Loading...
2005-09-28 QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 28, 2005 INDEX Area Variance No. 67-2005 Sara Bishop Tax Map No. 309.14-1-44.2 1. Area Variance No. 68-2005 Northeast Dining & Lodging, Inc. d/b/a Golden Corral Restaurant Tax Map No. 296.18-1-6 5. Area Variance No. 62-2005 Stark Group Tax Map No. 288.8-1.5.2 17. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINTUES 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. Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 9/28/05 QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 28, 2005 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHARLES ABBATE, CHAIRMAN JAMES UNDERWOOD, SECRETARY JOYCE HUNT CHARLES MC NULTY ROY URRICO LEO RIGBY, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT LEWIS STONE ALLAN BRYANT LAND USE PLANNER-SUSAN BARDEN STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. ABBATE-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals session dated September 28, 2005. Prior to setting this hearing in motion, I would like to share with you information that may provide you with insight as to the role of this board and the mandated legal requirements we are guided by. The function of the Zoning Board of Appeals is to listen and to consider all evidence that appears on the record. It may bear upon the issue we are deciding. This board may only authorize the minimum variance necessary to relieve the applicant and to meet the obligation of the Public Officers Law, Section 3 for a fair and open process. This board will invite public comments on each appeal. In the interest of time please be crisp, organized, and limit your comments to only the facts and information given this evening. The public hearing will remain open until just prior to the vote of the appeal and your statement will be limited to five minutes. And I’m going to ask Ms. G to monitor the time. I have one other comment I would like to make before I invite the first appellant up here. In view of the fact that we only have five members of the board this evening, I’m going to give each of the applicants this evening an option. If you are uncomfortable with the fact that we only have five members of the board, I will honor your request, if you make such a request, to table your application. We have one, two, three folks here. Do we have anybody this evening that feels uncomfortable and would prefer to have a full board of seven rather than five? We’re all set then? OK. Great. Under new business we have area variance 67-2005. Mr. Secretary, would you be kind enough to read into the record area variance number 67-2005. MR. UNDERWOOD-Prior to reading this then I will also read a letter that we received on September 27, 2005. This deals with the third applicant this evening which would have been Casse and that was the Sojurn Gift Shop on Ridge Road. This letter was addressed to the zoning board of appeals, attention Craig Brown. Dear Craig, as the staff notes of the zoning office of the Town of Queensbury, Department of Community Development, dated 9/22/05 and received by my office on 9/23/05 suggests the submission of additional information in support of the application please reschedule my client’s use variance until the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals in November. In the interim, we will obtain additional information in support of the application and submit the same to your office for consideration by the ZBA. If you should have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to give me a call. Very truly yours, Howard Krantz. NEW BUSINESS: 1 Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 9/28/05 AREA VARIANCE NO. 67-2005. APPLICANT AND OWNER: SARA BISHOP. LOCATION: 9 RIVERSIDE DRIVE. TAX ID NO.: 309.14-1-44.2. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 2002-723 SFD, AD 1-2002. SEQRA TYPE II. LOT SIZE: 1 ACRE. ZONING: WR-1A. SECTION: 179- 5-020, 179-4-030. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 832 SQ. FT. TWO-CAR GARAGE AND 320 SQ. FT. CARPORT. 190 SQ. FT. PORCH AND REQUIREMENTS AND THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE AREA FOR A GARAGE. SARA BISHOP, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 67-2005, Sara Bishop, Meeting Date: September 28, 2005 “Project Location: 9 Riverside Drive Description of Proposed Project: The applicant proposes a total 1,152 sq. ft. garage/carport. A second-story, residential addition is also proposed. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for a garage exceeding the 900 sq. ft. maximum allowable floor area in a residential district, per §179-5-020. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AD 1-2002: Approved 4/4/02 for a two- lot residential subdivision. BP 2002-723: Issued 10/7/02 for a 981 sq. ft. single-family dwelling and septic system. Staff comments: The proposed oversized garage/carport meets all of the dimensional requirements of the WR- 1A zone. The existing septic system is sized for a 2-bedroom residence. The system will need to be expanded to accommodate the additional 2 bedrooms.” MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form September 14, 2005 Project Name: Bishop, Sara Owner(s): Sara Bishop ID Number: QBY-05-AV-67 County Project#: Sep05-27 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of an 832 sq. ft. two-car garage and 320 sq. ft. carport, 190 sq. ft. porch and residential addition (1 floor 130 sq. ft. st entryway, 2 floor 832 sq. ft. studio office). Relief requested from the maximum allowable nd area for a garage. Site Location: 9 Riverside Drive Tax Map Number(s): 309.14-1-44.2 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes the construction of an 832 sq. ft. two-car garage and 320 sq. ft. carport, 190 sq. ft. porch and residential addition (1 floor 130 sq. ft. st entryway, 2 floor 832 sq. ft. studio office). Relief is requested from the maximum allowable nd area for a garage of 900 sq. ft. The total garage proposed is 1,152 sq. ft. The information submitted shows the elevation drawings of the addition, the building layout, and a plot plan of the site. The information does not include storm water and erosion control measures. Staff recommends no county impact with the condition that appropriate storm water and erosion control measures are implemented. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact with Stipulation The Warren County Planning Board recommends No County Impact with the condition that appropriate storm water and erosion control measures are implemented.” Signed by Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board 9/17/05. MR. ABBATE-Okay, Mr. Secretary. Thank you very much. Good evening. Would you please identify yourself and place of residence? MS. BISHOP-My name is Sara Bishop and our residence is 9 Riverside Drive in Queensbury, New York. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Then would you proceed please and tell us exactly why you think we should approve your appeal. MS. BISHOP-We’re looking for the overage that we need, the 152 square feet over our 900 allotted of what’s in the town. We have many fiberglass canoes. At the point of when we built this home we built it in the mind of expansion. However, our canoe collection has grown quite a bit and the fiberglass does need to be kept out of the sunshine. Our area has 2 Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 9/28/05 one neighbor to one side. We are a dead end area. We really aren’t blocking anyone’s view from our home. I actually did a design and actually set it in photo shop so that you could see what the addition would look like in the area and the one pine tree in the picture you can actually see in the one of the summer picture quite well. That’s the only one pine that has to come down. Our home is well sheltered from the road by trees so it’s not a large addition to it. The area that we are looking for – the two-car garage has a workshop space in back. My fiancé has started to get into boat building and has been up with . . . playing far too much. So he is quite into fiberglass building. So we are looking for a little bit larger garage to accommodate that workshop space and our home, as you can see by the application, is only 981 square feet. At the time of building it, it was originally only going to be my home. Having met my fiancé and thinking in the future our family will expand. We’d like to have in the second area a studio art area for myself and then two additional bedrooms so that we’re expanding the home in one moment, one time and having it kind of a finished point. The area of septic is the area that’s away from the riverbank. We planned it very carefully to make sure that that was pointing away from that area and what we did to accommodate for Warren County’s storm water and erosion control is we have gutters set on each of the roof lines which will be facing toward the driveway area which is then directed away from the septic and away from the riverbank and our addition starts the front edge of the garage addition is, I believe, a 110.7 feet away from the shoreline. So we are quite a distance away from the shoreline. And that would be that. MR. ABBATE-Okay. And during the course of this hearing if there’s anything else you think you’d like to add just stop us and explain to us what it is or if there’s anything that you don’t understand that we’re doing, again, stop us and we’ll be more than happy to explain it to you. MS. BISHOP-Okay. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-And I might say that you are pretty well organized this evening. MS. BISHOP-I tried. MR. ABBATE-Do any of the members of the board have any questions concerning 67-2005? MR. URRICO-I have a question. The height of the garage? MS. BISHOP-The height of the garage is slightly smaller than the height of the existing home and it is well under the residential zoning for that area. We made sure that it was below that. MR. URRICO-What is the height? MS. BISHOP-Let me check on that . . . I believe 22 feet. I’m not positive. Yes. Twenty-two feet from the grade to the top of the roof pitch. MR URRICO-Thank you. MR. MC NULTY -I have other question not intended necessarily as a challenge but I get the impression of what you’ve said and what you’ve written that you’re basically saying that the relief you’re looking for is really minor. It’s a small amount. That begs an obvious question that if it’s such a small amount why not redesign the addition to get it down to 900? MS. BISHOP-We attempted to redesign the addition but with the hopes of having the bedroom and the two bedroom in the studio above and leaving the workshop space, the bedrooms above would be extremely small and the studio shop space in the front for myself for an art studio would be a very unworkable zone. We tried to make it as small as possible and we kept hitting above the 900, we kept hitting above the 900 to allot this space for our cars, allot the space for the boat racks because the boats tend to be quit lengthy. This was the number the 32 feet for the length of the garage was the smallest workable number that we could come up. MR. ABBATE-Do we have any other members, questions for the appellant this evening? There appears to be no other comments then what I’m going to do I’m going to open up the public hearing for area variance number 67-2005 and would those wishing to be heard please come up to the table and speak into the microphone and for the record identify yourself. Do we have anyone in the public this evening that would like to comment on 67-2005? I see no hands raised and since I see no hands raised then I will go onto the next part. I will now ask 3 Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 9/28/05 members of the board to please offer their comments on area variance 67-2005 and may I respectfully remind the members that precedence mandates that we concern ourselves with the evidence which appears on the record to support our conclusions and the evidence relied upon should be specifically stated. Of course this is necessary for an intelligent judicial review. Additionally, any position you may take must be based on a regulatory review criteria of our laws and not simply on subjective preferences or not liking any particular project. Now if I may, may I please to Mr. Urrico. MR. URRICO-This application seems fairly cut and dried. I realizes it’s exceeding the recommended area for a garage but to me it seems kind of minimal when placed against the balancing test which we are asked to measure things against. I think you have demonstrated to me that this benefit cannot be achieved by any feasible means. I don’t think there’s going to be an undesirable change in the neighborhood as a result of this. The request, while not substantial, is fairly modest, I believe, but not enough to push me in another direction. I don’t see any adverse environmental effects and I would say the difficulty is self-created by your need to expand the car garage, but I would be in favor of it. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Urrico. Mr. McNulty, please. MR. MC NULTY-I guess I can basically agree. If this were situated in a different location I might have more of a problem with it exceeding the 900 square feet because we’ve been over this several times before and I think basically agreed the town has pretty emphatically indicated that 900 square feet is large enough for a garage but I think the applicant has given some good reasons for wanting a little extra space and it’s not just to house another car or something it’s to house other things and accommodate the addition on the upstairs level too. So I’ll agree with Mr. Urrico. I think the benefit to the applicant outweighs any potential detriment to the neighborhood and I can’t really see one where this place is situated that’s not going to be that visible. So I will be in favor. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. McNulty. Ms. Hunt, please. MS. HUNT-Thank you. First I want to say it’s a very attractive house. MS. BISHOP-Thank you. I tried to take a picture of the house from the road so I could show where it was and you can’s see the darn house so I felt like I wanted to show you that roadside view that’s it’s an attractive side as well so that we can have the carport with handing baskets to look quite nice as part of the neighborhood. MS. HUNT-And I think it’s a modest request. I’m looking at your second-floor plan and nine by twelve and ten by ten bedrooms are not large and even the ten foot width on the studio is not excessive and I would be in favor. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Ms. Hunt. Mr. Rigby, please. MR. RIGBY-I agree with my fellow board members. I think the design’s a good one. I think you’ve done a nice job designing it. Other alternatives, you could have a stand alone accessory structure to possibly store it which wouldn’t be as attractive as this is. So I agree with my fellow board members and I would be in favor of it as well. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Rigby. Mr. Underwood, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-I too would be in agreement. I think the 156 feet over the limit is minimal. It is a full one acre lot on waterfront residential which we don’t see too often around town and as you said it’s well hidden from the road and any neighbors or anybody else and it will help protect the . . . So I’m all for it. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Underwood. I do support the application. I agree with everything that my fellow board members had to say and having said that I’m going to now close the public hearing and I’m going to ask for a motion. But before I ask for a motion, may I again respectfully remind the members of the board that we have the task of balancing the benefit of the variance against the impact on the area, as well as the fact that state statutes spell out five statutory criteria that must be carefully considered in deciding whether to grant an area variance. Is there a motion for area variance 67-2005? 4 Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 9/28/05 MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 67-2005, SARA BISHOP, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: the project applicant is Sarah Bishop, the project location is 9 Riverside Drive. The applicant is proposing a 1,152 sq. ft. garage/carport, in doing so the applicant is seeking relief for a garage that exceeds a 900 sq. ft. maximum allowable floor area in a residential district per 179-5-020. I’m coming up with 252 sq. ft. addition beyond the allowable sq. ft. maximum. In doing so, the applicant has demonstrated to me and to the rest of the Board, hopefully, that she has passed the test criteria which shows or should show benefit to the applicant is far greater than the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community. The Board also considers whether the benefit can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant and she has demonstrated that. Whether there is undesirable change in the neighbor character or nearby properties, we don’t think that it’s going to be the case here. The request as I said earlier is modest, it’s a 252 sq. ft. addition above the 900 sq. ft. maximum allowable floor area in a residential district. We think given the location of the property and it’s hidden view basically from just about every place you can view it from, it looks like it’s going to be a workable solution. The request won’t have any adverse physical or environmental affect on the area. It is self created because they are seeking to improve their property. I move that we approve this area variance. Duly adopted this 28 day of September, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Urrico, Miss Hunt, Mr. Rigby, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone, Mr. Bryant MS. BARDEN-Mr. Chairman? I hate to ask this or even bring this up but Roy asked how high it is. Twenty-two feet? MS. BISHOP-Twenty-two feet. MS. BARDEN- Waterfront residential is sixteen feet is the height for the garage. MR. ABBATE-Hold on just a for a second, would you please? Let me check something here. MS. BISHOP-Is it different because it’s a second-story residential addition as well? MS. BARDEN-That’s what I’m wondering. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think it’s twenty-eight feet when it has living space. MS. BARDEN-When it has living space above? MS. BISHOP-Because our house itself is twenty-four feet, I believe, and then that was below the eye level of. MR. URRICO-I think if it’s unattached it’s sixteen. MS. BARDEN-Twenty-eight feet is the maximum for the house, sixteen for a garage. MR. UNDERWOOD–I think because it’s living space. It would be considered living space, not a garage. MR. ABBATE-I think Jim may be correct on his statement; however, we are more than willing to listen to anything that you might have to disprove his statement. MR. MC NULTY-This is an attached garage, correct? MS. BISHOP-Yes it is. MR. MC NULTY-I think if it were a separate garage, a stand alone, then the sixteen feet would apply. 5 Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 9/28/05 MS. BARDEN-Can I just have one second and look it up before we go on? MR. ABBATE-Certainly. Take your time. MS. BARDEN-It says attached in other zones including waterfront residential. When an accessory structure that is attached to the principal building it shall comply in all respects with the requirements of the chapter applicable to the principal building. So I guess you’re OK. I’m sorry that must have been – MR. ABBATE-That’s quite alright. Thank you, Susan. That’s important. If there’s something you want to question, please do. Ms. Bishop, I don’t retract anything that I said. The variance is approved. MS. BISHOP-Thank you very much. Have a good night. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE 68-2005. OWNER: RICHARD AND MONIQUE CUNNINGHAM. APPLICANT: NORTHEAST DINING & LODING, INC. D/B/A GOLDEN CORRAL RESTAURANT. AGENTS: JONATHAN C. LAPPER, BPSR, CHRIS ROUND, CHAZEN CO. LOCATION: QUAKER ROAD. TAX ID NO. 296.18-1-6. SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED. LOT SIZE: 2.88 ACRES. ZONING: HC-INT. SECTION 179-4-040; 179-4-030. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 10,330 SQ. FT. RESTAURANT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE PARKING SPACES AND SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENT FROM WETLANDS AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. CHRIS ROUND, JON LAPPER & NIRAL PATEL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. ABBATE-Mr. Secretary. On the agenda of new business is area variance 68-2005. Would you be kind enough to please read into the record area variance 68-2005. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 68-2005, Northeast Dining & Lodging, Inc. d/b/a Golden Corral Restaurant Meeting Date: September 21, 2005 “Project Location: Quaker Road Description of Proposed Project: The applicants propose a 10,330 sq. ft. Golden Corral restaurant and associated site work, including 154 parking spaces. The site is currently vacant with Army Corps wetlands present. Relief Required: ? The applicants request 60-feet of relief from the wetland setback requirements, where 75-feet is required in the HC-I zone, per §179-4-030. ? The applicant requests relief from the maximum allowable parking spaces in excess of 20% for the restaurant use, per §179-4-040. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None Staff comments: The parking calculation for the restaurant is provided on the submitted site plan. 104 parking spaces are required for the use, the Code allows for additional parking spaces not to exceed 20% of what is required. The applicants are requesting 154 total spaces, which is an additional 29 spaces over the 20% maximum of 21 spaces. The 154 total requested is almost 50% more spaces than required by Code. The applicant’s justification for the increased number of parking spaces is due to the fact that they operate the same restaurant in Wilton which has 180 spaces, “and there are still times when the parking lot is completely full”. The Wilton site has 206 total parking spaces on the total 7-acre parcel; however these service the 354 seat restaurant AND a 61-room Super 8 Motel. In lieu of the excessive parking, consideration should be given to keeping an area 6 Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 9/28/05 reserved for additional parking in the future if needed. Or, a portion of the proposed parking area could remain unpaved. Another option is to reduce the size of the restaurant, and with that, the number of seats. The Golden Corral franchise offers three building sizes to tailor the land and building investment to the population, demographics and potential of the markets (Golden Corral Restaurant Franchising). These are 282, 384, and 468 seat facilities. The applicants could consider the smaller restaurant, requiring less parking, which may be a better fit for the size of the site and could increase the distance to wetlands. The required shoreline setback identified on the application was stated erroneously at 15-feet, the actual minimum requirement is 75-feet in the HC-I zone. The application states a proposed 13-foot setback, but the map shows 15-feet, this should be clarified. With that, the required relief is either 60-feet or 62-feet. It appears that the proposed driveway accessing the site is only approximately 100-feet from the existing driveway to the West into Mark Plaza. In §179-19-010, the driveway spacing standards for this use on an arterial road would be 550-feet. The Planning Board can waive the separation standards if the applicant can demonstrate that no negative impact on the transportation system will result in the relaxing of this standard. Or, a variance is required. The Board could ask that a site plan application be made to the Planning, so that one, coordinated SEQRA review could be done. The current proposal requests an area variance, site plan review, and a DOT work permit/curb cut permit. Given that a major component of this application is a significant request for additional parking spaces it is reasonable to ask questions relative to vehicle trip numbers and the applicability of a traffic study. Typically, these questions are investigated during SEQRA, which in this case, would likely be better performed in a coordinated review by the Planning Board.” MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form September 14, 2005 Project Name: Golden Corral Restaurant Owner: Richard & Monique Cunningham ID Number: QBY-AV-05-68 County Project#: Sep05-29 Current Zoning: HC-Int. Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant is proposing construction of a 10,330 sq. ft. restaurant. Relief requested from maximum allowable parking spaces and shoreline setback requirement from wetlands and associated site work. Site Location: Quaker Road Tax Map Number(s): 296.18-1-6 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant is proposing construction of a 10,330 sq. ft. restaurant, Golden Corral. The building is to be located 13 ft. from wetland a and 56 ft. from wetland b as labeled on the site plan where a 75 ft. setback is required. The applicant also proposes 154 parking spaces where 104 parking spaces are the maximum allowed. The information submitted shows the building elevation, site plan with a grading and drainage worksheet, and a long EAF. The Long EAF included traffic information. The application included comments that the storm water would be handled on site and not be directed the wetland area untreated. In addition, the plans there is a road access to Mark Plaza. The information did not include site plan details such as landscaping, lighting, storm water report, etc. Staff does not identify an impact on county resources based on the information submitted. Staff recommends no county impact. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board 09/17/05. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Gentlemen, would you identify yourselves, please? MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record I am John Lapper project attorney with Niral Patel on my right, President of the applicant Northeast Dining & Lodging, Inc., and Chris Round from the Chazen Company, as the planning and engineering consultant for the project. I guess if it’s alright with you I would like to start with the wetland variance. I mentioned in the application that this was not considered a high quality wetland and the whole site was designed to minimize impacts on wetland both in terms of the distance to the wetland and also the qualitative treating which Chris Round will get into in some detail. But the particular wetland that we are asking for the setback variance is a very small portion of the wetland which has some cattails in it just along Quaker Road. That area of wetland is separate from the more significant wetland in the back of the site and this wetland acts as a drainage basin for the water that comes off of Quaker Road. Again, Chris will get into more detail but that is not a very significant wetland because its not attached to the main wetland. At the same time, regardless of the significance, it needs to be protected and the reason for the setback requirement in the town of seventy-five feet is to protect the wetland. But in this 7 Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 9/28/05 case, as was stated in the application, all of the storm water is designed to run away from this wetland to be treated underground in treatment facilities, filter facilities before its released to the back of the site. So because of the storm water system design there would be absolutely no impact on this wetland by placing the building close to the wetland. Beyond that under the town zoning code its not a disturbance variance. The seventy-five foot requirement wouldn’t prohibit putting parking there. It would just prohibit the building. So we could design the site so that there would be parking in front and the building in the back and Chris will show you that on the map. And it wouldn’t need a variance but we think that that would be a worse design certainly in terms of the benefit to the applicant which is, of course, one of the prongs of the test. In this case the benefit to the community. The way the site was designed was to comply in general with the commercial design guidelines in the town to place the building in the front of the site to create a streetscape on Quaker Road. In this case, there’s more of a reason for that because, as we mentioned in the application, we’re sitting against sort of the back end of the Mark Plaza building where there are loading docks. I know that there’s always – the times I’ve looked there – crates and pallets sitting out back there. It’s just a very unattractive part of that site. It’s not designed to face the north which would really be the rear of the site. But because of the way Mark Plaza looks with an L-shape it’s got a back end that faces the east side which is adjacent to this site. So, if we were to place parking in front and the building in the back it would just continue the way it is now where you can look at this unattractive loading dock area and we feel that sites complying with design guidelines to have the building located and make it more of a streetscape. It also helps to mask that side of the building which is unattractive. We think this is best from an aesthetics standpoint which wouldn’t be such a great argument if we were hurting the wetland; if we were draining into the wetland but because we designed the storm water system to protect the wetland, we think aesthetically its better to put the building here. At this point, before we go into the parking variance, I’m going to ask Chris to walk you through the site plan and just explain the details of the storm water treatment system. MR. ROUND-Thanks very much. I’ve got two illustrations over here for you to help. The first is a color rendering of the site plan. And first we need to clear up is that it is a fifteen foot setback to the wetland that we are proposing. The submittal we made was at the start of the design process and we were able to shift the building a couple of feet with our grading plan and we are placing it at fifteen feet from the affected wetland. The color rendering shows basically the site layout and, as John mentioned, you can see on this figure where my thumb is the Mark Plaza building. So what we’ve tried to do from a site design standpoint was place the building nearly equal on the same plane, with respect to the Quaker Road, as the Mark Plaza building. And that does a couple of things. John has mentioned the aesthetics, screening the building. What it also does is allows us to provide an entryway off of Quaker Road as we want to have a driveway off of Quaker, to get vehicles off of Quaker, and, as you can see, it allows for placement of that driveway without consuming space and most effectively utilizing the space. So I’m just going to set that down. The drawing I have back here – we have since made a full site plan submittal to the planning board September 15th and this plan here shows the erosion and sedimentation control plan and on this plan it also illustrates the shaded areas the wetland and that’s a federal wetland. Our wetlands biologist went out and delineated that area and it was surveyed. So that’s a surveyed location and we’ve increased the accuracy of our estimate for the setback. The crosshatched area which you can see here, here, here, here are areas that we are impacting with our grading plan and our impacts to federal wetlands are less than one-tenth of an acre which is permitted under the nationwide permit program. The structure here is fifteen feet from this wetland area and as John mentioned you’ll see we have a large part of the site is much closer to the wetland areas than the actual structure and we feel we’ve addressed the environmental impacts associated with that, as John mentioned, with our storm water management system. Because the site has constraints of wetlands and has some grading issues here we’ve chosen to use a subsurface storm water management system and what you see on the plan are series of catch basins as you would see with any commercial development and it’s called a closed system. Storm water is collected and directed by a series of underground culverts to a receiving pit which basically drops allows some of the larger materials, the sediments, etcetera, to drop out of that and then it’s routed to two retention areas. Basically these are large diameter pipes that lay horizontally underground with stone and provide storage capacity just like what you see in most cases are these pocket ponds – you’re seeing wet ponds at the surface. This provides that same function so it attenuates flow, rate of flow. It says to mirror post, pre- development conditions. So pre-development and post-development conditions are identical. We’ve prepared a storm water management storm water pollution prevention plan as you see – you folks aren’t seeing them a lot but that’s what the planning board asked for. That’s a requirement under the new Phase II regulations for DEC so we have prepared a plan that 8 Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 9/28/05 meets the technical requirements of DEC. From these detentions areas storm water is routed to a filtration system and I have a detail of those which I won’t show you but basically this is a box underground that has these garbage can-sized structures in that are basically cartridge filters. Storm water after some of the larger materials coming out and going through this detention system travels through this filtration system and that filtration, in addition to meeting the rate and volume requirements, it meets the water quality requirements. Water quality is addressed through these series of filters and the storm water is discharged to the wetland. Basically, what you’re trying to do with storm water management plans is maintain the pre-development drainage characteristics so water does drain from the south to the north and we’ve maintained that draining characteristic. Back to these wetlands out here. If you’ve been to the site you know this is basically a filled area that we understand that was filled during the construction of Quaker Road. What happened there, as you know, we’ve come a long way with storm water management. When Quaker Road was constructed there weren’t a lot of attention paid to how storm water was going to be handled and what had happened, in our opinion, that it’s trapped or it’s altered drainage patterns so you have storm water or surface water trapped in certain areas and created some wetlands and this wetland is not a very high functioning wetland. If you’ve gone out there and looked at it you’d say “well, it looks like some weeds, some cattails, . . .” other species. It’s not a habitat. It’s not providing significant habitat to waterfowl or other aquatic species. This particular portion, as John said, is basically a drainage ditch. It’s a drainage that carries flow off of Quaker Road, further west of the site, and travels east and so we would classify that as emerging or scrub wetland that has very little functional capacity as far as the hierarchy of wetlands go. So it does deal with drainage. It’s basically a storm water flow device and so from that aspect it’s a very minor functioning component of the wetland hierarchy. I think that gives you probably more than enough. We’ve successfully addressed the storm water management system in compliance with the DEC GP0201 requirements and we thinks it’s a very low functioning wetland. MR. LAPPER-Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the board wants to ask any questions at this point about the wetland variance or should I go on to the parking variance. MR. ABBATE-I would prefer that you continue your argument. I’m sure we will address those before the evening is over. MR. LAPPER-With respect to parking, I’m going to make an introduction and then I’m going to ask Neral to talk about his experience at their facility in Wilton right in the area off of Route 50 near Lowe’s and Wal-Mart which is similar to here being in the heart of the commercial area in Queensbury. They’ve been operating that for a few years in Wilton and they have very good actual experience in terms of what the demand is and what parking is needed on the site and for that reason we’ve requested the variance because we feel that creating just the parking that the code requires would not be sufficient and that would create an impact on Quaker Road on the area because this is such a popular restaurant. When we talk about parking variances, as I know you’re aware, in most municipalities the parking requirement in the code is a minimum requirement that you have to build a certain number of spaces. If you have a certain number of seats we want to make that you have sufficient parking for the people that would be at the restaurant. If you have certain square foot of office or shopping mall, we want to make sure that you have minimum parking. In Queensbury, because of the experience which originally was with K-Mart where they built to the seven per thousand requirement, there was a backlash and, for good reason, that you want to limit people’s ability, the applicant’s ability to just construct empty fields of parking that will lay fallow most of the year and even with K-Mart, probably all of the year. So Queensbury has a unique provision in its code that the minimum is also the maximum except that there’s this twenty percent bonus that’s you’re allowed to prevent too much parking being built. But in our case we feel that what we are asking for is not too much. It’s really what’s required. Part of the reason for that is that this particular type of restaurant, the Golden Corral Buffet Restaurant, is something of a hybrid; in between a cook-to-order restaurant where you sit down and order and it takes a while to be served and turnover is slower and a fast food restaurant as the alternative where the definition in the town code, pre- prepared or quickly prepared food where you just drive through or eat quickly and fast food restaurants in Queensbury have a much higher parking standard. If this was considered a fast food restaurant, not only would we not be asking for a variance for having too many spaces we would be asking for a variance to allow us to have too few spaces because we couldn’t meet the requirement for a fast food restaurant in Queensbury. But this particular type of restaurant is somewhat of a hybrid, as I mentioned, because when you come to a Golden Corral Buffet you do sit down at a regular table like you would at a cook-to-order 9 Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 9/28/05 restaurant, but you go up and the food is waiting for you at the buffet and you come and help yourself and sit down and you get back up and get another course, what have you. So it’s not as quick as a fast food restaurant where you just grab a bag and run but at the same time it is quicker than a cook-to-order restaurant and for that reason the Queensbury code doesn’t address this for a different parking requirement but based upon Neral’s experience in operating the identical restaurant, the identical format in Saratoga, he feels that it would be insufficient to just provide the spaces with the twenty-percent bonus. So we’re asking for an additional twenty-nine space based upon the anticipated need because of the demand of this restaurant. In the staff notes they suggested, gee, well maybe you could build a smaller restaurant but the point here is that he has designed a restaurant that he thinks will meet the market demand because Queensbury is a very big draw for restaurants with a tourist economy and healthy residential economy. So having a smaller restaurant wouldn’t necessarily reduce the demand. It would just mean that people would be waiting in line longer. What’s also interesting an important component of our argument here is that, in terms of the impact of this variance, we are no where near the seventy percent impermeable space that is allowed in this zone. We’re at, I think, fifty-four percent so this site could accommodate a substantially larger building which would then have more seats and would have higher parking ratio – parking requirement. So if we build a bigger building with more seats we could get the 154 parking spaces that we want without asking for a variance because we’d have more seats. And it’s not that we’re asking for a green space variance and saying that we are utilizing too much of the site because we’re not. We’re actually utilizing far less than could be done. So you could provide more impervious surface on this site. For example, there’s a big grass area in the middle of the parking area that could easily be paved. It’s more attractive to keep it the way Chris has proposed it. But in terms of the impact of the variance on the neighborhood, if we were asking for a permeability variance and we wanted to pave the whole thing over that would be something different but here, because we’re providing less than the seventy percent maximum impermeable that we’re allowed, it’s not creating a negative aesthetic impact on the neighborhood. What it’s doing is acknowledging the fact it wouldn’t be safe to have on-street parking on Quaker Road which is a five-lane road and we know that all of the customers need to be able to park onsite. We have no rights to park on Mark Plaza’s property. Somebody potentially could park there and walk but there is no legal right to do that and again you probably don’t want people walking along Quaker Road. It’s a high-speed road and not a good place for pedestrians. At this point I’m going to just pass the mike to Neral and ask him to explain his justification for why he came to me and Chris and said that this type of restaurant needs more spaces than what would be permitted in Queensbury without a variance. MR. PATEL-Thank you. Good evening. Obviously, as John and Chris have talked to you or instructed you tonight about the technicalities, I would like to explain a little bit more as to why Golden Corral does become such a destination in whatever market it enters. Golden Corral is a concept, as John described, as a hybrid – very unique in what’s known as the fast casual segment of the industry. With it’s variety, it’s freshness, it’s quick serve and what makes it so attractive is it’s very conducive to something is very difficult in today’s time and a lot of other restaurants and that’s the family dining experience. In a marketplace like Queensbury which is known for tourism, soon to be year-round tourism with what’s proposed at Great Escape and everything else I think Golden Corral is going to be a great fit into the market. An average guest check of eight dollars is far below any other national chain in the area and I think it’s going to generate a good amount of demand as far as consumers go and the parking is required for that matter. In addition to standard guest count – or excuse me – everyday cars Golden Corral is also very conducive to motor coach programs and a lot of bus tours do come through. In Saratoga I experience close to eight different – not on a given day – but throughout the week at least eight to ten different bus tours that will come in and patronize and within an hour be on their way. It’s a combination of not only what it’s going to provide to the local community and the demand that it will create but it’s also a function of the tourism and how the motor coach program in the area that’s increasing every year as far as the demand when foliage comes around and the ski resort on Exit 18 and everything else is why the parking is required. MR. ROUND–As John indicated, there’s other communities have different standards. When we look at projects and we try to justify parking or try to generate – what is the parking demand for a unlisted use in a municipal standard, we look to a reference called Parking Standards by the Planner’s Advisory Service and American Planning Association is a national entity that basically provides technical expertise to a citizen and community planners and professional planners alike and out of that I selected a couple of examples and I’m going to give you a handout. Illustrating, number one, for standard restaurants there’s a wide variety 10 Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 9/28/05 of standards and methods to calculate parking and then number two it also illustrates fast food restaurants and what the parking requirements are for those right here in Queensbury. For a fast food restaurant of our size, if this was classified as fast food – if we changed our classification – this site would require 434 parking spaces. Let me just hand this out. The top table or series of tables basically it identifies two other communities Bellingham, Mass, which is listed. I didn’t pick these for any particular reason other than the advisory service provides probably six or eight different examples and this was one that provided a standard by seats similar to the way Queensbury does. And they provide a standard for one per two seats and that would equate to a 182 parking spaces. And then they also require one per employee and that makes sense. Generally you’re not seeing employees carpooling and you are seeing smaller parties dine at restaurants. Glenville, New York which is right down in the Capital District has a standard similar to Queensbury’s but they provide a min. and a max. Their minimum is one per four seats like Queensbury’s but it provides a maximum of one per 2.5 seats. It’s standard would allow a 146 spaces and you can see the third example as Queensbury’s at 104, 103.75 spaces. The second table shows Glenville and Queensbury’s fast food parking requirement and under Glenville’s the parking standard would be from 104 like Queensbury’s standard restaurant to up to 182 and if we utilize Queensbury’s parking standard we would, as I said, be required to build 434 parking spaces. Parking standards are difficult for communities to get their handle around and I think John has made a good case that this new market type of restaurant for high turnover sit down restaurants is not a category that’s on Queensbury’s parking standard list and I think when we, as designers look to a standard, we look at the municipal standard as a gauge but we’ll go to the owner and the owner generally knows what’s going to meet his or her needs and I think you have a case here that the owner and the franchise have a history of running this type of operation and really know what the parking demand is. MR. LAPPER-And I guess finally we were aware that the new Outback Steakhouse that’s been approved and is going to be constructed near Wal-Mart on Route 9 also sought a similar variance for additional parking spaces in January. When we checked the minutes of the meeting to see what they had asked for in terms of a number of parking spaces per seat ratio. If we compare our request to theirs our request is actually less than what they were granted in terms of a variance. The numbers are that we are asking for .4 parking spaces per seat. So four tenths of a parking space per seat and they were granted a variance for .57, so fifty-seven one hundredths of a parking space per seat. So they actually had a higher ratio of parking space to seat than what we are asking for. I think that that’s another high demand restaurant so they made similar arguments and which obviously were persuasive on this board and I’m pointing out what we’re asking for is a more modest request than what they were granted. Finally, the staff had asked the question about whether or not we’re going to be creating any kind of a traffic impact with this. Because we’re on Quaker Road, a five-lane road with a dedicated left-turn lane, it’s a state route that is managed and maintained by the county, Route 254. Chris ran the numbers in response to that point being raised by the staff and we’ve calculated that this is a very small percentage increase in terms of the total capacity of that road so it’s not going to be – MR. ABBATE-Counsel let me interrupt you for a moment. I’m sure you know my position on passing out or attempting to maneuver late data during the course of the actual hearing. I’ll allow it this time but I don’t want it to happen again. MR. LAPPER-Mr. Chairman, what happened here is that we’re responding – we only got the staff notes a few days ago and they had raised the issue. It wasn’t something that came up when we had our pre-application, pre-submission meeting and we just felt that we needed to close that gap; that we needed to the staff notes and if you’d rather not have it in writing then Chris can just describe it or discuss it but we only prepared that because it was written, it was prepared by Susan and we had to respond since she raised the issue. MR. ABBATE-My feeling is that’s its unfair to expect us to assimilate one, two, three, four pieces of paper in support of your argument. If we pursue this then I’m going to suggest that yes, we’ll accept the information but we’ll render our decision if we have one this evening within thirty days rather than this evening. MR. LAPPER-Certainly that’s the Board’s prerogative. We just want the right decision. MR. ABBATE-Continue, please. 11 Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 9/28/05 MR. LAPPER-So, again, Chris prepared that to address the question that Susan had asked to just show that this would have a minor impact on the total capacity of Quaker Road which was designed to keeping in mind that there would be infill on some of the few vacant lots in the commercial district that are still available. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Do any of the board members have any questions of the gentlemen concerning area variance 68-2005? MR. MC NULTY-One question about your sketch there that you showed us. The color sketch. How to put this. How accurate is that to what will actually be on the ground? MR. ROUND-This is the site plan that’s proposed for the planning board and this is the landscaping plan that’s color rendered before the planning board. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. We could expect to see some trees the size of some of those. MR. ROUND-Yes. These are unit by unit and species by species and density. They match our landscaping plan that’s presented to the planning board. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. MR. ROUND-I know a lot of times boards, reviewing boards will take issue with the rendering, it’s a lot prettier, or in some instances when you’re looking at plan views it’s difficult to match horizontal to vertical scale and so things will look exaggerated. I think this does a pretty reasonable job of showing a tree canapé. Are they going to be like that day one? I think we all know that when you buy a tree it doesn’t come with a full set of leaves. MS. HUNT-I have a question about your rendering there too. The bus parking. Is that around the green area? MR. ROUND-Yes. What we envision is that buses will enter the site. There’s a pull off area that’s here that’s a protected area for buses and it would drop its patrons off here and then park here and then they would have to circulate out the site to get in. MS. HUNT-What is the other parking then from the circle there? Is that cars? MR. ROUND-These are cars, yes, all around here? Yes. MR. URRICO-I have a few questions. Number one I’m not aware, maybe I’m missing of any suggested streetscape for Quaker Road. MR. LAPPER-The streetscape requirements are in the commercial corridor in general. It is mandated on Route 9 and also in the mixed-use zone which is along Main Street at Exit 18 and I was just pointing that out in terms of good design that, even though its not required here, it’s just good design to have the buildings at the road rather than to have parking in front of buildings. MR. URRICO-I just wanted to clarify that. MR. LAPPER-It’s a new urbanism concept in terms of good design. It’s not a requirement but it’s still preferable. MR. URRICO-What is the size of the Wilton Golden Corral? MR. ROUND-It’s identical, sir. MR. URRICO-Same size? MR. ROUND-Same size. MR. URRICO-What is the size of the space themselves, each space. What is proposed here? MR. ROUND-Per parking stall? MR. URRICO-Yes. One space. 12 Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 9/28/05 MR. ROUND-One space is nine by eighteen or nine by twenty. . . MR. URRICO-How many buses are currently handled in Wilton? MR. PATEL-At peak season which is typically between June and the end of August tops one per day. MR. URRICO-OK. Will some of those be diverted up to Queensbury? MR. PATEL-Absolutely. It’s generally – it’s tourist coming out of Montreal that head down to New York City or just traveling throughout. MR. URRICO-Is there an industry standard for classifying a restaurant either fast food or a sit down restaurant? MR. ROUND-Yes. We all look at the Institute of Transportation Engineers and we look at trip generation rates. There’s a land use code called High Turnover Sit Down Restaurant. I don’t have in front of me what characteristics make you fit that pigeonhole. I don’t know if you have experience at all? MR. PATEL-As far as the segment of the industry it either falls under the fast casual. That’s where it falls more than often. The buffet concept is obviously unique and fast casual – other concepts that would also fall under that category are things like Fuddruckers, Panera Bread. Those are all also considered fast casual but as far as this buffet concept goes it would be considered more fast casual than not. MR. URRICO-Does it have to do with the turnover rate? How quickly people eat and leave and how would this compare to say a fast food restaurant or a sit-down restaurant? Do you have any numbers like that? MR. PATEL-Golden Corral did a study in 2003. What they estimated was that their average dining time was forty-seven minutes. So as far as fast food goes I’m not aware as to what the fast food industry runs for an average dining time but I know that Golden Corral as of a couple years ago was a forty-seven minutes dining time. MR. URRICO-And my last question for now is you serve all three meals, breakfast, lunch, and dinner? MR. PATEL-In Saratoga I do and more than likely I will do that in Queensbury as well. MR. URRICO-Okay. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Do we have any other questions from board members? MR. UNDERWOOD-I know that you made a submittal to the planning board. Did they give you any preliminary feedback at all? MR. LAPPER-No. Because we have to get the variance before we can go to the planning board. MR. UNDERWOOD-Because my only question to you would be in looking at the close proximity to the plaza next door, you know, whether they are going to ask you for a connector over to it. That may change the plans of where – MR. LAPPER-We actually provided a connector. The problem is that the only of the area of the plaza, because it obviously wasn’t designed with this sight in mind. The only area where there is no building where it’s pavement is so close to the road that it would affect stacking that cars could be stacked out onto Quaker so we couldn’t provide a connector here. Beyond that we have the wetland here so we provided an easement to be shown for a future connection but it would be up to Mark Plaza or when they came in for site plan change that the planning board could require it because we can’t require them to and we showed it in the middle of the site. 13 Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 9/28/05 MR. UNDERWOOD-Chris, how does this compare like in seat size to say like Applebee’s or something like that. Is it about the same size or is it bigger? MR. PATEL-Applebee’s seats, I believe, 160 and it’s about a 5,000 square foot building typically on its prototype level. MR. UNDERWOOD-So you guys are twice as big as that? MR. PATTEL-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s what I thought. MR. ROUND-Applebee’s footprint line is. MR. UNDERWOOD-Is 5,000 square feet. MR. ROUND-Yes. That’s the Outback. It’s proposes to be 218 seats and the square footage on that is 7700 square feet. MR. ABBATE-Any other questions from board members at this time? MR. UNDERWOOD-My only other question would be this. In looking at the site I know you’re limited by what you have there and the infill that’s been done previous. How much more infill are you planning on there like around the edges? Is that going to be another fifteen feet? MR. ROUND-One of the design goals here was to minimize impact to wetlands and what we had to do in order to that was utilize retaining wall structure. So there’s a retaining wall from this nearly the entire length of the east side of the parking area and then this section here. The height varies. It will vary from six inches to nearly six feet. I think six to seven in some instances. MR. LAPPER-The reason for that, Jim, is that if this was graded out on a sufficient grade that wasn’t too steep you’d be impacting the wetland so creating the retaining wall – MR. UNDERWOOD-So it’s pretty similar to Applebee’s which is on the east side of their – same idea as that. Similar structure. MR. ABBATE-Any questions at this time from board members? MR. RIGBY-Yeah just a couple quick questions. The storm water management plan. Has that been reviewed by the town engineer at this point? MR. ROUND-That will be. It’s been submitted to the town for review. MR. RIGBY-Does that change based upon this variance request. If we had said that fewer parking spots or a smaller design or whatever we happen to request. Would that storm water management plan change? MR. ROUND-No. Typically we would look – and that’s what we’re advising clients – is the first thing you want to look at is storm water and this site we knew it was going to be a problem. A storm water basin will consume a considerable amount of surface – a surface basin would consume a significant amount of the site. MR. LAPPER-Which would be much less expensive to construct if you had the additional land area. MR. ROUND-Right. And if you asked us to reduced parking we’re still – I think still the preferred method is to go underground, to do subsurface. It uses less space. It’s a less attractive nuisance like many ponds on site are attractive nuisance and aesthetically it’s preferable to put . . underground. MR. RIGBY-So the plan is being reviewed by the town engineer at this point in time? 14 Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 9/28/05 MR. ROUND-Yes it is. The way it works is you have to meet the state’s standard. You have to meet the state’s design criteria and so any design engineer needs to do that and generally the town engineer’s review process is basically a QC process to double check to make sure you meet the state’s system and we’ve been through that and we’re looking forward to the engineer’s comments. MR. UNDERWOOD-Chris, I had one more question. In the case of the experience with Applebee’s and Lowe’s. I know a lot of the parking gets shared at peak times of day and things like too and with the instance of the Mark Plaza being next door there it would seem to me logical that that could be a feasible alternative for the parking as opposed to creating excessive parking on the two acres there. That’s something to be considered, to work out with them. Are they involved – do they own that property now or is that separately owned? MR. LAPPER-Does who own it? Mark Plaza? Mark Plaza is owned by Al . . . who has the Carpet One and the furniture store and the problem is that we don’t have any rights to use their spaces but I just want to point out. Could you hand that to me, Chris. What we’re talking about essentially is the twenty-nine extra spaces that we’re asking for we’d still have to have the drive . . . but in terms of the impact on the site, if we took out these spaces here would be twenty-nine spaces. So if you took out eighteen feet and put the curb there you wouldn’t be changing the site dramatically. It would effect the number of spaces but it wouldn’t be making a real aesthetic difference or otherwise to the site. It would just be taking off those spaces. MR. ROUND-Nobody wants to build additional parking that they don’t need and you do encourage people to share that. You need a partnership. More often than not it comes through a comprehensive development plan. Applebee’s was developed as part of Lowe’s and so it was a single developer, separate tenants. K-Mart, I know, has been trying to attract a stand-alone restaurant to consume some of their parking and also they feed off one another. They’re complementary. In this case the Mark Plaza is not a real complementary use in the configuration of parking. It’s so far removed from where we’d like it to be that you’ll find that people wouldn’t utilize it even if you were able to wrangle an agreement between the adjoining property owner. MR. ABBATE-Any other comments from the board? If not, I’m going to open up the public hearing for area variance 68-2005 and would those wishing to be heard please come up to the table, speak into the microphone and for the record identify yourself and place of residence. Do we have anyone in the public this evening who would like to comment on area variance 68-2005? Would you raise your hands, please. I see no hands raised. I’ll now move to ask members to please offer their comments on area variance 68-2005 and I’d like to start with if I may Ms. Hunt, please. MS. HUNT-Thank you. When I first saw this plan I was, frankly, I was against it. But you have made some cultured points and I don’t think that the extra twenty-nine spaces on the circle here would make a tremendous difference in the way the site would look and it’s about 2.4, one parking space for each 2.4 patrons which is not out of line with what some other towns have required. So as far as the parking I would be in favor of it. The wetlands, again, you made a good point. And I did see those wetlands in the front and they don’t seem to be habitat for any kind of bird life or whatever. So I would be in favor of the application. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Ms. Hunt. Mr. McNulty, please. MR. MC NULTY-I started out about the way Ms. Hunt did on this. The number of parking spaces don’t bother me. I think if the applicant has got far better experience than we do on what might be required for this type facility and I’m inclined to rely on his judgment in this case. I think his counsel said he certainly is not going to build a lot of extra spaces for the sake of building spaces. He’s going to want to economize on his development costs. So I think we’re pretty safe there. The wetlands do bother me some. They may not be habitat for endangered species. I don’t know but they are habitat for a lot of species. If you went down in there and spent a little bit of time I’d wager you’d find a lot of critters down in there. So I don’t think we can totally brush them off on the basis that nothing lives there. I’m also a little concerned with it on all these little pieces of wetland that follow along halfway brook and the ditches that feed halfway brook because it’s going to be very easy for us to nickel and dime them all out of existence before we get done. So I think this is a real concern that way. Cutting into the buffer that approaches the wetlands is a problem. The buffers are there because studies have shown that human activity that close to a wetland does affect the 15 Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 9/28/05 wetland so there’s certainly some detrimental effects that are going to happen here to the wetlands. At the same time, I think the applicant has got a fairly sophisticated runoff containment system proposed that should mitigate, at least as far as runoff is concerned, the development detriments that would normally occur and they seem to not be actually intruding into the wetlands themselves and that can be important, not only for what might live there, but wetlands are also are a flood control device and this is one of the big problems with encroaching onto wetlands is pretty soon you’ve gotten rid of a lot of your natural flood control. This I don’t believe is going to happen here with what’s proposed so I think when you go through the balancing tests benefit to the applicant probably when you consider as mitigation that he is proposing outweighs any detriment to the neighborhood, community and habitat so I’ll be in favor. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. McNulty. Mr. Underwood, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s a complicate site here and I think that what’s been proposed does in my mind, as far as the wetlands go, has been carefully considered. The underground storage of runoff from the parking areas as proposed seems to me that the planning board probably will accept that. I would still like to include that if we indeed approve this that the planning board would have the ultimate authority to alter the design as proposed along that buffer area between the wetland and the parking area if they tell you that they want more than what you’ve proposed then I would think you would have to go with that and I think that we can include that within our thing. In some ways I think we are a little premature here because we haven’t had a full SEQR review of the site done by the planning board and they may have considerable concerns that we have overlooked because that’s not our expertise. But at the same time, I think that the amount of parking that you are proposing is a compromise. It’s partway between fast food and a traditional restaurant in the sense of Red Lobster or Applebee’s or something like that. I still think that in these sites, even retroactively, we could ask that all sites along this whole highway here, and I don’t know what the standards are in the corridor but it seems to me that you can share parking and I’m sure some shared parking is going to occur at peak times at your restaurant regardless of whether you have permission to use that site over there. But I would buy your argument to the fact that that is a loading dock zone over there per se and its not really appropriate for parking. So as far as the parking goes, the only other alternative that was suggested by staff was perhaps the creation of an area that could be expanded and I can’t remember if that’s what we did up on the hill by Wal-Mart. I think initially we didn’t give them exactly all they wanted but we had a reserved area for parking that could be tapped into later if indeed it was necessary at that time. I guess I’m still a little bit sitting on the fence on this and wondering if we should send this to the planning board because I’m sure they’re going to come up with some ideas that we did not consider here. We can give you some preliminary approval for this based upon what we’ve seen here tonight that we feel that it’s adequate what you’ve asked is not over-the-top or anything like that. But at the same time, I think if the planning board were to come back and say, well, you guys didn’t even consider this and, again, we don’t want to place the planning board in a position where they have to compromise their standards because that’s what they’re here for. So, I think I’ll wait. I think we’re a little bit ahead of the curve here. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Underwood. Mr. Rigby, please. MR. RIGBY-I think the overall layout of the facility on the site is a good one. I like what I see. I think it fits the character of Quaker Road well. I think the parking behind the facility is good. I don’t think that the number of parking spaces you’ve asked for are really unreasonable based upon the size of the facility. The wetlands bring up some interesting questions. Storm water management is the big question that I have on that. As Mr. Underwood said, I guess there’s a part that the planning board has to play, and this is far as storm water management goes too. Overall I don’t have a problem with the layout but as Mr. Underwood also said I think we are kind of putting the cart before the horse also. A full SEQR review has got to take place. That plays into the decision in my mind too, I think. Parking I have no problem with at all. The wetland piece I’m still sitting on the fence myself, too. So I’m not sure where I want to go there. MR. ABBATE-I looks like you want to hold off. MR. RIGBY-I would like to hold off, too. MR. ABBATE-OK. Fine. Thank you. Mr. Urrico, please. 16 Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 9/28/05 MR. URRICO-I sort of agree with what everybody said already but I want to make a couple points that, according to our code, they could very well make this a fast food establishment. The definition in our code book is that an establishment whose principal of business is the sale of pre-prepared or rapidly prepared food meals so you would definitely qualify for that so given an alternative of 434 spaces and 154, I think I’d take the 154. Given that there are 154 spaces, I think you’ve done a terrific job of hiding them. Those are really spread out. Well manicured within the whole scape of things and I really like the way you’ve handled that. So I don’t have a problem with the parking. But I do agree with Mr. Underwood and Mr. Rigby that I would be willing to wait until the SEQR review is done by the planning board before going ahead with the storm water management system. I would just feel more comfortable with that. So I would be in favor of the parking and I want to hold off on the – MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, gentlemen. It’s my position, based upon what I’ve heard from my fellow board members this evening, that there are a number of issues that should be addressed prior to this board making a decision on your appeal. Several of these issues, if I recall correctly, include such things as parking spaces, shoreline setback, driveway spacing standards, traffic study, possible feasible alternatives. I feel at this particular time, and I’m subject to the will of the board, in view of that that I would like to move a motion for a coordinated review with the planning board and recommend that they be made lead agency for SEQR. Perhaps that’s what I’m going to do and if the board wishes not to approve this that’s fine. So I’m going to move a motion for a coordinated review with the planning board and recommend that they be the lead agency SEQR for area variance 68-2005. Is there a second? MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 68-2005, NORTHEAST DINING & LODGING, GOLDEN CORRAL RESTAURANT, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: So that a Coordinated Review with the Planning Board is conducted as well as a recommendation that the Planning Board be the Lead Agency for SEQRA. Duly adopted this 28 day of September, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hunt, Mr. Rigby, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone, Mr. Bryant MR. LAPPER-Thank you. We will go to the planning board and come back to see you when we are done. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, gentlemen. MR. LAPPER-Goodnight. MR. ABBATE-Goodnight. MR. UNDERWOOD-Is that going to occur this month or will that be next month for you guys? MR. LAPPER-Because you’ve already consented to them being lead agency, we’ve already submitted. We’ll be there in October. We’re already on the agenda. MR. UNDERWOOD-Because the other thing we can do is that you guys could go right back on our agenda ASAP. So you guys could get underway if it’s all kosher with them. MR. ABBATE-It’s okay with me. MR. UNDERWOOD-That way we can deal with it. MR. LAPPER-Perhaps you could put us on for the second meeting in October. 17 Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 9/28/05 MR. ABBATE-Why don’t you coordinate that with staff because I’ll be meeting with staff tomorrow anyway and we can discuss that so if you don’t mind. MR. UNDERWOOD-Just so we don’t hold you guys up. MR. ABBATE-Right. We certainly don’t want to hold you up unnecessarily. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. That sounds good. I think that the board was supportive of the parking and we feel comfortable that CT Male and the planning board will be happy with the storm water. They may want some changes but whatever they want we’ll take care of it. MR. ABBATE-I think that would make the majority of us feel somewhat more comfortable. MR. LAPPER-We see that and that’s no problem. We’ll handle it that way. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, counselor. We appreciate it. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Your welcome. Jim, would you do me a favor and read into the record that the next area variance we received a fax. MR. UNDERWOOD-I already did that. MR. ABBATE-Did you already read that? MR. UNDERWOOD-I read it in the beginning. MR. ABBATE-You did or didn’t? MR. UNDERWOOD-I did already. MR. ABBATE-So we have read into the record that the area variance, I believe it was 69- 2005, that there attorney has requested rescheduling. MS. BARDEN-I do think we need to make a motion because they are requesting that you table it to a specific date. MR. ABBATE-Alright we can do that. That’s not a problem. Let me check my dates here. Let’s see what we got here. I can give you a specific date, if you wish. Here we go. And that is 69-2005. I move that, based upon a facsimile that was sent to the town from the attorney for area variance 69-2005 be moved to the October 19 which is on a Wednesday, October 19, 2005 agenda. Staff, do you have a problem with that? MS. BARDEN-I’m sorry? Do I have a problem with October 19? MR. ABBATE-Yes. MR. MC NULTY-Mr. Chairman? That letter from Howard Krantz specifically says the next regularly scheduled meeting of the zoning board of appeals in November. MR. ABBATE-Did I miss that? Did I miss it? MR. MC NULTY-I don’t know whether it’s a typo on their part. MR. ABBATE-Oh, I do see it. You know what, I do see that. You’re absolutely correct. In that case – I’ve got a calendar. How about, instead of October 19th, we make it November 16? That’s on a Wednesday and that’s one of our regularly scheduled meetings. For November the 16th. MS. BARDEN-Works for me. MOTION TO TABLE USE VARIANCE NO. 69-2005, LINDA C. CASSE, SOJOURN GIFT SHOP, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty: 18 Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 9/28/05 Until the meeting on November 16, 2005 Duly adopted this 28 day of September, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hunt, Mr. Rigby, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone, Mr. Bryant NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE 62-2005. SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED. APPLICANT AND OWNERS: STARK GROUP. AGENT: JOHN RICHARDS, ESQ. LOCATION: 1533 STATE ROUTE 9. TAX ID NO. 288.8-1-5.2. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 75-2003, SP 49-2005. LOT SIZE: 4.96 ACRES. ZONING: HC-INT. SECTION: 179-4-030. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 4-STORY COMFORT SUITES HOTEL. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS IN THE HC-INT ZONE. JOHN RICHARDS & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. ABBATE-On the agenda under New Business Area Variance No. 62-2005. Mr. Secretary, would you please read into the record Area Variance Number 62-2005. MR. UNDERWOOD-The project applicant is the Stark Group and the project location is 1533 State Route 9. The description of this project: The applicant is proposing a 99-room, 4- story Comfort Suites Hotel with associated site work. Specifically the relief they’re looking for is they’re requesting eleven feet of height relief from the forty foot maximum building height for the highway commercial intensive zone. The following questions reflect the criteria for granting this type of variance: How would you benefit from the granting of this variance? The granting of this variance will allow the applicant to construct the proposed building with a peaked roof in the Adirondack style. This will give a more attractive look and avoid the necessity of a wider footprint and the resulting loss of green space. Two. What affect would this variance have on the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community? This variance will benefit the community by allowing a more attractive building consistent with the area architecture. It will also retain additional green space. Three. Are there feasible alternatives to this variance? The alternatives available – flat roof and a wider footprint would have an adverse impact on area owners. Four. Is the amount of relief substantial relief to the ordinance? No. The applicant seeks relief of only 10.2 feet from the forty foot height limitation. The variance is only needed because of the sloping terrain. No height variance would be required for the east side of the building facing Rout 9. Five. Will the variance have an adverse affect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions on the neighborhood or the district? No. The visual impact is negligible and the aesthetic and green space benefits are substantial. Staff notes for area variance number 62- 2005. Again, the applicant is proposing a 99-room, 4-story Comfort Suites Hotel with the associated site work. Under the relief required the applicant is requesting eleven feet of height relief from the forty foot maximum building height for the highway commercial intensive zone for Section 179-4-030. Parcel history: Area variance 75-2003. This was a similar project as this one for height and floor area ratio relief requested and that was withdrawn by the applicant on July 12, 2004. Staff comments: This application is similar to area variance 75-2003 with the same amount of height relief sought, however, this plan does not require floor area ratio relief. The plan offers two renditions of the same hotel. The first is preferred by the applicants and is fifty-one feet high with a peak roof and Adirondack style. The second is the same structure with a flat roof at forty feet. The former is the design for which the variance is being sought and is, as argued by the applicants, more architecturally and aesthetically pleasing. The applicants have supplied a visual assessment which flew balloons at three locations along the center line of the building at an elevation equal to the peak of the proposed building roof. Photographs and simulations were made from several vantage points, including various points along Route 9 of the Northway and million dollar half mile. It is identified by the applicant that the proposed is set well back from the road, Route 9, and which compensates for the added height and a good screen of existing trees will remain between the proposed and the Northway. MR. ABBATE-Anything else? 19 Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 9/28/05 MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s all I have. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Good. The petitioners are at the table and would you be kind enough to speak into the microphones. For the record, please identify yourself and place of residence. MR. RICHARDS-Good evening, Mr. Chairman. My name is John Richards. I’m an attorney in Glens Falls and I represent the Stark Group. With me on my left is Thomas Nace of Nace Engineering in Queensbury, also on behalf of the Stark Group. We have members of that organization in the audience and we’ll call them up if the board would like that. What I thought I would do, gentlemen, this evening and of course we’re here to ask you to approve a height variance for us and what I thought I would do is talk very briefly about the project and some key points from our standpoint and then have Tom walk us through the visual assessment and other points he might want to add. Before I get into that, I just had three kind of technical corrections that I wanted to bring to the board’s attention that we discovered in the course of – we’ve had some appearances and, I assume the board knows, we received a negative declaration on the SEQR matter from the planning board last night. A couple of things that we did notice first off and very important on the proposed setback on the setback requirement’s page we had an erroneous figure. The correct number should be 221.9 feet, not 143.6 feet as listed. So it’s 221.9 as the proposed front setback on this project. Second, I noticed on the variance application I talk about the east side facing Route 9 as being the lower height, so to speak. It’s actually the west side facing the Northway where it’s really going to be only three stories visible from the Northway and very close to compliance as far as ground to roofline. And then third, not really a correction, but a supplement. I want to make sure the board’s aware of this. We did amend our plan in connection with our appearance before the planning board to say that there are two homes, two buildings on the property now and we told the board and the board accepted our modification to withhold any removal of the southern, most southerly of the two homes unless and until the board approves that. So they did give us a negative declaration and we’re here to ask for your approval but with those three things I thought I should bring to the board’s attention. Very briefly and its self-evident from the sketches in front of you we are planning and are very excited about constructing a four-story Comfort Suites Hotel on the site; ninety-nine rooms. It will be beautiful facility in the Adirondack style. Excellent fill in use of that highway commercial intensive use zone and it will provide thirty permanent jobs for the area. The time frame which is crucial to us is as you can imagine in a project of this nature we are kind of dovetailing a number things together; working with the Comfort Suites people and making sure the financing is in order; working with the water and sewer people and the DEC; all these various agencies in doing the due diligence that’s required in any matter of this nature; the builder and everything else. All that requires a very close time frame and we would very much like to do our initial excavation and get the footings in before the very cold weather this year and then we’ll kind of button her up for a few months in all likelihood and pick up the construction and do the construction in 2006. That’s always subject to change if they find they can keep going but that’s the plan at this point. With respect to the variance request itself, unlike the earlier application that was withdrawn several years ago, the only thing we’re asking for is the height variance, the 10.2 feet and that really is a factor of two things, the slope of the land as you can see from the report, and also the pitched roof and the pitched roof is something we feel very strongly about and I like to think it’s self-evident; that it looks much better than a flat motel-type roof. Warren County Planning Board went out of its way to recommend in its approval, specifically recommend that we stay with a pitched roof and no go to – MR. ABBATE-Counsel, make I interrupt you for a moment, please? I may have read this wrong. Did I just hear you say 10.2? MR. RICHARDS-Yes. MR. ABBATE-I think it’s eleven. MR. RICHARDS-I had 10.2. I’m sorry. MR. ABBATE-Am I correct? It is eleven rather than 10.2. MR. NACE-It is eleven. The building itself, first floor, finish floor to peak a roof is 50.2 and since the outside grade is down a couple inches below that we felt 51 was a more prudent number. 20 Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 9/28/05 MR. RICHARDS-I stand corrected. MR. ABBATE-OK. So you’re asking, just for the record, eleven feet of relief? OK. Thank you. I’m sorry for the interruption. Continue, please. MR. RICHARDS-So, yes. We’ll call it eleven feet then. As I say, the pitch roof is the key here. That’s what we want. I put before you sketches on your left is the hotel with a flat motel-type roof and on your right is the larger sketch of what we want to build and what we think we should build which is with a pitched roof. Before Tom gets into the technical aspect of the visual assessment, this is a wonderful site for a number of reasons one of which is that it’s over five acres and allows the building to be set back and any visibility from either Route 9 or the Northway is substantially muted. There’s a lot of natural growth trees there that are going to stay. There may be some cleaning up trimming but they are going to stay. George Stark went around the other day and counted nearly two hundred trees over fifty feet tall that are going to stay. We’ve also gotten letters which I’m not about to present to the board. I’ll keep in my file here but I can assure you that I’ve got them. MR. ABBATE-Counselor, if you wish to introduce that into evidence, we’ll be more than happy to accept it. As long as it’s not read. MR. RICHARD-I’m not going to read it. It’s very short. I’ll just call your attention to the first one which I will just mention. The first two, excuse me. MR. ABBATE-Present it to the secretary, please. MR. RICHARDS-These are letters which the Starks have gathered some from last year and two from this year from area people in support of this project. Most important, I think, for this board is that they’re from each of the owners on the adjacent parcels to the south. There are two parcels that border this on the south. They both have given letters in support of the project. The Stark family – obviously, the Mohican Motel is on the north. So you have all of the straddling owners in favor of this. That’s really, in a nutshell, what we’re trying to do. I just want to emphasize that we’re really proud of it. It’s an exciting adventure for the Stark family and one we think is going to be a wonderful addition to the town. I’m going to turn this over to Tom to walk us through the visual assessment. MR. NACE-You should have in front of you a visual assessment report that we prepared for this project and you may remember when we were here before two years ago, I guess, that we had at that time prepared a cross section through the site showing a cross section east to west through the Northway motel site and Route 9. Let me flip to a larger scale of that. In essence, as John mentioned, it is kind of a unique site because it is so deep between the Northway and Route 9. It’s approximately 750 feet, I believe. The site sits on a hill above Route 9 and then the Northway is about level or just slightly above the peak of the site. We’ve situated the proposed motel so that it sits just over the east side of the existing high ground. The peak of the existing high ground is right in here and we’ve set the motel down into the hillside on the east side of that peak so that we can have a split level, so to speak so that you have four stories on the east side, on the Route 9 side, and three stories on the west side, the Northway side. There’s a good buffer of existing trees along both on the Northway property and on the back end of the Stark property on that side and also a good buffer of trees that exists on the Route 9 side. We showed on this cross section just as a comparison what would happen or what the site lines would be like, or the obtrusiveness I should say, of a forty foot high building if you took that forty-foot high building and put it on the very peak of the hill. This is a comparison and that is obviously about eight or nine feet higher than what we’re proposing actual elevation wise. The second thing we did for visual analysis was this early summer we went out and flew some balloons and those balloons if you look at the next page beyond that cross section on the visual report there’s a diagram or an aerial photograph of this site and I just sketched in very crudely the motel and the parking. We flew three balloons along the ridgeline of the hotel. One at the south end of the peak. One in the center where the V comes together and one at the north end. The one at the north end was buried so far into the tree canapé that it wasn’t visible from anywhere. Even directly down on Route 9. There was no way that that balloon could be seen. The ones in the center of the V and the one at the south end were visible and we took pictures of those. The first picture behind that aerial photograph is a view from the northbound lane of the Northway and it shows the balloon at the south end of the hotel and I’ve super-imposed, to the best of my ability, to scale what the hotel ridge line and the back end of the hotel would look like behind the trees. So that gives you an idea of the tree canapé that’s in there to screen that 21 Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 9/28/05 and make a screen view shed from the Northway. The second photograph back is from the southbound lane of the Northway and that’s a picture of the only place you could see any of the three balloons and that’s the balloon in the center of the V and that’s buried in the tree canapé pretty deep. The third picture back is taken from the Route 9 side just at the north end of the site. If we go to the site plan, here’s Route 9, here’s the Northway. That picture was taken from right here just north of the edge of the site looking up at the balloon in the center of the site, looking across that existing brown building. I wanted to point out two things about that. One, the balloon is visible. It’s out in the clear for that very small distance from the edge of the tree canapé here to the adjacent Mohican Motel site up here for that very short distance, the motel will be visible from Route 9 but if you look at it because the hotel is set so far back the perspective view of the height of that balloon is actually lower than the perspective view of the peak of the existing story and a half building there. But, again, as I said that view of the hotel from Route 9 is going to be visible just for a very short distance to southbound traffic. Northbound traffic has this tree canapé that’s going to remain in here so it will past the site before it has a open view port of the motel. The last photograph I took from up on the top of the hill was taken from back here about where this play area is looking toward the Northway just to show you that the trees that you saw when you were viewing the site from the Northway, the trees are actually between the Northway and the back end of the site so that the trees that you are looking at in those first two photographs are not going to be removed; it’s part of the site work. They will still remain there and, in fact, if you go to the landscaping plan those trees are pretty much all deciduous trees so in the winter time there will not be – there’ll still be a screen view shed but there will be less of a screening because of the lack of leaves. Therefore, we’ve planted a fairly good screen of white pine trees up on the top end of the site behind the parking lot and the building to help fill in that canapé. Obviously it won’t fill it in for a couple of years until these trees get a little higher but their white pine; they’re fairly fast growing and they will provide more winter screening for the site over time. And I think that’s really it except for the fact that I just included the pictures of the architectural rendering to show you that we feel that the peaked roof is much preferable. MR. ABBATE-At this point I’m going to ask the secretary to please read into the record a couple of pieces of correspondence that we have here. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you want me to wait until you open the public hearing? MR. ABBATE-You want to do it that way? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Sure. We can do it that way. By all means. Alright we’ll wait until we open the public hearing and in the meantime then if you folks have temporarily stated your case you can always come back again and put into the record new information. I’m going to ask the members of the board if they have any questions concerning area variance 62-2005? MR. URRICO-I have a question. During the first public hearing regarding this or not this application but the previous application. The town historian spoke regarding a building on the site. Was that ever resolved? What was the resolution? MR. RICHARDS-I mentioned that VanDusen house which is the building in the south side was brought up and that’s what I mentioned at the beginning that we have agreed to amend our plan and represented to the planning board and this board as well that that building is going to be buffered and we have our archeologist from Harkin Associates down in Rensselaer that are buffering that. We’ve had it studied. We don’t think it needs to stay but the town historian has raised that as a concern and the planning board and our group agreed that we should make sure that all those questions are answered before it comes down or it’s moved off site and so, for that reason, we amended our plan. MR. ABBATE-Any other members of the board have any questions concerning 62-2005? Okay. If not at this time then I’m going to open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. ABBATE-Jim, at this time, would you like to read the? MR. UNDERWOOD-Let the public go first and see if there’s any. 22 Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 9/28/05 MR. ABBATE-We can do that. Do we have anyone in the audience, the public, who wishes to comment on area variance 62-2005? If there are, would you be kind enough to raise your hand so I can recognize you? I see no raised in the audience so then I will continue on. MR. UNDERWOOD-We have several letters that were submitted this evening. The first one is dated September 23 to the Town of Queensbury Planning and Zoning Boards. “I live adjacent on the south to the Stark property where the proposed hotel is planned. This past Tuesday I submitted some brief comments to the town and I attended the planning board meeting on the project. Later I met with Mr. Stark to review the plans in more detail. I am ready now to confirm that I support the Starks in their application and look forward to the construction of the hotel as set forth in the plans.” That’s signed Virginia Chrostowski. The second one is Lumberjack Pass Golf which is also to the south. This is addressed to Mr. Stark. “We are very much in favor of your plan to develop a Comfort Suites Hotel that will be built adjacent to our property. As you are aware, many of your guests at the Mohican Motel visit our course during their stay. Currently these guests walk along Route 9 and enter our establishment via the driveway. We feel very strongly there should be a pedestrian walkway linking the Mohican Motel Comfort Suites, and the Lumberjack Pass Miniature Golf. This nicely landscaped walkway would better ensure the safety of visitors to the area while enhancing the beauty of both properties and also alleviate the need for fencing as is currently the case. We look forward to your grand opening day” and it’s signed Mary E. Giella. The next one is from the Loft Drive-In and that’s 3 State Route 149. “We are the owners of The Loft Drive-In and we are in full support of the expansion plans of the Mohican Motel. We feel that the expansion will benefit the entire community by attracting more tourist, generating jobs and producing additional revenue for the businesses in the area surrounding the motel” and it’s signed Eugene Servelli. The next one’s from the Log Jam Restaurant to the Queensbury Planning and Zoning Board. I would like to lend my support to George Stark and his venture with Comfort Suites. Over the years George and his family have been an important part of the community in their endeavors to make the area a successful destination for tourists and business alike. He has always taken a proactive role in what he thinks is best for the community. The hotel that is being planned will bring a well-established respected brand name to our market owned by one of our own citizens. The concept of all-suite hotel will also fill a much niche in our market. Many people whether here for business or pleasure now seek more than the traditional one-room when going away. This concept is very appealing to both families and businessman alike. With the Starks’ proven track record in business we know that the property will look and run as a first class operation which will only benefit the way visitors perceive our area. If you have any questions, please feel to contact me.” It’s signed Tony Grecco, General Manager. There’s also one here from the Lake George RV Park. “Dear Mr. McNulty: My family and the Stark family have worked as partners in the local tourism industry for over thirty years. The Starks continue to maintain a quality facility that continues to attract repeat customers year after year. I am confident that the expansion plans that the Starks have proposed will only enhance the existing property. The building that they have designed has the architectural elements required to lure today’s discriminating traveler. I strongly advise the planning board to approve the Starks’ application, including the required height variance. I believe that the structure will be more attractive if they are allowed to construct their building at the proposed height. If they are required to alter the roof design, I believe that the architectural appearance of the property will be compromised. Every member of this community is a partner in tourism. Our number one industry in Warren County. Each of us is responsible to assure that our tourism infrastructure can evolve to serve the needs and expectations of future visitors. I believe that the Starks are fulfilling this mission with their proposed expansion. You can also support this mission by approving this application.” And that’s signed David King. And the last one, To Whom It May Concern. The Beckos family would like to go on record and show our full support for the Starks hotel project. A new property will enhance the tourism experience in both Queensbury, as well as Warren County and in our opinion Marilyn and George have few equals in presenting, maintaining, and operating a hotel in this region. We not only applaud the project as it is proposed but appreciate the risks the Stark family are taking to improve their property and our community. And that’s signed by the Beckos family of Montcalm Restaurant. And last of all – I don’t know if I should read in from the Queensbury Planning Board just the very end of the resolution from last evening. MR. ABBATE-Yes, just to show. MR. UNDERWOOD-They essentially did the environmental assessment form was completed by the applicant and it was fully reviewed by the planning board last evening and the 23 Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 9/28/05 planning board has determined that the proposed project and planning action is subject to review under the SEQR act. They have considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having the considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 61711 of the official compilation of codes, rules and regulations for the state of New York, this board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this board will have no significant environmental effect and the chairman of the planning board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or negative dec. that may be required by law. And that was unanimously adopted last night by the planning board. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I will now ask members of the board to offer their comments on Area Variance 62-2005. May I start with Mr. McNulty, please. MR. MC NULTY-Several thoughts, I guess. A lot of things have been presented here. Good reasons for wanting the height variance. Some mitigation points, including tree cover. Given some recent experience with one other situation where tree cover was volunteered as a mitigating circumstance, I would like to see a condition of approval if we approve this that considers those trees remaining that the applicant has indicated will remain. I’m going to make my decision based on those not being there because my recent experience says what says there’s a buffer of trees on all four sides of a piece of property in my mind means all four sides and that’s not what happened recently. We’ve got one that’s got one and three quarters and one heck of a wide view of an area that’s been clear cut so I’ve got no great faith in trees remaining. I think it also puts the applicant in jeopardy because is that becomes a real binding condition and then a forest fire comes along and burns those trees down, you no longer have a variance approval because you violated a condition. Not your fault but nevertheless the condition has been removed. And the other factor I think that there’s a danger is, one thing that was mentioned, was the trees along the Northway. The applicant has no control whatsoever over those trees on the Northway and I think it’s risky to present those as a mitigating circumstance or at least for us to consider them. Having said that, one other thing, I’m conflicted a little bit in having to evaluate an application like this because one of the guidelines that comes from the state is that we are to consider each application by itself when we’re considering an area variance. At the same time there’s some sort of compulsion for us to consider cumulative impact on things. There’s also a guideline that says the zoning board is not supposed to change zoning. We’ve already approved a variance for one taller than allowed hotel between Route 9 and the Northway. This is going to be the second one. I don’t think it’s going to be the last and I’ll repeat what I said when the first one came up. I think this is something the town board should address and perhaps should re-zone that strip or some area to allow for taller hotels because I think the argument that it’s better at times to go up than it is to sprawl out when you’re doing a motel is a very valid one. Having said all of that it strikes me that the proposal is reasonable. I think the way it has been designed into the site will help mitigate the height. I like the idea of the peak roof and I would like to see that a condition of approval if we approve this and I think while there may be some change in the view shed going up 9 or down the Northway, I think on the whole there’s probably going to be more benefit to the applicant then there will be detriment to the neighborhood or the community in this situation. I think the applicant certainly presented some good points and I can’t really see a real negative impact with this as presented with the peaked roof so I’m inclined to be in favor. MR. ABBATE-Mr. McNulty, your comments are duly noted for conditions. Mr. Urrico, please. MR. URRICO-I’m just going to echo a lot of what Mr. McNulty. I think when we approved Great Escape we knew that was the start of a new era up here and if anybody has driven up the Northway we know that the higher height motels are becoming more evident. However, I don’t think any of them look as good as this one does or will look. I believe when the new zoning code came out and they suggested Adirondack themes and streetscapes for Route 9, I think this is what they had in mind. I think the pitch roof definitely fits with the area. It speaks Adirondack language. I believe it will be attractive. The height variance is minimal compared to what it is going to offer. I’d be in favor of it. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. Underwood, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-I would be in agreement what Roy said. I think in this instance here, given the benefit of seeing the renditions of the pitched roof or the flat roof, I think that we 24 Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 9/28/05 can gladly leave the era of the flat roofs behind us in this community. I think that we have set out on a new path and it’s up to use to our best judgment and in this case our judgment should fall on the behalf of the applicant. This is a class act that has been proposed here. There are no shortcomings involved with it. I don’t think there’s any visual problems. I think that the concerns about trees on site are valid that they should remain and that should be part of the approval process and for the final approval on the issuing of the CO when the thing is complete. I don’t have any doubt that they are setting out here to do a good job. The old hotel and all of the additions that have been put on over the years reflect a care and concern for what’s presented to the community. And I think that in this respect granting the extra relief the eleven feet of height relief is not a great request on this site. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Ms. Hunt, please. MS. HUNT-Thank you. I have to agree with my fellow board members. I don’t think there will be any undesirable change in the neighborhood character to nearby properties and I certainly don’t think it will have any physical or environmental effects on the area. I think it’s a modest request and I would be in favor. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. Rigby, please. MR. RIGBY-There’s really not a lot to add to what the board members have said. I mean it’s a good project. I, too, would like to condition it based upon the trees that we discussed and also the peak roof. I think those two things are very important to the project. There’s been no negative feedback at all from any of the residents of the town. It’s all been very positive. There’s not significant environmental effects presented in any way. A negative SEQR declaration, so I’m in favor of it as well. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Rigby. I agree with my fellow board members. I think counselor and the architect have made a great argument for approval and the architectural rendition of what’s proposed, in my opinion, is outstanding and I think if indeed that’s what it comes out it will have a positive impact on this area and I certainly will support the application. MS. BARDEN-Mr. Chairman, can I ask a question of the applicant. MR. ABBATE-You certainly may. MS. BARDEN-Are these dimensions of a surveyed map, Tom? Is this a surveyed map? Are these the dimensions of the surveyed map? MR. NACE-Yes. MS. BARDEN-Because I was thinking that when I was looking at this aerial representation that there was this little jog our here? MR. NACE-No. MR. ABBATE-Make sure we get this on the record, please. So speak into the microphone, please. MR. NACE-The tax map has not picked up the fact there was a quick claim deed back from the county, or from the state to the previous owners for the piece in here or actually this piece down here. MS. BARDEN-Do you know how much of this will have to be cleared when and if you do the sewer and water extension? MR. NACE-That shows the water and sewer extension is here. So that none of this will be cleared up in here. There is a little clearing that is shown along the edge here for . . . cutting back that bank for safe distance. MS. BARDEN-Thank you for clarifying that. MR. ABBATE-The public hearing is now closed. 25 Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 9/28/05 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ABBATE-Again, before I ask for a motion I respectfully remind members that we have the task of balancing the benefit of the variance against the impact on the area, as well as the fact that state statutes spell out five statutory criteria that we must carefully follow in considering and deciding to grant an area variance. I also would like to note that the majority of board members that we should have a condition dealing with trees so whoever makes a motion would you take that into consideration, please. Is there a motion for area variance 62-2005? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 62-2005, STARK GROUP, INC., COMFORT SUITES HOTEL, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, and seconded by Leo Rigby: The project applicant is the Stark Group and the project location is 1533 State Rte 9. They are proposing a 99-room, 4-story Comfort Suites Hotel and the applicant is asking for relief; specifically requesting 11 ft. of height relief from the 40 ft. maximum building height for the highway commercial intensive zone per Section 179-4-030. Again, after presenting us with the proposal, we were basically swayed to believe that we would prefer the Adirondack style with the pitched peaked roof and in this instance that pitched peak roof will result in the extra 11 ft. of relief deemed necessary for the height of that building. In reviewing the project, we have noted that on the Northway side this will not appear to be a 4-story tall building and only a very small site pathway from the current motel will actually be viewed as a 4-story building. In our essence, we didn’t really feel that it would be a detriment to the community by an oversized, over height structure. In general, the project having been reviewed by the Planning Board, also allayed our fears as to the extra height of this building. As far as that goes, that’s our strict purview as an aside to that, there was considerable concern from other members of the Board regarding the trees around that site, and it should be very apparent that the Planning Board will be the ultimate authority in determining which trees are to remain, and those trees should be marked prior to any kind of cutting on site in the starting of this project. As also proposed, a significant number of white pines will be planted on that west side along the Northway margin there to also screen the view from the Northway on the site. In general, most of us feel that this is a worthwhile plan to pursue and that we support the applicant. Duly adopted this 28 day of September, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hunt, Mr. Rigby, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone, Mr. Bryant MR. ABBATE-The vote for area variance 62-2005 is six in favor, zero against and there is no challenge to the tally then area variance number 62-2005 is approved. However, I remind the applicant, the appellant that this approval is with conditions and bring to your attention your agreement to accept the conditions as stated in the record as a condition of approval. If you are the agent, you have stated that the principal has granted you authority to accept conditions of approval. Final approval of plans in compliance with this variance must be submitted to the community development department before any further review by the zoning administrator. Subsequent issue of further permits, including building permits, are dependent upon receipt. This statement also serves notice to both the code enforcement officer and building permit personnel that approval is contingent upon conditions and these conditions are outlined in the minutes of the meeting. For the record, does the appellant understand these conditions? MR. RICHARDS-Yes we do, Mr. Chairman. We’ll be getting a copy of that shortly, I would assume, to make sure. MR. ABBATE-A copy of the minutes of the meeting? MR. RICHARDS-The resolution. MR. ABBATE-Absolutely. You check with staff. I’m sure they will get to you as soon as possible. 26 Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 9/28/05 MR. RICHARDS-If you have any questions, I can certainly contact staff. MR. ABBATE-Sure. Absolutely. For the record, the appellant understood these conditions and I request staff to bring these conditions to the attention of the appropriate personnel and further request that they provide the appellant minutes of this meeting as soon as possible. MR. RICHARDS-Thank you very much. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, gentlemen. Now we do have an administrative function to perform this evening, ladies and gentlemen, and that is the approval of the July 20, 2005 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting and those present were Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Ms. Hunt, and Mr. Stone. Mr. Stone is not here this evening. Mr. Bryant is not here this evening. One, two, three, four – well, we can do it. I move that we approve the zoning board of appeals meeting minutes July 20, 2005. Is there a second? MR. URRICO-I’ll second it. MR. ABBATE-It has been seconded. Thank you, Mr. Urrico. Maria, will you do a vote please. MOTION TO APPROVE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES DATED JULY 20, 2005, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Duly adopted this 28 day of September, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES-Mr. McNulty, Ms. Hunt, Mr. Rigby, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate. NOES-None ABSENT: Mr. Stone, Mr. Bryant ONE ABSENTION MR. ABBATE-The vote is five to zero, one abstention, that we approve the zoning board of appeals meeting minutes dated July 20, 2005. Thank you ladies and gentlemen. MS. BARDEN-One last thing. MR. ABBATE-Yes. MS. BARDEN-Maria and I think that maybe you should have opened the public hearing on Casse. MR. ABBATE-On who? MS. BARDEN-On Casse – Use Variance. MR. UNDERWOOD-Not if they tabled it though. MR. ABBATE-No. Not if we tabled it. Why open it. We took no notice. We took no motions. We took notice other than to table it and as such there was no action. MRS BARDEN-Don’t you usually open the public hearing . . . MR. ABBATE-Yeah. What we’ll do next – right. Exactly. In other words, see, if we were to open a public hearing then we set it into motion. I’d have to go all through procedures and that doesn’t make sense. So what we did, in effect, was table it. We never commented on it. We merely tabled it and that was a request of their attorney. So, at the next hearing, then we go through all the motions and involve everybody. MS. BARDEN-So you want it re-advertised. MR. ABBATE-Yes. Please. 27 Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 9/28/05 MR. URRICO-There are different tabling actions. Some tabling actions occur in the midst of a proceeding so we’ve actually heard the minutes and the public hearing is open. I don’t think we would close it at that point but this one never got to the table. MR. ABBATE-Correct. Mr. Urrico is absolutely correct. MR. UNDERWOOD-And no one got up to leave when I read that letter at the beginning. I don’t think anybody was even here. MR. ABBATE-I think we’re OK. If not, I will bear the full blunt of your wrath. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Charles Abbate, Chairman 28