Loading...
1990-03-21 --" QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING KARCH 21ST, 1990 INDEX Ar~a Varianc~ No. 142-1989 Ar~a Varianc~ No. 6-1990 Ar~a Varianc~ No. 18-1990 Micha~l Sal~~m l. Byron B. Rist 7. John and Rosann Curran 7. Us~ Varianc~ No. 15-1990 E & T O'Connor Construction 9. Ar~a Varianc~ Nos. 30-34 1989 Carol~ Cacioppi 12. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. - QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING MARCH 21st, 1990 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN SUSAN GOETZ, SECRETARY JOYCE EGGLESTON JEFFREY KELLEY CHARLE S S I CARD BRUCE CARR MEMBERS ABSENT MICHAEL SHEA ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-PAT COLLARD DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY-KARLA CORPUS LEE A. YORK, SENIOR PLANNER OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 142-1989 TYPE II HC-1A MICHAEL SALEEM OWNER: SAKE AS ABOVE 121 QUAKER ROAD TO CONSTRUCT A 100 FT. BY 70 FT. BUILDING ON THE LOT TO HOUSE ADIRONDACK AUTO SUPPLY. THE EXISTING BUILDING WOULD BE TORN DOWN EXCEPT FOR AN 18 FT. WIDE BY 50 FT. DEEP SECTION IN THE REAR WEST CORNER, WHICH HOUSES THE MACHINE SHOP. REQUESTING FRONT, REAR, SIDE SETBACK, AND PERMEABILITY VARIANCE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 59-5-6 & 7' LOT SIZE: 150 FT. BY 141 FT. SECTION 4.020 K MICHAEL SALEEM, APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TURNER-Stated we left off at the point, last time, where you'd bring us back some new information as to what you could do with the lot and the building, right? MR. SALEEM-Stated I'm Michael Saleem. Last time I was here you asked what the building would look like. MR. TURNER-Stated yes. MR. SALEEM-Stated live added some pictures. MR. TURNER-Stated yes, we've got them. MR. SALEEM-Stated I've had an artist draw an addition on what I'm planning on having there. MR. TURNER-Asked now you're going with a 7 or 8,000 foot building? MR. SALEEM-Stated 7,000. MR. TURNER-Stated 7,000. You've got 5 now, right? MR. SALEEM-Stated right. MR. TURNER-Asked, that's with the machine shop? MR. SALEEM-Stated yes, it is. MR. TURNER-Asked, the machine shop is going to be separated from this main building, right or is that going to be incorporated? MR. SALEEM-Stated that was in the original plans, but you seem to feel you'd rather see it gone. I'd be agreeable to putting up a 7,000 square foot building and tear down the machine shop. MR. TURNER-Asked, and tear that down? 1 -- MR. SALEEM-Stated(referring to drawing) this area you're seeing will be gone which would leave room for additional parking. MRS. GOETZ-Read the application. what it was originally? So, has the size of the building changed from MR. TURNER-Stated yes, it's 2,000 square feet more. MRS. GOETZ-Asked, more? MR. TURNER-Stated the original size was around 5,000 square feet and he's going to 7 now. If you remember, last time, he was going to leave the machine shop there. MR. SALEEM-Stated the building itself I would like to leave as in the original plans. The only difference being I will take down the machine shop which is the small building to the right. MR. GOETZ-Asked, so you're going to end up with a smaller proposal than you have now? MR. CARR-Stated well it would be smaller. MR. TURNER-Stated no, he's going to have the building the machine shop was in. He's going to put the machine shop on the new 7,000 square foot building. MR. CARR-Stated but in his first proposal the machine shop was sticking out the side of the new building. MR. SALEEM-Stated it was, I'm going to tear that down. down with the rest of the building. I'm going to tear that MR. CARR-Stated now you're little thing up on the side? just going to have a square building. What's Is that where the machine shop would have been? that MR. SALEEM-Stated correct. That's all been tied in. MR. CARR-Stated so that's not going to be there? MR. SALEEM-Stated we'll...that right up. MR. TURNER-Stated what I'm trying to get at is the old building to the new building the 7,000 square feet, is that correct? MR. SALEEM-Stated if you accept you except my proposal, it will be... MR. TURNER-Stated no, what I'm saying is, where the old building was, the machine shop, tie it in with the new building, 7,000 square feet? MR. SALEEM-Stated that would have been 7900. MR. TURNER-Stated 7900. MRS. COLLARD-Stated something like that, Michael. exactly 7,000, yes. Now, you're just going with MR. CARR-Asked, you're going with a square building 7500 feet. MRS. COLLARD-Stated yes. MRS. GOETZ-Stated so it's less. MR. CARR-Stated yes, it is less. MRS. EGGLESTON-Asked, you're taking off all other buildings on the lot. Is that right? MR. SALEEM-Stated yes. Now, I'm going to have to build in two stages. So, they won't all come down immediately, but they will be down. MRS. GOETZ-Asked, what are the two stages? 2 - MR. SALEEM-Stat~d it was in th~ original proposal, but I'll go, approximately 5,000 to th~ sid~ and b~hind th~ building now and t~ar th~ building down. . . .my busin~ss into that plac~ and th~n adding on th~ oth~r 2,000. MRS. GOETZ-Stat~d it's just so you can k~~p going whil~ you'r~ doing it. MR. SALEEM-Stat~d as I said b~for~, I' m r~a11y at, th~ front s~tback right now is only 25 f~et,... that 50 f~~t. I think that would b~ th~ major s~tback right now. MR. SALEEM-Stat~d th~ building now that's ~xisting MR. TURNER-Stat~d is 10 f~~t on th~ north sid~. In th~ front h~' s got to hav~ 75 and on th~ sid~ h~'s got to hav~ a sum of 50 or minimum of 20. MRS. YORK-Stat~d h~'s got 10 on th~ north side and 12 on th~ south sid~. A total of 22. MR. TURNER-Stat~d th~ r~ar s~tback is 15 f~~t inst~ad of 25. MR. SALEEM-Stat~d that's 15 on th~ sid~ you'r~ saying 10. MR. TURNER-Stat~d I'm just r~ading from th~ not~s h~r~. incorporat~ that building, is that what you'r~ saying. It'll b~ l50nc~ you MR. SALEEM-Stat~d y~s. MR. TURNER-Stat~d so it will b~ 27, right? MR. CARR-Stat~d no I think, on th~ original drawing that was put in, that's wh~r~ th~ building's still going to b~ 10cat~d, right? MR. SALEEM-Stat~d corr~ct. MR. CARR-Stat~d ok, so it's got 15 on th~ northw~st sid~ and 7 on th~ MR. SALEEM-Stat~d 7 on th~ short~st corn~r b~caus~ of th~ way th~ lot go~s. MR. CARR-Stat~d y~s, that' s th~ way th~ way w~ hav~ to go. So it still adds up to 22 f~~t total. MR. TURNER-Stat~d okay. P~rm~abi1ity, h~'s got 27 p~rc~nt and h~ n~~ds 30. MR. SICARD-Ask~d, is that in th~ front, Mik~, th~ p~rm~ability, ar~ you going to hav~ blacktop? MR. SALEEM-Stat~d y~s, but not MR. CARR-Ask~d, not all of it? MR. SALEEM-Stat~d not all of it. This is th~ sam~ map that you hav~. colored in th~ gr~~n that would b~ gr~~n, to giv~ you a b~tt~r id~a. I hav~ MR. SICARD-Ask~d, is th~r~ any way to tak~ that 3 p~rc~nt off, anyway in th~ front th~r~by r~ducing th~ blacktop? MR. TURNER-Ask~d, Mik~, can you s~e what you'v~ got th~r~? MR. SALEEM-Stat~d I'm going to have troubl~. MR. CARR-Stat~d it's w~t down th~r~. MR. SALEEM-Stat~d as I stat~d in my proposal, although w~' r~ only d~aling with my lot, betw~~n th~ ditch on Quak~r Road and my prop~rty lin~ is anoth~r 25 f~~t to th~ pol~ which I'm not going to hav~ blacktopping for. MRS. GOETZ-Ask~d is that sign 15 f~~t back from th~ prop~rty lin~ and your...? Is it? I'm just curious. MR. SALEEM-Stat~d this will b~ part of this addition. I gu~ss that's pretty clos~ b~caus~ h~' s almost to th~ back of th~ gr~~n and ev~ry inch is 20, would b~ 20 fe~t. 3 - MR. KELLEY-Asked, have you got a variance for the pole? MR. SALEEM-Stated yes, I had an original variance for that. MRS. GOETZ-Asked, Pat, do you have a letter on this, in the file? MRS. COLLARD-Stated the letter on this is sitting in my desk, unfortunately, and I had figured the parking, with the machine shop included in it, but just doing some quick figuring here, the retail is going to be just 25 percent? MR. SALEEM-Stated 15. MRS. COLLARD-Asked, 15? MR. SALEEM-Stated 15 as it's situated now. I don't see a major change. MRS. COLLARD-Stated because you are going to need a parking variance, at 15 percent, okay. At 25 percent, I came up with, plus 3 company vehicles, 24 parking spaces required. Now that's using 25 percent retail. I'll go back to the drawing board here. MR. SALEEM-Stated my company vehicles won't be in the lot. MRS. COLLARD-Asked, where are they going to be? MR. SALEEM-Stated on that driveway on the side. MRS. COLLARD-Stated but I have to figure them in with this wholesale parking use. MR. SALEEM-Stated as far as the building is concerned, I think anybody's who's driven by it agrees it should be torn down. I'm asking for a 7,000 square foot building on that property. With the 5,000 I have now, without even having to come in front of this Board, I can add another 3,000 which would give me 8,000 feet, but I'd still be looking at an old,..building. So, I guess I'm saying to you I think it would be a benefit to not only me but the Town to allow this building to go up because we're going to be looking at. We'd actually have more square footage building on the property. The reason I'm saying that is, most of the building now is nonconforming, you're looking at. MR. CARR-Stated but you can't enlarge a nonconforming use without a variance. MRS. GOETZ-Stated but I think it's a conforming use except for the warehouse. MR. SALEEM-Stated because I could add another 3,000 square feet that is not there now, that is just property that now that would be well within the 75 feet back and the 25 feet out. It's got to have 50 on either side. MR. CARR-Stated alright, now I've got it. MR. COLLARD-Stated Mr. Chairman, I've figured 19 parking space will be required. MR. TURNER-Asked, 19? MRS. COLLARD-Stated yes. MR. CARR-Asked, how many do you have have, Mike? MR. SALEEM-Stated I have...10. MRS. GOETZ-Asked is this use a conforming use? MRS. COLLARD-Stated yes. MR. TURNER-Stated yes, it's a conforming use in the Town now. MR. KELLEY-Asked, does this have to go to site plan? MRS. COLLARD-Stated yes, it does have to go to site plan. MR. TURNER-Stated yes, it's highway commercial. It wasn't before. 4 MR. KELLEY-Statêd a portion of thê nêW building, thêrê's going to bê so many squarê fêêt a110ttêd to thê rêtai1 part of thê storê or thê building. What's thê comparison of thê rêtai1 storê sizê that you havê now to what you'rê proposing? MR. SALEEM-Statêd I'm not surê what you'rê saying. MR. KELLEY-Statêd wê11, thê part whêrê thê customêrs usually walk into. MR. SALEEM-Statêd I rêa11y havên' t dêsignêd thê intêrior. It' 11 probably pick up anothêr 5 or 600 squarê fêêt and I don't Sêê it as much morê than that. MR. KELLEY-Statêd I gUêss what I'm trying to gêt at, I gUêss, is, I was going to ask you what your currênt parking capacity is and how many customêrs you' rê having and how that êffêcts thê parking that you havê now. I'm thinking if you êxpand this rêtai1 sê11ing part of your businêss, you may havê morê customêrs. Pat says you arê rêquirêd to havê 19 spaCêS, you'rê going to proposê 10. Is that going to bê adêquatê? MR. SALEEM-Statêd our businêss is not onê 1ikê a drêss shop whêrê pêOp 1ê arê in thêrê looking around. ThêY COmê for a spêcific purposê and gêt what thêY want and 1êavê. Wê also don't havê a strêam of pêop1ê 1ikê a grocêry storê. MR. TURNER-Statêd most of your rêtai1 businêss is donê on a Saturday. MR. SALEEM-Statêd on a Saturday or Sunday. I can show you figurês. MR. TURNER-Statêd I know I' Vê bêên in thêrê. Somê days you might find it tough to find a p lacê to park on a wêêkênd, 1ikê on a Saturday or Sunday, but, othêr than that, most of thê timê. MR. SALEEM-Statêd thêrê's probably only 5 or 6 spaCêS now, I mêan actual spacê. MR. TURNER-Statêd you know, and hê' s rêa11y kind of hog tiêd with parking now thê way thê building sits thêre and you'vê got to go around thê sign post on onê sidê. MRS. GOETZ-Statêd so your saying thê parking will bê improvêd bêcausê of thê nêW shapê of thê building? MR. TURNER-Statêd yês, bêcause hê' s going to bê farthêr back from thê road, for startêrs. MR. KELLEY-Statêd wê11, this right hêrê shows it. If you look whêrê that building is, that's going to bê torn down. MR. TURNER-Statêd YêS. MR. CARR-Statêd wêl1, thê parking now is not... MR. TURNER-Statêd no, it's just whêrê you can find a spot, now. MRS. GOETZ-Askêd, is this going to bê it, as far as your rêquêstS? I mêan arê you going to comê in 1atêr and say that you nêêd morê bêcausê this is a 40 pêrcênt êxpansion? Say you're businêss incrêasêd, you know, and you might, just bêcausê it Sêêms 1ikê YOU'Vê bêên succêssfu1 so far, and that's why you' rê able to do this. MR. SALEEM-Statêd to bê honêst, I don't if thêrê' 11 bê ênough in thêrê to gêt this built. If therê isn't thên I'll probably havê to look for anothêr location. I can't say I'm not looking for anothêr location now. I'd havê to closê this onê to takê some of thê prêssurê off this..who1êsa1ing. MR. GOETZ-Statêd bêcausê a 40 foot êxpansion is a lot and I just think it would bê fair to you to lêt you know, at 1êast from my point of viêw, that if this was approvêd, that's about it. MR. SALEEM-Statêd...I agrêê. MRS. GOETZ-Statêd and it sounds likê you...to othêr things. What if hê dOêS sêl1 out, though, and thên how about anothêr typê of business going in thêrê. MR. TURNER-Statêd thêY would bê highway commêrcia1 too. 5 -- MRS. GOETZ-Stated but the impact about not enough parking. Are you saying because of the type of business that he has now, there won't be a problem with his business, but what if he does sellout to another highway commercial use and then you might be stuck with inadequate parking then. MRS. EGGLESTON-Asked, but wouldn't they have to come back if it didn't meet the requirements of the parking and they would have to come for a variance. Like if a grocery store went in there and they needed more, wouldn't they have to come back? MRS. COLLARD-Stated yes, they would be back to see you. MRS. GOETZ-Stated but then I can hear the argument that it's already in place and what are you going to do about it. MR. CARR-Stated no, the argument is that it's in place for a wholesale automotive store, not for a grocery store. I mean, if he was proposing a convenient mart or a grocery store, I could almost guarantee that we probably would not let him get away with 10 parking space. MR. SALEEM-Stated I really don't expect to be leaving right away and when I do sell, I will advise them about...see that they have 10 parking spaces and if there business can't deal with 10 parking spaces, then they're going to have to find someplace else to buy. MR. KELLEY-Stated you're talking about, in the future, you may need to have another store someplace to take some of the pressure off the increased business here. MR. SALEEM-Stated I'm looking right now on Corinth Road. MR. KELLEY-Stated I guess, that's my other thing. Have you thought of stopping everything right where it is now and think about moving the whole thing? MR. SALEEM-Stated I wouldn't move the whole thing. I like the location where it is. It's pretty central to a lot of our customers which are the car dealers and the construction companies which are pretty much all centered between Bay and Ridge on Quaker. MR. SICARD-Stated I think a typ ical examp 1e of what you're talking about right there is probably Air-Land (Motor Parts) did, your competitor, in having the main store down on Quaker and then the other store on Warren Street in Glens Falls which is a much smaller store, but the machine shop is one place and this seems to be the way they're going. MR. SALEEM-Stated our customers are right in that area, Queensbury Motors, Quaker Ford, Kubricky Construction, O'Connor's Construction. The location is an excellent area for wholesale delivery. I think if I did open a store on Corinth Road, it would probably be more retail again. MRS. GOETZ-Stated this is additional staff report since the last meeting, of March 13th. STAFF INPUT Notes from Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner (attached) MRS. COLLARD-Stated I'm going to ask that you put in for 10 spaces because of one handicapped that will have to be added. So, instead of 19, it will be 20 that he'll be required to have. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 142-1989 MICHAEL SALEEM, Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: This approval would be to allow the applicant to have a relief from the Ordinance as regarding the front, side, rear setbacks, the permeability requirement and the parking requirement. Regarding the front setback, the relief would be 19 feet. Instead of the 75 foot requirement, it would be 56 feet. On the sideline setback, the relief is 38 feet from the total requirement of 50. The relief from the minimum of each side requirement of 20 feet would be, or, needing a total of 50 feet. The relief is 38 feet, 5 feet on the northwest side and it will be 33 feet on the southeast side. From the rear setback requirement, the relief 6 is lO f~~t from th~ r~quir~d 25 f~~t. Th~ r~li~f from th~ p~rm~ability r~quir~m~nt will b~ 3 p~rc~nt. Th~ r~li~f on th~ parking will b~ a r~quir~m~nt of 10 parking spaces inst~ad of th~ 20 r~quir~d. Th~ applicant has d~monstrat~d practical difficulty due to th~ lot siz~. H~ has d~monstrat~d som~ ~conomic hardship which would warrant som~ r~li~f from th~ Ordinanc~. This would b~ a b~n~fit to th~ Town to hav~ a n~w building in plac~ rath~r than th~ ~xisting buildings. Th~r~'s no impact on public faciliti~s and this is not d~trim~ntal to th~ n~ighborhood. Duly adopt~d this 21st day of March, 1990, by th~ following vot~: AYES: Mr. Carr, Mrs. Eggl~ston, Mrs. Go~tz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. K~ll~y, Mr. Turn~r NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Sh~a MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 6-1990 BYRON B. RIST, Introduc~d by Char1~s Sicard who mov~d for its adoption, s~cond~d by Th~odor~ Turn~r: Tab1~d until April. Duly adopt~d this 21st day of March, 1990, by th~ following vot~: AYES: Mr. Carr, Mrs. Egg1~ston, Mrs. Go~tz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. K~ll~y, Mr. Turn~r NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Sh~a NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 18-1990 TYPE II SFR-IA JOHN AND ROSANN CURRAN OWNER: SAKE AS ABOVE 15 RESERVOIR DRIVE FOR AN ADDITION OF A 24 FT. BY 24 FT. ATTACHED TWO CAR GARAGE THAT WILL NOT MEET THE FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 94-1-17 LOT SIZE: 0.279± ACRES SECTION 4.020 H JOHN CURRAN, APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. GOETZ-Asked, do you hav~ a pictur~ of it? MR. CURRAN-Ask~d, a blu~print? MRS. GOETZ-Ask~d lik~, is it two story? MR. CURRAN-Stat~d no. MR. TURNER-Ask~d John, how long hav~ you own~d this? MR. CURRAN-Stat~d sinc~ '79, 12 y~ars. MR. TURNER-Ask~d 12 y~ars? MR. CURRAN-Stat~d w~ll, 11 y~ars. MRS. GOETZ-Stat~d you could g~t a lot in that small garag~. MR. TURNER-Ask~d, did you buy this from th~ original own~r. MR. CURRAN-Stat~d y~s. MR. TURNER-Stat~d this is th~ old Fr~ddy Hay~s subdivision ov~r th~r~. H~ built all of thos~ hous~s, most of thos~. MRS. EGGLESTON-Ask~d, I want~d to ask if your n~ighbors, th~ Full~rs, would hav~ any blocking of th~ir vi~w. w~ tri~d to look, wh~n w~ w~r~ th~r~, what th~ vi~w would b~ from th~ir pictur~ window. Do you think int~rf~r~ with th~ir vi~w? MR. CURRAN-Stat~d as far as th~ vi~w out of th~ front of th~ hous~, no. MRS. EGGLESTON-Stat~d th~y can s~~ out in th~ str~~t. 7 MR. CURRAN-Stated if they were to come out the front door, it will cause somewhat of a...I'm 15 feet from the property line, that corner, there's another 15 feet to their house, so it's 30 feet, still, between the two of us. Bob couldn't be here tonight. MRS. EGGLESTON-Asked, is that Mr. Fuller? MR. CURRAN-Stated yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Asked, he has no objection? MR. CURRAN-Stated he has no objection. MR. KELLEY-Stated myself, I was trying to figure out if there was any feasible alternative. I went and looked at it and that retaining wall's there. The first thing you say, well, can you move it back from the reservoir, but you can't because of the way the wall is there. MR. SICARD-Stated you could put it on top of the City sewer. They probably wouldn't like it. MR. TURNER-Stated it's just a unique situation the way the house is situated on the lot. That's his hardship. That's his practical difficulty. It's a small lot to start with. MR. KELLEY-Asked, do you know the approximate total length of the house? MR. CURRAN-Stated 24 by 54. MR. KELLEY-Asked, that's what it is now? MR. CURRAN-Stated yes, about 1200 square feet. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED GEORGE FERRIS MR. FERRIS-My name is George Ferris and I live directly across from the Currans. Looking out my house, I face their house. My wife and I had put on an addition to our house. We had looked around, a couple of years ago and selected to put an addition on to our house. The biggest reason is because the neighborhood, it's a great to live there. It's a great neighborhood to live in. It's very qui te. Great for the kids. We both have small kids, they do and us also and it's good to see that, we're happy to see somebody putting an addition on, improving the neighborhood because the neighborhood, even though it is a nice neighborhood, it's an older neighborhood compared to some of the houses that are going up now that are smaller houses. I think that probably 90 percent of the houses in the Clark Street area are small ranches. There has been some additions that have gone on within the neighborhood and it's just upgrading the look of the neighborhood which has come a long ways in the last 10 years, a long ways. So, we would certainly like to see it happen. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Letter from Patricia E. Geruso, to Queensbury Planning Board, dated March 19, 1990 (on file) Warren County Planning Board approved STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (attached) MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 18-1990 JOHN AND ROSANN CURRAN, Introduced by Jeffrey Kelley who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: The location of the existing house on the property is a problem. The basic lot size is similar to other lots in the neighborhood, but the house is p laced on a diagonal which conflicts with the plans for the house. The existing home is 24 by 54 feet, or 1296 square feet. It is not an overly large home for the lot. They are requesting an addition of a 24 by 24 foot, two car garage. This is a 8 ri:asonab1i: ri:qui:st. Thi: ri:lii:f will bi: as follows: it's a corni:r lot with two fronts, thi: Ri:si:rvoir Driv~ front r~quiri:mi:nt is 30 f~~t and thi:y n~i:d ri:li~f of 21 fi:~t and thi: garag~ would bi: 9 fi:i:t from th~ prop~rty lini:. Thi:y ari: also asking for a sidi:yard s~tback on thi: sidi: that adjoins th~ Ful1i:rs. Th~ ri:quiri:mi:nt is 20 fi:~t. Th~ propos~d addition will b~ 15 f~~t from thi: sidi: or a r~lii:f of 5 f~i:t. This is not d~trim~ntal to thi: ni:ighborhood and no advi:rsi: i:ffi:ct on facilitii:s. Thi:ri: ari: no fi:asibli: alti:rnativi:s. Duly adopti:d this 21st day of March, 1990, by thi: following voti:: AYES: Mr. Carr, Mrs. Eggli:ston, Mrs. GOi:tz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Ki:11i:y, Mr. Turni:r NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shi:a MR. TURNER-Aski:d, ari: Wi: going to deal with O'Connor? MRS. YORK-Stati:d thi: only othi:r thing I kni:w you Wi:ri: going to talk about tonight was Carol Cacioppi as ri:ni:wal of hi:r varianci:. MR. TURNER-Aski:d, how about O'Connor. Hi: Wi:nt from 575 squari: fi:i:t on his building to 600 squari: fi:i:t and Wi: had to addri:s s that. John said hi: was going to put it on thi: i:nd of thi: ag~nda. MRS. YORK-Stati:d nobody said anything to mi: today. Mayb~ it was an ov~rsight. MRS. EGGLESTON-Stat~d w~ hav~ a l~tt~r. MRS. YORK-Stat~d okay, why don't you r~ad th~ l~tti:r and proc~i:d. MRS. GOETZ-Stat~d this l~tti:r is from Stu Bak~r r~garding Us~ Varianc~ No. 15-1990 E & T O'Connor Construction, dati:d March 12th, 1990: Brian O'Connor has brought to thi: Planning Board's atti:ntion that the dim~nsions of th~ proposed addition you r~vii:w~d Wi:r~ incorrect. Thi: actual dimi:nsions of th~ addition are 20 f~i:t by 30 fei:t, not 19.5 fei:t by 29.5 feet as approved. Bi:fori: E & T O'Connor Construction can go through site plan review, the Zoning Board must amend thi: motion for Use Varianci: approval to reflect thi: correct square footage of thi: proposi:d addition, 600 squari: fi:et rather than 575 square fi:et. See thi: attachi:d motion from thi: Fi:bruary 28th, 1990 ZBA mi:~ting. This minor changi: in thi: outsidi: dimensions of thi: addition will not eff~ct the Area Varianci: approval granti:d for relii:f from thi: side si:tback requirements thi:si: approved si:tbacks will not change. Brian O'Connor will appear at thi: end of the March 21st meeting to discuss this approval modification. MRS. GOETZ-Aski:d, do wi: ni:ed him(Mr. O'Connor) heri: though? MR. TURNER-Stated no. I don't think there's any big problem. MOTION TO AMEND USE VARIANCE NO. 15-1990 E & T O'CONNOR CONSTRUCTION, Introduci:d by Thi:odori: Turner who movi:d for its adoption, seconded by Susan Goetz: This amendment will reflect the change in squari: footage of the proposi:d addition to th~ offici:. The previous motion sustains the relief for the sidi:yard si:tback. Thi: square footage will increase, th~ addition is 20 by 30, instead of 19.5 by 20. Duly adopted this 21st day of March, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carr, Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. GOi:tz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shi:a MR. TURNER-Stated this one on Cacioppi, this was granted for an extension of hi:r varianci: approval. MRS. GOETZ-Aski:d, what..do you want mi: to r~ad? MRS. YORK-Stati:d I b~lieve th~re's a l~tti:r from Scott Hatz. 9 -- MRS. GOETZ-Asked, do you want me to read his letter? Ok. This is dated March 19, 1990, to John Goralski, regarding Carole Cacioppi, the renewal of Lake Sunnyside Estate Zoning Variances. Read letter (on file) Letter from Pat Collard, regarding all of these lots, dated March 21st, 1990, to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Read letter (on file) MR. CARR-Asked, (referring to Pat's letter) could you explain that? Are you saying that a variance is not necessary? MRS. COLLARD-Stated the variance was not necessary. MR. TURNER-Asked, because of the wording in Article 8? MRS. COLLARD-Stated because of the wording in Article 8 in our Zoning Ordinance. MR. CARR-Asked, okay, so, that's for lots 19 and lots and lots 4 and 5 as modified? MRS. COLLARD-Stated that is for the lot (TAPE TURNED) MR. CARR-Stated I wasn't here, but lot's 4 and 5 appear to have been modified. Does that change the requirement? MRS. COLLARD-Stated that's a good question. I'm sorry to say I had so very little time to work on this. MR. CARR-Stated here's another question, is this suppose to have public notice of the extension of those? MRS. YORK-Stated no. MRS. COLLARD-Stated it wouldn't require public notice, but, as I say, at that time, the variances weren't even necessary. MR. CARR-Stated for all of them, you're saying. MRS. COLLARD-Stated that's correct. MR. CARR-Asked, including 4 and 5? MRS. COLLARD-Stated that's correct. MRS. GOETZ-Stated so there's nothing to extend. MRS. COLLARD-Stated there's nothing to extend. MR. CARR-Asked, so why do we need the motion from the Board? MRS. COLLARD-Stated I felt it would possibly be necessary just to close this out. It's up to you, how you want to handle it. SCOTT HATZ MR. HATZ-Stated my name is Scott Hatz. We represented Mrs. Cacioppi last year. I did speak with Pat and my first question would be one that, initially, that the Town Legal Department and Planning Department made a determination that variances were required. We had quite a few discussions with them prior to this whole thing occurring last spring and that's why we went through this whole procedure. When we appeared before this Board, we were granted area variances for 19 and 20 as they existed since 1973, however, with respect to lots 4, 5 and 10, which were smaller lots, we were granted variances conditioned upon those three lots becoming two lots. With that in mind, we then appeared before the Planning Department with a new survey showing what we refer to as modified lots 4 and 5 and were given approval to modify the preexisting subdivision. So, my question to this Board, and I'll take any help I can get at this point, is, if, in fact, no variances were needed last year when we came here, what happens to the record modifying Lake Sunnyside Estates for her original three lots, 4, 5 and 10, now two lots. Do we go back to three lots or do we have to go to the Planning Board to get it back to three lots. Does she have an option, sell as two, sell as three? I'm fairly confused at this point. MS. CORPUS-Stated I have a question, Scott. Is that map filed, the map with the modified lots on it? 10 MR. HATZ-Stated I don't know if it was ever filed. I'd have to double check that. MRS. YORK-Stated if you didn't file, the plat's null and void. MS. CORPUS-Stated right. MR. HATZ-Stated so, it's back to where we were. MS. CORPUS-Stated right. It seems that you would be back to square one. MR. HATZ-Stated so, in that effect, we wouldn't have to bring the Planning Board back into this at all. MRS. YORK-Stated that's right. MS. CORPUS-Stated correct. MRS. YORK-Stated why don't you check on that and then come on in and talk to us. MR. HATZ-Asked, so, at this point, we're putting on record that no variances are required for all five of the lots? MRS. COLLARD-Stated yes. MR. HATZ-Asked, so, at this point, with respect to this Board, they exist as they existed last year at this time before we even came in here. MRS. COLLARD-Stated that's correct, yes. in the year of '89. It was just a misinterpretation early MR. TURNER-Stated Pat, maybe you ought to explain your discussion so that everybody gets the feel of what you talked about and why. MRS. COLLARD-Stated well, Ted, we talked about it last Mayor June so I don't know if I can remember exactly what we discussed, but, basically, Lee and Dave and John and I discussed those paragraphs in .010 and .011 of Article 8 with Paul Dusek. After, I would probably sayan hour, of discussing this, the interpretation was, is that because of the wording of these Sections, lots approved by the Planning Board and filed in Warren County prior to this Ordinance are conforming lots. MR. CARR-Stated for three years. MRS. COLLARD-Stated for three more years. MR. CARR-Stated yes, from October of '88. MRS. COLLARD-Stated to October '91. MR. CARR-Stated October of '91, Scott will have to be back here for variances, if the lots are not sold. MRS. COLLARD-Stated yes. MR. HATZ-Stated to be technical...and we would never have to come back. MRS. COLLARD-Stated yes. for you, concerning this. Scott, I would be happy to put a formal letter together I apologize. I had very little time to work on this. MR. HATZ-Stated that's okay. I understand. on the record, that we're both in agreement. I just want to make sure, tonight, MRS. COLLARD-Stated yes. MR. HATZ-Stated especially with respect to lots 4, 5 and 10 or what we now we will be referring to 4 and 5, what their status is. MS. CORPUS-Stated if I could just make a recommendation to the Board. If you were to change the interpretation, at this point, you would need a motion to rescind the prior variance and make a new motion that none was required. MRS. GOETZ-Asked we have to rescind the previous variance. I want to make a comment that, based on the information, criteria, we had at the time, I feel we did act properly. I think that's important. 11 MRS. COLLARD-Statßd I agrßß with you, yßs. MOTION TO RESCIND AREA VARIANCES 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 THAT WERE GRANTED KARCH 22ND, 1989 TO CAROLE CACIOPPI: Introducßd by Susan GOßtz who movßd for its adoption, sßcondßd by Thßodorß Turnßr: At thß timß, thß ZBA, with thß guidancß of thß Planning Dßpartmßnt and thß Town AttornßY, Wß fßlt thß variancßs wßrß rßquirßd. Upon furthßr study of Articlß 8, Sßction 8.010 and 8.011 of thß QUßßnsbury Zoning Ordinancß, it is found that thßsß variancßs arß not nßßdßd. MRS. GOETZ-Asked, is that all, Karla, that nßßds to go in it? MS. CORPUS-Stated just that you're interprßting thß Ordinance in such a fashion. MRS. YORK-Statßd I think you should make, in your motion, that you arß, if the Zoning Board agrßßs with thß Zoning Administrator's dßtßrmination at this point in time, you should makß a motion stating that it is your dßtßrmination that these variances wßrß not nßßded. I feßI vßry strongly it is the Zoning Board of Appßals that has the ability to interpret the Ordinance here. MRS. GOETZ-Stated if that's truß thßn, why was MRS. EGGLESTON-Askßd, why wßren't we given timß to study it? MRS. GOETZ-Stated yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Stated to, you know, make a decision. MRS. YORK-Askßd, would you likß to table this? MRS. GOETZ-Statßd no, I'm not saying that we're going to come up with anything diffßrßnt, but if that tYPß of procßdurß is true, then Wß should comß hßrß and we should tell him whether Wß agrßß with you. MRS. YORK-Stated absolutßly. MRS. GOETZ-Statßd not you personally, but you know, whatßvßr. MS. CORPUS-Statßd your right, Sue. At first, apparßntly, at thß concßption of this, thß Zoning Administrator, if thßrß was onß at that timß, did not make that dßtßrmination. It was sort of brought directly bßfore the Board. MRS. GOETZ-Statßd Yßs, Mr. Hatin...a detßrmination and now hß has reversed his dßtßrmination or there has bßßn a rßversa1 hßrß. MS. CORPUS-Statßd you'rß still working on thß appßllatß jurisdiction of thß Zoning Board, so, at this point, you could tablß in order to study it and make the dßtßrmination whether you agrßß with thß Zoning Administrator's reintßrpretation of thßsß Sßctions or makß a motion to ßithßr approvß or dßny. MRS. GOETZ-Statßd thß thing is, wß' Vß alrßady had othßr subdivision lots comß beforß us that wßre nßvßr brought up to us becausß thßY said wß11, based on this casß we didn't Sßß thßm. MRS. COLLARD-Statßd Yßs. MRS. GOETZ-Statßd so, for us to have anything differßnt to say then what has already bßßn said, it's ridiculous because we'd have to go back and say we'll drag thosß othßr pßoplß in. MS. CORPUS-Statßd wßll, you' rß right, thß practicality is a differßnt mattßr. MRS. GOETZ-Stated it's just not going to happßn. So, what you're saying is Wß should word our motion differßntly than thß way it is, put the onus on the ZBA. MRS. YORK-Stated wßll, of this interprßtation, statß that also. if you, at this point in time, agrßß with thß rßvßrsal that's your right to statß that, if you don't, you could MRS. GOETZ-Statßd wß11, Ißt's talk about it thßn. 12 ~ MR. KELLEY-Stat~d l~t m~ ask a questiQn. The way I understand this because I talked tQ Pat just briefly befQre the meeting, if YQU have a pr~e:xisting, apprQved subdivisiQn, priQr tQ 1988, OctQber, YQU have thr~e y~ars to eith~r sell them Qr checkerboard them, Qr they start joining together to b~ cQnfQrming lQts. I believe this is prQbably a 1 acre zQn~. MRS. COLLARD-Stat~d that's after th~ adQPtiQn MR. KELLEY-Stated they'r~ like half acre 1Qts. MRS. YORK-Stated half acre lQts. MR. KELLEY-Stated SQ, they're gQing tQ start jQining th~m tQ becom~ acre lQts, Qkay. SQ, he has som~ alternatives. He's gQing tQ sell th~m, checkerboard th~m, Qr get a variance. MRS. COLLARD-Stated y~s. MR. KELLEY-Stated and he gQt a varianc~. MRS. COLLARD-Stated but the three years has not expired. It won't expire until '91, nQ matter if his subdivisiQn was apprQv~d in 1960 whenever a Planning BQard became effective. MRS. YORK-Stat~d the wQrding Qf this is such that the three years starts frQm th~ adQption Qf this Ordinanc~, nQt the filing Qf the plat. MR. TURNER-Ask~d, every time? MR. KELLEY-Stated right, I understand that. Can't he g~t the variance b~fore th~ three y~ars is up? DQ YQU hav~ tQ wait th~ three years? MS. CORPUS-Stated the variance will expir~ in a year, Jeff. MRS. COLLARD-Stated I think they have fQund it a little difficult tQ sell those lQts with th~ varianc~ Qn th~m. MR. HATZ-Stat~d well, when the questiQn came up, Bernard McPhillips of Qur Qffice talked with the TQwn AttQrn~y back and fQrth both priQr tQ the October '88 Ordinanc~ and after that and the qu~stiQn was, wh~th~r, w~ had three years, wh~ther we lost that thr~e years, I think, in '82 and that was th~ first Ordinance in the three year divisiQn. MRS. COLLARD-Stated yes. MR. HATZ-Stated and SQ the d~t~rminatiQn, at that time, was that w~ lQst that three years in '85 and, therefQre, we nQw were adjQined and required a variance. Based uPQn that, w~ cam~ here. I guess nQw we're saying, because of th~ wording Qf the Ordinance each time, it n~ver took that intQ cQnsid~ratiQn and, in effect, technically reads, frQm the date of this OctQber Ordinance, a pre~xisting subdivisiQn. SQ, I think that was wh~re the prQblem was and a pr~viQus interpretatiQn as tQ what the reading nQw. MRS. YORK-Stat~d nQW, the ZQning Board Qf App~als can lQQk back to the intent Qf th~ Ordinance and YQU can make a judgement based Qn the intent if that's yQur chQice, rather than th~ absQlut~ wQrding. MRS. GOETZ-Asked, is this Qn YQur list Qf things tQ change? MRS. YORK-Stated you b~t. This is Mr. Dus~k's tQ change. MR. TURNER-Stated I thQught we just hashed this Qut Qver Qn~ just recently, that it wasn't grand fathered ev~ry tim~. MS. CORPUS-Stat~d if I'm nQt mistaken, this is th~ Qnly subdivision that f~ll intQ this, at that particular time. MRS. COLLARD-Stated it's the Qn1y one I can think of that we've ever considered variances fQr. Th~re was a discussiQn, I'm sQrry tQ say I dQn't r~call, r~c~ntly, in fact, I think, Bruce, yQU w~re in Qn it. MR. CARR-Stated in Qn that, th~ people whQ, up at Lak~ G~Qrge. 13 - '-, MR. TURNER-Stat~d th~ Sch~ib~ls. MRS. COLLARD-Ask~d, Sch~ib~ls? MR. CARR-Stat~d y~s. That was th~ on~ w~ got into a big MS. CORPUS-Stat~d w~ had a long discussion on that, didn't w~, Bruc~. MRS. COLLARD-Stated and that, again, that was an approv~d subdivision and onc~ it's approv~d, basically, ~v~rything's approv~d in it. MR. CARR-Stat~d at th~ tim~, T~d, it was ~xp1ain~d to m~ that ~v~ry tim~ this Ordinanc~ is updat~d or comp l~t~ly ov~rhaul~d, that thr~~ y~ars kicks back in an~w b~caus~ you hav~ to r~ad this as no Ordinanc~ ~v~ry b~ing in ~xist~nc~ b~for~. MRS. COLLARD-Stat~d thank you. MR. CARR-Stat~d I don't agr~~ with it, but that's what it amounts to. MR. TURNER-Stat~d I don't ~ith~r. MRS. COLLARD-Stat~d I don't know that any of us agr~~ with it, but that's th~ int~rpr~tation that's b~~n giv~n to us. MR. CARR-Stat~d I think that was Paul's int~rpr~tation, too. MR. TURNER-Stat~d this is th~ ~xact sam~ wording that's in that on~ right th~r~. Th~r~' s th~ old on~ right th~r~ and that' s th~ ~xact, word for word, I b~li~v~. MRS. YORK-Stat~d no, I think I r~m~mb~r, at th~ tim~ wh~n it was adopt~d, th~r~ was som~ wording put in at th~ r~quest of the Town Board at th~ time of adoption, I think it was modifi~d, T~d. MR. TURNER-Stated I think maybe that they put in August 30, 1967 as the ~ff~ctive dat~ of th~ first Zoning Ordinanc~. That's ~xactly the sam~ type of thing. MR. CARR-Stat~d but, Ted, I think if you'r~ going with your argum~nt, anyway, that in '85 they'v~ lost th~r~ right, oh, but th~n you'v~ got three lots tog~ther, right, so th~y become a nonconforming lot of r~cord, but then we'd have.... and put them together, is that what your argument is? MR. TURNER-Stat~d y~s, but the original concept of it, if I r~m~mber, lots 4, 5 and 11, wasn't it? MR. HATZ-Stated 4, 5 and 10. MR. TURNER-Stated 10. MR. HATZ-Stated w~re not on th~ wat~r and they wer~, roughly, a half acre apart. MR. TURNER-Stated th~y w~r~ on, lik~, on a corn~r. MR. HATZ-Stated right, th~y'r~ on the corner of, I guess it's Lakeview Driv~, or what~ver it is th~r~. MR. TURNER-Stat~d y~s. MR. HATZ-Stat~d and we took those thre~ half acr~ lots and mad~ roughly two...and gav~ those, even though th~y'r~ still nonconforming, gav~ those two lots variances. That's what we did last time, or you did. MR. CARR-Asked, Scott, this has been around since '73? MR. HATZ-Stated the subdivision was approved and filed in 1973. MR. CARR-Asked what's the problem with these lots? MR. HATZ-Stated with respect to my cli~nt, they preferred five lots, basically, as an investm~nt for the future. Her husband passed away. She moved out of the area. Then when her kids grew older and determined that they were not going to want any of the lots, she wanted to sell and had nO idea, in the meantime, of all the Zoning changes. 14 MRS. EGGLESTON-Stat~d sh~ 1iv~s ov~r in V~rmont. MR. HATZ-Stat~d sh~'s ov~r in V~rmont. MRS. GOETZ-Stat~d but th~ burd~n on h~r is to know. MR. HATZ-Stat~d right, w~lr~ not qu~stioning th~ fact that th~ chang~s ar~ valid. MRS. GOETZ-Ask~d, I just wond~r~d, did it mak~ it hard~r to s~ll th~ lots? MR. HATZ-Stat~d w~ll, I don't know if you r~call, w~ cam~, or two individuals had contracts. MR. TURNER-Stat~d Armstrong and MR. HATZ-Stat~d Armstrong and Washburn and th~y cam~ back in h~r~ r~qu~sting an ~xt~nsion of th~ varianc~ b~caus~ th~y w~r~n't sur~ wh~n th~y w~r~ going to build and at that point you indicat~d, no, com~ back wh~n th~ varianc~ ~xp ir~s. So, if th~r~ was no varianc~ n~~d~d, then, at l~ast with r~sp~ct to th~ r~maining wat~rfront lot, I think it would probably hav~ sold ~asi~r this past summ~r and hop~fu11y would again b~caus~ th~y would not hav~ to com~ b~for~ this Board. Th~y could buy th~ lot and th~n get th~ir building p~rmit wh~n th~y w~r~ r~ady to build. Th~ oth~r two lots or thr~~ lots, which~v~r th~y ~nd up b~ing, obviously, ar~ not as d~sirabl~ anyway b~caus~ th~y don I t hav~ wat~r frontag~ and I'm not sur~ wh~n th~y ar~ going to s~ll. MR. CARR-Ask~d, th~y'r~ on th~ mark~t now? MR. HATZ-Stat~d th~y'r~ on th~ mark~t. W~ didn't g~t any contracts, last summ~r, on thos~, but w~ got two on th~ wat~rfront, both of which, wh~n th~y w~r~ not allow~d to ~xt~nd that t~rm of th~ varianc~, back~d out and sh~ did g~t anoth~r buy~r to buy on~, but th~ oth~r on~ was not sold last y~ar and, of cours~, th~ mark~ts. . . anyway. So, I think wh~th~r th~r~' s a varianc~ or not do~s hav~ an ~ff~ct on it b~caus~ a lot app~ar~d to b~, at l~ast th~s~ p~op l~ w~r~ looking to buy it and th~n build, but build was th~ qu~stion of wh~n and if th~y had to los~ th~ir right or com~ back h~r~, th~y kind of got a littl~ n~rvous and pul1~d out. MRS. GOETZ-Stat~d w~l1, I think th~ Town Board' 11 list~n to Paul Dus~k. Som~how I g~t that f~~ling and, you know, I just think that, don't w~ hav~ to go along with the way th~y'r~ int~rpr~ting it? MS. CORPUS-Stat~d w~ll, you do hav~ som~ options h~r~. MRS. GOETZ-Ask~d, which ar~? MRS. YORK-Stat~d you dohav~ th~ option to ~xt~nd th~ varianc~s and agr~~ with th~ int~rpr~tation or agr~~ with th~ int~rpr~tation and int~rpr~t that no varianc~s ar~ r~quir~d. MR. TURNER-Stat~d w~ can ~xt~nd th~ varianc~, for now, until w~ thrash this thing out. MS. CORPUS-Stat~d that's corr~ct. MRS. GOETZ-Stat~d but I hat~ to drag th~ applicant through mor~ of this. What's your f~~ling on this int~rpr~tation. MR. TURNER-Stat~d th~ only thing is, what is do~s is, it d~stroys what w~'v~ alr~ady don~ on lots 4, 5 and 10. MS. CORPUS-Stat~d which may not b~ a probl~m if what Scott's saying is tru~, that th~y w~r~ not fil~d. MRS. YORK-Stat~d h~ do~sn't know. MR. HATZ-Stat~d I'm not sur~, but if th~ map wasn't fil~d, you'r~ saying, it's back to what it was... MS. CORPUS-Stat~d it's sort of back to squar~ on~ and w~ hav~ to d~al with it anyway. 15 MR. HATZ-Stated I'm not sure on that, but it may be the map was never filed. MRS. GOETZ-Asked, but are you saying that you like what we did. We made it a better lot. MR. TURNER-Stated as I remember MR. KELLEY-Stated one was kind of a triangular shape thing. MR. TURNER-Stated one was a triangular shaped lot. MR. KELLEY-Stated right, a real funny MR. TURNER-Stated a real funny lot. MR. HATZ-Stated there was one lot that would have been difficult to meet the setback requirements. So..just got rid of that and made the three into two. MRS. GOETZ-Stated which is more according to the intent of the new Ordinance. MR. CARR-Stated regardless of our decision tonight, do you think you could have two lots, anyway. MR. HATZ-Stated she doesn't know. I just spoke with Pat the other day and I haven't talked to my client, I wanted to see what was happening here before I told her everything we did last year was pOintless and I wanted her to be a long way away when I told her that. MR. CARR-Stated and you want a decision immediately. MR. HATZ-Stated well, what I do want is, if possible, I want to be able to continue market them, so if you're not sure what your interpretation is going to be with respect to the wording of the Ordinance, I would like to at least renew the variances because, the way I understand it, if you don't agree with that interpretation and you don't renew the variances, she'll lose the variances tomorrow and really couldn't market any of the lots until we got a new variance or we made a decision, but at least let her continue to market them and then maybe figure this out. I don't know if that's possible. MR. TURNER-Stated Bruce, let me just say, that when we discussed this, breaking up those lots and making the two out of the three, there was quite a lot of discussion with the applicant's client at the time and I don't whether it got...but it never was,... came up with the agreement this is the way we'll do it, but now if we say that we agree with the interpretation, that throws three lots back on the market. MR. CARR-Stated yes, I don't agree with the interpretation, no offense, Pat. MRS. COLLARD-Stated that's quite all right. MR. CARR-Stated because it doesn't make sense to have it resurrected again. So, my feeling, at this point, would be to renew his variances. MR. TURNER-Stated right, that's what I'd like to do. MR. CARR-Stated and, if he feels, he's got to feel aggrieved by that, which is that Article 78 proceeding to challenge. MRS. GOETZ-Stated it's more money... MR. TURNER-Stated well, it still makes the lot on the Lake. MR. HATZ-Stated yes, it keeps the one on the Lake which is the most valuable lot anyway. MR. TURNER-Stated and that development has never taken out anyway. There's only been like...there in the last year or so, the one way out on the corner and the one on the inner circle around that bend. MRS. GOETZ-Stated it seems that the Board, right now, is saying that they don't agree with the interpretation that they don't need the variance. MR. CARR-Stated right. MRS. GOETZ-Stated and there's going to be a lot of impact from this. 16 MRS. EGGLESTON-Asked, well sometime don I t we have to thrash it out and make a decision whether we agree or we don't? MR. TURNER-Stated when Pat mentioned it I told her I didn't agree with it anyway. MRS. COLLARD-Stated yes you did. MR. TURNER-Stated didn't I. MRS. COLLARD-Stated yes. MRS. GOETZ-Stated I don't think it's Pat in particular. MR. TURNER-Stated no, I'm just saying, when she brought it up I said I don't agree with Paul's interpretation. MRS. GOETZ-Stated right and we don't have to agree with him either. MR. TURNER-Stated no. MR. CARR-Stated I mean, Karla, can I just ask a question. Is there legal precedent that is saying that we have to agree with that interpretation? MS. CORPUS-Stated as far as that goes, no. The Board is free to make it's own decision. There is nothing that says you have to agree with that. It will impact on what you have done and what you will do in the future, that's true. MR. CARR-Stated yes, because I think the only way to make sense of that Ordinance is to say after three years you lose your subdivision rights and then, for any future use of that property, if you can put two lots together to meet minimum requirements, you'll have to put two lots together. I mean, if every time you redo the Ordinance you have to, you know, you give somebody new life for three more years to sell a tenth of an acre lot that was back in 1960, it just doesn't make sense. MR. TURNER-Stated I think when Miss Weber got up there, got up and talked about Scheibels, she wanted to know how many times it was going to be grandfathered. I said well, to me, it's not grandfathered. MR. CARR-Stated well, yeah, that was the big one, when, I think, the discussion came up, but they didn't have lots together anyway. MRS. COLLARD-Stated no, they were not contiguous, but you must realize there are going to be other situations, now, that we're going to have to talk about. MRS. GOETZ-Asked, well, how do we handle the situations that have gone by that weren't brought in? MR. CORPUS-Stated they may handle that. MR. CARR-Stated quietly. MS. CORPUS-Stated or not quietly, that's what the Article 78' s are for, if they believe that there was a misinterpretation at that time and the 30 days didn't go by, they would have the right to bring an Article 78 proceeding. MRS. GOETZ-Stated but there was another lot in the same area that was first on our agenda, it wasn't Carole Cacioppi. MR. TURNER-Stated no, it was O'Connor. MR. HATZ-Stated Michael O'Connor, I think came in. MRS. YORK-Stated yes, it was Michael O'Connor. MR. HATZ-Stated he sent a letter supporting our application. something similar before we did. I think he did MRS. GOETZ-Stated before that, but since then. In the recent months. It was next to the Hunts's. It was right on the water. It was a substandard size lot and it was on our agenda and it was advertised and then all of a sudden it was yanked off because they referred back to this. 17 MR. TURNER-Stated yes, you're right. MRS. GOETZ-Stated I've forgotten the name. MRS. EGGLESTON-Asked, Lake George? MRS. GOETZ-Stated no, it was Lake Sunnyside. I went out to do the site inspection, you know, I mean, it got that far and they said, no, it's not going to be necessary and they referred to the test..and all this. So, I mean, that's another impact. MS. CORPUS-Stated you're right. I would have to see if it would impact on whether, for example, this would impact on the building inspectors ability to give a building permit and if that was going to be asked for, some time subsequent to this decision, if that's a fact, that I'd have to check on that. MRS. GOETZ-Stated they may even have a house up on it. MR. CARR-Stated I think we forgot one other problem on this interpretation. I'm just looking at this now. 8.011 says if it's a nonconforming lot as of the date of the Ordinance, because he's a subdivision, he has three years to sell. If you don't sell in that three years it goes to somewhere else. We assume it goes into just a nonconforming lot of record, but 8.010 says any nonconforming lot of record as of the date of Ordinance. So, if this is becoming a nonconforming lot of record after the date of the Ordinance, I mean, where is it, it's in limbo. MS. CORPUS-Stated no, that's been amended, Bruce, and "thereafter" has been added to that. MRS. GOETZ-Asked, where is "thereafter" been added? MS. CORPUS-Stated there was a Town Board at which that was amended to include the words "thereafter". MRS. GOETZ-Stated but that's another problem is, why isn't the Zoning Board getting copies of the amendments. MR. CARR-Stated yes, because that's a real problem. MRS. COLLARD-Read from Ordinance "any nonconforming lot of record as of the date of this Ordinance and thereafter. MR. TURNER-Stated and thereafter. MR. CARR-Stated so that means, once they lose the 8.011, they become an 8.010 and if you own two lots together, you have to put them together. MS. CORPUS-Stated correct. MR. CARR-Stated and that's the way we're interpreting it for Scott's purposes tonight. I mean that's the way I would interpret it. MS. CORPUS-Stated but your interpretation is that the three years ended in 1985. MRS. YORK-Stated and therefore the variances were correctly given. MR. TURNER-Stated right. MR. CARR-Stated right. MRS. YORK-Stated thank you. MS. CORPUS-Stated and if that is your interpretation, that should go in the motion. (TAPE TURNED) MRS. GOETZ-Stated well, I'll have to make a new motion, then. MR. TURNER-Stated scratch that one. MR. CARR-Stated it's simple, that the variances are extended. 18 MR. TURNER-Stated yes, just make a motion to extend the variances. MOTION TO EXTEND AREA VARIANCES 30 THROUGH 34 CAROLE CACIOPPI, Introduced by Susan Goetz who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: To extend variances 30 through 34, granted March 22, 1989. Period of extension is for one year. Duly adopted this 21st day of March, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea MS. CORPUS-Asked, Mr. Chairman, did the motion mention that you were overturning the Zoning Administrator's decision? MR. TURNER-Stated not yet, we'll deal with that. We've got this one up front. MRS. GOETZ-Stated I think that we'll make it separate so that it's two separate issues. MR. CARR-Stated can I ask why we have to have a motion. MRS. EGGLESTON-Stated yes. MR. CARR-Stated I mean isn't it obvious from our resolution that we're disagreeing with the interpretation of the Zoning Administrator. MRS. COLLARD-Stated that's true. MS. CORPUS-Stated not really obvious, it's got to be put in record, Bruce. MRS. GOETZ-Asked does it have to be in the way of a motion? MS. CORPUS-Stated it should be part of some motion. MRS. GOETZ-Stated right, a special letter to someone? MS. CORPUS-Stated no, this is the appellate jurisdiction of the Zoning Board. MRS. GOETZ-Stated really? MOTION TO MENTION THAT WE DISAGREE WITH THE INTERPRETATION GIVEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AS PER SECTIONS 8.010 AS AMENDED AND 8.011 OF THE QUEENSBURY ZONING ORDINANCE, Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its adoption, seconded by Susan Goetz: It is the interpretation of the Board that Section 8.010 applies to lots in an approved subdivision and lasts for three years, if nonconforming in size. After the initial expiration of the three year period, those lots are governed by Section 8.010 for the remaining time, even though the Ordinance may be subsequently amended or revised. A lot loses its subdivision status after the three year period. The lot then becomes a nonconforming lot of record subject to Section 8.010. Duly adopted this 21st day of March, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carr, Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea MR. CARR-Stated I just want to make sure that it's clear that the lot in the subdivision becomes a nonconforming lot of record. MS. CORPUS-Stated you could make that specific to this so that you could clarify yourself, Bruce, if you wanted. 19 - MR. CARR-Stated I was going to say is I think what I may add to that is just that you lose your subdivision status of the lot after the three years whenever that runs. MRS. COLLARD-Asked, now this pertains to lots prior to '82? MR. CARR-Stated right. MRS. COLLARD-Stated no, it pertains to lots prior to '88. MR. CARR-Stated well, if a subdivision was prior to '82, and they still have lots available, I would say they've lost their, any subdivision between '82 and '88 has three years from October of '88 to sell those lots or then they lose their status. MS. CORPUS-Stated if I'm not mistaken, if the subdivision was approved in '82, am I correct interpreting that the Board means that, the status was lost in '85, therefore MR. CARR-Stated well, I guess I don't know, when was the '82 Ordinance adopted, I mean the exact date. MR. TURNER-Stated 6/11/82. MR. CARR-Stated okay, any subdivision of record, prior to 6/11182, if it was on file, because these are the same provisions, had till 1985 to sell those lots. Thereafter, all those lots have become just nonconforming lots of record. Any subdivision approved and filed from 6/11/82 to 10/1/88 had till 9130/91 to sell those lots or they become a nonconforming lot of record and if they're owned by the same person, they can be merged. That's putting dates on it. MRS. YORK-Stated so, just, I guess, for clarification. From the date the plat is filed, whenever that date is, they have three years in which to sell those lots before contiguous lots in the same ownership become joined under zoning. MR. CARR-Stated no, it depends on when the that plat was filed. If it was filed because it was just approved in 1990, that subdivision was just approved yesterday, then they go on. MRS. YORK-Stated for three years. MRS. COLLARD-Stated for three years. MRS. YORK-Stated for three years from the date of filing. MR. CARR-Stated no, because it just says MRS. YORK-Stated from the date of the Ordinance. MR. CARR-Stated yes, it says "any nonconforming lot of record as of the date of the Ordinance". MRS. YORK-Stated but it says from the date of the Ordinance and thereafter, now. MR. CARR-Stated not to 8.011, that's only 8.010. MRS. COLLARD-Asked, do you think, possibly, you should meet with our Town Attorney and discuss this. MRS. YORK-Stated I agree with your interpretation. MR. CARR-Stated no, what I'm thinking about is MRS. COLLARD-Stated I'm not disagreeing with you. MR. CARR-Stated when the '88 Ordinance came into effect, if a subdivision was approved, it was approved with the current zoning requirements in mind. MRS. YORK-Stated right. MR. CARR-Stated if it was a one acre parcel, they aren't going to allow them to divide it into quarter acre parcels. I mean, they would have thought of that. MRS. YORK-Stated yes. 20 MR. CARR-Stated so that lot, that subdivision can go on until the rules change. MR. TURNER-Stated right. MR. CARR-Stated once the rules change, then you've got three years to do it in. MR. YORK-Stated right. MRS. COLLARD-Stated right, I understand. MS. CORPUS-Stated Bruce, I can't remember whether thereafter came in 8.011 or 8.010. MR. CARR-Stated so you're saying that any subdivision is only good for three years. Is that the way the Town Board is interpreting it too? MS. CORPUS-Stated correct. MRS. YORK-Stated no, but you're correct because it doesn't become a problem until the zoning changes. MRS. COLLARD-Stated and that's stated in State Law. MRS. YORK-Stated it doesn't become a problem until the zoning criteria changes, as you said between half a lot and an acre lot, as has happened with Mrs. Cacioppi. MR. CARR-Stated let's take a 1 acre, okay, say somebody's got 10 acres, and they get a subdivision and it's such a great subdivision, it's in a one acre zone, but, okay, we give them, three quarter acre lots, even thought the rules say it's supposed to be an acre. MRS. COLLARD-Stated you've granted variances. MR. CARR-Asked, now, does that mean, if the thereafter is in 8.011, that means that they have three years to sell all those lots or they lose it. MRS. YORK-Stated not a variance, a variance goes with the land. A variance has been granted on that so the variance would remain. MS. CORPUS-Stated it's the filing of the subdivision map and the creation of the subdivision that's the trigger. MRS. COLLARD-Asked, if the variance goes with the land and it remains, then why is Mrs. Caciopp i asking for a year extension because our Zoning Ordinance says you have to get a building permit within a year? MR. CARR-Stated right. MRS. YORK-Stated yes, but if they had sold the lots, that variance would still be good. MRS. COLLARD-Stated true. MR. CARR-Stated sure, if somebody's already built on it. MRS. YORK-Stated the reason we have the 12 month clause is so the Board can reassess whether that is still appropriate given changing conditions, if nothing has changed on the site. MRS. COLLARD-Stated I guess I interpreted what you said literally and thought the variance went with the land forever and ever and ever. MR. KELLEY-Stated I don't think you're going to see a subdivision, though, that, if it's in a one acre zone, and they come up for approval, with less than acre lots, I don't think you're going to see that subdivision approved. MRS. YORK-Stated no, I agree with you, Jeff. MR. KELLEY-Stated if they're going to do that, then the area needs to be rezoned. MS. CORPUS-Stated there are safeguards, you're right. 21 MRS. GOETZ-Askðd, Lðð, what Wð'Vð just dðtðrminðd, could that bð writtðn up and sðnt to all of us. MRS. YORK-Statðd yðs, it will bð donð immðdiatðly. Also, I must apologizð bðcausð, apparðntly, thð Town Board has madð SOmð amðndmðnts, rðcðntly, to thð Zoning Ordinancð, which you havð not rðcðivðd. I don't know whosð rðsponsibility it is, but I will makð surð that you do gðt all of thosð and I think that, at this point, any intðrp rðtations madð by this Board, of this Ordinancð, should all bð put in writtðn form and also sðnt to you and anyonð ð1sð who's invo1vðd, thð Planning Board, as addðndums to thðir book and that should also bð takðn carð of on a routinð basis. Do you agrðð with mð and would you 1ikð to havð mð do this? MRS. GOETZ-Statðd no, it's good. MR. TURNER-Statðd no, it's good, Wð usðd to gðt thðm. MOTION TO ADJOURN MEETING, Introducðd by Charlðs Sicard who movðd for its adoption, sðcondðd by Jðffrðy Kðllðy: Duly adoptðd this 21st day of March, 1990, by thð following VOtð: AYES: Mr. Carr, Mrs. Egg1ðston, Mrs. GOðtz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Kð1lðy, Mr. Turnðr NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shða On motion mððting was adjournðd. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Thðodorð Turnðr, Chairman 22 11& ~)s., - -- TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PI_nnil'lg Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: March 13, 1990 By: Stuart G. Baker x Area Variance Uøe Variance -Sign Variance - Interpretation Other: Subdi.uioa: Sketch, Site Plan Rmew == Petition for a Change of Zone Freshwater Wetlanda Permit 1'reJim1__- _ -7' FiDal AppUcation Number: Area Variance No. 142-1989 AppUcant'. Name: Michael Saleem dlbla Adirondack Auto Supply, Inc. Meeting Date: March 21, 1990 ............................................................................................ . This application was before the Board on December 20, 1989 for variances from the front, rear, and side setback, as well as permeability requirements in a HC-IA zone. The application was tabled by the Board in December, and new information was submitted by the applicant in February, along with a request to be placed on the March agenda. At the December public hearing, the Board discussed the following issues: I) Size of the building: Is the proposed building too large for a .49 acre lot? 2) Front setback: 56 ft. is proposed: 75 ft. is required. 3) Side setbacks: 10 ft. on the north side, 12 ft. on the south side for a total of 22 ft.; requirements are minimum of 20 ft. on one side with the sum of at least 50 ft. 4) Rear setback: 15 ft. provided; 25 ft. required. 5) Permeability: 27% proposed, 30% required. 6) Parking requirements for proposed new building: Pat Collard, Zoning Administrator, has addressed this in a letter to the Board. Page I of 2 .. ~ }.; In reviewing the criteria for area variances listed in Section 10,040 of the Zoning Ordinance, I have made the following observations: I) The special circumstances which applies to this lot is that it is undersized for this zone. However, strict application of the Zoning Ordinance would not deny the applicant from continuing the current use without expanding. 2) Strict application of dimensional requirements would not result in a specified practical difficulty to the applicant. The applicant has not shown evidence of economic injury caused by the zoning requirement. The business has been able to support itself well enough to warrant a proposed expansion. 3) The proposed variances could be considered detrimental to the purpose of the ordinance. The purpose of the HC-IA zone is stated as "to provide for minimal expansion primarily through infill." The proposed expansion would enlarge the existing building by approximately 40%. This should be considered a major expansion. The variances requested are substantial, and combined amount to a request for maximum relief from the ordinance requirements. 4) It appears that no public facilities would be adversely affected. SGB/pw \. , \', Page 2 of 2 ,. ~ _0,; IP v)fS' - ~ . TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PI.nn~l1g Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: March 15, 1990 By: Stuart G. Baker ---X. Area V.....ce Uee VariaDce ----:- Sign Variance == Interpretation Other: SubdiYisioa.: Sketch. Pre1imiDary, Site Plan Reriew - - Petition fer a Change of Zone - Freshwater Wet1aDds Permit Fiaal Appücatioa. Number: Area Variance No. 6-1990 Appücant'. Name: Byron B. Rist MeetiDg Date: March 21, 1990 ............................................................................................ Due to incorrectly, for a side variance. Planning Department Staff error, this and consequent 1y advert ised incorrect ly. yard setback variance as well as the application was listed The applicant has applied original shoreline setback The Board should table this application until the first meeting in April (April 18) so that the application may be correctly readvertised. Mr. Rist will also be before the Planning Board for site plan review in April, and has consented to the change. Adjacent landowners will be renotified of the applicatipn, and the Warren County Planning Board will review this proposed action in April. SGB/pw ., \ \ \, i. " ......- , -" ----- r,.; p .. - -- TOWN OF QUEENSBURY P1.nn¡~g Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: M:aTC'h' I, IQQO By: John Goralski x Area Variance - U.VariaDce - Sign Variance == Interpretation Other: Subdi.øioa: Sketch, _ Pre1imiDary, Site PIaD Rmew - - Petition far a Change ofZoDe - Freshwater WetlaDds Permit FiDal AppUcation Number: Area Variance No. 18-1990 AppUcaDt'. Name: John and Rosann CurTAn Meeting Date: March lit 1990 ............................................................................................ There are special conditions which make this lot unique. Specifically the grade change and the fact that the lot fronts two roads. It does not appear that these conditions preclude the reasonable use of the property. The house is currently used as a single family residence and has a one car garage. The lot size and setback requirements are in place to preserve open space and the rural character of Queensbury. This is a substant ia1 variance which could contribute to a more congested feeling in this neighborhood. JG/pw '. , t' .':, FILE (Opy OR IGI¡-/AL BERNARD F. McPHlLUPS MARTIN A. MEYER JOSEPH R. BRENNAN DENNIS J. PHILUPS WILLIAM E. FITZGERALD JAMES E. CULLUM RICHARD V. MEATH MCPHILLIPS. FITZGERALD & MEYER' :-1 ,If". qUá.~~,I~~,·tH,·,' '.....~ilwn~- 11 ., ' í ~!! ,J' ,;:.... '. ¡: I ~ W~i{ 1!' 1QQ() } A TTORNEVS AT LAW 288 GLEN STREET - P. O. BOX 299 GLENS FALLS. N.Y. 12801 PHONE (518) 792-1174 : 'I.ANNING Be ZONINl, ~I:ÞARTM'N" OUR FILE NO. 30980/001 SCOTT R. HA TZ STERLING T. GOODSPEED WILLIAM J. WHITE HAND DELIVERED March 19, 1990 Mr. John Goralski, Assistant Planner Queensbury Planning Department Queensbury Municipal Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, New York 12804 RE: Carole Cacioppi - Renewal of lake Sunnyside Estates Zoning Variances Dear John: As indicated to the Queensbury Zoning Administer on Friday, March 16, 1990, this office represented Carole Cacioppi in connection with the applica- tions for zoning variances relative to her lots in lake Sunnyside Estates. On March 22, 1989, the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals granted Mrs. Cacioppi area variances for lots 19 and 20, lake Sunnyside Estates, as well as new modified lots 4 and 5, lake Sunnyside Estates. On June 27, 1989, the Queensbury Planning Board approved a modification to the existing subdivision to reflect the new modified lots 4 and 5. Mrs. Cacioppi subsequently sold lot No. 20, but at the present time is sti 11 marketing lot 19 and modified lots 4 and 5. It is our understanding after discussing this matter with the Zoning Administrator that the variances granted on March 22, 1989 will lapse after one year with respect to those lots which are not yet sold. Accordingly, and pursuant to your direction, by this letter we are hereby requesting that the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals consider a renewal of Mrs. Cacioppi's area variances for a pèriod of one (1) year so as to allow her to continue to list the lots and hopefully achieve a sale of the same during this time. If you have any questions or either you or the Zoning Board of Appeals are in need of further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. I thank you all for your courtesies in this matter. Very tr~ yours, McPHILLIPS, FVlGE/"Ð J MEYER ./pf !~ JilL- ~&tet R. H,tz SRH/ch Enclosures cc: Mrs. Carole Cacioppi ; . ~------ . - -- TOWN OF QUEENSBURY Bay at Haviland Road, Queensbury, NY 12804-9725-518-792-5832 MEMORANDUM TO: Zoning Board of Appeals FROM: Patricia M. Collard Zoning A~inistrator RE: Area Variances 30, 31, 32, 33. 34. 1989 Lake Sunnyside Estates - Carole Cacioppi DATE: March 21, 1990 Attorney Scott Hatz requested the above referenced variances that were granted on March 22, 1989 be extended for another year. I explained to Attorney Hatz that, at a meeting with Paul Dusek, and the Planning and Zoning Departments, Article 8, Section 8.010 & 8.011 of the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance was misinterp'reted at that time. In Mayor June of 1989, per those sections, lots in subdivisions approved prior to the date of the October 1988 Ordinance were determined not to require variances. A motion from the Board would be in order. PC/jjd 9( "HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY. . . A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE" SETTLED 1763 JI'. .. .. ---~-