Loading...
1997-07-16 -" F II F ['opy ---,/ QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JULY 16, 1997 INDEX Use Variance No. 18-1997 Tax Map No. 134-6-1, 2, & 14 Ben Aronson 1. Area Variance No. 39-1997 Tax Map No. 115-3-11 Michael Cerny 16. Area Variance No. 37-1997 Tax Map No. 127-3-16 Francis & Briana O'Donnell 23. 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 ZBA Meeting 7/16/97) QUEENS BURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JULY 16, 1997 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT LEWIS STONE, ACTING CHAIRMAN BONNIE LAPHAM, SECRETARY BRIAN CUSTER ROBERT MCNALLY ROBERT KARPELES PAUL HAYES PLANNER-SUSAN CIPPERLY STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. STONE-One item on the agenda, Use Variance Butterfield, has been withdrawn by the applicant. are here for that, obviously, nobody's making a door, so I guess you're not. No. 38-1997, Kim So if any of you mad rush for the CORRECTION OF MINUTES May 28, 1997: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 28, 1997, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: Duly adopted this 16th day of July, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Thomas MR. STONE-My name is Lewis Stone. I am the Vice Chairman of the committee. The Chairman is out trying to repair some of the damage wrought by the latest storm in the Saratoga area. So he will not be here tonight. NEW BUSINESS: USE VARIANCE NO. 18-1997 TYPE: UNLISTED CR-15 BEN ARONSON OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 64 MAIN STREET, ONE QUARTER MILE EAST OF EXIT 18 OF I-87 APPLICANT PROPOSES A WAREHOUSE ADDITION TO AN EXISTING WHOLESALE MEAT DISTRIBUTION BUSINESS LOCATED AT 64 MAIN STREET. WAREHOUSES AND DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES ARE NOT LISTED USES IN THE CR-15 ZONE. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE USES LISTED IN SECTION 179-24, COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL 15 ZONE. TAX MAP NO. 134-6-1-1, 2, & 14 LOT SIZE: 0.70, 0.49, 0.21 ACRES SECTION 179- 24 FRANK LEO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; BEN ARONSON, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 18-1997, Ben Aronson, Meeting Date: July 16, 1997 "PROJECT LOCATION: 64 Main Street PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE: Applicant proposes to modify a previously approved Use Variance which allowed the expansion of a distribution warehouse in a CR-15 zone. This modification seeks to add 2000 square feet of office space and move the proposed addition which was shown on the previous Use Variance slightly to the east. The applicant also seeks to include the - 1 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/97) parcels immediately adjacent to the east and south in this modified application. USE VARIANCE REVIEW CRITERIA, BASED ON SECTION 267-b OF TOWN LAW: 1. IS A REASONABLE RETURN POSSIBLE IF THE LAND IS USED AS ZONED? Discussions relating to a reasonable return have already taken place for this site. However, the two properties which the applicant seeks to incorporate into this Use Variance have not been reviewed under this criteria. 2. IS THE ALLEGED HARDSHIP RELATING TO THIS PROPERTY UNIQUE, OR DOES IT ALSO APPLY TO A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD? The need for increased space to expand a business would appear to be a hardship which is not unique to other businesses in this area and within the CR-15 zone. 3. IS THERE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD? Expansion of this use may result in increased truck traffic and increased noise in the area. However, the effect on the surrounding properties may be reduced with the proposed addition of two new properties which will further buffer this use from surrounding land owners. 4. IS THIS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NECESSARY TO ADDRESS THE UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP PROVEN BY THE APPLICANT AND AT THE SAME TIME PROTECT THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY? This appears to be the minimum variance to address the applicant's stated need. The addition of two adjacent properties will reduce the negative impacts this use may have on the surrounding neighborhood. STAFF COMMENTS: If the ZBA chooses to approve this variance, the application will then be reviewed by the Planning Board at which time they will review drainage and stormwater management. With the addition of the two adjacent properties, this expansion will not require an area variance. Staff would recommend as a stipulation that the two new properties be merged and the deeds amended to reflect this prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. SEQR: Unlisted action, short form EAF review required. Short form attached with previous use variance." MS. CIPPERLY-As part of the application, could you read the letter from Double A provisions? MR. STONE-Yes. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. Town of Queensbury Zoning Board, Double A Provisions, File 18-1997, "Double A provisions would like to modify the Use Variance that was granted on May 21, 1997 to include the property on 58 Main Street. This property would be used to construct new office space. Enclosed are copies of the plan which outlines this new construction. Sincerely, Ben Aronson" MR. STONE-Before we get started with the applicant, let me state that in reviewing this material this afternoon, we came to the conclusion, Staff came to the conclusion that an Area Variance would also be required on this property because the second lot to the east, the Main Street lot to the east, where you propose the office building, the warehouse is going to be, again, require 0 setback from the property line, because you are expanding, it appears, the warehouse space that we approved previously. MR. LEO-Which part of it's got O? We should be fine. MR. STONE-No. If you'll come up, I'll show you what we're talking about. This is the property line that we approved here. We approved a 60 by 30 addition, and we approved a 0 setback instead of the 50 feet which is required, because it is a buffer between two different zones, CR-15 and SR-1A, and there's a 50 foot buffer required on either side of the line. In granting the Area Variance for this piece, we acknowledged that, but now you want to expand this building, by making it 40 feet wide, but you're now, you're impacting on a different piece of property back here. You don't own this piece of property. You own this one. - 2 - '- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/97) MR. LEO-We bought this one, too. They were supposed to put it in. MR. MCNALLY-When I was visiting the site, they showed me a map with all the lots on either side of the existing warehouse set out, surveyed, and the lot that the proposed office is on. MR. STONE-Yes, they bought that one. We know that. MR. MCNALLY -Goes past the existing warehouse, and the proposed warehouse, further back to the green area. That's not in front of us. MR. STONE-That's not in front of us, though. MR. LEO-Mr. Hilton was supposed to put it in there. MR. STONE-Well, this is what Sue Cipperly, who is our Staff for tonight, and looking at it this afternoon. MR. LEO-But we did buy, we own this parcel. MR. STONE-So you claim, I say claim because we haven't seen anything, you claim to own this lot to the east? You bought this lot directly to the south, and this other lot to the south. Sue? They claim they own all the property there. Are you willing to combine it into one lot? MR. LEO-That's what we want to do, make it all one parcel. MS. CIPPERLY-But that doesn't move the zone line. MR. STONE-That's right. It doesn't move the zone line. It's still a zone through here, and that's the controlling factor, this 50 foot buffer. So we're going to have to grant an Area Variance from a line which divides your property, but we can't do that tonight because it wasn't advertised. MS. CIPPERLY-And he doesn't own Number 13, right? MR. STONE-Yes. He claims he owns all of them now. You're saying you own this whole corner to the east and to the south here? MR. LEO-Eighty-six feet this way, and ninety-six feet this way. MR. STONE-And whatever this lot is. MS. CIPPERLY-Okay, because the only one that was mentioned in the letter was the one at. MR. STONE-You're saying you own this lot here? This is you. It's a big lot. MR. LEO-Yes. This is us. We own this one over here. MR. STONE-Right. This is when you bought this one. MR. LEO-We bought this one. We bought this one, half of this one. MR. STONE-You bought half of this one. MR. LEO-Mr. Fisher's going to extend his this way, and we would extend ours this way. MR. STONE-Until we really have that down, our hands are tied. Wouldn't you say, Sue, in terms of an Area Variance, because it wasn't advertised anyway. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. How did you go about doing all that? - 3 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/97) MR. LEO-All what? MS. CIPPERLY-Moving the lot lines around. MR. STONE-You can't move lot lines. MR. LEO-This is why they were surveying. doing. That's what they were MR. STONE-But it's got to be filed. It just can't happen. MR. MCNALLY-Was there a subdivision of that one lot that was purchased in the corner, because that seems to be the one in issue. Do you know if you received a subdivision approval? MR. STONE-I mean, this is one acre zoning here. MR. HAYES-Did you subdivide that lot? You said you bought half of it? MR. LEO-We bought half of it. MR. STONE-But lets say this is 100 by 172, which is 17,000. It's a half acre lot to begin with, and you want to cut it into two, and it's one acre zoning there. So you've got a real problem. MR. LEO-What happens if we move this back to here? MR. STONE-If you move it back to there, and leave it 60 by 30, we granted you that variance. That's already done. This particular, the office space, I'm not sure why we need a Use Variance for this office space anyway. MR. LEO-Because we were going to put the whole property. MR. STONE-I understand'that. MS. CIPPERLY-Because it's really an expansion of the industrial business. MR. STONE-It's an expansion of the industrial business. Okay, but if you were just willing to do a Use Variance and move this property back and leave it 60 by 30, not 60 by 40, because in doing what you've done here, you've expanded this particular building, too. MR. MCNALLY-And I don't think we're really giving you a hard time. MR. LEO-I know you're not giving me a hard time, but I just went through this all day with George Hilton and he said, you're all set. I just went through this whole thing, and now you're telling me I'm right back where I started from again. I'm not saying YOU did it, but why doesn't somebody in zoning tell me what I have to do. MS. CIPPERLY-It's advertised as being on Lots One, Two, and Fourteen. That's what was put in the paper. MR. STONE-See, that's all that was advertised. MS. CIPPERLY-We have to notify everybody within the 500 feet. MR. STONE-And in dividing this lot, this is one, two, and fourteen, but this is what the advertisinq said. talking including this lot, and then property back there, who has to be advertise an area. So, in other words, you're you make pick up another notified, and we didn't - 4 - - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/97) MR. LEO-(Lost words) this lot, then we advertised enough people, right? MR. STONE-No, apparently not. MR. HAYES-If we don't include this addition, expansion, you mean? MS. CIPPERLY-If you stay to. MR. STONE-If you stay to this side of that line. MR. LEO-Right, but when he just did the advertising now. MR. STONE-We did it for Use Variance. MR. LEO-Right. So now we've got to do the same thing just for an Area Variance? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. LEO-Why didn't he tell me this at that time? MS. CIPPERLY-Well, you hadn't indicated either that you owned half of Lot' 13. MR. LEO-That right now is irrelevant anyway. plan. He had this plot MR. STONE-Fine, and I can't speak for George, but in our looking at this thing, you encroach on this boundary line here. That requires 50 foot setback on this sidè, which we granted you for this portion. We'd have to grant you this again if we so chose. MR. LEO-Well, then why didn't he know that down in zoning and tell me this? MR. STONE-I don't know. MR. LEO-I paid for the advertising. I went through the whole thing again, and he assured me everything was all set, as far as paper work. Now you're telling me I've got to wait another month again? MR. ARONSON-Besides spending the $100,000 for property we don't need. MR. STONE-Well, you need it. MR. ARONSON-Yes, we need it, but we've got it, we've done the deal, and now we've. MR. STONE-Lets go back and lets get names here, because we're jumping the gun. MR. ARONSON-I'm the owner. MR. STONE-Okay. I'm Lew Stone. You know what we've got here. Lets talk about it. That's all. We have to get it on the record. All I can say, it's entirely possible that Mr. Hilton overlooked the fact that there is a boundary between two different classifications here, and that requires a 50 foot buffer on either side of that property line. When we looked at it this afternoon, we had no knowledge that you were acquiring that lot to the southeast. MR. LEO-As of right now, that's irrelevant anyway, because I still have to get the Area Variance, right? MR. STONE-Well, you also have further, you can't divide that lot - 5 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/97) without getting subdivision approval, and a variance for making two quarter acre lots, in a one acre zoning. Is that correct, Sue? MR. ARONSON-Can I interrupt? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. ARONSON-We're attempting to get this whole parcel made into one lot. I have a survey map that shows what we would like to do. MR. STONE-I understand that, but the residual lot that you were going to leave in the southeast, Lot 13, is currently zoned one acre. If you divide that, if you've got to share it with the current owner, he's going to take half of it, he's going to have an illegal lot. You can combine that with yours. It's one acre zoning there. Sue, jump in and help me if I'm saying anything wrong. MS. CIPPERLY-You're fine. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. ARONSON-We bought this in order to square this property up, so it would make life simple for the Town. MR. STONE-We understand that, and we're very thankful for that, but what we're doing is, by putting this addition on, by adding to the Use Variance that we granted you, you had a 60 by 30 building, which tucked in the corner of your current property. We granted you total relief from setbacks. MR. ARONSON-And we bought property to alleviate this whole, that whole situation. We don't have that problem anymore. MR. STONE-Well, you have a problem in terms of, we can make, you've got two different zonings there, though. That's the problem, in terms of the spillover of the ten feet to the east, because you're hitting the boundary of this lot which you claim you're buying, but you can't divide a substandard lot into two substandard lots. MR. ARONSON-Mr. Stone, this is not Broad Acres. This is the entrance to the City of Glens Falls. It's the main route. It's going to be industrial or commercial in years to come. We're trying to make a living. We employ 30 people. We're trying to expand this business so we can compete. We've been two years trying to do this. It may be too late. I don't know if we're going to survive or not. MR. STONE-We understand that, and that's why the Use Variance was granted in May. We understood your problem. You provided very good data, better than most people provide in a Use Variance. Use Variances are very difficult. The current problem here is the Use Variance we can address tonight, on the basis of what you provided the last time. The problem is it gets into an Area Variance which was not on the agenda, was not advertised, because of this boundary line, which Mr. Hilton apparently did not realize. MR. LEO-Can I borrow that map for a second? MR. STONE-Sure. It's too late to advertise for next week, right? MS. CIPPERLY-Right. MR. LEO-We were approved for a 30 by 60. Okay. This line here, this is a different zone. This is residential. MRS. LAPHAM-Sue, how far in advance do you have to advertise? I did see for next week's meeting, I saw in the paper today, - 6 - ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/97) actually. So it has to be seven days? MS. CIPPERLY-It has to be in. MR. ARONSON-Jim's Glass is commercial property. have him zoned as residential? I mean, and you MR. STONE - He is SR -lA. He's nonconf orming , but it's when you change it that you have to come into conformance. That's, by dividing it. MR. ARONSON-He has more of an industrial type operation than we do. MR. STONE-I agree. MRS. LAPHAM-If we put it in tomorrow, it could be in, if you faxed them the ad tomorrow, that could be Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, and then the meeting's Wednesday. MS. CIPPERLY-So I still don't know what tax map numbers we would use to advertise it, because so far those lots haven't. MR. STONE-See, if you were willing, right now, to say, the 60 by 30. You have that. We've given you the 60 by 30, and you could even bring that, you could bring that to the west and make it, if you wanted to make it 60 by 40. Because we've given you relief from both the side setback of the existing lot. We recognize you're going to put it together, and that's what you indicated to us you ~ going to do that. We still haven't seen that, however. We haven't seen the fact that you've merged these lots, which is a formal process that you have to do. You just can't say you're going to do it. MR. ARONSON-Well, here's a survey map that I just had done. It shows we're qoinq to do it. The lawyer, David Little, has these copies. MR. STONE-Do you own the property? MR. ARONSON-We will, probably within a week. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. ARONSON-It's just a matter of the lawyer sitting down and me writing two checks. That's it. What we've done is I've had a survey done, and the surveyor made a copy, that you can have if you want it. MR. STONE-Well, we'd appreciate having it. MR. ARONSON-All right, that makes this entire piece of property that we're buying, we would like it as one parcel. We want one tax bill. That way, it will solve a lot of problems. MR. STONE-That we understand, and that would be the best solution of everything, because now this is one lot, and it belongs to you, this entire thing. The problem is, and, Sue, help me out, because this remaining lands, can they actually subdivide that, and now leave a nonstandard lot, this one here? MR. HAYES-Is there a house on each one of these, or a house on just one of them? MR. LEO-Just one. There's a house on one and a business on the other. There's nothing on the one that goes the other way. MR. HAYES-The one that's going toward Second Street? - 7 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/97) MR. LEO-The one that runs the way Second Street does, across two lots. There's nothing on that. MR. STONE-But you said you're going to combine these things. You're saying you've got this lot currently, Lot Number One is six tenths of an acre? MR. ARONSON-Right. MR. STONE-This is the back of your property now, right? MR. ARONSON-That's correct. that. That lot has been merged. We own MR. STONE-That's the one you bought for this addition that we talked about? MS. CIPPERLY-The addition is actually on this property. MR. ARONSON-We've owned this for a couple of years. MR. STONE-Okay. This is the ground. You're going to put the addi tion in here. All right. So he's showing it as two right now, and you bought this one, and this is going to be a third lot, and this is where the office is going to be? MR. ARONSON-Yes. MR. STONE-And then you wanted this to come over here, and that's the problem. See, our tax maps don't even show it this way. He's got a jog there that our plan doesn't show. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, there's a little jog there. MR. STONE-They've got a biq one there. MS. CIPPERLY-This would be more accurate. MR. STONE-But see, if we were going to allow this building to come over here, we'd still need to know this exact distance, because that's the relief we'd be granting if we chose to grant relief. MR. LEO-19.6. MS. CIPPERLY-This is 19.6. MR. STONE-Okay, 19.6. All right. So we'd have to grant 30.4 feet of relief. MR. ARONSON-I don't understand why. MR. STONE-Because the law, we have zoning laws. That's the only reason I can say. MS. CIPPERLY-The line goes right along here between the residential zone. MR. STONE-That requires a 50 foot buffer, by Code. That's what the Code calls for. I mean, I could give you the reference to it, which I have on a piece of paper. MR. LEO-The point I'm trying to make is I tried to get all this done so we could do it this meeting, and he (lost words) . MS. CIPPERLY-I don't know that he ever saw that survey map, and that these were. MR. LEO-Well, he never saw the survey map, but he knew about this. - 8 - "- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/97) MS. CIPPERLY-Well, yes, he knew about this. MR. STONE-But he didn't know about this. MR. LEO-Well, that's irrelevant. That doesn't matter. We've got to advertise either way, whether we own it or not. MR. STONE-Yes, you would, because you're seeking, still seeking relief, yes. MS. CIPPERLY-But if you were using this property to say, I don't need any Area Variance, it becomes relevant, if he wants to put his building up to here. MR. STONE-Yes. See, you have to be 50 foot from this boundary. MR. ARONSON-We probably will be. MR. STONE-No. You'll be 19.6. MS. CIPPERLY-Which is not impossible, you know, to do. MR. STONE-Yes, we could grant that. We granted you 50 feet relief. MR. ARONSON-This was the whole purpose of going out and buying that property was to make you people happy. MR. STONE-We understand. MS. CIPPERLY-But the other thing is, at some point, there has to be some buffering done, rather than keep expanding into. The purpose of buying this property at one time was to provide more buffer to this one. MRS. LAPHAM-We're not against you. MR. STONE-No, we're not against MRS. LAPHAM-We're trying to work with you. MR. ARONSON-We just want to get going on it. MR. STONE-We understand. MR. ARONSON-We've dragged this out and we've dragged this out. It's been two years. MR. KARPELES-How do we get it squared away so they can go ahead. Can he work with one person here in the Staff that is going to be here at the meetings, so he doesn't say he said this, and he said that, the same person he can work with, that will be here at the meetings, and we can hear from? MR. STONE-Well, Sue got into this today because she knew she had to be here tonight, and she goes back to the original. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, I also was here on the 1994 one, and did the research on the 1992 ones. MR. KARPELES-But he wants to go ahead, and it looks like we're holding him up, and I agree. Doggone it, it looks like we're holding him up. MRS. LAPHAM-I kind of (lost words). You've been here three times already. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, we didn't know that was. - 9 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/97) MR. STONE-We didn't know that was a buffer lot. MS. CIPPERLY-We also did not know that this was being purchased by. MR. KARPELES-Who can he work with? MR. HAYES-What can we do to help you? MR. CUSTER-Can we advertise this thing for next week? MS. CIPPERLY-We can try, that's what I said. MR. ARONSON-Would a letter from Jim's Glass, well, I already have a letter from Jim's Glass. MR. STONE-What we really need, we need proof of sales transferred to you, of these properties, or intended transfer to you. We had one from Jim's Glass last time. There was a letter in the files that he was going to sell you this property. We have nothing about this property. We have nothing about this property except you're tellinq us. MS. CIPPERLY-So this letter says you wanted to add on this one. It didn't mention this one or this one. MR. ARONSON-It's a done deal anyway. MS. CIPPERLY-What I could do is advertise using numbers that include all these I guess. MR. ARONSON-Not a person in the neighborhood's going to understand what you advertise here. MR. STONE-Well, that's okay. You have to do it. We certainly would like them to understand. I don't mean that, but we have the requirement. Yes. We just hold this thing open until next week? MS. CIPPERLY-You can either hold it open or you could. MR. ARONSON-Don't we have another meeting next week? MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. MR. STONE-We have one next week, but we have to advertise the Area Variance. MR. LEO-They have two meetings this month, too, Planning? MR. STONE-They only have one. I guess they only have one. MR. LEO-Then that's going to bump me another month, again. MR. STONE-The 23rd is our meeting. It would be the 22nd. MR. LEO-They don't have another one after that? That's going to bump me to another month again. MR. STONE-The problem is there are procedures, and that's what we have to follow. MR. LEO-I understand that. I've also. MR. STONE-I understand that. MR. HAYES-If they can the 10 feet, though, we can proceed. MS. CIPPERLY-If I had proof that this was owned, or, you know, even about to be. - 10 - - -, (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/97) MR. LEO-That's no problem. We can get you that tomorrow morning. MR. ARONSON-Dave Little has all the papers right now. MRS. LAPHAM-Is there a way that they could get advertised and get in here next week? MR. LEO-But not before the Planning Board. MR. STONE-Not before the Planning Board. MS. CIPPERLY-Or the Planning Board could give approval conditional on. MRS. LAPHAM-On us. MR. KARPELES-What do we need? Could we approve something contingent upon giving you some information? MR. LEO-Can we approve it under whatever, come up with proof that we have it? MR. STONE-If you left the building where it was. MR. LEO-Then we could do it, right. MR. STONE-We could grant you Use Variance on the office space, in addition to what we've already granted you for the warehouse there. It's the extra 10 feet that you've added. MR. LEO-If we're going to go, we might as well do it the right way. MR. ARONSON-You can just about move a fork truck. MR. STONE-Okay, but you came to us 60 by 30, two months ago. MR. ARONSON-Right. I'd invite you down to see our operation. MR. STONE-I've seen your operation, outside anyway. MR. ARONSON-You can move a fork truck, in the original space. There's my fork truck operator, right there. You can just about move it, okay. I want that extra five foot in each aisle, as long as we own this property, so we can whip that fork truck through. MR. STONE-I understand that, but that's what's causing us the problem now. MR. ARONSON-But I own the property, and I want that extra five feet on each aisle, rather than wrecking every box that they try to pick up. MR. STONE-I understand, and looking at the sentiment of the Board, we would probably grant you that, but we have to go through the process. MR. ARONSON-Okay. Lets go through the process. MRS. LAPHAM-But you get back to the original question Bob and Brian and I had. Can we hurry it along a little bit by (lost words) our next meeting next week? Because this isn't fair. MR. KARPELES-How can we give them approval so they can go ahead with this doggone thing, without delaying them anymore? There must be some way. MR. ARONSON-We're not going to do anything wrong, believe me. - 11 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/97) MR. STONE-We know that. I mean, the process requires public hearing, before a knowledgeable public. We have to inform them, as much as we can, in terms of what you want to do. We have not done that. Maybe it's been the Town's fault, but it has not been done satisfactorily. MR. ARONSON-If I break ground tomorrow, how much jail time would I have to do. MR. STONE-It depends on how tough Goralski will be. I can't tell you. I mean, you can obviously hear the sentiment of the Board, at least this end of the Board. We're not against it, but the problem is, it is a complicated issue, because of this buffer zone, and because it wasn't advertised for an Area Variance. MR. LEO-Well, can we approve it and advertise it, and then if there's any problems next week, deal with it after site plan? MR. STONE-I am not about to get into that situation, considering my own circumstances. I'm sorry, I can't do that. MS. CIPPERLY-Would it be helpful to be able to start on the office part of it? MR. ARONSON-We need the warehouse first. secondary. The office is a MR. STONE-Yes. You had the room. MR. ARONSON-Yes, because we bought that property. We can survive without that, but the warehouse is critical. We lost a lot of business this summer, we really did. MR. STONE-What about going ahead on your other variance for the 60 by 30, and then next month, before you're going to get the building done, we can. MR. LEO-Yes, but I've got to put in footings. You've got to start from the bottom. You can't just add 10 feet. MR. STONE-You can't add 10 feet. MRS. LAPHAM-Why can' t everybody get their paperwork in tomorrow and have it advertised for five days? MR. STONE-But he's still going to miss the Planning Board. MR. ARONSON-How about having a special Planning Board meeting? MR. STONE-We're not the Planning Board. MR. ARONSON-How about having a special meeting of YOU people to do this? MR. STONE-That we can do. MR. LEO-Can we do that Monday night? night? Advertise it for Monday MR. STONE-Can we advertise it, can we do this by Monday if we? MS. CIPPERLY-No. It has to be in the paper five days ahead. MR. STONE-Monday doesn't count, or does it? MRS. LAPHAM-Yes, because stuff was in the paper today. That was about next week. - 12 - --' "- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/97) MR. STONE- It won't be in Thursday's paper. There's no way. Now we could, Tuesday afternoon. MR. HAYES-It could be in tomorrow's paper if they took a small ad. MR. STONE-But it's got to be written up. MR. KARPELES-How about Tuesday? MS. CIPPERLY-We can try it for Tuesday. You can discuss the Use Variance tonight, and we can try to get the Area thing advertised for Tuesday at what time? MR. STONE-4:30? How many of you can make 4:30? MR. CUSTER-I can't make Tuesday. MR. STONE-You can't make Tuesday. I better check and see if I can make Tuesday. I'll vote by proxy. It doesn' t work that way, unfortunately. MRS. LAPHAM-For me, the later the better. MR. STONE-How many can make it Tuesday at, we'll assume Chris can make it, how many can make it Tuesday afternoon at 4:30? MR. HAYES-I can be there. MR. MCNALLY-I'm supposed to be traveling back from Washington. I may be back. It depends on how fast I'm driving that day. MR. STONE-Lets make it five. MRS. LAPHAM-I can make it Tuesday, but the later the better for me, like five or five thirty. MR. STONE-Let me ask. Will the Planning Board consider something not in writing? We're going to meet at five o'clock. They're going to meet at seven o'clock. MS. CIPPERLY-That would be a minor thing. MR. STONE-I just want to be sure we're all clear. That's all. MS. CIPPERLY-This is what was advertised MR. ARONSON-Why don't we build it in violation, and then we'll settle it after. MS. CIPPERLY-These are the parcels that we knew of. So that's what was advertised, and if you came in and talked to George, and this wasn't revised. MR. KARPELES-Now, who's he going to work with on Staff? Is that guy going to be at our meeting the next time? I mean, this is where we seem to be bogging down. We don't have the same people here that. MS. CIPPERLY-It's George's main purpose. MR. KARPELES-Is he going to be available, Tuesday, or is he on vacation or something? MS. CIPPERLY-I don't know. MR. STONE-Well, lets try Tuesday at five. We'll discuss the Use Variance now. We'll go through the procedure on the Use Variance, recognizing that we're going to have to advertise for an Area - 13 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/97) Variance. Is that reasonable, Sue? MS. CIPPERLY-Okay. MR. STONE-Okay. MS. CIPPERLY-You're going to proceed with the Use Variance tonight? MR. STONE-We might as well. MS. CIPPERLY-And make it contingent on? MR. STONE-Well, the Use Variance stands alone. It just says you have a Use Variance, but you can't build it until you have an Area Variance where to put the building. The use merely says that you can expand a nonconforming use, as we said before. MS. CIPPERLY-And I would mention it in the motion, that this is, you know, they've shown additional properties being. MR. STONE-Correct. Lets go back and lets hold the meeting, and when we get to the motion, we'll make sure the motion reads correctly. Having said that, is there anything more you want to add? MR. LEO-No. MR. ARONSON-Do you people understand why we want that other ten feet, though? MR. STONE-We understand, totally. MR. ARONSON-All right. MR. STONE-Do you want to say it for the record, why you want the 10 feet? It probably got caught on the tape, but why don't you identify yourself. MR. ARONSON-The original application was just barely fits circumstances for our fork lift trucks. You have about a foot clearance. Now that we own this property, we want to take advantage of it so we can swing those fork trucks safely and effectively. That's the reason we need that 10 feet. MR. STONE-Okay. Any questions from any members of the Board before we open the public hearing? All right. I'll open the public hearing. Anybody who wishes to speak in favor of Use Variance No. 18-1997, in favor of? Anybody who's opposed to Use Variance No. 18-1997, opposed? PUBLIC HEARING 'OPENED MR. STONE-Then I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any questions by the Board? All right. Lets discuss it. Bob, you were being very vocal in favor of this application. Do you want to talk to us a little bit? MR. KARPELES-What are we talking about now, the Use Variance? MR. STONE-The Use Variance. MR. KARPELES-Well, we already discussed the Use Variance, as far as I'm concerned. It's the same thing. Just because he's purchased addi t ional property, I don't see where it changes the circumstances. - 14 - - '- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/97) MR. STONE-Well, it is an expansion of a Use Variance that we granted. It's a bigger. There's two things involved. MR. KARPELES-Yes, but the factors are still the same. MR. HAYES-The rationale/s the same. MR. KARPELES-The rationale's the same. MR. STONE-Bonnie, do you have anything to say? MRS. LAPHAM-No, I kind of agree with Bob. To me, it's the same project, just a little bit larger, and I think that none of the neighbors objected the last time. They really shouldn't object this time, and there's more property to buffer it, and I think it's a good idea, and I would hate to see this business have to leave because they can't compete. They're local people, and a local business that's been here for years. MR. STONE-Bob? MR. MCNALLY-I don't have any problem with the Use Variance. I think some of the information is a little sparse, in the sense of where the boundaries are. I think that the survey that they submitted tonight satisfies some of my concerns, being sure of where everything is. I would be in favor of the Use Variance. MR. STONE-We all recognize, by the way, that we're based, any discussion of tonight's Use Variance is based on our previous approval, which did involve financial information which is a requirement of a Use Variance. I just want to make sure we all, it's on the record. Brian? MR. CUSTER-I really have nothing further to add. I agree with Mr. Karpeles' dissertation on the subject. MR. HAYES-I agree. MR. MCNALLY-One point. I read from the existing motion that was approved back in May that there was no contingency regarding adj oining properties. I know Mr. Aronson has indicated that's going to happen, but that should always be a contingent, I think, in any motion, to be clear on the motion. MR. STONE-And you will get your chance. Start thinking about it. I, too, agree, that since we did grant the Use Variance, based upon very good financial information, much better than we quite often get in terms of Use Variances, which is a premier requirement, and since you do claim to own the land surrounding this property, I certainly would go along with a revised Use Variance, and having said that, Bob, since you talked, do you want to? MS. CIPPERLY-Could I just make one point? When you do your motion, could you mention that the building activity will take place on those parcels that ~ advertised? MR. STONE-Okay. MS. CIPPERLY-The other ones are basically buffer or? When you make your motion, could you just clarify that all the building activity will take place on these parcels that were advertised? MR. STONE-We'll get there. Why don't you begin the motion. MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 18-1997 BEN ARONSON, Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham: - 15 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/97) To expand a warehouse addition by an additional 10 feet, and to add a proposed office space on property adjoining the existing parcel. The business is a pre-existing, nonconforming use, and he received a Use Variance just two months ago, approximately, at which time he submitted financial information, adequate to demonstrate that he has no reasonable return without the variance. The hardship is unique in that this is the only kind of business of this kind in the particular area. By purchasing the surrounding parcel, he's actually squaring this lot, and perhaps improving the nonconforming uses appearance and what not. It's not going to apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood, and since the business is already there, this requested variance would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, and the alleged hardship has not been self created. They've been trying to do business, a good business, manage a business, and with this additional change, they'll be able to do a better job, or better able to do it without any major impact on the area. My motion would include, though, that it is conditioned on joining the three parcels into a single deed, as you've proposed. The activity permitted by the variance will take place on those lots that were advertised for the Use Variance, that is lots 134-6-1, 134-6-2, and 134-6-14. Duly adopted this 16th day of July, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Thomas MR. STONE-All right. We will advertise tomorrow. We will get it out as quickly as possible. We will advertise an Area Variance meeting, special meeting, for five o'clock on Tuesday the 22nd of June, in this building. At that time, we would ask that you provide us information, definitive information, visa vi your ownership of all of these lots. Anything else we need, Sue, for that? MS. CIPPERLY-No, because it looks as though that would take care of all of the, if these lots get combined, that will take care of the buildinq setbacks, because we'd have to do the, this happens. Sometimes people own a parcel already that's become split zoned and it's just really a formality that you have to take care of that zone line. MR. STONE-Is there a formal piece of paper that they have to file to combine these lots, and can we ask that they show us at least a working draft of that? MS. CIPPERLY-That's something you do with Warren County tax map people. MR. STONE-Okay, but we can condition the Area Variance on that when we get there, anyway, that they do combine this. MR. ARONSON-I've had a surveyor do a plot for you. I have it right here with me. I'll leave it with you. MR. STONE-Okay. We'd appreciate that. Any other comments before we close this one? Sorry we're giving you troubles, but we're bound by the rules, and we try to be as open as we possibly can. Sorry for your inconvenience. Thank you. MR. ARONSON-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 39-1997 TYPE II SFR-10 MICHAEL J. CERNY - 16 - ,--,' '-- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/97) OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE CORNER OF SHERMAN AVENUE AND SECOND STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES TO PLACE AN ABOVE-GROUND SWIMMING POOL ON A LOT AT THE CORNER OF SECOND STREET AND SHERMAN AVENUE. THE PROPOSED LOCATION WILL NOT CONFORM TO THE LOCATIONAL AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR SWIMMING POOLS. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE SETBACK AND LOCATIONAL REQUIREMENTS LISTED IN SECTION 179-67B. TAX MAP NO. 115-3-11 LOT SIZE: 0.24 ACRES SECTION 179-67B MICHAEL CERNY, PRESENT STAFF NOTES Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 39-1997, Michael J. Cerny, Meeting Date: July 16, 1997 "PROJECT LOCATION: Sherman Avenue Proposed proj ect and Conformance with the Ordinance: The applicant proposes to construct an above ground swimming pool in the front yard of his property. Swimming pools are required to be constructed in the rear yard of a piece of property. In addition, the pool will not meet the setback requirements for swimming pools. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law. 1. Benefit to the applicant: Relief would allow the applicant to construct a swimming pool on his property. 2. Feasible alternatives: The location of the home and septic field on this property limit where the pool can be built. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance? The applicant is seeking relief to allow a pool in the front yard and a setback of 10 feet where 20 feet is required. This relief may not be substantial due to the location of other features on this property. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or communi ty? The proposed location would make the pool more visible from the adjacent street and neighbor to the east. The construction of a fence around the pool would help screen the pool from surrounding properties. 5. Is this difficulty self created? A difficulty exists because of the location of the house and septic field on this property. Staff Comments & Concerns: If relief is granted, the ZBA should consider having the applicant construct a solid screen fence around the pool in order to shield it from the view of surrounding properties. SEQR: Type II, no further action required." MR. STONE-Any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-There's a telephone conversation. MR. STONE-I'll do that on the public hearing. I'm sorry, I'm jumping ahead. Sir, would you identify yourself and tell us where you live. MR. CERNY-My name's Michael Cerny. I live at 171 Sherman Avenue in Queensbury. MR. STONE-Anything you'd like to add to your application? MR. CERNY-No, not at this point. MR. STONE-Any questions from the Board? them. Is this a one family home? I have two or three of MR. CERNY-Two family. MR. STONE-It's a duplex? MR. CERNY-Yes. MR. STONE-So there's a 171. MR. CERNY-And 171 rear. MR. STONE-171 rear, okay, and this swimming pool is for both - 17 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/97) families, or one? MR. CERNY-Both families. MR. STONE-As the Board knows, this is a corner lot, which means it has no side yards, only front and rear. Do you know, you've given us a map here, and you show it 35 feet, and do you know where the actual right-of-way of this, of Seward Street is? Did you measure, when you wrote down 35, did you measure to the pavement? MR. CERNY-Yes, I did. MR. STONE-Okay. Which mayor may not be the right-of-way. I'll have to ask Sue when she comes back. MR. CERNY-Well, over the years I've had people mention to me that there's a 10 foot right-of-way from the street to my property. MR. STONE-To where your fence is? MR. CERNY-Right. MR. STONE-But this 35 feet you measured to the pavement? MR. CERNY-The road, that's right. MR. STONE-Because we need to know that, if and when we get around to granting a variance. We need to know exactly what relief we're granting, because the pavement is probably, as you've said, probably not the right-of-way. No other questions on the part of the Board? Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this swimming pool? Anybody in favor? Anybody opposed? Anybody opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. STONE-Any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-We have a phone conversation. There are no letters. A phone conversation took place on July 11th at 9:52 am, between Mrs. Normandine at 174 Sherman Avenue, and Maria Gagliardi, Planning Office. The subject was Area Variance No. 39-1997, Michael J. Cerny. "She feels the proj ect would be impeccable. They've always kept up their yard. It's never an eyesore." MR. STONE-Any questions from the Board? MR. KARPELES-Do you intend to build a fence around this pool? MR. CERNY-It's kind of vague at this point. We're not sure if we want to go with a fence or a deck. It's kind of up in the air at this point. MR. STONE-How do you propose to keep it from being an attractive nuisance? MR. CERNY-Well, I won the Beautification award in 1993, and I think that speaks for itself. MR. STONE-It's a lovely piece of property, no question, but I'm only thinking in terms of neighborhood children, that kind of thing, being attracted to it. MR. CERNY-Well, the safety matter is, it's an above ground pool. I mean, it's high enough, with a safety ladder. I guess they require safety ladders where kids can't get in, at this point, and they're locked. I am planning to put a deck on, if it ever gets feasible, financially, or a fence around it. Whatever's needed, - 18 - '-- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/97) really. MR. MCNALLY-The 21 foot diameter, that doesn't include a deck around it? MR. CERNY-No, it doesn't. MR. MCNALLY-That's just the dimension, diameter of the pool itself? MR. CERNY-That's right. MR. STONE-The outside diameter. I mean, I know it's very thin. I noticed the pool and the back shed both encroach slightly on your leachfield. MR. CERNY-Yes, that's ,right. MR. STONE-I don't know if that's a concern or not. MR. MCNALLY-The applicant's aware that if he puts on a deck, he's probably going to need another variance? Because that's going to extend even closer to the (lost words) setback. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. MR. CUSTER-He'd have to come back. MR. CERNY-He mentioned to me, Mr. Goralski mentioned to me, that if it was attached to the house it possibly would need a variance, and it would be a tax problem, but he didn't say anything about needing another variance. MR. STONE-Well, when we measure setbacks, we measure to the widest point of the, in other words, the closest point to the boundary line. What Mr. McNally is saying is that if you extend the deck out three or four feet from where the pool is right now, that means you're in violation of the variance that we mayor may not grant you. MR. CERNY-I see. MR. STONE-Any other questions? MR. CERNY-I don't know if it would be of interest to you people, but I do have signatures from the neighbors. I don't know if it's relevant at this point. MR. STONE-If you have signatures, we certainly would like to get them in the record. No doubt about that. It's so seldom that we get people who say yes. It's usually they say no. TAMMY CERNY MRS. CERNY-Well, our neighbors are good. MR. STONE-Bonnie, why don't you read this into the file. MRS. LAPHAM-June 23, 1997, Town of Queensbury Town Board, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, NY 12804, "To Whom It May Concern: Petition for swimming pool We the neighbors of Michael and Tammy Cerny have come to an agreement that a 21 foot above ground swimming pool would be acceptable on their property located at 171 Sherman Avenue in the Town of Queensbury, NY. Fay DiRoma, 6 Seward Street; Mr. and Mrs. Phillip Normandine, 174 Sherman Avenue; Susan Loomis, 169 Sherman Avenue; Aaron H. Loomis, Jr., 169 Sherman Avenue; Mr. and Mrs. James Burnham, 10 Seward Street; William J. Skellie, 15 Seward Street; Mr. and Mrs. A. Scarpellino, 4 Seward Street" - 19 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/97) MR. STONE-How long has this house been a duplex? MR. CERNY-Ever since I've owned it, and I've owned it since 1980. MR. STONE-1980. So it's pre-existing, nonconforming to the single family? MR. CERNY-I do believe so. MR. STONE-Then we can't say anything, if that's the case. I mean, that was a concern that I had, because it is single family. Sue, the current ordinance, ,the SFR-10 is '87, '88, whenever? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. MR. STONE-So a pre-existing duplex is nonconforming and therefore all right. The Cerny property is a duplex. MS. CIPPERLY-It depends on what it was zoned before that, and when the duplex. MR. STONE-He said 1980, approximately. MS. CIPPERLY-I don't know what that property would have been before that. MR. STONE-Did you buy it as a duplex? MR. CERNY-Yes, I did. MR. STONE-You did? Okay. How do you feel, Brian? MR. CUSTER-I'm not really at liberty to discuss it too great in depth as I've been away on vacation and not had the proper time to do a full evaluation of the property. I did what I would consider a drive by trying to get a feel for it, and I don't really feel that gives me adequate knowledge. I'd rather listen to the rest of the Board, at this point. I really don't have a lot of problems with it. I guess if I had a lot of neighborhood noise that they were against it, I might have some reservations, but I'm not hearing that. I'm hearing everybody's kind of in favor of it. So having listened to that, I guess I'm not against it. MR. STONE-Paul? MR. HAYES-I agree with Brian. I mean, we have public hearings for a reason, and obviously, the impact on the neighborhood would be really the biggest area of concern here, and not only are we not hearing no's, we're hearing yes's, as you pointed out, and that seems to be a turning factor in mY mind, but I think that the Staff recommendation to put some sort of a solid screen fence would definitely be in order, being that it's still protecting the integrity of, to some degree, the rules that have been established. MR. STONE-Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-Well, I'm unfortunately, I agree, kind of, with Brian. I'm not against it, and the neighbors seem to be for it, but I'm unfortunately in the same boat as Brian. I really, I've been so backed up at work, I have not had time to do any real, a thorough site review. MR. STONE-Bob? MR. KARPELES-Well, I agree with Jaime. There's really no other place to put th~ pool, if he's going to have a pool, but since it is going to be located in the front yard, rather than in the back yard, I think it's essential that it have a screen of ~ kind in - 20 - -,., '-/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/97) there. MR. STONE-Bob? MR. MCNALLY-There aren't any feasible alternatives, and the property looks like it's kept up pretty well, so I don't doubt that the pool would be kept up well, not to be an unattractive thing, but it is unusual to see a pool in someone's front yard, and I think the Code was written for that very reason. So screening should certainly be part of the plan to put this in someone's front yard. MR. STONE-I basically agree with everybody else, except that I really think we need screening. First of all, just because somebody wants something doesn't mean we have to grant something. I mean, obviously, these last few days, a pool would be very nice, and I recognize, I happen to have a lake in front of me, and therefore, I'm very fortunate, but nevertheless, certain properties don't lend themselves, and the only way that I would be happy with it, if we did have some kind of screening in front of it, so that it's more like a back yard than a front yard. I recognize the complications of being on two streets. It makes havoc with trying to do things on your property. There's no question about that, but I think with the proper conditions, I would be willing to go along, and having said that, Brian, would you like to draft a motion? MR. CUSTER-I would rather pass. MR. STONE-All right. Paul? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 39-1997 MICHAEL J. CERNY, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Karpeles: Of Sherman Avenue. The applicant proposes to construct an above ground swimming pool in the front yard of his property. Swimming pools are required to be constructed in the rear yard of a piece of property and in addition, the pool would not meet the front or the side yard setback requirements for swimming pools. I don't believe that there are reasonable alternatives to locate a pool anywhere else on the property. The relief, I believe, is minimal, based on that same rationale, and as far as effects on the neighborhood or community, we have on record positive feedback from the immediate neighbors to the property, and the property is extremely well kept, including winning the 1993 Beautification award. So I believe that the neighborhood would be fine. So, having said that, the motion should include, Mr. Cerny has a 35 yard, a 35 foot setback, and that's to the center of the pool, and we also have the street right-of-way. Let the motion indicate that we're assuming that the right-of-way for Seward Street extends 10 feet past the existing paved area, and therefore, by our calculations, Mr. Cerny would need front yard setback relief of 17 and a half feet, and side yard setback relief of 10 feet. In addition, the approval is contingent upon solid screen fencing around the pool, that's in agreement with the neighborhood, consistent with the character of the neighborhood, and with the recognition that if a deck is added at a later date, an additional variance may be necessary. Duly adopted this 16th day of July, 1997, by the following vote: MR. STONE-We have a question, Sue. Because we don't know exactly where the right-of-way is. It's apparently 10 feet less than Mr. Cerny has measured, because that's what he's been told over the years, and certainly his fence is back that far. I don't know what the exact number is. MS. CIPPERLY-What is this dimension that says 35 feet? - 21 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/97) MR. STONE-That's 35 from the center of the pool to the edge of the pavement, and we know at least, talking 30 feet. It should be 179- 20. MR. HAYES-I can calculate it. MR. STONE-Well, except we don't know where the road is. If we assume 10 feet from the pavement to the edge of the right-of-way. MR. HAYES-Why don't we do that. MR. STONE-Yes. We'll have to say that, though. MR. HAYES-Okay. He needs front yard setback relief of 17 and a half feet, and side yard setback of 10 feet. MR. STONE-No. There is no side. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. STONE-That's still front. MR. HAYES-He still needs just the front yard setback then. MR. STONE-Well, it's got to be MR. MCNALLY-The neighbor at 2 Seward Street is how far from the pool? MR. STONE-That's the question. If this is all front yard, Sue, we've got, to the road is one dimension, and what's the other setback that we need to the next property? MS. CIPPERLY-That would be, I would, from reading this, it says pools may be erected only in the rear yard of the structure. MR. STONE-Right. MS. CIPPERLY-And shall be, it says they shall be of a distance not less than 20 feet from the rear lot line. A corner lot only has front yards and rear yards. So I guess it would be my interpretation that that distance between the pool and the lot line should be 20 feet of setback, between the pool and 2 Seward Street. MR. STONE-So we need 10 feet relief there. MR. HAYES-That's what I did. MR. STONE-Okay. What Section are you looking at, Sue? MS. CIPPERLY-179-67, which is accessory structures. MR. STONE-That's what I was looking for. Okay. MS. CIPPERLY-Could I just ask a question? The part of the lot that the pool is going to be in, is that what you consider the side of your house or the front of your house? MR. CERNY-I consider that the side yard. MR. STONE-They do. MS. CIPPERLY-Okay, because you can have a fence up to five feet high. No, that won't work either. MR. STONE- It says four feet in height, all private shall be enclosed. - 22 - '-'" '''-.--- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/97) MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. If you're in front of the structure there, you can have a fence that I s four feet high. So maybe you can do something with landscaping that'll be adequate screening. MRS. LAPHAM-But the pool would be taller than four feet, wouldn't it, an above ground pool? MR. CERNY-Yes. The pool's 50 inches high. MR. STONE-So that's above the limit, and it does say that pools have to be enclosed by a permanent fence of durable material at least four feet in height. That's in the Code. We're not granting you relief from that. That you have to do. We're also saying in addition to that, we would like some kind of screening. You said. MR. HAYES-Solid screening. MR. STONE-Solid screening. We're not going to specify any more than that. We're not saying it has to be a board fence. It just has to be some solid screening. It can be trees. AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Thomas MR. STONE-You need a building permit. MS. CIPPERLY-You need a building permit. Go to the Building and Codes office and ask for a permit. AREA VARIANCE NO. 37-1997 TYPE II MR-5 MHOVERLAY FRANCIS & BRIANA O'DONNELL OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE MICHIGAN AVENUE, OFF OF LUZERNE ROAD APPLICANTS PROPOSE TO PLACE A DOUBLE-WIDE MOBILE HOME ON A LOT IN A MOBILE HOME OVERLAY ZONE. THE HOME WILL NOT MEET THE SIDE YARD SETBACKS FOR THE UNDERLYING ZONE, MR- 5. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE SIDE YARD SETBACKS CONTAINED IN SECTION 179-18, MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE (MR-5). TAX MAP NO. 127-3-16 LOT SIZE: 0.14 ACRES SECTION 179-18 FRANCIS & BRIANA O'DONNELL STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 37-1997, Francis & Briana O'Donnell, Meeting Date: July 16, 1997 "PROJECT LOCATION: 64 Michigan Avenue Proposed Project and Conformance with the Ordinance: The applicant proposes to place a double wide mobile home on a piece of property in a Mobile Home Overlay Zone which will not meet the side yard setbacks for the underlying MR-5 zone. The applicant proposes 6 foot side yard setbacks where 10 foot setbacks are required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law. 1. Benefit to the applicant: The applicants have stated that relief would provide a home big enough to accommodate their family of four. 2. Feasible alternatives: The alternatives of rotating the home on the lot so that it would meet the side yard setbacks may not be feasible. This would put the entrance to the home in the side yard of the lot and would effect the applicant's view of their rear and front yard. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance? The applicant is seeking 4 feet of side setback relief for each side yard. Ten foot side yard setbacks are required in the MR-5 zone. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or communi ty? It appears that granting relief would not have any negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. 5. Is this difficulty self created? A difficulty exists due to the applicant's desire to place a double - 23 - '.- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/97) wide mobile home on a lot which will not meet the side yard setbacks. Staff Comments & Concerns: Staff is of the opinion that granting the requested relief would be beneficial to the applicant and would not negatively effect the surrounding neighborhood. SEQR: Type II, no further action required." MR. STONE-All right. Would you state your name and where you live. MR. O'DONNELL-My name's Francis O'Donnell. We're looking to get a double wide. We live at 64 Michigan Ave. We've been there like five years now, and we're ready to buy a new double wide to put on our land to make it look better, to further the surrounding areas. MR. STONE-Anything else you want to add besides that? MR. O'DONNELL-No. MR. STONE-Any questions at this point? MR. KARPELES-Yes, I've got a question. The map that we've got, that shows the existinq trailer, or does that show the new one? MR. STONE-The survey is the existing. MR. O'DONNELL-I think you've got the existing. The survey is the existing one. MR. KARPELES-Okay. So you're going to go four feet closer to the property. MR. O'DONNELL-On each side. MRS . LAPHAM-See, back here shows where it would be, the page before. MR. STONE-So instead of going in the side, you'll go in the front door and you'll go out the back door? MR. O'DONNELL-Right. MR. CUSTER-The new model looks more like a home. MR. O'DONNELL-Right. MR. STONE-Any other questions? Do you know, the same question I asked the previous one. Do you know where the right-of-way ends? MR. O'DONNELL-It's 15 feet from the road, I believe. MR. STONE-I noticed there were two stakes on the property today. MR. O'DONNELL-Two stakes? There's four stakes. MR. STONE-Well, there were two on the corners, I know, with pink tape. MR. O'DONNELL-That's right. MR. STONE-Is that the boundary line? MR. O'DONNELL-Yes. Those are our property lines. MR. STONE-Okay. So all of that in front of those stakes is right- of-way, between there and the road? MR. O'DONNELL-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. Because there was considerable, I don't know, it - 24 - ~- "-':# (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/97) was probably at least 10 feet or more. Okay. Nothing else to add? No other further questions? I'll open the public hearing. MRS. O'DONNELL-If you don't mind, I'd like to say I have a very unofficial letter from neighbors signing, saying they don't oppose it. MR. STONE-Why is it unofficial? MRS. O'DONNELL-Because I had wrote it. MR. STONE-That's all right. want to read it? Do you want to submit it or do you MRS. O'DONNELL-That's up to you guys. MR. STONE-We can read it for you. Let me open the public hearing and we'll get back to that. Anybody here who wants to speak in favor of the applicant? Come up and so say. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED BRIAN WINNEY MR. WINNEY-Hi. I'm Brian Winney. I live next door at 66 Michigan Avenue, and I have no problem with them having that extra four feet or whatever for the variance. MR. STONE-Are you to the north or to the south? MR. WINNEY-North. MR. STONE-North. Okay. Thank you. MR. WINNEY-You're welcome. MR. STONE-Anybody else speaking opposed? Anybody opposed? Okay. in favor? Anybody speaking Bonnie, any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-No. This letter that I'll read. "To Whom It May Concern: We, the neighbors of Francis & Briana O'Donnell, realize that they need a variance for their 28 by 48 double-wide mobile home and do not have any problem with them getting the variance. We realize that there will still be six foot on each side of the home and that does not effect front or back. Leah Smith, 63 Michigan Avenue; Brian Winney, 66 Michigan Avenue; Lawrence Flewelling, 57 Illinois Avenue; James Davis, 57 Michigan Avenue" That's it. There's no correspondence. MR. STONE-Having said that, I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Bob, what do you think? MR. KARPELES-Well, I have no problem with this, because I think it's going to be an improvement, and it's minimal relief as far as I can see. I have no objection whatsoever. MR. STONE-Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-I feel the same way as Bob. MR. STONE-Bob? MR. MCNALLY-I would agree, also, with Bob. It's an improvement. The minimal relief that he's requested certainly is going to improve the premises immensely. - 25 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/97) MR. STONE-Brian? MR. CUSTER-I, too, agree with Bob. That's what we're here for is to help people like this out. MR. STONE-Paul? MR. HAYES-Queensbury is about families, and this is a nice place for a family. I think it's great. MR. STONE-I certainly agree, also. going to be way back on the lot. the? I have one question. This is You say you have 48 feet from MR. O'DONNELL-It's going to be set back quite a ways. MR. STONE-Quite a way back. Okay. MR. O'DONNELL-Where our septic is is where we have to have the house. So it would be set back a ways. MR. STONE-Okay. Bob, do you want to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 37-1997 FRANCIS & BRIANA O'DONNELL, Introduced by Robert Karpeles who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Custer: 64 Michigan Avenue. The applicant proposes to place a double wide mobile home on a piece of property in a Mobile Home Overlay Zone, which will not meet the side yard setbacks for the underlying MR-5 zone. The applicant proposes six foot side yard setbacks where 10 foot setbacks are required. The benefit to the applicant will be that the relief will provide a home big enough to accommodate their family, which is four people. There do not appear to be any feasible alternatives, and the relief is not substantial, as they are seeking four feet of side setback relief for each side yard setback, where 10 foot side setback is required. So, I move that we approve the four feet of relief on the yard, and the granting of the relief would not have any negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhood, and the difficulty exists due to the applicant's desire to place a double wide mobile home on a lot which will not meet the side yard setbacks. Duly adopted this 16th day of July, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Thomas MR. O'DONNELL-Thank you very much. MR. STONE-You have to remember that you have to get whatever permits you need from the building people. MR. O'DONNELL-Yes, thank you. MRS. O'DONNELL-Thanks. MR. STONE-Anything else to come before this Board? All right. Remember we have a special meeting on Tuesday the 22nd in this room at 5 pm, to discuss the Area variance for Ben Aronson. Do I hear a motion to adjourn. MR. KARPELES-I move we adjourn. - 26 - '-' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/16/97) MR. STONE-We're adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Lewis Stone, Acting Chairman - 27 -