Loading...
1990-11-28 -- - QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 28TH, 1990 INDEX Area Variance No. 78-1990 Edwi n Leo Norton 1. Area Variance No. 86-1990 Ricky C. Sears 2. Area Variance No. 87-1990 Today's Modern Mobile Homes 7. Area Variance No. 88-1990 Timothy F. Barber Nu-Tech Construction 12. Area Variance No. 89-1990 Marion S. & John P. Cushing 20. Area Variance No. 90-1990 Roger P. & Pamela Whiting, Jr. 22. Area Variance No. 91-1990 Raymond E. Erb 23. Use Variance No. 92-1990 James M. Weller, P.E. 31. Area Variance No. 93-1990 Mi chae 1 Ka i das Key Bank N.A. 44. Notice of Appeal No. 3-90 By Queensbury Planning Board RE: Property of Janet R. Leonelli 49. 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 SECOND REGULAR ÆETING NOVEÞlŒR 28TH, 1990 7:30 P.M. ÆMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN SUSAN GOETZ, SECRETARY JOYCE EGGLESTON JEFFREY KELLEY CHARLES SICARD BRUCE CARR MEMBERS ABSENT MICHAEL SHEA DEPUTY TOlIN ATTORNEY- KARLA CORPUS ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-PAT COLLARD ASSISTANT PLANNER-STUART BAKER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES October 17th, 1990: Page 9, second Mr. Kelley down from the top, where it says, okay, I'm for what they want to do. I'm just trying to meet all the, sib tests; Page 10, third Mr. Baker down, the big paragraph, says, I purchased the home from the Kiwanis sib club, not somebody's name; Page 24, a third of the way up from the bottom, Mr. Kelley is speaking, it says, you've got to get in there and, sib have folding tables, not have folding tables; Page 24, from the bottom up, the 1st Mrs. Eggleston, actually it's not encouraging anything more than what's already there, sib enlarging anything more; Page 14, third Mrs. Eggleston up from the bottom, or do they come of, sib further; next paragraph down, Mrs. Eggleston is speaking, so you're talking 9 feet from the line; next Mrs. Eggleston down, you don't have customers in your, sib yard that much; Page 40, Mr. Kelley, third one up from the bottom, it's not permitted. It's a residential zone. Sales are, sib not permitted there tl>TION TO APPROVE MIIUTES OF OCTOBER 17TH, 1990 BE APPROVED AS CORRECTED, Introduced by Charles Sicard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: Duly adopted this 28th day of November, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carr, Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea October 24th, 1990: tl>TION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24TH, 1990, Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Susan Goetz: Duly adopted this 28th day of November, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 78-1990 TYPE II LI-lA EDWIN LEO NORTON OIINER: SAlE AS ABOVE BIG BAY ROAD TO CONSTRUCT A 40 FT. BY 60 FT. GARAGE WITH A 10 FT. SETBACK FROM THE PROPERTY LINE IN LIEU OF THE REQUIRED 30 FT. TAX MAP NO. 136-1-15, 16 LOT SIZE: 14,589 SQ. FT. SECTION 4.020 N MR. TURNER-For those that are here maybe in reference to the first item under Old Business, Area Variance No. 78-1990. We have a letter from the applicant requesting it be tabled until December. Would you like to read it, Sue. 1 MRS. GOETZ-Read letter from Edwin l. Norton, to Town of Queensbury Zoning Board, dated November 27th, 1990 (attached) MR. TURNER-Okay. It's tabled by the applicant. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 86-1990 TYPE: UNLISTED UR-I0 RICKY C. SEARS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE AVIATION ROAD TO BURKE DRIVE 10 DIXON ROAD, LEFT 10 HAROLD HARRIS ROAD, PROPERTY APPROX. 200 FT. ON LEFT BEHIND CEMENT BLOCK BUILDING TO PLACE A 3 BEDROOM MODULAR HOME ON THE PROPERTY WITHOUT FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC STREET. TAX MAP NO. 96-1-2.1 LOT SIZE: 42,500 SQ. FT. SECTION 7.077 DICK SEARS PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner (attached) MR. TURNER-Dick, are you going to represent the application, or your son? MR. SEARS-We're both here, Ted. MR. TURNER-Okay. Did you find out anything further on that division? MR. SEARS-Ted, I looked up the deed and what it says there, as I read it, it says that they're selling to us a piece of property approximately 50 feet wide originally intended as a road. It doesn't say anything as far as a right-of-way or anything, of 25 feet for each lot. MR. TURNER-Lots 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11. To the east, Lots 14, 15, 19, and 20. MR. SEARS-Where they're getting this line down through that 50 foot stretch. I don't know where this line comes from, but that deed says that 50 foot road. MR. TURNER-Yes, because on the Tax Map it shows it split just like it shows it right there. MR. SEARS-I know, but not according to that deed. MRS. GOETZ-Which one is it, on here? MR. TURNER-These lots here. He has deeded access to this lot, this lot, this, lot, this one, this one, and this one. MRS. GOETZ-Why does that say SR-l Acre? MR. TURNER-Because that's what it was at one time. MRS. GOETZ-And it's changed to UR-I0? MR. TURNER-UR-I0. I spoke with Dick, yesterday, and asked him if he had a deed, because I was concerned about that 25 foot stri p through there. It shows it on the Tax Map 1 i ke that, but according to thi s he has a 50 foot right-of-way. MR. SEARS-That's what it says. MRS. GOETZ-You mean this whole thing is the 50 foot right-of-way? MR. TURNER- Yes. MRS. GOETZ-So what lot are we talking about right here. MR. TURNER-This one right here. He has a 50 foot right-of-way to Lot 20. That's Lot 20. That's the one he's here in reference to. MR. CARR-So, Ted, are you saying he doesn't have to be here? MR. TURNER-I don't think so. Here, I'll let you read it. MR. SEARS-Well, I interpret that is that the intent of that deed is to deed that piece of land for a road, a 50 foot road. It does not say that that land goes to either/or lot. 2 '- -- MS. CORPUS-Mr. Chairman, this is a Quit Claim Deed and it doesn't warrant title to anything. They've got lots on a filed Subdivision Map which is this Lot 20, I guess, Lot 19 and 20 and the grantee got whatever interest the grantor had in this 50 foot right-of-way. It doesn't state for certain whether the grantor had the ri ght to deed thi sin fee to them or not. They got whatever the person before them got. It's unclear here whether it's an easement interest or a fee interest. In light of that, the Board could grant a variance from both Section 7.077 and 280A of the Town Law. Basically, I couldn't make a determination whether they actually have public road frontage, from this. MR. TURNER-Okay. So I guess we've got to go through it then. Does anyone have any questions for Mr. Sears in reference to this? He wants to build on that Lot 20 in the back. MRS. EGGLESTON-I know when Susan and I were in there, there were an awful lot of travel trailers parked all over in here. Is that part of your business? So it limited this road, even though there might be 50 feet here, there certainly wasn't, because you had travel trailers parked along here and I don't know how a fire truck would get through. MR. SEARS-There is nothing parked on that side of the road at all. This, where you come off Dixon Road, as you're coming up the hill, the trailers are parked on this side. MRS. EGGLESTON-No, they were in here the day we were there. MR. SEARS-That's impossible. This drops off 8, 9 feet right straight down and there's a telephone pole here with guide wires on it. MRS. EGGLESTON-Maybe we were in the wrong. MRS. GOETZ-Here's the building, but the travel trailers were right down that side of that building. MR. SEARS-There were some in here that he was working on. MRS. GOETZ-What is that? Is that a business? MR. TURNER-Yes. He just got a variance for that. He's got a variance for a storage building in the back there. MR. SEARS-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-But what does that have to do with all the travel trailers? There must have been 10, probably, altogether there, some out in back and then some along what I thought was this road right here. Is this a little narrow dirt lane? MR. SEARS-No, ma'am, that is not. There is nothing there. MRS. EGGLESTON-As you just go up in there, though, there is a little dirt lane, like your house is over here and we came up in. We had a hard time finding where we were supposed to be. MR. SEARS-There's a house over here which is Gerald White's and as you come up, there's a three bay garage right here. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. SEARS-And our house is up in here. MR. SEARS-And where this garage is there were some trailers parked here, two or three or whatever there was. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. There was a garage right by it. MR. SEARS-All right, and this 50 foot piece of land comes up through this side of the building, between Smith's property and our property here. It comes right up through here. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. I think I've got you now. MR. SEARS-You could not get up through there now because the trees are in the way, but that's where it is. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. SEARS-So, I know that there could be no trailers in there because you'd have to take a bulldozer to put them in there. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, I'm trying to think of how we, you know, we came up in and we turned left and there's a little narrow, do you remember, Susan, and there were trailers. 3 .......,/ MRS. GOETZ-I'm just concerned. How do those travel trailers and that business in what would seem to be a residential area and it's on a different piece of property it seems than from what the variance up here was granted for. MR. SEARS-I don't know what this here is zoned, here. This used to belong to Howard White and he ran a business out of there for years and years and years for probably 25 years. MRS. GOETZ-An RV business? MR. SEARS-No. MR. TURNER-Are the trailers associated with that building or what? MR. SEARS-They're just there. MR. TURNER-Is that your building? MR. SEARS-Yes. I own this building here and some of these trailers that are stored down here, if we don't have room, sometimes we store a couple of them down there. MR. TURNER-That's what she's saying now, that you've got a variance to store them up here, but you can't store them down here. You can put two inside of there or whatever, but you can't store them outside on that. MR. SEARS-Well, that's not a problem. We can put them up there. That's no problem at all. MRS. GOETZ-Could you, because that.i!. a violation. MR. SEARS-Is it? Well, we'll put them up there. MRS. GOETZ-And then, you know, when you're asking for another variance, it effects the way I look at it because if I see a violation that's already going on there, I'm concerned about it. MR. SEARS-Well, we can change that real quick like. MRS. GOETZ-Could you? That would be helpful. MR. SEARS-That's no problem. MR. TURNER-Any other questions? MR. CARR-Nothing to do with the applicant, but what are we voting on? MR. TURNER-:- The frontage on the Town road. He wants to put a house up in the back. He doesn't have frontage on a Town road. He's got 25 feet. MR. CARR-Okay. So we're believing the Tax Map, then, as opposed to the deed? MR. TURNER- Yes. MR. CARR-Okay. MR. KELLEY-Ted, I guess for my own clarification, how many lots are here? This is where that garage is. MR. SEARS-Yes. MR. KELLEY-The big storage building's back here. MR. SEARS-Yes. MR. KELLEY-Are these two lots here? MR. SEARS-Yes. They're vacant lots. MR. KELLEY-And then this is where you're going to put the proposed house? MR. SEARS-That's right. MR. KELLEY-So, because he owns them all and he owns this as well, that's how he gets his 50 feet. So what if he wants to sell this and sell this, his two lots. 4 ---' MR. TURNER-If he sells it then he has access here. MR. KELLEY-Yes, but when do you get into a subdivision and when you have to put in a Town road? MR. TURNER-When it gets over that two. MR. KELLEY-All right. So he's got one here. This has access from the other way around. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KELLEY-So he can sell one and maybe one more or he can make that one big lot. MR. TURNER-Yes, either way. He's just asking relief to get to this lot, right now. MR. KELLEY-Okay. MRS. EGGLESTON-Mr. Sears, are you actually selling this piece of land to your son or is he just going to build and leave it, like, the whole complex is in your name and leave the property in your name, or is that actually going to be a deeded. MR. SEARS-Right at the present it will be in my name. MR. TURNER-Okay. I'll now open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NOCOÞlENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE MR. TURNER-We've got to address SEQRA first, right? MS. CORPUS-We're discussing that at the moment. MRS. EGGLESTON-What were you saying, Jeff, about taking out the lots in a subdivision? MR. TURNER-Those lots over there on the other side, if he wanted to do something with them, then he comes in with a subdivision and then he has to build a Town road. He's got one there. He's got two on the other side, or he could make one lot out of the two. MR. KELLEY-But you get into a subdivision, what, after two? MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Is it after two? MR. TURNER-Yes, two. MS. CORPUS-Mr. Turner, that would be an unlisted action, as it's not a lot line variance. It's just a variance from road frontage requirements. If the Board chooses to grant the variance, it would be under Section 7.077 of the Ordinance and Section 280A of the Town Law which I don't believe was mentioned on the application. MR. TURNER-No. It's not. MR. KELLEY-Before you have to get into a subdivision, is two lots the correct quantity? MRS. COLLARD-A division of land into two parcels. MR. TURNER-Yes, two parcels is a subdivision. MR. CARR-Do we have a problem because of contiguous properties of the applicant. MRS. COLLARD-No, this is only 10,000 square feet. MR. TURNER-It's only a 10,000 square feet zone. MR. CARR-Okay. 5 -.../ MR. TURNER-He's got 42,500 on that lot. MR. CARR-Okay, but we're giving him relief from road frontage. If he's got the road frontage, don't you have to put the two lots together. MR. TURNER-No. MS. CORPUS-Are they currently in the same ownership, right? MRS. COLLARD-Put which two lots together? MR. TURNER-He doesn't have to put the two lots together because he's got more than enough square footage for the one lot. MS. CORPUS-Right, only if the lot were nonconforming in size. MR. TURNER-Yes. If it was a nonconforming lot, he'd have to put them together. MR. CARR-All right. I didn't know if ~ nonconformity gave him that right. MR. TURNER-I see what you're saying. MRS. COLLARD-In lot size. MR. CARR-Just lot size, good. Okay. MRS. EGGLESTON-Do we know what the dimension is from where the house is going to sit and the back line of Culver's. I don't see a dimension on my map. Is there one on yours? MR. BAKER-There is a Site Plan in there showing that. MR. TURNER-Yes, 80 feet. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. TURNER-All right. Is everybody satisfied? Motion's in order. MR. KELLEY-What was 280A of the Town Law? MR. TURNER-Road frontage. Remember, we had Lakeside. MR. KELLEY-Isn't that 7.077? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KELLEY-What's the difference. MR. TURNER-One is the Ordinance. The other one's the Town Law. MR. KELLEY-But they both talk about the same thing? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KELLEY-Okay. MR. CARR-Is the Town Law also 40 feet? MS. CORPUS-No. There's no minimum requirement, but I would suggest doing that in light of the fact that I couldn't determine ownership from that deed or the Tax Map. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. CARR-Well, who owns parcel 2.2? MS. CORPUS-No. I meant the 25 and 25 foot parcels. MR. CARR-Or 2.1. Isn't that part of 2.1? MS. CORPUS-Tax Maps have disclaimers on them that they are not necessarily correct regarding title. MR. CARR-Who gets taxed for it? 6 ----" MS. CORPUS-The owner. MR. CARR-Okay. MS. CORPUS-Which could be corrected by speaking to the Assessor. tOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 86-1990 RICKY C. SEARS, Introduced by Jeffrey Kelley who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: They're asking for a variance from the Zoning Ordinance from Section 7.077 and, in this case, it pertains to having road frontage on a Town road. The requirement is that there be 40 feet. In this particular case, the lot is of ample size. However, it is set back from the Town road, a distance of over 100 feet, anyway. However, the applicant showed us a Quit Claim Deed, which shows he may own land which would connect this proposed building lot to Harold Harris Road. By not granting this variance, it would be depriving the applicant of reasonable use of his land. The granting of this variance is not detrimental to the purposes of the Ordinance. It would not adversely effect public facilities and services and this is the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty. This is also a variance from Section 280A of the Town Law. The Short EAF shows no negative impacts. Duly adopted this 28th day of November, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Sicard,. Mr. Carr, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea MRS. EGGLESTON-I'm trying to get clear in my mind because we've had others like this. If the owner is Richard Sears and he's going to retain ownership of the property, shouldn't he be the applicant or doesn't it matter? MRS. COLLARD-Well, Karla mentioned the Agent Form is in that pack. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. COLLARD-It should be in all of them. MRS. EGGLESTON-But it doesn't say he's agent. Who gets the variance since Richard Sears owns the property? MRS. COLLARD-The lot gets the variance. MR. TURNER-The lot gets the variance. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MS. CORPUS-The Tax Map number, normally. MR. KELLEY-I wonder if we should mention in there where we talked about that Quit Claim Deed that it says he may have ownership and should we mention that that piece of property we're talking about is 50 feet wide which addresses that he has at least the 40 feet? MR. BAKER-No, because we're dealing with two separate lots. MRS. COLLARD-That property is 25 feet wide. MR. BAKER-There are two separate lots there. Both with 25 feet access on the road. MR. KELLEY-All ri ght. Well, I guess I got confused because they were tal ki ng about, he had 50 feet there, but it's 25 on one side. MR. TURNER-Yes, and 25 on the other. MR. KELLEY-Okay. MRS. GOETZ-Pat, could we make sure that those RV's are moved off of that property? MRS. COLLARD-I made notes. MRS. GOETZ-Thanks. AREA VARIANCE NO. 87-1990 TYPE: UNLISTED MR-5 ÞlJBILE HOME OVERLAY ZONE TODAY'S tODERN tOBILE HOME SALES, INC. OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE VERMONT AVENUE (WEST SIDE) FOR A SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY INTO 3 NEW SITES FOR tOBILE HOMES. EACH LOT WOULD BE 6,900 SQ. FT.; 10,000 SQ. FT. IS REQUIRED. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 128-3-6 LOT SIZE: 20,700 SQ. FT. SECTION 4.020 F, MINIÞlJM LOT SIZE 7 '-" JOE NUDI, REP~fSENTING APPLIC~NT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (attached) MR. TURNER-A question I have, you said two units on there would just get you over the 10,000 square feet, basically.? MR. NUDI-Yes, if the property were split in half I would still end up with... MR. TURNER-10,350. MR. NUDI-That's correct, and what I'm looking for is a more efficient use of the property and as I say I'm still staying below the density that that area is actually zoned for, which would allow me to put two duplexes on there, which would give me four units. MR. TURNER-Yes. Ten thousand for one principal building though. MR. NUDI-And one principal building unit could be a duplex which would allow two actual dwelling units per 10,000 square feet, which would allow me a total of 4 dwelling units. MR. TURNER-Right. MR. NUDI-And I'm only looking to put three on there and as I say, this is in a limited area in this Town where mobile homes are permitted. MR. TURNER-Right. You're correct. These are going to be new units? MR. NUDI-That's correct. MR. TURNER-Are they going to be skirted? MR. NUDI-Yes, sir. It's as required by the Town right now. They will have concrete slabs under them which is something I'd done even before the Town did require it. They will have house type siding. That's one of the recommendations or requirements that I specifically have on parcels that I develop. MR. TURNER-Okay. Does anyone else have some questions? MR. SICARD-Will these be rental units or will they be for sale? MR. NUDI-For sale. MR. SICARD-They will be for sale? MR. NUDI-Yes. I'm not looking for a mobile home park. We're now getting to a point where banks are actually financing the lot and the property as one unit. MR. TURNER-Yes, because a mobile home park would be 6500 square feet. MR. SICARD-And the unit also. You'll be selling the unit. MR. NUDI-That's correct. MR. SICARD-That's right. I just want to get that straight. MR. NUDI-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-What will they sell for? MR. NUDI-It really varies, but they will be single wides. MRS. EGGLESTON-Ball park figure? MR. NUDI-Ball park figure is going to be probably a low price of $22,000. Now this is for the home itself and we've been selling them for up to $35,000 depending on what people actually put into the home. The property, I haven't come up with a figure, but the engineers are scaring me with a cost of maybe $2,000 a lot by the time I do topo and everything else required by the Town, on a small subdivision, I'm getting killed per lot. MRS. EGGLESTON-So you're talking roughly 25, with the lot? 8 - MR. NUDI-No, much more than that. I not only have the cost of engineering, I have the cost of the property, the slab, the septic tank and everything else. MR. TURNER-Yes, you're talking probably $65,000 aren't you? MR. NUDI-No. I don't think we're anywhere near that, but probably under 50, between 50 and 55, 1'm going to guess, is a wild ballpark, right now. MR. CARR-How many bedrooms will these trailers have? MR. NUDI-Two bedrooms. MR. CARR-Two bedrooms? MR. NUDI-Yes, and that is based on what the area will carry for septic tanks. MR. SICARD-Assuming you had a lot for sale and someone comes in there with a fairly decent sized mobile home, would you consider taking that in as an exchange or part of? MR. NUDI-As far as a trade in? MR. SICARD-Yes. MR. NUDI-Yes, sure. It's a normal part of our business anyway. We do that on a regular basis. MR. EGGLESTON-Do we have a layout of the septic and everything in there? MR. NUDI- There's no exact detail of the septic, just the one sheet I have showing everything, but I will have an engineered plan of the septic system. MR. KELLEY-He's basically talking about single family residences. MR. TURNER- Yes. MR. KELLEY-And because it's a multi family residential zone, it doesn't address single family houses. Is that why he's here for his variance? MR. TURNER-Yes, 5,000 feet of land area for one principal building. MR. KELLEY-All right, and he's going to have over that, right? MR. TURNER-Right. MRS. COLLARD-When you subdivide it's required to have 10,000 square feet to subdivide a parcel. MR. TURNER-10,000. That's what he's here for. MR. KELLEY-Okay. MRS. EGGLESTON-I know in the affordable housing project we put the nibbs on such small lots. They were around 6500, weren't they, they wanted, when they came in for their variance? MR. TURNER-Yes, they were less than that. MRS. COLLARD-Yes, they were putting homes in that area. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. KELLEY-But that was a different zone. MR. NUDI-We're in an area that is allowing, right now, 5,000 square feet, also. MR. TURNER-This is a Mobile Home Overlay Zone, and it says 10,000 square feet for the mobile home. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. I realize that. MR. CARR-Mr. Nudi, do you sell double wides? MR. NUDI-Yes, we do. MR. CARR-Would you consider two double wides there instead? 9 - MR. NUDI-The double wides really t61. ..iw..ll! diu psally have not reached that point in the market where I would feel safe doing that yet. What we are finding with double wides, too, is that more and more towns are accepting them almost any place. Kingsbury is the latest one that I know of that will allow a double wide that meets certain other requirements to go right next to a site built home. MR. TURNER-Okay. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DAVID LORD MR. LORD-My name is David Lord. I live one lot to the north of the proposed site and my concern is that I don't want the area to look like an annex to his sales lot. I think four units crowded into that area is asking a bit much of the neighborhood that he's going to be putting it in. MR. TURNER-Three units. MR. LORD-Three units? MR. TURNER-Yes. Mr. Lord, the lots, on this proposed map are 60 by 115. MR. LORD-Okay. MR. TURNER-Do you want to take a look at them? MR. LORD-I've got a lot myself that's 60 by 110 or 115. MR. TURNER-Do you have a mobile home or do you have a house? MR. LORD-No, I'm living in a site built house. MR. TURNER-Okay. How big is your house? MR. LORD-30 by 30, and on a lot that small, you can hardly turn around without needing a variance. MR. TURNER-Yes. The next place down is a trailer, isn't it, going to the north, going toward Luzerne Road? MR. LORD-I'm just south of the trailer. I'm in the green stucco house, Number 302. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. LORD-I just kind of like it with trees and a little bit of a buffer zone and everything, there. I'm kind of concerned about the way that the lot might be prepared. MR. TURNER-Yes, previous to putting the trailer on it. MR. LORD-Right. We had somebody come in down the street that just bulldozed everything down there and just clear cut the whole property, parked a double wide there. I have no objections to that, but I would like a little bit of a buffer zone or a hedge row or something to sort of break things up. MR. TURNER-Okay, anyone have any questions of Mr. Lord? Okay. Any further comment? MR. LORD-No. I've got nothing against the mobile homes themselves. MR. TURNER-Let me ask you one more question. Are you concerned he's going to have three there, or would you rather have him have two? MR. LORD-Two double wides I'd have no objection to at all. MR. TURNER-These are not double wides. MR. LORD-Right. Two double wides or three trailers properly landscaped I could probably live with it. I'm just concerned about the approach to the site prep that he's going to be going through. MR. TURNER-Okay. Anyone else wish to be heard? ANDREW CORDIALE MR. CORDIALE-My name's Andrew Cordiale and I live on Massachusetts Avenue, and about 75 feet of Mr. Nudi 's property is on the border of me and I object. I don I t object to two homes, but I object to 10 - three, bringing the land from 10,000 down to 6900. I understand that he can put in two trailers with no problem. That gives him 10,350 feet. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CORDIALE-Well, 350 feet is very, very little over the minimum. MR. TURNER-How big is your lot? MR. CORDIALE-My lot is 115 deep, 210 wide. Subdivided on the Tax Maps it's seven lots at 30 feet intervals and Mr. Nudi's is six and I have one home on all that and he wants to put three homes on less property. MR. TURNER-Okay, any questions? Okay. Anyone else wish to be heard in opposition to this application? GARY BALL MR. BALL-I'm Gary Ball. I own the property next to the lot that he's proposing and property right across the street and I just don't feel that you should have trailers there. MR. TURNER-Do you live across the street, Mr. Ball? MR. BALL-I live across the street and I own the house right next to the lot he plans on putting. MR. TURNER-How big is your piece of property? MR. BALL-The one across the street's 90 by 100 and the one next to the lot is 60 by 110. MR. TURNER-That's almost the size of his trailer. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else wish to be heard in opposition to the application? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. EGGLESTON-When did you purchase these lots? MR. NUDI-About three years or so ago, I believe. When I did buy it, I guess naively, I thought that those 30 foot intervals were just a matter of going in and putting the two together and 1 had a confonning lot, but I got wise real quick when I went up for a pennit, because as I say I was told, anyway, a lot of 5,000 square feet I would have been able to put a mobile home on and I didn't realize that because it was all one tax parcel that I was not able to take those 30 foot intervals that are shown on the tax map and just split those into three separate lots. MR. CARR-What are your intentions as to landscaping? MR. NUDI-Quite honestly, I haven't given a lot of attention to it. I'm looking at not having to add another $1,000 in trees or anything to the property, but leaving whatever is good there that we can still leave, especially on the borders and my intentions for planting any other shrubs or anything, were really nonexistent. That would be up to the homeowner, but if it's something that's required by the Board then it's something that we would address. MR. CARR-Pat, Mr. Nudi will be before the Planning Board, right? MRS. COLLARD-Yes. MR. CARR-So that's more of an issue they would address. MRS. COLLARD-Yes. CORRESPONDENCE Warren County Planning Board approved MR. CARR-At first, I felt this application was reasonable, but my feeling now. in light of the public comment concerning it and in the light that he could have a reasonable return of the property by staying within the zoning requirements, at this point I would feel that would be the way I would lean, if all the neighbors either had no interest or were in support of it. I think my support for this application would be different. MRS. EGGLESTON-I agree with Bruce. I think it's just too much for that amount of property. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-I mean, it's a trailer zone, but still in all you could put two on it and it could look nice and you still could make a reasonable return with two of them. 11 -- --- MRS. GOETZ-I agree with Joyce and Bruce. I think that if we really truly believe that we're going to accept mobile homes as good housing than we should give them the same consideration that we give, as we like to say, stick built homes, and putting three there is just too much. MR. KELLEY-By going to, let's say two lots, that would be of confonning size, now he doesn't have to do a subdivision. MR. NUDI-Well, I still have to do a subdivision, unfortunately. I still have a lot of engineering costs involved with two lots, which is part of the problem. MR. TURNER-Yes, two lots. MR. NUDI-Queensbury doesn't have a minor subdivision rule as a lot of towns do. MR. SICARD-Actually, no one's talked about the parking, but it looks to me like there's room for one car. Would there be any more room, besides one car? MR. NUDI-Yes. There's room for two cars, side by side. MR. TURNER-Yes, you could get two there, side by side. MR. SICARD-You mean volkswagons or cars? MR. NUDI-No, well, the malls have nine foot wide parking spaces and I would think that, yes, 20 with no car parked on the outer sides would be. MR. SICARD-That's a dead end street, isn't it? MR. NUDI-No, it's not. MR. TURNER-No. It goes to Central Avenue. MR. SICARD-It isn't? That street goes through, Vennont Avenue? MR. NUDI-Vennont Avenue, right now, there's a paper street that is dead end that nobody owns that's paying taxes on. I'm not on that part. I'm up the road. MR. SICARD-I see. MR. TURNER-I feel the same as the other Board members. I think that three is going to basically maybe destroy some of the character of the nei ghborhood and not afford the other nei ghbors the opportuni ty of a buffer by increasing the density with three trailers on a 60 foot wide lot. I think two is more than adequate for that size piece of property. MR. SICARD-I think so, too. MR. TURNER-Okay, let's make a motion. tlJTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE (I). 87-1990 TODAY'S tlJDERN tlJBILE HOME SALES, INC., Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: The applicant has not demonstrated that strict application of the requirements of the Ordinance would deprive him of the reasonable use of the property. In light of the public opposition to this project, I feel that this variance must be denied. Duly adopted this 28th day of November, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Carr, Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea AREA VARIANCE NO. 88-1990 TYPE II WR-lA TItlJTHY F. BARBER lIU-TECH CONSTRUCTION OWNER: SUE AND DICK ROURKE GLEN LAKE, LEFT ON JAY ROAD, STRAIGHT IN ON THE LEFT FOR AN ADDITION (28 FT. BY 60 FT.) 462 SQ. FT. TO EXISTING 51 FT. BY 24 FT. CAMP. ADDITION WILL (l)T MEET SIDE YARD AND SHORELINE SETBACK. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 43-1-15 LOT SIZE: 225 FT. BY 64 FT. SECTION 4.020-0, 7.012 TIM BARBER PRESENT STAFF INPUT 12 ----/ Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner (attached) MR. TURNER-Have you got a sketch of the building? MR. BARBER-Yes, I do. MR. TURNER-Why don't you put it up on the Board. Do you have an elevation drawing? MR. BARBER-Yes, we have elevation, yes. MR. TURNER-Pretty much like what you had before, right? MR. BARBER- Yes. MR. TURNER-Except just narrowed it up a bit. MR. BARBER-We shortened the width of the home from 30 feet to 28 and we changed the living arrangement around, a little bit, to conform to that. MRS. GOETZ-You changed it two feet on the width, right? MR. BARBER-Yes, and we centered the home more on the lot to try to get our side line setbacks a little closer to what they should be. MR. CARR-So, this is a completely ~ building? They're going to tear down the old one and build a new one? MRS. EGGLESTON-It doesn't say that. No, it's an add on. MR. CARR-This is an add on? MR. TURNER- Yes. MR. BARBER-Well, we're going to tear down the old building, but use the same footing marks. MR. TURNER-And extend it. MR. BARBER-And extend it. MR. CARR-And extend it, okay. All right, I thought this was just an add on, here, but what you want to do is put a new building on. MR. BARBER-Right. Exactly. MRS. GOETZ-And make it go up. MR. BARBER-Yes. This is a retirement home. We're coming here for a one shot deal. MR. CARR-And you've explored the possibility of adding? I mean, you want to add a second floor? MR. BARBER-Correct. MR. CARR-You've explored the possibility of renovating the building, as it is, and adding a second fl oor? MR. ROURKE MR. ROURKE-Yes, there's no basement under it. MR. CARR-Okay. MR. ROURKE-I mean, you've got the foundation under it, dirt underneath it. MR. CARR-So, you're saying you need a basement? MR. ROURKE-Right. MR. BARBER-And there's pictures that I've submitted here that you can take a look at the home itself. It's just that, a camp. MR. KELLEY-The reason for doing this, you have two choices. He could build on the same footprint or if you had to go back. 13 MR. TURNER-Yes, what he's going to do now is tear that whole camp down and start right from scratch. MRS. GOETZ-What about this more than 50 percent expansion? MR. TURNER-It's over 50 percent. We've got to address that. MRS. EGGLESTON-Timmy, this property has no road frontage? Who owns where you drive in your cars? MR. BARBER-We own back to the road. MRS. EGGLESTON-Why does it say this property has no road frontage? MR. BARBER-I don't know where they got that statement from. This is a surveyed map here, but I don't have the continuation of it, and I know it goes right back to the road. MR. BAKER-The assessment records di d not show any road frontage, and that's where Mrs. York got that statement from. MR. BARBER-Also, in this application we centered the home. Instead of going more so to that one side of that one neighbor, we pushed it over a little bit, to try to center it up. to confonn a little bit more. As you can see, right there. MR. TURNER-Yes, right here. this center. MR. BARBER-Yes. we tried to keep our setbacks the best we could. MRS. GOETZ-You did have a survey of the property done? MR. BARBER-Yes. MR. KELLEY-How does this differ from your original proposal, other than two feet? MR. BARBER-Well, the other home was pushed to the... MR. ROURKE-I want to move everything this way to get a bigger side yard. MR. TURNER-You take the two feet off on the east side? MR. BARBER-Correct. and before we were on this side. MR. TURNER-Yes. You took it off of here and moved it over here. MR. BARBER-Right. Actually it would be six inches on this side that we would come over and the remainder on that side. MR. TURNER-Eighteen over here and six over there. MR. BARBER-Yes, to try to best center the home on the property. MRS. GOETZ-Did you put that addition, this time, on the south side because of the objections of the neighbor on the other side? MR. BARBER-No. We had no objections at all. I have letters stating that. MRS. GOETZ-I thought when you were here before there was a next door neighbor that was concerned. MR. BARBER-No. The first time we were here. there was confusion on the boundaries. MR. TURNER-On the boundaries. MR. BARBER-Yes. That's why we asked for the survey. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. BARBER-And I was referring to the tax maps that I went off of, the first time. MR. TURNER-You went off the tax maps. MRS. EGGLESTON-So. what total footage are you requesting? What's the total square footage? MR. TURNER-From your new proposal. This right here. 14 ~ MR. BARBER-It would be 28 by.... MR. TURNER-By 25, close enough, right? MR. BARBER-Yes. MR. TURNER-That's for the second floor. MR. BARBER-Yes, and 64 would be the length. MR. TURNER-64 by 28. MRS. GOETZ-752? If you add up what we had in the Staff Report. MRS. EGGLESTON-How much total, Jeff? MR. KELLEY-Ted's number here is 1792. MRS. GOETZ-Do you have the Staff Report in front of you? In that first paragraph, do you add the 880, to the 220, to the 452? MR. BARBER-Let me ask this question. That so called enclosed porch, that has the same foundation as the home, and it has been used as 1 i vi ng qua rters. There's two bedrooms ri ght out there for summer time use. MRS. GOETZ-So you were including that in the 880 present? MR. BARBER-Yes, including the porch as part of the home. It has been used as part of the home. MRS. EGGLESTON-I've got to ask you, again, Tim. What will be the new total living square footage? MR. BARBER-That's what we're figuring out, right now. MRS. EGGLESTON-You don't know that? MR. BARBER-There's so many of them. I don't have it written down, right here. MRS. EGGLESTON-Like, we were somewhere around 3500, before. MR. TURNER-2492 square feet. MR. BARBER-Right. We shrunk it down. MRS. EGGLESTON-So, you've made a gallant effort to get... MR. BARBER-Yes, to bring it down and to center it on the lot. MRS. EGGLESTON-That's a step in the right direction. MR. BARBER-Right. That's what we're trying for. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay, around 2400 he's saying. MR. BARBER-Right, and our first time we were shooting for about 3400. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. BARBER-And we'd also center it on the lot. MRS. EGGLESTON-Right. MR. BARBER-As you can see by these pictures. MR. CARR-Garage doors? MR. BARBER-Yes. MR. CARR-Are you extending the driveway. Is this his driveway? MR. BARBER-Yes, that is a driveway there, yes. That will all be extended down through. 15 MR. CARR-Okay, so you're taking out the stone retaining walls? MR. BARBER-Actually, this has all been used for driving. It just shows, right through here. MR. CARR-Okay, so, the driveway will come down. MR. BARBER-Right, yes, it will all come right down through. MRS. EGGLESTON-Do they own in back of this retaining wall, or is this the only? MR. BARBER-Yes. No, this is not active. This is the boundary lines, right here. MRS. EGGLESTON-So, I'm totally confused, then, of why the assessment records show no. MR. BARBER-I didn't bring a survey map with me. The level of the land drops down, and this would be the wall, right in here. MR. CARR-So the garage is not shown on this map. MRS. EGGLESTON-The garage would be up on that upper level, in back of this wall. MR. BARBER-Right. MR. CARR-Okay. So, we've got this, this is the garage now. How come the garage wasn't shown on the map? MRS. COLLARD-Mr. Chairman, is this structure going to be totally taken down to the foundation? MR. BARBER-Yes. It is. MR. TURNER-The old camp is going. The new one is going to be built on site. MRS. COLLARD-All right. didn't understand that when I took the application. MR. TURNER-I didn't think you did. MRS. COLLARD-Does this lot abut a Town dedicated road? MR. TURNER-Jay Road? 1'm not sure about that. If it doesn't, they need the requi rement from that. Is Jay Road a Town Road? MS. CORPUS-Yes. I believe that it's a Town road. However, on the tax maps, the problem is, I don't think it shows up as a Town road, from my conversations with Mr. Naylor. MR. ROURKE-I know they plow it. MS. CORPUS-Right, but there's an old 1967 resolution and I believe that all the roads off of Glen Lake Road are dedicated Town Roads. However, the problem is, they do not show up on the tax maps as dedicated Town roads. MR. TURNER-But Mr. Naylor would know that. MS. CORPUS-He would know that, yes. MR. TURNER-Yes. 1967's not old. MRS. COLLARD-So this is going, then, from a seasonal camp to year round? MR. BARBER-Yes. MRS. COLLARD-So, it will be going to the Planning Board, as well. MR. BARBER-Right. MRS. COLLARD-All right. MR. TURNER-Before you were asking for 3100 square feet, total, that's your comment here in the minutes, on the house. MR. BARBER-Yes, it was in that range. We cut down the size. MRS. EGGLESTON-Is this done by a professional surveyor? 16 MR. BARBER-Yes. The survey is done by the Rourke's. MRS. EGGLESTON-Who did that? MR. ROURKE-My brother, Bill Rourke, Rourke and Associates. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. So, this now is accurate. MR. BARBER-Yes. MR. EGGLESTON-Because the last two times you've been here, we've had great problems with the frontage. MR. BARBER-Yes. Right. So, we got that all taken care of. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. We didn't want any confusion with those setbacks there. MR. CARR-Okay, now, the 38 feet is where, to where? To here? MR. BARBER- Yes. MR. CARR-Then what about the overhang? MR. BARBER-No, actually, the 38 feet would be from the prow, right there, and it would come to the mean high water. MR. CARR-From here? MR. BARBER-Yes, to the prow. That would be the closest. MRS. COLLARD-When you finish deciding exactly how much square feet is going to be taken down, and how much is going to be built, I'd appreciate set figures, please. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. TURNER-Well, now it stands at 2492 square feet, the new proposal. MRS. GOETZ-And it looks like 880, now. Is that what you said? MR. TURNER-The porch is excluded. MRS. GOETZ-He said he included the porch in the 880. MR. TURNER-Yes, I know, but it's excluded, here, so you've got 452. MRS. COLLARD-No, the porch is not included in the 880. MR. TURNER-452 was the old measurement, 452 square feet. MRS. COLLARD-The assessor's records, 880 for the house and 200 and something for the porch. MR. TURNER-Yes, so that brings it down to 452 square feet for the house, or did I say that wrong. MRS. COLLARD-That's what it looks like, here. MR. TURNER-I said that wrong. MRS. GOETZ-880 less 220. The house now is 880 and the porch is 220. MR. TURNER-It's 660 square feet. MR. CARR-Tim, where is the nearest part of the existing foundation to the Lake? MR. BARBER-On this home, here? MR. CARR-Yes. MR. BARBER-This would be the prow front. MR. CARR-Right here? MR. BARBER-Yes. 17 -' MR. CARR-Okay. You want to overhang it by this much more. MR. BARBER-Well, we would do whatever would conform. If we were going by the overhang, yes, we would. MR. CARR-Okay, this comes out like this. The front is coming out like this? MR. BARBER-Yes. MR. CARR-Now, does that come out farther, or does it start there? MR. BARBER-No. That overhang will go exactly to the 38 foot mark. We want to keep it the same. MR. CARR-Okay, so this little part, this point right here, which is the farthest out is no closer to the Lake than the existing building? MR. BARBER-That's correct. MR. ROURKE-Actually, this has got masonry under it, too, this porch out here, where you walk out of thi s and down. That has got masonry and we I re not even out there far. We're setting back another five feet. MR. CARR-Okay, so the porch is gone and the point is right to there. MR. BARBER-Right. We're going to delete the porch. MR. TURNER-Pat, the old camp is 660 square feet. I gave you the wrong one. The old camp, not the new one, not the new building. The old camp is 660 square feet if you take the porch off. MRS. COLLARD-The assessor doesn't agree with you. MR. TURNER-No, but he's including the porch. MRS. COLLARD-No. MRS. GOETZ-Well then don't we have a problem? MR. BAKER- Yes. MRS. GOETZ-Yes, it sounds like we do. MRS. EGGLESTON-We do have. There's something wrong with these figures. I hate to do that to these people. They've been here so many times, but it's terribly confusing, with what we're working with, here. MR. BARBER-The original structure's 51 by 24, and we're looking for 28 by 60. MRS. GOETZ-Apparently, the assessor thinks it's a different size. MRS. COLLARD-In looking at the assessor's records, it looked like that was something that had been on the books for years and years and years. MR. ROURKE-Right. When it was brought up the last time, I guess the taxes were wrong, too. MRS. EGGLESTON-But when they reassessed, in '88 or '86 or whatever, are the new dimensions in the assessor's? MRS. COLLARD-It looks, on the card, it looks like it's the original dimensions that were there years and years and years ago. They could be wrong. MR. ROURKE-Because I know they brought it up, once, and my brother was handling that, when they reassessed it. MRS. EGGLESTON-Can I ask, what is Lee referring to when she says, "the addition area"? What does that mean? MR. BAKER-I believe she's referring to the shaded area on the Site Plan. MRS. COLLARD-We felt that this was an addition. We didn't realize it was going to be a whole new structure. MR. BAKER-That was not clear at all in the application. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, and over to the site, it says, addition total square footage is 462. 18 ~ MR. BARBER-I did not account for the second story. MRS. GOETZ-What do you mean you didn't account for it? MR. TURNER-You didn't add it in. MR. BARBER-I didn't add it in. MR. TURNER-Okay, do we have any further questions? We've got our math all straightened out? MRS. EGGLESTON-Not really. MR. TURNER-let's get that straightened out. MRS. GOETZ-The thing of it is, isn't the burden on the applicant to present the correct figures, and I don't think it's fair for the people waiting to have to go through this. MR. TURNER-No, it's not. MR. BAKER-Mr. Chainnan, in the interest of time and fairness to the applicant, I feel that this application should be tabled so that, one, the applicant can get a new application in to the Board which accurately portrays what is going to occur on the lot and, two, that it can be advertised correctly. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. BAKER-And we will also get accurate figures to work with, so we can detennine what variances are necessary. MR. TURNER-Obviously, you haven't addressed it as such, as it's presented tonight, anyway. MR. BARBER-That's correct. MR. TURNER-Okay. I would move to table. MR. CARR-Tim, when you talked to the Planning Department and the Building Department, did you tell them it was a new building, or did you just supply.... MR. BARBER-Even at the last meeting, we had discussed that. I brought in the original set of plans and it knew it was a tear down. MR. TURNER-Yes, it was the same thing, except it was larger. MR. BARBER-Right, larger, and that's why I'm kind of confused on the other. MR. TURNER-Well, evidently what he's saying is it wasn't advertised. It was only advertised as an addition to the camp. So, that's not correct. MR. ROURKE-Did we bring the plans in, the last time? MR. TURNER-Did you bring the plans in to the Planning Department? Not the last time. MR. BARBER-No. MR. CARR-We don't review the applicant's until they come here. MR. TURNER-When you went down stairs to fill out this application, did you bring in the plans for that? MR. BARBER-No. MR. TURNER-Well, that's where the confusion is. MRS. EGGLESTON-Timmy, did you make this out? You say, expand the existing. You've got to say, rebuild. MR. BARBER-Okay. MRS. EGGlESTON-I mean, demolish and... MR. BARBER-Right. MR. TURNER-Tear down. 19 -- MR. BARBER-Well, I was taking it to mean that we wanted to expand the existing footprint over on both sides. MR. CARR-Right, and when I looked at the map, I forgot you were here before, honestly, and I looked and I said, it's just an addition, you know, just adding on a couple of feet on this side. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, because this is the way you would do an addition. MR. ROURKE-How do we word it, for the next time? MRS. EGGLESTON-They'll he 1 p you in the Bui 1 di ng, if you go see Pat Colla rd, there. They'll he 1 p you do it the right way. MRS. GOETZ-Are you confused about this over 50 percent enlargement? MR. BARBER-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-I think that this Section 9.011B has come into light, in recent weeks on other applications and maybe we didn't talk about it when you were here before. MR. BARBER-No. We didn't. MRS. GOETZ-Not that we shouldn't be. We should be, but I can understand why you might not have heard that. MR. CARR-Bring in those maps to the Planning people, so they know exactly what's going on. MR. KELLEY-Tim, when were you trying to start this? MR. SICARD-Early spring. MR. BARBER-Correct. MR. TURNER-Okay. I move to table the application. II)TION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE 11). 88-1990 TIII)THY F. BARBER, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: The application presented tonight doesn't address the issues before the Board. Duly adopted this 28th day of November, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carr, Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea MR. CARR-Tim, add the garage, too, to your plan. MRS. EGGLESTON-Put the whole thing. MR. TURNER-Put everything on it. AREA VARIANCE 11). 89-1990 TYPE II WR-lA MARION S. I .xJHN P. CUSHING OWNER: SAtE AS ABOVE CLEVERDALE ON MASON ROAD TO REJl)VE EXISTING (6 n. BY 13 n. 2 IN.) PORCH AND REBUILD A NEV (14 n. BY 12.6 n.) PORCH. EXISTING PORCH IS LOCATED NEAR THE REAR OF THE HOUSE. SEASONAL RESIDENCE: MAY - SEPTEMBER. NEW PORCH WULD II)T MEET SIDE YARD SETBACK RECJJIREMENT. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP 11). 13-1-9 LOT SIZE: 152 n. BY 60 n. SECTION 4.020-0, SETBACK FROM SIDE YARD JOHN CUSHING, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (attached) MR. TURNER-Anyone have any questions for Mr. Cushing? MR. KELLEY-I guess more of a concern about exactly what it might look like and how you're going to handle your sloping land situation. Are you going to cut into it and do a part masonry wall or are you going to step up into it? 20 "--' MR. CUSHING-Yes. It would be cut into the land just a little bit because there isn't a steep slope there. It's just a very gentle slope. So it would cut into the land a tiny bit and it would be masonry brick and cinder block at the base with a cement foundation. It would confonn to the way the house looks now and we plan to put vinyl siding on it also so it will confonn with the balance of the house. MR. KELLEY-I have to assume that it doesn't come close or interfere with your septic systems or whatever. MR. CUSHING-It's further away. MR. KELLEY-It's further away? MR. CUSHING-I mean the part of the existing porch would be the same distance from the septic system and the addition would be further away. MR. TURNER-Yes, correct. It's up by the side of the house. Any further questions? MRS. GOETZ-Is the relief 24 feet on that side, on the south side? No, it's going to be less, 27. It should be 30, isn't it? It just has to be a total of 50, 20 minimum. MR. TURNER-20 minimum. MR. KELLEY-Does this have a shed roof or is it a peaked roof? MR. CUSHING-It's not a peaked roof. It's a sloping roof. It would continue to have a sloping roof. MR. KELLEY-Okay. The same way that it looks now? MR. CUSHING-Yes. MR. KELLEY-Okay. You really had no other place to do an addition because you've got the fireplace ~ to the right of that. MR. CUSHING-That's correct. ~. MR. KELLEY-If you went off on that side you're going to block your entranceway, I believe, into the house. MR. CUSHING-Yes. MR. TURNER-Any further questions of Mr. Cushing? Okay. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED fI) COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Warren County Planning Board returned "No County Impact" MR. TURNER-Motion's in order. ÞÐTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE (I). 89-1990 MARION S. AND JOHN P. CUSHING, Introduced by Susan Goetz who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: This would grant them a variance from Section 4.020 D of the Zoning Ordinance. Granting relief of 16.3 feet on the south property line. Strict application of the dimensional requirements would result in a specified practical difficulty to the applicant. The proposed porch will be further away from the property line than now existing and the variance would not be materially detrimental to the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance. Public facilities and services would not be adversely effected. The Short EAF shows no negative impact. Duly adopted this 28th day of November, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea 21 AREA VARIANCE NO. 90-1990 TYPE II SFR-I0 ROGER P. " PAMELA WHITING, JR. OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 17 MALLORY AVErlJE TO CONSTRUCT A LIVING ROOM. VARIANCE REQUEST IS FOR FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS. TAX MAP NO. 117-2-11 LOT SIZE: 5,520 SQ. FT. SECTION 4.020-H, FRONT YARD SETBACK AND SIDE YARD SETBACK ROGER WHITING, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner (attached) MRS. GOETZ-The big tree that's in the front, are you going to have to take that down? MR. WHITING-No. MRS. GOETZ-Were there two trees or just one? MR. WHITING-There are two trees there. I've thought about taking a couple down, one or the other over the 13 years that I've lived there, but I like big trees. MRS. GOETZ-Well, it would be nice to keep it, if you could. MR. WHITING-Yes. The 12 feet I'm coming out would miss that tree about four to six feet easily. MR. TURNER-What this does is it lines the front of the house up with the other houses that are already there, pretty much. MR. KELLEY-I guess just a general overview of what the current layout of the house and size as to what rooms you would have. What's there now? Do you have a living room? MR. WHITING-I have a living room now, okay. It is 10 by 17, but from that you have to extract an entranceway which goes straight through the kitchen. So you're going to miss eight feet there. So, basically, living area in the living room I have 10 by 10. I've got a couch, a chair, a tv and an end stand and Christmas time gets tight. Basically, what it would be, it would also have two doors off that 10 by 10 area, one going upstairs and one going into a bedroom. So it is a very small living room. The other rooms are adequate. That room is small. So I'd like to put on an additional, a living room area that would be now a den, basically. MR. KELLEY-Okay, and then the back of the house is, what, a kitchen? MR. WHITING-Yes. From the living room that is existing, I go into the kitchen, bathroom and a back bedroom and a back door. MR. KELLEY-All right. So the only space you really need is living space? MR. WHITING-Yes. MR. KELLEY-And it's only practical to put it in the front? MR. WHITING-Right. MRS. GOETZ-Is there a second story at all? MR. WHITING-Yes. It's a one and a half story house. The upstairs is a 12 by 20. Basically, it's a one bedroom area because of the way that the stairway goes up. It cuts right in the middle of it. I do have a letter that I have from existing neighbors now stating they have no problems with this. MR. TURNER-Okay. Do you want to introduce it as evidence? MR. WHITING-Yes. MR. TURNER-We'll read it in the Correspondence. Any further questions of Mr. Whiting? Hearing none I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE 22 '-' -- MRS. GOETZ- Thi s is a petiti on: "We the adjoi ni ng and surroundi ng nei ghbors have di scussed the pl an that Mr. and Mrs. Whiting have submitted to the Zoning Board. We would like to state that we have no objections. Ransom Palmer, William and Elizabeth Gauthier, Ralph and Donna Palmer, Jack and Marie Close, William and Patricia Morse, and Mr. and Mrs. Frank Hermance MR. TURNER-Do we have a motion? MJTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE m. 90-1990 ROGER P. AND PAMELA WHITING, JR. , Introduced by Jeffrey Kelley who moved for its adoption, seconded by Susan Goetz: This is an Area Variance and they're requesting relief .from the front yard and side yard setback. The relief from the side yard, which would be the southerly property line, would be a relief of six inches. The building is going to be 9 feet 5 inches and the Ordinance calls for a minimum of 10 feet. The second part of the variance would be for relief from the front setback. Thirty feet is required and this new addition will be 21 feet from the east property line. So, they're seeking relief of 9 feet. There are special circumstances pertaining to this lot and that would be that the lot is 48 feet wide and 115 feet deep and it's a very small, preexisting lot. The applicant, currently, has a total 1 i vi ng space of 1,024 squa re feet and hi s current floor plan, in 1 i vi ng room a rea, is very restrictive. By putting the addition on the front, this would provide the needed living space, in the proper location and, due to the size of his lot, there is no other feasible alternative. This is not detrimental to the Ordinance. It does not adversely effect public facilities and strict application of the dimensional requirements would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his property. Duly adopted this 28th day of November, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Carr, Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea AREA VARIANCE f«). 91-1990 TYPE II WR-lA RAYJI)ND E. ERB OWNER: SAlE AS ABOVE 19 FITZGERALD ROAD (GLEN LAKE) FOR A 24 n. BY 20 n. ADDITION, ONE-STORY FAMILY ROOM WITH SMALL BATHROOM AND ATTACHED 9 n. BY 24 n. DECK TO THE EXISTING DWELLING. ADDITION WOULD mT IEET SIDE YARD AND SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 41-1-3 LOT SIZE: 33,758.77 SQ. n. SECTION 4.020 D, SIDE YARD SETBACK SECTION 7.012-4, LAKESHORE SETBACK RAYMOND ERB, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner (attached) MR. TURNER-Your house now as it exists, Mr. Erb, is approximately 2740 square feet, first floor and second floor? MR. ERB-The home is not 2700. MR. TURNER-How big is it? MR. ERB-It's 46 by 25 and a half, the house. MR. TURNER-Yes, right. MR. ERB-Plus the garage, which is 24 square. MR. TURNER-Yes, I didn't count the garage, just the house. MR. ERB-1173. MR. TURNER-Two story? MR. ERB-A story and a half. The front half of the house is a cathedral ceiling. MR. TURNER-Okay. So what have you got for square footage? MR. ERB-1l73. MR. TURNER-That's total? MR. ERB-Yes, not including the garage. 23 -. -- MR. CARR-Is that first floor and not counting second floor, right? MR. ERB-Ri ght. MR. TURNER-What's the second floor? MR. ERB-The second floor is two bedrooms on half of the house. That's approximately 15 by 25, total. MR. TURNER-What are they, Mr. Erb. 15 by, what? MR. ERB-Well, they're 15 foot by 12 and a half, and where the addition is going on the side of the house we intended to use the present doorway that you see where the step is on the si de of the house, and we will close in the one window which is on our bedroom. The other window will be open. If we move it back, we can't go beyond the doorway because we'd have to go beyond the bedroom to get into the addition. MR. CARR-So, there's two bedrooms upstairs and one downstairs. MR. ERB-One downstairs, right. MR. CARR-What else do you have downstairs? You have a cathedral ceiling in the living room. MR. ERB-Cathedra1 ceiling, it's the living room that's where the entrance would be. In front of that, towards the Lake is the kitchen and in the back end of the house is the bathroom and the laundry room. MR. CARR-Why do you need such a large addition for the family room? MR. ERB-Well, the reason for adding a family room is we have a daughter who has friends who want to come in and they want to talk or they want to listen to music and their type of music is different from older people. MR. CARR-How old is your daughter? MR. ERB-Twenty three. Plus I have several nieces and nephews who visit us who have smaller children and a lot of times you want to move them away from the older people, the adults and put them in a room by themselves. MR. TURNER-How long have you owned the property, Mr. Erb? MR. ERB-1957. MR. TURNER-1957. MR. ERB-33 years. The present homes has vinyl siding on all sides but the one where we want to put the addition. We had that put on last year and there was no sense, if we were going to put an addition on, to vinyl side it and then have to rip it off. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. ERB-And the siding line will be the same on the addition as it is on the present house. There will be no step or anything. It'll be as if it were all one structure. MR. KELLEY-We were trying to calculate what your square footage is. You said those two upstairs bedrooms were? MR. TURNER-IS by 12. MR. ERB-We 11, the wi dth of the house is 25 and a ha 1f feet. 15 by 25 wou1 d be the total for the two rooms. MR. KELLEY-The total of the two? MR. ERB- Yes. PETE SLUCK MR. SLUCK-My name is Pete Sluck. I'm the proposed builder for his project. If I can draw you a quick sketch of what he's trying to explain to you, as far as the kitchen and his living room. His living room is not very big, in retrospect, to the rest of the, even though it has three bedrooms. MR. TURNER-How big is the living room? 24 - MR. SLUCK-20 by 12 would be the maximum room in his living room, except, to get from his kitchen which faces the Lake you'd have to walk through his living room which means all his furniture has to be pushed towards the center of his living room in order to accommodate the flow of traffic that comes through to his kitchen, okay. So his living room turns out not to be very feasible as far as use of his furniture. MR. TURNER-Have you got a floor plan there? MR. SLUCK-I'll have to quickly show you exactly the situation. The other thing that Mr. Erb would like to do, as far as the addition goes is to put a small bathroom in the addition. They have one bathroom in the house, right now, which when people are in the home is kind of uncomfortable. So in this 20 by 24 addition, there's a small bathroom. Here's Glen Lake, here. Here's their home, here. His kitchen takes up approximately that much. This is all kitchen. MR. TURNER-How big is the kitchen? How wide is it? MR. SLUCK-Nine feet, by the width of the house and this is dining area, here, okay. There's an entranceway to the kitchen, archway, right there. There is a doorway, right here, which is where the new addition is requested to be, okay, right there. There's a fireplace, here, and you go upstairs this way up to the upstairs bedroom. This hallway comes through here. There's a breezeway and then here's the garage, okay. Here's a bedroom and bath, okay, and this is wash area there. So what happens here is now couches move to here. Flow of traffic has to go in this direction. So as far as living room, you've split the room in half, okay, due to the staircase and due to the flow of traffic that goes in this direction. The fireplace is over here, okay. Now, what is requested is that a small bathroom be put here with just a stall shower and a lavatory. The new septic system is on this side of the home and that is where the waste wi 11 go and he has a nine foot deck that wi 11 be the length of the addition, going off this side. So it's not only the addition, but also the need for the bathroom is the problem here. The house sits 20 feet from the Lake and the home really comes out to this line. He would like to use this space, but he can't do that because of the setback and we're trying to push this thing back as far as we possibly can go and, right now, there's a window, here, in his bedroom, which we're trying to hug that as close as possible because he wants to keep that window. MR. TURNER-Elevation wise, that's going to be on the ground floor, that addition? MR. SLUCK-It will be the same as the house. MR. TURNER-All right, and how high up, just one level? MR. SLUCK-One, one single floor. MR. TURNER-So how big is the stall for the bathroom, six foot square? MR. ERB-5 by 6. MR. SLUCK-5 by 6, yes. MR. CARR-Is there any basement in this place? MR. SLUCK-No. This will have a crawl space. MR. CARR-What about the existing home? MR. ERB-The existing home, half the house has a cellar, the other half has crawl space. In other words, from here back it's crawl space. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. CARR-You can't rehab the basement? I guess I'm looking, can you make the family room in the basement? MR. SLUCK-No, not this basement. That's out of the question in this situation, here. There will be an entrance, here, as far as front door goes, facing Fitzgerald Road. MR. CARR-What's going to be facing the Lake, a picture window or something? MR. SLUCK-Yes, a big picture window and one door, okay. This deck originally we wanted to be out further, but we're trying to get it back here as far as we can and there is a need for that there. That will be their main access down to the Lake. MR. CARR-Well, what's the need for the deck, though, other than access? I mean, you could just put a couple of steps off the doorway? MR. SLUCK-Well, I can show you the need. Do you have your pictures? This will give you a good idea of the situation. Here's the Lake. Here's the closest part of his house in reference to the Lake. That's the 20 foot. This addition will be up above the stone wall. -- --/ MRS. GOETZ-We've all been there. MR. TURNER-We've already been there. So the doorway's going to be here. The back doorway will be there. That addition is going to start how far on the outside of that door? MR. SLUCK-Six feet past that door. I think it's 39 feet from the water we'll be building. MR. TURNER-Yes. It's 14 feet from there over. You're going to have six feet beyond there. That's 14 feet. MR. SLUCK-It'll hug this front window. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. SLUCK-And if we extend it out further, you'll see that his garage is right there and he could drive right into the addition. MR. KELLEY-Is there any other window in that back bedroom. MR. ERB-There are two windows facing the garage. MR. TURNER-Facing the garage there's two, right there. MR. ERB- Yes. MR. KELLEY-What's the approximate distance from the window to the end of the building? MR. ERB-About six or seven feet. MR. KELLEY-I guess that would be one thing I'd ask. I mean, I know you want to keep the window, but if you have other windows in that room, is there any way we could pull this thing back, maybe, to the end? MR. ERB-Well, the main thing is if you go back too far, you can't go beyond that doorway, otherwise we won't be able to get into the addition because from this doorway here to the end of the proposed building is only six feet. MR. TURNER-Is this the bedroom? MR. ERB-Yes. That's the same room. MR. TURNER-That's the same room? MR. ERB-Yes. MR. TURNER-This is in the bedroom, in the same room? MR. ERB-No. This is the doorway. MR. TURNER-Okay, that's what I asked. MR. ERB-These two windows are in the same room, as well as the two windows on the back side. MR. KELLEY-Yes. I'm trying to get back, you know, if we can pull everything back six feet that would get you to the edge of the door. We're going to gain six feet of relief more from the waterfront because your setback 75 feet. So we've got to try to get you as far back as possible. MR. ERB-Yes. The home was built in 1930. There were no setbacks at that time. In fact, my septic system used to be in the front of the house, right near the water. MRS. GOETZ-Okay, what about the lots in the back of your house? Are those all buildable? MR. ERB-No. MRS. GOETZ-Well, what's going to happen there? MR. ERB-Nothing. MRS. GOETZ-Ever? MR. ERB-Well, for one thing, we do not have enough property there to build on. 26 MR. TURNER-It's one acre. He doesn't have enough property. MR. ERB-This is my land. MRS. GOETZ-Right-of-way. MR. ERB-It's not a right-of-way. It's my property. The original property went back 200 feet from the Lake and all the land owners along there purchased the land from that point out to Fitzgerald Road and then we divided it up among ourselves. MRS. GOETZ-Is it always going to stay just dirt? MR. ERB-Well, no. We're trying to put in trees, bushes. MRS. GOETZ-You are? MR. ERB-Yes. We've planted some. We've done some composting, too, if you'll notice those circular bins in the back, we've started doing this and one of my neighbors who live on the Lake now and live in Glens Falls said they have some trees they want to take out and we want to put it in. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further questions of Mr. Erb. MR. KELLEY-Only, I guess, as to why you couldn't come back six more feet. I don't know that I got that answered. MR. SLUCK-Well, the only other reason, as far as bringing it all the way back and flush with the back end of thi shouse is that the back of the house is already vinyl si ded, okay, and what happens on a vinyl siding job is when you start running your horizontal siding across, you're going to end up with a line of seams that's going to go right straight down. So we would like to have a little bit of a jog to start a new line. I don't want to disturb that corner of the home is what I don't want to do. MR. KELLEY-So you could even make a jog of four inches or something. MR. SLUCK-We can make a jog of one foot, two feet, whatever. I don't think we have any qualm about that. MR. ERB-And as far as the present suggested structure, both our neighbors on either side approved it. MR. TURNER-There's going to be nothing coming out of your chimney or anything. No fireplace. MR. ERB-No. No fireplace. MR. TURNER-All right. I'll now open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO CO_NT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Warren County Planning Board returned "No County Impact" Letter from Elizabeth Galway: "I understand Raymond Erb of Fitzgerald Road has applied for a pennit to build an addition to his home. I own the adjoining property on the Lake and would li ke to advise that I have no objection to his intended structure." MR. TURNER-Okay. Any discussion? MR. KELLEY-Well, they've got the current deck being 30 feet from the shoreline and he said it's around six feet to the rear of the house. So it sounded like they might be able to come back five and a half feet or something. It would give them a six inch jog so that they could make a corner, if we're going to gain another five and a half feet of the shoreline setback. MR. TURNER-Right. MR. KELLEY-That's a start in the right direction. MR. TURNER-Yes. 27 MRS. GOETZ-There's an additional letter from Hal Rathbun, as stated in the notice he received, he would like to say, "The addition in question would not meet the Town of Queensbury's side yard and shoreline setback requirements. I feel that an addition so close to another dwelling would not be aesthetically pleasing to view from the Lake. The appearance of our Lake should be kept as natural as possible. Of great concern to me is that this addition may detrimentally effect my legal right-of-way to my residence. My right-of-way road is situated along the Lakeshore directly in front of the residence in question. I have been advised that this right-of-way was not included in Mr. Erb's plot plan. In the interest of overpopulation and pollution of our Lake, the possibility that this addition would house another family is also of great concern. Based on the above, I respectfully request that Mr. Erb's application for variance be denied. Thank you for your consideration." MR. TURNER-What did he say about the right-of-way? MRS. GOETZ-It goes in front of the house and wasn't on the plot plan. MR. TURNER-Okay. I know the right-of-way he's talking about. MR. CARR-Mr. Erb, could you explain that? I mean, there's a right-of-way in front of your place? MR. TURNER-Is that that road that goes along the front of the Lake, down at the bottom of the Lake, that everybody has access to? MR. ERB-Right. Mrs. Galway and the Rathbun's have the right-of-way past my property, as well as I have past all of my other neighbors. MR. TURNER-Yes. Right. MR. CARR-Now how do they get to that road? I mean, they don't come down your driveway and by your house? MR. ERB-No. They come down at the top of the hill where the Caines live. MR. TURNER-Right. MR. ERB-Originally, there was a mountain there and you couldn't get to the Lake except by coming down that hill. MR. TURNER-Yes. Right. Yes, there was a big hill there. MR. ERB-Which I've done for 30 years. MR. TURNER-It goes in front of Jarvis' camp. It goes in front of the other camp. MR. ERB-Yes, Milne and Dr. Kim. Well, Dr. Kim's house is back now, but that house was very close to the Lake at that time. MR. TURNER-That's the right-of-way he's talking about. It's right in front. MR. CARR-But this probably doesn't effect it because it's not closer to the Lake. MR. ERB-No. MR. CARR-Okay. MR. TURNER-We were talking about moving it back. MR. KELLEY-Yes, five and a half feet or something. In other words, you give him a foot on the corner. He could come back five feet, then. Do you want to give him a foot jog? That would give him 35 feet here. MR. TURNER-Yes, because he's not only asking for this. He's asking for this, too. There's some visibility problems, probably, right here. MR. KELLEY-Do we want to try for an eight foot deck? I don't know. MR. TURNER-Do you see this house right here? MR. KELLEY-Yes. MR. TURNER-Then there's a porch right here. MR. KELLEY- Yes. 28 MR. TURNER-If you move that back... MR. KELLEY-You're saying, are you going to deny him? MR. TURNER-No. You're not going to deny him at all, because he's going to be sitting on a deck. MR. KELLEY-Right. Yes, so coming five feet. MR. TURNER-Come back five feet. MR. EGGLESTON-What do you think about the width? MR. TURNER-It's two feet shy of the side setback. MRS. EGGLESTON-Two feet shy? MR. TURNER-Yes. It's got to be 20. It's 18. MR. KELLEY-I'd say it's less than that. His plan shows 18.59. MR. TURNER-I can't read that dimension. What is it? MR. KELLEY-18.59, I think. Is that correct, your side yard setback on your plan? MR. ERB-That's what the surveyor put down. MR. TURNER-Is it 59 or 51? MR. ERB-59. MR. TURNER-59. Okay. MR. KELLEY-So, he's looking for a 1.41. MR. TURNER-Yes, 1.41. MR. KELLEY-On the side yard. MR. TURNER-One and a half feet, about. Any further discussion? MR. CARR-I think it's a good idea to move it back for the shoreline purposes. It seems to me that 24 feet is an awful large addition and I'm wondering if it can't be 22 feet, then they don't have to worry about the si de 1 i ne, because I'm looking at thi s other house, whi ch is only 13 and a half feet and maybe a couple of feet will make a difference, at least help alleviate some of the overcrowding and I guess my question is, could you live with a 22 foot wide family room? MR. TURNER-Does the builder want to come up and maybe we can ask you the questions. MR. ERB-Originally when we considered the addition, the setback was only 15 feet, but that was a year and a half, two years ago. That's when we thought about it and then you moved the goal posts on us. MR. CARR-But now the question is can you live with a 22 foot wide family room, rather than 24 feet? MR. ERB-22 by 20, I guess we could. MR. TURNER-That would eliminate the side setback. MR. ERB-That would eliminate the side setback. MR. TURNER-Yes, so we don't have to deal with the front setback. MR. ERB-No. I guess we could, yes. MR. TURNER-We've got to give and take a little. That's, I guess, what I'm asking you. MRS. GOETZ-He said 22. Isn't it 20? MRS. EGGLESTON-No, because he only needs one... MRS. GOETZ-No, here. This is the width. 29 --../ MR. TURNER-He wants this 22. MRS. GOETZ-I know, 22. MR. TURNER-Yes, 22 by 20. MRS. GOETZ-22 by 20, and move it back. MR. KELLEY-Yes, and move it to the rear five feet. So, we'd have a 35 foot setback from the Lake, instead of the 30 that they're proposing now. MR. TURNER-I'll just move that two feet, well, Jeff is saying move it back so you've got five feet. Move it back five feet farther so that will put it right up to the door, well, put it in the door. You were saying six feet there, right? MR. SLUCK-Wait a minute. This is the addition. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. SLUCK-Not on the present house. MR. TURNER-I know. MR. KELLEY-No. That's the view out the front, isn't it? MR. SLUCK-Yes, towards the water. MR. TURNER-Towards the water. MR. SLUCK-This is the view towards Fitzgerald Road. Mr. Kelley wants us to hug that existing door. I understand what you want. MR. KELLEY-Yes. I'm saying take this whole thing and slide it back to this corner and we're saying, because you wanted to make that corner. MR. SLUCK- Yes. MR. KELLEY-Instead of coming back six feet, we'll let you come back five. That will give you a foot jog. MR. ERB-Okay. MR. SLUCK-Let me ask you this, if I come in a foot here, off the back corner, and you're taking away two feet on us this way, 22, and we wanted to come 20 this way, square footage wise, can we get the two feet this way? MR. KELLEY-Well, we're trying to keep you, it's supposed to be 75 feet from the Lake. MR. SLUCK-Okay. MR. KELLEY-So, we're trying to get you back as far that way also. MR. SLUCK-Sounds good. MR. ERB-We'll buy that. MR. KELLEY-We're trying to feel that we're glvlng you, you're helping us as much as you can and we're saying, all right, we'll let you have some kind of an addition. MR. SLUCK-No, problem. It will still be 20 feet. MR. KELLEY- Yes. MR. TURNER-It will be 20, but it will have to be back. MR. ERB-One foot from the back of the present building, and you want to put this down to 22, correct? MR. KELLEY-Correct. MR. TURNER-Right. MR. KELLEY-So that actually what we're saying is the front of this deck will be 35 feet instead of 30. 30 MR. TURNER-Instead of 30. MR. ERB-Okay, thank you. It's a good alternative. MRS. GOETZ-The deck is going to be two feet less in width also? MR. CARR-Yes. Basically, we aren't giving a side line setback variance. MR. TURNER-It will just be moved back. MR. KELLEY- Yes. MR. TURNER-We aren't giving a side line. We're just going to move this back five feet. MRS. GOETZ-Just as long as they understand that. MR. ERB-Yes. MR. TURNER-No further questions? Motion's in order. IIJTION TO APPROVE, IN PART, AREA VARIANCE fII. 91-1990 RAYllJND E. ERR. Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: I would approve the applicant's request for a variance from the shoreline setback. The variance given is for relief of 40 feet. The applicant's request for a side line setback is denied. The rationale for allowing the shoreline setback is that strict application of the Ordinance would deprive the applicant of reasonable use of his property. The location of the existing structure presents a practical difficulty for any addition to the home and that public facilities would not be adversely effected, nor would this variance be detrimental to the Ordinance. Duly adopted this 28th day of November, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carr, Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea MR. TURNER-Do you want to identify the size of the addition? MRS. GOETZ-I think we should. MR. TURNER-22 by 20, the addition, instead of 24 by 20? MR. CARR-No, because I guess if he wants to go 22.5 or whatever to meet the side line setback, I mean, that's fine. I just don't want it more than 20 feet closer to the side yard. MR. KELLEY-Yes. If he meets the side yard setback, I guess that's okay. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, that makes sense. MR. TURNER-All right. USE VARIANCE fII. 92-1990 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-lA JAMES M. WELLER, P.E. OIRlER: MARSHALL B. AND EVELYN J. SEELYE BETWEEN HIGHLAND AVENUE AND THE BOULEVARD. ACROSS HIGHLAND AVENUE FROM HOLLISTER'S PLUMBING AND HEATING, AND ACROSS THE BOULEVARD FROM NICKI'S TAVERN FOR CONSTRUCTION OF WHOLESALE PLUMBING, HEATING, INDUSTRIAL DISTRIBUTION BUSINESS "ITH OUTSIDE STORAGE CAPABILITY. (F.... WEBB) (WARREN COUNTY PL\NNING) TAX MAP fII. 110-5-2 LOT SIZE: 0.29 ACRES SECTION 4.020-K JIM WELLER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (attached) MR. TURNER-Do we have a question for Mr. Weller? MR. CARR-Mr. Weller, when you came back before us the last time and were granted the variance at that point, what changed that you wanted to expand to this parcel? 31 MR. WELLER-Well, I'll try to give you a little bit of the history of what happened. After I was before the Board, before, for this application and was granted approval, I then started working with my client to prepare for the Planning Board's submittal and in working with my client, they asked me if there was any possibilities of being able to square up the building and increase the parking and I told them that the only way that I knew of that that could be done would be if they could acquire a parcel from the neighbor and straighten the property line and that they would go to the neighbor and see if they could do this and I, in turn, would go to the Town of Queensbury to see what complications would arise there. So F.W. Webb went their way. I went my way, to Staff and I was told by Staff that this was no problem, that we could change the line and that nothing else would be required and the owner got the contract signed to buy the land. So we changed all the drawings and submitted everything for Planning Board review. When the application went in for Planning Board review, we were then told that they couldn't consider it, that we would have to have a variance. So we took the documents as we had prepared them and submitted them, here, for your consideration this evening. We were led, I believe, in a direction that was certainly favorable to us, but we never envisioned that we'd be back before this Board. The things that it does gain for F.W. Webb is it does allow them to square up their building, to make it typical to many of their other facilities and it does give them some additional parking on the property. MR. CARR-For what purpose? MR. WELLER-For customers that may require it, to have ample parking. It also helped to address and solve another problem that we felt we were dealing with in the stormwater management in that the wet area behind the automobile repair shop, the body shop, would now become part of the Webb property and we could drain that property and make that all part of the stormwater management plan that we're doing and we feel we're going to help a situation that would have otherwise existed. In fact, this plan as it's submitted actually shows some improvement over onto the Seelye property to be sure we drain that whole swamp area and we have obtained from the Seelye's the permission for the construction work to go on on that property too. It's not a big project, but it's to eliminate the whole water problem that currently exists down there. So the whole thing took a turn of events that I didn't really anti ci pate. MRS. GOETZ-How much additional property are you buying? MR. WELLER-I think it's on there. .29 acres, to make the entire parcel a parcel of 2.53 acres. MRS. GOETZ-Is it by that part, it seemed like Seelye's property it's a mess, a lot of junky things out there, in the back. Is that where you're going to improve? MR. WELLER-The property that we're talking about here. MRS. GOETZ-Can you show me on this map? MR. WELLER-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-Down in this part? MR. WELLER-This is the parcel. MRS. GOETZ-This whole thing, and where's the Auction House? MR. WELLER-Over here on the other side. MRS. GOETZ-Way, way over? MR. WELLER- Yes. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. So you're not going to help improve that? MR. WELLER-No. This is the area that's currently wet and we're going to just go on to here a ways and get all the water off of there. MRS. GOETZ-So really this Board has previously determined the use is acceptable? MR. WELLER-That's correct. MRS. GOETZ-So you're just adding this bit of portion into that use? MR. WELLER-We're actually taking this property line and making it here. MR. TURNER-Yes. They've got to have the use for that. MRS. GOETZ-Right. MR. TURNER-Okay, I'll open the public hearing. 32 ~ PUBLIC HEARING OPENED STEVEN SABO MR. SABO-Steven Sabo, President of Adirondack Pools. CHRISTOPHER SABO MR. SABO-Christopher Sabo, Vice President. MR. STEVEN SABO-The reason we're in opposition to this variance is the fact that this is a retail strip area and to re-zone it Light Industrial would not be advantageous to anybody down on that strip and we're obviously opposing this, at this point, which is kind of after the fact, but none of us were notified prior to the approval of the variance that was granted on the property. MR. CHRISTOPHER SABO-Also, there was mention of, it would help the drainage of the auto body shop, but the owner of Superior Autobody is against the project and we have a letter from him that he signed and is against it and is having a current problem with his drainage. I don't know if anyone has a copy of that letter. We made it available to Mr. Steve Borgos. MR. TURNER-I'm not sure. Let's see if we've got it. If we don't have it, you can submit one and we'll read it. MR. CHRISTOPHER SABO-Eight area retailers signed it and we presented it to Mr. Borgos, primarily because when we first discovered that this project was happening we didn't really know where to turn so we went to Mr. Borgos and we drafted this letter head. The area people signed it and he gave us his support in the issue and we have a letter from him, also, if you'd like to see it. He is not pleased with the variance that it gets changed from Highway Commercial. MR. TURNER-Do you have a letter from Mr. Borgos? MR. CHRISTOPHER SABO-Yes, we do. MRS. GOETZ-This letter's not dated, here, from Adirondack Pools. MR. CHRISTOPHER SABO-Yes, that was approximately I'd say about a month ago, three weeks ago. MR. TURNER-This was after you found out? MR. CHRISTOPHER SABO-This was after the first parcel had been changed from Highway Commercial. MR. TURNER-Changed, the variance was granted. MR. CHRISTOPHER SABO-Yes. MR. TURNER-It wasn't changed, just the use. MR. CHRISTOPHER SABO-The use, I'm sorry. MR. TURNER-We don't re-zone. MR. CHRISTOPHER SABO-It was at that point that we developed that letter based on the fact that we have invested a lot of money, all those businesses have, in renovating their buildings and purchasing their buildings based on the fact that that whole area is Highway Commercial and we expect that that's going to be a benefit to us, in the future, and changing and putting in something that requires a Use Variance for Light Industrial is not going to help us. It's not going to help the values of our buildings. MRS. GOETZ-I believe that we did address the issue that someone had not been noticed about that first one. MR. CHRISTOPHER SABO-Well, really, everybody on the Boulevard was not noticed. Any of those people who signed weren't noticed. MRS. GOETZ-I thought it was just one party? MR. CARR-No, six parties. MRS. EGGLESTON-Six. MRS. GOETZ-Six? 33 MR. TURNER-All right, in reference to you not being notified, there was a motion at the next meeting, I believe, to consider rehearing the application allover again. MR. CHRISTOPHER SABO-Okay. MR. TURNER-That has to be introduced by a member of the Board. It has to be passed by a majority of the members here and one vote can deny it and it was denied to rehear it. That's why it didn't get reheard. MR. CHRISTOPHER SABO-Okay. MR. TURNER-We didn't rehear the application. MR. CHRISTOPHER SABO-Well, considering the smaller .29 acre parcel, we have the same attitude and would very much like that to stay Highway Commercial and that's a piece of property that's very accessible to the face of Quaker Road, which is Quaker Road from west of Aviation Mall all the way down to where we're located is Highway Commercial property and it benefits everybody in that area that it stay Highway Commercial. MR. SICARD-Did I understand you're saying that you objected to draining that water out from behind the body shop? Did I hear you say that? MR. CHRISTOPHER SABO-No. The owner of Superior Autobody, it was mentioned by the first speaker, here, that they were doing a benefit to Superior Autobody by helping his drainage. Superior Autobody doesn't feel that way and that's why he signed the letter that we drafted and it was either last year or the year before that Ellis Excavating went in there and corrected his drainage problem. MR. SICARD-So, what you're saying is, they want wetlands behind the Autobody Shop. MR. CHRISTOPHER SABO-I don't think they're wetlands, but that moist area there I think, they would rather it stay moist and maybe someday that become Highway Corrmercial, then, to change it to Light Industrial. MR. SICARD-I'm trying to fit the use in the mind. Why somebody would want something. MR. CHRISTOPHER SABO-They just don't feel it will promote their business, having Light Industrial back there and the cOllmon point that everyone in that area has brought up is there are areas that are Light Industrial and that's where we feel it would be the first place to look to locate Light Industrial. MR. SICARD-Well, I can understand that, but I'm trying to picture that water situation in my mind. MR. CHRISTOPHER SABO-We would feel that that problem, if it exists, would be changed when a nice little strip mall or some other Highway Corrmercial or whatever it may be is put in there. Then the same situation is going to occur. The drainage is going to be taken care of in the same way, because Planning Board's and Zoning Board's will make sure of it. MR. SICARD-Okay. MR. TURNER-Do you have any other comments? MR. CHRISTOPHER SABO-I think those two letters basically sum up everybody's thoughts. MR. TURNER-Any other questions of Mr. Sabo? MR. CHRISTOPHER-Can that letter be read? MR. TURNER-Let Mr. Kelley read it. MR. KELLEY-The other thing I wanted to know. Do we have the application from the previous, where it got approved? MR. TURNER-Yes. It should be in the file. It wasn't a unanimous vote to approve it anyway. MR. KELLEY-Well, I want to reread that. MRS. GOETZ-The original variance granting? MR. KELLEY-Yes, who voted what. MR. CARR-Right. It was a three two vote, wasn't it? MRS. GOETZ-I wasn't here. I know that. 34 MRS. EGGLESTON-It was four two because I had a hard time making up my mind. MRS. GOETZ-Stuart, I don't think we have the other variance here tonight, do we? The folder? MR. BAKER-It should be in the file box. MR. TURNER-Here. I brought mine. MRS. GOETZ-Okay, but it doesn't have the motion. MR. TURNER-No. MRS. EGGLESTON-Was it in those minutes we read tonight, the motion? MRS. GOETZ-Look on your minutes that you brought. MR. TURNER-Let's see. That was September. MRS. EGGLESTON-It might be in this one. MR. TURNER-Do you have the book of minutes over here? MRS. GOETZ-I was out in September. MR. TURNER-That was in September. MS. CORPUS-In my office. MR. TURNER-What did you want reference to? MR. KELLEY-I just wanted to refresh my mind as to how the actual variance read and also I wanted to re-confirm in my mind what the vote was because I remember it wasn't a unanimous vote. MR. TURNER-No. It was four to two. MR. CARR-It was a four two vote. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. It was a four two. MRS. GOETZ-And also the vote to rehear, that was split, too. MR. TURNER-Do we have any other questions of these gentlemen? No further questions of these gentlemen? MRS. EGGLESTON-Not right now. MR. CARR-Not now. MR. TURNER-All right. Anyone else wish to be heard in opposition? MR. WELLER-I'd just like to mention that with us tonight, if you have any questions of him, is the General Manager of F.W. Webb, Mike Burns and also the owner of the property in question, Mr. Seelye. MR. TURNER-Joe, do you want to make a comment? JOE ROULIER MR. ROULIER-I would like to respond to the issue of the drainage. Since I was the owner of that property, I went down there on a Saturday, and the man that's renting Superior Autobody was filling in the adjoining piece of property, my piece of property, and I stopped him. I said, what are you doing. He said, I'm filling it in and I said, why, of course and he said that there was a significant drainage problem and that they had water right up to the back of the existing building right there and he felt as though, and he didn't have my approval and I certainly didn't object to what he was doing at the time, but he filled in all along the back and a good portion for at least 50 feet over on to my property. Now, I'm not sure, exactly, who the owner is that these gentlemen are referring to, but I do know for a fact, prior to them putting in that crushed stone, the water was right up and running into that building. I know that for a fact. The only other issue that I would like to make is the general condition of the area, at this point. On the south side of my property is a house. Lord know it needs a tremendous amount of repair work. In terms of an asset to the area, it certainly isn't an asset. It's some type of a residence. It's some type of a building that literally is falling apart. We can move further down to the street where the corner is now for sale on both sides of the Boulevard because there was an auto sales business in there. I believe that's vacant. At least I know tonight 35 that the property is for sale. Kitty corner from there is a vacant building that was fonnerly a bar. It's been apartments. I believe it's vacant. I know it has been shut down and re-opened, periodically, by the Town of Queensbury. I know that the Superior Autobody Shop which is adjacent to my property falls into the category of Highway Commercial, but on the other hand, I believe it's either the Building Inspector or the Fire Marshal is continually down there having to move cars around. I have no idea if they're causing a fire hazard or what's going on, but I think everyone on the Board tonight would agree that it's not a very pleasant sight. The general area as it exists, and I can certainly appreciate these gentlemen trying to run their business, but if you look at the general area, the proposed building by F.W. Webb, if it's going to do anything, it will be a significant improvement to the area in light of what currently is existing in the area and I would only hope that the Board would take all this into consideration and vote favorably upon their request. Thank you. MR. TURNER-Okay, Joe. Anyone else wish to be heard? MR. CHRISTOPHER SABO-First, in regards to Superior Autobody, if he is currently having a problem with water drainage, I believe he is the owner, the fellow that signed that paper, and would be willing to spend money correcting any water problem that exists there right now and would spend that money in opposition to having some building put in there, in Light Industrial, that's going to correct his problem. Furthennore, the comments that he made on the buildings in the area, the two buildings that are now vacant, that are just recently gone for sale, the asking price for both pieces together is, like, $550,000. They're very nice retail buildings. The Autobody Shop, I think, in probably the last two years he's probably put $15,000 into correcting that. We've put a great deal of money in the last four or five years and received a Beautification award from Queensbury, about three years ago, fixing up our building. John McCall from the Tire Warehouse, he's added about a 3,000 square foot building, very expensive building, has done a great deal with his building. So, the area is definitely improving all the time. It's not fair to say that it's on its way down. It's actually becoming very much retail orientated and things are moving down Quaker Road and it's helping the situation and it's retail and that will rebut those two comments that he made about the buildings and the drainage behind Superior Autobody and if anyone wants to make a trip down that strip and look back and see that we have received an award from the Beautification Committee and at that time look and see what the buildings looked like at that point. You'll find it very different. Also I'd like to mention that one comment that was made to me by Mr. Borgos was that Queensbury is very dissatisfied with a similar facility up on Aviation Road across from Sokol's Market and his main reason for his letter is that he does not want to see that happen again. MR. CARR-Mr. Sabo, have you seen the plans from F.W. Webb? MR. CHRISTOPHER SABO-I have. We have a couple of copies of those prints. MR. CARR-Okay, and the plantings they're intending? MR. CHRISTOPHER SABO-I have and I think that, from what I've understood and have seen in the past is that, initially, it will have a certain quality. There's a huge entrance right across from the face of our building that is not going to be shrubs. It's a truck entrance and it's within 20 feet of a two family house which he said is in very poor shape and that's not the case with that home and the property will still be very visible through all the entrances around that building. I mean, granted, there will be a fence there and there will be some shrubs in front of it, but, I mean, it's pipe storage and you can, a large area in the entrance is that you can see into that and the other idea is that it's not Highway Commercial. Maybe it's something that you can't even see, but it's not Highway Commercial and that's part of our problem. MR. CARR-If they had allowed even a couple of retail accounts, it would be Highway Commercial, as well as what they intend to use. MR. CHRISTOPHER SABO-Still inside outside pipe storage? MR. CARR-Right. MR. STEVEN SABO-Has anybody here on the Board seen a pipe storage facility? You all have seen a pipe storage facility? MRS. GOETZ-What would be one? MR. STEVEN SABO-They're large iron racks. MRS. GOETZ-No, an example of one I could look at. MR. STEVEN SABO-If you went across the street from Sokol's, you could see what a pipe storage facility looks like. They're large iron racks that are all rusted with rusted iron pipes on them and that is only part of our grievance. When we purchased these properties, invested in our property in excess of $100,000, we did so thinking that everyone else was going to be fixing their properties up, as they did the retail would develop down there and not for someone to walk in here and put in something that 36 -- woul d be zoned Li ght Industri a 1, especially in 1 i ght of the fact the Town of Queensbury has put all the money that they've put into building industrial sites for development. I don't understand why they want to come into a Highway Commercial Zone and upset existing businesses and tax payers that have worked hard at building the businesses that they have and as far as that two family home directly adjacent to that, those people are putting a great deal of money into it and they did sign that, in opposition to it. There's been a great deal of money put into that home and to disregard them and their investment is not fair to them, either or anyone else that has signed that, that have invested the monies that they have. MR. TURNER-Okay. Thank you. MR. WELLER-There seems to be a lot of talk about what this facility might look like. A couple of weeks ago I went over to the facility that is a prototype of this one, which is over in Rutland and if the Board would like to see the photographs of the Rutland facility. MR. TURNER- Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-Will there be outside storage? I missed the other meeting. MR. WELLER-Yes, there is. MR. TURNER-Absolutely. MR. CHRISTOPHER SABO-Do those photos show outside storage? MR. WELLER-Yes, they do. MR. TURNER-Yes. Would you care to look at them? We'll hand them out. MR. TURNER-Here's outside storage. MR. WEL~ER-I might point out that the outside storage on that facility, which as I said is in Rutland, does not have the screening around the fence that the facility here in Queensbury will have. MR. TURNER-Jim, how high will those deciduous trees be when you plant them? MR. WELLER-I would say, unless we were told otherwise, generally they're four to five feet, but we may be required, in going through Beautification or the Planning Board, to do something other than that. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. WELLER-At this time, this is our planting proposal. MR. TURNER-Jim, correct me if I'm wrong. If this doesn't go through, this proposal here, then you'll have to revert back to the original plan? MR. WELLER-Then we'll have to revert back to what was approved, previously. MR. TURNER-All right. MR. WELLER-We think we can do a nicer job in the area with this proposal. MR. KELLEY-If this doesn't go, they go back to the old plan. The people can do an Article 78, right? MR. TURNER-No. They're too late. MRS. GOETZ-They missed the time. We should have reheard it, I think. How did you vote? I forgot, on the rehearing? MR. KELLEY-Ted and I originally voted against it. When we revoted.... MR. TURNER-Yes, there were two votes that were.... MRS. GOETZ-On the rehearing, whether or not to rehear, did you vote to rehear? MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-I did, too. I think we should have. 37 MR. KELLEY-Well, I did, too, but you had two people who didn't want to do it. MR. TURNER-And it has to be a unanimous vote to rehear. MR. TURNER-Well, it appears from this here that all the storage area is going to be on the Boulevard side, across from Sabo's. MR. KELLEY-Just as a clarification, the increase is going to be a third of an acre, .29? MR. WELLER-That's correct. MR. KELLEY-And basically it's going to square up the property or make it a little bit more reasonable shape, let's say that. You said you were going to gain some parking spaces? MR. WELLER-Yes, we've actually moved the building back a little bit on the property. MR. KELLEY-Do you know, can you tell me how many more parking spaces? MR. WELLER-I believe it's about 10, that's my recollection. MR. KELLEY-Okay. Is it also going to increase the green area or open area? MR. WELLER-It increases the total green area. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KELLEY-Right. Even though you gain more parking, you still have also increased the total permeability area. MR. WELLER-That's correct. MR. KELLEY-So, you've gained in two areas. MR. WELLER-That's correct. That's my recollection. I don't have that calculation. MR. TURNER-Yes, this will be all green, here. There's the fence line right there. This area will be green. MR. KELLEY-Right. MR. WELLER-And, as I said, we've dried up the area behind the Autobody place. MR. KELLEY-Right. MR. TURNER-Okay. MARTIN SEELYE MR. SEELYE-Martin SEELYE. I would just state that the area behind the Autobody Shop has always been a wet, stagnant, pond type area. It's a drainage from Highland Avenue south. The whole landscape pitches in that direction and in the spring time there is as much as a foot and a half, two feet of water in there and over the sUllll1er gradually drys up and is a mess. Of course, this will be taken care of. As the I guess probably the oldest land owner or the land owner in the vicinity that would be adjacent to this, I have no problems whatsoever with this. If I did, I wouldn't have agreed to sell the land. Those that disagree with this are looking for retail. Whether they're looking for an Ames or a Caldor to move in there, I don't know, or whether they're looking for smaller retail, that I'm not sure of, but I don't see it happening. That particular area is not an area, it's not going to be, in my estimation, from what I've seen going on in that area in the past 20 years, an area that will build up in small or even large retail and the area's suited for what it's being anticipated for. Thank you. MR. TURNER-Okay. Anyone else that hasn't spoken for the first time? Do you have one more comment, Mr. Sabo? MR. CHRISTOPHER SABO-Yes. The area has built tremendously in the last couple of years. I mean, before we were there it was the ARC and that's not retail. A lot of retail has happened in that area. There's been a lot of positive things and there will continue to be, if something like this doesn't happen and if they can make this thing so beautiful, still, the bottom line is we have no option. We can't move. We can't afford to move and this thing doesn't help our businesses. They have alternatives. They can go somewhere else, where maybe something will come down the road and will help us. MR. STEVEN SABO-I would like to say that in a previous conversation that I had with Mr. Seelye, that he felt that if F.W. Webb didn't pay him his price, he would have signed that very letter that you see in front of you, that I was hoping that you were going to read this evening. 38 MR. TURNER-We will. MR. STEVEN SABO-And that doesn't seem to me to be a very honorable way of viewing this. He obviously has a motive for profit, here. MR. TURNER-Okay. No further comment. Public hearing's closed. Correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Warren County Planning Board returned "No County Impact" Letter from Donald Rozell: "As an owner of property in the immediate vicinity, we in no way object to the variance request as stated above. I am encouraged by the increase of interest for business in South Queensbury in recent years. The Webb relocation would enhance it's development even more. This area has been overlooked for years and I see no detrimental impact on anyone in the area." Letter from Adirondack Pools and Service, The Tire Warehouse, Boulevard Auto Sales, Carol Perkins and adjacent land owner, Superior Autobody, Corlew's Appliance and Television, R & M Supplies, and Helmonds Marine: "The intent of this letter is to notify the Town of Queensbury that there is opposition to the variance approved concerning the parcel of land located between Highland and Boulevard. The aforementioned parcel is zoned Highway Commercial and the variance granted the parcel to be used for Light Industrial. The list of signatures below represent the land owners who are in opposition to this re-zoning. We feel it necessary to present this letter because none of the land owners below were notified of the application for the variance. The reasons that the below businesses are strongly opposing the variance are among the following: One, the Boulevard is established as retail sales and we feel that maintaining the Highway Commercial zoning is important because future businesses will compliment ours. Two, many of our customers live in Kingsbury, Hudson Falls, Fort Edward, and surrounding areas. It is critical that we continue to draw these people into Queensbury to shop. This re-zoning does not promote this concept. Three, we all have purchased and invested in our properties based on the Highway Commercial Zoning. These investments are just that, investments, and we expect our properties to increase in value, not decrease. Four, we have supported the growth of Queensbury by purchasing and renovating these properties and feel we should have the support of our local governments and promoting our growth efforts. All involved feel that Light Industrial businesses belong in the Industrial Park or in previously Light Industrial Zoned areas. In consideration of the above infonnation, we recommend that the Board reconsider the variance. Thank you for your time and consideration. MR. TURNER-Okay. Is that it? Any discussion before we move it? It's the zoning with reference to thi s one pi ece of property. It has nothing to do wi th the other one. Thi s has nothing to do wi th the other variance. It only has to do with this section of property that they wish to purchase. MR. STEVEN SABO-Right. May I just say that it was also told to me by Mr. Seelye that F.W. Webb had no i ntenti ons of goi ng through with thi s project if they coul d not purchase thi s property and get it re-zoned also and this is our first and only opportunity that we've had to oppose the project and that's why we're here this evening, as you know and can see from the letters from Mr. Borgos that we did not receive notice of this prior to the other variance granting. MR. TURNER-Let me ask you a question. The other people that signed the letter, were they notified? MR. STEVEN SABO-No, they were not. MR. TURNER-Do you know if they were notified? MR. STEVEN SABO-No one there was notified. MR. TURNER-There was about six, I think, that weren't notified. Is that correct? MR. STEVEN SABO-Yes, correct. MRS. GOETZ-When did you find out about it? MR. STEVEN SABO-After the variance was granted. MRS. GOETZ-When, though, after the variance was granted? MR. STEVEN SABO-About two weeks later. MRS. GOETZ-Because you have, like, 30 days to appeal, I think, Article 78. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. STEVEN SABO-I'm not sure of that. We weren't aware of it. 39 '-- MR. TURNER-I think your time frame ran out, didn't it? Am I correct, Karla? MR. STEVEN SABa-Yes, but the point I'm trying to make to the Board here is that if this variance is not granted, we are under the impression that F.W. Webb has no intent of pursuing with the project. MRS. GOETZ-Well, that's interesting. MR. STEVEN SABa-That was told to us by Mr. Seelye. Whether that's true or not, I don't know. MRS. GOETZ-Mr. Seelye, would you like to respond to that? MR. SEELYE-How would I know that? MRS. GOETZ-I don't know. MR. STEVEN SABa-I'm just simply saying what was told to me. MRS. GOETZ-Is F.W. Webb here? MR. TURNER-Yes, they're here. MRS. GOETZ-F.W. Webb, could they come up and answer that? MIKE BURNS MR. BURNS-I'm Mike Burns. I'm the General Manager of Webb. What the additional .295 acres will do for my company will make us better able to facilitate our customers parking on our lot and handle the parking of my employees. As far as, I'm scraping the whole project if we don't get this additional variance, that's something that would be considered in the future. MRS. GOETZ-It would be considered? MR. BURNS-Well, it would be something I would have to take into consideration, of course, but as far as the black and white decision of.... MR. TURNER-Whether you will or whether you won't. MR. BURNS-Yes, that's something that I would have to talk to my corporate people about and make a corporate decision. MRS. GOETZ-Have you purchased the property, the other piece of property yet? MR. BURNS-We have a contract on it. MRS. GOETZ-But you haven't signed the final whatever. MR. BURNS-We've signed the contract. Yes. It hasn't closed. MRS. GOETZ-Right, okay, closing. MR. WELLER-The closing on that piece of property, by contract, won't occur until after Planning Board approva 1 . MR. KELLEY-What about the large piece of property you're purchasing from Mr. Roulier? Do you own that, presently? MR. BURNS-No. That's contingent upon getting Planning Board approval. MR. KELLEY-Okay. MR. BURNS-If we can't build our building and do our business on that large piece of property, we wouldn't want to buy it, which we already have the variance for, the large piece of property. MR. CARR-live got a question. Ted, now the variance that we gave, is that to F.W. Webb, or is it to the property? MR. TURNER-To the property. MR. CARR-Okay, so now that property is Light Industrial, whether it's F.W. Webb or anybody else, is that correct? 40 MR. TURNER-No. MS. CORPUS-No. It wasn't re-zoned. It was granted a variance for whatever. You have those minutes, right, Mr. Turner? MR. CARR-Well, okay, if F.W. Webb does not go in there, it goes back to Highway Commercial? MS. CORPUS-No. MR. TURNER-No. (END OF FIRST DISK) 41 MR. CARR-No. So. they can put somebody else Light Industrial in there? MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. COLLARD-Just the use that that variance was granted for. MS. CORPUS-I don't know the exact wording. MR. CARR-For pipe distribution? MRS. COLLARD-Right. MR. BAKER-Wholesale Plumbing and Heating. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay, good. MR. CARR-Okay. MRS. EGGLESTON-All right. MR. TURNER-Only for that use. MRS. COLLARD-It's always Highway Commercial. The zoning did not change. MRS. EGGLESTON-Right. MR. TURNER-We don't re-zone. MR. CARR-All right. MR. TURNER-Okay, any further questions of this gentleman? Do you have any further questions? No. okay. MR. KELLEY-I guess my dilemma is. he didn't give us an answer to what their use is. MR. TURNER-No. he didn't. MRS. GOETZ-I don't think he can give a final answer. It doesn't sound like. You'd have to check with other corporate people. MR. BURNS- Yes. MRS. GOETZ-Right. MR. TURNER-Okay, I'll call for a motion. MRS. GOETZ-Well. we were getting those other minutes. Did Jeffrey want to see them? MR. TURNER-Yes, he already looked at them. MRS. GOETZ-And he's satisfied with them? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KELLEY-Well. I guess I'm more embarrassed. MR. TURNER-Jeff and I voted against it. MR. KELLEY-I feel embarrassed for the Board because I'm not really happy with the way the whole thing transpi red, but because of the way the Board is set up, that it has to be done by and the way it was voted on. I don't think it was done properly. but there was nothing I could do about it. I voted the way I thought was right. I still believe what I did was right, but because of the way we have to vote. I think the wrong decision was made. MRS. EGGLESTON-I will say that if I had been aware probably of all the neighborhood opposition. I probably would have maybe done something different. I struggled with it to begin with and took into consideration that there was no neighborhood opposition. MR. CARR-Well. I voted for it and I think it's because of the evidence presented by Mr. Roulier about his attempts. over the years. to sell the property as Highway Commercial unsuccessfully and I don 't thi nk the purpose of zoning is to prohi bi t somebody from uti 1 i zi ng thei r 1 and at all and also I know this is technically classified as Light Industrial. However. it is so close to a retail business. I mean. if they open up a counter for reta i 1 use. they can have ita 11. I mean, thi s is not a manufacturing plant that I would consider in a Light Industrial Zone or anything like that. So. I don't see it as being a terrible burden on the Ordinance. 42 '-- ----" MR. GOETZ-I'm really disappointed that the Board didn't choose to rehear it. I'm very disappointed in the people that voted not to rehear it because I think it's, you know, the vote may have come out in favor, another time, to put it in there, but I find it totally bothersome that six adjoining neighbors were not notified. It's just not the democratic process. MR. KELLEY-I agree. MR. TURNER-Well, I'll tell you I voted against it because it's a distribution business that belongs in a Light Industrial Zone. They do not retail anything. You have to be a contractor to buy from them. That identifies them right away and they wholesale all their products. So, it belongs in a Light Industrial Zone. It's clearly identified in the Ordinance and I felt that it didn't belong there and that's why I voted against it. Okay, let's move it. MR. KELLEY-My feeling is, if you don't give it to them they could go back to their original plan and they've got it anyway. MR. TURNER- Yes. MR. KELLEY-The fact that they can do that, this, to me, only improves the situation. MR. TURNER-This improves it. MR. KELLEY-That's an improvement. That's not a detriment. MR. TURNER-No. MR. KELLEY-I mean, what's done is done. MR. TURNER-It's done. MR. KELLEY-We can't help that. MR. TURNER-The die is cast. # MRS. EGGLESTON-Right. MR. KELLEY-So, I guess I'd say, if it's going to help, they're going to have more open area, more parking, it's going to improve a drainage situation, there isn't anything detrimental against it. MR. TURNER-Jim, how much did that move the building from where it was before to where it is now? How much did you actually move it? Can you remember? MR. WELLER-We moved it away from Highland Avenue, maybe, I'm going to say 15 feet. MR. TURNER-Yes, and then you moved it back. MR. WELLER-Was it approximately 15 feet farther away from Highland Avenue and we moved it back on the property, 30 feet, and then we squared it off. MR. TURNER-Yes. Okay. Motion's in order. The only other thing is, if it doesn't get approved and they go back to the other plan they might say, well, let's squash it, that's the other thing. You don I t know. · MRS. GOETZ-Yes. MR. TURNER-Okay, who wants it? MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 92-1990 JAMES M. WELLER, P.E., Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: I would grant the Use Variance for construction of Wholesale Plumbing, Heating, Industrial Distribution business with outside storage capability. The applicant had previously been before the Board, at which time a Use Variance was granted. The granting of this variance will serve to improve the facility, by allowing a small amount of additional space in which to add additional parking and make for a better placement of the building. For those reasons, I would approve this Use Variance. The Short EAF indicates no adverse environmental impact. Duly adopted this 28th day of November, 1990, by the following vote: 43 -- AYES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea MR. TURNER-Any question on the motion? MR. KELLEY-I think it's a weird situation. It's not necessarily that that piece of property can really stand on its own for the Use Variance, but it's an improvement on a previous variance. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KELLEY-That's more the value and the merit of it, rather than that little piece of property by itself. MR. TURNER-Yes. You couldn't do much with it anyway. What could you do with it? Nothing. MR. KELLEY-Right. AREA VARIANCE NO. 93-1990 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-lA MICHAEL KAIDAS KEY BANK N.A. OWNER: MICHAEL KAIDAS SOUTHS IDE OF QUAKER ROAD BETWEEN BAY ROAD AND GLEfM)()D AVEflJE TO LEASE EXISTING 3,200 SQ. FT. BUILDING TO KEY BANK N.A. AND CONSTRUCT A SMALLER SEPARATE 2,360 SQ. FT. RETAIL SALES BUILDING ON THE SAME LOT. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 105-1-1.3 LOT SIZE: 1.84 ACRES SECTION 4.020-K MACK DEAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner (attached) MR. TURNER-Mr. Dean, are you representing Morse Engineering? MR. DEAN-No. I am an employee of Morse Engineering, representing Mr. Kaidas. MR. TURNER-Okay, either way you want to say it. MR. DEAN-Also here tonight is Mr. Kaidas. His attorney, Mr. Michael O'Connor. Mr. Walt Hopehaling from Key Bank and Mr. Al Guerra, principal in the architectural firm. Mr. Kaidas appears to be well represented both in quantity and in quality. Before I pursue this any further, I would like to address very quickly Part 13 in regard to Special Circumstances, which, on the application, the response stated is no, which is correct insofar as any unique circumstances to the property. I would submit, however, that there are unique circumstances in regard to the existing building in that, in order to meet that part of the Building Code and to contain both businesses in the same building would necessitate removing the existing building from the premises and replacing that, in kind, with a fire resistant or noncombustible construction. The cost of demolition, minimal, would be in the range of $15 to $20,000 and it would have to be removed from the site. We would have to find some place that would accept those materials. To replace a building of approximately 3,222 square feet, I'd say at a cost of $90 per square foot, which I think is a typical commercial cost factor would run in the neighborhood of almost $300,000. That's just to get us back to where we are today. That does not include any additional floor space that's proposed in the other building. I think one of the other unique circumstances is the fact that the building was constructed prior to any building code in the Town of Queensbury, which I believe occurred around 1970. So, we are stuck with what we've got. I think that in itself demonstrates there is a unique circumstance involving the existing building insofar as any other tests within the practical difficulty of a Use Variance. I would ask the Board if you had any particular questions. I feel it was fairly well addressed in the narrative. MR. TURNER-Yes. Any questions? MR. KELLEY-I guess I'd have one of maybe Dave Hatin, being the Code Enforcement Officer and Building Inspector. MR. DEAN-I can't quote the specific section, but it's under the Fire Separation. MR. KELLEY-Well, I guess my question, Dave, is, obviously, I know that that's a wood frame building and I remember it had big trusses in it and all that sort of thing. What kind of building would be permissible? What's the Code looking for? DAVE HATIN MR. HATIN-Basically, depending on the proposal that the applicant would present to me under Building Permit, we have to look at what type of use they're proposing. Right now they have, I believe it's a cabinet manufacturing. Do you actually do manufacturing on the site? 44 --' MR. DEAN-No. Just strictly retail sales. MR. HATIN-It's strictly retail sales. That's something I wasn't really aware of when I was asked the question whether they could mix these occupancies or not and I would have to go back to my book and research. I could give the Board an answer in five minutes if I ran over and got my book. Depending on what class that comes in at, there is a Section in Part 771 of the Code that does say that you cannot have more than one type use in a Type Five Construction and uses are defined differently than a Zoning Ordinance use. They're broken up into, basically, six different categories, or five different categories of commerci a 1 uses, dependi ng on how they mix and how they fi tin and where they s 1 ide into if they were both what we call C1's, Retail Sales, they would be fine. C1's are office buildings, that type. C2's are mercantile. This right now I believe is a mercantile type, that's what they're saying. The bank would be a C1 which would be an office type. Those two uses would not be allowed to be combined under Building Code. However, there is one way around that and that's the construction of a fire wall that totally separates the two uses. Then they're each treated in their own fire area as separate uses by the deviation of that fire wall. So, that's one option that is there that I didn't think about until just now when I was listening to Mr. Dean, but again a lot depends on what they plan to do. MR. KELLEY-Okay, I guess that's kind of what I was getting at is maybe the fire wall or if that wasn't part of it, could you have a wood structure attached to maybe a block noncombustible building and have them meet that way? MR. HATIN-No, because then it would go to the lowest rating which would be, in wood frame we call Type Five. A block building could be Type Four or depending on how it's manufactured, Type Two, possibly. It would get to the Type Five and then they would have to figure total fire area, but you would still be dealing with the mixed use in a Type Five. MR. KELLEY-But it may be possible. MR. HATIN-It may be possible. Again, I'd have to see what is presented to me before I can really draw a lot of conclusions. Just judging it from what I'm hearing, I would say no, unless that was a masonry wall that was acted as a fire wall. MR. KELLEY-I guess it might be nice to have you render what you think your decision is tonight, only because they might like to know when they get ready to go to the Planning Board. MR. HATIN-Right now, as far as I know, the bank is also going to be Type Five? MR. DEAN-Yes. MR. HATIN-Okay. If they were to combine those two buildings together, there would have to be a masonry fire wall between them. MRS. GOETZ-Why couldn't they do that? MR. DEAN-I would like to address that and I believe it was addressed in the narrative (the application). When you look at the setbacks for the building, we have an existing building in the rear. To add to this building, facilitate traffic flow around the building would not be possible by adding to the sides of any of the existing building. MRS. GOETZ-But I honestly agree with the Staff. To me, it's self imposed hardship, in a way, because that storage building in the back went in by variance, at that location. MR. DEAN-That's correct. MRS. GOETZ-Okay, so what it looks like, to me, is that a bank came to Town and saw that building and said, that would be really great for a drive in bank and now the owner, and I don't blame him, really sees that this could be an even more valuable piece of property by putting more on it because I wonder, does a bank want to stand by itself? Is that part of the problem? MR. DEAN-That is desirable to have a bank, for many reasons. MRS. GOETZ-And maybe they're saying they won't go in there unless they can stand on their own. MR. TURNER-Separate identification. MRS. GOETZ-Yes. MR. DEAN-They would prefer to have their own individual building. There are maintenance agreements worked out, as far as plowing and maintenance, landscaping and so forth. MRS. GOETZ-Would Key Bank go in if it was all in one building with the proper fire walls, etc.? 45 - MR. DEAN-Well, there again, the practical problem is in the existing location of the building and trying to add to it. It would be extremely difficult to add to the roof area of the drive thru with another building and still maintain any type of aesthetics, still maintain a separated traffic flow. parking, the whole bit. We felt that with this particular design we do have segregation of the parking, segregation of the uses, but we felt that it was in keeping with the intent of the Ordinance clustering businesses. MRS. GOETZ-Do big tractor trailer trucks go in to service Kaidas? MR. DEAN-Yes. In that provision, the provision of loading and unloading of goods is provided for, the existing kitchen cabinet and bathroom sales is, the building itself is set up strictly for display and office use purposes and, of course, the storage area is strictly for storage of prebuilt cabinets, counter tops, etc., so that that in itself is segregated from the retail sales as they exist today. What we have provided is an area to the rear of the property. There will be not only the tractor trailer loading area, but the building itself will be screened from the bank area by an attractive wooden fence which is, in my mind, not a stockade fence, and certainly not in Mr. Kaidas' mind, but we have, in some respects, tried to segregate certain uses on the property in tenns of traffic parking and flow and to provide some individuality with each of the businesses. I think the Section of the Building Code that we are speaking of states pretty much that, except for one and two family dwelling, that there shall not be any mixed occupancy in Type Five Construction and I think if we were to look at, I apologize for not providing that specific Section of the Code for you. AL GUERRA-Hi. I'm Al Guerra with Peterson, Rye, and Malemendal Architects. I would like to point out a few additional things that the Board might not be aware of, related to the existing building and Key Bank's location in it. In the planning of it and the interior planning of it, it really dictated that the drive up windows would have to really be located on this side of the bank. There's an addition which has a bearing wall in it which made this alloted to be the most practical application for a drive up teller to be stationed at and to be able to utilize the interior part of the building on a much more functional basis for location of the teller line, the employees lounge, the customer service representatives and the four private offices that needed to be located there. With that in mind, it really became an almost dead issue of being able to locate an adjacent building or an attached building to this in the back where it would then impact on the existing metal building that's in the back of the property. It coul d not be bui lt here because of the setbacks and, of course, it coul d not be bui lt in the front. So, in practicality, as well as the Code issue, which I believe does have some basis in the New York State Code Manual because I believe there is Section in there that indicates that you can't combine them, even with the fire wall. I'm not positive of that, but I believe that there is something that does state that. In any case, the practicality of trying to locate or position a building adjacent to or being part of the existing building was really not able to be done in the planning that we did and we tried different alternatives to it. I think the issue is whether or not we're trying to provide a situation which addresses the spirit of the Ordinance which I believe is trying to limit the amount of square footage that we're putting on the site and enhancing the property both in the landscaping and the circulation. I believe that the plan, if you've looked at it, addresses all of those issues very well. The siting of the building, the orientation, the parking around the perimeter, all of that lends itself to very good accessibility and in the designs of the buildings themselves we've tried to develop the facades so that they're complimentary to each other, so that all of this works together as a unit, not two disparate pieces of architecture sitting next to each other. So even though they're not directly connected, there ..:!.i an intent here to make them look similar, as if they were planned from the very beginning. MR. TURNER-Is Mr. Kaidas' building going to be totally segregated from the Key Bank? MR. GUERRA-Yes it is. MR. TURNER-By a fence or some sort of barricade? MR. GUERRA-No fence. MR. TURNER-No fence? MR. GUERRA-No fence. MR. TURNER-Only in the back where he indicated? MR. GUERRA-Correct. MR. TURNER-Where the warehouse is? MR. GUERRA-Right. MR. TURNER-But not on the easterly line? MR. GUERRA-Not on the interior at all. 46 ~ MR. TURNER-Nothing. Shrubs? MR. GUERRA-Yes. There is a letter, I believe, from the Beautification Committee. MR. TURNER-Yes, we've got one. MICHAEL O'CONNOR MR. O'CONNOR-I just bring out a point that you're talking about an Area Variance. You're not talking about a Use Variance. MR. TURNER-Not a Use Variance, no. MR. O'CONNOR-And the practical difficulty here is that in order to get to the place where you could situate both pennitted uses in one building, you're talking about an expense of some $200 to $300,000, with no real improvement to the benefits that the Ordinance provide. You're talking about the same setbacks and you're talking about less square footage on the property. All you're talking about is being able to build two separate buildings as opposed to one combined building. I really don't know the benefit that is being deprived by what is being presented. In fact, it's being presented in a very nice manner, well landscaped, on a campus type setting, architecturally compatible to each building. I think in appearance it will be as well as if it were all one building. I think the big point in addition to perhaps the fire code issue is the traffic flow. Mike Kaidas' building and his use is a lot less intensive. If you go by it, you see it every day. If Mike has three customers in there at one time, maybe four or five customers at one time, that's a lot and for those people to be in and about what will probably be a busy use with the bank, with the people using the drive in teller, it's probably better to have them segregate it off and off to the side. It even makes some planning sense, from that point of view. The variance that's requested is a minimum variance. I didn't figure out what it is, but it's, if you had .16 of an acre, some 5,000 square feet, they wouldn't be here. They would simply be going to Site Plan Review. They would be able to have separate pennitted buildings on the property or separate principal buildings, not pennitted buildings. So the real minimum variance that they've requested, and I think the Staff concluded, that there is no impact on public facilities by the request. I think it would be in keeping with the intent of the Ordinance to allow what's being requested and I think the practical difficulty is demonstrated very clearly. MR. KELLEY-I guess for our own justification I'd have to ask the question, was any other land attempted to be purchased? MIKE KAIDAS MR. KAIDAS-Yes, I'm Mi ke Kaidas. Since I bought the property I have sent letters to Mr. Denison at the D & H and because the Town of Queensbury has the right to deny the property, Warren County has the right to deny, there's a piece of property on the side of me. The State of New York has the right to offer the property and now I got a letter from D & H just recently, they're in litigation right now. So, itls all status quo and I doubt that Mike Carusone would sell me a piece of property and I know the people to the back of me won't sell a piece of property. So I mean we have tried. MR. O'CONNOR-The property to the back is another zone. It wouldn't be a pennitted use to include it. What Mike is speaking about is that there's a railroad right-of-way, loading ramp there. We've contacted the D & H, before their bankruptcy problems and it has been explained to us that if that line is abandoned, they have to offer it, first, to all municipal agencies and they've had indications from Warren County and from other agencies that they would like to continue the bike path beyond where it is down through even to the Feeder Canal and down the Feeder Canal at least into Glens Falls. So the likelihood of that ever becoming available to us for private use is very little and recently we've gotten stacks and stacks of notices about their bankruptcy because we're on they're list that we would like to be a purchaser, if it ever becomes available. MR. KAIDAS-I would even donate back to them for the bicycle trail because I don't need that much. MR. O'CONNOR-So, there is no available land adjacent to this that could be combined that would make us not require the variance, if that's your question. MR. TURNER-Okay. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NOCOtlENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE 47 -- The Beautification Committee approved (attached) Warren County Planning Board returned "No County Impact" MR. TURNER-Okay, no further questions, no further comment? Motion's in order. MR. KELLEY-Do we need to address this other building as being a third building? MR. TURNER-No, that's there by variance. MRS. GOETZ-It's still making a third building on the property. MR. TURNER-Yes, but they've got almost two acres. MRS. GOETZ-Doesn't that mean it would be two? MR. TURNER-No, but if he came in again and said, look, I've got the Key Bank. I've got this building. I want a storage building. He'd have to get it by variance because it's not allowed in a Highway Commercial Zone. That's how he got it the last time. MRS. GOETZ-Well, I didn't vote for it the last time. MR. TURNER-I know you didn't, but I'm saying that's how he got it the last time. So the same scenario would more than likely appear. MRS. GOETZ-But no matter what, they'd still want the storage building. MR. TURNER-No matter what, they'd want the storage building. He's got to have it. MR. KAIDAS-I'd be out of business without it. MR. TURNER-He'd be out of business without it. He's got a Highway Commercial business that has a product that he needs to put it some place to keep it dry, keep it out of the weather and also some of the objects are big so he needs something to put them in and we don't allow it. MRS. GOETZ-Right, but I voted against that because it went into residential, that was the only reason. I'm not against somebody having storage in Highway Commercial. MR. TURNER-It was a split zone at the time, I think. MR. O'CONNOR-It's not now. MR. TURNER-It's not now. MRS. GOETZ-But that's why I did that. MR. TURNER-It was a split zone. MRS. GOETZ-Because I think that could be developed residentially, years down the road. MR. O'CONNOR-It's not now residential and there's a 50 foot buffer zone and that's part of the reason why we're trying to do what we're talking about. MR. TURNER- Yes. MR. KAIDAS-We considered, in the beginning, and A1 Guerra can vouch for that, that moving, we were saying to each other, well, why don't we move the storage building and attach it to the back of my building, but when you look at it, it starts to become detrimental to the property so we felt that it was best to leave it where it is, buffer it with a nice shrub line in the front and a fence line and I believe it will disappear in the background and Key Bank also agrees with that or else they wouldn't be considering leasing it. MR. TURNER-Yes, right. Okay, motion's in order. lOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE rIl. 93-1990 MICHAEL (AIMS KEY BANK N.A., Introduced by Jeffrey Kelley who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: This is an Area Variance. They're requesting relief from the Section 4.020 K of the Ordinance and the Highway Commercial One Acre Zone. The current lot size is 1.84 acres and the applicant is asking to place two Highway Commercial businesses on this one piece of property. There appears to be no neighborhood opposition to the plan that was presented. Public facilities do not appear to be adversely effected. The granting of this variance will allow the applicant reasonable use of his land and it does not appear to be detrimental to the Ordinance. He's seeking relief of .16 acres. The Short EAF shows no negative impact and the applicant tried to pursue the purchase of adjoining lands to comply with the Ordinance, but found no additional land available. 48 - - Duly adopted this 28th day of November, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Carr, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: Mrs. Goetz ABSENT: Mr. Shea NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 3-90 BY THE QUEENSBURY PLMNING BOARD REGARDING PROPERTY OF JANET R. LEONELLI ON BIRCH ROAD, GLEN LAKE, TAX MAP NO. 39-1-27. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR AN INTERPRETATION/APPEAL FROM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR' S DECISION ON SECTION 7 .102C, 7.0120 FROM THE TOlIN OF QUEENSBURY ZONING ORDINANCE. THIS RELATES TO SHORELINE FILL/HARD SURFACING AND ALTERATION TO THE SHORELINE. MR. LEONELLI, PRESENT MR. TURNER-Dave, we got your letter. I think we've all read it, but for the record, maybe you ought to state why you did what you did. MR. CARR-Before we get started, is it two issues? Is it the camp fill and the retaining wall fill or is it only the retaining wall? MR. TURNER-The retaining wall. MRS. COLLARD-I think it's two issues. MR. CARR-Okay, the camp fill. Well, according to Dave's letter, if I may Dave, so you don't have to go through the whole thing, he says there is no fill to the camp, the rebuild of the camp. Is that correct? DAVE HATIN MR. HATIN-That's correct and Mr. Leonelli's here. MR. CARR-Okay, so that issue is kind of dead because that's not an issue. MRS. COLLARD-I phoned Mrs. Leonelli and she said they will not be bringing any fill to the property. MR. CARR-Will they be using fill from the property, taking it from one part of the property and moving it to another? MR. HATIN-Mr. Leonelli is here he could, perhaps, answer that better than I. MR. LEONELLI-We're not bringing any fill in. MRS. GOETZ-But filling can be from other. MR. LEONELLI-There won't be a cup full of soil brought in. MR. CARR-Are you moving it from one part of the property to the next? MR. LEONELLI-Well, we have to push some land around. The fonner neighbor buried a car in there, for one thing. We found a '53 DeSoto in there and we had to take that out. MR. CARR-But you don't have like a hill on your property. You're going to take the hill out so you don't have to truck in fill. MR. LEONELLI-I'm going to take the hill out. I've got to take the hill out because there's a car under there. MR. CARR-Right. All I'm saying though is you aren't saying that I'm not bringing in fill because I've got plenty of fill on my property? MR. LEONELLI-I just have to move the soil around. That's all I've got to do. I've got to take that out. I've got to move some soil up on the top part of where Mashuta is to put my septi c system where it shows on the map. MR. CARR-But you aren't going to use the fill to back fill the foundations or stuff like that? MR. LEONELLI-No. MR. CARR-Okay, that's all I wanted to know. 49 MR. LEONELLI-And we're going to full cellar in the thing and we're building a camp. We've decided not to have a permanent home. It will be a new structure, but it will be a camp, 20 by 38, and it will be two stories high. MR. CARR-Okay. MR. LEONELLI-But we're not bringing any soil in and the old wall is laying out there in the Lake. It fell down and Tim's going to pull it out of there with a backhoe. There's a great big piece of, a couple of pieces of cement out there. MR. CARR-Alright, so as to the camp, I'm satisfied that there's no fill being brought in. So that's a dead issue. I don't know how the rest of the Board feels. MR. TURNER-I asked Dick that yesterday, if they brought any fill in and he said no. MR. CARR-Okay because I don't want to get into a lot of issues that aren't there. MR. LEONELLI-I bought the lot only because my wife has to have a flat piece of property, okay. We can't have hills and it's flat and it's got to stay flat and there's a wall on one side that's, Mashuta's up thi s hi gh and Rivette's on the other si de is hi gher and we stayed down as low. In fact, the wall is lower, right now, than the actual finished grade and we didn't bring this thing up. I was asked if I wanted a wall that was up six foot high. Well, we didn't want to go that high. We just wanted to make it as inconspicuous as possible. In fact, my wife asked me if I would paint the wall brown or green, so it would kind of blend in, so somebody driving by on the Lake wouldn't see it. She hates the wall, okay, but I had to put it in and as far as the camp is concerned, it's at the dump. MR. TURNER-Okay, Dave. DAVE HATIN MR. HATIN-Alright. I guess there's still two parts of this appeal that are left and the first one is whether this Leonelli's needs Site Plan Review for the camp itself. As I stated in the letter, I affirmed this with the attorney today, in fact, on another matter, again, not related to Leonelli's. We talked to a Harry Willis from New York Department of State, some type of legal affairs that deals strictly with zoning. MRS. COLLARD-He's the attorney. MR. HATIN-He did affirm the fact that once a new structure receives a variance, it is no longer considered nonconforming and is in fact considered conforming and therefore would not fall under the guidelines of Site Plan Review required for nonconforming structures and that's twice now that we've had that affirmed. So I think their first point about the camp needing Site Plan Review is moot by that fact and that's what I discussed in the letter. MS. CORPUS-Dave, I just wanted to ask you, you didn't specifically discuss this issue with Paul? MR. HATIN-No. We did not discuss Leonelli's, no. MR. CARR-All right. So, tell us about the retaining wall. MR. HATIN- The retaining wall, I think, actually, and this is something nobody got into, but I think you also have to go to Article 9, which I stated in my letter. Article 9 does allow the maintenance of nonconforming structures and may be continued or maintained in reasonable repair. When this originally came to me, Tim Barber came in to me and said he wanted to build a retaining wall. My first reaction was, no, until I had some proof that there was one actually there. I visited the property, talked to the neighbors so that I wouldn't get any biased information. I talked to the neighbors, I said, was there a retaining wall here over the years and he said yes, it went basically straight across from my property to the neighbors property. He said it was built out of stone and masonry, and just out of neglect of the previous owners it's just fallen down and as Mr. Leonelli stated, it's fallen into the Lake and you can still see remnants of it there. I felt that under Article 9 as well as part of Section 7.012C, or whatever it is, that allows retaining walls up to 16 inches, I felt that maybe the Ordinance did not take into effect when you have an existing retaining wall that you're allowed to maintain it or replace it and therefore I allowed them to replace exactly what they had there and I don't feel I violated any Section of the Ordinance. MR. SICARD-I think it states that right here, Dave, as far as that's concerned, where it specifically states, that's 7.012C, specifically states that any type of retaining wall shall be discouraged, except where a natural state cannot be maintained due to excessive slope or erosion problems and certainly that fits right in there. 50 - MR. HATIN-It does fit in. There is the 16 inches which I do agree, the 16 inches is in there, but I still feel that that's possibly a Section that's in conflict with Article 9 which does allow nonconforming structures to be maintained. MR. TURNER-So how high is his retaining wall now? MR. HATIN-I would say it's approximately four feet. Is that right? MR. LEONELLI-It's four feet and the one's on both sides are about six feet. MR. TURNER-How high did the neighbors say the retaining wall was before? MR. HATIN-The existing retaining wall, and there were still remnants of it on the, I guess I would call it the south end or the right hand side of the property if you're facing the Lake ~ right up to the top where the retaining wall is now. That was still intact against the Rivette property. In fact, you can see where they excavated it out to put the retaining wall in that same exact location. On the other side, they were just the remnants of, partially, down by the Lake high water mark of the wall, and I did ask Mr. Rivette and he said, yes, it was that high. Yes, it did go straight across to the neighbors property of the other side and he said it's just fallen down over the years from neglect and you could see the erosion problem. There was no doubt about it. In fact, for the Board's I information, we were called out there last year on a septic complaint of septic running into the Lake from this property. I spent a Saturday out there doing a dye test for four hours and could find no remnants of that, but they were claiming it was coming out through the front where the retaining wall used to be and we couldn't prove it through a dye test. MRS. GOETZ-Well, there does appear to be a contradiction between 7.012C versus (Article) 9. MR. HATIN-Yes. My feeling is the part about retaining walls that require Site Plan Review is if you were going to modify and existing retaining wall or rebuild one that's not there. MR. TURNER-Build a brand new one, right. MR. HATIN-Bui1d a brand new one, or modify an existing one, make it larger, change the location of it, elevations of it. That's what I feel Site Plan Review's in there for. The same thing for an alteration of shoreline, where you can maintain a shoreline, but you can't alter it. I think maybe when this was written nobody took into effect the conflicts that were created by giving the Zoning Administrator the authority, which I feel it does, to determine whether you can replace a retaining wall or not. MRS. GOETZ-Do you like that authority? MR. HATIN-I think it speeds the process up and as I stated in my letter, I'm still not sure what the Planning Board's out to gain, here. We required Mr. Barber to put up a silt fence. We did not allow him to put any fill in the Lake or do any dredging of the Lake which he has not done, and I checked because I knew this was going to be a problem when it started, in fact, I'm surprised it took this long to get appealed. So, we've kept a close eye on it and, to me, he has not violated. In fact, the footings were poured on top of the stone from the existing retaining wall, other than that one corner. MRS. GOETZ-Dave, so you're saying that you don't feel this is like a full fledged replacement of the retaining wall? MR. HATIN-I would say it's a full fledged replacement of exactly what was there, previously, over the years. MRS. GOETZ-But, as I read it, any replacement does come under that Section 7.012C. MR. HATIN-I believe that, but also, it says alteration and here you're not altering anything. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, if you're not replacing it, though, you're altering it. MR. CARR-Well, I agree, though, more with Dave's idea. I mean, the retaining wall had not completely disintegrated. MR. HATIN-No. There were still remnants of it there. MR. CARR-So, I mean, this was just an extensive maintenance of a nonconforming structure. MR. HATIN-Definite1y. MR. CARR-And I think it makes a lot more sense to let them replace, maintain, and keep in good order something they already have that's nonconforming and to interpret that this retaining wall provisions are for, as you have said, either new retaining walls, enlargements or alterations of direction or 51 '---' ~ something like that. Otherwise, I think a lot of just general maintenance programs, everyone of them would have to be on the agenda. MR. HATIN-And Article 9 does allow you to maintain and continue in reasonable repair, nonconfonning structures. MRS. GOETZ-So do you think that Section 7.012C just needs to be rewritten? MR. HATIN-I think if whoever wrote that wants all retaining walls that are going to be over 16 inches to come to Site Plan Review, I don't have a problem with that, if that's what the Town Board wants to make law, but I just don't think that's the way it's worded right now. MR. CARR-They could change Section 9 to exclude all retaining walls. MR. HATIN- The problem is we're finally starting to see the conflicts in the Ordinance and I will tell the Board, since I have been here two and a half years, or since the inception of this Ordinance, have historically allowed replacement of retaining walls that preexisted, as long as it was identical to what was there, and we had proof of that. MR. TURNER-Well, yes. It's a judgement call on your part. MR. HATIN-Right. MR. TURNER-When you go to the property and i denti fy what's there, 1Q!!. make the judgement callas to what was there and what you're going to allow to be done. MR. HATIN-Right, and we've always insisted that we have some proof. I mean, one was replaced. It wasn't even there, but the person who was replacing it produced a post card of what used to be there and that was what he had replaced, because I wasn't so sure I was going to let him continue unti 1 he produced that post card. MRS. GOETZ-Yes, because if you think about it, what.!.! the Planning Board trying to accomplish? How are they going to make it change? What would they want to see? MR. HATIN-I don't know. MR. TURNER-Dave, do they know the history behind this, that you made the judgement call? MR. HATIN-That was discussed with Peter Cartier, yes. MR. TURNER-That there was a retaining wall there? MR. HATIN- There was a retaining wall there. I allowed replacement of exactly what was there and I did investigate it. MR. TURNER-I can see the part about the fill. I can see if Mr. Leonelli's going to bring in 100 yards of fill, that's fill. All right, but if Mr. Leonelli's just going to move some earth that's on the site, that's not fill. MR. HATIN-Sand, right. Like say in the letter, there is going to probably what I estimate as 16 to 20 yards of fill put behind this wall where the shoreline has collapsed. MR. TURNER-Where the shoreline is taken out, yes. MR. HATIN-And they're going to replace that, but again he's not bringing up the elevation either. It's the same elevation that's there. MR. CARR-And with the maintenance of the retaining wall you're going to have to put some fill in. MR. TURNER-It's maintenance. You've got to take care of it, that's right. MR. CARR-Because that's what the retaining wall is there for. MR. HATIN-Right, to replace it you've got to excavate. Fortunately, this is one of the few retaining walls where I've seen, there's been very minor excavation to replace it because it basically has eroded over the years into the Lake and they just put it back where it was and then are going to back fill behind it. MRS. GOETZ-Another thing that we need to talk about is, do we consider hard surfacing, applying to a retaining wall? MR. HATIN-To me, hardsurfacing is, when you hardsurface an area, the only hard surface you're going to have is the top of the retaining wall, that's it. The rest of it is going to be grass and dirt, as far as I'm concerned. 52 '- -' MR. CARR-I think that's a real stretch. MR. TURNER-That's right. Hardsurface is related to blacktop or concrete. MRS. GOETZ-That's what I thought it was. MR. HATIN-If they were going to put a cement patio out there or a deck or something of that nature. I would say. yes. that's hardsurfacing. MRS. GOETZ-But they want us to mention that in this request. MR. HATIN-Yes, obviously, I disagree with that part of it. too. I think there maybe needs to be some re-wording of this Section. if it's not saying what people want it to say. MRS. EGGLESTON-I think they're right. though. It's this. .!!!. addition. thing that really confuses the matter because it because it does start out to say they'll have Site Plan Review, period. MR. HATIN-But if you look at the heading, it says. Alteration of Shoreline. and here I don't think you have an alteration of shoreline. MR. TURNER-Yes. but you look at C and it says, Retaining Walls, and you look down in the third sentence down it says. a condition to be detennined by the Zoning Officer. So, he's got to go out there and look at the site and detennine what's there. He makes that decision. MR. HATIN-And I think that is an exception to the first part of that Section. MR. SICARD-They also say that he can't allow construction of retaining walls without Site Plan Review. right on the next line. MR. TURNER-Yes, but I'd say that relates to a brand new one. MRS. GOETZ-When you talked to Peter. did he see the problem. that there might be a conflict in the wording? MR. HATIN-We didn't really get into that. He felt that it was straight forward, that the Planning Board had the authority to review this, and I said I believe that by that Section C that Mr. Turner just read. about the Zoning Enforcement Officer, that that's the exception to the first part that he felt was straight and clear. MR. TURNER-I agree that they'll have to review it if it's brand new. I agree with that completely. MR. HATIN-Yes. MR. TURNER-And I think it spells it right out there. I don't have any problem with the wording. MRS. GOETZ-What about this other thing, though? MR. TURNER-I don't have any problem with that. MRS. GOETZ-You don't. with C? MR. TURNER-No. MRS. GOETZ-Being in conflict with 9.010? MR. TURNER-It's a common sense call. MRS. GOETZ-You do have to use common sense. MR. TURNER-If you go there and see what's there. you've got to call it like it is. If it's not there, you call it one way. If it's there. you call it another way. He's got to have some latitude. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. We better word this carefully, then. MR. HATIN-I would ask that you address. just because of the conflicts that seems to be cropping up every time the Planning Board appeals me, I would ask that you address each individual question they have. specifically. So. there is no question. MRS. GOETZ-Yes. because this isn't going to go away. This is going to come up over and over. MR. HATIN-Yes. I don't want it to come back again. I want this to be over and done with. 53 - -- MRS. GOETZ-Well, one thing though, you shouldn't worry if they question you. Wouldn't you rather have it... . MR. HATIN-I don't worry when they question me. I worry when they try to play Zoning Administrator, and this is what I feel they're trying to do, in my opinion. MRS. GOETZ-Do you think so? MR. HATIN-Yes, I do. MR. TURNER-I don't think they are. MR. GOETZ-I just think they want to have it, the words to go by. MR. TURNER-Did Pete even go look at the wall? MR. HATIN-I don't know. MR. TURNER-Well, if he didn't go look at it, I think he's assuming that it's a brand new one. MR. HATIN-He was a told that it was a replacement. He was told in a meeting that he and I had. In fact, I called him in for a meeting, specifically, on this. MR. KELLEY-My only thing, I think I understand where Peter's coming from. MRS. GOETZ-Yes, I do, too. MRS. EGGLESTON-I do, too. MR. KELLEY-I can read it that way and I understand it and I could say yes, well, maybe they do want to see Site Plan Review and the only thing I can say why they might want to do that is because a lot of the properties that we have to deal with involve the APA. The Zoning Ordinance has obviously changed since they did in 1900 when maybe that sea wall or whatever it is was first built. MRS. EGGLESTON-Right. MR. KELLEY-We're talking about a lot more people and population around the water. There's more concerns now over environmental things and runoffs and all that sort of thing and I wonder if that's why that's there and that's what the intent was. They want to look at everything. MR. CARR-Well, I think for a smooth government, you can't do that. I mean you've got to give some power and authority to the people you've hired and who are trained to do a good job. Otherwise, you're just going to get everything. I mean, I can see these are very sensitive areas, but I think Dave, Pat, the other people of the Staff are very sensitive to those concerns. So I think if there was -ª..!!l. question that it might be detrimental to this sensitive area, that they would have placed it before the Board and I just think you've got to allow them some latitude to make a decision. Otherwise they won't make any decisions. MR. HATIN-And if I might add to that, too. Ultimately, we are charged with whatever the Planning Board approved. I would still have to go out there and do it. I felt, knowing how the Planning Board ruled on other projects, I required everything they would have required anyway and if you go out there, today, the silt fence is there right now. MRS. GOETZ-Yes, I mean, you do a good job with that, Dave, but what if it was somebody else. We've had problems in the past. MR. HATIN-Well, I can see their concerns. MRS. GOETZ-I have confidence in you, but I just think we need to work on the words, here, and maybe recommend that a change be made or whatever, in the wording. MR. HATIN-If it needs to be re-worded, as I have stated in the past, I have no problem with anybody changing any Section of this Ordinance to say whatever they want to. Just tell me what to enforce. I feel I'm enforcing what's there, now. MRS. GOETZ-Yes, because it would make it easier for ~ to deal with. MR. HATIN-I don't care what I enforce, as long as I know what I'm enforcing. MRS. GOETZ-Right. It's not easy to do. 54 -' MRS. EGGLESTON-Jeff, are you in agreement with Bruce that the fill is a dead issue. MR. KELLEY-Yes, I am. MR. CARR-For the camp, right, well, and the retaining wall. MR. LEONELLI-Can I say something? You have a very competent Staff, here, that have helped us out a lot and I think without their help we'd have had a little bit more difficulty. I think you should make it so these people can live a little bit easier, not only for me, but for the other people that are approaching you in the future because you're only going to get written up in the Post Star and everything else for not cooperating and so forth. They're trying to do a good job for you. MRS. GOETZ-We know that, but thanks for your comments, though. MR. TURNER-Let's have the Questions that they want right there. We'll go right down through them and take them one at a time and get them over with. MR. CARR-Read the Questions and give them the answers. MR. TURNER-Section 7.0I2C. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED HERB LEVIN MR. LEVIN-Is this for the public? MR. TURNER-Sure. Do you wish to make comment? Sure. MR. LEVIN-My name is Herb Levin and I live one house away from Mr. Leonelli's new project and I don't disagree that, perhaps, it was all handled properly. I disagree that this wall is there. Li ke your wife, I don't like it at all. I saw it this morning for the first time. It's four and a half feet above the water line. The water line, the old embankment was maybe six inches to a foot above the water line. We've changed the shoreline. The shoreline now exists from McPhillips to Mashuta's, a solid sea wall. We've endangered the ecology. What was done in the past whenever the original wall was built, may not have been the right thing to do. What we've done now is replaced something that wasn't right to start with or shouldn't have been built that way with something else that's going to last another however many years. I'm not voicing any opposition to Mr. Leonelli's project, legally, it's obvious that he's fulfilled all the obligations that he has to. There's no fill brought in, but we've changed the shoreline tremendously and I can see where Mrs. Leonelli might not like the wall because it's going to be real hard for her to get to that water. In the old, eroded state, she could have just stepped right into the water. Now, she's going to have to go over four and a half feet of concrete. It's a foot thick, this wall, and I just can't believe that, in the Building Department, that they can just go ahead and just automatically accept something like this that, basically, endangers the ecology. It's going to be a nuisance factor to us because we're the first little bit of free land in probably about six hundred feet. There's all sorts of little critters and creatures that come up every night onto the shoreline. They won't be able to get over the concrete walls. They're going to be able to get right onto my property. So, I'm going to have more than my share. I don't mind having my share, but let's be fair and, basically, this is an eyesore. I think that this wall should never have been rebuilt. Thank you. MR. CARR-I understand your position, but I think, just from my personal feeling is that once it's there it's very hard to take another person's property rights away. MR. LEVIN-He has every right to put up something ugly. MR. CARR-Sure, and that's where it comes in that it was a nonconfonning structure already there that was in disrepair. MR. LEVIN-Well, it wasn't there. It wasn't in disrepair. Perhaps there were pieces of it in the water. My son who has swam by it for the last five years was very surprised to hear that there was ever a retaining wall there. The shoreline had, basically, settled. It was a lovely lot. It was probably the best lot on the Lake. It had a gradual slope and you could step right off the bank into the water. I'd love to have a lot like that. I have a steep pitch. I think that type of retaining wall he built is wrong, is the wrong height and is the wrong angle. It could have been done a lot less environmentally antagonistic. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. LEONELLI-Let me mention one thing for the record. My wife just couldn't ordinarily step down there. My wife is handicapped and there's no way she's going to get in that water unless I did what I did. 55 -- MR. LEVIN-She's going to have a tough time. That's a tall wall, unless you build steps. MR. LEONELLI-We're going to have a dock down there that she'll be able to get down to. There's no other way to get down there, otherwise. MR. LEVIN-It would have been a lot easier before. MR. LEONELLI-Not really. I've lived with it for 14 years. I know. MR. TURNER-Any other comment from the public? Okay, public hearing's closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Okay, let's address the issues, one at a time. 7.012C. MRS. GOETZ-Well, I think there's a conflict in the two Sections. I mean, wouldn't that be addressing the first question? "The Planning Board Acting Chairman believes the positions of the respective Zoning Administrators to be an error of interpretation." Do we agree that's the first question we have to answer? MR. TURNER- Yes. MR. CARR-What? MRS. GOETZ-The fact that Peter says that they made an error in interpretation of that Section 7.012C. MR. TURNER-That's the one we've got to address. MR. CARR-But don't we have to interpret it, to decide that question? MRS. GOETZ-Right. MR. CARR-Okay. MRS. GOETZ-Is that it? Do we agree that that's what we have to deal with right now. MR. TURNER-We have to deal with the alteration to the shoreline, that's the section he's referring to. MR. CARR-Yes. MR. TURNER-And it addresses the excavation, addition, or replacement. I think "replacement" is the key word. "Shall be undertaken without Site Plan Review". MRS. GOETZ-Well, when I read that, it says that it should go to Site Plan Review. MR. KELLEY-Right. MR. TURNER-Yes, that's what it says. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. So we all agree with that? MR. TURNER-The word that I have a problem with, there, is "replacement". Do you think that every retaining wall that comes in as a replacement has to go to Site Plan Review? Then you go over to C, under that same section, which addresses retaining walls, that they shall be discouraged except in a case where the alternative of shoreline restoration to a natural state is impossible due to excessive slope or severe erosion problems". MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, if we stop right there, this doesn't fit that, does it? MR. TURNER-"A condition to be determined by the Zoning Officer." MR. CARR-Mr. Chairman, could I make a resolution as to how I interpret 7.012C? MR. TURNER-Let's see what Dave has to say. MR. HATIN-If I may just answer Mrs. Eggleston's question. When I went over there, there is a severe slope. I would kind of take exception to Mr. Levin. The grade that was at the edge of where the shoreline hits the bottom of a wall or the bottom of the lot was actually about three and a half to four feet or whatever level the retaining is now. It dropped down, and you could see where it had been undermined and soil was actually flopping over and that's evident today. If you go out there right now you can still see it because they didn't disturb that yet. So there was a severe erosion problem which I feel 56 -.-/ created the collapse of the retaining wall and it did drop. So, I feel those two conditions ~ there, otherwise I wouldn't have allowed it. MRS. GOETZ-You mentioned you talked to different neighbors. Was Mr. Levin one of them? MR. HATIN-No. I tried to talk to the two adjoining neighbors. Mr. Rivette was home. The other neighbor, who I don't know their name, was not there and as far as I know, their camp looked like it was closed up for the wi nter and I went out there when thi s was brought to me and I be 1 i eve it was back in, I'm going to say the middle or end of September. I'm not sure when. MRS. EGGLESTON-Did the Rivette's have a problem with it? MR. HATIN-No. Mr. Rivette thought it would be an improvement to the shoreline. That's what he told me. I don't want to speak for him, but that's what he told me. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. CARR-I'd like to just take a shot at an interpretation of the alteration to shoreline setback. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARR-I would interpret the Sections, words of Addition or Replacement of Retaining Walls to mean the construction of a new wall or the alteration or enlargement of an existing wall. I would interpret that the replacement of a retaining wall to the exact size and location of a preexisting, nonconforming retaining wall, is governed by Section 9.011 of the Ordinance. That's just how I see the difference between thi s. MR. SICARD-Would you want to include something in there, Mr. Carr, about backfilling with the existing dirt that's on the lot. MRS. COLLARD-I was going to ask if you could address fill and hardsurfacing, please. MRS. GOETZ-Well, we have to because they ask us to. MR. CARR-Okay. Let me address what I think is a logical meaning of filling, okay, and Site Plan Review. Filling, for the purpose of maintaining the preexisting, nonconforming retaining wall and not changing the grade of the property, other than to replace eroded material, is not the filling that would come under Site Plan Review. MRS. COLLARD-Do you distinguish between bringing fill in as opposed to moving existing? MR. TURNER-How about bringing it in? MR. CARR-You see, I have trouble, to me, filling from within a parcel means you've got a mound of dirt next to... MR. TURNER-An excavation, we'll say, take an excavation, you want to dispose of. MR. SICARD-This might apply to this particular case, but it may not apply to a case where they've got to bring in three or four hundred yards of fill to fill a lot, let's say. So, if this same situation existed with the wall, they would also have to bring in some fill from the outside and this particular case, he's got a lot of fill, but there could be a slope going backwards from the front to the back where they have to bring in a lot to maintain a level lot. MR. CARR-Yes, well, I guess my question is, in how many instances in the Town are there retaining walls in such disrepair that that would become a problem? I mean, would that be more of a problem, you're going to bring in three or four hundred yards for a ~ retaining wall, or are there a lot of retaining walls out there that have already eroded to the position. I mean, Dave, do you have any feeling on that path? MR. SICARD-How about, say, an adequate fill. MR. HATIN-I don't know. I'll tell you, I haven't counted the number of retaining walls. I've seen them all, but I haven't counted them. MR. CARR-We coul d say, and fi 11 is determi ned to be a reasonable amount of fi 11, but then it throws it right back at Dave. MR. HATIN-I think that maybe I can, I don't know if I can interject? MR. TURNER-Go ahead. 57 - .- MR. HATIN-I think filling is when you are filling an area that never had anything there. Okay. To me, that's filling, or going beyond and filling an area, let's say they want to fill an area, fill in the Lake. I believe that has to go to Site Plan Review and I've stopped that, before, but I think your point is well taken that if you replace a retaining wall, obviously, you're going to have to backfill that retaining wall after it's thing. As long as you maintain original grade and don't raise the elevation of the grade.... MR. SICARD-Could you say, Dave, not to exceed the level of the top of the wall? MR. HATIN-I would say not to exceed what was previous grade level, yes. I mean, if Mr. Leonelli wanted to raise that wall another foot, bring in a foot of fill, I think he's got to go to Site Plan Review. MR. CARR-Right, at that point. MR. HATIN-As ridiculous as it might sound, I think he has to go to Site Plan Review, but in this particular case, he's replacing a wall that was there before. As Mr. Levin says, it's different and it looks different than maybe what was there 40 years ago, but it's still a replacement of what was there and he's got a backfill behind it. Otherwise he's going to have a water pocket. MR. CARR-I would agree with Charlie, though, because the only verifiable is to the grade of the original wall. MR. HATIN-Right. MR. CARR-I mean, we don't know if it was over or above, but that's a nice standard to set, that you can bring in fill, but only to the top of the wall. MR. SICARD-The top of the wall is pretty adequate. MR. TURNER-If Mr. Leonelli built that wall and he had on-site fill from the property, from an excavation, we'll say, and he had to fill in area the length of the property on the Lakeshore four feet back, would you consider that fill? MR. HATIN-If it was above the original grade. MR. TURNER-No, I mean if it goes the same grade? MR. HATIN-If it goes the same grade, no, I would say no. MRS. GOETZ-I don't think it matters where fill comes from. It's where it's going that is the problem. MR. HATIN-I think that's the issue here is when are you filling. I guess the issue is filling, not so much fill. When are you filling? To me, when you're filling is when you're raising grades where extending the size of a lot to where it's never been before. You raise it up a foot. It was a foot lower. If you bring it out a foot or two, it was always right there. MR. TURNER-If you're bringing in fill that's foreign to the property then you're filling. MR. HATIN-If you're bringing in fill to replace, to bring back to original grade, I think you've got the same condition whether you take it from the lot or whether you bring it from another lot. I don't think that changes anything. I think you've got to apply the same logic here. I only feel that when you raise grade or whatever. MR. CARR-Yes, I think that's true. It doesn't matter where it came from. MR. HATIN-What would be the difference, I guess. Imported soil versus native soil, you're still filling the same area. MRS. EGGLESTON-Right. MR. HATIN-Bruce, just to get back to your first motion, you stated Section 9.011. I think it's 9.010. MR. CARR-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-It is. MR. HATIN-I just wanted to clarify that, so there's no confusion. MRS. GOETZ-But their question, here, is they want to know if hardsurfacing applies to creation of a retaining wall, which is a hardsurface. MR. CARR-Ri ght. 58 --- MRS. GOETZ-I think they're asking still another question, here. MR. HATIN-I would like you to answer it, if you feel that way, because I don't want to have any... MRS. GOETZ-Okay, good. MR. CARR-I do not feel a retaining wall comes under the definition of Hardsurface. It's as simple as that. MRS. COLLARD-Would you like to give an example of a hardsurface? MR. TURNER-Define a hardsurface. MR. CARR-Blacktop, concrete. MRS. COLLARD-Thank you. You mean like a patio? MR. CARR-Horizontal concrete as in a patio, right, or a deck. MRS. GOETZ-Because it's not in the Definitions either. MRS. COllARD-No, it's not. MRS. GOETZ-In fact, I tried to go through all the minutes of the Advisory Committee to see if we ever talked about it. MRS. COllARD-That's a good idea. MRS. GOETZ-And I couldn't find that we did. MR. TURNER-What's that? MRS. GOETZ-I looked through all the minutes of the Advisory Committee to see if we discussed it in anticipation of this and the only thing I found was that they said we'd talk about it later, but I thought that would shed some light on it. MR. CARR-So, is there anything else that they want to talk about? I mean, the camp fill we can't really talk about because there is no fill. MRS. GOETZ-Okay, we've discussed filling as it refers to importation of materials to a site because that's the other question. Does filling refer to the importation of materials to a site or does it also refer to the movement of materials from one location on the site to another in order to modify the topography? MR. CARR-Well, that is correct, but it has no bearing on this particular instance. MRS. GOETZ-Well, they're asking, you know the thing that we just talked about. MR. CARR-Then I would say, yes, filling could be movement of earth from one part of a parcel to another, depending on the circumstances of that movement. MRS. COllARD-If it effects the grade. MR. CARR-Well, it's definitely going to effect the grade. MRS. GOETZ-But we should spell that out, shouldn't we? How could we say that? MR. HATIN-I don't know. Maybe this is dangerous, me wording your own decision. I would have to say that filling, whether the soil is imported or native to the property, is when you change grade elevation or extend a lot to a point where the lot has never been before. MRS. GOETZ-Have we covered everything? Now, if Maria can read it back. MR. HATIN-Another question I have and I just want to ma ke sure it's not an outstandi ng issue. They did ask one thing about whether the Zoning Officer can detennine, under Section C, whether you can replace a retaining wall. I don't know if your first resolution answers that, or does it? MR. CARR-Yes, you can. If you can detennine through independent means or your own observation that it's the replacement of a nonconfonning preexisting retaining wall, then, yes, you have that power, as far as I'm concerned, to tell them to repair, maintain, or replace. If they want to enlarge it, alter it, or if you believe it to be a new retaining wall, then no, you don't have that power. 59 - MR. HATIN-Site Plan Review is required, and I would agree with that. MR. CARR-I think, Jeff, you've got to try to read the Ordinance as a working document that has no inconsistencies, which is almost impossible, but you've got to try to, in your own mind, put the two Sections together, the Nonconforming Structure, which under the definition of Structure, under which I think a retaining wall clearly falls, because it's any object, it's not a building, it's any object used on property. So, the retaining wall's a nonconforming structure, but then you've got retaining walls mentioned here and I think the only logical conclusion you can come to, and under Zoning Law, people with nonconforming preexisting have special rights, under Zoning, that a lot of other people don't have. So, I think you almost have to exclude all nonconforming structures and uses out from almost every other Section of the Ordinance and then you're stuck with, well, what does the replacement of retaining wall mean. Well, it can't mean, the replacement of just the nonconforming or the maintenance of a nonconforming structure because that's under Article 9. So, it can only mean it's the enlargement or alteration or a completely new addition to a retaining wall. So, I think that just makes sense, reading the two Sections together, that you'd almost have to interpret it that way because Arti cle 9, when it's nonconforming preexi sti ng, it supercedes anythi ng the Ordinance can do. Don't you think? MR. SICARD-That's right. MR. CARR-It's like a deck of cards. Nonconforming are Aces. You can't change them. MRS. GOETZ-I guess it comes down to what is maintaining and what is other. MR. CARR-Right. MRS. GOETZ-And then you go back to Section, here, where it says, Zoning Officer can determine whether or not they could leave it natural and you said no because of excessive slope or severe erosion problems. So, you determined that. MR. HATIN-Yes, if you examine it, it meets those two criteria. You do have an excessive slope because you had a drop off and actually undermining of the property and you have erosion. MRS. GOETZ-But that's what you went to that Section, right? MR. HATIN-Yes. I felt that because those two things were there, those conditions existed, I could determine that they could replace it. MRS. GOETZ-Yes, so this was the exception to many retaining walls coming before Site Plan Review. MR. HATIN-I feel that was the intent. I could be wrong. I don't know, but that's just the way I read it. MR. CARR-But that's a good interpretation of that Section, too. MR. KELLEY-A hundred years ago there was a retaining wall across a thousand feet of shore front and it disintegrated. Now, a hundred years later, a guy in the middle says, I'm going to rebuild my retaining wall because l've got an old post card that was taken in a tin plate and there was a wall there and I'm going to rebuild it. What they're saying, yes, you can go right ahead and do it, but you may mess up everybody around you and that's why I still say it's got to go back to Site Plan Review. They're the ones, this guy has every right to do this, according to what you guys are saying. What about the neighbors? He just destroyed them. Maybe they don't have the money to build this super duper wall and change all their landscape. MR. SICARD-Well, maybe their wall isn't falling down, either. MR. KELLEY-No, I'm saying if there was a great big long Napa State. Let's say half of the wall fell down from there to Black Mountain, all right. You buy the chunk in the middle and you want to rebuild your wall, but it effects your neighbors on both sides of you. MR. SICARD-Why does it? MR. KELLEY-Because maybe they haven't got the money or the wherewithal to rebuild their wall. MR. SICARD-If they rebuild it as is or as the rest of the wall is. I'm sure if they've got a wall up there four feet, and there's a pi ece fell out of it, Jeff, they're goi ng to rebui 1 d it just up to meet the other existing walls. I think you're going a little deep there. MR. KELLEY-I'm saying this has eroded to this point. MR. HATIN-Just keep in mind, I don't know if it makes the Board any easier, I won't do it unless I have proof. 60 -- MR. CARR-Right, and the post card. I mean, I think the Zoning Administrator, at that point, would have to say well if it's a hundred years old, let's put it before a group to see whether there is proof that you have it there. MR. KELLEY-But that's what I think this Ordinance does. It's the same as the other. It takes the burden off, of political pressure or a one person's thing, that's why you have a Board, be it a Planning Board or a Zoning Board. MR. CARR-So, you're saying, if anybody's got a retaining wall and they want to just point it up, they've got to go to Site Plan Review. I mean, that's the opposite of that, is every little thing you do to that retaining wall goes to Site Plan. MR. SICARD-That's right. There's going to be a lot of walls that are falling down. MR. CARR-I'd rather leave it up to the Zoning Administrator to make a logical, intelligent decision whether or not this is something that should go to Site Plan Review. MR. SICARD-He knows whether it needs to be replaced or not. MR. CARR-Yes. MR. SICARD-And how high it should go. Everyone is different. Every wall is not the same, nor is the ground behind it. MR. CARR-I just think that somebody in the field can make a lot better determination. MR. SICARD-I do, too. MR. KELLEY-Yes, but if it goes to Site Plan, they've got to look at it. MR. CARR-But then you're backlogging Site Plan, because then you're going to have the Zoning Administrator is everything. I mean, why should they tell anybody to do anything. I'd send them all to Site Plan. I mean, you might as well. MR. SICARD-That's right. MR. KELLEY-I think that's what it says. MR. SICARD-You keep him on the hot pan all the time. MR. CARR-That's right. I just think you've got to allow them some leeway. MR. TURNER-He's got to be able to make a judgement call. MR. CARR-That's right. MRS. GOETZ-Okay, do we have to vote on this? MR. TURNER-Okay, do you want to read that back. tÐTION ON mTICE OF APPEAL m. 3-90 BY THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD REGARDING PROPERTY OF JANET R. LEONELLI ON BIRCH ROAD, GLEN LAKE, TAX MAP JII. 39-1-27 I Il)ULD INTERPRET THE SECTIONS, IIJRDS OF ADDITION OR REPLACDENT OF RETAINING WALLS TO MEAN THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEIl WALL OR THE ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT OF AN EXISTING WALL. I Il)ULD INTERPRET THAT THE REPLACEMENT OF A RETAINING WALL 10 THE EXACT SIZE AND LOCATION OF A PREEXISTING, mNCONFORJHNG RETAINING WALL, IS GOVERNED BY SECTION 9.ÒI0 OF THE ORDINANCE. FILLING, FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAINTAINING THE PREEXISTING, JIINCONFORMING RETAINING WALL AND NOT CHANGING THE GRADE OF THE PROPERTY, OTHER THAN 10 REPLACE ERODED MATERIAL, IS mT THE FILLING THAT IIJULD COME UNDER SITE PLAN REVIEW. HARD SURFACES ARE JIlT RETAINING WALLS, BUT ARE JlJRE ALONG THE LINE OF CONCRETE PATIOS, BLACKTOPPED AREAS, CONCRETE PAVEMENT. FILLING, WHETHER THE SOIL IS IMPORTED OR NATIVE TO THE PROPERTY, IS WHEN YOU CHANGE GRADE ELEVATION OR EXTEND A LOT 10 A POINT WHERE THE LOT HAS NEVER BEEN BEFORE, Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: Duly adopted this 28th day of November, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carr, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Turner NOES: Mrs. Eggleston ABSENT: Mr. Shea 61 '- MR. TURNER-I'd like to introduce a resolution recognizing Stuart's commitment to the Board and to his help, because Stuart's going to be leaving us. MRS. GOETZ-Yes, Stuart. Good luck. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Theodore Turner, Chairman 62 'ì I '-- EdeAh/1 L I r~/) Eo" f,/ç d ~ tt:! 1/-;;'.5 .eÞ. C;)t..J~t.!"" $ bw'1 I J.J Y I Z. BGt.f //- ~7 QO -tc:~t1 0/ Ç<.JðM.slJi.Jj . ~"Î z,,,rcI .I :I- iJOu/cI 4,- Var I'¿ln c~ ~r /t'ke I-v k6k my a¡Yf/J (!ó.),IÓ/1 CCH1 :s t/i)C JJe) /') 0 t Q.. '-/0 I ,¿ 60 I 9 c< r"-9 e 0..1- /1"1 B. <'¡ BoLt JJþ, JOe!,J-, '- ) un j, ! .1-) et!eW1.be», /9?0 r ..u,~..___ ß~~!' --r/Jâ/7Á ~u ttJ<-<- R ?7~ . JLANNING It ZONINt DEPARTMENT filE (ùr ~ ~....----~ . - TOWN OF QUEENSBURY -...../ FILE COpy "--' ptJllftftb'K Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: November 26. 1990 By: Stuart G. Baker x Area VmiaDce - U_ Variaøce - Sip Variance - IDterp-etatioa - SubcIi'riaiœ: _ Sketch, _ PNlimiD8ry, Site PlaIa R.mew - Petition for a ChaDge of Zoae == Freshwater Wet1aød8 Permit FiDal Other: Applicatioa Number: Area Variance No. 86-1990 Applicant'. Name: Ricky Sears MeeâDg Date: November 28. 1990 ............................................................................................ The applicant. is requesting a variance requirement of the Ordinance (Section 7.077). according to the criteria listed in Art ide the following comments: from the 40 feet road frontage I have reviewed the application 10 of the Ordinance, and I have 1) The lot uòder consideration in this a~p1ication is one of two lots on Harold Harris Road that do not have the required 40 feet of road frontage. Strict app1icatioa of the Ordinance would make this vacant lot unbui1dab1e. 2) The inability to build on a lot that conforms with requirements of the Ordinance except adequate road frontage considered a pradtical difficulty. all other should be 3) The req.ested variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of the OnIinance and the UR- O zone, nor woulci it conflict with any stated goal, policy, or strategy listed in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The relief re~uested is the minimum necessary to relieve the a9plicant' s practical difficulty. 4) Puhlic mri1ities and services would not be adversely affected. SGB/pw ~-----~ r . - , --' TOWN OF QUEENSBURY p¡_nni"'g Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: November 28, 1990 John Goralski By: .....1L Area VariaDce U. Variance == Sign Variance _ Jnterpntation Other: SubdiYiaion: Sketch, - Site Plan Review - ~ Petition for a Change of Zone Freshwater WetlaDda Permit Pre1imiDary, FiDal Application Number: Area Variance No. 87-1990 Applicant'. Name: Todav's Modern Mobile Home Sales MeetiDg Date: November 28. 1990 ***.***..*..****......*****************************.**************************************** I have reviewed the application with respect to Section \0.040 and have the following comments: \) Strict application of the dimensional requirements would not deprive the applicant of reasonable use of the land. In fact, four units could be constructed on the property instead of the three proposed. 2) This proposal would not be detrimental to other property in the district. This proposal is for less dense development and is in keeping with the single family character ·of the neighborhood. 3) This development will have less impact on public facilities and services than two duplexes would. JG/pw . - '-' FI tf COpy TOWN OF QUEENSBURY P1:l1n,i"B Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Date: November 26, 1990 By: Lee A. York X Area VariaDce - Use Variance == Sip Variance _ Interpretation Other: SubdiYisioa: Sketch, _ PrelimiDary, Site PIaD Rmew - == Petition for a ChaDge of Zone Freshwater WetlaDda Permit FiDal Appücation Number: Area Variance No. 88-1990 Appücant's Name: Timothy F. Barber, Nu-Tech Construction, Sue and Dick Rourke Meeting Date: November 28, 1990 ............................................................................................ The request is to expand an existing residence in a WR-IA zone. The application is confusing and the scale is approximate. Due to these facts, the assessment records for this property were reviewed. The records stated that the living area of the house is 880 sq. ft. The enclosed porch is 220 sq. ft. The addition area (28 x 9, + 4 x 50 = 452) of 452 sq. ft. Due to the fact that the definition of residential gross floor area (number 97 A) excludes attached porches, the Board may want to determine if the applicant also needs a Variance from Section 9.011B (50 percent enlargement). The property is 62 by 215.or 0.31 acres, according to the assessment records, and has no road frontage. The applicant is requesting relief from side and shoreline setbacks. The zone is WR-IA, and the applicant intends to renovate and enlarge a preexisting nonconforming structure. The requested relief is 43 ft., 39 feet, as opposed to the requirement of a sum of 50 feet on the side with a minimum of 20 feet per side. The shoreline request is for 38 feet rather than the required 75 feet. Glen Lake formerly was the site for many seasonal use camps. Over the years, many of the structures along the lake have been renovated to year round use. The Rourke's property is 215 feet by 64 feet on the lakeshore. The Rourke's must meet the testsfor an Area Variance. These are: .. ; '-' -- A V 88-1990 Barber, (Rourke) Are there special conditiODS applying to this property or building, and not applying to others in the neighbœhood? The other lots in the neighborhood are similar in nature. The lots hold camps which have been upgraded. The topography of this lot is not substantially different than those sUlTounding it. Would the strict application of this Ordinance deprive the applicant of reasonable use of the JMVJ-l}'? The property was transfen-ed on May 30, 1990. The residence has always been a camp, and the applicant cWTently has a reasonable use of it. Modifications can be made to the structure to bring it up to code with no Variances. Would the strict application of the dimensional requirements result in a specified practical difficulty? No. The applicant has no practical difficulty. He has the ability to upgrade his camp because he desires to enlarge it, and is not a practical difficulty created by the Ordinance. Would the Variance be materially detrimental to the Ordinance or to property in the district? The Comprehensive Land Use Plan, which is the philosophy behind the Ordinance, states that the intensity of private shoreline development has detracted from the shoreline appearance, and increased the nutrient loading of Glen Lake. The scenic and recreational uses such as swimming and fishing have been impaired because of this. One of the strategies listed with regard to the water resources is to reduce densities in aquifer recharge areas and areas of high soil percolation, which is the Glen Lake area. Another is to reduce potential development intensities in the vicinity of sensitive water resources. The Town Board has declared Glen Lake and the land within 100 feet of the shoreline a Critical Environmental Area. The Zoning and Ordinances were based on the can-ying capacity of the land, and continued expansion of use and area on sensitive lands is detrimental to the purposes of the Ordinance and to the property in the district. Is the request the minimal relief to alleviate the practical difficulty? The applicant has other alternatives which would require no Variances. He could add a partial second story with site plan approval. This option would not create more impermeable area, it would not increase the nonconformity of the lot or building and it would give the owner additional living space. LA Y /sed p ~, - "--' -.-' '1 I ì TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PI::n'ning Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. JaM S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: November 28, 1990 John Goralski By: x Area V8riaDce Use Variance == Sip. Variance _ Interpretation SubdiYisiOR: Sketch, Site PlaIa Rmew - == Petition for a Change of Zone Freshwater WetlaDda Permit PreümiDary, FiDal Other: Application Number: Area Variance No. 89-1990 Applicant'. Name: Marion S. and John P. Cushing Meeting Date: November 28, 1990 ............*.....*........................*................................................ The applicant wishes to replace a deteriorated 6 I by 13' 2" porch with a 14' by 13'6" porch. A site visit showed that the porch is in disrepair. If the porch is not repaired or replaced there is potential for damage to the main house. This will not have a detrimental affect on the neighborhood. The porch will have a greater side yard setback than the existing house and is significantly set back from the Lake and the road. JG/pw . - '- ---. TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PJ"nning Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: November 26, 1990 Lee A. York By: X Area Variance - UseVariaDce - Sip Variance - IDterpretatiou. SubdiriøiOD.: Sketch. Prelim· - - mary, Site Plan Reflew Petitiou. for a ChaDge of Zone - Freshwater WetlaPds Permit FiDal Other: Appücatiou. Number: Area Variance No. QO-1 QQO Roger P., Jr. and Pamela Whiting Appticant's Name: Meeting Date: November 28, 1990 ............................................................................................ The request is to vary the front and side yard setback in a SFR-I0 zone. The property is 5,520 sq. ft. The ClUTent structUre is 784 sq. ft. and the proposal would add 312 sq. ft. to the front of the structure. The side yard setbacks for the addition would be greater than those of the existing structure but on the south side would be 6 inches less than the 10 foot minimum. The front yard setback for the proposed addition would be 21 ft. instead of 30 ft. 1. Are there special circumstances applying to the lot or building, and not applying to the others in the neighborhood? The applicant states that the lot and structure predate zoning in the Town. 2. Would the strict application of the Ordinance deprive the applicant of reasonable use of the land and buildings. The applicant is prohibited from expanding to the rear because of the septic line and system. The side yards are not feasible for expansion because of the footage and the location of the driveway. The addition is to expand the living room area. The applicant states that they have attempted to sell the house and were unable to because the living area size made it undesirable. 3. Would the strict application of the dimensional requirements result in a practical difficulty? The variation from the front yard setback is 9 feet and 6 inches on the south side. There will be no increase demand on public sérvices because of the addition. The variance will not change the neighborhood which is developed at about the same density. The applicant's house is set slightly back from its adjacent neighbors, and the proposal will make them all equidistant from the road. The applicant is prohibited from adding on in any other direction. ",.-. 1 r -- AV 90-1990, Whiting- 4. Would the variance be materially detrimental to the purposes of the Ordinance? No. LA Y /sed ·_.~ . ;..o'!.~ " . - '- ..- TOWN OF QUEENSBURY F I L E COpy PlAnning Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. J 000 S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: November 27, 1990 Stuart G. Baker By: X Area Variance - Use Variance - Sip Variance := Interpretation Other: Subdi9isioD: Sketch. _ PrelimiDary, Site Plan Rmew - Petition for a ChaDge of Zone - Freshwater WetlaJlds Permit FiDal Application Number: Area Variance No. 91-1990 Applicant's Name: Raymond E. Erb Meeting Date: November 28, 1990 ............................................................................................ The applicant is requesting two variances for his Fitzgerald Road property - a side setback variance, and a shoreline variance. These variances are necessary for the proposed addition of a 480 sq. ft. enclosed living area and a 216 sq. ft. deck. I have reviewed the application according to the criteria in Article 10 of the Ordinance, and I have the following comments: 1. This house, like many other homes along Glen Lake, lies entirely with the 75 foot lake setback requirement. These circumstances have not prevented the applicant from the reasonable use of the land or the existing home. 2. Strict application of the Ordinance would not deprive the applicant of continued use of the existing home. 3. The purpose of the Waterfront Residential zoning is as follows: To protect the delicate ecological balance of all lakes and the Hudson River while providing adequate opportunities for development that would not be detrimental to the visual character of the shoreline. The proposed addition may be detrimental to the visual character of the shoreline. The existing home is partially shielded from the lake by the existing trees. The proposed addition, although set farther back than the existing house, would be fully visible from the lake and the properties on the northern shoreline. One of the goals stated in the Queensbury Comprehensive Land Use Plan is: "Restore, protect, develop, and enhance the historic, cultural, recreational, and visual amenities of urban and rural stream corridors and shoreline areas of ponds and lakes." '"_.---_.-_..---- ~ A V 91-1990, Eri --- -" The 75 ft. shoreline setback requirement in the Ordinance was implemented to protect the visual amenities of Queensbury's shoreline areas. The relief requested from the shoreline setback requirement is substantial (30 ft.). Relief requested from the side yard setback requirement is 1.5 ft. To provide a more minimal relief from the shoreline, a smaller addition with a greater setback should be considered. 4. Glen Lake is a public facility, and will continue to be adversely affected by development further encroaching on its shoreline. Public services would not be affected. 5GB/sed .... p ~, - -- -- ~ ¡ í .- . TOWN OF QUEENSBURY pJ:lnning Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: November 28, 1990 By: John Goralski Area VariaDce X Use Variance - Sign Variance - Interpretation Other: SubdiYisicm: Sketch, Site Plan Review - - Petition for a CbaDge of Zone - Freshwater WetlaDde Permit PrelimÏDarf. Final AppUcation Number: Use Variance No. 92-1990 AppUc:ant's Name: James Weller Meeting Date: November 28, 1990 ............................................................................................ It 110-5-2. appears that the applicant wishes a variance for a portion of Lot This portion will then be conveyed to F.W. Webb. It does not appear that this parcel is unique within the zone. However, the parcel is surrounded by light industrial zones. It does not appear that this use will be detrimental to other uses in the neighborhood. Finally, no proof has been offered to prove that a reasonable return cannot be realized if the property is used as zoned. JG/pw ---~-L ~ .. . - '-- -.../ , I TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ríLi: l' I' ;,. "-(' 0: Planning Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. J 000 S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: November 28. 1990 By: Stuart G. Baker -L Area VariaDce Use Variance - Sip Variance == InterpretatiOD Other: SubdiYision: Sketch, Site Plan Review - Petition for a ChaDge of Zone - Freshwater WetlaDda Permit Preliminary, FiDaJ. Appücatioø Number: Area Variance No. 93-1990 AppHcant's Name: Michael Kaidas/Kev Bank N.A. Meeting Date: November 28. 1990 .................................*........................**........................*.*..... The applicant is proposing the construction of a principle building on a 1.84 acre highway commercial parcel. the density requirements of Section 4.020-k of the ordinance, 1 principle building for each 1 acre of lanrl. I have reviewed according to the criteria in Art ic1e 10 of the Ordinance, following comments: second separate A variance from which allows of the application and I· have the I) There are no special circumstances applying to either the land or the existing building. The applicant's difficulty appears to be caused by the Fire Prevention and Building. Code, which does not allow for certain mixed uses in a building of wood frame construction. 2) The dimensional requirements of the Ordinance can be met. The applicant's practical difficulty lies in the new use proposed on the property. The Fire Prevention Code does allow for other allowab Ie uses in an expanded mixed occupancy situation. 3) One of the purposes of the Highway Commerc ial zone is to encourage uses to cluster. This variance would be detrimental to that purpose. The variance does not appear to conflict with any of the goals, policies or strategies of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. It appears that the applicant's practical difficulty results from the type of new use proposed, and not from the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. A mixed use building could be designed to fit within the dimensional requirements of this site and the Ordinance. 4) Public facilities and services would not be adversely affected. JG/pw --- --- TOWN OF QUEENSBURY COMMITTEE FOR COMMUNITY BEAUTIFICATION ... f._ ¡.. ("'I ',1 '/ \~ ',)! { Robert L. Eddy, Chairman 17 Owen Avenue Queensbury, ft. Y. l280¡ TOI (x) Warren County Planning Board (x) Queensbury Town Planning Board (x) Queensbury Town Zoning Board of Appeals (x) Applicant Mrs. Arthur J. Seney, Secretary 8 Queensbury Avenue Queensbury, N. Y. l280~ Datell1/12/90 Rei Area Variance #93-1990 Kaidas Kitchens/Ket Bank - Quaker Road We have reviewed the request fori (X) Variance, (X) Site Plan Review, ( ) Other - and have the following recommendationsl (x) Approval ( ) Di sapproval Although this proposal, at this time, is an area variance, the planting plans for site plan review~ave been approved, subject to no change between now and Site Plan Review. Many of the plants at the present building will be removed to the new building, leaving (or to be planted) Bar Harbor Junipers and Burning Bush in front of the proposed Key Bank Building. The end of the new building (toward Quaker Road) to house Kaidas Kitchens will be three Andorra Junipers with Burning Bush at either end in the jog. On either side of the entrance to this new building toward the railroad siding three Andorra Junipers will be planted. Existing poplars toward the rail road siding will be removed. Poplars are considered weed trees and subject to damage by wind, so they should come down. A retention pond will be at the rear (south end of the property) out of sight. Existing trees in this area will be retained as a buffer to the residential zone. In addition to the above landscaping, screening and planting provisions, the Committee wishes to go on record that it does not approvel 1. Non-conforming signs, 2. Plastic or artificial trees, shrubs or flowers. In approving the above (or attached plans), the Committee has the expressed or implied agreement of the applicant to replace immediately dead trees, shrubs or plants, and to give proper maintenance to all plantings. All rubbish containers or dumpsters shall be screened, all plantings shall be mulched and trees shall be retained or planted, as agreed. ~e ctfully s~mi tte.d, . ? G. ¿x..4 'Ro ert L. Eddy, ChaLfman p ~, - '- - TOWN OF QUEENSBURY 531 Bay Road, Queensbury, NY 12804-9725 (518) 792-5832 REQUEST FOR AN INTERPRET A nON/ APPEAL FROM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-S DECISION Sections 7.01Z C, 7.01Z D of the Town of Queeusbury Zoning Ordinance On November 7, 1990, the Janet Leonelli submission for Site Plan Review was removed from the tentative ag~nda for the November Planning Board meeting. The Zoning Administrator's letter on this matter is attached. Mrs. Collard was asked to explì'l.Ïn her decision with reference to Section 7.012, D, Shoreline Fill/Hard Surfacing, which clearly states that no fill or hard surfacing shall be permitted within 50 feet of any lake...except by site plan approval of the Planning Board. Mrs. Collard stated that her review of the application and site plan did not indicate any filling would take place. She had not requested information on this from the applicant, even though the plans showed removal of an existing camp, construction of a new dwelling unit, placement of dry wells, and a new well within 50 feet of the shores of Glen Lake. In further discussion of this site, David Hatin stated that he, as Zoning Administrator, had given the Leonelli's permission to build a retaining wall without site plan review as required in Section 7~012, C, Alteration to the Shoreline. Mr. Hatin stated that he had the authority to do this because Section 7.012. C, 5, c superseded Section 7.012, C (pages 76, 77). The fact that creation of a retaining wall required filling and, therefore, Planning Board review, per Section 7.012, D, was overlooked. The Planning Board Acting Chairm~n believes the decisions of the respective Zoning Administrators to be an en-or of interpretation. A review of the Ordinance indicates that Section 7.012,: C. Alteration to the Shoreline. No filling,' grading, lagooning, dredging, ditching and excavating of the shoreline or the addition or replacement of retaining walls along the shoreline shall be undertaken without Site Plan Review. The following general stand"ards shall apply for construction along the shoreline: comes before Section 7.012. C, 5, c and states the standard to which the following Sections are subordinate. Further, Section 7.012, C, 5 states: 1 "HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY. . . A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE" SETTLED 1763 - --- 5. In addition, the following specific conditions shall apply: a) FILUNG: There shall be no fill placed in waters of any lake, stream, pond, river or wetland, except as associated with shoreline protective structures, or beach replenishment, or otherwise found to be beneficial to existing shoreline conditions or water quality or clarity. Any fill placed adjacent to any lake, stream, pond, river or wetland shall be protected against erosion. b) DREDGING: There shall be no removal or rearrangement of materials in the water, except at those locations where such removal or rearrangement is found to be beneficial to existing shoreline conditions, uses and water quality and clarity. Where dredging is permitted, soil materials shall not be deposited in the vicinity of the waterfront. c) RETAINING WALLS: The addition, expansion or replacement of any type of retaining wall shall be discouraged, except in the case where the alternative of shoreline restoration to a natural state is impossible due to excessive slope or severe erosion problems, a condition to be determined by the Zoning Officer. Retaining walls shall not be permitted to be constructed for only aesthetic reasons. When permitted, retaining walls shall not exceed sixteen (16) inches in height, as measured from the stationary mean high water mark, and shall be constructed of a native stone or wood. When treated lumber is used for the construction of a retaining wall, it shall be the sealed non-leaching type. The words, "In addition"... suggest that in addition to the standards outlined previously, (namely Section 7.0lZ C- requiring Site Plan Review), the specific conditions outline shall ~apply. The three specific conditions which are then listed (Section 7.012 C, 5, a, b, c) refer to environmental concerns relating to maintaining water quality. Section 7.012 C, 5, c specifically state that any type of retaining wall construction shall be discouraged, except where a natural state cannot be maintained due to excessive slope or erosion problems. These conditions, (excessive slope or severe erosion problems) are to be determined by the Zoning Officer. This Section does not give the Zoning Administrator the authority to allow construction of retaining walls without Site Plan Review. It merely says that he/she can determine the conditions on the site. I am requesting an interpretation by the Zoning Board of Appeals as to the meaning of these Sections, and their relevance to the Leonelli property. The Planning BCJB'd, Acting Chairman, believes that Section 7.012 D requJrlng Site Plan Review for filii. within 50 feet of a lake also applies to the Leonelli site. We believe that hard surfacing applies to creation of a retaining wall which is a hard surface. I would like a determination oa this. A further request I have is for a clarification of this Section. Does filling refer to the importation of materials to a site or does it also refer to the movement of materials from one location on the site to another in order to modify the topography or existing conditions. Thank you for YClllr consideration of these matters. 2 ,-.-.--.--.- ------ - ~ .- /' '- F ¡ L E cor; "\' ", ., 'J. - - ..' TOWN OF QUEENSBURY s.y at Haviland Road, Queensbury, NY 12804-9725-518-792-5832 îll_~a;¡11 l}'~N\~Q\L ~ ~99'\1ditN ))1 . NIN,' ~ 'N ov - ''; 1990 '., .J ""'...... .... November 7, 1990 Mrs. Janet R. Leonelli 31 Woodcrest Drive PO Box 1369 South Glens Falls, New York 12803 RE: Property at Birch Road Dear Janet: 'lANNING & ZONIN' "ep.RTMENT This is to confirm our conversation on Monday, that your application to build a summer cottage on Birch Road. Glen lake will not have to be presented to the Queensbury Planning Board. Therefore I am advising the Planning staff to withdraw this site plan application and return your check to you. If I can be of assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very ,t.!"ulY yours, _ ~,~ / yP~~,/4/~ PATRICIA M. COLLARD Zoning Administrator PMC: 1 RIll "HOME OF NA ruRAL BF-Mlry . . . A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE'· SETTLED 1763 ' - -- , 0. J I . . (, -."'. - \' ~~~~~':~ ì" · r, II' , "!""""-. ,........ . , - ,,-. - '..... " To..'<\e.~ \...e.oY\e\\í ~\'+ ~ - Ú\Y"c...-Y\.'~ ) Cö\<2...Y\. '-'0... ~e..., \'0ð~e.m\)~ "'is \ \qqD · - - TOWN OF QUEENSBURY Bay at Haviland Road, Queensbury, NY 12804-9725-518-792-5832 November 27, 1990 TO: Zoning Board RE: Planning Board Appeals of Section 7.012C & 7.0120 Queensbury Zoning Ordinance Dear Board Members: This letter is in reference to the appeal which is before you relating to Ms. Collard's decision not to have the Leonelli's submit for a Site Plan Review under Section 7.0120, Shore Line Fill and Hard Surfacing. To answer the fi rst part of thi s appeal, thi s Secti on in no way has any bearing on whether the Leonelli's are building a new camp, placing drywells or installing a new well within 50 feet of Glen Lake. There does not have to be any fi 11 requi red to bui 1 d thi s camp to our know1 edge and therefore I see no reason for thi s appeal of this Secti on. As a side to thi s the Leonelli's are also looking at putting in a leaching facility for septic system which meets the requirements of the Sanitary Sewage Ordinance and therefore requires no variances nor any review by any Board. Also I will state that after review of another matter wi th the Town Attorney, once a non-confonning use recei ves a vari ance, it no longer has non-confonni ng status but in fact is a confonning use do to the fact that it received a variance. It was also his opinion that this logic could be made to apply to non-confonning structures. Therefore I see no reason for thi s appeal nor do these statements that were made have any bearing on this project. With relation to the retaining wall which was built on the Leonelli property, I did in fact give Tim Barber from NuTech Construction pennission to proceed with the replacement of an existing retaining wall. The existing retaining wall was a cobblestone retaining wall which had fallen apart over the years and after investigation and in talking to a neighbor, Walter Rivette, he confinned that there used to be a retaining wall in the exact location where this new retaining wall has been bui lt and that it had just coll apsed over the years and he felt that they were not requesting anything that was not already in place and after reviewing and examining the property myself, I felt that there was no reason to deny the Leonelli IS penni ssi on to rebuil d an exi sti ng retaining wall. After review of the Ordinance, I have concluded differently from the Planning Board, in that Section 7.012C, Alteration to Shoreline, refers to the replacement of a retaining wall if it involves, filling, grading, 1agooning, or dredging or ditchingJ none of this has taken place. The footing for the retaining wall was built on top of existing ground at lake level and the retaining wall in the same exact location as the wall was originally constructed. "HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY. . . A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE" SETTLED 1763 .,..,__U_'___·._ ~ " /' -- Page Two Zoning Board The only fill that will be placed will be a small amount, perhaps 16-20 yards, of fill behind the retaining wall to fill in what has been eroded over the years. No extension or change in grade elevation is taking place by the reconstruction of this retaining wall and therefore I can see no reason why I cannot give permission to reconstruct the retaining wall under Section 7.012C-5c. Also I think the Board should take into consideration that this Town Zoning Ordinance has always allowed people to reconstruct what they previously had under Article 9.010 and was never intended to limit the use of persons property when they were allowed to maintain or continue something that they already had. I also would have to question the fact of what the Planning Board is seeking by this appeal. We did require Mr. Barber to put up a silt fence to protect the shorest we did not allow him to place any fill in the 1aket and the shoreline was not excavated except for one corner in order to replace the existing retaining wall, I therefore can see no reason why this exception would be placed in the Ordinance if not to allow people to maintain existing sea walls or retaining walls which they currently had in place and if you look at Section 7.012C-l it clearly states that the activity shall- not a1 ter the natural contours of the shore line and this activity has not done so and has also complied with #3 of that section in which the activity has been carried out in a manner designed to minimize erosion, sedimentation or impairment to fish or wildlife. I trust this will give the Board some facts to consider and judge this appeal on what has previously been allowed by the Ordinance and not on the merits of what people feel the Ordinance should 1!l. Thank you for time in this matter. Sincerely, 'Qaø.(j~ DAVID HATIN, DIRECTOR BUILDING & CODE ENFORCEMENT DH: 1 m Pages: 2