Loading...
1989-05-17 ----, \ \ ',-- --- -......."....-" QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING MAY 17,1989 INDEX Interpretation No. 189 Story town USA, l. The Great Escape Use Variance No. 35-1989 Story town USA l. The Great Escape Use Variance No. 38-1989 Janet Somerville 2. Use Variance No. 39-1989 Stefano Fasulo/ 3. Frank's Pizzeria Area Variance No. 42-1989 Robert Eckardt 5. Area Variance No. 46-1989 James and Barbara Coccia 8. Use Variance No. 47-1989 Ernest and Mary Centerbar 9. Area Variance No. 48-1989 Marion G. Creath 9. Area Variance No. 49-1989 Richard Trzaska 10. Sign Variance No. 50-1989 Midon Restaurant Corp. 10. Burger King Corp. ,. '"-~ - ----- -.~.~ QUEENSBUR Y ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING MA Y 17th, 1989 7 :30 PM MEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN SUSAN GOETZ, SECRETARY CHARLES O. SICARD DANIEL GRIFFIN JOYCE EGGLESTON JEFFREY KELLEY TOWN ATTORNEY-PAUL DUSEK JOHN GORALSKI, PLANNER PAT COLLARD, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MEMBERS ABSENT MICHAEL MULLER CORRECTION OF MINUTES April 19, 1989: Page 2, bottom of page, Michael Muller, 2nd sentence, sIb Town Board wants to talk about, Page 2, bottom of page, Mr. Bleibtrey, 1st sentence, next store, sIb next door, Page 3, top of page, 1st sentence, 2nd line, sIb rented out extra spaces, its different than, Page 7, 10th line from the bottom, 1st sentence ,2nd line, that is closes, sIb that is closet, Page 9, last para., 1st sentence, trying to elevate, sIb trying to alleviate, Page 10, middle of page, Michael Muller, 1st sentence, You elevate, sIb You alleviate. RESOLVED TO APPROVE THE MAY 17th, 1989, MINUTES OF THE QUEENSBUR Y ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AS CORRECTED, Introduced by Charles Sicard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jeffrey Kelley: Duly adopted this 17th day of May, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Griffin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. Muller NEW BUSINESS INTERPRETATION NO. 189, LC-42, STORYTOWN USA, INC. D/B/A THE GREAT ESCAPE EAST OF ROUTE 9, BETWEEN ROUND POND ROAD AND GLEN LAKE ROAD SPECIFIC INTERPRETATION: THAT A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY LYING IN THE LC-42 ZONE HAS mSTORICALLY BEEN USED FOR OVERFLOW PARKING. THE REQUEST IS TO CONTINUE THIS USE AND EXP AND IT WITH THE ADDITION OF THE WATER PARK FACILITY. TAX MAP NO. 36-2-3 SECTION 9.010 SUSAN GOETZ-Read letter from Attorney Robert Stewart dated May 16, 1989, asking to have his request for an interpretation withdrawn. (Letter on file) MOTION TO WITHDRAW INTERPRETATION NO. 189 STORYTOWN USA, INC., D/B/A THE GREAT ESCAPE BY REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT, USE VARIANCE NO. 35-1989, LC-42 STORYTOWN USA, INC. D/B/A THE GREAT ESCAPE ROUTE 9, LAKE GEORGE ROAD TO ALLOW A PARKING LOT IN A LC-42 ZONE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 36-2-3 SECTION 4.020 A MOTION TO TABLE USE VARIANCE NO. 35-1989, STORYTOWN USA, D/B/A, THE GREAT ESCAPE,Introduced by Susan Goetz who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: Since the Zoning Board of Appeals is an involved agency in this matter we would like to table this until the SEQRA review by the Queensbury Planning Board is completed. Duly adopted this 17th day of May, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Griffin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Kelley NOES: None 1 ',-- --'....,.'.......... ABSTAIN:Mr. Turner ABSENT:Mr. Muller DISCUSSION HELD MIKE O'CONNOR-Speaking on behalf of the Glen Lake Association. Asked if the request for the variance has been tabled indefinitely until the SEQRA is completed before the Planning Board? SUSAN GOETZ-Yes. As she understands it their will be public notice before this comes up again, asked if this was right? JOHN GORALSKI-There has been public notice. It is not the policy of the planning department to re-notify the involved people when the an application is tabled unless the Board wanted to instruct us to do so. PAUL DUSEK-Stated that this would be in the Board's purgative. MOTION TO INSTRUCT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO READVERTISE AND TO SEND OUT NOTICES TO ANYONE WHO IS WITHIN 500 FEET OF THIS PROJECT AT THAT TlME,lntroduced by Susan Goetz who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: A YES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Griffin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Kelley NOES: None ABSTAIN:Mr. Turner ABSENT:Mr. Muller DISCUSSION HELD MIKE O'CONNOR-Asked that if the applicant was withdrawing the interpretation application because they are now asking staff to make an interpretation, he would like to receive notice or a copy of this determination by staff to reserve his rights of appeal to this Board if he differs to what staff's opinion is as to the determination made. PAUL DUSEK-Stated that he is here to advise the Zoning Administrator, that if she should necessarily agree to that I don't think that it involves this Board, but certainly we can discuss that. MIKE O'CONNOR-Has appeared as a interested party, has a question as to grandfathering. If it comes to a point of a actual determination of grandfathering, thinks that the question is put to the Zoning Administrator. Would like the opportunity to facilitate the decision if possible. OLD BUSINESS USE VARIANCE 38-1989 SFR-lA JANET SOMERVILLE AVIATION ROAD, SECOND HOUSE ON RIGHT AFTER MT. VIEW LANE WILL CONTINUE TO BE A HOME AND RESIDENCE OF SOMERVILLE FAMILY WITH AN OFFICE FOR REAL ESTATE BROKERAGE, GENERAL OFFICE 105 SQ. FT., NO EMPLOYEES. NEEDS A SIGN 12 IN. BY 24 IN. WITH NAME AND OCCUPATION ON IT. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 82-5-21 SECTION 4.020-H LOT SIZE: .516 ACRES JANET SOMERVILLE PRESENT JANET SOMERVILLE-Stated that their was a couple of things that she would like to add. (1) The area is not strictly residential. I am 500 feet from a trailer park. MR. TURNER-Stated that it is still single family residential. JANET SOMERVILLE-Understands this. Their will be no other impact on the Town, other than the sign. MR. TURNER-Stated that an SFR zone is a restricted zone in the Town, it is mainly for single family residential use and no businesses are permitted in there whether its a sign hanging on post, or any other business. It might alter the character of the neighborhood somewhat, feels that a business doesn't belong in a single family residential zone. 2 <,,-.~ -- --. ~. - .-.--' JANET SOMERVILLE-Stated it will not be used as a business, just asking for permission to hang a sign. Doesn't plan on having employees or working there. JOYCE EGGLESTON-Asked what was the object of the sign? JANET SOMERVILLE-Has her brokers license, felt since she had her broker's license she might as well do it through her own brokerage instead of going through someone else's this was the reason for it. Already has her broker's license all I have to is give them a business address and be able to hang the sign. JEFFREY KELLEY-Clarified that he believes its a state law if your are a broker and your operating a business it is mandated that you have a sign. SUSAN GOETZ-Their are certain costs of owning a business and having a business and they can't always be in your home. JANET SOMERVILLE-Stated that it is zone as single residential, but it is not used as one. JEFFREY KELLEY-Another problem is when your talking about a use variance this is the toughest variance of the two that we have their are basically four criteria's which have to meet, and all of them have to be meet in order for us to approve the use variance. One of them that I don't think you meet, that is can the property be used as zoned, you are using as a single family residence serving that purpose. SUSAN GOETZ-Asked her about the sandwich shop she has in Glens Falls? JANET SOMERVILLE-Stated she doesn't own it, she rents it. JEFFREY KELLEY-Asked if she could put the office in the same building? JANET SOMERVILLE-Its to small. CHARLES SICARD-Asked what the sign required? JANET SOMERVILLE-It has to say my name? CHARLES SICARD-Asked if the sign has to be on her residence? JANET SOMERVILLE-It has to be where the office is, and has to be visible from the street. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, (On file) MOTION TO DENY USE VARIANCE NO. 38-1989, JANET SOMERVILLE,lntroduced by Daniel Griffin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Turner: This is a request for a use variance to place a business in a SFR zone. It doesn't meet any of the four requirements for the use variance. It is presently zoned SFR and used as this purpose, the property is not unique their is no hardship. If the change was passed it could change the neighborhood character. By denying this variance the Zoning Board of Appeals, is upholding the spirit of the Ordinance. Duly adopted this 17th day of May, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Griffin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. Muller AREA VARIANCE NO. 39-1989 ], STEFANO FASULO D/BI A FRANKS'S PIZZERIA WEST SIDE OF LAKE GEORGE ROAD BETWEEN DEXTER SHOES AND TROPICANA RESTAURANT FOR AN ADDITION ON THE EXISTING CONCESSION SLAB NOW USED FOR DINING: TO BE ABLE TO USE DURING INCLEMENT WEATHER. THE EXISTING OPEN DINING AREA IS 21 FT. BY 42 FT. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 34-I-ll SECTION 4.020 3 '- '-- - .----- K LOT SIZE: 324 FT. BY 50) FT. ROBERT RUGGLES AGENT FOR STEFANO FASULO/MR. FASULO PRESENT SKETCH SHOWN TO BOARD BOB RUGGLES-Stated that he would like to put an addition on the southside of the restaurant. Feels that it has been a hardship in the sense that they have been using this for many years for outside dining. One of the biggest things is security we have a lot of loss people eating outside and leaving without paying their bill, especially in the summer time. We would like to put an addition on the southside of the building close it in with glass for security reasons and to enable them to serve people better in inclement weather. We don't plan on this increasing the traffic. BOB RUGGLES-Showed to the Board where the glass enclosure is going to be located. Stated that he hasn't come up with a finished design. DAN GRIFFIN-Asked if the driveway goes around to the other side? BOB RUGGLES-There is a lot of parking in the rear. MR. TURNER-Looking for 17 feet of relief, he has to have the minimum of 20 feet. BOB RUGGLES-Plans on enclosing the area that is being used at this time for dining. JEFFREY KELLEY-Asked if he knew the acreage of this property? It is a unique piece of property, it has 50 feet of road frontage, and it 69 feet. . .it a narrow piece of property. BOB RUGGLES-The area that is there it has been used for dining area, we don't plan on enlarging it, we would like to enclose it in. DANIEL GRIFFIN-Are you going to move it closer to the property lines? BOB RUGGLES-The actual construction would not be closer, I might have to dig out a little closer, but I will fill back in again. If this is a problem we could take a foot off it so we wouldn't be any closer than that. This is all parking area on that side for the Tropicana. SUSAN GEOTZ-Asked if they called Mr. Eddy, of the Beautification Committee, and what did he say? MR. F ASULO-I never received the letter that may be why he disapproved it. Another meeting is scheduled for June 12th, 1989, and I will be at this one. JEFFREY KELLEY-Asked how far away is the Tropicana building from this building? BOB RUGGLES-Couldn't tell you that I've never measured it. This addition will be a couple of feet further back from the road than the existing building. JOYCE EGGLESTON-Asked how many feet there is between Tropicana, and Dexter's, and the addition? BOB RUGGLES-Maybe 60 feet. MR. TURNER-Asked if he was adding more than what is there now? BOB RUGGLES-No. Would like to put a little bit of a gable roof on this. JEFFREY KELLEY-We are trying to get as much of the minimum relief as we can. MR. TURNER-Asked how much circulation their was between the tables against the walls and the table. . . MR. FASULO-About 2 feet between the ends of the tables. MR. TURNER-Stated that he was asking for a substantial amount of relief instead of minimum. BOB RUGGLES-Asked if the Board would settle for 2 feet it would make it a little bit deeper? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT 4 .,- --- -,-- PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Letter from Danny Lombardo, owner of Tropicana, not opposing Area Variance No. 42-1989. (on file) Warren County Planning Board approved, (on file) Queensbury Beautification Committee disapproved, because they didn't appear. (on file) Letter from Donald J. White, owner of Small World Shops, opposing Area Variance No. 42-1989. STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner, (on file) DISCUSSION HELD MR. TURNER-Asked if he could build it longer and keep it away from the line? JEFFREY KELLEY -If you cut off 2 feet you be 2 feet off the side you would have to go back 4 í feet to gain the same. DANIEL GRIFFIN-What would be the length of the existing building? BOB RUGGLES-60 to 65 feet. JEFFREY KELLEY-To come up with that same square footage you would come up with a 14! foot extension sideways. MR. TURNER-Asked what could he do if he went with the length of the building with the addition as it is now, how would this fit in? BOB RUGGLES-This would probably work. DANIEL GRIFFIN-Asked if he had considered putting a shed roof on it? BOB RUGGLES-I have considered it, I don't like the looks of it. A gable roof is on the existing building. JEFFREY KELLEY-Asked if they came out 4! feet on the side this is going to give us 9í on on this side. If you go all the way back you would end up with roughly the same square footage. JOYCE EGGLESTON-Asked where would the entrance be to this? BOB RUGGLES-If would have to be in the rear. JEFFREY KELLEY-Stated that the only way do to this would be to redesign it. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 39-1989, STEFANO FASULO,lntroduced by Jeffrey Kelley who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: This is approval for a request for an area variance on the southside of the property. The reason that we want to approve this is that the property is unique in shape and size, its a small lot with 50 feet of road frontage. At its widest portion of the property it is not more than 69.3 feet. The applicant has demonstrated that he would like to propose an existing patio area which is now in use. The original application was for a 3 foot southside setback, in lieu of this, this would be approval for a 10 foot setback on the southside of the property. We will allow the applicant to extend towards the rear of the building as far as he wants to go as long as it doesn't extend beyond the present building. There will be no increase in traffic or business, this is currently used as outdoor eating and he wants to use this in inclement weather. EAF form shows no negative impact. Mr. Fasulo will be attending the June 12, 1989 Queensbury Beautification Committee meeting. Duly adopted this 17th day of May, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Griffin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. Muller AREA VARIANCE NO. 42-1989, WR-lA, ROBERT ECKARDT ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD, NORTHERLY 5 ~'- -- '- - ---..--- ALONG ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD FOR ONE MILE, FIRST HOUSE ON THE WATER ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE, GRAY IN COLOR IMMEDIATELY ADJANCET TO BLUE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY WATER STORAGE TANK APPLICANT WISHES TO REMOVE SOME DETERIORATED PORTIONS OF AN EXISTING DECK AND PORCH AND CONSTRUCT NEW DECKS (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 8-2-6 SECTION 7.012 A3 LOT SIZE: 50 FT. BY 160 FT. MARK O'CONNOR REPRESENTING ROBERT ECKARDT SUSAN GEOTZ-Read letter from Whitney Russell, Code Enforcement Officer, to Zoning Board members, dated April 10, 1989. (on file) Letter from Dave Hatin, Director of Building and Codes, dated April 4, 1989. (on file) MARK O'CONNOR-Mr. Eckardt purchased the property in August of 1988. Showed to the Board the property as it existed when Mr. Eckardt purchased the property at it time. This is the main house there is an existing wall out from the house and the porch is existing off that. There was a deck on the lower level. The lay of the house is more less flat going into what is the back of the house and slopes down towards the front of the house. MR. TURNER-Asked if the deck he was speaking of is lower than that, it appears to be now a piece of structure that you left you have overlays laid on top of that. MARK O'CONNOR-That is correct. On the second deck is an extension of what was there initially when Mr. Eckardt brought the property. JEFFREY KELLEY-Asked that the area that has the preexisting deck is that the part that is a little different in color? MARK O'CONNOR-That's correct. MR. ECKARDT-Stated that this deck was build out which he torn down. The deck is actually extending right to the stairway. On the other plan the boathouse which was approved would go back right to the water line. MARK O'CONNOR-Stated that Mr. Eckardt, did apply to the Lake George Park Commission for a permit to construct a boathouse. JOYCE EGGLESTON-Asked if this was all new construction? MR. ECKARDT-16 feet. Mr. Eckardt explained to Mrs. Goetz, what piece existed and what was added on. SUSAN GOETZ-Asked if the boathouse was going to have to come back in for a variance? PAT COLLARD-It will have to come back for a variance and site plan review. JOYCE EGGLESTON-Asked if the applicant built these decks himself? MR. ECKARDT-Yes, and also with his son. MRS. GEOTZ-Asked him if he knew that their are certain permits? MR. ECKARDT-Stated that you do not need a permit to build a deck. MRS. GOETZ-Explained that you have to go to the Town when building something to find out what's required. MR. ECKARDT-When I went to apply for the boathouse permit I went there as soon as I bought the house and no one told me that I had to come to the Town of Queensbury, even for the boathouse until I got the final approval from the Park Commission, then I was told that I had to go to the Town of Queensbury, for site approval. This I didn't know until I got the permit. DANIEL GRIFFIN-Asked about the building permit, did he know that he needed one? MR. ECKARDT-Didn't think that he needed one for a deck. Thought he only had to have the permit for the boathouse which most of the deck would be on the top of the boat house this is when I did get the permit from the Park Commission, which was approved. Started this procedure in September. MARK O'CONNOR-Stated that we do acknowledge that he did not follow the proper procedures, but it was a good faith error. Mr. Eckardt, did use his own labor, and about $5,000 worth of materials to erect this structure. Thinks that this would present a difficulty in the most practical sense. Proposed that Mr. Eckardt, would agree to take out the most northerly section and 6 -, - - ~---- request a variance for the section coming directly out from where it existed before. BRIEF DISCUSSION AMONG BOARD MEMBERS AND MR. ECKARDT AND MARK O'CONNOR MR. ECKARDT-Stated that if the boathouse was built he would still need 3 to 5 feet to get on it. This property drops off without a deck I can't use it and the house is close to the water. MRS. GOETZ-It is a self imposed hardship. MARK O'CONNOR-The upper deck is on the main level of the house coming directly off the existing porch in a direct line 22.6 feet in a southerly direction basically it has a effect of squaring off the front of the house it doesn't extend or encroach further in towards the lake. Requested that a variance be given to maintain as it exists. Their was a questions as to the building of a stockade fence, (Mr. Eckardt explained to the board where the fence is located), but this is to block the lights from the cars at night. JOHN GORALSKI-Stated that he wasn't sure that the fence is mentioned on the application. SUSAN GOETZ-Asked if this would be a separate variance? PAT COLLARD-I would think so, as well as the boathouse. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DON READ-Cleverdale, representing Lake George Association. We normally don't get involved in projects like this, but this seemed prominent. It is in a prominent part of the lake, and its very visible, and we thought it was something we should get involved in. I think first of all, we would not like to see the Board set certain precedents as this, because I think in a matter of 3 to 4 months you probably would have a dozen more projects here with completed items, on people with perhaps better reasons for having to approve it after it was done. I also like to point out that prevention of this kind of structure is what the Town Ordinances are all about. This particularly would seem also not to involve a hardship, it was built as you know without a permit. I think ignorance is not a proper excuse for having built this without a building permit. As far as being detrimental to the visual character of the shore perhaps the best way you could see that of the opportunity to present it in itself would be to go out on the lake to see it on the lake side because that's where most of it shows. If anybody needs ride, I would be delighted to take them. I certainly would be disappointed if the Board should consider that this is an appropriate thing to approve and I am very much in support of the Board members who feel that this is one of the very things we should try to be preventing along this shore of the lake. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ECKARDT-Showed pictures to the Board. CORRESPONDENCE Warren County Planning Board disapproved. Based on the fact that Mr. Eckardt, had already built in violation. (On file) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Planner (See attached) MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 42-1989, ROBERT ECKARDT,lntroduced by Jeffrey Kelley who moved for its adoption, seconded by Susan Goetz: Refer to letter from Lee York, Town Planner, in it's entirety as to why we are denying this variance. (1) The application has a preexisting dock, porch, and deck enabling him reasonable use of the property, we aren't denying him use of the lake by maintaining what he had previously. Our Ordinance guides us and suggests that it has great visual impact on the neighborhood, and isn't in keeping with the neighborhood character. The area will be from the 75 foot lake setback requirement, this proposal deals with zero setback and there is building out over the water. This is contradictory to what the Ordinance tells us, their is no positive reason for granting this variance. The short EAF form there is a negative answer on line 6 of the form submitted so it does not meet the criteria for no negative impact. Duly adopted this 17th day of May, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Griffin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Turner 7 '"- - -"-..- NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. Muller AREA VARIANCE NO. 46-1989 SFR-lA, JAMES AND BARBARA COCCIA 2 WIDTE PINE ROAD, CORNER OF WIDTE PINE AND WILLOW ROADS (THE PINES) FOR AN ADDITION OF AN INGROUND SWIMMING POOL ON A CORNER LOT, SITUATED BEIDND AND SLIGHTLY BESIDE THE HOUSE TO BE ABLE TO FIT INTO THE PROPERTY. TAX MAP NO. 90-8-64 SECTION 7.074 4B LOT SIZE 25,160 SQ. FT. JAMES COCCIA PRESENT JAMES COCCIA-Stated this is a corner lot, we are stuck. DANIEL GRIFFIN-Is the 50 feet. . . JAMES COCCIA-From the pool to where the side of the property is it is another 50 feet. MR. TURNER-Asked if it was 190 feet of total lot? JAMES COCCIA-No. 170 feet. JEFFREY KELLEY-Asked if he was 41 feet from he street? JAMES COCCIA-The house is 41 feet from the street, to where the pool is going to be is about 60 feet back from the property line. MR. TURNER-Stated that he is 107 feet on Willow Road. CHARLES SICARD-Asked if he was going to fence the pool? JAMES COCCIA-The fence will be out 4 feet from the pool, with a 4 foot patio, about 10 feet from the back. It will be chain link and privacy slats, possible privacy across the front. Spoke with all the neighbors individually no one has any problems with it. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (See attached) DISCUSSION HELD JEFFREY KELLEY-Stated that the numbers don't seem to add up. Asked what was the actual distance from the rear of the property line to the pool? JAMES COCCIA-75 feet. I have plenty of room in the back. JEFFREY KELLEY-You are still within the Ordinance. MR. TURNER-Asked what the front property line was? JAMES COCCIA-148 feet. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE 46-1989, JAMES AND BARBARA COCCIA,lntroduced by Daniel Griffin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Turner: The applicant has demonstrateà practical difficulty there is no other place on the property to place the pool, they can't go to the southeast side the septic system is there, and no room on the other side. There is no adverse neighborhood impact, there will be a 4 foot fence around the pool. The pool will be situated approximately 60 feet from the northerly property line on the White Pine Road, and approximately 50 feet to the west property line. The short EAF form has no negative impact. Duly adopted this 17th day of May, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Griffin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Turner 8 " -- -'--'..- NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. Muller USE VARIANCE NO. 47-1989 SR-lA ERNEST G. MARY L. CENTERBAR, SR. UPPER SHERMAN A VENUE, APPROX. THREE MILES PAST CITY LIMIT SIGN ON SHERMAN A VENUE APPLICANTS WOULD LIKE TO START A FLEA MARKET ON SATURDAYS AND SUNDAYS FROM 9 A.M. TO 6 P.M. THEY WOULD RENT TABLES TO VENDORS TO SELL ASSORTED ITEMS. ALL TRAFFIC WOULD BE OFF SHERMAN A VENUE AND ONLY DURING SUMMER MONTHS. TAX MAP NO. 121-4-5.1 SECTION 4.020 LOT SIZE: 60.53 ACRES ERNEST AND MARY CENTERBAR PRESENT MR. TURNER-Explained that the use goes with the land it has nothing to do with personal hardships. SUSAN GOETZ-Stated that his could be a subdivision. MRS. CENTERBAR-Stated that the only problem is that you need a lot of money up front. It seems unreasonable to have 60 acres and not be able to do anything with it. MR. SICARD-Stated that if they wanted to make an application to rezone, it has to go to the Town Board. MR. TURNER-The Zoning Board cannot rezone because we are restrained by the Ordinance as to what we can do. You cannot meet the criteria for a use variance. JEFFREY KELLEY-Asked how many times you could subdivide? JOHN GORALSKI-Explained that every time that you subdivide your land you have to go through the subdivision process. If you have 60 acres in a I acre zone conceivably you could subdivide into 60 lots. As far as to how many times you could do it, you could do it as many times as you like. BOARD-Suggested that they should talk to the Planning Department. WITHDRAW USE VARIANCE NO. 47-1989, ERNEST G. AND MARY L. CENTERBAR, SR. BY REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT. AREA VARIANCE NO. 48-1989 SR-lA, MARION G. CREATH BEDFORD CLOSE, CORINTH ROAD (WEST FROM EXIT 18 OF 1-87), APPROX. 2 MILES TO REVERE ROAD, TAKE RIGHT AT REVERE ROAD AND GO TO END (STOP SIGN) TURN LEFT ON NORTH CHURCH (1ST HOUSE ON RIGHT) FOR AN ADDITION OF A SUN PORCH 15 FT. BY 20 FT. OFF OF THE LMNG ROOM (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 125-4-29 SECTION 4.020 (SETBACK) LOT SIZE: 20,850 SQ. FT. MARION CREATH PRESENT MARION CREATH-Find that the house is encroached into the setback. MR. TURNER-Asked if he bought this, or is it a new house. MARION CREATH-Stated that the property was bought I! years ago. I was unaware that it was not sighted properly. SUSAN GOETZ-The house right next door to his, I talked with them and they have no problem with this. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Warren County Planning approved. (On file) STAFF INPUT 9 II -- ---" - --' -- Notes from John Goralski, Planner, (On file) MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 48-1989 MARION CREATH,Introduced by Mr. Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: Practical difficulty is the sighting of the house on the property. With the amenities in the house this would be the only location to build the house for the sun porch. Duly adopted this 17th day of May, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Griffin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. Muller AREA VARIANCE NO. 49-1989 SFR-lA RICHARD TRZASKA COURTHOUSE ESTATES CORNER OF NELSON AND NORTHWOODS ROAD FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE F AMIL Y RESIDENCE. REQUESTING VARIANCE ON SIDELINE SETBACK OF 10 FT. TAX MAP NO. 37-4-4 SECTION 4.040-H LOT SIZE: 95 FT. by 157 FT. RICHARD TRZASKA PRESENT MR. TURNER-Stated that the only other thing to do would be to build a smaller house. JEFFREY KELLEY-Asked if this was a one story or two story, couldn't tell by the plans? MR. TRZASKA-This takes into consideration the garage which sticks out on the property which takes a section out of the house. JOYCE EGGLESTON-Asked if this was a house he was going to live in, not sell? MR. TRZASKA-Yes. MR. TURNER-It is a preexisting subdivision now he is stuck with the new regulations. MR. TRZASKA-Stated that this portion is Phase I, of Courthouse Estates. This is the portion that dates back to the 60'S. Meet with the neighbors in the other house and across the street, we walked the lot and they have no problem with this. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, (On file) MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 49-1989 RICHARD TRZASKA,Introduced by Daniel Griffin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Turner: This is a small lot in the first Phase of Courthouse Estates, this is one of the smallest lots there. It cannot meet the setback requirements, the house can't be made smaller, this is the practical difficulty. Their is no neighborhood objection, and their seems to be no problem with the effect on neighborhood character. Duly adopted this 17th day of May, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Griffin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. Muller SIGN VARIANCE NO. 50-1989 PC-lA MID ON RESTAURANT CORPORATION BURGER KING CORPORATION AVIATION ROAD PROPOSAL FOR A 4 FT. by 8 FT. CHANGEABLE READER BOARD SIGN THAT WILL BE ATTACHED TO THE EXISTING 8 FT. BY 8 FT. FREESTANDING SIGN. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 98-5-4.2 SECTION SIGN ORDINANCE LOT SIZE: N I A 10 ~._~ APPLICANT NOT PRESENT SUSAN GOETZ-Read letter from Chaz Betz, District Manager of Midon Restaurant Corporation, dated April 25th, 1989. (On file) MR. TURNER-Stated that Sign No.1, on the front page of the application is two feet over in height. CORRESPONDENCE Warren County Planning Board disapproved, because the Board does not want to set a precedent of granting sign variances because of lack of business. (On file) Letter from Robert Eddy, opposing sign variance No. 50-1989. (On file) MOTION TO DISAPPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 50-1989 MIDON RESTAURANT CORPORATION, BURGER KING CORPORATlON,Introduced by Charles Sicard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Susan Goetz: The amount of the traffic in the area is bad, any more signs would make the traffic situation worse. Duly adopted this 17th day of May, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Griffin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. Muller On motion the meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED Theodore Turner, Chairman 11 """ ~ r'" : f- «-.... ~n~ ¡ ..".f"'i ¡: ". , -\;,¡ij "- " f; TOWN OF QUEENSBURY Bay at Haviland Road, Queensbury, NY 12804-9725-518-792-5832 May IS, 1989 NOTE TO FILE LEE YORK, PLANNER Application Number: Area Variance 42-1989 Applicant/Project Name: Robert Eckardt This variance request is for relief from the shoreline setbacks from Lake George. The applicant wishes to attach a deck from his residence to a stake dock and boat house which extend into the Lake. The Director of Building and Codes and Staff have sub- mitted letters and pictures of what has recently occured on the site. It appears that the applicant was in violation of our ordinance in that he constructed a fence and docks without any site plan review, variances or building permits from the Town. Upon the request of David Hatin, the applicant submitted an application for a variance for the decks which are already in existence and a deck extension which will link the top of the proposed boathouse. According to Mr. Hatin's letter the applicant was also requested to apply for a variance for the fence which was constructed. The fence will have to be applied for on a separate application. Because of the difficulty in visualizing the modifica- tions which have already taken place and the proposed changes, I have color coded the file maps for your use. The applicant must demonstrate that the regulations would cause a practical difficulty. The criteria are as follows: I) How substantial the variance is 1n relation to the requirement. The requirement is a 75 foot set back from a lake shore. (Section 7.012). The applicant will maintain o setbacks. The piers for his deck are in the water over his dock. 2) The potential effect of increased density on public facilities and services. "HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY. . . A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE" SETTLED 1763 - - FiLE CO, TOWN OF QUEENSBURY Bay at Haviland Road, Queensbury, NY 12804-9725-518-792-5832 There is no proposed increase 1n density. 3) There are special circumstances or conditions applying to the property which would deprive the applicant of a reasonable use of the property. There are no special circumstances existing on the property which would preclude the reasonable use of such. The applicant resides on the property. There were pre- existing decks and docks which allowed the applicant the permitted use of his lake shore property. 4) That the strict application of said dimensional requirements would result in a practical difficulty to the applicant or otherwise conflict with the purpose of any plan or policy of the Town. The plan presented by the applicant shows no practical difficulty. The applicant had full use of a patio, a dock, and two preexisting docks. The current request is to extend the decks from the house over the boat house, out into the lake approximately 40 feet. The proposal is in conflict with the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance: I) Section 4.020-d Waterfront Residential; Purpose - To protect the delicate ecological balance of all lakes and the Hudson River while providing adequate opportunities for development that would not be detrimental to the visual character of the shoreline and Section 4.020-d minimum yard setbacks, Section 4.020-d Site Plan Review, Type II. 2) Article 7.- Section 7.012 Shoreline setbacks 3) The proposed comprehensive Land Use Plan (Master Plan) Water Resources - goals and strategies. The applicant should be aware that he must also satisfy the requirements of the Adirondack Park Agency. LY/pw "HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY. . . A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE" SETTLED 1763