Loading...
1993-06-16 -- ORIGINAL QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUNE IGTH, 1993 INDEX Area Variance No. 31-1993 ~lenn & Marilyn Gregory 1. Use Variance No. 38-1993 David & Suzanne Barnes 14. Area Variance No. 47-1993 David & Suzanne Barnes 20. Area Variance No. 25-1993 Mark R. McCollister 21. Area Variance No. 42-1993 John F. O'Donnell; Patricia Tatko 24. Area Variance No. 43-1993 Cumberland Farms. Inc. 31. Area Variance No. 44-1993 Cumberland Farms, Inc. 36. Area Variance No. 46-1993 Scott and Renee Gunther 38. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUNE 16TH. 1993 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN JOYCE EGGLESTON, SECRETARY FRED CARVIN CHRIS THOMAS LINDA HAUSER ROBERT KARPELES MEMBERS ABSENT THOMAS PHILO EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN PLANNER-ARLYNE RUTHSCHILD STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI AREA VARIARCE NO. 31-1993 TYPE: UNLISTED SR-IA GLENN & MARILYN GREGORY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE SANDERS ROAD APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO PLACE TWO (2) MOBILE HOMES ON A SINGLE VACANT LOT AND IS SEEKING RELIEF FROM SECTION 179-12C(5). WHICH STATES THAT IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES. NO MORE THAR ONE (I) PRINCIPAL BUILDING SHALL BE ALLOWED OR ANY SINGLE LOT LESS THAN TWO (2) ACRES IN SIZE. TAX MAP NUMBER: 126-1-55 LOT SIZE: 1.07 ACRES SECTION 179-12C(5) SECTION 179-7 GLENN & MARILYN GREGORY. PRESENT MRS. EGGLESTON-Mr. Chairman, we read the application at our last meeting, and it was tabled for the applicant to come back before our Board with proof of his income and outgo, and also the prices for a double wide. and to show what his profit was last year on taxes and papers to support the hardship he was alleging. MR. TURNER-Everyone's got the information submitted? All right. We'll hear from Mr. Gregory, or Mrs. Gregory. either or. Do you want to explain your statement that you gave us? Did you want to make any more input into this statement? MRS. GREGORY-The schedule on the rental? MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. GREGORY-That is the only income that I did bring in to you. Just about every property that we have is connected to the loan. and most of them are scheduled to be paid in two years. We're trying to build a retirement income. MR. TURNER-Okay. Lets see if anybody' s got any questions. All right, since we don't have any questions right at this point, let me open the public hearing. The public hearing is now open. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Is there any Correspondence? MRS. EGGLESTON-I don't think there is. Wait a minute. There's a thing attached. - 1 - MR. TURNER-Do you want to read that? MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. There is a list attached to the applicant's application. signed by people. and it states. "As residents on Saunders Road. Queensbury. I have no objection of Glenn & Marilyn Gregory locating two mobile homes on Lot Number 55. as per plot plan. and some of the people who signed. and you'll have to help us with this. over on the right hand side, where it says mobile home. are we to assume they don't have a mobile home. like Caleb Duell. Is that just a regular house? MR. GREGORY-That's a residence. MRS. EGGLESTON-That's a residence. Okay. Althea and Caleb Duell, and that's a regular home, Robert Sanders, yes. and AJ Sanders, Michelle Clark, and that's a mobile home. Robert Clark, a mobile home. MR. TURNER-They're one of each. 531. same address. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. Michael Phillips. and that's a mobile home. Harold Nash. that's a mobile home. Carl Marcus. a regular home. Jeannette Bannon. that's a regular. and Olive Green, that's a mobile home. MR. GREGORY-I think the ratio is about six mobile homes to three houses on that street. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. All right. MRS. GREGORY-We do have a good reputation. MRS. EGGLESTON-Are either one of you employed? MRS. GREGORY-I own Gregory's Mobile Homes. He works for me. but he's not on payroll. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. I know we had asked for complete income records, as I explained to you. and we only got the income and outgo of the mobile homes. The front page of your. since this is a hardship case. based on income, the first page of your tax would have helped us, and I know you hate talking about that confidential stuff, but there's no other way to get around this. MRS. GREGORY-I can only say. in regards to what our income was last year, we're having a very difficult time this year, and I don't think we're alone. Our income is nowhere near what it was last year. and business is pretty bad now. People are not having things fixed unless it's absolutely necessary. and we have only our rentals, and the payments that are made on the rentals goes mostly to. MR. CARVIN-I have a couple of questions. income and loss statements that you've given no activity on Lots 12 and 19. On the supplemental us, you've indicated MRS. GREGORY-Those are houses that have been removed and demolished. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Do you still have access to those lots? MRS. GREGORY-No. we don't. Homestead Village. Those are in the trailer park. in MR. CARVIN-Okay. How about Lots 35 and 36? MRS. GREGORY-Those also were lots that we used to have rentals on, and we don't any longer. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Where are those? - 2 - - MRS. GREGORY-They're demolished. One's sold. and one we demolished. What we tried to do. as the homes got older, is trade upward and get newer homes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So you have no connection with any of those lots at this point? MRS. GREGORY-No. we don't. They have to show that on our taxes. because there was activity on those, in other years. MR. TURNER-Okay. Now. you're proposing to move how many trailers out of the court, one or two? MRS. GREGORY-Two. MR. TURNER-Two, and it looks like you actually have three in there. MRS. GREGORY-We actually have three there. yes, and the one. I'm trying to get the gentleman that lives in it to buy it. So far, he hasn't been able to get a loan to do so. There's $255 per month. each. I feel that we're already making the payments on our land, which I don't think we brought our tax estimates, but they are taxing us $23,000 on that vacant piece of land that they're proposing to put these two homes on. MRS. EGGLESTON-You mean that's the assessed value? MRS. GREGORY-That's the assessed value. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MRS. GREGORY-We paid $18,000 for it, and they had assessed us for more than $23,000. MR. TURNER-Did you grieve it? MRS. GREGORY-No. We came up when they had those meetings. and they reduced it to $23.000. I think they had it at $33.000. Now I just noticed, reading those tax notices in the paper, the Bedford Close. taxes owed on some of those lots are like $150. MRS. EGGLESTON-And you just bought this lot not too long ago. MRS. GREGORY-We just bought it about a year ago. less than a year ago, and this Mrs. Duell has been taxed, over taxed on that for years, charging them for a three bedroom home on there. and so when she came up and corrected it. and we were to buy it, they changed it to something. I don't know what they changed it to, but when I called questioning the amount of the taxes on it, they told us that the books were closed. That you couldn't change anything then. So they're very overtaxed for that street. and it's very highly assessed for that street. MR. TURNER-What are the other lots assessed for, have you got any idea? MRS. GREGORY-I didn't find that out. no. but I feel we have to make some income on that piece of property, and we also have to reduce our payments, lot rent, which probably will go up again. because they're taxes are raising also. MR. GREGORY-Mr. Turner. on South Avenue. we have an apartment there. with a home on it, that's been assessed at $25,000. with the home on it. Also, on Maine Avenue. we have one with a home on it. one of the newer homes. MR. TURNER-282C Maine? MRS. GREGORY-282A. It's our newest home we have. - 3 - MRS. EGGLESTON-Marilyn. how many total places do you have? MR. GREGORY-In the Town of Queensbury? I told you last month I had three. I've got on one Minnesota Avenue. I've got four. MRS. GREGORY-It's on land. We have four that's on their own lots. one on Minnesota Avenue. that Glenn didn't mention. MRS. EGGLESTON-So you have four in the Town of Queensbury. one in Gansvoort. and three in the trailer park. MRS. GREGORY-We have a total of eight. MRS. EGGLESTON-Maine Avenue. here it is, 282A Maine Ave. How long have you owned the South Avenue? MRS. GREGORY-Less than two years. MRS. EGGLESTON-I don't see that on your tax reports here. MR. GREGORY-Okay. That would be 282C Maine Avenue. The mailing address is Maine Avenue, 282C. MRS. GREGORY-Well, there's confusing over whether it's East or Maine Avenue, and they say East Avenue. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Yes, 282C East Avenue. MRS. GREGORY-East Avenue. MR. TURNER-That's the one that's right next to the Northway then, right? MRS. GREGORY-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Would you have any feel for what you'd be giving up. in other words. coming out of the trailer court, in other words. you're going to be moving two units out. and I'm assuming that they're generating some form of income, as compared to what you would gain if this variance was granted, in other words, you're going to expend upwards of $30 to $40,000 anyway for the double wide. is that correct? MRS. GREGORY-There's no way that we could buy a double wide. MR. CARVIN-What's the letter, here. then, from the? MRS. GREGORY-We inquired to get a price on a double wide. MR. TURNER-That's just an informative letter telling you what a double wide is. MRS. GREGORY-It's not even a consideration for us. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So you're just going to move those two trailers. or mobile homes. MRS. GREGORY-Either way you'd like to call it. MRS. EGGLESTON-And did you tell me they were a 70? What year are those? MRS. GREGORY-Lot 82 of Homestead is a '79, three bedroom, two bath. and we're undecided as to which second one. I would like to take our other one, which is about a '72, but that I would like to leave an option on, so that we can put the best home there that we can. MR. GREGORY-One thing about the park. We're pay $255 a month rent now. In October. it's going to $275. and the first of the year, it's going to go to $300 a month. - 4 - -' MR. CARVIN-Okay, but you still haven't answered my question. Can you give me an idea of what the net increase to your income is going to be. if you took the two trailers. or the two mobile homes out of,the park? MRS. GREGORY-The only thing that is going to change is that we haven't got to pay that lot rent out, because we can't really change the amount of our rent. We can only just charge so much rent. MR. GREGORY-So our gain will be $255 a month for every unit we take out of there. MRS. GREGORY-Which will help us pay our loans that we have on them. Right now. 82 Homestead is vacant, and has been vacant since January. and the park does not allow dogs, and a lot of families do have dogs. That's kept us from having a nice older couple. You take an older couple. children. MRS. EGGLESTON-On the new lot that you bought, what are the monthly payments on that, and how long do they run? MRS. GREGORY-That is a loan. We took a loan on one of the homes to pay that. on the Saunders Road lot. MRS. EGGLESTON-Is that the $16.000? I saw one of these where you took a loan. $16,000? MRS. GREGORY-I think probably. those. Glenn didn't make me a copy of MRS. EGGLESTON-And what are your monthly installments on? MRS. GREGORY-Most of our loan payments are in the $300 range. $351, $381. Our Gansvoort loan is $474. MR. TURNER-$479.63 is the one in Gansvoort, 282A Maine is $339, 2828 Maine is $351.80. MR. TURNER-Okay. but I still think maybe they're missing my point. In other words. what do you owe on the two trailers that you'd be moving out? MRS. GREGORY-What is the balance on those two loans? MR. CARVIN-Yes. MRS. GREGORY-The one that we're moving, but on one of our other homes that's whichever you want to call it. we Sommerville property. Lot 82, we have no loan on, on East Avenue, or Maine. took a loan to buy the MR. CARVIN-Okay, but you took a loan to buy another piece of property, so you used the trailer. so if you hadn't have bought the property. that other trailer would also be free and clear? MRS. GREGORY-Yes. What we're trying to do is make an income so that when Glenn does go on Social Security. we will be able to, hopefully live off our rentals. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So what's the value of those two trailers that you think you'd be moving? MRS. GREGORY-I would say the value of the home at 82 Homestead. with three beds and two baths. would have a value of. if we wanted to sell it. I would ask for $15.000 for it. MR. CARVIN-And this is how old? MRS. GREGORY-It's a 1979. - 5 - -' MR. CARVIN-How about the other one? MR. TURNER-That's a 1972. that other one. MRS. EGGLESTON-Do you know the cost, new. of that '79? MRS. GREGORY-No, I don't. MRS. EGGLESTON-Did you buy it new. Marilyn? MRS. GREGORY-No. We bought it as fire damaged home, which we also did with 282A. We bought it for $3500, and put maybe $3500 more into it. We spent a lot of time trying to take something that's not worth much and make it worth more. through hard work. MR. TURNER-Yes. So what they're saying is, they want to move the trailers. They're just going to collect the rent from the trailers, and there'll be no lot rent. MRS. EGGLESTON-But now you've got a land payment on it. MR. TURNER-Yes. Now you've got land payment. MRS. EGGLESTON-So you've traded, actually, if this were to go through, you actually traded off a lot rent for a land payment. MRS. GREGORY-A land payment, which will be ours instead of paying. MRS. EGGLESTON-That's why I asked you how many years. how many years is the $16,000 loan? MRS. GREGORY-I believe it's five years. and it's a fairly new loan. Most of those are 60 month loans, and the only one that's really paid down is the one on Fuller Road. MR. CARVIN-Have you thought about selling. are these two. well. one that you've decided on, are they all three rented. are they, at this point? MRS. GREGORY-No. The one at 82 that we definitely are removing is not rented. It's been vacant since January. and we've paid out $255 a month. Whereas if it were on our own property. we'd be reducing our loans. Right now. we're paying $255, and we're not taking any income in on it. It's been vacant since January. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but that was your decision to leverage out the other property, to pick up the additional property. Is that correct? MRS. GREGORY-Right. MR. CARVIN-Yes. MR. GREGORY-We bought the property to get the homes out of the park. MRS. GREGORY-Right. MR. GREGORY-This one has been vacant since January. We're paying $255 a month since January on a dead horse. If we got out of the park, we could probably rent it a lot easier. MRS. GREGORY-The homes that are on land are renting faster than the homes in the Park. MR. CARVIN-Well. that's the reason we've got a zoning over there for the one acre, I mean. because they want a certain type of home, or community to build up in that area. and what you're asking for is to do. basically. is to change that, so that you would be able to put two of them in. - 6 - MRS. GREGORY-Right. A mobile home doesn't require as much space as a conventional home. MR. CARVIN-I know, but part of the things that we have to look at, basically. is this a self-created hardship. in other words, what is the hardship, and so far I see eight trailers, in other words, that this really is a business, in essence. in other words. you are landlords. and like any business, there are certain decisions that have to be made. and I think you're asking for maximum relief in an area that doesn't really warrant it. In other words. I still haven't seen enough hard numbers. In other words, if you were to put a structure on that property. and charge comparable rent, I mean, I don't know, but you couldn't make it that way. Also, the trailers in the thing. In other words. I don't know why. if somebody's in business, and their cost of product goes up, that normally is passed on to the consumer. and if those folks owned those trailers, what would they do? They'd probably have to pay the increased rent. MRS. GREGORY-Right today there's several repossessed homes. You can see a list from the bank. They're even saying no down payments just to get you to take them off the bank's hands. People are really having a hard time today. We cannot raise our rent. If we raise our rent. we lose our tenants that we have, which we cannot afford. MR. TURNER-All right. Let me ask you a question. When you bought the property last year, was it your idea then to put two on there. at that point. or was it your idea just to buy the piece of property and put one on there? MRS. GREGORY-It was our intention to put two homes. MR. TURNER-Then my next question is. why didn't you come for a variance first. rather than buy the property. and then if it got turned down, you wouldn't be stuck with the property. MRS. GREGORY-I can't answer that. I actually didn't feel there was a problem there. The Town Board found no problem with Homestead. They visited the street. The liked the homes on the street. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well. unlike the Town Board, just let me say, we do have stricter guidelines to go by, Marilyn. and we have. you know. it's set up in a book. and you have to prove your case, or. then we're at fault if we don't take all of that stuff under consideration. MRS. GREGORY-I understand that. but I'm saying that we're having a difficult time, and if you were to grant this. it would be a great help to us. I don't think we're trying to make a million dollars. We're just trying to build toward a retirement income. MR. CARVIN-Well, I think that's part of the problem with mobile homes is that they are not an ~preciating asset. They tend to be a depreciating asset. and I think that's why you're in the bind that you are, because now you've got. in one case. what is it, a 14, 15 year old mobile home. The other one you said was. what. 1970 or '72 MR. TURNER-'72. MR. CARVIN-I mean, it's a 20 year old. or 25 year old. and now you want to move it into another spot, and where it's going to depreciate. MRS. GREGORY-Once you put them on your own land, you can improve, you can put a roof over, and you can do a lot of things to make them nice. MR. CARVIN-Yes, and again, I'm going to come back that that's not - 7 - the intent of the zoning. In other words, that the zoning, basically, is the kind to look for a different type of residence or structure in those areas. and I can appreciate the need for. MR. GREGORY-One of the problems with the area down in the, which is all mobile homes. there is no property left down there. Today's Modern. which has many more than I've got, they bought more property in that area. they're putting their homes in there. MRS. GREGORY-They bought up every vacant lot in that area that's available. MR. GREGORY-There's nothing left in that area to put mobile homes. MRS. EGGLESTON-What I was going to say is. actually, our problem is you're asking for what we call maximum relief. We're supposed to look for minimum relief. One trailer maybe could be considered minimum relief. Two is a maximum relief, and we really are supposed to avoid granting what they call maximum relief. You're asking, really. to really stretch the bounds of what we can, or what we should be able to give. MRS. GREGORY-Is it unheard of though? Has it never been done? MRS. EGGLESTON-We haven't. We have not. In fact. we have had people come, and they're desperate to get out of the parks. You're right. They're desperate to get out of the parks. We talked about this last week. at our last meeting, and the people just want to get out of the parks. It's like being at the hands of someone who has you by the neck and they're strangling you. MR. CARVIN-But in at least the couple of cases that I've sat on, it's not the owner occupants that are. they want the rentals. I mean. we'd all love to be landlords. I'd love to have 500 mobile homes all across the universe, but it's not a hardship. in my eyes. That these are businesses. Now, if this were your resident. and this was your only resident, and this was your only viable option. I'd certainly look at it from a different point of view, but when you've got eight income producing. it's a business. and in business. you make decisions. and sometimes those decisions are wrong. Sometimes the economics of the times mandate that you have to do certain things, and like Joyce says. basically you're asking for maximum relief, and I'm not sure I can support that here. MRS. GREGORY-I never really thought of this as a business. We just added these one by one, as opportunities came along, with the thought of retirement income. In fact, at one time, we proposed a mobile home park. which would have been right on our property, which we already own, but a neighbor had a petition against it. It wouldn't have hurt a single thing to have a home there, but we have never been able to, we're going towards this goal of retirement income, and we've had a lot of stumbling blocks on the way. I never really thought of it as a business. MR. TURNER-But it is a business. It is a business. MRS. GREGORY-Yes. MISS HAUSER-I think that this is probably a self-created hardship. They bought it with the intention of putting two homes on it. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-As I said. what stumbles me is the maximum, I maybe could support one mobile home on there. but two really. See what happens is then somebody else comes and asks us, and it's hard to say no, and you must admit that it isn't something that you want allover. but just because your circumstances are a little bit different, then someone else who comes and wants to get out of the park, or whatever. it's hard to tell them no. So you're kind of - 8 - - setting a precedent of something that. MRS. GREGORY-You would not be able to put a, say. a $50,000 home over there, and get a rental on it. because there's two junkyards on that street. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. We've been there. MRS. GREGORY-And I had asked for relief on the tax of that property there. and the least relief I got was the $23.000 on a vacant lot. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, it seems to me that if you bought it for $18,000 less than a year ago, that that shows what the market value is. and they're supposed to be at market value, right? So you should have gone to grievance and said, look, this is what I paid for it. It isn't even a year old. This is market value. You have to go to grievance day. though. and it only happens once a year. MR. TURNER-Did you fill out the paperwork for grievance? MRS. GREGORY-No. They reduced our. MR. TURNER-Well. you still didn't have to go. You fill them out. They still have to review it. MR. GREGORY-I' ve got one more thing to add. before you decide. I've been in Town 35 years. I've spent 35 years in the volunteer fire service. In 1977, I pretty near died in this Town fighting fires. I spent 19 weeks in the hospital. I've given my life to this Town. I don't think I'm asking an awful lot for the Town to give a little bit to me. MRS. GREGORY-That's true. I have 25 years in the Ladies Auxiliary. and I have 9 years in the Rescue Squad. MR. GREGORY-I also had 25 years volunteer time for the Emergency Squad. MRS. GREGORY-We've always been. I think. good citizens, and paid our taxes. MR. TURNER-Nobody's questioning that at all. We know that you're good citizens. This is a different situation. Last year when you bought it. if you bought it a year ago, and things were going good. sometimes you have a tendency to put things on the back burner, and not do what you should do. and that's what led. not doing that is what led you to where you are here today. Like I said, you should have come and asked for a variance right up front, before you even bought the property, then you wouldn't be stuck with a property, like you are now. MRS. GREGORY-Well. we didn't think we'd have a problem putting a mobile home there, because the majority of the street is mobile homes. Now, we did run into that on Minnesota Avenue. where we thought there'd be no problem of putting, taking two lots and putting a mobile home, and then we discovered that Minnesota Avenue, even though it's one of the Avenues. is not zoned mobile homes. MR. TURNER-That's right. Okay. Motion's in order. MRS. EGGLESTON-Come on, you guys. What are your thoughts, here? We're not the only one's here. MR. KARPELES-Well. I think you've pretty well covered it. I don't have anything to add. MR. THOMAS-To me. it's still a toss up. I looked at these financial statements, and I don't know what I was looking at. I really don't. I didn't understand them. and just to listen to - 9 - their testimony tonight, it seems that they have a hardship here, but the only thing I was thinking of. why didn't they pull that one mobile home out of the park. and put it on this lot, if they were allowed to last January. when it was empty. and that way they would have avoided the $255 a month rental. MR. TURNER-They weren't allowed to. MRS. GREGORY-There's a lot to putting a home on the lot. First. you do have to get a permit. but you have to put your sewer and there is Town water. You have to put cement where the home goes. and we've been advertising the vacant home ever since. We've been trying to build a home. MR. TURNER-Well, I'll tell you what. there's nobody going in there and build a stick house. Nobody's going to build a stick house in there whatsoever. and let me say that we let Mr. Clark go in there, and I think we let. I'm not sure, Mrs. Green's name rings a bell. I'm not sure whether that went in there. That was one, but not two. MR. CARVIN-Ted. if we let one in, I would want to condition. in other words, that they don't. I mean, it's a 20 year old trailer. for crying out loud. I mean, how many more years does it have? Can we do that? MR. TURNER-They have a '79 and a '72, and they're talking about moving the ' 79. Is that correct? The' 72 they're not talking about moving. They're talking about moving the '79. MRS. EGGLESTON-What's the other one that's in question? What's the year of the other one? MR. TURNER-'72. MRS. EGGLESTON-No. There's three of them in there. There's a '79. a '72, and what's the other one in the trailer park? MRS. GREGORY-That's a '69, I believe. The one in question is the one that we're trying to divide. MRS. EGGLESTON-Which one is in question, the '69? MRS. GREGORY-No. The one that, the only one we'd consider is the , 72. MRS. EGGLESTON-So if the gentleman buys the '72, you would want to move the, one of you is saying yes. one is saying no? MR. GREGORY-The gentleman living in the trailer. he wants to buy a 1969. I wouldn't consider moving that, because of it's age. The one we definitely want to move is the 1979. The other one is 1972. We questioning whether we'll move that or not. I don't really want to move that onto private land. I want to put a better home on there. as soon as I can afford to get one, and what we do. we buy repos and fire wrecks for two or three thousand dollars, fix them up so they're real nice, then we've got a new home to work with. I'm trying to upgrade my homes as I go along. MR. TURNER-Yes. Who did you purchase that lot from? MRS. GREGORY-The Duells. MR. TURNER-The Duells. MRS. GREGORY-Now, the gentleman that's questioning the condition of the home in ten more years. we have kept our homes in good condition. We've upgraded and redecorated inside and cleaned it outside. and we would like to add what they call a peaked roof. - 10 - MRS. EGGLESTON-Would you be able to do all of that? income, though. you'd have no. Wi th no MRS. GREGORY-Not in one year. They would not be allowed to deteriorate. We're trying to make what we have more valuable. I think if you looked at the photos of our rentals that we have. MR. TURNER-The last time around, Bob. when we talked about this, in that particular area. that mobile homes seemed to be the trend that was going in there. The homes that were there were not repairable, in many respects. So rather than build a stick builtin there. they've gone to the mobile home side of the street, so to speak. MRS. GREGORY-And it really couldn't be zoned for a mobile home. MR. TURNER-Well. there was some talk about it. but we can't re-zone it. MRS. GREGORY-Right. MR. TURNER-The last time around I think we talked about that. It's a dead end street. It's a dead end in there for now. They're proposing to put two homes on them. That's what they're requesting, in a residential zone, and I'm saying I don't see anybody going in there building a stick house. If anybody goes in there, they're going to put a trailer in there. In order to put the trailer in there, you've got to have a variance. MR. CARVIN-Okay. but I wouldn't want to preclude the possibility of somebody coming in, later on. and upgrading. MR. TURNER-No. MR. CARVIN-Again, my feeling is that the natural. somebody said, I guess it was one of the things. that mobile homes are not houses of choice. MR. TURNER-No. they're not. MR. CARVIN-They tend to be somewhat transient in nature, and they are a depreciating asset, and at some point in the very near future. I don't care what trailer you move out there. it's going to be a problem. and I don't have a problem putting a trailer out there. I agree with you, Ted. I agree with you 100 percent. There's very little likelihood that somebody's going to come in and build a stick house there. but on the other hand. I wouldn't want to preclude that. I wouldn't want to make it a permanent situation either. MR. TURNER-All right. Let me ask Glenn. Glenn. when that trailer deteriorates to a point where you have to take it out of there. what's required of you to put another one in there? MR. GREGORY-I'd have to go buy another home and put it in there. MR. TURNER-Can you put a rebuilt in there, or do you have to put a brand new in there? The rebuilt has to meet State Code, right? MR. GREGORY-Any building that I've had built. and I've built a number of them in my yard, the Building Department has been there and inspected them. and passed everyone I've done. I go strictly by the Town Codes. MR. TURNER-Yes. but it has to be anyway. That's required. MR. GREGORY-And they've always passed all my homes. MRS. GREGORY-Even the Lot 82. They have to come and inspect it and see if it can be moved. before it's approved, before they give you a permit to occupy. - 11 - MR. CARVIN-Okay. At that point. I'd like to see it come back for a variance. In other words. but that almost precludes what they're saying about putting roofs. or peaked roofs and things like that, I would assume. I mean. that's an awful lot of expense. In other words. they start building around. I mean. it's going to make that a permanent structure. and in essence. MR. TURNER-Okay. but what you're saying is if on Lot 82 of Homestead Park. that the '79 trailer that they want to move from there to Saunders Road. if that doesn't pass. then they have to come back for a variance to put another one in there. is that correct? Is that what you're saying? MR. CARVIN-Well. what I'm saying, lets say that they can move it in there. I've got no problem with them putting a trailer on there, for one trailer. I mean. it is a compromise. but what I'm saying is that once that trailer's life expectancy is over and done with. now they go out and they find another one. I have no problem upgrading. I mean. I'd love to see a 1994 mobile home go in there. I'd love to see a double wide. They're just more. it's upgrading. but what I would not like to see is something where this thing just keeps deteriorating to the point that it just becomes a real mess. Now who's to say that you don't go selling that, you know. somebody comes along and says, I'll give you $25.000 for the lot and the trailer, and you say. hey, I've got about $20,000 in it. Good bye. MR. GREGORY-If you look at the. homes there. you will see that they're all well kept. None of them are deteriorated. The yard is well kept. Do you know what I'm saying? MR. TURNER-The trailer that's over there on the lot, is that yours, over on the lot that's on Saunders Road? The trailer that's there, is that yours. the green one? MRS. GREGORY-It's on Mr. Duell's property. MR. GREGORY-That is not mine. I had junked that a long time ago out there. MR. TURNER-So what happens if you get the variance. you move the '79 in there, and then you don't, then you're left with a vacant trailer. because of that situation that exists there now. MRS. GREGORY-No. MR. TURNER-Okay. Motion's in order. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 31-1993 GLENN & MARILYN GREGORY. Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: And grant them relief from Section 179-12C(5), which states in a residential zone, no more than one principal building shall be allowed on any single lot less than two acres in size. This will allow the applicant to place one (1) mobile home on the lot at Sanders Road. Tax Map No. 126-1- 55. on 1. 07 acre plot. I don't believe this variance would be a detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood or the community. and would not change the character of the neighborhood, since it already has mobile homes on the street. The applicant has demonstrated somewhat of a monetary hardship in asking for this request. I don't believe it would have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. and there is no neighborhood opposition to this request. I believe it to be minimum relief to alleviate the specified practical difficulty. There'd be no impact on services or facilities. and doesn't seem to be contrary to the Town of Queensbury Ordinance. Duly adopted this 16th day of June. 1993. by the following vote: - 12 - AYES: Mrs. Eqqleston. Miss Hauser. Mr. Thomas. Mr. Turner NOES: Mr. Karpeles ABSTAINED: Mr. Carvin ABSENT: Hr. Philo MR. TURNER-Approved. for one. USE VARIANCE NO. 38-1993 TYPE: UNLISTED HR-5 DAVID & SUZANNE BARNES OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE INDIANA AVENUE & LUZERNE ROAD APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO EXPAND A PREEXISTING NONCONFORMING USE STRUCTURE (AUTO BODY REPAIR SHOP). WITH A THIRTEEN HUNDRED AND TWEBTY ( 1.320) SOUARE FOOT ADDITION TO THE WES'f SIDE OF THE EXISTING BUILDING AND IS SEEKING RELIEF FROM SECTION 17 9-18D . PERMITTED USES. TAX MAP NUMBER: 127-4-1. 2. 3. 17 LOT SIZE: 48.000 SO. FT. SECTION 179-18B DAVID & SUZANNE BARNES. PRESENT MRS. EGGLESTON-We closed the public hearinq. applicant. Tabled for the MR. TURNER-Yes. for the Area Variance. We didn't vote on it. We tabled it because he had to come for an Area Variance anvwav. So we thouqht we'd include the Area Variance alonq with the Use Variance. vote on both of them at the same time. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okav. MR. TURNER-So we went throuqh the Use Variance. So the next part we'll take is the Area Variance. No. 47-1993. and this has to do wi th permeabili tv. It had to come back for permeabili tv. It lacked the permeabili tv. We've alreadv been throuqh the Use Variance. We didn't vote on it vet. MRS. EGGLESTON-So we don't have to read the Use Variance aqain. All we've aot to do is vote on that one first? HR. TURNER-If vou want to vote on that. All riaht. Lets vote on the Use Variance first. if vou want to allow the use there. the expansion of a preexistina. nonconformina use. That's what it amounts to. It's a paint bav. MR. CARVIN-I auess I don't have a problem with the use. MRS. EGGLESTON-That's the one where the State's makina him put. ves. where's he's aot to put the new. MR. TURNER-Did vou brina anv literature. I think we asked vou the last time. Did vou brina anv literature that shows the requirement bv the State. that booth be placed there? MR. BARNES-Sure thina. I auess we didn't. MR. CARVIN-I auess I have a auestion. Ted. he can reduce the size of that booth to make the area. because we're aoina to have permeabilitv. from the looks of it. Is there anv wav that it in compliance with a problem with the HR. TURNER-Well. I think that's where the question arose the last time. MR. KARPELES-Which one are we talkina about now? MR. TURNER-Barnes. MR. KARPELES-Yes. but the permeability or the other one? - 13 - MR. TURNER-Well, right now we're going to vote on the Use Variance, if that's the Board's pleasure. Then the next move is to hear the Area Variance. MRS. EGGLESTON-Which is for the permeability. MR. TURNER-Which is for the permeability. You've got to hear them in sequence. MRS. EGGLESTON-We've got to do the Use first. MR. TURNER-Did you bring any literature? MR. BARNES-No. MR. TURNER-Is it imposed by the State at this point? It isn't. is it? MR. BARNES-Well. you're supposed to be licensed by the State to have a paint booth in there. MR. TURNER-I know. but I mean. is this particular paint booth imposed? MR. BARNES-No. They're not really enforcing that law. going to lie to you. I'm not MR. TURNER-Yes, but has it been passed? MR. BARNES-It will be. MRS. BARNES-By 1995. MR. TURNER-So it hasn't been. right? That's my question. MR. BARNES-Not really, but they could still. The State. you know and I know, they could come up tomorrow and say. that law's in. and you're done. MR. TURNER-They can't say it's in if it's not in. questions on the Use Variance? Okay. Any MRS. EGGLESTON-I think we hashed that out pretty good the last time. We got through it pretty good. We felt he needed it, because. in effect. we were about to make a motion, then the permeability question arose, and we held it all in abeyance until we. MR. THOMAS-Why did we put a hold on that Area Variance? MR. TURNER-They didn't file it. It was required. but they didn't file it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. They had to get the Area Variance before they got the Use Variance? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. TURNER-Both of them had to go together. really. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So you're going to hear the Area Variance before you vote on the Use Variance? MR. TURNER-No. We're going to vote on the Use Variance first. I think. MR. THOMAS-Why vote on the Use Variance, if they don't get the Area Variance? - 14 - MR. TURNER-Well, that'll shoot them down either way, but. really. that's the way we've always done it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MRS. EGGLESTON-I think what happened was. they didn't know. They didn't know. last time when they came for the Use Variance. that it didn't meet permeability. That came up at our meeting. So they had to get an Area Variance for the permeability. Is that right? MR. MARTIN-Yes. That's what I recall, Joyce. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. MARTIN-You can go ahead with the Use Variance, and then the Area Variance. if you would like to call for a smaller booth or something like that. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. TURNER-Yes. This is for an expansion of a preexisting nonconforming use, as I stated before. MR. CARVIN-I think that's what it boils down to. MR. TURNER-Yes, that's what it is. MRS. EGGLESTON-Of course if that house were torn down, the permeability would be there. MR. TURNER-They wouldn't have to have it. MR. KARPELES-I've got a question on permeability. The last time. Staff said there was ~ permeable area. and now all of a sudden we're 27 percent permeable. How did we go from no. to 27 percent? On a recent site visit. Staff observed that there appeared to be no permeability on the site. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-Right. That was my observation. I didn't go on the site though. I was driving around. and I don't know, did you go to look at the site? MR. KARPELES-Yes. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-There are several lots that are contiguous to it. which visually look like their lot, but are not. MR. KARPELES-So there is 27 percent? MRS. RUTHSCHILD-This is what they're stating. between the side. MR. TURNER-If they tore the building down. they wouldn't have to come. MR. KARPELES-If they tore the building down, there wouldn't be any problem? MR. TURNER-No. MRS. EGGLESTON-Right. MR. TURNER-They're asking for three percent of relief. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-Okay, and also I understand that the fence is within your property, that the green. MR. BARNES-Yes. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-Well. this is what I meant. There's a green strip that goes around the property, and what I was referring to, that - 15 - there was no permeability on the side of the fence. I didn't understand that their property went on the other side of the fence. MR. 'KARPELES-But that yard that is all dirt, that still doesn't count as permeable area. right? MRS. RUTHSCHILD-Yes. If it's dirt, it's permeable. MR. KARPELES-Okay. The driveway. well. that's what I asked last time, and I was told. no. that does not. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-Yes. considered permeable. dirt. not driveway. No. A driveway is but there are other areas that were not just MR. MARTIN-The typical definition for permeable area that the Town uses, or impermeable areas. are any paved areas. structures, obviously. and gravel walks or driveways. If it's a dirt driveway. then it would remain to be considered permeable. MR. KARPELES-Well. yours is dirt. right? MR. BARNES-From that corner of the building all the way over is dirt, and that's actually more than what you've got on there. if you look at it. MR. KARPELES-Had you considered ripping down that single family house? Then you wouldn't even need the variance. MR. BARNES-Yes, I could. but the people living there have been there for like seven years, and they don't have any money. They only pay me $200 a month. MRS. EGGLESTON-Would the merging of the four lots do it? MRS. RUTHSCHILD-No. Well, what I'm saying is that if this site plan shows all the lots together. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. BARNES-Dave Barnes. We're only showing this. but actually it's all, if we go by dirt. this is all dirt from here. This whole area is dirt. That's not any gravel in there at all. Like. from here. MR. CARVIN-Well. the parking is all, that's a dirt parking. right? MR. BARNES-Yes. That's dirt parking over in there. but this stone is where you drive in the gate there. MR. CARVIN-Yes. well is it stone or blacktop? MR. BARNES-That's just stone. MR. CARVIN-But there is a road that kind of leads over into your storage area, for want of a better ~erm. MR. BARNES-Yes. but it's all dirt in there. MRS. EGGLESTON-So the only permeable area is where. right back in here? MR. CARVIN-This would be the green area. I would guess. MR. BARNES-That's all the way around the house. but what I'm saying is. this actually. if we go by that. this is all dirt from here over, but they do drive on it. MR. CARVIN-Well. you've got. well. again. I drive by there every day. I see things. Don't you have grass along in there? - 16 - MR. BARNES-Yes. There's grass all down through here, all the way around here. No blacktop in there. MRS. EGGLESTON-You're only lacking three percent, then. Why wouldn't they give it the permeability? MR. TURNER-It's just dirt. If it's dirt. it's permeable. MR. CARVIN-And again, I think this whole area is permeable, right down here in front. MRS. EGGLESTON-Do you see what he's saying? Because he says this is all dirt, even though there's parking, and he says there's a grassy slope around the front of here they haven't considered either. MR. TURNER-Yes. That's what I'm saying. MRS. EGGLESTON-We're only looking for three percent. MR. TURNER-Three percent, yes. MR. KARPELES-But did you count that in your permeability? MR. BARNES-No. I didn't count that, because I thought if you drove on it, it wasn't. MR. TURNER-You're only looking for 1400 square feet. MRS. EGGLESTON-Jim. does not your Department look at the permeability? Do you leave it to the applicant to decide whether? MR. MARTIN-No. We try and calculate as best we can. off the site plan, what the permeability is. Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well. did you count where the parking is? it's dirt? Where MR. MARTIN-Arlyne did the actual calculations. She just stepped out for a moment. MRS. EGGLESTON-Because that would make the three percent. MR. BARNES-You're only basically counting where we were growing grass. MRS. EGGLESTON-Just where grass was growing? MR. BARNES-Yes. MR. MARTIN-She only counted the highlighted yellow area here. MR. TURNER-That's right. MR. MARTIN-She didn't calculate. MRS. EGGLESTON-Where the dirt is? MR. MARTIN-I don't believe she did, no. MRS. EGGLESTON-But shouldn't that count? MR. MARTIN-It should have. Yes. because like I said, only gravel or paved area. in terms of parking, is considered impermeable. MR. CARVIN-I mean, there is no grass there because of the usage. I mean. because he hauls all the wrecks over it. I mean, it's all wore out. MR. BARNES-There's like six foot from the road, where the blacktop - 17 - is. we keep that all grassy area there. MR. MARTIN-Well. the way this determination was arrived at is the Town Engineer. in looking at site plans and things. has said that the lime and the gravel in that, when driven over time. compacts and essentially makes a hardened surface that the water doesn't penetrate. It just runs off of. MR. CARVIN-Which is true. MR. MARTIN-And that's the reason for the gravel area being included in with the paved area, but in terms of a nongraveled area. with no stone or lime. the water still penetrates. MRS. EGGLESTON-Is it just clear dirt there. Mr. Barnes? MR. BARNES-Yes, in that area. MRS. EGGLESTON-In that area. MR. BARNES-Right. MR. CARVIN-It's hard packed. MR. BARNES-Yes. It's been driven on. MR. TURNER-So he's got the permeability. It's only 1400 feet he needs. He's got more than enough for permeability, if that's true. MR. CARVIN-Nothing may ever penetrate it, but if we go by a strict interpretation. MR. MARTIN-Yes. She only calculated the highlight area. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-Yes, because that's what that they submitted. MRS. EGGLESTON-So are we in agreement he wouldn't need it? MR. MARTIN-There's no plans to pave the parking area, or gravel it? MR. BARNES-Not right away, no. MR. TURNER-Lets not even get into that. Lets just grant it, and get it over with. and be done with it. It's only three percent. and I know he's got dirt here. This is dirt right here. MR. CARVIN-I still have a problem with the house, but I guess there's not much we can do there. MR. TURNER-Yes. I do. too. Yes. MR. CARVIN-Dave. do you know what the distance is going to be from the proposed addition, in other words, the paint bay. to the house? I mean, it's hard to figure how much. MR. BARNES-Ten feet. MR. CARVIN-It's only going to be 10 feet? MRS. BARNES-Eighteen feet. MR. BARNES-From the building. yes. MR. KARPELES-What are you going to do with that house? Are you going to keep it there? MR. BARNES-No. I'd like to tear it down. but the people have been there so many years. I hate to throw them out. I don't make any money on it. It's $200 a month. - 18 - MR. TURNER-Yes. They've got 18 feet on the original application. MR. KARPELES-It would simplify our job if you tore it down. MR. BARNES-I've got enough room between us and that house. MRS. BARNES-You can't throw a family out. MR. BARNES-No, I don't want to throw somebody out of the house. MR. TURNER-Okay. Lets move the application. problems. Fred. other than the house? Do you have any MR. CARVIN-Other than the house. I mean. MRS. EGGLESTON-That would solve all his problems. MR. BARNES-It wouldn't solve theirs though. MR. CARVIN-Do you expect this to increase your business substantially. or just to kind of maintain it? MR. BARNES-I'll tell you the truth, I don't think it will. I think it's just going to be better for us to paint in, too. MR. CARVIN-I see a lot of positive benefits. because of the air filtration system. if nothing else. MR. BARNES-The air will be as clean going into this as coming out. MR. CARVIN-And there won't be any additional noise. or anything like that. MR. BARNES-No. I think the way they've got it set up now. that the fan that's there now will be just as quiet. if not quieter, because it's like 20 years newer. MR. TURNER-When do you propose to install this? MR. BARNES-As soon as I get the building up. MR. TURNER-Okay. What are we looking at? MR. BARNES-Well. the way the economy is. it will probably be three or four months. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. CARVIN-I'd really like to nail the house down. I really would. I don't know how. but he's indicated, once they move out. I don't mean to throw them out. MR. BARNES-Right. Well. we intend to tear it down. but it's like $200 a month. MR. TURNER-What's the taxes run for that little house? Is that a separate deed? MRS. BARNES-Total taxes run about $1100. MR. TURNER-$1100 for the house? Just the house? MRS. BARNES-The house itself? MR. TURNER-Just the house? MRS. BARNES-About $1400. That's everything. land, school. for the property. MR. CARVIN-Well. I just would hate to have you have a change of - 19 - heart, if they should move out, and all of a sudden that $200 becomes rather important. and somebody else moves in. MR. BARNES-I'd love to take it down. MRS. BARNES-If the house comes down. the property taxes come down. too. MR. TURNER-Maybe. Okay. All right. Motion's in order. Lets vote on the Use Variance first, and then we'll have a motion for the Area Variance. We didn't make a motion on the Use Variance. MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE RO. 38-1993 DAVID & SUZANNE BARNES. Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: Grant relief from Section 179-18D. permitted uses in the MR-5A zone. where the applicant is proposing to expand a preexisting nonconforming structure. with a 1320 square foot addition to the west side of his existing structure. It is felt that because of impending legislation regarding paint booths, that a reasonable return on the land is not possible as zoned, causing a possible financial hardship. This lot has been a commercial and residential site since 1975. and it does not appear that by granting this variance. that it would have an adverse effect on the neighborhood character or public services. Duly adopted this 16th day of June, 1993. by the following vote: AYES. Mrs. Eggleston, Miss Hauser, Mr. Thomas. Mr. Karpeles. Mr. Carvin. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT. Mr. Philo MR. TURNER-Now we'll do the Area Variance. NEW BUSINESS. AREA VARIARCE NO. 47-1993 TYPE. UNLISTED MR-5 DAVID AND SUZANNE BARNES OWNER. SAKE AS ABOVE CORNER INDIANA AVE. AND LUZERNE RD. APPLICANT IS PROPOSIRG TO EXPAND AN EXISTING NONCORFORMING USE STRUCTURE (AUTO BODY REPAIR SHOP), AND IS PROPOSING TWENTY-SEVEN (27) PERCERT PERMEABILITY AND IS SEEKIRG THREE (3) PERCENT RELIEF FROM SECTION 119-18C, WHICH REQUIRES THIRTY (30) PERCENT PERMEABILITY IN THE MR-5A ZONE. TAX MAP NUMBER 121-4-1, 2, 3, 17 LOT SIZE: 45.000 SQ. FT. SECTION 179-18C DAVID & SUZANNE BARNES, PRESENT STAFF IRPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 47-1993. David & Suzanne Barnes, Meeting Date: June 16, 1993 "SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to expand an existing nonconforming use structure (auto body repair shop). with the addition of a thirteen hundred and twenty square foot (1,320) structure to the west side of the existing building. CONFORMANCE WITH AREA/USE REGULATIONS: 1. Applicant is proposing twenty-seven (27) percent permeability and is seeking three (3) percent relief from Section 179-18C. which requires thirty (30) percent permeability in the MR-5A zone. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. DESCRIBE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW PLACEMENT OF A STRUCTURE WHICH MEETS THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS. The practical difficulty which does not allow the required permeability standard to be met. is that over a number of years. as the applicant's business required further expansion of the existing structure. permeable surface of the parcel has been reduced to the point of noncompliance. 2. IS THIS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NECESSARY TO ALLEVIATE THE SPECIFIC PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY - 20 - OR IS THERE ANY OTHER OPTION AVAILABLE WHICH WOULD REQUIRE NO VARIANCE? It would appear that this is the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the specific practical difficulty. and although in the future the applicant plans to demolish an existing single family dwelling located on said parcel, which would then bring the parcel into compliance with required permeability standards (see attached letter from applicant regarding this issue). no other option is available currently which would require no variance. 3. WOULD THIS VARIANCE BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD? As the degree of relief requested is moderate. it would appear that the variance would not be detrimental together with other properties in the district or neighborhood. 4. WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF THE VARIANCE ON PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES? It would appear that the variance would not effect public facilities or services. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: Applicant's plat depicts the eXisting permeable surface of their property to be located on the west and north boundaries of the lot. Applicant has stated in a letter attached to the application. that the existing single family dwelling will be demolished in the future, and remaining land will be left as a green area. At that point. permeability will be greater than the required thirty (30) percent." MR. TURNER-Any questions of the applicant in regard to this? None? Okay. Let me open the public hearing. PUBLIC HBARING OPBNED NO COMMBNT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Motion's in order. MOTION TO APPROVE ARBA VARIANCB NO. 47-1993 DAVID AND SUZANNE BARNBS. Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: That we grant relief from Section 179-18C. which requires 30 percent permeability in the MR-5A zone. The applicant is seeking a three percent relief from this Section. The practical difficulty is that over the years the applicant's business has expanded. impacting the permeable surface. This is the minimum relief being requested. and by granting of this variance. there would not appear to be any effect on public facilities or services. and at some point in the future. the applicant has indicated that an existing single family dwelling will be demolished. and at that point. he will be in excess of the required 30 percent. Duly adopted this 16th day of June. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles. Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston. Miss Hauser. Mr. Thomas, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Philo OLD BUSINBSS: ARBA VARIANCB NO. 25-1993 TYPB I WR-IA CBA MARK R. MCCOLLISTER OWNER: SAMB AS ABOVE SEBLYE ROAD, CLEVBRDALE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLB FAMILY DWBLLING ON A PRBBXISTING NONCONFORMING LOT. SIXTY-TWO HUNDRBDTHS OF AN ACRB. AND IS SBBKING THIRTY-BIGHT HUNDRBDTHS (.38) OF AN ACRB RBLIBF FROM SBCTION 179- 16C. WHICH REQUIRES ONB (1) ACRE FOR THE MINIMUM LOT AREA. APPLICANT IS PROPOSING SEVBNTY-FOUR (74) FEBT AS THB LOT WIDTH AND IS SEBKING RELIEF OF SBVENTY-SIX (7G) FEET FROM SECTION 179-1GC. WHICH REQUIRBS ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY (150) FEET AS THB MIHIMUM LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENT. APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TWENTY-BIGHT AND FIVE - 21 - TENTHS (28.5) FEET FOR THE SOUTH SIDE YARD SETBACK. AND IS SEEKING RELIEF OF ONE AND FIVE TENTHS (I. 5) FEET FROM SECTION 179-16C. WHICH REQUIRES THE SUM OF FIFTY ( 50) FEET FOR THE SIDE YARD SETBACK. WITH A MINIMUM OF TWENTY (20) FEET ON ONE SIDE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) DATE I MAY 12. 1993 ADIRONDACK PARK TAX MAP NUMBER: 16-1-30.2 LOT SIZE: 0.62 ACRES SECTION 179-16C SEQRA TO PLANNING BOARD: APRIL 29. 1993 LEAD AGENCY PLANNING BOARD TO ADDRESS APPLICATION: MAY 20. 1993 - JUNE 10, 1993. WALTER REHM, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TURNER-The first thing we've got to do on this application is accept the declaration for the variance. MOTION TO ACCEPT THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION ON THE VARIANCE FOR MARK R. MCCOLLISTER, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption. seconded by Fred Carvin: Duly adopted this 16th day of June, 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Miss Hauser ABSENT: Mr. Philo MRS. EGGLESTON-The Warren County Planning Board returned, "No County Impact". STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Area Variance No. 25-1993. Mark R. McCollister. Meeting Date: June 16. 1993 "SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to construct a single family home on a vacant lot. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: 1. Applicant's parcel is sixty-two hundredths (.62) of an acre and is requesting relief of thirty-eight hundredths (.38) of an acre. as per Section 179-16C. which requires one ( 1) acre for the minimum lot area in the Waterfront Residential 1 Acre Zone. 2. Applicant's Lot width is approximately seventy-four (74) feet wide and is seeking relief of seventy-six (76) feet as per Section 179-16C which requires one hundred and fifty feet (150) as the minimum lot width in the Waterfront Residential 1 Acre Zone. 3. Applicant is proposing twenty-eight and one half (28.5) feet for the south side yard setback and is requesting one and a half (1.5) feet relief from Section 179-16C which requires the sum of fifty (50) feet for the side yard setback. with a minimum of twenty (20) feet on one side. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. DESCRIBE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW PLACEMENT OF A STRUCTURE WHICH MEETS ZONING REQUIREMENTS. The practical difficulty which does not allow placement of a structure which meets zoning requirements is that the parcel is preexisting and nonconforming in its lot area and lot width and because it is located within a Critical Environmental Area. does not qualify for the general exemption for prior nonconforming lots. Addi tionall y, the width of the proposed structure intrudes on required side yard setback. 2. IS THIS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NECESSARY TO ALLEVIATE THE SPECIFIED PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY OR IS THERE ANY OTHER OPTION AVAILABLE WHICH WOULD REQUIRE NO VARIANCE? It would appear that the relief requested is the minimum variance necessary to alleviate specified practical difficulty and there would appear not to be any options that would require no variance. 3. WOULD THIS VARIANCE BE DETRIMENTAL TO OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD? It would appear that the variance would not be detrimental to other properties in the district or the neighborhood as most of the neighboring properties do not meet the minimum lot requirements. 4. WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF THE VARIANCE ON PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES? It would appear that the - 22 - variance would not effect public facilities or services. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: Applicant has attached a letter and plot plan from his realtor, indicating the distance from the proposed distribution mound to the well on his neighbor's property to the south. indicating that it is one hundred and eleven (111) plus or minus feet from said well. This is in compliance with the Building Department's requirements." MR. TURNER-Mr. Rehm? MR. REHM-I have put on the Board a copy of the engineering plans for this. simply because the drawing is a little larger than the survey map that I submitted to you. The configuration of the lot. obviously. is the same on both. This is a prior nonconforming lot. It's a vacant lot located off of Seeley Road. This is Warner Bay. and the Castaway Marina is just up the Bay. It's fairly close to the end of Warner Bay. The proposal is to construct a relatively small, 1800 square foot. two story three bedroom home, 75 feet back from the lake, on this lot. which is generally a wooded lot that slopes toward the lake. as you can see from the contour lines on the map. Scudder Engineering has done the test holes. and has designed a Mound sewage disposal system for this project, which would include a septic tank, and then a pumping station. and a force main up to a Mound System that would be located approximately 200 feet from the lake. The proposal is to build a driveway and a small parking area. which I scaled to be approximately 3.000 square feet of impermeable area here. with another 1.000 feet, about 4, so it looks like it's around 15 percent impermeable. When the house is built, in order to conform to the Park Commission Regulations, it'll be necessary to install eaves drains to dispose of the water that comes off the house. Also. if this is to be either a gravel. as was recently discussed. a minute or so ago. or a asphalt, an impermeable surface, it'll necessary to dispose of any runoff from this. It is a substantially vegetated lot. This conforms. setback wise. in all respects, with the exception of a foot and a half on the south side. In this zone, it's necessary to have a total of 50 feet of setback on the two sides, with one side being no less than 20. but we've got 20 and 28 and a half. It's very close to conformance. The applicant owns no contiguous property. It is virtually a case of building on a prior nonconforming lot that would be otherwise allowed if it weren't in a Critical Environmental Area. I think that this is the minimum variance that would be required. This was a relatively small house. It should have no impact on public service. It's consistent with the neighborhood, as the neighborhood has developed. There's a house on the lot to the south that is sUbstantially closer to the lake than the shoreline. I think you can see that on your map. The shoreline comes out in this area, and it's substantially closer. There is a house here. This should not interfere. substantially, with any views. I also. I don't know if you received this from Arlyne. I sent this to her by fax earlier today, but I have supporting letters. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. We have them here to be read. MR. REHM-You do have that consent? From a number of landowners. This was done by Mark McCollister, and he also printed their names in the margin. because I don't think there was anybody that could read some of the signatures there. MR. TURNER-Okay. You're right. Okay. Does anybody have any questions of Mr. Rehm? Okay. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HBARING OPBNBD NO COMMBNT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSBD CORRBSPOI1DBRCB - 23 - MRS. EGGLESTON-First we have a letter from Owen Davies & Associates. "As the real estate broker involved in the sale of the Mark McCollister lot to be conveyed to Oscar Shriver. I'm writing you to confirm that the location of the well on Michael and Susan Kaidas' lot. Tax Map 16-1--30.1, is 50 feet from side line of the McCollister lot. and 230 feet from edge of pavement on Seelye Road. When plotted on survey map with an engineer's ruler, this comes to 108 feet, plus or minus, from the proposed leachfield on the McCollister lot. The measurements for the location of the well were provided to me by Michael Kaidas. the owner of the adjacent property, No. 16-1-30.1, on the south boundary of the McCollister lot. The septic system for the Kaidas property is located as indicated." And a letter from Susan Hewlett, "In regard to the enclosed notice. I want to go on record that I have no objection to this variance request. I know the property well. and feel a home on the property will have no adverse effect." And a letter signed by several people. It As residents of the area surrounding this property. we would like to be on record as supporting this variance application. We are aware of this project. and do not feel granting this variance would have any adverse impact on the neighborhood. Robert Marra, Bob Middleton, Geraldine Middleton, Richard Tozola, Patricia Tozola. James White, Joe and Rose Guerra, John Tarrant It And thank the gentleman for the printed names. That's it. Ted. MR. TURNER-Okay. No further questions of the applicant? Anyone have any thoughts? None? Okay. Motion's in order. It's pretty simple. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIARCE NO. 25-1993 MARK R. MCCOLLISTER. Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption. seconded by Chris Thomas: Grant relief of .38 of an acre, from Section 179-16C, which requires one acre for the minimum lot area in the Waterfront Residential zone. I also move that we grant relief of 76 feet per Section 179-16C, which requires 150 feet as the minimum lot width in the Waterfront Residential Zone, and I also request that we grant relief of 1.5 feet from Section 179-16C, which requires the sum of 50 feet for the side yard setbacks. with a minimum of 20 feet on one side. The practical difficulty for granting this relief is that the parcel is a preexisting and nonconforming both in its lot area and lot width, which does not allow the placement of a structure which would meet the zoning requirements, and because it's located in a Critical Environmental Area. it does not qualify for the general exemption for prior nonconforming lots. It is also felt that this is the minimum relief being requested to alleviate this specified practical difficulty, and by granting this variance. it would not be detrimental to other properties in the district or neighborhood, and by granting this variance, there would not be an effect on public facilities or services. Duly adopted this 16th day of June, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles. Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston. Mr. Thomas, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Miss Hauser ABSENT: Mr. Philo NEW BUSIIIESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 42-1993 TYPE II SR-IA JOHR F. O'DONNELL PATRICIA S. 'rA'l'KO OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 32 MOHAWK 'l'RAIL APPLICAR'r IS PROPOSIIIG TO CORS'l'RUCT AN IN-GROURD POOL III 'rHB REAR YARD OF THEIR PROPBRTY. AND IS PROPOSING FOURTEEN (14) FBE'r POR THE WEST. RBAR YARD SETBACK. AND THIRTEEN (13) FEET FOR THE SOU'rH, REAR - 24 - YARD SETBACK AND IS SEEKING SIX (6) FEET AND SEVER (7) FEET RELIEF RESPECTIVELY. PROM SECTION 179-67B(2). WHICH REQUIRES POOLS TO BE ERECTED A MIRIMUM OF TWENTY (20) PEET FROM THE REAR YARD LOT LINES. TAX MAP RO. 121-8-58 LOT SIZE: 150 PT. BY 160 FT. SECTION 179- 67B(2) JOHN O'DONNELL & PATRICIA TATKO. PRESENT STAFP INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 42-1993. John F. O'Donnell. Patricia S. Tatko, Meeting Date: June 16, 1993 "SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to construct a fourteen by twenty- four (14 x 24) foot, in-ground pool in the rear of their property. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: 1. Applicant is proposing fourteen (14) feet for the west rear yard setback and thirteen (13) feet for the south rear yard setback and is seeking six (6) feet and seven (7) feet respectively. from Section 179-67B(2). which requires pools to be erected a minimum of twenty (20) feet from the rear lot lines. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. DESCRIBE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW THE PLACEMENT OF A STRUCTURE WHICH MEETS THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS. Applicant's property is bounded by two (2) roads. and as such. is considered to have two (2) front yards (as per Section 179-30.1). with the remainder of the property considered to be the parcel's rear yard. As applicant's dwelling is placed in the rear of the property, the only space remaining to site the proposed pool intrudes into the required rear yard setback. 2. IS THIS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NECESSARY TO ALLEVIATE THE SPECIFIC PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY OR IS THERE ANY OTHER OPTION AVAILABLE WHICH WOULD REQUIRE NO VARIANCE? It would appear that the relief requested is the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the specific practical difficulty and because of the placement of the existing dwelling. no other practical option is available for placement of the pool which require no variance. 3. WOULD THIS VARIANCE BE DETRIMENTAL TO OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD? It would appear that the variance would not be detrimental to other properties in the district or neighborhood as the project is consistent with the character of a residential neighborhood and although the proposed placement of the pool will be closer than the required twenty (20) feet from the applicant's west and south boundary lines. according to the Building Department's records. the distance from the proposed pool to the neighbor's dwelling to the south is forty-five (45) feet and sixty (60) feet from the neighbor's dwelling to the west. 4. WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF THE VARIANCE ON PUBLIC FACILITIES OR SERVICES? It would appear that the variance would not effect public facilities or services. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: Staff has no further comments regarding this project." MR. TURNER-I have a couple of questions. Did you purchase this house initially as brand new? MS. TATKO-Yes. MR. TURNER-So you weren't aware that you had to be 20 feet. I guess. from the back property line? And the builder didn't either. or didn't attempt to find out. Probably figured you'd never need a swimming pool. Has anybody else got any questions? MR. THOMAS-I've got one for the Staff. If they had to put a four foot fence around that pool. the Fence Ordinance. does that come into play? MRS. RUTHSCHILD-It's supposed to be within the area. yes. around the pool. and the size of the. MR. THOMAS-Yes. It's a four foot fence around the pool. but I mean. there's setbacks from the property line to that fence. isn't there? - 25 - MR. TURNER-Are you going to put a patio around this pool. with a fence? MS. TATKO-The actual fence. yes. MR. TURNER-But the actual pool size. MS. TATKO-We have a patio already. and the pool would be off the patio. MR. TURNER-But I mean, you're not gOing to go totally around the pool with the patio? MS. TATKO-No. MR. TURNER-The patio is between the house and the pool? MS. TATKO-Yes. MR. TURNER-And then you're gOing to put the fence outside of the pool. as required? MS. TATKO-Yes. MR. KARPELES-Is that the 10 feet? Is the patio. I mean. could you move the pool closer to the house? MR. TURNER-No. They've only got 10 feet. You've got to be 10 feet away from the house. Ten feet is required from any accessory building to the house. I looked at it. I was just concerned as to why they built the house so far back from the road. MS. TATKO-I don't know. MR. TURNER-You must love it in the winter time, especially this last winter. cleaning that driveway out. MR. O'DONNELL-In the summer. it's fun mowing the lawn. MR. CARVIN-There is a fence, I noticed a stockade fence. Is that along your property line? MR. O'DONNELL-No. it's not. The stockade fence there right now borders the property to the south and to the west. MS. TATKO-They're right on the property line. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So those fences are on the property line. Okay. It looked like there was a big opening. MS. TATKO-That's the gap between this neighbor and that neighbor, so that we didn't fill in, because we didn't know what we were going to do. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So I didn't lose my mind when I was over there. MS. TATKO-No. MR. CARVIN-So there is a stockade fence along the south side. and along the west side. with an opening right in the corner. MS. TATKO-Yes. That's what we would fill in when we put in our own fence. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So, in other words, basically, you're uSing your neighbor's fences as the fencing. or would you be using them? Or would you put another fence right around the pool? MS. TATKO-No. because theirs goes back this way. We would have to have it on the side. for privacy. too. - 26 - MR. TURNER-Any other questions? MR. CARVIN-When I was out there. what was the distance. there was a house on the south lot. It seemed to me that that was awful close to the proposed. MR. TURNER-Forty-five feet. MR. CARVIN-Okay. right? So it's 45 here. but it's 60 from the other. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Is there any possibility of sliding that pool over a little bit more? In other words. making is 15 or 18 feet, and then drawing it in closer here. to maybe 10 or 11 feet? MR. TURNER-Behind the house more, you mean? MR. CARVIN-Yes. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Also. there's an awful lot of trees out there. Are you going to have a real problem with that? MS. TATKO-We just had four trees taken down. I don't know if they were taken down, last week? MR. CARVIN-Okay. No. I was out there a week and a half or longer, because I saw, there were some big pine trees. if memory serves correct. MS. TATKO-Okay. It was last Tuesday. We have the big one, and one that was eaten by a Woodpecker. that was really in bad shape. but we had four of them taken down. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So that has opened up out there then? MS. TATKO-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Would it be possible to move that over a little bit? I just was kind of concerned about the closeness on the south side. I don't know if we can pick up another. MR. O'DONNELL-Well, there would be a fence on that south side. MR. CARVIN-No. It's just the physical positioning of the pool. In other words, at least the way it's diagramed here. it looks like it could slide. kind of like. what is that. northwest. a little bit? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-In other words, because you've got quite a bit of distance from the people on the Mohawk Trail R~ad. or street, I would almost think it might be better to come a little closer here. MR. RUTHSCHILD-That would change the setback on that side. MR. TURNER-On the rear. MR. CARVIN-On that side. Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Where is your back entrance. to the house? MR. O'DONNELL-To the house there. it would be three quarters of the way down. on the north side. MR. TURNER-Right about there. Right where they indicate. I think there's a little mark right on the map. - 27 - - HR. O'DONNELL-I think. again, what I was looking at. the house is on an angle to the lot that's sort of square. MS. TATKO-We' re trying to keep it parallel to the back of the house. HR. TURNER-Well, it would still be parallel. HR. CARVIN-It would still be parallel. It's just that you'd only be. instead of 14 feet. again, I'm going to guess maybe five or six feet off the property line to the west. but you'd actually be probably 18 or 19 feet off the south. MR. O'DONNELL-It may put us farther into that wooded area. MR. CARVIN-Well. that's what I was wondering about. the trees and the whatnot. if it was feasible. because of the distance. See, my concern would be the closeness to that house on the south there. HRS. EGGLESTON-You really wouldn't want to take down more trees, though. HR. CARVIN-Well. no. I don't know if there's anymore trees in here. I noticed that there was quite a bit of trees that seemed, on the other side. MS. TATKO-There are some bigger ones back towards the other side. HR. CARVIN-Yes, on the other side that. supposedly, I don't think, are yours. Because this is going to be fenced here. and this is going to be fenced here. MR. TURNER-There's a fence in the back already. MR. O'DONNELL-None of the fences are part of our property. MR. TURNER-No. I know they're not yours, but I mean. there is a fence there from the other property owner, six foot high. I think. So it does give you quite a lot of privacy, at least from that perspective, from the back side, and I guess Hr. Carvin's question is, could you move it that way? HR. O'DONNELL-I'd have to look and see what trees are still there. MR. CARVIN-Okay. What size pool are you planning to put in? MR. TURNER-Fourteen by twenty-four. HR. O'DONNELL-Fourteen by twenty-four. HR. CARVIN-Okay. So that's the pool's dimensions, isn't it? HR. O'DONNELL-Right. HR. CARVIN-So you're going to pick up, normally. they will run a three foot ribbon right around the pool. in any event. That's standard. So now you're going to be there. and then your fence normally will either sit right on that. or another foot. So you're talking another four foot. Again. I have a pool, and I've got an eight foot ribbon of cement around it, and my fence sits back another two feet. and I have quite a bit of land, and I don't have an odd shape like this. So. I've gotten used to quite a bit of space. So I kind of like a lot of space at the pool area. That's why I'm just thinking, by the time you get all your fence and everything, it's going to be sitting right practically, of course. it's going to be in here, too. There's more distance between that house. HR. O'DONNELL-Well. the fence will be going along the property line itself. - 28 - MS. TATKO-On that side. MR. TURNER-Yes. but I mean, you have to enclose a pool with a four foot fence. That's State Law. period, or enclose the whole thing. MR. O'DONNELL-Right. but isn't that. that property line is how far from the pool? MR. TURNER-Thirteen feet. MR. CARVIN-Well. it says thirteen feet from the corner. the nearest corner. but then there was something in the minutes here. I thought. or in the write uP. that said you're only. what. 45 feet from the house. MRS. EGGLESTON-The neighbor's drawing to the west. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-The neighbor's house. MR. O'DONNELL-That would be their garage. MS. TATKO-That's the garage. which is, the kind of house they live on. It's a double garage and the decking. MR. CARVIN-You just don't have a whole lot of space there to work with. I mean, you're only talking 14 feet. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-This is what the south and the other property is. This is where the pool is. This is their property, and so this is what it would look like. as proposed. MR. CARVIN-See, what I wanted to do was, just to pick up a little distance here. but we just don't have a whole lot of room. So. I mean, it becomes a balloon. You're arguing nickels and dimes here, as far as the distance. MRS. EGGLESTON-I think you are. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-And this. as they said, is the garage. MR. CARVIN-I guess I don't have a problem with it. MR. TURNER-Okay. Anything else? Any other questions? Okay. Let me open the public hearing. PUBLIC HZARI.G OPZ.ZD GARFIELD RAYMOND MR. RAYMOND-Garfield Raymond. I'm here not in support or in opposition. but I'm a landowner, a residence owner, I own up in Tyneswood. My main concern with this. I just don't want to open up the doors. there are declarations that run with that land up there. When you were trying to do. shifting it, you've got to keep a buffer of trees all along the property line. I believe. I couldn't find the declarations in my office today, but I think that they are 10 feet from the property line. any tree four inches or greater cannot be removed. So my concern with this application is that if you open up the door to allow a variance here, I don't want it happening to where my house is. I've got a nice treed area in the back. and I'd like to keep it that way. I don't want somebody covering up my property line. So, by you saying. change it. cut these trees down, you're going to require them to violate the declaration. I think. because. MR. CARVIN-That was going to be one of my questions, if there was any restrictive covenants. MR. RAYMOND-There are restrictive covenants that run with the project in there. - 29 - MR. KARPELES-Aren't there some restrictive covenants about fences, too? I'm in Tyneswood. also. MR. RAYMOND-Yes. of your property. You're not to have any fences in the front yards You can have them in the back. MR. KARPELES-I thought there was one about, I should have read it, running them lengthwise, if you can't have one, a solid fence. or something like that. MR. RAYMOND-I don't remember that. My main concern was just not to have all the trees removed. I know some of the lots. when they did that. they were starting to cut down the trees. and they weren't keeping that buffer zone. MR. TURNER-A 10 foot margin of trees from the rear property line, or from the side? MR. RAYMOND-From the side. on the side. and the rear. MR. TURNER-On the side also? MR. RAYMOND-Yes. all the way around. That's my only concern. I think this would be the first pool in Tyneswood. MR. KARPELES-No. MR. RAYMOND-Is there one there? MS. TATKO-In the circle. MR. KARPELES-A brand new one, just was built. MR. RAYMOND-But, I mean. I'm in favor of the pool, but I just want to make sure that there's no break down in the buffer zone between the constructed lots. That's all. MR. CARVIN-I've got to ask the question. then. Are the trees that you've taken down. have you violated your restrictive covenants? MS. TATKO-No. They were right on ours. We still have lots of. MR. CARVIN-You're still in compliance? MS. TATKO-Yes. MR. O'DONNELL-They were in a bad state. MR. CARVIN-Yes. Well. if there's no restrictive covenants, they haven't violated anything. MR. TURNER-Well, we can condition it. If you want to approve it, condi tional with the fact that if there is a covenant that restricts them from whatever. then the variance is void. MR. MARTIN-Is there any homeowners association in there? MRS. EGGLESTON-I was just going to say. who's going to police that? MR. CARVIN-What are the restrictive covenants? MRS. EGGLESTON-How would they do that? MR. TURNER-They'd have to bring a copy of them in to the Planning Office, when they get their permit for the pool. He raised the question. MRS. EGGLESTON-Does he have anything to show that? MR. TURNER-No. He says he couldn't find his. - 30 - MR. RAYMOND-I know there's restrictive covenants. I think they would admit there' s restrictive covenants. He's a landowner in there. He would admit that there are restrictive covenants that run with this land. covenants that run with the land itself. MR. TURNER-We could approve it with the condition that, upon pursuance of a permit to install the pool. that the covenant come with it. so that the Staff can check it and see where the pool's located, and if it qualifies. If it doesn't. then the variance is void. HR. CARVIN-I don't have a problem with it. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. HR. TURNER-That way there, it protects the people. them. It protects him. It protects MR. RAYHOND-See. I just think going to have somebody in restrictions. I'm going to have thing, and then we're right up want that. if you grant one variance, you're here that impedes into these somebody next to me doing the same each other's back. I just don't HR. TURNER-No. I hear you. MR. MARTIN-Ted. you could require them to submit a deed with their building permit and be in compliance. HR. TURNER-That's what I'm saying. Right, before the permit is issued, so they can review them, and then if there is a problem. then the variance is void. PUBLIC HEARIRG CLOSED MR. TURNER-No correspondence? Motion's in order. M01'IOR 1'0 APPROVE AREA VARIAIICE RO. 42-1993 JOHN 1'. O'DORNELL PATRICIA S. 1'A1'KO. Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner. This will grant relief from Section 179-6 7B (2). which requires pools to be erected a minimum of 20 feet from the rear lot lines. This will allow the applicant to construct a 14 by 24 foot inground pool in the rear yard of their property. This grants six feet relief from the west rear yard setback and seven feet relief from the south rear yard setback. The practical difficulty is that the property is bounded by two roads and as such applicant has to contend with two front yards. Additionally. the house is placed in the rear of the property. further prohibiting the applicant from meeting the necessary setbacks. I believe this to be the minimum request to alleviate the specific practical difficulty. There is no neighborhood opposition. and I don't believe there would be an effect on public facilitiés or services. nor would it change the character of the neighborhood. This variance is given contingent on the applicant providing Staff with documented proof of restrictive covenants in their deed. and if this variance violates the restrictive covenants, the variance is null and void. Duly adopted this 16th day of June. 1993. by the following vote, AYES: Mr. Karpeles. Hr. Carvin. Mrs. Eggleston. Miss Hauser, Mr. Thomas. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Hr. Philo AREA VARIANCB RO. 43-1993 1'YPE II HC-IA CUMBERLAND I'ARHS, INC. OWNBR. SUB AS ABOVB CORRBR 01' QUAKBR ROAD AND RIDGB ROADS - 31 - APPLICAB~ IS PROPOSING ~O COBS~RUCT A FREES~ABDING CANOPY OVER A GASOLIBE PUMPING ISLABD. ABD IS PROPOSING PIVE (5) PBE~ POR ~HE PRON~ YARD SE~BACK. APPLICANT IS SEEKIBG SEVEBTY (70) FEET RBLIEP PROM SEC~IOB 179-28B(6), WHICH REQUIRES ALL BUILDIBGS ERBCTED OR ALTERED WITHIB THB TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY DIS~RICT ~O BE SET BACK SEVEBTY-PIVE (75) PEE~ PROM THE ROAD RIGHT-OP-WAY. (WARREB COUNTY PLABBIBG ) DA~E. JUBE 9. 1993 TAX HAP BUMBER. 109- 3- 36 LOT SIZB. 1.25 ACRES SEC~ION 179-28B(5) STEVE NOFTLE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. EGGLESTON-And the Warren County Planning Board approved. "With the condition that if Quaker Road is widened in that area. that the project come back for re-review." STAPF IBPUT Notes from Staff. Area Variance No. 43-1993, Cumberland Farms, Inc.. Meeting Date: June 16.1993 "SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to construct a freestanding canopy over an existing gasoline pumping island. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: 1. Applicant is proposing five (5) feet as the front yard setback and is seeking seventy (70) feet relief from Section 179-28B(6), which requires all buildings erected or altered within the Travel Corridor Overlay District to be set back seventy-five (75) feet from the road right-of-way. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. DESCRIBE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WHICH DOES NOT PERMIT THE PLACEMENT OF A STRUCTURE WHICH MEETS THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS. The practical difficulty rests with the fact that the eXisting gasoline pumping island is five (5) feet from the road right-of-way and the design and placement of the proposed canopy duplicates the existing nonconforming setback from the road right-of-way. 2. IS THIS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NECESSARY TO ALLEVIATE THE SPECIFIC PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY OR IS THERE ANY OTHER OPTION AVAILABLE WHICH WOULD REQUIRE NO VARIANCE? It would appear that the relief requested is the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the specific practical difficulty and no other option is available which would require no variance. 3. WOULD THIS VARIANCE BE DETRIMENTAL TO OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD? It would appear that the variance would not be a detriment to other properties in the district or neighborhood as the project is consistent with the commercial district within which it is located. 4. WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF THE VARIANCE ON PUBLIC FACILITIES OR SERVICES? It would appear that the variance would not effect public facilities and services. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: Applicant is proposing to construct a freestanding canopy over an existing gasoline pumping island which he believes is necessary to compete with other gas stations, as it affords shelter from the weather for patrons, and will also incorporate a fire suppression system." MR. NOFTLE-Steve Noftle. MR. TURNER-Roof leaders in the canopy, down to the base of the pump? It this going to run underground? MR. NOFTLE-Yes. MR. TURNER-There's no proposal, didn't you used to have another island over here. before you put your new pump system in, towards Ridge Road? MR. NOFTLE-I believe that is correct. MR. TURNER-Is there any prospect of putting another island in. at a later date? MR. NOFTLE-I think, where you're referring to, I'm not sure. MR. TURNER-Yes. It's right on the Ridge Road side. - 32 - MR. NOFTLE-That's where our tanks are. MR. TURNER-Yes. I know it. but I'm saying. is there any proposal to do anything over here at a future date? MR. NOFTLE-No, there isn't. MR. TURNER-Okay. Does anyone have any other questions? MR. CARVIN-What's the difference between this one and the next one? MR. TURNER-It's the same thing, just about. They've got to be 75 feet from the Travel Corridor. MR. CARVIN-I see. In other words, one's for. MR. TURNER-Kendrick and Lake George Road. MR. CARVIN-All right. MR. TURNER-Any questions? MR. THOMAS-Is there a fire suppression system with this? MR. TURNER-Yes. There has to be. MR. NOFTLE-Yes. there is. MR. THOMAS-There is? What about the runoff from the canopy? MR. NOFTLE-That would be tied in to the. we already have a stormwater drain off in this location. I'm not sure where it's exactly located for this particular site, but it can be tied in underground. if that's recommended. MR. THOMAS-I think it would be a real good idea. MR. MARTIN-This is coming to site plan. before the Planning Board. MR. THOMAS-Is it? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. TURNER-But I think right now this is probably about the same elevation as Quaker Road. and I think the runoff's going to run right towards Quaker Road. If it doesn't. it runs towards the corner of Ridge and Quaker. and in that little ditch right there by the light. and there is a storm drain. I think. right there in that corner. MR. NOFTLE-Right but. that wouldn't cause greater runoff than there is presently. MR. TURNER-No. I know. MR. CARVIN-Is there going to be any signage on the canopy? MR. NOFTLE-Did you receive copies of the site elevation plan? MR. TURNER-No. MR. KARPELES-No. MR. TURNER-Thank you. MR. NOFTLE-I believe this just shows Self Service. and the logo Gulf. MR. THOMAS-Is that lighted? - 33 - MR. NOFTLE-No. MR. TURNER-No. MR. MARTIN-Is there currently a freestanding sign for the bUilding? MR. TURNER-Yes. You can't have the signs on the canopy. MR. CARVIN-I don't know, if it says Gulf, do you know what I'm saying? MR. MARTIN-It doesn't matter. MR. TURNER-It doesn't matter. They can only have one. MR. MARTIN-We weren't aware of this, that this was gOing to have signage on it. MR. NOFTLE-We have another canopy at Ex~t 18. I'm not sure what we have at that location, but that does create a problem, we can certainly forgo the signage. MR. TURNER-Yes. but I mean. this is not a standard canopy that you buy already manufactured. Is this manufactured to your spec, or is this a canopy that you buy that's already sized up to fit over these pumps? MR. NOFTLE-I believe it's already sized up to fit. MR. TURNER-But do you have an option to buy it without the letter? MR. NOFTLE-Yes. MR. CARVIN-I think they're just plastic inserts. MR. TURNER-Yes. That's all. MR. MARTIN-That's not to say you couldn't apply for a variance for one. It's just. you'd have to have a variance from this Board to do that. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-That's an option for you. MR. TURNER-Anything else. Chris? MR. THOMAS-No. That's all I've got. MR. TURNER-All right. Let me open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPE.ED NO COHHBNT PUBLIC HEARI.G CLOSED MR. TURNER-Any Correspondence? MRS. EGGLESTON-No. MR. TURNER-All right. Any further discussion? MR. CARVIN-I think it's a standard canopy. I think most gas stations are going to it. I guess if we've got a problem with the signage, we should probably clarify that. MR. MARTIN-Do you have any fire protection there now? MR. TURNER-Yes. They do. That's required. - 34 - MR. NOFTLE-We do there now. MR. TURNER-That's required by the State. MR. NOFTLE-We don't at Route 9. MR. TURNER-You don't at 9? I thought I saw some fire extinguishers hanging on the pole. MR. MARTIN-Because I don't know if the Board's aware. we had a fire at the Mobil Station at the corner of Aviation and Route 9, and the system worked very well. The fire was out within two seconds. MR. TURNER-Yes. they do. MR. MARTIN-With a car full of kids. MR. TURNER-Okay. Motion's in order, then. MOTIOR TO APPROVII ARBA VARIARCII RO. 43-1993 CUHBIIRLARD rARMS. IRC., Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption. seconded by Fred Carvina The applicant is proposing to construct a freestanding canopy over an existing gasoline pumping island. The applicant needs relief from the front yard setback, which the requirement is 75 feet. I'll grant the applicant 70 feet of relief from Section 179-28B(6), which requires all buildings erected or altered within the Travel Corridor Overlay District be 75 feet from the road right-of-way. The practical difficulty rests with the fact that the eXisting pumping island is five feet from the road right-of-way. This difficulty is further enhanced by the widening of Quaker Road, which further reduces the setback. This is the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty, since there is no other option available which would require no variance. This would not be detrimental to other properties in the district or neighborhood. It has no effect on public facilities or services. The canopy will be erected with no signage included. Duly adopted this 16th day of June, 1993. by the following votea AYES: Mr. Carvin. Mrs. Eggleston. Miss Hauser, Mr. Thomas. Mr. Karpeles. Mr. Turner NOES a NONE ABSENTa Mr. Philo ARIIA VARIARCII RO. 44-1993 TYPB II HC-IA CUMBIIRLARD rARMS, IBC. OWBBR: SAMB AS ABOVB CORRIIR or ROUTB 9 AND KBNDRICK ROAD APPLICANT IS PROPOSIRG TO CONSTRUCT A rRBBSTARDIRG CAROPY OVBR AN BXISTIRG GASOLIBII PUMPIRG ISLABD, AND IS PROPOSIRG rORTY (40) rBBT rOR THB rRORT YARD SBTBACK. APPLICART IS SBBKIRG THIRTy-rIVII (35) rBBT RBLIBP rROM SBCTIOR 179-28B(6), WHICH RBQUIRBS ALL BUILDIRGS BRECTBD OR ALTBRBD WITHIR THB TRAVIIL CORRIDOR OVBRLAY DISTRICT. TO BB SBT BACK SBVBBTy-rIVE (75) rBBT PROM THB ROAD RIGHT-Or-WAY. (WARRBN COURTY PLAIINIRG) DATB. JUNB 9, 1993 TAX HAP BUMBBR. 69- 1-17 LOT SIZB. 1 ACRB SBCTIOR 179-288(6) STEVE NOFTLE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. NOFTLE-This one at present has no fire suppression system. and with the new installation of canopy, that would include a fire suppression system. MRS. EGGLESTON-And the Warren County Planning Board returned. "No County Impact." S'lAl'r IRPUor - 35 - Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 44-1993, Cumberland Farms. Inc., Meeting Date: June 16.1993 "SUMMARY OF PROJECT. Applicant is proposing to construct a freestanding canopy over an eXisting gasoline pumping island. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: 1. Applicant is proposing forty (40) feet as the front yard setback, and is seeking thirty-five (35) feet relief from Section 179-28B(6), which requires that all buildings erected or altered within the Travel Corridor Overlay District shall be seventy-five (75) feet from the road right-of-way. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. DESCRIBE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW THE PLACEMENT OF A STRUCTURE WHICH MEETS THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS. The practical difficulty rests with the fact that the eXisting gasoline pumping island is forty (40) feet from the road right-of-way. and the design and position of the proposed canopy duplicates the existing setback from the road right-of-way. 2. IS THIS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NECESSARY TO ALLEVIATE THE SPECIFIC PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY OR IS THERE ANY OTHER OPTION AVAILABLE WHICH WOULD REQUIRE NO VARIANCE? It would appear that the relief requested is the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the specific practical difficulty and no other option is available that would require no variance. 3. WOULD THIS VARIANCE BE DETRIMENTAL TO OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD? It would appear that the variance would not be detrimental to other properties in the district or neighborhood as project is consistent with the commercial district within which it is located. 4. WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF THE VARIANCE ON PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES? It would appear that the variance would not effect public facilities and services. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: Applicant is proposing to construct a freestanding canopy over an existing gasoline pumping station. which he believes is necessary to compete with other gas stations, as it affords shelter from the weather for patrons and will also incorporate a fire suppression system." MR. TURNER-Now. do you want to make any further comment? Do you want to make the comments again you just made before we read the application? HR. NOFTLE-The installation of this gas canopy will allow us to have a fire suppression system, where we don't have one at present. MR. TURNER-Okay. I've got a question for you. Is the tank system. has that been updated. or has that got to be updated? HR. NOFTLE-I'm not aware that it needs to be updated. MR. TURNER-No. but has it been updated recently? No? MR. NOFTLE-What type of update do you mean? MR. TURNER-I mean as far as replacement. Are they going to be updated? Because what I'm think is if you're going to update the tanks, and rearrange it. you may be able to pick up 10 feet farther back with your pump, the position of your pump station. You've got 30 feet and a half from the edge of the concrete to the back of that parking space. and you'd only need 20 to. MR. NOFTLE-I'm not clear on what you? MR. TURNER-You need 20 feet from that edge of that concrete to the end of that parking lane, and what I'm saying is. if you're going to update the whole system. and replace the tanks. the pumps and everything. you pick up 10 feet more. and pick up 10 feet in the front, make it 50 feet versus 40 feet. That's what I'm saying. MR. NOFTLE-The tanks are fiberglass tanks. HR. TURNER-Okay. So you're not. well then you've just done them. I think you just did them a while ago. MR. CARVIN-It says '83 here on the map. - 36 - MR. NOFTLE-'83 they were installed, fiberglass tanks there. MR. TURNER-Were they there then? Okay. MR. NOFTLE-And as far as relocating the pumps, that would be. MR. TURNER-No, but if you did the whole thing. you could relocate them, but if you don't do the whole thing. you can't do it. That's my point. MRS. EGGLESTON-Were you also intending the same signage on this? Do you have the height level like you had on your other? MR. NOFTLE-The height would the same, 14' 6" would be the height. MR. TURNER-But you did propose the same signage? MR. NOFTLE-The same signage. MR. TURNER-Okay. There won't be any. sign right on the corner. They have a freestanding MRS. EGGLESTON-Do you have one of those? There doesn't seem to be one in the file. I'd like to put one in the file. So that they'll see, when we reference. that it won't include the, is it the same as this one? No that has a different. yes, let us put, let me have one. Thank you. sir. MR. KARPELES-Is that going to have any effect on visibility. as you're coming out Kendrick Road? Will that limit your visibility looking up through? MR. NOFTLE-No. It's a height of 14' 6". There's two columns. MR. TURNER-That's a good 80 feet from Kendrick Road over to the side of that canopy. Bob. The thing that does inhibit the view. I think. is the freestanding sign, right on the corner. MR. KARPELES-Yes. I drove by there today and I was looking. because we didn't have a print of the. it was kind of hard for me to visualize whether it was going to interfere or not. but it didn't really look like it would. MR. TURNER-No. Okay. Any further questions of the applicant? None? Okay. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HBARIRG OPBNBD HO COHHBIIT PUBLIC HBARIIIG CLOSBD MR. TURNER-Any Correspondence? MRS. EGGLESTON-No. MR. TURNER-Okay. Motion's in order. MOTIOR TO APPROVB UBA VARIARCB RO. 44-1993 CUHBBRLAIID I"ARHS. IRC., Introduced by Robert Karpeles who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: Applicant is proposing to construct a freestanding canopy over an existing gasoline pumping island, and we would grant 40 feet as a front yard setback. and 35 feet relief from Section 179-28B(6). which requires that all buildings that are erected or altered within the Travel Corridor Overlay District will be 75 feet from the road right-of-way. The practical difficulty rests with the fact that the existing gasoline pumping island is 40 feet from the road right-of-way, and the design and position of the proposed - 37 - canopy duplicates the existing setback from the road right-of-way. It appears that the relief requested is the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the difficulty, and this would not be detrimental to other properties in the district or neighborhood. It would have no effect on public facilities or services. We don't want any signage on this. Duly adopted this 16th day of June. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carvin. Mrs. Eggleston, Miss Hauser. Mr. Thomas. Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Philo MR. TURNER-Now we're going to back up to 43-1993. I want to amend that motion further. I want to put one more condition with it. HOTIOII 'f0 AMBIID ARBA VARIAIICB 110. 43-1993 CUHBBRLAIID !'ARHS. IRC.. Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: I would amend that motion to include, that if Quaker Road is widened in that area, that the project will come back for re- review. Duly adopted this 16th day of June. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles. Mr. Carvin. Mrs. Eggleston. Miss Hauser, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Philo ARBA VARIANCB RO. 46-1993 'fYPB: URLIS'fBD LC-42A SCOT'f AIID RBIIBB GUIITHBR OWRBR. SAMB AS ABOVB ASH DRIVB APPLICAII'f IS PROPOSING TO PLACB AR III-GROUIID POOL IR THB WBST SIDB YARD O!' HIS PROPBRTY AIID IS SBBXIIIG RBLIB!' !'ROH SBCTIOII 179-67B(2). WHICH RBQUIRBS THAT A POOL BB BRBCTBD III THB RBAR YARD O!' A PRIIICIPAL BUILDING. APPLICANT IS ALSO PROPOSIIIG BIGHTY-SBVBII AIID BIGHT TBRTHS (87.8) PBRCBNT PBRHBABILITY AIID IS SBEKING SBVBN AIID TWO TBRTHS ( 7 . 2 ) PBRCBRT RBLIB!' !'ROH SECTION 179-13C, WHICH RBQUIRBS NINBTY-!'IVB ( 95 ) PBRCBIIT PBRHBABILITY IN THB LC-42A ZOIlB. (WARRBII COUNTY PLARRIIIG) DATB: JUIIB 9. 1993 TAX HAP RUHBBR. 36-2-21 LOT SIZB: 33.203 SQ. !'T. SBCTIOII 179-67B(2). 179-13C SCOTT AND RENEB GUNTHER, PRESENT MRS. EGGLESTON-The Warren County Planning Board returned, "No County Impact". STA!'F INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 46-1993, Scott and Renee Gunther. Meeting Date: June 16, 1993 "SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to place an in-ground pool in the west, side yard of his property. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: 1. Applicant is proposing to place an in-ground pool in the west. side yard of his property and is seeking relief from Section 179-67B(2). which requires that a pool be erected in the rear yard of a principal building. 2. Applicant is also proposing eighty-seven and eight tenths (87.8) percent permeability and is seeking seven and two tenths (7.2) percent relief from Section 179-13C. which requires ninety-five (95) percent permeability in the LC-42A zone. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. DESCRIBE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW PLACEMENT OF A STRUCTURE WHICH MEETS ZONING REQUIREMENTS. The practical difficulty rests with the fact that the rear yard of the applicant's property is very wet. in addition to being the site - 38 - of the applicant's leach fields. and according to a letter from Adirondack Pool Service, it is not financially feasible to place an in-ground pool in the rear yard of the property (see attached letter from Adirondack Pools & Service, Inc.). 2. IS THIS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NECESSARY TO ALLEVIATE THE SPECIFIC PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY OR IS THERE ANY OTHER OPTION WHICH WOULD NOT REQUIRE A VARIANCE? It would appear that the minimum variance is necessary regarding both placement of the proposed pool and required permeability rate for the parcel, and there does not appear to be any other option which would require no variance because. a. the physical constraints of the parcel's rear yard, and. b. the parcel is a preexisting and nonconforming lot (.75 acres), located in a conservation zone (LC-42 Acres). which requires ninety-five percent permeability for parcels which are zoned to be forty-two acres as the minimum lot size. 3. WOULD THIS VARIANCE BE DETRIMENTAL TO OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD? It would appear that the variance would not be detrimental to the other properties in the district as applicant's property is surrounded by large tractø of undeveloped or moderately developed land which would not be effected by the variance. 4. WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF THE PROPERTY ON PUBLIC FACILITIES OR SERVICES? It would appear that the variance would not effect public facilities or services. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: Applicant is proposing to place an in- ground pool in the side yard of his property because of physical constraints of the land in the rear yard and because he believes that the proposed placement of the pool will afford better visibility of the pool for safe supervision of his children." MRS. EGGLESTON-And the letter from Adirondack Pools and Service. Inc., "After inspecting Mr. Gunther's lot (Book 534. Page 621. Block 139.0-1-21.12) located on RD#l Ash Drive, Box 1815 A in Lake George, NY 12845 I have advised Mr. Gunther that it is economically infeasible. in fact. near impossible to install a pool in the back yard due to the adverse ground conditions and extreme high water table. If you have any further questions please. do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely. Stephen Sabo" MR. GUNTHER-Scott Gunther. MR. TURNER-Scott. the other night when I was up there, I guess. what do you do with your, you burn wood, right? MR. GUNTHER-Yes. MR. TURNER-There was a logging truck taking some wood away to the back of the property. MR. GUNTHER-At my house. or at my uncle's house? MR. TURNER-No, your house. Ash Drive. MR. GUNTHER-My driveway comes in off of Ash Drive Road, yes. MR. TURNER-Yes. So how wet is it back there. if he can go back in there with a logging truck? MR. GUNTHER-I've got construction trucks that drive in there right now, but it gets muddy as you drive through, and I don't let any logging trucks over that at all. It comes off Ash Drive, onto the driveway, out by the bike access. MR. TURNER-That's where you unloaded them? MR. GUNTHER-Yes. MR. TURNER-Yes. He hadn't unloaded them when I was there. MR. GUNTHER-I don't think you were in the right house if you were going to the log house. because I haven't had any logs delivered to my house in over a year. - 39 - MR. TURNER-No? That must be your uncle's then. MR. GUNTHER-It must be. MR. TURNER-Okay. Well. it said the second house in, fourth house in. Yes. That's the one I looked at. I thought I counted right. You're right next to Hayes house, right? MR. GUNTHER-Yes. You did mistake the wrong house, because I didn't have any logs, I do have some logs out there. but I haven't had anybody drop off logs in quite a while. MR. TURNER-Well, there was a truck there, that's all I know, that had some logs on it. MR. GUNTHER-Stumps. they were picking up stumps? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. GUNTHER-Okay. Yes. where I had it removed. on all that stuff. They were taking out stumps from the hill I'm sorry. I work nights. So I miss out MRS. EGGLESTON-So what is the hill you were having removed, in the back yard? MR. GUNTHER-It was in the back, on the side yard. It's up above the lower lawn. If you'd seen it, you see there's three levels to my back yard. The back hill is where I had it removed. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. I was there. MR. KARPELES-That's where the pool's going, isn't it? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. GUNTHER-Yes, and that's well above any water tables. MR. TURNER-Yes. The septic system's fairly new. or is it older? MR. GUNTHER-I have it pumped out every so often. It's probably 10 years old. something like that. I'm not really sure. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-How long have you owned this residence? MR. GUNTHER-I've lived there 30 years. I bought it off my father last year. MISS HAUSER-I was out there today. and it looked like there was groundwater in the rear, here. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. GUNTHER-That's mainly because there's so much traffic going over that at this time. When there's grass. it does dissipate after a while. but the pavement is so high. MR. TURNER-Is that under water when you get a lot of rain in the spring? MR. GUNTHER-Depending on how much runoff comes off of Ash Drive Road, yes. onto my property. I can get anywhere from six inches of water to just a little bit. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Ten feet, you're going to put the pool from the house. Are there any doors that come out of the house on that - 40 - side? MR. GUNTHER-Yes. The kitchen will, that I had mentioned. for access. I didn't show it on my plan at all. because I didn't know it would be important to show that. It's roughly five feet from the end of the house. more towards Ash Drive. It's closer to the Ash Drive side. MR. THOMAS-Where does your electric service come in? MR. GUNTHER-It's an above ground. above right now. but it is going underground. It goes way over the site of the pool. and I've already got the papers from Niagara Mohawk to change that. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I just wanted to make sure. Okay. MRS. EGGLESTON-What kind of lights are those. that you're contemplating? MR. GUNTHER-I really haven't set an exact design on the lights. Probably low beam lights at that point. with four large lights on each corner of the pool for footing lighting. MRS. EGGLESTON-You mean like floodlights? MR. GUNTHER-No. eight little ones. and they're probably going to be like the landscaping type light. MR. TURNER-Low intensity lights, low voltage? MR. GUNTHER-Yes, and then I'll put probably four. I've got four pole lights that I'll put on each corner of the pool for the flooding visibility. MR. THOMAS-Will that shine in the neighbor's house? MR. GUNTHER-No. because there's a large hill that's. there's a hill five foot deep bordering that. and there's a garage next to that. I'm qUite a ways away from everybody. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-They wouldn't effect drivers going up or down the road? MR. GUNTHER-No. not at all. yard or my back yard. You can't even see them on my side MR. TURNER-No. MR. CARVIN-I have a question that probably has nothing to do with the pool. but I noticed, when I was out there. there was. it looks like a camper and a boat, at least three trucks that I could see. Are those yours? MR. GUNTHER-I've got a lot of construction right now. So you probably see. I've got one truck that I use for plowing my yard. The boat. of course. is mine. the two campers. and that's about it. MR. CARVIN-I was going to say, there looked like an old car there. MR. GUNTHER-I'm slowly losing attachment to that. it. you can come over and get it. If you'd like MR. CARVIN-I have an old car I'm trying to get rid of myself. MR. GUNTHER-It was my grandfather's. but I have no money to do any kind of restoration on it. I used to do that kind of stuff. MRS. EGGLESTON-I noticed a lot of debris piled near. as you come in - 41 - ...... ~ your driveway. Is that part of your construction? MR. GUNTHER-That's all the stuff that's going to the dump. MRS. EGGLESTON-Good. MR. GUNTHER-The guy who's doing the excavating is a real good friend of mine, and we're trying to set up a deal with Scotty McLaughlin. to see if he would stop over there. MR. TURNER-Over on his dump? Yes. MR. CARVIN-Now, is there a logging operation? Because I did notice that there looked like a lot of logs set up on the bank. MR. GUNTHER-That's just the wood I cut and split. firewood. That's my MR. CARVIN-That's firewood? Because they looked like they were larger. They looked like they were more logs. MR. GUNTHER-I get them log length. MR. TURNER-Yes. Okay. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HBARIRG OPBMBD NO COHHBR'! PUBLIC HBARIRG CLOSBD MR. TURNER-Any further discussion about the application? Okay. Okay. Motion's in order. None? MOTIOM .,0 APPROVB ARB VARIABCB RO. 46-1993 SCO'!'! ARD RBMBE GUM'!HBR, Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption. seconded by Chris Thomas: This will allow the placement of an in-ground pool in the west side yard of the applicant's property. It will grant relief from Section 179-67B(2), which requires that a pool be erected in the rear yard of a principal building. Also. it will grant relief of 7.2 percent from Section 179-13C. which requires 95 percent permeability in the Land Conservation 42 Acre Zone. The practical difficulty is that the rear portion of the property is mostly wet, and will not handle the placement of a pool in accordance with a letter from Adirondack Pool Service. which said it would be practically impossible to install a pool in the backyard due to the adverse ground conditions and extreme high water table. This is the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the practical di fficul ty, and it appears there's no other option which would require no variance. because of the physical constraints of the parcel's rear yard. It's a preexisting and a nonconforming lot, and I don't believe that the variance would be detrimental to other properties in the district or neighborhood. nor would it have an adverse effect on public facilities or services. There's no neighborhood opposition to the project. and it appears to be minimum relief. Duly adopted this 16th day of June. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Miss Hauser. Mr. Thomas, Mr. Karpeles. Mr. Carvin. Mrs. Eggleston. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Philo MR. TURNER-Okay. We've got a couple of items to do before we get up and leave. We have a letter here from Paul Dusek to Jim Martin. - 42 - in regards to Notice of Public Hearings for matters considered by the Zoning Board of Appeals, and I approached Jim on this. and it was my understanding that we always. when we notified the public, that we include the Tax Map property number and lot number, and Paul has gone on and entertained some thoughts, here. of his own, and down at the bottom is, in conclusion. he said. the adequacy of the project description is question of fact. and I don't feel that, as a matter of law. it can be determined that the notices are necessarily insufficient. but would of course recommend that whenever notices are given. that the property be identified as thoroughly as possible. so that even a potential issue is avoided. So. in other words. it's probably better to over do than under do. and that was my approach, that we should put those numbers in the notice. so if anybody has a concern and wants to look it up. it's right there. and they can identify it and find it and go look at it. So that's my thought. they should be in the notice. MRS. EGGLESTON-I agree. I think they should be in there. MR. TURNER-I think it helps everybody involved. MRS. EGGLESTON-I'd also. well, I'd like to see on the Staff Input. when they say the person's name. the location of the property. because some times they don't have them both together. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-Where's this? Give me an example. MRS. EGGLESTON-On the Staff Input. Like you'll say. McCollister, whatever the name was, and then you'll just start talking about it. If you could just reference the location of the property. then it would ring a bell to me. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-Okay. Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Ted, weren't we supposed to redo some motions? MR. TURNER-We've got to the resolutions. motions, yes. We've got to do the MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. TURNER-We've got to do Brown. Rourke, Potenza. Baker. Shay, O'Toole's. MR. CARVIN-Yes. Looking at the minutes. I have a couple of adjustments. Nothing major. on some of those motions. Do we want to approve the minutes. first, Ted. before we do that. Should we do that? I've got April 27th and 28th. which refers mostly to these. MR. TURNER-All right. April 27th and 28th. MRS. EGGLESTON-We still have to do February and March. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Well. I just didn't know if we needed to have these approved before we resubmitted these motions. MRS. EGGLESTON-I don't know. That's the Chairman's decision. MR. TURNER-Okay. MRS. EGGLESTON-Are we going to do corrections first. and accept the minutes. and then read the motions from them. or what procedure? MR. TURNER-The only reason they didn't get done was because they filed the application with the County late and they wouldn't accept them. So they're void until we accept their approval. - 43 - MRS. EGGLESTON-Jodi & Kevin Brown. that's the first one? MR. TURNER-Yes. That's the first one. HO~IOB ~O APPROVB ARBA VARIABCB BO. 19-1993 JODI & KBVIB BROW., Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption. seconded by Theodore Turner: And grant them relief from Section 179-18C. front yard setback requirements. and the amount of the relief will be 16 feet. The practical difficulty is the property is bounded by two streets. as it's a corner lot, and the requirements for the setbacks are more restrictive. The existing septic system. as described on the drawing. prohibits the placement of the garage in a spot where it would comply with the necessary setback requirements. There's no neighborhood opposition. and there'd be no effect on services or facilities. Duly adopted this 16th day of June. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles. Mr. Carvin. Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Thomas. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Miss Hauser ABSENT: Mr. Philo MR. TURNER-Okay. The next one is Rourke. MR. CARVIN-I don't know if we've got a problem. Of course. if they've read the minutes and they're full aware of the case, then I suppose they can vote on it. right, but they weren't present. MR. TURNER-Yes. They can vote on it. as long as they read the minutes. They had the application. I'll leave that, you can decide whether you want to vote on it or not. MO'fIOB '10 APPROVB ARBA VARIABCB NO. 21-1993 RICHARD ROURKB. Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption. seconded by Fred Carvin: And grant the applicant relief from Section 179-16C, five feet on the south side yard setback. and 10 feet from the north side yard setback. In addition, we would grant the applicant relief from Section 179-16C. in the amount of 83 feet of relief. This is in regards to the average lot width. and also we would grant relief from Section 179-60B(1)(c). in the amount of 29.5 feet from the shoreline setback. Applicant has demonstrated an effort to ask for minimum relief in this matter. since they've been before us twice before with much larger projects. and the practical difficulty is that this is a preexisting nonconforming lot, with a retaining wall going through a portion of the property. The camp is in disrepair. and in order to preserve the applicant's rights to use the property and keep it in good condition. he would need these variances. I don't believe it would be detrimental to other properties in the district or neighborhood as the building he proposes is in conformance and fits in with the character of the neighborhood. Again. I believe it's minimum relief and there's no neighborhood opposition. and I don't believe there'd be any effect on public facilities and services. Duly adopted this 16th day of June. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston. Mr. Thomas, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE - 44 - ABSTAINED: Miss Hauser. Mr. Karpeles ABSENTs Mr. Philo MR. TURNER-All right. The next one is Potenza. MR. CARVIN-I'd also like to note a correction in this one, I believe. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. CARVIN-The correction to the minutes was, identify the tenants in, the minutes read that. it should be, this. MR. TURNER-Okay. MOTION "10 APPROVB SIGN VARIANCE NO. 22-1993 ALEX J. POTENZA. Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: Grant relief from Section 140-6(3)d. which permits one freestanding sign denoting the name of the shopping center and one wall sign for each tenant of said shopping center. to allow the freestanding sign to indicate the names of each of the tenants, as long as there's no expansion of the existing sign. There are special circumstances and conditions that apply to this particular property. in that the configuration of the buildings and the curvature of the road limit visibility for southbound traffic to identify the tenants in this particular mall. It would appear that by granting this variance. it would eliminate this confusion. and possibly add to the safe southbound traffic flow. As long as there's no expansion of the existing freestanding sign. it would not appear that there would be any adverse effect on the neighborhood or public facilities, and there does not appear to be any other feasible alternative to this particular situation that would not require a variance. Duly adopted this 16th day of June, 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Thomas. Mr. Carvin. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Miss Hauser. Mr. Karpeles ABSENTs Mr. Philo MR. TURNER-J. Baker. Inc. "0'1'10. '1'0 DENY SIG. VARIANCE BO. 23-1993 J. BAKER. I.C. BIG & TALL CASUAL HALl!.. Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption. seconded by Joyce Egglestons The applicant has proposed a second wall sign which is in conflict with Section 140-6B(3)d, which states that a Shopping Center shall be permitted one freestanding sign denoting the name of the shopping center and one wall sign for each tenant of the shopping center. The applicant has not shown that there are special circumstances or conditions that apply which would warrant the granting of this variance. and it is felt that there is a reasonable use of the land or signage under the current Ordinance. Duly adopted this 16th day of June. 1993. by the following vote: AYES, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin. Mrs. Eggleston. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Miss Hauser. Mr. Karpeles ABSENT: Mr. Philo - 45 - MR. TURNER-Shay, I think, is the next one. I think we've got to make a correction in this motion, because I don't think I included something here. MR. CARVIN-Take a look at this, before, because Warren County has got. MR. TURNER-Yes. I saw that. Did you send them the most current information on this application, Warren County? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-Yes. After that came back. I sent them the current site plan. MR. TURNER-The current site plan, that eliminates that side setback? MRS. RUTHSCHILD-Which shows the side yard setback as correct. and showed the deck on the side of the house. MR. TURNER-Okay. I thought we ended up with more of a relief than 32.7 feet. on the shoreline? MR. CARVIN-I read the minutes there, and we asked the engineer to give us the figures. and it is in the minutes. MR. MARTIN-You have 45 feet from. MR. CARVIN-I was going to say, I thought. when all was said and done. MR. TURNER-Yes. My memory says it's 45 feet. MRS. EGGLESTON-Wait a minute. I can tell you. Shay. I might have it. April 28th. 32.7 feet, that's what we gave. MR. TURNER-That's what I've got. MRS. EGGLESTON-What's in the record? MR. TURNER-32.7 feet. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, .42 of an acre, grant relief from lot width. .42 of an acre. and relief for frontage on a town road, 32.7. MR. TURNER-Right. MR. CARVIN-Yes, because we got it back 42.3 feet. MRS. EGGLESTON-From 75. MR. CARVIN-From 75. MR. TURNER-Okay. The relief granted on the shoreline setback is 42.3. MRS. EGGLESTON-No. The relief is 32.7. MR. CARVIN-We got them moved back, their shoreline setback is. MRS. EGGLESTON-We subtracted 42.3 from the 75 and came up with that 32.7 foot relief. The motion's right. MR. TURNER-Start allover again. MO'lIOII .,0 APPROVB ARBA VARIARCB 110. 24-1993 JOSBPH W. & MARY CAROLYII SHAY. Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption. seconded by Fred Carvin: - 46 - Grant the applicant relief from the shoreline setback. from the required 75 feet. A relief of 32.7 feet is granted. I would grant relief from the lot width of .42 of an acre, from Section 179-16C, which requires a minimum lot area of one acre. and also grant relief for frontage on a Town road. The difficulty with the application is the irregular shaped lot. which is a preexisting nonconforming lot. The applicant has physical constraints on the property due to ledge rock. and the need to put in a new septic system further enhances the environmental concern. The applicant's structure. which now exists on the property. is in much needed repair. and it is not practical to rebuild the existing structure. In conversations with the applicant at the site. the applicant indicated that the existing garage that's on the property will be removed after final construction. and the shed also. The variance will not create an undesirable in the character of the neighborhood. but will further the character of the neighborhood. There is no neighborhood opposition. This is the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the difficulty. Duly adopted this 16th day of June, 1993, by the following vote: AYES. Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Miss Hauser, Mr. Karpeles ABSENT. Mr. Philo MR. TURNER-O'Toole's is next. MR. MARTIN-Was Tom here that night? MR. CARVIN-Yes. MR. MARTIN-I think it was. MRS. EGGLESTON-Three to one. I'm the only voted against it. and the other three voted for it. There were only four of us that night. MR. MARTIN-No. It wasn't three to one. It wouldn't have carried. MR. TURNER-No. MR. CARVIN-There was only one no. MR. TURNER-Four. one. Tommy Philo was here. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. Maybe somebody abstained. MR. MARTIN-I know it just made it. MR. CARVIN-It was four. It was Tom. MRS. EGGLESTON-Four. one against. MR. CARVIN-Abstentions go with the majority. don't they? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. but if the Warren County Planning Board turned it down. it would have been denied. because it has to be full. MR. TURNER-Philo voted for it, Carvin voted for it. Thomas voted for it. and I voted for it. You're the only dissenter. MR. MARTIN-Well, the impact of that is, it could go down. if you only have. you have two abstentions tonight, and then if it goes three, one. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. That's true. All these people who didn't - 47 - vote. MR. TURNER-We'll find out in a minute. Okay. Fred. HRS. EGGLESTON-Does everyone know what one this is? This is that deck. MR. CARVIN-I think, because, for the two new members, we better go through this. just to let them know what is happening here. because you have a very valid point. MR. TURNER-Yes, that's right. MR. CARVIN-So I think that we should take our time and familiarize them. at least. with the situation in the minutes, and have them make a vote. MR. MARTIN-Do want me to, I'll give some background? I can start out with that? MR. TURNER-Yes. HR. HARTIN-All right. This is on the Quaker Plaza. MRS. EGGLESTON-Don't be biased now. paint the picture for or against. I mean, Okay. I don't want you to MR. MARTIN-Quaker Plaza. and correct me with the dates. Ted, if I mess up here. January 1990, this Board ruled on a variance from the front yard setback of a Highway Commercial Zone. and you granted relief of nine feet, because the bank was 41 feet of the right-of-way. HRS. EGGLESTON-Do you all know where O'Toole's is? MR. KARPELES-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. TURNER-It's a 75 foot setback in a Travel Corridor. MR. HARTIN-The bank was 41 feet off. MR. TURNER-Forty-one feet off. MR. MARTIN-So that would have been 34 feet of relief. MR. TURNER-Thirty-four feet of relief there. and we granted 51, they had a 51 foot setback from 75. MR. MARTIN-Forty-one. bank. I'm pretty sure it was forty-one on the MR. TURNER-No, no. O'Toole's. Fifty-one. isn't it? MR. MARTIN-Yes, and the deck now is 10. Okay. So the bank was 41 feet off. They needed 34 feet from the highway corridor setback. The plan, at the time. only showed the bank and the shopping center strip plaza building itself. That's all that was shown. then in July of that same year the Planning Board granted site plan approval on what they thought was the plan. as approved by the Zoning Board. However. there was one change that was made. and that was a patio appeared now on the plans, which was off the side of O'Toole's. where it is right now. They marked on there patio. It's labeled on the site plan as approved by the Planning Board. They come in. then, the merchant for O'Toole's. comes in for a building permit, and it's issued, because I think the Staff at the time looked at the plan approved by the Planning Board and said the patio was shown. they approved the building permit for the deck. The deck was built. The deck is 30 feet off the highway corridor - 48 - setback. 11 feet beyond where the bank is. and there was never any variance given. So the deck is technically not allowed. as there was no, it's just not allowed. There was no variance given for it. and that's where we stand today. This was discovered over. I think last summer. really. wasn't it? MRS. EGGLESTON-Right after he put it on people started complaining. MR. TURNER-Right after he put it on they started complaining about it. MR. MARTIN-And they submitted an application in April. and it was heard in May. MR. CARVIN-But I think there's some additional updating. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I'll let you give the discussion as to how the. how it went that night. MR. CARVIN-Well. I was going to say. the reading of the minutes. there obviously is a lot of confusion as to who authorized. and that went on and off for quite a while. One item that I think should be of note is that the deck does sit over the Town Water Main. So there was a discussion there. The biggest discussion. I think. was on the. we tried to tackle it. the thing was built, how do we sit in judgement on this thing? So I guess the consensus was, of those here. basically, one of the concerns was the protection of the deck. In other words, the traffic barrier should have been installed. to prevent any errant cars from taking that deck off. MR. KARPELES-What's the deck used for? MR. CARVIN-Well, it's used as partially a dining area, lunch and dinner. MR. MARTIN-It's used as a dining area, an outdoor dining area. and bar. There's a small bar out there. It's only used from late spring, summer, early fall. MR. CARVIN-Yes, late spring through the fall. MR. TURNER-See, Bob. what happened was. like Jim explained. January they came to us for a variance for those setbacks. They never showed that deck. So when Mr. Hawkins went into 0' Toole's Restaurant, which is a franchise. all right. they showed a deck on there. So if he'd have built a deck, and not had to put a railing on it, he'd have been all right. The minute he put a railing on it, which he had to to serve liquor out there, and drinks. it becomes a structure, so it has to come to us then. So my contention was that when they came to us for a variance. in January. they never told us they were going to do anything like that. They never showed it on the plan. They went to the Planning Board, put it on the plan. six months later, and said, they never knew that, they thought a variance was granted for it, which it wasn't. MR. CARVIN-Yes. Well I think in fairness to Hawkins, too, is that. MR. MARTIN-He's the one that's caught in the middle. MR. CARVIN-He's caught in the middle. MR. TURNER-I know he is. MR. CARVIN-Because Hawkins is. he owns the franchise for O'Toole's. MR. TURNER-Right. MR. CARVIN-This other group owns the building, and Hawkins leased - 49 - the building under the assumption that he çould have the deck. MR. TURNER-That's right. MR. CARVIN-And he paid for the deck. even though the deck actually is owned by, well. O'Toole's is the franchise. It's actually owned by the other group there. MR. MARTIN-It's owned by Pinchuk and Bernstein. MR. CARVIN-Pinchuk and Bernstein. reached into his pocket. So Hawkins, basically, has HR. TURNER-$30.000. HR. CARVIN-Well, again there's some dispute as to the exact amount. Certainly. it's a substantial amount. no matter how you look at it. He'd like us to believe that it's more substantial then what it appears. MRS. EGGLESTON-And in fairness. my contention was that we're supposed to be looking. since I'm the nay vote. my contention was we're supposed to be looking out for the health and welfare of the community, and it sits too close for people to be sitting their buts on Quaker Road. to put it bluntly, and a car come along. a little roadway goes right in there. wipes the whole group out, and Number Two. if the water line. the main water line, which sits underneath it. has to come up or be taken up, why should the rest of the taxpayers bear that expense. and I just feel the deck does not belong there. MR. KARPELES-Has there been some public opposition to it? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KARPELES-Other than Joyce? MR. TURNER-Yes. There was a lot of public opposition to it. HR. HARTIN-Is there any pUblic comment in the record? MR. CARVIN-No. There was no. MRS. EGGLESTON-There was a lot of talk, though. People. how could they put that there, how could they put that there? That's what started the whole thing. MR. MARTIN-And there's a fine distinction here, Bob. to remember, too. A patio, in terms of the zoning, is an at grade level cement slab, and therefore is not subject to setback. because it's at grade level. So the word "patio" on the site plan that the Planning Board approved, even if it was caught, would probably have gone by, but when he went to install this, he built a deck. Now he says it's because he needed the liquor license for serving liquor out on the bar out on the deck requires you have a confined area. So he needed a railing. As soon as he did that, it was a structure that's subject to setback. HR. CARVIN-Now the motion that was presented at that point tried to address the points of issue. We made a motion that basically said that he had to put up a traffic designed barrier. In other words. that was Number One. MRS. EGGLESTON-That met highway standards. MR. CARVIN-Highway standards. We left the discretion, basically, to the Zoning Administrator to make sure that it was going to be in compliance. We also stipulated that for any reason. if the Town of Queensbury. Warren County, or the State of New York needed access to the water lines or anything. that the deck was to be removed. - 50 - and a new application made at that point. So. in other words. if there was any expansion of the highway system, if there was any digging that had to be done. that that deck was an interference. that the deck was to be removed. at his expense. MR. MARTIN-I think that would be the case anyway. MR. CARVIN-Yes. that will be the case. I mean. it's very easy for us to run a bulldozer right smack through the center of it, and we gave him. basically. 60 days to put the barricade up. MR. MARTIN-The other thing that's important to note, too, is I think the motion, correct me if I'm wrong. I don't have it here in front of me, called for the deck to be taken down. should the existing proprietor. being Mr. Hawkins specifically. leave the building. because he's the one who paid for it, and I think that the motivation behind that was it didn't appear to be fair to him, because he didn't know the problem he had here. So, in fairness to him. he shouldn't be made to suffer. but. however, when he leaves. then in line with that thinking, then the owner shouldn't get the benefit of what he laid out. MR. CARVIN-Yes. That's correct. MRS. EGGLESTON-He has since tried to get the Town Board to pay for the guardrail. MR. MARTIN-Or half of it, yes. MR. CARVIN-Well. I don't think he can push that argument too far. but that's between him and the Town Board. I suppose. but the way the motion was, we did try to stipulate that it was only with this guy. That if O'Toole's was sold, or he changed the name, or he moved, end of the deck, that the deck comes off. and as I said. the safety barrier issue was actually the 60 days. that if the safety barrier was not up in 60 days. that the deck was to be removed. Are there any questions, I suppose? MRS. EGGLESTON-I also. my other contention was, what excuse do you have for telling other people who want to come closer to Quaker Road, with a deck or anything else that's up or down there, how do you tell them no. once you've set the precedent. and let this guy have a deck with people's buts hanging out over Quaker Road? MR. TURNER-I agree with you. in a sense. but in a sense. in fairness to him and what he did. that's the only reason I voted for it. but if it had been any other way. MR. CARVIN-If it had been a new application, it probably would have gotten looked at in a different light, but because there was a lot of confusion. MRS. EGGLESTON-Even with his point. how are you protecting the Town of Queensbury. which is your job. You're supposed to be looking out for the Town of Queensbury. if a car comes down through there and wipes out eight people. Do you think they're just gOing to sue that man and O'Toole's? You bet your life they're not. They're gOing to sue the Town of Queensbury and for one pretty penny. MR. CARVIN-Well. I think that. with the erection of the traffic barriers that we can show that there is no negligence. Now. if the traffic barriers are not effective in preventing a car, then that's something else. then we can sue the manufacturer, or he can sue the manufacturers. MR. MARTIN-I asked Paul Naylor about that. too. after the fact. and I don't think anybody who ran into a fatality or injury on that property. I don't think the Town would be. it's not our property. It's not our right-of-way. - 51 - MRS. EGGLESTON-Is he the Town Attorney? Well, wouldn't the Town Attorney answer that question? Certainly not Paul Naylor would know whether the Town would get sued or not. MR. MARTIN-I'll tell you he knows about highway law. MRS. EGGLESTON-You're asking him a legal question. He's not legal man. MR. MARTIN-Well. he knows highway law better than you might think he would, because he's had a lot of squawks over the years. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. I rest my case. MR. KARPELES-So what are you going to do. vote on it now? MR. CARVIN-Well, if you feel that you are capable. MRS. EGGLESTON-And versed enough. MR. CARVIN-Or in favor of. MR. KARPELES-Well, it sounds like you've got a real can of worms. Yes. I'm in favor of it. MR. TURNER-That's the only reason I'm in favor of it, Bob. I wouldn't have voted for it any other way. They could have gold plated it and I wouldn't have voted for it. It's too close to the road. MR. MARTIN-I can assure you that 60 days will be enforced. MR. TURNER-I don't mean 61 days either. MR. CARVIN-And with that. should I move ahead? MR. TURNER-Go ahead. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 26-1993 TIER.AN. BERRSTEIR. & PIRCHUK, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: O'Toole's Restaurant - Steve Hawkins. Agent and Owner of O'Toole's Grant 45 feet of relief from Section 179-28C. which requires all structures within the Travel Corridor Overlay Zone to be set back 75 feet from the edge of the road right-of-way. That this variance be granted with the following conditions: Number One. a safety barrier be established utilizing traffic guardrails, meeting highway standards for traffic guardrails to protect the deck from errant automobiles. Number Two, that if for any reason the deck impedes either the Town of Queensbury in the servicing of its water main or public service facilities. or the State of New York with its road system, along with Warren County. that the deck must be removed. and a new application be made at that time. Number Three, that this variance only applies to the current owner/franchisee owner of O'Toole's, and would end upon the transfer of ownership, resulting in a new application at that time. A practical difficul ty has resulted because of confusion between what was originally approved. and what was subsequently built. resulting in a large financial outlay by the agent, and that by granting this variance. along with its conditions. would not be detrimental to other properties in the district or neighborhood, and that this would be a minimum relief necessary to eliminate or to solve this practical difficulty. The traffic standards and proper dimensions for the traffic barriers will be left for review by the Town Zoning Administrator, and that the time frame for the erection of these safety barriers would be as soon as possible. within the next 60 days. The construction of the traffic barriers are to be of the - 52 - highest impact standard possible. If compliance with these conditions are not met, the variance is null and void, and the deck must be removed. and this motion also is dependent upon meeting all the stipulations and criteria established by Warren County. the Warren County Planning Board. Duly adopted this 16th day of June. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carvin, Miss Hauser, Mr. Thomas. Mr. Karpeles. Mr. Turner NOES: Mrs. Eggleston ABSENT: Mr. Philo MR. TURNER-Has everybody got a copy of the other letter from Arlyne. in reference to the two area variances. one an Area Variance, John DeSantis, and the other one's a Use Variance? MR. CARVIN-I think we have one more here. don't we. Ted? MR. TURNER-Do we? MR. CARVIN-I think I've got something here on Janet Huston Bell? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. Another one to redo. MR. TURNER-Yes. Okay. and then we'll take that. MOTIOR TO APPROVZ ARZA VARIARCZ RO. 29-1993 JARZT HUSTON BZLL. Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption. seconded by Joyce Eggleston: And this will grant the applicant relief of 35 feet from the front yard setback, which is from Section 179-28, which requires 75 feet of setback from the road in a Travel Corridor Overlay Zone. The depth of the parcel is the constraint on the property, which is a shallow depth of 165 feet on average. Placement of the existing structure is totally within the setback. and therefore any expansion of the building would necessarily continue the nonconformance. Duly adopted this 16th day of June. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Miss Hauser. Mr. Karpeles ABSENT: Mr. Philo MR. TURNER-All right. We're going to have Mr. DeSantis on. June 23rd. Arlyne, Mr. DeSantis, the one with the fence? MRS. RUTHSCHILD-Yes. MR. TURNER-And we're going to have Taco Bell? MRS. RUTHSCHILD-Yes, and also, you had spoken to me about the applicant. MR. TURNER-Mr. Daily? MRS. RUTHSCHILD-Yes. Mr. Daily. MR. TURNER-He's on? MRS. RUTHSCHILD-Yes. - 53 - MRS. EGGLESTON-So our agenda stands as we've got it? MR. RUTHSCHILD-It stands as you've got it. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. CARVIN-Are we going to do any minutes. or no? MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, I wasn't here for the night of Wal-Mart, which was February 24th. So you guys will have to approve those. Do you have February 24th there, Fred? MR. CARVIN-No. I don't. MRS. EGGLESTON-How about March 17th? We haven't done those. MR. TURNER-I've got that one. MR. CARVIN-I didn't see any corrections. MR. TURNER-I didn't see any either. MRS. EGGLESTON-Neither did I. on that one. Shall we approve the 17th? MR. TURNER-Yes. MOTIOR TO APPROVB THB MIRUTBS or MARCH 17TH, 1993 AS SUBMITTBD. Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption. seconded by Fred Carvin: Duly adopted this 16th day of June. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston. Mr. Thomas. Mr. Karpeles. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Miss Hauser ABSENT: Mr. Philo MRS. EGGLESTON-All right, March 30th. and I was absent. MR. TURNER-All right. I'll do that. There was no corrections on March 30th. Does anybody have any corrections? ~OTIOR TO APPROVB THE MIRUTBS or MARCH 30TH. 1993 AS SUBHITTBD, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: Duly adopted this 16th day of June. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Karpeles. Mr. Carvin, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mrs. Eggleston. Miss Hauser ABSENT: Mr. Philo MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. Now, April 27th. MR. CARV¡N-I do have some corrections there. MRS. EGGLESTON-On Page 13, Mr. Carvin. the first time Mr. Carvin. down the paqe. there's no grift. or how about a pit. it sIb. there's no lift. I believe. Fred? - 54 - MR. CARVIN-I concur. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. On Page 14, the first Mr. Green up from the bottom. we had our own private ban with a unique Massachusetts. Albany. I believe he was talking about a private band short wave radio or something. MR. TURNER-Yes. band. b-a-n-d. MRS. EGGLESTON-Page 4, Mr. Turner, the last sentence on the bottom. yes. that would be fine, not find; Page 27. the fourth Mr. Turner from the bottom, I can't carry the grandfather. I don't think you meant to say that. did you? MR. TURNER-No. MRS. EGGLESTON-What were you? MR. TURNER-I think what I said is. you can't carry the grandfathering. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay, or it can't. I thought. HR. TURNER-It can't. MRS. EGGLESTON-It can't carry the grandfather, is what I thought. That's all I've got. MR. CARVIN-Okay. On Page 3. the first Mr. Carvin up from the bottom, probably be a fairly simple process to get the ramp apart. sIb to take the ramp apart; Page 19, from the bottom. second Mr. Carvin, I think the last sentence, I mean. that's the way I would interpret it. and anything other than that would be, and I believe I said the word. commercial. Page 20. from the top, again, my comment, well. my guess is Mr. Hatin detected a commercial venture there because of what, it makes no sense. So I think. I believe. scratch. because of what. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. Just take that out. MR. CARVIN-Just take that out. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. CARVIN-I've got something here. Okay. Page 22. again, Mr. Carvin. from the top, says, Hr. Bell. do you own any equipment? has Mr. Smith ever. and I believe the word was there, ever repaired any equipment. I think there was a continuation. Again, on Page 37. the second Hr. Carvin from the top. yes, and I gave these folks a lot of credit. I saw a lot of people out there raking and. cleaning up, I think is the continuation there. Also. on Page 40. from the bottom, the fourth Mr. Carvin up. I'd like to strike, my good friends the Potvins. if you take out the words, my good friends the Potvins. MRS. EGGLESTON-Did you say them? MR. CARVIN-I don't believe I did. They are not my good friends. I did say that? Well. I want to correct it. MR. TURNER-I've got some. There's a couple of places in there where it says. Gentleman in the Audience. That's on Greens. MR. CARVIN-Page 26. starting at the top, the very first comment, the last sentence. that a commercial venture. in other words. you're changing the nature of the, building, sIb the word in there. MR. TURNER-All right. The Gentleman in the Audience on Page 26. his name is Jeff Green. The other one is. the other Gentleman in the Audience. back farther. is a neighbor. I can't think of his - 55 - name. MRS. EGGLESTON-Is that it. then? MR. TURNER-Yes, that's it. MOTIOH ~O APPROVB ~HE MIHU~ES OF APRIL 27~H. 1993 AS CORRECTED. Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: Duly adopted this 16th day of June. 1993. by the following votes AYES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSTAINEDs Miss Hauser. Mr. Thomas, Mr. Karpeles ABSENT: Mr. Philo MRS. EGGLESTON-There's only three of us. Three of us abstained. There was only four of us. Chris and Bob were absent. MR. TURNER-Okay. Lets strike that, and we'll take it up when Tommy Philo's here. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. TURNER-We'll strike all the corrections on April 27th. have to take them another time. We don't have a quorum. We're all set. We'll Okay. MR. KARPELES-Ted. I've got a procedural question. When we make a motion. why do we have to read that whole thing? Why can't we just refer to this page that they put out? MR. TURNER-Well. you can refer to that as well as make your own remarks. MR. KARPELES-Why can't you just say, I make a motion that we approve it as per the Zoning Board of Appeals? MR. TURNER-No. there. You've got to have dimensions and everything in MRS. EGGLESTON-May I say that I was taught we're not to be influenced by either the Planning Department, any of those people up there. the Town Board, or any other pressures outside. to do our own motions, our own thoughts. and our own? MR. MARTIN-That's very much true. MRS. EGGLESTON-But they're helpful. in that they help you do it, but. MR. MARTIN-The meeting of that Sign Revision Committee is July 7th. I'll be sending you notices in the mail. Just to let you know. July 7th is a Wednesday I believe. seven o'clock. MR. TURNER-Where? MR. MARTIN-It'll be somewhere in that building, I think. probably be in one of the two Conference Rooms. It'll MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-I don't think it's going to draw a big crowd. MR. TURNER-No. Okay. Meeting's adjourned. - 56 - ~:~ On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Theodore Turner, Chairman - 57 -