Loading...
2009.09.16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/09) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 16, 2009 INDEX Area Variance No. 42-2009 Marvin Stan Dobert 1. Tax Map No. 309.10-1-26, 27, 28 Area Variance No. 45-2009 D & G Management LLC 9. Tax Map No. 309.5-1-1.2 Area Variance No. 43-2009 NBT Bank, N.A. Att. Joseph R. Stagliano 21. Tax Map No. 302.8-1-44 Area Variance No. 47-2009 Stewart’s Shop Corp. 25. Tax Map No. 296.13-1-63, 64, 65 Area Variance No. 49-2009 Ray and Wendy Kraft 31. Tax Map No. 240.9-1-1 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 9/16/09) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 16, 2009 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT JAMES UNDERWOOD, CHAIRMAN JOYCE HUNT RICHARD GARRAND JOAN JENKIN BRIAN CLEMENTS RONALD KUHL, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT ROY URRICO LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI th MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’m going to call the September 16 meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals to order, and starting out I want to quickly go through our procedures, once again, for anybody that perhaps is new here. As we handle each application I’ll call the application by name and number. The secretary will read the pertinent parts of the application, Staff Notes and Warren County Planning Board decision if applicable into the record. Then we’ll ask the applicant to present any information they wish to present to the Board. The Board will ask questions of the applicant, and then we’ll open the public hearing. The public hearing’s intended to help us gather information and understand it about the issue at hand, and it functions to help the Board members make a wise decision, but it does not make the decision for the Board members. There will be a five minute limit on all speakers. We will allow speakers to speak again after everybody’s had a chance to speak, but not for more than three minutes, and only if after listening to the other speakers, a speaker believes that they have new information to present, and, Board members, I’d suggest that because we have the five minute limit that we not interrupt the speaker with questions while they’re speaking. Rather we should wait until the speaker has finished his five minute period and then ask the questions. Following all the speakers, we’ll read in any correspondence into the record, and then the applicant will have an opportunity to react and respond to the public comment. Board members will then discuss the variance request with the applicant. Following that, the Board members will have a chance to explain their positions on the application, and then the public hearing will be closed or left open depending on the situation, and finally, if appropriate a motion to approve or disapprove will follow. AREA VARIANCE NO. 42-2009 SEQRA TYPE: II MARVIN STAN DOBERT OWNER(S): 50-52 MAIN STREET, LLC ZONING: MS [MAIN STREET] LOCATION: 50-52 MAIN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES RENOVATION AND EXPANSION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS TO INCLUDE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW BUILDING BETWEEN 50 AND 52 MAIN STREET. APPLICANT REQUESTS RELIEF FROM THE FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND FOR EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF.: SP 47-09; BP 88-016 ALT; BP 88- 556 ALT.; BP 2002-113 SIGN; BP 2003-612 SIGN; BP 2004-090 C/O; BP 2005-152 C/O; BP 2005-459 SIGN; BP 2008-276 C/O; BP 2008-392 SIGN; BP 2008-393 SIGN WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: SEPTEMBER 9, 2009 LOT SIZE: 0.08, 0.16, 0.19 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.10-1-26, 27, 28 SECTION 179-3-040 MARVIN DOBERT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 42-2009, Marvin Stan Dobert, Meeting Date: September 16, 2009 “Project Location: 50-52 Main Street Description of Proposed Project: Note: Subject to new ordinance. Planning Board has made a recommendation to the ZBA concerning this Area Variance. Applicant proposes renovation and expansion of existing buildings to include construction of a new building between 50 and 52 Main Street. Applicant requests relief 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/09) from the front and side setback requirements and for expansion of a nonconforming structure. Relief Required: Applicant requests 22 feet of relief from the front setback requirement of the build-to line and (-)3.8 feet of west side setback relief from the required 0-20 foot side setback requirement per §179-3-040. Further, the applicant requests relief for the expansion of a nonconforming 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 impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated overall; however, properties in this zone are required to follow the Main Street Guidelines and as such, any deviation from those guidelines may result in design incongruities along Main Street as projects mature. 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 follow the design guidelines in order to avoid all area variances. Concerning the expansion of a non-conforming structure, there appears to be no feasible method by which to avoid this request. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 22 feet or 104% relief from the 21 foot front build to line per §179-3-040 may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. The request to expand an existing structure currently 3.8 feet over the west side line setback of 0-20 feet may be considered minor 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 in the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this request. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 47-09 Dobert Pending SP 11-05 Vortex Technologies 3/22/05 SP 67-04 R. Mayo 12/21/04 NOA 3-04 J. Lapper 8/18/04 [reference UV 52-89] UV 44-04 M. Ludwig 5/26/04 Auto customizing, etc. UV 52-89 B. Richardson 5/24/89 Staff comments: The design guidelines for Main Street require the applicant to locate the building front twenty one (21) feet from the edge of the pavement of Main Street after it is widened. This is known as the build-to line. The closest building to the build-to line is the 1 ½ story wood framed house at 43 feet. Thus, the applicant is seeking 22 feet of front setback relief. Further, the design guidelines state; where existing conditions fail to meet the build-to requirements, streetscape elements (hedge, picket fence, canopy, trellis, etc.) or building additions should be added to achieve desired effect. Please see §179-7-070A for further clarity. The design guidelines for Main Street require the applicant to locate the building zero to twenty (0-20) feet from the side property line. The fact that existing conditions have the west structure 3.8 feet over the side property line and the Queensbury Town Board has authorized the continued use of this minor encroachment onto Richardson Street, the relief is for all expansion proposed for that portion outside of the west side property line 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/09) (see attached Town Board Resolution 167, 2009 dated May 4, 2009). The applicant proposes a second story expansion to the west structure for office space. Variance for the expansion of a non-conforming structure: This component of relief is predicated upon the western most structure encroaching onto the Richardson Avenue R.O.W. and the proposed expansion of said structure. SEQR Status: SEQR Type II – no further review required” “Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form September 9, 2009 Project Name: Dobert, Marvin Stan Owner(s) 50-52 Main Street, LLC ID Number: QBY-09-AV-42 County Project#: Sept09-20 Current Zoning: MS [Main Street] Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes renovation and expansion of existing buildings to include construction of a new building between 50 and 52 Main Street. Applicant requests relief from the front and side setback requirements and for expansion of a nonconforming structure. Site Location: 50-52 Main Street Tax Map Number(s): 309.10-1-26, 27, 28 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to renovate two existing buildings and to construct a new building between the existing ones. Relief is requested for setbacks and expansion of a non-conforming structure. The information submitted does not clearly indicate the specific distance of relief needed. One existing building to e renovated is currently an office space and nd converted garage that is to add a 2 story commercial addition. The other existing nd building will also add a 2 story addition where the first floor will be converted to nd commercial use and the 2 story to be residential use. The new building will have nd commercial on t he first floor and residential on the 2 floor. The plans show the buildings to have a row building appearance. Staff recommends no county impact with the condition the application materials clearly indicate the specific distance of relief requested at the local level. This is 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 with Stipulation The Warren County Planning Board recommends No County Impact with the condition the application materials clearly indicate the specific distance of relief requested at the local level.” Signed by Tim Lawson Warren County Planning Board 9/9/09 MR. UNDERWOOD-The Planning Board did meet in regards to the project, and they did make a resolution, making the following recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for Area Variance 42-2009, Marvin S. Dobert. “MOTION THAT THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD THAT THE VARIANCES REQUESTED FOR MARVIN DOBERT UNDER AREA VARIANCE NO. 42-2009 BE GRANTED. IN PARTICULAR, THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES BE APPROVED: SETBACK RELIEF, WEST LINE SETBACK, AND EXPANSION FOR NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES., Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: th Duly adopted this 10 day of September, 2009” by a unanimous vote of the Board, and lastly, the Resolution Number 167-2009, and that was a resolution authorizing the continued use of the minor encroachment onto Richardson Street. That was introduced by Tim Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Tony Metivier, and it says, Whereas Stan Dobert is the owner of a one story building located at 52 Main Street in the Town of Queensbury where a portion of such property encroaches into an area where Richardson Street, a Town road, is located, and Whereas such encroachment does not interfere with the Town road, and Whereas Mr. Dobert seeks to add a story to such building located at 52 Main Street but will not encroach any further into Richardson Street, the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes Stan Dobert’s continued use of the minor encroachment, and that’s provided that such encroachment shall not be increased, and Mr. Dobert obtain all the necessary Town and other approvals regarding any expansion of his building. Third, provided, however, that if the current development reveals a foundation problem such that a complete teardown is necessary this approval would be revoked, and that was a unanimous decision on the part of the Town Board. So I guess we’ll open it up. You can tell us what about what you’re going to do here at this time. MR. DOBERT-Sure. So, just in terms of the variances, or do you want to know the whole project? 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/09) MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I think as far as the variances, I think everybody’s pretty aware of what’s involved here, and because we have visited your site before, when the computer guys were in there for that short period of time, I think everybody on the Board’s pretty familiar with what the project is. So, maybe you just want to go over what the changes would result in, you know, as far as the façade differences and all that. MR. DOBERT-Sure. Yes. MS. GAGLIARDI-Excuse me. Could you state your name for the record, please. MR. DOBERT-Yes. Marvin Dobert. So, maybe 10 years or 15 years they announced that they were going to re-do the corridor, and my father and I said, great, this is a good time to re-do the buildings. We waited and waited and waited, and went through several renditions and plans and finally we’re here. So we’re ready to do it, and our plan was to time the building renovation along with the corridor renovation, and the first thing we wanted to do was put a basement in to accept all the underground utilities, and we decided to bridge the buildings with that gap that’s in between 50 and 52. That made sense, and then we decided, well, let’s upgrade the buildings around it, and that’s where we’re at now. So the façade is basically a brick. We try to use the same hometown look, brick front mixed with some siding, and something that we’ll be up for a long time, and we’re following the guidelines of office retail on the first floor and then residential on the second floor. MR. UNDERWOOD-So you’re planning on incorporating the buildings that are on site? You’re not going to tear them down completely and start all over? I mean, I think part of the question from the Town Board, I know their concern was that, when you get into it, if you decide it’s not going to support the second floor, but I’m sure you’ve kind of trouble shot that and done some exploratory on that. MR. DOBERT-Yes. In ’87, when we acquired the property, we re-did the building that’s actually has the discrepancy over the boundary and the setback. It used to be the firehouse for West Glens Falls. So, yes, that one right there. So they used to park fire trucks in there, believe it or not. They weren’t very big ones, and the foundation is pretty good. We did a, in ’87 and ’89, we did, basically stripped the inside and then re-did it. So we’re familiar with that foundation inside and out, but definitely the roof is not good enough. So that’s one of the reasons why we just said let’s get rid of the roof and go up another story. The building, the garage building next to it, is cinderblock with a slab and has a very good foundation, is newer than the other buildings, and then the house is a full basement and it’s a combination of older foundation where they put the rocks together and newer foundation where they actually poured with reinforcement bar and other things. MR. UNDERWOOD-So utilities are going to come into one of those buildings and then get distributed to the other ones. Is that how you’re going to do it? MR. DOBERT-Split out. Yes. So we’re going to come in through the, the utilities will come in right there, and then our plan is to take the electric and put the bus, the electric or gas, electric and gas and put the buses in back, depending on the, just visibly it would be better. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Do you guys want to ask any questions at this time? MRS. JENKIN-I have a question. I always do. MR. DOBERT-Sure. MRS. JENKIN-The 21 feet from the edge of the pavement. It says after it’s widened. The pavement, existing where it is now, is that going to be the edge of the pavement or is it moving closer onto your property, do you know? MR. DOBERT-I don’t think I quite understand. MRS. JENKIN-Well, they’re going to widen Main Street. MR. DOBERT-Yes. MRS. JENKIN-So are they widening it on your side, or are they widening it on the other side of Main Street, across the street from you? 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/09) MR. DOBERT-The take was on our side, and they took I think maybe, it wasn’t very much. Maybe eight or nine feet, maybe a little bit more. MR. UNDERWOOD-So it’s essentially going to be three lanes, you know, with a turning lane in the middle. MRS. JENKIN-Yes, I know. So the eight feet from where the pavement’s going to be, that’s 41 feet to your building? MR. DOBERT-Correct. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. You’ve measured that from where it’s going to be. MR. DOBERT-Forty-one feet from the take. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. It wasn’t clear on the drawing. MR. DOBERT-There’s also a utility easement that’s on there, and that is a permanent easement, in case they need to do whatever. MR. UNDERWOOD-So when they bury utilities, is that going to be in addition to the road taking, that’s inside towards yours also, possibly? I mean, they were talking about burying all the electric lines and everything, overhead stuff. MR. DOBERT-Yes, that’s what they’re doing. MR. OBORNE-Yes, that’s incorporated with the take, absolutely. MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s in the taking. MR. OBORNE-Well, that’s another issue that we don’t quite know yet, at Site Plan we’re going to have to figure out, is who’s doing the sidewalk. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. Now as far as the businesses go, my understanding was that one of the sticking points that you’re going to have to get through with the Planning Board is the parking issue on there, because as it now stands I know the business previous has parked in the front, between the road and the front of the building. MR. DOBERT-That’s correct. MR. UNDERWOOD-But I don’t know if that’s going to be a possibility, going forward, with the design standards requiring, you know, like landscaping and the whole nine yards, but I don’t know what you’re going to do about that. MR. DOBERT-Well, we hoped, we were hoping that, because the 21 feet, you know, if we build, because of the 21 feet variance that we’re requesting, if we built that 21 feet, that would be cost prohibitive for our project. That would be quite a bit of money to move that whole build to line. We’re not prepared for that, and so we’re left with 21 feet of space to, we’d like to somehow utilize, and that’s where we historically have parked, on both sides, where those lines are, and I would like to keep, we do have a curb cut on the Richardson side, that’s established, and then a curb cut right in front of this bush, where the bottom part of the camera. So you will be able to drive through. You can, but parking is not encouraged. So someone can pull up to the front of one of those buildings and kind of stop their car, put it in park, and then run into a building and then run out, and we figured, well. MR. UNDERWOOD-Keith, what was the thought on the buildings as far as like if it’s a business and you’ve got to make deliveries there. I mean, are they just going to stop in the street? MR. OBORNE-In the rear, everything’s in the rear. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. OBORNE-All vehicular access and movement is in the rear. MR. UNDERWOOD-Because they didn’t go with lanes in the back or anything like that. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/09) MR. OBORNE-Well, there’ll be interconnects with other properties, shared parking. There’s no parking requirements, with the exception that they are prohibited in the front. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. MRS. JENKIN-You do have room in the back to park? MR. DOBERT-We do, yes, there is room in the back. MRS. JENKIN-But you don’t think that that’s enough, is that why you wanted to have parking in the front? MR. DOBERT-Well, no. I think that in the back there will be enough. There will be enough parking, based on, that there is no parking requirement for the Main Street corridor, even though we did run the numbers and came up with maybe 19, 20 parking spaces that we would need, based on the residential and the office and retail square footage. So, we think that we can handle it in the back. However, there will be traffic driving through in the front. There will be traffic that drives through the front of the building, based on the curb cuts, and we would like to keep, we would like to be able to accommodate, you know, we don’t have to have a lot of parking, but maybe, you know, two or three spots in the front in case it’s needed, and we think that it may be needed, you know, based on the historical corridor, you know, the way the buildings are set up now. It’s not a laser beam down the street, you know, you have some buildings that are set in the back and some buildings that are right up, their porches are going to be right on the take line. MRS. JENKIN-But the thing is they’re trying to change that. They’re trying to have a Main Street look, so that all the storefronts are equally along the street and so that as you’re coming into Glens Falls, it’s an aesthetic look, it’s a nice look, and if you have parking that’s going to change it completely. If you did something like landscaping or some creative way to make a drive through that people could go around and just have a, I don’t know, something so that it would bring the building out a little bit, and still, and then have landscaping, and you could probably achieve that effect of the Main Street effect that they’re looking for, but just having a parking lot in front is not what they’re looking for at all. MR. DOBERT-Yes, and we don’t intend on having a parking lot, but I think that we could come to some kind of a compromise where maybe one or two parking positions are available and the rest is landscaped to a nice acceptable hometown look, because there are, you know, going from the exit right down to the Western corner, there’s quite a variety of. MR. UNDERWOOD-Setbacks. MR. DOBERT-Setbacks and parking positions that are established that, you know, maybe in 20 years they won’t change. This is, we’re going to do this building, and not change it for a good 20 years. MRS. JENKIN-And it will look a lot better than the existing. That’s for sure. MR. DOBERT-Yes, and I agree with the standards, and burying the utilities, and I think that the corridor, it’s going to be a super upgrade, and the bike trail and right next, on Richardson going down to the Feeder. So I agree with you. I think that the, when somebody turns off the exit, they’re more likely to say, hey this looks okay, and keep going. MRS. JENKIN-Right. That’s what I think they’re trying to achieve. MR. UNDERWOOD-Any of you other guys have any questions, or should I open up the public hearing? MR. CLEMENTS-I just had maybe a comment or a question for Keith. I assume that this is going to go through Site Plan Review with the Planning Board afterwards anyway, right? MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. MR. CLEMENTS-For what they might do in the front for parking and those kinds of things. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/09) MR. OBORNE-That is correct, yes. MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. My thought on that parking in the front would be that, you know, for the interim maybe it would be allowed, but eventually it would go away, as everything gets re-built and is built out along that whole corridor, there, but, I mean, it would seem to me that if you’re going to try to do the Main Street look down the whole thing, you’re not going to want to have one in, one out, one in, one out, or it’s just going to look hodgepodge, more like a strip mall or something where nothing matches. Anybody else? I guess I’ll open up the public hearing. Is there anybody from the public wishing to speak on the matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-Why don’t you come up, sir. DON DANIELS MR. DANIELS-I am Don Daniels. I own some property across the street, kitty corner, and maybe a year or two ago I was in one of these meetings, maybe this Marvin’s father was here maybe at the time, and it was recommended, to my recollection, it was recommended to him to connect these two buildings. He was actually told by one of these Boards, the Planning Board maybe, to connect the two buildings and use the grass for parking, make parking all the way across for the whole property of that. That was a recommendation that was made to Marvin. Maybe that’s part of what has prompted this, and the Main Street corridor zone, the new one that has just come in, and I’ve read through the entire thing, which is quite voluminous, it’s recommended to have retail or offices, stores on the ground floor, and apartments above. That’s what they would like. So those are my comments. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Thank you. Anybody else from the public wishing to speak? Okay. As far as correspondence, I didn’t note any. Did you? MR. OBORNE-I don’t believe there is any. MR. UNDERWOOD-No. MR. OBORNE-I do have one thing I would like to read from the Warren County Planning Board. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MR. OBORNE-It is a No County Impact. I believe you were at the meeting. I’m not sure, but it does have a stipulation. I’m going to read the stipulation in. The stipulation is that “Staff recommends no county impact with the condition the application materials clearly indicate the specific distance of relief requested at the local level. This is based on the information submitted according to the suggested review criteria of NYS General Municipal Law Section 239 L applied to the proposed project.” And that’s the only statement I have. I will say that everything has been quantified, as far as the relief. So I think that’s been met. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I would imagine that, at Site Plan Review, they’re going to iron out all the little changes that they want and tell you exactly what you’re going to get to utilize the front part for, too. All right. You are going to connect the buildings. That’s in the proposal. Correct? MR. DOBERT-Yes, connect the buildings, all three. So it’ll be one building. MR. UNDERWOOD-So it’ll just appear as one façade across the whole front, but with the different changes between the little buildings, as you’ve got on the plots. MR. DOBERT-Yes. That’s right, and I wasn’t aware that that suggestion was made, but, yes, that’s what we want to do. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think in a sense of a main street streetscape, you know, we’re looking to look like Downtown, you know, so it’s, and as you’ve said, anything you’re going to do to emulate that is probably going to be a positive, compared to having the 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/09) little tiny cottages and places along there, the bungalow houses as they now exist. All right. Anything else you want to add, or do you want us to just, I’ll run through the Board and see what the Board’s feelings are. MR. DOBERT-Yes. No, that’s it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. You guys have any other questions you want to ask? Any of you guys have any real concerns about what’s being asked for here, as far as the relief and all? I mean, it’s pretty much predicated on where the buildings are now, and they are going to be connected, and I think the thing you want to look at is look at this drawing, because that’s what you’re going to end up with. As far as what happens in the front, out on Corinth Road there, well, Main Street there, the Planning Board’s probably going to make the ultimate determination as far as that goes, you know, and they’ve essentially said that in their recommendation to us, too, and Richardson Street, the relief, most of the relief is from Richardson Street to the side setback relief there, and the Town Board has signed off on that. MRS. HUNT-I think if you look at the map, down Main Street, they’re all much closer to the road than your building will be. MRS. JENKIN-Well, they’re supposed to be. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, that was what they were trying to do was you’re supposed to be in that 0 to 20 feet back. So you’re outside the 20 foot back, but it is also, the other consideration might be, because it’s on the corner of Richardson Street there, it’s not like it’s in the middle of a block or something where it would mess it up completely. It’s at the end of a road. Okay. I guess I’ll start with you, Joyce. Do you want to go first? MRS. HUNT-Yes. It sounds like a good project. The 22 feet of relief in the front, the only thing you could do is tear down the buildings and move it back, and I don’t think that’s a viable suggestion. I would have no problem with it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Rich? MR. GARRAND-I think the planned upgrade is going to be a nice addition to the area, to the Main Street corridor. I think it fits right in with what they’re trying to do, and given the constraints of the lot, there isn’t a whole lot you can do. I think tearing down the building and moving it back would basically take out that loading area behind the building. So your options are pretty limited here, but, you know, given the characteristics of the site here, I think you’re doing the best option for the area. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, you know, linking them all together with a consistent façade improves the whole line, and I would have no problem with it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joan? MRS. JENKIN-Looking at the criteria we’re supposed to follow, I think that you really, can’t, the benefit can’t be achieved by any other, because the building’s there. The foundations are there, and linking the two buildings together and making it one piece will be definitely a desirable change to the neighborhood and to your buildings. I don’t think that it’ll have any adverse physical or environmental effects to the whole area. It would probably be a positive. It’s not self-created. I would like to see, in the future, though, and I think that you will, and the Planning Board will make sure that you are following what the Main Street criteria area. So I would be in favor of this. It’s a good move. MR. UNDERWOOD-Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-I also would be in favor. I think it’s a nice upgrade. I think it’ll look good. It’s on a corner. So setting it back isn’t quite as bad as having it in the middle of a street. The Planning Board had a unanimous okay for what you were looking at doing, and suggested that we go along with the variance. The resolution from the Town Board also looks like they go along with it also. Site Plan Review with the Planning Board I think will be the thing that will decide, at the end, what you’re going to do with the area out in front. So I’d be in favor of this also. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I, too, will go along with everybody else. I mean, we can all agree that this is going to be an upgrade that’s going to be a positive and push things in 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/09) the right direction down on Main Street, as one of the first ones in that area that will be done to the T’s of what we had expected. Although we would hope that probably every other one gets built out closer to the road, so you don’t have a huge expansion out in front that would be used for parking. The only stipulation I would put on it is this, that, you know, there may come a time when the whole street is built out there, and if you’re the only one that still has parking out front, if that’s allowed by the Planning Board, I would like to see that that, when everybody else is gone with their front parking, that your front parking would have to disappear also. One of the other things is that, on the corner of Richardson Street there, I mean, it is going to give a better sight line for traffic when it comes out to the corner there, you know, not like you’re pulling out of an alley or something like that, but the other side of the road over there is kind of the opposite way, you know, with the building real close to the road as it exists now. So it’s not perfect, but it’ll work, and the Town Board and the Planning Board, I think, are satisfied that this is okay. So I think we can be also. So does somebody want to do the resolution? MRS. HUNT-I’ll do the resolution. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MS. GAGLIARDI-Excuse me, you need to close the public hearing. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 42-2009 MARVIN STAN DOBERT, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: 50-52 Main Street. The applicant proposes renovation and expansion of existing buildings to include construction of a new building between 50 and 52 Main Street. Applicant requests relief from the front and side setback requirements and for expansion of a nonconforming structure. The applicant requests 22 feet of relief from the front setback requirement of the build to line, and minus 3.8 feet of west side setback relief from the required 0 to 20 foot side setback requirement per Section 179-3-040. Further, the applicant requests relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure as per Section 179-13-010. In making this determination, whether the benefits could be achieved by other means. I don’t think so. The only other option would be to tear down the buildings, and the applicant doesn’t think that’s a viable solution. Whether there would be an undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood or to nearby properties. I think there would be minor impacts. The request of 22 feet front setback relief is severe relative to the Ordinance, but really because the buildings are already there, the request to expand an existing structure, currently 3.8 feet over, was approved by the Town Board. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions, I don’t think so, and the difficulty is self-created only in the sense that Mr. Dobert wants to renovate these buildings. So I move that we approve Area Variance No. 42-2009. th Duly adopted this 16 day of September, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hunt, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Urrico MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re all set. Good luck with it. MR. DOBERT-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-2009 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED D & G MANAGEMENT LLC AGENT(S): VAN DUSEN AND STEVES OWNER(S): D & G MANAGEMENT LLC ZONING: CLI LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE SHERMAN AVENUE OPPOSITE LUPINE LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 6,000 SQ. FT. LIGHT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING AND REQUESTS RELIEF FROM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: SP 49-09 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: SEPTEMBER 9, 2009 LOT SIZE: 4.12 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.5-1-1.2 SECTION: 179-4-050 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/09) MR. UNDERWOOD-This is a landlocked property, and in essence they’re asking for a right of way across National Grid property to access the lot, which is sort of set back in there. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No.45-2009, D & G Management LLC, Meeting Date: September 16, 2009 “Project Location: South side Sherman Avenue opposite Lupine Lane 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 6,000 sq. ft. light industrial building on a vacant land locked parcel accessed through National Grid property off of Sherman Avenue. Relief Required: Applicant requests 50 feet of relief from road frontage requirements per §179-4-050. 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 impacts to the character of the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this area variance request. 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. With the property lacking road frontage on a public or private street, there appears to be little recourse except an area variance. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 50 feet or 100 percent relief from the 50 foot road frontage requirement per §179-4-050 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 to nearby properties may be anticipated as a result of this proposal. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. With the parcel being landlocked and the fact that access must be obtained through other properties, the difficultly may not be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 49-09 Pending outcome of this area variance Vacant Land Staff comments: Per §179-4-050, every principle building shall be built upon a lot with frontage upon a public street improved to meet the standards of the Town of Queensbury. The required frontage for one principle building shall be at least 50 feet, and such frontage shall provide physical access to and from the lot to be built upon. As this property is land locked, and the closest property line is 520 feet from Sherman Avenue, an area variance is required for this project. The applicant has requested waivers for stormwater, grading, landscaping, lighting, erosion and sedimentation controls pending the outcome of the area variance proceedings. SEQR Status: SEQR Type – Unlisted” 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/09) “Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form September 9, 2009 Project Name: D & G Management LLC Owner(s): D & G Management LLC ID Number: QBY-09-AV-45 County Project#: Sept09-18 Current Zoning: CLI Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 6,000 sq. ft. Light Industrial Building and requests relief from road frontage requirements. Site Location: South side Sherman Avenue opposite Lupine Lane Tax Map Number(s): 309.5-1-1.2 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to construct a 6,000 sq. ft. light industrial building. Relief is requested for road frontage. The building is located on lot that is land locked where a 50 ft. easement is being provided to the applicant over Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation. The plans show the location of the building on the lot and the access road to Sherman Avenue. 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” Signed by Tim Lawson Warren County Planning Board 9/9/09. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Do you guys want to describe? The question I had, before you even start was, was this property previously owned for a long time, or was this on the other side of your property? You own the adjacent property? GEORGE DRELLOS MR. DRELLOS-Right. Yes, we bought this late 80’s, ’90 maybe. MR. STEVES-In the early 90’s, I believe it was, after the development of Homestead. Actually I think their park’s called Northwinds. It was after the development of that, and I believe it was owned by a person by the name of Ferriss, and this was a landlocked piece back during the acquisitions for the Northway taking, and it was landlocked since the late 50’s, early 60’s. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Do you want to describe for us what your intended use is going to be back here or is it just storage or parking vehicles? MR. STEVES-Sure. Again, Matt Steves, representing D & G Management, together with George Drellos of D & G Management. Again, this is property on the south side of Sherman Avenue. It’s in a Light Industrial, Commercial Light Industrial zone, and it’s obviously landlocked. So any use on this requires an Area Variance, no matter how we get to it. There’s no public roads fronting on this property in any direction. Again, the next nearest road would be Luzerne Road, which is some 1800 feet to the south. We have been in contact with National Grid. They really don’t have an issue with it. As we described when we were at the Planning Board coming in for a recommendation, you can see the clearing in some of the areas of National Grid now, and if anybody’s been in that area, they’ve been clearing more trees out around that substation because of the problems they’ve had over the years with wind knocking the trees down into there, and the proposed driveway, as is shown now, will come in just to the north of what is the storage units that were built there two years ago I believe. We’ll address all those things at Site Plan, but dealing with National Grid, they’re saying until you have a variance, you know, we’re not going to take the time to go through the engineering process of issuing you a license agreement, and obviously we can’t go through Site Plan until we have the variance as well. All those things we asked for on waivers as far as the Site Plan, we do intend, if and when an Area Variance is granted, we’ll go right back and do the topography, the soils, stormwater, lighting, landscaping, all that’s going to be done. It’s just we couldn’t justify all that just to see whether or not we could get road access. As far as the usage of the building right now, no intended particular use. Dan and George may, at some point, want to downsize the building that they have on Luzerne Road and maybe move their small sanitary sewer business over here. It’s really just to have some, you know, some future flexibility with their building that they have on Luzerne Road. Like I say, it’s just the two of them, their employees, and they maybe want to downsize that a little bit, run out of here, maybe rent it to another small outfit. They’re not quite sure yet. They just want to have something that they can have on this property and then they can, they can’t really market it to anybody else without an approval. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. STEVES-So we’re not quite sure what the use is going to be, but we want to keep it relatively small. We want to tuck it into the corner where it is shown. So that it’s as far away as possible from the residential lots on Sherman Avenue. So we tuck it into that southeasterly corner, and that National Grid right of way that runs between that lot and the residential lots is 75 feet, and then we put the building back about another 110 feet 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/09) from there, try to keep as much buffer as we could, and again, it would be limited to very light traffic in and out of there, but it is a Light Industrial zone. We’re just proposing a 50 foot wide easement, and then some type of a gravel surface probably 24 feet wide. MRS. JENKIN-So this would be a deeded right of way from National Grid? MR. STEVES-Correct. They call it a license agreement. It’s a deeded right of way through their property. So that parcel, it wouldn’t be just for the one entity. It would be to go with the parcel. So, in other words, if it was ever owned by another entity, they wouldn’t have to go through the same license agreement. MRS. JENKIN-Right. MR. STEVES-There’s plenty of clearance for the, underneath the National Grid line that is there, the one main line, for the type of traffic. The clearance is like seven to eight feet higher than it has to be. So there’s not an issue there. As you know, anywhere you drive around in this area, you drive underneath Niagara Mohawk power lines. Along Quaker Road, you go into any plaza on Quaker Road, you drive underneath the Niagara Mohawk lines. All the car dealerships, they all have license agreements, because another thing, along Quaker Road, that National Grid has that, all along the one side of Quaker Road is all National Grid before you get to the properties in the back. So it’s basically the same situation, you need a license agreement. MR. UNDERWOOD-Keith, a question I would ask you is, how come this is Light Industrial based upon the rest of the neighborhood down there, like was there some thought process involved as to why that process was zoned that way? MR. OBORNE-Well, I think the whole area down there is Commercial Light Industrial, and what you have is a mobile home, mobile park overlay district in that area. MR. STEVES-Sure, to the south of this. MR. OBORNE-To the south. The NiMo lands or National Grid lands are also Light Industrial, zoned Light Industrial. I think if they weren’t, there may be an issue, and there still may be an issue. I’m not trying to influence at all, but the thought process through it, it had been Light Industrial prior, and it continues to be Light Industrial. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Okay. Do you guys have any questions at this time, or should we open up the public hearing? MR. GARRAND-I’ve got a couple of questions. What’s to stop the future use of this parcel from becoming somewhat of a detriment to the rest of the neighborhood that fronts on Sherman Avenue, and what’s the status of the easement from National Grid? MR. STEVES-As I explained earlier, National Grid will not, I’ve been in discussion with them, but they will not go through the engineering process of issuing a license agreement until they’re assured that the Town Zoning Board issues a variance. MR. GARRAND-So they’re waiting on us? MR. STEVES-Yes, they are. Because again, like I say, they look at it and they say, okay, we know you need a variance, so if we go through the whole process, we issue you a permit and license agreement, and then you do not get the variance, we’ve wasted our time, and they’re a tough entity to get to move to do anything, and then to ask them to do it and then it may not ever need to be done, they just say, you get your variance and come back. As far as the use, I mean, it’s a Light Industrial property. We’re trying to keep it a moderate use. We’re not talking about any type of a manufacturing facility, mainly some type of a small business enterprise, like I say, like Dan and George run now, a septic system business, maybe an electrical contractor, small one. We’re only taking a 6,000 square foot building, and in reality, that’s not a very large building. If they get approval for a 6,000 square foot building, and then, to answer your question, five years down the road, somebody says, I want to put up a 30,000 square foot building, they have to come right back in front of the Planning Board. MR. KUHL-But what’s to prevent you from getting this approval and then selling the property, as a usable piece of property? MR. STEVES-Nothing. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/09) MR. KUHL-So you’re not really guaranteeing us that you’re going to build the building? MR. STEVES-That would be up to the client. I mean, again, it’s not, you can’t even market this thing. (Lost words) you sold it to in a Light Industrial use would still want to come in and do the same thing we’re doing. Nobody can use this property at all unless you at least get access to the property. I mean, it’s zoned Light Industrial. The Town doesn’t want to give up or lose any Light Industrial, and they allowed the storage units. They have the Sports Dome. They have numerous other facilities just the other side, on the other road, you have Arrowhead Equipment, the junkyard, I can’t remember the name of it, Mandigos, and it’s the type of use that’s around that area, and we’re just trying to accommodate a smaller, Commercial Light Industrial use. MR. KUHL-But not necessarily D & G. MR. DRELLOS-Could. We don’t know yet. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. DRELLOS-We’re looking at downsizing. That’s why we’re doing this. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. DRELLOS-We might rent the other one out and then move into this. MRS. JENKIN-So how much property is between your lot and the homes on Sherman? MR. STEVES-We located the garage and the asphalt drive on the closest lot there on, on Ramstorff’s property, and most of the houses on those lots, I believe, sit back about 100 feet off the road, you know, they’re a fairly good distance off Sherman, but from our proposed building to the, any of the back of the houses, is probably averaging about three to four hundred feet. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. MR. STEVES-You have that, say about 100 feet from our building to our property line, and then a 75 foot National Grid corridor. So there’s about 175 right there, just to get to their property, and the reason we’ve tucked the building back the way we did is to leave that, about a 40 foot buffer in there, on our property. Because there are trees on that corner of the property, we would like to leave them. MRS. JENKIN-So National Grid goes not only perpendicular from Sherman. It also goes along the back of the homes, and on the other side? MR. STEVES-Yes. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. So there’s two buffers there. All right. MR. STEVES-That’s their transmission line. What happens is the large parcel to the east is their substation. If you can look over in the upper right hand corner of that aerial photo, right where he has his cursor, that’s the substation. MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s up on the hill there, it’s a little higher. Yes. MRS. JENKIN-And does that, this is beside the point, but does that have to be a certain distance from any residential, do you know that, does it have to be, the substation? MR. STEVES-I think that’s why they located it in the center of a larger area. I don’t know the exact distances for that type of use, but I would imagine that’s why National Grid, or Niagara Mohawk, at the time, acquired all that land around it. MRS. JENKIN-There’s a lot of property there. MR. STEVES-And like I say, if you’ve been over there recently, and drive near where those storage units are, back to the east of those, you can see where they’ve cleaned out a substantial amount of trees out of there, because of the fact they had lots of problems with wind onto their system, and they had a lot of problems with people just, you know, motorbikes and stuff. MR. UNDERWOOD-Playground, yes. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/09) MR. STEVES-And it was a major liability. So they started opening it up a little bit. So what we’re trying to do is utilize the frontage on Sherman, but keep it to the east end near the other commercial uses, and we’re also lining that driveway up for the one mainly house on the other side of the road that is on Sherman Avenue where we’re proposing to come out with a driveway is basically not, will not be in front of their house. So most of the time a commercial use like they have would be a daytime operation anyway, but still not to have to line up across for headlights for their house, but we are aware of that, and will make every effort, during Site Plan, to make sure that that does not happen. There’s plenty of room there. We could move this easement right up over to the edge of the storage units. We’re just, right now we’re just trying to get the access out to Sherman Avenue, and then we will locate that house. We’ll locate their driveway and all the usage around there and accommodate the best place for that driveway. MR. UNDERWOOD-Any other questions from you guys? MR. KUHL-Well, what steps do they have to go through now? MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I mean, if we approve this and they go ahead and get the approval for the easement from National Grid, then they’re going to go to the Planning Board. MR. KUHL-For a use permit? MR. UNDERWOOD-For a Site Plan Review on it. MR. STEVES-Yes, then we have to go through stormwater and landscaping and lighting, drainage, erosion control, which, like I said, we asked for waivers because we just didn’t want to go to that extent until we knew we could get access to a road. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I think what I’ll do is open up the public hearing, because I’m sure there’s going to be some public commentary here. So is there anybody from the public wishing to speak on the matter here this evening? Raise your hand, please. Why don’t you come up first, sir, and please tell us who you are, so we can get that on the record. Thanks. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED BOB ROBERTS MR. ROBERTS-Bob Roberts, 408 Upper Sherman Avenue. I understand with the National Grid buffer, that is, but it’s basically, as you can see from there, the buffer, it’s wide open, it’s all, you know, the transmission lines run across. It’s wide open. I see that they are going to leave some tree line there. That’s nice for the buffer. With the lighting, I’m not sure what kind of lighting you’re looking at there. The property is landlocked, but it’s landlocked via their own property. Is it not possible for them to access from their own property, via Luzerne Road? The usage, they can’t guarantee the use now, obviously you go in. Once they have the clearance to go in, the building is built, it’s set up for whatever usage they’re going to use it for. The statement of the larger building at a later point, if the property becomes now usable or desirable, obviously a larger building could be built then. That’s the concerns that I have. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak? Why don’t you come up, ma’am. CINDY ROBERTS MRS. ROBERTS-My name is Cindy Roberts. I live at 408 Upper Sherman Avenue. I think the concern that I have is the nothing is firm as far as what they’re telling you. We might do this, we might make it smaller. We might do this, we might sell it, we might not, and the other thing is, is the traffic. We had a big increase in traffic on our road with the building of the dome. It’s disastrous when they have an event, and as far as bussing people in there, I think the traffic in and out there, again, they’re not telling you what they may build in there. So we don’t have any idea. Coming out across, you know, yes, the lights won’t come out into the people right across the road. They’re not going to, you know, shine in their window, but it still is an increase in traffic. When we built, we built a circle drive because we didn’t want people that were visiting us to have to worry about getting out on that road. I think the other thing is, you talk about the lighting, and, you know, the lights and the noise pollution. We have an unbelievable amount of noise 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/09) pollution at nighttime. Arrowhead’s phone rings, and we can hear it, and you can see where we are. We’re a good distance away. I think that you talk about Queensbury. We talk about Main Street, and it being appealing and attractive, and you say we want to approve just this building, this generic building that they’re not giving you any answers, and it sounds to me like they just want to put it up and sell it. I agree with, I think they should be able to go into their property from behind us, out to the other road, and not have National Grid’s property, National Grid, to me, they don’t want people on their property. So why are we going to allow them to have that be their driveway? Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. JOHN RILEY MR. RILEY-Good evening. My name’s John Riley. I’m at 56 Burnt Hills Drive, and I had submitted a letter earlier. I just wanted to run through a couple of points in there. I think it’s good that we’re seeing more commercial development here, and it is a Light Industrial zone, but when we look at the Niagara Mohawk piece there, I think it was left Light Industrial in the last re-zoning to accommodate the existing ownership of that property, and it really wasn’t left Light Industrial to encourage more development there. One of the things that I think ought to be looked at is the fact that D & G Management, Mr. Drellos, owns 23 acres that does front Luzerne Road. So at first it seems a little odd that, you know, they’re looking to develop the hardest piece of property to develop, but with that aside, that’s a parcel that is in an area that’s been targeted by the Town for further development. So I think it would be appropriate for this to be looked at a little bit closer and have the access to that parcel go through their property onto Luzerne. That would, in fact, allow further development of the property that they own there. Putting that roadway in, I understand would, you know, it’s 17, 13, 1400 feet of additional road that they’d have to put in. That’s a significant expense. This is the expedient way to go, but that’s not always the most appropriate thing to do. That’s the kind of development that there ought to be an opportunity to look at funding to allow that to mitigate somewhat the impact on the landowner for doing something that’s really going to be a bigger benefit to the Town. So I guess I’d just like to encourage this Board to actually not make a decision, or to send them back and ask them to re-look at their alternatives. Upper Sherman is, with few exceptions, a residential area, and not an area that we’re looking to encourage commercial traffic on. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. DEREK MILLINGTON MR. MILLINGTON-My name’s Derek Millington. I live at 410 Upper Sherman Ave., next to Bob and Cindy. I have a wife and three kids in that area. So, you know, it’s quite a concern of ours, for them to build any thing behind us, not to say, you know, a commercial building that they could come in at one o’clock in the morning and turn on all the lights and so on and so forth, with having kids in the house. So my other concern is I believe this was zoned Light Commercial because of Niagara Mohawk, not so that they could try to attract more businesses, and like the gentleman just said, these are, this is an area where the great majority of the properties are owned by families, and there’s kids and, you know, the whole, everything that goes with it. Noise pollution is obviously a big concern. Another concern that they should be greatly aware of is the fact that, you know, we get kids on four-wheelers and dirt bikes and all sorts of, going down the power line stretch at break neck speeds, and if they’re going to build a road there, then what’s going to stop the liability? I mean, you have dirt to asphalt to dirt. That’s going to be a huge concern for them as property owners, but also as Niagara Mohawk because technically it’s their property still, if they do this. Also, there’s no description as to the hours of operation, no real, how tall is the structure, there’s no, you know, how, are they going to have 40 foot tall light poles, you know, all this stuff actually plays a great role. There’s just questions that need to be asked. There’s, it’s kind of vague, the back lower southeast corner is the proposed structure site, and does that mean they have to clear trees and, you know, kind of destroy the aesthetic of us looking out our, you know, the back window of our house. You’re already seeing, you know, what you can through the trees, you’re already seeing power lines, you know, we don’t want to see a structure that’s 40 feet tall or 30 feet tall or however in the back yard. So I think there’s a lot that needs to be really looked into. This is something that, once you go down that road, there’s really no going back, and they can come back time and time again, because, you know, you let us do it once, why can’t we do it three or four more times. So, this is a concern that we have, so I think the more you look into it, I think it would be better. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/09) MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak on the matter? Okay. We did have some correspondence. MR. GARRAND-It’s from Mr. John Riley, 56 Burnt Hills Road. Did you want me to read this in? MR. UNDERWOOD-Did you want us to read it, or do you think you made your point? MR. RILEY-I think I made my point. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. All right. Okay. If you would, I think the key points that we would like you to address at this point in time would be access over your own property over there, you know, if that’s a possibility. I mean, I don’t know what the intentions for that property are ultimately. You can show us. MR. DRELLOS-If you looked up here, this is the mobile home park. So that’s all gone. That’s the junkyard. This is the other property we own. That’s water. So, you have to go from here all the way here. We have our building here. You’d have to go from here, somehow get over this, to get there. MR. UNDERWOOD-So you’ve got that pond that’s filled up most of the year there, too, right? MR. DRELLOS-Yes. That’s what they dug up for the Northwinds years ago. MR. STEVES-And, again, we do understand, and I’m not trying to push it off on other Boards. There are a lot of issues there that we understand that we have to come back with Site Plan. Size of the building, we didn’t start off with a 35,000 square foot building. We started off with a small building because we knew the area it was in. We’re not intending to go there. If there was a recommendation to the Zoning, from the Zoning Board to the Planning Board to make sure that they try to watch the size of the building, or make sure that they have a maximum on the size of the building, you know, lighting, again, it would be mainly a daytime operation is what we’re thinking. As most Light Industrial areas, we’re not the ones that zoned it that way. It’s been that way, and no matter what we do with the property, even if we wanted to use it to park a car on there or put a garage up and just store antique cars and have no, you know, traffic whatsoever, we still need a variance to even access the property, and I’m not trying to, you know, we could have come in here and said we don’t know what we’re going to do. We know we want to put in a small Light Industrial building. We could have said, we don’t know what we want to do. We just want to get access to our property. It is Light Industrial. We would like to use it as Light Industrial, but we want to keep it as minimal impact as possible. That’s why we just tried to show, you know, the building in a suitable area where the least amount of clearing and the greatest setback from the residences are, and like I say, talking or dealing with the owners as we move through for Site Plan, we can start to address a lot of those issues, but we can’t do anything with this property until we get access to it. As George has mentioned, to the south, coming through their property, it really is not a valid option to come to their easterly property they own, where the old Zoli pit is, as it’s called, and then through the mobile home park, that’s, they’re all occupied. It has been for 15, 20 years, and those are those old stone and tar roads, if you’ve ever been in there, the way the towns used to make them back in ’84, I think they were done, ’85, and they’re narrow. They’re only 20 foot wide, and it’s not like Sherman Avenue, and they even put natural gas in there so they didn’t have to worry about propane trucks and stuff coming in and out of there, because that is all residential, and we know that Sherman Avenue has residential areas on it. We do know that. That’s why we’re trying to put the driveway through a Light Industrial area where it’s not driving through residence’s yards, like they would have to if we went through the mobile home park, and again, that would still require a variance because that’s a private road. That’s not a Town road. So I’d need a variance to have access to Luzerne Road, which is almost three time farther than Sherman Avenue. MR. UNDERWOOD-Keith, what would be the maximum size building you could build on that property there? I mean, the sky’s the limit? MR. OBORNE-I haven’t done the density calculations. MR. UNDERWOOD-But, I mean, just offhand, it could be pretty large. Right? MR. OBORNE-Well, it’s a 4.12 acre. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/09) MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m just thinking, in a sense of what you’re proposing to use it for is one thing but if it gets sold or something, or it suddenly became desirable down the road, I mean, you could see a FedEx building in there with eight million trucks going in and out every day, you know, that might be a concern with the neighbors, obviously. MR. STEVES-No question. MRS. JENKIN-There’s the pond, and then the trailer park is right beside the pond? MR. DRELLOS-Yes. MRS. JENKIN-Beside the pond, on that lot, that’s a separate lot from the trailer park, correct? MR. DRELLOS-Yes. MRS. JENKIN-Is there enough space for a road beside the pond? MR. STEVES-It’s awful steep. MRS. JENKIN-It’s steep. MR. DRELLOS-Well, yes. MRS. JENKIN-Right to the property line. MR. DRELLOS-Yes, they dug it all out. MR. STEVES-It’s pretty much a sand bank down in there. MR. GARRAND-And D & G owns the trailer park? MR. DRELLOS-Yes. MR. STEVES-Yes. MRS. JENKIN-Because one of the issues that one of the gentlemen said is putting that road in through the National Grid property, it might open it up to more dirt bikers and everything, because that would be a wonderful access for them. Right now it’s completely wooded. MR. DRELLOS-Actually, I disagree. I think it would actually stop them more, because if you notice farther down all the roads crossing, all the new developments, there’s less and less of them because they have to cross all these roads now, and they’re patrolling pretty good back there. The DEC is back there because of plants, and lupines, whatever they are, and I used to hear them all the time out in back and I don’t, very rare now do I hear them. MR. KUHL-Even if we suggested you get access from Luzerne Road, you’d still need a variance to get across the property. MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. KUHL-You’d still need a variance to go through the power company. MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. KUHL-It might only be 15 feet, or 20 feet. MRS. JENKIN-That’s, between the trailer park and your lot, that is Niagara Mohawk property as well? MR. STEVES-If you came in that property from the east, you’d still have, as Mr. Kuhl said, you’d still have to go through National Grid to get to the property, and they’re not objectionable to it, because of the fact, I live in Hidden Hills, so I fortunately drive that every day. They’re clearing that area out because of the concerns like with the motor bikes and such, and they had no issues with it because of the fact it would open it up and they’d have another, basically, set of eyes as a policing agent in there, and they understand that they’re trying to keep that kind of traffic away from there. That’s why 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/09) they kind of cleared out that substation area, but at the same time, we’re not trying to over clear. We’re just trying to wind that driveway through there, in a manner that we would have to do minimal clearing. If you look at the, like I say, the aerial that he has up there, it really doesn’t depict how much clearing they’ve done, and now that small one acre lot is also completely cleared, and there is the storage units on there now. So, like I say, we’re trying to utilize it for what is there. The storage unit’s there, coming in off Sherman Avenue. We’re not talking a 40,000 square foot. I think it’s like a 38,000 square foot building we could put up here, something along those lines, and using it for a UPS distribution center. We started off with a small 6,000 square foot, that’s what we’re looking to do. Obviously somebody could come back in, down the road, and again, I understand concerns, but they’d still have to go back to the Planning Board. Any change would have to go back through the Planning Board. MR. UNDERWOOD-Any other questions from you guys right now? Okay. Keith, would there be any kind of safeguards that the Planning Board might put, as far as their stipulations on the project, as far as keeping it small? I mean, there’s really no way to keep a handle on that going forward, right? MR. OBORNE-Well, with a nebulous plan before us, I really can’t answer that. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MR. OBORNE-I mean, they did come as a 6,000 square foot building, and that’s what we’re expecting at Site Plan Review. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. All right. Then I guess what I’ll do is close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-And I guess I’ll poll you guys and see what you think here. I’ll start with you, Brian. MR. CLEMENTS-Well, it looks like this would need an Area Variance for the usage of the property no matter what. I understand the public’s concern with what might be built there, but whether it’s accessed through Sherman Avenue or another road, what’s going to be built there will be built there if it goes through the Planning Board anyway. So, you know, I look at that concern as something that might come up in the future, or if it gets sold, the same thing. Even if it is sold and somebody buys it, it still has to go through Site Plan review. So I guess that, looking at the consideration for an Area Variance, I would be in favor of it, because I know that it’s going to have to go through Site Plan Review with whatever’s built there, whether it’s sold or not. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joan? MRS. JENKIN-Yes. I feel they are separate pieces of property, the trailer park and your other piece of landlocked property. They’re separate pieces of property, but they’re the same owner, and so, essentially, I understand it’s a trailer park, but I understand, also, essentially, because you’re the same owner, you do have access through that property somehow, some way, I’m not sure how you could do it, but you could access that landlocked property, because you are the owner. So right now I would be against this motion. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Ron? MR. KUHL-I think you’re asking us to take a big leap of faith by coming up and saying we’re thinking about building a building, without any more defined plans. If, in fact, you’re between a rock and a hard place with the power company needing this approval to get that easement, that’s just, I think you have to have more defined plans. I mean, if this area is going to be developed for your personal use, I think you’d have to be more defined, and what you’re saying is you’re not. You’re saying, well, we may, we might. So I’d be against it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Rich? MR. GARRAND-If we could get some sort of assurances, this backs up against National Grid, which also abuts private property, and, you know, basically this property can be sold and almost anything can be done with it. Granted it has to go through Site Plan Review, but there’s a lot of options for this piece of property, once an easement’s been granted from National Grid. Going back to the balancing test, whether benefits can be 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/09) achieved by other means, it’s possible to go through Sugarbush, improve the road, and get to this property. The request may be deemed substantial. Whether it’s going to have adverse physical or environmental effects, I have no idea, and whether it’s self-created. You look at the deed, it is understood by the parties hereto that the premises herein conveyed is being conveyed without a conveyed access to a public highway or thoroughfare. So I would have to deem it self-created. So at this point, without any firm guarantees from the applicant either, I couldn’t be in favor of this. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. This is a tough one. I don’t think we could put any conditions on it, could we, saying we grant the variance, but certain conditions must be met? MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I don’t think see that that’s possible. MRS. HUNT-No, I don’t think so. MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, not knowing what the future holds. MRS. HUNT-Yes. I think the neighbors have a point, and I do think that there is another way of getting to this property. That still wouldn’t change what would happen to it, but at this point I would not be in favor. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So it looks like you’ve got four against it right now. So I don’t know what you guys want to do, if you want to re-consider what you’re going to do or firm up the, you know, what’s going to happen with the property. I don’t know how you would do that. I guess you could put deed restrictions on it or something if you were going to keep the building at only that small size, but I don’t know if that’s to your benefit, not knowing what you might do with the property in the future. MR. STEVES-If the Board would not mind, we would suggest that you go ahead and table it or pull it and we’ll discuss that. I mean, we’ve got some concerns and issues, and we’ve got some comments from the Boards and neighbors. Like I said, we’re just trying to do it in a practical aspect, and a business sense, okay. Knowing that, okay, now I’m going to go back to my client and say, okay, now we’re going to spend $8,000 to find out, and we’re going to come back to the Zoning Board and we’re going to get a no. Okay. So we’re just trying to get an idea if, you know, you can’t do anything with this property without obtaining a variance. I can’t put a garage on this property of 400 square feet without getting a variance. I have to be able to get to this property. So we will come back with some more detail and see how the owners want to negotiate that detail. MRS. JENKIN-Can I ask a question? Is it possible to, would you be able to use the property as an expansion of the trailer park? MR. DRELLOS-No, that’s not a Mobile Home Park Overlay on there. MR. STEVES-Right. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. So it couldn’t be expanded. MR. DRELLOS-And then there’s no access from the trailer park in. Those are all homes. I’d have to move one home out of there, I’d have to kick somebody out. MR. STEVES-But it’s not part of the Mobile Home Overlay. You’d have to get it re- zoned. MRS. JENKIN-The homes are separately owned? MR. DRELLOS-No, they’re on lots. I’d have to, it’s completely surrounded by. MR. STEVES-You don’t own the houses. MR. DRELLOS-No, we don’t own the homes. MRS. JENKIN-But you own the land. MR. DRELLOS-Right. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/09) MR. DRELLOS-So someone would have to move to try and get access to that. MR. UNDERWOOD-Is there any sense on your part that your other lands, you know, over by the pond there, do you have any intentions for like increasing the size of the mobile home park in the future? MR. DRELLOS-I don’t think that is, either. I’m not sure if that is Mobile Home Park Overlay, and if you fill it, is it, can you build on it? I don’t know. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Yes, well, you know, it’s understandable that the access point, you know, basically negates the use of the property if you don’t have access to it, and that’s a reasonable request, as far as I’m concerned, but at the same time, I think that the neighbors have made some valid arguments, and, you know, not knowing, it’s one thing to say if there’s just going to be you and your business there. I mean, that would be palatable to anybody, I believe. I don’t think that would be a burden, a great burden, but, you know, if there’s no firm plan for the future, you know, and it’s up in the air, the sky’s the limit as to what could go in there, and you might ruffle a lot of feathers in the process, no doubt about that. MR. STEVES-So just come in with a more detailed idea of exactly what the building usage is, size, is there any other information from the Board as far as, do you want to start seeing like lighting and landscaping or anything like that, or just more particularly the size and use of the building? MR. GARRAND-The size and use of the building, and for me, foremost, is not to degrade the property value of those people on Sherman Avenue. They’re the people who came here tonight, and they’re concerned about their property values, and they don’t want something back there that’s going to deter from the value of the homes that they’ve put their, you know, everything into. MR. STEVES-I wholeheartedly agree. That’s why we’re here, and that’s why we said we’ve always started off with a small building. We could have come in here with, like I said, I think it’s 38,000 square foot we could put here, and that’s not what our intentions are, but at the same time, it’s a Light Industrial property. So, I mean, we can’t put a house there without getting a variance. MRS. JENKIN-If you were looking to add more homes, as a development in there, you’d. MR. STEVES-Need a variance. MRS. JENKIN-Need a variance because of the industrial. MR. STEVES-A Use Variance. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I think what we’ll do is table you, then, until, I think we’ll table this application for more information on it, a more concrete plan. MR. OBORNE-Do you want to give the applicant direction in that regard? MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I think there has to be some understanding, going forward, as to the size of the proposal and how firm that is, and, you know, not just simply, we might do this or, you know, that’s not going to satisfy the Board, I don’t believe, at this point. We’ll leave that up to you as to when you want to come back. I don’t know how soon you want to come back. MR. STEVES-I’ll discuss it with him and what I’ll do is I’ll call Staff in the next couple of weeks and let Staff know. th MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. So if you get it in, we’re already past the 15. So we’re looking at November. MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-So we’ll put you first meeting in November. MR. STEVES-And we thank you for your time and your comments. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/09) MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-2009 D & G MANAGEMENT LLC, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Clements: South side Sherman Avenue opposite Lupine Lane. Tabled for more information, a more concrete plan. I think there has to be some understanding, going forward, as to the size of the proposal and how firm that is, and not just simply we might do this. That’s not going to satisfy the Board, I don’t believe, at this point. Tabled until the first meeting in November. th Duly adopted this 16 day of September, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Urrico MS. GAGLIARDI-Excuse, Mr. Chairman, did you want to leave the public hearing open? MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m going to leave the public hearing open. Yes. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED AREA VARIANCE NO. 43-2009 SEQRA TYPE: II NBT BANK, N.A. ATT. JOSEPH R. STAGLIANO, V.P. AGENT(S): ANDREW S. KOWALCZYK, JR. OWNER(S): TAMMY CALABRESE ZONING: HC-INT. LOCATION: 242 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES RECONFIGURATION OF EXISTING RESTAURANT TO BRANCH BANK FACILITY WITH DRIVE-THROUGH CANOPY. APPLICANT IS REQUESTING RELIEF FROM THE REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE HC-INT. ZONE. CROSS REF.: SP 48-09 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: SEPTEMBER 9, 2009 LOT SIZE: 0.56 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.8-1-44 SECTION: 179-3-040 ANDREW KOWALCZYK, JR., REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 43-2009, NBT Bank, N.A., Att. Joseph R. Stagliano, V.P., Meeting Date: September 16, 2009 “Project Location: 242 Quaker Road Description of Proposed Project: Note: Subject to new ordinance. Applicant proposes conversion from current use [restaurant] to branch bank facility to including drive-through teller, ATM machine, façade and internal changes and associated site work. Relief Required: The applicant requests 5.0 feet of rear setback relief from the 25 foot rear setback requirement per §179-3-040 for a proposed drive-thru canopy. 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 impacts on the character of the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of granting this area variance. 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. Options appear limited as the proposal is for the reconfiguration of an existing building, precluding the possible centering of structure on parcel, thus eliminating the need for an area variance. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 5.0 feet or 20% relief from the 25 foot rear yard setback for the Commercial Intensive zone per §179- 3-040 may be considered minor to moderate relative to the ordinance 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/09) 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The residential property to the southeast, Turnberry Condominiums, may be impacted to a greater degree than the adjoining commercial properties due to the lighting requirements for ATM machine proposed for this location. However, the distance between the proposed canopy and the nearest residential unit is approximately 170 feet and as such any lighting issues may be mitigated as a result. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 48-09 Pending BP 2004-506 9/9/04 C/O only BP 1999-020 5/17/93 Outside Walk-in cooler BP 1991-070 7/17/91 C/O only Staff comments: The applicant has obtained a recommendation from the Planning Board to the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning rear setback relief associated with this site plan. Please see attached. The Zoning Board of Appeals may wish to place, as a condition of approval, a requirement that an evergreen landscape strip be installed on the southern property line to mitigate any potential glare as a result of canopy lighting associated with the drive thru. SEQR Status: Type II – no further review is required” “Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form September 9, 2009 Project Name: NBT Bank, N.A. Att. Joseph R. Stagliano Owner(s): Tammy Calabrese ID Number: QBY-09-AV-43 County Project#: Sept09-25 Current Zoning: HC-Int. Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes reconfiguration of existing 2,344 sq. ft. restaurant to branch bank facility to include a drive-through canopy and 110 sq. ft. foyer. Applicant is requesting relief from front and rear yard setback requirements of the HC-Int. zone. Site Location: 242 Quaker Road Tax Map Number(s): 302.8-1-44 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to convert an existing restaurant to a banking facility. Relief is requested from setback requirements. The existing building with a new entry canopy will be located 66 ft. 8 in. where a 75 ft. setback is required and the building with rear dive through will be 20 ft. from the rear property line where a 25 ft. setback is required . the information submitted indicates a 916 sq. ft. addition is to be added this includes a drive thru-teller canopy to the rear of the property. The plans show the new landscaping areas to be installed a the perimeter of the lot removing paved areas. The applicant has indicated the site will be pedestrian accessible from the adjacent Denny and Sunoco site where vehicle access will only be at the front curb cuts on Quaker Road. The plans also included lighting detail and stormwater with erosion control measures. 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” Signed by Tim Lawson Warren County Planning Board 9/9/09. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll read the Planning Board recommendation in. “MOTION THAT THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RELATIVE TO AREA VARIANCE NO. 43-2009, FOR NBT BANK, THAT THE ZONING BOARD GRANT THE AREA VARIANCE FOR THE REQUESTED REAR SETBACK RELIEF., Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:” It was unanimously approved by the th Planning Board on the 10 day of September. So go ahead. MR. KOWALCZYK-Thank you. My name’s Andrew Kowalczyk. I’m an attorney representing the Bank, and in this proceeding, I also represent, as the Agent, Tammy Calabrese, the landowner, from whom the Bank will lease. On my left, Brad Hall who’s the Facilities Manager for the Bank. With me this evening is Dan Burke, who’s the Regional President of the Bank, and in attendance is Tom Hutchins, from Hutchins 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/09) Engineering, a firm that we have retained to represent us both before this Board and the Planning Board. I really can’t add a lot to, other than what’s been read into the record, other than we believe that this location will be a good facilities location for a branch bank. We further believe that it will substantially enhance the site. I believe you have the rendering before you, that the facility will be improved on the exterior. It will be substantially renovated, such that the entire exterior will have new façade. It will have new roofing. As indicated, there will be reasonably less parking, less traffic, more plantings, and a greatly improved site that we believe will enhance the entire neighborhood. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you guys have any questions right now? MR. GARRAND-You’re amicable to some plantings to shield the Amedore properties from lighting? MR. KOWALCZYK-We are amicable to those plantings. However, I would call to this Board’s attention that the canopy lighting at the ATM facility at the rear of the canopy, including the candle power under the canopy, the light will not leave the site, such that I don’t know that the planting is really required because directly behind the facility, and I just don’t recall the direction, it’s a retention pond. That retention pond is probably 60 feet. So that the condominiums that adjoin the property, and as indicated in one of, I believe, the Staff comments, they’re 170 feet away. I think the that issue, and I’d let Brad speak to it, that the plantings there may impede snow removal, but if this Board believes that they are a requirement, we would certainly consider that, or accept that. MR. GARRAND-It’s just a suggestion that they also, you know, there were proposals from Amedore at one point to build more of that housing in there, should these ones take off, but at this point, I don’t think they have. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. As far as that goes, you know, when we did Wal-Mart project, they ended up putting up a berm, you know, with the trees, with a fence, and I think there’s even plantings with that at the same time, but of course they were much closer than what you are here at this site. Do you guys have any other points you want to make or questions? Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-I think this looks like a nice project, and I think it’s a great idea to have the drive through in the rear. I’m going to take the, since Roy isn’t here tonight, ask the question that he probably would ask, which is a traffic safety question. It’s close to Bay Road. As I was there today, I looked at the cars that were backed up at the stop light, and I would wonder if you would be, and this is, of course, up to the rest of the Board, too, would be okay with a condition that a right hand turn only sign be placed on the exit from the Bank. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I don’t know if we can condition that. I mean, that’s a highway, I mean, that’s a County road out there, so, I mean, I don’t know if we have any authority to tell the County what to do. MR. OBORNE-Yes. I would say you wouldn’t, only because you’re here for the canopy relief, and that is a Site Plan issue for sure, and it has gone through my mind, and actually if I could allay any fears, that’s exactly what I will be asking for. To make a left out of there is probably on the verge of ludicrous. MR. UNDERWOOD-Crazy. MR. OBORNE-But, with that said, that’s up to the Planning Board, as far as that goes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Any other questions from you guys at this point? All right, I think I’ll open up the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on the matter? Do you want to come up, please. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED TAMMY CALABRESE MS. CALABRESE-Tammy Calabrese, existing owner of 242 Quaker Road. I’ve been there since 1993. I just want to make the statement about the lighting issue that there’s already an existing Niagara Mohawk pole, probably 30, 40 feet in the air, with lighting back there already. So I don’t believe the lighting has any type of impact back there, and the other thing about traffic. I’ve been pulling out of there since 1993. There’s a 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/09) beautiful meridian in the middle there. There’s plenty of room to pull out. You have time to get in the meridian and move either way, and it’ll stop people from trying to cut through the gas station instead of trying to sneak behind the lot. I think the flow of traffic is better left alone, and that’s it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Thank you. MS. CALABRESE-You’re welcome. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anyone else wishing to speak on the matter? Okay. Correspondence wise, do we have anything in there? MR. GARRAND-None. I didn’t see any. MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t think we had anything. I would make the comment that I think that any kind of lighting issues in the back, I mean, I’m sure the Planning Board’s going to have downcast lighting as they do on almost all the commercial sites there that adjoin residential property, and at the same time, if it’s their wish to have you put any kind of vegetation in, I think that they’re probably going to address that during Site Plan Review of the project. So, I mean, it’s up to you guys what you want to do or if you want to condition that or, and anything else. Anything else you guys want to add before I poll these guys? It’s pretty clear cut. I mean, it’s really the canopy on the back that we’re talking about, and the five feet, to me, doesn’t seem like it’s that consequential. I mean, I think that the big issue would be the headlights of the cars when they’re pulling in to access the thing, I think, in the evening hours or something like that, and I don’t think so much the daytime’s going to be a big deal, and as you said, as it now exists, you’re, you know, 170 feet away from the nearest building. So that’s substantial. I guess I’ll start with you, Ron. MR. KUHL-No, I have no problem with it. I think it’s a good project, and I think we should approve it. I think it’s an improvement to what’s there now. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. I think it’s a good project, too. I think the request of five feet of relief, 20%, is really minimal, and actually it’s not even for a building. It’s just for the canopy. I would be in favor. MR. UNDERWOOD-Joan? MRS. JENKIN-Yes. I think it’s definitely a desirable change in the neighborhood. I think it’s an excellent addition in that area to have a bank. I think the five feet of relief is just the canopy, as was mentioned several times, so I don’t think that that’s a big issue at all. The building itself is fine. It seems like the traffic pattern is going to be much improved, and there won’t be any adverse physical or environmental effect to the property, and I would be in favor of the variance. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Rich? MR. GARRAND-I don’t foresee any adverse impacts on the neighborhood, quite the contrary. I see positive impacts on the neighborhood with this project. So I’d be in favor. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-I’d be in favor of the project. I think it’s a minimal relief for a setback. So I’d be in favor. MR. UNDERWOOD-And I also will be in favor of the project. I mean, I think it’s going to cut, you know, as Mrs. Calabrese said also, the cut throughs there that occur now, behind the gas station, people trying to, you know, make the corner without having to sit at the light for too long, I think the Planning Board will probably address the issue as to access whether you can turn left or right there, but it is pretty close to the left turn lanes when you’re coming east on Quaker Road, and that’s probably going to have to get looked at at least, substantially, and as far as the impact on the neighborhood, it’s not really going to be anymore impact than what occurs there now. I mean, it’s been a commercial operation there, you know, with the sandwich shops over the years, and the banking is certainly going to be, I don’t know if it’s going to produce that much more traffic, you know, it’s probably going to be during the daylight hours anyway. It’s not so much in the evening hours. So I don’t see that this is going to be any big burden on 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/09) anybody in the neighborhood. So I’ll look for somebody to make the resolution. Does somebody want to do this one? Rich? MR. GARRAND-I’ll make it. MR. UNDERWOOD-And I’ll close the public hearing on that, too. Thanks. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 43-2009 NBT BANK, N.A. ATT. JOSEPH R. STAGLIANO, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joan Jenkin: 242 Quaker Road. The applicant proposes conversion from a current use, a restaurant, to a bank branch facility, to include drive-through teller, ATM machine, façade and internal changes and associated site work. The applicant requests five feet of rear setback relief from the 25 foot rear setback requirement per Section 179-3-040 for a proposed drive-through canopy. With respect to the balancing test, whether benefits can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant? No, I don’t believe they can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. They need so much distance for the canopy from the building to allow traffic to go through. Will this produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood or character of nearby properties. As I previously stated, I think this is a positive change to the neighborhood as far as appearance goes and function, and it will not have any undesirable change in the neighborhood. This request would be deemed minimal. Whether the request will have adverse physical or environmental impacts on the neighborhood. The current use has shown no adverse environmental impacts on the neighborhood. I think a bank is even less environmentally intensive than its current use, and whether this difficulty is self-created, I think this difficulty may be deemed self-created, but by the same token, they’re constrained by the limits of the lot and the requirements of NBT Bank. So I move that we approve Area Variance No. 43-2009. th Duly adopted this 16 day of September, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Jenkin, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Urrico MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re all set. MR. KOWALCZYK-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 47-2009 SEQRA TYPE: II STEWART’S SHOP CORP. AGENT(S): STEWART’S SHOP CORP. OWNER(S): LINDA BARBER; ALYSSA BARBER DAWKINS ZONING: HC-MOD LOCATION: 1002 ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 5,022 SQ. FT. STEWARTS STORE WITH A BANK RENTAL. APPLICANT REQUESTS RELIEF FROM THE TRAVEL CORRIDOR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE HC-MOD ZONE. CROSS REF.: SP 50-09 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: SEPTEMBER 9, 2009 LOT SIZE: 1.46 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.13-1-63, 64, 65 SECTION: 179-3-040 TOM LEWIS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 47-2009, Stewart’s Shop Corp., Meeting Date: September 16, 2009 “Project Location: 1002 Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Note: Subject to new ordinance. Applicant proposes construction of a 5,022 square foot convenience store with a bank rental on State Route 9 between Chinatown Restaurant and Sweet Basil Restaurant. Relief Required: The applicant is requesting 37 feet of relief from the 75 foot Travel Corridor setback requirement for the Route 9 Travel Corridor Overlay Zone per §179-4-030. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/09) 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 impacts to the character of the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this area variance request. 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. It appears that the restraints of the lot in terms of width eliminate any feasible method for the applicant to pursue in order to avoid an area variance from the 75 foot Travel Corridor setback requirement. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 37 feet or 49% relief from the 75 foot travel Corridor setback requirements per §179-4-030 may be considered moderate 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 alleged difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Vacant Land S.P. 50-09 Pending Staff comments: The applicant has obtained a recommendation from the Planning Board to the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning travel corridor setback relief per §179-4-030 for the gas island canopy associated with this site plan. Please see attached. SEQR Status: SEQR Type II – no further review required” “Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form September 9, 2009 Project Name: Stewart’s Shop Corp. Owner(s): Linda Barber; Alyssa Barber Dawkin ID Number: QBY-09-AV-47 County Project#: Sept09-27 Current Zoning: HC-Mod Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 5,022 sq. ft. Stewarts Store with a bank rental. Applicant requests relief from the Travel Corridor setback requirements of the HC-Mod zone. Site Location: 1002 Route 9 Tax Map Number(s): 296.13-1-63, 64, 65 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to construct a 5,022 sq. ft. Stewart’s store with a Banking facility. Relief is requested for the travel corridor setback requirement. The gasoline canopy area is to be located 40 ft. from the front setback where a 75 ft. setback is required. The information submitted shows the location of the store and canopy. Plans also included elevations, lighting, stormwater with erosion control measures and other site plan details. 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” Signed by Tim Lawson Warren County Planning Board 9/9/09. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll read the Planning Board recommendation in. “MOTION THAT THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, RELATIVE TO AREA VARIANCE NO. 47-2009 STEWARTS SHOPS, THAT THE AREA VARIANCE TRAVEL CORRIDOR SETBACK RELIEF BE GRANTED, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:”, and it was unanimously adopted by the Planning Board th on the 10 day of September. MR. LEWIS-Tom Lewis, the Real Estate representative of the Stewart’s Shops, and the handout will be a better explanation of what you just read in our application. So if I could 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/09) go over this to better detail why there isn’t any other way we could do this. On the top sheet, which on the lower left is marked Number One, there are set distances that need to be relative to the building and the gas island behind it for safety reasons. So you’ll see that it’s highlighted in yellow, in about the center, you see 30 feet. So there’s 30 feet between the gas island and the parking in front of the building, and there are four cars there, marked one, two, three, four. So Number One is a car at the gas island. Number Two is a car that will go through, you know, either north or south, that’s a travel lane, and then Car Number Three is one that was parked against the building and they backed up, and then Car Number Four, that’s just, that’s the car at the building, and then in the back of the lot, you’ll see how the distance is 24 feet from the back of our delivery area, and it shows a delivery truck, and an additional travel lane behind the building of 14 feet. So this works. Now also, along the canopy, you see the red line there? There’s a red dotted line, and so that only shows how we put the canopy in the same line of site as the buildings in the north and the south, so that the canopy doesn’t extend further than the existing buildings there. Now if you go to Sheet Number Two, the setback here is usually 50 except in the travel overlay. So this shows, suppose that wasn’t here, and it was only 50 feet, which it’s not, but let’s just say that it was, you’ll see, you’ve got the same car, Number One, but now Car Number Two, in the travel lane, and the car backing up, Number Three, that’s an accident waiting to happen, in addition to which it now means behind the building that a car won’t be able to get through there when our delivery truck is there. So now let’s go to Sheet Number Three, and now we say, well, the setback is the 75 feet, and so what does it look like if we do the 75 feet? And I mean, the part of the exercise here is to show the Board, we don’t like coming to Zoning Boards. Nothing personal, you know, we like meeting the setbacks, it’s a lot easier, and so we go through every single machination you could do to avoid that. I’m not sure, have I ever been before this Board? Because I’ve done four stores in this Town. I don’t know that I’ve ever come before the Zoning Board. MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t think so, no. MR. LEWIS-And, I mean, we walk away from sites that are too small. In the old days, we had lots of sites that were too small, but that’s like kind of silly. So here’s what happens if we meet the setback, which obviously, now, the bank doesn’t work at all. We have nowhere to deliver in the back, but something else also happens. Now we need a rear yard setback, and in terms of the percentage of setback needed, we’re asking for 35 feet of relief on the front. There’s something we had done wrong when we submitted, which is why it says 37 feet, but it’s only 35 feet we need. We’re at 40 feet. So that’s 40% of the setback. Now, if we meet the front setback, the rear, as a percentage, is now 68%. So it’s an even larger percentage in the back. In addition to which, by receiving the relief on the front yard, now the building is further away from the residences. So now, if you turn to Page Number Four, because obviously when you abut a residential district, the chances are pretty good someone is going to be in this room and they’re going to object. So that we’re showing that we’re 233 feet from a house, we’re 241 feet from a house, and so I mentioned to the owners, you may want to knock on some doors. So now let’s go to Sheet Number Five, and for the first time in my life, we have 100% of all the neighbors behind us who have signed a form that says they’re in favor of the project. So that’s a first for me. In addition to which, we have three owners who are not even abutting, Parillo, opposite Sutton on the north, and then Persons. So those are the reasons why. Now going through the balancing test, just to answer those questions, from our point of view, there isn’t any other feasible way in order to make this work for us. We went into different layouts, moving the building, moving the gas island. In terms of an undesirable change to the neighborhood character, we certainly don’t feel that this variance would cause an undesirable change. The Route 9 corridor is already very commercial. The gas island will be even with the surrounding buildings, and the variance would allow us to actually build our building further away from the residences. In terms of is the request substantial, 35 feet on a 75 sounds, you know, that’s moderate, but when you look at the setback, is 56%. I put down 47 on that, but as I said, our CAD guy did something wrong. The setback area is 56% of the whole property. Now this, if th this shop actually happens, I’ve been doing this over 17 years, this will be my 99 store. This is the second largest piece of property I’ve ever signed, and here I am asking for a 35 foot variance. So I would ask the Board just to weigh the fact that you’ve got a very large percentage, more than half of it is in the setback area, and if we met it, we need a larger rear yard variance. I don’t think this will have any adverse physical or environmental effects, and this is self-creation, but the buildings are only eight percent of the whole lot. This is not a dense project. What it is, is the distance is needed for internal safety, you know, which we wouldn’t build without that. So, that would be our case. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you guys have any concerns or questions at this time? 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/09) MR. OBORNE-If I could make a point of clarification, the CAD designer for Stewart’s did make a mistake. He placed the 75 foot Travel Corridor setback at 70 feet from the property line, and it does state 75. However, in turnaround in fair play, I measured incorrectly from where the canopy is proposed to where the line is. So the long and the short of it is, instead of 37 feet of relief that Stewart’s is looking for, it’s 35 feet of relief. So it being less is not an issue. MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s not an issue. Yes. Okay. Ron? MRS. JENKIN-Rather than 37, it’s what? MR. UNDERWOOD-Thirty-five. MRS. JENKIN-Thirty-five. MR. KUHL-Is it your intention to have an in and an out lane, the way you draw your car coming in? MR. LEWIS-It will be that way around the rear. It’ll be one way on the rear. MR. KUHL-Well, wouldn’t it be better to take and face all your pumps the same way, and have the south side be the in for the whole property and the north side be the out? MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t think you have the swing to do it in the front, you know, I mean, to approach from that side. MR. LEWIS-No, we’ve done a lot of these. MR. KUHL-Like the one you did down on 16, you have them all, you have all the pumps the same way. You have them all lined up the same way on 16. You did that store? MR. LEWIS-Right. Yes. MR. KUHL-There you go. Right? MR. LEWIS-Yes, and that’s one where it’s on a corner, so to speak, and so there they’re coming from different angles. Here, if you have them all the same way, you’re, and that’s why we added this thing on the front sheet. That was actually in preparation of the Planning Board, because that’s in their Staff Notes, that this gives anyone either option of going in from the south, from the north. If they’re all facing the same way, you’re now forcing this guy here now has to go this way. There’s more confusion inside. MR. KUHL-You’re making a mile suggestion, and so maybe the people will get the idea, the way I do when I go to 16. MR. LEWIS-Thank you for the business. MR. KUHL-All right? But your point, are you trying to keep the flow of traffic in one way, or you just don’t care because you say the crazy coffee people go anywhere. MR. LEWIS-No, no, no. On the contrary, we always care. We get sued a lot. There’s a lot of accidents inside. MR. KUHL-Well, yes, you know, you’ve got a big sign, everybody’s after you. MR. LEWIS-Yes, and therefore we do what is safest. MR. KUHL-And you don’t think putting them all in the same direction is a safer plan than what you have here? MR. LEWIS-Our opinion is strongly that way. We do not think it is safer having them all the same way, in this lot. If it’s a different configuration, then it is very different, and the best example, if it’s a corner, then they almost always go the same way, but it all depends how the lot is shaped. MR. KUHL-Yes, and you also have to control the flow of the drive through windows. MR. LEWIS-All the flows have to be controlled. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/09) MR. KUHL-Right. Yes, and if I were building this, I wouldn’t have my truck back there. I would have my truck over on the north side, and that way I’d have, you know, 26 feet for the person that just came through the ATM and is counting his money as they’re driving off. MR. LEWIS-It actually is on the north side. MR. KUHL-No, I mean, this, to me, is the east side, is it not, where the truck is? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, that would be east. MR. KUHL-You’re having your deliveries on the east side of the building. MR. LEWIS-Yes. MR. KUHL-And that’s where the public goes through, and you’re restricting their size from 29 feet, excuse me 24 feet to 14 feet, and when that guy is going out counting his 100’s, he’s going to hit your truck. Don’t you think that if you had your access on the north side? How many times a week does your truck come in, every day? MR. LEWIS-Either two times or three, our delivery trucks. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. LEWIS-But also the percentages of the cars that will never go back here are substantially larger. Back here, this is the quietest area, as opposed to here, where they’re constantly parking. I mean, our customers insist on parking as near the building as possible. You could go to almost any store, and some guy will park where there’s no parking spot, right in front of the building, and occasionally they hit the building, and I’m not kidding. So we spent an inordinate amount of time deciding the things you just asked us. MR. KUHL-And I have to take your word that you’re the expert and so that’s the way it is. MR. LEWIS-Well, actually take Bill Dake’s word. I’m just one of the guys. He’s the genius in the room. MR. KUHL-All right. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. Any other questions from you guys, or I’ll open the public hearing up. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on the matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-Any correspondence? MR. GARRAND-Yes, we do. What we have here is a form letter. Several of the residents from the area. “To the Town of Queensbury Planning and Zoning Boards: Subject is Stewart’s Shops proposed construction of facility in Queensbury on Route 9 between China Town and Sweet Basil restaurants, property currently owned by Linda Barber and Alyssa Barber Dawkins. I support the construction of the Stewart’s Shop and subject location. Monty Liu” He sold the property to Stewarts, I believe. MR. LEWIS-They own the property, the Barbers. MR. GARRAND-Okay. “To the Town of Queensbury Planning and Zoning Boards: Subject is Stewart’s Shops proposed construction of facility in Queensbury on Route 9 between China Town and Sweet Basil restaurants, property currently owned by Linda Barber and Alyssa Barber Dawkins. To Whom It May Concern: I support the construction of a facility by Stewart’s Shop and subject location. Jay Fazio” From Donna Sutton, Sutton’s Marketplace, “To Whom It May Concern: I support the construction of the Stewart’s Shop in the subject location.” J. Fazio “To Whom It May Concern: I support the construction of a facility by Stewart’s Shop and subject location.” Michelle Persons. “I support the construction of a facility by Stewart’s Shop and the subject location.” Diana Martin. “To Whom It May Concern: I support the construction of a facility by Stewart’s Shop and the subject location.” Also John Arnold, Montray Road. “I support the construction of a facility by Stewart’s Shop and the subject location.” And a Mark Sullivan of 143 Montray Road. “To Whom It May Concern: I support the 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/09) construction of a facility by Stewart’s Shop and the subject location.” Also a fax in also from Mr. Frank J. Parillo, 1011 Route 9, Queensbury. “To Whom It May Concern: I support the construction of a facility by Stewart’s Shop and the subject location.” And that I believe is it for correspondence. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right, then, I think what we’ll do is this. Unless you have anything further to add, but it was a pretty thorough explanation. MRS. JENKIN-I have one question. It’s a very wooded lot right now. There’s a lot of trees on it. Those areas to the, on each side of the property and behind, will you leave trees there, any vegetation? MR. LEWIS-I don’t think so. I mean, we always want to leave it when you can. I mean, why not. We’re certainly going to landscape it heavily. I’ve appeared before the Planning Board a lot. MRS. JENKIN-Okay, and then behind? MR. LEWIS-Yes, behind. MR. KUHL-Are you going to put a fence behind it, to the residences that back up to it? MR. LEWIS-We will offer either a fence or vegetation. If the Planning Board wants a fence, we’ll do a fence. There’s a lot, if you go there and look at it, the fence will basically do nothing, but that doesn’t mean that I, if the Planning Board wants a fence, we’ll do it, but it is so vegetated there, you’re not going to see it. MR. GARRAND-Just keep in mind that when the trucks are idling behind the building, the noise is going to bounce right off the building and go in that direction. MR. LEWIS-We have no objection to a fence. MRS. JENKIN-Vegetation’s better. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I think what I’ll do is close the public hearing, then. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-And I’ll poll the Board, and I’ll start with you, Joan. MRS. JENKIN-You’ve certainly planned this carefully and taken us through every possible scenario, and stressing the safety considerations of the design, I think that it’s very well done. It’s important. I think the site is a good one for Stewart’s, and the plans with the bank sound to be very positive for the neighborhood, and I think that I would be in favor of the variance. MR. UNDERWOOD-Rich? MR. GARRAND-Certainly. I think this is going to have roughly the same setbacks as the Cumberland Farms up the road, and I think it’s going to basically maintain the character of the Highway Commercial zone up in that area. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-I also think it’s in keeping with the rest of the area. I am glad that it’s been reduced to 35 feet, and I’d be in favor of this project. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes. It makes good use out of the property and I have nothing against it. I mean, it’s not going to affect the neighbors, and I like your attitude that if the Planning Board wants you to put up a fence, you’ll put up a fence. It’s just that you don’t want to turn the pumps because I like them all that way. That’s okay. MR. LEWIS-It’s not personal, really. MR. OBORNE-I will say that will be brought up again. MR. KUHL-What number store is this, by the way? Are they over 500 yet? 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/09) MR. LEWIS-We’re 327, but who’s counting? Me. MR. UNDERWOOD-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. I have to agree with my fellow Board members. I think there’ll be minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the area, and the restraints of the lot require the variance. So I’m in favor. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll go along with everybody else. It’s well conceived. I mean, it’s like you made your decision for us, and it’s, I don’t think you could do it any better than what you have done, and it’ll be a nice addition to the area up there. So does somebody want to do the resolution? Okay. Go ahead. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 47-2009 STEWART’S SHOP CORP., Introduced by Joan Jenkin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 1002 Route 9. The applicant proposes construction of a 5,022 square foot convenience store with a bank rental on State Route 9 between China Town Restaurant and Sweet Basil Restaurant. The relief required is that the applicant is requesting 35 feet of relief from the 75 foot Travel Corridor setback requirement for the Route 9 Travel Corridor Overlay zone per Section 179-3-040. The criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267 of the Town Law, in making the determination, the Board shall consider five criteria. The first one is 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 the Area Variance. This project is actually maintaining the character of the neighborhood and, as the plans have been designed so that the canopy is lined up with the adjacent properties, it certainly will fit the character of the neighborhood. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an Area Variance. It’s not possible. They do need the Area Variance because of the 75 foot setback with the new Zoning Ordinance that’s just been adopted. Whether the requested Area Variance is substantial. The request for 35 feet or 46% from the 75 foot Travel Corridor setback requirements per 179-3-040 may be considered moderate relative to the Ordinance. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. There will be minor impacts on the conditions in the neighborhood, and actually for the construction of this project, allowing for safe traffic flow both front and back of the building is extremely important, and this really is the only possible way that they can have safe traffic flow to the store and through the gas islands. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. It is self-created, because perhaps it doesn’t have to be built, but being built, it’s an excellent project and it’ll be a good addition to the neighborhood. So I move to approve Area Variance No. 47-2009. th Duly adopted this 16 day of September, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Urrico MR. LEWIS-Thank you very much. AREA VARIANCE NO. 49-2009 SEQRA TYPE: II RAY AND WENDY KRAFT AGENT(S): BPSR, VAN DUSEN & STEVES, HUTCHINS ENG. OWNER(S): RAY AND WENDY KRAFT ZONING: WR LOCATION: 25 CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 14-SLIP 3 DOCK MARINA. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR 2 OF THE PROPOSED DOCKS. CROSS REF.: AV 6-1997; SUB. 8-2000; SUB 2-2000 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: SEPTEMBER 9, 2009 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 2.23 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 240.9-1-1 SECTION: 179-5- 060 STEFANIE BITTER & MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/09) Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 49-2009, Ray and Wendy Kraft, Meeting Date: September 16, 2009 “Project Location: 25 Cleverdale Road Description of Proposed Project: Note: Subject to new ordinance. Applicant proposes construction of a 14-slip 3 dock marina on Lake George. Relief Required: Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for 2 of the proposed docks. The proposed northern dock encroaches 10.1 feet into the 20 foot required setback line and the adjacent proposed dock to the south encroaches 9.8 feet into the 20 foot required setback line per §179-5-060A(7). Note: The existing dock to the south is pre-existing non-conforming and as such is considered a compliant dock for purposes of this area variance. 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 impacts to nearby properties may be anticipated as the surrounding area has numerous marinas in existence. 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 attitude of the southern property line appears to preclude the applicant from any method other than the request for an area variance. However, the applicant could reduce the size of the proposed docks in order to be more conforming relative to the ordinance. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 10.1 feet or 50.5% relief for the proposed northern dock and 9.8 feet or 49% relief for the proposed southern dock from the 20 foot required setback line per §179-5-060A(7) may both 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. Minor impacts on the physical and environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this request. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The layout of the lot appears to contribute to the need for an area variance and as such this request may not be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 6-97 SB 9-2000 SB 2-2000 Staff comments: The applicant has obtained a recommendation from the Planning Board to the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning minimum dock setback requirements per §179-5-060. Please see attached. SEQR Status: SEQR Type II – no further review required” “Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form September 9, 2009 Project Name: Kraft, Ray and Wendy Owner(s): Ray and Wendy Kraft ID Number: QBY-09-AV-49 County Project#: Sept09-23 Current Zoning: WR Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 14-slip 3 dock marina. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for 2 of the proposed docks. Site Location: 25 Cleverdale Road Tax Map Number(s): 240.9-1-1 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes the construction of two u-shaped docks. Relief is requested for the setback distances of docks. One of the u-shaped is to be located closer than the 20 setback required from the property line for docks. The plans show the 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/09) dock to be in close proximity of the 20 ft. setback. 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” Signed by Tim Lawson Warren County Planning Board 9/9/09. MR. UNDERWOOD-The Planning Board met and there were actually two resolutions that evening. The first one was “MOTION THAT THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RELATIVE TO AREA VARIANCE NO. 49-2009 FOR RAY AND WENDY KRAFT, THAT THE AREA VARIANCE FOR MINIMUM SETBACK FROM ADJACENT PROPERTIES NOT BE GRANTED, DUE TO THE PROJECT’S LOCATION WITHIN THE CEA., Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp:” The Ayes votes on that were Mr. Sipp and Mr. Seguljic, and the noes were Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Jackoski, and Mr. Hunsinger. So that motion did not carry. There was then a second motion made, and that motions reads that, “MOTION THAT THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RELATIVE TO AREA VARIANCE NO. 49-2009 FOR RAY AND WENDY KRAFT, A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:” The Ayes were Mr. Traver, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Schonewolf, and Mr. Hunsinger. The noes were Mr. Seguljic and Mr. Sipp. Absent was Mr. Ford, and that’s it. So, it’s all yours. MS. BITTER-Good evening. Stefanie Bitter from Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart & Rhodes. I’m here this evening with Matt Steves, Tom Hutchins, as well as Ray Kraft. I kind of want to tell you the whole story as to how we got to your Board. In July we had in-depth meetings with Staff to discuss this project as a whole, and I’m going to give you a brief overview. We made those submissions, which were two applications to the Planning Board. A few weeks later it was determined that there was actually an Area Variance needed and we supplemented that submission to include the Area Variance, and let me go through the project. The Krafts actually own two pieces of property. The one at issue at this point in time, is a 2.23 acre parcel, which I’ll refer to as the dock lot. It currently maintains the existing E-Shaped dock, as well as a building, a small building on the property. The adjacent property is approximately 47 acres, currently maintaining a tennis court as well as a single family residence, and the property actually is on the corner of 9L and Cleverdale, but it’s landlocked with property across the street. The Krafts, what they are proposing, and we have multiple applications before the Planning Board, is the Special Use Permit for the marina use, which would obviously place the addition of these two U-shaped docks. In order to do that marina use, we had to apply for a boundary line adjustment and actually obtain 67 square feet from the adjacent parcel. So that’s one of the requests. The other request is obviously the variance before you, which is the 20 foot setback that’s required from these two new U-Shaped docks which I’m going to allow Matt Steves to explain the dynamics as to why that setback is required. The other request that’s required is the subdivision request, which off of this 47 acre lot we’re creating a 1.95 acre lot which is down on this end. Obviously that’s before the Planning Board as well, and then there’s a Freshwater Wetlands permit application, due to the wetlands that are in the middle here. I at least wanted to kind of give you an understanding of the project, so that you were aware of where we were coming from. With the marina permit use, we’re only requesting the use of a 14 slip marina. Like I said before, the E-Shaped dock is already there. So there’s six slips that are already existing. This would be strictly for mooring. We would be converting that building that I identified to you on the dock portion of the property into a bathroom facility for those boat owners. We’d also be converting the existing tennis courts, because this tennis court here would then become part of this property, as to a parking area for the boat owners. The applicants’ intentions here were to provide limited disturbance to the property, and maintain the existing vegetation that is there, maintain the existing paths, you know, really, limited disturbance. There’s already electricity that services the property, and there’s already a water pump that provides water to the property from the lake. Like I mentioned, because of the marina use, there’s a Special Use Permit that’s before the Planning Board, that application as well, for a permanent Special Use Permit. The purpose of tonight’s meeting, like I said, is for an Area Variance. This Area Variance is because of the setback of the docks, but is the direct result of the unique shape of our lot. As you can see from this map, the lot isn’t a straightforward postage stamp lot. It curves around, comes alongside 9L, and the measurement of the setback actually is taken from this point, which again, I’ll leave that to Matt Steves to go into more detail, but when looking at the balancing test, it’s our belief that the weight of the benefit to the applicant is outweighed by any detriment that can be deemed to exist in the community. Looking at the spirit of at least what we believe that this restriction was applied to, it was really to promote safety and maneuvering of boats. The maneuvering of boats are 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/09) already deemed to exist as being safe because this E-Shaped dock already exists. With the construction of these two new docks, no other boats are going to be crossing past these docks. They’re obviously just going to be utilizing these. The one comment that Staff made is to make them actually shorter, and I don’t know if anybody’s been to the property, but there’s some significant boulders that are present in that area. That’s why they’re located, or proposed in the fashion that they are. So we feel like we’ve exhausted all other alternatives or looked into all alternatives to provide this to be the limited variance being requested. I’m going to turn it over to Matt now to get into the technical parts. MR. STEVES-Good evening. Again, Matt Steves representing Mr. Kraft. If I can bother Keith to put up the tax map. It gives you a larger idea of what we’re talking about. The line that we’re discussing that we need the variance for is, if you look on that map, is the line that runs north to the lake, right above the State Route 9L symbol, that borders the property with Harris Bay Yacht Club, and what happens with docking rights within Lake George is where that property line, being that red line, meets the lake, you have two different options, is either that line extended out into the lake, or a line perpendicular to the mean high water where that property line meets the lake. You take the most restrictive. That’s the way that the Code reads. So you take that line, and the most restrictive would be to, the way that mean high comes in there, is extend that property line. Looking at that line, everybody right now, extending it is paralleling the shore of Cleverdale the entire length, and as Stefanie has stated, the intent for the Code is to make navigable areas for boats. Now the two new docks are going north of that existing dock. It’s quite a ways south of those two straight docks you see, and as you go farther north and place these docks, you’re actually getting farther away from the current Harris Bay Yacht Club docks. So really the tip of our new dock is 175 feet away from the tip of the existing Harris Bay dock. It’s just the unique configuration of this property that you’re in the corner of a bay and the property line, if that property line was over to the northeast there another 20 feet, it would be running almost along land the entire way, but yet it still is not impacting any neighboring properties. It’s just a very unique situation with that property line in the area where it’s at. Mr. Kraft, that red line basically represents what’s called mean high water. He has, you know, 3, 400 feet of lake frontage in that area, but yet the line extended cuts that all off completely. You don’t see too many instances like this because most of the time you’re looking at property and, you know, the majority of the time, I’d say about 85% of the time, where lines come down to the lake and you’re on a long straightaway of the lake and they extend out into the lake, or you may have a little curve to a bay. In this instance you’re basically almost at a 90 degree corner on the lake, and your property line is basically in line with the shoreline to the north. MRS. JENKIN-Would you get up and point to which red line you’re talking about, if you don’t mind. MR. STEVES-Absolutely. It’s just better shown on this aerial. This is the line, the property line here we’re talking about is this line. MRS. JENKIN-Right. MR. STEVES-So you extend that line, is the worst case scenario for setback, and it runs parallel to the shore. Even though the two new docks are going to be up in here, even farther away from the Harris Bay Yacht docks, you can see how far away they are from mean high water. MRS. JENKIN-Well, why isn’t it along the other property line that comes to a point? MR. STEVES-Well, that’s the current property line. If you look on this map over here, what we have done is this property line here, we’re actually taking it out over into this area here and incorporating those tennis courts. So the new lot line is that line there extended out. MR. UNDERWOOD-Straight out. MRS. JENKIN-It’s going right to the neighbor’s property line. MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. OBORNE-On the survey there’s a stippled area that is before you, and it’s pretty clear as to what they’re asking to do, as far as what lands they’re taking. 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/09) MR. STEVES-This is that lot line that we’re extending from 9L, and this is the current property line right here, that one you’re talking about comes in at that steep angle. MRS. JENKIN-Right. MR. STEVES-We’re merging all this property, including the tennis courts, right to this existing house line of Julien, and there’s where we’ve shown the property line extended and perpendicular to mean high water, and then bring this line over, but you can, that line goes out into the lake and doesn’t affect anybody, but this line here is running parallel to the shore. There’s nothing you can do. MR. CLEMENTS-But the two docks that you’re proposing on the, those right there, would be compliant, is that correct? MR. STEVES-They’d be compliant with these two setbacks, but if this property line extended, that’s compliant with the property line, extended, but you’re supposed to then apply a 20 foot from that line. MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. Gotcha. The other one’s noncompliant, now it goes right through that, the docks right there now? MR. STEVES-Correct. That’s pre-existing, and that’s where Stefanie had brought it up. That actually encroaches a lot more into that setback, and there’s no issues with navigable, you know, room to navigate to that dock, then how can there be with these when they’re actually farther, they’re more compliant? It’s just very unique that this property line is almost in line with the shoreline. Like I say, if this property line was back here, Mr. Kraft would still have all this shore frontage, but the property line would run into shore. It’s just unique in the way the property was shaped, and it’s been that way for 95 years. MRS. JENKIN-So the property line can extend into the lake, then? MR. STEVES-No, the Code for dock setbacks is your property line extended into the lake or a line where your property line meets the lake running perpendicular to mean high water, which ever one’s the most restrictive. It is not that you own to here, you own the mean low water, but it’s the way they impose the dock setback regulations. So, like, for example, this house here, most restrictive from him here would be a line extended, and the line extended. So he could put his dock in here no problem at all. MRS. JENKIN-Within that property, okay. MR. STEVES-But our property line extended out into the lake cuts everybody off. So everybody along Cleverdale should get rid of their dock. MRS. JENKIN-There’s an idea. MR. GARRAND-Question for you on that. With the Julian dock, the way it’s shown on the aerial view, does that encroach on the navigability of the proposed northern most dock? MR. STEVES-No, because what happens is it’s your property line extended until it meets your neighbor’s property. MR. UNDERWOOD-Keith, can you go over for us, because the question I had, you know, we’re Waterfront Residential here. This is a pre-existing marina from the old days, obviously. Is their nonconformance based upon the fact that they’re adding more docks? I mean, how does that work, it’s no longer a permitted use in the zone, or? MR. OBORNE-Let me make sure I have this correct. You’re talking about Harris Bay? MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I’m talking about the Krafts property. I mean, they currently have a marina on their property? MR. OBORNE-Correct. MR. UNDERWOOD-But just the E-Shaped dock that’s there. So now they’re proposing two new docks. How is that, I mean, how can you have multiple docks on a property? In other words, like a residential property would only be allowed one dock complex, correct? 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/09) MR. OBORNE-Well, he’s applying for a Class A Marina Special Use Permit. That’s pretty much how he can do it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. OBORNE-And obviously that existing dock is nonconforming pre-existing. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. No, I just wondered how you got the multiple docks out of the deal. MR. OBORNE-Yes. It’s because they’re applying for a Class A Marina. MR. UNDERWOOD-And has this already gone through the Park Commission? I mean, obviously you’ve got to get a permit from them, too, right? Yes, but they just consider that area to be already a marina? MR. STEVES-They already have a license. They’re permitted as a marina. MR. UNDERWOOD-They allow you to reconfigure your docks. RAY KRAFT MR. KRAFT-My name is Ray Kraft. We have an existing marina permit on that dock, have since the 70’s, and their comment was that as soon as this is cleared, they’re going to adjust the permit. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Everybody understand why it is, it’s because of the lines, you know, it’s just the weird way it’s done. MR. STEVES-And I think Mr. Garrand was asking about that other dock. What happens, if you take those property lines and they extend, if you’re running parallel to the shore and they run out forever and they never touch themselves, then you don’t have to worry about it, but here, you run until it hits your property line. Okay. You don’t run it all the way up the shore. You just can’t cut everybody’s dock up. It’s only supposed to be. MR. GARRAND-Yes. What I’m concerned about is the angle of his dock, looks like, you know. MR. STEVES-I understand, whether or not his 20 foot setback the other way? MR. GARRAND-Yes. MR. STEVES-It won’t impede on ours because we have to maintain 20 feet the other direction. So we’ll be like 30 feet or 40 feet away from his dock, but whether or not he encroaches on the setback, that’s, you know, that’s a permit, that thing is already in existence for his dock. That’s why we’re trying to keep them as far away from his as possible. MR. UNDERWOOD-My question would be this, because I understand where the current marina is now, and where the asphalt parking is proposed, where the tennis courts are up there, but, so you’re an essence, the accretion of the new land onto the marina, so you’re expanding the marina into land that wasn’t marina land, in essence. How is that accomplished? MR. OBORNE-That’s done through a deed. MS. BITTER-A boundary line adjustment. MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, but I mean so any marina up on the lake could acquire the property adjacent to it and expand it’s marina? MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. No, I just want to understand how that works. 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/09) MR. OBORNE-That aspect of his plan does not require any Planning Board approval. He can do that any time he wants. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. So any marina up on the lake could acquire the whole shoreline and turn it into marina if they wanted to, if they had the dollars and cents to do it. MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. It’s just curious, you know, it’s something you wouldn’t really consider, but I guess it can happen. MRS. JENKIN-My concern was, because I did go out and visit the property, and walked along the shore, and saw the neighbor’s dock and everything. I was concerned that there was enough space, because you’re trying to put in the two new slips there, and so my question is, how much space do you allow for each boat, when you’re doing a marina, how much space do you need to safely house a boat and provide enough room for a boat to maneuver around? MR. STEVES-I guess what you want to know is like with the neighboring dock, there’s enough room. The reason for the 20 foot setback is to maintain 40 feet, so that basically on a slip you need about 10 feet on a boat. MRS. JENKIN-Okay, 10 feet on the boat. All right. MR. STEVES-So the 10 feet then gives you some room to maneuver the boat into the dock. You’re not going to be able to drive in perfectly like you’re driving on the road. So to be able to allow some movement there. Mr. Garrand’s question whether or not the neighbor to the north complied with his setback, we made sure that our dock is the 40 feet away from his dock, so that even though he doesn’t comply necessarily with his 20 foot setback, we still comply with the Code, or the intent of trying to get 40 feet between docks. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. So, yes, you have 20 feet from your property, supposed property, to the first one, and then, and my question, because I saw the boat that was parked on the three slip part, and that was probably at least eight to ten feet wide. It’s a big boat. How does the, and if you put a slip beside it, and I measured it, and I imagine that this is correct. There’s 35 feet there between the old slip and the new one. How does the boat that’s parked behind there have access to the lake? Is there enough room there for that boat to get out? MR. STEVES-You’re stacking boats in front of each other on the slip. MRS. JENKIN-Well, there’s one behind, on the existing dock there’s, I numbered the boats, and it’s Number Five, behind, yes, it’s that one. MR. KRAFT-That’s our pontoon boat. MRS. JENKIN-Will there be room to get that out if you’ve got boats parked on both sides? MR. KRAFT-The middle dock won’t be that far over this way that you can’t get it in there. There’s 130 feet. MRS. JENKIN-Well, I measured it on the plans, and there’s 35 feet, and so if you have two large boats, yes, you probably have 20, you have 15 feet to get through. That’s going to be tight. MR. STEVES-I can only speak for my boat. I drive in my marina all the time, and I’m driving down between boats parked both ways and there’s only about 20 feet between them and I drive in all the time and park in my slip. Twenty feet, 15 feet, that’s why they put bumpers on the side of boats. I mean, you go into any marina. MRS. JENKIN-It just seems it’s very tight in there. MR. STEVES-I’ve never had a problem. MRS. JENKIN-You’ll have probably five feet between the boats between the second and third slip, of water between them, if you’ve got a 10 foot boat, but I don’t know, I just 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/09) wondered, is that legal? Is there any regulations necessary for space? There isn’t? Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Anymore questions from you guys? All right. I guess I’ll open the public hearing up. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on the matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-I didn’t note any correspondence at all. MR. OBORNE-There was none. MR. UNDERWOOD-So is everybody pretty content with the explanation as to why the relief is needed? And it wasn’t relief from side line property lines or anything like that. It was just because of that extension out there. So it seems pretty straight forward. MR. STEVES-And that’s exactly what the line does. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. I guess I’ll poll you guys, then, and see what you’re thinking here. Joyce, do you want to go? MRS. HUNT-Yes. Looking at the plans, as you said, it doesn’t affect anyone on either side of the docks, and it’s just because of the way the line is drawn, the property line. So I would have no problem with it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Rich? MR. GARRAND-It’s an interesting application. It certainly is. It’s certainly a new approach. Looking at the balancing test, there’s no undesirable change to the neighborhood, necessarily, that I can think of. The request, I wouldn’t deem it severe. As far as environmental effects on the neighborhood, I fail to see those, too. I mean, basically I just have to say trim up, Mr. Kraft. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Ron? MR. KUHL-I agree. It’s a strange piece of property, and it creates a strange request, but it looks straightforward, and I have nothing against it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Joan? MRS. JENKIN-With the change in the property lines and the addition, and having walked out there, as I said before, it’s a very private piece of land. It’s a beautiful piece of land, and I don’t think that it would have any adverse effect on the neighborhood because the houses are far enough away, and definitely the boats on the Harris Bay side, they’re far enough away that they’re not going, and you’re farther into the lake anyway. So you’re not going to encroach on that traffic. So the property line thing is still, to me, rather ludicrous, but, anyway, it is as it is, and so I would be in favor of this. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-I would also. As you look at that map, if somebody owned a piece of property right next to you and there was a line there that would go out into the lake towards the docks at Harris Bay Yacht Club, you wouldn’t even be here for a variance. So, I do think that this is a unique situation, and I think it passes the balancing test. I don’t think it’s an undesirable change. The Harris Bay Yacht Club is right there. So I’d be in favor of the application. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I would go along with everybody else, too. I don’t see why you would throw a wrench in the works here on this one. It’s pretty straightforward. It’s just one of those oddball things and it’s been very educational. It’s just one of those things you’re going like, wow. Weird things happen out there but there’s not much we can do about it. I would assume you’ve got to go to the Planning Board anyway to pass muster with them, and I’m sure they’ll address all the environmental concerns and things like that with the expansion of the operation down there, but, what are they going to put you on a holding tank for the bathrooms, because it’s all wetland. You really can’t. I’m just guessing that’s probably what’s going to happen. MS. BITTER-We’re actually proposing an incinerator toilet. 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/09) MR. UNDERWOOD-Really? Wow, that’ll be new. MR. OBORNE-Which is allowed by Code. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MS. BITTER-And by APA and Department of Health. MR. UNDERWOOD-But, I mean, would you have capacity for pump outs with something like that? Or are you not going to need pump outs? MR. STEVES-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re going to have to be limiting factors on that obviously. So, okay. Does somebody want to do this one? Go ahead. MR. CLEMENTS-I’ll do it. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Chairman, you need to close the public hearing. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll close the public hearing. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 49-2009 RAY AND WENDY KRAFT, Introduced by Brian Clements who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: 25 Cleverdale Road. A note here that it’s subject to the new Ordinance. Applicant proposes construction of a 14 slip, 3 dock marina on Lake George. The relief that’s required is relief is requested from the minimum setback requirements for two of the proposed docks. The proposed northern dock encroaches 10.1 feet into the 20 foot required setback line, and the adjacent proposed dock to the south encroaches 9.8 feet into the 20 foot required setback line, per 179-5-060a(7). Note the existing dock on the south is pre-existing, nonconforming, and as such is considered a compliant dock for the purpose of this variance. In the balancing of this, the criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law. In making the determination the Board shall consider the following: Whether an undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties would be created by granting this Area Variance. I don’t see any undesirable change. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an Area Variance. I would say, no, it’s an interesting piece of property in which the property lines run so that they can’t get a 20 foot required setback. Whether the requested Area Variance is substantial. The request for 10.1 feet or 50.5% relief for the proposed northern dock, and 9.8 feet or 49% relief for the proposed southern dock from the 20 foot required setback line per Section 179-5-060a(7) may both be considered moderate to severe relative to the Ordinance. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. None or minor impacts would be expected. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The layout of the lot appears to contribute to the need for an Area Variance, and as such this request may not be considered self-created. I would move to approve Area Variance No. 49-2009. th Duly adopted this 16 day of September, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Urrico MS. BITTER-Thank you very much. MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Anybody else from the public want to speak this evening, or are we done? I guess we’ll close our meeting. Thank you. On motion meeting was adjourned. 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/16/09) RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, James Underwood, Chairman 40