Loading...
1988-01-20 ..~ -~~_:~ \ . ,- -" QO"-OY ZOJfDI .IAD or ArHAII Regular Heeting Held: Wednesday. January 20. 1988 Present: Theodore Turner. Chairman Charles O. Sicard Jeffrey L. Kelley Michael Muller Susan Goetz, Secretary Daniel S. Griffin Gustave Behr R. Case Prime, Counsel Mary Jane F. Moeller, Stenographer The meeting was called to order by Mr. Turner at 7:30 p.m. Corrections to the December 16, 1987 minutes were made as follows: Page 2: Sign Variance No. 1313, last line on pase. architect, should read Mr. owner/operator of Wheeler Signs.. Hr. Ken 'Wheeler, Ken 'Wheeler, Page 12: Use Variance No. 1297, top of page. passed. Should read Motion DEFEATED. Motion to DENY was Page 13: Use Variance No. 1297, second building from the west side... business from the west side... paragraph. ...moved his should read ... moved hi, Mr. Huller moved APPROVAL of the December 16, 1987 minutes as cor- rected. Seconded by Hr. Kelley. Pas.e. uaanimo.sly. Mr. Turner announced the procedure of the Zoning Board Meeting: The application will be called by number. The Secretary will read the application. Applicant will come forward to review the application. Public Hearing to be opened/closed. Correspondence/Reports from the Warren County Planning Board. Review the application further with the applicant, if necessary. Approve/Deny/Table application. Hr. Turner announced that Area Variance No. 1262, Anne H. Parrott, was withdrawn by the applicant; Area Variance No. 1292, Silver Nail Construc- tion, was tabled by the applicant; and Use Variance No. 1310, Neil J. Fitzgerald, was tabled by the applicant. 1 ...., '- OLD BIJSIDSS ADA VAllIAlICE NO. 1288 Elaina's Beauty Boutique Hr. Turner read the application to renovate a single family dwelling and garage at 51 Aviation Road, UR-5. The garage will be two floors; office upstairs and beauty boutique downstairs. Since there was no representative in attendance, Mr. Turner stated that Area Variance No. 1288 will not be on the Agenda in the future until the applicant is ready. NEW BIJSIDSS AREA. VAllIAJlCE NO. 1319 Waite Cowles Hrs. Goetz read on Upper Bay Road, Road, RR-5A. This acres per lot in lieu the application for the proposed use of the property just south of Woodchuck Hill Road, west side of Bay would be for two residential building lots at 4.53 of 5 acres per lot. Hr. Waite Cowles represented the project. Hr. Cowles verified to Mr. Turner that he subdivided the land after it was purchased, which was 7 years ago. Hr. Cowles stated to Hr. Behr that he did have a building permit, but had insufficient funds to obtain a mortgage to complet the building which was started. He wants to subdivide the property to gen- erate the capital to obtain the necessary mortgage. At present, there is only one building that has been started on the entire nine acres. Mr. Huller clarified that Mr. Cowles is seeking a variance to sub- divide the property into two parcels, 4.53 acres each, so that he can proceed with the construction on the first house. Hr. Behr asked if Hr. Cowles had considered leaving one of the parcels a full five acres, so that there would be no problem in the future and then seek a variance for only one-half of it. Answer: No, there has not been that consideration. Hr. Cowles stated he would prefer to leave it at 4.53 acres. This would eliminate the necessity of another survey and obtaining a new deed. PUblic Heari.. Opened: no comment 2 Public Heari.. Closed. Mrs. Goetz advised that the Warren County Planning Board approved. Mr. Behr MOVED APPROVAL of Area Variance No. 1319, Waite Cowles, because there was a minimal reduction in size from the required total of ten acres for two lots and the percentage is very small - only about 12% decrease. The practical difficulty is the size of the total property. Seconded by Mr. Turner Passed u.ani.ou.ly. USE VAllIAlCE NO. 1320 Walter and Maria Fisher Mrs. Goetz read the application to construct an efficiency apartment consisting of one bedroom, kitchenette, living quarters and attached gar- age adjacent/south of Warren County Airport, west side of Queensbury Avenue, LI-1A. This could easily be converted to a small office, when industrial demand dictates, as the only internal partition is the bath- room. Walter and Maria Fisher represented the project. Mr. Behr asked for clarification of the statement in Question No. 4 of the Application, which stated that the "building permit" has been verbally approved. Hr. Fisher said that, when he went for the permit, Mr. Dean (Zoning and Building Code Administrator) said everything was in order, except Mr. Fisher needed to go through the Use Variance Procedure, in order for the apartment to be constructed as a residential building. Mr. Turner asked what was being done with the other buildings. An- swer: There is a very large barn that is not presently rented. There is a house on the property and a steel fabricated building that are rented. This is one parcel. The Variance would be for two living quarters on the same piece of property. Mr. Behr asked if Mr. Fisher was planning on sub- dividing the property. Answer: I do not have any plans on that at this point. The building is in very bad disrepair and to remodel it, we did not feel that the return would be obtained if it were to be leased as an office. Therefore, the variance being applied for was to rent it as a residential. In answer to Mr. Turner's question, Hr. Fisher stated that the house is residential, which was rented prior to the present acquisition. The property was purchased one year ago from Helderberg Blue Stone and Marble. 3 .- Mr. Griffin verified that at one time there had been a furniture business on the property. Hr. Fisher said that he was before the Board approxi- mately one year ago to get a variance to farm the land. Mr. Fisher said that he would rent the apartment, if approved, and also indicated that his son would live there, while he was attending school (ACC). Mr. Behr said that a stipulation of the variance, if approved, would be that the apartment would revert back to a rental piece of property. Mr. Turner asked if the barn had been advertised as rental space. Answer: Yes, but not in the paper. This has been not actively pursued because the feedback has been negative, as to what the rental income would be. No one has approached him. Mr. Griffin asked about the interior of the barn. Answer: Part of the barn was a furniture showroom for the factory. The rest is open, unheated barn space. Hr. Turner ašked if Mr. Fisher had the ability to rent the barn for any use dictated by the light industrial application, would the division of the barn impede the ability to rent. Mr. Fisher said that there is a portion that perhaps could be rented. About 2/3 of the barn is unheated, which would eliminate any manufacturing, without complete renovation. Mr. use on would could perty rental Behr point out that at the present time there is a non-conforming the property, which is pre-existing. To approved this variance, add another non-conforming use. Hr. Turner asked if Mr. Fisher provide the board with proof that a meaningful return on the pro- could be realized. Hr. Fisher showed the Board a statement of income versus depreciation. Mr. Fisher informed that the reason he purchased the property was for investment purposes in a light industrial area. However, he believes that an educated guess would be that it is 8 to 10 years early. Mr. Kelley asked if any contacts through a real estate firm had been made to see if they could assist in renting or leasing. That would be a form of proof to the Board that he had tried to do something with the property and that nothing happened. Answer: Yes. When I bought the property through Wharton Real Estate, there was a verbal agreement that, if something came along, they would talk about it. I have used the barn in the summer for equipment storage, with which to clean up the property. Mr. Fisher acknowledged to Mr. Turner that he was aware that the property was zoned light industrial when he made the purchase. He further stated that he is faced with a dilemma in regards to the building because, if he does not do something with it or rent it as office space, he will have to destroy it. Mr. Behr asked if the figures on the statement were for the entire piece of property including the farmhouse. Answer: Yes. Hr. Muller pointed out that the plot plan shows an existing under- ground fuel tank. Hr. Fisher said that it is a dormant tank, and that at one point it was diesel fuel for the Heldenberg Bluestone and Marble trucks. In discussing the parcel, it was noted that the property is not 4 really valid in the sense for which it is zoned. Bluestone had been there for some time, then the furniture company, and that the property is not very conducive to the application. It has always been a residence and, the only reason it was zoned into the light industrial pattern, because of proximity to the airport and the business at the time. After not having any return on the property in a year, it might be indicative that advertiS- ing and renting would have to take place. The barn is a definite detri- ment. In response to Hr. Turner's question about the barn, Hr. Fisher said the height is 8 feet and the heated section is 7 1/2 feet. In the section that is heated, it is 1,000 square feet; and the entire barn is 4,000 square feet. Some Board members felt that the barn should be demolished, and that Mr. Fisher should start over. Also, that Mr. Fisher's decision to purchase and renovate was poor judgement, considering he did know that it was zoned light industrial. In his defense, Hr. Fisher stated that at one point he does believe that area will be very much light industrial. That is the reason he did purchase the property. Mr. Turner asked if Hr. Fisher had a cost estimate. Answer: No bids. Guesses have been that it would be in the area of $20,000 to $50,000. Mr. Prime asked how that would make the property profitable, to reinvest that sum of money, and how would it pull him out of the hole. Answer: It will be help; however, there will still be a loss. In the future (8 to 10 years) that will be an excellent Corporate Office of some type. That is what I envision it as. I have two choices: let the weather or bulldozers demolish it, or to keep the structure and have it pay itself back, for the investment of renovation. Mr. Prime asked about his giving up the idea of using it commercially. Putting people in there with a residential use, but Mr. Fisher still has the option of using it commercially, which is a mix of uses. Even though the apartments are there and people are living there, it does not elimin- ate Mr. Fisher's right to use the barn, for example, for storage for industrial or commercial use. Answer: That is correct. As Mrs. Goetz stated, one cannot buy a piece of property and use if for different purposes, until it makes the most money. Mr. Fisher said he does understand that. He would not build another bUilding on the prop- erty, he just wants to do something with the existing building and get back the renovation costs. Hr. Muller felt that Mr. Fisher must demon- strate that he has made some substantial effort that has resulted in fail- ure, to get one of the permitted uses going on the property. He feels that Mr. Fisher is right that it is impossible to compete with the Indust- rial Development Agency on the same road. Perhaps the barn is available for things consistent with the zoning ordinance; ie: warehouse enclosed storage, goods and materials. That is not done a great deal in an indust- rial park. However, maybe the point of the discussion is whether the building is to be saved or let go. Saving would cost a great deal and compounds the loss that has already been taken. It does not enhance the 5 rest of the property, but aggrevates the consistency of the zoning ordin- ance. Mr. Kelley suggested newspaper ads, etc. Hrs. Fisher said that an ad was put in the paper, without success. In regards to renting, the problem is that the barn is cut up, with oBly one part heated. In addition, there is one bathroom in one part of the barn, and the other area has no facilities. Mr. Muller wanted to confirm how far the bUilding would be, as a residence, from the road. It is 27 feet from the center of County Line Road, and the road is 50 feet wide. It is very close to the road. Public Heari.. Opened: no comment Public Hearing Closed. Mrs. Goetz said that the Warren County Planning Board approved, with no comment. Hr. Fisher said he did go to the meeting and that it was automatic approval. Mr. Huller MOVED DISAPPROVAL of Use Vaiance No. 1320, Walter and Maria Fisher, as the applicants have to demonstrate a hardship on the property in terms of dollars and cents, which is a standard required by the ordin- ance and is a standard required of all applicants. Dollars in cost or presentation by a realtor. Seconded by Mrs. Goetz. Denied uaaniously. USE VAllIABCE NO. 1321 William and Marylee Gosline Mrs. Goetz read the application for construction of a stable to be used for three horses at 25 Blindrock Road, SFR-I0. Marylee Gosline represented her application. Mr. Turner asked for clarification of the structure which is presently being built. Mrs. Gosline said she is building a barn; however, she presently has a permit for a storage shed. Mr. Turner advised that it is over 200 square feet and should not have obtained a permit. Mrs. Gosline said she was unaware of that stipulation, and that the Building Department gave her the permit. Mrs. Goetz and Mr. Turner confirmed that the permit was given erroneously and that they do not doubt Hrs. Gosline's word. The property 6 is in a SFR-IO zone and permitted uses are garage, storage shed less than 200 square feet, free house attached less than 300 square feet, swimming pool, home occupation. Mr. Behr did not understand how Mrs. Gosline was building the construction without a building permit. Mrs. Gosline said she was told she could have a permit, and that it was issued by Mack Dean. Hrs. Gosline said that, before she purchased the property, she went to the Building Department. Her first fear about the property was that she did not have 10 acres - only 9.5 acres - and that 10 acres were required for a horse. Hrs. Gosline went to see Mrs. Bowman, who was not there, and spoke to another gentlemen, whose name she does not know. Vic gave her the original permit and went through all necessities for the final permit. Mrs. Gosline said that, when she first went to the BUilding Depart- ment, she asked them about acreage for horses and was told that the requirements were: 3 acres for one horse, one for every additional. Since that time, she found out the requirement is two acres. There were enough problems with purchasing the property, and felt good that there was acreage for her horses. She pursued purçhasing the property, which was very hard to find in Queensbury, and felt it was a choice piece of land for the proposed used. All of the excavation work was done for the paddocks, etc. When the contractor went to obtain the permit, he was told that it would not be available. Why? Because the land is in a residen- tial zone, where horses are not allowed. Mrs. Gosline herself went to the Building Department and explained that she was not told a building permit was not allowed, but that she could have one because there was enough acreage for the horses. At that time, Mrs. Gosline was told she did not ask enough questions. She inquired more to someone who was on a different Board, and that person said it was not her job to inquire. It is the Board's job to tell a land owner what is and what is not right. But it was too late. The permit was obtained, building plans were submitted, and footings were put in about two weeks ago. She is optimistic and has letters from all her neighbors, who are anxious to see that barn constructed and the horses housed on the property. Mr. Behr asked if Mrs. Gosline had secured an attorney. Answer: No, I do not care for attornies. Hrs. Goetz said it sounded as though she had been "victimized" and that it was unfortunate. Hrs. Gosline further stated that, when she went to many of the Queensbury community meetings, the general consensus she has heard is that they want more rural, less dense population. She has 9.5 acres that could be divided, but that she does not want to do that. Her life-long roots are here, as are those of her elders. She wants to stay in Queensbury. Her daughter does not ride in the road, she rides in a sm.all paddock, "hunt" seat, goes to shows and is content to ride "in circles." They have quarter horses. 7 A discussion centered around David Little's property, which borders on the Gosline's property. The Little's were surprised that Mrs. Gosline had to go for a variance. The Little's moved into their home in 1972, rezoned in 1982 to promote development in Queensbury. Mr. Turner said that he was glad Mrs. Gosline is going to keep the 9.5 acres. There is a sm.all pond on the land, with a bench, and the Gosline's have permitted the neighbors to skate on it. Mrs. Gosline reiterated that she will not sell the pro- perty, even "down the line," and would agree to a stipulation that the property would not be subdivided as long as she owns it. Further discussion regarding the building permit for a storage shed versus stable continued. Hrs. Gosline said again that she had a permit to build a storage shed and came tonight to get a variance, so that she can change the storage shed to a barn. Hr. Behr said that a building with a hay loft in the top and a gamble roof is not a storage shed; however, Mrs. Gosline said it can be used for storage. Mr. Behr disagreed and said it was not a storage shed. Mrs. Gosline: It can be built for that. Mr. Behr: You cannot put any kind of a building up and just say it is a storage shed and that means it is a permissible use. Hrs. Gosline: "When I got my permit, they told me I could, and they said to put it down as a storage shed. That was the Queensbury Building Department, so that is all I know." Mr. Turner agreed that the BUilding Department m.ade a mistake, and that it cannot held against the Gosline's. A considerable amout of money has already been invested, on the assumption that the construction could proceed, as indicated by the Building Department. Mrs. Goetz stated that the Board will look into this error. Hrs. Gosline clarified to the Board that, when she asked for a barn permit, they (the Building Dept.) said that they could not have a barn. She said she wanted to get started, so was told to call it a storage shed. Hr. Kelley said he was concerned the portion of the Zoning Ordinance which refers to building a reasonable financial return for its permissible use. The use is being changed. However, Mr. Griffin and others felt that the use is not being changed, but that there is an addition to the use. Hr. Turner explained again that there would be a stipulation to the var- iance that, as long as the Gosline's retain ownership and did not sub- divide the property, the variance would hold. Once the Gosline's sub- divide, then the property would revert back to the original zone it is in. Mr. Kelley said the hardship is that the onwers have an oversized lot, which they want to keep. Mr. Turner asked Mrs. Gosline if she knew at the time of the purchase that she could not use it for horses. Answer: No, her main concern was as to how many acres she had to have. The Building Department told her 3:1, but it is 3:2. They did not tell her it was not a permitted use. Mrs. Gosline said she never found out until December. Hr. Muller said he would be willing to give the Gosline's a variance, as long as the parcel remains 9.3 +/- acres with a residence, and on the land is a building, which is considered a stable, with three horses. 8 Mr. Behr strongly felt that a barn is not a permitted accessory use in this particular area, not even with a site plan review. Horses are not permitted there, and the 9.3 acres does not come into it. Mr. Muller disagreed, as he felt the 9.3 acres is the key factor. Mr. Griffin agreed. Mr. Prime stated that the variance being taken into consideration is for the highest residential zone in town, and an exception is being made for these particular people. If the Gosline's do not use it for horses, then somewhere the parcel should revert back to the original zoning and not be perpetuated. Hr. Griffin clarified that if new people own the property, then a new variance should be obtained. Public Heari.. Opened: no comment Public Hearins Closed. Mrs. Goetz read letters from five neighbors stating no objections. Jerome Thorne Lucille DelSignore Ralph Woodbury J. David Little and Elizabeth J. David Little representing B.R.B. Group Mr. Turner MOVED APPROVAL for Use Variance No. 1321, William and Marylee Gosline, to reflect the following conditions. The map as shown is 9.3 acres, zoned as SFR10 and will be restricted to the use by the appli- cant for a barn to stable three horses, as indicated by the application. The 9.3 acres will remain undivided, as long as the applicants own the property and for the use indicated in the application. The variance will expire with the applicant's sale of the property or however disposed. They were granted a permit to build what is described in the testimony as a storage shed which, in reality, is a barn for the three horses. This was issued by the Building Department in error. Seconded by Mr. Sicard. Motion passed 6 Yes (Kelley, Muller, Sicard, Goetz, Griffin, Turner) 1 No (Behr) IJSE VAllARCE NO. 1322 Queensbury Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 6196 9 Mrs. Goetz read ft. x 25 ft., onto Luzerne Road, UR-10. structed, but will not the application for construction of an addition, 37 the southeast end of the existing building at 32 The front of the existing building will be recon- change any setbacks. Messrs. Henry LaLondi and George E. Daley represented the project. Mr. Turner said that this is for an expansion of a pre-existing, non- conforming use, which has been there 21 years. To clarify Mr. Behr's question regarding the construction of the bUilding, Mr. Daley said it will conform to the rest of the building, so it will look like one parcel. The extension that is proposed behind the bUilding is behind the light pole, and will not come out as far as the light pole. It will be no wider than the present bUilding. The new bUilding will be 75 ft. back from the end of the building to the property line on the south. The present building with the extension will be 135 ft. long; the property is 250 ft.; 20 feet on the Luzerne end and 75 feet remaining. Mr. Turner asked if the addition will be an add-on to the Meeting Room. Answer: Yes. Mr. LaLondi explained that there will be no kitchen facilities, but storage. This will be replacing the old building that was there and putting a cellar underneath for storage. The trailer will go - it is only temporary - as there is equipment for the handicapped stored in there presently. Hr. Kelley wanted to confirm that there is enough parking. At present there is parking for 125 130 cars, with overflow available to park behind the firehouse. It was confirmed that there is more than 24,000 square feet available for parking, which is sufficient for the permissible number of cars. Public Heari.. Open.d:no comment Public Hearing Closed: Hrs. Goetz read a letter from Sarah Daniels, Newcomb St., giving her permission for the construction. Mr. Behr MOVED APPROVAL of Use of Foreign Wars Post 6196, for pre-existing, non-conforming use. the character of the neighborhood. needed for normal operation of their Variance No. 1322, Queensbury Veterans the expansion and renovation of a It will not in any way interfere with There will be ample parking and it is facilities. Seconded by Mr. Sicard. Passed .aa.taously. 10 SIGN VAlIARCI NO. 1323 West Mountain Sales, Inc. Mrs. Goetz read the application to maintain an existing freestanding sign, a wall sign and add another wall sign. The location of this is two miles west of I-87, right side of Corinth Road, west side of property abuts VanDusen Road, HC-15. Mr. Ed Eppich represented the application. Mr. Behr asked for con- firmation that Sign No. 2 is allowed by the ordinance (the proposed, free- standing sign), as stated on the application. Answer: The freestanding sign is already in place. However, Mr. Behr explained that the sign is not legal because of improper setback. A diseussion continued regarding the size of the sign, and that what is stated on the application is incorrect. Mr. Eppich said he felt that the freestanding sign is allowed, and the existing sign on one of the buildings now is permitted. Mr. Eppich explained the reason for the sign request. It basically is to make a distinction between the two buildings: West Mountain Sales and Parts Department. In addition, there are two separate buildings and the corporation would like to identify both as being the same business. In general, the Board felt that the sign which is being proposed is unnecessary and does not give any additional, pertinent information for conduction of day-to-day business. Also more information is needed as to the actual size of the freestanding sign in the front, and verification of actual setback. Public Hearin¡ OpeDed: no comment Public Bearin¡ Closed Mrs. Goetz read that the Warren County Board approved. Mr. Behr MOVED DISAPPROVAL of Sign Variance No. 1323 for the second wall sign. With the proposed sign for the right hand building, it will adequately advertise all the parts that are available. The existing freestanding sign that has been erected b~ permit, although slightly varying in actual diminsions described in the application, clearly defines that the building behind it is West Mountain Sales. That the present sign on the back building be removed. Seconded by Mrs. Goetz. Passed .Dani.o.sly. 11 Mr. Eppich requested information regarding the removal of the sign on the back bUilding. He wanted to know if the logo sign has to go on the front bUilding. It was clarified that the new sign may be used on the back bUilding. There is to be one wall sign and one free-standing sign, and they can be used at the applicant's discretion. BeAD DISCIJSSION UGAllDIBG SIGB VAllIAKJ:S Mr. Griffin stated his feelings that, unless the Board can get some kind of important action on the sign variances, the Board should not incorporate them into a meeting agenda. Time is being wasted at the meetings because people are not adhering to the variance rules in regards to erecting the signs and, in turn, there has been no enforcement of the rules by the proper authority. In addition, those persons who have abided by the sign variance rules have complained about the those who have illegally-maintained signs. The Board agreed wholeheartedly. Mr. Huller remarked that Steve Borgos, after just a few days in office, said that he wanted to know of any problems, if enforcement was not being done, etc. Mr. Turner said he will go to Hr. Borgos and have the Board's objections made known. He will also inform Mr. Borgos of the serious lack of enforcement of the variances of the sign ordinance. Some of the present signs specifically mentioned as not being in compliance were Blackmere, Jade Palace, Howard Johnson's, D'Ella Pontiac, Hess Gas station. In addition, Mr. Muller pointed out that, while the Board is granting variances or insisting on enforcement, there are new signs going up that are not compliance. Mr. Prime suggested that, in the new resolutions regarding ordinances, there should be a 30-day time period stipulated in which to correct the situation. If no action is taken within the 30 days, then the persons are subject to enforcement. Beyond that nothing can be done, it is up to the Building Department. Regarding Mr. Turner's statement that people say they cannot comply within the 30 days because the contractor was unavail- able, Hr. Prime feels that is just an excuse and that they are not even trying. Mr. Behr felt that a letter from the sign company stating the date of construction would suffice. There should be a fine. Mr. Prime is hoping that the sign ordinance is revised, as part of the Master Plan, and the enforcement area re-addressed. Mr. Muller said that maybe there should be a fine for every daily violation, whatever is con- trary to the ordinance, whatever is contrary to the variance. 12 Mr. Behr MOVED adjournment of the meeting at 9:45 p.m. Seconded by Hr. Turner. Pa88edunaniaously. 2ktt Çl¿wœ<. Theodore Turner, Chairman Minutes typed by Mary Jane F. Moeller, Stenographer 13