1989-12-20
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 20TH, 1989
INDEX
APPLICANT PAGE
Area Variance No. 121-1989 Elizabeth Perkins 1
Area Variance No. 137-1989 James R. Davies 2
Area Variance No. 138-1989 Herbert & Margaret Kane 8
Use Variance No. 139-1989 Richard McGill 9
Area Variance No. 140-1989 Frank & Kathleen England 12
Area Variance No. 141-1989 John N. Boomer 14
Area Variance No. 142-1989 Michael Saleem 17
Sign Variance No. 143-1989 NYS Entertainment 22
dlbla Blockbuster Video
Area Variance No. 144-1989 James E. Liedtke 30
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF
REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND
WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES.
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 20, 1989
7:35 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN
SUSAN GOETZ, SECRETARY
JOYCE EGGLESTON
BRUCE CARR
CHARLES SICARD
MICHAEL MULLER
JEFFREY KELLEY
TOWN ATTORNEY-PAUL DUSEK
DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY-KARLA CORPUS
STUART BAKER, ASSISTANT PLANNER
PAT COLLARD, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
NEW BUSINESS
AREA VARIANCE NO. 129-1989 TYPE II WR-1A ELIZABETH PERKINS OFF PILOT KNOB ROAD,
TAKE DIRT ROAD ON LAKESIDE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 6 FT. BY 12 FT. DOCK AND STAIRS
(ADDITION). THE ADDITION WOULD ENCROACH UPON THE REQUIRED SETBACKS FROM THE LAKE.
(WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) (ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY) TAX MAP NO. 19-1-39.1, 39.2
LOT SIZE: 2± ACRES SECTION 7.012
JOHN MASON, AGENT FOR ELIZABETH PERKINS, PRESENT
MR. TURNER-Asked if Mr. Mason wanted to elaborate on application.
MR. MASON-Stated no. The application is explains itself, but he would answer any
questions the Board had.
MR. TURNER-Asked if this were a year round residence?
MR. MASON-Stated this was a seasonal residence. The additions are being planned
only to separate those areas, that and the utility area and trying to get garbage
storage and the laundry off that front screen porch.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
CORRESPONDENCE
Warren County Planning Board approved.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Stuart Baker, Assistant Planner (on file)
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 129-1989 ELIZABETH PERKINS, Introduced by
Jeffrey Kelley who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner:
The applicant has shown that there is no adverse effect on the neighborhood. No
adverse effect on public facilities and there are no feasible alternatives since
the entire building is located within the 75 foot shoreline setback and they're
asking for a minimum addition to this house and specified that it will be used
still seasonally. It doesn I t seem to be a bad request. They filed a short EAF
form and there is no negative comments in regards to that.
AYES: Mr. Kel1ey, Mr. Muller, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr,
Mr. Turner
NOES: NONE
I
AREA VARIANCE NO. 137-1989 TYPE II WR-1A JAMES R. DAVIES WEST SIDE OF ASSEMBLY
POINT ROAD, .3 HILES FROM ROUTE 9L, FIRST HOUSE ON THE LEFT PAST BRAYTON LANE.
FOR REMOVAL AND RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING BOATHOUSE AND DOCK. SHED TO BE ADDED
FOR STORAGE. DOCK EXTENSION WILL INCREASE THE ENCROACHMENT UPON THE REQUIRED SIDE
SETBACK. SHED WILL ALSO ENCROACH UPON SAME SETBACK. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING)
(ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY) TAX MAP NO. 6-1-12 LOT SIZE: 55 FT. BY 165 FT. SECTION
7.012 (Ale)
JIM DAVIES PRESENT
MR. DAVIES-Stated he has nothing more to add to the application except to point
out that he has spoken, on several occasions, most recently today, to his neighbor
to the south, Bob Wall, he has expressed no objections to the application. He
requires the variance because the extension of his southerly lot line out onto
the lake is where the dock is and is a required 15 ft. side yard setback. He is
just about on that line, in fact, the end of his dock encroaches over 6/l0th of
a foot. The proposal will make it encroach over slightly more, about 7/l0th of
a foot. The neighbor effected by this, Bob and Linda Wall, have no objection,
they are fully in support of it.
MRS. GOETZ-Asked if the applicant went to the Warren County Planning Board?
MR. DAVIES-Stated the County
had a comment amounting to a
to the deck that's proposed.
to get to the deck.
recommended approval of the variance request. They
recommended disapproval of the proposed ramp leading
He explained that there was no other practical way
MRS. GOETZ-Stated he had said he needed a longer dock because of the size of the
boat.
MR. DAVIES-Stated yes, it's a short dock to begin with.
MRS. GOETZ-Asked if the width of the boat had anything to do with it?
MR. DAVIES-No.
MRS. GOETZ-Asked if he were going to widen the slip?
MR. DAVIES-No.
MRS. GOETZ-Asked if he were just making it longer?
MR. DAVIES-Stated it's a 25 foot boat, not a large boat. Right now, it sticks
out about 3 or 4 feet. He has incurred some damage to the boat. The lake can
be very rough right there. He has had the swim platform actually broken off the
back of the boat. He believes, if he were able to shelter it better, this kind
of thing wouldn't happen. It does stick out.
MRS. GOETZ-Asked where the boat was when she did the site inspection?
MR. DAVIES-Stated there is ice on the lake, it sits on a trailer.
MRS. GOETZ-Stated usually you would have it pulled up.
MR. DAVIES-Stated not if you're going to tear it down.
MRS. GOETZ-Stated if you wanted to tear it down.
MR. DAVIES-Stated he planned to tear down the whole structure right down to the
water line and rebuild it. It's very old. It's rotten. As matter of fact, he
has had it hoisted. Last year he had the boat hoisted and he was told by the fellow
who did it that he probably couldn't do it again because the structure wasn't strong
enough. They were very reluctant to even do it that year.
MR. TURNER-Asked if there were a crib under the dock.
MR. DAVIES-Stated yes, but he didn't plan to crib any further. The extension will
be ....
MR. TURNER-Asked where the ramp will be(referring to map submitted) since he didn't
show this.
2
MR. DAVIES-Stated he didn't show this because he didn't think it was that
significant. He has made a sketch which he could show them at this time. This
is an elevation sketch. The way the topography of the land is there is a relatively
short ramp and it would be almost impossible and certainly impractical to try to
build another stairway going up after there is one coming down. It would not be
appropriate or reasonable. That ramp should show a railing which would be a
continuation. There is going to be a railing on the deck. It would have the same
railing effect as the rest of the railing on the deck.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Stated she had been told by Mr. Davies when she did the site
inspection that when he bought this place, about a year ago, that it was advertised
with a boat house that would fit a 22~ foot boat.
MR. DAVIES-Asked what size?
MRS. EGGLESTON-Stated 22~?
MR. DAVIES-Stated 24.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Stated 24.
MR. DAVIES-Stated it might have been 22~, he wasn't sure.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Stated he bought it knowing this and wasn't it kind of like a self
imposed hardship, if he would cal1 it that.
MR. DAVIES-Stated he bought his home as a year round home, spent a pretty good
buck for it, and he didn't buy it based on the length of his boat. Self-imposed
are fair to take into consideration when they're really self-imposed hardships.
First of all, he was trying to show a practical difficulty, which he believes is
required for an area variance. He doesn't think it would be fair to deny him
reasonable use of his boat because the house he wanted had a dock that was slightly
too smaIl for it.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Stated when she was there, she walked to the end of his dock and
looked up and down, and said to Mr. Davies, his dock was in line with the docks
on either side of him, she even looked at the shoreline to see if maybe his shoreline
was out further. She didn't find that. She looked up and down and they were all
in line with one another and he was proposing to go further out into the water.
MR. DAVIES-Stated his neighbor to the south, Bob Wall, has a 30 foot boat which
is fully enclosed in his boat house, his boat dock. He spoke to Mr. Wall today
and asked him how long his dock was. He said he couldn't remember if it was 36
or 40. What he was proposing was a 34 foot dock in length. His is much larger
in all respects.
MR. TURNER-Asked, Pat Collard, if she considered this a boat house? Would it go
for site plan review?
MRS. COLLARD-Stated she would consider it a boat house and it would go for site
plan review.
MR. MULLER-Asked what the maximum length of the dock was?
MRS. COLLARD-Stated it was 40 feet.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Asked if Mr. Davies had anything in writing from his neighbor that
he has no objection to the encroachment.
MR. DAVIES-Stated no, but assured her that his neighbor told him on several occasions
he doesn't mind the encroachment and is looking forward to having something a little
more attractive next door to him.
MR. MULLER-Asked if it would be an unreasonable imposition of this Board if they
asked Mr. Davies and Mr. Wall to enter into some little agreement that could provide
for that encroachment?
MR. DAVIES-Stated it's not really an encroachment, that is in sofar as the zoning
ordinance is concerned, of course the waters and land beneath the waters belong
to the State of New York. He assume he could get something in writing from them.
3
MR. MULLER-Stated he didn't
New York. He believes Mr.
class battle over so called
that mess.
want Mr. Davies
Davies is aware
reparian rights.
to get something from the State of
that sometimes people start a first
He didn I t want to get the Board in
MR. KELLEY-Asked if the boat wére 25 feet?
MR. DAVIES-Yes.
MR. KELLEY-Asked if the swim platform were 50 beyond that or was that included.
MR. DAVIES-Stated he believes the swim platform was probably beyond that another
25 feet.
MR. KELLEY-Stated that could be another foot and a half.
MR. DAVIES-Yes.
MR. KELLEY-Stated what he was 100king at was he has a 34 foot proposed dock and
he takes 27 feet away from it, that leaves 7 feet up at the bow end of the building.
Asked what is the approximate depth of the water right on the shoreline or does
it drop off.
MR. DAVIES-Stated he saw what Mr. Kelley was getting at. The depth is probably
adequate. The bow of the boat is what is there and it doesn't require a great
deal of depth at that point. The fact is, you've got to have about 5 feet of dock
between the land and where the boat slip starts. Then you I ve got to have another
at least 2 or 3 feet to make sure the bow of your boat is not going to be crashing
against the dock. This is 7 feet right there.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Asked how wide the platform? She believes that was quite wide.
Would there be any possibility of narrowing that a little bit.
MR. DAVIES-Stated this would be possible, but it would be less attractive. They're
talking about inches.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Asked if it would be unnoticeable?
MR. DAVIES-Stated it would be a 10t more noticeable than building it the way they
propose.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Asked how wide is the walk around the boat slip?
MR. DAVIES-Stated he couldn't narrow it, because he wasn't going to change his
cribbing. Everything underwater is going to stay.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Stated his plans say demolish and rebuild.
MR. DAVIES-Stated from the water level up, not the entire structure.
was not going to touch the cribs.
Stated he
MRS. EGGLESTON-Asked Mr. Davies to please answer her question how wide it is?
MR. DAVIES-Stated it should be indicated on the drawing. Each finger is 6 feet
wide. The proposed extension is 4 ft. by 6 ft. wide.
MR. KELLEY-Asked, in reference to Mr. Davies 14ft. by 6 ft. storage shed that's
proposed, what did he plan to do with it?
MR. DAVIES-Stated oars, paddles, boat cushions, water skies, the usual kinds of
things you don't want to have to trudge up and down to the house.
MR. MULLER-Asked, on Mr. Davies plans drawing number BH4A, where it looks in the
lower right hand corner, has an internalized view of what this will look like,
the cap over the dock, it says 2 ft. by 6 ft. rafters?
MR. DAVIES-Yes.
MR. MULLER-Stated he was interested in the overhang.
the dock platform?
Is the drip edge even with
MR. DAVIES-Asked if he meant the edge of the dock?
4
MR. MULLER-Yes. Does it extend out any further?
MR. DAVIES-Stated no. It was a very short overhang.
MR. TURNER-Asked if it overhangs the walkway?
MR. DAVIES-Stated it might in the front.
MR. TURNER-Asked in the front, but not on the sides?
MR. DAVIES-Yes.
MR. MULLER-Stated if they were standing on the outer edge of his 6 foot wide dock,
facing Mr. Wall's. You would not have a roof overhead it would be behind us?
Stated he was trying to find out if the drip edge and our dock outline are in the
same line.
MR. DAVIES-Stated no they were not. It comes out not more than a foot or so beyond
where the posts are.
MR. MULLER-Stated Mr. Davies idea of the finished Project is that the dock is not
completely covered by roof.
MR. DAVIES-Stated not at all. It was more for appearance.
MR. MULLER-Asked as they go out, the 4 foot extension, does the roof continue out
over the new little legs on each side?
MR. DAVIES-Yes.
MR. MULLER-Asked if it stops at some point, even before the leading edge of the
dock?
MR. DAVIES-Stated yes, right at the edge,
MR. MULLER-Asked if Mr. Davies were out more than 34 feet with his roof?
MR. DAVIES-Stated he probably was.
MR. MULLER-Asked, he was out 35 feet tops?
MR. DAVIES-Yes.
MRS. GOETZ-Asked about couunent made that he or someone frowns upon changing docks
that are already in place. Asked more about this.
MR, CARR-Stated Mr. Davies was saying that if he has to move the cribbing, it would
disturb the bottom of the lake and there's a 10t of machinery and a 10t of work
that would be involved in physically moving into the middle of the property. It
would be better for the ecology of the lake just to leave the cribbing where it
is and build on top of it, above the waterline. Tear down to the water line and
build above instead of having to tear out the cribs that are there and then replace
them.
MRS. GOETZ-Asked if that is what he thought their policy was or was it one of their
set policies?
MR. CARR-Stated when his father tried to build a dock up on Lake George, they didn't
want him to remove cribbing at all.
MRS. GOETZ-Stated they should be aware of the environmental aspect.
MR. DAVIES-Stated this was his understanding.
MRS. GOETZ-Stated she realized it would cost him a great deal more money to do
it the other was. She was sure that was a big factor.
MR. DAVIES-Stated it shouldn' t really be necessary. It
with the drawings you have, it doesn't appear to encroach
His dock is pretty far away from this. It's not as
together. The neighbor consents whole heartedly to it.
may be hard to visualize
on the southerly neighbor.
though they're j auuned in
5
MRS. GOETZ-Stated that Mr. Davies was lucky that there was that sense because he
was right on the property line and it was only 55 feet on the lake.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
CORRESPONDENCE
Warren County Planning Board approved the variance but not the walkway.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Stuart Baker, Assistant Planner (on file)
MR. TURNER-Asked about the County's objection to the walkway.
MRS. GOETZ-Stated she believed they were talking about the walkway that goes up
to the roof of the proposed dock.
MR. DAVIES-Asked if they were talking about the County Planning Board?
MRS. GOETZ-Yes. Stated Mr. Turner thought it was the walkway around the dock?
MR. DAVIES-Stated it was the one shown on the sketch.
MR. BAKER-Stated it was the ramp they disapproved of.
MR. DAVIES-Agreed it was the ramp that went straight across.
MR. CARR-Asked what they wanted Mr. Davies to do to get to the back. Asked did
they not want him to build in back.
MR. DAVIES-Stated he really couldn I t get an answer to that. Stated he told them
that the only alternative would be to build some kind of a stairway half way down
and then half way up again because there was just not room on the dock itself to
build another full stairway. It's really the only sunny spot on his property where
the dock was because there were huge oak trees right in front of the deck he has
in front of his house. It gets sun sometimes and sometimes not.
MR. MULLER-Asked if this variance were approved, would it before site pIan.
MRS. COLLARD-Stated yes, it would go before the Planning Board.
MR. MULLER-Stated if this variance were granted, it was unimportant whether this
Board takes the position one way or the other with the 4 ft. by 6 ft. shed. No
variance is needed for that.
MRS. COLLARD-Stated she was of the op~n~on that the shed was a structure and should
be built 75 feet from the shoreline.
MR. KELLEY-Stated that's where, is it a boat house or is it a dock, comes in.
MRS. COLLARD-Stated whether it was a boat house or a dock, it still had to go before
the Planning Board.
MR. TURNER-Asked how you come up with the adage that it needs for relief from the
75 foot shoreline setback?
MRS. COLLARD-Stated she considered that to be a structure separate from the boat
house.
MR. MULLER-Asked if Mr. Davies were to build a 4 ft. by 6 ft. box that was not
attached, it just happens to sit there like a barbecue, then that's not a structure
because it's not attached.
MRS. COLLARD-Asked, not attached to the boat house?
MR. MULLER-Stated not attached to the ground.
6
'-....-
,_..-'"
MRS. COLLARD-Stated not attached to the ground.
MR. MULLER-Stated it's not attached to anything.
it couldn't even be assessed.
It's not a permanent structure,
MRS. COLLARD-Agreed.
MR. MULLER-Asked if they had to nail this thing to the dock.
MR. DAVIES-Stated he didn't want it to blow over, but he saw what Mr. Muller was
getting at. Stated he couldn' t imagine all these little sheds which are almost
automatic with most of the boat houses, that everyone has needed variances.
MRS. COLLARD-Asked if it were permanent.
MR. DAVIES-Stated he intended it to be a fairly permanent structure.
of the dock, not like a separate structure.
It's part
MRS. GOETZ-Asked, the Wall' s next door, they have a new one, box, and they also
have a walkway, why wasn't this addressed when they built that, similar.
MR. DAVIES-Stated he didn't know if it was or was not.
MRS. COLLARD-Stated she was researching the structure, and noticing in the ordinance
that an accessory use structure is less than 100 sq. ft. it wouldn't need the set
back variance.
MR. MULLER-Asked, that's not an important issue?
MRS. COLLARD-Correct.
MR. MULLER-Asked if they were to grant this variance, they wouldn' t have to reach
the question whether or not the ramp it a good idea?
MRS. COLLARD-No.
MR. BAKER-Stated that would be discussed at site pIan review.
MRS. COLLARD-Agreed.
MR. MULLER-Asked, he doesn't need a variance for the ramp?
MRS. COLLARD-Stated he doesn't need a variance for the ramp.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 137-1989 JAMES DAVIES, Introduced by Michael
Muller who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard:
Suggesting that it's worthy of approval and that the relief sought is minimal relief
necessary to preserve several property rights. The applicant has a reasonable
explanation on why the dock must be lengthened by four feet to accommodate a boat
that's not an unreasonably large boat and rely upon the fact that a dock can be
placed at that 10cation that is 40 feet in length. There has been testimony that
this dock and the roof overhang will be 35 feet out from the shoreline. This is
certainly reasonably within the length limitations. The dock has some preexisting
aspects to it, however, created with or without a permit. Certainly this applicant
didn't do anything to put the dock where it is, purchased the property as the dock
was situated. There's testimony that the boat can reasonably be expected to have
a bow in the depth of the available, there's got to be at least 8 feet from the
shoreline. So we start 8 feet from the shoreline and proceed out. The change
itself is desirable in light of the fact that it's a boat house worthy of replacement
and the other substantial property right that I'd like to balance and preserve
here is the cribbing. I think that it's a substantial investment and there are
additional reasons why we don't want to disturb it. We don't want to get the
lake bottom disturbed or involve any of the other unnecessary agencies if we can
just preserve and keep intact the current cribbing. Based on all of that, I think
everyone of the feasible alternatives has been tested and this seems to be the
best feasible alternative considering all of what's been proposed. The site is
very limited. There's only 55.18 feet frontage on the lake, 33 feet left. The
alternative about picking it all up and moving it I just think is unnecessary to
impose that. Short EAF appears to be complete and that considering the answers
provided by the applicant, there would appear to be no substantial adverse impacts
on the environment if this area variance were al10wed.
7
_...-'"
Duly adopted this 19th day of December, 1989, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Muller, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr,
Mr. Turner
NOES: NONE
AREA VARIANCE NO. 138-1989 TYPE II WR-1A HERBERT & MARGARET KANE 45 FITZGERALD
ROAD, GLEN LAKE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 14 FT. BY 19 FT. SCREEN PORCH TO THE NORTH
END OF EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE walCH WILL ENCROACH UPON SIDE SETBACK
REQUIREMENT. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 41-1-13 LOT SIZE: .67± ACRES
SECTION 9.010, 7.010
DAN KANE, SON, REPRESENTING HERBERT & MARGARET KANE
MR. KANE-Stated he had two comments. First, the public hearing referred to a
sideline setback and the change was as a shoreline setback, didn't need the sideline
setback. Secondly, he would like to submit some additional statements from property
owners to the south that have supported the project.
MRS. COLLARD-Asked for clarification, did he say he didn't feel he needed a sideyard
setback?
MR. KANE-Correct,
MRS. COLLARD-Stated the ordinance stipulates 20 foot minimum with a total of 50
for sideyards.
MR. KANE-Asked, a total of 50?
MRS. COLLARD-Yes.
MR. KANE-Stated he wasn't aware of this, Nor were they aware of this when they
filled out the application. The form he submitted referred to the shoreline setback.
MRS. GOETZ-Stated she also has on the application that they're dealing with the
alteration of a nonconforming structure two sections of the ordinance?
MRS. COLLARD-Yes.
MR. KANE-Stated the alteration of a nonconforming structure refers that to the
Planning Board for site pIan review.
MR. MULLER-Asked what they're rule was on side setback.
MRS. COLLARD-Stated a minimum of 20 with a total of 50.
MR. CARR-Stated Mr. Kane was representing his parents without the authorization
to act as agent. Asked if this would make any difference?
MRS. COLLARD-Stated, legality wise she would have to defer to Karla.
MR. KANE-Stated his parents were present.
MS. CORPUS-Stated if they were there....
MR. CARR-Stated Mr. Kane was going to screen in the front porch. Asked if that
were in now?
MR. KANE-Yes.
MR. CARR-Asked when it was put in?
MR. KANE-Stated 1985.
MR. KELLEY-Stated he was looking at the plan over all. He doesn't know where else
you would put the screened in porch. The front of the house is going to be much
closer to the water. There's no way you could do that. If anything you would
be within the 75 foot setback.
MR. TURNER-Stated the way the house sits on the lot and the way the property narrows
up front from the side of the house,
8
'---
../
-.---
MR. KELLEY-Stated it's probably even questionable to say could you put it in the
back of the house because the right-of-way that goes through there services two
or three other camps?
MR. KANE-Stated the right-of-way services at least eight homes. That right-of-way
is in their deeds.
MR. KELLEY-Stated he has to be careful about what he can do there.
MR. KANE-Stated the other problem is there are no exits on the structure. They
would have to cut a new exit in the house.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
CORRESPONDENCE
Warren County Planning Board approved
Letter from Dale Jarvis, in support
Letter from Raymond Irv, in support (also signed by Dr. Kim, Douglas Petroski,
Pat Dineen and Donald Milne)
STAFF INPUT
Notes from John Goralski, Planner (on file)
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 138-1989 HERBERT & HARGARET KANE, Introduced
by Susan Goetz who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner:
Practical difficulty has been demonstrated. This would be for two aspects of a
variance. One would be variance from the sideline requirements in waterfront
residential. Requirement is a 20 foot minimum or a total of 50 feet and I believe
they would be 13.5 feet short of the total 50. This would also be a variance
concerning the alteration of a nonconforming structure. There is no adverse impact
on public facilities and the short EAF form shows no negative impact. The variance
on the shoreline setback would be 32 feet from the 75 foot requirement.
Duly adopted this 20th day of December, 1989, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Muller, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr,
Mr. Turner
NOES: NONE
USE VARIANCE NO. 139-1989 TYPE: UNLISTED LI-1A RICHARD MCGILL OFF BOULEVARD,
SOUTH SIDE, NEXT TO FORMER HOT & COLD BUILDING FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 90 FT. BY
96 FT. FENCED AREA FOR STORAGE OF OPERABLE AUTOMOBILES (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING)
TAX MAP NO. 112-1-15.1 LOT SIZE: 2.46 ACRES SECTION: 4.020 N, 7.092 C
APPLICANT NOT PRESENT
MR. TURNER-Stated he believed the applicant had to prove that the uses that are
permitted under light industrial do not apply in this case. The fact of the matter
is Genesee Refrigeration is already in there, Arrowhead Equipment, Beckner Trucks,
that's all light industrial.
MR. SICARD-Stated they have been using it for quite some time.
MRS. GOETZ-Stated that this doesn't make it right. Asked if it were a preexisting
use?
MR. SICARD-Stated about 40 years.
MR. TURNER-No.
MRS. GOETZ-Stated Mr. Sicard had said 40 years, that's not a preexisting use?
MR. SICARD-Stated .....had a septic tank operation there.
9
--
-,~.
MRS. GOETZ-Stated but not this particular proposed use.
MR. CARR-Asked what the proposed use was?
MR. TURNER-Stated
established there.
to be used for repossessed cars. The use has already been
He doesn't believe the applicant can prove his case.
MRS. GOETZ-Asked if the applicant would have the sales of the cars there?
MR. TURNER-Stated the cars would be stored there.
MRS. COLLARD-Stated, to Mr. Turner, Mr. McGill was parking these cars at his
residence in Fie1dview Drive. She ordered him to get them out of the neighborhood
and he asked if he could use his property on Boulevard. She noticed that this
was not a listed use in the light industrial zone, therefore, she asked him to
the Zoning Board and request a Use Variance and these cars would be parked there
until their taken elsewhere to be sold.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Asked how many of them there were at a time?
MRS. COLLARD-Stated they vary from 5 to 15 just observing his neighborhood at that
time.
MR. KELLEY-Asked if Mr. McGi11 were the actual owner of this property?
MRS. COLLARD-Yes.
MR. TURNER-Stated they were talking about a section almost 100 ft. by 100 ft.
MR. KELLEY-Asked if this were Mr. McGill's livelihood?
job?
Does he have a regular
MRS. COLLARD-Stated she doesn't know whether this is a second job or if this is
his livelihood.
MRS. GOETZ-Stated when they did the site inspection, she didn't remember seeing
any cars.
MR. BAKER-Stated he didn't believe Mr. McGill had used the property for this use
before. So there would be no cars there now.
MR. KELLEY-Asked where Fieldview was?
MRS. COLLARD-Stated it was off Bay Road. There's a subdivision named to it, Stone
Gate.
MR. MULLER-Stated he didn't believe Mr. McGill could support his application with
the proof that his property the proposed use of parking cars cannot be used for
a use set up in that particular zone. As the Planner's notes also mention, the
lot doesn't appear to be unique. Where is the dollar' s and cents proof that you
would want to hear before the variance was approved. Also, he believes it is a
lousy plan for the Board to be asked to take 96 ft. by 96 ft. and give that a use
variance, when in fact the Board is rightfully charged with dealing with the whole
2.46 acres. Asked if Mr. McGill were to have storage he would have to enclose
it?
MRS. COLLARD-Yes.
MR. MULLER-Stated he didn't see the hardship. If Mr. McGill came here and said
that there was some reason that he cannot enclose what he proposes to store there.
MR. SICARD-Asked if a fence were an enclosure, warehouse for enclosed storage?
MRS. EGGLESTON-Stated if the fence were permanently installed.
MR. MULLER-Stated he believed the emphasis was on warehouse rather than warehousing.
Warehouse house meaning a building/structure. Type II site plan review under light
industrial says "warehouse for enclosed storage of goods and materials".
MR. SICARD-Asked what the definition of warehouse was?
stuff and they have heavy equipment in the warehouses.
Stated people warehouse
10
--
--'
MRS. COLLARD-Stated a warehouse is defined as a building.
MR. MULLER-Stated he believes that the requirement is imposed upon the applicant
to prove his hardship and his application has yet to do this on its face. Mr.
Muller doesn't see any proof that would allow him to say this was a great piece
of property for a use variance because the applicant cannot use for anyone of
the reasonably listed uses in the light industrial zone. If the argument is proposed
that this is warehousing, then Mr. Muller says where's the enclosure?
MR. SICARD-Asked if the applicant gave any notice that he wasn't going to appear?
MR. TURNER-Stated the applicant did so with the County,
PUBLIC HEARING
Fred Alexia, owner of the former Hot and Cold building, opposed
MR. ALEXIA-My concern would be is that he (Mr. McGill) would be developing an
operable junkyard. I'm familiar with a little bit about what Mr. McGill does.
He had stored some of his vehicles on my property. I had thought 2.6 acres was
owned by Brian Granger.
MR. TURNER-Trucks that were stored there?
MR. ALEXIA-No. It would be on the east side.
MR. TURNER-On the east side?
MR. ALEXIA-Yes. Large, vacant lot which I owned and occasionally saw some nice
cars. They could range from a Continental to a beat up '57 Chevy. I've had the
experience with Mr. McGill's operation, and it would be a definite detriment to
our area. I put a 10t of money into that particular building and I think it's
become aesthetically pleasing. To let a junkyard go in the area would be wrong.
MR. SICARD-Are you aware that that property could be used as a junkyard? It's
zoned for that.
MR. ALEXIA-I know there's a junkyard up the road and it's too bad to have that
in Queensbury. What's going on in that area, it's gradually becoming more and
more upgraded. It's good for me and it's good for Queensbury.
MR. SICARD-I can understand your point, but I'm trying to make a point to the fact
that it is zoned for a junkyard.
MR. ALEXIA-That would be up to you guys to change it.
MR. SICARD-No, not a variance. It's zoned for that.
MRS. COLLARD-It's a permitted use.
MRS. GOETZ-Isn't that a special permit from the Town Board for a junkyard?
MR. BAKER-Yes.
is required.
It's a permitted use, but a special permit from the Town Board
MRS. GOETZ-It's not as though you could get under site plan review.
MR. BAKER-It goes through both a site pIan review and a Town Board hearing.
MRS. GOETZ-I don't think it could easily become a junkyard without a lot of
discussion. Where it says junkyard under Type II Site PIan Review, it needs the
additional permit from the Town Board?
MR. BAKER-Yes.
MRS. GOETZ-I think we should be looking more at the positive aspect of how light
industrial property should be used. I don't think junkyard was exactly what was
in mind when the ordinance was written. Rather than saying it could be a junkyard,
I'd rather say let's keep it light industrial and use the more appropriate uses
for that property.
11
.-/
--
MR. SICARD-How would you zone a junkyard? What zone would that come under?
MRS. GOETZ-I like the way that you have to have a permit.
MR. SICARD-The existing junkyards have to have a permit. Is that a yearly permit?
MR. BAKER-I'm not sure for procedure on that.
MRS. COLLARD-I think State law requires yearly renewal.
MRS. GOETZ-It sounds to me, Charlie, like you're pro junkyards. Are you?
MR. SICARD-Not necessarily. We have them in the Town of Queensbury and I'm just
wondering where they fit. It's the same way with having Harley come in with his
garbage trucks in the light industrial zone.
MR. MULLER-Sue, are you anti junkyard?
MRS. GOETZ-No.
MRS. EGGLESTON-I am in my neighborhood. We've got our trash plant and that's enough.
MRS. GOETZ-First of all, Harley Hermance wasn't applying for a junkyard.
MR. SICARD-I understand it was a lot worse.
MRS. GOETZ-Not necessarily. There were certain aspects of that application. It
was zoned light industrial, but it was going to suburban residential. So there
were certain aspects of that application that I don't feel are similar to this.
Dave Diminski, Genesee Refrigeration, opposed
MR. DIMINSKI-During our planning process we were asked to do quite a few things
to beautify our 10t including changing the shape of our building, moving it from
the desired 10cation, putting extensive landscaping around the back including berm,
a row of trees, landscaping in front and I don't believe that having a fenced in
area right next to us is really adding to the character. If I was required to
do all of those things, I don't feel this is in keeping with the area. I also
don't know the Canal Alliance that has been involved with our project. I don't
know if anyone I s here, but they were involved in a lot of the reasons why we had
to make our changes.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
CORRESPONDENCE
Warren County Planning Board denied
MR. BAKER-Stated the applicant didn't show up for the County.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from John Goralski, Planner (on file)
MOTION TO DENY USE VARIANCE NO. 139-1989 RICHARD MCGILL, Introduced by Michael
Muller who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner:
The applicant has failed to offer any proof to support the contention that the
property as zoned cannot yield a reasonable return if used for permissible use.
Duly adopted this 20th day of December, 1989, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Muller, Mr. Sicard, Mrs.' Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr,
Mr. Turner
NOES: NONE
AREA VARIANCE NO. 140-1989 TYPE II WR-1A FRANK & KATHLEEN ENGLAND HILLMAN ROAD,
SECOND LEFT OFF CLEVERDALE ROAD FROM ROUTE 9L TO CONSTRUCT A DEN AND GARAGE 10
FT. FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) (ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY)
TAX MAP NO. 12-3-34.1 LOT SIZE: .22± ACRES SECTION 4.020-D, 7.012(A3)
12
'~
--
SHARON DAVIES, AGENT FOR FRANK & KATHLEEN ENGLAND, PRESENT
MRS. DAVIES-Stated that a portion of the porch is within the 75 foot setback.
To tie it in architecturally it was important to explain that portion a little
bit.
MR. CARR-Asked if they were currently working on the house?
MRS. DAVIES-Stated inside they were.
MR. CARR-Stated he was there on Tuesday and saw a 10t of people outside clearing
the porches off. He wondered if they had a building permit for that?
MRS. COLLARD-Stated they received a building permit for interior renovations.
MR. CARR-Stated this definitely was exterior.
MRS. DAVIES-Stated they've taken siding off. If there was, there was a very rickety
back porch and they may have taken that off.
MRS. GOETZ-Asked if there were a present garage there that was ripped down.
MRS. DAVIES-Stated no, that was the house next door.
MRS. GOETZ-Asked what they meant by "just moving garage and den foundations"?
MRS. DAVIES-Stated there was no garage, they meant placing it rather than moving
it.
MR. KELLEY-Asked, on the existing residence, if Mrs. Davies had any idea what the
distance is from the northern most point to the property line?
MRS. DAVIES-Referred to map which was submitted. Stated it was on a scale of one
inch equals ten feet.
MR. KELLEY-Asked how much closer was the new proposed garage to the line than what's
already there?
MRS. DAVIES-Stated not that much different.
MR. KELLEY-Stated when you look at the plat pIan you are really limited because
of the way the septic system is set up. There's no more land. So the garage is
a 20 ft. by 22 ft., wil1 there be a breeze way that attaches to it?
MRS. DAVIES-Stated this is correct. Actually they were calling it a den.
MR. KELLEY-Asked if they were planning on living here year round?
MRS. DAVIES-Yes. Stated they just can't live in the house while it's under
construction. That's why she's here tonight.
MR. KELLEY-Asked about the layout inside the house as to how many rooms there are?
MRS. DAVIES-Stated preexisting, there were four bedrooms, two down and two up,
and they will stilI have four bedrooms with the new plan. There will be two upstairs
and two downstairs.
MR. KELLEY-Stated, just from looking at the house, if there were two bedrooms
downstairs, then the living room, eatinglkitchen area must be fairly sma11.
MRS. DAVIES-Yes. Stated she thinks they felt this would open it up a little bit.
Right now they have opened up interior to have the kitchen, livingroom, diningroom,
all one room.
MR. KELLEY-Stated if there were adequate living space in the building, may be they
didn't need the den and they could push the garage closer and gain more sideyard.
MRS. DAVIES-Stated she believes they thought they needed the den, especially
considering they were moving from a much larger house into this situation.
13
-
.-'
'-
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
CORKESPONDENCE
Warren County Planning Board approved
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Stuart Baker, Assistant Planner (on file)
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 140-1989 FRANK & KATHLEEN ENGLAlID, Introduced
by Susan Goetz who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bruce Carr:
This would be for a 10 foot side yard setback on the north side of the home. Also
necessary is a lake front setback. A variance within the 75 foot setback from
the lake requirement. I don't think there is an adverse effect on the neighborhood
character. I do think one good feature is the improved septic system. There don't
seem to be any feasible alternatives for a home of the size they feel they need
for year round living. The only other feasible alternative would be not to have
the size they're asking for. There is a short EAF form submitted. There doesn't
seem to be a negative impact listed.
Duly adopted this 20th day of December, 1989, by the fo110wing vote:
AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Muller, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr,
Mr. Turner
NOES: NONE
AREA VARIANCE NO. 141-1989 TYPE II WR-3A JOHN N. BOOMER LOCKHART LOOP OFF ROUTE
9L PROPOSAL IS TO BUILD A 16 FT. BY 16 FT. ADDITION (DINING ROOM) WITH A 14 FT.
BY 6 FT. DECK AND A 4 FT. BY 4 FT. CATCH BASIN WITH RAIN CUTTERS TO CATCH WATER
RUN-OFF. VARIANCE REQUESTED FROM SHORELINE SETBACK. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING)
(ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY) TAX MAP NO. 1-1-32 LOT SIZE: 31,350 SQ. FT. SECTION
4.020-D
BRUCE KNAPKA, AGENT FOR JOHN N. BOOMER, PRESENT
MR. TURNER-Stated this is the application the Board denied last month. The applicant
wasn't here and the only change was the catch basin.
MRS. GOETZ-Asked how it happened to come before the Board again? Asked if there
were adequate addition to the application to bring it before the Board again?
MR. BAKER-Stated there was a change in the application.
MRS. GOETZ-Asked who makes the judgement, is the change substantial enough to bring
it back.
MR. TURNER-Stated Lee York called him and asked him about it and he said if there
was a change in the application that the Board would hear it again and if there
wasn't then the Board would deny it.
MR. BAKER-Stated Warren County did not feel the change was substantial enough for
them to hear it again.
MRS. GOETZ-Stated she didn't see Warren County input there.
MR. TURNER-Stated they denied it. So if the Board votes in favor, it is a majority
plus one.
MRS. GOETZ-Asked, now that Mr. Turner knows what the change is, does he still
consider it hearable?
MR. TURNER-Stated that there was another tune to the story. They felt that they
weren't noticed.
MRS. GOETZ-Asked, who wasn't noticed?
14
MR. TURNER-Stated the gentleman present, the agent.
MR. KNAPKA-Stated he did not receive a letter the last meeting.
MR. TURNER-Asked who filed the application?
MR, KNAPKA-Stated he did.
MR, TURNER-Asked, you knew you had to come?
MR, KNAPKA-Right. Stated he came on the wrong date. There were five Wednesday's
last month and he came the 22nd instead of the 15th when they had it. That's the
reason he wasn't there.
MRS. GOETZ-Asked if he did get notice?
MR, KNAPKA-No. Stated he did not receive a notice.
MR. BAKER-Stated letters were sent out. He did receive notice that he had to appear
at Warren County. The agenda for the month was attached to the letter notifying
him that he had to go to Warren County.
MRS. GOETZ-Stated it was Mr. Knapka's mistake?
MR. KNAPKA-Yes.
MR. TURNER-Stated there were three bedrooms so the only thing Mr. Knapka really
wanted to accomplish was to get a diningroom.
MR. KNAPKA-Stated there was a 16 ft. by 12 ft. deck now. What they'd like to do
is enclose it and satisfy Warren County because they didn't like the water coming
down the driveway which he believed was no problem. Why would the County give
them problems with the water coming off the house when the house has been there
50 years, but the County didn't want to hear it. He thought, if they could put
a catch basin, because the plans submitted to Warren County, do show with E drains
around the house. They thought maybe if they could put a catch basin in to catch
the water so it wouldn't go in....it would satisfy Warren County. Mr. Baker called
Mr. Knapka up and said they didn't want to hear it.
MRS. GOETZ-Asked if this were considered a whole new thing now? Considering how
the County turned it down before and it has to be a majority plus one.
MR. BAKER-Yes.
MRS. GOETZ-Asked, that doesn't apply now because they wouldn't hear it? How does
that work?
MR. BAKER-Stated he believes it applies now.
MRS. GOETZ-Asked, it still stays?
MR. BAKER-Stated it still stands. The County decision stilI stands.
MR. TURNER-Stated there just wasn't sufficient evidence for them to rehear it.
MRS. GOETZ-Stated she feels they also have to take into consideration the APA and
sometimes the Board approves applications that have been overturned by the APA.
Would this fit into the same category since it's close to the lake?
MR. TURNER-Stated he had been in the house before and downstairs in the front there's
a lower level which is the cellar. Asked what he had in there? It's utilized.
It's not, in a sense, a cellar.
MR. KNAPKA-Stated it's a laundry room.
MR. TURNER-Stated it's a laundry room and ironing room.
MR. KNAPKA-Stated the bedroom was right behind the kitchen and the livingroom,
bedroom and another bedroom upstair.
MR. TURNER-Asked if there were one bedroom upstairs?
15
'-
MR. KNAPKA-Yes.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Asked where the catch basin was located on the map that was submitted?
MR. TURNER-Stated the map submitted was the old map.
MR. KNAPKA-Stated he had submitted new maps.
MR. TURNER-Stated he realized this.
MR. KNAPKA-Answered Mrs. Eggleston' s question.
be right in the corner.
The catch basin was supposed to
MR. TURNER-Asked about the septic system, did you have to pump into the seepage
pits?
MR. KNAPKA-No.
MR. TURNER-Asked about the ground there?
MR. KNAPKA-Stated it was plain shale bedrock.
MR. KELLEY-Stated the biggest thing was the 75 foot shoreline setback.
MR. KNAPKA-Yes.
MR. KELLEY-Stated looking at the plans, if they put the deck and the proposed
diningroom on the opposite side of the building, it still isn't going to be 75
feet back.
MR. KNAPKA-Stated no because they are right on the corner near the lake. There's
property back there, that's where his property comes down real thin.
MR. KELLEY-Stated the other thing was if you could flip it over, then it's off
the bedroom, but that isn't too practical because you want your dining room out
your kitchen. You'd have to be into redoing the kitchen and changing the whole
inside of the house.
MR. KNAPKA-Stated with the bathroom back there, it makes it hard too.
MR. KELLEY-Stated to go out the back is impractical because the septic tank is
basical1y where you'd have to add on. Asked if the room were 16 ft. by 16 ft.?
MR. KNAPKA-Yes.
MR. TURNER-Asked about the elevation on that?
MR. KNAPKA-Stated it was coming off where the kitchen was and it was going to have
steps there coming down. The kitchen itself is nine five by twelve five with all
the kitchen cabinets and everything around it pIus with the way the door to the
bathroom swings because it is an older house, it's impractical.
MR. MULLER-Stated he doesn't like going closer to the lake. Maybe there are some
houses that shouldn' t be there that are and it's too close to the lake already
and they're just going to go closer. If this house were right up on the shoreline,
the most feasible place to put a kitchen were attached to it so that the kitchen
had to go over the top of the lake, would that make it reasonable? He doesn't
think it makes it reasonable. He believes if they approve it, the Adirondack Park
Agency will knock it down. They were working really hard with the Freighoffer' s
to try to get it and this one is asking for a 10t more relief. He believes it
would be misleading to say this was a great pIan for the APA to take the next 30
days to knock it down.
MR. CARR-Stated he didn't know if that was the Board's concern. He feels their
concern is is there practical difficulty on this project. He doesn't see another
alternative. Looking at the existing house, the one corner that's nearest to the
lake, he doesn't see that it's much closer than what the other corners will be.
He doesn't see this as asking for more relief. Whether or not the APA disapproves
at a later date, that's the process and he doesn't think they can base their ...
on whether or not they were going to be over turned on appeal or something.
16
"-
"----
...-""-'
MR. MULLER-Stated his point was that he would be against it for the same reasons
he believes the APA is going to come up with and that is they're accentuating the
nonconformity by bringing it out 34 feet from the lake front.
MR. CARR-Asked how far it was from the lake front now?
MR. KNAPKA-Stated 54 feet.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Asked Mr. Muller if he felt they were going to maximum relief?
MR. MULLER-Stated not maximum. Also stated, this is always a test of will and
a test of how much money you have in your wallet, but are there any feasible
alternatives? Sure. Flip the kitchen and the bedroom around or something like
that and then put the diningroom in the back. That's not my choice to make, this
is certainly the land owners choice. Stated his point was maybe there are some
houses that are close enough to the lake or big enough when they're too close to
the lake so they should not be added to. When you begin to test other feasible
alternatives you also are being asked is this a feasible plan, is this the type
of thing you want to approve so that you're 34 feet from the lake shore. He doesn't
believe it's a good idea to allow construction 34 feet.
MR. TURNER-Stated the other thing was that if there's a feasible alternative you
can alter the house.
MR. MULLER-Stated that is a test of will and a test of your pocketbook.
MR. TURNER-Stated that is a feasible alternative, though.
MR. MULLER-Right. Stated what is a thousand dollar project for some people is
as unreachable as one hundred thousand for others.
MR. TURNER-Right.
MR. MULLER-Stated that's the feasibility.
PUBLIC BEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC BEARING CLOSED
CORRESPONDENCE
None
STAFF INPUT
Notes from John Goralski, Planner (on file)
MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 141-1989 JOHN N. BOOMER, Introduced by Michael
Muller who moved for its adoption, seconded by Susan Goetz:
To deny the application for variance based on the fact that it's too close to the
lake as proposed this alternative and that the land owner ought to investigate
alternatives that will not impose so severely on the setback requirements from
the lake including some structural changes within the building.
Duly adopted this 20th day of December, 1989, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Carr, Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Muller, Mr. Kelley,
Mr. Turner
NOES: NONE
AREA VARIANCE NO. 142-1989 TYPE II HC-1A MICHAEL SALEEM 121 QUAKER ROAD TO
CONSTRUCT A 100 FT. BY 70 FT. BUILDING ON THE LOT TO HOUSE ADIRONDACK AUTO SUPPLY.
THE EXISTING BUILDING WOULD BE TORN DOWN EXCEPT FOR AN 18 FT. WIDE BY 50 FT. DEEP
SECTION IN THE REAR WEST CORNER, WHICH HOUSES THE MACHINE SHOP. REQUESTING FRONT,
REAR, SIDE SETBACK, AND PERMEABILITY VARIANCE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP
NO. 59-5-6 & 7 LOT SIZE: 150 FT. BY 141 FT. SECTION 4.020 K
MICHAEL SALEEM PRESENT
17
-
'v
-'
-- -...-/
MR. CARR-Stated this seems to be a very large building.
that large?
Asked if it had to be
MR. SALEEM-Stated he feels he needs the 7,000 sq. ft.
MR. CARR-Asked what his current square footage was?
MR. SALEEM-Stated it was almost 5,000 because there was a cellar and this building
won't have a cellar.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Stated the new building will not have a basement?
MR. SALEEM-No.
MR. TURNER-Stated the building Mr. Saleem was operating there now used to be a
residence. Mr. Saleem took part of it and someone else had another a partner.
Asked if it were split in two at one time?
MR. SALEEM-Stated he lived in one section and ran the business out of the other
part. They've grown so much in the last 10 years they moved the house.
MRS. GOETZ-Asked about the machine shop mentioned in the application? Is it part
of a highway commercial business?
MR. SALEEM-Stated they don't build anything. They just repair heads and turn drums.
It's pretty standard for an automotive industry.
MRS. GOETZ-Stated it's not a problem like some other machine shops?
MR. SALEEM-No. It's a little area.
MRS. GOETZ-Asked, that's associated with the highway commercial?
MR. SALEEM-Yes.
MR. TURNER-Stated the old building that's there, the address isn't in this
application.
MR. MULLER-Stated it deserves demolition.
MR. TURNER-Stated no matter what you do there, it's the same old thing, anybody
that wants to do anything there has to come for a variance because of the narrowness
of the 10t. The new building is going to be back farther than the old building
56 ft. vs. 25 ft.
MR. KELLEY-Stated looking at the rear line setback of 15 ft. when 25 is required
and they're 56 ft. from the road when 50 is required.
MRS. COLLARD-Corrected Mr. Kelley, 75 is required.
MR. TURNER-Stated the property in the rear, Mead's Nursery, was also highway
commercial. Also stated the Board had changed that. Reminded the Board every
time Mead's wanted to do something they had to come and get a variance. So they
moved the line further down the road to encompass this operation.
MRS. GOETZ-Asked if the applicant were 3 percent of the required permeability?
MR. CARR-Yes.
MR. SALEEM-Stated there was an area like this between the pole line permit and
the
MR. MULLER-Asked if the County took any of his property?
MR. SALEEM-No.
MR. MULLER-Asked if he were going to move his sign, where his sign was presently?
MR. SALEEM-Stated the he was going to put the sewer right through the middle of
where the sign presently is, so it would be pulled up.
18
--
'---'
--,^--,^
PUBLIC BEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
CLOSED PUBLIC BEARING
CORRESPONDENCE
Warren County Planning Board approved
STAFF INPUT
Notes from John Goralski, Planner (on file)
MR. KELLEY-Asked if the present square footage of 5,000 included the machine shop
to put that in there?
MR. SALEEM-Yes.
MR. KELLEY-Asked how many square feet were allotted for that approximately? Of
the 5,000 sq. ft" how much of that is machine shop?
MR. MULLER-Asked, when the building was done, would it be a rectangle? Would he
be there when the construction was going on?
MR. SALEEM-Stated most of the building, as stated in the variance, will go up before
they tear the other building down so they will be able to move into it.
MR. MULLER-Referring to plat pIan and the little thin line that shows the existing
building, existing machine shop, only the portions that are within the rectangle
will remain, everything else is going to be outside the building?
MR. SALEEM-Stated yes, except for the little machine shop.
MR. KELLEY-Stated, the little machine shop will remain there?
MR. SALEEM-Yes.
MRS. GOETZ-Asked what the practical difficulty was exactly? She believes that's
what they need to prove for area variance.
MR. SALEEM-Stated he needed a 7500 sq. ft. building. This would be the only building
he would be allowed.
MRS. GOETZ-Agreed, but she believes when it comes to granting something like this,
just because somebody wants a bigger building doesn't necessarily prove the practical
difficulty unless she was incorrect.
MR. SALEEM-Stated he has the square footage there now and there were areas he could
add to this building, but there's still going to be only... It really doesn't
matter to him what the building looks like, but as far as being in the Town of
Queensbury, if you 100k at that building. Also stated, if he put the money into
it, he would like to put the money into a new building.
MRS. GOETZ-Asked Mr. MulIer about the practical difficulty question.
MR. MULLER-Stated he understood her concern.
MR. KELLEY-Stated she was thinking it 100ks like a big building for the size of
the property.
MRS. GOETZ-Stated she was trying to come up with a practical difficulty, because
she believes that's what they need to prove for an area variance.
MR. TURNER-Asked what the high point would be?
MR. SALEEM-Stated around 10 feet.
MR. TURNER-Asked if it would be a pitch roof?
MR. SALEEM-Stated he has had a number of people look at it and give him quotes.
19
-,
MR. TURNER-Asked if the elevation would be higher than the back?
his run off in the back?
--
---,
Would he put
MR. SALEEM-Stated he has not talked to the builder yet.
MR. BAKER-Stated that will be looked at in site plan review.
MR. MULLER-Asked, if Mr. Saleem were to get a building that size, would he be able
to meet the parking requirements?
MRS. COLLARD-Stated she couldn' t answer that without seeing the parking laid out
on the site.
MR. MULLER-Asked how many parking spaces he would have to have?
MRS. COLLARD-Stated she could let Mr. Muller know.
MR. SALEEM-Stated he believed it was one spot per thousand square feet.
MRS. COLLARD-Asked, it's a retail store though, isn't it?
MR. SALEEM-Stated it was 85 percent wholesale.
business was delivery.
Also stated, 85 percent of his
MRS. COLLARD-Asked, you do have retail sales?
MR. SALEEM-Yes.
MRS. COLLARD-Stated retail sales requires one space per each one hundred feet.
MRS. GOETZ-Stated that doesn't mean Mr. Saleem couldn't get a variance from the
parking requirements. This was a possibility.
MRS. COLLARD-Stated there was a mixed use there.
MR. MULLER-Stated, he remembered how the Board tortured itself and came up with
a split vote on the Wholesale Doughnut shop. Asked if anyone noticed a parking
problem there?
MRS. GOETZ-Stated she has been watching that.
MR. MULLER-Stated he believes this says what the Board knows about parking.
MRS. GOETZ-Stated she heard they had a change in management and this may be why
they haven't had a parking problem. That is a good point though.
MR. SALEEM-Stated they would have more spots in the new place than they do now.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Asked if Mr. Saleem ever thought about putting a basement under
this and making the building smaller?
MR. SALEEM-Stated since they changed the Quaker Road, he had to get a hold of ENCON
to check on his cellar. Also stated, he has about 6 inches of water in there since
they started tearing Quaker Road apart.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Asked if he were using a basement in the present building?
MR. SALEEM-Stated he uses it more for an aquarium now.
MR. CARR-Asked if Mr. Saleem couldn't go down, could he go up? He believes, talking
about the practical difficulty, this was a legal standard that the Board has to
somehow meet to allow Mr. Saleem to do this. Usually this is through some sort
of odd shaped lot, but here Mr. Saleem has almost a rectangular lot, that appears
he might be able to meet the setback requirements with a smaller building. Asked
if he had looked into the options of two stories or something?
MR. SALEEM-Stated he talked about two stories with a couple of people, but it would
be very difficult for them. It's not their type of business. Stated, it's not
like their office was upstairs, everything is warehouse.
MR. SICARD-Stated they dealt with some pretty heavy pieces of equipment, parts,
generators? If they had them upstairs, that would be kind of hard.
20
.-
---
MR. MULLER-Stated it wasn't very controversial. There weren't many people present.
MR. KELLEY-Stated his hang up was, he didn't know whether this was minimum relief?
It looks like it's just crowding everything. Also stated, if he read it right,
there was supposed to be 20 foot side minimum, with a 50 foot sum and they've got
22 total. Twenty-two out of fifty is less than half. Mr. Kelley understands what
he is saying he needs the side, but he's also got a half acre in a one acre zone.
MR. SALEEM-Stated he made some measurements to the buildings next door. To the
Palmer's, that's the closest building, it's 45 feet from his property line. So
100king at aesthetics, it's not like he would be on top of each other. On the
other side, to the Quaker Restaurant, they're 25 feet to the yard and 58 feet to
the building.
MR. TURNER-Stated it wasn't so much aesthetics. It's more the size of the building
than the size of the lot.
MR. CARR-Stated aesthetically, they have the right to come within 20 feet of your
property line. You could say they would never come with the 50 feet, well that's
imposing on them to say they aren't going to use their area. Also stated, he new
what he means in that they may not change, but the Board can't place themse I ves
in that position and say we hope they never change. Asked if there were any way
Mr. Saleem could get the rear setback of 25 feet by cutting down the size of his
building a little and maybe one of the side setbacks of 20 feet. Something to
have a little less of a variance.
MR. SALEEM-Stated what he was being asked to do was end up with the same square
footage he had now.
MRS. GOETZ-Stated there were some good aspects to the application, but sometimes
you have to realize his property was too small for what he wants to do because
the Board has certain things they have to prove if they should grant this variance.
She believes this is the case here. Very often the Board likes to get the minimum
relief, not a maximum relief on the different aspects of it.
MR. SALEEM-Asked if they were negotiating?
MRS. GOETZ-Stated Mr. Saleem might need more time. He might want to table it and
see what he could come up with.
MR. TURNER-Stated maybe what Mr. Saleem should do is get some sort of design or
type of building he was going to put on it, get it sized up, try to put it on the
10t, and come back to the Board and say here's my options. Also stated the Board
didn't know what they were 100king at. We know we're looking at the inside building
of the 10t, but let's see something on paper. Maybe he could design a smaller
building and get more relief on these setbacks and stil1 come up with what he wants.
Maybe he could design a building to fit everything he needs including maybe his
expansion, down the road, and come back with a plan that can really assess.
MR. SALEEM-Stated he does have blueprints from other NAPA stores.
at is anywhere from 6-7,000 sq. ft. The volume they're doing
according to NAPA, 7,000 sq. ft.
What they look
today requires,
MRS. GOETZ-Asked if they required him to have that.
MR. SALEEM-Stated no, he could do it in his garage, what they have is their own
company stores.
MRS. GOETZ-Stated they may have more land, but they're working with different
ordinances too.
MR. MULLER-Answering Mrs. Goetz question some time ago, some of the things Mr.
MulIer was thinking about that were unusual or unique to this lot. It's in the
highway conunercial one acre zone. We all know that the history of the property
is basically that it was created as a residential lot, a resident's 10t, and now
it's superimposed upon all of the highway conunercial requirements and setbacks
and all of that that would have anticipated or assumed that it had a one acre lot
which it does not and balancing this and get it off the lot what he is proposing
here in terms of the use. If you picked a building anywhere up and down Quaker
that you'd really like to see changed it would be this building, but he would like
to see a change that makes it a better pIan and probably dramatically changes what
21
"--..--
_...-v
Mr. Saleem would like to do or maybe tips the applecart in terms of Mr. Saleem's
budget. Mr, Muller believes that a 7,000 sq. ft. facility for automobile parts
is not unreasonable. So maybe these are some of the feasible alternatives. Mr.
MulIer would really like to see a rectangular building that is a homogeneous, nice
100king building here. He believes the bump over there towards the ABC Rentals,
the old machine shop, diminishes what Mr. Saleem was really trying to do. It
probably saves Mr. Saleem some expense, but it really diminishes having a nice
100king building.
MR. KELLEY-Stated Mr. MulIer was saying he was going to need a 6 or 7,000 sq. ft.
building. This meets todays needs, but Queensbury's growing, what is going to
be needed 5 years from now or 7 years from now? Mr. Kelley would be thinking about
the pIan of this building and saying, if they're giving me a hard time now on my
side yard and rear yard setbacks, he would want to try to figure out a way to get
as much future growth out of this building as he could and not be like the Town
here, out grow a building that's a year old. Think is there a way that I can put
a half of cellar in it. A typical building, Mr. Kelley can think of, is New York
Fire and Signal. They put half of their business, half in the ground the other
half's out, but they got basically the two story building, which if you 100ked
at it, doesn't look like two stories. Mr. Kelley was thinking, he was saying the
one story flat roof building, Mr. Kelley thinks he may want to look at the plan
of that a little bit and maybe make some basement use. Maybe provide for future
expansion in a second floor, since there's no way he could go bigger than
his, . . print.
He hopes Mr. Saleems business will grow. He thinks Mr. Saleem should take a good
100k at that. There might be some other plans that maybe are going to make the
Board happy and maybe would even suit Mr. Saleem better.
MRS. COLLARD-Stated she would like to discuss the parking further.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 142-1989 MICHAEL SALEEM, Introduced by Charles
Sicard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner:
Tabled until the third Wednesday in January.
Duly adopted this 20th day of December, 1989, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Muller, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr,
Mr. Turner
NOES: NONE
SIGN VARIANCE NO. 143-1989 TYPE: UNLISTED PC-LA NYS ENTERTAINMENT D/B/A
BLOCKBUSTER VIDEO QUEENSBURY FACTORY OUTLET CENTER, CURRENTLY VACANT CORNER STORE
ADJACENT TO BANK STREET, GLEN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL TWO WALL SIGNS;
ONE SIGN IS PERMITTED AS OF CURRENT ORDINANCE. FOR A 31 FT. HIGH, 3 FT. WIDE SIGN
THAT WILL READ "BLOCKBUSTER VIDEO". (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX HAP NO. 103-1-1
LOT SIZE: 13.72 ACRES SECTION 6.103
JON LAPPER, AGENT FOR NYS ENTERTAINMENT DIBIA BLOCKBUSTER VIDEO, PRESENT
MRS. GOETZ-Read letter to Mr. Paul Dusek, from Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart, Rhodes,
& Judge PC, December 20th. (on file)
MR. LAPPER-Stated coincidentally, he did some work representing Howard Carr about
six months ago and was here with two of the attorney's from Bartlett/Pontiff.
They with the Planning Board asking for the site plan which had been approved a
year ago to be extended for an additional year so that the plaza could be cleaned
up. As everyone in town is probably aware, there was a very large turf battle
some time last year between the different sides of the Birnbaum family as to the
ownership of the plaza at the time the Great American went in and that the whole
big deal where they tried to use the Town Board's, playoff the Town Board 1 sand
it got to litigation and needless to say(TAPE TURNED) As the receiver, he has
the proper authority to authorize that the lease and authorize the sign variance.
What Mr. Lapper submitted was a letter from him.,. as receiver and that letter is
part of the package. Mr. Lapper was kind of surprised that this wasn't directed
to his attention because the Birnbaum's attorney's are well aware that Mr. Lapper
is representing the applicant here and they talked about this many times. Mr.
Lapper sees this as part of the turf battle and puts the family against the family,
but he I s confident that the application the Board has is complete and Howard Carr
is receiver and has the authority to consent to this. Also stated his client,
Ed Nash, was there from Dallas for this, so Mr. Lapper would request at the very
least that they could get through this and if the Board felt they wanted to grant
the variance that it could be conditioned on this being resolved over the next
22
'-,-
week or we could discuss it with them in terms of the approval. Also stated, this
was a disability of supplies at the last minute. He didn't feel it was right.
MR. TURNER-Stated the Board just received this real late that afternoon. The Board
wasn't aware of it either.
MR. LAPPER-Stated he wasn't upset with the Board at all.
they handled it this way.
He was surprised that
MS. CORPUS-Stated the letter came in and the reason it came in so late was that
Mark said he had just received notice of this, called her on the phone and said
he couldn't be there in person and this was the only reason he sent a letter.
He was going to show up in person to address the Board's issues, but he couldn't.
She didn't know his reasons.
MR. LAPPER-Stated that's not something his client is involved in at all.
MRS. GOETZ-Asked Mr. Lapper if he had a copy of the letter from Howard Carr. Read
letter from Howard Carr (on file)
MR. TURNER-Asked for comments on the letter.
MR. LAPPER-Stated one other comment in the letter, as Mr. Nash pointed out, in
terms of negotiating the lease, this has been going on for a number of months.
It's contingent on getting the sign approval, but they've gone through three drafts
of negotiating the lease and this has been going on for quite some time. In terms
of the battle between receiver and the owners that's something that really shouldn't
involve them.
MR. DUSEK-Asked if it were a question of who's in charge?
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MR. DUSEK-Stated back awhile ago, this matter came to a head before the Board once
before and decisions were made and ultimately it was his understanding that a
receiver was appointed. The problem he has is that they don't know the full extent
of the power of the receiver in this particular case. There were two things that
Mark Leibowitz mentioned in his letter one was the fact that there was not owner
or lessor agreeing to the application and secondly he raised the issue once again
that Mr. Birnbaum is a co-owner and has certain rights in connection with the
property. The problem he has is that although he knows a receiver was appointed,
he also knows that there was a considerable amount of court action during this
whole time period too. He is a little concerned as to exactly who has what authority
and he would like to speak to the attorney's and find this out for the Board.
His recommendation would be, at this point, to consider tabling it until he can
have an opportunity to do that.
MR. LAPPER-Stated what he had suggested, since his client was there from Dallas,
Texas, is that the Board could consider this and whatever determination that they
made if they did vote to grant the variance, that would be conditioned on settling
this issue to Mr. Dusek's satisfaction. In terms the appointment of Howard Carr,
his sole purpose as receiver is to lease out the plaza that, as we all know, has
been mostly vacant for the 5 to 7 years of its existence. Saul Birnbaum is just
one of the owners and he's aware that Howard Carr is in contact with the other
side of the family and with the court and these negotiations have been going on
for months and he won't question Mark's letter that in terms of, this is something
that comes up at the last minute tonight and we're here and his client's flown
in, and he believes this is an internal battle that doesn't involve them. At least
if the variance that is requested could be considered and if it could be conditional,
the Town wouldn't be at any harm here.
MR. DUSEK-Stated this would be an option for the Board, if the Board wanted to
hear what they had to say concerning the variance, and he understands the Board
is meeting next week, perhaps he could have some answers for the Board by then
depending on contact with the attorney's and the documentation...
MRS. GOETZ-Stated Mr. Lapper was asking for the Board to make a determination with
conditions and Mr. Dusek was saying something different.
MR. DUSEK-Stated what he was suggesting was perhaps the Board might want to just
listen to their proof tonight and not make a determination until next week.
23
--.
--
,.....
~--'
MR. LAPPER-Stated if they could get on next week, they would certainly do everything
to get this out in a week. This would be acceptable.
MRS. GOETZ-Read application.
MR. LAPPER-Stated there were two issues one the color and the other the second
sign. In terms of the color, this is the registered trademark for the
nationallinternational company Blockbuster Video which NYS Entertainment is the
franchisee for the capital district. Under the franchise agreement, this is
required, the blue background and the yellow lettering. They have over a thousand
stores in the United States, Canada, and Europe and for that reason, although
technically when Pat 100ks at the ordinance in terms of the plaza commercial zone
the ordinance instructs that the sign should be coordinated, the practical difficulty
is that it is important for Blockbuster Video to use the same trademark colors
that are used in Albany, Latham, Capital District stores and allover the Country.
In addition to that, in terms of the impact on the neighborhood, that particular
plaza, as compared to say the Northway Plaza which is nicely coordinated, this
plaza which is still largely vacant has signs that are red, blue, white, green
many colors. So it's not as if they're coordinated right now and that this would
stand out as something different. Aesthetically, it would be nicer to have a store
in there then to leave it vacant. In terms of 100king at the intent of the
ordinance, just looking at the neighborhood, in the application he pointed out
approximately a dozen signs right on Glen Street in the immediate vicinity that
have yellow signs. So it's not that this is a color that offends in terms of the
character of the area. It's just important because of the trademark and that's
the practical difficulty as to the color. On the issue of the two sided signs,
if your familiar with the plaza, the plat plan submitted was pretty clear. Referring
to the plan, this would be the two vacant stores that are near the First National
Bank by Bank Street. It would be the two store fronts closest to that corner.
What's proposed is, and the reason why the building wil1 have a canopy to continue
around the corner and have a sign on that side, is that it's proposed to take out
a large part of that brick wall and replace it with large glass windows so that
wouldn't look like a rear end or side end of a building, but rather it would look
like the front of the building. When cars are driving north on Glen Street just
because it was setback 400 feet from the road if its where you might see. The
side that faces Glen Street when your driving north would be the side they were
requesting for the second sign where the glass windows would be there to replace
the brick wall which would be a 10t more appealing. In addition, in terms of the
rationale of the ordinance which says that in the case where you have the corner
10t, two signs are permitted. They see that somehow and are hoping the Board will
agree this really is a corner situation because it is the corner of the plaza and
it's the extension of the public road Bank Street. Technically, it's not public
highway, so it won't be a corner 10t because that extension is within the plaza,
but he thinks the rationale holds true that if you have a corner building in terms
of just notice to the public that it I S appropriate to have the two signs. Just
generally it I S a major improvement to having it vacant the way it is. One other
thing, in addition, across the street in the plaza that has the Fay's Drug Store
and Wheels, there is a Community Health Plan that has a corner lot, a corner building
that is pretty much analogous to this because it's also kitty corner to the road,
to Glen Street and they do have two signs, one on the north and one on the south
of that corner facing Glen Street. He doesn't know if they went for a variance,
but just like there this would be treated as a corner lot.
MR. TURNER-Stated to his recollection,
know how they, Community Health PIan,
this were store number 16?
there was no history of that.
came to that. Asked, for the
He didn't
record, if
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. TURNER-Referring to the plan, asked if he were going to take out the wall and
put glass and a door?
MR. LAPPER-Stated not a door, just glass.
MRS. GOETZ-Asked if the exterior change had been approved by the shopping center?
MR. LAPPER-Stated it's been approved by Howard Carr which he assumed meant it was
approved by the shopping center.
MR. GOETZ-Stated she remembered when Great American had to change just a video
drop off because there was trouble over it and she wondered
24
------ ~.
MR. LAP PER-Stated as he was now awares
part of the lease since the beginning.
.....-"
'-..-"
that was probably an issues but that's been
That's something that they'll have to settle.
MRS. GOETZ-Stated she is totally against the second sign and not conforming to
the color. The argument that a franchise has to be this or that color s that's
his problem and there are good reasons for wanting the sign coordinated in the
shopping center that maybe he shouldn' t be in the shopping center. Maybe there
will be another 10cation where you could have whatever color sign.
MR. LAPPER-Stated this was true. Just to take a vacant building somewhere in towns
right down the street where Barry Scott Insurance Agency wass you could do whatever
you want right there and this is just a few hundred feet away. In terms of that
plazas it would be hard to say there's really a theme there and this is certainly
not a very large sign. It's attractive and in terms of the light which Pat is
looking at because that's more the colors that are theres to have the letters white
there really is substantially more glare at night than yellow which is toned down.
He doesn't think the ordinance says that everything should match in a situation
like Northway Plaza where it sits very nice and everything's green and white.
Here there's very many colors of the four colors he mentioneds it's all jumbled
up between the different stores. You really don't see a theme there.
MRS. GOETZ-Stated she didn't know which one was green.
MR. LAPPER-Stated Bass Shoe.
MRS. GOETZ-Stated if there are violations there nows that should be taken care
of. It was her understanding that they were trying to go with red s white sand
blue. Most of them were reds whites and blue. The Board doesn't dictate what
color. It's just that they should all be coordinated. This would be something
that all the tenants would have to coordinate with whoever.
MR. LAPPER-Stated the new tenants would be sort of at the mercy of whatever stores
are there and whatever their trademarks were. It would just preclude these people
coming in now and looking at it from the Town's perspective s they're saying it
would be nice to get something in there rather than leave that plaza vacant as
its been for all this time.
MRS. GOETZ-Stated she doesn't think he needs the second sign.
MR. SICARD-Stated the sign situation as it exists s it's really on the other end
of the plaza where you have an ingress from Quaker and the store that was in there
befores Boardman'ss had one sign in the front onlys but it's actually the same
situation if they want to call that a corner.
MR. LAPPER-Stated except that that is much closer to Glen Street.
MRS. GOETZ-Stated people coming in from Bank Street are going to be much closer
to Blockbuster.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. It's just that they'd be coming from the back.
to the stop sign.
So they'd come
MR. SICARD-Stated if they came in from Quaker Road...
MR. CARR-Stated if they came in from Quaker they'd never see the signs for it.
MR. LAPPER-Stated this was true. Of the two s what's really important s the make
or break issue, is the color. It just can't be done in white.
MR. TURNER-Asked why it couldn't be done in white?
MR. LAPPER-Stated it would violate the trademark.
MRS. GOETZ-Asked in the one thousand stores all over the Country and the worlds
there's not one other store that doesn't have it.
MR. LAPPER-Stated he would have to defer to his client.
EDWARD NASH PRESENT
MR. NASH-Stated not that he was aware of.
McDonalds archs they're all red and yellow.
He has never see a green and blue
25
--- ..---.,..
-'.---
MRS. GOETZ-Stated but they're also McDonalds that have to comply with very strict
sign ordinances.
MR. LAPPER-Stated he would just argue that this is a really a practical difficulty
when you have a requirement that a sign be a certain color.
MR. TURNER-Asked if he had said this would be a franchise?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. TURNER-Asked if Mr. Nash were selling the franchise to someone else?
MR. LAPPER-Stated no, he was the franchisee.
District area.
They have stores in the Capitol
MR. CARR-Stated to
he agrees wi th Mr.
signs are uniform.
American, he didn't
the Board, in that particular shopping center he doesn't see,
Lapper, when he says it's not the Northway Plaza which all the
If you look at that every sign is a different color and Great
believe that was white.
MRS. GOETZ-Stated her opinion was that they were in violation.
MRS. COLLARD-Stated what she felt when she looked at the plaza, considering this,
the main theme of the signs there are red, white, and blue.
MR. MULLER-Stated when Great American was going in there the Board had a discussion
about the sign, but was that just limited to size? They were red, white, and blue,
the Board didn't have a color problem there?
MRS. COLLARD-Stated not that she was aware of. At the time she had just started
at the Town.
MR. MULLER-Asked what the Board's test was for considering a variance from the
sign ordinance?
MR. TURNER-Stated as he said before, there was practical difficulty in uses and
hardship. It's a combination of both. He's telling the Board they can't exist
without a yellow sign.
MR. KELLEY-Stated he tended to agree with the fact that if all the signs in the
plaza were red and you wanted yellow he would say you've got a problem, but there
was a green sign there, there was a blue sign there, there's a red sign there.
There isn't uniformity within the plaza, if there were he would view it as different,
MRS. GOETZ-Stated it's not right to begin with and why compound it.
MR. MULLER-Stated it was a freestanding sign. There is one there?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. MULLER-Asked if it were a creamy yellowish color?
MR. LAPPER-Stated it was a creamy yellowish color with a green board.
MR. MULLER-Asked how you could take a factual position that you don't see a multitude
of colors there and then you're going to pick one as the predominant color or
prevailing color. Stated he understood the ordinance, but how do you impose a
color on this applicant?
MRS. GOETZ-Stated the whole thing was, everybody in the shopping center should
be getting together.
MR. MULLER-Stated he agreed, but let's play the devil's advocate, which is the
right color.
MRS. GOETZ-Stated she didn't feel it was up to the Board to decide what the right
color was, but they all should coordinate.
MR. CARR-Asked what the coordinating color in that process was?
MRS. GOETZ-Stated it looks like right now, the red, white, and blue.
26
"'-'-"-'
-~
MR. CARR-Stated this was three colors, so anybody could have a red or white or
blue sign.
MRS. GOETZ-Stated she didn't think it was right the way it was now and that's because
they've allowed that.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Asked, if the Board said it had to comply, would they still put
the door there?
MR. LAPPER-Stated it was a condition of the lease that if the sign variance is
approved, Mr. Nash cannot go in with a white sign. In terms of the plaza to leave
that vacant and wait for someone to come along with a sign that's red, white, and
blue that's a pretty tough position. To most individual store owner's it probably
wouldn't matter, but there are a lot of franchises that are in there, national
companies and this is important. If it was a case where your starting with a new
plaza like Northway where you're starting from scratch that's one thing, but here
where you really have all these existing stores that have been there for different
lengths and as Mr. Muller points out, there really is that cream color on the one
side over by the road, it's just kind of hard to even ....an ordinance to say it's
only red, white, and blue.
MR. MULLER-Stated if the Board decides this yellow sign is good and Red Lobster
wants to come in at the other end of that shopping center are you going to make
them put a yellow lobster on it.
MRS. GOETZ-Stated she feels they should all be conforming to begin with like when
Northway Shopping Center went in. There were stores there before it was taken
over by those new people.
MR. TURNER-Stated there was a bit of irony here. That is the oldest shopping center
in town. The signs on many of those buildings that are there probably predate
a lot of these ordinances.
MR. MULLER-Stated if you think of the stores that were in there A & P, red and
white; Big N, red; and Sears, white. So that ends up being a red, white, and blue
theme.
MR. TURNER-Stated then you had Boardman's. It's a varied bunch of colors.
MR. MULLER-Stated Shoprite was yellow.
MRS. GOETZ-Stated she wouldn't disagree with the fact that they haven't conformed
from the beginning.
MR. MULLER-Stated the Board was painting themselves into a corner when they say
that they have the authority to make this color decision and yet when you look
at the ordinance you see you've imposed it on the landlord.
MRS. GOETZ-Stated she believes the Town should make everyone conform. She does
believe it is a problem for this applicant, but if it had been done right in the
beginning, it would be easier to make this decision.
MRS. GOETZ-Asked how Mr. Carr felt about the second sign?
MR. CARR-Stated he agreed with Mrs. Goetz, he believed there was no basis for a
second sign.
MR. TURNER-Stated he didn't really want to set a precedent. He didn't know as
the Board was if they say yes. Just because of the situation that this plaza has
been put in. Yes, it's gone unrented, but for some very obvious reasons. No fault
of the Town's and no fault of Mr. Lapper's. No fault of the plaza's, but as he
said, this is the oldest plaza in town and this situation has never been addressed.
The signs have always kind of been left up.
MR. CARR-Stated there were so many colors in there now, he didn't feel they could
impose any.
MR. TURNER-Stated he wasn't saying the Board could impose, he was just stating
the history of it. This is the oldest one in town and nothing's ever been addressed
on it.
27
-~
MR. CARR-Asked if the ordinance says that every sign that comes should be white.
MRS. GOETZ-Stated no, it says they should be coordinated, it doesn't say what color.
MR. TURNER-Stated what he was saying was that here they just put up a free standing
sign, green and green and the rest of the signs are red, white, and blue. How
did they get away with that?
MR. MULLER-Asked does the Town have the stamina now to undertake litigation with
the Birnbaums or the Howard group to insist that they have a sign themelcolor theme
because they're over there trying to figure out whether it's fair to grant a yellow
one, are they going to set a precedent, do they have a theme there, and they're
struggling with an issue that maybe the Town is not interested in seeing a color
there if they haven't done anything about it, it's been there for a 10ng time.
How long have the multi colors been there?
MR. SICARD-Stated less than 10 years in the new part.
MR. MULLER-Stated, since they agreed they weren't going to make a decision tonight,
maybe the Town ought to come up with a position here which is that this is an
important ordinance and they're going to enforce it.
MR. LAPPER-Stated they weren't against themes, just in that plaza, the Board is
making them conform to what's nonconforming.
MR. MULLER-Stated he wasn't sure there was a conforming color there and he's sure
that for those people who find that there is, there's stilI another color for those
who don't want to find one.
MR. LAPPER-Stated he doesn't fault Pat. He believes she has been very helpful.
She was just trying to apply the ordinance.
MR. MULLER-Stated he was sure she was compelled to. They were all stuck with it.
He would be interested when ... instructions? Does the Town Board make a decision
like this?
MR. DUSEK-Stated he believes in the first instance it rests with the Building and
Codes Department to enforce the review sign permits and making investigations around
town.
MRS. COLLARD-Stated before she started here, it was as if sign permits were approved
without really being looked at as far as color. Obviously as they were stating
here this evening. Now she has been hired by the Town and part of her job is to
look at each sign permit. To look at it for color, if it's in the plaza, see if
there is a theme in the plaza, if not possibly try to start a theme, and not just
say to an applicant, they're all different colors I don't care what color sign
you put up, she's trying to make people conform somewhat so they do start a theme
in the plaza's the way it's stated in the ordinance.
MR. CARR-Asked if Mrs. Collard saw a theme in that plaza?
MRS. COLLARD-Stated red, white, and blue.
MR. CARR-Asked in each sign?
MRS. COLLARD-Stated in the entire plaza.
lot, she 100ked at this very carefully.
She drove in, she sat in the parking
MR. CARR-Asked what she thought of the Bass sign?
MRS. COLLARD-Stated she agreed the Bass sign was not part of that, but again she
felt she wanted to stick to red, white, and blue if she could because that is what's
predominately there.
MR. MULLER-Stated Mr. Turner's point was a good one and that is if you look at
the red, white, and blue, it got there by default. Great American's colors are
red, white, and blue.
MRS. GOETZ-Stated there have been so many good changes in the Planning Department
when they had such a lack of enforcement before and she really appreciates it and
she doesn't see why they should compound and make worse a problem that exists.
Just because it exists and there are all these problems with Birnbaum etc. they
28
~-
----'
shouldn't let that scare them off from enforcing their sign ordinance or they
shouldn't have one if they're not going to vote on it.
MR. MULLER-Stated isn't that what he was saying about can we find out if this thing
is going to be enforced?
MRS. COLLARD-Asked if what will be enforced?
MRS. GOETZ-Stated some kind of a color coordination.
MRS. COLLARD-Stated that was what she was trying to do.
MR. TURNER-Asked how the freestanding sign got up with that kind of color?
MRS. COLLARD-Stated she couldn't answer that.
MR. TURNER-Stated this should be researched before a decision is made.
MRS. GOETZ-Stated when they found out what they were going to find out, she thought
this would be part of it, are they going to be made to change the color of the
freestanding sign and also Bass. If the Board did deny the color application there,
how could the Board deny them. She believed it wasn't right.
MR. CARR-Asked if anyone had the power to force these people to change the colors
of their signs?
MR. DUSEK-Stated he would like to sit down between now and next week and review
this matter with Pat and basically analyze it and see where they're going. He
believes he has gotten the jist of what the Board is interested in, they obviously
want the ordinance upheld if there was a theme there and if there was a way to
uphold it. If it's a case where it makes no sense to go to court, he was sure
the Board wanted to know that too. He would be happy to meet with Pat and render
an opinion.
MR. CARR-Asked that the plaza across the street also, the two signs just referred
to be addressed.
MR. TURNER-Stated when this first came up, the plaza across the street, he believes
that there was a question of multicolored signs.
MRS. COLLARD-Stated this was all pre-Pat.
MR. TURNER-Stated he realized this. Where Present Company, Wheels, and Fays is,
there were some signs in there, and he believes there was even a freestanding sign
out in the middle of the plaza?
MR. MULLER-Stated Mr. Nigral came in and he had some ideas about changing signs,
getting some relief, they kind of complimented some of his directional requirements
for some other signs to get them color coordinated and then the Present Company
had the hugest PRES Mr. Muller had ever seen in his life when the first came into
town and the Board let them have it until they could replace it. There were a
lot of screw ups in there, but the Community Health?
MR. TURNER-Stated they never had anything on that,
MR. MULLER-Asked what color that was?
MR. TURNER-Stated green.
MR. MULLER-Stated Empire Video was not in Mr. Nigral's plaza?
MR. SICARD-Stated yes it was.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
CORRESPONDENCE
Warren County Planning Board denied
Letter from Robert Eddy regarding sign variance
29
--
',.-.
--,~/.-'
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Stuart Baker, Assistant Planner (on file)
MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 143-1989
VIDEO, Introduced by Susan Goetz who moved
Eggleston:
NYS ENTERTAINMENT D/B/A BLOCKBUSTER
for its adoption, seconded by Joyce
Tabled until next week I s meeting for further information from the Town Attorney
in reference to the application before us.
Duly adopted this 20th day of December, 1989, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Muller, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr,
Mr. Turner
NOES: NONE
AREA VARIANCE NO. 144-1989 TYPE II SR-lA JAMES E. LIEDTKE 15 OLD MILL LANE
(DIXON HEIGHTS) TO EXTEND THE CURRENT MASTER BEDROOM BY CONSTRUCTING A 10 FT.
BY 10 FT. ADDITION TO THE REAR OF THE UNIT. ADDITION WOULD ENCROACH ON SIDE SETBACK
REQUIREMENT. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 95-2-9.4 LOT SIZE: 6,611
SQ. FT. SECTION 4.020 G
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Stuart Baker, Assistant Planner (on file)
MR. CARR-Asked Mr. Baker to explain his notes where it says "applicant I s unit as
part of a 4 unit building on one lot."
MR. BAKER-Stated the Dixon Heights Phase I subdivision was done as a cluster
development where it is one building containing four separate units built on one
10t. That is how it was approved on the final plat. The applicant shows his
property line going in between his unit and the neighboring unit, to the rear lot
line and all the way up to the front. There are survey maps at the County Clerks
office showing lots existing in that area and in fact its in the County and the
Town assessment records as such, but it was not approved in that manner. It was
approved as a four unit building, one building with four units on one 10t.
MR. CARR-Stated he thought the definition of a townhouse was four units within
one building, but each individually owned including the property under ...the line.
You have to have a legal description.
MS. CORPUS-Stated the other townhouse units Bayridge, Westwood, they own the land,
the land right under the footprint, but they don't own the land that extends beyond
that footprint line, these do and they describe it by having a survey map showing
your unit and saying that the property description is basically everything underneath
this unit. They have floor plans on file.
MR. CARR-Stated so those other townhouses, the backyard is common property.
MRS. GOETZ-Asked what the next step was if this was not an approved lot?
MR. BAKER-Stated this was a very good question which he didn't have an answer to
at this point.
MR. MULLER-Asked if, when Mr. Baker was at the Clerks office, he was certain in
his mind that these folks have a piece of property as described on the survey.
MR. BAKER-Stated that is what they were sold. He showed Mrs. Collard the deed
to the land, describing it in such a manner and there are survey maps filed at
the County substantiating that claim. The big problem is that is not how the lots
were approved in the final subdivision for Phase I of Dixon Heights.
MRS. GOETZ-Asked if this meant they had to go back to the Planning Board?
MR. BAKER-Stated from his understanding, in the subdivision regulations if a final
approval of a subdivision (TAPE TURNED)
30
'--
-~
MR. DUSEK-Stated this was another one of those that his office got word of yesterday,
that there was a problem and the recommendation was made to Stuart to go and check
this out, which is what he did. At this point, the next step is to go back to
the Planning Board's files to try to ascertain for sure exactly what was contemplated
at the time. Mr. Dusek believes they should contact the developer and developers
attorney and map this thing out. Apparently somebody somewheres got wires crossed
and he doesn't know at which end at the moment, but his recommendation to the Zoning
Board would be to put it on hold and see where they go, Also stated, this one
he may not have answers for the Board by next week.
MRS. GOETZ-Stated when they had other variance applications
the Homeowners Association has always had a letter on file
mentioned somewhere there, but she didn't see it in the file.
else they would want to look into.
to do with townhouses,
and she knows it was
It might be something
MR. BAKER-Stated before the applicant left he had mentioned to him that the
Homeowners Association had reviewed this and the President of that Association
was to have submitted a letter. They have not received that letter.
MRS. GOETZ-Stated it's something that might be nice to have in the file.
MICHAEL ADAMANCHA, 9 Old Mill Lane, the townhouse, four unit, that Mr. Liedtke
has asked for a variance
MR. ADAMANCHA-Stated we all have property that we own out right, but we maintain
it. Mr. Liedtke has, the four units actually, his is the end unit, Mr. Adamancha
has the first unit. Mr. Adamancha has the largest unit in the development. When
they bought these townhouses, there was setbacks and common areas. Mr. Adamancha
has common area on the back and side of his property. Mr. Liedtke has common area
on the back and side of his property. Also stated, he didn't hear about this until
he got this variance notice and he lives in the same building as Mr. Liedtke does
and they were very upset about the whole situation for the simple reason that Mr.
Adamancha was on the Board when it became in effect. He resigned from the Board
for the simple reason that there was no input from the people in the development.
MR. TURNER-Asked what Board he was referring to?
MR. ADAMANCHA-Stated the Dixon Heights Association. What had happened was they
formed and appointed a new committee and there was a lot of things that were going
on where the homeowners themselves weren't aware of what was going on there. Nobody
in the development was notified as to what Jim Liedtke was doing from the members
of the Board of Directors of Dixon Heights, which Mr. Adamancha believes was very
unfair to all of them especially himself and his next door neighbor. When they
had heard of this he said this is uncalled for for the simple reason when he bought
the townhouse he plugged in almost $100,000 into the townhouse and Mr. Liedtke
paid considerably less. When Mr. Liedtke bought this piece of property, he was
not maintaining it like it was according to the Board of the Dixon Heights
Association
Mr. Adamancha would take it upon himself to mow Mr. Liedtke's grass, to fertilize
it, do his drive way for him. Stated he was going to be 62 years old and he didn't
need that, but he did it to make the whole four unit look presentable. Mr. Liedtke
is asking for a 10 ft. by 10 ft. variance in back of his property where he would
be taking out part of his bedroom windows to put in a jacuzzi or sauna. To Mr.
Adamancha, this changes the whole aspect of owning a townhouse. This was his
viewpoint of it and he felt very uncomfortable about the whole situation. Stated
he had a blueprint as far as the piece of property where Mr. Adamancha has his
setback off the side line and where he has his setback off the back line. Each
one of them had to do it as to what they own out right and they have the sound
barrier fence behind them. How much of a setback it is from there to the existing
property line he would have to look on the map. He feels bad about the whole
situation. Mr. Liedtke claims it's for health reasons. If this is to happen it's
going to open the whole entire development for a person to put in a hot tub in
the backyard or a barn in the back with approval which he is very much against.
He feels that there are a lot of others against it. When he found out about the
variance notice, he went and asked neighbors within a 500 foot radius of him and
there was very, very few that got a notice to come to the meeting. There was only
5 people that he spoke to that got notices.
MRS. GOETZ-Read the names of the people-Mazzeloni, Mathia
MR. ADAMANCHA-Stated he spoke to Mathia's down in Yonkers, New York and they claim
that they never got a notice.
31
'-------
MRS. GOETZ-Stated it may have gone to 22 aId Mil1 Lane.
MR. ADAMANCHA-Stated he takes care of their mail for them and they didn't get any.
MRS. GOETZ-Continued with
Adamancha, Welind, Garrow,
Schaffer, Gavida
the list-Coppa,
Dixon Heights
Whiteacker,
Homeowners,
Garreau,
Demires,
Walcott,
Calpert,
Cobles,
Hompkey,
MR. ADAMANCHA-Stated everyone he asked said that none of them got it.
MRS. GOETZ-Stated sometimes
might get himself out there.
people don't tell you what really happened,
The Board has to have proof,
but he
MR. ADAMANCHA-Asked why only certain people would get it and not others get it.
MRS. GOETZ-Stated this is something he might want to look into.
MR. CARR-Stated it's more important that if people object that they are either
there to state their objective or petition for such.
MR. ADAMANCHA-Stated what they couldn't understand why a person in the second phase
got one, whereas a person in this phase didn't get one. It was very odd.
MRS. GOETZ-Asked if he were satisfied that everyone in his unit was on the list
and then the Dixon Heights Association?
MIKE COPPA PRESENT, 20 Old Mill Lane
MR. COPPA-Stated they just received there's yesterday and it was mailed down to
the Michaels group and the Michaels group forwarded it through.
MRS. GOETZ-Stated a lot of problems happen because of that type of situation.
MR. ADAMANCHA-Stated they feel they are trying to keep it as a townhouse complex
and not add more problems. What he is afraid is that what Mr. Liedtke is going
to put back there is going to add to the septic system.
MR. TURNER-Stated they weren't going to address it tonight anyways.
MR. COPPA-Stated they should read the letter.
MRS. GOETZ-Read letter from Elizabeth Calpert, 32 aId Mill Lane
MR. MULLER-Stated when you acquire your property here you get restrictive covenants.
There are conditions and limitations. Are there limitations here for additions
or architectural aspects of these things?
MR. ADAMANCHA-Stated in the perspective that they have there is limitations.
MR. COPPA-Stated the architectural committee is supposed to know about all proposed
architectural changes and supposed to submit a recommendation to the Board and
the Board in turn is supposed to either approve or disapprove, but the occupant
still has to go through all the Town procedures.
MR. MULLER-Stated he agreed with Mr. Coppa, but isn't the first the step to go
with the Homeowner's Association and get all these architectural reviews?
MR. TURNER-Asked if there were anything else in his deed?
MR. COPPA-Stated it just says you have to abide by the covenants of the Homeowners
Association which is filed with the attorney.
MR. MULLER-Stated, not that they would do it there, but just as a matter of course,
they have always said to people who have restrictive covenants or limitations in
the deed that require some plan, some subdivision, some townhouse..., that you
want to see that you have the relief that you need before you come here. He realizes
he's not talking to the right guy, Mr. Coppa wasn't the applicant, they were wasting
a lot of time and the truth of the matter was he was sure the Town was interested
in making sure this subdivision is allowed or that the plan that somehow got screwed
up gets straightened out, but he didn't feel that this applicant was ready to be
before this Board.
32
'--
MRS. GOETZ-Asked where the applicant was?
MR. BAKER-Stated the agent was here.
MRS. GOETZ-Asked why he didn't stay?
MR. TURNER-Stated he told him they weren't going to hear it tonight.
MR. MULLER-Stated he would like to
approvals or review process at the
to advance on this application.
see this
Homeowners
applicant have all the necessary
Association before he is allowed
MR. COPPA-Stated they did make mention that he was supposed to have that approval
and a letter was sent. Stated the letter was not received?
MR. BAKER-Stated no, they haven't received any letter from the Homeowners
Association.
MRS. GOETZ-Stated they had better marshal1 their forces, the neighbors.
MR. MULLER-Stated after the Board votes on the resolution, if it passes, they should
get a copy of it and say to the applicant whatever it is they want to propose.
MR. ADAMANCHA-Stated there was a perspective when they purchased the townhouse,
there was not supposed to be any permanent changes in the structure whatsoever.
MR. MULLER-Stated he agreed because he has read that perspective.
here?
Why are they
MR. ADAMANCHA-Stated he didn't know.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 144-1989 JAMES LIEDTKE, Introduced by Michael
MulIer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner:
That the applicant must satisfy the requirements of the Homeowners Association
review process and the meet the requirements of the covenants and restrictions
within the Dixon Townhouse complex before we will continue to proceed on his
application.
Duly adopted this 20th day of December, 1989, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Muller, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr,
Mr. Turner
NOES: NONE
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Theodore Turner, Chairman
33
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
Planning Department
RNOTE TO FILER
Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner
Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner
Date:
December 14, 1989
By:
~t"11~,..r R~1cør
X Area Variance
Use Variance
- Sign Variance
== Interpretation
Subdi~on: Sketch, Preümiwua_
_ _ -"
Site Plan Re~ew
- Petition for a Change of Zone
- Freshwater Wet1aDds Permit
Final
Other:
Application Number:
Area Variance No. 129-1989
Applicant'. Name:
Elizabeth Perkins
Meeting Date:
December 20, 1989
............................................................................................
The applicant is seeking a variance from the 75 ft. shoreline setback
requirement for the construction of an 807 square foot addition on the eastern
corner of the existing house. The existing house is entirely within the
shoreline setback area.
The existing structure is well buffered from the neighboring houses. The
proposed addition would also be well buffered from both neighboring houses and
Lake George.
The applicant should be advised that a more accurate location of the septic
system will be needed for site plan review by the Planning Board. r
SB/pw
..
4
._--_._~----
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
-.._'"
PlJlnning Department
"NOTE TO FILE"
Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner
Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner
Date:
By:
December 15, 1989
Stuart Baker
x Area Variance
Use Variance
- Sign Variance
== Interpretation
Other:
Subdi.uäOD: Sketch, _ PreümiDary,
Site Plan Rmew
- Petition for a Change of Zone
- Freshwater Wetlanda Permit
FiDal
Application Number:
Area Variance No. 137-1989
Applicant's Name:
James R. Davies
Meeting Date:
December 20, 1989
............................................................................................
The applicant is requesting a variance from the side setback for the
demolition and reconstruction of aU-shaped boatdock. The currently
proposed dock would increase the nonconformity of the present structure
by increasing the encroachment upon the adjacent property.
Strict application of the Zoning regulations would not allow for a
dock of this size to exist on this lot, but the dock was already on the
lot when Mr. Davies purchased the property. This is an obvious practical
di fficulty.
Rebui lding a larger dOck in the proposed locat ion would have a
substantially adverse effect. The present and proposed location of the
dock not only encroaches upon the required 20 I setback - the dock also
encroaches upon neighboring property. It should be stated for the record
that when the existing dock and boathouse was built in 1972, no variance
application was filed. This occurred before the applicant purchased the
property.
The degree of change proposed is substantial relative to the current
Ordinance as well as to the Ordinance in effect when the dock was
constructed. (In 1972, a 10' setback from the adjacent property line was
required for all docks.)
-1-
..
~
~."----
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
P1::11nning Department
-NOTE TO FILE-
By:
December 15, 1989
Stuart Baker
Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner
Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner
Date:
x Area Variance
Use Variance
- Sign Variance
== Interpretation
Subdinsioa: Sketch, _ PreümiDary,
Site Plan Re-riew
- Petition for a Change of Zone
- Freshwater WetlaDds Permit
Final
Other:
Application Number:
Area Variance No. 137-1989
Applicant'. Name:
James R. Davies
Meeting Date:
December 20, 1989
............................................................................................
In light of these facts, the Board may wish the applicant to
consider the feasible alternative of placing the new dock and storage
shed in the middle of his lakeshore frontage. This would provide for
side setbacks of 16.34 ft" a relief of 3.66 ft. from the 20' requirement
for the dock. Assuming the storage shed would remain in the same
location relative to the dock, the minimal relief for the shed on the
west will be approximately 4 it. from the required 20' minimal side
setback for an accessory structure to the north. The southern lot line
setback for the shed would be in conformance.
SBlpw
-2-
:
4
._-~~-_.__.._--
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
P1~nni1'llg Department
-NOTE TO FILE-
Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner
Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner
Date:
By:
December 19. 1989
John Goralski
X Area Variance
Use Variance
- Sign Variance
~ Interpretation
SubdiYision: Sketch. _ PrelimiDary,
Site Plan Rmew
- Petition for a Change of Zone
- Freshwater Wetlands Permit
FiDal
Other:
Application Number:
Area Variance No. 138-1989
Applicant'. Name:
Herbert & Margaret Kane
MeetiDg Date:
December 20. 1989
..............................................................................**............
The Kane's would like to screen-in the porch on the northeast side of
their house.
It is my understanding that the applicant requires a shoreline setback
variance because the existing porch never received a variance. The second
variance is for alteration of a nonconforming structure.
It does not appear that the strict applicat ion of the Ordinance would
deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the property.
The porch in question ,is not detrimental to the Ordinance or to other
properties in the area. If fact, it seems that a concerted effort was made to
place the porch on the side of the house rather than on the lake shore side.
This would have no impact on public facilities or services.
JGlpw
;
4
--,~..--._._-_._-
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
~....-'
planning Department
-NOTE TO FILE-
Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner
Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner
Date:
By:
December 20, 1989
John Goralski
Area Variance
-r Use Variance
- Sign Variance
== Interpretation
Other:
Subdi~oa: Sketch, Pre1imhua-
- - -I'
Site Plan Rmew
- Petition for a Change of Zone
- Freshwater WetlaDds Permit
FiDal
Application Number:
Use Variance No. 139-1989
Applicant's Name:
Richard McGill
Meeting Date:
December 20, 1989
............................................................................................
It does not appear that this lot is unique within the zone. Furthermore,
no proof has been offered to support the contention that the applicant cannot
realize a reasonable return on the property if it is used for a permissable
use,
The question that does arise is: Where can operation take place? A
thorough review of all permitted and Type II use in the Zoning Ordinance
indicates that this is not an allowable use in any zone. I would suggest that
the Board consider whether this is an appropriate use in the LI-IA zone or if
it would be more appropriate in some other zone. Keep in mind that there is
very little light industrial property in the Town and that the purpose of the
light industrial zone is to "allow for expansion of light industry without
competition from other uses".
JGlpw
"
4
.-~.~--
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
Planning Department
-NOTE TO FILE-
Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner
Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner
Date:
By:
December 18, 1989
Stuart Baker
x Area Variance
Use Variance
- Sign Variance
:= Interpretation
SubdiYision: Sketch, _ Preliminary,
Site Plan Rmew -
_ Petition for a Change of Zone
Freshwater Wetlands Permit
Final
Other:
Appücation Number:
AT':>;:! V;:!T;;:!nc-!> No. 140-,]g8g
AppUcant's Name:
Frank & Kathleen England
MeetiDg Date:
December 20, 1989
............................................................................................
The applicants are requesting variances from the 20' minimum
side yard setback and from the 75 ft. shoreline setback requirements
in order to add a den and garage to their residence.
The applicants lot length (average of 126 ft.) creates a
practical difficulty in meeting the shoreline setback for any type
of addition to the existing residence. Only approximately 70 sq. ft.
of the proposed addition would be within the shoreline setback.
The requested 10 ft. minimum sideyard setback would allow the
applicants the area necessary for both the addition and an improved
septic system. The applicants should be aware that they will need a
septic variance from the Town Board to install a seepage pit septic
system within 150 feet of Lake George.
SBlpw
.'
4
--.-.--
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
-~
P1=anning Department
-NOTE TO FILE-
Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner
Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner
Date: December 20, 1989
By: John Goralski
X Area Variance
- Use Variance
- Sign Variance
== Interpretation
SubdiYisiOD: Sketch, Pre!imnulI_
_ _ -I'
Site P1aD Rmew
== Petition fer a ChaDge of Zone
Freshwater WetlaDds Permit
FiDal
Other:
Application Number: Area Variance No. 141-1989
Applicant's Name: John Boomer
Meeting Date: December 20. 1989
............................................................................................
The Board reviewed Area Variance 130-1989 at the November 15, 1989
meet ing. The request was denied because the Board fe It that there were
alternatives to the proposal. The only change from the original application
is the addition of a drywell to handle increased stormwater runoff.
It is my opinion that the applicant has not demonstrated any practical
difficulty. The owner currently has use of the property and the strict
application of the Ordinance would not deprive the applicant of that use.
This addition will be highly visible from the Lake. The shoreline
restrictions set forth in the Zoning Ordinance are in place not only to
protect the water quality, but also to preserve the aesthetic beauty of the
Lake. Varying from these restrictions only contributes to the degradation of
the Lake.
JGlpw
..
.
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
-----
pt:anning Department
-NOTE TO FILE-
Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner
Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner
Date:
By:
December 20, 1989
John Goralski
x Area Variance
Use Variance
- Sign Variance
== Interpretation
SubdiYision: Sketch, _ Pre1imiDary,
Site Plan Rmew -
== Petition fer a Change of Zone
Freshwater Wet1and8 Permit
Final
Other:
Application Number:
Area Variance No. 142-1989
Applicant's Name:
Michae 1 Saleem
Meeting Date:
December 20. 1989
............................................................................................
The applicant is requesting a front, side and rear yard setback
He is also requesting a variance from the permeability requirement.
be a substantial change from the requirements of the Ordinance
variances were granted.
variance.
It would
if these
The applicant currently has use of the property and the strict
application of the Ordinance would not preclude this use.
The granting of this variance would improve the appearance of this site
and, therefore, have a positive impact on the neighborhood. There would be no
impact on public facilities or services.
JG/pw
i'
4
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
-~
Planning Department
-NOTE TO FILE-
Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner
Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner
Date:
By:
December ] 8, ] 989
Stuart Baker
Area Variance
Use Variance
---x Sign Variance
== Interpretation
Other:
SubdiQåoD: Sketch, _ PreümiDary,
Site P1an ReYiew -
== Petition for a Change of Zone
Freshwater WetlaDds Permit
FiDal
Application Number:
Sign Variance No. ]43-1989
Applicant'. Name:
NYS Entertainment d/b/a Blockbuster Video
MeetÜlg Date:
December 20. 1989
............................................................................................
..
The applicant would like to put up two wall signs with yellow lettering
at the Queensbury Factory Outlet Center.
One wall sign of the proposed size on the front of the corner store will
provide excellent exposure of the business to north and southbound traffic on
Upper Glen Street, and should not deny the applicant reasonable use of the
property occupied. Any existing or expected traffic congestion problems by
the Bank Street entrance to the plaza should be corrected by traffic control
signs rather than store wall signs. The majority of traffic entering the
plaza does so via Upper Glen, Street.
On the issue
objective of the
yellow lettering.
the sign, rather
national franchise
of the lettering of the store sign, the Board must weigh the
sign ordinance section against the applicants desire for
There are no special circumstances applying to the land or
the applicants situation arises from participation in a
with a registered trademark.
SBlpw
"
4
-----.----
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
--
-
Plann;....g Department
-NOTE TO FILE-
By:
December 20, 1989
Stuart Baker
Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner
Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner
Date:
X Area Variance
Use Variance
- Sign Variance
== Interpretation
SubdiYisioa: Sketch. _ PreJimiDary,
Site Plan Rerie.
- Petition for a Change of Zone
- Freshwater WetlaDds Permit
FiDal
Other:
Application Number:
Area Variance No. 144-1989
Applicant'. Name:
James E. Liedtke
MeetiDg Date:
December 20, 1989
............................................................................................
The applicant wishes to make an addition to the back of his townhouse at
the Dixon Heights development. As shown on the survey map submitted with the
application, the existing townhouse unit does not have any side setback from
the neighboring townhouse. According to this map, the land behind these
townhouse units is not community property, but rather is divided into
individual lots extending from the townhouse units walls.
The survey map submitted is filed with the County Clerk. However, I was
unable to find an approved subdivision plat in either the Town records or at
the County Clerk's office showing the applicant's lot as shown on the survey
maps, The approved subdivision final plat for Dixon Heights Phase One shows
the applicant's unit as part of a 4 unit building on one lot. The applicant's
property, therefore, may not be a Town approved lot.
This concern as ide, the applicant is asking the Board to address the
following question: What, if any, sideyard setback should be required for the
expansion of a townhouse unit which currently does not have any setback. The
current zoning ordinance does not address this situation. In this variance
request, the applicant is suggesting a setback of 2 ft. as minimum relief.
Any expansion by the applicant will also be subject to review by the
Dixon Heights Homeowners Association.
SBlpw
;'
ç
.--.--.---