Loading...
1997-05-28 ( ) FILE QUEENS BURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING MAY 28, 1997 INDEX Use Variance No. 13-1997 Tax Map No. 130-3-44 Sascha Mehalick 1. Area Variance No. 20-1997 Tax Map No. 8-1-29 Frederick C. Tedeschi 1. Use Variance No. 21-1997 Tax Map No. 54-1-25 Stephen M. Kelly 5 . Area Variance No. 22-1997 Tax Map No. 55-2-22.21 Michael Hayes 18. Sign Variance No. 25-1997 Tax Map No. 103-1-1.1 Queensbury Plaza 36. Area Variance No. 26-1997 Tax Map No. 103-1-1.1 Queensbury Plaza 44. Area Variance No. 29-1997 Tax Map No. 40-1-31 Kevin Dineen 50. 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. t 1:'- -,. ""J ~'~~,¡¡"~' '.c., ::~>1 W,"'i , 'í . \ '- t! '-./ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/97) QUEENS BURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING MAY 28, 1997 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS THOMAS, CHAIRMAN BONNIE LAPHAM, SECRETARY BRIAN CUSTER LOU STONE ROBERT KARPELES PAUL HAYES CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-JOHN GORALSKI STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. THOMAS-The first item on the agenda, Use Variance No. 13-1997 Sascha Mehalick, has been withdrawn. We'll go to the next, under New Business. MR. GORALSKI-Mr. Mehalick is moving his business to a location on Dix Avenue that allows automobile sales. MR. STONE-Good. MR. THOMAS-In the Town of Queensbury? MR. GORALSKI-In the Town of Queensbury. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-1997 TYPE II WR-1A CEA FREDERICK C. TEDESCHI OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD TO SUNSET LANE TO HONEYSUCKLE LANE TO NORTH LANE, PROPERTY IS ON FOREST LANE AT THE END OF NORTH LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A DECK AT THE REAR OF AN EXISTING HOME. THE NEW DECK WILL NOT MEET THE SIDE YARD REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR-1A ZONE. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE SETBACKS LISTED IN SECTION 179-16, WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL ZONE. TAX MAP NO. 8-1-29 LOT SIZE: 0.17 ACRES SECTION 179-16 FREDERICK TEDESCHI, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 20-1997, Frederick C. Tedeschi, Meeting Date: May 28, 1997 11 PROJECT LOCATION: Forest Lane Proposed proj ect and Conformance with the Ordinance: The applicant proposes to construct a new deck that will be attached to the rear of an existing home. The new deck will not conform to the side yard setback requirements of the WR-1A zoning district. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law. 1. Benefit to the applicant: Relief would allow the applicant to build a deck attached to the rear of an existing home. 2. Feasible alternatives: The location of the home limits where an attached deck could be built which could be accessed from within the house. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The applicant is seeking 11 feet 9 inches of side yard setback. The new deck is proposed to be built at the same side setback as the house at this location. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? It appears that granting of this variance would not have any negative effects on the surrounding neighborhood. 5. Is this difficulty self created? A difficulty exists because the applicant proposes to construct a deck attached to a home with a pre-existing nonconforming setback. Staff Comments & Concerns: It appears that construction of this deck which will meet the rear yard setbacks will not have a negative - 1 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/97) impact on the adj acent lot to the north or the surrounding neighborhood. SEQR: Type II, no further action required." MR. THOMAS-Mr. Tedeschi. MR. TEDESCHI-Yes, sir. MR. THOMAS-Do you have anything you want to add, say, comments you want to make? MR. TEDESCHI-No. I think it's pretty well set forth. (lost words) extension on the other side of the house. I'd beg the Board's indulgence to consider me again. What we basically did (lost words), when we did the extension on the house, we had to raise the house (lost words), that created a problem. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Does anyone have any questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-You did say that what is there now is what you're seeking a variance for? MR. TEDESCHI-Yes. word) model. Tongue and cheek I like to say it's a (lost MR. STONE-I have a concern, Mr. Chairman, about myself. within the 500 foot zone. We are MR. THOMAS-Did you get a notice in the mail? MR. STONE-Yes, we did, and normally I would recuse myself. I really had no problem with the deck, but as you know, I've sort of established a record of being very opposed to people who come in here seeking variances after the fact, and I'm on the horns of a dilemma. Staff, am I all right to stay on, or Mr. Chairman? MR. GORALSKI-Certainly I would say that you don't have a conflict of interest, unless you're going to make a statement during the public hearing regarding this? MR. STONE-No. MR. GORALSKI-There's no obliqation for you to step down. If YOU feel that you have a conflict of interest, you can either abstain or completely recuse yourself from the discussion. MR. STONE-My conflict has nothing to do with the piece of property, only with the fact that it's already built, and that would be my concern ~here in Town. MR. GORALSKI-Right. So it's got no connection to the fact that you're within 500 feet of the property? MR. STONE-Correct. MR. GORALSKI-Then I would say that there's no reason to, I don't believe there's any statutory reason why you have to. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. TEDESCHI-I certainly have no problem with it. Had I had the foresight to realize that we couldn't do that, I would have come in before and I apologize. MR. STONE-You just happened to be the latest in, I can't say a lonq string, but a string of variances for people who have appeared before us with already built, and I can speak only for myself. I'm very concerned. As I said last week, I am not amused. - 2 - ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/97) MR. TEDESCHI-I really am sorry that I built it in the first place. Had I had the opportunity to come, as I should have come and talked to the folks here in the Town before I did anything. When I did the house, the extension on the other side of the house, (lost words) it never occurred to me. I guess I just sort of looked around and said, I don't have a problem with this (lost words) and I apologize. MR. STONE-Noted. MR. THOMAS-Anyone else have any questions for the applicant before I open the public hearing? MRS. LAPHAM-I just wanted to ask one. Did I hear you say that you've talked with the Building Department about this deck? MR. TEDESCHI-No. I talked to the Building Department about the extension (lost words) and it never occurred to me to talk about the deck. (LOST WORDS). Tha t 's my ignorance. It's not an excuse. MR. THOMAS-Any other questions? I'll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this variance? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. THOMAS-Is there any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-No. MR. THOMAS-All right. I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Does anyone on the Board have any more questions for the applicant? All right. Lets start with the comments. Jaime? MR. HAYES-I agree with Mr. Stone that there's an ongoing problem with people appearing after having already built something in violation of the Code, but in this circumstance it seems fairly minor and the applicant seems genuine in his belief. So I don't have any problem issuing this variance. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Brian? MR. CUSTER-Yes. I don't want to beat a dead horse, but I would agree with both Mr. Hayes and Mr. Stone, but the project looks nice, and I see no reason why we shouldn't move forward. MR. THOMAS-Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-I, essentially, feel the same way as the others. It's after the fact, but it is a very innocuous project, and I can't see it bothering any of the neighbors, and we haven't heard anything from the neighbors. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob? MR. KARPELES-I concur with everybody else. I approve of it. MR. THOMAS-Lou? MR. STONE-I've had my say. Certainly, if Mr. Tedeschi was coming before us with a full scale, without a full scale model having been built, I would have said go right ahead. So I would certainly go along with granting the variance. MR. THOMAS - I'll go along with the other Board members. This - 3 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/97) doesn't seem to impact anyone around there. It's a nicely built deck. I didn't see it real close up. I did it more or less on a drive by. I only have one question for Staff. In the Staff notes it says, Number Three, "The applicant is seeking 11 feet 9 inches of side yard setback." I'm coming up with 8 feet 10 inches. MR. GORALSKI-Of relief. MR. THOMAS-Of relief. MR. GORALSKI -Right. Which means he's going to be 11 feet something from the side yard. MRS. LAPHAM-Nine inches. MR. STONE-He wants 11 feet 9 inches of side setback. Is that what you're saying, John? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. He's going to be 11 feet 9 inches away. MR. STONE-So the relief is. MR. GORALSKI-So the relief is 8 feet, 3, whatever it is. MR. THOMAS-Yes. feet two inches. Well, it's 8, 2, plus three feet. So that's 11 Subtract that from 20 we come up with. MR. GORALSKI-Eight feet, 10. MR. THOMAS-Yes, 8 feet 10 inches of relief, rather than 11 feet. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. THOMAS-Anyone like to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-1997 FREDERICK C. TEDESCHI, Introduced by Bonnie Lapham who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Custer: On Forest Lane, who is proposing to construct a new deck that will be attached to the rear of the existing home. The new deck will not conform to the side yard setback requirements of the WR-1A zoning district. The benefit to the applicant would be that the relief would allow the applicant to build a deck attached to the rear of an existing home. The location of the home limits where an attached deck could be built, which could be accessed from within the house so that limits feasible alternatives. The applicant is seeking eight feet, ten inches of side yard setback relief because the new deck is proposed to be built at the same side setback as the house at this location, but in actuality it will be three feet shorter. So there appear to be no negative effects on the surrounding neighborhood. The difficulty is not self created because the applicant proposes to construct a deck attached to a home with a pre-existing, nonconforming setback, and it seems that the construction of this deck will meet rear yard setbacks, and it will not have a negative impact on the adjacent lot to the north of the surrounding neighborhood. Duly adopted this 28th day of May, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Custer, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE MR. THOMAS-There you go. MR. STONE-Mr. Tedeschi, may I say that, now that I know who you - 4 - --- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/97) are, I will put my lights down when I come up on weekends, approaching the house, because my lights go right into his A frame. I think about it, but I don't do anything about it. MR. TEDESCHI-We're used to it by now. MR. STONE-I would think you would be. MR. TEDESCHI-Thank you very much, folks, and again, I apologize for doing something that I shouldn't have. MR. THOMAS-The next time you'll know. USE VARIANCE NO. 21-1997 TYPE: UNLISTED SR-1A/NC-10 STEPHEN M. KELLY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ONEIDA CORNERS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ROUTE 9L AND SUNNYSIDE ROAD, 1128 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO USE A PORTION OF HIS PROPERTY FOR RETAIL SALES ON WEEKENDS AND DURING GOOD WEATHER. THE ZONING OF THIS PROPERTY, SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL ONE ACRE AND NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL-10, DOES NOT ALLOW RETAIL SALES. THE APPLICANT IS ALSO SEEKING TO LOCATE A COMMERCIAL OPERATION WITHIN 50 FEET OF A RESIDENTIAL ZONE. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE ALLOWED USES LISTED IN SECTION 179-19, SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL ONE ACRE AND SECTION 179-25, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL 10 AS WELL AS THE REQUIRED 50 FOOT BUFFER BETWEEN COMMERCIAL USES AND RESIDENTIAL ZONES LISTED IN SECTION 179-72. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 5/14/97 TAX MAP NO. 54-1- 25 LOT SIZE: 2.50 ACRES SECTION 179-19, 179-25 STEPHEN KELLY, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 21-1997, Stephen M. Kelly, Meeting Date: May 28, 1997 "APPLICANT: Stephen Kelly PROJECT LOCATION: 1128 Ridge Road PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE: The applicant proposes to use his property for a flea market/retail sales on weekends and during good weather. Retail sales such as this are not allowed under the current zoning of the property. Relief is being requested from the allowed uses in the SR-1A and NC-10 zone. In addition, the applicant plans to locate retail sales within 50 feet of residential property. Retail sales are required to maintain a 50 foot buffer from adjacent residential zones. 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? The applicant has submitted information showing a financial loss for 1996. The board should determine whether a reasonable return is possible if the property were used for any other use under the current zoning. The property owner should provide information which indicates that a reasonable return is not possible if the land is developed under the current zoning. 2. IS THE ALLEGED HARDSHIP RELATING TO THIS PROPERTY UNIQUE, OR DOES IT ALSO APPLY TO A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD? Although this property is zoned differently than the surrounding neighborhood, the need for increased space to expand a business would appear to be a hardship which is not unique. 3. IS THERE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD? Some effects that outside retail may have on the surrounding neighborhood include increased noise, increased storm water runoff and vehicle traffic. 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? The ZBA should determine if the property can be used for one or more of the uses allowed under the current zoning. Staff Comments: In addition to the applicant seeking to allow retail sales at this location, such sales may be located closer than 50 feet to an adjacent residential zone. This application has been advertised for relief from the requirement that a 50 foot buffer be placed - 5 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/97) between commercial uses and adj acent residential zones. The applicant should indicate how close to the adjacent residential zone the retail sales are proposed to be in order to determine the amount of relief that is being requested. In order for the ZBA to determine what impact this use may have on the surrounding neighborhood, additional information which is not provided on the attached map may be necessary. SEQR: Unlisted action, short form EAF review required." MRS. LAPHAM- "At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 14th day of May 1997, the above application for a Use Variance for outside retail sales., was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact" Signed by Tracey M. Clothier, Chairperson. MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. Kelly. MR. KELLY - I think the only comment I can make is that during February and March of this past year, I've had (lost words) flea market inside the store. It brought me a return of about $1500 a month. When the good weather came, most of the vendors wanted to be located outside. So by that, I've lost about $1200 to $1500 per month income. It's a situation where a lot of people like to be located outside, where there's tourist traffic. MR. THOMAS-All right. Did you look in the Ordinance to see what other types of uses are allowed in that zone? MR. KELLY-I understand you can sell produce outside. At one time they sold gas, and I believe probably oil. MR. THOMAS-Okay. buffer zone. The Staff comments, it asks about the 50 foot MR. KELLY-On the map, where it shows the parking lot to the right of the store, that's (lost words). MR. THOMAS-What about the property behind the store in the garage, out there on that East Sunnyside Road where there's a disposal area, is that also yours? MR. KELLY-Yes. MR. THOMAS-You own all the way up? MR. KELLY-I've got another acre behind me. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. KELLY-(Lost words) taking the back part and leveling that off with gravel and everything for parking (lost words) . MR. THOMAS-Okay. What about parking? If you put all this retail sales up on the south side where you want this, well, 78 by 58 foot area, where is the parking going to be for the increased? MR. KELLY-The parking is to the front of the store and to the left, on Sunnyside Road. MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for the applicant? MR. CUSTER-I just have one question, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Kelly, you provided this P & L statement to us. This came off of your computers I assume, this is not from an accountant or anything? MR. KELLY-It was my bookkeeper that did it. MR. CUSTER-Okay. So you're asking us to accept the veracity of - 6 - '-- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/97) this. We've had similar situations and the individuals came with an accountant here. MR. KELLY-Well, as a matter of fact, I've asked for an extension on my tax returns. MR. CUSTER-I just wanted to bring that to the Board's attention. I don't know if that has any bearing on it. MR. THOMAS-We can't dispute it. How can we dispute it? He'd have to show us his income tax returns. MR. CUSTER-I was saying, last week we had an accountant sitting here verifying the numbers. For all we know, I'm not doubting Mr. Kelly, by any means, please, but to make up numbers, too. He could be actually making a significant profit here. I just mention that. MR. STONE-Speaking of that, what does the "0" in front of store stand for, just Oneida store? What does the "0" on the expenses here, it says "0 Store", and the down total, "Total 0 Store". Is that something that just crept into your program? MR. KELLY-Yes. meaning at all. Right. Probably she just put it there. That must be a misprint. It has no MR. STONE-Okay. MR. THOMAS-I have another question on this P & L sheet. says "Labor", and then six items down it says "Payroll". that be the same? I don't know. Where it Wouldn't MR. KELLY-There's some labor that we use for outside labor. MR. THOMAS-Outside labor? Okay. And what's this, Herman Expense, is that someone, or is that a contractor? MR. KELLY-Yes, that's a contractor, Steve Herman. Anyone else have any questions for the applicant? If not, I will open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? Come up to the microphone, state your name and what you'd like to say. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CRAIG DOUGHER MR. DOUGHER-Craig Dougher. I live at 38 Sunnyside East, which is on the easterly section of this piece of property that is being considered for re-zoning. My only objection to the situation is the 50 foot buffer zone. When you start eliminating the 50 foot buffer zone in a residential area, you start decreasing the property values dramatically. The closer, the more you depreciate it, the bigger the problem becomes, and I don't think the Town can afford too many depreciations, and that's my main objection to it. I understand it's been a commercial zone for donkey's years, before this place was gone. I understand that, and I understand outside activities, and I don' t have a biq concern about the outside activities, but I do the 50 foot buffer zone. I'd love to see that maintained and kept. MR. STONE-You, sir, you're to the east of the lot that Mr. Kelly said he was going to put a single family house on? MR. DOUGHER-Right. MR. STONE-So you're out here, so to speak? MR. DOUGHER-Yes. I'm out there. I own that whole block out there. - 7 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/97) MR. STONE-Okay. MR. DOUGHER-There's really two concerns. One is the 50 foot buffer zone, and the other is Mr. Kelly has stated he's going to fill in the back, which you have to do or you're going to swim out there, to start off with, which raises a second problem of what do you do with the water? You keep moving it into a residential zone. Actually, you move it into illY zone, and then I have to address it, but I understand that there is a law in the Town whereby he's supposed to keep his runoff from a commercial area into like a pond or a runoff zone. So that has probably been addressed prior, in other laws, as he ,expands. MR. GORALSKI-I can address that if you'd like? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-If this Use Variance is approved, Mr. Kelly would be required to get a site plan review that would address that. The Planning Board would look at that and address that. MR. THOMAS-All right. Anything else, Mr. Dougher, you'd like to? MR. DOUGHER-No. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-All right. Would anyone else like to speak opposed? BEN BARDIN MR. BARDIN-My name is Ben Bardin. I own all the property on the east side of this property. We are having a water problem. When I owned the property, the owner, we had a ditch or a pipe that ran down through, and it went into the brook and the water was all drained away. Now we have waters backing up on illY property and then if Steve does build what he proposes, we would have more water if he raised it up, and there's a couple of other things. I don't know how, what he's going to do with that pile of contaminated dirt that's out there. That should be looked into. He does have his septic system, which takes care of the (lost words) and the store is on this piece of property. I don't know if that would enter into anything that would be there. I just wonder how much rubbish we're going to have from this. The corner doesn't look so good right now, and if we have a flea market out there, what kind of buildings do they have, what kind of tables? You aren't going to have just tables. You're going to have to have them covered. I don't think we've got enough answers to what Steve's going to do out there. As he says, it's going to only be on clear days and stuff, but you know people are going to bring in their, a lot of people that have flea markets, work these flea markets have trailers and we just wonder how much it's going to deteriorate the corner. Thank you, very much. MR. STONE-Sir, where did you say your property was? MR. BARDIN-The south side. Did I say east? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. BARDIN-Excuse me. MR. STONE-That's why we were confused. immediately adjacent? So you have the property MR. BARDIN-Yes, on the south side. MR. STONE-On the south side. Okay. You are the one that would be most impacted by this? - 8 - - '-~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/97) MR. BARDIN-I believe I would, but I think this property is a very valuable piece of property, and it should be done something with it, but I don't think a flea market and how much leveling off he's going to do. You've got to level it off. You've got to clean the rubbish up. I think Steve should have let some of us neighbors know just what he was going to do before we came over here to this hearing, but a lot of things can be settled with people before we come into, I see you all have maps. Why weren't some of us provided with some of these maps that you have so that we could have found out what was going on? MR. THOMAS-It's really just a map of the corner. It doesn't have any adjacent land owner's names on it. It just shows the Oneida Corners Corporation, map of the lands of. MR. BARDIN-Yes. I don't know how much the corner should be used for, but I think the neighborhood should know just what he's going to do. Flea market. Flea market could be two tables stuck out there, or it could be into a big thing. I guess that's all I have to say. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Okay. opposed? Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak BRENDA FERRIE MRS. FERRIE-I did not come prepared for this. concerned. I've lived there for 25 years. Sunnyside Road. I'm 21. I'm just very I live on East MR. THOMAS-And you're name is? MRS. FERRIE-Brenda Ferrie. I'm quite concerned about the traffic. We've always been a neighborhood school corner. Kids have met buses there. I drive to work. I go to school every day, and I see kids out there, and it seems like there's a tremendous, a lot of traffic. The speed limit has increased. The traffic level has increased, and I'm really concerned that the neighborhood tempo has, and the addition of a flea market, I believe, would deteriorate the neighborhood. I'm concerned about the property value, because I believe the buffer zone will be a big factor and we do have a lot of developments with children, and in the past, my children lived at Benny's store, and I'm very delighted to know that it is going to be a, that it is a grocery store that the neighborhood can use, but I am very concerned about the addition of a flea market, an unjuried flea market, the days of the week. I realize it has to be commercial. I realize the new owner has to support himself, but I'm concerned about the tempo that we've set at the corner now. It's always had a wonderful community spirit. It was a post office, and I feel that the flea market will change radically the neighborhood. MR. THOMAS-Any questions? MR. STONE-How long have you been there? MRS. FERRIE-I hate to say it, but I think 28 years. MR. STONE-Okay. At one time it was a gas station, it did serve? MRS. FERRIE-Yes, that's true. MR. STONE-Is that, has it changed? MRS. FERRIE-It has in the sense that a medium was built, the corner was radically changed. It was all tarred. I don't know if that was when Benny was there, whatever, but now it has become kind of a freeway. People cut the lights. It's an access now, and that is - 9 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/97) a concern. I've seen tons of people just whip through that corner because it is tarred. For whatever reason, it has become a tough corner. It's always been difficult, but I think the traffic pattern has changed radically. I'm concerned, summer and during the winter. It really doesn't change. MR. STONE-So you've seen people cutting the light just by going through Mr. Kelly's property? MRS. FERRIE-Yes, and certainly that's not his fault, but I'm saying that access has changed, the access to the store has changed. MR. STONE-Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Does anyone else have any questions? If not, thank you. MRS. FERRIE-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Would anyone else like to speak opposed? PEGGY NOBLES MRS. NOBLES-I'm not really opposed, but I'm representing an organization. I'd like to speak. I'm Peggy Nobles, President or Master of Mohican Grange, and we're on the opposite corner, on the northwest corner, and I've purchased things at Mr. Kelly's store, and I know the letter was read at our Grange meeting last Friday and brought to the membership there, and the concern was, of course, which I have learned further information, it was very vague in the ordinance, in the letter received, and that's what was brought up as to what kind of retail, juried or otherwise, and we understand the economic situation, and we're not in any way, form opposed to that or anyone in the Town, our Grange members, of seeking some financial help on their own property or business, but it was our concern of traffic and parking, if the flea market or things are on that south side, where was the parking going to be? Because as the lady spoke ahead of me, I have also seen people cut through the parking lot at the store. It's a very busy corner. I live on Ridge Road, a mile north of 149, and through the years and traveling 37 and a half years to the hospital, the traffic on Ridge Road has just tremendously grown as you all know. Mohican Grange was instrumental, a few years ago, in taking that bad dip out of the north side of Oneida Corners, and around the corner by the Grange Hall, to make it a safer corner, and we were instrumental in getting that done, and so we hope that it doesn't cause a lot of traffic problems, but we are concerned, the members wanted me to voice that they are concerned of what would be there and the parking and what effect it would have on the traffic and safety of the people of the residents in that area. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Thank you. Anyone else like to speak opposed? ROBERT DOUGHER MR. R. DOUGHER-My name is Robert Dougher. I have property adjoining Mr. Kelly's. My only concern is, one, the buffer zone, and, two, the wetlands. If he's going to do any filling in, that water has to come down through my land toward the back part. That's the only concern I have. Traffic. You're going to get it. They're building places allover the place now, and those are the only two concerns I have. The buffer zone I wouldn't like to see go, and what's going to happen to that wetland? Especially in the winter if he starts plowing that way. That water's got to go somewhere. MR. STONE-Where's your property, sir? MR. R. DOUGHER-Just behind, between Craig Dougher's and Kelly's. - 10 - - -- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/97) MR. STONE-I'm confused, looking at this map. I see no property lines, really, on this thing, and I don't know. MR. R. DOUGHER-Okay. Just go down Sunnyside East, to Mr. Kelly's. MR. STONE-I understand. Would you come up and show us? Mr. Kelly, too. I just don't know where the property lines are. MR. R. DOUGHER-This is Bardin's. here. Okay. This is my land right MR. STONE-Where is his property line? It's just not very clear. (Discussion at Board table with applicant) MR. THOMAS-All right. Lets get this thing back on track here. Would anyone else like to speak opposed? Any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. MR. THOMAS-We've got one more. Hang on. ALLAN FERRIE MR. FERRIE-I'm going to be brief. I'm Allan Ferrie. I'm Brenda's husband. Like my wife, we're concerned about whether our property's going to decrease in value, and we're also concerned about the safety and the traffic going in and out of the store area. I just wanted to voice that. Again, I understand Mr. Kelly's situation and I'm not opposed to his trying to increase his money so he can maintain a business, there, but I am concerned about those two things. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Last time. All right. Go ahead and start reading. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. Correspondence. To the Queensbury Zoning Board, RE: Application of Stephen Kelly "On Wednesday May 28, 1997, you will have before you the application of Mr. Stephen Kelly regarding property on the corner of Ridge Road and Sunnyside East. Due to a previous commitment we are unable to attend this meeting. We have reviewed the application and find it to be somewhat incomplete. We respectfully request that the following questions be answered before your board considers the application for a use variance. 1. The application does not list the type of business that is being considered on this property. A. We are under the impression that this will be used for transient type businesses, if so, how many, the exact location and size of each site. B. How will traffic be mitigated? C. Where will the parking be situated on the lot, including handicapped parking? D. If this is to be used as a Transient Market activity, will this also be reviewed by the Town Board? 2. The applicant has two businesses on this lot at present, adding another business on this location seems to be an over saturation of the premises. 3. How will the water table be affected, many homes in the surrounding area have a high water table as it stands now without having the strain of another business, or more blacktopping in the area, how will this be mitigated, there were no plans included. 4. There is a great concern over buffering, the application has indicated a smaller buffer zone, this is not a satisfactory answer, the zoning requires a fifty foot buffer this should not be changed. This is a growing residential community and deserves the protection of a fifty foot buffer. 5. There also have been no indication regarding noise pollution coming from an outside business how will this be mitigated? Other questions arise as to the number of days of operation, and the hours of operation? There seems to be a number of unanswered questions. We respectfully request that these questions be answered before any action is taken. At this point we respectfully request that the application before you be denied. - 11 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/97) Respectfully, Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Dougher - Thomas Dougher Sylvia H. Dougher 71 East Sunnyside Road, Queensbury, N. Y." 15 Sunnyside East, Queensbury, N.Y., Board of Zoning Appeals, Town of Queensbury, "Dear Members of the Board: Per property located at Oneida Corners at the southeast corner of Route 9L and Sunnyside Road, 1128 Ridge Road, Tax Map No. 54-1-25 in an SR-1A zone and NC- 10 zone owned by Stephen M. Kelly: We oppose the applicant' s proposal to use a portion of his property for retail sales. We oppose locating a commercial operation within 50 feet of a residential zone. We are in favor of the required 50 foot buffer between commercial uses and residential zones. We are appalled at the condition of the rear portion of the owner's present buildings. We do not want the property directly across from our house to look like that, too. We moved to this property 14 years ago because it is residential and we want to see it stay that way. We vehemently oppose Use Variance No. 21-1997. Very truly yours, Betty T. Schwable Henry Schwable" May 28, 1997 "To Whom It May Concern: We are writing in response to a public hearing notice that we recently received in the mail. It is regarding Stephen Kelly requesting that commercial activity be conducted in our RESIDENTIAL neighborhood. We are residents of 11 East Sunnyside Road, which is directly across from where this retail sales activity would occur. We are 100% TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY AGAINST THIS!! There is currently a retail grocery store called the Oneida General Store. This operation does not cause any mayhem to the neighborhood, as its central location is facing Ridge Road, rather than our own personal residence. However, delivery trucks exiting the rear of the store use the dirt road across from our residence, and this causes quite a mess to our home, as the dust goes everywhere, and it is virtually impossible to leave your windows open. This major point poses a problem for what Mr. Kelly is trying to do. This is a neighborhood, not a thoroughfare. My husband and I have lived here for 38 years, and have kept our residence well maintained, cared for, and well kept. This has never been a commercial area, nor should it be now. There are several other reasons that we are against this. First of all, the area being zoned commercial will ultimately lower the value of our property. The noise issue is what needs to be addressed next. My husband and I are in our 60's and 70's, and we would like to be able to go outside and sit in peace, without noise, confusion and traffic. My husband has breathing problems and lung disease, and he deserves a peaceful environment within the neighborhood; after all, why shouldn't we be able to live in a quiet environment after we have worked so hard for so many years. People will be parking on our lawn, and in our dri veway . What would gi ve them the right to do that? Not to mention, vendors would be coming early in the morning with their wares, and not leaving until late at night with them. The headlights at night would shine directly in our living room as well as our bedrooms. There is also a leech bed in front of our residence, which would cause problems. The current zoning does not allow for retail sales, and it should be kept that way. Why should our residence and our life be disrupted because of another person wanting to make a dollar. Doesn't Mr. Kelly realize the effect of this proposed activity on the homeowners that have been here all of their lives? He certainly has not had a residence here like we have, and I am quite certain that he would not want any commercial activity or flea market across the road from HIS residence. This area is not the Million Dollar Half Mile like they have in Lake George. Our area and road is not equipped to handle that volume of traffic, and if someone says that there will be no accidents, noise or confusion resulting from this, they have NOT done their homework, nor have they thought it out very well. We are unable to make it to the meeting tonight, but we want our opinion, fears, and feelings addressed in absence of all of us being present. After all, we are taxpayers (high paying taxes to mention), and we should be able to be the deciders whether or not to allow such a commercial activity to take place. We pay taxes to live in peace, not confusion, chaos, and upset. My husband is critically ill in - 12 - '-..- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/97) the hospital at the current time, and this is the reason that we will not be in attendance this evening. Here is 3 NO VOTES FOR THIS PROPOSAL. Thank you. Lawrence, Pauline, & Heidi DURKEE 11 EAST SUNNYS IDE ROAD, QUEENSBURY, NEW YORK" "At tn: Bonnie M. Lapham, Secretary, Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Queensbury, RE: Application of Stephen M. Kelly to use a portion of the property at the corner of Sunnyside and Ridge for retail sales, As you mayor may not be aware, Mr. Kelly is already having a retail/flea market type operation inside the store on weekends. While traffic is not heavy to date there have still been some ' near misses' because drivers are going between 50 and 60 mph. for the most part, see the signs and step on the brakes and turn in abruptly - equally hazardous is the pulling back out onto the road. This is an extremely busy corner and when cars are parked on the road at all it seriously impairs visibility of cars pulling out on to Ridge either from Sunnyside or on Ridge. For these reasons, I seriously object to the expansion of the outside area and the increased traffic problems which will ensue. Sincerely, (Mrs.) Marilyn Somerville" Now, are there any others that I missed? MR. GORALSKI-I think that's it. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. MR. THOMAS-All right. That's it? All right. Any members of the Board have anymore questions for Mr. Kelly? Anymore questions? MR. STONE-Only an accurate map. I mean, as I understand it, we're talking about a Use Variance for the corner property. We're not talking about the lot with this disposal pile on it or the one that has all the water now, I gather? MR. KELLY-No. We're just talking about to the right of the store where the existing parking lot is right now. MR. STONE-Correct. MR. KELLY-Probably the most would be 20 vendors, and also to answer some questions concerning like what Mr. Bardin was concerned about the pile of dirt. That's being monitored by the DEC, and once they approve that, that can be spread. I have no, I don't want to say I can't do anything about it. I'm just complying to what DEC has said that we have to do. MR. STONE-When do you propose that these vendors be on site? MR. KELLY-It would be Saturday and Sunday from eight until four. I don't even know if any vendors will show. It's one of these things that I could have three or four people be interested in it or possibly maybe, hopefully 20, but as I said, it might not even work. I'm just looking for something that it worked for me, for February and March, brought some income in. We've had a lot of comments from different people from the lake asking, saying that was a nice idea, are you going to bring it back, and we've had the vendors come and ask, are you going to have it, and I said if we do, it's only going to be limited to a number of possibly 20 people outside and the rest will go inside. As far as the water issue, basically, the only thing I would do back there is just put dirt and gravel. I'm not going to be touching the water table at all or anything involved with that, until I do the residential home, which at that time I will have to have, you know, we'd have to do perimeter drains, whatever is Code to do. MRS. LAPHAM-What would the season be for the flea market? MR. KELLY-Basically it would probably be just the spring and summer, and probably early fall. - 13 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/97) MRS. LAPHAM-You mean like Memorial Day or before if it's nicer, to. MR. KELLY-Only, see that's what's so funny, is I never even thought about having it outside, you know, because we're offering air conditioning and everything inside, but right after Easter, they're gone, because they all want to be outside where they're saying, you know, you're going to have a lot of traffic which, you know, the people are right, but mainly it's going to be tourist people coming back and forth, and they, it's like the people from Florida, they love a flea market, and I think it's something that will help me financially support that store. If not, then I will probably have no other alternative but to, I don't know. I don't know what I'll have to do with it. MR. STONE-That back area in the store, I've had opportunity to be in the store, not in the last two or three months, but there's a big open area in the back. Is that where the retail was? MR. KELLY-That's correct, sir. MR. STONE-Between there and the coolers that you have along the back wall? MR. KELLY-Right. That's where the inside is, yes, sir. where we had the (lost words) . That's MRS. LAPHAM-What was the letter referring to about three businesses in there? Are they talking about the flea market and the grocery, and then what? MR. KELLY-Maybe because of the store and the flea market in the winter maybe. MRS. LAPHAM-That's only two. MR. KELLY-Well, I have two apartments up over the store. MR. STONE-John, do we have a definition, if so, I can't find it, for a flea market in the book? MR. GORALSKI-No. That's why this has been referred to as retail sales. There's no definition of flea market. MR. STONE-Retail sales, but he's entitled to retail sales. MR. GORALSKI-No, he's not. First of all, that's not an allowable use in the zone. MR. STONE-So he's in violation with the business? MR. GORALSKI-No. He's got a pre-existing, nonconforming use. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-He's here because he's expanding that pre-existing nonconforming use. MRS. LAPHAM-Isn't there a Town law about flea markets and transient? MR. GORALSKI-There's a Transient Merchant law, but if he gets a site plan review, he can rent spaces to vendors. It's a permanent business there if he gets a site plan review to do that. MR. THOMAS-From the Planning Board. MR. CUSTER-I'm a little confused, Mr. Kelly, please bear with me. On this map that you provided us, there's three areas where it says - 14 - '--' ~' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/97) retail sales, a filled in area with gravel and then directly behind that. Are you proposing both areas to be used for the vendors? MR. KELLY-No. Vendors would just be to the right of the store. MR. CUSTER-So where that dotted line outlines it, that's the? MR. KELLY-That dotted line actually is the new addition that's actually there. MR. CUSTER-Well, it says filling area, edge of gravel and fill area. MR. GORALSKI-You're talking about two separate lines. There's a dotted line that says concrete footings store. That's the addition that was built, and there's a line that says, edge of gravel fill. That's there now, and that's where I believe he's proposing to have the vendors located. MR. CUSTER-Directly behind it it also says retail sales there, John? Do you see where I'm saying? MR. GORALSKI-Right, and I believe what Mr. Kelly has said is that instead of having any vendors back there, what he's going to do is have parking, provide parking back there. MR. KELLY-Right. MR. CUSTER-That leads to my next question, John. If we were to approve this, parking would be something in site plan? MR. GORALSKI-Parking is part of the commercial use. MR. CUSTER-But site plan has to approve all that? MR. GORALSKI-Absolutely. MR. CUSTER-And the number of spots. MR. GORALSKI-The number of spaces, stormwater, access, all those things. MR. THOMAS-I have a question. You just mentioned something about the apartments, and I don't see that on this P & L sheet as income, or is it added in "sales of store, other"? MR. KELLY-No, I don't believe it's in there. MR. THOMAS-So you could say that that would be added income of whatever you charge. MR. KELLY-Yes. Probably, maybe $8200 a year, possibly, because I pay for the heat and lights. MR. STONE-So this P & L is only for the grocery operation? MR. KELLY-Yes. As I say, it's sad, but, you know, I don't really believe the store will ever come back to what it was. People have really changed as far as their buying habits, and we don't offer, you just can't compete with the bigger stores. So basically, you know, I've got to find something else in order to bring in income to that corner. MR. STONE-You could bring back the gasoline station, right, John? That's a Type II. MR. GORALSKI-That is an allowable use in that zone. Yes. So he could bring that back. - 15 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/97) MRS. LAPHAM-What if, where it says retail sales back here, where there's going to be parking, if the flea market were moved back there, and where retail sales, where the concrete and all that, you know, this part on the south side, edge of gravel, would he need a variance still? Because he'd be backing up to his own property. MR. GORALSKI-It would still need a Use Variance, yes, but still he would need the variance for the buffer zone. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. Well, I was wondering, wouldn't he be able to have a buffer zone there? Because (lost word) out toward the back? MR. GORALSKI-No. The buffer zone is from the zone line, not from a property line. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-The zone line goes right up the middle there. MR. STONE-John, you said this was a nonconforming use, but the grocery store is allowed. MR. GORALSKI -The grocery store is not. The retail sales, the internal retail sales is something that's gone on there for a while. That is, that's a pre-existing, nonconforming use. The grocery store is an allowable use in that zone. MR. STONE-Define the two, John, I'm confused. sales, the grocery store? Isn't this retail MR. GORALSKI-Well, a grocery store is specifically listed. Retail sales, in general, is a separate use. MR. STONE-The definition that I just read to myself is, "The offering, for a fee, of goods and merchandise to the general public and where the providing of services is clearly incidental to the sale of such goods or merchandise..." MR. GORALSKI-That's retail sales. MR. STONE-That's Retail Business. MR. GORALSKI-Right, but then if you look in the Neighborhood Commercial zone, and you look at Type II uses, it specifically lists a grocery store. MR. STONE-So that rules the others out. MR. GORALSKI-Right. If it's not listed here, specifically designed, defined here, you use the definition of a grocery store. We use Webster's. if it's not traditional MR. THOMAS-AnYmore questions for the applicant? If not, lets talk about this. Keeping in mind that this is a Use Variance, keeping in mind the Use Variance criteria, along with those Type II uses listed in the NC-1A zone, for the Use Variance criteria. Robert? MR. KARPELES-Well, I'm very concerned that Mr. Kelly doesn't seem to be making a profit there. I seriously wonder if this is the solution to that. I don't believe that he's addressed, the proper owner should provide information which indicates that a reasonable return is not possible if this land is developed under the current zoning. I think that has to be addressed, and I'm also concerned about the adverse effect on the essential character of the neighborhood. I think the neighbors are concerned about that, and I would be, too if I were a neighbor. MR. THOMAS-Lou? - 16 - '-' - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/97) MR. STONE-Well, the one question, I share Bob's concern. The one question, or one of the questions I put down on my, when I went out there today was, talk to me neighbors, and neighbors have talked to me, and they're quite concerned about what could happen to this piece of property. I certainly commiserate with Mr. Kelly. I recognize it's a wonderful piece of property, and over the years has been a wonderful contribution to the neighborhood, as far as what I can see is the store being there, but as we say, there are other possible uses. There is nothing here that Mr. Kelly has provided that says he can't get a reasonable return using some of the uses that are permitted. Yes, the grocery store has had, is certainly shown over one year, and sometimes I would like to see more than one year. One year can be an anomaly, but certainly for the last year it was not a very profitable business. Obviously, it lost a great deal of money. I'm also concerned that the applicant doesn't recognize that the property is making money in more than one way. I mean, it's attempting to make money as a retail, as a grocery store, but also there are rental properties on there, and this was not reflected until we asked about it. I would like to see a greater attempt made to determine if there's other ways within the Code to make this a profitable concern. In addition, one of the criteria that we have is alleged hardship has not been self created. Well, in a sense it's been self created because you chose to put a particular kind of business in there that apparently time was not right for. So that's, I want to listen, but I'm certainly leaning toward not granting the Use Variance. MR. THOMAS-Jaime? MR. HAYES-I'm not entirely sure, but it's been my understanding that this property has changed hands several times in the last few years. I think that part of the basis for those changes was a lack of financial viability for the owner, and I think that's why the numbers that Mr. Kelly provided, I find them, well, a bit confusing, but I find them believable, in fact, and I think that's a legitimate concern that you have, you know, in search of a way to make things work there. MR. KELLY-Right, and the reason, actually, for a flea market is, to be honest with you can see the numbers that I've spent already. To do the flea market actually costs me very little except to do the back, and to where not putting anymore money into it. Because it might not even work, but it's something to where, if it doesn't work, I didn't spend another $10,000 to see if it's going to go. It's something where I can get an income without spending a lot of money. MR. STONE-Something ready to be desired by all of us. MR. KELLY-That's about, try to get people to know what's there, and maybe people could give me ideas of what else to do. (Lost words) MR. HAYES-But I guess as my fellow Board members have pointed out, it also, that fact, which I consider to be relatively true or has to be balanced with the concerns of the neighbors and how they've expressed how this particular idea will effect the character of their neighborhood, and it is a beautiful neighborhood, and I think that has to be an important consideration to these people. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Brian? MR. CUSTER-Hearing both sides of the case here is a balancing act. I hear you both sides, and I kind of sYmpathize with both sides. I wish I could make a firm decision one way or the other. I wish there was some way we could grant a temporary variance, but I don't think that's allowed, is it, John? To demonstrate, after six months, whether this is a workable project, but having said all that, I believe, after I looked at the four items, that we haven't - 17 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/97) demonstrated to find unnecessary hardship. I'm not sure there's enough evidence right now to support all of them, and therefore I can't support it at this time. Primarily Number Three, altering the essential character of the neighborhood. Number One is the financial evidence. Although I do agree with Mr. Hayes' assessment. Knowing the history of the store, that these numbers are probably accurate. I'm not sure that granting a variance, the income that that's going to generate, is going to solve the equation, and so at this point in time, I'm against it. MR. THOMAS-Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-Well, I have a question first. With the present zoning and the present variances and what have you, the indoor flea market could continue? MR. GORALSKI-That has been the determination, yes. MRS. LAPHAM-So you'd still have the flea market inside during the winter. MR. KELLY-That's correct. MRS. LAPHAM-To help solve some of your financial difficulties. Okay. I'm kind of torn, because I do like the Oneida Store. I've lived on Ridge Road 21 years, and shopped there regularly until it closed, and then I just never got back in the habit of going north instead of south, and I'm sure that's what you're suffering from, too, and I'd like to see it be a viable business. I'm just not sure that I can say with all good conscience that it is not going to provide an adverse effect on the essential character of the neighborhood because of the traffic problems, the noise, and the fact that there would be no buffer zone, and I, too, after 21 years on Ridge Road, have watched the traffic, and what we have now in the winter wasn't even quite as much as we had in the summer, when I first moved there, and now it's daily just to increase and be louder and faster and more annoying than it was 21 years ago. I mean, I can't begin to tell you how much more traffic there is. So I share the neighbor's concern with safety, too, and I wonder if maybe other alternatives to increase revenues that are allowable, like the gas station, which might even cut down the cutting through, might be something to consider. Not only would it be a convenience to your neighbors, but it might stop all of that cutting through your lot to beat that light. So I'm not sure that I could support it at this point, either. MR. KELLY-Well, I'll withdraw it. MR. THOMAS-You're going to withdraw the variance? MR. KELLY-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So the applicant has withdrawn his application for a Use Variance No. 21-1997. MR. GORALSKI-Talk to your neighbors. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I guess that takes care of that. I didn't even get to speak my piece. AREA VARIANCE NO. 22-1997 TYPE II SR-1A MICHAEL HAYES OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE EAST SIDE OF ROUTE 9L, 400 FEET SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION WITH CRONIN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON AN EXISTING LOT. THIS LOT DOES NOT HAVE THE REQUIRED 40 FEET OF FRONTAGE ON A TOWN ROAD WHICH IS REQUIRED BY THE ZONING ORDINANCE. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM SECTION 179- 70 WHICH REQUIRES 40 FEET OF FRONTAGE ON A TOWN ROAD PER LOT. TAX MAP NO. 55-2-22.21 LOT SIZE: 0.62 ACRES SECTION 179-70 SIGN - 18 - '-- ,-/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/97) MICKY HAYES, PRESENT MR. PAUL HAYES-Mr. Chairman, I'd like to recuse myself. MR. M. HAYES-My name is Micky Hayes. I guess I spoke on the record quite a bit last meeting. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 22-1997, Michael Hayes, Meeting Date: May 28, 1997 "PROJECT LOCATION: Ridge Road Proposed Project and Conformance with the Ordinance: The applicant plans to build a home on a pre-existing lot. The lot does not have 40 feet of frontage on a Town road as required by the Zoning Ordinance. The lot as it exists has 15 feet of frontage. The proposed construction will meet all the setbacks for the zoning of the property. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law. 1. Benefit to the applicant: Relief would allow the applicant to build a house on a lot with less than the required amount of road frontage. 2. Feasible alternatives: Alternatives are limited which could provide a lesser amount of relief for this pre-existing nonconforming lot. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance? The applicant is seeking relief to allow construction on an existing lot which has 25 feet less frontage on a Town road than currently required by the Zoning Ordinance. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? It appears that granting of this variance would not have any negative effects on the surrounding neighborhood. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty was created when the lot was created before the requirement that each lot have 40 feet of frontage on a Town road. Staff Comments & Concerns: Staff is not opposed to granting the requested relief for the applicant. There may, however, be some concern if vehicles were parked along the driveway to this lot which would obstruct emergency vehicle access. The ZBA may wish to address this by restricting the parking of vehicles on this property to areas beyond the 15 foot access drive. SEQR: Type II, no further action required." MR. THOMAS-All right, Mr. Hayes. MR. M. HAYES-Hello again, my name is Micky Hayes. LEON STEVES MR. STEVES-I'm Leon Steves. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Would you like to add anything to what's already been read out of the application? MR. STEVES-It's pretty self explanatory. We have no problems with any of the statements made. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Does anyone have any questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-Yes, I have a question. In looking at the property today, which is the frontage, the green area or the driveway that's currently next to the house? As I looked at the property, there's the Hayes property to the south. There's the Kurimsky property to the north. Between the two there's a driveway and a green area that extends parallel to the driveway. MR. M. HAYES-All that property from the Kurimsky's down is our property. MR. STONE-Where does their property end? MR. M. HAYES-Roughly around the tree line there. - 19 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/97) NEIGHBOR-At the driveway. driveway. The stakes are at the corner of the MR. STONE-The Kurimsky driveway? NEIGHBOR-No, their driveway. MR. STONE-Their driveway. current paved driveway? So the area that, the access is the MR. M. HAYES-Yes, and then there is some room in between that, though. MR. STONE-There is a little bit more. MR. M. HAYES-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Does anyone else have any questions for the applicant? MRS. LAPHAM-I stopped, one of your tenants told me that it was the qreen area where you were going to put, I mean, I'm confused now. MR. M. HAYES-We're leaving the option open to grant ourselves an easement through our own property to get around to that part if we choose to do so. MR. KARPELES-I didn't catch that. What are you saying? MR. M. HAYES-We've talked to Mr. Steves here about the possibilities of a right of way to ourselves back to the property to this lot. So we don't have to use the existing driveway. MRS. LAPHAM-By existing driveway, you're talking about the one that goes to the duplex? MR. M. HAYES-Yes, exactly. MR. STONE-And where would this easement be, right there, or the south side? MR. STEVES-To the south side of the duplex. MR. STONE-South side of the duplex, where the lawn is now? MR. STEVES-That's correct. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. KARPELES-Where's the duplex on the? MR. M. HAYES-Right here. MR. STEVES-That's the one just to the south of the 15 foot strip. MR. STONE-Okay. It would have been nice to have the house on here so. MRS. LAPHAM-According to this, it looks like it's on the north, because it's right next to Kurimsky's, which is north of you, the 15 foot. Somebody said something about being on the south side of the duplex. MR. KARPELES-We ought to have a better map than this. MRS. LAPHAM-Because the duplex is south. - 20 - ',,-, (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/97) MR. STONE-So the driveway goes, the line is right up the middle of the driveway. MR. STEVES-Yes, the driveway is half and half. MR. STONE-Okay, and there's a little bit of that green area there. MR. STEVES-That's correct. MR. STONE-You're talking about going here to come in? MR. STEVES-That's correct. CHRISTINE SPINA MRS. SPINA-Can I ask for a clarification on that driveway, or am I not allowed? MR. THOMAS-Well, when I open the public hearing, you can. MRS. SPINA-Okay. MR. STONE-And the line, right now, is like the middle of the driveway. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but if you grant yourself an easement through there, that's still not road frontage. You still don't have the required 40 foot of road frontage. MR. STEVES-That's correct. That's why we're here tonight. MRS. LAPHAM-So they would need a variance, no matter where they put this? MR. THOMAS-That's right. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Because they do not have the 40 foot of road frontage. That's the only thing they need the variance for, because the lot is pre-existing, nonconforming. MR. CUSTER-Micky, what do you prefer, I mean, you want to put the easement? MR. M. HAYES-I think realistically it would probably be a better piece of property if we granted ourselves an easement. We wouldn't get into the problems of people parking in the way, as Staff expressed. MRS. LAPHAM-In other words, you want to put the easement here? MR. M. HAYES-Exactly. MRS. LAPHAM-Through the middle of your own property? MR. M. HAYES-The only reason it was shown that way is because that's the way the lot was originally, pre the zoning change. MR. STONE-Go back into the woods on a little narrow lane, right? MR. M. HAYES-Actually, it would be very quaint, I would think. MR. CUSTER-Is Paul Jaime Hayes your brother? MR. M. HAYES-Yes, he is. MR. CUSTER-And would he allow this easement? - 21 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/97) MR. M. HAYES-I think I can persuade him. We're building the house for my grandmother. So he has to. MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-No, he answered the one I had there. MRS. LAPHAM-Me, too. MR. THOMAS-All right. I'll open the public hearing to those wishing to speak in favor of? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? Come forward and state your name. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRISTINE SPINA MRS. SPINA-I have a lot of questions. My name is Christine Spina. I live at 524 Ridge Road. My property is right next to Kurimsky's property. I didn't appear on here, but actually my property is adjacent to this back lot in which I believe they're speaking about developing. MRS. LAPHAM-You're one house north, probably. MR. STONE-Christine Nemer, is that your? MR. STEVES-Yes. I'll show here the other map. MRS. SPINA-That is a very old map, because that is no longer my last name. Get rid of that map. That is not an updated map. I've been paying taxes under the name of Spina for many years. Okay. At any rate, I wanted to express my concerns, multiple concerns. First of all, I don't believe this is the first variance these people have received, requested or received. I need clarification on that, and I believe this was a most recent variance where they divided up the lots, if I'm not mistaken. Be that as it may, my personal concerns are that, what is the hardship? I just heard now, he's building a house for the grandmother. Is it rental property along with the other cluster of rental properties? I do have a concern about a rental complex getting a little oversized. The average rental single family dwelling has two vehicles. I'm very concerned about where the hell all the traffic is going to be coming and going. How many roads can you put in that little spot? That's not very much acreage. That's a logistic point of view. On a personal basis, I have, in my back yard right now I have a house behind a house, and I don't wish to have another house on the other side of my back yard property, and frankly rental properties, historically, foster a particular type of activity and behaviorism, and I think, like I said already, there seems to be a cluster of rental properties there. I wouldn't, frankly, put mY grandmother there, nor anybody else, but to each his own. If that's the case, I think he better consider the type of traffic that transpires in and out of those apartments. One other concern I do have is, I do believe that this rental cluster will eventually devaluate my property, and I've spent a tremendous amount of money beautifying my back yard. Again, I've said, I already have another house in my back yard which was built behind another house. They're excellent neighbors. I just don't want to have to devalue my property any more than I think I already have. Does this variance impact, how does it impact the adjacent residents and taxpayers? What's our benefit? I can understand what his benefit would be if it became another additional rental property. I don't see any benefits to myself, for example, and I'll speak only for myself. The environmental impact. Now, in 1995, I was contacted by DEC. I brought a letter with me. I did have to meet with them, and I had to sign a statement which they were asking me to agree with them to discontinue any plans of building or constructing or developing my - 22 - '- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/97) property which goes, my property is adjacent to the wetlands, okay, and I did sign a statement, because the letter, and I'll give you a copy of the letter if you'd like. I'm surprised he didn't have one. Their letter states that this is what they consider forever wild wetlands, and they did not want any developing done, even within 500 feet of the wetlands. It's an issue I'd like you all to look into, and again, you can have a copy of my letter if you'd like. The driveway and traffic concerns, each average home has two cars, and those rental properties now have more than two cars. By adding another house, even if it is his grandmother, I mean, I'm sure she drives or somebody's going to be visiting in and out. I don' t understand how the hell they're going to handle all that traffic, in and out. So I guess, yes, I'm strongly opposed to it. Personally, I don't want another house in my back yard, especially if it's going to become a rental property eventually or 10 years from now or whatever. What's next, and how many more variances can these people request and receive? I guess I've pretty much stated my claim. I guess I do also want to ask, who is going to benefit from this in the neighborhood? It's going to look like a cluster of rental properties. That's what it is right now, and I think by increasing it, it will definitely deter from the neighborhood property value. That's my claim. MR. THOMAS-Does anyone have any questions? MRS. LAPHAM-How big a piece of property do you have? MRS. SPINA-One and three quarter acre. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay, because I'm trying to picture where the wetlands, the wetlands in relation to the Hayes property. MRS. SPINA-I can show you, if you have a map other than this one. MR. STONE-This is your property, right? Here's Ridge Road. MRS. SPINA-Okay. My property goes back 353 feet or so, I guess. MR. THOMAS-Take a look at that tax map thing there. they're asking for the variance for is shaded in. that 1.47 acres. The lot that So it must be MRS. SPINA-No, that's Kurimsky's. MR. STONE-No, Kurimsky is here. They're in front. This is yours. MRS. SPINA-Mine's a very funny shaped. You're saying the wetland is here? MRS. SPINA-The wetland and my property are adjacent. MR. STONE-The back end. Now where is this house you talked about, behind you? MRS. SPINA-Well, the DeLong's house is the big white house to my left, excuse me, if I'm facing Ridge Road, to my right. Right behind DeLong's house is another house that Dr. DeLong had built. MR. STONE-Facing your property? MRS. SPINA-No. If I'm facing my house on Ridge Road, Dr. DeLong's. MR. STONE-That's the left hand, you mean. You said right. MRS. SPINA-Well, because I was looking at Ridge Road. MR. KARPELES-This is your property here, this triangular piece? - 23 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/97) MRS. SPINA-Right. MR. KARPELES-Where is the house? MRS. SPINA-There's a house here, and right behind it is another house. MR. KARPELES-Over here. MRS. LAPHAM-So it's actually not behind your house. It's behind a house a little to the north of you. MRS. SPINA-It's in my back yard, and I don't want to have the same situation occur on the right side. MR. STONE-I see what you're saying. MRS. SPINA-I feel right now. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes, like you're hemmed in. MRS. SPINA-They're excellent neighbors. but I don't want to be surrounded by. Don't misunderstand me, MRS. LAPHAM-By houses. MR. STONE-You say surrounded by rental properties. How many are currently rented, rentals? MRS. SPINA-All of them. There are six single family dwellings, or three duplexes. MR. STONE-Which way? Is Kurimsky rented? MRS. SPINA-No. MR. STONE-All right. So you've got this duplex here. three you're talking about. So these MRS. SPINA-In total there's six rental units and three duplexes. MR. STONE-And they're shown on this map, right? MRS. SPINA-Right. MR. STONE-The Hayes and the next to, to the south there's two more? MRS. SPINA-Right. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. CUSTER-They're proposing the easement to come through here now. You understand that? Okay. MRS. SPINA-It doesn't matter. That's still my back yard, and I'd like to have you all go back there and just take a look at what's down there, including the wetlands and forever wild which, in writing, I agreed with DEC I would never develop, and you're all welcome to see that letter if you'd like. I have it with me. MR. KARPELES-Yes. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes, we ought to look at that. MR. STONE-John, what variances were granted? have been referred to. Several variances MR. GORALSKI-I don't think there's ~ been a variance granted on - 24 - '-- ---- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/97) this particular piece of property, that I know of, not for this lot. MR. STONE-We'll read it in. Bonnie will read it in. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Bureau of Wildlife, March 1, 1995 "Dear Landowner: On November 19th, 1984, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) filed the official Freshwater Wetlands Maps for Warren County with local government clerks, according to Article 24 of the Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) . Following the filing of these Maps, amendments were processed according to the requirements of the Freshwater Wetlands Mapping and Classification Regulations (6 NYCRR Part 664) and will become effective March 1, 1995. Enclosed is a copy of the Decision and Order regarding the amendments to adjust the boundaries of nine (9) freshwater wetlands: L-3, L-7, GF-2, GF-23, HF-3, GF-1, GF-22, PM-1 and GF-19 i and ten (10) freshwater wetlands with classifications: L-9, L-10, L-11, L-12, HF-8, GF-24, GF-25, GF-26, GF-27, GF-28; and add to the boundary of wetland GF-19. Tax records indicate that your property may be affected by these amendments. PLEASE SAVE YOUR ENVELOPE. This is the only place in this mailing where you will find the identification code of any wetlands located on or adjacent to your property. Please refer to this code when you have any questions for NYSDEC about the wetlands and these amendments. Copies of the final amended maps are available for inspection at the County, Town and Village Clerks' offices affected by this amendment, as well as at the NYSDEC office located at the above address. Within the wetlands or its 100 foot adjacent area,. persons proposing to conduct any of the regulated activities (filling, draining, dredging, construction or related work) identified in the Freshwater Wetlands Permit Requirements Regulations (6NYCRR Part 663) must first obtain a permit from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Inquiries regarding the permit process or the regulations should be directed to NYSDEC Division of Regulatory Affairs at the address and telephone listed above. Wetlands and other waters of the United States are also protected by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation's wetlands maps should not be used to identify wetlands subject to jurisdiction by the Army Corps of Engineers. Questions concerning the Section 404 program should be directed to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' office at Troy, NY, telephone (518) 270-0588. We appreciate your support in protecting our valuable wetlands. If you have any further questions regarding freshwater wetlands, please contact me at the address shown above. Sincerely, Alan L. Koechlein Senior Wildlife Biologist" Now, "State of New York Department of Environmental Conservation, in the matter of the amendments of the Final Freshwater Wetlands Maps for WARREN COUNTY (outside the Adirondack Park) WHEREAS: I. Subsequent to the promulgation of the final Freshwater Wetlands Maps for Warren County dated November 19, 1984, Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Region 5 Staff found several inaccuracies on Maps 23-24 and 27-29 of 31. II. Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) § 24-0301(6) authorize the Commissioner of DEC to amend the maps to reflect changes needed to correct errors or changes to the wetland. III. Notice was provided as required by ECL §§ 24-0301 (5) and 24-0301 (6) and 6 NYCRR § 664.4 and § 664.7. A legislative public hearing was held on February 18, 1992. IV. DEC Staff reviewed the public comments and now recommends the final maps for Warren County be amended as follows: Additions of Wetlands: GF-19, GF-24, GF-25, GF-26, GF-27, GF-28, HF-8, L-9, L- 10, L-11, L-12 Adjustments to Wetland Boundaries: GF-2, GF-23, HF-3, L-3, L-7 Other Adjustments to Wetland Boundaries GF-l GF-22 and PM-1 were combined with and renamed GF-19. A portion of GF-19 was renamed GF-28. V. Upon review of DEC Region 5 Staff's findings and recommendations, I am satisfied that Staff's actions - 25 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/97) are appropriate. I conclude that Staff's recommendations are consistent with the requirements of the Freshwater Wetlands Act and are supported by the record. NOW THEREFORE, in accordance with the authority vested in me under ECL § 24-0301(6), I hereby ORDER the following to become effective on March 1, 1995: 1. that the final maps for Warren County shall be amended as recommended in Paragraph IV; 2. that a copy of the final maps for Warren County, as amended, or the relevant portions thereof, shall be filed in the office of the clerk of each local government in Washington County that is affected by the foregoing amendments; 3. that the classifications shown on the classification sheet attached to the affected quadrangles be and hereby are established; and 4. that this Decision and Order shall be filed, mailed and published in accordance with ECL § 24-0301 and 6 NYCRR § 664.7." We don't have the other half that tells where this specific parcel is though. MR. STONE-It said something about the envelope. Do you have the envelope? MRS. SPINA-It's right here. I'm sorry. The number is HF-3. As a result of that letter, I had to attend a meeting, at the Warren County Municipal Center where I met with DEC, and after they showed me all the amendments, they actually assumed part of my property, which is part of the wetlands. I agreed to have that happen. I don't think I had any choice in the matter, in writing, and I also agreed that I would not develop anything in the back portion of my property within a certain amount of feet from the wetlands. So, technically, I lost some of my property, which was part of the wetlands, which didn't matter to me, because I also wanted to keep it forever wild. I'll give you this envelope. MRS. LAPHAM-HF-3, Christine Spina, 423 Ridge Road, and HF-3 is here in this order. MRS. SPINA-So, again, as a result of the amendments to the property owners whose property was part of the wetlands or adjacent to, I myself, and there were quite a few other people there, too, signed in agreement. That's just the one issue. My real problem, again, is the cluster of houses on a very small piece of property. I don't understand what the hardship is here. I mean, there's no hardship case. I mean, if he wants to build a house for his grandmother, maybe where they live in Queensbury would be better. The traffic, a big concern I would have. I don't know how cars are going to get in and out of there, especially that many cars. Can I answer any questions or? I don't have anything else to say. I thank you for the time. MR. THOMAS-You're welcome. opposed? Would anyone else like to speak AUDREY KURIMSKY MRS. KURIMSKY-My name is Audrey Kurimsky, and it looks like they want to build the house right in the backyard. I've got several issues. Number One, this 15 foot right -of -way. Where the driveway is now, I do know that the stakes are there for the edge of the property line, and that goes back to the tree line. I don't know where you think you're going to find another 15 feet. Just past that is the corner of my garage, which was built prior to us living there. Are they going to demand that I take my garage down now? Also, to refute here what's been said, I have been up here. This is the third time I've come up now. No, it isn't. The second time I sent a letter, that the Hayes have requested variances. That is a single family residential area, and on two separate occasions they were given variances for the duplex homes, and one of the things that I had addressed in my last, the last time, the one they built here on the Paul Hayes property now it says, was that they were going to landlock that back yard, and it was Sally Hayes, the - 26 - '- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/97) mother of this guy, that owned it at the time, and she said to me that wouldn't happen, that it was all family, that the reason they were building the duplex was so that their son Paul would have a place to live when he got married. Well, what happened was within six months, the Hayes that lived there had moved up to another nice neighborhood in Queensbury, and what we've had since then is people that stay there for maybe six months, maybe eight months. They leave, somebody else comes in. We have had a lot of problems with some of the people they've rented to. They had a family there at one point that had a girl that was like a thug, that we had to take one of my daughters back and forth to school. I had to come home from work on several occasions because threats were made on my kids, but anyway, that's enough of that, but still, this is the third variance, but I don't see why, if they want to have a Planned Unit Development, why don't they say so? Why don't they make it so that everything is met at the beginning? It looks to me like they're just getting variance after variance, and then next time I see a map, I'll see more things cut off. These were not cut into separate, this was one piece of property, the last time. This was one piece of property, and at that time one of the things was that collectively there was enough land that it met the one acre per residence. You have six residences, but that's no longer the case if they're all cut up into lots. Number Two, Queensbury's supposed to be a place of natural beauty. Well, I'll tell you, when they put that duplex in, what it did was it's walled me in completely. You cannot look out any window of my house without seeing a house. You've got the first house. You've got the long garage. You've got the second house, and now you want to put it in my back yard, too, and it looks like a 30 foot setback. The house looks like it's going to be an enormous house for a grandmother. So I kind of question that, too. I don't know if there's any plans for buffers or what, and then the issue of the wetland. I don't see how the Hayes should be exempt from that which nobody else is, and I know, as a property owner up in Indian Lake as well, that we do have to abide by the wetlands acts. So I don't know how some people can get away with it and not others, but it does upset me, and like I said, this only came to light a week ago. Nothing was said. As a matter of fact, I'm working 11 to 7, so I'm going to be leaving here to go directly to work. It was quite a surprise, and like I said, even more of a surprise is I don't know where this 15 foot is going to come from. MR. THOMAS-All right. Any questions? MRS. KURIMSKY-I would like to know, though, when was that divided up into lots? Because that was not divided into lots when the last house was built, and I believe that was around '92 MR. THOMAS-I don't know. Staff would have to figure that out. MRS. KURIMSKY-And another thing, too, we might as well, while I'm right here. When this last one was granted, I had sent a letter to you guys, and I told you I had water rights to a well that was on that property. The letter wasn't read out loud like it was tonight. It was passed around the room from what I was told by people who had attended the meeting, and so when they made their house there, they plowed right up my water lines and everything, and when I came to you guys to find out about it, I couldn't find anything. It was like, well, this isn't an issue. This is between you and them, and I thought, well, God, isn't what this is supposed to be about is settling these issues first? Not after the fact. MR. THOMAS-Well, I don't know. Board or the Planning Board? Did that come before the Zoning MRS. KURIMSKY-Yes. MR. GORALSKI - I'm at a loss. I assume that the applicant can - 27 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/97) explain the other meetings that are related to these other lots. This particular lot, the lot in question now, has never received any variances. I think the applicant should address when that lot was created, and should probably address other, if there were any other approvals and what they were for and what lots they were for. MRS. KURIMSKY-If you look on your map, this section of property, because at one point it was part of the other property. This is the third time they've come for a variance. MR. GORALSKI-Not for this particular lot. MRS. KURIMSKY-But this lot was part of the bigger lot. MR. GORALSKI-That's what I'm saying. The applicant should address when that lot was created. MR. THOMAS-All right. Would anyone else like to speak opposed? Is there any correspondence? We've got one more, hang on. ALICE HUBERT MRS. HUBERT-Yes. I'm Alice Hubert. I've lived south of this building project for, I've lived there for 45 years, and I have questions. We received notice when the property was supposed to be developed. It was not understood by us that they were going to put in duplex houses. It was my understanding, anyway, that they were just going to build a couple of houses on the property. Now these places are not truly built homes. We have seen trailers with pre- built corridors bringing in these duplexes little by little. I thought it was a residential area there, and as far as I'm concerned a pre-built home is next door, one grade up maybe from a trailer, and I don't think this should have been. I question their water supply and also their sewers. They're on sort of a hill. The sewers I assume, with six families already there, where's the, I've never had occasion to see a sewer truck there. Where's the effluent going? Is it going down into the wetlands? We have, our property is adj acent to the wetlands, but we never received a notice like this lady did, no way. Our property goes back 400 feet, and I question some of the things that are going on. We built there because it was a nice neighborhood. We wanted the country atmosphere. We're probably the second or third house on the east side of Ridge Road. I guess that's about. I'm more concerned about their water and the sewage and the devaluation of the property along there. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Anything else? RICHARD TERRY MR. TERRY-Richard Terry. I live at 492 Ridge. I have lived there for 31 years, and when we built there, there were plenty of restrictions, acre or acre and a half lots. Now somebody comes in and puts up these modulars on less than an acre lot, and they want to build another house on less than an acre lot. You have restrictions, live up to them. MR. THOMAS-Anyone else would like to speak opposed? MRS. KURIMSKY-When I came in tonight, I had no idea that Paul Hayes was a member of the Planning Board. I thought that, too, because I don't know what's gone on before tonight, who's been talked to, and you know, but that does bother me. What bothered me also, and I might as well say it because I'm this far into it, is that befOJ~'e when we had the trouble, and I was trying to address the issue of the well and stuff, I found out Backus was their attorney, and he was also the attorney for the Town of Queensbury, and my lawyer told me to take whatever was offered to me and shut up. That's why - 28 - '- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/97) I think there's been a conflict all the way around. MR. THOMAS-Well, the only thing I have to say about that, that Paul Hayes is a member of the Zoning Board of Appeals, not the Planning Board. That's a separate Board. This is the Zoning Board of Appeals, just to keep the record straight. Okay. Anyone else? MR. STONE-And I, for one, can say there has been absolutely no conversation prior to this evening. Whatever you've heard tonight is the first time I've heard everything tonight, with the exception of the Staff Notes that you've heard read into the record. I can only speak for myself, but nothing has been pre-determined, and I didn't know any of these things, and I have a lot of questions based upon what I've heard, and nothing was done beforehand. MRS. LAPHAM-I have to agree with Lou and I live on Ridge Road. MR. THOMAS-You didn't get a notice, did you? MRS. LAPHAM-No. MR. THOMAS-You're not that close. MRS. LAPHAM-No. I'm not that close. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Read the correspondence here and keep this thing rolling. MRS. LAPHAM-There is no correspondence. MR. THOMAS-All right. I'll close the public hearing. We've got one more. I'll open the public hearing back up for one more. HAROLD HUBERT MR. HUBERT-I'm Harold Hubert. I live at 474 Ridge Road, and we've lived there since 1952, which is 45 years we've been on the same property, and right now between the traffic and all the coming and going up in the, I noticed there was somebody moving out today up there. I don't know. It certainly lowers the value of our property. I mean, I bought three and a quarter acres and I built right in the center of it, originally, and since that time, these modulars and everybody, there's six mailboxes out there. So there's got to be six families there, and years ago it was one family per acre, and now, I'd just like to know what this variance is going to be. In other words, you're supposed to have at least 40 feet on the road, right? MR. THOMAS-That's right. MR. HUBERT-What is his footage that he has to build? MR. THOMAS-Fifteen. He has 15 feet on the road. MR. HUBERT-My God. Okay. Enough said. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Anyone else? MRS. KURIMSKY-That driveway, how far back, that house can't be more than 10 feet from the driveway. Have you seen the home? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MRS. KURIMSKY-Do you see what I mean? MR. THOMAS-Yes. There's no ordinance in the Town that says you have to have a certain setback from a driveway. - 29 - - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/97) MRS. KURIMSKY-That driveway is going to different homes, three different families. road as opposed to a driveway? be shared by three Does that constitute a MR. THOMAS-No. It's not a Town road. No. MRS. SPINA-If I could just ask a question, what does it become when there's that much thoroughfare on that? MR. THOMAS-It's still a private right-of-way, thoroughfare. or private MRS. SPINA-And there's no restrictions as far as traffic? MR. THOMAS-No. Mr. Steves, you have a lot of questions to answer. Okay, Lou, let him have it. MR. STONE-Well, okay. First of all, we keep hearing about variances. I have no idea when these duplexes were built, but it seems we have three one acre lots, not talking about the lot in question. Three one acre lots, all of whom have obviously had a variance, if these houses were built since the Ordinance was in effect. I mean, were they built ahead of time or not? MR. STEVES-I have no idea (lost words). I couldn't answer that, but I could tell you when the duplexes were built. On the lot to the south, which we're calling Lot One, the date on the map is January 8, 1987. One Lot Two, the date on the map is January 8, 1987, and on Lot Three, it's March 28, 1988, and as of October 1st, 1988, the Code in the Town of Queensbury required 15 feet on a Town road. That Lot Four met the requirement. The Code was changed October 1st, and that's why we're here today seeking the relief imposed by the Town to go to the 15 feet that was adequate at the time. MR. CUSTER-Mr. Steves, you say Lot Four, that's the lot in question? MR. STEVES-Yes, it is. MR. CUSTER-And at the time that that lot, that like an L shaped or whatever you want to call it, that was the Code, 15 feet? MR. STEVES-Yes, it was. MR. CUSTER-That lot was formed? MR. STEVES-Yes, it was. MRS. LAPHAM-Lots One, Two and Three were formed, was that before the Code changed, also? MR. STEVES-Yes, it was. MR. STONE-Was that SR-1A in those days, John? MR. GORALSKI-I don't know what it was previously. MR. STONE-In '87. MR. GORALSKI-I don't know what it was previously. All I know is when that lot was created Mr. Steves, I don't know when that lot was created, but prior to October 1, 1988, the requirement was for 15 feet of frontage on a Town road. MR. STONE-I understand that, but it obviously, if it was an approved lot, it's less than an acre. - 30 - '- -" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/97) MR. GORALSKI-I would assume that when they were created it was the proper density, but I don't know that for a fact. MR. STEVES-There was no subdivision regulations on lots (lost words) . MR. GORALSKI-Less than four lots, correct, but the lots still had to meet the zoning when they were created. MR. STEVES-Yes, that's correct. MR. GORALSKI-So I'm assuming that they met the zoning. know that for a fact. I don't MR. STONE-They were not single family then. wasn't zoned single family as we're hearing. I mean, that area MR. GORALSKI-Chances are what it was zoned at the time was residential, probably R-1, is my guess. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but it wasn't one acre required. MR. GORALSKI-I don't know. I can't answer that. MRS. LAPHAM-Well, Ridge Road has always traditionally been single family. MR. GORALSKI-Right. I don't know what these four lots where the duplexes are, I don't know what they were zoned at the time. MRS. SPINA-Okay. I built my house in 1986, and I had to have 40 foot frontage, which is what I was told by the Town of Queensbury, and you can look that up in the Building Department. I'm very confused, because I was told originally something entirely different than what (lost words). There's got to be some records somewhere. MRS. KURIMSKY-When Chris built her house, that was still a barn and horses. MR. GORALSKI-Either you're going to need to open the public hearing again, or have these people come up to the microphone, because we're not going to get it on the tape. MR. THOMAS-I don't want to open the public hearing again. Everybody's had a chance to. MRS. SPINA-These are questions. MR. THOMAS-Well, these are questions you should have asked before. MRS. SPINA-Well, perhaps if somebody would provide me with enough ample information, I wouldn't be asking so many questions because I don't have the facts. Did that get on the record? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MRS. SPINA-I hope it did. MR. THOMAS-It did. MRS. SPINA-Thank you. MR. THOMAS-You're welcome. Mr. Steves, the one question that I have, was the applicant aware of the ENCON amendments to the law? MR. STEVES-I've asked, and we've not received any notification whatsoever. I'm surprised, as well, that Mr. Hubert, I think, said - 31 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/97) that he hadn't received any, and I'm also surprised that the letter that you have there, you didn' t have a map attached to it. Because I have seen those letters, throughout the Town, and they generally have with it a letter sized map showing the wetlands in question. Although they're broad brush approach, that's exactly what it's for is to alert the neighbors of the possibility of the presence of that wetland on your property or adjacent to it. MR. THOMAS-Does anyone else have any questions for the applicant? MR. GORALSKI-If you want to wait, I can run over to the other building and try to find out what this was zoned prior to 1988. It would take me a few minutes, but I could do it. MR. THOMAS-Yes, why don't you do that, so we can. MR. KARPELES-What about the wetlands? Do you have any record of where the wetlands are? MR. STONE-You have a wetlands map, don't you? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. I have a wetlands map. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes, that would be helpful. MR. STEVES-Mr. Chairman, if you don't mind, I will suggest that rather than John taking the time to run next door and delaying this meeting continuously, that you can table this project for a slight time, I'll run down to the office and get that same information that John is going to get, and bring it back, and then perhaps you can go on to the next item on your agenda, until my return. MR. STONE-Can we table it for a month? MR. GORALSKI-I mean, if you're not going to act on it tonight, you should table it. If you're going to act on it later in the meeting, you don't have to table it. You can just go on with the meeting. MR. STEVES-Well, that's what I'm saying. We'll just delay it until such time as I can bring back that map and information. I'll bring it back tonight. I'd be willing to run down to the office. It will take me 10 minutes to get there. It will take me maybe five minutes to get the map and another 10 minutes to get back. MR. GORALSKI-The information you want to know is when were these lots created. MR. THOMAS-That's right. MR. STONE-He told us that. MR. STEVES-I told you that. MR. GORALSKI-You said that's when those maps were dated. MR. STEVES-If you'll notice, John, the date of the maps were 1987. MR. GORALSKI-Correct. MR. STEVES-So then that's prior to the existing Code. MR. GORALSKI-Right. So if you can find out what the zoning was in 1987. MR. STEVES-In 1987, and I can bring you back the zoning map of that, and if you wish, I'll try to find the zoning book at the same time. I think I have that. - 32 - '---' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/97) MR. GORALSKI-It's on the back of the map. MR. STONE-What I would also like to know, if the variance were granted on these properties. MR. GORALSKI-Well, I can tell, once again, let me make this clear, this flag shaped lot that we're talking about, there were no variances ever granted. MR. STONE-I understand that, but we have concerns by the neighbors who are quite vocal who have certain, they believe they have certain information, and I think we owe it to them to at least answer the questions they've posed. MR. GORALSKI-I can find that out. MR. STEVES-John's going to find that out. He may look at the map. I'm just trying to help you. MRS. SPINA-Could we request the Town of Queensbury's records rather than, I'm not sure Mr. Steves is, and I don' t distrust your information, but the Town of Queensbury has this information on record file. Is that a fair statement? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MRS. SPINA-Can I, as a resident, request that information? MR. GORALSKI-Sure. MRS. SPINA-Wouldn't it be better for this arena, rather than Mr. Steves? MR. GORALSKI-I don't know what the next thing on the agenda is, but if you want to go on without me, I'll go get the information. MRS. KURIMSKY-Also the minutes of the last meeting. MR. THOMAS-That takes time. MR. GORALSKI-Not a chance. I can go and find out if there were any variances ever granted on any of these lots where the duplexes are, but I can't dig out the minutes of those meetings tonight. MR. M. HAYES-If I could add the fact that we've paid taxes as a single family residential lot on this particular piece of property for the last 10 year, and it's assessed for $17,700. I don't know what to say. That's what everybody else has been calling it for 10 years, and we've paid taxes on that this whole time. MR. THOMAS-If we delayed this thing a month, would that bother you? MR. M. HAYES-Actually, it would, because we'd like to get it going, to tell you the truth, and we're paying taxes on the property, and we have for 10 years as a single family residential lot. MR. THOMAS-Well, why don't you go over and get that map. We'll find out what it was before then. We'll take five while John goes and gets the map. MR. GORALSKI-I'll address the wetlands issue first, for you. This is a 1995 wetlands map which I believe is the most up to date map, which does not indicate any wetlands on this property. We have the same wetlands map on our GIS system on our computer, and I blew that up with the parcel lines on there, and there's no wetlands on this property. It comes up close to the back of the other properties where the duplexes are. It comes right up adjacent to it. There's no wetlands. - 33 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/97) MR. KARPELES-Did you say within 100 feet of the wetlands? MR. GORALSKI-All that means is you need a permit. MRS. LAPHAM-But it's way over 100 feet, because here's our little lot, here's our subject, and these are the duplexes. MR. GORALSKI-There's a 100 foot buffer around any DEC wetland. If you do anything within that 100 foot buffer, you need to get a permit from DEC. It doesn't say you can't. It says you need to get a permit. MRS. LAPHAM-And that's well over 100, too, because there's our subject right there. MR. STONE-So her lot is even further away. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes, her lot's right here. MR. THOMAS-That takes care of that. MR. GORALSKI-As far as variances, and the previous zoning, the previous zoning of that, those lots was Suburban Residential 30,000 square feet, okay. Only other applications that we have is for Site Plan 13-88, which was April 19, 1988, for a duplex, and at the time the zoning required 30,000 square feet in that zone for a single family residence. However, one and one half the lot size for duplex. So the duplex would have been 45,000, which is what that lot was. Now, this is a single family lot, the question arises then is that this is not a 30,000 square foot lot. So I do need to know when that lot was created. MR. STEVES-1987 is the best I can tell you, in that the maps themselves of each of t ,other lots were made in 1987, 1988, and that was the only time frame I have. MR. GORALSKI-I'm not sure how those lots were created, but it appears to me that in 1987, that lot should have been 30,000 square feet minimum. MR. THOMAS-I'll tell you what we're going to do. We're going to table this application until we can get all this information, as to when that lot was created. We know it's 25,423 square feet, and any other questions that have come up tonight to be answered. MR. GORALSKI-Like I say, the other lots, the only record I have of any other discretionary approvals by either the Planning Board or Zoning Board was for that duplex. MR. STONE-But, John, did you say the Ordinance said that at 45 you could get a duplex, one and a half times the? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, right. MR. STONE-Okay. So that didn't require a variance. MR. GORALSKI-Correct. That's what I'm saying. Those duplexes, as far as I can tell, based on the 1982 through '88 Zoning Ordinance, those duplexes didn't require a variance. MR. THOMAS-And they were built within that time period. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. There was a site plan review in April of 1988. MRS. SPINA- I'm confused again. Excuse me. The Archeno duplex right next to that required a variance, and the only reason why I know this is because I was related to them and I helped them construct that. - 34 - "--' '--' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/97) MR. GORALSKI-The only record I have is of a site plan review. I have no record of a variance for any of those lots. I went through all the records, and there's no record of any variances for those lots. MRS. SPINA-That's phenomenal. MR. GORALSKI-But the question does arise of why that 25,000 square foot lot, when that 25,000 square foot lot was created, and whether it was created under this 30,000 square foot zone. MR. STONE-Let me express a concern, not a concern. It's interesting, these three lots are 45,000, which is what the Ordinance said it had to be. So in other words they were at the minimum size they had to be, which obviously allowed for as much of Lot Four as it could be, and it still comes in less than the 30,000 that it may have been zoned at the time. So an attempt was made to get the maximum size of this little lot. I mean, it's very strange to come out 45,000 three lot which have a regular dimensions. They're not perfect rectangles, as I look at these numbers. So I just wonder, that's all. I don't know what it means. I just wonder, and I think we ought to do exactly what the Chairman says. MR. THOMAS-All right. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 22-1997 MICHAEL HAYES, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: Until further information can be obtained as to when the lot in question was created, and at the time it was created, how many square feet were required for the zone. Duly adopted this 28th day of May, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Custer, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hayes MR. THOMAS-I hate doing this, but it's something we've got to do. MR. GORALSKI-And if somebody can come up with the variance, you know, I can't find it. That's all I can tell you is I have no record of it. MRS. SPINA-Would it help if I got a hold of Joe Archeno? MR. GORALSKI-If he's got a copy of an application or something. MR. STEVES-John, are they talking about another lot, not these lots? MR. GORALSKI-I don't know. MRS. SPINA-Yes. It's a duplex. MR. STEVES-Yes. They're talking about another lot. So that's why you weren't looking for it. MR. GORALSKI-I went every lot up and down that section there. MR. STEVES-Of Hayes' lots, but not the lot next door. MRS. SPINA-Archeno bought the property from Dr. DeLong. MR. GORALSKI-I looked at all those tax map numbers. That's all I - 35 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/97) can tell you. MR. THOMAS-All right. Lets get on with the next one here. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 25-1997 TYPE: UNLISTED PC-1A QUEENS BURY PLAZA HOWARD CARR, MANAGING AGENT FOR ILENE FLAUM OWNER: ILENE FLAUM QUEENS BURY PLAZA, INTERSECTION OF ROUTE 9 AND QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A FREESTANDING SIGN TO IDENTIFY QUEENS BURY PLAZA ON ROUTE 9. THE SETBACK AND SIZE OF THE SIGN WILL NOT CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SIGN REGULATIONS. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM SECTION 140-6,B WHICH REGULATES THE SETBACK AND SIZE OF FREESTANDING SIGNS. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 5/14/97 TAX MAP NO. 103-1-1.1 LOT SIZE: 1.22 ACRES SECTION 140-6B HOWARD CARR & JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 25-1997, Queensbury Plaza, Meeting Date: May 28, 1997 "PROJECT LOCATION: Queensbury Plaza, Route 9 & 254 PROPOSED PROJECT AND CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE: The applicant proposes to construct a freestanding sign to identify the Queensbury Plaza. The new sign will not conform to the setback and size requirements for freestanding signs. The sign is proposed to be 53.44 square feet in size with a setback of 0 feet from the front property line. Sign regulations require freestanding signs to be setback 15 feet and limit the size to 50 square feet at that setback. 1. How would you benefit from the granting of this Sign Variance? Relief would allow the replacement of an existing sign with a new sign at Queensbury Plaza. 2. What effect would this sign have on the character of the neighborhood and the heal th, safety, and welfare of the community? The new sign would be setback 20 feet from the edge of Route 9 and would probably have no negative effect on the character of the surrounding neighborhood. 3. Are there feasible alternatives to this variance? Alternative locations which would increase the front yard setback are limited due to the small amount of property between the parking lot and front property line. The applicant may be able to redesign the sign so that it complies with the 50 square foot requirement. 4. Is the amount of relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The applicant is seeking 15 feet of front setback relief as well as 3.44 square feet of relief for the size of the sign. 5. will the variance have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood? Allowing this variance would not have an adverse effect on environmental conditions in the surrounding neighborhood. Staff Comments and Concerns: Staff recognizes the difficulty in locating a freestanding sign on this property which will conform to current setback requirements. The ZBA should take into consideration the feasibility of having the applicant resize the proposed sign so it would conform to current size requirements. SEQR: Unlisted, short form EAF review needed." MRS. LAPHAM- "At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 14th day of May 1997, the above application for a Siqn Variance for a new plaza siqn at the entrance on Upper Glen Street to replace the existinq pylon siqn was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Disapprove Comments: The Applicant should conform to the Queensbury Sign Ordinance." Signed Tracey M. Clothier, Chairperson. MR. THOMAS-All right. Before we start, Warren County has disapproved there. So that means we need a super majority, which is a majority plus one, or five positive votes to overturn Warren County Planning. Having said that. Mr. Lapper. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. Hello again. For the record my name is Jon Lapper, and with me is Howard Carr who is the manager of the - 36 - '--' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/97) plaza, as we have done all these site plan modifications over the last few years. To start with, I have a color photo which I would like to give you, which shows much easier what we're looking for. MRS. LAPHAM-I have one in here. MR. LAPPER-That one's wrong. MRS. LAPHAM-Because that's the one we all got in our packets, too. MR. STONE-That's what we got. MR. LAPPER-It must have been because I had five going in at the same time. That does not require a variance. That would go by Evergreen Bank, but that conforms because it was less than 50 square feet, and it is beyond 15 feet from the property line. So what you should have got, that's good, the County didn't even like that one. What would should have got, this is the entrance sign on the front, and that is 53 and change square feet. We can fill in the "Q" and then it would conform, size wise. The more important issue was location. Howard feels that it's nicer to add the "Q". It's just a design item, and we can't reduce the letters because these have to be at least six inches in height, under the Code, and if we make this any smaller, it's just not going to be visible. MR. STONE-Is this going to change or? MR. LAPPER-The two in the middle can change, because we've got Parts America and Red Lobster, but if any of the other tenants want to advertise a sale or something, those are changeable sign boards, but it's not, because we're only allowed 50 square feet. There's not a lot of space. MRS. LAPHAM-So Red Lobster and Parts America will stay there forever, and the middle can rotate? MR. LAPPER-Not to move, but just that we can put something up. MR. STONE-You can change it. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Is that allowed, John? That sounds awful border line. MR. KARPELES-Where is this sign going to go? MR. STONE-Where the current one is? MR. LAPPER-Let me show you. The current sign right now is here, is right at the entrance. It is a, as I described, an underwhelming pylon sign. So it has one pylon and then this small sign on top. The issue with that location, this sign is much more massive. It is much more expensive, and hopefully you will think it's more attractive. The location now would not be appropriate, because if you're coming out of the main drive, heading right to go north on Upper Glen, if we put the sign along here, it would block visibility, because you want to look and see who's coming. MR. STONE-So this goes to the ground. MR. LAPPER-Because this goes to the ground, it will block visibility. In terms of the location, when DOT did all the improvements to Upper Glen Street and widened it, they took a big chunk from the land here. You can' t tell, because it is maintained, mowed, and landscaped by the plaza. So when you drive by, you don't know where the property line is, but when you look on the map, you see that they took this big chunk, which would be a normal location for this. Because of that, although we are 22 feet - 37 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/97) from the edge of pavement, it can't be 15 feet from the property line unless we put it in the parking lot, or we put it in the location where we think it will hurt visibility. So that's why we've proposed it as a 0 lot line right on the property line, because that's an appropriate place for it. MR. KARPELES-That means it's closer to the road than the existing sign? I'm confused where the existing sign is and where this one is going to be. MR. LAPPER-The existing sign is here. So that the existing sign is most likely beyond 15 feet from the property line, but the property line, there's more grass here. The property line, there's more grass to come back that's not paved. Over here, the property line is right here. So we're proposing to put the sign here, and there is no room. MR. STONE-On an angle? MR. LAPPER-No. It would be straight. MR. STONE-Two sided? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. KARPELES-There' s some little grass islands in there. Why couldn't it go in one of those grass islands, in the parking lot? MR. LAPPER-That would be these islands here? MR. KARPELES-I don't know, but there's some that, one has a tree in and one the tree is dead or gone. MR. LAPPER-AII of these, the subject of our second variance request is for the next phase of revising the site plan, which, thanks to numerous meetings wi~h John Goralski and Jim Martin, is going to require significant large sized trees, real curbed islands with concrete, wider drive aisles, and that's what, so these islands here are now going to have, we're going to take out the railroad ties, replace them with real trees, and this is just going to be a much softer look. MR. STONE-Because I thought none of these trees exist now? MR. CARR-Right. MR. THOMAS-Where did you say that exist sign was, Jon? MR. LAPPER-The existing sign is here, right now. MR. STONE-Why can't it go here? MR. THOMAS-It's up here, the Queensbury Plaza sign. MR. LAPPER-No. That's the proposed sign. MR. THOMAS-It seems to me that's farther away from, it's not that close to this. I looked at it today. It's farther away. MR. LAPPER-Is it possible that it's not on your property, that it's on the DOT property? MR. CARR-No. This indentation is the old entrance to the center. MR. GORALSKI-Prior to the widening of the road? MR. CARR-Yes. Okay, and when the entrance to the center was re- located and the traffic light installed. The sign's over here. - 38 - '--' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/97) The sign's right over here. MR. STONE-So it's not this one. It's this one. MR. CARR-The sign is right in here. MR. LAPPER-Okay. So that means that present sign doesn't conform to the 15 feet either. MR. CARR-No. MR. LAPPER-Was that a pre-existing sign? MR. CARR-That sign has been there, to my knowledge, since 1988 or '89. I was in there when there was nobody there. MR. LAPPER-So then it's most likely a grandfathered situation. MR. CARR-The sign was there prior to the taking by DOT, when they widened the road. It used to say "Queensbury Factory Outlet Center", and they just changed the panels to say "Queensbury Plaza" . MR. LAPPER-The grass was all, at one time, owned by the Plaza. MRS. LAPHAM-So the new sign, though, is going to be right in here. MR. LAPPER-Right there. MR. STONE-What does that mean? MR. CARR-Concrete monument. That's for the survey. MR. STONE-Okay. So you're talking right in here, two sided. MR. LAPPER-The same thing on both sides. MR. CARR-Like the color picture. MR. LAPPER-We think that the location is a clearer issue, because there's not a lot of places to put it that would be appropriate. The design issue is up to you, in terms of the variance criteria for an Area Variance, the benefit to the applicant versus the impact on the neighborhood. We think that asking for three square feet to make it look nicer is a benefit, and there's no detriment, and that's what the Staff Notes said, but that's your call. I think this is relatively minor, as Sign Variances go, but that's your call also. MR. KARPELES-Well, isn't it going to block visibility a lot more than the existing pylon sign does? I would think the fact that it goes all the way to the ground would necessitate moving it back farther from the property line. MR. CARR-No. The primary considerations when we looked at this were line of sight, okay. Issue is line of sight. If you're coming down, if you're headed north on Route 9, all right, you want to be able to see the Center okay and make the turn in prior, all right. By re-Iocating the sign up this way, all right, we clear lines of sight for right turns. MR. LAPPER-This guy here needs to see who's coming in that direction. MR. STONE-And even more with the left turns. You're right. MR. CARR-Yes, but with people making a right on red, you want to be able to see what's coming at you this way and also to make, to - 39 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/97) focus on what's coming the other way, because there is potential for somebody to be making a left turn while you're making a right. MR. LAPPER-But by putting it here, you can see what's going on. MR. CARR-And you can see with the line of sight, as you drive up the road, okay, with the sign here, lines of sight are this way. People don't make hard right turns with their head to see a store, all right. It's what they see as they travel by, and that's really the reason for locating it up here. MR. LAPPER-The intention is to improve what's there now. MR. STONE-Well, anythinq would do that. underwhelmed, I looked at it today and said, absolutely right. It's underwhelming. When you you know, said you're MR. LAPPER-I never liked that sign. MR. THOMAS-All right. Any more questions for the applicant? If not, I'll open the public hearing. Those wishing to speak in favor of? In favor of this variance? Those wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. THOMAS-Any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-No. MR. THOMAS-I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Any more questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-I have a question of one word being my normal nitpicking. You say the proposed sign is expensive. Does that mean it's been built already? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. CARR-No, it has not. MR. STONE-Okay. I mean, it would be expensive. Is expensive kind of says to me that maybe it's. MR. LAPPER-No. It's just an improvement over what's there now, to invest some money in signage. It only exists virtually in that color photo. MRS. LAPHAM-This sign really is an improvement, I think over what's there, but tell me, why do we have to have the Red Lobster and Parts America and interchangeable middle letters. MR. CARR-Part of the issue in dealing with this Center is, when Red Lobster came to us to re-Iocate because we're, if you don't know the history, originally the Red Lobster was supposed to be where the Olive Garden is, and then we brought in Olive Garden because they operate, even though they're the same company, they operate as two separate ones, and then Red Lobster went there. One of the big issues with them was to establish a pylon sign. They were unable to, and I believe that they did apply for a variance to obtain a pylon sign and they were denied, or it was withdrawn. I don't know which occurred, but as it relates to that, the Parts America is, for illustrative purposes, Parts America does not have rights to go on this sign, all right. You are looking at another application tonight, to build an additional building in the rear, all right, - 40 - ',-- ~' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/97) and that panel that says Parts America is for that building in the rear. That was just some artistic license that the sign people took, but in relationship to the changeable copy board, part of the problem that we have, in managing the center and talking with the tenants, that the tenants that are further in, buried in, down past Staples, all right, there's lines of sight problem, because we've got Red Lobster, because we've got the other buildings that are up close to the road in the Quick Lube, that stuff, so that people coming north don't see them. Certainly people headed south don't see them at all. The idea is that this will be a rotating sign. Not that it physically rotates, but the copy on the board will rotate amongst the tenants, so that if a tenant is having an anniversary sale, they put it up on that particular week. If the hair salon is going to have a special on perms, they put it up on the sign that week. So it's an advertising medium, and also one of the things that we have had discussions with the tenants about is that we want to rotate in one week, based on the rotation. I believe that we've got 14 tenants, but on the 15th week that we do something with that sign, if the community wants it, to utilize it, if there's a fundraiser, if there's something special going on in the community to say, you know, Hello Americade, Welcome to Queensbury, whatever it may say, but the idea is just to get a little bit better flow and a little bit better exposure to those tenants that are further in and that are much more difficult for the public to see. MR. LAPPER-I want to address that also, sort of as a follow up to our discussion last week about what you can have in Queensbury on the pylon sign at the road. The Ordinance would allow us to put every single tenant on the sign in 50 square feet, because we can't get 64 square feet because we're not 25 feet away, and each of the letters would have to be six inches high. So instead of Queensbury Plaza, because Howard's trying to make this a recognizable name that's been there, we could eliminate "Queensbury Plaza", or make that six inch letters, and then fit as many names of all the stores as you could. In 50 square feet, at six inch letters, mathematically, you can't have all of the names of the stores. We can't fit 14 stores, but we would be allowed to do that under the Ordinance if we had the room to do that, if we got rid of the "Q" and got rid of the "Queensbury Plaza". So this is a way to identify the Plaza with, hopefully, the "Q", and certainly the "Queensbury Plaza" identify the major tenant that needs a sign, Red Lobster, and then to give the option of switching the other signs, because there's no room for permanent signs, and I just want to point out that the Mall has a much, much larger changeable sign that they use up by the Friendlys, and of course the movies, but this would be much, much smaller, with just these two lines of copy. MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for the applicant? Bonnie, what do you think? All right. MRS. LAPHAM-I'm not crazy about the Red Lobster interchangeable let ters part, but on the other hand, it could be a community service with, you know, Hello Americade. I think this is an improvement. I like that sign. I like the "Q". I like "Queensbury Plaza". I think it's time this Plaza did get upgraded. I mean, having watched it from when, you know, there used to be a Sears there, and then there was suddenly nobody there. Then there was outlets there. Then there was nobody there again, and then Shop Rite that wouldn't let Sysco in, and I think it's finally coming around to being a nice entity in our Town and we should encourage it. MR. THOMAS-Bob? MR. KARPELES-Well, I really don't see any reason why there has to be a variance. Why it can't be located far enough away from the - 41 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/97) road? MR. THOMAS-Lou? MR. STONE-I don't really have any problem with it. I certainly know that we have been very strict on our Sign Ordinances, as Jon knows very well. We're pretty tough. The "Q", the signature, if you will, of the shopping center, appeals to me as just a nice, decorative thing. It certainly isn't saying anything. It's the mark of "Q", whatever that means, and I think Queensbury needs, anytime we can mention Queensbury, I think it's important, because we're not even on the maps in many cases. I certainly don't disagree with Bob in that it would be nicer if it were 15 feet, but I think the way you're talking about locating it, it seems to be fine. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jaime? MR. HAYES-I think I agree with Mr. Stone and Bonnie. This mall is fully on the upswing and they're looking to make improvements, even when it costs them money, and while it would be obviously better if it wasn't as close to the road as it is, I think some consideration has been made by the applicant as far as vision and traffic, and I think that is important. So I'm in favor. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Brian? MR. CUSTER-There's not much more to add to all that. I tend to agree with what everybody's said here. I have no objections to it. MR. THOMAS-Well, I'm leaning along the lines with Bob, here. I think that sign could be moved back where you were talking about it before, right along the entrance road there on the north side. There's a pretty good chunk of property there right where that big yellow stone is, right along in there. MR. LAPPER-Could you show Howard on the map? MR. THOMAS-Right in there. It's all green space back in here. As you're coming north on 9, as you look at the sign, it's back in here somewhere now. There's a light pole. There's also a pole there to the traffic lights and line of sight, looking right through there at those poles that are standing up like this. If you moved it back in here, so what if these people are taking a right, they don't need to see anybody coming this way, if the people are turning in, they're going this way, they're swinging around this way. These people that are going right on red are going that way. There's no way that they're going to come that way. There's a better line of sight going through here. So, to me, if you moved it back into here somewhere, it would be a better place for it, and you also might be able to get it back 25 feet. MR. LAPPER-Well, if we get 25 feet, we'd have to lose a lot of trees that we have on the new site plan, and that would be pretty far from the pavement. MR. THOMAS-Is that map drawn to scale, that one? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. CARR-Fifty scale. MR. THOMAS-Do you want to kick it around? MR. LAPPER-We're still going to need a variance for the side, though. MR. THOMAS-Just for the side. Just for the 3.14 square feet. - 42 - '- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/97) MR. GORALSKI-Not if they go 25 feet back. MR. THOMAS-Then they're allowed 64 square feet. So you could make it even bigger. MR. STONE-And we might even make people turn one at a time right on red, instead of without stopping. MR. LAPPER-Do you think that would work, 25 feet back? MR. THOMAS-Do you want to kick it around? Go out and look at it, measure it, set something up and look at it from going south to north? MR. LAPPER-I guess we could ask for it to be tabled. MR. CARR-The only concern that I've got with putting it there is the south bound traffic, okay, the line of sight for the Red Lobster, because then we are blocking that out. MR. THOMAS-Well, you've got to remember, you're coming down a hill as you head south. MR. CARR-But the sign for Red Lobster's on the other face, the face that's away from the south bound traffic. MR. STONE-It's not going to be on both sides? MRS. LAPHAM-I thought it was going to be both sides. MR. LAPPER-On the building. MR. STONE-The Red Lobster buildinq. MR. CARR-The Red Lobster building now has a sign face here that faces this way, and then it has another one on this side of the building, which would be east. All right, and southbound this way, from here to here, okay, if we put that here, I just see it as being a large line of sight block to the Red Lobster building. MR. THOMAS-But that sign is 11 feet high and that Red Lobster sign; facing that way, is more than 11 feet off that ground. Plus you're sitting up, you're sitting higher, you're going downhill from that, even from the traffic light on down you're going downhill. MRS. LAPHAM-If you do that, it'll say Red Lobster, so people going south will see the sign and then if they want to go have. MR. THOMAS-Take an 11 foot stick out there, put it in the ground, drive south on there. Put an 11 foot stick, wherever that sign's going to be, 25 feet back. MR. CARR-The sign is 17 feet high. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Well, put a 17 foot in there, plus the additional height, and as you're coming south, you're going to be looking right over the top of it, plus it's got a Red Lobster sign right on the sign itself. MR. STONE-They don't have one now. MR. THOMAS-And it seems to me, didn't you get, how many sign variances did you get for that Red Lobster, one, one sign? MR. LAPPER-One extra sign. MR. THOMAS-So, you've got an extra sign, now you've got another sign that's legal. So, you're talking, you've got two extra signs - 43 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/97) for a business. MR. LAPPER-You could add another 10 square feet to the changeable copy, if you're 25 feet back. MR. THOMAS-Plus if you go back 25 feet, you get another 14 square feet above the 50. If you keep it under the 64, you don't need to be here for that. That's the minimum variance. MR. LAPPER-Rather than withdraw this, we'll just table it and we'll let you know by letter if this is acceptable. Then we can withdraw it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. All right. That takes care of that one. MR. STONE-Are you going to table it, Mr. Chairman? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 25-1997 QUEENS BURY PLAZA, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Custer: For the applicant to look at alternatives to placing the sign where they indicated on their application. Duly adopted this 28th day of May, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Custer, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE MR. STONE-Thank you for that suggestion, Chris. I think that was a good one. MR. THOMAS-Well, like I say, we want minimum variance here. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. THOMAS-You know how we are about signs in this Town. MR. LAPPER-Yes, indeed. MR. THOMAS-Especially me. All right. AREA VARIANCE NO. 26-1997 TYPE II PC-1A QUE ENS BURY PLAZA HOWARD CARR, MANAGING AGENT FOR ILENE FLAUM OWNER: ILENE FLAUM QUEENSBURY PLAZA, INTERSECTION OF ROUTE 9 AND QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES THE RELOCATION OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BUILDING TO A DIFFERENT LOCATION ON THE SITE. THE NEW LOCATION WILL NOT CONFORM TO THE FRONT AND REAR YARD SETBACKS OF THE PC-1A ZONE. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE SETBACKS LISTED IN SECTION 179- 22, PLAZA COMMERCIAL ONE ACRE ZONE. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 5/14/97 TAX MAP NO. 103-1-1.1 LOT SIZE: 1.22 ACRES SECTION 179- 22 JON LAPPER & HOWARD CARR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LAPHAM-Via Hand Delivery, Mr. Christian C. Thomas, Chairman, Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, Queensbury Plaza "Dear Chris: On behalf of Ilene Flaum, owner and Howard Carr, managing agent, of Queensbury Plaza. I hereby submit an area variance application for the proposed relocation of already approved additional retail space. The existing approval allows an approximately 32,000 square feet retail building to be constructed in the rear of the existing parking lot adjacent to the Parts America store. The proposal is to relocate the square footage and - 44 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/97) reduce it to 30,000 square feet. It would be relocated to the area located across from t he Evergreen Bank on the south side of Bank Street. This will allow the additional parking to be located in front of the building where it can be utilized as shared parking for the existing plaza tenants as well as the new tenant(s). Section 179-22(C) of the zoning ordinance requires a 30 foot side setback. We propose a 20 foot setback along Bank Street and a minimal setback along the NIMO property to the south. The owner is attempting to acquire additional property from NIMO for vehicular access and landscaping on the south side of the proposed building. If this area variance is granted, the site plan modification will require planning board approval. The proposal includes significant improvements to the existing drive aisles and landscaping. We believe that this project should be viewed as a positive change for the site. Please place this matter on the agenda for one of the May meetings. Thank you. Very truly yours, Jonathan C. Lapper" STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 26-1997, Queensbury Plaza, Meeting Date: May 28, 1997 "PROJECT LOCATION: Queensbury Plaza, Route 9 & 254 Proposed Project and Conformance with the Ordinance: The applicant proposes to relocate a previously approved building to another area within the Queensbury Plaza. The building has received site plan approval, and the applicant plans to relocate the building with a site plan modification. Before a modification can be approved by the Planning Board the ZBA must first approve an area variance in order to allow the building to have two nonconforming setbacks. Cri teria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Relief would allow the applicant to relocate a commercial building which would have nonconforming setbacks. 2. Feasible alternatives: Alternatives in this area of the property are limited due to the location of a town road (Bank Street) and the configuration of this lot in the area the applicant plans to relocate the building to. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance? The applicant is seeking 30 feet of front yard setback relief for one side of the building and 29.52 feet of rear yard relief for another side of the building. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? It appears that granting of this variance would not have any negative effects on the surrounding neighborhood. 5. Is this difficulty self created? The dimensions of the area of the property which the applicant chooses to locate this building makes it difficult to conform to the required front and rear yard setbacks. Staff Comments & Concerns: The applicant is in the process of purchasing land to the south in order to provide a greater building setback at the south property line. If this purchase and lot addition takes place, the setback at the south property line will be conforming. Therefore the only relief necessary would be the front yard setback at the north end of the building. It should be noted that this lot, which is a corner lot, has only front and rear yard setbacks for zoning purposes. SEQR: Type II, no further action required." MRS. LAPHAM- "At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 14th day of May 1997, the above application for an Area Variance for the proposed relocation of already approved additional retail space was reviewed, and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Approve Comments: Concur with local conditions." Signed Tracey Clothier, Chairperson. MR. THOMAS-Mr. Lapper. MR. LAPPER-For the record, again, I am Jon Lapper, and Howard Carr, the Managing Agent of the property, is with me. We view this request as very important to the continued improvement to the Plaza, and I want to relate to you, for the record, that last week, - 45 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/97) I appeared with Jim Miller, ,the Landscape Architect, Howard was away, before the Planning Board on a conceptual basis before we made our formal submission to them so we could explain to them what we were doing and get their input, and when we got done, they applauded, and you can look it up, and they noted in their minutes that it's the first time that they can remember applauding. So they viewed this as a significant change. I just want to walk you through the changes quickly. John can confirm that we have a 32,000 square foot building that was already approved that we could put in the ground now, that is parallel to Parts America, comes down, then it turns toward Red Lobster, and that was always Howard's intention, but in looking at this and bringing Jim Miller in, Howard determined that the best place to put the square footage is in the back. Partly that's because Red Lobster is so popular, and with the additional parking, rather than put a building here and have overflow or employee or Christmas parking in the back, which you wouldn't see, this allows the parking to be shared by all the existing uses, putting the building in the rear of the lot, and it also allows the rear lot to be cleaned up with significant landscaping, which we would have had to do anyway with the new building, but this just works better. Most important, from the Planninq Department's perspective, we're proposing to eliminate two spaces, one space on each side, but they're double lined, so two spaces in each of these locations, remove the landscape ties that are there now, and have real poured concrete, curbs, curbed islands with three to three and a half caliper new Summit Ash trees. So this would look somewhat like a boulevard. Visually, you would see this as the main traffic aisle coming off of Bank Street and connecting to the existing entrance drive. Also, right now, when you come in by Red Lobster, there is a space between the aisle, a drive aisle between the parking, so that you can come through, and when it's not busy, people just tend to drive haphazardly to the back to get to this location. That's being fixed by continuing this existing island and planting it, so that this would be a visual barrier, a natural barrier for cars, creating separate parking areas within this that are going to be surrounded by good sized trees. In order to soften the Plaza from the road, the curbed islands would be added up here, real curbed islands with good sized trees, with three, three and a half inch caliper trees as well, and also a lot more trees along the entrance way. The variance that we're asking for, in order to make this a minimum variance, and because we couldn't fit anything else on this rear site, I mean, obviously Howard would prefer to lease a 32,000 square foot building than a 30,000 square foot building, but the only thing that fit comfortably was the 30,000 square foot building. So the variance that we're asking for along Bank Street, right now Bank Street, it's pretty unkempt across from Evergreen. It's very scrubby. There is this green area, but it's not well kept, but it's also, it just has never been landscaped. So what we're proposing to do is to have a 20 foot setback. A normal side setback in this zone would be 30 square feet, but under the Ordinance, if you have frontage on the side of your building, this would be considered a front setback, which is 50 feet. So that's why the variance that we're asking for is from 50 to 20, but in fairness it's really a side setback, because the frontage is on Glen Street. The other variance is along the NiMo right-of-way. We have had discussions with NiMo. At first we were hopeful that we could purchase the whole 30,000 square foot parcel, and it seems that for expedience, just would be easier for NiMo to sell us either an easement or a perpetual license or a lease, which would allow the fire lane and landscaping. Under the fire code, we have to have a fire lane on this side of the building. So what we're proposing to do, the building would come up right to the property line. There's no negative impact on the adjacent property line, because the NiMo power corridor is actually right here, but instead of purchasing the whole thing, which we had first proposed, NiMo was telling us that it would be quicker and easier if we just probably get a long term lease or license, which is very similar to - 46 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/97) what the Glen Square Plaza has across the street. Much of their parking is underneath the power corridor. Here it would just be, it would still away from the transmission lines, but it would be just the fire lane, which would be paved and curbed drive aisles. So that variance, although we're asking for it right up to the property line which seems significant, I would argue that it's not because the only thing that you have to protect there is the unattractive NiMo transmission lines. So there's nothing that we're protecting and we'll have the access that we need. We need the variance in order to put the building there, and we think that the benefit is making these substantial visual and traffic flow improvements to the property. Anything you'd like to add, Howard? MR. THOMAS-All right. Any questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-I'm just curious, I know it's nothing to do with the variance, but how is that 30,000 feet going to be divided? Are you going to have three stores in there? MR. CARR-At this point in time, to answer you honestly, at this particular point it time, it would be two, but as of last week, because I was at the Shopping Center convention, it could be one now, but we have to see how that comes out. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. CARR-Typically, the building, if I remember right, the dimensions are, I think that they're 175 by 225, if I remember right. I thought that's what it was. A 225 foot deep building does not lend itself well to three tenants, to split it that deep. MR. THOMAS-How about the parking, are you going to have all the required spaces, or more than enough? MR. LAPPER-Well, the Center is grandfathered with respect to the stuff that was already there, and everything that we've done new, which includes this and the Red Lobster conforms. The parking that's on there, I mean, it's going to be, certainly, an increase in parking from what's there now. MR. GORALSKI-As far as I know, the parking, as we discussed and as I've seen it, the parking conforms. MR. LAPPER-Yes, we're not asking for, we don't need a variance. MR. GORALSKI-They're not going to be asking for any parking variances. MR. CARR-There's 704 spaces shown here now. MR. GORALSKI-I can tell you that as a result of their site plan review, some of those parking spaces may be retained as green space until they're needed for parking, just to increase the permeability, but they don't need any parking variances for what they're proposing at this point. MR. THOMAS-Well, what about the permeability? MR. GORALSKI-The permeability is also grandfathered, but under this plan they'll be increasing the permeable area. MR. LAPPER-From what's approved. MR. STONE-Where does the water go, into Halfway Brook? MR. GORALSKI-Well, there's infiltration, I believe, in most of the site, and there's also a discharge out toward Hovey Pond and eventually, yes, into Halfway Brook. - 47 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/97) MR. LAPPER-But not directly into Hovey Pond. It sheets across that vacant parcel in the back, just the natural drainage flow, behind the Moore's Lumber. MR. THOMAS-What about your negotiations with Niagara Mohawk for that piece of land. Do you think it's going to go? MR. LAPPER-Yes, and if we get this variance, we can't build it under the fire code without getting the rights from Niagara Mohawk because we have to put that fire lane there. So we're counting on that. It's at the point where I expect that the minimum that we are asking for, the license will be acceptable. MR. THOMAS-Okay, but the setbacks will still be from that property line, the .48 and the six foot. MR. GORALSKI-That's correct. MR. THOMAS-Any other questions for the applicant? I'll open up the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this variance? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. THOMAS-Any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-No. MR. THOMAS-I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-All we're doing, just to reiterate for my own benefit, is to allow them to do something that they have permission to do except do it in a different place by granting the variance? MR. THOMAS-Right. Well, they want to change the building, the location of the building. Before they met all the setbacks for the other building, but now they want to reduce the building by 2,000 square feet and relocate it, and they need setback variances on the front and rear. So, having said that, Lou, we'll start with you this time. What do you think? MR. STONE-I'm in favor of it. The idea of granting a variance down to half a foot, I mean, from 30 feet to half a foot, whatever it is, technically, out of 29, is something that we don't, I mean, it sounds very large, but I think, as Mr. Lapper pointed out, there's going to be space there, otherwise they can't build the building. You're assuring us that. Since that particular lot back there, where the building is now, is to say it nicely, is not very nice. This, I think certainly would improve the whole area, the whole site, and I have no problem. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jaime? MR. HAYES-I agree with Mr. Stone. I think that we are charged with keeping the variances to a minimum, and certainly half a foot is the minimum. The lot (lost word) far away from them, but I think it's an improvement. They've sacrificed square footage, and I think it would also look better and based on Mr. Lapper's comments about the situation with NiMo, that they can't build it without that, I think that that greatly reduces the impact of that, and for that reason, I would be in favor. MR. STONE-May I add one thing, Mr. Chairman? - 48 - ,_/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/97) MR. THOMAS-Yes, sir. MR. STONE-Driving down Bank Street, as I do quite often because it's easier than going up to Quaker on many occasions and going through the shopping center, it's actually faster the way I go home some times, I'm somewhat concerned that that street is not a very wide street, and that that variance on that side, I'm concerned, but I'm sure it will be taken care of. MR. LAPPER-Are you talking about the extension of Bank Street through the Plaza, or the street itself where it's Town property? MR. STONE-I'm talking from the back of Parts America, all the way out to, I'm not saying it's not Town property, but you are putting the building right close to that right-of-way. MR. LAPPER-Well, if it was a regular side setback, it would have to be 30 feet, and we're asking for 20, but what we changed there, and what we checked with John Goralski, ordinarily for fire purposes you have pavement on that side of the building as well. So we would have Bank Street a couple of feet of, or even if we conformed, some grass and then some pavement. We're utilizing Bank Street for the emergency access because it's only 20 feet away. So that whole 20 feet is going to be landscaped with shrubs and grass, and it'll be graded, leveled, and all the scrub stuff that's there will be removed. So it'll look a lot more attractive for the Bank. MR. STONE-And the other thing I like, if you put that building back where you're supposed to, where you have permission, it would be like a tunnel going through there, and I certainly applaud the fact that I've got freedom on one side, with this one, and then sort of freedom on the other, so that I don't feel that I'm constrained going through there. So, again, I like the idea. MR. THOMAS-Brian? MR. CUSTER-I just see this project as continuation of, if not a resurrection, then a renaissance of this Plaza. I mean, that's been there since 1984. It certainly has been through some turmoil. I would applaud, too, not only the applicant, but Mrs. Flaum for doing improvements in these kind of projects. I think these are the type of variances that we should be granting to develop things of this stature. I have no problem with it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-I think it's great. I hated the way the Plaza was before, and the back looked disgusting, and it will really help it become more attractive, and besides, if they put the building where they had permission originally to, there wouldn't be anything to prevent them, would there, from coming back and adding another building later with a variance. So this way we take care of everything right now and get beautiful trees. So I'm for it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob? MR. KARPELES-Yes. I agree with everything that's been said. I think it's an improvement, and I like it. I've just got to say one thing. One thing, every time I've been in here, this turn is real difficult, coming out of there. Can you do anything about that? MR. GORALSKI-That's being addressed. We spoke to Jim Miller, Landscape Architect, about that today. The radius on that turn as it exists is about a 10 foot radius, and in the proposed site plan, they're going to increase that to 20 feet. MR. STONE-Well, as I say, I come through there quite often, and I turn down that aisle, toward Bank Street, and if you don't know the - 49 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/97) turn is there, you don't see the turn. It's tough. MR. THOMAS-I don't see any problem with this. I don't think Niagara Mohawk's going to care about a 29 and a half foot setback from their property line, a 29 and a half foot variance from their property line. It's only a transmission line that runs through there. Like Lou said, I believe if that building was built where it was before, it would be like driving through a canyon there. It would also improve the looks of the property, and that's about it. So, having said that, I would ask for a motion. MR. CUSTER-I'll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 26-1997 QUEENS BURY PLAZA, Introduced by Brian Custer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: The project location is Queensbury Plaza, Route 9 and Route 254. The purpose of this variance is to allow the applicant to relocate a previously approved building to another area within the Plaza. The building has already received site plan approval, and the applicant plans to relocate the building in a site plan modification. Granting this variance would necessitate a relief of 30 feet of front yard setback and 29.53 feet of rear yard setback. The criteria that was considered in granting this variance, the benefit to the applicant would allow the applicant to relocate a commercial building in the area with nonconforming setbacks. Feasible alternatives are limited due to the confines of the property in that location. Relief is fairly substantial, but necessary in order to accommodate the development. The effects on the neighborhood, there are no negative adverse impacts from this project in this zone. Is the difficulty self created? The dimension of the property creates the difficulty as presently stated. The variance is also conditional on being granted the satisfactory real estate terms with the NiMo parcel in the back, property rights on the south side of the building. Duly adopted this 28th day of May, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE MR. LAPPER-Thanks very much. MR. THOMAS-Pending giving Niagara Mohawk tons and tons of money. AREA VARIANCE NO. 29-1997 WR-1A/CEA KEVIN DINEEN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE THIRD HOUSE FROM END OF BIRDSALL ROAD, OFF OF ROUND POND ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A NEW ROOF AND ADDITION TO AN EXISTING DECK. THE NEW CONSTRUCTION WILL NOT CONFORM TO THE REQUIRED SHORELINE SETBACKS CONTAINED IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE SHORELINE SETBACKS CONTAINED IN SECTION 179-16, WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL ZONE, AND SECTION 179- 60B, 1, C. TAX MAP NO. 40 -1-31 LOT SIZE: 0.75 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-60B,l,C KEVIN DINEEN, PRESENT MR. THOMAS-A problem has cropped up with this. I don't know if all of you know about it. The 500 foot notices were not mailed out. That means we can't vote on this. What I'm going to do is read the application, open the public hearing and leave it open in case there's anyone here who'd like to talk. I would like you to kick this around in your mind while we're going through this. The applicant has requested we have a special meeting to approve this, because he has a contractor all lined up, and Mr. Dineen is not - 50 - '-."' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/97) going to be in town for all summer. So he would like to get this under way, and I would like to have a special meeting for this next Wednesday at 4 p.m. somewhere here in the complex. So, think about that. MR. GORALSKI-Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to state for the record that it was not the applicant's fault, that it was the Planning Department's fault. We failed to send out those 500 foot notices. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Like I said, I would like to get this at four o'clock next Wednesday afternoon, if we can find some place either here or the, but members of the Board, think about it. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 29-1997, Kevin Dineen, Meeting Date: May 28, 1997 "PROJECT LOCATION: Birdsall Road Proposed Project and Conformance with the Ordinance: The applicant proposes to construct an addition to an existing deck. The new construction consists of a new roof to be built over a portion of the deck as well as the extension of the deck to the south along the home on the property. The new roof and addition will not meet the required shoreline setback for the WR-1A zone. Criteria for considering an Area variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law. 1. Benefit to the applicant: Relief would allow the applicant to build a deck and roof enclosure which could be accessed from the house on the property. 2. Feasible alternatives: It would appear that alternatives are limited because the location of the home and a deck which already exists on this property. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance? The applicant's map indicates the roof will be built 12 feet from the shoreline. The new deck construction will be setback approximately 17 feet from the shore. The shoreline setback is 50 feet. The new roof would require 38 feet of shoreline relief and the new deck would require 33 feet of relief. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? This new construction on top of an already built deck would probably not have a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood. 5. Is this difficulty self created? A difficulty exists because the home and existing deck at this location are built with a nonconforming shoreline setback. Staff Comments & Concerns: The applicant indicates that the setback for the new roof to be built will be 12 feet from the shore. The applicant's plan which is drawn to scale measures a setback of 5 feet from Glen Lake. The ZBA should determine the true setback for the new construction in order to grant an accurate amount of relief. SEQR: Type II, no further action required." MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. Dineen or Mr. Fuller, would you like to add anything, say anything? MR. DINEEN-Well, I think most everyone got over there to take a look today. So I guess it's self explanatory what we were trying to do and I think we explained the difference between the 12 and the 5 feet today. I did bring some pictures, just to show what it would look like from the deck, and the number of trees that were in there. The property owner, Wally Hirsch, who's on that side of the property, the closest that deck will be is 22 feet from the property line. So it shouldn't effect him. That's a very well treed area. Other than that. MR. THOMAS-Well, I've got a couple of questions for you. The jacuzzi tub, is on that on the upper deck or the lower deck? MR. DINEEN-Lower deck. MR. THOMAS-The lower deck. Is that there now? I didn't see it. MR. DINEEN-It's not, no. - 51 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/97) MR. THOMAS-Okay. It's something you're going to throw in there. MR. DINEEN-Right. MR. THOMAS-The spiral stairs are not in there now. MR. DINEEN-They're not. MR. THOMAS-And they're going to be put in, and my question to John is, is that going to require a variance? MR. GORALSKI-That should be included in this variance. MR. THOMAS-That should be included in this variance. Okay. So you're going to have to publish this in the paper again, and in the letters. So we'll make sure that that spiral staircase gets in there, too. MR. STONE-Are you going to have time to publish it before Wednesday? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. Actually, it was published tonight. published in the paper tonight, for tonight. It was MR. THOMAS-Yes, for tonight, but the letters weren't sent out, and that's the legality of it, but the spiral stairs weren't part of the application. MR. GORALSKI-Well, it says an addition to an existing deck. I mean, if you want we can change the wording so it includes the spiral staircase. MR. THOMAS-You tell me. MR. GORALSKI-Well, I'll check with Mark, but I believe that that meets the requirements of the public notice, but we can change the wording if you like. MR. THOMAS-Well, check with Mark, see what he says. If he says change it, well then change it. If not, we'll leave it as it is. MR. GORALSKI-I'm sure his answer is going to be, it doesn't matter, but I'll check with him. MR. THOMAS-Okay. We'll just ask him. That's what we pay him the big bucks for. You said there was only two trees that were going to come out of there, at the most? MR. DINEEN-Well, there's one little pine that's definitely coming out because that would be right in the middle of the deck that runs along the side of the house toward the bedroom. I did bring a picture up here. If you all want to take a look, I guess that's one angle I didn't show today. That would be this picture here. That's where the deck will go. MR. STONE-And the door is nowhere right now? MR. DINEEN-The door is nowhere, which is not a good thing with two year olds. What is coming out of there, we really want to keep it. I think it's pretty evident with the way we've landscaped it that we really do want to keep it as rustic as possible. That one birch tree will have to come down right there, and then there's that really skinny pine right at the corner of the deck that I think we'll have to take down, too. Other than that, all those trees will stay. MR. STONE-This birch that's topped here? - 52 - -- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/97) MR. DINEEN-That's from when Dave built the house in '92. So, that was his fault, and we haven't taken the stump out. That's just a little reminder for him so he won't take too many down this time. MR. THOMAS-When you put in that jacuzzi tub, that's going to go right on the existing lower deck? MR. DINEEN-Yes, it is. MR. THOMAS-There's no changes whatsoever to that lower deck? MR. DINEEN-Yes. It's going to come around. How is that going to work, Dave, I guess you can address that. It's really, the jacuzzi tub it going to be at an angle. So the deck is going to kind of come out so it fits in there, not come out a lot. It'll be within the roof line that we've asked the variance for. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So you need a variance for that lower deck, also, if you're going to change that in any way. MR. DINEEN-I think that's part of that. MR. THOMAS-Is that part of this? MR. GORALSKI-That's part of this. Because it's underneath the roof that they're asking for. It's all within that area. MR. DINEEN-The variance is for the roof, is my understanding. MR. GORALSKI-Well, because the roof is the farthest point out. MR. DINEEN-Right. MR. THOMAS-And you measured from the shoreline back to the edge of the lower deck is 12 feet. MR. DINEEN-Correct. MR. THOMAS-What's the overhang going to be, a one foot over hang? So, we're talking 11 feet from the edge of the lake, because that was in the Staff Notes, yes, was it 12 feet, was it 5 feet? MR. DINEEN-Yes. We had a little misconception. I think John came, was it you that measured it? I think it was done at a different angle, and that's why on the variance application we put in that second photo of how it is, 12 feet and 12 feet down, and the roof was obviously over the second deck. So the actual roof is 12 feet out, but it would actually be I'm not sure how high, probably we're looking at 30 feet up where the roof would start, 30 or 40 feet. MR. THOMAS-Yes, we have to give from the closest point is where we have to give the variance from. MR. GORALSKI-From the closest point of the shoreline to the closest point on the building. MR. THOMAS-To the closest point on the building, which would be the overhang. So that's 11 feet. MR. DINEEN-Correct. MR. THOMAS-So we'll be looking to grant 39 feet of variance. Side setbacks are going to be okay. Any other questions for the applicant? I'll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED - 53 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/97) MR. THOMAS-Any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-No. MR. THOMAS-I'm going to leave the public hearing open, and this is as far as we can go tonight, for this, and I'd ask you to think about Wednesday at four o'clock. Can everybody make it? MR. STONE-I can make it. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes, I know I can, too. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So six of us will make it. MR. GORALSKI-We'll send out the notices tomorrow. MR. THOMAS-We'll send out the notices, four o'clock. MR. GORALSKI-I would expect that the meeting will be in the downstairs conference room, over next to the Planning Department. MR. THOMAS-Next to the Planning Department, over in the other building, downstairs. We don't expect a lot of public in here, do we? MR. GORALSKI-I think Mr. Dineen spoke to his neighbors. I don't know. MR. DINEEN-Right. MR. STONE-Were those people, they were here for you, the ones that just left? MR. DINEEN-They weren't, no. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. Next Wednesday at four? MR. THOMAS-Next Wednesday, four p.m. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. I have one question. Will you leave the pink thing up, because I was going to abstain tonight because I didn't get an opportunity to view your property. So this way it gives me a chance to get out there, but you know that old pink notice, so I can find it easily. MR. THOMAS-I didn't see it. MR. STONE-It wasn't there. MR. DINEEN-We did not. MR. GORALSKI-You know why, because the application was a little bit late. I don't think they ever got one. MR. STONE-Just go to the end and come back through. MR. KARPELES-Yes, right. MR. GORALSKI-Right. They're building a house. MR. THOMAS-You know where Vittengl was? MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Two back from Vittengl. driveway. It's got a nice blacktopped MR. STONE-It has a big hill right along side the driveway. - 54 - -- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/97) MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. MR. STONE-I just want to thank you for saying that you've now paved that thing, because I said, yes, no, yes, no, and then I looked, that is the place where you've got the walkway down to the house. MR. DINEEN-Right. MR. STONE-Because originally it said, gravel, and I'm saying, I don't see gravel. MRS. LAPHAM-What is the number again? MR. DINEEN-We're 149 Birdsall, and it's well marked on our garage, the two car garage that's there. MR. GORALSKI-So do you want to make a motion to table this? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 29-1997 KEVIN DINEEN, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: Until Wednesday, June 4th at 4 pm for a continuation of the public hearing and a decision. Duly adopted this 28th day of May, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Custer, Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE MR. DINEEN-Okay. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Like I said, we'll see somebody at four 0' clock on Wednesday, probably over in the other building. MR. GORALSKI-The hour is late. If you'd like, I'll put the response in writing. What we're talking about is you had some questions about Mr. LaRock and how he ended up with his building so close to the property line. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Right. MR. GORALSKI-If you'd like, we can go through it now. MR. THOMAS-How long's it going to take? MR. GORALSKI-It should take about five minutes. MR. THOMAS-Well, you've got 10 minutes. MR. GORALSKI-Mr. LaRock submitted a building permit that showed that the building would be 36 feet from the property line. MR. STONE-The correct property line? MR. GORALSKI-He submitted a plot plan. We do not require a survey when you submit an application for a building permit. We require a plot plan that's drawn to scale. He submitted that. After the foundation was poured, it appeared to be very close to the road. I, personally, went out and spoke to one of his people on site. I did not speak to Mr. LaRock. I said, you understand, I brought out the application and I said, you understand that this is supposed to be 30 feet setback, and I will admit, I probably said, this is supposed to be set back 30 feet. I probably didn't, I don't - 55 - (Queensbury ZBA meeting 5/28/97) remember my exact words. I probably did not say the property line, the road, whatever. I said, do you realize this is supposed to be set back 30 feet? You show 36 feet on the plot plan that you submitted. He said, yes, we know. We measured it. It's 30 feet. I can't do anymore than that. I said to them, okay, you know, it says right on the building permit application, you are required to submit a certified surveyed plot plan for any new construction. It says that on the building permit application. When it came time for a CO, he went and got his house surveyed, and it was 15 feet from the property line. What Mr. LaRock did is he measured from the pavement. It just so happens that the pavement on Cronin Road is completely on the opposite side of the right-of-way. It's not even in the middle of the right-of-way. It's completely on the opposite side of the right-of-way. The pavement is actually almost on the property line, on the other property line on the other side of the road. So, that's how that happened. I don't know how we can prevent this from happening occasionally. We went back and figured that since, in recent memory, since I've been around, since Dave Hatin's been around, this has happened four or possibly five times, that somebody has built a house in the wrong place. MR. KARPELES-When is it that the survey has to be made? MR. GORALSKI-Before a Certificate of Occupancy. MR. KARPELES-Why don't you make the survey before the building permit is issued? Wouldn't that help to eliminate that? MR. GORALSKI -Well, there's no building. So how can they survey and show where the? MR. STONE-Can't they stake it where it has to be, a line? MR. KARPELES-They have to submit a plan, don't they? MR. GORALSKI-They submit a plot plan, yes. They don't submit a, not a certified. MR. KARPELES-Well, why don't you do that? That's what I'm saying. MR. GORALSKI-Because that's not what the Code requires. MRS. LAPHAM-I don't think you can, because there's nothing there. MR. GORALSKI-All I can tell you is what the Code says is we can require a certified plot plan for any new construction, prior to issuance of a CO. MR. STONE-Okay. That's not what you said when you started, John. You didn't say CO. You said something about, you had to have it when you got the permit, and then you. MR. GORALSKI-No, you need a plot plan. There's a difference. A plot plan is not a certified survey. MR. STONE-I understand that. MR. GORALSKI-And I can tell you right now that we will not, we will not be able to pass a regulation that says you need a survey before you can build a house. I can tell you there will be such an uproar from the building community that it just will not happen. Builders are warned, let me tell you this, I will not take responsibility for this, and not one of those Building Inspectors will take responsibility for this. That builder is responsible for putting that building in the right place. He submits a plan. It is assumed that he knows the regulations. We do all the inspections that are required. If he puts it in the wrong place, it is his responsibility. If you people feel that that building shouldn't be - 56 - ~ (Queensbury ZBA meeting 5/28/97) there, then deny the variance. It is not the responsibility of the Building Department or the Planning Department to locate his building. MR. KARPELES-We wanted to hear your side of the story. MR. STONE-That's fine, John. We're not taking sides here. MR. GORALSKI-Well, he is. He is criticizing us. MR. STONE-Fine. It's our vote and we will use these. MR. GORALSKI-Now I'm not saying that it wouldn't be appropriate to grant the variance in this case. That's up to you. All I'm saying is, we did everything within our power to make sure that building was in the right place. MR. STONE-But is it true that somebody went out and signed off on the slab? MR. GORALSKI-On the footings, the foundation and the slab. Yes. That's when we went out, before the slab was poured, when the foundation wall, when the cross wall was poured, is when I was on the site. MR. STONE-And that's when you said. MR. GORALSKI-This looks close. MR. STONE-You said it looks close. You did say it looks close? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. So you gave him ~ notice. MR. HAYES-Is he acknowledging that fact, that particular fact right there? MR. GORALSKI-I didn't speak to him. don't even know who it was. I spoke to some laborer. I MR. HAYES-Because I'm wondering if he's acknowledging that he did have some notice? MR. GORALSKI-No, he's not. MR. THOMAS-So you're not required to go out and measure the setbacks once the footings are in? MR. GORALSKI-I mean, a lot of times what we do is just what happened in this case. If one of the building inspectors goes out and does a footing inspection or backfill inspection, and he says, boy, that really looks close, how far, you know, because they don't do zoning. I do the zoning. They come back to me and they say, gee, that looks close, do you want to go out and look at it? I go out and look at it. Sometimes we measure it. Sometimes we just talk to them, depending on the situation, but like I say, I went out and talked to the person on site. MR. STONE-John, if you had measured it with no knowledge. MR. GORALSKI-Well, I didn't know where the property line is. MR. STONE-That's what I mean. MR. GORALSKI-Although I would have assumed that it wasn't at least at the pavement. Although it's particularly wide there because the road's on the other side of the right-of-way, I would assume that - 57 - (Queensbury ZBA meeting 5/28/97) it's not at the pavement, just because that is a dedicated Town road and not a road by use. MR. STONE-He's at 30 feet from that, just exactly 30 feet. MR. GORALSKI-I believe so. MR. HAYES-And he's building this for re-sale, too. I mean, he's got to be charged with a certain amount of knowledge to know that it might not necessarily be at the edge of the pavement. MR. GORALSKI-Right. I mean, we have to assume that when a builder gets a building permit, he has some basic knowledge of construction and how it works. MR. STONE-On the other hand, John, did we get any information about the wetlands? We were going to try and find out where the actual 100 foot line was, the wetlands line. MR. GORALSKI-I didn't know that, but I can determine that, based on the surveyed plot plan that he submitted, and the subdivision map has that line on it. MR. STONE-It just had those scalloped lines, like a tree line, and we wanted to know where. MR. GORALSKI-I believe that's almost exactly where it is, because I think Rich Schermerhorn, before he sold the lot, cleared it back to where that line was. MR. STONE-Is that the 100 foot line, or the wetlands line? MR. GORALSKI-I think that's the 100 foot line. MR. STONE-So he could get permission maybe? MR. GORALSKI-No, because the re-zoning specifically said he could not clear beyond that buffer. MR. STONE-It did? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. He would have to go back to the Town Board and get the changed. MR. HAYES-If we deny the variance, what happens? I mean, I'm new. MR. GORALSKI-He'd have to rip it down. MR. HAYES-Or move it, jack it up and move it, something like that. MR. CUSTER-(lost word) House Mover, Schuylerville, NY. MR. GORALSKI-Like I say, I'm not saying that he does or doesn't deserve to get variance. MR. STONE-But you can sense that we're getting tougher on these. MR. GORALSKI-That's fine. problem with that. I think you should. I don't have a MR. STONE-I can't speak for everybody, but it seems we're getting tougher, as I listen to us. MR. KARPELES-Well, we made somebody fill in a foundation up at Lake George, in Cleverdale. She claimed it was $30,000 worth of foundation. MR. GORALSKI-It probably was 30 by the time she got through, but, - 58 - l '-- '-- (Queensbury ZBA meeting 5/28/97) yes, that's true. We're doing a court action right now against the guy with the garage. MR. STONE-The lean-to? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. STONE-You mean the one foot, the guy who was one foot, that one, really? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. He never took it down. MR. STONE-He hasn't taken it down. take that thing down? Did the doctor on Rockhurst MRS. LAPHAM-The carport? MR. GORALSKI-It was down this winter. MR. STONE-It was down this winter? All right. MR. GORALSKI-When it's up again, I don't know. MRS. LAPHAM-As you say, that could come down in the winter, because that's a temporary kind of thing that he could move and put away for the winter. MR. GORALSKI-See, the Code does not distinguish between temporary structures and permanent structures. MR. THOMAS-Well, having said that, we will see everyone at four o'clock on Wednesday afternoon over in the other building, in the Conference Room. So I will make a motion that we adjourned. MR. STONE-I second it. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Thomas, Chairman - 59 -