Loading...
1995-10-18 ·-....... ( \, FILD QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING OCTOBE:f~r'H3, '1995 ,if ;."Ii ,IT INDEX I, ":',, Area Variance No. 72-1995 Noble True Value 1. , Ii Area Variance No. 73-1995 Dave Hatin 4. Area Variance No. 74-1995 Michael Seale 3. Queensbury Car Wash Area Variance No. 75-1995 Alfred & Mary Ellen Kristensen 3. Area Va,- iance No. 76-1995 Perry Noun 14. 'f' 'Ii THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJÈt:'T T<!J'BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTr4S M1:NúTES (IF ANY) AND ¡ WILL $'rÄTE SUCH AplPRb'IJI.AL OF ;SAID , 'MI,qt1JTES'. '" !':~:!i ,)." 'T, 'J: i ~¡ ": ,!,'¡ ;' , , ~ , ';¡,': , , ;/i;:"r " .j ',' ".10..'\ Vi T , , :: ~,¡ "j .", , :} ¡'I :1, ': 'r ,1;-', ; 1 :~! " 'I; , '1_'-'1(: r. ,;.:: ) i . " , ,-, , . , *'1 ! , I" , ; ,I l:{ '.~" r, I' I' , ; I! ì ¡ r: " '" <,~ 1:', .<1 ,.¡ --,'" Queensbury ZBA Me.timg LO/18/95 v" ~ ¡ '; QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPI;AL. FIRST REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 18, 1995 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT FRED CARVIN, CHAIRMAN CHRIS THOMAS, SECRETARY THOMAS FORD ROBERT KARPELES WILLIAM GREEN DAVID MENTER PLANNER-SUSAN CIPPERLY STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI AREA VARIANCE NO. 72-1995 TYPE II PC-1A NOBLE TRUE VALUE OWNER: CHRIS ST. ANDREWS AND KEN NOBLE ROUTE 9, NEXT TO MCDONALD'S APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMODEL THE EXTERIOR OF STORE, INCLUDING MANSARD ROOF OVERHANG AT THE ENTRANCE WHICH WILL REQUIRE RELIEF FROM THE 75-FOOT CORRIDOR SETBACK REQUIRED BY SECTION 179-28, TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 10/11/95 TAX MAP NO. 72-6-24 LOT SIZE: 1.22 ACRES SECTION 179-28 CHRIS ST. ANDREWS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 72-1995, Noble True Value, Meeting Dat.e: October 18, 1995 "Applicant: Noble True Value Project Location: Route 9, next to McDonald's Proposed Project and Conformance with the Ordinance: Applicant. proposes to remodel the exterior of store, including a mansard roof overhang at the entrance, which will require relief from the 75-foot setback required by Section 179-28, Travel Corridor Overlay zone. Staff Comments and Concerns: It appears that the proposed exterior renovation will have a positive visual impact on the neighborhood. The proposed roof setback is 52 feet from the property line, which exceeds the required 50 foot front setback in a Highway Commercial Zone. It is the Travel Corridor Overlay zone which presents a problem for existing buildings, as many of them were built before the Overlay Zone was instituted. Staff has no concerns with this application. SEQR: Type II, no further action required." MR. THOMAS-"At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 11th day of October 1995, the above application for an Area Variance to remodel the front of the store. was reviewed, and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact" Signed by C. Powel South, Chairperson. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is the Board comfortable with this proposal, understands what the applicant is requesting? Okay. Is there anything significant or additional that you would care to add to this application? MR. ST. ANDREWS-No. MR. CARVIN-Okay. applicant? Does the Board have any questions of the MR. THOMAS-I have one to start with. Are you increasing your signage in any way, or are there going to be any signs attached to this mansard type roof? - 1 - Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/95 MR. ST. ANDREWS-No. ...r' MR. THÓMAS1'Änd you ;'d~ not g!6i n~ "tô' expand':'any'6'f j¡our' signhg:~I~ MR. ST. ANDREWS-No. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. FORD-What effect will this have on the plantings which are currently there in place? MR. Sr. ANDREWS-None. MR. FORD-They will remain. MR. KARPELES"¡'You say youJre going to re-face with spray deck, concrete re~suTface. Is that over the glass? MR. ST. ANDREWS-No. ThatJ$ j,ust on the wall. The surface has, where the windows used to be, and then they concrete ovèr it, drivet type material, and it just goes over the top. MR. KARPELES-Okay. MR. MENTER-Basically, you're just updating what's already there, resurfacing. MR. ST~ ANDREWS-Yes, kind of mjke' it look like the area. The only difference is it's going to come foot. Right now, it comes flat down. We're going out., ever so slightly. MR. GREEN-So the door is going to stay where it is now? MR. ST. ANDREWS-The door ·is goi ng to where you see the blue now is where, further. rest of the out maybe a to bring it stay wher~: it is. Ex~¿tly we're not going to go any , . MR. CARVIN-Anything else? MR. MENTER-Chris, what did you have from the County? MR. THOMAS-No impact, No County Impact. MR. MENTER-I assume it's going to be blue. MR. ST. ANDREWS-It's going to be blue. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I'll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CtÖ$ED ,., MR. CARVIN-All right, gentlemen, any 'additional 'questions? An}' comments? Any problems with it? MR. THOMAS-None whatsoever. MR. GREEN-No. I don't have any problem at all. 'MR. MËtáER';;'No. I don"t ré'àll y'ifrá0é any', ¿¿ricer ns,. MR. KARPELES-It looks okay to me. MR. FORD-It looks like a nice improvement. - 2 - ; ; C)Î''''¡ ; ¡: -; ¡,~ ..~ -) :,_! ¡' i "- --- Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/95 MR. CARVIN-Me, too. I'd ask for a motion then, please. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 72-1995 Introduced by David Menter who moved for its by Robert Karpeles: NOBLE TRUE VALUE, adoption, seconded The applicant is proposing to remodel the exterior of the store, including a mansard roof overhang at the entrance, which will require relief from the 75 foot setback required by Section ,179- 28, 75 foot due to the fact that it's in a Travel Corridor Overlay Zone. The relief needed would be 23 feet. The project would appear to have no negative effects whatsoever ,9n the area, the neighborhood. It would improve the' appeara~ce of the building, and have no practical effect, other than cosmetic. Simply creating an overhang over the door and corner area to make it more visible. The proposed setback would meet the required distan6es, were this commercial property not loc~ted in the Overlay Zone. In that case, the setback would be 50 feet. There does not appear to be any alternativ. for the property owner to update the entrance to the building, certainly not an alternative that would have less impact. There would be no increased signage, and no change in signage due to the installation of this roof over the entrance. Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford, Mr. Thomas, Hr. Ca)-v in NOES: NONE MR. CARVIN-Before we continue, we've had two letters requesting tabling on the agenda tonight. We have Area Variance No. 74-1995 Michael Seale Queensbury Car Wash, and we have received correspondence concerning that. Why don't you read that into the record, and we also have received a letter requesting a tabling from Kristensen, with regard to Area Variance No. 75-1995. So we will read these two letters into the record, and we'll vote on the tabling. So if anyone is here for those applications, they probably will not be heard tonight. MR. THOMAS-A letter dated Qctober 18, 1995, addressed to James Martin, Executive Director of Community Development, Regarding Queensbury Car Wash variance, "Dear Jim: This will confirm our telephone conversation of this morning, during which I indicated to you that I was unable to attend the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals meet.ing this evening because of a scheduling conflict. I would, therefore, request that the public hearing for the Queensbury Car Wash variance be re-scheduled for a November meeting of the Queensbury Zoning,T~oaT4 of Appealsj Very truly yours, Walter Rehm", and a lett.er dated October 18, 1995, addressed to Fred Carvi n, Chairman, regardi ng the KrÜ;:tensen variance, "Dear Mr. Carvin: Due to a previous scheduli~g, we were unable to secure an updated survey ,i.ndicati ng 1;.¡he proposed re-alignment of adjacent lot lines until yesterday. We would request that this variance be tabled until the November agenda, which would permit time to file an amended information requested by the Warren County Planning Board. Sincerely, Curtis D. Dybas" MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does anybody on the Board have a problem with tabling either of these applications? Okay. MOTION TO TAB~E AREA VARIANCE NO. 74-~995 MICHAEL SEALE QUEENSBURY CAR WASH, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: At the request of the applicant, until at least the November - 3 - --..',..----.--.-..- Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/95 schedule. Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford, Mr. Thomas, Ml". Carvin NOES: NONE MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 75-1995 ALFRED & MARY ELLEN KRISTENSEN, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved fÒr its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: At the request of the applicant until at least the November schedule. Duly adopted this 18th'day of October, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE MR. CARVIN-Okay. Those two applications are tabled until at least some time in November. AREA VARIANCE NO. 73-1995 SFR-IA TYPE II DAVE HATIN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 159 CRONIN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A SHED ROOF OVER AN EXISTING CONCRETE SLAB THREE FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM SECTION 179-19C, WHICH REQUIRES SIDE SETBACKS OF TWENTY FEET. TAX MAP NO. 46-2-18 LOT SIZE: 0.55 ACRE$ SECTION 179-19C DAVE HATIN, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 73-'1995, Dave Hatin, 'Meeting Dat.e: October 18, 1995 "Applicant: Dave Hatin Project Location: 159 Cronin Road Proposed Project and Conformance with the Ordinance: Applicant proposes to construct a shed roof over an existing concrete slab three feet from the property line, and seeks 17 feet relief from Section 179-19C, which requires side setbacks of twenty feet. SEQR: Type II, no'further action needed. " MR. THOMAS-"Ät a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 11th day of October 1995, the above application for an Area Variance to place a shed roof addition to an existing concrete slab was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Return Comments: Removed from Agenda by Town on October 10, 1995." What's t.hat mean? MR. CARVIN-I was going to ask you. I was hoping you would tell us. MS. CIPPERL Y-Yes. It was. It's not on a County road, :but it was sent up there by accident. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So we don't have to wOTry about the County. MS. CIPPERLY-Right. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does everyone on the Board understand what the applicant is requesting? Is ther~ anything additional or significant that you'd care to add to your application? - 4 - - .......-" Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/95 MR. HATIN-I think it basically speaks for itself. I just basically want to cover the existing slab that was there when I purchased the property. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any questions of the applicant? MR. THOMAS-Are you going to enclose the sides, or just put a roof over it? MR. HATIN-No, it'll : J', 'i MR. THOMAS-An open just the one side in? be an open pole barn. " ,", pole barn. So it'll be open on three sides, on the existing garage is going to be closed MR. HATIN-Right. MR. CARVIN-Okay. You just recently bought the property, did you? MR. HATIN-Back on August 1st. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and do you know how old that shed or that st1"Ucture is? MR. HATIN-I don't know the exact age of it, but it's at least 20 years, between 15 and 20 years. exactl y . I would assume I don't know : J,MR. C~RVIN-Okay. Any ot-her questions of the applic~,f)t.? : 'r:! );/;' ~t .) ¡ '!<-!: "I i MR,'. KARPE4!;S':'\'W~"H ,is ,that pad adeq~ate: to ßUppq1~t a car:? . . ,¡ , ,~ . I ,MR. HATIN:-,I,t'~ ~bout. didn't, just judging the gar age. 1'"1 , '1,"J ! , three:or,fQurincÞ,J~sfiigive o.r t~:~le., I from what I fo~nçj on the :existing slab, for MR. CARVIN-Okay. The lot next door, I notice, is for sale. Is that pretty much a vaca nt lot, is it? , ,t MR. HATIN-Yes, right now it is. I '¡~R. CA~yrN-Okay', You don't own that then, I take it? I . ¡, , MR. HATIN-No. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. KARPELES-You're putting it on that side rather than on the other side because the conCTete slab is alr.ady there? ~R. HATIN-The slab's already there. Correct. MR. CARVIN-Okay. .It's just going to be an overhang roof, then? MR. HATIN-That's it. Just something to get my vehicle out of the weather until I can afford to build a garage. MR. CARVIN-If you build a permanent garage, can into compliance, or would ypu think to bring it at some point in the future? you bring that into compliance MR. HATIN-The existing building? MR. CARVIN-No. I mean, if you build. MR. HATIN-The garage, yes. If I can build the way I want to, the garage will meet the setbacks, yes. It would be up by the house. - 5 - Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/95 MR. CARVIN-Because I was going there, at this point, and it is and I understand your position, to replace that at some point brought into compliance. to say,' it's quite a ways back awful close to the property line, but I would hope that if you were in the future, that it would be MR. HAT IN-Yes. I'll probably turn it into a storage shed, which is basically what I use it for right now, and thé garage for my vehicle. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions, gentlemen? open up t.he public hearing. Okay. I'll PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN CALLAHAN MR. CALLAHAN-Yes. I oppose it. We do look upon it representing the lot next door, on the environmental impact. This'll be increased. MR. FORD-Excuse me, sir. Your name is? MR. CALLAHAN-Mr. Callahan, John Callahan. MR. KARPELES-And you live next door? MR. CALLAHAN-No, no, the vacant lot. I could get into why he even has that concrete slab. I'm surprised, it must have been before the recording's here, but the previous owner had built, which is existing there, a shed which was against all the, which was within about 15 foot of the property line. He had to move that shed because it was not to the building cod~~ or to the footage. That's why the concrete slab is there. The shed has been moved off it, which is right, you know, along side this slab. He wants to put, should we say, a carport, 'there" To me, why doesn't he put it to the other side, where it would not have an adverse effect upon our lot? He has 120 foot there. Whyêome over within 3 foot? Gentlemen, I object to it. MR. MENTER-Is that your lot, sir? MR. CALLAHAN-It's my wife's. MR. MENTER-I see. Okay. MR. CALLAHAN-So, I mean, it is up for sale, but I could see another, and we hope to sell it, another owner saying the same thing. Look, why come within 3 foot when you've got 120 fOot? You've got the other side of the shed. There are other areas that he could set this. As far as environmental impact, he's going to increase the drainage ovér onto our lot that already sets low. MR. CARVIN-Well, there's a slab alreàdy there, is that correct? MR. CALLAHAN-Well, that slab is there because of a shed built, which went bad. Now the Town ordered that man, we're going back now about 20 years. I don~t know what the record~'go bacik to. MR. FORD-Is that the shed that now exists on the other side of the garage? MR. CALLAHAN-That is the shed that he wishes to put the carport on. That shed has been moved, leaving the slàb, because it was both too close to the line, and also did not conform to building code. That shed, as I say, doesn't conform. It's sheet metal, I believe, can be easily moved over. Can be moved again. I'm not - 6 - - Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/95 saying anything about setting this carport, line. him moving the shed. I do oppose him coming within three foot of the property MR. FORD-You're saying that the existing garage, as far as you know, was built without an appropriate building permit? ; MR. CALLAHAN-And was notified to move it, and the man didn't move it. That's what gives you the concrete slab that is existing. That's how that slab is there, because he had to move that. MR. THOMAS-So what you object to is just the runoff. MR. CALLAHAN-I object to it being built so close to the line, sir. Exactly. MR. THOMAS-But you said you had environmental concerns. MR. CALLAHAN-Well, that's what that is, an environmental concern, when you're increasing the drainage over someone else. MR. THOMAS-So what you're. concerned about is the runoff off the roof onto your property. MR. CALLAHAN-Yes. got plenty of room other side? Now, He has a whole 120 Not only the runoff, but I also say that he's to put it. the other side. Why not just go the see, we have 25 foot, coming down to 3 foot. foot. MR. CARVIN-Sue, you have no previous zoning determination on this? How far back does this go? MR. CALLAHAN-This is the first notice we've had, or we would have been here to object before. MR. CARVIN-Well, no. I'm asking Staff. MR. CALLAHAN-How far do your records go back to? ordered by the Town. Because it was MS. CIPPERLY-Not. 20 years. MR. CARVIN-I was going to say, I mean, occasionally something that's quite a ways back. It's not the Mr. Hatin, would you care to address, I'm assuming say on the other side, you're saying, he's got it side, to put it on the left side? we will find norm. Well, that when you on the right MR. CALLAHAN-Well, as you're facing it, he has it on the left side. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, then what you're suggesting is that he put it on the right side? MR. CALLAHAN-Well, the other side, yes. MR. CARVIN-Would you care to address that, sir? MR. HATIN-My purpose in being here was basically to take advantage of a slab that was already there, so I didn't have to increase the nonpermeability on the property. Since I work· for the Town, I know what that concern is, and in talking with Staff, it was felt that that would be a good alternative, not to increase th~ nonpermeable area. As far as runoff goes, that can easily be resolved with a french drain at the end of the roof line, or a gutter that would drain it off to the rear of the property. I don't think the roof is that big where it's going to create a monstrous puddle in the back of the lot. If you watch - 7 - Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/95 it drain right now, the slab drains that way as it is right because the slab is not perfectly level. It does pitch to side. So the increased runoff, if there is any at all to be is very minimäl. now, that had, MR. CARVIN-Can you give me an approximate idea of what the of this structure, or this roof, might be? size MR. HATIN-I believe it's about 12' by 18'. MR. THOMAS-The slab measures 10' by 16'. MR. HATIN"';'Okay. MR. THOMAS-But that's, if it's drawn to scale. MR. HATIN-To tell you the truth, I measurements off that. haven't. taken exact MR. CARVIN-Well, that's the pad, so you'd have a couple of foot overhang, right? MR. HATIN-Probably a six inch overhang. MR. CARVIN-Six inch. So we're talking maybe. MR. HATIN-That's why I asked for three feet, because it's three and a half feet from the closest side of the property line. As you see, it doesn~t square to t~e property line. MR. CARVIN-How big is the garage? MR. THOMAS-The garage is 12' by 16', existing. MR. GREEN-One question. there? How high is that hedge down through MR. HATIN-"'The tree hedge? Probably, some of those trees are, I'd say, upwa)"ds of 20 feet or more, 15 to 20 feet, maybe more. When you get back by the slab, there are only a couple of bushes back there, and you can see between both properties. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is there anything else that you'd care to add, sir? MR. CALLAHAN-Like I say, I don't know whether he has to go to the other side or what. I can ve)"y easily see anew owner saying, hey, why are you coming so close to the line, and like I say, this increased drainage, I dOn't see the need, and as to what you're calling a garage there, it's not conforming to any building code there, and it was moved, creating the slab. MR. CARVIN-Okay.' MR. GREEN-I just have one last question. I guess I'm still not clear. Are you Mr. Howard? MR. CALLAHAN-No. Mr. Howard's passed away. MR. GREEN-Okay. MR. CALLAHAN-He was the previous owner of the property. MR. GREEN-All right. I understand. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Anyone else wishing to be heard in opposition? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED - 8 - -- Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/95 MR. CARVIN-Gentlemen, any thoughts or comments? MR. FORD-Well, we've got a concrete slab that i$ currently in existence. I know that's going to be there awhile, unless they break it up, but I hate to see us make it any more permanent, in terms of storage, than already exists, that close to a property line. MR. CARVIN-Okay. right side? Do you feel the applicant could put it on the MR. FORD-Yes, and I know the problem, because the slab isn't on that side, but I fully expect that when a possible two caT garage you're planning on putting in? MR. HATIN-Most likely, yes. MR. FORD-All right. We then will have a two car garage, one car garage, and a carport, and a playhouse out there. plenty of structures on that lot. and a That's MR. CARVIN-Okay. Anything else? MR. FORD-Not right now. I'd be interested in what everyone else has to say. MR. KARPELES-Well, I agree. I can't see that this would be granting minimum relief if we gave this, and I hate to see that become any more permanent than it is, so close to the property line. No, I don't think it would be minimum relief if we granted this. MR. MENTER-I think, essentially, I agree. The big issue is that you have a neighbor who's going to be three feet away from a new structure, which 'is going to be probably a permanent structure, and I think he has a right not to have that there, certainly when there's other alternatives. I think, to me, that's really the big issue. It. makes ~ lot of sense to do it that way, but I just, you know, I think from that standpoint, I'd have to, I wouldn't be in favor of. it. MR. GREEN-I don't know. I'm stuck in the middle right now. I want to hold off another couple of minutes. MR. THOMAS-I'm kind of leaning with the other Board members, but, you know, that concrete pad is probably going to stay there. If you pouTed another one on the other side, it's going to increase the permeability, pouring another concrete pad on the other side, and putting a roof over it, would increase the, or decrease the permeability of the property. I understand it's low back there. There is another way. There is a way to alleviate the runoff, by either using a french drain or a gutter system on that, but I'm with Bill. I'm in the middle on this one. I don't know what to do. " MR. CARVIN-Okay. Mr. Callahan, how long has that property been for sale? MR. CALLAHAN-A couple of years. Could I inject one thing here, just to straighten out your phraseology, on this concrete slab, you gentlemen are taking it that that's a good. As I say, that concrete slab goes back, like, 20 years. It's not a slab that you would pass on building. See, what I'm saying is you're taking this as something 9QQ.Q., that is not really up to the specifications. That slab is not up to specifications. That's all I wish to bring out. MR. THOMAS-Twenty years ago, Sue, if and when that pad was poured - 9 - Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/95 back then, would that have been legal, off the side setbacks?, MS. CIPPERLY-It probably didn't have three foot setbacks at that time. That would have been 1967 zoning. MR. THOMAS-Would it have five foot setbacks back then? MS. CIPPERLY-I don't know. I don't even know what it was zoned back then. This is the first I'm hearing of the slab story. MR. CARVIN-Well, I don't know. That structure, I looked structure, and it is old. I questioned, in fact, is being used as a garage right now, is it? at the it even MR. HATIN-It's basically a storage shed. It's not big enough to park a car into. MR. CARVIN-Yes. MR. HATIN-I'll use it for my motorcycle, my kids' bikes, my lawn mower, my snow blower. MR. CARVIN-So, in essence your "garage", is going to become a storage shed. MR. HATIN-It's a storage shed, and I just want to make use of that slab for winter use, basically, to park my vehicle out of the weather, to respond to emergencies. It's a pain to go out there, shovel my vehicle out, scrape the windshield and try to respond to emergencies in a timely fashion. So, it would help me cover the vehicle. That was the whole purpose. It was something quick and easy to take advantage of, other than I need a variance. MR. CARVIN-Well, I'm looking at, and I'm going to bring this up, just for your information. If my math is correct, which is somewhat dubious, he has existing 192 square feet of garage. If we take the projected 10' by 16', that's an extra 160 square feet, and if you add the two of those together, that comes up to 352 square feet, and even if he were to pour a cement slab on the other side, assuming that we stay at the 160 square feet, my quick math tells me that that's 510 square feet, and if he came in here and wanted a garage, he could technically build a garage of 900 square feet without any variance. So I think the permeability issue is one that I'm very, I don't think that's a problem. I guess L have to, I don't see any reason why it couldn't be put on the other side, to be very honest with you. I realize that that's maybe an added eKpense, but I also have to agree with some of the other Board members here, that when you put it three feet, it is awful close. I don't think it's going to impact the sale of the property. I'll also say that, but I think that it's this Board's responsibility to grant a minimum relief, and I think, eventually, that whole thing is probably going to be torn down anyway, I mean, or converted. MR. HATIN-The structure's sound right now. It's not dilapidated. The sheet metal that's on the outside has protected it fairly well over the years. So I don't anticipate tearing it down at all. I will use it for a storage shed when I build a permanent gar age. MR. CARVIN-Yes. Again, the storage shed, I mean, eventually, it probably would be converted in, and I don't know, storage sheds can be what, five feet, at this point? MS. CIPPERLY~Yes. MR. CARVIN-And that's being reviewed, I guess. - 10 - - Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/95 MS. CIPPERLY-They can, if they're up to 100 square feet, they can be five feet from the property line. MR. CARVIN-This, if we were to grant it, would be three. I guess I'd like to see it on the right side. Is there any other questions of the applicant? MR.- HATIN-Can I ask one question? I take itI can't convert this variance for a variance to the other side, then? It'll still be three feet off the back property, still have the same problem, just on the other' side. MR. CARVIN-Yes, but you'll only be three feet off one property line. I don't have a problem. MS. CIPPERLY-I just said three feet from the property line. MR. FORD-It's off two property lines, really. MR. GREEN..:.So you'll be reducing the variance needed. You'd be getting rid of the one. All you'd need would be the back. MR. CARVIN-Well, we're technically not incorrect. MR. GREEN-I just want to get my comments in before you go on that far. I can understand the neighbor's concerns, but I also feel that I don't think the runoff is a problem. The slab's already there. It's an impermeable area to begin with, whether the shed's to one side, I mean, it's got,to drain off the slab, whether it drains off the slab or a roof. I also don't believe it's going to affect the sale of the neighbor's property with those hedges and being so far back from probably where anyone would want to build on that next lot, and I, personally, think you should put a roof over it there, just, I'd rather keep the permeable, you know, not putt.ing a slab on the other side, bécause then you're go,i ng to end up wi ttr, somethi ng even bigger. I mean, you're still going to store things on top of that slab to begin with~ Cover them up with a blue tarp, I think something under" a pole barn's goi ng to look a lot nicer than that, and I would agreè to put it on the other side. That's fine, if Mr. Hati n wants to do that, but I don't thi nk we 'should have to do it that way. MR. THOMAS-I'd almost echo Bill's words on that, and the drainage, you know, can be alleviated, any problem there. MR. HÀTIN-And I have no problem with a stipulation, if that's the wishes of the Board. I had mentioned that to the gentlemen's wi fe SLtnday when I went I met. I have no problem with that at all. MR. MENTER-I think if that's where we are, maybe we at the other issue~ if everybody's pretty set, as they are. should look far as where MR. CARVIN-I didn't say I was set. MR. MENTER-I said if. He brought. up the issue of whether or not he could just use this application, just reverse it. MR. CARVIN-Well, I think we can give him a variance, I suppose we can clarify it that we'fe giving a variance of three feet off the back property line. MS. CIPPERLY-As long as I've specified the Section there, that's the Section that includes all of the setbacks. So, 'you'd be safe in transferring it. I mean, the shed roof would have been three feet off of the back property line also. - 11 - Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/95 MR. FORD-Maybe closer, because the current garage is three feet, and it angles in. So it would even be closer, but we would increase the distance if he went over to the other side. MR. CARVIN-All right. If there's no other questions of the applicant, I'd ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPRPVE AREA Introduced by David Menter by Robert Karpeles: VARIANCE NO. 73-1995 DAVE who moved for its adoption, HATIN, seconded Applicant is proposing to construct a shed roof, to protect the vehicle, adjacent to this garage. It would require relief from Section 179-19C, as this Section requires 20 feet of setback. The rel.ief would be granted for setback, from the rear property line. Relief of 16.75 feet would be required to construct this enclosure on the east side of the existing garage. This would appear to have the least effect on the neighborhood or community. There do not appear to be any feasible alternatives as the applicant has a desire and a need to provide protection for his vehicle. It would seem to be substantial relief, but because it would be adjacent to an already existing garage, that's not necessarily the case, and there would be no relief granted from the side setback yequirement, only the rear setback i~ this case. The dimensions of the new structure be no greater than 12 feet in width by the existing depth, which is approximately 18 feet. Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 1995, by the following vote: MR. CARVIN-The only question I have on the motion, and that's what we're discussing, is whether we want to make it a permanent or temporary. I'm mulling over in my mind, that if we build it on the left side and Mr. Hatin builds a garage that this structure comes down, returning' it to its original state. MR. HATIN-You're talking about building on the existi,ng slab? I wouldn't have any problem with that, becau.se point in time, probably the only think I would park would be a boat anyway, if it would fit. concrete at that under it MR. CARVIN-And I think that might alleviate the objection, because it's not necessarily a permanent structure, because my feeling is, at some point in the future, there's going to be a permanent garage there. Would that be a correct assumption on my part? MR. KARPELES-Not there though. MR. CARVIN-Not there. What I'm saying is that he has indicated that he would bring it into compliance. Okay. It was just a thought. MR. CARVIN-I will agree to that, if it's in the record. MS. CIPPERLY-Are you talking about having it left side, or permanent on the right side? your options, I guess. temporary on the I mean, those are MR. HATIN-I don't plan on putting p.ermanent footi ngs for the (lost word). I'm going to use the blocks that you can buy at. Grossman's or Curtis. Something quick and easy. MR. CARVIN-How do you feel about that, Mr. Callahan? MR. CALLAHAN-Well, I still remain objected that it's so close to the property line when there are, he other space. coming over has so much - 12 - .-' Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/95 MR. CARVIN-But the þroperty has been for sale for two years. MR. CALLAHAN-Yes, but I mean, it's concrete slab. It can't. be, it wouldn't pass the present day building code. It would have to ., be taken up. MR. HATIN-Something I'm aware of, Sunday, when these people were 'n Op: to my property,' that·; thistptöpert.y :belô'nss i'to the s:ame, his wife and her previous husband. They've' added 20 feet to the parcel I now own, because the driveway is actually on the other parcel, and during their divorce, her exact words, when the 20 feet was added, that she wound up with a lot that's (lost word). That property's been vacant since, I believe, 1981, and that split was made around then, from what I gather from what they told me. So this hasn't been like this for just a couple of years. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well,! don't know. What does the Board feel about that? Does that sway anybody to come to the left side, or are we just creating a more bulky situation? MR. FORD-YoU saw the direction we were in on the far side and you, in fact, use the same variance. Where are position now? moving, about putting this raised the question, can I you on that? What's your MR. HATIN-Obviously, I would like to get the variance I requested. If I have to walk out of here with something tonight, I would like to walk out with at least a variance to put it on the other side, so ,that I wouldn't have to come back. Either way, I would like to see something to put the vehicle out of the weather this winter. I'd prefer the other side because the slab is there. I don't have to worry about mud, dirt and other things. I can work on my vehicle. It's convenience. If you want to make it temporary, based on the fact that when a permanent garage is installed on that property that comes down, I don't have a problem with that. I would return it back to a slab. I guess ,that 's where 1. am. Obviously, this was the quickest and easiest for me to t.ake advantage of something I bought that I had no control over. I mean, I understand what he's saying, but I had no control over that. If it was moved then~ it wasn't moved lesally, I know that, because the~e was never a three foot setback. MR. CARVIN-Well, I'm sorry I brought the issue up, but I just wanted to be sure that we explored all the possibilities here. All right. Is everyone comfortable with the motion? Okay. MR~ GREEN-I've got a two pronged comment here. If we're going to allow him to put it on the right side, do we have any problem with either making it a pole barn or enclosing it? He agreed to put strictly a pole type of structure on the slab. Are we going to put any of those type of limitations when we put it on that side, on the other side? And my other question is, I have a little bit of a problem saying, in the motion, that there are no other feasible alternatives, or that this is the least impact. I feel, personally, this is going to be a greater impact, and the other alternative is better, but I am probably going to vote yes soiMr. Hatin can have something. MR. HATIN-Just to let you know what my thoughts were. Originally, I proposed putt.ing a shed roof over the concrete slab. Taking what's my daughter's playhouse, basically, I was going to move that against the garage and consolidate everything inone area. I'll probably, now, move the playhouse, which is under 100 square feet to the concrete pad, only to take advantage of the room on the property. So I'm decreasing the permeability, - 13 - Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/95 in one respect, and increasing it in another. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Dave, do you have any issue with what Bill has raised? MR. MENTER-Yes. I can address those, but I don't think, based on any of those, I would change it. I don't it's an issue. I don't think we need to confine it to a pole barn, specifically. MR. CARVIN-See, I don't think it's an issue, either. You've limited it to the 12' by 18'. So it doesn't matter whether it's enclosed or not. MR. MENTER-Yes. I think I'll keep the motion as it is. AYES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Gr·een, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE AREA VARIANCE NO. 76-1995 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-1A PERRY NOUN OWNER: WOODBURY DEV. GROUP, INC. BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A LIVING FACILITY FOR SENIORS AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE DENSITY REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-23 AND 179-72 THAT A FIFTY-FOOT BUFFER BE PROVIDED ADJOINING RESIDENTIAL ZONES, AT THE ZONE LINE, AS THE ZONE LINE DIVIDES THIS PARCEL. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 10/11/95 TAX MAP NO. 61-1-37.3 LOT SIZE: 4.08 ACRES SECTION 179-72, 179-23 PERRY NOU~, JR., PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 76-1995, Perry Noun, Meeting Date: October 18, 1995 "Applicant: Perry Noun Project Location: Bay Road Proposed Project and Conformance with the Ordinance: Applicant proposes to construct a living facility for seniors, and seeks relief from the density requirements of Section 179-23. Relief is also needed from the requirement in Section 179-23 and 179-72 that a fifty-foot buffer be provided adjoining Residential zones, at the zone line, as ~he zone line divides this parcel. The applicant indicates that the medical office is 4000 square feet, the community center is 5,950 s.f., and the 3-story living area is 52,250 square feet, for a total of 69,200 s.f. The parcel is 4.1 acres, according to the formula in Section 179-23, the allowed square footage is 61,742, so relief of 7,458 is needed. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law 1. Benefit to applicant: Ability to construct what the applicant considers a cost effective project. 2. Feasible alternatives: Downsizing the size of the units may be possible, so the same number of units are available, onlY smaller. It ffi$:Y be that the Community Ce>ater could be decreased. This may not be true of the size of the Medical Office. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance? In order to accommodate the proposed square footage, the applicant would need an additional half acre of land. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? Concern has been expressed by neighbors to the west over the 3-story height of the building. Regarding the buffer zone issue, this facility would also be an allowed use in the adjacent MR-5 zone, so a buffer area would be of little value in terms of uses. A vegetated buffer to screen the building visually and for privacy of those to the west would be appropriate. S. Is this difficulty self- created? The need for a certain number of units is based on the applicant's criteria for acceptable income. Parcel History: This property has an approved site plan for office buildings, which could still be constructed, but has apparently not been financially feasible to date. Staff Comments and Concerns: .This - 14 - '- -- Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/95 facility does appear to be a compatible use for the area, although the size of the building may be an issue. Perhaps reworking of the layout or size of units to decrease the overall square footage is in order. As stated above, the zoning line buffer creates a difficulty where it is, but it could be provided along the property line instead. SEQR: Unlisted, Short Form EAF requi red. " MR. THOMAS-"At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 11th day of October 1995, the above application for an'Area Variance to construct a 3 story, 66,000 sq. ft. senior housing with associated community space. was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Approve." Signed by C~ Powel South, Chairperson. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is the Board familiar and comfortable with the application? MR. KARPELES-I don't understand the comment, Sue, "As stated above, the zoning line buffer creates a difficulty where it is, 'I,' but ì1fJcould 'be pr6videid along the þYoperty line instead.'i " I'm jÜ$t df'âwi ng"s, blank òn' ;that öine. I ¡ . ~ I ¡ MS'. CIPPERL Y-Okay. Right now·, therë:"9" å : z'o'n1 rig boundary that rUns aböÜt here'iônithe pirop.:irl'ý~ an'd' fIt 'dividê$ an MR....:S zone from t'f'1è 'fitighWay Commerr,~'ial,:tone ~. ánd å:ècorcJlng to . the r'ëgulàt'Ìons, ttheY"è should be';~ 50 foot buffer on either side of that; 1tlne,;' So there'd be a 100 foot strip through this propeftyithit you couldn't do anything with because the zoning line runs through it. The reason the zoning line is there is because I believe additional property was purchased after this zoning was put in place. That's why it doesn't match the property tine. It runs along the back of all the adjacent properties. It.'s similar to the Car Essentials project that we had on Oix Avenue, where they had a piece, it was a-sp,lit zöned parcel with a 100 foot buffer I str ip re:o:¡uiredthrough the middle because the buffer is on either side of the zone line, not the propert.y line, but my comment about providing a buffer at the property line meant maybe they should come back 50 feet from the property line. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Do you follow what she's saying, Bob? MR. KARPELES-I think I am. This line t.hat's shown on here is the property line, right? MS. CIPPERLY-Right. ~ ~~: ,\ ! t MR \, I KARPELES-And where is t:!'i¡è zoni ng line? , , MR. CARVIN-Right throwgh the middle of it. ,MS. CIPPERLY-Well, about where this line that says 78 feet, I believe. It's about whe~e the zone line. ~ ¡ ¡ MR. FORD-Are you recommending a modification in the zO'ning then? MR. CARVIN-No, just gran~i~g relief of be an approved use in either one. recommending is that we'd still have a táke it from the property line, and zoning line. ·50 feet from here. It'll I think all Staff is 50 foot buffer, but they not necessarily from the MR.MENTER~She was just m~king an observation, basically. MR, CARVIN-Yes. Okay. All right. of the applicant? Do we have a representative MR. NOUN-Yës. Fi t'st ,·of . all, I'm very sorry that we were late. - 15 - Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/95 My name i~ Perry Noun, Jr. I'm the applicant, and this is Christopher Scoringe, my attorney. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is there anything significant or additional that you'd care to add to your application? MR. NOUN-Well, when we came in, you were reading ib~ but if there are any questions regarding the facility or exactly what it would be used for, I can answer those, but I think that the description of what we're looking for was well presented. MR. CARVIN-Does the Board have any questions of the a,pplicant? MR. KARPELES-Yes, I do. This medical building, is that going to be open to the public, or is that going to be restricted to the residents of the senior citizen area? MR. NOUN-No, it won't be restricted. It would be available to the public. We're of medical professional it would be. practitioner. It could be a specialist. would be a facility that not quite sure what type It might:be a general We're not'sure. MR. FORD-When you refer to post office, is this going to be a district post office? MR. NOUN-No. It would be in a common area. Everyone WQ,uld have their own little post, their mailbox, but it would be something similar that you would see inside of, perhaps maybe a larger facility where they need one key for all the mailboxes, to make it convenient for the mailman to deliver the mail. MR. FORD-It isn't a post office in the traditional sense? MR. NOUN-No. MR. CARVIN-All right. You have an approved, I believe, site plan for an office building, currently, is that correct'? MR. NOUN-I believe that the Woodbury's, who were the owners of the land or the property, did have the approval for. MS. CIPPERLY-It was an office complex. MR. CARVIN-Do you know what the schematics on that looked like, how high it was going to be and what, I mean, how much bigger is this than that? MS. CIPPERLY-That I pursue it because road. don't know. I know that they could still they have started, they've constructed the MR. CARVIN-I saw those plans several years ago, and I'm remiss to remember whether it was two stories or three stories. MR. NOUN-I believe the office building was two story, and I believe it was a two story building, and I'm not sure about the height. I'm not sure whether it was 35 or 34, because I didn't see any elevations of the office building, but as YOU know, the property has all the improvements already installed. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but you really don't know how much bigger this project is from the one that's already currently approved? MR. NOUN-Well, in terms of square footage, I don't know what the office building was, but we know that this building will have approximately 22,000 square foot footprint, which probably isn't significantly larger than the original square footage of the office building, because this, of course, is going to be . three - 16 - - - Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/95 story building, but will not exceed the allowable height requirement that the Town has. MR. CARVIN-Okay. 'Is that including the medical facility, or the medical offices, this 22,000 square foot? M~. NOUN-N6. The medical professional building there, we're planning on no more than 4,000 square feet. I mean, to meet the setback requirement,s. We didn't want to make that any larger than that, just because, I don't think we would have been able to, I think it would just, we would have been asking for a little bit too much; It would hðve been nice if we could have something there that would be eight or ten thousand square feet, but I think that would be too much. It. would take away from the, not only the aesthetics, but the entranceway, and what we would like to do is to make this a very special place, quite frankly. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MS. CIPPERLY-On Page Two of the application, he says the building area, which would bè the footprint for all the buildings, would be 29,700. So if you subtract the 4,000 for the medical building from that, you get 25,700, for the remaining building. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but they also show a community center, and I'm not sure 'i f that's included. MS. CIPPERLY-That's included. MR. CARVIN-That's included in the 25? MR. NOUN-Excuse me. What did the application say? Our architect couldn't make it this evening, but did it say 25? Well, this is Bay Road, and it's approximately a couple of hundred yards, maybe a little bit further, from Quaker, on the left, and you mayor may not know that there's a flower shop right here. I'm not sure what the name of it is. I stopped in the other day, but there's a flower shop there, which I think is really kind of a nice little amenity to have, also, for this senior apartment, and then to the north, it starts a series of professional office buildings, and lot of doctors and dentists, and it appears as though the flow of Bay Road is going to be some type of office, or professional, at least. that's what. I'm gathering, and so this would be set back approximátely 75 feet. We had it a little bit closer. We didn't realize thát there was a 75 foot setback, but we expect that this area here will be as nicely landscaped as anything else in the area, in the general area. We would like it to be exceptionally well landscaped and then you procéed on into the main entrance of the facility, where there will be a turn around. You'll drive in and see a covered area where you can drop off someone, or any visitors coming can be dropped off, and then proceed to the parking, either left or right. As you mayor may not know, there's already a nature hedgerow of trees that are anywhere from, Jim, would you say 40 feet to 100 feet, or higher? The hedgerow of trees to the north and south, they appear to be somewhere, more than 40 feet. Probably somewhere around 75 to 100 feet, on both side., and then to the west of the property~ as you may know. it's the Westwood project, the townhouse project, which is probably, well, I think is one of the nicer projects of its type in the area, and this main portion here will have, the common areas will include a restaurðnt, because we want the residents to feel as though they're not going to ~ diningroom. It would be some place where they will have place settings and be equivalent to going into a fine restaurant, and that's where they will have their lunch and their dinnei, and we also intend to have a little coffee shop; that would be open for more than a couple of hours in the morning, so that they can come down and have a bagel, and be more like an informal type thing, rather - 17 - Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/95 than a sit down meal. We don't want it to appear to be a diningroom, where everybody sits down and has their meal. We want to have them served individually. There are some other facilities in the Capit~l District who are doing the same thing. There's one down on the Washington Avenue Extension in Albany called Wellspring. I don't know if any of you have ever been there, and then there's also the other one that you probably have heard a lot about called Beverwick. There was a lot of puþlicity on Beverwick about, a year and a half ago~ and I've been to Beverwick several times, and that's an absolute gorgeous, gorgeous facility. It probably will not be quite what Beverwick is, because that's a really, really expensive, not architecturally, construction wise, but we'd like to think.we're only going to be just slightly below them, comparable in their common areas and ~verything, but they have a lot of square footage. I mean, to compete with them here, this would have to be 100,000 square feet. MS. CIPPERLY-I think it might b~ beneficial for you to shed some light on exactly what ypu're providing here, as you did to us when you came in to describe your project. MR. NOUN-Okay. Well, essentially congregate care is a term that is used on a national basis as ~n apartment, a senior apartment, that will have a range, a refrigerator, a dishwasher, and a sink. It might not quite be as large as the Roberts Gardens one bedroom apartment. I've been coming up here for 15 years for the Balsam family. So I do know Robert Gardens fairly well. They won't be that large. They probably will be somewhere in the neighborhood of 515 square feet, up to 535 square feet, for a one bedroom, and probably the two bedroom unit, and there won't be very many two bedroom units, but we will have two bedroom units, probably won't be much more than 615, 650. Congregate care really defines the population as those seniors who want to still remain independent, want to have a range, want to have a refrigerator, probably will not be doing much cooking at all. They either aren't capable of providing three nutritious meals themselves, or they just don't want to bother. We will assist with the linen service~ There'll be t,-ansportation to and from shoppi ng, on a regular basis. There'll be a great many social activities that will be provided. The building will be essentially secured 24 hours a day. We won't have security on 24 hours, but in the evening hours and in the morning· hours there will be security. So that if something happens in an apartment, and there will be a buzzer system in the room. If someone is not feeling well or they need to have some assistant, they can press the buzzer. It will go immediately to the front desk, and they can find out what the problem is. We are not allowed to do any type of health service, if you will, but we can contact doctors. We ca.n contact the hospital, and assist them with that. In contrast to adult çare, and I am licensed in New York State to operate adult care. I have a license, and I have a facility in Scotia, NY. This is much ~ore independent. These are people who want to still remain independent as long as possible. MEMBER OF AUDIENCE MEMBER OF AUDIENCE-Have you got financial figures, of what it would cost them? MR. NOUN-Yes. We've done some extensive research in the area, but in order to do one of these facilities, I'm going to compare it with, for example, Beverwick. Beverwick requires a $129,000 to $199,000 deposit, just to move in, and then they also charge an additional amount of money per month, for the rent of the unit, and also the services that are provided. We have no intention of requiring that type of deposit. There might be a minimal deposit, but it is going to be not even close to - 18 - - Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/95 $100,000. The facility at Wellsprings is, I think they require just a· small deposit. It might be perhaps a couple thousand dollars, which might, or $1500 or a couple of thousand, which might be equivalent to what their rent is. They have some units that are smaller. Here we do expect to have a minimal deposit, and the rents will probably be in t.he $1600 to $1700 range for a one bedroom, and it could go up, it probably would be somewhere around $1900 to $2000 for the larger two bedroom, and that would include heat. That would include the three meals. It would include the services, the social programs, the transportation. There will be additional services offered if someone, for example, wasn't feeling very well, or they wànted to have their laundry done. Then there would be a specific price to do the laundry. There will be a laundry facility on the premises, and again, these would be for seniors who probably will be about 70, but in some cases, 85, 90 years old, who still want to remain independent, and they have no intention of wanting to go anywhere else but in their own little apartment. The average age, there might be somebody there 55, who just says, well, it's time for me t.o go. I don't want to worry about my meals anymore. I'd like to have my meals ready for me, and every once in a while have a cup of coffee. They could go downstairs to their little cafeteria, I mean, the little coffee shop, maybe grab a cup of coffee at one o'clock in the mo,"ning, or two o'clock, and go back to their apartment. There's a little courtyard you can see back here, between the two north and south ends of the building, which codld be used for, during the summer I'm SUTe it'll be maybe the garden club there would be responsible for having the flower garden. Maybe we could have some type of a greenhouse. We're talking about. that now, trying to think where we could put a green house, just to keep the activities in the winter time. MR. CARVIN-I just have a question. You've indicated that you're g'oi ng to have units of somewhere between 515 to 535 square feet. MR. NOUN-One bedroom units. MR. CARVIN-All right. I'm under the impression that we have a Code of 600 square feet, as a minimum. MR. NOUN-Is that true? MR. CARVIN-That's my understanding, and also, minutes of the Planning Board, it indicates, it were talking around 70 units. Is that correct? looking at the looks like you MR. NOUN-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, my quick math at 600 comes up to about 36,000 square feet. MR. NOUN-Well, when we designed the units, I wasn't aware of the minimum square footage, but there again now, this is not a typical apartment building that would be built. It would be self-contained. In fact, probably only 25 plus or minus percent of the residents will even have automobiles, but it wouldn't be an apartment that. we would be rent.ing to, lets say, a couple. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, I just want you to be aware. Is that correct., Sue? We have the Ordinance? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. Section 179-71, which says multiple residential, each uni t 600, and I don't know whether y·ou care to classify this in the multiple residential or some other category. MR. ·NOUN-Didn't we discuss that other category? What was that called, Sue? There was another classification that we used to dete~mine the size of the units, and I don't think it was under - 19 - Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/95 the multi family zoning. Wasn't it under one of the other, it wasn't a nursing home, but there was another category there. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, why don't you go ahead, and I'll check through, and see if there's something else. MR. CARVIN-A¡l right. I'm going to ask the Board if the Board has any questions of the applicant. MR. KARPELES-Have you done any kind of market survey to ascertain that this community will support something like this? MR. NOUN-Yes, we have. We do have access to the demographics of the area, and the demographics" most projects of this type will do some type of demographic study, and we've taken a five mile radius, a ten mile radius, a fifteen mile radius, and a twenty mile radius, and we believe that most of the residents that will be living in this facility will be within the 15 mile radius. There will be others, perhaps another 20 percent, who will be coming from areas that are not specifically identified, might be moving back from Florida, might be a friend or somebody that hears about. it, but within th~t 15 mile radius. I believe it includes several smaller towns, and one reason. for this facility being 70 units rather than 100 or 120, which is what you s~e down in Albany. For example, Wellspring has 92 units. Beverwick has an 86 unit building, and theyJxe building another one that's going to have another, I think, 70 or 80. So they're going to have 150, but the demographics don't show that there is a need for that, and many of those larger organizations, like the Eddy group, have been kind of reluctant to get into a smaller ma,"ket. We recognize that this is a smaller market, but that's where we're spending our time now. We feel that there is a need in the community, like Glens Falls and Queensbury, because the demog)"aphics show that we have a good chance to attract approximately 70 residents, 60 to 70 residents, rather than to take the risk and to build something that is not going to be occupied. MR. CARVIN-Okay. In Staff notes they h~ve, under Feasible Alternatives, "downsizing the size of the units may be possible so that the same number of units are available only smaller", which kind of runs contrary to what Staff is indicating. MS. CIPPERLY-Right. there were some units I was just trying to 550 square foot plan. Well, I know also he had wentioned that that were tw~ bedroom, rather than one, but think of, that was before I knew about the MR. CARVIN-Okay. "It may be that the Community Center could be decreased. This may not be true .of the size of the Medical Office." Would you care to address, have you done any demographics? Is 70 your optimum number, is it, or could you go with 60, or as Staff indicates, can you downsize this in some way, because I have a feeling that the height of three stories may be a problem. MR. NOUN-If we kept it at no more than 40 feet, I height requirement was 40 feet, we wouldn't build inch. We would make sure that it was 40 feet. mean, if the it 40 feet 1 MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. NOUN-The 40 feet If you take away one planned on doing on more than a third of entirely apartments. will allow us to build the three stories. level 9f apartments, because of what we the first floor, you would be taking away the units, because the third floor would be - 20 - '-- ---' Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/95 MR. CARVIN-Okay. So what you're saying is that the maximum height of the building would be 40 feet? MR. NOUN-Yes. Absolutely, but we knew that coming in. In fact, I think Chris is right. I think the category that we laid the plans out for was the, and that Mr. Martin suggested to us that we attempt to do this under what they call the Convalescent zone. Is that, that's a category, isn't it? It's not a nursing home, but again, we're not talking about residents who will be preparing breakfast, lunch and dinner in their unit. Meals are to be provided, essentially all three, all three meals. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So, I guess I still didn't get an answer to my question. Is 70 the optimum number, or could you comfortably put together something with 60 units? MR. NOUN-Well, along with that question, you also talked about downsizing the common areas. I think that would be the worst place to downsize, because if it was up to me, we'd have more common arèas, quite frankly, because I think that's what we need to have, larger space, more activities, but they can also have like a movie of the week, parties and things, but in terms of downsizing, I think it would be difficult for us. It doesn't sound like much, w~at's the difference between 60 and 70, but if you take 10 and you multiply that by the rent that, you need the same Staff, and even that isn't going to come close to making the mortg~ge payments. MR. CARVIN~Well, I think it becomes a density issue. If you've got '70 rèsidents, and assuming that they get visitors, if they're parents, or elderly parents; they tend to have children or grandchildren that. may 'come in and out. You have Staff. I'm trying to get a feel for the usage on the property. Fine. We've got 70 units and 70 parking spaces, but if we have a visitor's day, how many people are going to be there? MR. NOUN-Okay. I believe we have 96 parking spaces. We have 96 parking spaces. We know that there will be Staff during the day, and we also know that for whatever reason, 20 to 25'percent will be, will have their own automobile, and the rest will be vacant. Wè will have times when families will be coming in for general activities which might include a Halloween party, Thanksgiving party, Christmas party, St. Patrick's day party, annual picnics outside. We want to do those types of things, but to address your point about the parking, we don't think the pa"king is going to be a problem at all, and I'm not saying that this is unfortunate, but when someone gets settled in, it isn't as if the family is there every day. It's no different than how many visitors a senior would get at an apartmè~t building now. In fact, if you went out and you did a survey, I don't think you'd find the families would be there three or four or five times a week. I think you're going to see that maybe once, maybe twice, and if somebody is not. feeling very well, you might see that they are there on a more regular basis, just to make sure thàt mom or dad or grandma or grandpa are doing well, and we want to make it easy not only for the families, but I don't think that the parking problem is going to be the issue. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. KARPELES-Yes, but that 196 includes the parking for the medical facility, too. MR. CARVIN-That was going to be my next question. MR. NOUN-Yes, except that that medical facility will be closed in the evening, and most of the visitors will still be parking on the premises rather than even in that small parking lot there, - 21 - Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/95 unless it would be in the evening. MS. CIPPERLY-And Mr. Noun came in before he even filed this application and talked to us and actually did show more parking. We asked him to see if he could reduce the number of parking spaces because we'd r~ther se~ the green space than the blacktop, because it just seemed like you'd have an awful lot of unused parking spaces just to satisfy the requirement. I think the potential is there to provide additional ones if it became necessary, which is a Planning Board prerogative, but we encouraged him to 90 with more plantings, rather than pavement, because it's been kind of a goal of ours to try to get the place green rather than blacktopped. MR. NOUN-If this were goi ng to be, le.ts say, a 70 u.ni t apartment building, just from !:!:IX. experience in managing apartments, I would (lost words) more than 140 parking spaces. That's my personal opinion. I would double it, ~nd even have even more than that, just because I do know that most families do have ,two cars, you know, a husband and wife when. they're both working.¡ So each family is going to have two, plus you have staff. So you.'re going to have more than that, but to the west of the property, you'll see that on the site plan, there is no parking, and yet originally when we did, come in, that was a whole row of parking back there. That space was all lined off for parking, but we would love to make it more, landscape it, and avoid having that area with parking, just because, except for the fire code. There does ,have to be total access around the perimeter of the building to meet fire regulations. MR. CARVIN-Okay. How about a garage? Do you contemplate or anticipate building any garage facilities? MR. NOUN-We should have, and we will address that. In fact~ .the Warren County Board mentioned that, and it kind of just slipped our mind, but we can have a garage for things like ·Qur vans or our lawnmowers, if we choose t.o do our own landscaping, and even for storage, we do have a small storage area, at our Scotia facility, just for that purpose. It.'s not very big. I mean, it's not a garage where you put a lot of vehicles, because we won't have that many vehicles. MR. CARVIN-How about for the residents? Lets say you have one of the residents that has their own automobile and wants to have a garage facility? MR. NOUN-No. We don't have garages planned for the residents, but if the resident plans on using their vehicle, we can assure you. that that vehicle will be, we'll sweep it down of snow, if they do want to leave that facility, and in the winter time, I have been up here every week for 15 years. So I do know how Queensbury can be in the winter time. Even over· at Robe)"t Gardens, there aren't very many people that venture out, sometimes, when you have those bad storms, but sweeping off the car, getting it ready, and starting the engine, if somebody wants to leave, we expect to do that. The car will be swept down and ready to go. MR. CARVIN-Any other questions from the Board? MR. KARPELES-Have you determined how many units you can build, and what size and meet the zoning requirements and not require a variance, as far as density is concerned? MR. NOUN-Well, we time you purchase areas, and we are investment. came up with the 70 units, only because by the the land and then you start all of the~e common providing heat, it's going to be a substantial - 22 - .- _.- Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/95 MR. KARPELES-Yes, I know, but we have to grant the minimum relief that we can, and just on the surface. Although I feel it's a very worthwhile project, it looks to me like you're trying to get an awful lot into a small area, and I just wonder how much you could get in there, and not require a variance, as far as density is concerned, and I think we'd have to know that. MR. NOUN-Okay. ,I believe that the mass of the land will allow 61,500 square feet of building. That's the arithematic that I discussed with Jim MaTtin and his Staff, and in order to accommodate the 70 units, we felt that the building itself, if it was going to be, lets say 66,000 square feet, and then the professional/medical building was going to be 4,000 square feet, that's the 70,000, and if you take the 66,000 and divide that by 70, along with the common areas and the stairwells, and the elevator, the laundry room and so forth, those are the numbers that we came up with, because I've already submitted some of these preliminary plans to financial lenders, because we don't want to put the cart before the horse, but we know that before any lender is going to make any commitments, we'd have to go through this process first, and get approval, and then, they know about the project. I mean, they know that we're planning on one and we'd like to build one here, and I guess maybe, I don't want t<!> seem as though I'm skirting your question, sir, but we would like very much to have the 70 units, rat.her than the 60 or 62 or 64. Originally, we were thinking it was 64. That was ~ number that I was coming up with, but now we go ahead and try to see how much it's going to cost to build, and if you have the same staff, your salaries are the same. The difference would be in, like you have the same number of people. You don't have to hire two more people to take care of another, another six apartments or eight apartments. MR. FORD-Is the answer to his question, then, 64? MR. NOUN-No. MR. KARPELES-He doesn't know, because he wasn't figuring 500 square feet, either. MR. CARVIN-Yes. They're figuring 500, and it looks like it might be 600. MR. MENTER-Aètually that's a good point. what.ever we're considering. I mean, that goes to MR. CARVIN-Because we've got to grant about 74, 7500 square feet of relief from the density, which is roughly 12 or 13 percent. MR. GREEN-Just over 10 percent. MR; CARVIN-Just over 10. MR. NOUN-It's 10 percent more? Is that the math? MR. GREEN-Yes. It's about 10.7 percent you're over. MR. NOUN-Well, I guess if we arrived at 70, I'd love to have 80, but I don't want to go up to 90 or 100 or 110. I think we'd be hurting ourselves in terms of the demographics of the Queensbury area. You draw a spot right on the site, and you go out five miles, and then ten miles, and then fifteen miles and determine how many people in that demographic area might even be candidates for a facility like this. MR. CARVIN-So your bottom line basically is that you're 70,000 square feet is a pretty hard figure? You've cut all the fat off this that you think you can? - 23 - Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/95 MR. NOUN-Yes, and I think we've done a lot of work on this. In fact, after tonight's meeting I've got to get back down and meet with the architect and the engineers again. There are some slight changes we'd like to make in where the offices are and the common areas, as people walk in, we'd like to move them closeT to the door, so that when YOU walk in, right there immediately is where the security will. beéi1nd all the services will be, .so that you immediately see somebody right away. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does the BOéi1Td have any other questions? All right. I'm going to open up the public hearing, then. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED HOWARD KRANTZ MR. KRANTZ-Howard Kr.ntz, repTesenting the Westwood Homeowners Association. I have a request, before we give our input. I know often times the Board will take a break for restroom facilities or a drink of water, and I was wondering if a five minute break would be considered by the Board, so I can have a chance to speak to the Board of Directors on some of the issues that have been raised? If not, I can go forward, but we would ask for a five minute break, if it's agreeable. MR. CARVIN-All right. No more than five minutes. MR. KRANTZ-Thank you. MR. CARVIN-If we could bring the meeting back to order, please. Mr. Krantz, I believe you have the floor. MR. KRANTZ-Thank you. Again, I represent the Westwood Homeowners Association, and the owners of the 48 homes that are there. As Mr. Noun acknowledged, it is one of the nicer residential communities in Queensbury, and as you can tell from the attendance tonight, the owners are very concerned with the impact of this project upon their life. There are a lot of problems with the project, but at the outset, I think it is fair to say ·that my clients are not opposed to the concept of the use. They are not opposed to concept of the use. They are opposed to the size of the project, and the proximity to their property. The project is scheduled to be three stories high, and as I understand it, this is going to be one of the largest buildings in Queensbury, right next door to these folks. Is it reasonable to expect that the property to the east of them would never be developed? No. That's not reasonable. They didn't expect that. They knew some day something would be developed. They assumed it would be something consistent with zoning, and that's not an unreasonable expectat ion. In othe)- words, they didn't expect that substantial area variances would be granted. After I met with the Queensbury Planning, they thought that the building would be as high as 38 feet, which is high enough. Now we hear tonight it's going to be every inch of 40 feet. I don't know too many buildings in Queensbury that are 40 feet in height. if any, with a total of 70,000 square feet. There's two variances. The first is the density variance. Now, this. is very interesting, and what makes it so interesting, as to how you determine how much of a variance is needed, is that the Zoning Ordinance, I don't believe when you read it, ever contemplated this type of situation. When you look at Section 179-23, and I've looked at it. Staff has looked at it. It really considered the idea of one principal building in a Highway Commercial zone, and if it was one story, it allows so many square feet. If it's multi story, it allows so many square feet per level. ,What is not contemplated in that Section, and hence there's no formula, is what do you do when you have two or more buildings, one of which is Qne story. One of which is part one story and part three - 24 - - Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/95 story. Because I can tell you there are several different ways you can reàd that Section to try and figure out how many square feet that they need, that the applicant needs. Clearly they would need a variance as far as thè density issue is concerned, but I would caution you to look at this Section very carefully. I also understand in speaking with the Staff at Queensbury Planning Board that this issue and this type of calculation that they've had to address has never come up before in Queensbury, and I believe that they're probably right in that. In other words, they never had to addreés and try and interpret this Section, what do you do when there's multiple buildings. If you've got a single building, it's no problem. It's very simple math, but when it's multiple, there's many ways to; do it.' Do you treat the one story medical building by itself and figure out how much area that would need? Do you figure the three story by itself and figure out how much that would need? Do you do it the way Staff t~· ied to tackle the problem, by assumi ng that the medical building is one story, that the community center, which is attached to another building, is also one story, and then they counted the first floor of a three story building as another way of doing it? I think that's reaching, but there's many different ways to do it, and regardless of your decision tonight, br if you decide in the future, I would just recommend you look carefully at that Section because what you decide and how to calculate, and you have two more buildings, is going to be a precedent. In the Staff notes, regarding density, the Staff believes that 7,458 square feet of variance is needed. That's a lot of variance. We're not talking 700 feet. We're talking about 7,458, and ~hat assumes, Number One, that the method of computation by the Staff, and I don't say it as critical, because this is the first time they've tackled a multiple building situation, yields that the fact that they're allowed 61,742, I think it's more. I understand how they calculated it, but I've also discussed with Sue other ways of looki n9 at it. Even at that number·, it's more than 7,458. Sue figured 69,200 square feet for the total project, and we noticed it was 70,000 square feet from the presentation tonight. So we're talking a minimum of 800 more square feet of variance that they need. So even by Staff's own reckoning, we're up to 8,258 square feet. Do you follow how we got to that number? Staff has 69,200 in their notes. It's 70,000. That's another 800 square feet. So they need a minimum of 8,258 square feet. That's a lot of variance. On the buffer, Sue has correctly pointed out that the demarcation between the two zonès runs throu~h the project site, and as I understand in speaking with Jim Martin, the Highway Commercial zone is measured 500 feet back from Bay Road. So I did that measurement, and the scale is one inch equals 40 feet. It was, I think, 12 and a quarter inches back. That puts the Highway Commercial zone and the MR-5 zone approximately in the middle of the three story building. So what the Zoning Ordinance requires is that 50 feet from that is your buffer. So do you understand what the applicant is asking for? That would put the start of the building a little bit past the communit.y cente~·. So, if a variance were granted on the buffer issue, if you granted a 100 percent variance, the building would stop at the boundary line between the two zones. Granting a variance is giving them more than a 100 percent relief, because the building already extends past the zone. That is, again, a very substantial variance. Under the variance criteria in the Zoning Ordinance, the factors to be considered among others is, is it materially detrimental to the adjoining properties. I vouch, on behalf of all the homeowner~, they certainly view it materially detrimental, and again, not because of the use, because of the size of the project, and because of the lack of the bUffer. Maybe my clients will jÙmp up and scream at me, but. if this project did not require any variances, they would welcome it. They would welcome it. Is it the minimum variance? No, of course not. The applicant says, gee, we've looked at it. We really need this - 25 - Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/95 much square footage. We need this many apartments. No proof. No dollars and cents. No math to back it up that this is indeed the minimum relief that they need. No proof whatsoever. If anything, the applicant was rather vague when questioned by the Board as to how much relief they would need. The project can go forward with some change. It can be downsized. In doing so, the building, the facility there could be moved somewhat to the east. If it. was reduced to two stories, that substantially t.kes care of my clients' problems. If it's moved to the east, that alleviates a lot of their concern also. The applicant also has to take into account, as does the Board, how did the difficulty arise, under Section 179-88. Well, this isn't the situation where you have an existing structure and the applicant comes before you and says, now we want to convert it to such and such a use, a senior facility use, and I really need these, I have these practical difficulties, given a building on the lot. The applicant here is starting wi~h an absolutely clean slate, as far as construction is concerned. They can do all kinds of uses, including this use, and meet the Zoning Ordinance without any variances whatsoever. As far as granting these two variances are concerned, and I would submit to you that this should" be recalculated, at a minimum, to determine how much square footage is really needed. I'm sorry. I honestly think, and I am truly sorry. I think this is a little greedy. That's what it is. If, in fact, it's true that that facility needs a minimum oJ 70 units, forget for tDe moment that no proof has been offered other than some vague statement, well, gee, we've really looked at it, and we need a minimum of 70. Even if that were true, what is to prevent the applicant from building that facility without the medical building? Meet the zoning requirements. No variances needed. shift the building eastward, My people are happy. It's a little greedy~ All you've heard him say is well, gee, this is really the maximum that we'd like to do, and I don't think maximizing the property is the goal in Queensbury, or it shouldn't be. I believe that when, the Board raised a question as to what was approved before. The applicant said, and this may be true, that the office complex that was approved previous is two stories. That's a major difference from a 40 foot, 3 story building, and also, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the prior approval there were no area variances granted. If there were, I'd like to know about them. So, what has been approved previously is not objectionable to the owners of Westwood. This project is, because it's substantially different in proximity and size. Thi$ is a massive bl.,lilding. We've also heard that the math doesn't work, that the applicant didn't realize there's a minimum of 600 square feet needed for , a unit.. So I don't know, it's kind of like shooting in the dark trying to resolve this problem with variances, when we're not even sure of the correct number of units. I think, and they acknowledge themselves, between the parking, the issues of the size of the units. Maybe they need a garage. Maybe this is a bit premature, as far as what, really, this is going to look like and what variances they do need, but there's a problem with the math right on the square footage of the apartments, and if, in fact, they wanted to go ahead with the size units that they talked about, they'd need another variance. They'd have to come back here and get relief from that Section of the Ordinance that requires 600 square feet per unit. Now we're talking about. a third variance. Parking space problem, yes, there might be a parking space problem. Then we've got a real problem. Planning wanted to, and I can understand it, to reduce the parking, although perhaps they need more, to create more green area. So that's our choice. If we put an adequate number of parking, we're cutting back on the green area. If we keep the green area where it is, maybe we have inadequate parking. What does that say? It really says that they're trying to do too much with this parcel. We also heard tonight about a garage. Mr. Noun said it kind of slipped their mind. That was the quote I wrote down. They forgot about the - 26 - -- Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/95 garage. That's more square footage. How can you even consider a variance on building density when we're talking about the need for another structure? How big we don't know, but it's only going to add to the over 8,000 square feet that they're looking for tonight. I think they should really come back with a complete picture on the density issue. I don't want this thing passed piecemeal. I would hope you wouldn~t pass it piecemeal and then come back the following month, gee~ now that garage we're talking about has another X number of square feet. I don't think it's fair to the applicant. I don't think it's fair to you. I think they should give you a complete picture of what they're looking for. So what are we looking for? Some reasonable accommodation. Last night, before the Planning Board, Tony Ricciardelli came forward with a project, also contiguous to the Westwood property. Those of you who are familiar with this, that private drive that enters the building to the right, or to the east of that drive, is owned by Mr. Ricciardelli. He's putting on an addition in the back, and right from, their moving his accounting office there from the brick building that they have on Glenwood Avenue.' Right from the get go, he got in touch with members of the Board of Directors to discuss his plans, and made several accommodations. We met with him again, raised our concerns, which the Planning Board agreed with, and he addressed all of them in a very reasonable fashion. My clients are not unreasonable. They don't dislike the project, but it's too big, and it's too close to theirs. It's not for me to come up with solutions, but I can think of many where they can still go forward with the project. The real money to be made in this project is not with the medical office buildings with the three story congregate care, or whatever you want to call it. and they can do that without needing any variances, and if in fact that's true, and it. is, by eliminating the medical office building, why isn't that enough? Isn't that a reasonably intense use, as it is, of the property? So we thank you for your time. I'd be glad to answer any questions on the information that I submitted this evening. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does anybody have any questions? MR. GREEN-I've got a question. You're saying that you would rather see the medical building go, to lower the density problem? MR. KRANTZ-No. I'm saying that I honestly think, Mr. Green, that there are several ways they can go forward with the project without needing any variances. I understand that's the goal of the Ordinance, that there's reasonable ways of going forward without needing area variances, t.hat. can be done. That's just one. Because if the medical building were eliminated, this structure could be either re-shaped, it could be moved eastward. There are a number of things that would soften the impact on Westwood. That's what I'm saying, and I think there are others, too. I met with Jim Martin and John Goralski, and he said, gee, maybe the building could be redesigned so it's not as far west as it is now. There are a number of things that could be done. MR. GREEN-Do you know how far off the back line it closest Westwood building, and is there one directly site? is to the behind this MR. KRANTZ-Yes. There are buildings to the west of the site. I honestly don't know the dimensions to the property line. MR. GREEN-Does anybody have that figure? MR. CARVIN-How far away are we from t.he property line? MR. THOMAS-One hundred feet. - 27 - Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/95 MR. KRANTZ-There's a scale here. I can show it to you. I'm not sure I can calculate it accurately. MR. GREEN-This is the lot in here? MR. KRANTZ-I think it's in here. Right. I believe so. MR. THOMAS-The building itself, the proposed building, is 100 foot from that property line~ MR. GREEN-From here, but how is it from here to there? MR. THOMAS-About 50 feet. So that would be 150 feet b~ck. MR. GREEN-Okay. So it's about another 50 feet or so, ¡ guess, to the closest building behind. MR. CARVIN-That's including the 100 feet from ~he building? MR. GREEN-No, 150, including the 100. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So they're just 50 feet off the property line, is what you're saying? MR. GREEN-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. GREEN-A~ close as we can tell. MR. CARVIN-We have a figure of no greater than 150 feet, then, probably significantly less. All right. Any other questions of the speaker? All right. Then I would ask anybody else that wishes to be heard in opposition. JOHN MATTHEWS MR. MATTHEWS-John Matthews. I'm an adjacent property owner, the corner of Bay and Glenwood, and I feel, I'm not in total opposition to the project. I think that there's a need for something like this in the Town. I just think that their plan is overbuilding the site. We went through this whole site plan and variances and what not several years ago for Woodbury's when they developed a lot, an~ I believe, at that time, they had it maxed out. to the most that could be put on there. This is quite a bit more, including the building in the front, which I think was not allowed at that time. My concern, also, is with ,the density in the area. I don't know if the Town's master plan or plan for sewers and what not has taken into consideration this number of dwellings in that area. I know it was set up for a commercial site, but not 70 toilets and sinks and dishwashers and what not. Green space, I was made to comply to the setbacks and green space, and parking requi~ements when I developed my property, and I don't believe that they're anywhere near close to the green space requirements on this subdivision. I don't know exactly what the requirements are. I think they're (lost words) percent, and this is down at"ound 15 percent green space from what I can tell. MR. CARVIN-Mr. Matthews, you said YOU attended the original Woodbury? MR. MATTHEWS-Several. MR. CARVIN-Do you remember approximately when that was, or when that occurred? MR. MATTHEWS-It was in the late 80's. - 28 - - Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/95 MR. CARVIN-I was going to say, I've got '88 here, but it's pretty sparse. MR. MATTHEWS-It was in the same period of time that I attended meetings for my own project. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and they changed the zoning in '87 or '88? MS. CIPPERLY-It changed August 15th '88, and those meetings, I think, were in July, some of them. MR. CARVIN-Okay. The question I'd like to try to get answered is the zoning line going through the middle of this building. Did it also go through the original Woodbury project, and did they get relief from the buffers, if that was the case? MS. CIPPERLY-There weren't any variances listed on that project. I had the tax map out. I was going to bring it. The zone line just crosses the very. MR. CARVIN-So we're not even sure that the Woodbury project, then, technically, is in compliance. MR. MATTHEWS-I mean, they owned both projects at that time. MS. CIPPERLY-They were the developers of Westwood, also. MR. CARVIN-If we have a zoning line running through the Woodbury project that's neve," been addressed, I'm not sure how we're going to be able to address this one, and this is what. MR. THOMAS-Does that zoning line run through there? MR. CARVIN-Yes. MR. THOMAS-I don't think so. t.o Bay Road. I think that zoning line is closer MR. CARVIN-Well, no. I mean, if it goes right through. In other words, the Woodbury project, as I remember it, and I'm going back a number of years, I thought the zoning line goes right through here. MS. CIPPERLY-I can go back and get the map. MR. CARVIN-That's what I'm trying to find out here, whethe," we""e sitting on the fence between a zoning change, or if indeed the Woodbury problem, you know, they've got. a problem even with the office búilding. MS. CIPPERLY-We're going to go get the tax map. MR. MENTER-Did you say that there was also, since you were at thosei that there was also an additional building that was on the table, in the front. of their? MR. MATTHEWS-I don't know if it was on the table. I know that, in talking to the Woodburys at the time, when they were going through t.he thought process and whatnot, they had talked about the building in the front. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I think you're right. As I remember the project, I think there was a building slated, and I think it was going to be a retail building for whatever. MS. CIPPERLY-Those cards just indicate a 30,000 square foot, and an additional 12,300. - 29 - Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/95 MR. CARVIN-Yes. This is for the construction of a 30,000 square foot commercial office on the property situated on the west side .of the Bay Road, north of the intersection at Glenwood Avenue, Highway Commercial zone. I'm wondering if that was all in a Highway CQmmercial zone. MS. CIPPERLY-That could have been. MR. CARVIN-But it was approved, apparently, in July of '88, and I don't know when our zoning, I don't even know if those lines changed in '88. This was revised somewhere in there.. MS. CIPPERLY-The buffer requirement may have changed, and there may not have been a buffer requirement. I don't know that that's, I mean, wbat if this were just a new project? MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions of the applicant, of the speaker? Okay. Anyone else wish to be heard in opposition? TODD GUNLACK MR. GUNLACK-My name's Todd Gunlack. I'm a resident of the Town of Queensbury, but I also manage a property that is probably closer to this developm,nt only by one other unit, Number 39 Marcy Lane, and I just want to support the Homeowners Association for what they're, trying to do. It seems like they've got the cart way before the house on this one, and they're putting a lot of living space, according to my calculations, approximately 90,000 square feet of living space, pnthree floors, in a 126,000 square feet of a lot, and that seems like an awful lot, and it's awfully close to that. back property line, and that back property line is the closest to the Westwood community. It seems like there's a lot of other options. I deal with properties all the time, and this seems like they're trying to cram an awful lot into a small portion of that lot. One other thing, this top down isometric view of this lot is kind of deceiving, and I think it would be better represented if there were other perspectives, you know, of how tall this thing is going to look, a regular set of prints or plans like that. to present to the community. Other than that, you should always come to the table with suggestions about how to make it better, and I'm not that familiar with this community in general, b~t I would doubt very seriously if they could fill 70 spaces. I thought it was an open and shut case when the Board member mentioned th.e 600 squa·re foot requirement. Other than that, with all those things considered, I couldn't see more than more than maybe 25 people in a facility like this in this location, and I did the quick math. They're averaging $1800 a unit at 70 units, that's 1.~ million dollar~ in income off of rent only, and I wonder if that same type of value is 90ing to be put back into the community. That's all r have to say. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Thank YOu. Any questions of the speaker? Okay. Anyone else wishing to be heard in opposition? Anyone else wishing to be heard? Okay. Any other public comment? MR. NOUN-I know now that I've made a terrible error in judgement. What I should have done, and, what I have done in other communities is I should have insisted on a meeting with the Westwood Board first. Unfortunately, when I went to the Director of Planning, it sounded like a good use. It sounded like everything was going to,go ahead. and everything we did with this first plan was based upon information that was given to me. I didn't manufacture the height of the building. The Planning Department said, you're allowed 40 feet. That's what it was. We had no intention of building it higher than what the zoning requirement. I feel, I'm disappointed that you referred to me as greedy. Maybe you didn't refer to me personally. Maybe you did, but you don't know me, so you can't say that about me, because - 30 - - Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/95 you don't know me, sir. I take care of 50 residents 365 days a year. You have no right to call me greedy. You can call me something else, but not greedy. I know what it is to take care of seniors. I enjoy taking care of senioTs, and I wish that there was a facility for my father to go to before we sent him to the nursing home. The height of the building was the height I got from the Planning Department. The size of the apartments. This was not going to be an apartment community. This is totally different. The apartments in Beverwick, which is one of the finest communities of its type in upstate New York, and if you go there and take a look at it, you'll see. Those unitsar8 515 square feet to 535 square feet. That's the size of their units, and this wasn't going to be under apartments. This was going to going to be under another category, and I believe, Sue, that it was under the convalescent category. If they were apartments, that's what they would have been designed for. If someone had said to m~,you've got to 600 square feet, we could design 600 square feet, we would have designed 600 square feet, and maybe we would have determined that maybe this is not a go. Now, as far as the garage is concerned, I didn't come up with the garage. We don't need a garage. The Planning Board told us to consider a garage. We don't need a garage. I said, well, if you want to have a garage, and that's what's going to make it go, then we'll put a garage there, wherever you want it to go. I said, we don't need a garage. Now, as far as going ahead without a variance, I don't know.' If this is going to be a two story building, I don't know how you accommodate the number of units that would be required. I mean, there are going to be approximately, I guess, 20 to 25 employees wo)"king here, not at anyone time, because we're going to have three shifts. We need to have 24 (lost words) all day long. This is open 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, and most of these congregate care facilities, there's an exception, Wellspring house is an exception, because that was built 15 years ago, long before its time. In Florida, most of these facilities are on corners where the seniors can walk right out the front gate and go down to a corner and a drug store or a little restaurant or a little strip center and probably can either walk or take a bike. This is advantageous, I thought, quite frankly becàuse most of the ones that are developed now, especially Beverwick, which again is one of the finest in upstate New York, and you should take a look at it down in Slinger lands if you get a chance, guess what's immediately adjacent to the Beverwick project? Cottages, very similar to Westwood because those residents use the facilities, and when I talked to Mr. Y6ung originally, originally, our' planned showed some type of a road going back there. I said, no, no, no. That's not appropriate, I said, but we'd be very happy to create some type of a gate, so that if residents at Westwood wanted to come and dine some evening in our facility, that would be okay with us. In fact, most of the facilities, that's why Beverwick was designed this way because the residents from the cottages go and eat in the facilities, if they want to, not on a regular basis, but if they want to make a reservation and they want to have dinner some night, because they know what the menu is, they're welcome to come. So, most of these projects are designed, most of these senior projects. The one in Clifton Park, there are cottages, there are apartments, and then you have this type of (lost word) where there's a dining room. The other ideal thing about this site is that not only is it on the bus route, but there, immediately in the neighborhood, the neighborhood characteristics are absolutely excellent. I don't want to have a facility out in the middle of the boon docks where you're sitting out there all day long looking at just trees and everything. People enjoy activity. They want to be able to get out move around. They want to hear a fire engine once in a while. They want to hear a police siren once in a while. I'm not interested in building out. somewhere where there's a pasture. That.'s not where I want to be. These residents, we expect, will be active, - 31 - Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/95 very active mentally, and physically, with exercise classes and guest speakers coming in all the time. I'm willing to do whatever we can do within the parameters that the site allows. I don't know where we go from here, but I was only designing this site. This is why I made a mistake. I should have gone to Westwood. I know that now, and Mr. Young, I apologize. I should have met with your group first, because there would be no need for your attorney now. This would have been something that we would have resolved a long time ago, because now we've got to go back and change all of this, and for something, I just totally underestimated the response, that there was going to be a negative response. I thought it was going to be, quite frankly, a positive response, because I'll tell you what happened in Nyskauna, by the way, there's a facility being built in Nysakuna, on upper Union Street, Schenect.ady, on upper Union Street a group out of Syracuse is building one of these facilities. I had made an offer on that site, and I was rejected several years ago. They're putting up over 90 units, 90, on three acres. I couldn't believe it, but the architecture of the building will be somewhat similar in nature to the building· that's going up on Union, and probably closer to that than the Severwick project, but I don't want to do anything that would offend the people at Westwood, because it may not be very many years before the residents at Westwood, we hope, might be interested in moving to this project. MR. CARVIN-Can I ask you this, Mr. Noun? Would you consider tabling YOUt- application for 60 days, so that you would have an opportunity to sit down with the residents and see if you can maybe revise this particular situation? MR. NOUN-I would be very happy to sit down with the residents of Westwood, but I don't want to table it for 60 days. I'd rather table it for two weeks, quite frankly. I mean, I want to go ahead with it, but I don't want to wait 60 days. I'd rather find out. By the way, if they don't want the project, and I recognize that. You can't just have a developer coming into a community doing whatever he wants to do, but if they do~'t want the project, there's no sense in me trying to develop the site. There isn't. I don't want to fight with them, because they're the ones that ·actually might be affected more directly, just because they live there, they live in the community. I mean, t.hey live right there adjacent to the property. I think the commercial corners probably wouldn't object. In fact, I went in to talk to the flower shop. I think their business is going to increase when the residents have visitors. I think that's a terrific place for a flower shop. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Let me ask Mr. Krantz. Do ·you think the general public here, is that an amenable situation? Do you think there's room to compromise here? MR. KRANTZ-If I could just have two minutes. This will be my final rebuttal, and then respond to your questions. MR. CARVIN-I was going to say, are you finished, .Mr. Noun, with your rebuttal? MR. NOUN-That depends on what he has to say. MR. KRANTZ-As far as Mr. Noun, who I don't know, taking offense to my reference to the project as greedy, maybe I'll couch it nicer. There's nothing evil about profit. I'm all for capitalism. If you make a good dollar fairly, that's perfectly fine. There's nothing wrong with that. What I'm saying is that, as others have said, that this project being profit driven, and given the amount of intense development on it, seems more t.han reasonably necessary. I'll couch it that way rather than the project is a greedy addition. As far as the height requirement, - 32 - Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/95 my clients are not objecting to the 40 feet in height, if there are no variances requested. In other words, if he came in with a project that didn't need any area variances, not only wouldn't they object, legally, there'd be no issue. The only reason they're here is because of the two area variances that are sought. In other word¿, if the project did not need any area variances, by either density or setback, created by the buffer requirement, my people wouldn't be here. They'd have, legally, absolutely nothing to say about it. As far as the 600 square foot minimum, that: is the minimum requirement of the Ordinance. I don't know what Mr. Noun was told, but the bottom line is they do need 600 feet per unit, and that has to be, Mr. Noun is going to have to work with his architects to come up with that. As far as the essence of the project, and again, I think Mr. Noun, you've taken it too much to heart. I prefaced my remarks. I put them in t.he middle, and I closed with them as saying my clients truly are not opposed to this use at all. They are not opposed to this use. I think, speaking personally, it would be good for Queensbury. My people are not concerMed. ìt's the size of the project, the 40 foot tall building, that is closer to their property than the Zoning Ordinance allows. So they would welcome meeting with you. They truly would. You seem like a nice gentleman. If you could come up with a plan that allows a good and reasonable profit, at the same time minimizes the impact.. There will be an impact upon them with that size building. All we're asking is that it be minimized, and the Boardfs outlook, and Mr. Noun, it's wonderful to hear, as Mr. Ricciardelli did last night, the Board would be willing to meet with you at any time, at your convenience. I'd be glad to sit in, if they want me to, and whatever can be reasonably worked out, believe me, my clients would like to do. They like the project. They don't like the size and the proximity to their boundary line. Thank you. . MR. NOUN-I have no problem with their comments. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, that still leaves us with a dilemma here. We can table this application. Our normal tabling procedure is, we can table up to 60 days. That does not mean that you have to wait 60 days. If we can get you in prior to that, we can get you back on the agenda, although I suspect that October is pretty much out of the question, and, obviously, from our other tablings this evening, November is filling up quickly. MR. NOUN~Would it be possible to be on the November agenda, the same date? MR. CARVIN-We'll work with you on it. We tabled two tonight already, plus what's coming in. We can shoot for November 8th. To be very honest with you, it's going to depend upon whether you can come to an agreement here. I mean, because we've spent, now, two hours, and I'm not begrudging the time, but certainly. MR. NOUN-We may not be on the agenda November 8th if we can't arrive at something. MR. CARVIN-I'm just saying that a row between now and November challenge with that, but you December before you get into a concerned. if you can get all your ducks in the 8th, I guess we don't have a can actually go out as far as problem, as far as this Board is MR. NOUN-Well, just in terms of time, if and when, and hopefully it will be approved in some fashion, but if it isn't then, you know, we'll stop, but, in terms of the financing, our plan would be to start, if we were granted permission to go ahead, we would like to go ahead in the spring, as far as the weather breaks into the ground, because what we don't want to do, is we don't want to - 33 - Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/95 be attempting to rent these units in late fall or in the winter time, because that's not the best time to do it. Now we think we can go on a relatively fast track, we're dealing with an excellent contractor, but. it's going to be over a year, maybe a year and a half, maybe two years before this facility is built, and it's not. going t.o be like building a four unit here and a four unit there and as they're rented you just keep building them. This building is going to have a co. There's the co and the mortgage starts. It could take us a year and a half to two years. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, I guess what I'm going to do is table this particular application, under our normal tabling procedure. This will allow you an opportunity to seek out the Board of Directors, and see if you can come to an accommodation. I would strongly suggest that you keep planning staff involved in the loop, in case there are any additional variances that need to be required, and they can work with you as far as getting you back on the schedule. I think there's a cut off, and I don't know what it is, for the November 8th meeting, but, you know, again, that depends on your discussions with the residents. MR. NOUN-Well, what you're really saying, though, is that if the residents don't approve of the concept, in fact, if they don't, there's no sense in having us come back. MR. CARVIN-Well, I can leave the public hearing open on this, and we can go through all of this when we come back, and if there is no public opposition, well, fine, that makes our job a lot easier, but on the other hand, if there is public opposition, and this Board still feels that the program is viable, then you still may get a passage, but I can't promise that. MR. FORD-Let me share with you my perspective. I appreciate the fact that you're not a person with your hand on the controls of a bulldozer, and. there is a spirit of cooperation that you're sharing. From my perspective, it's yes to concept, no to density, and I believe that, in a project like this, or any other project, we .should look at al,l of thtf al ter nq.t.iN~s f i'l;:st, , and determi ne ~ ,what can .we do wi thi n the zoni ng requirements. Then as a ZBA member, I would like to hear from you why that isn't possible, why that isn't practical, and these are the alternative ways that we need to move. I didn't hear that tonight. Thank you. , MR. KRANTZ-Mr. Ford, just so I and the applicant understand, it's tabled until next month or, that's what I'm not clear about. MR. CARVIN-No. We haven't set a date. It's up to the applicant to come back to us and give us the time frame that he wants to be put back on the agenda. If he can make the cut offs for November, fine. We'll put him on November. If not, then we'd have to put him off until December. If it goes beyond the Decembe," deadline, and the applicant dies a natural death and he would have to go through and re-apply as a new application, unless he wrote us a letter requesting an extension of the tabling, and that would depend on whether the Board wishes to extend the tabling, but our normal taþle time frame is that if we don't hear back in 60 days, we tear it up and start allover. MR. KRANTZ-So the Board knows, Mr. Noun, although. I haven't spoken to the Board of Directors on this, as soon as they have plans revised or whatever they think is necessary, they'll meet this weekend. I mean, as soon as you're weady, they'll meet. MR. CARVIN-Yes. going to contact don't heaT back Again, it's not up to t.he Board. We're not anyone. As I said, we give 60 days. If we within 60 days, we figure they just walked away - 34 - , '- Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/95 from the project, and if you need a longer time frame than 60 days, we normally request a letter, and then we can extend that if we want. MS. CIPPERLY-The deadlin~ for getting application materials in is the 25th of this month. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and again, like I said, what I would also do is strongly suggest that you work with Staff to make sure that we've got all of our numbers correct here, if that's going to be a problem here, so that we get this thing squared away. All right. It appears that we do have some updated information on the zone line, and I'm going to cautiously bring this up, because the best available information that we have at this point is that the zoning line is approximately 65 feet from the rear property of this particular project, which means that the building as it sits right now is only 35 feet from the zoning line. So that, theoretically, and I'm going out on a limb here, if he moves the building forward 15 feet, I don't believe there's going to be any variances required, or very few variances. MR. THOMAS-There won't be any buffer variance required, because they'll have their 50 feet from the zone line. MS. CIPPERLY-Except the bu~fer zone is an unpaved. MR. CARVIN-I'm bringing this up cautiously. MS. CIPPERLY-The buffer zone has to be unpaved. So he can't have his road in it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I'm going to defer this, because we're tabling it, and I think that this can be best thrashed out between planning, you folks and those folks, and then you can get it all together and bring it back to us within the 60 day time frame. So there may be a little bit of room here, but I will put that information on the record, unless otherwise corrected. 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 vote: AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE MR. CARVIN-This is tabled for 60 days. So if you the parties lined up and hopefully we can come to accord here. would get all some kind of MR. MENTER-Sue, is there an issue as to the category of use on this thing, or what? MR. CARVIN-It could be. Okay. Let Staff do their job, and we'll do ours. All right. Before we go, we do have a couple of other items of business, gentlemen. Okay. I have, I'm going to read this letter into the record from Edward P. Carr. - 35 - Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/95 MS. CIPPERLY-We do hav~ to do both the SEQRA on the Mooring Post, just so you don't forget. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I've got that on my mind. I want to get this out of the way first. I received this letter from Edward P. Carr, with regard to re-opening Area Variance No. 47-1995. This is William Keis. If the Board members remember, I think last month they came to the Board and asked us to have an opinion, I guess, on whether they had a signi f icant .enough change to re-open their Area Variance, and I think, and I didn't read the minutes, but it seems to me we had requested that if they though they had significant enough changes or additional information that would warrant us re-opening or having a new variance, to submit the information to us. So, do you have this letter? I'd like to read this into the record, and also, do we have to publically advertise this? I don't think, because I think that they're asking for the wrong thing, is my general impression here. Yes, sir? MR. KRANTZ-Just what I do any time I get before any Board, regardless of the result.s, on behalf of my clients and on behalf of the applicant, you volunteer your time. I was on a Board for 10 years a lot of times people don't appreciate how tough it is to make these decisions. You could be home with your families tonight. Whenever I get before a Board, I always say thanks for coming out. MR. CARVIN-We appreciate that. Thank you. MR. KRANTZ-When I was on boards, no one ever said, thanks for staying here until 11 o'clock. Any board where you're volunteering, you're not getting paid, you're putting back time to the community. You should be thanked for it, publically. MR. for all and not. CARVIN-Well, as Chairman of the Board, and I think I speak everyone here, we do truly appreciate that. I mean that in sincerity. pkay. Why d~n't you read this into the record, lets decide whether we want to re-open this Area Variance or I think that's the first issue. MR. THOMAS-A letter dated October 1, 1995, addressed to Mr. Fred A. Carvin, Chairman "Dear Sir: As per your recommendation of September 28, 1995, I would like to request, on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. William Keis, that the Zoning Board of appeals review and reopen area variance No. 47-1995. The reasons for this request are as follows: Staff Input 2. Feasible Alternatives '... The applicant also owns land on the west side of CleverdaleRoad, so construction of this garage could take place there p' .'. The two parcels are separate, non contiguous properties divided by Cleverdale Road, as such I do not feel they should be considered as one for Zoning purposes. In addition, building on the v.cant parcel would force the Qwners to duplicate var~ous ser~ices. This place an undue burden on the applicant, in that it would have a large impact on costs of construction and future carrying costs. 4. Effects on the Neighborhood or Community? 'There could be an undesirable impact on the community in the sense that this lot would have virtually lot line to lot line coverage. If this type of relief were granted, it could set a precedent, ...' The subject property is located within the bounds of a subdivision which dates to the late Eighteen Hundred,s. The lots which were created in this subdivision are much smaller than those required under the present one acre zoning. This coupled with the 100' plus setback that Mr. and Mrs. Keis have maintained from Lake George make, the requested vat'iance consistent .with the neighborhood as it exists at this time. Of the twelve properties from Mason Rd. intersection to the Mooring Post only three do not have Garages on the East Side of the Road. All of the existing garages appear to have 0' to 4' side setbacks. plus concern - 36 - - Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/95 over the height of the building, its potential conversion to a 2- story building, and is potential usage as living space.' These concerns can be addressed and do not warrant denial of the var ia nce . 5. Is this Difficulty Se I f-Creat.ed? ' ... the house was considerably smaller. It was extended and enlarged in 1988, so that it was within 24 feet of the northern lot line and 18.5 feet of the southern line. In this sense, the situation is self- created.' Prior to the addition of 1988 the house was 30.5' from the northern lot line and 18.5' from the southern lot line this does not seem to be a considerable increase. In addition the original design of the 1988 addition was building toward the Lake however the Town of Queensbury discou,-aged that. Staff comments and concerns: 'One additional issue that has been raised is that of a drain ...Further research into whether there is a Town ease~ent involved...'. Research by the Town and By the applicant has shown that no easement exists. Based on the apparent misleading nature of the Staff Input with regard to this variance application I feel that it would be consistent with the explanations you provided at the September 28, 1995 meeting to request reopening this application. Thank you, Edward P. Carr, Jr . " MR. CARVIN-Okay. MS. CIPPERLY-First, Fred, before you get into that, I'd like to correct his last paragraph. The Town did look into whether their easements, I know the Keis' had their deed researched by C.T. Male, who did not find any written easement in their deed for this water line. I asked Paul Naylor, who's very well versed in Highway law, and he said no one can restrict the' flow of water that's been flowing in an either artificial or natural place. So he went up and talked to the Keis', and they insisted that they had not, in any way, diverted or plugged up this culvert, and he came back and told me he had no problem with this. The Town had no concern over it, and then he just got this feeling that maybe he should go upthe,-e and dig this culvert up and see whether the situation was as it was represented, and sitting out in the yard over there is a piece of culvert with mirafi fabric, concrete, and rocks that had been stuffed in it within the last year or so, by, presumably, the Keis', and both the Keis' and their contractor, Chris Crandall, and I think Mr. Carr was present also, sat there and insisted that nobody had blocked this pipe off. So, his last paragraph, the Town does have a right to have water flowing through these people's property. They can run it around an addition, so if they wa~ted to put a garage on their house, attached to their house, they could, if they ran this pipe around it. They have no right whatsoever to block off the flow of water, which they did, because their basement was wet. So, as far as misleading. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I think bigger issue is that they have addressed the Staff notes, which were all addressed during the variance, and I don't think that they've really addressed the motion that we all voted on, to deny the variance, and I still feel that if they have another plan that they can submit, then I know I would be more than willing to sit down and take a look at it, but I personally don't find anything in here that is germain to the mot.ion, but is very germain to the actions that we based our motion on, and I believe, if we take a look at the minutes, that we did address all of these part.icular issues. So I don't see anything new or significant in their addressing the Staff notes when they should be addressing the motion. I mean, the motion, and the motion is attached, and if you want to read the motion, is that du,- ing the course of our publ ic héar i ng, that. we had outlined our reasons for the denial of the request. I was under the impression, when they were here last month, that they were going to present new or additional information, or a new or additional program that we could look at. Does anybody else have - 37 - Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/95 that memory, or am I the only one? MR. MENTER-I agree 100 percent. MR. CARVIN-I was under the impression that they had another, either another plot plan, or they were going to revise the plan and either come back and apply for a new variance, and that's what. they,.we..,e t,'(yin~,to det~m¡·Tile;,. wl'i\~ther:w~,wQuld¡ entertain that. Based on trl$d¡~:!¡.terr amq;jll¢J¡h~tt;.he}('re addressing, I don't Se,e'8f\Y new ~l$~t.¡t~~· h~r~. " :1', ·dom'~' know~f-j"éin)(,þ<þdy,el,se takes exception to that, but I still feel very strongly that if the Keis' have another plan, which requires less relief, or something built across on t.he other lot, I think we're on pretty ··firm ground that they would be entitled to build on the other side of the street. I know I was out there the other day~ andI..w two car s par ked up on their lot. Whether. th~y .hadcon,-¡pa nY'<:;)'ìj not, I don't know, but they were using that lot across the street for par ki ng . MS. CIPPERLY-It's a very common practice up there. , MR. CARVIN-It's a very common practiqe. So based information, I would have a t9,¥~~., time:¡ r.eopening Area 47-1995. Does anybody take exception to that? upPn,this Variance MR. THOMAS-I agree with you. I didn't see any new information whatsoever presented in this letter that would change.~ mind. MR. FORD-I agree with that completely, and just want to reinforce that we, unanimously, have acted on that variance, and I see no reason to do anything to counteract that, but I would welcome any other approaches they wanted to make, but not on that variance. MR. KARPELES-I agree. MR. MENTER-Yes. MR. GREEN-I agre, wi1=-h Mr. FOrd and Mr. Thoma§>.: MS. CIPPERLY-I think what Pete was trying to say was that you were basing your decision on misinformation, and I think that's why he was addressing Staff notes. MR. CARVIN-Again, I think that I would like it emphasized to the applicant that Staff notes are just that. They are notes to the Board to be aware of, and they are not always used in guiding our decisions. It's not law, as Staff is well aware, and we did address, ançiw~ wereawq,r.e of thes~;part¡cular aspects when we looked at that applic<¡ition. S9',that there's'f\othing new and significant here. I MOTION TO DENY THi . Re:-ÒI?~t+¡~"¡)F AR~Al' VARIANÇe: NO. 47-1995 WILLIAM KEIS, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Cat'vin NOES: NONE MR. CARVIN-If Staff would notify them. MS. CIPPERLY-I'd be happy to. MR. CARYIN-AlI right. Item Number Two. Did you have something - 38 - Queensbury Z8A Meeting 10/18/95 written up for me? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. It's in a folder. MR. CARVIN-Okay. right. NOw·, with regard to the Moor ing Post. All RESOLUTION OF INTENT OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY TO BE LEAD AGENT IN THE REVIEW OF THE MOORING POST MARINA RESOLUTION NO.: October 18, 1995 INTRODUCED BY: Fred Carvin WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Chris Thomas WHEREAS, JOHN BROCK has submitted an application for a Use Variance & Area Variance in connection with a project known as or described as Mooring Post Marina, and WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of desires to commence a coordinated review process as under the DEC Regulations adopted in accordance with Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), Appeals provided the State NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals hereby indicates its desire to be lead agent for purposes of the SEQRA review process and hereby authorizes and directs the Executive Director to notify other involved agencies that: 1. an application has been made by John Brock for construction of boat storage buildings; 2. a coordinated SEQRA review is desired; 3. a lead agency for therefore be agreed within 30 days; and purposes of SEQRA review must to among the involved agencies 4. the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals desires to be the lead agent for purposes of SEQRA review; because. in this case. the Zoning Board has stricter criteria to consider. the Use Variance is a prerequisite to all other local approvals. the Zoning Board has had over ,a, year of experience with the pr'oject and the åttentláfit issues ~. BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that when notifying the other involved agencies, the Executive Director shall also mail a letter of explanation, together with copies of this resolution, the application, and the EAF with Part I completed by the project sponsor,' or where appropriate, the Draft EIS. Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 1995, by the following vote: MR. CARVIN-What this is is because of the situation out there, we have to do a full environmental impact study, we are asking to be the lead agency on this. We have to notify the Planning Board. I would anticipate or hope that there's no problem with the - 39 - Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/95 Planning Board giving us lead agency status. However, if they want. it, they will let us know. The real fly in the ointment, if I can use that term, is the Adirondack Park Agency. They have 30 days from the mailing of this letter, which will be mailed tomorrow, to respond. Now, if again, they want to take lead agency status, we cannot necessarily prevent that, I guess, but what it does mean is that we will not hear the Mooring Post until we get a response back from all these agencies giving us or taking lead agency status away from us. So, therefore, the meeting that we had tentat.ively scheduled for November the 1st, is now tentatively scheduled for probably November the 29th, I believe. MS. CIPPERLY-Depending on wheth~r people can make that. MR. CARVIN-Right. I am doing it in this fashion beçause, quite honestly, I want to get all the ducks in a row. I don't think it's fair to have everybody come out and we not be ab¡.e ,t.o h<.$ve a decision or be in a position to render a decision because of a technicality, and not that it's a minor technicality, but I feel that if we get all of these ducks in a row, then we can proceed with the Mooring Post in a timely and orderly fashion, and that is the reason that ~e are requesting lead agency status. Are there any other questions with regard to the procedure here? And Mr. Ford has again pointed out that, wherever you see "Zoning Board", it should be "Zoning Board of Appeals". MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. resolution. This was adapted from a Planning Board MR. CARVIN-If there are no questions with regard to this, then I would first ask for a second. MR. THOMAS-I'll second the motion. MR. CARVIN-Okay. If there are no questions on the motion, I would ask for a vote. AYES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Green, Mr. Ca,"vin NOES: NONE MR. CARVIN-So that takes care of that little bit of housekeeping. MR. KARPELES-When are our next meetings? MR. CARVIN-The next meeting is next week. MR. KARPELES-Yes, but we don't have one November the 1st? MR. CARVIN-No, not at this point. So at this point, what we are tentat.i,velrY, and a9~i'Ii1:, 4·::say tent.at.ively:.:We'r:e trY~1l9 to schedule for the;; 8th i~nd, ,the 15th , i i~,eavi mg,; obviou.sly, Thanksgiving open, whi~h would normally be a meeting night. So we will, obviously, not have a meeting that week. Depending on our workload, we hopefully will have those two, and if the Mooring Post can get all of its ducks in a row between now and t.hen, we get all the papers, and if there's no other complications and everybody can agree t~. meet, then we will publically announce the meeting for the 29th. I would anticipate that being a long meeting, and I would strongly ask, or if you can, and again, I'll go on the record. I've had a long conversation. We're going to try to institute some policies and procedures to get us out ofr rner~ b)(; l~·:tO 'clock. Ob.....-i~$l y , something like the Mooring Post,' hopefully we çan get it all resolved. I don't know, but. I'm not making any promises. We will try to move these things along as quick as possible. I also - 40 - Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/95 have one other bit of information I'm going to bring up in a public forum. I did have a conversation, today, with Paul Dusek, with regard to the Kladis. So I would like to go to Executive Session to discuss that particular situation. MR. FORD-I just want to refer to the 29th meeting. very best that I can. At this juncture, some happening with my family out of state, and I'm not can make an absolute commitment to that night. I'll best that I can. I'll do the things are sure that I do the very MR. CARVIN -Okay. MS. CIPPERLY-We need to know who can make it. MR. MENTER-The 29th is what day? MR. THOMAS-It's the Wednesday after Thanksgiving. MS. CIPPERLY-But the 8th and the 15th, if we need those two regular meetings, the 8th and the 15th are also both Wednesdays. MR. THOMAS-Do you want to just pass this down the table and fill it in if you can make it, on the days you can make it? MS. CIPPERLY-With any luck, we'll be able to cancel one of those. I mean, if we have five applications or something for November. MR. CARVIN-Well, if we can get, the way it is written, that we can hear these in a timely fashion. So if we can't get a majority or a good solid Board, then I would not be opposed to moving it into December, but we will have to listen to it at some point, gentlemen. MS. CIPPERLY-On the Mooring Post, especially, it would have to be, Jon Lapper said, 20 days after that 30 days expired or something that we had to have a. MR. CARVIN-Well, we had to do the SEQRA. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Yes. Well, that, we don't necessarily have to have a public hearing with that. So, I mean, that we can maybe come into compliance with, but again, I talked to Fred Champagne about getting another member, and the Town Board is moving right along on that, at top speed. Okay, but obviously it's coming up. Hopefully we can come t.o some kind of agreement here, or work something out. So if you can keep us posted, if you cannot make it. Please let Sue or somebody at Planning know. Okay. Having said that, I'd like to go to Executive Session. MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS ITEMS WITH REGARD , TO PENDING LITIGATION. THE KLADIS APPLICATION, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE MOTION TO COME OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 1995, by the following - 41 - Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/95 vote: AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE CORRECTION OFMINUTES¡ May 17, 1995: NONE ! ¡ :\ I. MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 17. 1995, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Karpeles: Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford, Mr. Carvin NOE 5 : NONE May 24, 1995: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 24. 1995, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Ford, Mr. Thomas, Mr.. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles June 21, 1995: Page 29, bottom of page, Mr. Ford, period at end of "lot as well", and cross off the rest; Page 44, this current "arrangement", not "residence", prior to that how had this house been occupied; Page 54, at the top, I don't want to be seen as being punitive, period, and cross off the r~st of that. Pick it up with "I can't do that"; Page 56, middle of the page, "he's up to seven feet wide on the cut in, not "on"; MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 21. 1995 AS CORRECTED, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Green, Mr. Ford, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Karpeles June 28, 1995: Page 39, top of first paragraph, you intended to utilize, and what plans, sib parts, you didn't utilize, not don't utilize; Page 40, first Mr. Karpeles, end of second sentence, the use is now, period MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 28. 1995 AS CORRECTED, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 1995, by the following vote: - 42 - ..- -""7 Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/95 AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Menter, Mr. Ford, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Green, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE July 19, 1995: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 19.'1995, Introdu.èed by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Ford, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE July 26, 1995: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 26. 1995, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adopt.ion, seconded by Chris Thomas: Duly adopted this vote: 18th day of October, 1995, by the following i' I' AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Green, Mr. Ford, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Menter July 27, 1995: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 27. 1995, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: Du.ly adopted this 18th day of October, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Menter, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Ford, Mr. Ca)*vin NOES: NONE I ¡ ~-: ' )1, On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Fred Carvin, Chairman i , - 43 -