that's 40 to 80 cars that would be in and out of there, and I must share with you, it's a very quick 800 feet to that corner that you can see, and the zone is 45 miles per hour, and the cars are on you like a shot. I can't imagine what that's going to be like to have an additional 50 or 60 cars coming in and out of there at all times during the day and night. It's a very quick zone. It would be a great radar area, frankly, and the other part is, when I took at look at it, I got an answer on the water. The water's going to come through, apparently, in the area, but we happen to have well. When I hear 43 septic tanks are going to go in this particular area, and it is sand, and it does retain, but it also, by definition, yes it has a mixture of loam. It grows great tomatoes, but it also will move water. Does that mean every week, every month I have to have my well tested? Does that further mean that I'm going to be forced into Town water when I strongly prefer my well and my own septic? Privacy. I've heard about buffer zones, and that was really nice for the Cedar Court development, another Michaels Group development, but I really didn' t hear a whole lot about, and I don't mean to be myopic about our property, but I didn't hear a whole lot of buffer about our property, and I certainly would like to have them respond to that, and I just feel that it's going to have an immediate negative impact through the traffic, the noise, lack of privacy. I'm not sure that enjoYment of our screened in porch is going to be viable once this is all built, because I'll be looking at townhomes and single family homes in a cluster, listening to traffic go back and forth and, candidly, Bay Road is a pretty busy road. It's nice and quiet on the back side of our property. This would eliminate that quietness. This would eliminate the peace. That's why we moved back here. I understand that the development is approximately 60 acres. I really, truly would like to know, and I hope you folks do, too, would like to really know what is their intent with the rest of the property? Is this just the beginning? Are we really going to put in three or four more clusters? They said that they could, legally? Are they going to put in single family homes? I mean, I think those are very valid questions for not only ourselves but the rest of the land owners. I encourage you, and frankly you can't miss it, when you drive up and you see the major development across the road here, and then you see Cedar Court, you' ve driven in there. You're familiar with it. I just question whether, I have to challenge whether we need another one that's going to butt right up against it, and I heard people today say they're satisfied with their building, satisfied with The Michaels Group, and that' s wonderful, but they certainly haven't demonstrated that there's going to be that 100 foot buffer zone, as well as trees left, and that's what happened to our property as well, and a couple of - 37 - - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/16/97) questions I would love to have answered is exactly what are the future plans for the rest of the property, and what are they going to help buffer our particular area if, indeed, this project goes through. I sincerely hope it doesn't. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Would anyone else like to speak opposed? MARY LEE GOSLINE MRS. GOSLINE-Mary Lee Gosline. I live south, downstream from this on Blindrock Road, and I've already experienced water problems from The Michaels Group, and Cedar Court and I also have to contend with Schermerhorn's project. I have a couple of questions. If they have this green area in the back, is that going to be part of the homeowners association or is the Town taking it over, and I wonder, do we have a master plan that's in the making right now in the Town? MR. THOMAS-Well, there is a master plan now, but I think they're in the process of doing some revisions to it. MRS. GOSLINE-But I'm just wondering how these clusters blend in with the master plan, and if we get the master plan done and we have all these cluster developments that don't blend in with the master plan, do we start allover again? Is it feasible to have people keep getting variance after variance and not going with the type of land, you know, the zoning that they have? Because why do we have a master plan? Why do we have zoning? I don't understand it half the time, but it's not that I'm against the project so much, but I am concerned about my well. I am concerned about the water table. I am concerned about the automobiles. I'm concerned about the need for it. The property in the back, it would be wonderful to keep 65 acres if they're going to keep 65 acres, but who's responsible for it? Is the Town responsible for it if something happens out there? Is it a homeowners? Should they be in the deed of the homeowners so it's never touched again? I don't think we have anything in the Town of Queensbury set up for these clusters, for these density pieces of property, and I think the Town really has to address this, because it's coming up every day in front of the different Boards, and I think it's something that we're not even ready for. Thank you. MR. THOMAS -Thank you. opposed? Anyone else that would like to speak MIKE WEBSTER MR. WEBSTER-My name is Mike Webster. I live at 6 Susan Place. I only have three concerns and most of them have already been addressed. I just want to state them over. My main concern is the 16 foot right-of-way, what will be done with it. Will it be used for public? With this other acreage back there, will they ever intend to develop it further or what assurances do we have that you are going to lock that in? And access coming off from Alice, as was stated by someone else. Those are the three things that would totally put me against the project, and that's it. MR. THOMAS-Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak opposed? JOAN METRAW MS. METRAW-My name is Joan Metraw, and I live at 16 Susan. My only opposition would be that road, the farm road. It goes right behind my property, and I think I am effected by it more than most of the neighbors because where they come in, they come to mY house and make a turn into the field. I would like to see it so that the field is blocked off, or I really would like to purchase, have the homeowners given the opportunity to purchase that part of the farm - 38 - ~ -../ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/16/97) road. If they do find it belongs to Dr. Barber, which people say they're not sure who it belongs to, but I would like to see us have the opportunity to purchase that land ourselves, just the 15 foot section that goes with our land. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-All right. Anyone else? HARRY PRUTSMAN MR. PRUTSMAN-Evening. My name is Harry Prutsman. My brother-in- law, Bill Thompson, is one of the co-owners of the property that my wife and his wife, and this does impact us, it borders on us, and we've seen trees and things that have been taken away, and I would emphatically like to state mY opposition to this project, for all the reasons that Mr. Thompson had stated. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Anyone else? All right. I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-I'll ask if there's any correspondence. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes, there is correspondence. Bonnie Lapham, Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Queensbury, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, NY 12804, Reference Area Variance No. 17-1997. "It is our position that this variance not be granted. There is no Hard-Ship to the owner or developer in denial of this variance only their efforts to more greed. The Michaels Group have demonstrated their lack of respect for the Environment at Cedar Court and we need to monitor their next project more closely. William F. Brown Kathleen R. Brown 10 Cedar Court Queensbury, NY 12804" That's it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. Lapper. questions to answer. It seems like you have a lot of MR. LAPPER-In general, we're pleased with the comments, because a lot of them were informational, and we think that we can satisfy the neighbors. I mean, it's certainly legitimate for them to have questions and concerns about a 43 unit development that's going to be next door to them. In general, we think that cluster development eliminates a lot of the impacts to them, because there will be this buffer, rather than having the homes right up against their property line. There will be a buffer, and we'll go through the list among us and give you the answers, but we think that, you know, most people will be satisfied with the answers. The Michaels Group prides itself on being a quality developer. Cedar Court, again, was a project that was started by another developer. It had failed. It was sitting, languishing for a number of years before they came in and finished it, but the initial design, taking out the trees, for example, in the center island, I mean, that was all part of the approval. That's in a multifamily, MR-5 zone, which is very different. It's just completely different zoning, but in terms of, they can't be held responsible for that layout. That was something that wasn't their plan. Hudson pointe is the proj ect you should look to in terms of what The Michaels Group is all about. This is going to be a very similar project to Hudson pointe. The smaller lots, this is not a case where we're trying to get small lots approved so we can build $70,000 homes. That's not, I mean, to get away with something. What's going on here, it's to have a homeowners association to maintain it, which is not what Hudson pointe has. Hudson pointe, everyone's responsible for their own maintenance. So this is sort of a blend, if you will, between the two projects, where you have the homeowners association doing more than the homeowners association does at Hudson Pointe, and that's where the market is, Dave said, in terms of people that are looking for a house that's not attached, but without the maintenance responsibilities. Many comments address the 16 foot wide access to Bay Road. We have been lead to believe that that's owned by Dr. - 39 - -' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/16/97) Barber. We haven't run a title search at this point. We expect that that would be deeded to The Michaels Group, if this comes to fruition, and as Dave has said, there's no, it's not going to be part of the project. I mean, there's not going to be any access for construction vehicles or after the proj ect is completed. Since it's not necessary, if the neighbors want it, it's available. I mean, that's something that could be discussed with each of the neighbors who abut it, but it's not part of the project. Coneerns about, a lot of the concerns were about drainage and the leachfields. In general, the idea of clustering reduces the amount of disturbed area, the amount of road, the amount of trees being knocked down between homes, so that by leaving the property closer to what it is now with many more trees, it reduces impervious surfaces reduces runoff. We can't be asked, at this point, when we're only looking for a variance, for an Area Variance to allow the cluster, to do all of the proj ect, the drainage, but The Michaels Group is certainly aware of the drainage in that area, working with Cedar Court. Most of the neighbors would be in the best position to know acknowledge that the drainage is being addressed, but that's something that is the Planning Board's jurisdiction, but of course we're not going to get through the subdivision process without having an engineered drainage plan by Tom Nace. In terms of the traffic, if 43 homes or 42 homes or 41 homes can be built on this property, whether or not we're allowed to cluster in the front, and we could still cluster in the middle. That wouldn't effect the traffic, but we think that be designing this with the boulevard, as Dave said, where you've got the two, the separate ingress and egress, that aids traffic movement. Bay Road is a road that has moderate traffic. We're going to look at that. We would do a traffic study. Moderate because it's not like Quaker Road. I mean, it's one of the main transportation, we're not trying to avoid this. This is something, I mean, I live right near Bay Road also, right here. We will do a traffic study as part of this, and if traffic improvements, I mean, if some trees need to be taken down within the right-of-way to increase visibility, we'll look at that, and if there's a recommendation that the speed limit should be changed. I mean, that's something that could be looked at as well, but that's all part of a traffic study, and again, that doesn't effect the variance, because those houses can be there whether they're in this configuration or another one. No access to Cedar Court, that's something that, vehicular access, that' s something that the Cedar Court homeowners look at as an inconvenience to them, because they deal with their homeowners. They don't want to have the 43 homes right onto that road, and understanding that, we have no plans, I mean, there will not be an access. The Alice Drive people and Susan Place, I understand that some rights were reserved at a time that those subdivisions were done for future access, if that was needed, and that's not, because we're clustering that's not going to be needed. The one access would be to Bay Road. We would encourage the Town to give up that right-of-way. It's not necessary. It was reserved as a matter of good planning in case it was needed, but it won't be needed for this project, and that should put their concerns to rest. The 100 foot and the 80 foot that was requested by one person in terms of the buffer, there will be a real buffer as shown on here. Somebody said that it's good to have the leachfield behind the lots, because that increases the buffer, and the gentleman who lives near the access, and we will, the Department of Health requires a 100 foot separation between a well and a septic. We're certainly going to comply with that. I think that we're probably well in excess of that, depending on where his well, it's probably well in excess of that, but we're not asking for a variance for anything like that. This will be properly designed to comply with Department of Health requirements, and Tom's already seen the soil tests. We don't think that we're going to have to modify soils. We think that this will be fine for separate septic systems, but of course that would be subject to Department of Health review and Town Planning and Town Engineering review during the subdivision approval. Again, in - 40 - "--' ~' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/16/97) terms of a comment about trees, the clustering gives us more of a buffer than there would otherwise be with conventional subdivision. In terms of the common property, there were a few questions about that. What is proposed is that the common property would be for passive recreation for the residents of this project. It would be owned by a homeowners association, the members of which would only be the members, would be the members, just like at Hudson pointe, and at Cedar Court. Homeowners Associations are not unique to The Michaels Group. There have been many in Town, Westwood comes to mind. So it would be deed covenants, a declaration of covenants and restrictions that would govern how that is owned and operated, maintained, but that would be the responsibility, not of the Town, but of the association. If the Town wanted to talk about ownership of some of it, and that's something that the Planning Board would address during the Planning Board review, but our proposal is that that would be maintained by the homeowners association, and in terms of one neighbor was concerned about whether there would be a lot of activity, all;d that's certainly not the plan. I mean, there's not going to be anything other than some paths. Somebody was concerned about the concept of clustering in the three acre zone, and that, of course, is permitted without a variance, and there's, there can be no future development of any of that. Obviously, with a cluster development we'd be using up the development rights to do the 43 homes, and that would have to be left forever wild if you will, the land in the back. So there's no concern of putting another cluster in the back, as somebody stated. Many of the comments that I'm reading are just repetition of what other people mentioned and what I've already addressed, the 16 foot access and septic systems. For the neighbor up by the boulevard, the boulevard would be very well landscaped, much like the Hudson pointe entrance boulevard, and that will aid as a buffer. That's also fairly wide, 160 some odd feet. Okay. For the neighbor who lives near the Schermerhorn development and was concerned about drainage, by leaving all of the trees in the back, we don't think that there would be any impact at all, and the drainage would all be maintained in the front of this. Any kind of drainage retention basin that Tom would design would all be up away from the back area. At clustering, just as a comment, clustering is generally looked at as progressive planning. It's a policy of the Town, in the Zoning Ordinance now, to promote clustering and we look at this as just an anomaly that these two little parcels are in this Single Family that can't be, while most Single Family zones ~ be clustered, and that it's sort of unfair to the property owner that owns it now, which is the justification for the variance, because you've got this strange designation within his property of where the zoning line is, which doesn't facilitate any kind of Comprehensive Plan for the property, because the zoning line changes. I think that's it. Dave's got some things. MR. MICHAELS-Okay. Loud and clear to us, even before we got too far into the planning, was the issue of the storm, and I charged Tom with the idea that this project can in no way increase flows as they currently exist to the surrounding properties, i . e . Cedar Court. We know that's paramount, and our engineering's going to have to confirm that to ourselves and I'm sure to the appropriate Boards if we go forward, that that's indeed the case. We know that's fundamental. Number Two, I'm just going to reiterate a lot of these things Jon brought up, but it helps to hear it from the one making the actual application. That 16 foot right-of-way, we're very open to, if things go forward and it's simply enough with the idea that, you know, it could be surveyed and deeded over to the concerned residents, Susan Place or the gentleman on Bay Road. We're very open to that. In no way would our project allow any use of that as a right-of-way for the residents anyway. That would definitely be deed restricted in the HO documents. Considering the right-of-way on Alice that goes into the property, with what we're proposing, we would present to the Planning Board that there's no need to keep that right-of-way in effect, because - 41 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/16/97) with this type of project, with all the areas dedicated green space, nothing ever could go in the future anyway. As far as the rest of the lands, could we develop, could we present another subdivision down the road, no. Part of the application would be, that's it. This is the subdivision. These are forever wild lands owned by the homeowners association. In terms of disturbing trees, and I'm going to just jump back to Cedar Court. As Jon brought up, we did take over that proj ect from another developer. That development originally contemplated like 62 townhomes. We ended up with 48. So when we went in, we did try to use some good design sense and try to minimize the number of units going to a lot of two unit buildings, wherever we could, versus the fours, to try to improve on the aesthetics of what was already approved. We had to work with an existing condition. We did reduce the units. That center island was originally 12. We ended up with 10. Yes, a lot of trees had to go in it, but it was something that was predicated and there's certain economics, when somebody's doing any kind of project or deal. We took over on it. We're proud of what we did. We're going to landscape those areas and do the best we can. We think Cedar Court came out very nice in lieu of what we had to deal with, and I'm glad that people in Cedar Court feel that way also. Getting back to this project and disturbing the trees. The trees that are colored in are the existing trees. Again, where these homes are being built are in the fields. We're not cutting trees down to create the building envelopes. There'll be some minimal disturbance where you see the road going through a couple of the treed areas, but it's very minimal. That's the beauty of this cluster. We're not going into the woods. We're not going up the mountain. The importance of a buffer, as Bob Paling brought up, the 90 foot and 100 foot that he's concerned with, Tom just scaled that off. We're pretty close to that right now, even though it's a conceptual plan. We have no problem working within those constraints. The concern of Mr. Thompson being directly to the south of the boulevard, from the roadway, you see how it curves, the boulevard going in. From the roadway to his home on the map, we just scaled out, the paving area to his home is about 100 feet. That area with the natural curve that we did put in there, we anticipate berrning that and putting in trees. Right now on the property there exists a lot of Christmas trees, as many people are probably already aware. Our goal there and also our development of the project and landscape plan would be to tree spade and move those trees around. We don't want to just take them out. We want to utilize them. One of the areas we see utilizing them is in that boulevard, providing very significant secondary growth trees, not just five and six foot pine trees. So that was an important consideration for us, too, and how we landscape and set the private nature of the community. It's important to the residents that will be buying in here as well as it is for the surrounding, we're very aware of that, and that, as far as responding, I think I've covered as much as I pretty much remember. I know that Tom has a point. MR. NACE-Just one last one. Everybody else has covered my subject, which is fine. There was a question about the swampy conditions and the depth to seasonal high groundwater table. The test pits that were done were a fairly good smattering throughout the area to be developed, and they showed groundwater in the areas we're developing to be anywhere between four and greater than six feet deep, and that's to seasonal high. Tha t ' s to mot t ling, which indicates where the very maximum highwater level is in the spring, and we feel that we can work within those bounds for septic and storm drainage. MR. LAPPER-What we would just like to leave you with, before you discuss a resolution, is that we think this is good planning. We're not asking for a very big change, because most of the project you could cluster on anyway, and in terms of the concerns, and The Michaels Group will do a quality job. We will prove it to the Town Engineer and the Town Planning Board if we get that far. - 42 - '--" '-" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/16/97) MR. THOMAS-I have one more question for you. The Warren County Planning Board approved with the condition that trails come to the property lines for pedestrian and bicycle access between parcels. MR. LAPPER-What they said was that if there's this passive recreation, passive trail system for hiking in the woods, that their concern was that it would be nice if the neighbors on both sides of the project, if they wanted access to it, if they could access it so that they could walk around, and that was something that, that came from the County Planning Board. That was their idea. MR. THOMAS-Is there pedestrian and bicycle trails in there? MR. LAPPER-Not bicycle trails, and there probably wouldn't be bicycles, because we're not going to pave. So bicycles, not really. It would be walking trails would be the extent of it, and that was just something that they came up with. MR. THOMAS-AnYmore questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-I have a question. This is an 84 acre parcel. The homeowners association will own all of the land except which is around the individual home? MR. LAPPER-Exactly. MR. STONE-All 84 residual, lets say 60 acres, whatever it is. MR. LAPPER-Sixty-five, approximately. MR. STONE-That'll be under the control of the homeowners association? MR. LAPPER-Right. The land gets dedicated before the first house is sold, The Michaels Group would convey that to the homeowners association. They would file in the Clerk's Office, before the first home was sold, a declaration of covenants and restrictions of the homeowners association which binds all of the lots and each of the property owners has the right to enforce against everybody else, and that's standard for a homeowners association. MR. THOMAS-Any other questions? MR. CUSTER-Yes. I just want something cleared up. I'm not really clear, when you drive up and look at it, am I to understand this is the (lost words) house here, or is that, you refer to a house that's going to be torn down? MR. NACE-The house to be torn down is not shown on this particular plan. It's in this parcel. The Thompson house, the very back end of their house is this shown here. MR. CUSTER-I'm also correct that if we didn't approve this, if we left it the way it was, you could access these lands by that same entry way, and build single family homes in the parcel designed as they are, and cluster right in that one little strip that separates the two parcels as it exists right now? MR. LAPPER-Right, exactly. MR. CUSTER-And the possibility of that appears to work for me, being a lay person. MR. LAPPER-What could be done? MR. CUSTER-That you could build single family homes in these two zones and then cluster the remaining 19 units in between them. - 43 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/16/97) MR. LAPPER-It's not that it can't be done, but we're saying this is a better development, as it's the Area Variance and we're just talking about the benefit to the applicant. We think there'd be more of a burden on the neighbors, more of an impact, and this is just a better design. MR. CUSTER-I tend to agree with you. I'm just saying (lost words) that access anyway. MR. STONE-This land is already, all of the green is already owned by the Barbers. MR. LAPPER-Correct. Everything you see there that's green, light and dark, is owned by the Barbers. MRS. LAPHAM-And that's what Dr. Barber's conveying to you, to The Michaels Group. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. THOMAS-AnYmore questions? MR. STONE-I have only one question, John, going back to that water thing I asked. A lot is defined as a parcel or portion of land separated from other parcels. MR. GORALSKI-What you want to do is go to the, do you have your Subdivision Reg's with you? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. You want to go to A183-34F. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-Okay, and that describes how you calculate the density for a cluster subdivision. Okay, and if you read that. MR. STONE-The total area of the property is what you're saying is land plus water? MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. STONE-Okay. It's a new experience for me. MR. GORALSKI-I know it's unusual for the Zoning Board to be looking in the Subdivision Regs. MR. THOMAS-AnYmore questions? No more questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-You do make your home here in Queensbury now, too, correct? MR. MICHAELS-Yes. MR. STONE-But the business office in Lake George. MR. MICHAELS-We just rent. MR. THOMAS-All right. Since there's no more questions. The correspondence has been read. What do you think, Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-What do ~ think? MR. THOMAS-Yes. You're our real estate person. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. Well, let me see if I can corral my thoughts here. Basically, I think that the cluster shows common sense and - 44 - '- --,' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/16/97) good use of the land, particularly if the homeowners association is going to have that green space deeded so that you don't come back here in two years and say, I want another variance for another subdivision. If there's no possibility of that, I do know The Michaels Group do a good job. I mean, you've cleaned up Dixon Heights. You've cleaned up Cedar Court. Hudson Pointe is lovely. I've appraised properties in all of those developments, and I have no reason to believe that you would not, particularly in the price range you're discussing, continue to do a good job, because if you did a lousy job in the price range you're discussing, you would have no takers. So basically that is what I think. MR. THOMAS-All right. Robert? MRS. LAPHAM-Wait, one more thing. The fact that they could do this without a variance by not clustering, and I think not clustering is less sensible than clustering and more of a rape of the land, and the concerns of the neighbors, I think, have been addressed well, and those should be kept in mind. The closing off of the 16 feet, the possible traffic problems to Susan Place MR. THOMAS-Yes, well, I imagine the Planning Board's going to take them over the coals, too. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Robert? MR. KARPELES-Well, I agree with Bonnie. She expressed the same concerns that I had that have been answered. I was concerned about possible subdivision of that space that's remaining and future construction in there, and if that's going to be a forever wild area, I think I like that. The traffic concerns, the way ~ understand it, the traffic concerns are going to be no worse with the clustering than they would be without clustering, and you could build without a variance and have the same traffic problems. So I guess I'm in favor. I think they've done a good job of selling me. MR. THOMAS - Lou? MR. STONE-I guess basically I'm coming out the same way. I came in wi th some concerns. I think they have been addressed. I do empathize, sympathize with the two neighbors in particular who, having this boulevard come on between them, but as the man from Susan Place said, you knew it was going to happen at some point in time. This is what, supposedly, progress is. I think the design is a reasonable one. I, too, share, obviously I said it earlier, the concern that as long as this, the homeowners association can't do anything with the rest of this land, whoever, I mean, as long as it stays there, I guess I'm in favor of it. MR. THOMAS-Brian? MR. CUSTER-When I see something like this, a project like this, my initial reaction is one like anybody around this area, you know, what's coming, Long Island or Clifton Park, but that's why we have these meetings, and to hear the representations of what they plan to do there, and with an open mind I looked at this project as very positive now, after hearing all the sides involved, I realize there's some concerns of the neighbors, but I think it would alleviate it. I commend the quality of the projects that The Michaels Group has done in the area. I believe Mr. Michaels' residency is an impact on that decision, too. He's taken the time to move up here. I don't think he wants to put something in this community that's going to reflect poorly on him or where he lives in this community, and I've got about six other things over here that I think have all been answered, and rather than draw it out, I approve. - 45 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/16/97) MR. THOMAS-I agree with the other Board members. I think this is the best use for this land. Seeing that the majority of the trees will stay and they'll be using the existing open fields, however they got open, I don't know if they went through farming or tree harvesting or whatever. As far as the traffic is concerned, like Bob said, if they put the 43 lots in there, like they're allowed to, there'd still be just as many cars, but there'd be a lot more roads in there. So there'd be a lot more trees cut. As far as the drainage, that's something that The Michaels Group is going to have to convince the Planning Board of, and as far as the septic systems, that's something else that The Michaels Group is going to have to convince the Planning Board of and how it's going to take. So I have no problem with it. Having said that, I will ask for a motion. MR. GORALSKI -This is an unlisted action. You should review the EAF that's attached to your application, the Full EAF. A Full EAF is not necessary, but the applicant has provided you with the additional information. MR. THOMAS-Now what do we do, just read the whole thing? MR. GORALSKI-Here, why don't I help you. MR. THOMAS-Yes. This is the first time I've ever run into this, on this type of thing. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. We will, the applicant has filled out Part I. It's up to the Board to review Part II. I will read the items listed, and if you answer yes to any of the items, then you have to determine whether it's a small to moderate impact, potentially large impact, and whether it can be mitigated by a project change. So if you turn to Page Six, you can read along. MR. GORALSKI-"Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site?" MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-And is that a small to moderate impact or potentially large impact? MR. THOMAS-Small to moderate, I would say. Does everybody agree to that, small to moderate? MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-Number Two, "will there be an effect on any unique or unusual landforms found on the site?" MR. STONE-They tell us no. MR. KARPELES-No. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MRS. LAPHAM-They're staying away from the wetlands. MR. GORALSKI-The answer's no to that. Number Three, "Impact on Water Will the proposed action effect any water body designated as protected?" I can tell you that there are no protected water bodies on this site. "Will the proposed action effect any nonprotected existing or new body of water?" MR. KARPELES-No. - 46 - '-- -' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/16/97) MR. THOMAS-No. MR. GORALSKI-Number Five "Will the proposed action effect surface or groundwater quality or quantity?" MR. THOMAS-Yes, I guess, on that one. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. Now, lets read through. "Proposed action will require a discharge permit". MR. THOMAS - No . MR. GORALSKI-The answer is no. So it would be small to moderate. "Proposed action requires use of a source of water that does not have approval to serve proposed (project) action." Again, the answer is no, so it's small to moderate. MR. THOMAS-Yes, small to moderate. MR. GORALSKI - "Proposed action requires water from greater than 45 gallons per minute pumping capacity." the answer's no. wells with Once again, MR. THOMAS-No. MR. GORALSKI-"Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water supply system." MR. THOMAS-No, because it's Town water, right? MR. GORALSKI-Correct. MR. KARPELES-There's a well. MR. GORALSKI-Right. Assuming that they comply with the DOH regulations. "Proposed action will adversely effect groundwater." MR. KARPELES-Small to moderate. MR. GORALSKI-Small to moderate. "Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity." MR. KARPELES-No. MRS. LAPHAM-No. MR. GORALSKI-"Proposed action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per day." Small to moderate. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. "Proposed action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions." MR. THOMAS-Small to moderate. MR. GORALSKI - "Proposed action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical products greater than 1,100 gallons." MR. THOMAS-Small to moderate. MR. STONE-How are these homes going to be heated? MR. MICHAELS-Gas. MR. STONE-Gas. So you're not going to have 43 oil tanks. Good. - 47 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/16/97) MR. GORALSKI-IIProposed action will allow residential uses in areas without water and/or sewer services. II MR. THOMAS-Small to moderate. MRS. LAPHAM-Small to moderate, septic. MR. GORALSKI-IIProposed action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may require new or expansion of existing waste water treatment and/or storage facilities. II MR. THOMAS-Small to moderate. MR. GORALSKI-Six, IIWil1 the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff?II MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. GORALSKI - II Proposed action would change flood water flows. II The answer to that is no. MR. THOMAS-Small to moderate. MR. GORALSKI-"Proposed action may cause substantial erosion. II MR. THOMAS-Small to moderate. MRS. LAPHAM-Small to moderate. MR. GORALSKI-IIProposed action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns." MR. THOMAS-Small to moderate. MR. GORALSKI-nproposed action will allow development in a designated floodway.II MR. THOMAS-Small to moderate. MR. GORALSKI - II Impact on Air quality? II will proposed action affect air MR. THOMAS - No. MRS. LAPHAM-No. MR. GORALSKI-II Impact on Plants and Animals Will proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species?" MR. THOMAS-We don't know. MR. GORALSKI-They addressed in Part I. MR. STONE-They're getting a letter from DEC. MR. NACE-Correct. MR. GORALSKI-IIWill proposed action substantially affect any non- threatened or non-endangered species?" MR. STONE-No. MRS. LAPHAM-Apparently not. MR. STONE-This was farm land, but it's not currently. MR. GORALSKI - It's not act i ve f arm land now. Okay. proposed action affect agricultural land resources?" "Will the - 48 - '-- ' ~~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/16/97) MR. THOMAS-No. MR. GORALSKI-IIWill the proposed action affect aesthetic resources?" MR. KARPELES-I think we ought to go through it. MR. GORALSKI -Okay. II proposed land uses or proj ect components obviously different from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural." MR. STONE-Slight to moderate. MR. GORALSKI-IIProposed land uses or project components visible to users of aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoYment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. II MR. THOMAS-Small to moderate. MR. GORALSKI - "proj ect components that will result in the elimination or significant screening of scenic views known to be important to the area." MR. THOMAS-Small to moderate. MR. GORALSKI-II Impact on Historic and Archeological Resources Will proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance?II MR. THOMAS-No. MR. GORALSKI-IIWill the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities?" MR. THOMAS-No. MRS. LAPHAM-No. MR. GORALSKI-IIImpact on Critical Environmental Areas Will proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area (CEA) established pursuant to subdivision 6 NYCRR 617.14(g}?" And that would refer to the critical environmental area around Glen Lake. MR. KARPELES-No. MR. THOMAS-No. We're away from it. MR. GORALSKI -Okay. II Impact on Transportation Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems?II MR. STONE-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-IIAlteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. II MR. THOMAS-Small to moderate. MR. GORALSKI-"Proposed action will result in major traffic problems. II MRS. LAPHAM-Small to moderate. MR. THOMAS- It's more moderate than small. That's the only thing we have a choice of. MRS. LAPHAM-The problems could be worse, we're just saying, if you - 49 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/16/97) didn't cluster. MR. GORALSKI - IIWil1 the proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply?II MR. THOMAS-No. MR. GORALSKI-IINoise and Odor Impacts. Will there be objectionable odors, noise or vibration as a result of the proposed action?II MR. KARPELES-No. MR. GORALSKI-If you'd like, we can read through the examples they give below. MR. THOMAS-No, not with the examples they give. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. IIImpact on Public Health Will proposed action affect public health and safety?II MR. THOMAS-No. MRS. LAPHAM-No. MR. GORALSKI - II Impact on Growth and Character of Community or Neighborhood Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community?II MR. THOMAS-Yes, it will. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. liThe permanent population of the city, town or village in which the project is located is likely to grow by more than 5%." MR. THOMAS-Just because of that project, or are they talking about the entire Town? MR. GORALSKI-No. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Small to moderate. MR. GORALSKI-liThe municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project. II MR. THOMAS-Small to moderate. MR. GORALSKI- II Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. II MR. THOMAS-Small to moderate. MR. GORALSKI-IIProposed action will cause a change in the density of land use. II MR. KARPELES-Small to moderate. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-IIProposed action will replace or eliminate existing facili ties, structures or areas of historic importance to the community. " MR. THOMAS-Small to moderate. MR. GORALSKI - "Development will create a demand for additional community services (e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.)" - so - '----' ~~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/16/97) MR. THOMAS-Yes, it will. MRS. LAPHAM-Because there'll be more people. MR. THOMAS-It would be more moderate than small. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. "Proposed action will set an important precedent for future projects. II MR. THOMAS-Small to moderate. MR. GORALSKI - II Proposed action will create or eliminate emploYment. II MR. THOMAS-Small to moderate. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. IIIs there or is there likely to be public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?" MR. STONE-No. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. You folks don't have the form resolution for the SEQRA, do you? MR. THOMAS-No. MR. GORALSKI-What I'd recommend you do then is pass a resolution stating that you have reviewed Part II of the Long Environmental Assessment Form that was provided. Lets see what we have here. Why don't I read this and if someone would like to, you can move it. Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. AV17-1997, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Karpeles: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Zoning Board of Appeals an application for: an AREA VARIANCE for THE MICHAELS GROUP, and WHEREAS, this Zoning Board of Appeals has determined that the proposed project and Zoning Board of Appeals 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. There are other involved agencies, but because it's not a Type I Action, we're doing an independent review for SEQRA. 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 - 51 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/16/97) Zoning Board of Appeals 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 16th day of April, 1997, by the following vote: MR. LAPPER-Mr. Chairman, before you move, could I make a suggestion? There are other, a part of the standard resolution says there's no other involved agencies, and there are other involved agencies, because the action includes going to the Planning Board, etc., but this is not a Type I Action, so that you can do an independent review, as you have. So I think that should just be changed to say, there are other involved agencies, like Department of Health. We specified them in the SEQRA Long Form. There are other involved agencies, but that because it's not a Type I action, you're doing an independent review for SEQRA. MR. GORALSKI-That's fine. AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Custer, Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. O'Leary, Mr. Hayes MR. THOMAS-That takes care of the Environmental Assessment Form. MR. STONE-Right. MR. THOMAS-All right. Now, on to the Area Variance. Would anyone like to make a motion for Area Variance No. 17-1997? MR. STONE-Do we have any idea of the relief that we're granting? MR. GORALSKI-I would include that you're granting relief to allow clustering within the Single Family Residential zone. Is there a minimum lot size you have right now for this conceptual plan? MR. MICHAELS-The minimum lot (lost words) define it as 70 foot at the building line. MR. GORALSKI-A minimum lot would have a width of 70 feet at the building line, and then whatever conditions, one condition I would put in is that not more than 43 lots be included in the final development. I don't know if you want to include that a boulevard road be included as access from Bay Road, a boulevard style road. Some of the concerns of the neighbors were that the 16 foot strip to the north not be used for access to the property, that no connection be made to Cedar Court or to Susan Place and Alice Drive, I believe it is. That the plan as presented, based on the plan that's presented, the acreage that is indicated as I believe it's called public common space or something like that, common green space, be kept forever wild. Jump in any time. I believe the developer agreed to providing the minimum, I think it was 80 foot, something about an 80 foot and a 100 foot buffer. MR. THOMAS-Eighty feet to the extension of the west boundary of Lot 23. MR. MICHAELS-Twenty-three to the Cedar Court property boundary was 80 feet and 24 to Cedar Court property boundary was 100 feet. MR. LAPPER-I guess on that forever wild, the only clarification is that there would be septic systems and some potential for passive recreation. MR. GORALSKI-However you want to word that. - 52 - '-' --/' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting MR. LAPPER-No building. 4/16/97) MR. STONE-The residual land you were talking about. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. STONE-Outside of that as shown to us, we can incorporate the draft that we have here, can't we? MR. GORALSKI-Right. Certainly you would want to put in there that, well, see, you don't want to limit it to exactly what that plan shows because the Planning Board may make further modification. MR. STONE-But you could say the conceptual site plan, C-2, approximating the building area and the non-developed area. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. STONE-Something along that line. Is this a joint motion we've got here going? MR. GORALSKI-I didn't really take notes as we were going along. I don't know if there were any other. I would certainly include in your motion that a stormwater management plan be approved by the Planning Board and the Town Engineer that complies with all the pertinent sections of the Town Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Reg's, that the septic systems be designed in conformance with the Town of Queensbury's Sewage Disposal Ordinance and the regulations of New York State DOH. MR. STONE-Can we also put in that the adjacent properties be shielded as much as possible, buffered as much as possible, the two on either side of the boulevard? I think you said you'd do something along that line. . MR. GORALSKI-Maybe you want to say something that a landscaping plan for the boulevard be presented to the Planning Board and approved by the Planning Board. MR. STONE-Also the back of the properties, too, on the back side. I mean, it's shown. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. STONE-I think we have it down, don't we? Well, basically, I move. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 17-1997 THE MICHAELS GROUP, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Custer: The proposed project, the applicant proposes to develop a cluster subdivision with common open space in an SFR-1A zone. The development of single family homes under the Town's cluster provision is not allowed in the SFR-1A zone. The bulk of the cluster would be in RR-3A, in which clustering is allowed by Code. The benefit to the applicant, he would be allowed to develop residential lots which will not meet the minimum lot size for the SFR-1A zone while providing a substantial amount of open space for this neighborhood and the surrounding land. This motion recognizes that we've looked at a conceptual plan, C-2, which will probably be modified slightly in the future by other governmental actions. This relief is not necessarily substantial relative to the Ordinance. It merely makes an untenable situation in terms of zoning something that can be managed to put in what we believe to be a valuable project. In granting this variance, we recognize that some thought must be given to access to Bay Road in terms of sight lines and appropriate measures to ensure that problems do not - 53 - '" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/16/97) get out of hand. In this finding, we found that natural features on the topography of the subject property make it difficult to construct homes and infrastructure on the rear portion of the site, and the developer is going to deed this land to the homeowners association in such a way that this land will never be developed in the future. In addition, we impose the following conditions: 70 foot width at the building line, no more than 43 lots, the 16 foot strip will be dealt with, one way or another, and also there will be no access from Susan Place and Alice Drive and Cedar Court, and that this residual land, other than that land directly built upon and the attendant septic systems and the common green space in the middle will be undeveloped in the future. From Lot 23 there will be at least 80 foot buffer between that and Cedar Court, and between Lot 24 approximately 100 feet to the property line. Stormwater management will be in conformance with Town regulations and approved by the Queensbury Planning Board and the Town Engineer. In accepting this variance, the developer agrees to buffer the area around the boulevard entrance to the best degree possible and also to consider a good buffer zone behind the properties on either side of the boulevard, and that a landscaped plan to that effect will be submitted to the Planning Board for their review and approval. All septic systems will be approved by the Planning Board and the Department of Health. Any street lighting that will be installed will be buffered to minimize the effect upon existing neighbors. Duly adopted this 16th day of April, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Custer, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. O'Leary, Mr. Hayes MR. THOMAS-So you have your variance. MR. LAPPER-Thanks very much. MR. THOMAS-Now you go before the Planning Board. USE VARIANCE NO. 18-1997 TYPE: UNLISTED CR-15 BEN ARONSON OWNER: SAME 64 MAIN STREET, ONE QUARTER MILE EAST OF EXIT 18 OF I - 87 APPLICANT PROPOSES A WAREHOUSE ADDITION TO AN EXISTING WHOLESALE MEAT DISTRIBUTION BUSINESS LOCATED AT 64 MAIN STREET. WAREHOUSES AND DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES ARE NOT LISTED USES IN THE CR-15 ZONE. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE USES LISTED IN SECTION 179-24, COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL 15 ZONE. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 4/9/97 TAX MAP NO. 134-6-1 LOT SIZE: 0.70 ACRES SECTION 179-24 LARRY HART, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. THOMAS-Now, unfortunately, Warren County Planning did not hear this. So we cannot make a decision. We could make one decision tonight, and that's to disapprove it, but I don't think you want to hear that, and we don't want to do that. So what we'll do is we'll read the application in. You can add anything you want to it. I'll open the public hearing, and then close it, and that'll be it until we get Warren County Planning. I can't do the Area Variance until the Use Variance is either approved or denied. If it's denied, well then it's a moot point, but if it's approved, then we go on to the Area Variance, but like I said, I can't approve it tonight because we're at the mercy of the Warren County Planning Board. MR. GORALSKI-And I'd just like to state for the record it was no fault of the applicant. It was Staff's fault that that did not get to Warren County Planning Board on time to be reviewed. - 54 - '--- --' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/16/97) MR. THOMAS-Who's going to take the lashing for that one? MR. GORALSKI-Well, I'm here, so I'll take the blame. MR. HART-So, will we be doing this again for the Use Variance? MR. GORALSKI-What you'll have to do is in May you will go to the Warren County Planning Board, and then that next Wednesday you will come back to this Board, and they will re-hear both the Use Variance and the Area Variance. They can't act on the Use Variance without Warren County Planning Board acting first. MR. THOMAS-What we'll do is get this thing underway. MR. GORALSKI-We will put you first on the agenda. MR. THOMAS-All right, Bonnie, read it in. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 18-1997, Ben Aronson, Meeting Date: April 16, 1997 "APPLICANT: Ben Aronson PROJECT LOCATION: 64 Main Street PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Applicant proposes to construct an addition to an existing wholesale meat distribution business located at 64 Main Street. Warehouses and distribution facilities are not allowed uses in the CR-15 zone. USE VARIANCE REVIEW CRITERIA, BASED ON SECTION 267-b OF TOWN LAW: 1. IS A REASONABLE RETURN POSSIBLE IF THE LAND IS USED AS ZONED? As is the case with all use variances, the property owner should present information, including financial information, which indicates that a reasonable return is not possible if this land is developed under the current zoning. 2. IS THE ALLEGED HARDSHIP RELATING TO THIS PROPERTY UNIQUE, OR DOES IT ALSO APPLY TO A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD? The need for increased space to expand a business would appear to be a hardship which is not unique to other businesses in this area and within the CR-15 zone. 3. IS THERE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD? Expansion of this use may result in increased truck traffic, increased noise and fumes which may effect surrounding properties. 4. IS THIS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NECESSARY TO ADDRESS THE UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP PROVEN BY THE APPLICANT AND AT THE SAME TIME PROTECT THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY? This appears to be the minimum variance to address the applicant's stated need. It appears that the relief that is being sought may alter the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Staff Comments: Since this business began in 1984 (assessor), there have been several approved additions to this business. In 1994, the applicant was before the ZBA with a request for relief that is similar to what is being reviewed now. That request was tabled and never acted on. SEQR: Unlisted action, short form EAF review required. II MR. THOMAS-All right. You will get input from the Warren County Planning Board during the May meeting. Is there anything you'd like to add to the application? MR. HART-Larry Hart. I just want to I guess reiterate some of the things that are stated in our application, and really it's, the need for this is due to competition. Competition that comes from outside this area, whether it be Albany, Binghamton, Boston, Massachusetts, Clifton Park, comes into this area and is taking business away from us and has had a negative effect on our bottom line, and how we're going to combat this is the first thing we've done is we've affiliated ourselves with a national buying group. Now, who we're competing with right now are Fortune 500 companies, Sysco, Alliant, which was formerly known as Kraft, and we won't - 55 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/16/97) ever have the storage facility at our location to compete with those companies, but being affiliated with Gold Bond, the national buying group, we are able to bring in, well, not smaller, but at least palette sizes rather than truckload sizes of product which would expand our line, and enable us to compete, at least in our market place, which we haven't been able to do over the last few years, and our market share in this area is way down. So this added warehouse would help us compete. As far as increase traffic or decrease traffic, I would say traffic would not increase, and it may decrease. I couldn't make any guarantees on that, but it would definitely not increase, because we would be able to take in fewer deliveries. They would be bigger. For example, we will take in deliveries right now which may have a palette of this and a palette of that, but it would also have orders on there that are a case or two of product, and what we would do now is we would bring in larger quantities. We wouldn' t have to bring in from a local supplier. Maybe somebody from Albany a case of this and a case of that. We would be buying on a national level. So as far as the traffic is concerned, it would definitely either remain status quo or decrease. As far as the building itself, Frankie could get into much more detail as to what we're going to be building and the rest of the logistics of it. MR. THOMAS-I have just one question. Have you ever thought of relocating to somewhere else where you would have more room? MR. HART-Why should we buy an entire warehouse and increase our overhead? That just doesn't make fiscal sense. It just doesn't. MR. THOMAS-It's like the Staff Notes say, you've already had three additions on to the existing building since, in 1984 when you started. So, to me, you're expanding rapidly. So why not look for another place? MR. HART-We're expanding, but our sales have not increased. They've increased about three percent over the last five years. So to buy a new building just wouldn't work. We'd be out of business in about five years. So that's not an option. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. STONE-Mr. Chairman, may I point out something in the application? MR. THOMAS-Sure. MR. STONE-Number One, Is a reasonable return possible if the land is used as zoned? Yes. Do we have even a basis for a variance here? They're saying it is a reasonable return the way it is zoned. MR. THOMAS-Yes. That was one question I was going to ask later, on your application, that first question there that Mr. Stone pointed out, can that land be used as zoned, which in an CR-15 is mobile home sales, car wash, office building, commercial greenhouse/nursery, veterinary clinic, day care, golf driving range, gasoline station, farm and construction equipment sales and service. So you've indicated, yes, that it çgn be used for that and get a reasonable return. MR. HART-Then I misunderstood the question. MR. THOMAS-Yes. I think you wanted to say no. FRANK LEO MR. LEO-If we do what we want, yes, for us it will be, not for anybody else, because it's not even on the main street. Because - 56 - ''---- '--' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/16/97) we're on, Second Street is where we're applying for the variance. MR. THOMAS-So you'd want to change that from yes to no. MR. HART-Yes, definitely. MR. THOMAS-All right. If the answer's no, you have to provide financial evidence supporting this claim. MR. KARPELES-You have to get into pretty good detail. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. KARPELES-I mean, a lot of them have bogged down on that point, and I'd hate to see you come in here and we'd have to table it for you to go back and get more information. I think John can probably help you with that, right? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. KARPELES-Because we've seen an awful lot of them fail, just because that first question isn't answered. MR. STONE-The question that we have to answer is, cannot realize a reasonable return. We need substantial, as shown by competent financial evidence, that's your tax returns, I mean, of that nature. Year end reports, this kind of thing, profit and loss sheets, we really need to have that. MR. HART-So you want to see that there's no growth, that type of thing or, I'm just looking for an example. MR. STONE-Yes. We want to see whatever the business is doing. MR. HART-Okay. MR. CUSTER-By law we have to address these things. If one of them isn't addressed, it's kicked out. MR. HART-Okay. MRS. LAPHAM-See, and you're saying you can't make a living at it now. So that's what we're saying, you have to show us that. Prove it. MR. THOMAS-Is that a big problem? MR. HART-Well, it's a gray area almost, because we're going to have growth, but it's in different areas. We don't have the growth. We're having growth, say, in nonprocessed items, where there's a low margin. I'll give you an example. We're having growth in nonprocessed pork, where you're working at pennies, but if you put in dry storage, we're talking about high percentage, 25 to 30 percent. In this industry, that's high, but our growth has been in different areas. So it would be tough for us to just say, well, yes, we've had a little bit of growth, but it's nonprofit stuff. Our sales are up, but it's from low profit end stuff. Our net profit is down. MR. GORALSKI-That's what you need to show us. MR. THOMAS-That's what we want. MRS. LAPHAM-When you talk about all this dry, what are you talking about? MR. HART-Well, I'm talking about can goods. - 57 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/16/97) MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. What I called dry gas because I couldn't read. MR. STONE-But your business is primarily to restaurants? MR. HART-Restaurants and markets. MR. STONE-Markets. MR. HART-And the restaurant end of it, it's really depleted, because you have Fortune 500 companies with big programs. They carry everything. They carry paper goods. I mean, Leland is up against the same type of thing. They're going up against food companies who are carrying the same things that they are, and they're competing at a better level, because they buy on a national level. So we need the space to improve the high profit margin area. MR. GORALSKI-What I recommend you do is come in to the Planning Office between now and next month and we can get into more detail about what type of evidence the Board would require. MR. HART-Okay. Profit and loss statement over the last five years. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. THOMAS-Yes, that's what we're looking for, not that we want to read it, but that's what the law says. MR. HART-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Are there any other questions for the applicant before I open the public hearing? MR. GORALSKI-This was properly noticed. So you can open and close the public hearing if you want to. MR. THOMAS-I think I'll open it, and leave it open, just in case somebody wants to come back next month when it's re-advertised. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. THOMAS-Is there any correspondence? MR. LEO-You should have probably three letters from neighbors. MRS. LAPHAM-The last time this came up I remember seeing these letters. MR. KARPELES-I've got them. MR. GORALSKI-I think you have copies attached here. MRS. LAPHAM-Here we are. Jim's Glass. Okay. Jim's Glass Service, February 25, 1997, liTo Whom It May Concern: This is to inform you that Ben Aronson, owner of Double A Provisions, has first option to purchase the property at 3 Second Street, Queensbury, NY. James C. Fish" liTo the Zoning Board, Town of Queensbury: As the adjacent property owners east of Double "A" provisions Inc., we have no objection to their need to build additional warehouse space. We have also given Mr. Ben Aronson owner of Double II A" Provisions first option to purchase our property when we are ready to sell! Helen & Randolph Whittemore" And then this is another one from Jim's Glass. liTo Whom It May Concern: I, James C. Fish, residing at 6 Second Street, Queensbury, and owning property at 3, 5, and 6 Second Street, Queensbury, am not in opposition to Mr. Aronson constructing a storage shed on the property at 64 Main Street, - 58 - ',-- ~.' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/16/97) Queensbury. James C. Fish" MR. THOMAS-You've got this one from Alan P. Monroe? MRS. LAPHAM-I don't have that one in here. I take yours to read. Okay. March 8, 1997, liTo Whom It May Concern: I, Alan P. Monroe, living at 4 Second Street directly across from Double A Provisions at 64 Main Street would like to state that I have no objection to Mr. Ben Aronson adding on to his existing building, a storage facility. Mr. Aronson has always shown himself to be a considerate neighbor and concerned about the impact of his business on the neighborhood. Since he is located in a commercial area, I feel his project should be given favorable consideration. Yours Truly, Alan P. Monroe 4 Second St. Queensbury, NY 12804" Now I didn't see any others. Did anyone else? MR. THOMAS-No. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. MR. KARPELES-Did you read Whittemore's? MRS. LAPHAM-Yes, I read Whittemore's, and I read two from Mr, Fish, because one he did as owner of Jim's Glass. The other he did as a private citizen, and I just read Monroe's. MR. STONE-Does this mean the property directly behind you some day would be available? MR. HART-Correct. MR. KARPELES-That's that one house between you and Jim's Glass? MR. LEO-Jim's Glass. In fact, we're in negotiations right now to buy it. MR. KARPELES-Yes. It looks like it's going to be swallowed up. It's pretty lonesome there. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MRS. THOMAS-But if they're in negotiations to buy it, that should certainly help. It would help alleviate your crowding. MR. LEO-That's what we're trying to do. We tried to get it done by this meeting, but Mr. Aronson is out of town and Mr. Fish is out of town. MR. HART-Now, if we bring sufficient information to you and meet your approval, then what's the process? Then what do we do? Where do we go from there? MR. THOMAS-After the Use Variance, we'll have to get into the Area Variance for the setbacks, and if that's approved, that's it. You just go to the Building Department. MR. GORALSKI-Wait. Let me just make sure they don't need a site plan review. MR. THOMAS-I don't think they do. MR. GORALSKI-It's not a listed site plan review use. MRS. LAPHAM-If they buy the property behind them, will they have enough room so that they don't need a variance? MR. THOMAS-It depends on where they put the building. They could put it where they want to now, but they would have an area back - 59 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/16/97) there. They could put a bigger building back there, probably, but they'd still need a Use Variance because that's still the CR-15, and they may not need an Area Variance because they can meet all the setbacks. MR. KARPELES-Would they need a Use Variance to buy the property? MR. THOMAS-No. MR. GORALSKI-They will need a Use Variance if they want to expand onto the adjacent property. MR. THOMAS-If they want to use the property, yes, you know, tear the house down and put a big warehouse up there. MR. LEO-He plans on tearing the house down and just making it a green area. We really don't need any more truck space or parking space. He just wants the space. MR. STONE-Are we talking the space on Main or on Second? MR. LEO-Second. MR. STONE-But that's where you want to put this expansion, on Second? MR. LEO-On Second behind. MR. STONE-But if you bought the property behind it, then it would be in conformance, except on the other side. MR. THOMAS-It still would need a Use Variance because it still is CR-15, but it wouldn't need an Area Variance if it met the setbacks. MR. STONE-Right. MR. LEO-What are the setbacks supposed to be anyway. MR. GORALSKI-One thing at a time. No site plan would be required for the Zoning Ordinance. As you know the Zoning Board has, in the past, required certain applicants to go to the Planning Board. You don't have to do that. So that's the answer to that, and the setbacks. MR. THOMAS-The only reason I think that we would ask for it to go to the Planning Board, if we got a lot of public input with a lot of different questions. MR. GORALSKI-The setbacks are 20 foot side and rear, 50 foot front. MR. THOMAS-So if you wanted to put a building up, you'd just need a Use Variance, on that other piece of property. MR. GORALSKI-But if you just bought that property and combined it with this one, you may not even need the Area Variance. MR. LEO-Do I need a setback against the other CR-15? Whittemore's? Against MR. GORALSKI-Both the back and the side, yes. MR. LEO-But if I buy the side. MR. GORALSKI-Then you won't need it. MR. LEO-I can't really move the building forward because of the loading dock. - 60 - "-- '-../' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/16/97) MR. THOMAS-Yes, but you could move that building over onto the other property, if you bought it. MR. LEO-I'd have to have them attached. MR. THOMAS-You have to have what attached? MR. LEO-The building to the old building. MR. THOMAS-To the existing building, it needs to be attached? MR. LEO-It has to be attached, well, that's the whole idea. See, the building we want to build is just a warehouse. There's no doors. There's no facilities to unload trucks. We're going to keep what we've got and just use that for storage. MR. THOMAS-Unload them on the loading docks and then take it down for storage. MR. STONE-And when you get your trucks up, you'd just go on to the warehouse, your delivery trucks. MR. LEO-Right, the same way that we are doing it now. There won't be more trucks. It's just going to be a warehouse. MRS. LAPHAM-And hopefully your business will get better. MR. LEO-That's right. MR. THOMAS-All right. I'll leave the public hearing open, and I'll make a motion. MOTION TO TABLE USE VARIANCE NO. 18-1997 BEN ARONSON, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: Until Warren County Planning Board has had a chance to review this and the applicant can bring in competent financial information. As far as the Area Variance, that will be heard if the Use Variance has been approved, and it will have to be re-advertised at the Town's expense. Duly adopted this 16th day of April, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Custer, Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. O'Leary, Mr. Hayes MR. THOMAS-So we will see you at the first meeting in May. The first meeting in May, first on the agenda, as long as you get all the information in, get everything settled with John before then. All right. MR. LEO-Yes, sir. MR. HART-Thank you. Good night. MR. THOMAS-We'll see you next month. The minutes of the meeting of March 19, 1997. Does anybody have any corrects? CORRECTION OF MINUTES March 19, 1997: NONE MOTION TO ACCEPT THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING MARCH 19, 1997 MINUTES, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for - 61 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/16/97) its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: Duly adopted this 16th day of April, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Custer, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. O'Leary, Mr. Hayes MR. THOMAS-We don't want to get in that dilemma where we can't approve the minutes. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Thomas, Chairman - 62 -