Loading...
2011.12.21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/2011) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 21, 2011 INDEX Area Variance No. 61-2011 Queensbury Partners, LLC 1. Tax Map No. 289.19-1-23 thru 35 Area Variance No. 45-2011 David & Evelyn Dufresne 14. Tax Map No. 239.8-1-13 Area Variance No. 62-2011 Scott Spellburg & Lisa Pushor 17. Tax Map No. 265.00-1-2.1, 2.2, 2.3 Area Variance No. 71-2011 Hilltop Construction/Tom Albrecht 22. Tax Map No. 302.11-1-37 and 38 Notice of Appeal No. 5-2011 John B. Pohl, Esq. 29. Tax Map No. 303.15-1-21, 22, 24, and 25.2 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 1212112011) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 21, 2011 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JOYCE HUNT (JOHN KOSKINAS FILLED IN FOR HER LATER IN THE MEETING) JAMES UNDERWOOD RONALD KUHL BRIAN CLEMENTS RICHARD GARRAND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. JACKOSKI-Good evening. Today is December 21St. It's seven o'clock pm. We're here at the Town of Queensbury for the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals agenda. Welcome. For those who haven't been here in the past, there is a sheet on the back table that kind of explains the process. We will call each applicant to the table here to present their project, discuss the project with the Board, call the public hearings when appropriate, and move forward that process for each application. We do have some housekeeping to do first this evening. That is the approval of the meeting minutes for October 19th. Do I have a motion to approve the minutes? APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 19, 2011 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 19, 2011, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Duly adopted this 21St day of December, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-The next thing here on the agenda is the nomination of officers, and I believe actually we completed that last meeting, and then the third item on here under housekeeping is the confirmation of the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting agenda for the dates of the new year 2012, and I also believe we approved that at the last meeting. So we have had a request to move the schedule around a bit, and allow some of the other applicants to go first this evening, but I also know there are folks here in the audience who are here specifically for one project. So I am going to stick to the original schedule here. I hope everybody can appreciate that. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-2011 SEQRA TYPE I QUEENSBURY PARTNERS, LLC AGENT(S) MATTHEW F. FULLER, ESQ. OWNER(S) QUEENSBURY PARTNERS, LLC ZONING OFFICE LOCATION CORNER OF BLIND ROCK ROAD AND BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A TOTAL OF 56,180 SQ. FT. OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRIBUTED BETWEEN FIVE (5) BUILDINGS AND DEVELOPMENT OF 175 RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT UNITS DISTRIBUTED BETWEEN 11 BUILDINGS TO INCLUDE 93 RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITHIN FOUR (4) OF THE PROPOSED COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM DENSITY, FRONT SETBACK, TRAVEL CORRIDOR SETBACK, RESIDENTIAL SETBACK, AND HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS OF THE OFFICE ZONE. FURTHER, RELIEF REQUESTED FROM WETLAND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF SB 13-1999; SP 62-2011 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING DECEMBER 14, 2011 LOT SIZE 34.05 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.19-1-23 THRU 35 SECTION 179-3-040 MATT FULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/2011) MR. JACKOSKI-I would like to note that we do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. This Board will not be taking action this evening. We do not have Lead Agency status established for the SEQRA review. STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 61-2011, Queensbury Partners, LLC, Meeting Date: December 21, 2011 "Project Location: Corner of Blind Rock Road and Bay Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a total of 56,180 sq. ft. of commercial development distributed between five (5) buildings and development of 175 residential apartment units distributed between 11 buildings to include 93 residential units within four (4) of the proposed commercial structures. Relief Required:' Parcel will require area variances as follows: Variances required as presented: 1. Density - 142 residential units allowed / 175 proposed. Calculation based on 1 acre per 8 dwelling units as per §179-3-040B(2)(b)[1][b]. 17.81 buildable acres x 8 units = 142 units. Note: Usable acreage after deducting the commercial uses proposed is as follows: 21.83 usable acres on parcel; 0.5 acres/7,000 square feet with 56,180 square feet commercial development proposed results in 4.02 acres utilized for commercial density calculation. 21.83 acres - 4.02 acres = 17.81 acres remaining for residential density. 2. Residential units within 300 feet of Bay Road Professional Office setback line as per §179-3-040B(2)(a)[1]. 3. Bay Road Travel Corridor Overlay (TCO) - Buildings 1 and 3 within 75 foot setback requirement. Further, parking associated with buildings 1 and 3 within 75 foot green space requirement. All as per§179-4-030C. 4. Front setback- Buildings 1, 3, 11, and 13 within 75 foot front setback requirement as per §179-3-040. 5. Wetland setback- Buildings 8, 9, 10, and 13 within 75 foot wetland setback requirement as per§179-3-040. 6. Height-As per Development Study on Site Statistics page, it is assumed all but buildings 3 and 6 would require height relief as per§179-3-040. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town 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. The proposal has elements that could be categorized as promoting change to the neighborhood, however, any undesirable change or detriment to nearby properties may be subjective. 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. While a compliant plan is possible, as was the first plan shown to the Planning Board by the applicant, the current proposal is a result of Planning Board discussion and public comment. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. See table and written description of variances below. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. As this project is a Type I SEAR Action it is likely that the Planning Board will be performing an in-depth review of any of these issues and sharing their findings with the Zoning Board of Appeals. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created, however, the Planning Board has challenged the applicant to produce a Town Center feel to this project that will require variances as presented. Please see response to question 2 above. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, SB 13-1999: 35.12 acre parcel - 14 commercial lots Approved 8/15/2000 SP 62-2011: Pending 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/2011) Staff comments Changes to the initial plan shown to the PB and ZBA at the joint meeting in August include the re-orienteering of Building 5 to totally be within the 300 foot setback for residential structures and corresponding change to parking configuration. Further change also deals with building 5 and includes the elimination of ground floor residential units in favor of commercial/office space. It is understood that the project is contingent upon Zoning Board of Appeals approvals of variances of which little indication was offered from the ZBA concerning these issues at the joint meeting in August. The applicant was before the Planning Board on December 15, 2011 in order to garner a recommendation to the ZBA concerning the variances requested and their potential impacts on the surrounding community, please see attached minutes. Apparently the applicant has not commenced detailed engineering or design portion of the project. Further, the project is listed as a Type I action under SEQRA and will require both the Planning Board and ZBA to commence the protocols as set forth for this type of action, in particular Lead Agency. As such, no Planning Board recommendation can be forwarded to the ZBA at this point in time and no ZBA decision can be rendered until SEAR has been completed. However, staff affirms that this does not preclude the Planning Board from forwarding the minutes of this meeting or any other communication it would deem beneficial for the ZBA to review. SEQR Status Type I" MR. JACKOSKI-Okay and I believe we have a recommendation from the Warren County Planning Board as well? MR. URRICO-1 don't have that with me. MR. JACKOSKI-I believe Warren County denied the project. MR. GARRAND-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Garrand. Okay. Mr. Fuller. MR. FULLER-Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the Board. My name's Matt Fuller. I'm a partner with Fitzgerald Morris Baker Firth, here representing the applicants, Queensbury Partners. To my left is Dave Bogardis, the planner and engineer on the project, and I have Bob and Dan here as well if we need project specific questions. We did have the joint meeting in August, and I did bring the history of the plans and things, too. So I didn't know if you wanted me to kind of go through that again and update that again. I know it was kind of short timing that you guys had gotten the plans and things a couple of weeks before that August meeting. So it didn't give you a lot of time. MR. JACKOSKI-I think it would be reasonable for the public as well, Matt if you could just briefly go through the project, and any changes since August. MR. FULLER-1 can. Okay. I apologize for people in the audience who aren't going to be able to see this, but we'll, if anybody wants to move, by all means. Since we were before the Boards in August, the main changes that we made deal with some of the stormwater along Bay and Blind Rock, the stormwater areas that we've got a walkway that crosses this stormwater area here, and really arising out of that August meeting were some comments about what we're kind of terming the flexible space here to the south, Buildings Four and Five, and we had originally had Building Five perpendicular to Bay Road, and some of the comments there with the view to the parking that would be behind it, and even the layout of, again, trying to pull the buildings closer to Bay, make it feel like more of a Town center, I think it was actually after a meeting somebody came up and said well, wouldn't it be great if you flipped that down, broke up the parking with more islands and things, and continued with the banking of the parking. So we did that, and also one of the comments that we got, I think it was at the November meeting. It might have been October, with the Planning Board that was confirmed in the Staff Notes, was the change to no residential on the first floor of Four and Five, and I do have a letter that I'll give you for the record, because there was some discussions with Craig, Keith and I about that change to that number. Originally the unit number was 188, but when we dropped the residential on the first floor of those commercial buildings, and then we backed out the commercial area along Bay, the allowed number is 144. Craig can correct me if I'm wrong, 144, and the proposed number is 175, and again, I'm going to give you a copy of the letter that I've got for you. That number is, we do have engineering to do. Certainly there's some more planning that needs to be done on 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1212112011) that, but that's a maximum number, and it's important to keep in mind that we did that for application and review purposes and also SEQRA purposes. Because, you know, as demand dictates down here on these buildings, if one of the buildings is demanded in full for commercial office, something like that, you know we would come back through the site plan and accommodate that, but, again, for SEQRA purposes, you've got to show, you know your maximum potential there. Could we build it with those residentials? Yes, and I'm not tap dancing around words or anything. That number is built in to the application as a number, but, you know, as we've represented to the Planning Board as well, you know, these two buildings down here can be used as needed. Did I miss anything on the changes? I've been to so many meetings, I'm trying to think. I think that's it. I'll sit back down here now and go through some stuff. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Matt. At this time are there any questions for the applicant from other Board members? MR. CLEMENTS-1 had just one. Now that you've said there's no residential on the first floor on Building Five? MR. FULLER-Four and Five. MR. CLEMENTS-Four and Five. Then is there, it's my understanding, and tell me if I'm wrong, that there is no residential on any first floors. Is that correct? MR. FULLER-Right. MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. MR. FULLER-Yes. Within that commercial setback there, the 300 feet, yes. MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. MR. KUHL-There was a discussion about the height. What are the heights going to be? MR. FULLER-Just for everybody's reference, the photo that I'm looking at is the example of commercial buildings that would be on the Bay and Blind Rock corner. The discussion of heights, and again, for the record, in case I didn't pick up, I'm pointing to the photo that's in the record of an example of the commercial buildings. We had originally come in with this, as an example of what the buildings are going to look like, but on a two story level, and it was actually in comments from the Planning Board that the Planning Board said, well, could you mix in three in that forward commercial area. I think part of it was from these examples. So we're working on that, and that's part of the engineering plan. I think that's why the Staff Note is written the way it is, is because that number is a little bit in play as far as that corner. The height and the view from that intersection, and meeting with Craig, is something that's going to be discussed, but that, so the exact line of where that third story would kick in on that front building is to be determined, but the plan is, again, in working with the Planning Board, that that L shaped corner building at the corner of Bay and Blind Rock and the next building just to the south of that would carry that three story. So that's where you get over the height limit, but again, we originally come in with this as an example of look at this but shrink it down because it was going to be two stories, and the Planning Board. DAVE BOGARDIS MR. BOGARDIS-We want the buildings to have the early American look with a fairly steep pitched roof. So you're probably going to get into the neighborhood of 40 feet for a two story and 48 or 50 feet for a three story, keeping that nice pitched eight to ten to twelve foot pitched roof. We really don't want to do two or three story buildings with a flat roof on it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. MRS. HUNT-All right. I have a comment. Would you like to say anything about Gretchen Steffan's comment about underground parking? MR. FULLER-Yes. We certainly have looked at that, and the issue with that, quite frankly, is the buildings. If we put underground parking near those buildings, they're going to get wider. Just from an engineering standpoint, to have a narrow building that high with underground parking, the pillars and things that would be required under it would require you to make those buildings wider. So they're going to get outside of that look that's on that corner, and even on the southerly parcel, and, you know, on a practical note, it is a cost issue. To go underground with that is a very significant cost, but it does pose practical logistics, and the other thing is, is that 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1212112011) the apartments do have in-building parking. They have garages. So not all, we've taken that into account in our parking to cut down spaces and things. So we've tried the best we could to build that in. MR. BOGARDIS-It was Building Number Five that Gretchen was, had the concern about, and it had that large parking lot at the rear that was (lost word) and when we changed Building Five and moved it parallel to Bay Road, you can see that we broke that parking lot up with two large islands in it, and she was quite happy, she commented she was quite happy with that after we did that. MRS. HUNT-So you addressed that problem? MR. FULLER-Yes, and we have as well, you can see, to the west, buildings four and five, they're kind of hatched in. We've banked quite a bit of parking that we could build, but with the idea being, if you don't need it, don't build it, and if you do need it at some point, then build it. So that's part of the project plan as well. MRS. HUNT-Thank you. MR. FULLER-And another topic that you're asking about topics on the Planning Board, that came up is the phase of the building. The Planning Board had a concern, you're just going to go build the residential units and not do the commercial. My clients have committed that that's not the plan. The plan is to start the commercial at the corner along with the residential out back. So they're committed to starting that corner when they start the project. So that, again, you don't end up with the residential not the commercial, and I'm hoping, I did see copies of them, I don't think there's any more out there, of the Planning Board discussion, as far as recommendation goes. I'll take a little bit of exception with how Staff Notes categorized what the Planning Board discussion was. I thought it was a little bit better than that which was included in the Staff Notes, so much so that one of the Planning Board members said that they felt they should be a co-applicant with us, because, again, as originally applied, we have a zoning compliant project. We wouldn't have needed variances, not that it hasn't been to the benefit of my clients and the project. It's a good project. It's a better project than we originally came in with, but that has taken a lot of work with the Planning Board, which has resulted in these variances, you know, they've asked us to make changes and we've done that, and that's really why we wanted to get here tonight is that there is a big step, you know, the next step. We've already started working on the traffic. We're well into that. We've got a solution that we'll be going to the County and coming to the Planning Board that will also come back to you. We haven't started the full on-site engineering, but that's really the next step, and that's why we're here tonight is to get an idea of concerns, things we need to look at, so that we can address those and then come back with a full on site plan. We do have to do the coordination under SEQRA, no question. We'll get back to the County, and then we'll go in that direction. MR. UNDERWOOD-Matt, I had a question. Topographically the site currently is higher than Bay Road. Are you going to level it down to the level of Bay Road? I mean, is that going to be different than what exists now? MR. FULLER-Yes. The buildings won't sit on top of those hills. It'll be brought down to grade. Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Matt, at the joint meeting you did discuss briefly about some changes to the intersection and how to control the traffic signal and turning lanes and such. Could you just briefly touch on that again? MR. FULLER-Sure. We have run numbers out there. You may have seen the counters and people out there, and the initial report is that right now that's on an automatic signal. It's not timed, or it's not, it's on a time signal. It's not a sensor, and the initial engineering report that came back was just moving that intersection to sensor brings the numbers into compliance, but, you know, we've talked about it and said to the Planning Board, you can see along that intersection with Blind Rock Road we have backed out acreage from the overall plan for a turning lane. So even the sensoring is going to bring that into compliance, you still have the turning lane as part of the project. So, you know, it can only enhance the traffic at that intersection. So that is part of the plan. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. URRICO-Matt, in the table that we have, that's been supplied to us, we have potential height variances. That's everywhere from three feet to fourteen feet. Is that accurate? MR. FULLER-Yes, along the front, yes. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1212112011) MR. URRICO-That's even though the buildings are being brought down as you said. MR. FULLER-Yes, because you have to, Craig can correct me if I'm wrong, you've got to measure it in both instances, either if you were going to leave the grade, from the grade point, or where you're going to bring it down to, then you measure from there. You don't get the benefit of dropping the ground and then saying, well, I've gained 14 more feet, or whatever the instances are. I think I'm right on that, right? MR. BROWN-That's correct. MR. FULLER-So that's how they're measured from project grade. MR. KUHL-Do you have a count on how many parking spaces are going to be in there? MR. FULLER-We do. MR. BOGARDIS-We have a total of 578 parking places. The plan shows another additional (lost words). They're banked because depending upon the use, you may or may not use them. We may not need to build them. We have a mixed use project, which has varying requirements for parking. So, we really can't calculate, this was the worst case scenario. MR. FULLER-Yes, that's a good point, similar to the residential number. We had to take the maximum that we think based on flex uses in the two southerly buildings, Four and Five. You have to take that into account, because those buildings are, you know, basically subject to demand. If any office needs them, then that will dictate that number. So we took the larger number that we came up with, based on a variety of uses that could be in there, and put it in there, again, for SEQRA, and application purposes. MR. BOGARDIS-The Code requires 2.25 parking bays per residential unit, and I think that's really appropo for residential housing, you know, standalone, single family homes, but possibly in this case with smaller apartments and studio apartments you're not going to have the need for two and a quarter parking places per family. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Any other questions or comments from Board members? MR. UNDERWOOD-1 just had one on the commercial aspects of it. Is there really, given all the empty commercial real estate in Town, I mean, you're going to create a huge amount of real estate for commercial purposes in this small part of Town. Do you really see that that's going to work for you or is that just sort of wishful thinking on your part? I mean, I'm just thinking of looking at all the commercial stuff that's been created in the last 10 years and how much of it's still (lost words). MR. FULLER-The goal is to bring that space closer to this side of Town, and that's where we think the drive is on the project. I live on this side of Town, and that's where I see it. Not a scientific study, just the practical side of this side of Town, we don't have that, that option. MR. BOGARDIS-1 think we're more focused on the small restaurants, convenience store, Dunkin Donuts type shop, ice cream shop, more of the smaller mom and pop stuff that will serve the local community, rather than the retail store for clothing or something like that, small offices, an insurance company, a lawyer. We're not looking for any type of big box or any large retailer. MR. KUHL-I have a question for Craig. Because public transportation goes by there, does it get to be their responsibility to make provisions for public transit, you know, a cut off so that the bus can stop without stopping traffic? MR. BROWN-Yes, typically during the site plan review process, public transportation and the accessibility of the site's all factored into there. I'm not 100% familiar with this plan, whether there's internal bus stops, but certainly in bounds for the Planning Board to discuss. MR. KUHL-The Planning Board. Thanks, Craig. What about sidewalks, is that the same thing on the Planning Board? MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. FULLER-And on that note, if you take a look at the map, it's fully sidewalked. MR. JACKOSKI-Who's maintaining the sidewalks? 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1212112011) MR. BOGARDIS-We've talked about bus stops and that type of stuff. We welcome that. Sidewalks on both sides of the street on all streets. MR. FULLER-That's an older color one, but you can see the gray sidewalks through the area. The entire project will be privately owned, the streets and everything. So there won't be any dedication of streets to the Town as far as maintenance or anything like that, and that would include the sidewalks. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Any other questions from Board members? MR. UNDERWOOD-Matt, I know like when we get into this, when we eventually discuss it, you know, when we get into the nitty gritty of it, the Building One is probably going to be the most controversial of all the buildings you have there, and I know there's been some discussion on the part of both the Town and Planning Board and the community on whether that'll ever be a rotary down there created at some point in time, and I'm just wondering, in a sense of forward looking for the community, if, indeed, we get to the position, 25 years from now, when a rotary might be something that's considered there, by siting some of that Building Number One so close to the corner, is that going to negate that from happening? Are we going to leave enough room? I mean, I think it would be easy just to scope that out by looking at the rotary Downtown which is a compact one, and to build that into the discussion, just so, you know, we don't have to, in retrospect, come back and say, boy, I wish we'd done that 25 years from now or something. MR. JACKOSKI-But correct me if I'm wrong but Planning Board has addressed that, correct? MR. BROWN-They may have, and certainly it's something that the applicant's going to face the question from the County. These are both, you know, Blind Rock and Bay Road are both County highways. So if the County has any desire to look at that as a long term option, they're certainly going to bring it up to the applicant and make them pay attention to it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. FULLER-Yes. Dave was just telling me, too, we have template laid some of that out. MR. UNDERWOOD-And I know this past week they dissolved the Warren County Planning Board. So I don't know what the future lies as far as their decision making process. We haven't been privy to the decision that they made about the project. I don't know under what guise. MR. FULLER-Yes, we haven't got it either. MR. BOGARDIS-We discussed that, and one of the problems, and I'm not a traffic engineer, but my office is in Malta, and I see seven roundabouts every morning. Rotaries are absolutely not pedestrian friendly, and that's what we're trying to do here, trying to get a little community where people from this complex can walk across the street and the neighbors can come down the street and a rotary is not traffic, pedestrian friendly at all. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Well, we do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. I would like to, at this time, open the public hearing. I would like to remind folks that we generally try to use a three minute limit, and certainly if you've been here before when this project was discussed in front of this Board and the Planning Board, any of those comments that were made previously, of course, are still part of the record. So I'm hoping that any new comments and discussions of course we should listen to. So if I can, I will open it up, and I see a hand in the back for a gentleman who'd like to speak on behalf of the project. If you could state your name and your residence for the record, please. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN OLIVER NICHOLS MR. NICHOLS-Sure. My name is Oliver Nichols, and I live on St. Andrews Drive here in Queensbury. A little bit of background. In a 30 year career in commercial real estate I was in charge of the real estate finance operations for two major life companies. In one case a $20 billion portfolio, annual new dollar volumes of three billion or so, projects totaling in excess of $50 billion dollars, individual signature authority for one off transaction of $20 million, my signature. I'm saying that not as braggadocio, but just to give some credence to evidence I have not heard or seen from anyone in connection with this project. Facades and boulevards and setbacks do not a successful project make. Economic viability does. The demand generators and the evidence for them have not been established here. I've been listening carefully to three meetings and none of that has been presented. One of the questions from the Board had to do 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1212112011) with the amount of already vacant space in Town. That Board member is absolutely correct in identifying that as a significant risk. In the two major life companies for which I was responsible for the commercial real estate investment divisions, this project would not have been given preliminary consideration, much less approval, would not have made the list. The evidence, the question was asked, you know, where are the tenants going to come from, because that's what pays the taxes, that's what pays the debt service if there's a mortgage, that kind of thing, who's going to fill the buildings. No discussion of that. The risk profile is excessively high. I'm very familiar with the investment parameters of all the major insurance companies, and by the way, they do a better job of scrubbing investments than does the banking industry, and none of them would have considered this project, including the ones I was in charge of. I can detail, I don't want to take up a lot of your time, but if anybody wants more detail, I can lay that out for you. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you, sir. Sir? Yes, please. MIKE WILD MR. WILD-Hello. My name is Mike Wild. I live in Blackberry Circle here just around the corner. I have one question for the Board. Is this the first and last public hearing, or are there going to be more? MR. JACKOSKI-The public hearing will be left open this evening because we are not taking any action. MR. WILD-Thank you. Then I will keep my comments short. Just from my background, as some of you may know, I was involved, a number of years back, on a committee called the PORC Committee. I can't remember what it stands for, but in essence what we were charted to do is to develop the zoning regulations for the Town based on the new master plan that was adopted. I see Mr. Strough in the back of the room with me. John was on that Committee with me and we had many lively discussions about the development of the Zoning Code, and I think it's important to kind of look through some of the issues associated with variances, and I'll approach these, you know, maybe at a later time, but one of the important ones is the order in which some of the requirements were placed onto the zoning regulations, and if you look at Office, the Number One, the first item in the Office zoning, which is what this project is in, is stating that no residential uses shall be allowed, and shall is really important. I'm sure you guys understand that. It's a pretty strong word. Shall be allowed within 300 feet of arterial roads, and there's all sorts of other statements in the Zoning Code that mention that, but I think it's really key to understand that that was the Number One requirement when these codes were developed, and again, it was based on the master plan, and I'm not going to go into all the pieces that I had, but I think one key point, to follow up on the prior gentleman's comments, was something that I found troubling with the developers and the presentations that have been made prior to this Boar and to the Planning Board. I've been to a number of the discussions, and the last meeting on the 25th of October that I attended, there were some comments that were made that weren't captured into the record, and I'm just assuming maybe because they weren't caught on the microphone, but there were some comments made by the developer of these being upscale or high end apartments, and I looked through the record and I followed through with that, and I did see Mr. Krebs, on Page 22 of the record, Mr. Krebs from the Planning Board did reference that the developers called these high end apartments. So that lead me to dig into a little bit more, and I saw that, on a document that was presented to me, I'm not sure where it came from, but I just did a little simple math on the square footage of the buildings and the number of units that were in those buildings, and these apartments average around 330 square feet, 350 square feet, 330 square feet, and if you're going to say that you've got a high end or some kind of luxury apartment, 300 square feet doesn't quite cut it, and I think the point that I'd like to make, and I appreciate the extra time, is that maybe the developers aren't quite being honest with the public and to the Boards, because they had made statements about these being high end apartments. They really haven't made a lot of statements about who's going to be inhabiting these apartments, but a 300 square foot apartment is by no means large. It's very small. It more reflects the studio apartment that was mentioned earlier, and to think that you're going to have, what is it, 175 units that are mostly studio apartments, I'm curious what that's going to do to the nature of the neighborhood and the community. Additionally, if I can just implore you for just a couple of more minutes, he didn't, there was a comment about rotaries, and I know the developers have spent some time trying to discount that as not being a viable solution, but I think one thing that's important when considering the project, whether it's this Board or whether it's the Planning Board, is not only this project and the impact on traffic, but also the future plans of the College that have been documented and stated that they plan on adding some housing. So we need to take a look at not just individually this project, but also take a long term view about what this project's going to do to the community as a whole, and how it's going to be impacted in the future by the other projects. Thank you so much for your time. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/2011) MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else in the audience? Alternate Zoning Board member Mr. Koskinas. JOHN KOSKINAS MR. KOSKINAS-My name's John Koskinas. I'm a resident in Queensbury. The time and effort put forth in this comprehensive submission for relief is acknowledged. The depth of involvement by the Town of Queensbury Planning Board in this project, their voiced support for the concepts and their pro-active coordination with the Zoning Board is appreciated, but not at all understood by me. The Town Code serves as the foundation, not only for developers, but for the Boards of Planning and Appeals. For the Record, and to hopefully assist this Board, I include specific Town reference with my following comments. Section 179-7-010. Design Standards are specifically; ". . . intended to compliment zoning regulations.. . . Which serves to preserve community character.. ." The section continues; "The Planning Board must implement the design standards with the main goal of achieving community character as defined by the Comprehensive Plan." § 179-7-020. Purpose and goals. Sub para A.. . . . . . . ... "In addition, the purpose of the standards is to create a distinctive character . . . . Within the designated districts, regulation will be largely based on form and impact of development as well as use." Sub para The goal of design standards is to:. . . .".maintain Queensbury's unique character with a high quality of life;"' Sub para C. (1) The administering board shall enforce the . . . .design standards to the maximum extent practicable for the purposes of achieving the goals and specific recommendations for the commercial districts as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. . . As another gentleman pointed out, The term "shall" is interpreted as mandatory. §179-7-030, Sub para(2) (c) identifies "Office" as one of the Commercial Districts subject to detailed standards. The Bay Road Office District, subject of §179-7-060. has its own particular mandatory standards; Table 3 of Section 179, titled "Summary of allowed uses in Commercial Districts" allows for Apartment/Condos provided they're not closer than 300 feet to an arterial. Based on the current code and the referenced Table, updated in April of this year, Planning Board Site Plan Review is only applicable to Apartment/Condos in Office zoning at distances greater than 300 feet from arterials, effectively requiring a use variance for an apartment building closer than 300 feet to an arterial in an Office District. Further; § 179-3-040. reads No residential uses shall be allowed within 300 feet of Bay Road.. ." The Zoning Board is petitioned for area relief from a requirement that appears to be applicable only with an approved change in use. The project that is the subject of this variance request violates design standard restrictions on parking, frontage and use for the Zoning in place there. As to the Balancing Tests: The application falls short of the Criteria outlined. A change of "use" would certainly impact "character" in the context of sub para. A(1)(a.) of 179-080. (The first element of the balancing test). The applicant, in good faith, includes in their letter to the ZBA; "The proposal is the result of working with the Planning Board away from what was: "a zoning compliant project", and that "'none of the variances can be stated to be self created".. By doing so, the applicant specifically acknowledges their intended project "'benefit sought"; "could be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance (The second element of the balancing test). Town Staff indicates the project requires some 38 individual variances, many with a high percentage of relief. Relative to the third element of the "balancing test") Sub Para. A(1)(c.) the request, based on number and degree, has to be considered "substantial? The applicant, in support of their front setback petitions, stated by the applicant; "'the Planning Board would like future development in the area to tie into this proposal" and that ; ". .this could include property across Bay" Adding; "Moving buildings closer to Bay to maintain this feel requires variances." Violation of the design elements that form the restrictions in a Travel Corridor Overlay, specific to set-back, open space and parking, coupled with the sign issues, and you know they're coming, the sign issues that are going to be tied to any commercial effort in buildings along the Bay corridor given the setback that they're looking at are going to make it further complex. An effort to "qualify" this application to include a use variance is equally problematic as the qualifying elements to: "prove unnecessary hardship", which is the mandate we are called to, or you are called to, Specifically; the inability to make a reasonable return, that the hardship is not shared by other parcels in the same zoning district that it was not self created and that "character" of the neighborhood will not be altered, are definitively denied in the text of the application and meeting minutes leading to the applicant's presentations before you now. Although, I feel, more thought should be given to the negative impact its advancement could have on the pace of, and interest in, development of suitably zoned parcels elsewhere in the Town, I am not opposed to this project, which you may be surprised to hear. I'm only opposed to the mechanics employed to move it forward. If the Planning Board is to make it its business to encourage developers along a certain path, it is they who should pave the way, not the Zoning Board. Employing the "appeals process" to implement design standards elements prescribed for "Main Street" in an "Office" corridor on Bay Road contravenes Queensbury Ordinance as it exists. Reference: §179-7-010.c. The Planning Board must implement the design standards with the main goal of achieving community character as defined by the Comprehensive Plan. The project in question is a drastic departure from current Zoning and 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1212112011) conflicts directly with the Comprehensive Plan. Included in the minutes of public meetings is a desire by Planning Board Members to have a similar development in the Bay Road area, implementing standards specifically restricted by the Comprehensive Plan and current zoning? In Queensbury, the authority responsible for the Comprehensive Plan is the Planning Board itself. If the applicant's project has the support of the Planning Board, and the Planning Board feels the subject zoning is not appropriate for the Town's future then Town ordinance allows them the necessary tools to change both zoning and the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning along Bay. To the actions requested of this Board; I believe the Planning Board's expansion on a previously conforming project to include requests for relief in so high a degree compromises the ZBA's position and intended role and circumvents Town Law. I understand that the precedent of variances granted is not binding on this Zoning Board of Appeals, but members of the Board will acknowledge, I believe, that applicants and their counsel's routinely refer to previous decisions by the Board in making application, and that the influences of conscience, constancy, and fairness come into play when voting. If someone says, well, you did this last time, why are you treating me different, I think as an individual it plays on you. In this way; precedent leads to proliferation, and the integrity of our zoning is lost. In closing, I encourage this Board to deny the application and include in their decision language the suggestion that the applicant, if they choose to maintain the scope of their project, request of the Planning Board the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning changes their joint vision requires. Thanks. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Mr. Koskinas. Is there anyone else in the audience this evening who would like to address the Board at this time? Sir. HOWARD FRITZ MR. FRITZ-Howard Fritz, Queensbury. Thank you for the opportunity. I appreciate the fact that already a significant amount of time, effort and coin has been expended on the project. I thank the last two speakers for their diligence in pointing out rules and regs. I'm speaking as someone who enjoys this part of town. I moved to this side because I like the relative lack of traffic. I enjoyed the vistas that were afforded by the relative low height of the buildings. It's one of the charms and characters of this area. Having said that, in no way do I mean to impede appropriate healthy commercial growth. I echo Mr. Underwood's concerns about empty commercial properties, just as I am concerned at the proliferation of apartment growth throughout the region. I also am concerned as to who is going to be renting. I'm struck by the huge, seemingly huge, number of variances that are requested. To me, that says that it doesn't fit with what previous planners had envisioned for the region. I would ask that the Board consider having the applicants re-tool their design to make it more consistent with the region, not impede the views that are afforded to those who reside here, and still make it a healthy, viable commercial property, that is in accordance with the Town plan. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else this evening who would like to address the Board? Seeing no one else at this time, I am going to hold the public hearing open, and I'm not sure, Matt, if you want to add anything at this time, or if you'd like me to poll the Board to give you some general guidance on where we think things should be going? MR. FULLER-Just a couple of quick comments. A lot of times with projects, a residential subdivision, economic viability is used as a dart to throw at a project, but I'm pretty comfortable that that's not a road that the ZBA or the Planning Board for that matter are going to travel down. When I sit on your side of the fence, I'm in the same position. We don't get to make that decision. It's the developer's decision. As much as we want to impart our economic expertise and things like that on a project, we don't have that luxury. Economic viability for opening a store or starting a project is just not the criteria. That's a lender's criteria. So I offer that. I can't figure out the math on the 300 square feet units. I just flipped them up, and again, I'm curious if it was looking at just the footprint of the buildings and not the actual square footage of two floors. The footprint of the building may lead to the math that you've got cited. There's not a single unit in there at 300 square feet. They're 900 to 1,000. Some of them are beyond 1,000. So I'm completely, and that's based on the specs that were given to you there. So I'm not sure where that is, and I won't get into a discussion. It's a similar discussion when we were going through the zoning. When the zoning was being adopted and comments were being made about who's going to be renting, that's a shot that's taken at every residential or, regardless of who the apartments are targeted to, you know, it's just, it's not a fair comment to people who rent, and I, and probably a sympathetic side to that, that you can't take shots at renters. Who's going to be renting an apartment, you know, what kind of people are they, how many kids do they have, you know, what are they doing. It's improper, and it kind of is a little elitist to say, you know, who are these people that are going to rent, you know, what do they do. We went through that discussion with the Town Board and the Town Board was equally not receptive to questioning who's going to live in an apartment, but with regards to layout of rotary, traffic, lights, landscaping, stormwater, certainly all those things have to be laid out, and we're cognizant of that. Our purpose here tonight was to get the Board's concerns. I've got a couple of them in 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1212112011) here. There were a couple of good comments I picked up on. We'll look into those things, but that's the real purpose is to, you know, glean from you major concerns that you have, and we want to tool the project to address that. The Planning Board expects that we're going to do that. We're going to meet with you, get your concerns. Things are going to be shaped through this discussion process. We've done it with the Planning Board. Been open, the meeting's wide open to anybody, and that's the similar process that we're hoping to engage in tonight with the Board. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Matt. MR. URRICO-Steve, there's a public comment. I do have one comment to make myself to Mr. Fuller is that who your constituents are, who is going to be renting is appropriate comment regarding the 2.5 spaces that are needed, because if you're gearing it towards families, they're going to need more spaces than a single unit apartment that's more geared toward one person. So that is an appropriate comment in terms of who you're gearing that to. MR. FULLER-1 would agree. Yes. I didn't glean that from that comment. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. FULLER-The one thing I did want to give the Board, because I said I was going to and I forgot to hand it out, is just that clarification on the units. MR. JACKOSKI-And I believe Staff will make that part of the record. Correct? MR. BROWN-Yes. It will go right in Roy's file. MR. JACKOSKI-So at this point I'd like to poll the Board so that the applicant and the. MR. URRICO-I've still got that one public comment to read in. MR. JACKOSKI-You do? Go ahead. MR. URRICO-It says, "We would like to send comments on an item on your agenda for tonight since we cannot attend. This is regarding the request from Queensbury Partners, LLC seeking relief from density, front setback, travel corridor setback residential setback and height requirements of the Office zone, as well as the wetland setback requirements. We would like to go on record as being opposed to the relief being sought. We are actually not opposed to the zoning remaining as Office zone; we are opposed to the inclusion of the 175 residential units requested. You must consider the impact of additional traffic in this area. We are already dealing with the traffic burden imposed by the apartments which already exist directly across the street from the proposed development as well as other establishments and offices nearby. At times it is hard to get out of our road safely as it is, especially at high traffic times and when SUNY ACC is in session, which is year round. Blind Rock Road is especially busy now. We are not acting as "not in my backyard" residents; it is simply too much as it is now. Previously, the zoning in this area we are talking about was said to remain Professional Office, which comprises most of Bay Road and that, is what Bay Road should remain. It seems that zoning is not something that is set in stone; if an interested party pursues it vigorously enough and with enough clout, it is easy to change. Not so for the smaller individuals. There is also the wetland issue; the impact that this development would have on the wetland environment located directly behind this property should be obvious. That alone should settle this issue. You must take this in regard; too much of our environment has already been impacted by development. Please come to the right conclusion and restrict this property to Professional Office Zone Richard and Lynda DelSignore" MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. So I'll continue with polling the Board, and I know that Joyce isn't feeling well this evening, so I'm going to start with Joyce, if that's okay. MRS. HUNT-Yes, I do have concerns about the number of variances required. Particularly Building One being so close to both Blind Rock and Bay Road, and the height variance. You tried to explain that, but I do have concerns over the number of variances, those specifically. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you, Joyce. Rick? MR. GARRAND-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have to commend the applicant. I think they've bent over backwards for the Planning Board and done everything that's been asked of them by the Planning Board, and with that in mind, the information they've presented, we've held other developers to a standard in the Bay Road corridor and I think we should hold them to a standard in the Bay Road corridor. It would change the character of the neighborhood. This Board has 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1212112011) been pretty consistent with setbacks in the Bay Road corridor. We should also maintain the wetland setbacks in this area also. The effects of this project aren't readily apparent, as far as the impermeable areas and everything else. I do think they've got a pretty good idea of what they're going to do with stormwater, but we just don't have all the facts right now. If the powers that be wanted a project this close to the road, I think at, you know, some point they would have spot zoned it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, Rick. Thank you. Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, the height is an issue. The other thing is I wouldn't want to see this project turn into a mill or the Church Street apartments. So, you know, given upscale apartments, it's got to be upscale for the neighbor who's going to rent it. Also, can we see a sequence of how you're going to phase into this, what buildings are going first, how the development's going to be, and over time what would be the length of time? But there was a gentleman that made a, Howard Fritz talked about the views, and I think that's important here. We don't have any high buildings and we shouldn't, and I think you can move towards that and not lose the beauty of your design. I appreciate what it looks like, but I think the height is important, and as Rich talked about, the Bay Road corridor, and I was not at the Planning Board meetings, and I understand that when you presented it you said you had no variances and you moved in trying to satisfy the Planning Board. So I'm sorry that I was not involved with those meetings. So, you know, you wanted to move it back, they wanted you to move it forward. The Bay Road corridor should be maintained. Otherwise we're going to have a mess later on. Anyway, that's my feelings. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. Like everybody has said, I'm very concerned about the number of variances that are going to be requested in order to get this project through. I think since we're starting with Square One there is an opportunity to design a project that does not need this many variances. I think that this is a telltale sign that if we're starting with this number of variances at this stage, that we're going to have some problems down the road. I'm particularly interested in finding a better definition of what your residents are going to be, because I think it does all determine traffic. It will determine the number of parking spaces you will need. I'm concerned about the height of some of the buildings. They seem rather tall for this side of Town, and also tall for the zoning requirements as depicted for right now. I'm also concerned about the setback, the 300 foot setback that needs to be complied with. I think we're giving away too much, and I know we're still designing this project, but right now I think there's a lot of work that needs to be done. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, sir. Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-Thank you. I just want to say that I'm not necessarily against this project, but more the process, and in the Planning Board minutes from December 15th here, Mr. Traver said that they're a result of the planning process that we've developed. I mean, they were prepared to develop the property without any variances, and in working with us, in many respects, the process drove the project as it exists today. I think I have a tendency to agree with John, our alternate Board member here, that the process shouldn't necessarily be through us, but maybe the Town Board and the Planning Board should look at re-zoning, and if they're going to do that, they wouldn't need the variances. I understand that that's a longer process, but I, too, am concerned about the number of variances. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think if we look at the total picture, I went back to the beginning of the project when it was first presented to the Planning Board, and I think one statement made by the Chairman of the Planning Board at that time sort of sums it up here, and I think it's incomprehensible why, when we have a Comprehensive Land Use Plan with specific guidelines for all the major arterial corridors in Town that lays out the wherewithal of what's supposed to go there and what it's supposed to look like, and I can read the ones on, I'm going to read those into the record right now, just to remind our Board what the Bay Road corridor is supposed to be, but the comment that Mr. Hunsinger made at the first meeting when he was presented the project was, and this really sums it all up, creating something at this corner that would create a sense of community and a sense of, you know, what Queensbury is all about, and with that piece of property, we have an opportunity to do that. I think what he was referring to was the Town Center, and I went back through the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and it may have been said in passing with the PORC Committee or something like that, but there's nothing that I identifies this as the center of Queensbury. It's actually a more rural area than almost any other area of Town, and I think that where the project is being proposed here, you're at the transition from, you're right at the countryside, you know, transformation from the Bay Road corridor from that commercial zone that exists on the far end of Bay Road, and then transferring out as you go 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1212112011) to the north. You're going through the Professional Office zone, the apartments that have been created. That corridor has a look to it now that we tried to achieve, and you can see the fruition of what was decided, they wanted it to be, and to do this here, I thought to myself, what you're trying to do here is almost a cityscape, like more of a downtown type development, and if it were on the other end of Bay Road, down towards Quaker Road, down that way, I think I would be more in tune of what you're trying to do here, but I think where you're making the transition to countryside out here, you're leaving the campus of the Community College. You've got a cornfield on the other side, and I look at this, and it just seems totally out of whack, totally out of place, but the comment that really bothered me most of all was, and I'll just read it to you here, I'm disappointed in the design. Part of it is my own preconceived bias. Because when I first looked at the plan, I said, you know, it looks like they just didn't pay any attention to the commercial part of it. Now I know why, and I think that the Chairman of the Planning Board, at that point in time, you know, you guys were responding to that with what you came back with in the second version and then the third version and then the most recent version of the project there, and I think it's really been unfair to you, because, you know, the Community Development Department in Town hasn't chimed in with their two cents. The Planning Board has just been given like it's all in their court. Like they get to decide everything that goes on here, and there are specific guidelines for the Planning Board to operate under. If you want to look at the Planning Board's ability, they can change adapted plans, as Matt mentioned, they can do that, and the general design and character of the proposal has to be, but when they do that, the general design and character of the proposal has to be in harmony with the neighboring properties in the district. Secondly, the scale of the proposal in relation to the site and the neighboring properties. I don't think it meets either of those, what you've done here. Thirdly it says the similarity of building materials, their color and texture. I like the European style design. I just don't really feel that what you're trying to do, this close to the road, emphasizes what we've done on the rest of the Bay Road corridor. I don't know what the response is going to be from Richie Schermerhorn, who's complied with his building construction down the road. Dan Valente's down there, he's got his professional office. I mean, I can just see those guys coming in and saying, look, I have all this property out in front, can't I build more buildings out there now, or can't I do the same thing you're doing, you know, Dan especially would be, you know, probably amenable to that, doing the same thing, if we allow this, and lastly the visual compatibility of the proposal with surrounding properties, including the height, the setbacks, the roof shaped windows, the whole thing. The Professional Office zone is supposed to be two story buildings at the max, with pitched roofs to look like houses in a community, and things like that. I like the fact that you have a pitch on yours, but I really feel that there's a lot of other issues that are secondary and tertiary to what we're doing here. The travel corridor is going to get busier as time goes on. (Lost words) increase in population in future years. Bay Road already is a suicide alley. I mean, I live down in the neighborhood here. I live over on Glen Lake, and I've been witness to at least two accidents on that corner, and cars come whizzing in. They're not driving 40 miles an hour, 45. You've got a high speed limit. I don't think you're going to generate the traffic by meaning foot traffic from the neighborhood to generate the amount of commercial space that you have proposed here. If you had half the commercial space, I might think it was more viable, but I think what you're trying to do here is too much. You've got your 300 foot setbacks you're supposed to have for your apartment buildings on that zone there, and I think we've maintained that through the corridor. I might be willing to give you a compromise on that, but I think originally they were asking for well over 300 feet. I think at one time it was 750 feet or something like that, which would negate everything on there, and I haven't seen a map, or anything from the Town, because we don't have a formal proposal yet. I've seen nothing that shows all those setbacks on the plot of where the actual setbacks would be from the wetlands, from the travel corridor overlay and those things. I mean, they're designated on the sheet in a form like this, but I would rather see them on an actual plot so I see where those lines are all over, and I think the accuracy of the 21 acres being what's buildable out there, you know, I don't know if that's real or if that's just some number that was built up. I think when you start to change the topography of the neighborhood, you're going to have effects on the wetlands in the back there. So those wetland setbacks may become even more critical than they are now. I mean, right now it's basically in harmony with itself because it hasn't been disturbed, but once you disturb it, once you build more roads, and boulevard and things like that, I'm not convinced that the boulevard is the way to go either, that you're going to have that much traffic coming in and out of there that you need a boulevard. We don't have that in any of the other developments on Bay Road. So I think that would cut down on your impermeability of road structure, but I'll stop there for now. MR. FULLER-Just to clarify, you should have a survey I submitted it. There's a stamped survey with the setbacks on it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. FULLER-And the acreage calculation came from that stamped survey, and the wetlands were flagged and surveyed. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/2011) MR. JACKOSKI-And just so you know, Matt, I do have that survey. MR. FULLER-Yes, okay. Good. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, I don't know that I can add to that. So this Board has kind of given you some guidance. I think in the last meeting, Matt, 1, too, had mentioned I thought it was peculiar to have that patio outside of Building One. I didn't hear you, though, suggest that you were looking at reducing the height of that building right at the corner. So, I think you've already, talking with Staff and listening to folks about that particular Building One. MR. FULLER-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. So there's no action this evening. Do you want a motion to table? MR. BROWN-Table it. MR. JACKOSKI-Would anyone like to make a motion to table, please. Do we want to pick a date, Matt? MR. BROWN-Probably February. MR. JACKOSKI-Would February work, Matt? So I'd like to do the second meeting in February, should we have one. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-2011 QUEENSBURY PARTNERS, LLC, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Clements: Tabled to the second meeting in February. Duly adopted this 21St day of December, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, and thank you for the audience participation. We appreciate it. AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-2011 SEQRA TYPE II DAVID & EVELYN DUFRESNE AGENT(S) J. LAPPER, ESQ; S. BITTER, ESQ. BPSR OWNER(S) DAVID & EVELYN DUFRESNE ZONING WR LOCATION 24 BRAYTON ROAD APPLICANT HAS REMOVED A 348 SQ. FT. DECK AND PARTIALLY BUILT A NEW 348 SQ. FT. DECK IN ITS PLACE. FURTHER, THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO EXPAND THE DECK BY 42 SQ. FT., RESULTING IN AN OVERALL DECK SIZE OF 390 SQ. FT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM WEST SIDE AND SHORELINE SETBACK FOR PROPOSED DECK EXTENSION AND SIDE SETBACK FOR EXISTING DECK. CROSS REF BP 2011-141 DECK; BP 2011-142 BOATHOUSE WITH SUNDECK; SP 47-2011; BP 99-469; AV 81-1998 AV 81-1999; BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO. 60,98 APPROVING SANITARY SEWAGE VARIANCE; BP 98-785 SEPTIC ALT. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 7/13/2011; SEPTEMBER 14, 2011; DECEMBER 14, 2011 (NEW INFO.) ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 0.29 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 239.8-1-13 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-13-010 MARK DUFRESNE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-This project has been in front of this Board for five times in the past. If the applicant could come to the table, and just for the record, Joyce is going to leave us this evening and Mr. Koskinas is going to sit in. I don't know, Roy, that we need to read the project into the record again. Could you maybe just read a brief description, from Staff Notes, of what's been changed. STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 45-2011, David & Evelyn Dufresne, Meeting Date: December 21, 2011 "Project Location: 24 Brayton Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has removed a 348 sq. ft. deck and partially built a new 348 sq. ft. deck in its place. Further, applicant proposes to expand the deck by 42 sq. ft., resulting in an overall deck size of 390 sq. ft.. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/2011) Relief Required:' Parcel will require area variances as follows: 1. Side setback - Request for 5.1 feet of east side setback relief from the 12 foot side setback requirement for the WR District for the existing deck as per§179-3-040. 2. Side setback - Request for 3.3 feet of west side setback relief from the 12 foot side setback requirement for the WR District for the proposed deck addition as per §179-3- 040. 3. Shoreline setback - Request for 28 feet of shoreline setback relief from the 50 foot requirement for the WR District for the proposed deck and stairs addition as per §179-3- 040. 4. Expansion of a non-conforming structure requires the approval of the ZBA as per §179- 13-010F. Criteria for considering',an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town 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. 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. Lot limitations and existing conditions appear to preclude any feasible method for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 5.1 feet or 42.5% relief from the 12 foot east side setback requirement for the deck may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. Further, request for 3.3 feet or 27.5% relief from the 12 foot west side setback requirement for the deck may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. Additionally, request for 28 feet or 56% of shoreline setback relief from the 50 foot requirement for the deck may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. Finally, expansion of a non-conforming structure (deck) requires the approval of this board. Note: The determination of whether the requested area variance is substantial is based on an empirical calculation and not subjective reasoning. 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 or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. Further to this, the applicant has agreed to remove the existing patio and two existing sheds which will improve the permeability on the parcel and install a shoreline buffer to be reviewed by the Planning Board. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, A.V. 81-99: setback/FAR relief for 276 sq. ft. porch Approved 7/21/99 A.V. 81-98: setback/FAR relief for 276 sq. ft. porch Denied 11/18/98 Staff comments' The applicant had previously proposed the removal of two existing sheds totaling 109 square feet; these sheds have been removed. The previous on-site impermeable surfacing stood at 6,051.8 square feet or 51.0%. With the proposed removal of the sheds, reduction of 18.7 square feet from the deck, and the removal of the existing 329 square foot patio, the resulting on-site impermeable surfacing proposed is 5,606 square feet or 47.3%, a reduction of impermeable surfacing of 3.7% or 446 square feet. Please note that the request for the deck addition in this revised proposal has been added to these calculations. The applicant proposes to remove the bump out area which was slated as a platform for the stairs on the western portion of the deck in order to not encroach further into the side setback. Note: The installation date of the patio cannot be confirmed at this point in time although it is referenced in the application narrative as 2001. The applicant has since removed the patio. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1212112011) Previous tabling resolution attached. SEAR Status Type II-no further action required" MR. JACKOSKI-If you could state your name for the record, and if there's anything you would like to add at this time, please feel free to do so. MR. DUFRESNE-Sure. Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the Board. My name is Mark Dufresne. I'm the oldest son of David and Evelyn Dufresne. After reviewing all the information, I've been to the last three or four meetings, and seen exactly what direction we need to be traveling in this. We have since removed that patio, the concrete between the building and the seawall. It's all soiled over, at this point in time we're looking to leave the boxwood trees there but also, the picture, I know we sent some paperwork to you folks in regards to adding a little bit onto the deck, a six by six foot ten inches by six foot addition on the porch that's existing, just to make is square so the front of the camp looks all uniform, put a set of stair on it. By doing that, we looked at all the impermeable surface information, and by taking off the patio, the patio, the two sheds and the little bump out on the existing porch, we were able to drop that impermeable area down to 47%. So we've done quite a bit, as you can see on the photos there, it's going, it's flush, and as you can see again, the other photo there, the patio was completely gone, but you see it's missing something on that side. What we want to do is add that six foot ten by six foot right in that area there with a set of steps coming down. Again, with all that being said, it still kept our impermeable area to 47%, which is far better than we were before, even when we bought the facility. MR. JACKOSKI-What will you be doing to restore the area that was under the old patio? MR. DUFRESNE-Right at this point in time, that's what you see right now. We wanted to do it, we want to put some sod on there, but the sod farm is not open at this time, so we're looking to do that in the spring. The boxwood trees we do like to leave there, maybe move them closer to the seawall, and put lattice underneath so you don't see underneath the deck to give it a clean finished look. MR. JACKOSKI-So did you have to bring in that material that's behind the boxwoods? MR. DUFRESNE-Actually that material was underneath that pad. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. DUFRESNE-Because I thought the same thing when we went up there, when they removed it. They said, no, that material is existing. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Were there any other questions from the Board members at this time before I re-open the public hearing? Hearing none, is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address the Board concerning this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one at this time, is there any written comment received? MR. URRICO-No new comment. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. I think I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-And poll the Board. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-1 think the applicant's achieved the change that we had hoped, and it better reflects the regulations that protect the water of Lake George and I think at this point in time, I think the stairs, even though they're an addition with that landing at the top there, I don't have a problem with granting the variance. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Mr. Koskinas? MR. KOSKINAS-Yes. I commend the applicant on taking action on the recommendations of this Board and I think that the project's acceptable as you've present it now. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/2011) MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I'm satisfied that the applicant has made the necessary changes to make this palatable. So I would be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-I agree with what has been said. He's done what had to be done. So I'm in favor of it. MR. CLEMENTS-1 also am in favor of it. I think they've done a very good job of making some more permeable area. So I'd be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-1 think better shoreline buffer there can only be a good thing. So, I agree with the other Board members. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, and it's my understanding this project goes back in front of the Planning Board and so they, of course, will take a look more thoroughly at the buffering requirements. So, having polled the Board, would anyone like to put forth a motion? MR. UNDERWOOD-I'll make a motion. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Jim. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-2011 DAVID & EVELYN DUFRESNE, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Clements: 24 Brayton Road. The applicant has removed a 348 square foot deck and partially built a new 348 sq. ft. deck in its place. Further the applicant is proposing to expand the deck by 42 sq. ft. resulting in an overall deck size of 390 sq. ft. As far as the setbacks as they are reflected, they have a request for 5.1 feet on the east side, 12 foot side setback requirements are necessary. The side setback request is for 3.3 feet of west side setback from the 12 foot side setback. The shoreline setback request is for 28 feet of shoreline setback request from the 50 foot requirement, and we also have to grant relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure. At this point in time, we would reflect upon the fact that the patio that was previously constructed below that deck has been removed and the applicant agrees not to re-build that at any time in the future. We will also note that the Planning Board will advise them as to what kind of plantings they would like on the site there, and any plantings as far as grass and things like that to protect the water flow from stormwater flowing into the lake. The Board does not have any concerns that this addition with the deck on the front there will have any adverse effects on the environment or the lake, and at that point in time, I would move for its approval. Duly adopted this 21St day of December, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-And thank you for your patience, we do appreciate it, and please pass that on to your parents. MR. DUFRESNE-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 62-2011 SEQRA TYPE II SCOTT SPELLBURG & LISA PUSHOR AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SCOTT SPELLBURG ZONING RR- 3A/LC-10A LOCATION 45 ELLSWORTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF (3) PARCELS TOTALING 92.12 +/- ACRES INTO EIGHT (8) RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 3 ACRES TO 44.1 ACRES. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM ROAD FRONTAGE, DENSITY, LOT WIDTH, LOT SIZE, SETBACK, AND PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2011 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING OCTOBER 12, 2011 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 38.52, 1.36, 52.24, ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 265.00-1-2.1, 2.2, 2.3 SECTION 179-3-040, 179-4-050 TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/2011) MR. JACKOSKI-This project has been in front of this Board before. Roy, if you could just read into the record. STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 62-2011, Scott Spelling & Lisa Pushor, Meeting Date: December 21, 2011 "Project Location: 45 Ellsworth Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes subdivision of three (3) parcels totalling 92.12 +/- acres into eight (8) residential lots ranging in size from 3 acres to 44.1 acres. Relief Required: Relief requested from density, lot size, lot width, road frontage, setback, and permeability requirements. Parcel will require area variances as follows: Variances Lots Affected Density 2 lots in the LC-10 zone Lot size 2, 3, 4 Lot Width 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 Road Frontage All 8 lots Side Setback 2, 3, 4 Permeability 2, 3, 4 Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town 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. 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 exception of the road frontage variances sought, a subdivision layout that is code compliant is feasible and could be pursued. Note: Applicant proposes a private road thus necessitating road frontage relief. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. Please see attached breakout of variances under Staff Comments. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Moderate impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated due to construction on slopes, however, properly designed and implemented erosion and sediment controls as well as stormwater practices would mitigate these concerns. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, A.V. 81-99: setback/FAR relief for 276 sq. ft. porch Approved 7/21/99 A.V. 81-98: setback/FAR relief for 276 sq. ft. porch Denied 11/18/98 Staff comments: Attached is a break out of all the relief requested for this proposal. It should be noted that the applicant proposes a private road and as such all lots will require road frontage relief as currently designed. QUANTIFIED AND QUALIFIED RELIEF Lot# Density Lot Size Lot Width Frontage Side Setback Permeability 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/2011) 1 -400 feet 2 - 7.00 - 300 feet - 318 feet - 50 feet - 3.9% acres 3 - 6.81 -275 feet -400 feet - 50 feet - 3.0% acres 4 - 6.00 - 300 feet -400 feet - 50 feet - 5.0% acres 5 -400 feet 6 -400 feet 7 - 14 feet -400 feet 8 - 90 feet -400 feet Note - Permeability required for the LC-10A zone is 95%. Lots 1 - 4 are located in the LC-10A zone and Lots 5-8 are located in the RR-3A zone. Please see page SP-1 of the preliminary subdivision submittal for quantified relief requested for further clarification. SEQR Status SEQR Status-Type 11" MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Board. My name is Tom Hutchins. I do business as Hutchins Engineering in Queensbury. With me are co-owner/applicants, Scott Spellburg and Lisa Pushor, and we were here October 19, and we had some suggestions from this Board, and from the public, and we went back to our plans. We re-looked at it, we listened to your suggestions, and we revised our plan to the greatest extent we could, in an effort to address as many of the suggestions as we could. What we did, on the parcel to the south, which is the Pushor parcel, there was much discussion about previous lots Five and Six down there. We essentially eliminated Lot Five where it was, and that's shown, that house is shown here in yellow or orange. For information it's no longer part of the proposal, and we also re-located the house that was proposed for Lot Six further north another 110 feet, and I've, again, in orange, shown the prior location and of course the proposed house locations are shown in red. We have lengthened the section of shared driveways serving Lots One and Four, and that was one of the suggestions we received, and I'd like to, yes, so all the lots have been re-numbered. So there still is a Five and a Six, but there's no longer the previous Lot Five, previous Five and Six are now Five. So we're proposing four lots on the Pushor parcel, which is in the RR-3 zone. It's the southerly parcel, and we're proposing four lots on the Spellburg parcel which is to the north. I'd, again, like to touch on part of the hardship we're feeling here, and that's a function of the zoning of the northerly parcel that we're working with, which is Scott's parcel. The previous zoning was LC-10A, with this being our project boundary. This is Scott's parcel. This Lisa's parcel. When the zone lines were re-mapped in '09, all of Scott's parcel was, went from RR-3 to LC-10, and that really creates a difficult situation with regard to this subdivision. Scott's owned the parcel for, what, 15 years. Scott's owned the property for 15 years, and he's always had intentions of doing a small development such as this, and that zoning change really does make it difficult, and we discussed that last time. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUTCHINS-1 think, yes, that's, we'll turn it over for questions. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Are there any questions from the Board at this time? MR. KOSKINAS-1 do have a question and it's a matter of my limited understanding, and I apologize for it. When I was looking at the, I believe it's Staff's table, it is the relief that's requested, and it's my own shortcoming, so maybe you can just walk me. In that northern parcel, in the LC-10, the frontage relief, as it's listed, I can't do that math. So what is the frontage on these, actually the frontage, the road frontage on these lots? MR. HUTCHINS-There is no public road frontage on any of the lots because we're proposing a private road. So all of the lots are requesting relief from public road frontage requirements. MR. BROWN-But Lot Two has some road frontage. They have 82 feet of road frontage, but the other ones don't have any frontage on a public highway, and that's the requirement, a public highway. MR. KOSKINAS-Okay. Thank you. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1212112011) MR. JACKOSKI-Any other comments from the Board? MR. GARRAND-Has the Fire Marshal looked at Lot Six, and its accessibility? MR. HUTCHINS-The Fire Marshal has not, has not looked at it yet. We fully expect that to be part of the Planning Board process. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. We'll turn it over to the public hearing. Is there anyone here in the audience this evening who'd like to address the Board concerning this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. The Lake George Water Keeper appreciates the Zoning Board of Appeals review of the application request and the modifications which the applicant has made. As our previous letter stated, the Water Keeper is concerned about the potential negative impacts to the resources of the Town that can result from density and permeability requirements, and a couple of our comments. Granting relief to permeability requirements can change the character of the neighborhood and district. One of the best measures for the protection of natural resources is to limit impervious cover and maintain existing soils and vegetation, especially on steep slopes, and this is the justification for the higher permeability requirements in rural limitations. There are alternatives that can reduce the variance request for relief from permeability requirements. The implementation of low impact development measures would reduce impervious cover improving water quality as well as reducing project cost. For example, the reduction of the width of pavement should be considered for the 20 foot common driveway for Lots One and Four. The common driveway, we feel, should not be as wide as 20 feet. The private road could be reduced from the current 20 foot width to increase permeable cover. Alternate driveway locations could also reduce impervious cover such as re-locating the access drive to Lot Three off the lot and One and Four common driveway and re-locating the drive for Lot Four to the south off of the private road. Granting the relief for permeability requirements will have a negative impact on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood. Increased impervious cover and associated disturbance on steep slopes removes trees and other vegetation as well as disturbed soils that are important for stabilizing the slopes along French Mountain, reducing stormwater runoff and increasing treatment of stormwater. The Town's Comprehensive Plan states the goal of multi unit residential development in the Rural Residential district is to minimize the impact of forest, protect the views to the public and maintain the rural character. The requested variance for permeability is excessive and should be reduced to the minimum necessary. The requested variance for permeability for Lots Two, Three and Four is for 80% from the required 95%, which is excessive. The actual permeability on the existing site design for Lots Two, Three, and Four is 91%, 92% and 90% respectively. Therefore the requested variance would allow double the current impervious cover proposed on the plan. Clearly the variance request is not the minimum necessary and should not be granted. The Water Keeper recommends a granting for the minimum necessary after possible impervious cover reductions and considers the maximum footprint of proposed dwellings on the lots with permeability variances. There should be a determination what is actually needed for the development of these lots. It appears right now that it's almost a blank check and they could double what is proposed on the plan. In conclusion, the Water Keeper is not opposed to the reduction of the required road frontage or the shifting of density requirements which can reduce the impervious surface associated with the project, but the relief to the density requirements should not justify the relief to the permeability requirements of the Town Code. The Water Keeper recommends the Zoning Board of Appeals deny the current variance request for relief from the permeability requirements. If there are any questions, I'd be glad to answer them. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Is there anyone else this evening who'd like to address the Board at this time? Seeing no one, I am going to keep the public hearing open at this time. If the applicant wouldn't mind addressing some of the comments made by the Water Keeper, and then I'd like to poll the Board. MR. HUTCHINS-And I would mention that, and Chris didn't, we did make the offer to Chris to meet with us and I did meet with him, reviewed the plans, took into account his suggestions and we also took him on a tour of the site. So we've done the best we can to encourage his input and do what we can to address his comments. He makes an issue of the permeability relief that we are requesting. Now we're requesting relief for permeability of the Three, Four and 4. Something acre lots that are in the LC-10 Acre zone, which has a 95% permeability requirement. Now if, in a regular 3 Acre zone it's a 75% permeability requirement. Now we are at about 90 on all three of those. We can't meet 95% with a three acre lot in a 10 acre zone. So 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1212112011) we could do some crazy things with lot lines. The northern most lot and, let me get the numbers, Lot Number Two and Lot Number Four could certainly be made bigger by taking them back further. That would decrease permeability. It would have absolutely no positive impact on the project. It would simply be moving lines around, and Scott had indicated in the past that the reason we're keeping Lot One contiguous is he intends to maintain control of that and keep that as one lot. It's not feasible to do a reasonable residential single lot plan at 95% with a three acre lot. So that's the basis for the permeability request and I hope I clarified that it's not really as bad as it sounds, and we're certainly willing to look at decreasing the width of the shared drive to Lots One and Four, and we've talked about that fairly recently, and I think that one's certainly feasible. With regard to decreasing the width of the long private road, we're certainly willing to consider it. However, we're going to have some more specific requirements for emergency vehicle access and fire safety and the Fire Marshal's going to want input on that. So I'm sure these will all get addressed at the Planning Board stage. However, at this point, we're still showing them as 20 foot drives, as that is the minimum width for a fire access road which at least a portion of the primary shared drive will have to meet that, and with that I'll turn it back over, if there's any other questions. MR. JACKOSKI-Would you be able to briefly discuss the changes in the size of Lots Five through Eight as they're now depicted as compared to before? MR. UNDERWOOD-The numbers have been changed. That's. MR. HUTCHINS-Lot Five essentially contains what was Lot Five and Six, and there is just minor configuration changes of the other ones with, when we eliminated those two lots. So I don't recall what the sizes were of the other three, but they were minor configuration changes, shortened up that Five a little bit, but we had to maintain good frontage to get access. So they shouldn't have changed substantially. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-So Lot Five is essentially double what. MR. JACKOSKI-And, Staff, we can't approve individually each applicant's subdivision. Correct? This has to be all or nothing? MR. BROWN-That's correct. This is one application. It encompasses two parcels, it's one subdivision application. MR. JACKOSKI-At this time, I'd like to poll the Board, and I'd like to start with Rick. MR. GARRAND-I think the applicant's come back before us with what we've asked him to do with regards to this project. As far as the Spellburg lot, I don't see the point of moving the lot lines around for permeability reasons. Taken in total, this, it's not going to really make any difference. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I agree with what Rick said. Reducing that driveway to One and Four is a good thing to do. I mean, with just two houses, it's not a big deal. You're going to have to fight the issue of emergency access to the other one. So, no, I have no problem with it. MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Koskinas? MR. KOSKINAS-I share concerns for permeability in our zoning, but I have to say, even though I thought when I visited the site it's pretty challenging elevation changes there, I thought that being adjacent to the RR-3, the total impact of your program is not negative. These percentages are small. So I'd be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-I agree with the rest of the Board. I think they've done their due diligence here. I think you're right about just moving the lines around to get permeability is, I mean, there would be no reason to do that. Making the road narrower, if you can, I think that would benefit you, you know, financially, but I know that you might have some restrictions when you go to the Planning Board with emergency vehicles and things like that. So I'd be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/2011) MR. URRICO-1 think we challenged the applicant to come up with a better plan than last time and they did, and the result is we have the least amount of relief that we can come up with, and think it's a good plan. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-And as I said the last time, I think this is all reflective of the change the last time it was re-zoned and you ended up with LC-10 and your neighbors didn't, and why they would suddenly take that straight line and encompass your property, go figure, but I think that the permeability issue is a concern, but I think it will be addressed by the Planning Board and it's only reflective of the LC-10 zoning. If it was LC-3 we wouldn't be here. MR. JACKOSKI-Having polled the Board, I'd like to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-And I'd like to have a motion. MR. GARRAND-I'll make a motion. MR. JACKOSKI-Rick. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 62-2011 SCOTT SPELLBURG & LISA PUSHOR, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: 45 Ellsworth Road. The applicant proposes subdivision of three parcels totaling 92.12 acres into eight residential lots ranging in size from three acres to forty-four point one acres. Quantified and qualified relief required. Lot One requires 400 feet of road frontage. Lot Two requires seven acres of lot size, 300 feet of lot width, 318 feet road frontage, 50 feet of side setback, and 3.9% permeability. Lot Three, lot size relief 6.81 acres; width 275 feet frontage, 400 feet, side setback 50 and permeability three percent. Lot Four, six acre lot size relief, lot width 300 feet, frontage 400 feet, setback from the side 50 feet, and permeability five percent. Lots Five, Six, Seven, and Eight will all require 400 feet of frontage relief, as well as Lot Seven and Eight will require 14 feet and 90 feet lot width relief respectively. The balancing test, whether benefits can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. The applicant has come before us with a modified plan. They have presented us with other means, with other feasible means. Will this produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties? None that this Board can see. Is this request substantial? It may be deemed substantial given the number of variances, but given the fact that some of this area was re-zoned as LC-10 might make it seem more substantial than it actually is. Will this request have adverse physical or environmental effects on the neighborhood? Not to the best of our knowledge can we tell that it'll have any adverse effects on the neighborhood. Is this difficulty self-created? It may be deemed self-created since it is the applicant who put together this proposal presented before us today. Lot One will not be further subdivided. So I move we approve 62-2011. Duly adopted this 21St day of December, 2011, by the following vote: MR. JACKOSKI-And just for the record, I believe, for the record, that you suggested that Lot One would not be further subdivided. Correct? Thank you. AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 71-2011 SEQRA TYPE II HILLTOP CONSTRUCTION/TOM ALBRECHT AGENT(S) HILLTOP CONSTRUCTION/TOM ALBRECHT OWNER(S) DR. JOSEPH MIHINDUKULASURIYA ZONING MDR LOCATION 35 GARRISON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 462 SQ. FT. RESIDENTIAL ADDITION. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT. CROSS REF BP 97-559 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING DECEMBER 14, 2011 LOT SIZE 0.68 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 302.11-1-37 AND 38 SECTION 179-3-040 TOM ALBRECHT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/2011) STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 71-2011, Hilltop Construction/Tom Albrecht, Meeting Date: December 21, 2011 "Project Location: 35 Garrison Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of 462 sq. ft. residential addition (Garden Room) to include a new three sided veranda. Relief Required:' Parcel will require area variances as follows: 1. Side setback - Request for 14.8 feet of relief from the 25 foot side yard setback requirement for the MDR zone as per§179-3-040. 2. Expansion of a non-conforming structure must be approved by this board as per §179- 13-010F. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town 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. 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. Existing lot conditions and the nature of the proposal appear to preclude any feasible method by which to avoid an area variance. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 14.8 feet or 59% relief from the 25 foot side setback requirement of the MDR zone as per §179-3-040 may be considered moderate to severe relative to the code. Expansion of a non-conforming structure must be approved by this board as per§179-13-010F. 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/or environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, None found Staff comments:' The existing screened porch to the rear and patio to the west to be removed and replaced. There are plans for storage above the proposed garden room accessed from the second floor. Application states 175 square feet of additional porches/decks; this appears to be understated. Although not associated with required relief, quantification of all new porches and covered areas should be forthcoming. SEAR Status Type II" MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Quite an extensive description of the project. If you could state your name for the record, please, and if there's anything at this time you'd like to add to this. MR. ALBRECHT-Yes. Good evening. Tom Albrecht, Hilltop Construction. Welcome, folks for taking the time out. We do have a nonconforming structure. It certainly doesn't meet the setbacks. We're not encroaching on the setbacks that are existing. We're aligning with the setbacks that are existing. We're removing the screened porch, which is literally falling down. We are enlarging that, not towards the west, but towards the south. The patio, there is an existing patio on the east side. If you'll note on the survey map, we're removing and replacing that patio, so, again, we're not encroaching with the current setbacks that are nonconforming. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1212112011) The roof structure is part of this, doesn't meet the setbacks because it's nonconforming, but the roof will be totally removed off the structure and re-built, which is in quite disarray. I think that just about sums it up, if you have any questions. MR. JACKOSKI-Would you be able to address the comment from Staff concerning the square footages of the porches? MR. ALBRECHT-Yes. The porches or the patios? MR. URRICO-The screened porch to the rear and the patio to the west, removed and replaced. There's 175 square feet of additional porches, decks that appear to be understated. MR. ALBRECHT-We are enlarging the garden room by the, we are enlarging the sun porch or garden room if you will by six feet, going to the south, but the roof overhangs encompass around the sunroom, around the veranda if you will, as indicated on the plans. It's indicated as a veranda. The covered patio is 150 square feet, to the east. That currently is a patio that we're removing and replacing, but we're putting a roof structure over top of it. The veranda on the east, or on the west side, adjacent to the garden room, is 156 square feet. That is in addition to what is existing, and it also will have a roof extension over that, the veranda, which all of that is encroaching in the setback requirements. MR. KOSKINAS-If I understand your answer to the question, and I was trying to do the math in my head, the additional square footage you're adding is greater than 175, is that right? MR. ALBRECHT-Yes, it is. MR. KOSKINAS-Okay. That was the question, I think, and maybe it's appropriate, at some point, to quantify that in detail for Staff so they have a complete record. MR. ALBRECHT-Sure. MR. JACKOSKI-Are there any other questions from Board members at this time? If not, I would like to open up the public hearing. Is there anyone here in the audience this evening who'd like to address the Board on this matter? Please. Welcome, if you could state your name and residence for the record, please. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED GINA NASSIVERA MRS. NASSIVERA-Good evening. My name is Gina Nassivera and I live on Fort Amherst Road, directly behind the Mihindu house, and my concerns tonight, as Mr. Albrecht pointed out, that the roof of the house is already in disrepair, and you didn't address the garage at all, and I guess my concerns are, are there plans for the garage roof? MR. ALBRECHT-I don't have any plans for the garage roof. MRS. NASSIVERA-The garage roof, and I have pictures. I have a CD, has trees growing on it. It has grass growing on it. It has other growth on it, and we have a clear view of that from our house. The windows are falling out of the garage, completely cracked. The structure is completely cracked. The paint is coming off the garage. Behind the garage there are large quantities of Christmas decorations. I mean, you could fill a warehouse with these Christmas decorations, and I'm concerned as to why they're putting so much money into this type of expansion and not addressing the garage which truly is in disrepair. MR. JACKOSKI-We obviously can't know that they're not going to address that garage at this time. It would seem logical, as you suggested, that they probably would, but we will certainly be, I'm sure Staff is aware of that. That garage, unfortunately, is not in front of us this evening. MRS. NASSIVERA-1 have pictures of it. MR. JACKOSKI-I actually visited the site. So I did. MRS. NASSIVERA-Okay. A tree was just cut down on the property last week, last Friday, and it gives us an even clearer view of the disrepair. MR. JACKOSKI-Have you had a chance to talk to Joe and Elaine? 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1212112011) MRS. NASSIVERA-Last year a tree fell down off of their property and missed our shed by about two inches and they never addressed that. They've never addressed us. Their fence was just repaired in the last month, because it's been laying flat, and they didn't care. So they have never addressed us. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Is there anyone else this evening? Yes. MARK CERRO MR. CERRO-Hello. Mark Cerro, 33 Garrison Road. I think, you know, some of the issues are on disrepair. They're decent neighbors. The nature of their profession, I think, keeps them away from the home, they're busy, but generally speaking, I would have liked to have heard from them, instead of receiving a notice in the mail about the changes. I have concerns as well. One of the major issues, about three years ago when I fenced in my property, there's a fence on their property line that's in major disrepair. I offered to replace it at my expense, and they said they were planning on making these types of changes, you know, with Hilltop, and that was about three years ago. So I have concerns about the execution, but also if they're going to be encroaching further on my property, I would love to see that fence replaced. I'm no longer willing to do it at my expense, as I had offered in the past, but I'm constantly nailing up boards on my side to keep their fence up. So it's a little bit disappointing. I know, Steve, you used to live in that neighborhood. We try to keep up appearances very nicely. When I had proposed to do a sidewalk from, you know, your old home from North Road, up, you know, to Bay, they had said, they opposed it because it infringed upon the country like feel of the neighborhood, which I had difficulty understanding. So it's not totally in synch with what they're trying to do and what they've said in the past. I would just like better understanding of the project. We reached out to them. We hadn't heard back. Frankly we did it today, but we would have liked to have known more about it, because, you know, it's directly on our property line. So we have some concerns. I generally don't like to tell people, or have expectations about what people do on their own property. That's not my style, and not my interest, but I echo some of the comments Gina had made and just would like to see more, learn more. Specifically see if there's any plans to address the fence because it's in absolutely poor condition, and if they're going to encroach on my property line, I would like a lot less visibility of what they're going to do, well, what exists today with that existing fence, and just a question to the Board, because I'm not familiar with the details and the rules, but if their variance was approved, would that preclude any of us, you know, from doing something similar or asking for a similar variance because they've moved so close to the property line? And that's just kind of a technical question, but I would like to know that for my future benefit. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. CERRO-Okay. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone else who'd like to address the Board at this time? BARBARA TAGGART MS. TAGGART-Hi. Good evening. I'm Barbara Taggart. I live on Fort Amherst Road, directly behind the Mihindu garage, and I have been there for four or five years. They've had relatives cut their grass, and I've asked them, you know, when are they going to repair the garage, and oh there's going to be a big development soon, and that's been for years. It's hard to believe in such a nice neighborhood that deplorable conditions would exist and, you know, in good faith, that you wouldn't take care of your property. All of my neighbors here take care of theirs, and it's very discouraging, and I have pictures here, and it's awful, and, you know, it's too bad that people don't care about their property and all of a sudden they're going to put a multimillion dollar addition. Well, are they going to forget about the garage? What's going to happen? Should I request that they put up a fence so I don't have to look at it from my inground pool? That's all I have to say. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. This evening is there anyone else who'd like to address the Board on this project? Seeing no one at this time, I'm going to leave the public hearing open. If you could maybe address some of the comments made by the neighbors, I'd appreciate it. MR. ALBRECHT-There has been some discussion on the garage. The garage is in disarray, in every facet of the garage. We are not under contract to do anything with the garage, nor are we under contract to do anything with the fencing. We're to bring the entire home up to current standards, high standards, meaning painting and new roof structure, new windows, everything would be upgraded on the structure, and the garage has been under discussion, but there's been no agreement to move forward with anything in the garage. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1212112011) MR. JACKOSKI-But you have had discussions with them? MR. ALBRECHT-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Do you know what the obstacles are for not moving forward with it, by chance? Okay. MR. GARRAND-Did you notice any potential safety hazards with respect to the garage? MR. ALBRECHT-In the rear of the garage, the structure, it needs some attention. MR. GARRAND-Are cars being parked in it at this time? MR. ALBRECHT-I'm not certain. MR. GARRAND-Do you know when you're excavating for the additions, will you be encroaching on the Cerro fence? MR. ALBRECHT-We will not be encroaching on their property. Encroaching on their fence? MR. GARRAND-Or on that fence? Will that fence need to come down in order to do the excavating you need to do in that area? MR. ALBRECHT-No. It will not. MR. GARRAND-So can Staff go out there and look at potential hazards with respect to the garage? MR. BROWN-Yes. That would fall under the Building Code. MR. GARRAND-Yes. MR. BROWN-As far as an unsafe structure. So it can certainly be brought to the attention of the Building Department and see if one of the inspectors can go out and take a look at it. Yes. MR. GARRAND-That would be great. MR. UNDERWOOD-So in essence you're re-doing the whole house, presently? MR. ALBRECHT-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-So it would stand to reason, logically, that they probably would not leave the garage there indefinitely in the condition that it's in. It probably would be addressed in phase two maybe. MR. ALBRECHT-I can't speak for them on that behalf. MR. JACKOSKI-The lot line for the property actually goes right down the middle of, or part of the house, correct? It's a two lot residence? MR. ALBRECHT-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-The garage is not on a separate lot. Is it? MR. ALBRECHT-No, no, it's all one parcel. MR. BROWN-Yes, I think there's two parcels there. MR. ALBRECHT-Yes, but I'm not certain they're deeded that way. Are they? MR. BROWN-Well, I know there's certainly two tax map numbers. This is the house, and this is the garage part, and the garage is over here. MR. URRICO-Mr. Albrecht, you said you're only under contract to do the veranda part, the garden room part at this point. MR. ALBRECHT-And the roof structure on the complete house. MR. URRICO-And the roof structure. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1212112011) MR. ALBRECHT-Yes. MR. URRICO-But you don't know how much further they're going to go. Is this the first of what may be a few variances coming our way as you get further into the project? MR. ALBRECHT-No. This is, we would like to move forward here with the project. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-And for the record it does note that the tax map parcels are Numbers 37 and 38. MR. ALBRECHT-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, I'd like to poll the Board at this time, and I'd like to start, if I could, we'll start all the way at the end and work our way to the other side with Brian. MR. CLEMENTS-Thank you. I appreciate the comments of the neighbors here. As I look at the project, it looks like there seem to be no problems with the height of the building, and it looks to me as if this would be a good project for the neighborhood. Maybe they could, you know, they might be able to do some other things, too, with the garage and the fence, but this looks like a good start. So I'd be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, sir. Ron? MR. KUHL-I just want to ask Tom Albrecht one question. Are you going to re-do all the windows, or just on the back part? MR. ALBRECHT-All of the windows. MR. KUHL-Yes. It seems like you ladies want more than a half piece of pie, you want the whole pie. I think it's a good project from the standpoint of improving what is there now. I didn't look behind the garage. I don't know what that's all about, but from what's presented to us here, I would be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-Building and Codes is going to take a look at the garage and address any potential issues there. This project will have a visual impact on the neighbor, and I think possibly as a condition a repair of the fence might be in order. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. We're not at a point, yet, where we can compel people to alter their properties to suit something that we visualize they should be. Even though I understand where the neighborhood is coming from in this instance here, I think that the project looks to me to be a re-do of the house, and I would assume at some point they probably would continue on to the garage, and, you know, even though we could condition that, it's not something that we would condition as a Board. I think that the setbacks that are required aren't going to be any more than what currently exists, and so I would be all in favor of the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Koskinas? MR. KOSKINAS-I appreciate the concerns of the neighboring homeowners, and I'd encourage them to go to the Building Department and make a complaint. A building inspector may very well put your neighbors on the right path to doing the right thing. As far as the relief in front of this Board today, very modest and I would not have any reservations about voting yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-I guess I'm going to be on the negative side on this one. I think 60% relief and expansion of a nonconforming structure or an already nonconforming structure to me is asking for more than I'm willing to give. So I'd be against it. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. I have a couple of questions, if I could, before I suggest anything. Are the pillars and gates going to be part of the project? MR. ALBRECHT-The gates at the entrance of the driveway? Yes. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/2011) MR. JACKOSKI-And are they going to be automated gates or just decorative that will stay open or closed? MR. ALBRECHT-We're not there yet with that. The pillars are a part of the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I would hope that the applicant, when they take a look at the minutes from this meeting, would recognize the neighborly thing to do, which is to address the concerns of the visual impact to the neighborhood, especially to the rear neighbors, and the Cerro family. I'm hoping there's some kind of an opportunity here that while you're on site working, excavation wise, that fence can be maybe replaced, and it seems odd to me that they would go through all this money, while it's not a multimillion dollar project, (lost words) it's still a lot of money. It still is a major change to that home, the fagade of the home, and like Mr. Underwood said, we really don't have the ability to command them to do something with it, but I'm hoping that they will listen to the neighbors and listen to the comment here without having to force the neighbors to take drastic measures. So, having said that, I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-And if someone here would like to make a motion, I'd appreciate it. MR. KOSKINAS-I'll do it, Mr. Chairman. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Mr. Koskinas. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 71-2011 HILLTOP CONSTRUCTION/TOM ALBRECHT, Introduced by John Koskinas who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: Granting the expansion of a nonconforming structure and the following relief: 17.4 feet from the 25 foot side yard setback requirement for the MDR zone, reference Section 179-3-040. Finding: One, that no undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties will be created. Reasoning: Only minor impacts to the neighborhood are anticipated. Two, that the applicant does not have reasonable alternatives not involving an Area Variance. Reasoning: Lot conditions and proposed addition preclude methods that avoid a variance. Three, that the variance is not deemed to be substantial. Reasoning: 59% relief, while moderate, does not result in a structure ill-fitting the surrounding neighborhood. Four, that the variance will have no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Reasoning: Only minor impacts are anticipated. Five, the applicant's difficulty is considered to be self-created. Reasoning: The choice to proceed is their own. I move for approval. That the fence be repaired, so as to mitigate the impact on the adjoining neighbor, and I do feel that the fence is relevant in that they are asking for side setback relief. Duly adopted this 21St day of December, 2011, by the following vote: MR. JACKOSKI-There are no conditions at this time, correct? MR. GARRAND-No conditions? MR. KOSKINAS-I'm not making any, but you can amend my motion. MR. GARRAND-Does anybody else agree with the conditions? MR. JACKOSKI-I'm okay with the resolution as is. MR. GARRAND-1 would just like to add as a condition of approval that the fence be repaired, so as to mitigate the impact on the adjoining neighbor, and I do feel that the fence is relevant in that they are asking for side setback relief. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. We do have a resolution that has been amended. Is there any other discussion concerning that resolution? Hearing none, we have a motion and a second. Call the vote, please. AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski NOES: Mr. Urrico MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/2011) MR. ALBRECHT-Thank you. I will bring that to them, these comments and such. It's not like they're not aware of them. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 5-2011 SEQRA TYPE N/A JOHN B. POHL, ESQ. AGENT(S) JOHN B. POHL, ESQ. OWNER(S) FOREST ENTERPRISES MANAGEMENT, INC. ZONING CI AND CLI LOCATION QUAKER ROAD APPELLANT IS APPEALING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DETERMINATION THAT A SIGN IS NOT ALLOWED ON PARCELS OF LAND WHERE EITHER THE GOODS AND SERVICES ARE NOT AVAILABLE OR THERE IS NO PROJECT UNDERWAY OR APPROVED. CROSS REF N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 83.86, 2.07, 2.07, 1.16, AND 6.39 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 303.11-1-4; 303.15-1-21, 22, 24, AND 25.2 SECTION 179-14-040 JOHN POHL, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Notice of Appeal No. 5-2011, John B. Pohl, Esq. Meeting Date: December 21, 2011 "Project Location: Quaker Road "Description of Proposed Project: Information requested:' Appellant has filed an appeal application relative to a November 17, 2011 Zoning Administrator determination regarding the Town of Queensbury Sign Ordinance. Staff comments Standing: Was the appeal taken within the appropriate 60 day time frame and is the appealing party aggrieved? • The application was signed on November 30, 2011 and filed with the Town on the same day. • The appellant; VMJR Companies, Inc. is believed to be a party at interest in the ownership of the Forest Enterprises Management, Inc. property, however, no documentation to that effect has been supplied with this appeal. If the appellant is confirmed to be a property owner of the subject property then it would appear that the application has adequate standing for this appeal to move forward. Merits: The Zoning Administrator determination of November 17, 2011 identifies that the proposed signage does not meet the requirements of the Town of Queensbury Sign Ordinance to either issue a permit for the sign under 140-5, as there are: "...no goods or services to be advertised available on the property at this time." or allow it without the need for a permit under 140-3 as there is no: "....construction, repair or renovation in progress." at this time. Despite the appellants attempt to clarify that the intent of the code: "...was intended to prevent overzealous developers from taking advantage of innocent purchasers by implying that the sites were shovel ready." the code is clear and understandable plain language and makes no reference, anywhere, relative to their"intent" statements. An acceptable real estate sign offering the land for sale with acreage and contact information is and has always been available to the appellant and the same has been discussed." MR. JACKOSKI-If you could, identify yourself for the Board, please. MR. POHL-Yes. My name's John Pohl. I'm an attorney in Glens Falls. I represent VMJR Companies and Forest Management Enterprises, Inc. That was my error on that. They are the property owner, and it's a company owned and controlled by VMJR Companies. I'd like to address, there's been a lot of back and forth with Craig on this. The people that we engaged to market this property has also weighed in and I've discussed it with Craig. On one of the items where he's denying the, on the basis that where goods and services mentioned on the sign are not available, are not permitted, I think he misinterprets that. Although there's, when you look at the background of a law, you can look at legislative history to see what the intent of the law was. I believe that that particular phrase that he's relying on was one to prevent people from doing the following, saying that they had 100 flat screen tv's when in fact, they didn't, they had one or 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/2011) none. I don't think it has any application to what, in the Sign Ordinance. I think that was what it was designed to prevent people from salaciously advertising that they had product that they, in fact, did not have and that was the reason why it was put in there, because it was very difficult to research that, but I don't believe that has any application to our situation. What we're seeking here, we're seeking, as I pointed out in some correspondence that I sent, any parcel of land, with such perspective development in a planned subdivision in the Commercial Light Industrial, CLI or any other zone, must have the ability to describe potential uses of the land. We're not intimating that these things are ready. What we're trying to do is to have a sign, and the people that are marking it have used this, these particular signs in other locations as well. The signs are needed to develop interest. Interest leads to inquiries. Inquiries leads to specifics. Specifics leads to submission to the Planning Board for specific approval. What we have here, the inability to put up any kind of a sign detailing what the future could hold for this is a development killer, in my judgment, and that Trinity Realty Group that we've engaged sent a letter, in fact, it'll be difficult to advertise your property with the inability to place a real estate sign on it. The sign is used for a variety of things, most importantly, though, it's a landmark for potential user/buyer to locate the right parcel when traveling to find the property. Admittedly there's nothing underway there, but I guess, and again, it's hard to. All I know is that in the introduction to the Sign Ordinance it says one of the reasons for the sign is to promote economic opportunity. That's what we're trying to do. That's what we're trying to do here, and I don't see, I think another concern was somehow people would be mislead by, that these things were shovel ready or things like that. I submit to you that I don't think anybody could be that naive. Anybody knows that when you have a project that requires a long process, whether it be the Planning Board or zoning approval or whatever, these things are in a zone. They're zoned for what the sign says, and I guess I'm at a loss to understand why you couldn't have a sign. I don't understand the theory behind it. It's a nice looking sign, and it describes what's available in that zone. We'd be happy to, if there's anything that could be done to modify the sign, but simply putting up a sign that says For Sale just doesn't get it done. That just begs more questions than it answers. It's not for sale. It's really, this property is for lease and development. So that's our position. I don't know, regretfully. Again, what Craig was relying on, that no goods or services, I don't think that has any application here at all. Admittedly, there's no, I haven't researched behind the reason for that, but I'm certain it's not the way he's interpreting it there. That was to prevent people from saying they had goods there ready to sell that, in fact, they didn't have. Fly by night people coming in and selling, as I say, televisions and appliances and things that, in fact, they didn't have in stock. That's what that was designed for. MR. GARRAND-Are these goods advertised on this sign available on that site? MR. POHL-Pardon me? MR. GARRAND-Are these goods advertised on this sign available on that site? MR. POHL-The possible uses. We're talking about prospective uses. That's the way it's zoned. VIC MACRI MR. MACRI-Yes, they are available. MR. GARRAND-Thank you. MR. MACRI-I mean, we may not have the approvals in place. MR. POHL-I wouldn't characterize them as goods. I mean, they're not goods. They're not a commodity. They're land subject to future development. As I say, the people that are in charge of marketing this are at their wits end. What do we do? A For Sale sign just doesn't do it. MR. GARRAND-The sign does say for sales information. You were saying they're not for sale? MR. MACRI-Does it specifically say For Sale? MR. GARRAND-For sales and leasing information. MR. MACRI-For sale and leasing information. MR. GARRAND-It's your sign. MR. MACRI-The buildings would be for sale, and there would be pad ready sites that would be leased, but, I mean, there would be ground leases along with the buildings. So there would be some sale. The land itself is not for sale. It is our intent to lease it. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1212112011) MR. JACKOSKI-Craig, would you like to add anything at this time? MR. BROWN-No. I think I've summed it up pretty well in the Staff Notes, and notwithstanding the numbers on the sign, we've talked about the 80 versus 40. The zoning only allows 40 square feet for retail and I'm sure that would be changed if they're granted a sign, but pretty much everything I have is in the Staff Notes. MR. MACRI-Craig, are you talking 40,000 on a particular parcel or on the community of the parcel? MR. BROWN-Per parcel. MR. MACRI-Per parcel, yes, but we're planning on joining all the parcels together. I believe that we can get up to 85,000 square feet, based on. MR. BROWN-If you join them together as one big parcel you get 40,000 square feet. MR. MACRI-Only 40,000? MR. BROWN-That's in the Zoning Code for that district. There's a cap on retail, specifically, of 40,000. MR. MACRI-How could we have done that with the Wal-Mart? MR. BROWN-That's in a different zoning district. MR. MACRI-No, it's not. We're in the same zone. MR. BROWN-It's in Cl, I believe, and this is in a CLI. MR. MACRI-It was all re-zoned when we did Wal-Mart. MR. BROWN-You can check the map. I believe. MR. MACRI-You adopted a Comprehensive Plan (lost word) possible change, but. MR. BROWN-1 believe the Wal-Mart property is in the Cl, Commercial Intensive zone, and your proposed subdivision is in CLI, which is Commercial Light Industrial. MR. MACRI-They were all re-zoned. I think it was all Light Industrial. MR. BROWN-We can look at the map. MR. MACRI-And you had the Town re-zoned, and we had no question on the amount of square footage allowed for the acreage. MR. JACKOSKI-We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. I'd like to open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this Appeal? Seeing no one in the audience who would like to address this Board concerning that, has there been any written comment? MR. URRICO-None that I can see. MR. JACKOSKI-None that can be seen. I'd like to leave the public hearing open, simply because I'm a little concerned that we're unsure of which zone this is in, but regardless of that at the time, could we maybe poll the Board and get an idea of where the Board members are thinking, and I'd like to start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-1 think what we're looking at is a sign that's speculative, you know, it speculates about what possibly might exist here at some point in the future. The uses that are on those signs are relative to uses that could occur on those sites there. I mean, I don't think that we're well versed as far as the actual square footage of retail that's available, and as Craig just said, we weren't privy to that information prior to this meeting here, but as far as the sign goes, if you're in the real estate business, it's a speculative business. You have to develop interest in what possible uses might be. If someone wanted to go out there and right frog pond 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1212112011) or something like that on the sign, I guess you could do that and say that that was a 40,000 square foot frog pond or frog ranch or you could probably speculate on that also, but I don't really see that this is a manipulative signage that's misleading the public. I would think that, you know, you guys would not be marketing the product unless you thought he had a viable use for it in the future, and I don't feel like we're pushing the envelope here. I think the Ciba Geigy site, I think that once had huge signs down there advertising that property, but they've all fallen down now, over the years, and that's a manufacturing site in that instance there, but as far as what's going on here, I understand where Craig's coming from, but at the same time I think if you want to be successful in what you're marketing, there's only one way to do that, and that's with signage similar to this. I don't know any other way you can accomplish that task. MR. POHL-I compare it to people, many times on Sundays, driving through an automobile dealers parking lot. I represent several automobile dealers, and if you drive by any, you'll see people walking around on Sunday because there's no one hassling them to buy a car. There's no one working on Sundays, and the same thing with real estate. The people do their own scouting. Gee, I wonder what might be available in Queensbury. Let's drive around and take a look, and if you don't have a sign, that's where the looking stops, for how it's zoned and what you could potentially put there. MR. UNDERWOOD-And I think if you get into a situation where it actually comes to fruition, the Town will probably work with you to achieve some semblance. It might not be exactly what you have listed, as far as the square footage, but it might be. MR. MACRI-I mean, if Craig's right on the square footage, obviously. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure, you can alter that to about the 40,000, if it's 40,000, not 80,000, that can be changed, but I don't see that the sign is that, it would be hard to put up a small sign on a large parcel like this when you're trying to market the whole thing, and accomplish what you're trying to do. MR. MACRI-Exactly. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Rick? MR. URRICO-How many signs do you have up? MR. MACRI-Zero right now. MR. URRICO-How many would you put up? MR. MACRI-Possibly two. Right now all I plan is one. We do have the development in the back that, I mean, we're trying to split it on one small sign. We'd like the ability to have two larger signs because there are two separate projects, but we'll work with whatever we have to. MR. URRICO-So you're proposing Quaker Boulevard and then, what, Queensbury Avenue as another sign, or where would the other sign be? MR. MACRI-No, yes, we have separate parcels there, so, I mean, the fact that we have separate parcels, obviously we'd be allowed to put one on each parcel, which is not what we would plan to do. So the plan is we have 83 acres in the back, and we're trying to develop the tech park and we have the retail plaza potential in the front, and that's another 16 acres I think. MR. KUHL-So what's the answer to the question, one sign or two? MR. MACRI-The plan right now is one sign. That's what we presented to you, but in the future, and I'm not saying that we wouldn't have more than one sign. MR. JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-If the Zoning Administrator clarifies what zone and what's available here, I believe that a sign stating what's available here would be permitted. 140-5, any advertising signs that are located on property where the goods or services mentioned on the sign are not available are not permitted. Well, if they're advertising something that is available on the site, then it would thereby be a permitted sign. MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Koskinas? MR. KOSKINAS-1 find this an interesting case. When the new Sign Ordinance was in place, I was very much in favor of it being more rigorous than it ended up being, although I think it's an 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/2011) improvement. Signage is, in the Town of Queensbury is often a visual pollution, not insensitive to your comments, counsel, that someone engaged to market a property needs a sign, but if that's the only tool they have in their box, I think it's beyond the purview of this Board to judge whether that's effective or not. I've seen these signs painted white with their black and red lettering, and three years later they're weathered, leaning a little bit. They stand for years. Once they're up, they're up, and it's not a sign that typically or an effort to market real estate like this that lasts for 30 days, 60 days or a year. It's often a multi-year effort. The signs are seldom maintained, in my view, and I think they're a visual pollution. I think the Sign Ordinance as it reads is correct. The analogy relative to shopping for cars and real estate, you are a real estate sign. I think you should take advantage of that. A sign of this scope, I'm not at all in favor of, and I believe the Zoning Administrator has correctly interpreted the Code. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Interesting what I just heard, but, no, I believe that what you're presenting will be available, and I would not be against it. I would be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm going to side with the Zoning Administrator on this. I think his determination is correct, given the circumstances and the information we have so far. So I would be in favor of the Zoning Administrator's determination. MR. JACKOSKI-Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-1 can also see where Craig's coming from. However, I agree with Rick and Jim, and I think that the information should be corrected if needed, but should be able to put the sign up. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. My opinion is, if the sign is going to be, I think that if you change some of the wording, that would make me feel more comfortable in that whether you added the words future or potential, I think it would be more descriptive and less misleading if it could be assumed to be misleading. So would you be willing to modify the signage to not only address the Administrator's concerns with the content as far as numbers are concerned, but also that these are future and/or potential opportunities, not already guaranteed. MR. MACRI-Sure. I have no problem with that. MR. POHL-I can assure you this will be a first class sign, too, that isn't going to deteriorate. MR. MACRI-No, I mean, you know, (lost words) looking to present an image. MR. JACKOSKI-How big will the sign be? MR. MACRI-The current sign planned is 4 by 8, right. MR. BROWN-1 don't think I've seen dimensions on it. MR. JACKOSKI-What kind of structure will be supporting this sign? MR. MACRI-It will be four by fours and framing. Typical sign. MR. JACKOSKI-Will it be lighted, illuminated? MR. MACRI-No. The plan is not to illuminate it at this time. MR. JACKOSKI-How far off the road that is there now will it be? MR. MACRI-Well, you do have a service road there, so we'd like to get it as close as possible to the service road. So it's close enough to Quaker Road to be seen. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So I've left the public hearing open. I guess I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-And ask for a motion. 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1212112011) MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. The appellant has filed an appeal application relative to the November 17th Zoning Administrator determination regarding the Town of Queensbury Sign Ordinance, and in this respect I guess I would vote to not uphold the Sign Ordinance as the Zoning Administrator has determined and in this instance allow them to put up the sign but we would like to add that the language on the sign include the word potential 80,000 or 40,000, if it's corrected to that. MR. URRICO-Don't we just have to approve or disapprove the appeal? MR. BROWN-Yes. For clarity for both sides, it's either you uphold the appeal or you deny the appeal, and I think what you're trying to do is uphold the appeal. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I will vote we uphold the appeal. MOTION TO UPHOLD THE APPEAL FOR NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 5-2011 JOHN B.POHL, ESQ., Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: Duly adopted this 21St day of December, 2011, by the following vote: MR. JACKOSKI-So the motion is to uphold the appeal, and do we have the ability to? MR. UNDERWOOD-1 think we can ask them to get together with Craig and determine if the numbers on there are correct or incorrect. MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-And it looks to me it's going to be the four by eight sign, as you said. AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski NOES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Koskinas MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Continuing with this evening's agenda, under Additional Business, I just want to bring it to the attention of the Queensbury Zoning Board members that the Town Board, at the December 19th meeting, did pass Local Laws amending the zoning law and zoning map of the Town of Queensbury. There are two items. They enacted Local Law 7 of 2011 and Local Law 8 of 2011. This will become, will we all get copies of this, Craig? MR. BROWN-The revised zoning map? I can make sure you get copies. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, and basically what they did is they went from, Item One was a Moderate Density Residential to a Commercial Intensive, and then Item Two was along River Street, Neighborhood Residential became Commercial Intensive, and Light Industrial became Heavy Industrial. So that will be information that will be coming our way. Just so you know. I have a request, additionally, from Mr. Salvador to address the Board, but do any other Board members have anything at this time? Mr. Salvador? JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Good evening, and thank you for your time. With regard to those local laws that you just mentioned, one of them provides for a local law to change the zoning map of the Town of Queensbury, and I addressed that issue at the Monday Town Board meeting, pointing out the fact that there's currently an error in the zoning map, and I would hope that that could be corrected, with the adoption of this local law, but Mr. Stec flatly refused to entertain that thought. So the zoning map remains in error. MR. GARRAND-Is that in regard to the water mark? MR. SALVADOR-It's with regard to the underwater land on Dunham's Bay. If you recall at your meeting on the 30th of November, at the public hearing that you held on the West project, I was cut off prematurely from finishing my testimony, Mr. Chairman. You didn't feel there was sufficient time, and I wasn't allowed to complete my argument, but there is one more item that I would have mentioned on that night, and so what I did was I immediately filed a Notice of Appeal because I feel that the Zoning Administrator erred in the presentation of the variance that was being requested. I first got a copy of the Van Dusen and Steves map that you specifically requested, Mr. Jackoski. I got a copy of that map on the Monday before the meeting, that had been submitted the Wednesday before Thanksgiving, and I could see there that this error existed. In any case, I filled out this Notice of Appeal and submitted it. I filled out this Notice of 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/2011) Appeal and submitted it before the Planning Board meeting was held that week, and according to the rules, this Notice of Appeal should have stayed the Planning Board meeting, but it did not. They proceeded to hold the meeting. The Planning Board Chairman answered the question from the applicant as to what, he said something about he had a letter on it, and the applicant wanted to see the letter and he was denied the letter because it was attorney/client privilege. In any case, this Notice of Appeal that I filled out and has an attachment. I don't know if you've seen this, but one of the questions they ask on this Notice of Appeal is the identification of the property to which the Appeal applies, and I pointed out here that that is indeterminate. That's indeterminate by their own title search. You have a copy of their title search in your record, and it concludes with the fact that it's indeterminate, and why it's indeterminate, but in any case, this doesn't seem to stop the project. My real concern with regard to the variance is that it was stated to be a request for a 20 foot variance or 100% of relief. Those are both wrong. Those are both wrong. The variance, the magnitude of the variance is 27.1 feet, and the degree of variance, consequently, is 135%, and you folks voted four to three on this variance. It was very close, and you were all concerned, every one of you, in the record, is concerned about the magnitude of the variance, the degree of the variance. You all thought it was high, but in any case, it came down four to three. If you had known it was 135%, it's unheard of, a variance of 135%, unheard of. It is precedent setting, and that's why I filed this Notice of Appeal, but I would hope that it can be heard. MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Salvador, I can assure you that the Notice of Appeal will be heard. I would appreciate that you would allow us not to argue the merits of the Appeal or the case at this time. MR. SALVADOR-1 understand. MR. JACKOSKI-And I certainly was trying very hard not to cut you off this evening. MR. SALVADOR-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-You're welcome. Is there anyone else who'd like to address this Board at this time? Seeing no one else in the audience, do I have a motion to adjourn? MR. CLEMENTS-So moved. MR. JACKOSKI-So moved by Brian. Do I have a second? MR. KUHL-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-All those in favor? Opposed? Thank you. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 35