Loading...
1995-12-20 \ '- OR~GINAl >-- QUEENSBURY ZONING BO~RD, OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING DECEMB~R 20, 1995 INDEX Area Variance No. 90-1995 Tax Map No. 74-1-37.82 Area Variance No. 89-1995 Tax Map No. 14-2-20 Area Variance No. 88-1995 Tax Map No. 107-1-54 Area Variance No. 91-1995 Tax Map No. 48-3-51.1 Area Variance No. 76-1995 Tax Map No. 61-1-37.3 Brian Goodsell Const., Inc. James Mooney Richard B. Slote clo King Fuels Ron Harris Perry Noun Assoc., Inc. 1. 10. 16. 28. 36. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAfF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR,ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHSMI~UTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. ;o"t (L J (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/95 ) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD FIRST REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 20, 1995 7:00 P.M. OF APPEALS MEMBERS PRESENT FRED CARVIN, CHAIRMAN CHRIS THOMAS, SECRETARY THOMAS FORD ROBERT KARPELES BONNIE LAPHAM DAVID MENTER WILLIAM GREEN PLANNER-SUSAN CIPPERLY STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI NEW BUSINJ;:SS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 90-1995 TYPE II SFR-1A CEA BRIAN GOODSELL CONST., INC. OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 3/4 MILE SOUTH OF ROUTE 149 ON WEST MT. ROAD, EAST SIDE, LOT BEGINS WHERE GUARD RAIL ENDS. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME WHICH REQUIRES RELIEF FROM THE SIDE SETBACKS SPECIFIED BY SECTION 179- 20. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 12/13/95 TAX MAP NO. 74-1-37.82 LOT SIZE: 0.47 ACRES SECTION 179-20 SCOTT NEWELL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 90-1995, Brian Goodsell, Meeting Date: December 20, 1995 "Project Location: East side of West Mountain Road Proposed Project and Conformance with the Ordinance: Applicant proposes to construct a single-family home which requires relief from the side setbacks specified by Section 179-20. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law 1. Benefit to the applicant: Will be able to construct the house as proposed. 2. Feasible alternatives: It is probably possible to redesign or reorient the house so as to achieve compliance, but this is the applicant's chosen design. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The relief needed is 3 feet along each side lot line, which is 15% of the 20' required. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? It does not appear that there would be any adverse effects on the neighborhood. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? This difficulty stems from the 100-ft. lot width of the pre-existing lot, which was created under a different zoning designation. Parcel History: The lot was creat.ed in June 1988. Staff Comments and Concerns: This seems to be a reasonable size house for the lot -- it is the narrow nature of the lot that makes siting the house difficult. SEQR: Type II, no further action required." MR. THOMAS-"At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 13th day of December 1995, the above application for an Area Variance to construct a Single Family residence. was reviewed, and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Return Comments: No action could be taken on this application since a quorum was not present." Signed, C. Powel South, Chairperson. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is there anything that you'd care to add to the application? Any questions from the Board? Okay. On the map there's, I guess Goodsell Construction just owns the one lot, or do they own t.he other adjacent lots? - 1 - '--' '-- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/95) MR. NEWELL-Just the one lot. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Are they looking to buy the other lots, because it looks like we may have a similar situat.ion with those other lots. MR. NEWELL-The lot to the north of the property will need so much fill, it's not going to be economical to build on that lot, and the lot to the south, I believe, has already been sold to a private party to be built on. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, when I was out there, that hill does have quite a slope, does it., the land? MR. NEWELL-Yes, off that lot, not on this lot. MR. CARVIN-Is there any reason why the garage can't be put. under the house, or a re-configuration, so it can still achieve what you're looking to do, without the setbacks? MR. NEWELL-Really, you need the size requirement for the family that's buying the house. They need as much house as they can, and to keep it at the price it has to come in. It's an FHA purchase, it has to come in at $101 to $250, no more. 50 we're kind of working under those constraints as well. Cost effectively, we could do it, but not in the price range. MR. KARPELES-Well, couldn't the garage just be put in back of the house? MR. NEWELL-Sure, for more cost, a longer driveway, longer excavation. The change would be expensive. We're really trying to meet a price. This would be the easiest way to do it. MR. CARVIN-I still don't. understand why the garage can't be put on this side, if this is the hill side. MR. NEWELL-That's living space. MR. CARVIN-I know, but you put your living space över here, and lop of six feet, make it. comply. MR. NEWELL-We've been through it with the builder, and he's been t.here, and didn't see a way to really do it other than this house, which is the house they wanted. They already chopped off four feet of this house to shrink it down as small as they could. This house plan is actually four feet larger. They've already re-done the whole thing four feet narrower. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but you said the lot to the south has been sold? MR. NEWELL-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Do you know if particulars on that, what kind there? they're going to, or any of the of house they're going to put MR. NEWELL-I had nothing to do with it. sold. I was just told it was MR. GREEN-Do you have any idea what the width of that lot is? MR. NEWELL-No. MR. CARVIN-That's what I'm saying. I don't know if we're going to be looking at, you know, two or three additional variances if they all want to do this type of house. In which case, we could have t.hree or four houses sitting pretty close to each other - 2 - ~ ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/95) right there. MR. THOMAS-Well, lets go back to 1988. setbacks back then? What were the side MR. CARVIN-I don't know. MR. THOMAS-Do you know, Sue? MS. CIPPERLY-It was, I believe it was 15. It was a UR-10 zone. It. was a much smaller lot, 5,000 square foot lot. It wasn't a Planning Board approved subdivision at the time. MR. THOMAS-It wasn't? Is it now? MS. CIPPERLY-It's a pre-existing lot. It didn't Planning Board review as a subdivision, and I guess conforming lots at the time, and I'm not ever sure went on in 1982 or whatever. It was June of '88. go through they were quite what MR. CARVIN-I don't know what the setbacks were. MS. CIPPERLY-I find that people were told things like, if you needed, that you didn't need Planning Board review for less than four lots, and things like that, and we run into these occasionally. MR. THOMAS-So what we're saying, if this particular house was built in 1988, they wouldn't be here before us. MS. CIPPERLY-Right. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions of the Board? not, then I'll open up the public hearing. Okay. If PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Okay. Gentlemen, any other questions? MR. GREEN-I think the easiest answer, just make it a one car garage, but as Chris said, when the lots were designed, they were under different parameters at that time, and I just don't want. to see six or eight of them, one right after the other, in here in the next couple of years. MR. MENTER-Well, I'm not convinced there's not another way to do it painlessly. One hundred is tight, but I've got to believe that there's ways to modify a plan without scraping the whole thing and changing your costs. MR. NEWELL-We did look at this. We priced it right out. This has been approved by FHA with spot lot appraisal. I don't know if you understand that, but that means that we have to go through a six week process to get this approved before we can even start doing anything. We've been through all that. If I change the plan, I've got to go back six weeks, start over, Square One, and do an FHA spot lot appraisal, because these people have to put down 10 percent new construct.ion, if it.'s not pre-approved for construction. It has to be pre-approved. So they set these rules up, and there's so many square foot required. There's more regulations to deal with. MR. CARVIN-Were they aware of the side line setback when they started down this path? - 3 - '-- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/95) MR. NEWELL-We were told it was 15, because that's what she told us when she sold us the lot. We cut the house down to meet the 15, and leave ourselves a couple of feet. We just applied for the building permit, and all our plans done and everything else, and the FHA spot lot appraisal all done. MR. KARPELES-Who told you 15? MR. NEWELL-The person who sold us the lot, because that's what she got when she subdivided it. She told us 15. We designed the whole thing leaving two extra feet, and even cutting the building down. We didn't want. to be that close. We left extra room, two more feet, cut the house down, took quite a bit of negotiating with the purchaser, that's all we can get, because of the side setbacks, and then to turn around and (lost words) if you look at the plans, there's no place to take the other four feet, just t.he way the house is set up. I've got $100,000 house is tight these days. I could design a house side ways, a cape sideways, driveway down going the other way, but that's not the way the house would look on the lot. The house should face the lot. That's the way they want, everybody wants their house. MR. KARPELES-Yes, but the garage doesn't have to face I mean, I don't see any reason why that garage can't behind the house, without any major cost. the '"oad. be moved MR. NEWELL-When you've got to remember you've got a septic field and a leach field, and that. hill drops off severely in the back. You've got to keep that close to the house. MR. CARVIN-That's why I'm t.hinking if the garage was moved over to the north side, and the living area to the south side. MR. NEWELL-That would change the width of the house. MR. CARVIN-It could. Well, you put the garage underneath, you'd extend your living space over. I'm certainly a long ways from an architect, but I know that there's got to be a number of them. MR. NEWELL-If I switch the garage, then I've got to do another four foot frost wall down below the garage, if I sink it, if I sink the garage, and that would effect the foundation, because the garage is on a slab, okay. Now I've got a slab and the frost wall, versus, if I go over to the right side is living space. Now I've got to do, I mean, I've got to heat it, and I've got to have heat runs under there, which means I've got to do a crawl space rather than a slab, which is a different product, again. We looked at the lot the best we could. Like I said, we cut it down purposely to meet the side setbacks that we were told, an approved lot, 100 foot width, 15 foot setback. MR. FORD-What is your relationship in this project? MR. NEWELL-I'm the real estate broker, and also a partner with Brian Goodsell. He's the owner of the lot. MR. FORD-And in either of those positions, are you not currently aware of what the side setbacks should be in that zone? MR. NEWELL-Well, it's a pre-existing lot. I mean, we took her word for it. No, we don't check the setbacks. MR. FORD-Up to this point. MR. NEWELL-Well, we were told when we went in for the building permit we'd have to get a variance. We weren't asked to change the plans. They said just go get a variance. That's all he wrote on the plans when he gave them back. This will be fine. - 4 - l -/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/95) Just go get a variance. If it said change have thought a little differently, but we weeks doing this. the plans, we might. spent the last few MR. THOMAS-This is a pre-existing lot, and just because the zoning changes, why should the side setbacks change? Because if this was a lot that was made today, that lot would be 150 feet wide, but this lot was made in 1988, seven years ago, and the setbacks then were 15 feet. Why should they confoTm to the, because the zoning changed to the new side line setbacks, why should an existing lot have to meet today's setbacks, when it was created seven years ago? We went through this with the sheds in subdivisions, about setbacks in existing subdivision. It needed a five foot setback, back in the late 80's, where they need a 20 foot setback now, and this is basically the same thing, that t.hey're t.rying to cram a new law onto an existing lot, and, to me, it's not fair to the applicant to abide by the new setbacks, when this lot was created eight years ago when the setbacks were 15 feet. MR. CARVIN-Well, I don't know. Are we positive it was 15 feet in 1988? MS. CIPPERLY-It was not more than 15 feet. I know it was less, it was less than the 20 that's now, and I could go check and see what the zoning was. It was either SR 5,000 or UR-l0. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but was this also a one acre area at that point? MS. CIPPERLY-There was a mixture of things there, and Phyllis Holtz has been in asking us about her propeTty there, which never completely received, she had apartment complexes and things adjacent to this property also, and no form of Planning Board approval was ever done for the multi-families, and I'm not sure, there's no record of a Planning Board approved subdivision for these three lots that were created in a row there, but as I said, I really don't like to cast any doubts on what. people were told back in 1988, because I'm finding that people were told things differently than they are now, as far as which lots needed Planning Board approval. MR. CARVIN-As far as your question, whether it was 15 feet, and it's now 20. I don't know. Wiser minds than mine have determined that 20 feet is more adequate, and I still think that where we can we should try to bring t.hese into compliance, and I appreciate where you're coming from, Chris, on this. MR.- THOMAS-That's been my stand ever since we went through the shed thing there last spring and summer. MR. CARVIN-But I think if the applicants had done their homework and come and found that it was a 20 foot setback, there might have been ot.her alternatives that they could have looked at, as far as the house design. I mean, it sounds like this gentleman is telling us here that they've gone through quite a lengthy process, and then all of a sudden found out that they had a setback problem, and they just don't want to go thTough the long lengthy process, and I can appreciate that, but, I don't know, I think that. we have an obligation here, I think, to try t.o grant minimum relief, and this one, you know, where's the hardship? The hardship is created by the applicant. MR. THOMAS-The hardship was created by the zoning law change. MR. CARVIN-No, I think the hardship was created by the applicant not investigating that it was a 20 foot setback, and that there might. be a plan out there that would satisfy their needs. - 5 - --: (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/95) MR. THOMAS-That's true. created a þroblem. It's my opinion that t.he zoning law MR. CARVIN-There are plenty of lots that are 100 feet wide where they meet the 20 feet setback, and I think this appears to me a case that the gun was fired and now they want to put the bullet back in the gun. MR. MENTER-Yes, I would tend to agree with that, Chris, and I understand where you're coming from, and it certainly is a matter, it is to be considered whenever there is a nonconformance and another change crea~es a hardship on it, but I think you have to be careful when you use that as sort of a, to give sort of a blanket relief, or even think along those terms, because that can create a whole new set of problems. I think it is something you have to consider, in terms of the hardship. MR. THOMAS-I'm sure it is, but when they change the laws, the zoning laws, as far existing subdivisions, that the whole set right t.here. go through and they as setbacks in pre- of problems is created MR. MENTER-To me the difference would be the structure. There's no structure. We're talking about putting a structure into what. are, in fact, existing setbacks, and it may be a little more challenging, because the property is large, as the current zoning calls for, but the fact remains that there is no structure there. So you're really starting from Point Zero on that. MR. CARVIN-You've got to remember. When a zoning change is created, it goes through a lengthy process. I mean, there's public hearings, and everything else. So I mean, it's not like we just changed the rules here last week, because we knew this applicant was coming in. So, I mean, it's not something that they just arbit.rarily do. Well, gee whiz, lets change it from 15 to 20 feet and maybe next week, well, lets change it to 20 to 25 feet. So, I mean, there is a lengthy process. I think Tom's question is a good one. I think that this gentleman is a real estate agent. I mean, this has been on the books now since 1988, which is quite a number of years. MR. FORD-I have one more question for you. How long have you been in your present relationship with the builder? MR. NEWELL-Ten years. MR. FORD-Okay, since 1985, and how long have you been in real estate? MR. NEWELL-Ten years, and I've probably gotten six of these variances already granted to me by the Town of Queensbury by ,previous Boards, because they're a pre-existing, nonconforming lots, and when you change the rules, I've gotten two up on Fox Farm Road, Cherry Knolls up there, for building houses, and that's why we do these things, and we buy a pre-existing nonconforming lot, and we know that we have to meet the subdivision regulations and square foot requirements, and there are certain rules and a 1600 square foot requirement for this lot.. You try and meet that. I can design a house, but not cost effectively. I mean, you're trying to make a house here for an affordable family. It's a young married couple with three kids. They've never owned a house. The~'re renters down in Glens Falls t.rying to buy a house in Queensbury. We designed a split level, the most cost affordable house we can put up, the most square foot for, the money, and that's why we designed, that's why we suggested a plan, split level. They gave us a plan, and we cut it back and said, we've got to meet these. The Lot. A that is sold is 165 feet of frontage. That lot, because it's a weird - 6 - ,L -...../ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/95 ) shape, is only 55 in the back. So they won't have a pyoblem wit.h their side setbacks. Lot B is 100 feet. I defy anybody to cost effectively build a house on there, because there's 40 feet of fill. We're Lot C. We're next to that. So the lot next to us probably won't be built on. The next one has 104 feet of frontage, and if you look at it, there's 104 feet of frontage here, but then notice how it runs off there. So, a side setback on that property is not going to be a problem. We're really the only lot in this whole subdivision that.'s going to have this problem, because we have 100 foot ,side setbacks, and we have, any expansion where we could go back, like the other lots do, we're going to need it, or at least need it most of the way. So I think it is a situation, it's not just that we didn't do our homework. We've done this before, and it's always been granted, because when they changed the rules from a three acre lot with 50 foot setbacks, down to a half acre lot, you have to make adjustments to those, because you can't meet the same requirement, because you just take up too much of the lot with the requirement. I mean, a 60 foot house, you can't, any colonial, you couldn't build a colonial there. Any colonial with this square footage requirement would be 42 or 44 feet. long, plus a garage, 20 feet. People want their house to look a certain way. They don't want it pointing side ways. You can do it, but it doesn't look right on the lot. 'You never look like you're looking at. the fyont. of the house. It looks like it's on a corner lot. Then you turn around and you do a cape, the same thing, 1600 square feet, make it. this price range, the split level was the way to go. MR. CARVIN-Well, I live in a 48 foot split level with a garage underneath. I've got a full upstairs and a half down stairs. MR. NEWELL-The whole idea is that space underneath is going to be finished living space. There's no basement in this house. MR. CARVIN-Yes. There's no basement in mine either. split ranch. It's a MR. NEWELL-But then how do you have your heat run under your heat run under your slab? You don't. You have a crawl space. MR. CARVIN-No, off the gar age.. it sits right in the center of It's a split level ranch. the house, right MR. NEWELL-Well, I'm sorry. effective. You take away that, garage underneath, take away that to switch that for the garage. the other. I just don't think it's cost and you can switch and put my living space, then you're going So you're just trading one for MR. CARVIN-What's the living space on this? Building area, 1584. It's got building area, and then it.'s got paved area. That may be including the garage. MR. NEWELL-It's over 16, because it has to be. It's like 1670. The room sizes are not big. I mean, you've got a nine foot wide kitchen. You're talking about cutting down, or you've got a 12 foot wide living room, I mean, a living room is only 12 foot wide. It's not big. It's just not a big house. MR. FORD-You say you've gotten numerous variances? MR. NEWELL-Yes. I wrote Nulty's house, up on Cherry Ridge, and we wrote, I mean, we've done these before, and that. was a 2200 square foot house. That was way over the requirement, and we still got the variance because it was a half acre lot, and they changed the rules, and it's always been the same thing. If you change the overall lot size, you change the side setbacks. - 7 - - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/95) MR. FORD-How accepting what setbacks? does that coincide with your statement about you had been told by the seller, as to the side MR. NEWELL-Because she said it was a pre-existing lot. Usually you go by the previous lease. She just said it was a pre- existing lot, 15 foot side setbacks, and I assumed that, and I called the Town and asked if they were pre-existing lots, and they said, yes, they were, and that's what I went by, and when I went and applied for the building permit is when they first said you'll need a variance for the side setbacks because they are 20 feet. That was the first time we were told that. MR. FORD-But you had already had, on other locations, variances. MR. NEWELL-Yes, but I knew going on on those, the side setbacks, that you would need a variance, because I knew what I was dealing with. I wasn't told by the seller on those that the side setbacks were. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I still haven't heard, you said that you asked them about the side yard setbacks. You asked them about the pre- existing lots, which I agree, I mean, these are pre-existing lots, but did you ever ask them the question, then, what the side setbacks are now, and knowing that in most cases it's 20 feet. MR. NEWELL-No. I asked if it was a pre-existing what are your covenants for size of the house. What setbacks, and are they pre-existing lots, because establishes the rest, if they are pre-existing lots. lot. I said, are the side that usually MR. CARVIN-Well, I can't buy what the side yard setbacks would have said 20 feet, but pleasure gentlemen and ladies? that. I think Staff is aware of are, and I would assume that they in any event. Okay. What's your MS. CIPPERLY-I guess the question here is, do you see a detriment. to the community if you give this variance? MR. CARVIN~I don't. know, Sue, because I'm curious about the lot, I guess it's Lot B, and I also don't know about Lot D, whether there's more land that could be bought or if a lot line adjustment, I don't know the ownership on these four lots, whether they're still single ownership, or if this gentleman would be in here next week with Lot B saying, gee whiz, I want anot.her side yard setback, because Lot B, if that's been sold, somebody's probably going to build a house there. MR. NEWELL-Well, Lot B has been sold. MR. CARVIN-That's what I'm saying. MR. NEWELL-The back of that lot is 150 feet across. MR. CARVIN-Now which one is B? I'm assuming that this one's A, which is kind of the pie shaped. MR. NEWELL-This one's A here. MR. CARVIN-Yes, which is the pie shaped, and B, which is almost a mirror image of this, right? MR. NEWELL-Exactly, but B's the one that there just this huge, there's a creek running through the cent.er of it. MR. CARVIN-Well, you still have the 100 feet frontage. MR. NEWELL-That's right. - 8 - I 'L- .......,I (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/95 ) MR. CARVIN-And this one you say is not. MR. NEWELL-That's sold. MR. CARVIN-B is sold. MR. NEWELL-Four hundred and seventy-one feet in the back of the property. MR. CARVIN-Is D sold also? MR. NEWELL-Yes, it is. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Do you know to who? MR. NEWELL-A private individual, A and D are both private individuals. MR. CARVIN-And B is? MR. NEWELL-B is sold by Phyllis Holtz. Actually, Andy Horne owns be. Phyllis Holtz is the one I work with. She owned this lot.. MR. FORD-And there is a creek running through it? MR. NEWELL-Well, it's a seasonal one, but yes, that.'s definitely a drainage area, but this lot here drops off drastically in the back, and you've got to keep everything up here. It goes right away. B also has a New York Telephone easement to the property t.hat you've got to deal with. I mean, that's going to be a tough lot to do anything with. MR. FORD-So, if that's an usable parcel, then consideration given to purchasing. was any MR. NEWELL-She says it's buildable. We tried to get a piece of that, and she just said that it.'s a buildable lot, and actually tried to sell it to us and told us we could build on it, and, I mean, we looked at that. There's no way, cost wise, that you're going to build on that lot, especially with that power line easement, though she says that has been cut from 50 feet to a smaller one. It shows 50 on here, but I guess she (lost words). MR. CARVIN-I would check it out.. I mean, she may be using dated information. MR. FORD-All I was suggesting is that you buy 10 feet there. MR. NEWELL-I'm not interested in buying it. checking out. It's not worth MR. CARVIN-All right. Any other questions? brought up to speed on t.his? Bonnie, are you MRS. LAPHAM-Well, I don't want to hold everyone up. come in a half an hour late, it's difficult. When you MR. CARVIN-Okay. If there's no questions, I'd ask for a motion, or opinions. Does anybody feel strongly one way or the ot.her? MR. MENTER-Scott, what are the timing considerations again? MR. NEWELL-The FHA spot. lot appraisal has already been done, okay. It's already been approved based on this, before we even put the building plan in, applied for the building permit. So that's all been done. They have a mortgage commitment in. We'd like to start this up. We'd have to start allover wit.h an FHA spot lot appraisal with a new plan. We'd have to change that. - 9 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/95) Fill out that, paperwork, cert.ification, send that in, wait for HUD t(j)'app,rove 'it. It, takes time, and then when we got approval for that, she'd have to re-apply for a mortgage, because I'm sure that her commitment will run out before we're finished the house. MRS. LAPHAM-These would be a lot of extra costs to your purchaser, wouldn't they? MR . NEWELL-The purcha.ser Clost words). We're right at the pr ice $101, $250 ¥ight at ~he very top of FHA. MRS. LAPHAM-So it's going to be extra cost to somebody if that happens? MR. NEWELL-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Again, I would ask for a motion, either to approve or deny. MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 90-1995 INC., Introduced by Robert Karpeles who seconded by Thomas Ford: BRIAN GOODSELL CONST.. moved for its adoption, I don't feel that granting this would be granting minimum relief. 'It. appears as though the process hås gone further than it should have gone at this time, and now we're being asked to grant relief that really isn't deserved. The benefit to the applicant, he would be able to construct the house as proposed, but I'm not surè that he wouldn't be able to construct another house, just as cost effective, and meet the side requirements. Feasible alternatives, I t.hink I've already stated those, that I don't see any reason why the garage cGuldn't be put in back of the house, and it could be put under the house. So theTe appear to be feasible alternatives. The relief is three feet on each side, which is fifteen percent of the twenty feet required, and seemed to be sizable relief required. The effects on the neighborhood or community, if these other lots were built with the same thing, I t,hi nk it would have an adverse' effect on the community, and the situation appears to be self-created. Duly adopted this 20th day of December, 1995, by the following vote: MRS. LAPHAM-I'm going to abstain because I didn't hear earlier discussion. AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford, Mr. Carvin NOES: Mr. Thomas ABSTAINED:. Mrs. Lapham AREA VARIANCE NO. 89-1995 TYPE I WR-1A, CEA JAMES MOONEY APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE AN EXISTING STRUCTURE AND REPLACE IT WITH A HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE HOME FOR USE BY PARENTS. RELIEF IS NEEDED FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-16, WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL, AND FROM SECTION 179-12C, USE REGULATIONS, WHICH STATES THAT THERE WILL NOT BE MORE THAN ONE PRINCIPAL BUILDING ON A LOT LESS THAN TWO ACRES IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONE. (ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY) (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 12/13/95 TAX MAP NO. 14-2-20 LOT SIZE: 0.5202 ACRES SECTION 179-12C, 179-16 JAMES MOONEY, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 89--1995, James Mooney, - 10 - I '-- -..-/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/95 ) Meeting Date: December 20, 1995 "Project Location: Cleverdale Road Proposed Project and Conformance with the Ordinance: Applicant proposes to remove an existing structure and replace it with a handicapped accessible home for use by parents. Relief is needed from the setback requirements of Section 179-16, Waterfront Residential, and from Section 179-12C, Use Regulations, which states that there will not be more than one principal building on a lot less than two acres in a residential zone. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be able to provide appropriate living space for parent who has undergone hip replacement. 2. Feasible alternatives: One alternative would be to convert existing attached garage space to living space for parents, and build a detached garage. If no additional cooking facilities were involved, no variance would be needed except setbacks for the detached garage. This alternat.ive would least affect the privacy of the northerly neighbor, and be a use similar to the one currently in that location. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The Ordinance requi~es one acre per dwelling unit in this zone. The applicant is asking to construct a second dwelling on .52 acres. ,~This could be considered substantial relief. The area variance, proposing 2.2 feet of setback where a minimum of 20 is required, is also substantial, although t.here is an existing structure at that setback. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? Concerns have been expressed by some members of the neighborhood with regard t.o the use of the additional dwelling for rental purposes, overloading the lot with structures, and overloading the septic and stormwater capacity of the lot. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty arises from trying to accommodate the needs of the extended family on a pre-existing, nonconforming lot. Parcel History: Assessor's records indicate that the Mooney's have owned the property since 1981, that it is .5 acres, and that the house has 3 bedrooms and total living space of 3003 square feet. Staff Comments and Concerns: It should be mentioned that the applicant has proposed to limit. the use of this structure to family members in a non-rental situation via a deed restriction or other met.hod arrived at by the Board. As discussed in previous applications of this sort, such restrictions can be difficult to enforce, especially upon sale of the property. SEOR: This is an Unlisted action within a Critical Environmental Area, which makes it a Type I action, so a Long Form EAF must be reviewed. (FYI: This portion of the SEQR Regulations will change January 1, 1996, so this would be a Type I I . )" MR. THOMAS-"At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 13th day of December 1995, t.he above application for an Area Variance to demolish existing building and rebuild with a 22' x 38' new dwelling that is handicapped accessible. was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Return Comments: No action could be t.aken on this application since a quorum was not present. The WCPB has concerns on the density and increasing the intensity of' use on the site with the subsequent impacts on Lake George." Signed by C. pöweL South, Chairperson. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is the applicânt present? I] MR. MOONEY-James Mooney. MR. CARVIN-Is there anything that you'd cars to add to your application? MR. MOONEY-No, not at this time. MR. CARVIN-Any questions of the Board? - 11 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/95) MR. MENTER-What is the current situation? Is it your parents? MR. MOONEY-It's my father-in-law, my wife's parents. MR. MENTER-Okay, and where are they living now? MR. MOONEY-They live in Ledgeview Village, on 149. MR. MENTER-Okay. MR. MOONEY-If I may just make this shorter for you people, okay. You have received correspondence, I believe, from the neighbor to the north? MR. THOMAS-Who's your neighbor to the north? MR. MOONEY-Wards. MR. THOMAS-W. Ward? MR. MOONEY-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Yes, we've got a letter here from them, William and Elizabeth Ward. MR. MOONEY-Right, and especially with the situation on Cleverdale today, with variances being granted, I've been in Cleverdale all my life, and the last thing I want to do is upset any neighbor or do anything that's going to cause problems. The letter that you received from the Wards, they're very closéneighbor:s. They have concerns, and I would like the Board to table this matter until we can talk to them. I just got this letter today from them. They didn't realize this meeting was so quick. They didn't have time to really think about it, what we were doing. We talked to them quite a long t.ime ago about. it. I don't want. to do anything in Cleverdale that would cause problems. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So am I to understand that. you're asking for a tabling? MR. MOONEY-Yes. If the Board has any questions tonight, I don't want to waste your time. I'd like to reschedule the meeting when I can da that, for January. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, we have I'll leave it up to the Board. would prefer not to get involved else from the public here. a tabling procedure. I guess If we're going to table it, I with, unless there's somebody MR. MOONEY-I don't want to put the Board in the position to vote on something that they don't ~ant to vote on right now anyway. I'd rather table it. MR. CARVIN~Well, let me ask you this, is there anyone in the public that was looking to make a comment this evening with regard to this application? No one is going to make a comment? All right. Well then I'm going to, because I wouldn't want someone to come out, especially tonight, to make a comment, I'd move ahead, but apparently there is no one at this point. So I don't have a problem tabling this, if the applicant wants to table it. Does anybody have any specific questions they want to ask? Then I would move that we table Area Var iance No. 89--1995, James Mooney. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 89-1995 JAMES MOONEY, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: - 12 - L '--' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/95) At the applicant's request, to allow him additional time to discuss his variance request with his neighbors. Duly adopted this 20th day of December, 1995, by the following vote: MR. MOONEY-What is the process now? MR. CARVIN-Okay. I'll go into that in just a second. MS. CIPPERLY-I'm just hearing, so that we otherwise we're going 500 feet, which on thing. wondering if you should open the public don't have to, it was scheduled for tonight, to have to re-advertise to everybody within Cleverdale gets to be expensive, for one MR. GREEN-You could just open it and see if there's anybody here, and close it, and be done with it. MR. CARVIN-All right. Before, then, we move on that motion, it's a good point. MS. CIPPERLY-You can open it and close it, or you can open it and leave it open. MR. CARVIN-Yes. Why don't I open it and leave it open. Then I would open up the public hearing wit.h regard to this particular var lance. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. CARVIN-I'm going to delay reading any correspondence at this point. I don't think I have to read correspondence. There is correspondence on it? MR. THOMAS-Yes, there is. MR. CARVIN-All right, then we better read it into the record, to be on the safe side. MR. THOMAS-A letter dated December 18, 1995, "Dear Members of the Zoning Board: In reference to Area Variance Application Number 89-1995, Type I, submitted by James and Susan Mooney: As property owners on Cleverdale, we wish to express our concerns and to oppose the variance request of Mr. and Mrs. Mooney. The zoning laws are very clear concerning additional residential dwellings on single family lots on Cleverdale. Since the regulat.ions state so clearly 'that. there will not be more than one principal building on a lot less than two acres in a residential zone,' we do not understand why there is even a question about the legality of this request. Furthermore, we along with other residents, raised this issue concerning the same desire for an additional residence on the Hodgkins' property on Mason Road, and the Zoning Board enforced the regulation as stipulated. We are dismayed that another request is made when the law clearly states that these lots do not allow second homes. The law is also very clear that if an existing building is destroyed, all the current zoning restrictions are t.o be enforced. Therefore, it is puzzling that residents continue to disregard the zoning laws and assume that they can be given waivers when these restrictions were put in place for very good reasons. What are the concerns of many of t.he residents of Cleverdale, and why were those zoning laws made? Cleverdale has always been a small resident.ial community of single family dwellings which complimented the l.ot size, andconsidêred certain features of the land. The current Mooney residence is much larger than the original Slade cottage. There was never any additional residence on the property. Anot.her residence on the - 13 - -- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/95) lot overtaxes the property and overlooks matters that have become a grave concern to the Cleverdale community. Those matters include: additional storm water run-off into neighboring lot.s and the lake, increased possibilities for septic pollution of the lake and land, and further cutting of trees and shrubs which help to maintain the ecological balance of the land. Again, we turn to the Zoning Board and request that you cont.inue to enforce the zoning laws. Thank you very much for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Sarah W. Wheeler D. Billings Wheeler" A let ter 'dated December 14, 1995 "Dear Jim: Once agai n I am writing in )"esponse to a legal ad in the Post Star. I realize that I am not in the 'close neighbor' range, but this application for an Area Variance #89-1995, Type I by James Mooney is following a patteTn that could spread like the proverbial wildfire if it is granted. The house that is presently on this property is of a generous size, to say the least. It is nicely placed away from the lake shore and is quite attractive. I do not have the dimensions of the lot but it is quite obvious that the land area is sufficiently filled with the structure, septic system and driveway. Another home on the property, even if it is as small as a modest manufactured home, would be an overburden. The land slopes gently toward the lake and if septic systems aTe overburdened the flow will be into Lake George. I realize that there are no alternatives that could be used, but the granting of these variances would add undue visual clutter to an already crowded yesidential area and subvert the intent of the law that states that 'there will not be more than one principal building on less than two acres in a residential zone.' When the need for a home for the parents is no longer there it will in effect become another rental property in all probability. I request that you deny these variances for the above reasons and in line with the decision that was made in a recent case regarding property on Mason Road in Cleverdale. Very truly yours, Joan A. Robertson" A letter dated December 20, 1995 "Dear Members of the Board: We are writ.ing in relation to the application of James and Susan Mooney of Cleverdale Road for variances needed to remove an existing structure on their property and replace it with a new structure. We are co-owners of the property immediately north of t.he Mooneys; ours is the property which the proposed new structure would abut. After considering the information we currently have regarding the proposal for a second residence, we can not at this time support the plans. We have a variety of concerns regarding the proposed project. Our first concern is the size of the new structure. Our understanding is that the currently planned structure would occupy a footprint larger than that of the building being removed, and would in fact approach the size of the existing primary structures on several near-by properties, including our own. We are mindful of the potential for overbuilding on Cleverdale from both the aesthetic perspective and from the ability of the land to adequately meet sept.ic and other necessary requirements. Although the Mooney lot is larger than many in the vicinity, we are not convinced that it is sufficient to support two year round residences, one the size of the existing residence and another the size of the proposed new construction. A second concern involves the increased level of use and activity in such close proximity to our yard and primary building. The psychological, visual, and aural separation generally fostered by setbacks would be absent. Landscaping which might moderate the closeness of the proposed structure might also reduce the sunlight and ventilation reaching our building and yard, and reduce our views of the lake. We do not wish to have the feeling of living in the shadow of another residence. We also have concerns relating to possible additional construction for porch or deck on the east side of the proposed structure, to the height of the proposed structure, to potential second stOYy constrûction, to storm water runoff, and to the proposed structure's proximity to our leaching device. Finally, we are concerned about what would happen when the structuTe is no - 14 - I ........ ,-.,,/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/95 ) longer used by the applicant's parents. What is to prevent the structure from then being used simply as an independent living unit. Such use would clearly be outside the rationale presently offered for seeking relief. We have found the Mooneys to be good neighbors, and would like to support their efforts to meet family needs. For the reasons stated above, however, we can not now endorse the current proposal. Thank you. Sincerely, William and Elizabeth Ward" A letter dated December 19, 1995 "My wife and I share ownership of the cottage directly north of The Mooney's Cleverdale home. Although we do not vehem.ently object to their plans, we have concerns which must be addressed. Our fh"st concern is general, and is not in response to Sue and Jim's request. We are not in favor of second residences on any Cleverdale property unless there is extreme hardship. Our other concerns deal with t.he proposed structure. We would object to a building closer to the lake or taller than the existing outbuilding. We would object. to either a deck or a porch on the lake side of the structure, on either the first or second level. Setback from our shared property line is not a concern, as long as there are no doors or windows on the North side. All vents (kitchen, dryer, bathroom, etc.) and exterior mechanical units (air conditioning) should be on the west or south side of the building. The Mooneys have been wonderful neighbors~ but there is no guarantee that a future owner would match their generous behavior. If possible, we would like deeded restrictions which would prevent future owners from renting or selling the building. Thank you for the opportunity to express our views on the project. Sincerely, John Schroeder" That's it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. It looks like you've got a couple, three other neighbors that you may want to talk with. Okay. I'm going to leave the public hearing open, in case we get any additional comments. MS. CIPPERLY-It may be helpful, also, in talking to a couple of these people, just knowing what the building is int.ended to look like, whether it's to be a one story or two story, without going into some major architectural drawings. MR. MOONEY-I did some drawings. By those letters, I wouldn't vot.e for it either, and I don't want them to be unhappy about it. MR. CARVIN-No. I think it's a Teasonable request. MR. MOONEY-I'm not t.he type of guy to just build something, and the hell with everyone else. MR. CARVIN-No, it's not a problem. All right. If there's no question on my original motion to table this application, t.hen I would ask for a vote. AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford, Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE MR. CARVIN-Okay. Now, the motion is tabled. We have a 60 day tabling. So, when you are ready, notify Staff, and then they will re-schedule either in January or February. If we do not hear from your in some fashion or form by February, then the application is becomes null and void. So you'd have to go through the whole procedure again. Just notify the Staff when you're ready. I guess the January cutoff is coming up pretty quick, next Wednesday. So I would suspect that. if you can't, it'll probably be February before you get on, but just check with Staff, and then they'll work you through that arrangement. MR. KARPELES-Fred, I've got a question on this. This was - 15 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeti ng 12/20'/95) returned from the Warr<=:n County Planning Board because they didn't have a quorum. MR. CARVIN-Yes. MR. KARPELES-But they had some questions about it, evidentally, and I'm wondering if this, sinc<=: we're going to table this, if this shouldn't be re-submitted to them, to give them an opportunity to take action on it. MR. CARVIN-My understanding is that if they don't have a quorum, that after a certain amount of time, it becomes an automat.ic accepta nce . MS. CIPPERLY-Thirty days after their meeting, or the date of the resolution, which probably the next day, that it would become an approval, basically. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but I don't know of anybody ever re-submitting, under this situation, to Warren County. You can call them, I suppose. MS. CIPPERLY-I can ask and see if they'd like to look at it with a full Board. MR. FORD-I think that's an excellent point. I would like to have their input. MR. CARVIN-Well, I think we referral back. All right. Warren County for their input. can only make Then we could a recommendation or refer that back to MS. CIPPERLY-I'll see what their procedures are. MR. CARVIN-It's a good question, Bob. I don't know what the answer is, but in any event. It's t.abled for at least 60 days. Tha.nk you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 88-1995 TYPE II HC-1A RICHARD B. SLOTE C/O KING FUELS OWNER: THE KING SERVICE, INC. CORNER OF QUAKER AND BAY ROADS APPLICANT SEEKS TO LOCATE A PORTABLE SHED ON THEIR BAY ROAD PROPERTY WHICH NEEDS RELIEF FROM SECTION 179-67A(3), ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, WHICH REQUIRES A 10 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE REAR LINE, AND 50 FT. SEPARATION TO ANOTHER BUILDING. THIS CORNER LOT IS CONSIDERED TO HAVE TWO FRONT YARDS AND TWO REAR YARDS. SECTION 179-29C, TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE, REQUIRES A 75 FT. FRONT YARD SETBACK AND SECTION 179-23, HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL, REQUIRES A 25 FT. REAR SETBACK. RELIEF IS SOUGHT FROM BOTH SECTIONS. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 12/13/95 TAX MAP NO. 107-1- 54 LOT SIZE: 0.82 ACRES SECTION 179-29C, 179-67A(3), 179-23 GREG SHERRY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 88-1995, Richard B. Slote clo King Fuels, Meeting Date: December 20, 1995 "Project Location: Corner of Quaker & Bay Roads Proposed Project and Conformance with the Ordinance: Applicant seeks to locate a portable shed on their Bay Road property and needs relief from Section 179-67A(3), Accessory Structures, which requires a 10 ft. setback from the rear line, and 50 ft. separation to another building. This corner lot is considered to have two front yards and two rear yards. Section 179-28C, Travel Corridor Overlay zones, requires a 75 ft. front yard setback and Section 179-23, Highway Commercial, requires a 25 ft. rear setback. Relief is sought from both sections. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law 1. Benefit to the applicant: - 16 - "-- --"" (Oueensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/95 ) Applicant would be able to prot.ect. remediation equipment, which needs to be utilized on a temporary basis. 2. Feasible alternatives: It appears the major concern with this shed is of a visual nature, which leads to alternatives such as decreased height or moving the shed into a more complying position. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The proposed 5-foot distance from the south property line is one-fifth of the required 25 feet, or 80% relief. The proposed distance to the front property line is 55 feet, where 75 is required. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? The shed could be considered to detract from the visual quality and visibility of surrounding properties in its current location, particularly the new insurance company building to t.he south. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? It does not appear that the company considered local regulations when it sited the shed, so this could be considered a self-created situation. SEOR: Type II, no further act.ion required." MR. THOMAS-"At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 13th day of December 1995, the above applicat.ion for an Area Variance to construct an 8' x 8' Adirondack motif shed on existing concrete slab for approximately one year. was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Return Comments: No action could be taken on this application since a quorum was not present." Signed, C. Powel South, Chairperson. MR. CARVIN-Is the applicant here? MR. SHERRY-My name is Greg Sherry. Mr. Slote couldn'~ make it tonight. He's ill. I'm the District. Manager with King Fuels. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Sue, do we have an applicant? Don't we need to have something signed by the applicant., an agent form? MR. FORD-"N/A" for applicant's agent. MR. THOMAS-Mr. Slote did sign this one. MR. CARVIN-WeLl, he signed it for himself, though. MR. THOMAS-Well, not rêally. MS. CIPPERL Y....He didn't sign the agent form. ' MR.MEN~ER~It looks like he signed it, but he didn't authorize anybody sþecific. MR. CARVIN-No. He just signed that he read the above statement, and that's just for the stenographêr; That's Just a disòlaimer. That's not an agent application. I don't know. What have we done in the past? MR. THOMAS-I'd say go through with it. Let him sign it later. MS. CIPPERLY-If that's acceptable to retroactively, I guess. you, I can get one MR. CARVIN-Okay. I think then that we should notify right up front that this represent.ative is not an authorized representative at this point. So that we should take any of his comments into consideration from that angle. Okay. There's no hinderance of our moving forward because he's not here. MS. CIPPERLY-No. I think it's something that's up to your judgement, as a Board. Obviously, somebody told this gentleman to be here, or asked him to. MR. FORD-Who did, in fact, request that you be here? - 17 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/95) MR. SHERRY-Mr. Slote is my super\} iso)- . MR. FORD-So you were directed by the applicant to appear here? MR. SHERRY-Yes, I was. MR_ CARVIN-Okay. Mr. Sherry, is there anything that Mr. Slote has asked you to make comment on? MR. SHERRY-Just to explain any questions you might have about how we got into this situation we're in at this location, and what this system is basically all about. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any questions of the Board? MRS. LAPHAM-I'd like to hear how you got into this to begin with. MR. MENTER-Yes. It sounds like a good place to start. MR. SHERRY-Well, as far as the property itself, it was determined that somewhere along the line in the history of the property there was a gas leak there, and the gas leaked into the ground. MR. FORD-Gas or gasoline? MR. SHERRY-Gasoline, and through the process of drilling site wells, they were able to identify where on the property the leakage may have occurred from, and it appeared to be four abandoned gas tanks that were on the right hand side of the store, and we never use those particular gas tanks. They were on the property when we purchased it. When we bought the property, we installed 10,000 gallon gas stations on the left hand side. ENCON was notified when the gasoline was found in the soil, and started the process of identifying the problem, the scope of the problem, how far the gas had leached into the surrounding area, and a solution to try to remediate the soil so as to take the product out. of the ground and return the soil to its original condition. MRS. LAPHAM-When you said the left and right and so forth, do you mean our left as we look at this drawing? MR. SHERRY-Yes. As I'm looking at this drawing here, the problem area is on the right hand side of the convenient store. MRS. LAPHAM-Which would be off to the side of the shed? MR. SHERRY-On the Bay Road side. MRS. LAPHAM-Right, toward Garden Center? MR. SHERRY-Yes. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay, and where don't you use the gasoline anymore? MR. SHERRY-There were storage tanks right in summer. four, six thousand gallon underground that general area, which we removed this MR. CARVIN-Okay. When I was out there on a visitation, there was what appeared to a rather large colored, I'm going to use the term "shed/garage area" behind the Convenient that's not noted on this particular map. Are you familiar with this map? MR. SHERRY-Yes, I am. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is there any reason why that's not on there, or could you explain what the use of that building is? - 18 - '- -' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/95) MR. SHERRY-Well, the use of t.hat building is, technically it's called a bottle shed. It's where we store fixtures, excess inventory, but predominantly we use it for recycling cans and bot, tles . MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. SHERRY-We take the returns from the customers, store them so we can bring t.hem back to the manufacturer. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Was any consideration given at any point of locating t.his equipment in that building? MR. SHERRY-Yes, it was. MR. CARVIN-And why wasn't it? MR. SHERRY-Well, the main problem is the run of the plumbing that this system uses. As you can see, the contaminated area was on the same side as, on the base side, as the property, and the system works most effectively the shorter the run, and mostly in straight lines is also a favorable position for the plumbing. What happens is this machine pumps air into the ground, and makes the water percolate, and when the water returns to the shed, it is separat.ed, and then the fresh water is put back into the soil. That's all done with electric pumps, and the shorter the run, the more effective the system is, and st.raight lines are important also. Elbows could cause a problem. So we elected to take the straightest lines possible on the property. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Then why wasn't it moved forward some off the property line? MR. SHERRY-Off the property line? Well, it sits fairly close to the driveway, now, and I think to cure the situation that I'm here in front of you for, we'd literally have to put it right into the parking lot. MR. CARVIN-Okay. All right. There's what appears to be a large vent type, it. looks like a PVC pipe that goes up, I don't know, I'm a poor guess, I would estimate probably eight to ten feet. What kind of fumes come out? MR. SHERRY-Fresh air. MR. CARVIN-It is just fresh air? I mean, there's no gas odors or obnoxious odors, t.hings like t.hat? MR. SHERRY-The molecules, when it separates, there's a water oil separator in the pump house, and all t.he contaminant goes into a container, which is itself enclosed, and drained periodically. So that's fresh air that.'s going out the stack, and fresh water which is returned to the ground water. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MRS. LAPHAM-You said in the application that this would only be a year process? MR. SHERRY-We propose this for 12 months. MRS. LAPHAM-So at. the end of the year, if this process is completed and your tests show that the ground water is fine, all this would be removed? MR. SHERRY-Yes, the shed and the electric motors would all be removed. We would leave the plumbing that is installed in the ground, in the ground. - 19 - '--- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/95) MRS. LAPHAM-But that would not be visible? MR. SHERRY-No. It's about six feet underground right now. MR. KARPELES-Is this system working now? MR. SHERRY-Yes, sir, it is. MR. FORD-When was the shed constructed and the pipes put in place? MR. CARVIN-Some time after June of '95 I would guess. MR. SHERRY-I would say either late June or early July of this yea.r. MR. FORD-Do you know why consideration wasn't given to the setback requirements at. that time? MR. SHERRY-We were squeezed by ENCON on this particular piece of property to react to t.he problem. We had similar properties in our company that are in this condition, which have been identified as places that need to be cleaned up, and we've sort of prioritized them and put our resources to the most pressing issue and ENCON decided to make this one of our most pressing issues. They gave us seven days to do it. MR. CARVIN-Yes, but. that's after they told you in March, there was a March deadline. They sent you a letter in May on something that was executed back in November a year ago. So I think that you've got to be careful when you're saying you put this as a high priority item. I think it was a high priority item after they used a club on you. MR. SHERRY-They the time table other problems timely fashion. were disappointed that we weren't able to make we told them, but we couldn't keep pace with the we had, and could not get to this property in a MR. CARVIN-Okay. So you're anticipating by June of next year, 1996, that this thing should be all cleaned up and cleared out? MR. SHERRY-Yes. The tests show ~hat the system is working, and the town of gasoline in the soil has been dropped since we've instituted this system. MR. CARVIN-Okay. You poured a cement slab underneath the shed? MR. SHERRY-No. That cement slab was there. Originally, about six years ago, we used to have a dumpster on that slab, fenced in dumpste)- . MR. CARVIN-Okay. brown building? I notice that's been moved over toward the MR. SHERRY-Yes. We moved that behind the bottle shed in the corner over there. MR, CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions, gentlemen, ladies? MR. KARPELES-When that. shed comes down, are you going to remove that concrete pad? MR. SHERRY-If you'd like us to, we would. MR. KARPELES-It would appear it's not supposed to be there. MR. SHERRY-It was there originally when the site plan was - 20 - ~ '-' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/95) approved, when the store was constructed. plan called for us to place the dumpster. poured and it was an enclosed dumpster area. dumpst.er over we did not take the slab out, but were going to have usage for it in the future. That's where the site So we had the slab When we moved the we didn't know we MR. CARVIN-Okay. You indicat.e on your application that the cost to re-locate this would be prohibitive. Can you give the Board an idea of what prohibitive might. entail as far as dollars and cents. MR. SHERRY-The installation as you see it now costs $46,000, and we're not quite sure of what mechanical enhancements would need to be done to increase the run of pipe, is the driving factor here, what more we would need for electric power engines or motors to push the air into the ground and then bring the fresh water back to the oil separator, then push that back into the ground. As it. is right now, we spent $46,000. MS. CIPPERLY-Would it be possible to make this shorter, so that it's sort of in line with, there's some veget.ation in between you and the insurance company there. How much, I guess, of the int.erior space is taken up by the machineTY? MR. SHERRY-I would say probably about half way up. There's a wat.er oil separator tank and two large electric mot.ors. The head space is basically to keep the room cool in the summer time. MS. CIPPERLY-Is that why it's painted white also? MR. SHERRY-That's just the color that the shed came in when we bought it. It's a prefabricated shed. MR. GREEN-A question for Sue. Not saying that electric motors could sit in the open, but if it was just equipment there and t.hey didn't put a shed around it, would that cause a problem? I mean, can you have running equipment sitting around a lot basically anywhere? MS. CIPPERLY-That I really don't have an answer for. something more like a Building and Codes safety. It's MR. SHERRY-They have moving parts. MS. CIPPERLY-They've got to be enclosed. MR. GREEN-That's why I'm saying, not that it would be feasible, but I'm just trying to, you know, see if it. MR. CARVIN-I think it could be addressed. MRS. LAPHAM-Well, wouldn't that cause more of a problem from the safety? MR. GREEN-Well, that's what I'm saying, is that, in my oplnlon, I'd rather see this enclosed, and if it was feasible to do it without a shed, as far as not needing a variance, I'd rather give him a variance and put a shed over it. MR. CARVIN-Yes, but I still think, I agree with you. I mean, I'm not opposed to they're doing and the reasons why, but I think we have to look at what the variance criteria is, and this is a case, again, where they got clobbered over the head, and just put it up and just said, and then well, we'll bring the Town into our compliance later on, because I honestly don't know, and this gentleman is indicating that, fine, there is a logical reason for them to put it there, but I don't know if it couldn't have been incorporated in the brown building, what the expense is, and - 21 - (Queensbm"y ZBA Meet i ng 12/20/95) again, I'm just saying that this is, it seems that, lets build it and let the Town worry about it. MR. GREEN-We've had this a couple of times before, this type of t.hing. MR. CARVIN-We've had this quite a few times, and again, you know, I thi nk we have to look at it from that aspect. I'm not a)"gui ng t.he fact that they had a problem. I mean, they've got it well documented here, and they're not trying to shirk their responsibilities, but. I just don't want the impression here that we're not looking at all the criteria as far as the variance is concer ned. ' MR. GREEN-There's no correspondence from the insurance company? MR. CARVIN-Well, there's correspondence from Mike Zagata's office, DEC, in other words, outlining the time frame. I've got an engineering report that I sort of understand. I understand "Dear Mr. Wagner" and his signature. The rest of it is somewhat nebulous, but I think I would be more attuned to making this a one year temporary thing somehow, that if this thing isn't out of there by June or July of next year, they better have a real good reason. MR. MENTER-I think that's part and parcel of it. they're asking for. That's all MR. KARPELES-I think you better open up the public hearing. MR. CARVIN-Yes. now. I'm going to open up the public hearing right PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOE KONCIKOWSKI MR. KONCIKOWSKI-My name is Joe Koncikowski, and I'm the building owner of the insurance agency next door. Basically my feelings are that the location of the shed on the property should have come in front of the Board, which it did not. It did not have an understanding of what was actuall~ happening. It appeared to be a temporary shed in nature, which I said is acceptable to me. It then appears to be permanent. I understand the problem that King Fuel has with the ground water, and I realize the DEC is requiring them to clean this up. It doesn't excuse the fact that there was not a variance put in place, and that's why we have the zoning laws here. I recently built a building, believing the Town of Queensbury would protect me. I'm not here to damage King Fuel in any way. I'm only trying to protect my own interest in what I have put into the Town of Queensbury. I see, in reading the engineer's study, no affirmative documentation that this problem can be or will be cleared up within one year. I understand that will be coming from King Fuel, not an engineer. My personal concern is that it obstructs the view, and I don't think that the cost, in my opinion, would have been extremely large, in re-locating t.he shed to an appropriate 50 foot setback. I realize that they have additional problems with setbacks, and I just feel that. I'd like to see that variance denied, as it was never applied for in the first place. We did not get a chance to talk about the situation. As I have learned tonight, there was a deadline that was put in place that has to some extent passed by, and put in as a deadline by DEC, and I feel that the variance should not be granted. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone comment or be heard with regard to cor respondence? else this wishing to make a application? Any - 22 - -- ..-' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/95) MR. THOMAS-No correspondence. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other public comment? Seeing none, hearing none, the public hearing is closed, public hearing is closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Tom, I'm going to start with you, any thoughts or comments? MR. FORD-Yes. I don't want to get into a clubbing contest with DEC to find out. who's got the bigger club, but it seems to me that that's what you are reacting to. I feel there was ample t.ime t.o have both complied with local zoning requirements and DEC requirements back when it was first noted that you had the problem. While I appreciate the effort that has been made, the corrective action that has been taken, that is not the issue here. It. is out of compliance with our Codes, and I'm not in favor of it where it is. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Bob? MR. KARPELES-Well, I went up there, and I looked at it, and I really didn't think it was very objectionable. However, since the owner of the property next to it finds it objectionable, I guess it is objectionable, and I'm disturbed~ too, that no variance was applied for, before the fact rather than after the fact. MR. MENTER-How did it come about that you applied for the variance? Do you know? MR. SHERRY-No, I do not know. MS. CIPPERLY-There was an enforcement action on the part of the Town, told him that he was in violation of the Zoning Ordinance and he would need to get a variance if he wanted to keep the shed there. MR. MENTER-I thought maybe it was a stroke of conscience or something. I think Joe had a great point, though. In a sense, I don't have a problem with the thing because it's certainly serving a purpose, and it could be the way to do it, from a financial standpoint. I'm not sure of that. The thing that concerns me is the duration of it, because you're certainly not going to be able to move the darn thing if it hasn't done it's job. No matter what we say, if DEC tells you no, it's still not testing right, the one thing you're not going to do is shut it down or move it, because we told you that you only have six months. MR. SHERRY-Well, the only remedy really that can be affected. We have to leave it there. We don't have to leave the shed there. We have to leave the system in place. We do have to clean the soil. We're legally obligated to do t.hat., and we have to do that. The run of piping, I'm not so sure. I'm not the engineer who installed it. I was just told the thought process behind the run of piping, straight lines was the best, the shortest distance is the best. If we were to put an elbow on it and steer it over to what we now use or call the bottle shed. I don't, mechanically, if the system will work at all. We cannot. go on the bagel side of the property at all because that's where all the tanks and the lines that run from the tanks to the gas pumps are, and there's an extensive amount of trenching that must be done to cut these remediation pipes in that direction. So, the only, and I'm not an engineer, as I said, but the only remedy to getting rid of the shed is to move the elect.ric motors into the brown bottle shed, which I don't know, engineering wise, can be - 23 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/95) done or not. however. I do know that we do have to remediate the soil, MR. MENTER-Well, that's my point. My point is that if, I may feel a little more inclined to see a need, or to let you leave it there if I knew that it was going to be six months, but we really have no idea how long it's going to be. MR. KARPELES-How long has it been there now? MR. SHERRY-Since late June. MRS. LAPHAM-Are there any tests or engineers that could come and give us an idea of when this could be removed, based on the information you're gathering now? Your neighbor has said that t.his was an opinion advanced by King Fuels, not documented engineering evidence. MR. SHERRY-Yes. We're getting that information from the engineer who designed the system and did the installation, which was Longworth Engineering. They have site wells on the property and sample the property once a month and give those results to DEC, so that we could make those results available. MR. FORD-Was consideration given, before this installation, for removal of the contaminated soil? MR. SHERRY-We have removed as much contaminated soil as we can. We've gotten this down to the finest of contamination now. This is something that you'd have to evacuate the entire corner to get to the degree of remediation we're talking about. We took out quite a bit of soil already. This is pretty much the return of the groundwater to its original condition. MR. CARVIN-How long does DEC really monitor these things? Do you have any feel? MR. SHERRY-We don't stop until they tell us to stop. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but. when might that be, I guess. I mean, have you ever had experience with DEC? I mean, is this something like Dave says, I mean, in a year DEC says well fine, now go forth and sin no more, or will you, like a speeding ticket it, have it on th~ record for five years or ten years, where they have monitor it? MR. SHERRY-This property has been designated an environmental site. So I guess it'll stay with us forever. It stays with the property, but the condition of the property can be improved. It will always be monitored. The site wells will always be there. They'll always be taking groundwater samples. They may say, okay, it.'s clean enough for us now, so you can stop the remediation, but they'll always test it from now on, whoever owns it, as long as it.'s a gas station. MR. KARPELES-They'll test it, or you have to test it? MR. SHERRY-We t.est it and give them the results. MRS. LAPHAM-So the testing doesn't require the shed and all that equipment? MR. SHERRY-No. They'll take the final test and say, okay, the water passes our criteria. You can stop the remediation process now. MR. FORD-But six months from now, if it shows recontamination, they'll want to start it up again, won't they? - 24 - - ..../ (Quesnsbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/95) MR. CARVIN-They conceivably could. MR. SHERRY-Until it meets theií criteria, yes. turn it off. They'll neveí MR. FORD-But having tUíned it off, and if it returns, they will expect it to be turned back on. MR. SHERRY-Yes, sir. MR. FORD-Therefore, the íemoval of those is really not a very good possibility is it, the pumps? MR. SHERRY-Yes, the removal of the shed and the and the water oil separator tank is, they immediately. We would leave the plumbing in the where the real expense is and the real labor. electric motors would be gone ground. That's MR. CARVIN-But I think Tom is asking, if you had to re-start the whole thing, lets say you took all the pumps and all that stuff out of there and tore the shed down, and then six months lateí something shows uþ negative and you have to re-start the process again. Does that mean you bring all the electric pumps back and put the shed back up? MR. SHERRY-Not before we came to you for a variance. MR. CARVIN-Well, that's the correct answer, but I guess what I'm trying to determine is, will that happen? MR. SHERRY-I can't sit here tonight and tell you that for sure. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions? MR. FORD-Lets get it where it belongs, so as it goes down the road years to come, and they test and re-test, and have to crank those engines up again, lets make SUíe it's in place. MR. CARVIN-Well, I'm going to put this out. I'm assuming if you had to move that, that there would be some plumbing and you'd have to probably come up with some additional plumbing and pipe work and that sort of stuff? MR. SHERRY-I imagine the entire project would have to be re- engineered first. MR. CARVIN-And this is not necessarily the right time to do that, is it? I know when I was out there the snow bank was covering most of that shed. I'm just wondering if the next door neighbor might be amenable to allowing that to stand until April or Mayor June, and giving them at least until June, and then at that point, if it's not taken care of, and at that point move it. I mean, I think that makes a little more sense. I don't know. MR. GREEN-What was the original time estimate when you started this in June? Did the DEC give you any sort of, or YOUí engineers give you any sort of, say six months t.o a year? MR. SHERRY-Longworth Environmental gave me the information to tell you tonight was six to twelve months. MR. GREEN-From now or from last June? MR. SHERRY-From June. The property is already, from now. The propeíty has shown improvement. The ground has staíted to clean now. MR. FORD-So it's six to twelve fíom now? - 25 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/95) MR. SHERRY-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Because I agree with you, Tom. I think it's got to be moved. I mean, even if they tear this thing out in six months time, and there is a possibility that it goes longer, in which case, I don't like that. MR. FORD-I've dealt write off and sign with them on any cont.amination. with DEC on spills, and they are reticent to off on a project. I've never been dealing project where you've had that level of MR. GREEN-My only other thought is that, all right, you say, we'll give you another six months, and in six mont.hs, they're going to come in and say, well, it's only going to be another three months. What. have we got to move it for, for three months? And then three months come, and, I just need a little more time. I don't know. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Chris, any thoughts? MR. THOMAS-Well, to me, that pipe runs about 10 feet off the side of that building, back to that shed, and if that shed was moved down into one of t.hose parking spaces, bècause the shed only being eight by eight from the parking space along the back of the building, and occupy one of those, right over the top of the existing pipe. See this is this is the pipe. Put it right here, or in line with the back of the building, right over the top of the pipe, and that would only take up one parking space that's in there, and that would get it away from the property line that way, and as far as the, going to the road frontage from Bay Road, the set back from Bay Road, well, that's no big deal. It's only going to be temporary, but I like the idea of getting the neighbor, Mr. Koncikowski, to try to, you know, let him leave it there for another six months, until June, and then if it still needs to be there, then move it. MR. MENTER-What's the mechanism, though, from ~ standpoint? MS. CIPPERLY-It's also supposed to be 50 feet from, off the main building, though, if you read that Section. MR. THOMAS-Yes. That's what I mean. I would give a variance for that, because it's only going to be temporary. MR. CARVIN-Well, maybe not. Maybe not.. MR. THOMAS-Well, it's not going to be there. It's got to come out at some point in time, but like I say, we don't know when, but at least it would get it off the property line. It would be on his own property, away from Mr. Koncikowski's property. MR. FORD-Is there any particular hazards that you're aware of, in having that structure closer to the convenient store? MR. SHERRY-Yes. We have barricades around all the pumps up there, around the diesel island, and I would say that so far this the diesel island's been hit twice, from cars sliding into the parking lot. We have a very bad problem with cars cut.ting through our parking lot to beat the light at the intersection of Quaker and Bay Road, and you're going to put that shed pretty much in one of the highest traffic areas, that corner, between people going around the back of the building, delivery trucks making deliveries at the back of the building, and people just entering and exiting to beat the light at Quaker and Bay, that would be a tough building to protect from the natural hazards of the vehicles in the parking lot, this time of year in particular. - 26 - '-.--- ...-I (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/95) MR. FORD-I don't think Chris was suggesting putting it down so far that it would be in line with someone coming in from Bay and cutting across, or cutting out toward Quaker. MR. THOMAS--I'm talking in line with the back of the building, in that first parking space back in there. MR. SHERRY-I'm not familiar with what you're talking about. MR. THOMAS-Take the shed and move it down to hexe, in line with this building here. There's the sidewalk right there. MR. SHERRY-I see. There's the sidewalk. MR. THOMAS-No joints. No elbows, a more efficient system. It might. get done quicker. MR. FORD-Closer to the source. MR. THOMAS-That's right. MR. CARVIN-Well, I guess what I'm hearing is that the Board is not comfortable with that shed there. Am I hearing that none of us are really comfortable with where that is right now? MR. MENTER-Yes. From ffi.'i.. standpoint, it doesn't make sense for us to look at t.his as a temporary situation. MR. CARVIN-I'm beginning to see that. MR. MENTER-Because it probably isn't. MRS. LAPHAM-Based on people's experience with DEC, you know, like Tom who seems to have dealt with them and knows what DEC is usually like, this building's here to stay. MR. CARVIN-Okay, then I'm going to move this along. If we're at a stage where we think we should deny this, then I think we should deny this, and then the applicant is going to have to figure out what to do. I mean, the course of action is that if he does nothi ng, then we'll have to serve him wi th papers. Is that correct, Sue? Okay. So if that's the Board's determination, I mean, if there's no other questions, I'd entertain a motion. MR. SHERRY-Is there no contemplation of anything temporary? MR. CARVIN-I'm not hearing that. MR. SHERRY-I just wanted to ask. I've heard it mentioned before, and we'd appreciate that, if we could get. some time to do the engineering, and find out what would the exact spot, if it's not going to be there. I'm sure we'll be in front of you because the property is laid out in such as way as, no matter where it heads, it's going to require a variance of one form or another. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, there's a couple of courses of action here I think we can look at. We can look at t.abling t.his to allow you to get your engineering facts and figures, and then you can come back and convince us that, you know, in six months time you can move this, because I think that that's what I'm hearing, is that the Board is uncomfortable wit.h t.hat shed there. That would also allow you to explore the possibility that if you can move that, that would allow you at least 60 days to get your ducks in a row to apply for whatever proper variance and let this one die. In other words, lets say that you can incorporate it or move it or bring it into compliance, all right. Do you follow what I'm sa)/ing? - 27 - --' ''- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/95) MR. SHERRY-Yes, I do. MS. CIPPERLY-In this case I think the sooner we could get it on, like a 30 day or, I'd like to see it on the January. MR. CARVIN-Well, if we table it, I mean, our practice has been 60 days, and my personal feeling is that, again, I'm not an engineer, but I think that this is not the right time of the year to be moving these things around, and I may be totally wrong on that_, but I t.hi nk that if we table this, allow you to convince us that it's going to be six months or something like that~ because as I said, or, if you do come up with a better siting, fine. Lets get the right. variance on the table and we can look at that, and if that can be done bet.ween nOw and January" I ' think that's what Staff is saying, they'd like to get this thing resolved, as would I. Does anybody have a problem with that? MR. GREEN-No, I don't have a problem with the six months. MR. MENTER-Because it's lack of information frankly, it doesn't seem like it's going information we have right now. that we have, to fly with and, what MR. CARVIN-Okay. MOTION TO TAB~E AREA VARIANCE NO. 88-1995 RICHARD B. SLOTE CIO KING FUELS, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: To allow the applicant a little additional time to come up with some additional information as to possibly re-siting or submitting a proper variance. Duly adopted this 20th day of December, 1995, by the following vote: MR. CARVIN-And I would also ask Mr. Slote to sign an Agent Form, or submit a letter. AYES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford, Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE AREA VARIANCE NO. 91-1995 TYPE: UNLISTED RR-3A RON HARRIS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE STONEGATE SUBDIVISION, OFF BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CREATE A 175 FT. BY 220 FT. LOT WHICH DOES NOT MEET THE LOT SIZE AND DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-15, RURAL RESIDENTIAL 3A ZONE. TAX MAP NO. 48-3-51.1 LOT SIZE: 51.68 ACRES SECTION 179-15 MARK LEVACK & RON HARRIS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 91-1995, Ron Harris, Meeting Date: December 20, 1995 "Project Location: StoneQate Subdivision Proposed Project and Conformance with the Ordinance: Applicant proposes to create a 38,500 s.f. lot, which is .88 acre, in a Rural Residential 3-acre zone. While applicant states that this will someday be part of a 16-18 lot subdivision, no application for the làrger subdivision has been submitted to the Planning Board. The proposed lot also lacks the 40 feet on a Town Road required by Section 179-70. According to the dimensions provided, there would be 25 feet on a Town Road at this time. In theory, the lot would front on a Town Road if a subdivision were to be approved by the Planning Board. Relief from this section was not advertised. Criteria for considering - 28 - ,"/ '..../ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/95) an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267~ Town Law 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be able to sell one lot. 2. Feasible alternatives: Applicant could propose - a 3-acre lot extending further along the Future Road, which would need only the road frontage variance, plus Subdivision Approval from the Planning Board or - a 3-acre lot utilizing the cul-de-sac as its road frontage, similar to the opposite end of Field View Road. This could be accomplished via the administrative 2-lot subdivision provisions of the ordinance, rather than Planning Board review. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance? The proposed lot is less than the one-third lot size of the zone requirement, which is substantial relief, especially where additional land is available to create a complying lot. 4. Effects on the neighboThood or community? This lot may not have impacts on the surrounding neighborhood, other than having to locate the driveway in the 25-foot Town road frontage until the "Future Road" is a reality. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? Choosing to approach the project in this way rather than seeking approval for the larger subdivision was the applicant's decision. Parcel History: According to the Assessor's Office records, this parcel has historically been owned by the applicant's family and has been owned solely by the applicant since 1988. Staff Comments and Concerns: It would be preferable from a planning standpoint to have more accurate and complete plans for the proposed larger project, or a portion of it, rather than make a decision based on one lot, which ¢ould yi~ld problems when the larger project is eventually proposed. SEQR: Unlisted. Short Form EAF must be reviewed." MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is there anything that you'd care to add to your application? MR. LEVACK-Yes. My name is Mark Levack, from Levack Real Estate. Ron Harris is here. I don't think there's anybody else in the room that's for this particular project this evening. I'd like to put the picture up on the easel and get. it right. up close to you so you can all see it, and I can explain the application in that manner. I only have one small map here. I'd like to point out that this 50 acre parcel that starts right here, and runs along this hedgerow right here and returns along this hedgerow and then back down by Mr. Harris' house, right in this area, has been in their family 125 years. His grandfather bought the property back in 1870, and the situation that leads itself to, I was here before the Board, is one of dire economic hardship. In 1988, the Town of Queensbury 're~zoned this parcel, this par..cel, this parcel, this parcel, and I believe this parcel, but I'm not su're about that, from one to a three acre zoni ng, and at the time when these people owned.the property, they had no'Yeal desire to seek to get that prop,erty re-zoned bac'k to one acre, and, you know, in hi ndsight, that was not the thi ng fo)~ them to do, but that was the reality of the past on this property. I think" that the Harris' have paid their taxes on this property for 125 years, and I would ask that this one lot that we're trying to create tonight, you consider the relationship of the property owner, the relationship to the Town of Queensbury, in seeking the relief for this one lot. The finances simply are not available to go into a full blown master plan on this property. I've taken an aerial photbgraph of the property, and basically outlined a sketch that I've met with Tom Nace, Haanen Engineering. Tom has given us a proposal. Matt Steves, Van Dusen and Steves, has given us a proposal, and the only way that we can hire those people to start this process is with the sale of this first lot. The finances just simply are not available. I think that the lot that's going to be created, yoU know, while it will have a driveway off of the existing cul-de-sac, if you take a look at the tax maps that I've furnished you with, you'll see that that boundary line basically intersects at a right angle to the Town Road. So I think that there may be more,than that 25 feet on t.hat cul-de-sac, and - 29 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/95) therefore I think it could be considered that it were a conforming lot, and I think we could get 40 feet out of that cul- de-sac if we look at the dimensions of the cul-de-sac. So even though the lot is going to have a little flagged little corner on it, I think we can meet the 40 feet on that cul-de-sac. Ultimately, that piece will be eliminated, that little jut from that parcel in that corner would be eliminated to have a Town road go through that area. I guess what you have to ask yourself, if this subdivision never comes to be, if you've just created this one lot, what have you created? What have you done? I guess what you've done is you've given a property owner who's owned the property for 125 years, the right to keep it, and this seems to be the only feasible economic way that he can do that at t.his point. I simply must create a sale to start this process and get this process going. That's pretty much it in a nut.shell. We conceived the plan. We have the right parties involved. We want to start the process with the creation of this one lot, and the lot is larger than the other lots in the neighborhood, and it will, I think, have 40 feet right on the cul-de-sac. If we take a look at our plan, and we see how that cul-de-sac terminates, that road terminates right at the end of Fieldview Lane. You can see right here where the cul-de-sac is a square area. I think we can grant you the 40 feet that you're looking for there, and if you want to make the lot larger, to a three acre parcel, then we could come back and try to, I don't know if that really makes sense either. I guess I'm open to questions and suggestions at this time. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Fieldview Road? There's only one road, that would be that MR. LEVACK-Right. MR. CARVIN-Okay. There's no other access? MR. LEVACK-Yes. There is an access on Bay Road, right here. This would ultimately have a Town road off of this area, but again, the reason not to seek this lot as being the first lot is because we really haven't been in communication, although the adjoining property owner is Ron's sister and she's here this evening, there hasn't been any, I don't have that parcel listed for sale. The only parcel we have is this parcel for sale, and we didn't think to approach this lot for a couple of different reasons, because Mr. Harris only owns 50 feet on Bay Road, and our ultimate plan of creating a subdivision requires that we re- configure this boundary line because he does have the acreage there to leave himself a three acre lot for his own personal residence, and create a depth of over 200 feet on his new lots that will be created on Bay Road. So, rather than re-designing his parcel and this parcel with a boundary lot line subdivision, we elected to just come in and seek this one lot. Did I explain that clearly enough, why we're seeking the lot on Fieldview? MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does he have any relationship to the Stone? MR. LEVACK-No. MR. CARVIN-In other words, that's a separate entity? MR. LEVACK-Well, it's all subdivision. private property owners in the MR. CARVIN-Yes, but I mean, that wasn't something that was lopped off? Did he originally owned this? That was owned by somebody else? MR. LEVACK-This entire property here? I don't know. Ron, you didn't own any of this land that's now Stonegate? - 30 - \_-' -,- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/9.5 ) MR. HARRIS-I personally didn't. My father owned it. MR. LEVACK-His father did. MR. CARVIN-Well, I guess there's another Town road, in other words, it's a paper road, it looks like, at least you've got a road. MR. LEVACK-Yes, we've created a road, but that. MR. CARVIN-That would come in somewhere in here? MR. LEVACK-Actually, it would come in right on this shaded area. The new proposed road would come in on the shaded area. I think, I don't know, I'm sen$ing an objection of the Board might be that you're not going to get enough frontage on the actual cul-de-sac, but I think, Fred, if we created a lot that looked something like this, then we would have the distance theíe act.uaLly on a cul-de- sac that would be conforming. MS. CIPPERLY-So where would your connect.ion to the Town road be? MR. LEVACK-Well, at a future point in time this person that would be putting his residence here would understand that while his driveway might come in and do something like this, would ultimately be, this parcel would be eliminated when the Town road went in and the subdivision final approved. The person purchasing this lot would pre-agree, you know, to relinquish that annex piece when the Town road went through. I think that could be very simple agreement to the purchaser of that lot. That purchaser certainly couldn't prevent the construction of this new road going through at a future point in time, because that's the whole subdivision. Again, I'd just like to re-emphasize the financial importance of paying the back taxes on the property. MR. CARVIN-Again, tell me one more time why it can't be a three acre piece of property? MR. LEVACK-Because it would basically screw up the subdivision plan that we ultimately want to create here. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but the zoning says three acres. So what you're asking for is a complete zoning change. MR. LEVACK-Well, we're asking for relief from the current zoning, keeping in mind that the Town property in 1988 and basically is determined. zoning, the re-zoned the MR. CARVIN-Again, that gets back to my original argument. In 1988, we went through a whole legal process, and at this point, I think that, I can't re-zone it to one acre. I, personally, can't do that in a three acre zone, just for one piece of property, because what. happens when he comes in next year and has a tax problem and says, well, gee, I've just got to sell another acre to pay my taxes? And then t.he year after that, I've got to sell another acre, and we just are re-zoning, and if he can lop out a three acre piece of property and sell it, then there's his money, and he doesn't need a variance, because otherwise, when you go to Planning, they're going to look, we want to see a three acre situation, because that's what it's zoned for. MR. LEVACK-Yes, but under the cluster, you know, under the cluster subdivision approval. MR. CARVIN-I know, but you're putting, I think, the cart before the horse on this one. MR. LEVACK-Unfortunately, that's the situation we're in right - 31 - --' (Cueensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/95) now. That's why we're here. MR. CARVIN-Yes, and I can appreciate that situation, but. I. MR. LEVACK-We're just trying to stay consistent with what we want to create here. MR. CARVIN-Yes. What you're saying is what you want to create are one acre lots, eventually. MR. LEVACK-One to three acre lots, actually, on 50 acres. That's going to leave about 20 plus acres as green space on this property. I have another picture here that shows the relationship of the subdivision to the entire parcel, and, you know, we're not sitting here in front of the Town asking for all these property owners to come in with a class action lawsuit to say re-zone our property back to one acre zoning, which I think the residents have a very legitimate right. to do. We're saying, we're not even asking for relief under a cluster plan, considering a subdivision on 50 acres. We're saying, you know, let us create a subdivision that will have conforming lots and will have conforming acreage. This is going to be a pretty funny lot, and actually the economics of creating this road from one lot are, it simply cannot pay for itself based on market conditions. Mr. Harris has had the property on the market for seven years now, he's been trying to sell it. Again, I think that the hardship that was created here was created by the Town when they re-zoned the property, and that's, I don't think that relative to this person's land ownership and the zoning that was changed, that relief that. we're seeking on this one parcel is. MR. CARVIN-But you indicated he didn't oppose it back in 1988. MR. LEVACK-Yes. MR. CARVIN-I mean, you know, seven years is a long time. MR. LEVACK-I don't think you fully understood the the zoning and the value that that places on Having tried to sell it for seven years, you zoning does create value on the property. consequences of his property. understand that MR. CARVIN-Okay, but you're asking us to undo something that the Town did when they created the zoning. MR. LEVACK-I'm asking you, as a Town body, t.o try to set right a situation that was created by the Town, and to keep the integrity of the plan we're creating, and to make this plan economically possible, because unless we create one lot. MR. CARVIN-Well, on your plan, how many three acre lots are you anticipating? MR. LEVACK-On a cul-de-sac. The larger lots would be back on the cul-de-sac, but again, under the cluster plan, we could have one acre lots. We could have less than one acre lots under the cluster zone, I believe. MS. CIPPERLY-But that's a Planning Board function, and you're asking this Board to let you do something that the Planning Board normally is in charge of. I just don't think it's fair to ask this Board to do that. MR. LEVACK-Well, this is the first step in the process. This is why we're here. We can't get a one acre lot, and, ultimately, obviously, we'd have to go to the Planning Board and seek a total subdivision approval whioh we physically OT economically cannot do, and then the road has a very quick end. - 32 - '~ "-") (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/95) MR. FORD-Is it strict.ly economics, or, help me understand why, with all of this property available, that we have to start with a parcel that requires a variance? MR. LEVACK-I think I can answer that by just showing you the subdivision plan, and the economics of road construct.ion. MR. FORD-But that doesn't exist, right? doesn't e:dst. A subdivision plan MR. LEVACK-Right. MR. FORD-Therefore, you are starting from scratch. You've got all of this land. So come up with a lot that doesn't require a variance. MR. LEVACK-I'm saying, help me look ahead a little bit. see things for the way. Help me MR. FORD-Well, take it one step at a time. MR. LEVACK-The first step is this lot, in the total picture. MR. FORD-Or it could be that other lot out there. MR. LEVACK-Which one? MR. FORD-Number One. MR. LEVACK-Again, boundary lot line adjustment. MR. CARVIN-There could be a three acre lot in the center. MR. LEVACK-How are you going to get to it? MR. CARVIN-Well, now you've got your money for your subdivision. So you go get your subdivision. You show us how you're going to get to it. MR. LEVACK-You have to create the sale before you can create the money to create the plan, though. MR. CARVIN-Well, what I'm saying is, you could sell it with the same caveat. MR. LEVACK-This is the plan that we're proposing. This is the plan that Hsanen Engineering is going t.o create for us. This is the plan that we have a price on. This is the plan that the surveyor has basically penciled out for us. I'm saying if we create a three acre lot right here, which basically this area, economically, we cannot put a road down this corridor to create a three acre lot there. We're looking to create a one acre lot, the first lot right here, because, physically, if we created a three acre lot right here, then we would have to put, a Town road would t.ake up this much of this one, three acre lot, and the difference between a one acre lot and a three acre lot doesn't have very much difference in base value. A one acre lot's $20,000. A three acre lot's $35,000. It's just, economically, we cannot put the road, you cannot. create a three acre lot under this plan. MR. FORD-In fact, under your plan, you're creating very few three acre lots. MR. LEVACK-Again, the idea was, because it's three you cannot. economically develop three acre zoning. keep the road to this distance in order to do that, to the lot's value, and I think it's a nice mixture acre zoning, You have to in relation of the Town, - 33 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/95) because we would not seek a variance under the,'we häve 52 acres from which to build this subdivision, and if we create 17 lots, we conform. We don't need a variance, but you can't put the whole road down the 52 acres to create 17 lots, and it just becomes a matter of economics. This subdivision plan cannot become a reality with three acre lots. The development just doesn't warrant itself. MR. MENTER-I think, you know, unfortunately from my standpoint, we're not looking at a subdivision. We're looking at a parcel. MR. LEVACK-Right. MR. MENTER-And the criteria is just not there, to me. doesn't, that situation doesn't answer the questions. It just MR. LEVACK-Maybe we're here asking for something you can't 'grant, but I wanted to staTt the discussion out by saying, this property's been in this gentleman's family for 125 years. I think he's paid his debt to the Town of Queensbury, and in the scope of things and what we're trying to create, you know, I've never, I've been involved with projects where we're just looking to create a one acre sale here. I'm not to sit here and lie to the Board and tell them, you know, we just want to piece off one sale and then just throw this thing away. This is not what we're, you know, that's not what we're trying to accomplish here. We're trying to accomplish something that's right to zoning, and that's good for the Town of Queensbury, and it helps this gentleman out here to basically get on with it. I mean, maybe we are seeking a lot of relief. Maybe you can't find your way to see that at this present time, but that's the argument that we've set forth, and we're here seeking approval on it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is there any other questions? MR. KARPELES-You can't find any way that you could create a three acre lot there that you could sell? MR. LEVACK-If we created a three acre lot here tonight, we would be coming back to you under the Town, we would sell that three acre lot, and then we'd also have an agreement with that purchaser that they're going to have to sell us back, you know, two acres of it, and then we will get around the issue in that manner, and then we'll be coming back to you with a subdivision plan, dovetailed with the fact that the first property owner's going to be selling back two acres into the situation, and we're going to show you this same picture again. MR. KARPELES-Yes, but it's not going to be us. MR. CARVIN-It won't be us. It'll be Planning. MR. LEVACK-Give us the ability to sell the one lot, and if it's a three acre lot, we can certainly: MR. KARPELES-We don't have to give you anything. MR. LEVACK-Well, you don't. I'm saying, if it's a conforming three acre lot that we're trying to create here tonight, and we don't even need the variance. MR. CARVIN-All right, if there's no other questions, I'm going to open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT - 34 - , --- -..-/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/95) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other thoughts? Bonnie, I'm going to start with you. MRS. LAPHAM-I tend to feel the same way as some of the other Board members, that you have a new entity. There is no project at this point. So why start out needing a variance? Why not start out with a clean slate? And what would be éntailed in following through exactly what you had said? I mean, I don't know, from a legal standpoint. I mean, the Planning Board would probably deal with it where you have an agreement with the purchaser to sell back two acres, that would be in compliance with the entire project, after the project was done, but at this point, it'd be a site that would be. MR. LEVACK-The main reason is it's about $800 to create that one survey, and it's probably about $1600 to create a three acre survey. So, that's the primary difference. Just money. It's just more layers, more expense. It drives the lot price up. I'm asking the Board to take a step ahead with us right now, and what we're t.rying to create. It may be too big of a leap of fait.h, I can sense, but this makes no sense for the entire project. It might not make the most sense for me sitting here this evening trying to create one lot, but it makes no sense, economically, for the entire project. MRS. LAPHAM-I'm not sure I'm comfortable with an imaginary p,-ojec,t. MR. LEVACK-Okay. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Bill? MR. GREEN-It seems this whole discussion centers around the sale of this lot to get. some money into the syst.em to move forward. Am I pretty much right there? MR. LEVACK-That's exactly it, and to pay back taxes, quite honestly, due in three years. MR. GREEN-I cannot help but think there isn't some sort of developer or someone that wouldn't be willing, if they felt that it was a good idea, that wouldn't be willing to form some sort of partnership or something. I just can't see that., again, kind of starting at the wrong end of this for however many, for whatever the economic reasons. MR. LEVACK-Okay. MR. CARVIN--Dave, a,ny tho,ughts, comments? MR. MENTER-Well, Unfortunately, I to me, outside of upon us to help doesn't, you know, I think my thoughts are pretty clear. understand the situation completely, and it's, our parameters, and it's not. really incumbent make the financial picture work. It just I don't think it's justified, based on that. MR. CARVIN-Bob? MR. KARPELES-I agree with everything that's been said, and I have not.hing new to add. MR. CARVIN-Tom? MR. FORD-I, too, am sympathetic to the financial plight, but I can't bring myself to vote in favor of a variance on that basis, where there is so much land that is there for placement of lines. - 35 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/95) MR. CARVIN-Chris? MR. THOMAS-I think you can whack off a three acre lot, and in the application Mr. Levack stated that this would eventually be a 16 to 18 lot subdivision. If you take 15 lots at $35,000 a lot, that's damn near half a million dollars to put in roads, pay the back taxes, and come up with a lot of other stuff, and I think you could re-figure the 16 to 18 lots down to 15 lots, three acres a lot, and still have land left over, for roads and stuff like that to figure into it. So I don't see why we should allow them to have a one acre lot, when a three acre lot is what the zone calls for, and a three acre lot is what he should have there. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Then I would ask for a motion. MR. MENTER-I'll make a mot.ion. MR. LEVACK-Could I table it and then withdraw it, rather than being denied? MS. CIPPERLY-You can withdraw it. MR. CARVIN-You could withdraw it. MR. LEVACK-I'd like to just withdraw it at this time, then. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. LEVACK-I appreciate it. Thanks a lot. MR. CARVIN-Okay. The application is withdrawn by the applicant. MR. CARVIN-The next item of business is old Business. it.'s Old Business, Area Variance No 76-1995, Perry Noun I~. I guess Assoc., AREA VARIANCE NO. 76-1995 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-1A PERRY NOUN ASSOCIATES, INC. OWNER: WOODBURY DEV. GROUP, INC. BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 58,940 SQ. FT. LIVING FACILITY FOR SENIORS WITH AN ATTACHED 3,060 SQ. FT. COMMUNITY CENTER, PLUS A DETACHED 4,000 SQ. FT. MEDICAL OFFICE AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE DENSITY REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-23, WHICH ALLOWS 61,742 SQ. FT. OF BUILDING IN THIS CASE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 10/11/95 (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 12/13/95 TAX MAP NO. 61-1-37.3 LOT SIZE: 4.08 ACRES SECTION 179-72, 179-23 PERRY NOUN, PRESENT MR. CARVIN-I believe this was tabled back about a month and a half, two months ago. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. We're going to read in the tabling motion. MR. THOMAS-Dated October 18th, 1995 "MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 76-1995 PERRY NOUN, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Tabled for the usual 60 day time frame. This will allow the applicant to meet with the neighbors and Planning Staff in order to develop a revised plan, hopefully bringing this into compliance and resolving any of the public controversy that's been raised this evening. Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 1995, by the following - 36 - ~ ,-,' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/95) vote: AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE" Signed by Fred A. Carvin, Chairman MR. CARVIN-Okay, and is there some additional informat.ion, Mr. Noun, that I guess we've got a new, or some adjustments to your original proposal? MR. NOUN-Yes. We have made some adjustments. As you will recall, our first. application included a 66,000 square foot independent living retirement center, and we have reduced that by 4,000 square feet. I recognize that originally that was approximately 14 percent Area Variance we were seeking, and now it's down t.o about a half of that, or about. seven percent. So we're actually seeking an Area Variance of 4,258 square feet, plus or minus, and first of all I would like to publically thank Mr. Young who's President of the Westwood Homeowners Association, and Mr. Bucklin, who is another member of the Board, if they are here this evening, and Mr. Krantz, their attorney representing them. We've had a couple of meetings, and I hope that we've addressed their concerns. In fact, in many ways, it enabled us to be a little bit more creative, and quite frankly to have more sun coming into some of the units, because as you will recall, t.he front entrance and the rear entrance were actually east and west, and so we have adjusted the angle now so that the front of the building is actually facing in the northeasterly direction, I guess, I mean, southeasterly direction. Sorry. Still, we're seeking an Area Variance of 4,258 square feet for the actual building, and we've kind of adjusted some of the parking and addressed some of the concerns. Even some of the Board members, if you will recall, some of the parking there closest to the proposed 4,000 square foot medical office facility, we've adjusted that, and there's a, originally I think we had 135, one of the biggest concerns as I recall, now, was t.he distance between the Westwood property line and the building, and that was 135 feet in oUr prévioU::~i application. We moved th¡3't to 140 feet, but as you know because of the angle of the building, the next closest', the building is actual 211 and a half feet, whi.th would be the most northerly section of thê: building, and that has also made it a little bit easier to get into the maió:; .entrance, because right from the little road that's there, we ca'n just swing right into the entrance to the building. It enabled us to try to be a littte bit more creative, and I think cr,eated a convenience for us, plus it has creat.ed a nice little park area to the rear of the property. We propose to be approved under what is classified in your zoning code as the Convalescent Nursing, and the description of that in your Code is that, where there are meals provided with nursing care for hire, and this facility will be exactly that. We will be providing meals. We will be providing transportation to shopping. We'll have a van which can take them to doctor's appointments. We'll have recreational and social activit.ies in the facility, and probably a little coffee shop. There'll be a little beauty salon where they can have their hair done or the men can have their hair cut. So, I guess we're asking for the Area Variance this evening for the approval for the construction of the facility, which is no more than 66,000 square feet, which would include the 4,000 square foot medical professional building. I'd be very happy to answer any questions. MR. FORD-What did you say your original proposal was for? MR. NOUN-The original proposal was for 70, which was going to be 66,000 square feet for the facility, for the senior unit, and 4,000 for the medical building. - 37 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/95) MR. FORD-So you're keeping the medical building the same size? MR. NOUN--Yes. MR. FORD-And reducing the other? MS. CIPPERLY-By 4258 square feet is what you said. MR. NOUN-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay, Sue, but in the original notes here, lets see, the parcel is 4.1 acres, according to the formula in Section 179- 23, the allowed square footage is 61,742, and you're coming up with a figure now of just, what, around 61,000? MS. CIPPERLY-No, plus the 4,000 for the medical building. MR. CARVIN-All right. I understand. MS. CIPPERLY-It's close. MR. CARVIN-I was going to say, it's pretty close. MR. NOUN-Plus or minus, we're asking for about half of originally asked for, and that's fine. We just adjustments. what I.-J8 made the MR. FORD-How did yOU cut down the size of the building? MR. NOUN-Well, originally, quite frankly, the size of the units were, they had designed some of the units in the building to be over 1,000 square feet. Actually, there were some three bedroom units there, and there was just no way that, that type of space is not required in this type of a facility, and most of the facilities around the country that are designed for this purpose are anywhere from 475 square feet on up to a maximum of 675 square feet for a two bedroom unit. MR. FORD-And what will the range in this new proposal be? MR. NOUN-Well, our range is going to be a little bit higher on t.he low side. We're goi ng to be up a~'ound 500 square feet, plus or minus, for the one bedroom, and then probably go up to about 550, or a little bit larger one bedroom maybe have a litt.le den in it, and then for the two bedroom it'll probably have about 650 to 675. MR. FORD-And no three bedroom? MR. NOUN-No. bedroom units meals. To the best of my knowledge, there are no three in this type of facility where we provide the MR. CARVIN-Okay. You had originally indicated about 70 units, is that still the plan? MR. NOUN-wYes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. FORD-Would you explain how, in the addressing that, or addressing the Ordinance nursing care for hire. Ordinance, you're portion indicating MR. NOUN-Well, the residents that live here guess most of them will be 75 plus years of that are 85 and probably some that are 90 have a physical problem, they will have will be, I'm going to age. We'll have some or older. When they access to the Home - 38 - ~ --' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/95) Healthcare agency, who as you know, now, travel to homes and apartments to treat seniors. We have been coming to Roberts Gardens and have had for several years now, and enabled the residents to stay in their apartments for a little bit, a little longer period of time before going on to the nursing home. 50 they will be able to hire the home health aide who will come in and assist with medication, perhaps give not only the medication, but you know you have to be certified. MR. FORD-Are you providing the nursing care? MR. NOUN--No. MR. FORD-So nursing care for hire is from outside agencies? MR. NOUN-Correct. MR. FORD-And so the Staff, the 24 hour a day Staff, does not include nurses or LPNs or anything like that? MR. NOUN-No. We will have a full security system, and there will be an alarm system in each apartment. So that if they do have a problem, they simply ring the buzzer, and we can have somebody there as an attendant, as quickly, if not more quickly, than other facilities, either in their apartment or in their home. We can get to them faster. 50 as soon as they have a problem, we'll know immediately. MR. FORD-Can I interrupt a second? MS. CIPPERLY-It was Jim Martin's determination that this fit that category in Highway Commercial that was, I believe, Convalescent Nursing Home, based on the fact that they were providing meals. These were not really independent units, that they were providing three meals a day, and at least helping them. MR. FORD-Well, in essence they're offering three meals a day. MS. CIPPERLY-It's part of their fee that they would pay. included in the monthly fee, the meals. It's MR. FORD-I thought your initial presentation indicated that if someone wanted to make their own meals, they would have the facilit.ies available to them to do that, and if they wanted to have only breakfast in the restaurant, as you referred to it, or breakfast and dinner, t.hat t.hey could go to the restaurant for that purpose. MR. NOUN-Well, I'm sorry that you may have misunderstood, but we will be providing meals. In fact., most of the residents will not be capable of providing themselves with three nutritious meals a day. They will have a, what we call a small galley kitchen, or a kitchenette, where they probably will have some juice or some fruit in the refrigerator. There will be no gas, however, no gas flames. It'll be strictly electric, and in some cases, quite frankly, the families may even come in and say, we'd rather have you disconnect the range. I mean, that happens. MR. FORD-Does this follow that, and comply with that nursing care for hire, because according to this description, the outside agency could be, that could be done virtually anywhere. TheYe's nothing special, in terms of the nursing care for hire, that is being provided by this agency. MR. NOUN-Well, excuse me for a second. We are attempting, now, to establish a relationship with a home healthcare agency who will be coming in to the facility, if a resident wishes. - 39 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/95) MR. CARVIN-Okay. I'm assuming that. that addresses the 600 square fest issue? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes, I had that discussion with Jim this afternoon, because it was an issue last time, as far as were these apartments or were they, is it something different, and he said that. since there were not intended to be self-sufficient units, they wouldn't fall into that apartment category. It's more of a, I guess like they don't have a full kitchen and it really, it's a difficult facility to put into one category or the other. It's not totally a nursing care thing where you've got a hospital setting, but it's kind of, I would say, a transition facility between people who can care completely for themselves, which would be apartments versus some level of needing some care. MR. FORD-And I'm not trying to play hardball will it. I'm just trying to get a determination as to what is going to be offered and what isn't going to be offered. MR. NOUN-It may be more, for sure it is more convalescent than it is nursing. There's no relationship, well, I shouldn't say D.Q. relationship, but it certainly is closer to a convalescent, because most of the residents, again, may be currently living with family, and they may fall. They have a physical ailment. They go to the hospital. The family says, my gosh, now what are we going to do with mom? She's broken her hip. She has a hip replacement. She's recuperating. It's time for her to go into, lets say, another type of facility, because otherwise they've got to provide the home health care in their home, or in an apartment where mom is staying now, and so when they come to our facility, many will be in that recuperating stage as well, still ambulatory, but needing assistance, with not only the meals, but. we will also provide housekeeping. We can't expect them to go wheeling around there with a vacuum cleaner. So we'll be doing housekeeping on a regular basis. If they want us to do it every day, that's different, but there will be housekeeping probably once a week. It depends on their need. If they want to have their . laundry done, for example, the1"e would be laund1"y facilities on the premises, but most of them may not want to do it themselves. They may want to send it out. So we'll have Staff available to do their laundry. So we're going to try to make it as comfortable as we can for them, and make them feel as independent as possible, before that final decision, which says, well, it's time, I guess we have to go to a nursing home. At that point, that's total 24 hour around the clock health care, which we are not providing, and quite frankly can't provide, because this is not a licensed facility. MR. KARPELES-But what's your definition of senior citizen? MR. NOUN-Senior citizen, as far as the AARP is concerned? I know because I because I have one of their cards. MR. KARPELES-For renting a unit. MR. NOUN-Anyone. If someone came in and they wanted to, a senior citizen, well I guess it would have to be a senior citizen who would like to have this particular lifestyle at that particular point in their life. MR. KARPELES-That's my point. How are you going to restrict this to senior citizens? MR. NOUN-Well, by definition, independent living in retirement is not a new term around the country. MR. KARPELES-Okay. So reti1"ement. It's not a )'ou're saying senior citizen. now it's independent Anybody, a person 20 - 40 - - -../ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/95) years old could move in, right? MR. NOUN-Theoretically they could. MR. KARPELES-Well, that's what I'm trying to get it. MR. NOUN-Theoret.ically, yes, I guess they could, but this is not, the likelihood of that happening, quite frankly, is not very good, and the facilities that I've seen throughout the State, and in Virginia, in fact, I'm on my way to, I'm going to take a look at some of the ones in that they've done in Florida next month. I've been invited to come down, so I'm going to see what they do there, and in Florida, there are obviously many more of these facilities on a per capita, I mean, in terms of the square miles in each town, because that's where a lot of people do. MS. CIPPERLY-But if there were a 20 year old that needed this kind of situation, you wouldn't say no, but, I mean, there may be a 20 year old that's been in a horrible accident, or something, and needs a convalescent type situation also. You probably wouldn't preclude them from using it. MR. NOUN-Probably not, but quite frankly, by law, I'm not so sure that we can say no. Do you have any comments on that, Chris? By the way, t.his is Chris Scringe, my at.torney. CHRIS SCRINGE MR. SCRINGE-Yes. I would say that you would, first of all, have t.o accept them under the law MR. GREEN-You can classify it a senior community. My father-in- law has one. Fifty years old. No pet.s. No kids. He's done it for 20 years, and nobody's, so you can classify it somehow as a senior development.. MR. NOUN-I believe that there may be ,some, I'm not so sure whether it's a law, but there's got to be some resolution there somewhere where you can identify a senior retirement, but I've never seen one of these facilities. I haven't seen one in New York State, and I've been to Rochester. I've been to Syracuse. I've been to Buffalo. I haven't gone down south to New York City, but I've seen them in Massachusetts. I've seen them in Virginia, and I have never seen an individual that's less than 65 or 70 years old. MR. CARVIN-Well, I don't see anything in here that really fits it. I think Jim's interpretation is a stret.ch, but I can't, my vision of a nursing or convalescent home I think is a lot different than what. this is. Certainly I can see people recovering from automobile accidents and convalescing, as it were, and a nursing home, obviously, is where you have 24 hour medical attention, and I'm not getting that impression. You're not going to have on-site 24 hour medical attention, are you? MR. NOUN-No, but The other thing what we expect, happen. we will have access to it on an emergerfcy basis. is that. we are not going to have, this is not a signed year lease. That just is not going to MR. CARVIN-Are you going to have any physical therapy facilities, things like that? MR. NOUN-No. We will have a community room where they will be able to have exercise programs. Yes. We will do that through our sac ial . MR. FORD-No year lease? What is it, a month at a time? - 41 - (Queensbury Z8A Meeting 12/20/95) MR. NOUN-Well, for the most part we're thinking of, I've been checking around the country and there are some that. have a 30 day lease, a 30 day arrangement. Some would have 60 days, and then as long as you give the facility a 30, 60 or 90 day, that's it. The one, for example, that's being built down in Nyskauna right now, Nyskauna Commons, theirs happens to be 30 day, but that's just maybe one more level. They're going to have a medical staff on the premises. That's a whole different ball game, a whole different type structure, in fact, much different type structure, because we are not going to require a year's lease. So for sure this is not the apartment concept, as we know it, where you sign a year lease with a security deposit, because so many things can happen. A resident might be there for two or three months. They could be there for five years, ten years. There's no way of telling. We'd like to think that, through our programs and our treatment of them as individuals that we're going to keep them as long as anybody else can, until it's time, most of them I guess sooner or lat.er are going to be in a nursing home. MR. CARVIN-So Jim is comfortáble with this 500 square feet do you think? MR. KARPELES-Well, what is that? What are we buying by the 500 square f('?-et? MR. CARVIN-Well, that's what the units are. MR. KARPELES-Yes, but how did we get down to 500 square feet? MR. CARVIN-That's what he's proposing. are going to be in size. That's what these units MR. KARPELES-Yes, but how is he justifying it? MS. CIPPERLY-Jim's description of it weren't really independent apartments. on the facility for meals, really, the They might have a microwave or something was that it was, they They're really dependent major cooking of meals. in the unit. MR. NOUN-They will have a microwave. MS. CIPPERLY-But he didn't perceive them as a real stand alone unit. MR. MENTER-I personally have no problem with that. I think that makes sense. That~s the intention of the facility, and that's the intention, I think, of the way that the Code is written. MR. CARVIN-Yes, and in looking at some of the previous comments, and what Mr. Noun is reiterating tonight, I think the thing that bothers me the most is the cooking facilities. He indicates that they may have a refrigerator. They may have a range or some kind of microwave. MR. NOUN-The refrigerator, quite frankly, is. MR. CARVIN-Yes, like a college dorm, I guess. MR. NOUN-Correct. It's not a full, it's not like a 13 or 15 cubic foot refrigerator. MR. CARVIN-In fact, I guess a college dorm probably isn't even 500 square feet. MR. NOUN-No. In fact, the one on Union for sale at A college dormitory is probably closer to 250 feet. Skidmore dorms, which I looked at, by the way, the Avenue there, a possible conversion, they had it up one time. I don't think that there's any more than - 42 - '"'-" ' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/95) 150 square feet in there. MR. CARVIN-All right. st.orys though, right? We're still going to have it at three MR. NOUN-Well, it would be no more more than 40 feet. We're going to character of Westwood, some of that maybe have a little half moon design. than 40 feet. It can't be try to blend it in with the architecture, and hopefully MR. FORD-But it is three storys? MR. NOUN-Yes. MR. FORD-And total number of units? MR. NOUN-Seventy. MR. CARVIN-Proposed 70. If you've got 73 or 75, I mean, you wouldn't be opposed to that, right? Is it going to be right at 70? It conceivably could be larger or smaller. MR. NOUN-I believe so. Well, I don't know why it would be more than 70. I guess I would like to have as many as possible, but on the ot.her hand, we have to be careful of demographics, as well. If this facility were going to be, for example, 85 or 90, I would be reluctant. to, because I don't believe that the demographics are here, but we would like very much to have maybe a room which would be used for family members who might be traveling some distance and they can stay overnight. That we would like to do, and then that would be more like a little overnight room, if you will, where we'd like to put in a little bath and like a small motel where they could stay so that they wouldn't interfere with the apartment part of it. MR. CARVIN-Well, do you have any proposed units less than 500 square feet? MR. NOUN-No. Ours would not be, for example, 450. toying with a design, which may, depending upon the what we do with some of the exterior windows, and are have perhaps a bow type window, maybe we may go down I don't, we're not going to go down to 432. Now, lrJe're windows and we going to to 490, but MR. CARVIN-Well, the reason I'm asking is that I'd like to try to, if we grant a variance here, get at least a 500 square foot living space as a minimum. MR. NOUN-Well, if easy. I ca n te II square feet. that's your requirement, guess what, that's the architect, don't design one that's 495 MR. CARVIN-Okay, but would you be comfortable with that? I think when we start get.ting below 500 square feet on a living unit, especially if it's even got a partial kitchen. I mean, I don't know, I'm asking what your feeling is here. Is 500 square feet an unreasonable request? MR. NOUN-Well, I know we can (lost word) if we added more space for storage, for example, there's always going to be storage that's going to be required. Now, we can't provide storage facilities. I guess we could in the building, but it would maybe Just increase the size, you know, even if we Just increased the size, the depth of the width by a foot, that's a lot. MR. CARVIN-Sue, would this be something that's addressed under Site Plan? - 43 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/95) MS. CIPPERLY-Well, a site plan really is more the traffic flow and things like that. I think I was just looking at the, if you had 72 units at 500 square feet, comes out to 36,000, and all the other stuff. So you could, you know, fit your, I think if we said 500 it. would be okay. I'm just not sure that he needs a, we need to address that, if you want to put a minimum in, along with your density variance, that's probably something you could do. MR. CARVIN-And I think that this is one of the things that, at least it's still a neighborhood concern, maybe it isn't, but if we have 70 units there, that's 70 cars, and if we have, if we can squeeze another five or six units by putt.ing them down to 400, and now you've got 75 or 80 units, which means now you've got 75 or 80 cars, you know, it becomes a real density issue, and even though the building has been downsized, I wouldn't want it to be at the expense of the residents, I guess. First of all, I want to publically state that I think this type of facility is desperately needed, because of the application we had here earlier. I mean, there's an awful lot of these parents, you know, they're independent, but they're having a difficult. time finding places like this to live. MR. NOUN-Well, where would they go in the immediate area to seek some type of a facility like this? To ~ knowledge, the closest one would be Wellspring on Avenue in Albany. Glens Falls the best of Washington MR. CARVIN-Yes, and because there is really, you know, we're kind of dealing with a gray area here, and until the Town really can address some of these particular issues, I mean, I think we're going to have to do it through the zoning. I mean, I just. would hate to see, you know, little room size, and I'm not saying that you're going to do that, but I think that if we start down the path, and you're building is successful, we'll have others coming in, and, you know, if we set a criteria of 500 square feet, I think that that becomes the criteria for future situations. MR. NOUN-I have seen a floor plan with as little as 432 square feet, but they've done some very creative things in terms of the Code, because instead of having a door to enter the bathroom, they have a sliding door, and then you don't need that extra clearance from the door to the wall, and in some of the areas, in the bedroom area, for example, there isn't a door. It's just an open space. So they've taken advantage of that, and I've been in a unit that was furnished, and quite frankly I was surprised, I said the same thing, how could they have 432 square feet? Now, I think there should be more square footage, and so, as far as I'm concerned, I'd like to have them larger than the average, just because the more square footage you have, the better off you are, for the economics, as well. MR. CARVIN-You would not be uncomfortable at a 500 square foot limitation t.hen? MR. NOUN-Well, if it could vary by, I don't know, less than five percent, or something like that, I'd be willing. MS. CIPPERLY-Do you want to sayan absolute minimum, or do you want t.o sayan average? MR. CARVIN-Well, average becomes another nebulous thing. MR. GREEN-Yes, I'd cut it at 500. MR. CARVIN-I think a solid figure of 500 square feet, but I don't want to get into a nitpicking thing, well, gee whiz, is a closet living space? No. You know how that works. - 44 - ........- --/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/95) MR. NOUN-If that's a serious consideration for the Board, I'd be very happy to charge the architect with saying that in order to make this workable, it needs to be a minimum of 500 square feet. That's what I'll tell him. MR. STRINGE-Can I just clarify? You're saying 500 square feet of living space, not including closets? MR. CARVIN~I don't know if I have an answer, because. MR. NOUN-At that point, OUT closets are very large, walk-in closets. MR. FORD-You could live in them if you had to, right? MR. CARVIN-I think a total square footage, outside wall dimensions, or inside wall dimensions of 500 square feet, now, 475 feet is a closet, well, you live in a closet. MS. CIPPERLY-I think if you looked at, for instance, the gross leasable area in ours, it's measured from t.he inside faces of the ~Ja II s . MR. CARVIN-Certainly we could refer this up to the Planning Board, and that becomes part of their site plan review, I would assume, if they took a look at these units. MS. CIPPERLY-I think it's appropriate for you t.o be looking at it because he's asking for a density, I mean, and this also relates to how many units and how many parking spaces and that sort of thing, which are also before this Board. MR. CARVIN-That's know, certainly if square feet, rooms got a real density what my we had with two issue. intent here is to do, is that, you dormitories, we could have like 150 elderly people in it, and then you've MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. I think if you want to define this project, it's, the Zoning Board can do it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. There's still no garage planned? MR. NOUN-No. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I know you've indicated 70 is number. Is there any other questions? All right. address the buffer issue? I mean, has that adequately? your optimum How do we been pretty MS. CIPPERLY-The buffer needed anymore, because that 50 foot area. has been addressed. That variance isn't he's got the building complet.ely out of MR. CARVIN-And that's words, 50 foot from the line? from the property line, right, in other property line, or is it from the zoning MS. CIPPERLY-From the zoning line. MR. CARVIN-All right. He qualifies either way? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Good. MS. CIPPERLY-It might be helpful to have the input from Westwood. MR. CARVIN-I'm going to get to t.hat in just a second. I just - 45 - ---- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/95) wanted to kind of go over, because I did leave the public hearing open. Okay. If there's no other questions from the Board? Then I would ask for any additional comments from the public. The public hearing is still open. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN HOWARD KRANTZ MR. KRANTZ-Howard Krantz, representing the Board of Directors of Westwood Homeowners Association. I'd like to preface my comments by saying it's a pleasure to see all of you here this evening, contrary, perhaps, to the Warren County Planning Board, who had trouble gathering a quorum. A couple of the points that were made on the concern for the use of this property by other than those intended, Westwood has that same concern, and I'll address that later, but I would say that if it's run as intended, no one's going to use it unless they need those facilities. In other words, part. of what they're paying for monthly is for the meals, part of what they'Te paying for monthly is that weekly housekeeping, and unless someone needs that, t.hey're not going to spend the money for it. So we're not concerned with that element of the project. It's been pointed out that the project use does not fit neatly into any category in the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, but I think that Jim Martin has exercised good and reasonable judgement in saying that it's closer to the permitted use than not. We don't have this type of facility in Queensbury now. It does serve the community needs. I'm sure all of you know how expensive nursing home care is. I understand it's approximately $4,000, and that's bankrupting not only individuals, but State and Federal governments as well, and a facility like this, while obviously more expensive than an apartment use, is a lot less expensive than a nursing home use, and does fit into a nitch that would be beneficial to the community. Two months ago, we were opposed strongly to the project because of the proximity of the buildings to the easterly boundary line of the Westwood Homeowners Association. We stated at that time we were not opposed to the use of the property, and in fact I think the record will reflect that we think it was a good use, except the design of the building and proximity and orientat.ion of the building was detrimental to Westwood. I've met with the Board of Directors several times, with Mr. Noun. He's come to meetings with the Board of Directors, and I would say that Mr. Noun and his architect have done a good job. I would say a very good job of altering the plans, and sincerely taking into account the concerns of Westwood Homeowners Association. I believe it. was perhaps mis-spoken before when Mr. Noun said that the original building was 130 or 135 feet from the common boundary line. The original building was 100 feet from the property line, according to the plans that I have, and the plan that you have now before you, the western most wing, if you will, is 140 feet distance. That's a 40 percent increase in the separation from my client's property and this building, and then the northern wing corner is over 211 feet distance. That's a substantial improvement from what we had two months ago. In addition to the increased distance separating the building from the property line, before, if you remember t.he orientation of the building, the ends of these walls were almost parallel to the property line. So had they been moved back alone, that would have been an improvement, but they would have still been facing a wall at each wing of approximately 40 feet in width, and now what they're facing, as you can see, at the point of the building, it will kind of trail off. So it's much easier to the eye than the image of a solid wall running parallel to their property line. I believe under current case law where the Stat.e criteria for granting of an Area Variance, you weigh the benefit to the applicant versus the detriment to the community. The favor of the granting of the Area Variance is requested. It's not - 46 - "'-' '-' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/95) materially detrimental to the community. In fact, a& I said before, I believe it's favorable to the community. People primarily concerned in Wes~wood are no in favor of the project. None of the other property owners are herB tonight speaking against this, that I know of, and we would ask that we it be approved. However, l.>Je would add to our commEHìts in favor that a condition be attached, with the granting of any Area Variance, and t.hat is that the Area Variance exists so long as the property is always used as intended, this type of convalescent care. What I'm saying is that while I think the project will succeed, should, 10 years down the road, 15 years down the road, the pToject not succeed, we wouldn't want it turned into a small unit apartment building. MR. CARVIN-I don't know if we can do that, because variances go with the land. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but you could condition it. MR. KRANTZ-You could condi~ion t.he variance. MR. CARVIN-We've probably done it, but I think ~hat that's probably an approved use. MS. CIPPERLY-Not in a Highway Commercial Zone. The nearest thing I could think of t.hat it. could turn into would be a hotel or motel. This doesn't list apartment buildings in Highway Commercial. MR. MENTER-Regardless, it goes back under full scrutiny, though. MS. CIPPERLY-Right. I mean, it couldn't automatically turn into an apartment building. MR. FORD-Time share. MR. CARVIN-Well, then they would have to come for a Use Variance, right? MR. GREEN-It would be a different use. MS. CIPPERLY-They'd have to have a Use Variance, or changed the use to a motel, for example, they'd have to for the Planning Board approval, because that's a change use of the property. if they come in in the MR. KRANTZ-See, the intended use is critical to Westwood's support of t.his. For example, if this were a residential facility that was not going to be providing the meals and the type of housekeeping care that it is, these would just be small apartments, and small apartments don't command a lot of rent, and people with less income, I'm not trying to cat.egorize everybody with one broad brush, would have a certain social economic style to them that would not. be desirable to the neighbors. So we're fully in support of this if it's used as intended, and if there is a way to condition it, we are fully in support of it. MR. KARPELES-When you say you're fully in support of it, are you fully in support of the medical offi¢e building also? MR. KRANTZ-Yes, and I think some of the Board members have expressed the same concerns, that it not, by hook or crook in the future, turn into small apartments. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Anyt.hing else? MR. KRANTZ-No. Thank you very much. - 47 - '--- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/95) MR. CARVIN-Any other public comment? PHIL MCADAM MR. MCADAM-It would seem to me for Senior Citizens, instead McAdam. a title for it would be Housing of a Convalescent Home. Phil LOIS ANN GALBRY MRS. GALBRY-I'm Lois Ann Galbry, Westwood. I think the concept is excellent, and I think there's definit.ely a need for it. One concern I have is where the public service entrance and those kinds of things are going to be, because if we have early morning or night time delivery, garbage, etc., I've experienced that in the past, it can be very disruptive to the neighborhood. So, I would be concerned that that is done away from that line where the Westwood people are. Is that in the plans? I can't really tell. MS. CIPPERLY-That's really a Planning Board, site plan thing. I know they're having some plans made up by an engineering firm. MRS. GALBRY-And then that back is parking area, and then yoU have buffer. Are you putting shrubs and so forth for the lights and so forth nightlights for your parking lot? MR. NOUN-Yes. MRS. GALBRY-That would be a concern, that enough shrubbery is out there. MR. CARVIN-Yes. Many of these should be and will be addressed under what they call Site Plan Review. MS. CIPPERLY-If this is approved here, it will go in front of the Planning Board also. So t.hat would be the meetings that you, you would be notified again, and that's where to bring those concerns. MRS. GALBRY-Okay. MR. CARVIN-Okay. If there's no other public comment, I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Ladies and Gentlemen, any comments? MR. THOMAS-I thought the first plan was a real good plan. I think the second plan's a real great plan, and I think that Mr. Noun along with the residents of Westwood have made a real effort in the design of this revised design, and I think it's an outstanding piece of work here, and it's something that this community desperately needs, and what the applicant is asking for is not a big variance to start this project and complete it, and I think it would be a good asset to the community. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Tom? MR. FORD-I couldn't have said it better myself, Chris. I certainly agree with the substantial need that has been demonstrated and will, in the years to come, be further demonstrated for a facility like this, and I think it has the potential for being something that our community can be very proud to have. I'm in favor of it. MR. KARPELES-Well, I'm in favor of the senior citizen housing - 48 - ',--, -.....¿' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/95) development, but I just wonder, it seems as though this medical office building is just tagging along, and I'm wondering what the justificat.ion for that is. If you didn't have that medical office building, you really wouldn't need a variance, or very little variance. How do you justify throwing that in? MR. NOUN-Well, most facilities that are built of this type have access to, either on premises, somewhere in the facility, but certainly they're located near hospitals, near doctors offices, near shopping, at least. That's what L, some that don't are not as successful, and to héve t.he access of having the healthcare agency right there in the facility as well, quite frankly, as well as that, I was in the flower shop. I wanted to talk to the owner of the flower shop as well, because if there is a need for service, not only for medical service, but also for just the psychological lift for flowers, I'm sure they could have them delivered somewhere else, but I see that as just having a very positive impact, not only on the residents, but also the families, and knowing that there's a certain comfort zone for having that little medical building there which is going to blend in with the architecture, and I don~t think it's going to be a detraction. I think it would be an asset to the residents. MR. KARPELES-Well, is that going to be rest.ricted to medical offices? Is there a possibility that something else will move in there, other than medical? MR. NOUN-I don't know. MR. KARPELES-So, if we made that a condition, you would go along with that? MR. NOUN-Certainly. Absolutely. MR. CARVIN-So what are you saying, Bob? MR. KARPELES-I'm saying I'm in favor of it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. (TAPE PROBLEMS. SOME DIALOGUE LOST) MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. considering here. Agai~, it's sqtlare footage that I assume that could be a condition. you're MR. NOUN-I just thought of one more thing. Medical, I'm assuming you're alluding to a doctor's (lost word) may we consider some type of services, such as, for example, a physical therapist? If the term "medical" refers to an M.D. or some type of specialist, then I'd prefer it to be a little bit more broad, to include services to the seniors. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, I think that actually goes with the health related facility definition, that this is going in under, if you want to restrict it to a medical office. MR. CARVIN-Okay, Well, I've gone on record before. I think we open up a can of worms when we start doing that, myself. Dave, any comment.s? MR. MENTER-Well, yes. I would just say that I think the impact on the property itself is substantial. I mean, it's greater than the seven percent relief implies. However, I do understand the financial restrictions, and to make it work, yoU can't be out in the middle of nowhere where you can spread out a big one story building and not be near the services. So there's a problem there, and I think that everything has been done to mitigate the impact as much as possible. So, as it stands, I'd be in favor of - 49 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/95) it. MR. GREEN-I really have to agree with Chris, that I really like the first plan, and I'm a little upset that Mr. Noun has been forced to lose about half of his community center, what appeared to be a nice patio area, a screened delivery area. I mean, obviously I'm going to agree with this proposal, just because, as I said, I actually liked the first one better, but if this is what we have to do to ameen some of the other concerns, that's fine, but I just, it. seems like he's given up an awful lot, but if that's what he has to do to make the neighbors happy, then fine. MR. NOUN-May I address that? Although it only shows a one story building, with approximately 3.060 square feet, that.'s just the one story. We're going to have a little more height in there. So it's going to be more open. Underneath the three story building, we will include, there will also be some common areas in t.here. We kind of set it back into the building so it's not just going to be the 3,000 square feet. In fact, it's going to be approximately the same as it was before, in terms of common area. MR. FORD-And where is it going to be, underneath the building? MR. MENTER-In the main structure, the first floor of the main structure. MR. NOUN-On the the first floor, So it's going to elevator area or first floor. It would just be an extension of and then we go into the three story building. be an extension to through first floor, like the the mailboxes are. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Anything else, Bill? MR. GREEN-No. That about covers it, I guess. MRS. LAPHAM-I don't think I can add anything, but I would be for it also. I think the community has long needed something like this. MR. CARVIN-I don't have a problem with the project as proposed. I just would want to put a couple of caveats to it. I think the 500 square foot living area unit. I would also want to emphasize that we would not want this any higher than 40 feet.. I have a hard time, I understand what Westwood is trying to do. I think that as far as t.he granting of a variance, it tends to go with the land, and I think we really start getting bogged down into some pretty tough situations when we try to say that only a nursing care facility can go in here, because I think it does eliminate some of the other uses that may be appropriate, and if they're not covered, then that comes back under this Board's purview and not necessarily the owner of the property. I also believe that, and, Bob, what you're looking at on the medical, I think that this project was approved with an outbuilding, but I think originally when the Woodbury's came in for their office building, I think they had some kind of commercial building that was approved at that point. Do you remember? Am I correct or incorrect on that? MS. CIPPERLY-I don't know. There's more than one building on the prope~·ty . MR. CARVIN-I think if you go back into the Woodbury, when Woodbury was proposing to put his office building there, I believe there was a commercial center, and by commercial, it was implying whatever an approved use was. I think we're expanding the, well, I guess medical facilities is an approved use, right, - 50 - '---" ---' (Cueensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/95) or medical buildings? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. MR. CARVIN-So I don't think we can preclude that if a group of doctors comes in and we want to put a, if that space can be rented to a florist, and a florist shop is an approved use, and I don't see where we can say no. Now you have justificat.ion of saying no because it's a variance, but I think that you're going to get into a real situation where you're inhibiting the propert.y owner. This is the dentist's case allover again. I mean, next you'll have a list of approved businesses t.hat can go in there. MR. KARPELES--I think that the Homeowners Association has approved this, knowing that this is going to be a medical office building, and I think they might have a different opinion if it is not a medical office building. MS. CIPPERLY-But this isn't a Use Variance. I think that's,part of t.he situation here. Without coming to this Board, somebody else could come and propose a hotel for that piece of property, or any number of these things on the list that really would be a worse use of this property in terms of noise and commotion and all t.hat sm-t of thing, but it's an approved ,use. So, I'm not saying that some day there could be a 72 room hotel here, but, because I think this is going to be a successful project because there is such a need for it, but I don't think that this Board, as you said, can really. MR. CARVIN-Stipulate that only a medical facility can go in there. MS. CIPPERLY-If it were a Use Variance, you'd have a better, the only other way that I was thinking of approaching it was, if yoU are giving a density type Area Variance, with the understanding it be used for certain types of things, maybe t.hat's a way of approaching it. MR. CARVIN-I still think we go way out on a limb when we start doing that. I think we can limit the height.. We can limit the square footage, as part of living unit, and I think when we start limiting uses, or creating a list. of what approved uses can go in here, I think we're going outside the norm. MR. FORD-Is it covered in t.he application where it's requ<?sted approval of a medical office? MR. CARVIN-No. They're just asking for, they're seeking relief from the square footage. It's an Area Variance. In other woyds, they would be allowed, and Bob is quite right. If they were to lose the medical building, that they're proposing as a medical building, they probably would be in compliance and wouldn't be here. So that they're asking for additional building space, and what I believe Mr. Noun is saying, that it makes the most sense to have a medical or professional arts building there, because of the nature of the main complex, but I think we're doing a disservice to him and the rest. of the area by, you know, lets say the doctors, he can't rent it as a doctors. He'll be back here saying, look, you guys said I can only put doctors in there. Why can't I put accountants, and why can't I put brokers, or why can't I do this, or why can't I do that? So we're giving him roughly 61 or 62,000 square feet of building area. MR. KRANTZ-May I ask a question? MR. CARVIN-Does the Board want to hear his question? Sure. MR. KRANTZ-Would the Board approve these Area Variances if these - 51 - '- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/95) were apartments? MR. CARVIN-It depends if they met the criteria. I mean, that's kind of a leading question. MR. KRANTZ-No, it's not a leading question. question. It's an honest MR. CARVIN-I don't know if apartments are a use. MS. CIPPERLY-Apartments are not an allowed use in that zone. MR. CARVIN-Then we'd have a Use Variance that we'd be going through. We'd have to determine whether the use was appropriate. I don't have an answer for you there, and that's what I think 't..QY.L safeguard from the Westwood is, is that, fine, ~<Je'ì-e allowing this, and then if somebody did open up an apartment building, that that's a different use, and that would require a Use Variance. MR. KRANTZ-Absolutely, and I think that's, from from the Board, that.'s been the concern of you're in favor of these variances because of property, and Westwood's in favor of it because have the intensity of use that apartments would what I've gleaned this Board, that this use of the it's not going to have. MR. CARVIN-But that's not to say that if they, if he doesn't make it, that there isn't a list of approved uses that could go in there, and again, I don't know if we could use a 60,000 square foot professional, if we got every doctor in town to locate there, or lawyers. I mean, there's no reason that it couldn't be turned into office buildings. MR. KRANTZ-But you've stated that you're going out on a limb. I can tell you that, legally, you have every right to attach reasonable conditions to the granting of an Area Variance, and if anybody has told you to the contrary, they don't know what they're talking about. MR. CARVIN-No. I realize we can attach reasonable caveats, but I think whèn we start get.ting into certain areas, they become extremely unreasonable. MR. GREEN-But isn't the use as an apartment building a not approved use, so they would need to come for a Use Variance. MR. CARVIN-Right. MR. GREEN-So there's the solution. MR. CARVIN-I don't have a problem with the Westwood situation. MR. KRANTZ-The problem, though, is an Area Variance would be created, saying that, gee, if it goes to an apartment use, they'd have to come back for a Use Variance, but then the zoning changes, and the Area Variance would already be in place for these small sized units, and then it becomes a permitted use. MR. CARVIN-Well, again, there is a mechanism, they just don't arbitrarily êhange it because 'they don't like Westwood anymore. So, I mean, if that situation should evolve, then certainly the public has input into that, and if that is the case that should come, you have a place to argue that. MR. KRANTZ-This would qualify now as a hotel, permitted use? MS. CIPPERLY-There is, I mean, as I said, somebody had an approved plan there before for office buildings. You could have - 52 - -- '-"" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/95) a public parking garage there, gasoline station, you manner of things that you associate with a Highway Zone. know, all Commercial MR. KRANTZ-No. I'm picturing this structure being built. MS. CIPPERLY-That structure? MR. KRANTZ-Right. MS. CIPPERLY-The closest thing I could see as a re-use would either be as a hotel or maybe a professional office. MR. CARVIN-That's what I'm saying. I think professional office is such a broad brush, I mean, that the worst that might happen is that it gets turned into 50 lawyers offices or 50 doctors offices. MS. CIPPERLY-Veterinary clinic. MR. CARVIN-Or a nursing home. MR. MENTER-Well, I think there's a certain amount of protection, as far as the large)- building is concerned, but I think the issue that Bob raised was the professional building in front, right? I mean, that's the concern. MR. KRANTZ-Not to Westwood. They're more concerned with the large building close to them rather than the small building on the other side of the large one. MR. KARPELES-I'm not going to worry about it if they're not worried about it. I would gather that they approved that because they go along with the fact that there's going to be a medical office there, and therefore, they're willing to give a variance on the density requirements. Now I think they might have a different feeling if there was going to be a real estate office there. Is that. right or is t.hat wrong? MR. KRANTZ-I honestly don't think so. I think any reasonable, you know, professional retail use of that building, they wouldn't have a problem. They're more concerned with, for some reason this project doesn't make it., and I agree with everybody else, I t.hink it will, too, it became small apartments. Right now, I don't t.hink they're going to have one car, in my opinion, per unit. I don't think all these people are going to be driving. Less cars, less tr aff ic . If, on the other ha nd, it became a hotel, such, I think it would be an entirely different impact on Westwood. That's my concern. That's Westwood's concern. MR. KARPELES-Okay. MR. KRANTZ-And if it can be addressed here or at the Planning Board stage, we'd hopefully like to see it. addressed at some point. MR. CARVIN-Okay. If there's no other questions or comments, I'd ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 76-1995 PERRY NOUN ASSOC.. INC., Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Menter: The applicant is proposing to construct a living facility for seniors and seeks relief from the density requirement of Section 179-23. The applicant proposes to construct a 58,940 square foot living facility for seniors, with an attached 3,060 square foot community center, plus a detached 4,000 square foot medical - 53 - '......"...- .~~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/95) office, and seeks relief from the density requirement of Section 179-23, which allows a total of 61,742 square feet of building in this area. I would grant relief of 4,258 square feet from this Section. The benefit to the applicant is that the applicant would be able to construct what he considers a cost effective project. The applicant has demonstrated that there were some feasible alternatives, in working with the neighbors, and has come to the best feasible alternative, which still requires this minimum relief of 4,258 square feet. This relief does not appear to be substantial in relation to the Ordinance, as that the relief being sought represents only seven percent, and by the granting of this variance, there would not be any ill effects on the neighborhood or the community. The applicant has demonstrated a willingness to work with the neighborhood and the community, . in arriving at what appears to be a very, very suitable and well thought out plan. I would, however, attach a couple of conditions. Condition Number One is that no living unit will be less than 500 square feet, and the height of the building is to be no higher than 40 feet. Duly adopted this 20th day of December, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE MR. CARVIN-Sue, have you got anything additional? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. I don't know if any of you have your minutes from the Leemilt's application. MR. CARVIN-I don't know if I've got them or not. MR. THOMAS-Is that from Mr. Garafolo? MS. CIPPERLY-R.J. Schneider called today and was concerned that, you granted the variance, and you had discussed including some previous stuff in it. Here it is. MR. CARVIN-Okay. "The applicant proposes to utilize two business shops in the rear of a Getty station on the corner of Dixon and Aviation." What are we looking for? MS. CIPPERLY-I think he was concerned that this thing with the 10 parking spaces that you said would be, is that in there? MR. CARVIN-Okay. although traffic eliminated behind parking spaces be "I wish to from Dixon the building, retained." condition this variance that to Aviation or vice versa be the blockage. ..that a minimum 10 MS. CIPPËRLY-The other thing is I think when they went Planning Board the one way traffic thing didn't become, know, I don't see a problem with it. to the I don't MR. CARVIN-I do. I think we really wanted to condition blocking that traffic. that on MS. CIPPERLY-Well, two things are, the parking didn't work when you did that, but also there's going to be some changes to the road there. In fact, they've got a proposal out right now to do some engineering redesign at that intersection, which may have some impact on the. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, wait a minute. Lets have the whole Board in on this. Okay. We have, apparently, a problem on the Leemilt - 54 - '~' ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/95) Gett.y Petroleum. That. was the toy story, or the train there on the corner of Aviation. I think you all should be familiar with it. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. CARVIN-If you remember it correct, we had conditioned the variance that "through traffic from Dixon to Aviation or vice versa be eliminated behind the building, the blockage being of a permanent nature and to be placed so that a minimum of 10 parking spaces be retained", and I guess you are bringing me up to speed that the Planning Board or Planning Staff had a problem with that, or it didn't happen? MS. CIPPERLY-It didn't work in terms of the parking spaces in that one way thing just didn't work. They did have them do some, like raised, instead of just painting lines on the parking lot, they're going to have some raised curbs and that sort of thing. The other thing that's going on, as far as the Town goes, is Aviation Road, a proposal has just gone out for a re-design of that area, specifically, so to limit this to have a blockage there may be kind of a detriment. MR. MENTER-To block through traffic? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. No, I mean, to block the traffic in back of this store may not work with the eventual design of the road. Anyway, I guess the Planning Board approved it last night without a permanent blockage of the traffic. MR. CARVIN-They don't h~ve a variance if they don't have something there, I mean, according to what we've got here. MR. FORD-We had great concerns about those people driving through there. MR. CARVIN-That's something that they should have brought up to Planning. I mean, did Planning realize that this was a problem? Was it brought up do you know? MS. CIPPERLY-Well, John Goralski certainly did, but we couldn't figure out a way to make the parking lot work with enough room to back up without going onto Dixon Road and having the 20 foot drive aisles and that kind of stuff. MR. CARVIN-I thought the idea was that maybe we didn't need the 20 foot aisles because the way he was talking to us, he didn't feel that there'd be that many cars there, unless he's changed his story. MS. CIPPERLY-I don't have a copy of what was approved at the P I ann i ng Bo;,H d . MR. CARVIN-It seems to me, 10 spaces, let them work it out. MS. CIPPERLY-But the reason he called this afternoon I think was because he thought that at the meeting he had you said you thought they had proved that they needed a third business in there in order to make it more of a blanket thing, and I don't know that you really wanted to make it more of a blanket approval. He said, I can see that we're going to be back in front of them in a couple of years, probably, and maybe t.hey should just have to come back every two years. MR. CARVIN-Well, I think that that's what one of the neighbors wanted. He said that he wanted this, and that's the way we conditioned these in the past, is t.hat they went with the owner on this particular case, because that's the way it was with the - 55 - \",~ -Wf"'~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/95) rug shop there, that if the rug shop moved out, I think it's a backwards way of doing it in some cases like this, but that was something that the neighbors. MS. CIPPERLY-I will find out what went on with the Planning Board. MR. CARVIN-Because I know that originally, when they put the carpeting in there, t.here was a whole room full of people, and they said, gee whiz, we didn't really want to give it, and I'm assuming that that was the case even prior to the rug place. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. They wanted to put an auto repair place in there, and that was even worse. MR. CARVIN-It's been up a couple, three times before the Board. MS. CIPPERLY-So it was definitely your intention to limit it to? MR. CARVIN-To block that traffic flow through there. So I think I'd like to refer that back to Planning and see if they can maybe take a re-look at that. Am I speaking for the Board here on that? I mean, I know that was fJll:. intent on that. MR. FORD-Yes. MS. CIPPERLY-I can maybe, in the interim here, provide you all with copies of those minutes. MR. CARVIN-It seems to me when we kind of looked at it, we came up with a couple of plans, but certainly we're a long way from the Planning Board. We kind of left it to the applicant, and that's why we worded it in such a fashion is that we wanted to block it, and leave it to them how they were going to block it, whether t.hey were going to use wood. MR. THOMAS-When we made the resolution, there wasn't any concern about Aviation Road. There wasn't going to be any changes to Aviation Road, now I understand it's going to be a four lane highway up to Potter Road. MR. CARVIN-If there's nothing else, I'd like to wish everybody a happy holiday. Meeting adjourned. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Fred Carvin, Chairman - 56 -