Loading...
2009.07.22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/09) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING JULY 22, 2009 INDEX Sign Variance No. 36-2009 The Golub Corporation (Jim Miakise) 1. Tax Map No. 302.10-1-7 Area Variance No. 37-2009 Robert L. Kristel 14. Tax Map No. 239.8-1-38 Area Variance No. 38-2009 San Souci of Cleverdale, Inc. 19. Tax Map No. 226.12-1-43 Area Variance No. 39-2009 Debaron Associates by Debra Schiebel, 30. Partner Tax Map No. 239.18-1-47 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/09) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING JULY 22, 2009 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT JAMES UNDERWOOD, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JOAN JENKIN RICHARD GARRAND JOYCE HUNT MEMBERS ABSENT BRIAN CLEMENTS GEORGE DRELLOS LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’m going to call the July 22, 2009 meeting to order here, and first off, let me do a quick review of our procedures in general. For each case, I’ll call the application by name and number and the secretary will read the pertinent parts of the application, Staff Notes, as well as the Warren County Planning Board decision if applicable. The applicant then will be invited to the table and be asked to provide any information they wish to add to the application. The Board, then, will ask questions of the applicant. Following that, we’ll open the public hearing. I’d caution that the public hearing is not a vote, but it’s a way to gather information about concerns, real or perceived, and it’s a way to gather information and insight in general about the issue at hand. It should function to help the Board members make a wise, informed decision, but it does not make the decision for the Board members. As always, we’ll have a five minute limit on each speaker. So that basically tells us everything they want us to know in that five minutes. A speaker may speak again if, after listening to other speakers, they believe they have new information to present. Following that, we’ll read correspondence into the record, and then the applicants will have an opportunity to react and respond to the public comment. Board members then will discuss the variance with the applicant. Following that, the Board members will be polled to explain their positions on the application, and then we’ll close the public hearing, unless there’s a reason to leave it open, and that would be only if it looks like the application will be continued to another meeting. Finally we’ll have a motion to approve, disapprove or table and then we’ll vote on it. Okay. First off tonight, just for those of you that are here, we’re short Board members tonight. It’s summertime, people are on vacation. None of our alternates showed up. So you should keep in mind the fact that in order for your variance to pass it’s going to require at least a four to one vote. So at any point in time, if you feel, if there’s anybody that wishes to wait for a different evening when we have a full Board seated, you know, if that’s your prerogative, we’ll give you that option also, and I think I’ll remind people that before each item comes up, because some people aren’t in the room yet. Okay. AUDIENCE MEMBER-May I ask a question, the height of a fence on the property line? MR. UNDERWOOD-You’d have to ask, you can go over and ask Keith. He can fill you in with that. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Okay. NEW BUSINESS: SIGN VARIANCE NO. 36-2009 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED THE GOLUB CORPORATION (JIM MIAKISE) AGENT(S): MARCHAND JONES ARCHITECTS (MICHAEL KOPCHIK, RA) OWNER(S): GLEN STREET, LLC (BRIAN FIELDING) ZONING: HC-INTENSIVE LOCATION: 677 GLEN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES PLACEMENT OF 9 ADDITIONAL WALL SIGNS ON FRONT FAÇADE OF PRICE CHOPPER. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE SIGNS. CROSS REF.: SP 41-2009; SP 69-05; SV 7-2003 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: JULY 8, 2009 LOT SIZE: 18.79 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.10-1-7 SECTION CHAPTER 140 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/09) MICHAEL KOPCHIK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 36-2009, The Golub Corporation (Jim Miakise), Meeting Date: July 22, 2009 “Project Location: 677 Glen Street Description of Proposed Project: Note: Subject to new ordinance. Planning Board has made a recommendation to the ZBA concerning this Sign Variance. See handout. Applicant proposes placement of 10 additional wall signs and the relocation of 2 existing wall signs on the front façade of Price Chopper on State Route 9. Relief requested from number of allowable signs. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief for 8 additional wall signs and approval for the relocation of 2 existing wall signs currently installed on the façade of the Price Chopper Grocery Store west of State Route 9. Please note that 2 of the 10 new proposed wall signs are considered internal to the site and do not require a variance. Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to nearby properties may be created by the granting of this sign variance as the proposed signs are small in nature and the nearest public road, State Route 9, is over 400 feet to the nearest proposed sign. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The applicant could reduce the number of signs in order to be compliant or more compliant. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for what amounts to 10 additional wall signs or 1000% relief may be considered acute relative to the ordinance. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.Minor impacts on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action due to the highly commercialized nature of the district. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The alleged difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 41-09 Façade change/reconfiguration Pending SP 69-05 Renovations/alterations Approved 12/20/05 SV 7-03 Add 2 x 8 sign to existing 48 sq. ft. freestanding sign Approved 2/19/03 SP 22-98: Fence Approved 10/19/99 Staff comments: Per Chapter 140-6, “A business located on a parcel of property shall be granted a permit for two signs: one freestanding, double faced sign and one sign attached to a building (wall sign or permitted roof sign) or two signs attached to the building”. The parcel currently has 1 freestanding sign and 5 wall signs on the façade. The five wall signs and their proposed status are as follows: 1.Price Chopper / Market Center sign to remain as is. Compliant sign. 2.Pharmacy sign to remain as is. Compliant sign. 3.Starbucks sign to remain as is. Compliant sign. 4.Open 24 hour sign to relocate from left façade by south entrance to right wall adjacent to north entrance. Non-compliant due to proposed re-location. 5.Citizens Bank sign to relocate from left façade by south entrance to extreme south wall by building corner. Non-compliant due to proposed re-location. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/09) The applicant proposes 10 additional ‘Blade’ signs ranging in size from 10.67 square feet to 18.89 square feet. It has been determined by staff that the two blade signs as observed from the north and south elevations have no need for a sign variance as they cannot be viewed from a public right-of-way. This leaves 8 blade signs and the 2 relocated signs in need of a variance as proposed. SEQR Status: Type Unlisted” “Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form July 8, 2009 Project Name: The Golub Corporation Owner: Glen Street, LLC ID Number: QBY-09-SV-36 County Project#: Jul09-21 Current Zoning: HC-Intensive Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes placement of 9 additional wall signs on front façade of Price Chopper. Relief requested from number of allowable signs. Site Location: 677 Glen Street Tax Map Number(s): 302.10-1-7 Staff Notes: Sign Variance: The applicant proposes the placement of 9 additional wall signs on front façade of Price Chopper. Relief requested from number of allowable signs. The information submitted indicates there are 6 existing signs where the proposal is for a total of 16 signs. The existing signs include 5 wall signs and 1 free standing sign. The free standing sign is to remain as is where the wall sign includes the following: Open 24 hrs at 12.5 sq. ft., Citizens Bank at 32 sq. ft., Dairy at 10.67 sq. ft., Florist at 10.67 sq. ft., Deli at 10.67 sq. ft., Bakery at 10.67 sq. ft., Produce at 10.67 sq. ft., Seafood at 10.67 sq. ft., Bagel Factory at 18.89 sq. ft., Artesian Bread at 18.89 sq. ft., Custom meat at 18.89 sq. ft. and Café at 10.67 sq. ft. The applicant has indicated that the department signs will be surface mounted and not internally lit. The applicant explains that this signage package is currently being installed at their other stores. Staff recommends no county impact based on the information submitted according to the suggested review criteria of NYS General Municipal Law Section 239 L applied to the proposed project. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Warren County Planning Board, 7/8/09. MR. UNDERWOOD-I assume you’re Mike Kopchik? MR. KOPCHIK-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anything you’d like to present to us? I mean, we have the actual figures in front of us like you’ve got on your. MR. KOPCHIK-Yes I think it’s fairly obvious, although the one thing I’d like to point out, which may be more evident looking at the larger format drawing, is that as is referenced in some of the statement, Golub Corporation, the parent company of Price Chopper, has really developed this as a stylized design for their facility, and we don’t really view the individual department signs as actual signage. It’s viewed much more as a décor, similar to the dark red squares that appear on the upper canopy and fascia. The signs at a distance somewhat appear to be rectangular placards like that, and it’s a way of breaking up a large building, making it more interesting, providing a variety of colors. Secondly, when one changes from a driving mode to a pedestrian mode, it gives you a scale that’s a little more perceivable to a person who’s walking and up close to store, as opposed to the very large signs that become, you know, somewhat, you almost don’t see them when you get really close to the building. They’re up high and they’re very large. These smaller ones give you a scale that’s, relates more to the pedestrian person, and then talks about what is available inside the building in a generic format, not really in a, as a form of advertising or something like that. So that the general approach is not so much as additional advertising or signage as it is an overall décor, similar to the inside of the building when you walk in, where there is an enormous amount of visual information that obviously is placed in the general package of the overall building. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you guys have any questions at this time? MR. URRICO-When you say pedestrian, you’re talking about when they’ve left their car, or they’re walking past? MR. KOPCHIK-Yes, I think when you drive up on Glen Street from the building, I don’t think you can even make any of these signs out essentially. You pull in the parking lot, you get closer to the building, at some point you park, walk up to the store. I believe, or Golub Corp. believes that as you walk up to the store, the large Price Chopper sign that’s up on the front of the building, you don’t really see it anymore. It’s up high. It’s out of 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/09) your viewing plan. As you get up close, then you see these smaller signs, as you’re walking into the store. MR. URRICO-Now are they placed in proximity to the location inside the store? MR. KOPCHIK-Generally we try to put them on the correct side of the store, so that you have a sense of where things are inside. However, there’s also color issues that are involved, and also the size of the signs. Something like Sushi is fairly short. Whereas Prepared Foods would be a longer sign. So there’s an aesthetic issue about how you place them on the building. Obviously those could be arranged in a different fashion, relative to the columns, relative to canopy up above, and we’d try to work all of those different aspects together to come up a pleasing arrangement. MR. URRICO-I understand it’s a corporate scheme, but I’m trying to understand that a person that’s already parked their car and made a decision to go into the store, how is this going to help them? They’re already going into the store. So they’ve made that decision to shop at Price Chopper. MR. KOPCHIK-I wouldn’t say that it helps them. MR. URRICO-So it’s just there because Price Chopper has decided that this is going to be their image, and that’s what they want? MR. KOPCHIK-Again, in the form, as an overall décor package, in color, in scheme, in information that’s presented. I have to say, I guess, given some of the departments that are a little more specialized like Sushi or something like that, we wouldn’t put a Sushi sign on a building that didn’t have a sushi department. So there certainly is some information that’s being conveyed there. My personal opinion is that most people shopping are fairly familiar with the building and have a sense of what’s in there, and I think that’s the case with almost any, you know, retail establishment. There are, obviously, people coming from out of town that would benefit from some degree of information, but a large supermarket is going to have fairly typical offerings for the most part. MRS. HUNT-I have a question. The freestanding sign on 9, that is going to remain as is no, changes to that? MR. KOPCHIK-Right, no changes. MRS. JENKIN-And that has the Bank on it, correct? MR. KOPCHIK-It does. It says Price Chopper above and the Bank below. MRS. JENKIN-Right, and that’s, the Bank sign will stay there? MR. KOPCHIK-Yes, the Bank sign will stay there. Citizens Bank is on the building now. MRS. JENKIN-You’re right, it is, but it’s going to be moved. MR. KOPCHIK-Well, we could attempt to leave it, but if we left it where it was, it really wouldn’t fit in with the new décor that’s there. MRS. JENKIN-Right. MR. KOPCHIK-We have, at times, placed bank signs as one of the placard signs, delis, food service, whatever. It would have a different shape to it because it’s actually a tenant, effectively. I mean, it’s really another business that is within a building, much as if you had a strip mal with a whole series of businesses. These are actually businesses within this building. MRS. JENKIN-But because it’s on the freestanding sign already, then people know that Citizens Bank’s there. MR. KOPCHIK-I think it depends on which entrance you come in possibly. If you come in off Foster Avenue, you might not see that. MRS. JENKIN-It’s really our responsibility to grant the least variances possible, and it has been, all along Route 9, the Town has been endeavoring to keep the signs to the minimum. So that it doesn’t look like a strip mall all the way up, although it already does, 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/09) but new signs then come under the jurisdiction of less is better, and if there’s not any real purpose except an aesthetic purpose, to have the signs, then, it’s a hard argument to follow. I agree that, when I go to Price Chopper I know everything that’s in there, and it’s a wonderfully equipped store and it offers an awful lot, and I don’t know how much more I would gain from having all those signs out front, except that it’s going to actually clutter up the front of the building more. MR. KOPCHIK-I think that’s an opinion, with all due respect, your opinion, obviously. MRS. JENKIN-Yes. No, you’re right. MR. KOPCHIK-I also think, though, that the corporate identity is a valid issue, and as more and more of the stores are equipped with these signs, with the colors, with the overall design, that building effectively becomes an identity from a distance, close up or far away. For many years Price Choppers were a certain color scheme. They’re now transitioning to a different color scheme, and most entities, whether it’s Lowes or various other corporations, look for some identifiable colors and graphics that give them some identity without necessarily reading everything that’s on there, and I think that’s what is really, is what we’re really trying to do here is to keep a consistency that has been determined in recent years, and has been placed on most any building that we’ve been able to, in various communities. MR. URRICO-But you’re asking for an awful lot of relief here, is what we’re trying to say, and we’ve had other applicants, such as Wal-Mart, come in with excessive Sign Variances and with a corporate policy as well, and they’ve been willing to work with us to reduce the number of signs so that corporate policy doesn’t take the rule over, you know, our local ordinances. We’re trying to achieve some effect by minimizing signs, and what you’re saying is that Price Chopper seems unwilling to do that, which seems unusual for a company that’s based in this area. MR. KOPCHIK-I don’t believe I intended to say that. MR. URRICO-But that’s what you’re suggesting. MR. KOPCHIK-I think what I was suggesting is that they have a corporate identity that involves having these smaller signs. MR. URRICO-Are they willing to reduce the number of signs? Because that’s, I think, what we’re going to be heading to. MR. KOPCHIK-I was just seeing if one of Golub’s representatives was here. Let me initially say that they actually have 14 departments that they would try to put on the building, if it had all of the departments in it. This particular store being one of the largest ones they do, does have all the departments. So we’re less than that amount now, obviously, and we haven’t put as many on there as we could. We’ve spaced them out a little bit. I’m fairly certain that, as opposed to having nothing, the Golub Corp. would prefer to have at least some of these on there, because it is their identity. Obviously, if there were less than I’ve shown there, they still, it still carries the overall effect, and then I guess the question would be, can they be arranged in a fashion that still, you know, produces the overall effect, and conveys the information, and also satisfies the local ordinances and requirements. So I think certainly there’s the desire to work with whatever community that, you know, they’re trying to, I mean, they want to be a good neighbor and serve the community, obviously. MR. GARRAND-As Mrs. Jenkin stated, she made some pretty good points on this. Looking at these signs, there’s quite a bit of redundancy here, like Bakery, Artesian Bread, Bagel Factory. When I walk in there, the first thing I do is I go for the breads. I know where everything is. I don’t need three signs to tell me where the breads are in Price Chopper. It is pretty redundant, and also, given the color scheme in the building, I mean, that’s going to reflect a corporate identity in and of itself. Looking at this amount of signs here, also, you’ve got about the same amount of signs as the competition has in an entire strip mall, and basically all you’re talking about is a bank and a grocery store, as opposed to an entire strip mall which has several different storefronts. MR. KOPCHIK-Yes, and in answer to those two questions, the first I would suggest that it can be perceived that Artesian Bread is a very specialized item that would be desirable to be aware of as opposed to bakery. Some people would consider that they’re the same thing. Some might not, and that’s just individual’s opinion. The second question was, again, just quickly? 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/09) MR. GARRAND-The building is pretty much being identified, the corporate identity is going to be reflected in the color of the building in and of itself. I mean, you’ve got a whole bunch of Price Choppers all over the area with this same color scheme. I mean, it’s very recognizable. That, in and of itself, is going to, you know, tell people it’s a Price Chopper. MR. KOPCHIK-Well, at one time the identifying fixture on a Price Chopper was generally believed to be the glass reflective wall that is behind the Price Chopper sign, that entity on its own. The color of the building in the background tended to be white, light gray, something like that, and it would go away a little bit. This, obviously, now is trying to make the overall building a lot more substantial, more visible, more current, up to date, and again, all I can say is that this is an attempt at a corporate identity. As the Price Chopper sign is on the large marquee, the smaller signs are basically a distribution, or an additional set of information about what’s being offered in there, and I think it’s, I fully understand your point, and I think that it becomes a matter of opinion, as to whether it’s necessary or not, and from the corporate standpoint, it’s what they’re trying to achieve, and whatever they can do to get as close to that as possible within the rules and requirements of the various communities, they have stores in multiple states, and there obviously are all different types of ordinances and jurisdictions everywhere that they build, and we obviously have to deal with all of those, and we’re not going to do anything that is illegal or that we can’t do. That’s why we’re here, to request permission to do something more than what is the standard, and we understand that. That’s why we’re here. MR. GARRAND-If you take, for instance, a company like Shaw’s, Shaw’s supermarkets. Some areas, the zoning is less restrictive, and you’ll see them in a plaza and you’ll see half a dozen signs on the building, whereas in other communities you’ll see one singular sign, you know, representing the entire structure. I think that’s how they’ve dealt with a lot of different zoning communities. MR. KOPCHIK-My assumption would be that they make an attempt in most places, and they end up with what they end up with, similar to what I’m doing here, and, you know, I don’t disagree at all, but I think that’s what, I mean, what happens is there’s a general aesthetic that these types of businesses fall into, and you can see, in all the big box stores, and grocery stores, department stores, whatever, there tends to be a direction they move in, and a lot, you know, a lot of the different businesses follow a trend, but also try to establish some kind of identity for themselves, and in any instance where we’re trying to build a project, renovate a project, whatever, we try to get as close to the so called standard, at the time, that we can, and again, that’s why we’re here, to see what we might be able to do. MR. UNDERWOOD-Part of the problem that we run up against is that, you know, if we open the gate and allow this to happen, you know, everybody else who owns a standalone building in Town is probably going to come in. I can just see, you know, Staples coming in, Hannaford, you know, the sky’s the limit on the numbers because, you know, drugstores could want to put more signs on, you know, and we’ve run up against this previously where they’ve wanted to put every single service that they offer on the side of the building and it just becomes something that’s totally at odds with what the Code book says at the present time, you know, and I think in reading in the Staff Notes where you’re allowed two signs on a building, there’s a reason for that, and I think Price Chopper, you know, if you go back to the days of Central Market, if you want to go back to ancient history, it, through the years, has sort of changed over from your local supermarket. It’s gravitated towards more high end and, you know, the new design appears to me to be more of an upgrade. It certainly looks better than the white building that exists on site now, you know, with that darker color on the outside there, and the signage isn’t anything that I would consider to be gaudy, since it’s not lit up, but at the same time, we don’t have anything that accommodates what you’re requesting here in this form, and even though it might not be from a subtle point of view from out in the parking lot something that’s offensive to people, because it’s not lit up, I don’t know how we can accommodate such a grand request of 1,000% on this. So I don’t know what we can do here, if there’s going to be any movement from you guys. It sounds to me like everybody still thinks there’s way too much, and I don’t know how to proceed with it, based upon that. MR. KOPCHIK-Is there a discussion of less than what we’ve requested, as opposed to none? 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/09) MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, we can do that, but I think what I’ll do is I’m going to open up the public hearing, because, you know, maybe there’s somebody from the public that wants to speak on it, and I don’t know if we’ve had any correspondence either. So I’ll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-Is there anybody here from the public that wishes to speak on the matter? Do we have any kind of correspondence, Roy? MR. URRICO-I think just the Planning Board thing. Do you want to read that? MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Now, the Planning Board reviewed this last evening, and I assume you were here with them? MR. KOPCHIK-Yes, sir. MR. UNDERWOOD-And I’ll just read in the motion. Now, in the past, we’ve always sort of done simultaneous review on these projects, and because it’s an Unlisted action, you know, it’s going to require a little bit more thoroughness on our part, too, but the motion last night from the Planning Board, and I’ll read it into the record, says, “MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD TO THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGARDING PRICE CHOPPER’S SIGN VARIANCE NO. 36-2009 REGARDING 10 ADDITIONAL WALLS SIGNS. CONSIDERING THERE ARE THREE BUSINESS UNITS WITHIN THE BUILDING, PRICE CHOPPER, CITIZENS BANK AND STARBUCKS, THAT THE APPLICANT IS IMPROVING THE COLOR SCHEME OF THE BUILDING, THAT THE DISTANCE OF THE SIGNAGE FROM THE ROAD, THE FACT THAT THESE SIGNS ARE NOT ILLUMINATED, WE WOULD SUPPORT A VARIANCE, AS THE APPLICANT WILL BE BETTER ABLE TO DEFINE THEIR SERVICE OFFERINGS AND IMPROVE BRANDING”. Now, we sort of had a little discussion prior the meeting, and you were sort of privy to that, too, and I think the general consensus was that they were looking at it from a Site Plan Review point of view only, which really didn’t address what the zoning code allows within the community, and as far as the zoning code goes, you are allowed two signs on the building for each business, and, you know, we’ve gotten into this argument before. I don’t know what kind of, you know, how much freeway you’ve got here with the Board with five of us sitting here tonight, you know, whether it’s going to go anywhere, as far as, you know, some of the signs have to go and some of them can stay, or none of them can stay. I don’t know what you guys want to do. Do you want to make any suggestions, or anything that you would feel would be more reasonable? MR. OBORNE-If I may suggest, maybe you would wish to direct the applicant to make a suggestion. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. One of the suggestions I would make is this. I mean, everybody’s been to Price Chopper. If you live here, you’re pretty familiar with the layout in the stores, and I don’t know how much change over you’re going to do internally, but the internal signage usually directs people pretty well to the different parts of the store, and as far as putting all the services on the outside of the building there, I think we’re going to get into a situation where, as has been mentioned, that it’s pretty redundant. I mean, everybody knows, when they go there, there’s going to be a bakery, and that they have good bread, as has been mentioned, as well as all these other services that you wish to put on as advertising on the side of that building there, and even though it’s subtle, I don’t know how we could consider it be anything more than more signage, you know, a sign is a sign, there’s no getting around it. So, the only other thing I would say is this, you know, if we were going to look at malls and standalone large structures like this differently, you know, if we were going to approach it from like say a Downtown type mentality, the butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker, different businesses all in a row, in a block of buildings, you know, this is like a whole block long building here, in essence. It’s a pretty large, long wide building. As has been suggested, the signage isn’t lit up. That’s the other thing to consider. So, if we want to look at it in a new light, despite the fact that we have a Code that tells us we can’t, you know, I mean, that’s the other direction the Board can go with it. MR. URRICO-Well, if you look at it in the strict application of the test, can the benefit be achieved by other means feasible. Yes. We can reduce the amount of signs. That’s one. Will there be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or nearby properties. Well, in this case, we’re talking about commercial properties in similar situations. If we allow an excessive amount of signs, what does that do to future 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/09) applications from those businesses? So there is sort of a standard that’s being re-set, if we allow this to happen as presented. Whether the request is substantial. Well, 1,000%, we do agree that’s substantial, and then about it being self-created, I think we all understand that it is, and then also in the Town Code book regarding variances, it does say the Board of Appeals may vary or alter or adapt the strict application of any of the requirements, in the case of exceptional physical conditions whereby such strict application would result in substantial difficulty or unnecessary hardship that would deprive the owner of a sign or reasonable use of the same, and I don’t think that’s the case here. So I think we are looking for some sort of reduction. I mean, our charge is to grant minimum relief, and you already have that. You already have the minimum relief with what you have. So anything above that is why you’re here, I guess. MR. KOPCHIK-Yes, understood. MR. URRICO-So we need to look at where you can reduce things. MR. KOPCHIK-Well, the first, I guess the first question that I would ask, or possibly that I’d pose, is that the small signs on the building perhaps could be restricted to the more specialty items that are in there. I think, as you’ve said, everybody knows they have a bakery. They don’t necessarily know that they have the Artesian Bread. I think they don’t necessarily know there’s a florist inside the building. Bagel Factory, maybe that’s a unique item. The café could be considered to be a unique item. So perhaps there are some, a portion of these that identify something that is a little more specialized, that might not be found in a typical grocery store and might be felt to be warranted to be placed on the outside, and perhaps we could come up with a number of those that could be arranged in an acceptable manner. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. In opposition to that, though, why couldn’t you just, at the entranceway, have a whole series of those signs overhead, so when you walk in you see Artesian Bread, Bakery, etc., etc.. I mean, you always have a long walkway as you come in to those stores, you know, that everybody has to, because you’ve got to have a place to put the carts and all that, and I think as people walk in that long sort of hallway, as you come in to the inside there, I think that you could accomplish the same thing internally in the store, not having more signage on the outside. I mean, I don’t disagree that what you’re trying to achieve is unreasonable, but we don’t have the ability to accommodate it, you know. MR. KOPCHIK-Well, I understand the point you just made, and I don’t disagree with it, except that it doesn’t take into account, again, the corporate image question, and I realize that’s a problem here, and that’s really what we’re facing is whether we can come to, I’m assuming, some kind of an agreement for a partial allowance for a portion of these, versus none, or versus all. MRS. JENKIN-One thing I notice here when I’m looking at the picture of the front, you have, to the right you have one sign going over three sections. MR. KOPCHIK-Yes. MRS. JENKIN-And then you have the same length of sign just going over one, which, to me, doesn’t really, isn’t really proportional, but I’m thinking, if you could rearrange your signs, and if you had one large sign to the right, and then maybe two on the other side, of the very specialty items that you wanted, that would have three extra rather than eight extra right on the front. MR. KOPCHIK-Right. What I would say to that, what you’re not seeing, possibly on the small drawing, it might show up better on the larger one, or it may require a perspective to perceive it. That front canopy, as you go to the right or left of the main central glass portion, the first half of it on the right side projects out beyond the last half. So it really is effectively two sections, which is why there are two on there. One is on the portion that projects out in front, the other steps back slightly. So there really are sort of, there’s a foreground and background on the. MRS. JENKIN-The red one is back farther than the? MR. KOPCHIK-This portion of the canopy right here actually is almost even with this front glass. MRS. JENKIN-Is forward. Okay. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/09) MR. KOPCHIK-When you get to here it drops back a couple of feet. So effectively it’s two pieces. That’s why it’s hard to put one right in the middle of those two sections. Now, it might be possible to have one here, one here, and, I don’t know, three over, small ones in this section or something like that. Again, it’s an aesthetic that you’re trying to achieve, but that’s the issue, the reason this is set up the way it is is you actually have two canopies here, and then there’s one here with another step back there. So you’ve really got two sections on each side, but that doesn’t mean that we couldn’t come up with a way of reducing the number. It would be difficult to have just one, well, not impossible, but again, to balance it you need to try to make it work visually. MRS. JENKIN-Well, that would cut down the number. MR. KOPCHIK-Well, I think when I was talking before about possibly considering the much more specialty items, I think the number I was throwing out there was probably about half of what’s on here right now. MRS. JENKIN-And if you wanted, you said they were design features with the different colors. You could have just plaque there with no sign on them. If you wanted to keep all those colors as they’re running across, it could be just a plain plaque filling up the white part, without signs. MR. KOPCHIK-I suppose that’s true. MRS. JENKIN-There could be just a design feature on the building, and then you’d be able to, you would follow with the design that you say are on other Price Choppers now, but wouldn’t have signs. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Why don’t you let me ask the Board members how many signs extra you would allow. I mean, Joan, do you have any idea in mind of what you would think would be reasonable? All, some, or none? MRS. JENKIN-Well, I think some. I was, the reason why I asked about Citizens Bank is because I thought, since it’s on the freestanding sign, maybe you could just eliminate that one, and that one’s already, well, because you’re moving it it’s part of the variance as well, but if you don’t need it. MR. KOPCHIK-What I don’t know for sure is, given Citizens is a tenant of Price Chopper, I don’t know if their lease would allow their sign to be removed. It might be able to be incorporated into one of the placard signs, as opposed to being, again, another way to maybe reduce the overall number, possibly. Again, we have done that before. MRS. JENKIN-So I guess my answer is some. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think if we’re looking at them, let’s just look at the ones that are going to be carved in signs with the gold leaf, the ones that are going to be on the building. Everybody’s got the picture in front of them here, and the ones that I’m hearing that you want to keep are you want to keep Florist where it is. MR. KOPCHIK-I would necessarily keep it right where it is. We might have to, again, rearrange them depending on the aesthetic, right. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. You can jockey, but I’m saying Florist you want to keep, you want to keep Bagel Factory. I don’t know if that’s an important one. It seems like it would be. MR. KOPCHIK-I did mention that one. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. The Artesian Bread, you wanted to keep that one also. MR. KOPCHIK-Yes. MRS. JENKIN-One other comment I have about the grocery store. Everybody, everyone does know that you do sell custom meats. I mean, that’s one of your trademarks. So maybe that isn’t a necessary thing, and produce is, again. MR. KOPCHIK-Well, that was, I didn’t mention that one. That was one that I had left out because I assume most people are well aware of that. MRS. JENKIN-Right, and produce is another thing that you certainly. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/09) MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So everybody can look at their thing there. Citizen Bank would stay where it is. I mean, I agree with you, I think Citizen Bank has to stay on there. It’s a separate business. Staff Notes identified that, too. MR. OBORNE-Also a Sign Variance was approved for that. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MR. KOPCHIK-I would mention, though, there is a possibility I could incorporate the Citizens into one of the placards if it helped with the overall aesthetic of the project. MRS. JENKIN-It would show up more. MR. KOPCHIK-Well, no, I think basically it would show up more the way it is because they’re separate from everything. They appear to be much more isolated as opposed to part of those other offerings. MRS. JENKIN-I see what you mean. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Do you guys want to put some input in as to which ones you think, do you agree with them on those, or none of them, or what do you think? MR. URRICO-I’ll let Joyce go first. MRS. HUNT-Yes. I agree with the Florist, Artesian Bread, Bagel Factory. I think café, too, not all supermarkets have a café, but the others are, you know, what you expect when you go into a store like that, and I kind of like what Joan said, put up the sign but no writing, because I think it’s a very attractive building, I think. I think the façade looks lovely, and maybe just have the signs, the colors, but nothing on them. MR. KOPCHIK-I don’t know if Price Chopper would actually choose to do that, only because it’s a very odd, it would seem like something’s missing than if that’s actually up there. I’d hesitate to say it, but it probably would look better if there was nothing as opposed to having a placard without any of the lettering on it. MR. GARRAND-You’re looking for a direction. I think the current request is excessive. I see some redundancy here. I definitely think that the number of signs could definitely be cut in half, that’s not including the two existing wall signs. I think they could do without about half of these signs. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So which ones would you accept? MR. GARRAND-I don’t feel comfortable telling them which signs to have and which ones not to have. I’m not a designer. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m with Rich. I really don’t feel comfortable in designating certain signs as acceptable or not acceptable. I would say at this point that I’m unhappy with the number of signs being requested. They already exceeded the numbers with what they already have on the building, and I understand we’re going to keep the 24 hour sign. I understand we’re going to keep the Starbucks sign. The Pharmacy sign has to be up, from what I understand, because it is a pharmacy. Right? MR. OBORNE-I’ve never gotten corroboration for that. MR. URRICO-And Price Chopper market, I mean, they already have, the Citizens Bank is fine. We’ve approved that, but I think above and beyond that, I think I’m going to stick to my guns and say where we stand right now is where I want to stay. MR. UNDERWOOD-What would happen if you hung the signs internally inside of the window so you could still read them through the window, same size, hanging down on hooks or whatever. MR. KOPCHIK-I don’t believe I have enough windows to do that. MR. UNDERWOOD-But you’ve got one, I’ve got one, two, three, four, five six windows there, you know, in totality, that are internal, and then you could take the other ones and 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/09) put them in, when you walk in like I suggested, hanging them from the ceiling or whatever so you see them as you’re walking in to pick up your cart. MR. KOPCHIK-Price Chopper used to put some signage in the windows with neon. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right, I remember that. MR. KOPCHIK-Which they felt was necessary to see it. The neon was very visible, and they don’t do that any longer because it’s not in vogue sort of thing. I don’t really believe hanging that behind the glass, it’s going to be visible. I would much rather try to reduce the eight signs on the front of there to possibly four or five, if I could, as opposed to putting them elsewhere. For me, just aesthetically, it really becomes a some or none, and I can appreciate your position fully, but to try to carry some of that corporate identity, if I could have some of them on there, again, half of them, four or five, as opposed to eight, and I think I would try to place the more unique items up there, as opposed to the general items that people do know are in the store, obviously, but again, I don’t want to create a burden for the community that is, you know, going to be problematic for. MRS. JENKIN-Well, that’s the problem. MR. KOPCHIK-Yes, understood MRS. JENKIN-It is. MR. URRICO-Well, we are minus two Board members. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Why don’t we do this. I’m going to poll the Board so you have an idea of what everybody really thinks in final here, and what I’m going to suggest to you is this. You’re going to need at least a four to one vote in the affirmative tonight to get this. It doesn’t look like that’s going to happen. So I would suggest to you that we go through the process here, and then we table this so you can come back when we’ve got seven Board members here because you’re probably going to have better luck. MR. KOPCHIK-Can I ask one question? MR. UNDERWOOD-Certainly. MR. KOPCHIK-Is it a vote on what you see before you or on a reduction in the number of signs? MR. GARRAND-The application we’re looking at is basically all we can vote on right now. We can’t vote on a hypothetical right now. We can give our opinion. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I mean, we can talk about what may or may not be eliminated as far as signage, but, you know, it would have to be. MRS. JENKIN-We could just table it, right? MR. UNDERWOOD-We could table and it would have to be substantially less than what you propose. MR. KOPCHIK-Well, right now I would offer four or five, as opposed to, I can do four. What I would do is one on the right, one large on the right, one large on the left, and two small on the left, is what I think I could manage. So it would be one probably here, one here, and then probably two little ones. MR. JENKIN-Well, that’s four, then. MR. KOPCHIK-Which is four, which would carry the perceived aesthetic, I think, reasonably. MR. UNDERWOOD-And we would leave those four up to them, their choice of what they presented. MRS. JENKIN-And you said you would consider putting the Citizens Bank one, so that that would? MR. KOPCHIK-Well, the Citizens Bank, I would still want to be out on its own, I think, just the four signs that make sense in here. The problem is I don’t know that I can put 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/09) Citizens on that placard, because that is the tenant issue that I have to go over their lease with now, and what I’m also trying to accomplish here is I have to go back to Site Plan Review, because last night all they did is a recommendation, and it’s obviously our own doing, but we’re trying to actually do this work before this winter. We’re trying to do this work this Fall. So I was actually hoping to have Site Plan Review in late August, and be able to pull a permit to begin this work, because we’re going to start to run out of time. So that’s just the other point I just want to throw out there. If there’s anything we can do to try to move the process ahead, or just (lost words) we’re looking for. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Why don’t I do this, then. I’m going to poll the Board. Joan, why don’t you go first. Would you accept the four signs as he’s proposed? MRS. JENKIN-I think I would accept four. MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, that to me, those seem to me to be the sticking point for all of us. MRS. JENKIN-But then we still will have to table it, won’t we? MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, not necessarily. I’m polling you to see what you guys want to do. MR. KOPCHIK-I would have to re-do this drawing and I assume resubmit for Site Plan Review with the four signs. I don’t know if I could also give you copies, you know, at that time, and you could review them. MR. GARRAND-I would say that’s a much more reasonable number. I just don’t know if I feel comfortable voting on something without actually seeing it and seeing the dimensions of each placard. MR. KOPCHIK-They’re actually on the drawing already. MR. GARRAND-Yes, but the final proposal. MR. KOPCHIK-They wouldn’t change. It’s just a question of where they were, but just in terms of the size of them, they’re all on there. MR. GARRAND-Yes, because some of these are 14 feet long, 8 feet long. I mean, what would we end up with as, you know, all 14 foot long signs? MR. KOPCHIK-What I had suggested was that I would have a large on this side, a large on the other side, and we have two small ones. That’s an aesthetic balance issue. MRS. JENKIN-So you wouldn’t change the size of the signs as they, you’d keep those, when you say there’s two large, that’s the size they’re going to be, and then the two small ones. MR. KOPCHIK-Right. There would be large one on the right side, a large one immediately on the left of the main entrance and then two smaller ones on the extension of the canopy. MRS. JENKIN-Right. That’s what I understood. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. The two large signs and the two smaller ones, you’re eliminating one large and five smaller ones, and I would go along with that. MR. UNDERWOOD-Roy? MR. KOPCHIK-We would also be eliminating the two small ones on the ends that aren’t in question. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I can’t have you interrupt when I’m trying to poll these guys. MR. KOPCHIK-Okay. I’m sorry. MR. UNDERWOOD-Roy, go ahead. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/09) MR. URRICO-That’s just still too many for me. MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s still too many? MR. URRICO-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I think that what we’re looking at here, then, is you’re coming back, and I don’t know if it’s going to affect the Planning Board at all going forward, as far as this goes, for signage? MR. OBORNE-I think that we may be able to, if you table him to your first meeting in August, and if he gets approval of that, he can move on to the Planning Board on the th 25. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’ll just make the comments. I think the color change in the building is a positive thing. I would have to agree with Roy and Rich that, you know, we’re still looking at excessive requests here for signage, and I don’t think that we want to make this the pattern of what we’re going to see in the future for every other business in the community, because it’s going to open up the gate, and we’re going to be inundated with everybody else coming in here. I don’t care what care what argument you make against that, but I really think that’s going to be the case for us going forward. I would agree that the signs are subtle enough that I would probably go along with the four, but I’m not going to do it because I think I’d rather have seven Board members here it’s important that we have a full Board because we’re the ones that are going to be dealing with the future, and it’s not just you. That’s not to say that you’re not going to get this or anything either. So I’m going to table you to the first meeting in August. th MR. OBORNE-Which would be the 19. th MR. UNDERWOOD-The 19. MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 36-2009 THE GOLUB CORPORATION (JIM MIAKISE), Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: th 677 Glen Street. Tabled to the first meeting in August, August 19. The applicant should come back with four façade signs. We’re going to allow two large ones, two small ones, as has been suggested, and show us what the pattern’s going to look like and which ones they’re going to be. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of July, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Clements, Mr. Drellos MR. UNDERWOOD-So everybody save all your things. So if you want to get back to corporate and decide what you want to include or not include. MR. KOPCHIK-Would it be helpful if I provided you with new elevations with four signs on it? It’s very easy for me to do that. MR. UNDERWOOD-No. I mean, I think you, yes, or just cut and paste them or, you know. MR. KOPCHIK-A drawing for each of you? MRS. JENKIN-Please. MR. OBORNE-To make sure that the applicant is clear, are you directing him to come back with four façade signs? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, four façade signs. MR. OBORNE-Do you understand that, Mike? MR. KOPCHIK-Yes, two large and two small. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/09) MR. OBORNE-All right. So it’s a reduction of six altogether? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. OBORNE-You’re going to allow him to move the two. MR. UNDERWOOD-We’re going to allow two large ones, two small ones, as has been suggested. I mean, that was, and show us what the pattern’s going to look like and which ones they’re going to be. MR. OBORNE-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. MR. KOPCHIK-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 37-2009 SEQRA TYPE: II ROBERT L. KRISTEL AGENT(S): ROBERT L. KRISTEL OWNER(S): JANET M. KRISTEL ZONING: WR, CEA LOCATION: 17 CAYUGA DRIVE, TAKUNDEWIDE – CLEVERDALE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 766 SQ. FT. SECOND FLOOR ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 766 SQ. FT. HOME. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF.: BP 2008-427; SPR 42-2009; BP 2007-660 SEPTIC ALT.; BP 2008-118 RES. ALT. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: JULY 8, 2009 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 0.05 ACRES +/- TAX MAP NO. 239.8-1-38 SECTION: 179-3-040A NEW CODE ROBERT KRISTEL, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 37-2009, Robert L. Kristel, Meeting Date: July 22, 2009 “Project Location: 17 Cayuga Drive, Takundewide – Cleverdale Description of Proposed Project: Note: Subject to new ordinance. Planning Board has made a recommendation to the ZBA concerning this Area Variance. See handout. Applicant proposes construction of a 766 sq. ft. second floor addition to an existing 766 sq. ft. home. Relief requested from front, side and rear setback requirements. Further, relief requested from minimum floor area ratio requirements and relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure. Relief Required: Applicant is seeking 20.24 feet of front, 20.63 feet of rear, 2.41of east side and 2.33 of west side setback relief per §179-3-040. Further, the applicant requests relief for a proposed FAR of 67% or 1,029 square feet above the maximum allowable 22% FAR requirement or 504 square feet for this application per §179-3-040. Finally, relief requested for the expansion of a non-conforming structure per §179-13-010. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor changes to nearby properties are anticipated as a result of this proposal. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Alternatives to an area variance appear to be limited due to the constraints and size of the lot. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 20.24 feet or 67% of relief from the 30 foot front setback requirement per §179-3-040 may be considered moderate to severe relative to the ordinance. Further, the request for 20.63 feet or 69% of relief from the 30 foot rear setback requirement per §179-3-040 may be considered moderate to severe relative to the ordinance. Additionally, the 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/09) request for 2.41 feet or 20% of relief from the 12 foot east side setback requirement and 2.33 feet or 19% from the 12 foot west side setback requirement per §179-3-040 may be considered minor to moderate relative to the ordinance. Finally, the request for 1029 square feet or 204.7% relief from the allowable floor area of 504 square feet may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2008-427: 766 sq. ft. residential addition, pending BP 2008-118: foundation alteration, pending SP 42-07: 766 sq. ft. residential addition, pending BP 2007-660: septic alteration, approved 12/11/07 Takundewide Resolution 9/23/2003 Staff comments: According to the Takundewide Resolution, Memorandum of Understanding between the Planning Board and the Takundewide HOA dated September 23, 2003 any proposed cottage expansion would be limited to 1,536 square feet (see attached). As this application calls for a 1532 square foot single family residence, it would be considered FAR compliant with regards to the above mentioned Memorandum of Understanding. SEQR Status: Type II – no further review necessary” “Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form July 8, 2009 Project Name: Kristel, Robert L. Owner: Robert L. Kristel ID Number: QBY-09-AV- 37 County Project#: Jul09-16 Current Zoning: WR, CEA Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 766 sq. ft. second story addition to an existing 766 sq. ft. home. Relief requested from setback requirements, expansion of a non-conforming structure. Site Location: 17 Cayuga Drive Tax Map Number(s): 239.8-1-38 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes construction of a 766 sq. ft. second floor addition to an existing 766 sq. ft. home. Relief is requested from side yard setback where 12 ft. is required and 10 ft. is proposed. Rear yard setback where 12 ft. is required and 10 ft. is proposed and relief is requested for expansion of a non-conforming structure. The information submitted indicates the Homeowners Association would not object to the second floor addition as it is the same as other additions in Takeundewide. The plans show the location of the home, elevation drawings, and photos of similar homes in the area. Staff recommends no county impact based on the information submitted according to the suggested review criteria of NYS General Municipal Law Section 239 L applied to the proposed project. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Warren County Planning Board, 7/8/09. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. We’re pretty much in the loop here as these routine projects occur up on Takundewide. I don’t think that yours really is any, you know, they’re all subtle little differences which is kind of nice that they’re not going to be cookie cutters of each other, but at the same time, tell us about what you propose to do and what upgrades you’re going to make. MR. KRISTEL-What we’d like to do is add 766 square feet to our existing 766 square feet. It would be, I have submitted the plans to the Homeowners Association, and they have approved the plans. I believe you all have copies of the plans, and it would, actually not create an undesirable effect in the neighborhood. It would actually add to the neighborhood from what we already have. We need the extra room, bedrooms. It’s very tight where we are. MR. UNDERWOOD-The assumption of the Town was that, when they made the Memorandum of Understanding was that these things were all going to be sort of done at some point, you know, we didn’t set any kind of deadlines or anything like that for them to occur, and it also, I think, recognized the ones that were set further back from the lake, as yours is. I think you’re 500 feet back from the lake. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/09) MR. KRISTEL-Yes, we are. MR. UNDERWOOD-So that’s pretty significant. Certainly we consider the ones up closer to the lake to be, you know, having greater effects on the future of the lake as far as that goes. I would assume yours is not going to be one of the ones that’s attached to the new septic system up there? MR. KRISTEL-We just had a new septic system installed in the Fall of 2007, and it was inspected by the Town of Queensbury, and, if necessary, we will use the community septic system. If not, then we would not. I don’t know. MRS. JENKIN-How many bedrooms do you have now? MR. KRISTEL-We have two bedrooms now. MRS. JENKIN-So you’re going up to three, four. MR. KRISTEL-Four, four bedrooms. MRS. JENKIN-So is the septic system large enough to accommodate those? MR. KRISTEL-Yes. The current system, the system that was there for the two bedroom was a 500 gallon tank. We have a 1250 gallon tank, and the leach fields have been checked. So, I would say that it’s more than adequate for the size of bedroom. The other point I would like to make is that we only use this property on the weekends. So, it’s not going to become our permanent residence, and it’s closed down for six months thth out of the year also. We’re usually not there from October 15 until, well, May 15 really. MR. UNDERWOOD-Keith, so is the septic system, the leach field, is that all on file with the Town as to where that is? MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I mean, that’s all been checked through. MR. OBORNE-Yes, and when I do my Site Plan Review, that will be part of my review. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Because I think one of the questions is probably going to come up with Planning Board is, you know, all these buildings up here are very tight to each other. Obviously there’s not really any place for, you know, a secondary field, if need be, you know, in the future, if the old one is used up at some point in time and they all have a limited lifespan as far as that goes, but at the same time, if it’s a brand new system that’s going to accommodate it, that’s a plus, I would imagine. MR. OBORNE-I would imagine so, yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, other ones we’ve looked at before, you know, tried to push through the use of their 1950’s systems and we did not accept that. MR. GARRAND-Keith, this was approved for a four bedroom, two bath house? MR. OBORNE-This has not been approved yet. MR. UNDERWOOD-Is there any sense that that’s too much of a request, like three bedrooms might be less, better or, you know, I mean? MR. OBORNE-That’s your question. I mean, I really don’t know. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, because I think, ultimately, you know, if you’re looking at the plot of the whole area up there with all those homes together, if they’re all still going to be on their individual systems, and it looks like everything further away from the lake still is. MR. OBORNE-I would add to say that if it wasn’t compliant at a four bedroom, he would have to tie into the community system. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Is there going to capacity in the community system to do that? 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/09) MR. OBORNE-I believe there is. There is capacity and there’s also expansion capacity also. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Yes. MRS. JENKIN-Is the expansion capacity, is that taking into consideration that in the future all these homes would be two story? MR. OBORNE-My understanding is, yes, ma’am, it is. MRS. JENKIN-Really? Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think that was ultimately what was looked for, you know, in the process, although it was going to be a slow hook up deal. MR. OBORNE-Right, and they were concerned about the ones that were closer to the shoreline from the get go. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure, but I’m just thinking in a sense, you know, like as it now is, they tend to be seasonal usage, or weekend usage, with shutdown for most of the year, but, you know, as, who knows what the future holds. If they all suddenly appeared to be year round usage, it would have a dramatic change as far as the effluent going into the ground and things like that. Okay. Why don’t we do this. Obviously this project doesn’t differ that greatly from the other ones that we previously have gone through. So why don’t we open up the public hearing and let anybody from the public speak. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on the matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-Any correspondence at all? MR. URRICO-I do not see any correspondence at all. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. Then I guess maybe what we’ll do is, do you guys have any questions you want to ask or anything you want to go through? I think that, you know, this is still coming in under the old Code or this is all new Code now? MR. OBORNE-This is new Code. MR. UNDERWOOD-This is new Code. One of the questions, and I wrote it on sort of a lengthy analysis of what I was thinking of in the long term was that previously, everybody recognizes that most of the area up there is grass, you know, with no vegetation, no trees or anything like that, and I think there was a sense, in this go round, with the adoption by the Town Board unanimously of the new Code, that we were going to look at some differences up there as far as shoreline. This is pretty far set back from the shoreline, but nonetheless is still part of the Homeowners Association, and I think that they were looking for the establishment of waterfront buffer zones, vegetation plantings and things like that, and I don’t know, I don’t want to hold you up, because I know you want to get your project done, and I don’t think we want to do that in this case here, but at the same time, I would like the Planning Board to review, under the new regulations, when they go through the process here, I would like them to review what changes we would like to see as far as vegetation goes. In the past, you know, we’ve had a few shrubs planted underneath the eaves of these homes, and that seems to be all that was done. I think I’ve made the suggestion before that down on the waterfront, even though you don’t live down on the waterfront, that the Homeowners Association as a whole can come up with a long term plan for re-vegetation of the whole area down there, that grass is no longer acceptable, and that they’re going to have to develop a sense of what kind of a waterfront buffer zone would be acceptable, and that that should occur some time in the near future. It’s certainly not your responsibility as an individual. MR. KRISTEL-As an example, I would say in the past year we have planted at least eight to ten trees more in the area, and more and more we try to do eight to ten trees every year, and I don’t know if any of the Board members have been up there, but you can see that there’s new plantings of trees all over. MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I’m just thinking in a sense that if we are going to have all these homes eventually turn to year round usage, that having more vegetation there is going to take up some of the, you know, excess effluent that’s going to be added to the ground, and, you know, keep it from getting to the lake. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/09) MR. KRISTEL-I don’t know if you noticed, I don’t want to interrupt you, but if you notice where our building is, it’s like in the center of, and there’s like nothing around us. I mean, we’re sort of segregated. You see it right there. We’re sort of out in the open. We’re not really like next door to any one of the other properties up there, which makes it nice for us. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I guess I’ll close the public hearing, then. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-And poll the Board. I’ll start with you, Rich. MR. GARRAND-I think this is pretty much the same application we’ve been seeing all along for these places, in which we entered into that agreement with the HOA. I would like to see him tie into the community septic should this ever become a year round home. Is that possible? MR. KRISTEL-That would be acceptable. Well, we don’t really have a basement. We have a poured foundation, but there’s no basement, and there’s no insulation. I doubt very much if we would ever become a year round home, but if we did become a year round home, I would definitely tie into the system. I mean, if we were going to make that our permanent residence and live there the majority of the year, I would definitely tie in, but right now, like I said, it’s a weekend residence, and I don’t think we’d ever fill up the 1250 gallon tank that we have, but I would not want to overuse the leach fields, because that’s going to be a detriment not only to us but all the neighbors. I would definitely tie into the community septic. MR. GARRAND-Yes. You can tell when it’s August down there. MR. KRISTEL-Right, right. Definitely. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. We’ve been through this before, and though the setbacks seem rather severe, the property line is close to your house, and you have property all around you that belongs to the Association. MR. KRISTEL-Yes. MRS. HUNT-I would be in favor. MR. UNDERWOOD-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. This seems to be in line with what the Homeowners Association had put together in the Memorandum of Understanding. So I think the request is a good one. I would be in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joan? MRS. JENKIN-I agree with the rest of the Board members. I certainly would approve the motion. MR. UNDERWOOD-And I, too, will go along with it. It seems pretty routine to us at this point in time, and I think you recognize the importance of, you know, the comments that were made about effluent and things like that, and as long as you’re willing to stipulate. My only question to you would be why is it you’re not going to jack it up and put a foundation under it? You just didn’t want to do that at this time? MR. KRISTEL-No, it’s just a summer cottage, and that’s how we wanted it to be. It’s a summer romance. What can I tell you. MR. UNDERWOOD-So in reality this one really does sort of maintain the summer usage, you know, by keeping it that way, I think it’s less of an impact than what we’ve seen on the other ones. MR. OBORNE-It’s also an expansion as opposed to a tear down and rebuild. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Sure. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/09) MRS. JENKIN-You have a fireplace, then? MR. KRISTEL-We have a fireplace. Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Does somebody want to do the resolution on this one? MR. GARRAND-I’ll do it. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 37-2009 ROBERT L. KRISTEL, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joan Jenkin: 17 Cayuga Drive, Takundewide – Cleverdale. The applicant is seeking 20.24 feet of front relief, 20.6 feet of rear, 2.41 feet of east side, and 2.33 of west side setback relief per 179-3-040. Further, the applicant requests relief for the proposed Floor Area Ratio of 67%, or 1,029 square feet above the maximum allowable FAR. Requirement for 500 square feet for this application, per 179-3-040. Finally relief requested for the expansion of a nonconforming structure as per Section 179-13-010. Considering this Area Variance, on the balancing test, whether benefits can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. The way this was set up, basically these homes, they own the home, the property surrounding it is owned by a Homeowners Association. Homeowners aren’t necessarily given the option of purchasing additional property to increase their property size. So they’re definitely going to be needing relief no matter what they do. So there are very few other means feasible for the applicant as far as expanding this structure. Will this produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood or character of nearby properties? No, it will not, and it will be right in character with the other properties on site. This request may be deemed substantial if you’re looking at it on a percentage basis. Relative to the amount of property on site, I do not believe it is substantial. Will this request have adverse physical or environmental effects? I do not believe it will have adverse physical or environmental effects in any way. The homeowner has agreed to tie into the community septic system should this ever become a year round residence, and this request may be deemed as self-created since it is the applicant who wants to expand the size of this home. So I move that we approve Area Variance No. 37-2009. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of July, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Clements, Mr. Drellos MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re all set. MR. KRISTEL-Thank you very much. MR. UNDERWOOD-Good luck with it. AREA VARIANCE NO. 38-2009 SEQRA TYPE: II SAN SOUCI OF CLEVERDALE, INC. AGENT(S): JONATHAN C. LAPPER; ESQ. BPSR OWNER(S): SAN SOUCI OF CLEVERDALE, INC. ZONING: WR LOCATION: 92 MASON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CHANGES TO AN EXISTING RESTAURANT TO INCLUDE A 217 SQ. FT. EXPANSION OT THE KITCHEN AND RECONFIGURATION OF LOWER PORTION OF BUILDING FROM FOOD TAKE-OUT TO CHILDREN’S GAME AREA. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. FLOOR AREA RATIO, FRONT SETBACK, SIDE SETBACKS AND PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS AND MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: SPECIAL USE PERMIT 45-2009; BOH 14, 2009 SEPTIC VARIANCE REQUIRED; BP 2006-499 C/O; BP 97-629 REBUILD HOUSE DUE TO FIRE; BP 6231 YR 1980 SIGN; BP 5999 YR 1979 SEPTIC; BP 5784 YR 1979 REST. & BAR WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: JULY 8, 2009 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 0.27 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.12-1-43 SECTION: 179-4-090; 179-3-040A; 179-13-010 NEW CODE JON LAPPER & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/09) Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 38-2009, San Souci of Cleverdale, Inc, Meeting Date: July 22, 2009 “Project Location: 92 Mason Road Description of Proposed Project: Note: Subject to new ordinance. Planning Board has made a recommendation to the ZBA concerning this Area Variance. See handout. Applicant proposes changes to an existing restaurant to include a 360 sq. ft. expansion to the kitchen and bathroom areas and reconfiguration of lower portion of building to food take-out and childrens game area with seating. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for the expansion of a non-conforming structure per §179- 13-010. Further, the applicant requests 6 feet of east front setback and 4.2 feet of north side setback relief per §179-3-040. Additionally, the applicant requests 177 square feet of additional permeability relief per §179-3-040. Moreover, the applicant requests 360 square feet additional Floor Area Ratio relief per §179-3-040. Finally, the applicant requests a reduction from the minimum site parking requirement of 29 spaces down to 15 parking spaces per §179-4-090. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to moderate impacts may be anticipated as the expansion may increase pressure on the already limited site parking. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The limitations of the lot appear to preclude any feasible method by which to avoid an area variance. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 6 feet or 20% relief from the 30 foot west front setback and the request for 4.2 feet or 21% relief from the 20 foot north side setback per §179-3-040 may both be considered minor to moderate relative to the ordinance. Further, the request for 176 square feet of additional permeability relief may be considered severe relative to the ordinance (note: existing site permeability is 32.1% while the percent permeable requirement for the WR Zone is 75% per §179-3-040). Additionally, the request for 360 square feet of additional FAR relief may be considered severe relative to the ordinance (note: the existing site Floor Area Ratio is 0.35% square feet or 1,525 square feet above the allowable FAR of 0.22 or 2,587 square feet for this parcel). Finally, the request for a reduction in parking of 15 spaces or 52% from the required 29 spaces per §179-4-090 may be considered moderate to severe relative to the ordinance. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Any decrease in permeability on this parcel may not be considered a positive to the environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SUP 45-09 360 sq. ft. restaurant expansion Pending BOH 14-09 Holding Tanks Approved 6/15/09 BP 97-629 Rebuild house due to fire Approved12/8/97 BP 6231 1980 sign BP 5999 1979 septic BP 5784 1979 Restaurant & bar Staff comments: The applicant applied for and received a variance from the Sewer Disposal Ordinance by the Town Board of Health on June 15, 2009 (see attached). The holding tanks are located under the west parking area. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/09) Per the Fire Marshal’s Office, total occupancy for the restaurant not to exceed 105. According to the applicant, 8 employees work on any given shift. The resulting parking requirements are calculated as follows: 8 employees / 2 = 4 spaces 97 seats / 4 = 25 spaces Total = 29 spaces Note: The plan as drawn does not include a handicap loading area as required by BCNY. As a result, one space will be lost due to this requirement. Further, 2 handicap spaces must be provided per code. SEQR Status: Type II – no further review necessary” Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form July 8, 2009 Project Name: San Souci of Cleverdale, Inc. Owner: San Souci of Cleverdale, Inc. ID Number: QBY-09-AV-38 County Project#: Jul09-19 Current Zoning: WR Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes changes to an existing restaurant to include a 217 sq. ft. expansion to the kitchen and reconfiguration of lower portion of building from food take-out to children’s game area. Relief requested from expansion of a non-conforming structure. Floor area ratio, front setback, side setbacks, and permeability requirements and minimum parking requirements. Site Location: 92 Mason Road Tax Map Number(s): 226.12-1-43 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes changes to an existing restaurant to include a 217 sq. ft. expansion to the kitchen and reconfiguration of lower portion of building from food take-out to children’s game area. Relief requested from expansion of a non-conforming structure. Floor Area ratio where 22% is maximum allowed and where 35% is proposed, front setback where the structure sits on two road fronts with 30 ft setback is required and 30.5 ft. from Mason St. exists and 25.4 ft. from Cleverdale is proposed, side setbacks where 20 ft. is required and 9.2 ft. exists, permeability requirements where 75% is required and 30.4% is proposed of which 32.8% existed and minimum parking requirements where 32 is required and 16 is existing. The applicant has also received approval from the Town Board to install a holding tank system. The plans show the existing and proposed layout. The applicant has indicated the addition will assist with appearance and operations where any changes to the building would require relief due to the current codes. Staff recommends no county impact based on the information submitted according to the suggested review criteria of NYS General Municipal Law Section 239 L applied to the proposed project. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Warren County Planning Board, 7/8/09. MR. UNDERWOOD-Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper, project attorney, with Larry Clute, the owner of San Souci, Tom Nace, the project engineer, and Scott Parker, to my left, who’s the manager. I’d like to start out, as I did last night with the Planning Board, to kind of put this in kind of historical and zoning context for where we are and how we got here. The San Souci has existed on Cleverdale since approximately 1914, and obviously that was before zoning. Larry needs to make what you’d have to agree are minor changes, 177 square feet of permeability, meaning footprint addition, and that plus the second story is 360 square foot. That is very minor, in terms of a project, in terms of the size, but it’s very important in terms of the operation of this facility. What he’s doing is adding handicap bathrooms or making the existing bathrooms handicap compliant. The kitchen is very small and inadequate. So there’s a small bump out to the kitchen, upstairs, and beneath that is a walk-in cooler which is needed for this operation, and that’s all that we’re doing with that expansion. Previously, Larry went to talk to the Planning Department, a year ago, and was told that it would be a Use Variance because it’s a nonconforming use. So any expansion of a nonconforming use would require a Use Variance, and obviously this wouldn’t meet the requirements, the financial requirements, for a Use Variance, but nevertheless he had the need to upgrade the kitchen area and the bathroom. Because the Town was going through a re-zoning, we met with the Town Board and explained this, and the Town Board was unanimously supportive of this, and it’s for that reason that the new Town Code allows this use as a special use permit use. So that change was specifically made, at our request, to deal with this minor change to the project. At the same time, knowing that we would have to go through a Site Plan Review and seek now Area Variances, Larry said, okay, what do I need to do to justify these improvements that I need. So in terms of incorporating into this project what we’re putting on the table, and what we think are positive impacts on the neighborhood and the environment are, One, replacing an antiquated septic system with the septic holding tanks. We’re on a peninsula. There’s obviously water in close 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/09) proximity on three sides. Putting in holding tanks can only be viewed as a positive impact on the environment. It’s a financial impact on the applicant because they’re going to have to be pumped out every week and a half during the busy season, but that’s something that they’re willing to do. In terms of the permeability issue, the project has been designed as required by Code so that there’s now a stone retention trench that accommodates the 177 square foot of additional impermeable. So that is covered, and in terms of the visual impact, Larry is going to completely resurface the façade, all sides of this, and that we’ve submitted those drawings as well. Then, in terms of how it functions, Staff Notes were talking about parking, but there’s nothing that this project is going to create that’ll generate additional parking requirements. We’re not changing anything in terms of the amount of people that this restaurant will accommodate, and it won’t draw more people because there’s a walk-in cooler and because it has handicap bathrooms. It functions very uniquely on Cleverdale. This restaurant serves that community. I’m not going to say that nobody comes up from central Queensbury to go to San Souci, but it’s rare. They don’t have docks, like some restaurants on the lake. People don’t come by boat. People, it’s the people on Cleverdale that walk or drive their car. They make it work, in terms of jockeying for a position with parking, and sometimes they double park and they move their cars when necessary, but that’s how it’s always been and that works, but again, we’re not going to be creating more of a parking demand, and we think that on balance, this is a good project and it’s just necessary for them. So we hope that the Board views it that way, in terms of the balance, you know, rather than the Area Variances, in terms of just looking at the numbers. Obviously it’s a small parcel. I want to just add that the standards that are just recently imposed, because now it’s a Waterfront Residential, now it’s a permitted use. So we’re looking at those setback requirements. Those are all setback requirements applicable to residential development, 75% permeability. There’s nowhere else in Town where you have any kind of commercial use that would have 75% permeability. It doesn’t matter here because it’s a pre-existing use on a pre-existing lot, but in terms of, just that standard, it’s not a realistic standard anywhere else in the Town, and in terms of the setbacks, same thing, I mean, this is all existing. We’re glad that it’s no longer a Use Variance issue, that it’s now a permitted use, but in terms of those area requirements, we’re stuck with the lot and the building that we have there, and we hope that you see that this is the absolute minimum request that we could ask for in terms of an expansion, and it just really cleans things up. So, with that, I’ve got Tom Nace who can answer any design questions, Larry and Scott any operations questions. You tell us. MR. UNDERWOOD-The holding tanks was really the only option that was given to you by the Town? Is that where that came from? MR. LAPPER-We proposed that, because it just, I mean, you can’t come up with a compliant system here. This is, you know, this was. MR. UNDERWOOD-I would assume that, you know, you’re going to have like hours, that you’re not going to have the septic truck pulling up at lunch time when you’re trying to serve lunch outside. That’s probably something you’re going to have to like choreograph to minimize the impact on the neighbors, too, right? LARRY CLUTE MR. CLUTE-Yes. We’re going to try and keep it off the weekends and keep it to morning hours. Kind of restrict it to like two hour window, unless absolutely necessary, and the actual restaurant doesn’t open until three, but really, no matter, you still take into consideration, I’m in a residential neighborhood here. So we would definitely restrict it, try to restrict it to a certain day, and try and keep like an eight to ten or even a ten to noon kind of a window, and that be the end of that, so try and keep it to a minimal. MR. NACE-Also the fact that they have three separate tanks will give them the flexibility of scheduling pump outs or putting the pump out off for a day if necessary, to get it off the weekends. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure, as long as you’ve got the capacity, you’re not going to let yourself get behind the eight ball on that. As far as the actual operations, I would assume that you’re not going to increase your business by doing any of this. It’s just going to be an upgrade of the façade? MR. CLUTE-The actual façade and the kitchen area. The seating, the Sans it’s really going to change. I can’t do anymore seating, nor am I attempting to do anymore seating, and even this improvement, to be honest with you, this is a complicated operation, as Scott, I’m sure, can attest to, but it’s existed. It is fun. I like the establishment, and the 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/09) neighborhood, without a doubt, likes the establishment, but this addition really would be largely, we would benefit largely, just that additional kitchen space would be an immense improvement for our purposes, and obviously for the residents who happen to use this as their family room, so to speak. MRS. JENKIN-Why do you say it’s complicated? MR. CLUTE-We’re trying to operate out of a camper sized kitchen, and running a restaurant. MRS. JENKIN-The existing kitchen is complicated. MR. CLUTE-It is. I’ll be honest with you. I own this place, and I have no idea, I have no idea how these guys do what they do. It is unbelievable. It’s too small, way too small. MRS. HUNT-I have a question. There was a note on the notes from the planning that the plan does not include a handicap loading area as required by BCNY. Are you going to have that? MR. LAPPER-Yes. We looked at that, and there’s room to add that. We have to go to Site Plan. MRS. HUNT-I noticed you have the handicap bathrooms, which is good. SCOTT PARKER MR. PARKER-We actually do have people in wheelchairs that come in now, that can come through our side entrance. We do plan on adding a small ramp there, but we do have people that come in now but cannot use our restrooms. MR. LAPPER-But we saw that, and when we get back to the Planning Board, we’ll add the unloading area next to one of the spaces. We’ve looked at where we can fit that. MR. UNDERWOOD-As far as the parking goes, I would assume there’s times when it’s busy and people can’t find a place to park now even, but at the same time, is that going to really mess things up by having less parking than you have, or do you get mostly walk in? MR. LAPPER-There’s not going to be any less parking. MR. CLUTE-There is no less parking, and again, there’s no one particular facet that, I mean, as owner, I’m absolutely shocked by this place, that it does function as well as it does, but obviously it’s grown with the neighborhood, or the neighborhood’s grown with it, vice versa, and they make it work, and I couldn’t tell you how. It’s just absolute magic. I mean, the parking in cooperation. There’s some people that walk. There’s keys left in cars. They’re double, triple parked, and none of this meets nowadays codes, but it functions, and it functions very well, and very much appreciated. So, again, with the small kitchen, I don’t know how it does it. With the minimal parking, I don’t know how it does it, but it does it. MR. UNDERWOOD-The only thing that I can think of that’s similar is the Docksider down on Glen Lake, and they’ve got more room than you’ve got. So I can understand where you’re at. MR. URRICO-Will the take-out area create anymore parking, or less parking? MR. CLUTE-No, to be honest with you. The intent is to try, how do I want to say, the upstairs during the busy times, it’s packed. It’s very difficult to move on in there, and so if a family comes on in and they place this take-out order, they have to try and mosey through maybe 10 deep through this lounge, really difficult. Not that we aren’t doing it, again, we have the magic going on. So we’d like to offer the option of being able to divert that pick up, so that they’re not sitting there trying to gain the attention of say a bartender, but parking would be no different. Most of them, they’re coming off the boats, off of Mooring Post, and they’re walking up the road to their homes, and they’re grabbing their take-out as they’re heading home, but the idea of the take-out is actually for the mom and father and kids rather than having to come into that lounge and try and get their take-out. They can just go right up to the window and be gone. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/09) MR. URRICO-Any idea of what the percentage of walk-ins are compared to the people that drive up? MR. CLUTE-I don’t. Maybe Scott might know. MR. PARKER-I’d say we’re probably 50/50, because our parking lot is so small. We don’t, it’s always said when people come in, geez, I thought the place was packed. The parking lot’s full. So our parking lot always fills up before our restaurant does. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anymore questions from you guys, or shall I open up the public hearing? Okay. I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak? Please raise your hand, and I’ll have you come up one at a time. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED GINNY BLINSTRUB MRS. BLINSTRUB-I’m Ginny Blinstrub. I have a letter here from my husband who was called out of town. My home is alongside of the San Souci. To Whom It May Concern: The Town of Queensbury Planning and Zoning Boards, from John Blinstrub, 331 stnd Cleverdale Road. I apologize as I am unable to attend these July 21 and 22 hearing, due to a previous work commitment in Buffalo. However, I would appreciate my comments being heard. In regards to the matter concerning the San Souci Restaurant, 92 Mason Road, Cleverdale, and their plan for expansion and building and grounds improvements, the San Souci is an excellent neighbor. My wife, Ginny, and I live seasonally, May through October, three to seven days per week, immediately adjacent and bordering the San property to its south. In the time the current owner, Clute, and his manager, Parker, has operated the establishment, we have had no complaints. There have been many improvements to their building, grounds, and their business since their tenure began. There are no noise issues, no garbage or debris issues, no delivery truck issues, no complaints about loud patrons leaving the establishment in the late evening. It is mine and my wife’s opinion that the current owner/manager and their employees obviously take great care to ensure that their clientele respect their neighbors. The same could not always be said for previous owner Collins, especially toward the end of their tenure there. The San has already made improvements to the building and grounds and they should be encouraged and allowed to continue their plan work and minor building and expansion. A well maintained San is a great benefit to the community of Cleverdale. As an example of the manner in which the San is run and maintained, numerous times houseguests of ours have marveled at how quiet and unassuming a restaurant of that size and of such close proximity actually is. When Clute and Parker first took over, they made a point of coming to our home and meeting with us and asking us of any issues we may have had in the past. As indicated above, they corrected all past issues and have continued to maintain those high standards for years now. At that time, they also inquired if we would support improving the landscaping of their grounds between their building and our home, namely removing scrub brushes and large pine trees that had damaged both our properties on numerous occasions, and replacing a common patchwork six foot high privacy fence that separated our properties, along our common our 150 foot border. Upon consideration of losing some shade, we opted to gladly support the improvements because of the damage those trees had caused far outweighed any shade benefits and a great improvement a new fence would be over the unsightly leaning fence that continually deteriorated from year to year. If there would be one complaint, I suppose it would be that fact that we have had to endure all of 2009 to date without a privacy fence between our properties. As I understand it, Queensbury has asked the San to cease all work until these hearings could be had. Lack of this fence m makes it very, very uncomfortable for us as the primary gathering place happens to be our side yard, that immediately adjoins the San parking lot. Hopefully following these hearings, a new fence can become the San first priority and be reestablished immediately, so that we can once again enjoy our privacy for the remainder of the summer, not only from the view of the San patrons but also all those who drive or walk up and down Cleverdale and Mason Roads. In closing, we urge the respective Queensbury Town Boards to support and approve the San Souci in their efforts to improve their building, grounds and business. Thank you for the opportunity to opine in this matter. John and Ginny Blinstrub. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Anybody else? JOHN HOWLETT 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/09) MR. HOWLETT-Good evening. I’m John Howlett, Hunter Lane. I certainly can’t speak as eloquently as the previous speaker. I’m not a nearby or neighbor resident, but I’m a frequent traveler to the area, and enjoy dining at the restaurant almost once every week. I certainly encourage you to accept the proposals for improvement. A lot of them are long overdue. Previous owners have let this rather historic and major social center of the area fall into some area of disrepair over the years, and the new owners are doing a wonderful job in trying to improve that. It is a unique facility, somewhat of a very well accepted and well used social center for the year round residents, and equally as popular with the summer residents as well. I encourage them to continue to push for the improvements and would hope that you would accept them as well. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Anybody else from the public wishing to speak? JAMES FINNECY MR. FINNECY-My name is James Finnecy. I live at 82 Mason Road in a residence adjacent to the San with two non-buildable lots intervening. I guess I would say, up front, that I think everybody who is in business, has a business, certainly should be able to earn a living, as long as they abide by the existing regulations and respect their neighbors. Certainly we know that Cleverdale, I don’t have to remind you, but I will just a bit, residential community, about two miles peninsula heading out into the lake. The last half a mile there is about 100 residences, a third of which are full time. Speed limit on Cleverdale Road is 25 miles an hour. Speed limit on Mason Road is 30 miles an hour, and I would say that probably half of the people, the vehicles, don’t observe that speed limit. That’s an issue for all of us who live in the area, because people do a lot of walking there, and that’s a reason why a lot of people live there. My home is on the interior. It’s not a waterfront, modest home, about 1600 square feet. I’ve lived there, as I said, I guess, about 15 years. I’d like to describe a weekend activity there. I walked around, biked around the area over the weekend, and very busy time up there. I would guess, in that last half a mile, there may be two or three vehicles at each residence, in addition to the owner’s vehicles that are there. So there’s a lot of traffic on the summer weekends. Last Friday I was sitting out on my patio, late in the afternoon, and this happens almost every afternoon, there’s a big 18-wheeler tractor trailer drives by that comes from, after delivering food service to the restaurant. It happened to make two trips around. I’m not sure why last Friday, but two trips around. Shortly after, the 18-wheeler, two fairly large beer delivery trucks drove by, and there are a lot of beverage deliveries each week up there, and certainly that’s necessary when you have a commercial activity, but again, this is a residential community. One of the things that I see, as I come out of my residence, look up there. There used to be six or eight tall spruce trees between, just at the edge of the San Souci property and the next property down, that used to hide all of the air conditioning and other utilities that are now sitting outside the structure. Those of you who may have driven by the property saw that the property on the south side is gray. The other three sides are brown. There’s a couple of big splotches of brown paint on that side. It’s not the most, the neatest property on the peninsula, but that’s what it is. So, again, I guess my conclusion is that since Cleverdale is a residential area, and because vehicle traffic is already high, any modification to a commercial establishment that are likely to increase traffic should not be permitted, and additionally, the Town’s floor space ratio requirements are an important criteria for zoning, and really should be enforced, so as not to lose the character of the neighborhood that exists there. So, I thank you for the opportunity to speak, and await your response. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Anybody else from the public wishing to speak on the matter? Come on up. CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. We had spoken with the applicant’s representatives earlier. We had some questions regarding the wastewater system. I think they have been addressed, but as I heard the presentation, I was thinking about how the project could be improved. These may be more Site Plan issues, but I know you guys do take these thoughts into consideration in possible recommendations. Obviously if you are going to be bringing in the holding tanks, there’s going to be some grading work, earthwork. Permeability’s been mentioned here a couple of times, and concerns, and as they take a look and do their earthwork and work around the site, if there could be improvements to the drainage, to address possibly some of the runoff. They’re addressing the runoff from the addition with a stone trench, but, you know, they’ve got a sketch that shows some green area. If those could be incorporated to direct some runoff and utilize that green area, you know, to, again, utilize 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/09) that permeability, try to get some of that runoff into the ground, that’s simply a suggest, I think, could be made to possibly enhance the area. That’s all. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Anybody else from the public wishing to speak on the matter? Any correspondence? MR. URRICO-Yes, there is. “To Whom It May Concern: I am writing to express my support of the Sans Souci improvement project. I have been a resident and business owner in Pilot Knob for 24 years. The Sans Souci is a meeting and a gathering place for all the people in the area. They come to celebrate birthdays, weddings, holidays and they come to grieve on sad occasions. I have never seen any other restaurant where people from all walks of life get along together so well. They share one common love, and that is Lake George. Several years ago before the current management bought the Sans there was talk of turning it into an apartment house. Everyone in the community would say, “Where will we meet and socialize?” Fortunately that did not happen. The current management does an excellent job. The food is great and the restaurant is always clean and neat. They also have a great work ethic, being very careful not to serve alcohol to anyone who has had too much. If you have not been to the restaurant, it might be a good idea to stop by for dinner before you make any decisions about their future. You will encounter a lot of happy, fun loving Lake George people who interact incredibly well. Sincerely, Michael J. Smith Pilot Knob Marina” This is to Keith Oborne. “As a neighbor and customer of the Sans Souci Restaurant I, in general, support the application of the Sans Souci that is before the Board. I believe the enlargement of the small kitchen will result in better service for the Sans existing customers and better working conditions for the staff. I don’t know the particulars of the request for relief of permeability requirements. I support this only insofar as it does not affect the water quality of the lake. Patricia L. Burke 67 Mason Road, Cleverdale, NY”. “Dear Keith Oborne: As a very near neighbor of the Sans Souci, four doors away, I support their upgrading efforts. I applaud the approval to change their septic system to holding tanks, to protect the Lake and to protect our neighborhood. From what I see of their application to the Planning Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals, it looks like improvements that should increase our enjoyment of the Sans Souci, especially making the kitchen better. My husband and I like the Sans Souci, and enjoy having it so near. It is a convenience and feels almost like our neighborhood club. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Rosemary Pusateri 75 Mason Road, Cleverdale, NY 12820” That’s it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Do you guys want to come back up, please. I guess the only commentary you need to really go on would be the truck traffic and I would assume, you know, from our standpoint, that the truck traffic has been present for many years, it’s not something new or something that’s greatly changed, but anything you want to add to that? MR. LAPPER-It saves the neighbors more trips to Hanneford because these guys bring it in by truck, but we don’t think that the project’s going to increase business. I mean, that’s not the goal. It’s just to make it a little bit more efficient inside. You’re not going to, 360 square feet isn’t going to set the world on fire, but it is important to them, but I think that, in the big picture, that this really functions as a place for the neighbors. So it’s not a threat to the neighbors. I mean, it’s not that people are coming in from the outside and impacting them. It’s that the neighbors are all using it, which is why it’s so successful as a business, but also why it’s really a minimal impact. So the truck traffic shouldn’t change. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Do you guys have any other questions? MRS. JENKIN-One question that the gentleman brought up was are you planning to do anything to the back of, you’re doing the front façade. Are you going to also paint the back of the building or do anything like that? MR. CLUTE-He was actually referring to the side of the building, but, I mean, to be honest with you, all four walls, yes. I intend on re-facing, re-roofing, completely. MRS. JENKIN-The whole building? MR. CLUTE-Absolutely. MRS. JENKIN-Good. MR. CLUTE-The side that he was referring to, with the large trees, indeed there were six to eight trees, but they were in bad shape, and as the previous comments were telling 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/09) you, we took them down because they were actually starting to come down, and then not only were the trees in place, but there was a pretty dire bad shape fencing. We’d like to re-establish that. I’m not sure of the vegetation. The fencing’s definitely going up, but also want to re-establish some greenery, some trees within that area, just to re-establish what we can as far as the green area is concerned. MRS. JENKIN-So is the fence down now? MR. CLUTE-It is. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. MR. CLUTE-Yes. I’ve been, I mean, I’ve had this for a while, and so I’ve been making site improvements, and at just that one point I was actually asked to actually stop, that this should be an overall project, and hence, I mean, and I’ve always wanted to do the addition, but the site improvements should be part of Site Plan Review, and so here I am. MR. UNDERWOOD-So the fence that’s got to go on the Blinstrub’s property line there, is that something that can go up immediately, Keith, if this gets the green light? MR. OBORNE-Yes, I would imagine. MR. UNDERWOOD-And that’s not going to need anything because it’s a replacement for something that was already there. MR. OBORNE-I think as long as it’s Code compliant. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Was there any sense that you wanted to put up a taller fence or anything to give them more privacy, you know, as they requested? MR. CLUTE-To be honest with you, having put a lot of thought, we’ve been communicating with them as best we can, with suggestions back and forth, the trees, when asked, you know, do you desire bringing these down, and the fence, and so the fencing design, we really haven’t gotten into it. I just established, have you been up there, Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. CLUTE-You see how it terraces down, and so obviously it’s not just a straight line of fencing. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. MR. CLUTE-So I haven’t really come to terms, but to them, the important part to them is the headlights at night, and so there might be a need for maybe being higher than the six foot, but I don’t really know that. MR. UNDERWOOD-I would think, you know, you could do like a, some of that high growing arborvitae that’s going to grow 20 feet tall in 10 years, that would make more sense. MR. CLUTE-See, that’s what I would prefer, to be honest with you. I’d like to do the six foot fencing, but I would like to avoid taller fencing. I’d rather see taller shrubbery. It just meshes with the neighborhood that much better, but the fencing is a nice, that’s a good divide, and that’ll be an automatic, but I think if we go over that height, I think the arborvitae is a better choice. MR. OBORNE-And I would say that, as you know, the Planning Board would probably appreciate any trees, especially certain members of the Planning Board. MR. CLUTE-Absolutely. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. Any other questions you guys have? MRS. JENKIN-Well, there was one other comment made about the runoff. MR. CLUTE-We’ll certainly look at that before we get back to the Planning Board. It’s just a hard site because there’s just not a lot of green space there, but there are probably some things, might it be possible to put in a rain garden. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/09) MR. NACE-It might actually be possible to put something in the parking lot, but we will look at that. MR. LAPPER-Okay. Like some infiltration underneath the gravel. Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-And you guys are on lake water up there like everybody on the point? MR. CLUTE-Yes, we are. MR. UNDERWOOD-Nobody’s on a well. So there’s not any concerns about that. MR. LAPPER-There’s a UV system, obviously. MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s what I thought, sure. MR. LAPPER-And chlorine. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. If you guys don’t have anymore questions. LEE TABNER MRS. TABNER-May I ask a question? MR. UNDERWOOD-Certainly. MRS. TABNER-Is there anything in any Town law, I am Lee Tabner. I live across from the San Souci. I have lived next door to a house being built. We are now on our fourth year of construction. I have lived with excavators, jackhammers, every piece of equipment that you can think of, five trucks for the landscaping, and I just want to know if there’s anything we can do about not having this done in July or August? MR. LAPPER-Sure. They’d like to do this before next season. MRS. TABNER-Yes, but not during the summer. MR. LAPPER-No. MRS. TABNER-I’ve had trucks. MR. LAPPER-We won’t even be at the Planning Board until the end of August. So this certainly won’t happen. MRS. TABNER-But is there any kind of a rule? I mean, most places in Florida, or in resorts, if you’re doing anything to a condo, there’s nothing to be done while people are there. They take months that people aren’t there. So if there’s anything that we can ever do so that we don’t have July and August construction. MR. LAPPER-We would just agree to that as a condition, hands down. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MR. URRICO-You’re talking about in general, though. You’re not talking about just this project, right? MRS. TABNER-Well, I don’t want them doing this in July and August. MR. URRICO-Well, they can agree to that, but we can’t make that assumption for other businesses. MRS. TABNER-I don’t know why not. MR. URRICO-Because we can’t. MRS. TABNER-I mean, why can’t you build in April and May and start again after Labor Day. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/09) MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I don’t think we can make the argument for or against it. I mean, I’m sure people would prefer, but building occurs, and re-building occurs, and of course when you’re in close proximity like up here, you’re much more greatly affected by it. MRS. TABNER-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-All I can say is, you know, it’s a matter of the contractor. MRS. TABNER-Seven thirty in the morning. MR. UNDERWOOD-Some guys get the job done and some guys don’t, you know, but I would assume that these guys have picked up on your commentary and will ensure that nothing big’s going to happen until Fall or something like that. MRS. TABNER-Okay. Thank you very much. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. All right. I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-And poll the Board, then, and I’ll start with you, Roy. MR. URRICO-I think there’s been a lot of thought that’s gone into this project, and they certainly have put together a plan that I can support. So I would be in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. I think it’s a modest change that you’re making, and certainly your nearby neighbors have no problem with it, and I wouldn’t either. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joan? MRS. JENKIN-I also agree. I think that when we look at the balancing test, it passes all the tests. So I think it’s a good improvement. It’ll be certainly much easier for having a larger kitchen and walk in closet, and handicap bathrooms, I think they’re all very positive changes that you’re making. So I would be in favor. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Rich? MR. GARRAND-Well, the applicants seem to want to do what’s in the best interest of the neighborhood and also counsel in their presentation answered all the questions I had, as well as Staff answered the pertinent questions I had. So I’d be in favor of this. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay, and since Samuel D. Champlain came down the lake, or at least sent some of his people down the lake, I think they’ve been stopping at the San Souci for about that long. So nothing really has changed except the mode of delivery probably, over the years. It’s a long term fixture up there. Everybody, I think, in the neighborhood appreciates it and probably there’s nobody in Town that hasn’t eaten there at least one time at some point in their lives. As far as accommodating the neighbor’s concerns, it looks to me you’re really going to go the extra nine yards on it, and it’s probably going to be a good thing. There’s substantial relief needed, but a lot of it’s already there. The subtle amount of addition that you’re going to add on the building is going to help the operations and streamline it for you. So that’s a plus for you guys, and I don’t think it’s going to affect, materially, the neighborhood by doing that either. So, the septic issue is probably a plus. I mean, it’s a little bit out there because it’s not something we usually see, but the holding tanks seem to be the logical solution, and I hope it doesn’t end up a nightmare with, if your business increases 300% or something, but I don’t think that’s likely. So, does somebody want to make the motion on this one? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 38-2009 SAN SOUCI OF CLEVERDALE, INC., Introduced by Joan Jenkin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 92 Mason Road. The applicant proposes changes to an existing restaurant to include a 360 square foot expansion to the kitchen and bathroom areas and reconfiguration of lower portion of building to foot take out and children’s game area with seating. The relief required. The applicant requests relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure per Section 179-13-010. Further, the applicant requests six feet of east front 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/09) setback, and 4.2 feet of north side setback relief per Section 179-3-040. Additionally, the applicant requests 177 square feet of additional permeability relief per 179-3-040. The applicant requests also 360 square feet additional Floor Area Ratio relief per 179-3-040. Finally, the applicant requests a reduction from the minimum size site parking requirement of 29 spaces down to 15 parking spaces per 179-4-090. The balancing test, the Board of Appeals shall balance benefit to the applicant with the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community. The Board shall consider whether the benefit can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. There really is no other means. They need the additional space in order to make the kitchen and make the restaurant more efficient, and changing to handicap bathrooms is definitely a very positive addition as well. Whether an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or nearby properties. It will actually be an improvement with the new façade and the painting and more landscaping. It will be a positive change. Whether the request is substantial. Obviously, with the size of the lot, it’s a nonconforming structure, and it’s very substantial, but it’s absolutely, it really is not important because the restaurant is there and the changes and the additions are going to be helpful for the restaurant. Whether the request will have adverse physical or environmental effects with replacing the sewage system with holding tanks. That is another positive, and it will probably help. Whether the alleged difficulty is self-created, in order to improve the restaurant, these improvements and the construction is absolutely necessary. So I move to approve Area Variance No. 38-2009. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of July, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Clements, Mr. Drellos MR. UNDERWOOD-See you later. MR. LAPPER-Thanks very much. AREA VARIANCE NO. 39-2009 SEQRA TYPE: II DEBARON ASSOCIATES BY DEBRA SCHIEBEL, PARTNER AGENT(S): MCPHILLIPS, FITZGERALD & CULLUM/HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S): DEBARON ASSOCIATES ZONING: WR LOCATION: DARK BAY LANE – LAKE GEORGE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,886 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SHORELINE SETBACK, REAR YARD SETBACK, AND MINIMUM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SHORELINE SETBACK, REAR YARD SETBACK, AND MINIMUM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS. RELIEF REQUESTED TO INSTALL INFILTRATION DEVICES (STORMWATER CONTROL MEASURES) WITHIN 100 FT. OF LAKE GEORGE SHORELINE. CROSS REF.: BOH 1, 2009; SP 46-2009; AV 11-2008 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: JULY 8, 2009 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 0.45 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.18-1-47 SECTION: 179-3-040; 179-4-050; 147-9B2D NEW CODE DENNIS PHILLIPS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 39-2009, Debaron Associates by Debra Schiebel, Partner, Meeting Date: July 22, 2009 “Project Location: Dark Bay Lane – Lake George Description of Proposed Project: Note: Subject to new ordinance. Planning Board has made a recommendation to the ZBA concerning this Area Variance. See handout. Applicant proposes construction of a 2,130 sq. ft. single family dwelling. Relief requested from shoreline setback, rear yard setback, and minimum road frontage requirements. Further, relief requested for the installation of infiltration devices (storm water control measures) within 100 ft. of Lake George shoreline . Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from the 50 foot required road frontage for one principle building per §179-4-050A. Further, the applicant requests 24.5 feet of shoreline setback relief and 23.3 feet of rear setback relief per §179-3-040. Additionally, the applicant requests 59.6 feet of relief for an infiltration device located east of the house and 48.8 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/09) feet of relief for an infiltration device located north of the house from the 100 foot minimum setback requirement for infiltration devices for major projects per §147-9. Finally, concerning an eave trench associated with the 100 square foot storage cabin the applicant requests 90.5 feet of relief from the 100 foot minimum setback requirement for infiltration devices for major projects per §147-9. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Moderate impacts to nearby properties may be anticipated as a result of this proposal as the potential for visual impacts to neighboring parcels may be increased. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Alternatives to multiple area variances appear to be limited due to the constraints of the lot. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 50 feet or 100% of relief from the 50 foot road frontage requirement per §179-4-050 may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. The request for 24.5 feet or 32.7 % of relief from the 75 foot shoreline setback requirement per §179-3-040 may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. Further, the request for 23.3 feet or 77.7% of relief from the 30 foot rear setback requirement may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. Additionally, the requests for 59.6 feet or 59.6% and 48.8 feet or 48.8% relief from the 100 foot minimum setback requirement for infiltration devices for major projects per §147-9 may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. Finally, the request for 90.5 feet or 90.5 % relief from the 100 foot minimum setback requirement for infiltration devices for major projects per §147-9 may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Moderate impacts on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated as the project proximity to the shoreline and the existing slopes may result in environmental degradation. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BOH 1-09: Holding tank, approved 1/5/09 SP 46-09: Major storm water project, pending SP 14-09: Major storm water project, recommendation to ZBA, 5/19/09 AV 11-08: Shoreline, rear yard, infiltration device setback relief and road frontage relief Denied 5/19/09 AV 1442: Shoreline Setback for seasonal dwelling Approved 2/21/90 SP 32-89: Recommendation to ZBA, reject variance application 12/19/89 Staff comments: Note that total building floor area, per §179-2-010 is defined as “The combined area of all square footage, as measured from exterior walls of all structures on the property, including all floors of the structures, garages, basements and attics with more than 5 feet of ceiling height and covered porches. Building square footage does not include: Open deck, docks and that portion of covered docks extending over water and on storage sheds of one hundred twenty (120) square feet or less. Any additional sheds will be included.” The previous application for this parcel was denied on May 19, 2009. The application before you is similar in nature with the difference being that all storm water controls are designed on-site and the house has decreased in size from 2,351 square foot, three story single family dwelling to a 2,130 square foot, three story single family dwelling. The reduction in size was accomplished by reducing the width of the house from 28 feet to 24 feet. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/09) SEQR Status: Type II – no further review necessary” “Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form July 8, 2009 Project Name: Debaron Associates by Debra Schiebel, Partner Owner: Debaron Associates ID Number: QBY-09-AV-39 County Project#: Jul09-14 Current Zoning: WR Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 1,886 sq. ft. single family dwelling. Relief requested from shoreline setback, rear yard setback, and minimum road frontage requirements. Relief requested to install infiltration devices within 100 ft. of Lake George shoreline. Site Location: Dark Bay Lane – Lake George Tax Map Number(s): 239.18-1-47 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes the construction of a single-family residence, 860 sq. ft. (footprint) to include a first floor of 849 sq. ft., second floor of 568 sq. ft. and basement 469 sq. ft. for a total of 1,886 sq. ft. Relief is requested for shoreline setback where 75 is required and 50.48 ft. is proposed, rear setback where 30 ft. is required and 6.7 ft. is proposed, minimum road frontage requirements and relief is requested to install infiltration devices within 100 ft. of Lake George shoreline. The information submitted includes a stormwater analysis report, site plan drawings showing the house location, stormwater and erosion control measures, septic and water details, and elevations. Staff recommends no county impact based on the information submitted according to the suggested review criteria of NYS General Municipal Law Section 239 L applied to the proposed project. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Warren County Planning Board, 7/8/09. MR. OBORNE-If I may, Mr. Chairman. Just a point of clarification on the very last line. There was an error on my part. It should read the reduction in size was accomplished by reducing the length of the house from 40 feet to 36 feet. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. OBORNE-And I apologize for that. MR. URRICO-What was that again? MR. OBORNE-The the reduction in size was accomplished by reducing the length of the house from 40 feet to 36 feet. MRS. HUNT-So it’s still 28 feet. MR. UNDERWOOD-You’ve got 24 by 40 on the drawing. They’ve got 24 by 40 on the drawings, still. MRS. HUNT-It’s now, what, 24 by 36? MR. UNDERWOOD-Thirty-six. I don’t know if that’s just the one sheet. I’m looking at the erosion and sediment control sheet. Maybe you just reprinted that from before. TOM HUTCHINS MR. HUTCHINS-I’m sorry. It’s a 24 by 36 house. When you look on S-2, that’s a mis- text. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-It’s a 24 by 36 house. The prior application was 24 by 40, and we’re reducing it and in reducing it we went to 24 by 36, and I apologize for the error. MR. UNDERWOOD-From last time, that’s the only real change that we, from what you presented to us last time, then? I mean, everything else is pretty much intact? MR. HUTCHINS-That is the. MR. UNDERWOOD-The gist of it, yes. MR. HUTCHINS-That change drove any other changes. I mean, there were some reductions and everything, disturbance, size of certain controls, and we made a minor 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/09) change on a stormwater device we had on an adjoining property that we’ve eliminated, but that’s the primary change. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Yes, because your swale in that infiltration trench in the front, across the front, that’s all just pretty much the same as what you had proposed before, prior. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, it’s peat enhanced with a storage chamber inside. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Anything you want to add? MR. PHILLIPS-I could make some comments. For the record, my name is Dennis Phillips. I’m a lawyer with McPhillips, Fitzgerald and Cullum, and as you know Tom Hutchins is the engineer. I thought I might just like to give possibly a different point of view relative to the Staff proposed ideas relative to the balancing test, and I do that, I recently got these Staff Notes. I haven’t had them for a long period of time, but when I was looking at them, I noticed that there was a difference between my analysis of the facts relative to this property, and some of the Staff points of view. For example, in the first question, whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this Area Variance. In my presentation to the Board, which is very similar to what was presented to the Board before, and probably you don’t want to hear it again, but you have it all. So it’s before you. I go through an analysis of the neighborhood by looking at the immediate neighborhood, which was the neighborhood that was created by the covenants in the early deeds, and created by our client’s father in 1969, and approved by the Planning Board, and then I extend beyond that and look at the extended neighborhood, primarily to the east, and on that extended neighborhood, that’s on Sheet S-5 of the submission, and if I may, I did a couple of photos that I’d like to submit to the Board, relative to that extended neighborhood, and I’d like to comment on each of the photos, because I think they relate to the issue of visual impact, which I found interesting when I read the Staff Notes. What’s interesting about the extended neighborhood is that for the most part to the east of this property, really to the east of Dark Bay, most of the existing structures are inside of the setback line, meaning that if we were looking at this today, they would not conform to the setback, but even with that, what I found interesting is this. I’ve just submitted to you a series of photos, and the first photo is the photo of the Grande property. Now the Grande property shows a very nice looking camp. It shows a lawn that basically extends down to the lake, and I wanted to show you that photo because that’s not what we’re going to look like. With our plan, we basically have a no cut zone within 35 feet of the shoreline, with the exception of diseased and broken down trees, and so I think that, for the most part, our camp will be very well screened. I won’t say it’s invisible, but it will not be as apparent as the Grande property. I didn’t give you a photograph of the Matthews property, which is to the east of the Grande’s property, because what was remarkable about the Matthews property is that even though it’s very, very close to the lake, the screening on that property is fantastic, and for the most part, you can’t see the Matthews camp on that property, even though it’s approximately 17 feet from the lake, and so I think that as we are looking at our project, and I did take a picture of that, the Matthews property, from the dock at Lot Four, but the picture didn’t show anything, so I couldn’t show you anything, because I would say that the Matthews property was completely screened, you know, which to me was actually a very, very positive, and that’s the thing that we are aspiring to do, relative to the screening on our property. Picture Number Two, which is basically at the bottom of Dark Bay, is the McCormack property. It’s shown on the map, and you’ll notice that there’s been a lot of vegetative clearing on that property, and that’s a very large structure. I mean, our structure is going to be much smaller than that, with our no cut zone, our visibility is going to be much less than that. So that’s, I’m showing you that because that’s what we, we do not think we will look like. We do not intend to look like that, but as we look at the aesthetics of the neighborhood, and that’s why I’m commenting on this, when we look at the visual impact of what we are proposing, you know, with something in the ballpark of 2100 square feet, with a 50 foot setback, which is greater than most setbacks in this area, and with the amount of screening that we have, it was my thought, objectively speaking, that what we were constructing would not create much of a visual impact in that area. So I wanted the Board to have my point of view on that, along with some photographs, and if you look at photos three and four, photo three is a picture of the homeowners association lot immediately adjoining lot lot number four. It’s a picture taken from the outside looking in. It’s a nice area. It’s very secluded, but going to Page Four, I mean, photo four, effectively the view that you see on photo four is the view shed from the homeowners association lot, the adjoining lot, and so the natural inclination for the homeowners association lot is not to be looking back into the woods, but to be looking out onto the lake and seeing this magnificent view across the lake. So I thought 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/09) that, you know, in terms of orientation when people are sitting on the homeowners association lot, for the most part, I would say that the lion’s share of their time would be looking at the stunning views of Lake George. Then in photo five, that basically is what our shoreline looks like. That’s the no cut zone. I think that with that no cut zone that we’ve proposed, we’re going to have a situation similar to Mr. Matthews, where you’re not going to see a lot in, and there’s going to be a lot of screening from the lake, and so I wanted the Board to see that so that when it looks at our idea of character of the neighborhood and detriment to the nearby properties, you know, our thought is that we’re going to fit in very well, and our thought also is that our construction is not going to create any adverse negative visual impacts. So I wanted to make that comment. in terms of item number three where we have a list of variances that we are applying for, this question was raised last night, where one of the Planning Board members commented that most of our variances relate to stormwater. We look at our big variance here as being the setback from the lake, and when we, originally when this subdivision lot was originally approved in 1969, there were no setbacks, but nevertheless, on the 1969 map, which you have a copy of in your packet, it does show the proposed location of where the house was going to be, and the proposed location was much closer to the lake than what we are now proposing, and we thought that by getting 50 feet off the lake, as a matter of policy, we know that there are other 50 foot setback areas in the Town of Queensbury and in the Adirondack Park, and we thought that we wanted to fit into that policy of providing as much buffer between our structure and the shoreline as we possibly can, and still have a buildable lot that we have been taxed on for, since 1969. As far as the stormwater variances are concerned, it was brought out at the Planning Board last night that the ordinary difference between a minor stormwater and a Major stormwater is the disturbance of 15,000 square feet of soil. What we are doing in this project is we are disturbing 5300 square feet of soil. So, under ordinary circumstances, we are disturbing only one third of what would ordinarily be a minor, but whenever a project is proposed within the 100 foot setback of Lake George, the Zoning Administrator and the Planning Department does have the discretion to bump us up from a minor stormwater to a Major stormwater. By doing that, and that’s what they did, and that’s what they’re entitled to do, but by doing that, they suddenly created for us a proliferation of variances that we have to obtain, and so, as I said last night, you know, when you count them one, two, three, four, five, six, it looks like an awful lot, but when you think of what really is happening here, with only 5300 square feet of disturbance, and with a very, very well designed stormwater management plan, they’re, I think that that’s something that we would ask that you take into consideration. I think the last variance that is listed here, for the 90.5 feet, that’s an existing shed on the property, that previously didn’t have stormwater and infiltration and now we are proposing to provide it, and so all of a sudden what already was there has triggered a variance in the overall context of this package, and that shed is located in your packet. The last thing I’d like to say about the Staff Notes is relative to item number four, where there is the possibility that the slope issue here would result in some environmental degradation. It was brought out by the Planning Board last night, and I think actually it’s shown very well on Sheet S-7 that the slopes here are kind of interesting because, because of the pre-existing conditions, we really have a terraced kind of site, and the first level of the terrace runs from the lake to an existing retaining wall, which has been in existence long before 1969, and that’s not really a steep slope and there’s no construction being proposed in that area. The second terraced area is between that existing retaining wall and what I would call the road, where actually that’s a relatively flat area, and so as we’re doing our construction here, our construction actually is on a relatively flat area, and it was brought out last night that the soils that are in that area are granular soils, which, as opposed to silty soils or fine soils, which are less resistant to erosion than silty type soils, and Tom can speak to that a little bit more later on. The next terrace area actually is the road, and we actually have a buffer, so that as far as any kind of up slope erosion is concerned, nothing is actually coming down at us from that road, above that road, because that road acts as a buffer, and relative to road runoff, Tom has treated that otherwise in his stormwater plan and lastly, as I show you on the last photo that I gave you, on Photo Number Six, what’s interesting is that even on the property across the road, there is some terracing in place that creates some kind of flat areas, which also has the tendency to slow down any water velocity. So, you know, as we look at this site, you know, the site, long ago, has been engineered as a terraced site, and there actually are good soils on that site, as proven by the nine test pits that we did in putting things together. So I just wanted to make those comments. The last thing I’ll say relates to the economics of what we have here. I mean, on Page 10 of our written submission, over a period of between 2004 and 2009, this lot is costing our clients $70,000 of tax revenue to the Town of Queensbury in the school, it’s $25, almost $26,000 for the Town and County. That’s a major benefit to the area. $44,000 to the school districts. That’s a major benefit to the area, and so our clients have been paying that money because this was developed as a buildable lot. It was transferred to our client by her father as a buildable lot. They’ve always accepted it 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/09) as a buildable lot, and so they’ve had to pay as if it were a buildable lot. So we indicate that because of the amount of taxes that they pay, based on the assessments on these properties, you know, that there would be significant economic injury to our clients if this were not a buildable lot as everybody thought it was over that period of time, and in terms of the private covenants and the permissible uses under the zoning, you know, the only economic use of this property is as a buildable lot, and if the variance, and if we can’t get a variance for this lot, then they effectively are economically wiped out in terms of the value they have been paying on, you know, going back to 1969. So, with that, as we have appeared before the various Boards, we appeared before the Town Board, as you know, in order to transform from a sewage disposal system on this property to a holding tank on this property, and at the Town Board level, one dissenting vote thought that we should have a smaller house on this lot than we originally had proposed. When we came to the Planning Board the last time, the Planning Board thought that we should have a smaller house. When we came to this Board the last time, this Board thought we should have a smaller house, and members of the public thought we should have a smaller house. So, as we have modified our plan, we have downsized this house, and we’ve downsized it in such a way that we lessen the impact on this property, because as you look at the permeability numbers, we basically are only going to be consuming 19% of the permeability, the impermeability on this lot, and then in our floor ratios, we also are within the tolerances on floor ratios, and that’s the new ordinance as opposed to the old ordinance. So we think that, you know, environmentally, we still have enough open space on this lot in order to justify the variance that we are requesting. So I’m happy that we’ve solved those problems. I think that we have solved the sewage disposal problem with a holding tank which always is the big pollution issue. I’m going to let Tom talk about the stormwater, in terms of what he has done on the stormwater, but I think that, environmentally, I think we have solved the problems that were presented relative to this property. In terms of the house that we have proposed, we have tried to propose a house that is inside of the limits of this lot, but also compatible with the neighborhood, in such a way that we fit in, on a lesser scale, instead of a greater scale. So, with that, I’ll ask Tom to talk about the stormwater. MR. HUTCHINS-Tom Hutchins, Hutchins Engineering, and I will be very brief. I’ll summarize what we’re showing here and then turn it over for questions. It is very similar to what we had proposed with the last application. It’s just slightly less in a number of ways, as a result from the reduction of the house size. Our primary infiltration area for the house area, roof and immediate area is a peat amended infiltration trench located between the house and the lake. It is 40 feet from the lake. We have, from an original application, shifted that a little further away from the house in response to some concerns we had heard. This one is in the very same location as the last proposal was. MR. UNDERWOOD-Is that all going to be grass up there between the house and there? MR. HUTCHINS-It’ll be a landscaped area. We’re not looking to create a manicured lawn. There is not a whole lot of area between the house and where we’re leaving absolutely untouched. It’ll be landscaped, to some reasonably natural, no, we’re not looking to create a manicured lawn. It would be a tough one to get a lawn mower down to, too. Again, another infiltration trench, amended with peat, to the north of the driveway, and it’s a very small, I say driveway. It’s really a parking area. It’s very small, a little bit smaller than the one proposed previously, and what was done, in reducing the size of this house, is we took four feet out of the middle of it, and the reduction, the gain in space is seen on the south side of the house toward the homeowners association lot. It’s like if we pushed that wall and squished it toward the parking area. So where the space is gained is to the south of the house. We continue to provide some degree of treatment for existing off site runoff that presently comes down this driveway, goes through a notch in the stone wall, and has a path to the lake. We have, we continue to propose some degree of treatment for that. As I said earlier, we have re-thought the infiltration trench that we had shown to deal with also off site runoff, directed toward our property from the west. We are going to divert that, and we’ve modified our prior proposal to have an infiltration trench there, as there were some concerns with that proposal. So, wastewater remains unchanged. Utilities remain unchanged, and with that, I’ll turn it over for questions. MR. UNDERWOOD-Questions from any of you guys? All right. Then I guess I’ll open up the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on the matter, raise your hand. Do you want to come up, please. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JIM TOBIN 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/09) MR. TOBIN-My name is Jim Tobin. I live at 15 Dark Bay Lane. There are three points I’d like to bring to the Board. The last time that I was here, I was objecting to the project, and the project has not changed substantially in any manner than the previous one that was voted down, but there are three issues I’d like to bring to the Board, and they are the 1969 approval, the covenants associated with the property, and the height of the building. The first one is the 1969 approval. There are 15 lots in the Association that were approved by the Planning Board at that time. Fourteen of those lots meet the then current zoning. There was one lot that was very small, which is this lot, and this lot was very small for a reason. This lot initially was intended to be the beach lot of the Association, but for various reasons, it was not, and then an additional lot, which is the current adjoining lot, was purchased and added to the Association. So this lot always was to be a small lot. The boundaries on the lot were small because it was to be the Association lot which it never was. So my opinion that this is a nonconforming lot, which is a self-created problems, almost 40 years ago, we’re still living with it. The second item are the covenants that are associated with the property. Of the 15 lots, all the 15 lots have a covenant of a height restriction, and that is height restriction of two and a half stories. There are additional covenants for the rear lots, which I am a property owner of, which exclude the first three lots that are along the lake, and those lots are side lot restrictions and square footage of buildings, etc. The covenant that implies on this is, it’s a funny number, two and a half stories is a very funny number. The building code does not address two and a half story. They address one story, two stories, or 102 stories. There’s nothing that’s a half story. The half story of a building, if you could imagine laymen’s terms, is one story, two stories plus an attic. That’s a reasonable assumption. So I went back to 1967, Town of Queensbury zoning restrictions. The zoning restrictions that applied in 1967 are the exact same zoning restrictions that are in the covenants on all the deeds. So someone just copied them, and that’s how they came to the numbers of two and a half stories. Thirdly, the real reason that I’m here is not because someone can’t build a building on this property which they’ve owned for the last 40 years. My concern is the visual impact of this building that will be seen from the lake. This is a three story building. If you could look at that photograph there, and look at the telephone pole that’s there, that is not a telephone pole, that’s a sub pole. That sub pole is somewhere around 20 feet tall, maybe 22 feet tall. There’s another photograph that you have there which shows a pole, which is a normal NiMo pole, that one there, that pole is about 40 feet in height. That’s high. This building is three stories. It’s 28 feet. If you add to that, the height from the water line to the first floor of this building, it adds another eight to ten feet. So now we have almost a four story building. It was mentioned previously of an adjoining property which is across the bay which is the Matthews property. I believe it’s a one story building. That’s why you don’t see it. You can’t see it, but the visual impact of this building that’s a three story building that’s going to be imposed on this site. Across the bay, the photograph that was given to you with the Grande property. The way I can find myself home, when I’m on the boat, is I find the Grande property, and it’s a white building, and it sticks out like a sore thumb. Because this site is so constrictive, and it’s very constrictive, Number One, for construction to put a building on it and all the zoning requirements, there are going to be no trees left. All the trees that you see in that photograph are not going to be there. The trees that were mentioned on the no cut zone, they’re all on rock. They tend to fall over, at a convenient time. They just fall over one winter they’re gone, they’re small shrubs. So it has very little screening that you see on the site. Lastly, all the buildings that are in the Association are two stories. The adjoining buildings are two stories. The ones across the bay are all two stories. There are no three story buildings on this site. In fact, I don’t know of any three story buildings that I see relatively close to the lake that are included with the 500 foot restriction. So I ask the Board to consider three things. One, the 1967 zoning plus the 1969 reason that this site is so small. Number Two is the two and a half story covenants that are associated with all the properties here and the height of the building is actually too high for the site. It’s a McMansion and we don’t need anymore McMansions on Lake George. Thank you very much. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak on the matter? Do you want to come up? CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Hello. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. Some of my comments, I think, are going to reiterate what I said during the previous application. I know this is a tough site, and the applicants worked hard at it. They’ve made probably more concessions than they’d like, but, and you feel for that, but I actually have to, part of the balancing test is what is actually good for the lake also, and the lake can’t come out and speak here. So we’ll try to provide some perspectives on that, and is this project 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/09) the best for the lake and for the protection of the lake, and it’s very difficult to say that there are benefits for the lake with this project. It’s a steep site. There is some disturbance on it, but it is basically undisturbed. You’ll be going in and making some significant alterations, and again, when you have a very narrow site with the steep slopes, close proximity to the lake, when is a lot unbuildable? And I know that that’s a difficult question, but there are a number of constraints on the site. Another thought is, are there alternatives, and there is alternatives. There is an off the lake site. It is an alternative that’s desirable, maybe, for the applicant. It was a site they wanted to initially put the wastewater system on, but there are alternatives, and there’s talk about the no cut zone and no disturbance zone, the 35 foot buffer. I mean, that is a requirement. They are not supposed to be disturbing the 35 foot buffer. So in my view they’re not providing anything additional for this project. The Codes require the 35 foot no disturbance. In fact, you are, there’s probably going to be some disturbance in there because they have utilities, a water line and what not to go in there. So they’re gaining, by developing on the property, the lake will be impacted. They’ve attempted to mitigate that, but in my view there’ll still be impacts there, and they’re only doing the minimum along the lake. So that is a concern, and I think as we remove the trees and the vegetation just upland from that, and we put in and alter the slopes and possibly blast, maybe not, but probably blast, you know, that’s going to change things around that area. So in my viewpoint, there’s still going to be an impact to the lake, and I think that’s something that does need to be part of this beneficial analysis, and that can’t really come to the table and speak. So thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Anybody else from the public wishing to speak? Okay. Any correspondence? MR. URRICO-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I guess I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-Besides this house, how are you going to access the lake? Are you going to have a dock complex down there or utilize the docks that are already there? MR. PHILLIPS-Utilize the docks that are already there, yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s what I assumed. Yes. Okay. Any commentary you guys want to close with or anything? MR. PHILLIPS-I just have a couple of comments, and I’m always disappointed when Mr. Tobin doesn’t say what’s in the record, but on Exhibit Two of what I have provided to you, in terms of the four lots on the lake, Paragraph A on Page 224 says the parties of the second part shall be required to subdivide 400 feet of the most westerly shoreline of said premises into four lots of approximately equal shore frontage, and at least 150 feet in depth. I distinctly heard Mr. Tobin say three lots, and I wanted to correct that for the record, because I was disappointed by that statement. Secondly, as far as the height is concerned, we are within the Zoning Ordinance in Queensbury. We are within that 28 feet. Twenty-eight feet is not necessarily high. We are approximately 2100 square feet. For Mr. Tobin to characterize this as a McMansion, I just think that that is a gross exaggeration, and also disappointing. The other thing about this site is that actually we tuck in very nicely to that on the flat part of that site, and we back up to Mr. Folke’s property, and Mr. Folke has a slope on his property. We kind of tuck inside of that slope, and as you know from the record, that Mr. Tobin, the one who would be most directly affected by this property, has indicated that he has no problem with it, Mr. Folke, I’m sorry, Mr. Folke, pardon me. So I think that there’ve been some exaggerations in those comments. Lastly, Tom Hutchins and I were on that site on Monday of this week, or Tuesday of this week, Tuesday of this week, yesterday, it seems like a long time ago, but we actually looked at the trees that would have to be cut on this site, and where they would be cut, and we basically counted approximately 20 trees that would have to be cut. Of the 20 trees, 17 of them were in the sapling category, very small trees, three of them were in the large category, but even with the cutting of those trees, I’ll let Tom verify this, we determined that there would be a significant amount of vegetation left in the no cut zone that would provide the screening which I know is important to you, but it’s also important to us, and so I just wanted to make that comment. You might want to talk on that, too, Tom. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. I’ll touch on that. Mr. Tobin’s point, it is rather rocky toward the lake. There are some very large trees there. There are some trees that have fallen 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/09) down in the last, since I’ve been working on this project. There are large trees that have fallen down, as a result of storms, but there are trees there, 12, 14, 16 inch size, between our disturbance limit and the lake that we propose to remain. So they don’t all blow down. There are some that have come down, and they’ve been cleaned up. I’d just make one other point, with regard to the building height, and that is to look, on Sheet S- 7, we’ve cut a section through this building, and I would just note that the ridge of our proposed house is lower than the floor of the Folke house, who is the one that would be most affected by the height of this house. This is the closest house to our proposed house, and Mr. Folke’s big concern was in the height, and we have met with him and shown him what we propose to do, and he is not concerned at all. Our ridge is approximately seven feet below the floor of his house. With regard to stories, whether it’s two and a half stories or three stories, I don’t know, we measure height in feet, in accordance with the Queensbury regulations, and we’re proposing to meet the 28 feet height of the Queensbury regulation. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’ll poll the Board, and I’ll start with you, Rich. MR. GARRAND-We’ve been over this for the better part of, what, two years now, we’ve been going over this, and I think my initial opposition to this was well founded along the way, with that. The applicant has made significant strides in order to mitigate the environmental, the possibility of environmental damage. The applicant is also well aware of the re-vegetation requirements in the new Town Code. The applicant has also met the wishes of basically the other Boards and other members of this Board here, by reducing the size of the house. I think they’ve gone, you know, as far as they need to go in order to get this house built. I’d be in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. I have to agree. I think, you know, in good faith, you did listen to us, and make some changes, the size of the building and the runoff and that, and I would be in favor. MR. UNDERWOOD-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I think the applicant’s been diligent in reforming your application, bringing it down to a more modest proposal. It could still probably go a little further, but I think you’ve taken it as far as it can go. It’s kind of draconian to say they can’t build on the lot when it’s been classified a building lot at some point. So I would be in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joan? MRS. JENKIN-Yes. My concerns before was the visual impact of the house, the height of the house, and I still visualize this house as it will appear from the road. From the lake it think that it will be somewhat protected from the view, but there’s going to be no protection from the road at all. It’s going to be very, very high, and it’s very close to the road, and there’s no way of putting any kind of protective barrier, any kind of trees or anything to reduce that impact, and everybody has talked about the impact, the visual impact from the lake, and I feel that, from the road, it’s also a very important point. I think in the covenant saying that it’s two and a half stories, I think that that should be honored. The house is three stories. I think that it’s always referred back to 1969 that these were buildable lots in 1969. Well, in 1969 they weren’t building the size of the homes and they weren’t building homes that were permanent homes. They were more camps, and smaller homes at that time, and so I think that having this lot being a buildable lot, it would be okay to have a smaller home, but I still feel that this house is a very large home, and I am not, I really can’t approve this. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. As far as what has been requested here, I’m just going to go through it and then I’ll give you my take on it. The last time we met, I had hoped that maybe you guys would have resolved this the last time around here by going to a smaller home, and you have narrowed the house down by changing it down to 36 feet from 40 feet long. In essence, the house is still going to appear approximately what it looked like the last time. I don’t think there’s that much of a change there, but I think in a difficult situation that you’ve found yourself in here, over the course of all the negotiations that have occurred in the last two years, it’s been very difficult to make this site into a buildable site, but I think you have gone the extra yard as far as that goes, as far as the infiltration structures that have been proposed, the fact that you’re going to be on a holding tank, which is not something that most people would wish for. You’re going to have to deal with that. I don’t think anybody who’s made commentary here has been wrong. Everybody’s said things that were valid points of view, whether they were for this 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/09) project or against this project, but at the same time, I think that we have to be reasonable with people. I don’t think anybody would wish for the fact that if we had the ability to say don’t build anything on this lot, that that would be a viable option. Even if you’ve paid taxes on it over the years, you could make that argument about money, about anything if you want to do it that way, but at the same time, I think that the impact is going to be minimized by the fact that you’re not going to cut out in front of this place, and I would go along with the requests. The only thing I’m going to require is this, and that is that I don’t want, I want a no cut zone in front of this house. I don’t want things coming down. I don’t want trees being trimmed for a view. If there’s storm damage that occurs in the future, then you’re going to re-plant trees down there and grow stuff back to what it was, you know, I don’t want to hear any arguments about diseased trees or storm damage or whatever it happens to be, and then suddenly this house appears on this. I think, as you mentioned, you showed in the photographs there, too, the screening is adequate to hide this home because this won’t see evergreen trees down there in front, too, that mitigates it dramatically, and I think that the stormwater control measures that you have proposed here and that everybody’s reviewed thoroughly are going to be adequate. It’s much more than anybody else on that whole shoreline has ever put in anywhere. Name me one other place on the lake that’s done what you’re being required to do. Certainly I think if we could go back and change the lot size, that would be something to occur, and with the zero lot line setback on the road, on the back there, that is a hindrance for you, but that is something that you’ll just have to deal with. I mean, there’s not much that can be done about it. You’ve set the house back as far as possible, and it’s going to be a nice looking place, you know, with the stone on the outside, it’s going to blend in better than something that was painted white like you mentioned on the other houses in the neighborhood there, too. So I’ll go along with what you’re requesting here. So do you guys want me to do this one? All right. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 39-2009 DEBARON ASSOCIATES BY DEBRA SCHIEBEL, PARTNER, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: Dark Bay Lane – Lake George, Lot Number Four. The applicant is proposing construction of a 2,130 square foot single family dwelling and relief is requested from the shoreline setback, the rear yard setback, and the minimum road frontage requirements. Further, relief is requested for the installation of infiltration devices, and that is stormwater control measures within 100 feet of the Lake George shoreline. As far as the relief requested. They’re requesting relief from the 50 foot required road frontage for one principal building. Further, they’re requesting 24.5 feet of shoreline setback relief, and 23.3 feet of rear setback relief per Section 179-3-040. Additionally, they’re requesting 59.6 feet of relief for an infiltration device located east of the house, and 48 feet of relief for an infiltration device located north of the house from the 100 foot minimum setback requirement for infiltration devices for Major Projects per Section 147-9. Finally, concerning an eaves trench associated with the 100 square foot storage cabin, the applicant requests 90.5 feet of relief from the 100 foot minimum setback requirement for infiltration devices for Major Projects per Section 147-9. I think we recognize that those infiltration structures have been well designed and I think that that’s part of the argument that can be made here for this lot. Under normal circumstances in the past, places would have gone up on lots like this with no infiltration structures whatsoever. So, by the fact that we’re putting in more, these are all required by law at this point in time, even though it doesn’t meet the 100 foot setbacks, I think it’s still reasonable to assume that these are going to be effective, and that they will be maintained by the property owner. As far as an undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood, the dwelling is proposed here. I don’t consider it to be undesirable, although we would all prefer that it just be a green lot like it exists at the present time. The home that’s been proposed here is smaller than just about every other home in that neighborhood up there. It’s set back further from the lake than the other home that’s up there in the immediate area also, and I think that mitigates that to a degree. Staff identified it is moderate impacts to nearby properties, and the potential for visual impacts, but I don’t think from the lake, and I think the lake is the important thing that we should key in here, that it’s that important. If you see it from the road up above, as was mentioned before, this house is going to be down below, you know, the bottom of the house is further up the hill that would be most affected by the project. Whether the benefit could by sought by the applicant in some other method. Yes, you could not build here, but as was mentioned, there’s a dollars and cents effect here, too, in the sense that it was always assumed at some point something would be built on this lot. Otherwise people wouldn’t have paid taxes on it all these years. Whether the requested Area Variance is substantial. Most of the relief that I mentioned before is substantial, and I don’t think that anybody would contest that it is. It’s a small lot, but the house has been well thought out, it’s been set back, it’s been shrunk down from what was originally proposed. The project has greatly changed from 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/09) what was originally presented to us two years ago, and that includes the septic and everything else, and the Board, I think, in general, the majority of us anyway, feel that that’s reasonable. As far as whether the proposed variance would have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district, moderate impacts on the physical or environmental conditions. As mentioned by the Water Keeper, any disturbance you do is going to effect the lake. It doesn’t matter what it is. It doesn’t matter how hard you try not to effect the lake, you will affect the lake, but we’re not going to be putting septic into the ground here. We’re on holding tanks, and the infiltrators are, in effect, probably going to work sufficiently to handle it. I would like to put a condition in, though, of a no cut, re-planting zone, and that will exist from in front of that infiltration on the front of the home, all the way to the mean low water mark down on the shoreline. If trees come down in a storm situation, I would like to see those trees re-planted and re-established on site. I don’t want to see trimming of branches for a view, and you’re just going to have to accept the fact that your home is going to be like Matthews. You’re not going to see it from the lake. If you want to go down to the lake, you walk down to the shore. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of July, 2009, by the following vote: MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m a shorefront property owner, and I planted trees in front of my house, and it’s the same thing. It’s nice, it gives you more privacy, also. AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood NOES: Mrs. Jenkin ABSENT: Mr. Clements, Mr. Drellos MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you guys want to do these minutes? It’s getting late. It’s only going to take a minute to do it. APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 20, 2009 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 20, 2009, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: nd Duly adopted this 22 day of July, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Clements, Mr. Drellos May 27, 2009 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 27, 2009, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joan Jenkin: nd Duly adopted this 22 day of July, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Clements, Mr. Drellos June 17, 2009 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 17, 2009, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: nd Duly adopted this 22 day of July, 2009, by the following vote: 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/09) AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Clements, Mr. Drellos MR. UNDERWOOD-I was going to remind you guys not to throw out your stuff for Golub. MR. OBORNE-Do you want me to present the minutes to the Planning Board? Do you want to discuss anything about their recommendations? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think that they can just be, they don’t have to say that they approve the variance. They can say that they would recommend that the variance seems reasonable or unreasonable. MR. URRICO-This is just my opinion, okay. I think all we need from them is to say that a variance would have, would or would not have an impact on any Planning Board issues. MRS. JENKIN-On the Site Plan Review or something. MR. URRICO-On Site Plan Review. MR. GARRAND-Yes, as it pertains to them. You’re correct. MR. URRICO-Right. That’s all we need to know is if a variance was accepted here, it would have a negative impact on the visual appearance of the house or the traffic flow inside of it. That’s what we would need. MR. OBORNE-You may want, in order for the Planning Board to get a picture of that, would be to state in a resolution that you do that. MR. URRICO-Okay. Jim, I recommend, next time, that when we get a full Board. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Let’s do it with everybody’s review. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. OBORNE-And the way you could do the resolution, just to wrap this up, would be to direct me to give it to the Planning Board. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, James Underwood, Chairman 41