Loading...
1997-12-17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/97) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 17, 1997 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS THOMAS, CHAIRMAN BONNIE LAPHAM, SECRETARY PAUL HAYES ROBERT MC NALLY ROBERT KARPELES BRIAN CUSTER LEWIS STONE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR -JOHN GORALSKI CODE COMPLIANCE -OFFICER-CHRIS ROUND STENOGRAPHER -MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 76-1997 SEQR TYPE II CR-15 JEWELS DONUTS, INC. OWNER: MARK F. LA POINTE 22 W. MAIN STREET CORNER OF MAIN AND CAROLINE STREETS APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A DUNKIN DONUTS SHOP. APPLICANT REQUESTS RELIEF FROM MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-24. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 11/12/97 TAX MAP NO. 131-5-1, 34, 33 LOT SIZES: 0.17, 0.17, 0.17 ACRES SECTION 179-24 ROBERT LENZEL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. THOMAS-Do you want to read the tabling motion. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. “Town of Queensbury, Christian G. Thomas, Chairman, to Jewels Donuts, th Inc., 95 Saratoga Avenue, South Glens Falls, Project for Jewels Donuts, November 24 meeting date, the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed the following request at the below stated meeting and resolved the following: TABLED Motion to Table Area Variance No. 76- 1997 Jewels Donuts, Inc., Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by th Robert Karpeles: Corner of Main and Caroline. Duly adopted this 24 day of November, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Custer, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Stone” MR. THOMAS-All right. Is there anybody from Jewels Donuts here to represent? MR. HAYES-Mr. Chairman, I’m going to excuse myself, based on the possibility of a conflicting business. I want to be fair to the applicant. MR. MC NALLY-Mr. Chairman, I have to do the same. MR. THOMAS-So noted. At the last meeting, I wasn’t here, but I understand there was a question about lights coming from the building, a concern from the neighbor next door, and also the vegetation that was going to be planted around there. MR. LENZEL-Correct. MR. THOMAS-Okay, and the plan that you submitted, this one here shows, the vegetation shown in blue, which is the green hedge, how high is that planted, when it’s first planted? MR. LENZEL-I believe that’s four to six foot. MR. THOMAS-Okay, and then it grows, what, six to fifteen feet? MR. LENZEL-Six to fifteen foot, yes. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/97) MR. THOMAS-Okay. What about in the winter time, do any of the leaves come off? MR. LENZEL-No, it’s an evergreen. MR. THOMAS-So it’ll be on there, even though it may change colors from green to brown, it’ll always block any light from that building. MR. LENZEL-Pretty much, and I believe that it stays green year round. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any other questions for the applicant while we’re here? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. MRS. LAPHAM-How high is it going to be and how fast will it get to be that high? MR. LENZEL-That I’m really not sure on the particulars on that. I believe it’ll be between four and six foot on the initial planting. It can grow up to 15 feet, and our experience in South Glens Falls, I think they’re right around seven foot, but that’s a maintained height. I think they got to be seven foot or slightly above that in about five to six years. Now, that was constant trimming. That was a desired height. I don’t recall the actual amount of time it took. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any other questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-Are all the other trees coming out, that are on the property, particularly the western most lot? MR. LENZEL-I do believe so. Everything on the property will be cleared, buildings, trees, macadam, anything that’s there currently will be removed. I believe that. I’m not sure where the plantings are currently. If something falls in the green space, obviously we’d do all we could to leave it. MR. KARPELES-Can you tell us something about the lighting? MR. LENZEL-I believe that the low packs that are mentioned on the second page, the information on that itself, although they are of a reflective nature, as they’re intended to be, they’re very, they’re not really intrusive in nature, and in regards to being bright like a spotlight, it is a 75 watt bulb, which, for outdoor use is really not an excessive lighting. I think on the property now, Sue’s here now, and she could probably tell you more about that. I know there’s floodlights on the property and other lighting currently there that I think would be more intrusive, of an annoyance at this point. MR. KARPELES-What are your operating hours? I’ve forgotten. MR. LENZEL-That hasn’t been established. My desire is to be 24 hours. MR. KARPELES-It is? MR. LENZEL-Yes. MR. KARPELES-So those lights would be on 24 hours? MR. LENZEL-Yes. There would be, as shown on the plans here, there would be one on the drive through side, and like I said, that’s a 75 watt bulb, and there’d be one on the rear of the building, or on the west side of the building. As I made a note here, that there’s no glass on the back side of the building, other than at the drive through windows, meaning that there is no light from the interior that would be shown on the exterior. Also, I believe on the rear of the property there was some comment in regard to the residents that are, were at the last meeting here. I went back and visited the property, and I believe that that house is pretty well shielded by the garage that is currently there, and I anticipate it staying there. It’s not on my property, or it wouldn’t be on my property. So I’m not sure how the light, as small as it is, would be intrusive in nature. MR. STONE-So, all of these parking spaces along Caroline and along Main would be unlit? MR. LENZEL-Yes, they would, unlit, yes. The only light on the building itself, on the front, or where the parking areas are, would be from the pylon sign, and the green space on the front of the property, and any small soffit lighting that would run underneath the mansard on the building, 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/97) which is down reflective nature, and it’s a very soft light, and any light that would come out of the glass, obviously. MR. THOMAS-Any more questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JENNY ARONSON MS. ARONSON-My name’s Jenny Aronson. I live at 28 Main Street, next door to the proposed site. I apologize. I wasn’t here at the last meeting because I didn’t get the forms that were submitted. I’ve been having problems with my mail. I don’t have any plans or anything, but like the lighting I was concerned about, and I have young children, and I’m not sure how close this is going to be to my property, but I assume very close, and they play outside, and I’m concerned about the traffic, and, you know, people coming and going at all hours of the day and night, and, like I said, I would like more information. MR. THOMAS-Well, as far as I can tell, the building meets all the setback requirements. It meets all the parking requirements. I do believe it has to go before the Planning Board for Planning Board approval for traffic, lights, noise and every other kind of thing that the Planning Board takes care of. The only thing they’re asking us for a variance from is the fact that they’re in a commercial residential 15 zone, which states that any business in a CR-15 zone has to have one acre of land, and that’s the only thing they’re asking us, that we have to grant a variance for, in order for them to go, but your concerns will be handled at the Planning Board level, but as far as the setbacks and all the other stuff, they meet all the setbacks, parking requirements, like I said before. MS. ARONSON-How close is this going to be to my property? MR. STONE-Twenty feet. MR. THOMAS-Twenty-five feet, rear yard. This has two fronts and two rears, and the rear yard is 25 feet from the property line. MS. ARONSON-Right. So that’s very close to my house. MR. THOMAS-Okay, and there’s also a row of vegetation. I don’t know if you can see that or not. I think this is your property right here. MS. ARONSON-Right. MR. THOMAS-This is Caroline Street over here. This is a row of vegetation like what was described. It’s about seven foot tall, evergreen. So you won’t be seeing any light from it. MS. ARONSON-I’m concerned, like are they going to be putting a fence up or anything like that? MR. THOMAS-I doubt they’ll be putting a fence up because the trees there will act as a natural barrier. MS. ARONSON-Right. MR. THOMAS-I don’t know, but that’s something that the Planning Board could take care of. Anything else? MS. ARONSON-Thank you. MR. THOMAS-You’re welcome. Would anyone else like to speak opposed? MRS. LAPHAM-I have a letter. MR. THOMAS-One letter. Go ahead and read it. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/97) MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. December 16, 1997, Mr. Goralski “Dear Zoning Board of Appeals: I recently read in the paper that someone is trying to put a Dunkin Donuts in my neighborhood. The article said that the area is zoned transitional. I have several strong reservations about this proposal. First, if the main street is to be zoned transitional, which it probably is, some consideration must be given to transition from what to what. My home still will remain in the neighborhood despite the transition of properties from residential to commercial, but more importantly, the transition that occurs should be considered. Lower impact businesses should be considered more favorable to variance relief than high impact, high traffic 24 hour Dunkin Donuts. Dunkin Donuts is a true 24 hour business in that they are doing business at all hours, getting deliveries at all hours, cars going in and out all the time. This is on the extreme end of commercial definition. Even more importantly, however, is that the proposal is for one half acre and the law calls for a whole acre. It is my understanding that a zoning classification of transitional is there to encourage business people to buy up properties and recycle them in a way that is in tune with what the area’s long term nature should be. The rational being that if business owners wanted to have the privilege of taking advantage of what is really commercial property, heavy car count, they would buy smaller parcels and combine them and therein improve difficult parcels into properly spaced developed properties, a trade off that everyone wins, but in this case it is my understanding that the proposal, while having smaller parcels, is actually being bought from one party. If this proposal should fail because the business man is not buying and combining property to make it better all around, or he would buy enough land to make the whole law idea called for. What kind of precedent is this setting? This proposal for one half acre, what happens if the next business man comes in with .45 acres or .37 acres? Is that going to be okay? There is no real difference between .51 acres and .37 acres. Think of the precedent on an already overtaxed road with tremendous traffic problems, and now this Board is saying that one half of the law is okay, okay that other businesses put their signs one half the distance from the road that they are supposed to. I think that Broad Street is transitional and that Dunkin Donuts will be there some day, but the Board should be responsible to protect the law. Granting one half the law is substantial and a big problem. Our neighborhood will only get one chance at this transition, and it should be done right. Nine tenths of an acre, then relief is in order. Eight tenths, a stretch. One half is way too much and is not fair to all the property owners in the neighborhood. It is the wrong precedent and I appeal to you to use your long term judgment to see the future as it relates to the decisions you are making today. This is the wrong message to send developers in this or any other area in our Town. Queensbury has a reputation of protecting the laws in our Town to a high but fair standard. Half the zoning law requires? Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Joseph Peterson, Main Street, Queensbury, NY” MR. THOMAS-What’s the street address on that? MRS. LAPHAM-I don’t think, he doesn’t say. Just Main Street. MR. THOMAS-I just says Main Street. Okay. Does the Board have anymore questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-I know it’s not in the purview of the decision we have to make, but I guess from my own interest, I understand you don’t make donuts, you will not make donuts on this premises. MR. LENZEL-No, we will not. MR. STONE-So how often are donuts delivered? MR. LENZEL-They’ll be delivered twice a day to this site. MR. STONE-Twice a day. What particular times? MR. LENZEL-Between five and six am in the morning and possibly two or three in the afternoon. MR. STONE-Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Any more questions for the applicant? MRS. LAPHAM-I have another letter, but I don’t know, I may have read this last time. Because it came in on 11/23. MR. THOMAS-Why don’t you read it in anyway. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/97) MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. Impressive Imprints, Main Street, Queensbury, Gary Randall. “As a local business owner, I am looking forward to more commercial businesses like Dunkin Donuts in this area. These changes will have a positive effect on Main Street, Queensbury, which needs more recognition and commercial establishments such as these. I am in favor of a variance for relief of the minimum lot size requirements of Section 179-24, to allow the growth needed in this area. Thank you, Gary Randall, Impressive Imprints” I don’t think I did read that. MR. THOMAS-No, I don’t remember hearing it, unless it was read at the last meeting which I wasn’t here. Will that do it? MRS. LAPHAM-I think so, but I just want to make sure, because it was only indicated that there was one. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lets talk about it. Lew, what do you think? MR. STONE-This presents a dilemma to me. Listening to Mr. Peterson’s letter, it’s a very sound basis for granting minimum relief. Is a half acre more than minimum? I really think it is, and yet I know that where Main Street is going and I know that it’s very positive for the community, but I am concerned about the message we may be sending, and, as I say, I have a dilemma. Mr. Peterson makes a very cogent argument. I think I shall have to listen to my fellow Board members before I actually make my mind up at this point, but I am leaning to saying no, because of the very facts brought up by Mr. Peterson. MR. LENZEL-If I may point out, as I did at the last couple of meetings I was at, we also own and operate the other three existing Dunkin Donuts, and I truly feel that we have a half acre in South Glens Falls, and I think that it’s comfortably operated. Like I said, when I’m at the site, in no way do I feel that it’s cumbersome to the patron or to anyone that might be on the lot itself. MR. STONE-I recognize that. I’m not talking the actual facts. I’m talking the law that we are forced to grant, that you are asking us to grant a variance from, and it is a major variance when you go from an acre to a half an acre, and that’s where I’m dilemmaizing, if there’s such a word, but let me think about it. MR. LENZEL-No, I understand that. We’ve made every attempt to pursue larger lots on that stretch of Main Street. In order for us to buy somebody out of their home, it would be a much more expensive endeavor than we could afford. Also, if I were to buy an acre, I wouldn’t know what to do with it for a Dunkin Donuts. A half acre is a generous lot. It’s a workable lot. I wouldn’t know what to do with the other half acre if I could afford to buy it, but we have made any efforts to look up and down that corridor for something a little more in line with the zoning. MR. STONE-Thank you for your thoughts. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Brian? MR. CUSTER-Well, I, too, share Lew’s concerns, in light of Mr. Peterson’s argument. I think that is realistic. The relief is substantial, and I think we have to weigh that, but I also would take a little bit more favorable step in the direction of the applicant. I think that realistically, the zoning needs to be amended probably to allow these type of clean, decent, properly presented things to develop along that corridor. So I’ll listen to the rest of the Board before making a final decision, but at this point, I’m leaning in favor of approving the variance. MR. THOMAS-All right. Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-Well, I think I would be actually in favor of it, except what worries me is the 24 hour a day operation, if we could do something about that or if the applicant would be willing to do something about that. I think that is, we have a neighborhood in transition that is going from residential to commercial. I think in our lifetime we’re going to see the entire Main Street corridor being commercial, and it’s nice to have a business come in with a full screening program and like Brian said, a clean business. So I think I would be for it, but I would be very hesitant and very big reservations about the 24 hours a day. MR. LENZEL-That hasn’t been established at this point. It is my desire, that amounts to about $50,000 a year, that shift alone. For me to just say that that’s something I could just walk away from, that would be difficult to do, especially knowing that maybe a mile or less down the road there are other 24 hour establishments. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/97) MRS. LAPHAM-What other ones are there on there? MR. LENZEL-If you’re headed west, Mobil, that’s 24 hours. The Cumberland Farms is 24 hours, I believe. I’ve been up and down that road, you know, I’m out quite early in the morning, quite late a night. There’s lights on and there’s business happening, within that ¾ of a mile, or whatever the distance might be. So it wouldn’t be exclusive to me. MR. THOMAS-Bob? MR. KARPELES-I’m in favor of this. It’s zoned commercial and the only variance we’d have to give is it’s a smaller size than would be desirable, but yet it seems to be large enough to accommodate his business, and I think a lot more objectionable commercial businesses could move in than this, and I think he’s gone through all the hoops. He’s planting the shrubbery around there. He’s putting lighting on that looks like it’s satisfactory. So I have no objection to this. MR. THOMAS-All right. I have really no objection to it. Reviewing the Area Variance criteria, the Board of Appeals shall balance the benefit to the applicant with the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community. I think the applicant has done a good job of situating this building on this lot. The only variance, like Bob says, is he needs a variance from a one acre site in a CR-15 zone. I don’t think there’ll be any undesirable change in the neighborhood, as there is commercial up and down that street already. Is the request substantial? Well, given the size of the building, I don’t believe so. Will it have an adverse physical or environmental effect? Not really, because as Brian down there stated, it’s a “clean” operation. Is the difficulty self created? Not really, because the applicant has tried to get other property up and down the street to make a more conforming lot out of it, and the applicant has stated that a 30 by 60 building on a half acre lot, you know, is about the size of a three bedroom ranch, on a half acre lot, and what would the other half acre be used for if he owned that? So, I think the applicant has made every effort to acquire as much land as possible. I believe he’s taking three parcels and combining them all into one, but the only thing I would, if and when the motion comes up, and this goes before the Planning Board, that we ask the Planning Board to take a hard look at the 24 hour operation of this business. Because that seems to be a concern from a lot of the Board members, and from the public input. Having said that, I’ll ask for a motion. HERMAN NEAL MR. NEAL-Can I interrupt a minute? I was a little late, here, for the public hearing. MR. THOMAS-The public hearing’s been closed. We’ve got to keep this thing moving. We’ve got a room full of people here. MR. NEAL-I am the adjoining property owner. MR. THOMAS-Which side? MR. NEAL-To the north, to the west. I have a lot of concerns about lighting, lighting at night, all kinds of things. MR. THOMAS-Yes, well, those were all just addressed, and, you know, there’s going to be vegetation all the way around it, seven feet high, and there’s only going to be two lights, one on the west end and one on the south end, 70 watt bulb. MR. NEAL-Well, we can say, too, that they’ve made absolutely no effort at all to look into buying any other parcels. They’ve made no effort to look into the neighborhood and make the lot conform (lost words). MR. THOMAS-Well, the applicant has stated that he went up and down the road looking for different parcels, and this. MR. LENZEL-Can I respond to that? MR. THOMAS-Let me open the public hearing back up again. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/97) MR. LENZEL-I didn’t at his particular site. I thought that perhaps the three, if he’s talking about the brown house on the west side, obviously he is, I thought the three existing lots would be adequate within my price range. There were a lot of things that had to be considered here. Up and down that corridor I had found other parcels or residences that were for sale. I’ve gone as far as leaving notes on people’s doors saying who I am, what my intention is, what I’d like to do, and had a few responses, but nothing ever came together on these particular issues. No, he’s correct, I didn’t contact him directly. I thought that what I had before me price wise, and what not, as far as the three adjoining parcels, if I were able to put those together, I could possibly do something. MR. THOMAS-Do any of the Board members have any response or have any questions? MR. NEAL-I don’t real feel the matter of his budget or price wise should be an issue, whether he can build on a nonconforming lot, when he didn’t try to conform. Whether it’s in his budget or not should not change the way we do our building practice in the Town. My name is Herman Neal. MR. THOMAS-Okay. The five criteria we have to consider for an Area Variance, which this is, is, one, whether a benefit can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant; two, an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties; three, whether the request is substantial; four, whether the request will have an adverse physical or environmental effect, and, five, whether the alleged difficulty is self created. We have to take all five of those into consideration. We don’t have to answer yes or no to all five of them, or we don’t have to find in favor of all five to pass this variance. We just have, to sum it up it says, the Zoning Board of Appeals shall balance the benefit to the applicant with the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community. That’s what we consider, and that’s the five criteria we have to go by. That’s the law, the State law. Because he doesn’t buy more property, he’s still in a commercial zone, and he’s asking for a .49 acre residence, where he needs one acre, whereas the residence needs 15,000 square feet. MR. NEAL-I would say that’s substantial for a business. MR. THOMAS-It is, but also if you go up and down the road and look at the other businesses, up and down the road, the one that we got the letter from, the screen, the printing shop, you’ll find that’s probably less than half an acre, way less. MR. NEAL-But does the screening shop have the traffic flow that a Dunkin Donuts does? MR. THOMAS-We don’t take into consideration traffic flow. That’s the Planning Board’s problem. We don’t do that. We grant relief from the law as it’s stated. The Planning Board takes into consideration traffic, noise. The Planning Board still has to say yes before this can be built. So, if those are your concerns, then those are the Planning Board that you should bring to, if you’re concerned about traffic, noise, lights or any traffic counts, direction of travel, parking or anything like that. Those are all Planning Board agenda items. Not us. Okay. MR. NEAL-Yes. MR. THOMAS-All right. I’ll close the public hearing back down. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Would someone like to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 76-1997 JEWELS DONUTS, INC. , Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham: Corner of Main and Caroline Street. The applicant proposes construction of a commercial enterprise, namely Dunkin Donuts. In this particular case, a commercial enterprise, it requires one acre in the CR-15 zone. Therefore the applicant is requesting relief from Section 179-24, requiring a minimum of one acre in this area for the type of commercial use proposed. The proposed lot, which will be a combination of three existing lots, will measure approximately 22,500 square feet. In granting a variance, we must consider the benefit to the applicant, as contrasted with the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community. In this case, the benefit to the applicant would be that the applicant would be allowed to construct and operate a commercial enterprise in a one acre zoned piece of property. Feasible alternatives are limited to no construction or acquisition of additional property and conformance with the Ordinance. We’re also asked to consider whether this benefit can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/97) We are told by the applicant that he has attempted to find a suitable piece of property that would serve his needs and has not been able to do so. One, because either availability or because of his own resources. Would this be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties? As has been noted in the meeting, this is an area in transition, and this represents one more change to a basically Highway Commercial atmosphere for this whole area. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? Yes. The relief may be interpreted as substantial, being almost a half acre, but because of the nature of the business, the size of the building. It is deemed that this would not be consequential. The effects on the neighborhood or the community, an increase of the density of allowed commercial use is anticipated as a result of this proposal, and we have agreed that this would not be detrimental to the area at large. We also must consider whether this difficulty is self-created. This is a particular lot that the applicant wants to buy. It’s one that represents what he can buy, and therefore in a sense it is self-created. It should be noted that the subject parcel is currently utilized by a commercial venture, mainly Sue Howard Limousine company. In granting this variance, we should ask the Planning Board to consider certain elements of change that would result from the granting of this variance, namely the increased traffic, the 24 hour proposed operation, the light, particularly on the west side of the building which may be considered to impact upon the residents to the west. This variance is granted contingent upon the lighting and planting schedule as given to us, dated 12/2/97, which indicates both a planting on the south side and the west side, two type A light 75 watt bulbs on the south side and the west side, and a statement made to the effect that no glass on the south or west sides of the building except for the drive through window on the south side. th Duly adopted this 17 day of December, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Custer, Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNally MR. THOMAS-So there you go. Now, you’ve got to go see the Planning Board, jump through those hoops. AREA VARIANCE NO. 74-1997 SEQRA TYPE II HC-1A BROWN’S WELCOME INN MOTEL OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 932 LAKE GEORGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONVERSION OF EXISTING PORCH TO AN OFFICE AND THE ADDITION OF A CANOPY. THE APPLICANT REQUIRES RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-23 AND SECTION 179-28. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 11/12/97 TAX MAP NO. 70-2-10 LOT SIZE: 1.01 ACRES SECTION 179-23, 179-28 MR. THOMAS-The applicant has asked that we table this until our January meeting. So if you would read the tabling motion. Wait a minute. I’ll make a tabling motion. We have one before us. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 74-1997 BROWN’S WELCOME INN MOTEL , Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: At the request of the applicant, so that the applicant can be present at the next meeting to present his case. th Duly adopted this 17 day of December, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 78-1997 SEQRA TYPE II SFR-20 RICHARD H. TOUGAS, JR. OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 339 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING GARAGE. SEEKS RELIEF FROM SIZE LIMIT RESTRICTIONS REQUIREMENTS. TAX MAP NO. 59-5-19.1 LOT SIZE: 1.62 ACRES SECTION 179-7 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/97) RICHARD TOUGAS, PRESENT MRS. LAPHAM-“Dear Board Members: I am submitting this letter to supplement my application for an Area Variance for a garage at my residence at 339 Ridge Road, Queensbury. The garage is over the size limit imposed by the Town of Queensbury. As I am sure you are aware, the garage in question is already built. I began work on the garage in late August. I obtained a building permit last year for an addition on the house. That permit is still open, as the final inspection has not been completed yet. I erroneously thought that I could add to the garage using my existing permit. There was an existing garage and an attached cow barn in my backyard. The cow barn was dilapidated and an eyesore for the neighborhood. I tore the barn off the garage and added three bays to the existing garage. All during the process, I was careful to make sure that I was building the garage up to code. I have two antique cars, a trailer, and a lot of lawn care equipment. The reason I need a garage this big is so that I can store my belongings in the garage as opposed to out in the yard, which becomes unsightly for the neighbors, while the weather damages the equipment and vehicles. Additionally, as my house was built in the 1920’s, the cellar is damp and has a very low ceiling, making it nearly useless for storage purposes. If I am not granted this variance, I will suffer extreme hardship in making the garage conform to the size limitation. I have spent thousands of dollars on the garage, unaware that I was breaking any rules. At present, I have an open building permit for an addition I put on the side of the house. The only thing outstanding on that permit is that the heat must be inspected. I had erroneously thought that my building permit covered me for the garage. I had no idea that I was violating an ordinance, and for that I am sincerely apologetic and embarrassed. I grew up on a dairy farm in Kingsbury, where we were able to build barns and additions without obtaining permits. I know now that Queensbury monitors the quality, size and location of their buildings much more closely than I was aware. I honestly believe that the garage does not detract from the overall character of the neighborhood, but improves it by allowing me to store my belongings undercover. Additionally, I believe that adding on to the existing garage was the most logical, as well as the most aesthetically pleasing way to create the much-needed storage space. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Sincerely, Richard H. Tougas, Jr.” STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 78-1997, Richard H. Tougas, Jr., Meeting Date: December Project Location:Description of Proposed Project: 17, 1997 “ 339 Ridge Road Applicant has 2 2 constructed a 816 ft.addition to an existing 480 ft. garage. The completed garage measures a 2 Relief Required: total of 1296 ft. The applicant requires relief from the size restrictions limiting 2 Criteria for Considering an Area garages to 900 ft. per the definition in Section 179-7. Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: The applicant 2 2. would be allowed to maintain a garage constructed in excess of the 900 ft. restriction. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives are limited. The applicant has constructed the 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the structure in advance of obtaining the variance. ordinance?: The structure as completed is 44 percent greater than the allowed size, and may be 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: interpreted as substantial. The applicant has 5. Is this indicated favorable feedback has been received from adjoining property owners. difficulty self-created?Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.) Yes. : The applicant does have an active building permit on file (BP 89-812) for interior alterations unrelated Staff comments: to the variance. The applicant constructed the garage in advance of obtaining a building permit and variance. A building permit application for the referenced structure is on file pending approval of the variance. No negative impacts to the neighborhood are anticipated on the assumption that the garage will be utilized for the storage of private items and not utilized for SEQR Status: commercial purposes. Type II” MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. Tougas, is there anything you’d like to say, add? MR. TOUGAS-Not really. I’ve got a few letters from neighbors, people around that weren’t able to come tonight. One of the questions mentioned there was about commercial use in the future, and there’s no intention to use anything for commercial use. It’s just, what I said, storage. MR. THOMAS-Could you tell us why the Board would consider commercial in there? Why would they even think of that? If you own a commercial business where you would use any? MR. TOUGAS-No. MR. THOMAS-You don’t have any commercial? 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/97) MR. TOUGAS-No. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Just from what I gather, probably the size, and I have four doors on the front of the garage total now, with the three new bays that I put on, and with most people a two car garage is probably average. I’ve got two antique cars I store in there. There’s no intention at all of any commercial use, just storage. MR. THOMAS-You stated in your letter that you submitted that there was an attached cow barn in the back yard. That was attached to the existing garage? MR. TOUGAS-Yes. MR. THOMAS-How big was that structure, do you know? MR. TOUGAS-Roughly the same, the 24, the width of the garage, and probably 15 feet long, in the same direction I built. So I built probably another 17 feet longer than the existing structure. It’s a cow barn. MR. THOMAS-So the overall length of the building now is 34 feet, including the existing garage? MR. TOUGAS-No. MR. THOMAS-No. The addition was 34 feet. MR. TOUGAS-It’s 54 feet long total. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So the existing garage is 24 by 20. MR. TOUGAS-Right. MR. THOMAS-Okay. That means you built on 816. So the old barn that was there was about 408 square feet? MR. TOUGAS-Yes, about half the size. It was useless. It was all caved in. MR. THOMAS-Any more questions for the applicant from the Board? MRS. LAPHAM-Do you buy and sell your antique cars, or do you just have two that you’re restoring and a hobby? MR. TOUGAS-Yes. It’s nothing, I’ve had them for a long time. Hopefully some day I’ll fix them, if they don’t rot away before then. MR. STONE-Are you going to pave the three additional, in front of the three doors? MR. TOUGAS-No, it’s not my intention right now. It’s just a dirt driveway right down through it. No, not right now. MR. HAYES-You’re a correction officer by trade, then, currently? MR. TOUGAS-Yes. MR. HAYES-So you’re not doing any businesses that might involve storing anything in there. MR. TOUGAS-No. It’s just storage. There’s one problem. I’ve got some weight equipment we put into the cellar, and the ceiling’s so low I can’t use it. That’s another thing I want to get out there. It’s just storage and the cars. The building inspector mentioned, when he came down, maybe you could take a door off, do this and make it conform and certain things before I had to get the variance, and I was like, well, you know, for me to take a door off and put two cars in, then I wouldn’t be able to get the lawnmowers and stuff into the other bay. So I just said I’d come up, throw myself at the mercy of the Board. MR. STONE-Mr. Chairman, he is allowed a 200 foot shed on this property also, as I read the. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/97) MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. STONE-So that means, if you put two buildings on there which could total 1100 square feet, he’s got 1296, so in once sense, he’s 17.2% over what he would be permitted to have in two buildings, just to get it out on the record. MR. THOMAS-I’ve got some other facts I want to throw out, but I’ll do that later. Is there any more questions for the applicant? MR. MC NALLY-When we spoke this afternoon, sir, my name’s Bob McNally, you mentioned you had plans for a garage on the street, by Ridge Street. Could you tell us about that? MR. TOUGAS-That’s something I’d like to do. If you look at the map, one hurdle at a time, I figured. Like where the parking area is up top, everybody’s been by the property. I know a few members I met there. Eventually, I’d like to put a garage, just a two car garage, up on top, where we park the cars now, that kind of parallel’s the house, with the same type roof, and it is like a double sized lot, compared to all the other lots along the street, and, you know, just something there for the every day cars that we use to pull in and park, but one hurdle at a time. I added on to this and like I said in the letter, you know, I made sure everything was built. I found out ahead of time, built everything up to Code, the foundation, the footings, everything, and I just didn’t realize I had to get a separate, you know, they still have to come back and inspect the addition, the final inspection on that. So it wasn’t like I was trying to get it built. It’s 1200 square feet. I just wasn’t trying to build it and hide it. I just thought we’d get that done and go from there. MR. STONE-So that parking area I pulled into thinking maybe I was trespassing on the neighbor’s, is your property? MR. TOUGAS-No, that’s our property, yes. MRS. LAPHAM-Did you buy the house from HUD? You’re the one that made all the improvements? MR. TOUGAS-Yes. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. I live in that neighborhood. I go by there every day. MR. MC NALLY-When we spoke today, I also asked if you had any other surveys than the one that you provided us with. Did you bring anything else? MR. TOUGAS-I don’t have a survey. I mentioned to you that Mr. McDonough was our, you know, I found a letter. He said he tried to contact the previous people and there was no survey. Well, there was a survey done. He couldn’t get a hold of the maps. When I prepared this map, I took all the dimensions off the deed description, which I have here. I know you asked if I had that. MR. MC NALLY-It was my understanding, though, in asking for this, that I wanted some kind of a affirmance as to whether this was a single lot or two lots. Is it your statement to this Board that this is a single lot and that there are not two lots? MR. TOUGAS-Yes. No, I just use that term double size, I had mentioned this afternoon, it’s about twice the size of all the other existing lots on the street in that area. It’s one lot. MR. MC NALLY-I have a question for Staff. At what stage of the construction was it noted that there was no building permit? Was it done and up? MR. ROUND-Yes. It was substantially completed, and I think the applicant can answer that. MR. TOUGAS-Yes. The day the building inspector came down, you know, Dave Hatin, I got a Stop Work on it, and he said just stop, and he wouldn’t have to go through all the paper, but, you know, when I told him that, I said, I’m pretty much done, and I haven’t worked on it since. I’ve got the siding. I’ve got siding to match the house to put on it, and I’m just waiting to get approval and then I could go ahead with that. MR. MC NALLY-I didn’t catch your wife’s name. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/97) MR. TOUGAS-Suzanne. MR. MC NALLY-You were telling me that she works south of here? MR. TOUGAS-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-She’s an attorney? MR. TOUGAS-In Clifton Park, yes. SUZANNE TOUGAS MRS. TOUGAS-In Clifton Park. MR. MC NALLY-Can I ask what kind of law you deal in? MRS. TOUGAS-I work for a company that represents a mortgage bank, and just basically do real estate closings. MR. MC NALLY-I see. MR. THOMAS-Any more questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this variance? In favor of? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DEVIN SPENCER MR. SPENCER-My name is Devin Spencer. I reside at 337 Ridge Road, which is the next door neighbor who probably is the most adversely effected, or not affected by this thing, since the garage is on that side of the “double sized” lot. MR. STONE-Here or to the south? MR. SPENCER-Yes. MR. STONE-The Glens Falls side. MR. SPENCER-Yes. Obviously, I didn’t buy my house prior to what he did to additions of the existing house, except for the addition he put on to it. I mean, the existing structure of the house was already done, that he bought from HUD, but then he added the addition onto the house, the same side, definitely made a big improvement there. I believe the garage that he added on and tore down the barn structure or whatever it was, which was dilapidated, got rid of whatever, it’s definitely an improvement. It’s big, I guess, if you want to look at it that way, but it certainly doesn’t affect me at all, I mean, aesthetically in the way it looks, and he has siding that he wants to put on to match the house, I mean, that’ll enhance it some more. Prior to having the problem that he apparently has come across, they put gray paint on it, so it just didn’t have wood there, either. I mean, they were trying to do things as they went along so it didn’t look like an eyesore. So I don’t feel, like I said, it abuts my property, but I have no problem with it at all. I mean, if you take into existence the whole double lot square footage or whatever, even though it’s on that one side, and it goes down in off the property, and the property extends way back. I don’t see that it’s anything, and he has never had anything around there to show me that it would be anything to do with commercial, and I don’t believe that he’s going to. Everything that he has is basically residential equipment or anything he uses. So I don’t foresee that being a problem. Obviously, if it was, I would have a problem with that myself. So I just think it’s been an improvement of what’s there. MR. STONE-Are you concerned by the car west of the garage? MR. SPENCER-The one that just sits out? MR. STONE-Yes. Well, I described it as a junk car. I don’t know. MR. SPENCER-A ’59 Pontiac Bonneville. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/97) MR. STONE-That’s not one of your antiques, is it? MR. TOUGAS-The one that’s out in back? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. TOUGAS-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. TOUGAS-That’s no longer going to be out there. That’s one of the cars that’s going in. MR. SPENCER-Honestly what bothers me more, and I haven’t told him, but he has this old trampoline that’s kind of dilapidated. It’s worse than the car, actually, and I’m sure he’s going to be getting rid of that because he can’t find parts to repair it. I mean, that’s part of what he wanted to do was get it out of the way so it wasn’t. MR. STONE-So there’s nothing in the garage right now, or one car? MR. TOUGAS-There is one convertible that I put in there. I know with the Stop Work I wasn’t supposed to use it or whatever, but I just said, if it was left out last year, and the top got ripped. It’s a ’69 Chrysler Convertible. MR. STONE-See, you’re so young, you call these antiques. MR. SPENCER-But sitting out there the way it is in the way it is with the weather, eventually I would have had a problem with it, but that was part of, when he originally talked to me of doing this, and he explained to me some of what he was doing and what he wanted to do. MR. STONE-I’m pleased to know that that’s one of the two cars that he’s talking about. MR. SPENCER-Yes. The other one I know he used to keep up on, I think you mentioned you pulled into this other lot. All last winter it sat up there. That car that he put in the garage, but like I said, I believe, of all the neighbors, obviously being right there, I’m affected by it most, and I don’t feel I’m affected by this. It doesn’t deter from us at all. Okay. MR. THOMAS-Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak in favor of this variance? BARBARA POLAZZI MRS. POLAZZI-My name is Barbara Polazzi, and I live at 340 Ridge Road, directly across the street. I don’t really have a problem with this, provided that the property stays residential. Is there any way that you could put some restrictions on this? I mean, there isn’t anything that would stop this property from being sold tomorrow and having somebody come in and say, well, gee, you know, the garage is almost as big as the house, you know. I want to run a business or something in it. I just don’t want to see, you know, I don’t really foresee them doing that, but what’s to stop someone else from coming in and acquiring the property and saying, I have to make a reasonable return on it? The building is very large, and one other thing. I don’t know whether this is important, but I believe you described the property in the beginning and you said that there was no previous zoning or planning action on this property. That isn’t correct. There was a previous application on this property to subdivide in order for the construction of a single family residence with one garage, and that was denied unanimously. MR. THOMAS-That still means no. MRS. POLAZZI-Really? No zoning action is no? If it gets denied, it’s no, if it’s yes, it’s an action? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MRS. POLAZZI-All right. That doesn’t make any sense at all. MR. THOMAS-We’re talking the State of New York here. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/97) MRS. POLAZZI-So, I mean, do you have the authority to put restrictions on the variance? Because, I mean, I know this is like an Area Variance, but it could really be interpreted as a Use Variance, too, if you’re going to store commercial. MR. THOMAS-No. It’s not really a Use Variance. It’s still an Area Variance. It’s zoned Single Family Residential 20,000 square feet. MRS. POLAZZI-I know what the zoning is. MR. THOMAS-That means no commercial. In order to have any kind of commercial enterprise in there, they’d have to come before us and ask for a variance to put a commercial business in there, a Use Variance. So there’s nobody that’s going to go in there and put in a used car lot or a welding shop in that garage, okay, because it’s so large. If the Tougas’ decide to sell and somebody else buys it and decides to put a welding shop in there, no, they can’t, not without coming to us and ask for a variance. Would we give it to them? Highly unlikely. MRS. POLAZZI-Thank you. MR. THOMAS-You’re welcome. Would anyone else like to speak in favor of this application? MARILYN GORMAN MRS. GORMAN-Hi. I’m Marilyn Gorman. I’m the Tougas’ immediate neighbor to the north, and I agree with Mr. Spencer. The building is a definite improvement to the property. I have no quarrel with this at all. It’s certainly much more attractive. He’s done a lot to improve the property, and I think he should be encouraged and commended for doing what he’s done to it, and so I would recommend, at your will, that you approve it. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Thank you. Anyone else like to speak in favor of this variance? Would anyone like to speak opposed to this variance? Opposed? Is there any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-I think so. “To Whom It May Concern: My name is Robert Blake. I reside at 334 Ridge Road. My home is directly across the street from Mr. Tougas’ home. I have no problem in anything that he or his wife want to do with their home or garage. The Tougas’ have turned an eyesore into one of the nicest homes in the neighborhood. I think you should approve the relief that he seeks. After all, all he’s doing is trying to further enhance his property and in the process further enhance the neighborhood. Thank you. Robert Blake 334 Ridge Road P.S. I wanted to be there in person to say what a wonderful job Mr. Tougas and his wife have done with the property but my daughter has a recital at school.” Jeffrey G. Howard, 328 Ridge Street, Glens Falls RE: Richard H. Tougas, Jr. Area Variance “Dear Bonnie: Unfortunately, due to a previously scheduled business engagement I will not be able to attend a public hearing in reference to the above captioned variance. I would however like to voice my approval of this variance as I have watched the Tougas’ work hard to turn a HUD home in extreme disrepair into a very nice residence. All the changes to this property have enhanced our neighborhood and its surrounding properties. I feel it would be a mistake to deny a variance request. Yours truly, Jeffrey D. Howard” 343 Ridge Road, Queensbury, “Dear Mr. Thomas and Members of the Zoning Board: I am the owner of the adjacent property immediately to the north of Richard and Suzanne Tougas who reside at 339 Ridge Road. This letter is to inform you that I have no objection to the addition currently being constructed to their present garage. They have made continuous improvements to their property to improve the appearance of their home and this addition continues in that vein. Surely one improved garage is preferable to two structures standing side by side, separated by an air space. The four bays that this structure will contain will provide space for their vehicles and yard maintenance equipment. I hereby respectfully urge the Zoning Board of the Town of Queensbury to allow Richard and Suzanne Tougas permission to complete their garage. Yours sincerely, Marilyn E. Gorman” “Dear Queensbury Zoning Board Members: We live in the close vicinity of Richard H. Tougas, Jr. We are signing this letter to indicate our support for Richard’s variance application for the addition to his garage. We are familiar with the garage and believe it is beneficial to both Richard and the neighborhood, as it allows him to store his cars, lawn mowers, and other equipment undercover. We do not believe that the addition to the garage adversely affects our property. Thank you. Shaunna Bennett, Ralph J. Celeste, Gus Celeste, Karen Deming, Timothy Deming, Marilyn Gorman, Lisa Howard, the people that live at 44 Meadowbrook Road, Randall C. Wright, William Geyer, at 335 Ridge Road; people at 345 Ridge Road, Joanne M. Kelly, and Marcia Tyminsh” 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/97) MR. THOMAS-All right. Are there any more questions for the applicant? I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Any more questions for the applicant? MRS. LAPHAM-You never would conceive in any way of turning this into other residential living space? MR. TOUGAS-No. The garage looks awfully big, the way it is, but I mean, if you could see inside, the ceiling’s fairly low. I just constructed the rest to match what was there, and it can’t really be used, you can hardly pull a full sized pick up truck into it because the ceiling’s low, and then the upstairs, the peak is very large, but it peaks down to nothing. I mean, if you really took a look inside, you’d see that it just couldn’t be used for any kind of residential space. Even commercial use would be kind of ify. No on the commercial and no on the residential. MR. THOMAS-Is there any more questions for the applicant? If not, lets talk about it. Brian? MR. CUSTER-Well, I think I’m on record as to what I feel about projects that are already completed and then coming to us for a retrospective approval of an application. So I have to look at it, as we’ve already said, as if this were a new build coming to us for a new project, what would I do? I would probably have some reservations as to the size, if you were coming to me with a brand new set of plans. I don’t know if I would actually rule the project out because of that, but I would listen a lot to what your neighbors have to say, and about the historical perspective of the property, what was there, what you were doing to transform it, and I can tell you that being here and supporting you has greatly helped my decision tonight, because they all were in favor of it. It appears that the position of the property was bad prior to your changing it. They’re all in favor of it, and thinking along those lines, I would have liked to have seen if it was a new construction that it was a smaller project, there’s no question. I would probably ask if it couldn’t be shrunk somewhat. So that is my only thing that I am conceding here. I will allow you to keep it, because I’m not going to make you tear it down just for that one little issue. So, I’ll probably support it, but I would be remiss if I didn’t slap you on the wrist just a little bit. I know you are embarrassed, and speaking on behalf of at least one educator in Queensbury school system, I know she’ll be disappointed that your wife did not pick this up, as a real estate attorney, but I will pass that along to her, and she will probably talk to her. MR. THOMAS-All right. Bob down at the end. MR. MC NALLY-If I look at the five factors, I have to say that the relief we’re being asked to pass on is substantial relative to the ordinance. The structure as completed is 44% greater from what is the allowed size, and an even more troubling point to me is whether or not this difficulty is self created. I don’t know how many times I’ve been confronted with people saying that they did not know a building permit was required, or they did not know that they needed to check into the Zoning Ordinance, and while certainly the neighbors goodwill in saying that this is a good project is something we should consider, I also think that we have a responsibility to the community to make sure that people understand they’re not to build things and come to us saying, well, you can’t make us take it down. This is a very large garage. We’re looking at something 20 by 54 feet. Besides the factors mentioned by Brian, I personally find it amazing that you could put in a concrete foundation of essentially 34 feet by 20, then an additional basketball court or patio next to it of about 24 by 20, without someone thinking that you really should have a building permit, or that we really should check because we’re only 18 feet from the line, what the zoning is over here. I will admit that the benefit to the applicant is certainly great, but he’d have a benefit if he built an addition that met and conformed with the zoning code as it is. The feasible alternatives, unfortunately, as Brian says, you like to look at these things as if they’re new applications, and I agree that if you were in front of me now, with a new application, I’d have to ask you to reduce the size. So I’ve got to weigh against that the fact that you already built it, and the effects on the neighborhood is certainly something in your favor. You’ve got favorable feedback from the neighbors. I will acknowledge it’s downhill, so you don’t see it from the road. It’s out of sight. I have lots of different thoughts on this project. Can I ask a point? I look at the definition of private parking garage. It’s 900 square feet, and is it limited to only three cars? So even if there’s a variance as far as size, the use by only three cars is all that can be done? MR. THOMAS-As far as I can read it, it says that you can have a garage 900 square feet. If you can cram four cars in there, that’s up to you, but I do believe that a 30 by 30 garage is 900 square 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/97) feet. It would be real tough getting three garage doors, well, you could get three garage doors in there. MR. MC NALLY-But do we have to grant relief not only from the square footage but as to the use? MR. THOMAS-No. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. MR. THOMAS-No, 900 square feet. What they do with it is up to them, as long as it’s not commercial, it’s residential in nature. Are you done, Bob? MR. MC NALLY-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-Well, again, the fact that it’s already built is upsetting, but I have watched this house progress from a complete eyesore, it was really disreputable, falling apart, the part where you have your addition was just a cement foundation that kind of stuck out of the ground, be transformed into a very lovely looking property, and when I went by and I looked at the garage today from the street, I couldn’t see where it would disrupt anyone, and with the neighbor’s comments, as much as I hate the idea that it was built before, without our knowledge or a building permit, I would be inclined to vote in favor of this, because I think the whole property has been a huge improvement over what it was. MR. THOMAS-All right. Bob? MR. KARPELES-Before you build this other garage, you know you need a variance, right? I think your chances are slim and nil. No, I share the same reservations that other people have. I don’t like the fact that it was built before the fact, or after the fact, but I think we have granted variances for garages when people had property this size, and I can see the positive parts of this. So I guess overall I would be in favor of it. MR. THOMAS-All right. Lew? MR. STONE-Well, my first two words when I looked at the property were “No, way”, because I share the feelings that so many of us have, that we don’t like being put in the position of granting a variance after the fact. That notwithstanding, looking at the piece of property, the size of the property, the location of the garage, the fact that you could have two buildings on the property. You are allowed a 900 square foot garage, as I said earlier, plus a 200 square foot shed, which is 1100 square feet. You’re only 17 and a half percent over that, which mitigates a little bit the 44%, but certainly I would ask, when we make a motion, that we say that you cannot, if that’s possible to say you cannot have another shed, and as Mr. Karpeles just said, I am disturbed by the statement you made about a two car garage, because I’ll be on the Board for a while. Don’t try it when I’m here. I think the chances would be none or nil, but having said all that, reluctantly, I would go along with, basically in light of the neighbors feeling and the fact that it is out of sight from the general public, I guess I would not have a problem. MR. THOMAS-All right. Jamie? MR. HAYES-Well, if you want that second garage, you may have to wait it out a few years, but I share the identical reservations of the rest of the Board, and I guess I can spare you the lecture, because I think you’re going to get a seventh one, but I guess, you know, it’s a classic case, I believe you’re kind of coming to the Board with dirty hands, but from the neighbors and the overwhelming support, I’m getting the feeling, and from Bonnie, a Board member, that you’ve done tremendous things with the property, and I think that that’s really what’s, you know, what is the impact on the neighborhood. When we look at an Area Variance, that’s really one of the biggest criteria, and I think we’ve got to stay with that. So there’s no doubt in my mind that the relief is substantial. So it’s just a question whether you can overcome that, and I think you have. So I think I would be reluctantly in favor of the variance. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Even though Mr. and Mrs. Tougas have done a tremendous job with that property, there’s two points here of that law that we have to address, really. Number One, the building is already constructed without a permit, and Number Two, it’s over 900 square feet. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/97) Now, for whatever reason that the Town Board, way back when, made the rule of 900 square feet, that’s it, 900 square feet for a garage, nothing more, nothing less. If Mr. Tougas had torn off the barn that was about 408 square feet and built an extension on to that of about 420 feet, he would have had his 900 square foot garage, which would exist. As Mr. Stone pointed out, the Ordinance gives him a 200 square foot shed that could be put in there to use for storage of lawn equipment, which would give him 1100 square feet, and he’s asking for 1296, but as most of you Board members know, I’ve been a staunch supporter of the 900 square foot and that’s it rule in this Town. So I would be inclined to say no to this. Having said that, I will ask for a motion. MR. STONE-Let me ask a question of Staff. Can we put in the motion that a further shed cannot be built, even though it’s permitted? MR. ROUND-Sure. You can put any reasonable restriction in granting your variance, and I think that’s a subjective test, but I think that may hold up. MR. STONE-I agree. MR. THOMAS-So a motion is in order, if anyone would like to make one. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 78-1997 RICHARD H. TOUGAS, JR. , Introduced by Bonnie Lapham who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: He has constructed an 816 square foot addition to an existing 480 square foot garage. The completed garage measures a total of 1296 square feet. The applicant requires relief from the size restriction limiting garages to 900 square feet per the definition in Section 179-7. To that I want to add, he is also entitled to a 200 square foot shed. So the actual relief is 17%. The criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, the benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be allowed to maintain, would be allowed to keep a garage constructed in excess of the 900 square feet. He would be allowed to store his equipment and antique vehicles and what have you inside and under cover, which would improve the appearance of his property and maintain the condition of his vehicles. The feasible alternatives are very limited because the garage is already constructed. Relief could be considered substantial because the structure as completed is 44% greater than the allowed size, but if we merge that with the 199.99 square foot shed that he would be allowed to have, it is actually 17%. The only effect on the neighborhood or community as indicated from the feedback from his neighbors is one that is favorable. The cow barn that he tore down I understand was an eyesore. The garage is definitely an improvement. Putting all of his vehicles and lawn care equipment inside is an improvement. The difficulty could be construed as self-created, and the applicant, while he does have a building permit, he didn’t realize that he had to have a building permit for this, and the only stipulation that I would make on this variance would be that no further outbuildings be allowed to be constructed on this property, and the present structure should not be allowed to be used for any commercial ventures or any residential living space, and we would allow an attached greenhouse. th Duly adopted this 17 day of December, 1997, by the following vote: MR.STONE-I do have one question. Bonnie did put in other structures. The Ordinance says that you can have a private greenhouse, attached. Does that mean attached to the house, the garage or to what? I mean, we’re saying no other. I just want to be clear that, even an attached one, not be added. MR. ROUND-I guess if it’s your intent not to exclude or preclude construction of a greenhouse, you can note that in your resolution. MR. STONE-Well, I would like to exclude construction of a greenhouse. MR. THOMAS-Well, you also have the private boat storage in there, too, for the future. MR. GORALSKI-But what she said was no additional outbuildings. The only thing that would not be an outbuilding would be an attached greenhouse. MRS. LAPHAM-And I don’t necessarily have anything against an attached greenhouse. MR. STONE-You wouldn’t? 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/97) MRS. LAPHAM-No. I mean, if you want build a little greenhouse to grow your Orchids or tomato plants in the winter. MR. TOUGAS-Is a gazebo, you know, like the trees out at the end of the thing? I was planning on maybe like next year putting a gazebo? I mean, is that like? I’d like to clear it up now. I don’t want to put it there and then realize I was messing up and come up here. MR. GORALSKI-If it’s less than 100 square feet, they don’t need a building permit. MR. TOUGAS-I just wanted to make sure it was clear. MR. THOMAS-Are there any other questions on the motion? All right. AYES: Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham NOES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Thomas MR. THOMAS-Lets see, five, two. You’ve got it. MR. TOUGAS-Thanks. MR. THOMAS-You’re welcome. Next time you do anything, come and check with the Planning Office before you make any moves. USE VARIANCE NO. 79-1997 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED MR-5 MH OVERLAY SUPER SHUTTLE OWNER: KIM BUTTERFIELD 10 CONNECTICUT AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO USE AN EXISTING BUILDING FOR OPERATION OF A LIMOUSINE SERVICE (SUPER SHUTTLE). WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 12/10/97 TAX MAP NO. 128-8-11 LOT SIZE: 0.14 ACRES SECTION 179-18D KIM BUTTERFIELD, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 79-1997, Super Shuttle, Meeting Date: December 17, 1997 Project Location:Description of Proposed Project: “ 10 Connecticut Avenue The applicant proposes a commercial use (limousine service) in a MR-5 district. The Super Shuttle business is Relief Required: currently in operation at the site in violation of the zoning ordinance. The proposed project requires relief from the requirements of §179-18: MR-5. A commercial use is The applicant for a use variance must satisfy all four (4) of not permitted in the MR-5 district. the following criteria for the granting of a use variance: 1. Can a reasonable return be realized as the property is currently zoned: The current structure on the property is commercial 2. Is the in character. The applicant has submitted information regarding the reasonable return. alleged hardship unique to the property: The hardship may be interpreted as unique to the 3. Will the requested variance property on the basis of the character of the existing structure. alter the essential character of the neighborhood?: The area is residential in character. Several complaints have been filed from the adjoining property owner regarding the intrusive nature of the 4. Is the alleged hardship self-created?:Staff limousine operation. Open for interpretation. comments: As indicated above, the applicant must satisfy all of the criteria established for the granting of a use variance. Additionally, the board should consider the impact of the proposed variance on the zoning regulations themselves. An area variance (AV 88 1384) was previously granted for a graphic arts operation (The Design Function). The nature of the proposed (existing) use may be interpreted as altering the character of the neighborhood on the basis of the complaints SEQR Status: on file. A less intrusive use may be an alternative to the requested use. Unlisted (perform EAF review)” MR. ROUND-Excuse me. There was additional letter from the applicant in regard to reasonable return. It’s a handwritten note that’s in the file that was submitted after the. th MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. “At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 10 day of December 1997, the above application for a Use Variance to operate a shuttle service in existing building was reviewed, and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact” Signed by Tracey M. Clothier, Chairperson. AUDIENCE MEMBER-What kind of impact? 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/97) MRS. LAPHAM-None, No County Impact. AUDIENCE MEMBER-What’s that mean? MR. THOMAS-The County doesn’t have any, it’s not going to effect Warren County in any way. It doesn’t effect the County in any way. It’s just a formality, more or less, because it’s within 500 feet of a County Highway. Okay. That’s all that is. Go ahead and say what you’ve got to say, and we’ll read the statement in later. Is there anything you want to add? MS. BUTTERFIELD-The only thing that I wanted to, I guess, point out is that in the beginning, where it says Project Description, I filled that out after I spoke with Chris Round, and Chris brought it to my attention that I was under the impression that, years ago I came in front of the Board, in 1986, and I got what I thought was a Light Industrial Use Variance, and at that time, the Design Function, the graphic artist people, occupied the building and I recall to my memory that one of the things of that meeting was that I had to get a specific business for the building. Over the years, I guess I lost that point in fact, because when the building was vacated, again, I assumed I had a Light Industrial use, advertised the building, got Richard interested in it, and went ahead and rented the building, not realizing that that Light Industrial Use Variance isn’t a blanket variance, I guess you’d say. That at this point, I have to come in front of the Board for each and any business that I want to possibly utilize that building, and I didn’t realize that, and I don’t mean to be another like the fellow before me, but I do, after talking with Chris, he pointed that out to me, so we took the proper steps and filled out the application. So that’s the only point that I wanted to bring out. I did try to follow what I thought was a Light Industrial business in that there’s not a lot of traffic, not a lot of cars, and a big business, something on a smaller scale, but again, I realize now that we have to come before you before I can rent that building out to any different business than a graphic arts at this point. MR. THOMAS-Okay. The four criteria, we have to answer positive to all four of them, and the first and the biggest one is can a reasonable return be realized as the property is currently zoned, which is an MR-5. Does that letter you have contain the dollars and cents? MS. BUTTERFIELD-It states in that letter that there are no dollars and cents, because since I’ve acquired the building, and since, the history that I know of the building, it has always been a commercial building. So I can’t produce financial records on trying to rent it residential, because I’ve never tried, I don’t know anybody that has tried, basically because of the way that it’s constructed and I would guess that you wouldn’t be able to have a family live there the way that it’s constructed, because of probably certain, you know, things that you’d have to have in there, as far as a bedroom. The way it’s constructed, there’s nothing I can produce for you. My financial records, as far as producing something, trying to rent it commercial is there aren’t any. It would be ridiculous to bring a single person or a family in there and say, okay, do you want to rent this as your home. So the financial records are that there can be no money generated unless I put $1,000 into the building to completely renovate the building into what possibly could be a different home, a different type of home. MR. THOMAS-Would you say that if you took that piece of property, which is 60 by 100 foot piece of property. If you paid someone to tear the building down, and to make it into a lot, okay, with nothing on it, could you prove to us that the cost of demolition of that building would not give you a reasonable return if you turned around and sold that as just a plain residential lot? MS. BUTTERFIELD-I would say, yes, I could. Basically, I don’t have any idea what demolition costs. I do have some idea of what it costs to get rid of garbage now, which is pretty costly. The other thing is, once it is leveled, and on the market, I’m not sure what lots go for in that area, but I don’t think it’s a whole heck of a lot, besides the fact I don’t have any idea how long it would take to sell it, any idea of where it is, the size of it, the market right now, which my opinion is the real estate market is a little soft. So I would say that that would be a hardship to me in that I have put a septic system in and made it presentable to a small business as a rental, as it stands, and like I say, even done improvements over the years, so that a small business could go in there. MR. THOMAS-Well, you know, for a Use Variance such as this, we do have to have concrete solid dollars and cents figures in front of us. You would have to go out and get an estimate. MS. BUTTERFIELD-I would have to go out and get an estimate, pay for an estimate or whatever I have to do. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/97) MR. THOMAS-Get an estimate one way or another to figure out how much it would cost to tear the building down and bring the property back up to, you know, a standard that you could make into a residence, and what that costs. Would you get a reasonable return if you put all that money into it to bring it into a conforming use, which would be a building lot, what you could get for it, like a real estate appraisal. MS. BUTTERFIELD-Even thought the building has been there, has been there for a long time? MR. THOMAS-Yes. Because the first question, can a reasonable return be realized as the property is currently zoned? You can’t tell us one way or the other, right? Dollars and cents, that’s what the law says. That’s from the State law. It’s not something I just made up. That comes from many Appellate Court rulings. MS. BUTTERFIELD-I realize that. MR. THOMAS-So, that’s something that this Board, for as long as I’ve been on it, has been, you know, very adamant about is dollars and cents, because we have to know what we’re giving relief from, and that’s one of the four criteria, is solid dollars and cents. MS. BUTTERFIELD-So, what I have to do is. MR. THOMAS-Yes, give us a dollars and cents figure. MS. BUTTERFIELD-Tear down a building that’s been there for over 20 years. MR. THOMAS-Well, you have to show us, what you have to do is show to us that a reasonable return cannot be realized as the property is currently zoned. MR. CUSTER-You don’t have to physically tear it down. Just get an estimate on how much it would cost. MR. THOMAS-But how much it would cost to tear. MS. BUTTERFIELD-Tear down the, building, take it away, put it on the market, find out the market value. MR. THOMAS-Take your initial cost, yes. MS. BUTTERFIELD-Talk to a couple of realtors, find out how long that would take to sell. MRS. LAPHAM-Or what it would cost you to sell it. MR. ROUND-May I add some information? That’s just one alternative means to test the reasonable return. It’s also, as zoned, it’s also zoned for multi family residential units. So you could say, you’d have to provide that information, or it’s also zoned for professional offices. Those are alternative uses that are allowed per the Zoning Ordinance. MR. THOMAS-Right. MR. ROUND-So that’s, you know, I just want to caution you, the direction the Board is giving you is just one direction that you can utilize to demonstrate that reasonable return, and that there are other alternative means. MS. BUTTERFIELD-I understand what you’re saying. I guess I’m just a little taken back because of the structure that’s on the property, and again, you guys know the law much better than I do, but I didn’t realize I had to look so deep into the whole thing of changing the building and, with the different ways, not just demolishing it, but possibly. MR. THOMAS-Making into a duplex, another hospital, nursing home or health related facility, a church or synagogue, a school, a home occupation, a Planned Unit Development, a professional office or multifamily dwellings including apartments, condominium projects, and townhouses of fewer than 100 units. MS. BUTTERFIELD-When you say professional office, what is that? Is that like attorneys? CPAs? Doctors? 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/97) MR. MC NALLY-They also allow you to have medical facilities like a clinic or drop off facility. There are commercial uses permitted in the zone your property could be used to, other than as a garage or limousine service, and I think to meet that first criteria, you have to show us that you can’t, in any of those categories, get a reasonable return. MR. STONE-“Professional Occupation, one who is engaged in professional services including but not limited to all members of the field of medicine, a lawyer, an architect, engineer, surveyor, licensed beautician or barber, real estate broker or accountant.” MR. MC NALLY-I look at your property and I can see that being used as a private office, not limited to. MR. CUSTER-Not limited to, John. MR. STONE-But it says a lawyer, which is kind of strange. Nothing else has an article in front of it. You might look at that some time. MR. HAYES-They figure one per neighborhood’s enough. MR. THOMAS-So, that’s one thing, now. Now we have the other three that we have to talk about also. So, lets talk about those. We’ve dwelt on that first point long enough. Is the alleged hardship unique to the property? MS. BUTTERFIELD-You tell me. I had a whole different understanding. I really did. I didn’t, like I said, I didn’t know that, as far as how, I guess, wide at this point the property could be used, because, again, that Light Industrial just keeps coming back in my mind, which is, if I had known that I could have professional offices in there, I probably, without having to come in front of the Board, I would have solicited that type of business first in the paper. I will say that I had it in the paper as offices, garage. I tried to describe the building as it stands with office space, showroom, garage area and only really had one other person that was interested in it as it was described, than Richard, and that. MR. STONE-We’re talking about the land, though, are we not, when we talk zoning, not the building. MR. GORALSKI-The building is part of the real estate. You have to, you’re talking about both. MR. STONE-Well, in terms of the zoning it applies, well, yes, it applies to the building that’s on it, but it’s the land itself which is MR-5, and any structure you put on it must be used according to MR-5. MR. GORALSKI-Correct. MR. STONE-So, in a sense, it’s the land that’s zoned MR-5. MR. GORALSKI-That’s correct. I’m not sure what you’re getting at. MR. ROUND-Yes. I wouldn’t go that route. It’s unique in that it’s the property in consideration. The property is considered the house or the structure on the property, etc., and that may, if you want to tie your argument into, you know, technicalities, I think what the Board should be directed to do is go down through the list and review those items, and if there’s some other questions, we can provide some feedback. MR. GORALSKI-Right. If you’re saying, should the existing structure be considered in determining whether the uniqueness of this property, the answer would be yes. MR. STONE-It should be considered? MR. GORALSKI-It should be considered. MR. THOMAS-Because this property pre-existed zoning. MR. STONE-For that reason, John, is that why you’re saying, because it pre-exists zoning? 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/97) MR. GORALSKI-The building was there before the zoning. MR. STONE-Okay. So from that standpoint. MR. THOMAS-That’s right. MR. STONE-Okay. I’ll buy it from that standpoint. Then I won’t question it any further. MR. THOMAS-Is there anything else you’d like add on to this? MS. BUTTERFIELD-No. I understand that. So what they’re, with the second point, the building is considered because it was pre-existed before zoning. MR. THOMAS-Right, because it pre-existed zoning, right. MS. BUTTERFIELD-Okay. I’ve got it. MR. STONE-And that helps, in your case, make it unique, that the building is, in fact, right now, it’s not. MR. THOMAS-You’re not trying to put a new building in there. MS. BUTTERFIELD-Right. MR. THOMAS-Okay. There’s nothing else you want to add. Are there any questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-Do you want to go down the other two? MR. THOMAS-No, we’ll do that after, after we close the public hearing we’ll talk about it, because everything’s in the application. The applicant’s answered the four questions to the best of her ability. Are there any more questions for the applicant concerning this property? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this variance? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-I have a question concerning this variance. I speak neither opposed nor for. MR. THOMAS-Go ahead. MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador. I would just like to ask, if a statement from a certified appraiser that the land is being used to its highest and best use satisfies your requirement for the reasonable return? MR. MC NALLY-What highest and best use? MR. SALVADOR-As the land is being used at the present time. MR. GORALSKI-Maybe I can answer that. There’s always been this term that’s thrown out “highest and best use”. That’s an appraisal term. That’s not. MRS. LAPHAM-It’s not just thrown out. It has definite meaning. MR. SALVADOR-That’s why I said appraiser. MR. GORALSKI-I know. I’m not saying it doesn’t have definite meaning. I said that is an appraisal term. That is not a zoning term. Highest and best use is not a consideration for determining a variance. It is reasonable use that is a consideration for determining whether a use variance should be granted. MR. MC NALLY-Also allowable uses should be a concern here. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/97) MR. SALVADOR-What I’m trying to do is to simplify the process that this lady’s going to have to go through to answer your question. I mean, I don’t think she should have to go out and get design drawings from a builder for a residential dwelling that might rent for so much to bring a return to justify doing that. I think there are ways to do this, and I suggest a certified appraiser. They have numbers they work with and estimates and this sort of thing, and I ask if that would answer your question. That’s my question. MR. THOMAS-I don’t know if it would or not, dollars and cents. MR. MC NALLY-Mr. Salvador, if you get a statement from an appraiser saying it’s the highest and best use, it doesn’t answer the four questions, regardless of, if it’s a lesser use, can you still make a reasonable return. MR. SALVADOR-Well, what is the reasonable return, then? MR. MC NALLY-Well, that’s for us to decide, but the question is, this is a building which can be used as an office. Has an effort been made to sell it as an office, to use it as an office, that kind of thing? And if you can’t use it in that fashion, well, can you get a return by selling it in some fashion? MR. SALVADOR-I understand. MR. MC NALLY-It’s more than just highest and best use. MR. SALVADOR-Well, but it’s a measure of the return, and if you’re going to ask people to demonstrate that the property is not bringing a reasonable return, you’ve got to define that perimeter. What is the line of reasonable return? Two percent? Fourteen percent? That’s all. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Would anyone else like to speak, in favor of this variance? Would anyone like to speak opposed to this variance? DEXTER CAMPBELL MR. CAMPBELL-My name’s Dexter Campbell, 14 Connecticut Avenue. I’m on the north side of this property in question. To clear the record a little bit, there’s been some talk here about not being aware of. 1967, when the zoning went in, that building existed. It was termed as a warehouse, all right, and then we get up to July of 1988, when Design Functions moved in ahead of a variance. So with their lawyer and all, we discussed it, and the type of business that it was, was eight to five, during the week, no weekends or nights, no heavy traffic. A variance was given. I have a copy here if you’d like to see it. MR. THOMAS-I think we’ve got it here, or it’s in the records. MR. CAMPBELL-Okay. Stipulations, there were supposed to be two. One stipulation was that they’d extend a curb, the front line of the building, for a green area. The other stipulation that didn’t get put on there was parking for four vehicles. Since then, a septic system has been put in, th which a lot of people aren’t aware of. Then in July of this past year, in fact, July 9, a notice of a variance was filed by Mrs. Butterfield for a mobile auto repair business in that building. The day of the meeting, it was canceled. So they’re aware that they needed a variance. My point. Because when I came home from vacation, there’s a business, a dozen cars, and literally a dozen cars, and a pop up trailer, but they took it home. This limousine service, taxi service, the same thing. Seven days a week, 24 hours a day. How many numbers of vehicles? I think she said something when she was reading it off, but I have no idea, but I know what my count has been, nine, ten, eleven vehicles, in front of the mailboxes, parked across the street from my brother’s house. All over. Increased traffic, quite a bit, counting the employees. I don’t know how many he’s got. He’ll have to give you those figures, but quite a few, and it does increase the traffic on a Town road. It isn’t that wide. Another thing is school bus stop, at the corner of Corinth Road and Connecticut Avenue. We have kids up and down on bicycles. So, I believe they’ve been driving on a septic system, which I understand, unless it’s specially constructed for driving on, you’re not supposed to, under Town Ordinance. Is that right or wrong? MR. ROUND-Yes. There is an Ordinance on the books that you’re not supposed to drive over septics. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/97) MR. CAMPBELL-Auto repairs. They can call it maintenance or whatever they want, it’s auto th repairs. All right. November 10, a car jacked up out front for three hours or so, a mechanic working on it, a guy in a green truck comes, what, twice a week or so and checks cars. Anyway, they’ve got cars inside. I’ve often wondered about fire inspection, gasoline is stored. I don’t know. I asked for what zoned for taxi cabs and limousine services, it hasn’t gotten to me. Where do limousines and taxi cabs come under? MR. ROUND-I believe they’re allowed in a Light Industrial zone. MR. CAMPBELL-In Light Industrial. What are we, MR? MR. ROUND-MR-5. MR. CAMPBELL-All right. Another thing is the biggest question, to me, is they’re in there with autos. They’re doing auto mechanic work, and according to Chris, it does set a precedent, if anybody else wants to come along like for this mobile auto repair, you couldn’t turn them down because the precedent has already been set. Not in my back yard. I guess that’s the term. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Would anyone else like to speak opposed to this variance? JANE CAMPBELL MRS. CAMPBELL-I am Jane Campbell, and I live on the other side, and this is on the south side. They go in and out at night. I have to, I get up at 5 am to go to work every day, and when the limos, the stretch limos back out, it’s beep, beep, beep, and the garage doors open and shut. (Lost words) a car coming in or a limo or another vehicle, the lights shine in the window, and I’m 200 feet from the garage. Our bedroom window is only 200 feet from this building, 20 feet, excuse me. We’re right up against, and it lights up our bedroom. We go to bed at nine o’clock, and they come in and out later on, they’re always coming in and out, and this is now winter time, and in the summer when it first came in, there were considerably more limousine services. So it’s the noise and the lights and so on. MR. THOMAS-All right. Would anyone else like to speak opposed? CLAYTON CAMPBELL MR. C. CAMPBELL-Yes. I’m Clayton Campbell. I’m just wondering how they got in in the first place without a variance, and they moved in. They lived comfortable in there. That’s all I’ve got to say. MR. THOMAS-I couldn’t tell you how they got in there. Is there anyone else that would like to speak opposed? Last time. Is there any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-I don’t think so. MR. THOMAS-Read the handwritten financial statement there. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. “The property located at 10 Conn. Ave., Qby. Was built many years ago as a commercial building. It has been used as a commercial building since that time. There is no history as to renting or using the property as a residence as it is in no way set up to do so. The building consists of a very small front entrance room which leads into the open area that also has a one bay garage. The back of the building has a tiny half-bathroom and a large storage area on the first floor. On the second floor is an office type area. The plumbing and heating are minimal as to support a small business’ needs. In order to possibly make this building a residence, I would have to spend tens of thousands of dollars. Kim K. Butterfield” MR. THOMAS-All right. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED RICHARD DOYLE MR. DOYLE-Mr. Thomas, if I could just address, my name is Richard Doyle, just address some issues by Mr. Campbell. We do no auto repair in there at all, period, none. It’s not set up to do 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/97) that. We don’t do that. We did have somebody fix the car once because the starter went, and so either you tow it or jack it up there, and replaced it no different than a homeowner would do in the same case, but we do no oil changes. We don’t store gas. We do no repairs except for washing and vacuum cleaning, maybe changing wiper and the lights, but we do not do any repairs, except for the case Mr. Campbell brought up about when the starter went. Yes, we fixed it right on the spot. We have four cars there now, currently. We have four cars there. We have two in the garage, that’s correct. We have four cars outside. Mr. Round mentioned about the septic tank system, and there’s now a little white, if you drive by there’s a white little thing sticking up. You don’t park anything past that white little pole. So we’re not parking on the system at all any longer. So I think, I’ll be honest, when we moved in we had some cars, we were moving. Any time when you’re moving residentially or commercially you’re going to have some extra cars, people coming, but I think, again, if you drive by this, there’s four cars, and two are in the garage. We don’t park on the septic tank. Traffic wise, I’m not sure we create a lot of traffic. I’m not disagreeing. I’m not sure we create a lot of traffic on there, and if you go down the street corner of Connecticut and South, there’s a house there with six or seven vehicles parked along the side. All I’m saying is that I’m not doing anything different, if you ride around the streets and see the number of cars and stuff around people’s lots, I’m really not in variance of that, and as Kim was saying, you can look at the proper use of the property, but if you truly go into that property and look, that can’t be used for anything else. It cannot be used for professional without tearing anything down, and you’re all invited to stop in and look. It can’t be done. It truly can’t be. (lost words) Campbell built the thing. So all I’m saying is that the thing would have to be torn down one way or the other, if it was going to be used for any other purpose other than something within this area. MR. THOMAS-How many trips a day do you make with that car, or with the cars? MR. DOYLE-The average trips, we run around five to six trips a day. MR. THOMAS-Okay, is that per car, or for the entire? MR. DOYLE-No, sir, about five to six trips a day, and the limos, of course now it’s a slow time, so probably not much at all, but the limos would be usually on a weekend, a wedding or evenings out or something like that. MR. THOMAS-Lets talk about the limos. What time do they usually leave and usually return? MR. DOYLE-For a wedding, it’s all day work, during a wedding, and evening’s out, it could range in time, from six to one or it all depends how long they rent it for. We only have two limos, and to be honest with you only one has a beeper on it, back up beeper. I personally have no problem telling the drivers to put it in the parking lot, because as you head into the garage next to Mrs. Campbell, I don’t have a problem with that at all. I probably didn’t think about that, because I think the limos have only been out three or four times since October when we moved in. So it’s something I didn’t consider a problem. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. STONE-Do you do airport business? MR. DOYLE-Yes, sir, just airport. We are not a taxi. Under my corporation laws, we are executive transportation service, because we work for Ahlstrom and those. So we’re not a taxi service. We do rent 24 hours. We advertise 24 hours a day seven days a week, but tomorrow first run’s at eight o’clock in the morning. So, 7:30 the driver will leave, but then again, I have to be honest with you, Friday I think first run’s at four o’clock. So the driver, 4:30 or something. So you’re right. So we run a little off hours, but again, those are one or two runs early in the morning. MR. CUSTER-You are considered public transportation. I mean, your license is all renewal on th February 28? MR. DOYLE-That’s correct. MR. CUSTER-All right. MR. STONE-And you serve the general public in addition to contract companies? 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/97) MR. DOYLE-Yes, Mr. Stone. You could call and request a ride down to the airport from me. Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MRS. LAPHAM-How many employees do you have? And how do they arrive, on foot or by car? MR. DOYLE-No, by car. We have seven, one that’s usually dropped off, and then because it’s a one car family, and the others, yes, will park their cars, but then again we only have four vehicles. So the most you will have there is five vehicles, if I have my own vehicle up there. MR. CUSTER-There’s four total in the entire corporation? MR. DOYLE-We only have four. Well, four outside. We have two limos inside. MR. CUSTER-Because I heard the word a “dozen” before. MR. DOYLE-Probably as we moved in they were just workers coming in to help us move, and we had to fix the furnace and other things. So, yes, I believe Mr. Campbell, we blocked his mailbox. Yes, we did, when we were first moving in. MR. CAMPBELL-What about the lawn care out in the back? MR. DOYLE-I forgot about that. We have a lawn car van in the back of the building, yes. We do, and so do your other neighbors, too, Mr. Campbell. I just want that to be fair, that’s all. MR. CUSTER-Ms. Butterfield, to help you out on your financial thing, you know, (lost words) to maybe give us some financial information. If you purchased the lot, whether you inherited it or not I don’t know, but say you purchased it for $10,000, five years ago, and a reasonable rate of return is, a T-Bill is six percent. So why would you buy a piece of land if you could earn six percent guaranteed, you know, safety of the United States Treasury Bill? So, using that as a basis, over five years, six percent compounded, would be roughly another $3,000. The value of that lot would be $13,000. Could you sell it today for $13,000? If you put $10,000 into it, could you sell it for $13,000? That would be a reasonable rate of a return, on a very simplistic, I’m not saying this is what you want to do to build your case. MS. BUTTERFIELD-I would say yes, hesitating, because I probably could, if it was. MR. CUSTER-If you had this type of client in there. MS. BUTTERFIELD-Right. MR. CUSTER-Yes, that’s what I’m saying. I’m trying to help you build your case. MS. BUTTERFIELD-When I advertised it, I’ve had probably 20% asking if I would be interested in selling it. I always write the lease up, if we went to sell it, that they could have first refusal on it, but that’s because they’re small businesses looking for a commercial piece of property for their own furtherment. When you’re in small business, the best thing to do is to stop renting and start buying. So, yes, but I don’t think that $13,000. MR. CUSTER-Well, I just used that figure. MS. BUTTERFIELD-Yes, I know you are, but even at, that’s a pretty reasonable amount to ask for that piece, and again, it’s just something thrown out there. That may be hard to get, if it was just as is, and, well, you’re going to have to go in front of the Board and try to get your business through and all that. It may just sit there for a year. MR. CUSTER-Well, just to help us, too, in past cases, we’ve asked for hard core financial information, is kept strictly confidential. Don’t be afraid to show us what you paid for it, if anything, what you feel the reasonable price of selling it today if you had a business located on it such as this one, or just to sell it outright, you know, those type of things. Okay. MS. BUTTERFIELD-And I apologize, because Chris did get a hold of me. I think it was a matter of misunderstanding and a matter of, again, assuming that it was sort of grandfathered in there because the building was already there, that it made sense that I wouldn’t have to come up with, if 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/97) I tore it down, if I took the garage door off and put a big picture window into it and tried to make it into a real estate office, or, you know, I didn’t realize that part of that financial statement meant, do something completely different with the building as it sits on the property, which now I understand that’s what you’re asking for. So I could produce that, and the different ways. MR. CUSTER-I’m not sure that’s what we’re even asking for. MR. STONE-No, but I will read from the book that we all have about zoning, as to the financial aspect. It has been held repeatedly that lack of financial return can only be shown by dollars and cents proof. It’s fairly clear from our guidelines that that’s dollars and cents, and it goes on to say, to summarize the first variance test, a zoning regulation imposes unnecessary hardship if property to which it applies cannot yield a reasonable return from any permitted use. The mere fact that the individual owner may suffer financial hardship or the fact that the grant of the variance may allow the sale of the property for a better price or permit a larger profit does not justify the granting of a variance on the grounds of unnecessary hardship. It’s dollars and cents. MS. BUTTERFIELD-And the reason I answered the way I did was I looked at the dollar and cents factor, and said, if I ran an ad in the paper, when I ran this ad, that I have a residential building, we wouldn’t be sitting here. I would be at a hardship because I would not have rented it. I’d be paying taxes, my water bill. As minimal as it is, I would be paying all those expenses that go with owning property, not being able to rent it out as a residence the way it sits, without, again, a hardship of my dollars and cents going into it to make it into what it was zoned after the building was sitting there. So that was my understanding, that because it was already sitting there, I didn’t feel that I needed to go through, okay, now make it into a home, and if I did, I meant to answer it, there is no financial record, because nobody would ever want it. You could take a bath. It would never sell. MR. STONE-Well, but you need to show that you’ve tried for a reasonable length of time. We certainly have listened to arguments that someone has tried to sell it or rent it for a permitted use for a period of time. Whether it’s one year or two years, again, that’s our call, in terms of reasonable, but you have to show that you’ve tried, and in the mean time, what it’s cost you, whereas you’re not getting any return. Am I speaking incorrectly, Mr. Chairman? MR. THOMAS-No. You’re speaking exactly right. MRS. LAPHAM-And what if she went to a contractor to find out the cost of demolition or the cost of erecting the appropriate residence. MR. THOMAS-Or converting it to a permitted use. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. Exactly, and brought that back? MR. THOMAS-That would be fine. We need dollars and cents, okay. That’s the way it is. MR. MC NALLY-And it’s not enough just to show it as to residential character of the property. You’ve got to show that for each and every permitted use under the Ordinance, and that includes the office usage. MS. BUTTERFIELD-Right. For the whole building, though? MR. MC NALLY-The whole building. MR. THOMAS-Well, we won’t say the whole building. We’ll say the whole property. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. MR. THOMAS-It’s getting a little technical here, so we might as well keep the terms technical. So would you like us to table this until you can come up with the dollars and cents statement for us? MS. BUTTERFIELD-Yes. I can do that pretty much by next month. I guess my concern right now is for Mr. Doyle, because he is in there, and what do we do, you know, the garage is built. I’m sorry, but he’s in there. We’re trying to comply, seriously, we are, and I will get those financial figures, one way or the other, by the next meeting. The other thing I’d like to address right now is, for the Campbells who live on both sides of the building, is that I’ve got to do something with the property. I want to get along with my neighbors and if we can figure out a way 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/97) that Super Shuttle can occupy the building, I’m sure that we can figure out ways to address some of their concerns as far as the lighting, the cars coming in and out, things like that, as far as hedges, working with Richard as far as his hours on certain days, things like that, but right now I think I’m kind of speaking even more for Richard as well as myself, in that, you know, what do we do as far as him being in that building right now? MR. THOMAS-Well, we’ll ask Staff about that. MR. ROUND-If I may offer a suggestion, is that, I wouldn’t, in fairness to the applicant and in fairness to the neighbors, is that I wouldn’t ask the applicant to come back to satisfy this one test, if you’re going to pass judgment on the other three tests in any other manner. Let me re-phrase that. If you make a decision tonight that they satisfy the other three criteria, then I’d say it’s in the best interest of the applicant to come back and table this, to satisfy the last one. If she’s going to come back and put forth effort, time, money, etc. to satisfy test number one and doesn’t meet one of the other tests, have we done our job? MR. MC NALLY-I’m more inclined to deny the application, with leave to re-file at some later date. Is there any limitations as far often a person can file or how frequently? MR. ROUND-I’m not sure. A particular application, I know in Area Variances it has to be substantially different. If she came back with a different use, then it would be, I’d consider that as a separate application, but I may defer to get additional clarification on that. MR. MC NALLY-Could we, as a Board, just consent that it could be brought back, if she wants to, on the same grounds? MR. ROUND-I’m not sure what the question is, Mr. McNally, a different applicant? MR. MC NALLY-Same applicant, same application, only with more proof, at some later date, rather than tabling it. I’m concerned with the continued use as a garage. I don’t see it. It’s interfering with the neighbors. I don’t see why you should have to do that. We should make a decision as to it, rather than wait. MR. THOMAS-Well, lets do that, then. We’ll go around. We won’t talk about the first thing. We’ll talk about Questions Two, Three and Four. We’ll see if those, you know, if we can get a favorable majority on that one, and that way, like Chris said, that if we can’t come up with a majority for Questions Two, Three and Four, answered in a positive way, then there’s no use for Ms. Butterfield to go out and spend all kinds of money to prove Question Number One. So, having said that, we’ll start with our real estate person, Bonnie. What do you think? We’re just talking about alleged hardship unique to the property, will the requested variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood, and is the alleged hardship self created. Just those three questions we’re talking about right now. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. Well, I’ll start with self-created. I don’t think so, because the garage, I mean, I suppose if you’re going to go back in history long enough and say, well, it’s self-created because Mrs. Butterfield bought the property knowing that it was a garage, but, no, I don’t think you can call that self created, because the building was there indefinitely, according to the applicant, unsuitable for any other use than a garage or, what was the graphic design, what did they do there? MS. BUTTERFIELD-They did. MR. HAYES-Vinyl lettering, I do business with them. MS. BUTTERFIELD-Yes. MR. HAYES-They do vinyl lettering, and they produce small signs and just basically artistic renderings. MS. BUTTERFIELD-Right. They went from that building in the Chase Bag building out in (lost words). MR. HAYES-Fenimore. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/97) MS. BUTTERFIELD-In fact, at one point they approached the Board to put an addition on that building, which I wasn’t aware of. When I was going through the file that was given to me, I saw it, and Chris informed me that that’s why some things have changed, where the owner has to be named and present as far as a lot of these things that tenants, people who are renting will do, but they basically, again, have about the same amount of cars. The business hours may have been a little bit different in that there were probably more of an eight to five, Monday through Friday, but it being a small business, I know Ed Osberg was there on weekends working on whatever projects in his spare time. So definitely not, you know, one o’clock in the morning, four o’clock in the morning so much, but again, I don’t think that that’s, those kinds of hours aren’t every day, seven days a week, the whole entire month during the whole year. It’s a business that’s sporadic, and I think that we can address those concerns if we can get beyond the other things. MRS. LAPHAM-I’m not sure that the requested won’t alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The neighbors seem to feel that it would alter the character of the neighborhood, although when I drove around, I found that the neighborhood had very mixed uses. At one end there was an auto body repair shop. I saw (lost words) your garage, some small houses. I think I saw mobile homes in the area, and it just seems to be a very mixed kind of neighborhood. If this were on the corner of Corinth Road and Connecticut Avenue, I probably wouldn’t have any problem with it at all. As it is now, because it does set in one house from the corner, and that is a relatively quiet street, I think it might be altering the character of the neighborhood, because you are going to have a little bit of increased traffic there, or maybe a lot of increased traffic, depending on how busy you are. You’d be very happy to have increased traffic, I’m sure. Okay. The alleged hardship unique to the property, I’m not sure that it is, because the zoning is such, and the other properties have managed to fall into it. The other properties in the neighborhood seem to suffer the same hardship of being in a mixed neighborhood and possibly wanting a variance on something different and seem to manage within the prescribed zoning, so I can get by Number Four easily enough. Number One, it hasn’t been shown to us yet. MR. THOMAS-No, don’t even consider Number One. MRS. LAPHAM-Right, it hasn’t been shown, and then so Two and Three, I’m kind of on the fence with Number Three being a probable change to the neighborhood. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob? MR. KARPELES-Well, that’s a good point. If this is a tabled and comes back, I won’t be here. So my opinion really doesn’t matter very much, but I’ll give it to you anyway. The only one I would have problems with is Number Three, the requested variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. I feel the neighbors think that it would alter the character of the neighborhood, and I think it would, too. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew? MR. STONE-I agree with Bob on Number Three, that it seems to, at least the neighbors think so, and I guess I would like to see, if we do table it, if there were some way that maybe there could be a meeting of the minds between a sizable portion of the neighbors and the applicant, and maybe then they could work it out so that it might not alter the essential character. However, Number Four, I do think it’s self created. Here’s a building that has been used in a particular business. It can be used as a professional office. It has never really been tried to be used as a professional office. So therefore asking us to consider any other use except those that are allowed seems to me to be self created. MR. THOMAS-Okay, and Number Two? MR. STONE-Number Two, no, I have no real problem with that. It is a mixed neighborhood, and we do have a wide variety of applications, if you will, from residential, and mobile homes, and some businesses, so I don’t think that a business, an acceptable business in that location, is unique, I mean, it would not be a unique situation. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. STONE-I’m concerned about definitely Four, and I’m concerned the same comments that everybody else has on Three. I think it would, but maybe it could be mitigated. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jamie? 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/97) MR. HAYES-Well, looking at the property as a whole, I think that the hardship is somewhat unique, just by the very unique architecture that is there. I don’t think anybody that looks at the property would say that that’s contiguous with the neighborhood, but I do have a question for the applicant as far as whether the hardship is self created or not. I mean, how did you acquire the property? Did you purchase the property? MS. BUTTERFIELD-No. I acquired it through Regal Transactions. It was part of a settlement. MR. HAYES-When was that? MS. BUTTERFIELD-That was in ’91, ’91 or ’92. So it was a situation, take a big loss or take a small loss, and I decided to take the property and do what I could with it, and pursue it as a rental piece, and acquiring it, not realizing that I guess, not looking into how it was zoned and all that, again, just trying to cut my losses a little bit, and take the property, and at that point went in front of the Board and got the graphic company in there. MR. HAYES-Well, I guess then I would have a problem with Number Three as well, then. I think it’s been one of my consistent positions that when applicants make bad economic decisions that that does not create, that is a self created situation, and that that in itself is grounds for relief, in my mind, from Number Three, and I think you chose the tenant that you did. So I would say I have a problem with Three, and I think that as far as the neighbors are concerned, that it does, you know, would alter the essential character of the neighborhood. So I think I would have a problem with Three and Four. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Brian? MR. CUSTER-I have no problem with Number Two. Number Four, I’m kind of on the fence about it. I could go either way there. So I’ll let that one stand untalked about at this point in time, but I do have a problem with Number Three, as has been mentioned by many other people on the Board. I think it does alter the essential character of the neighborhood. I think it alters the essential nature of the current zoning, which is MR-5, which by its definition tends to be residential, and now you’re bringing in a commercial business that is, by its very nature, transportation oriented, therefore increasing traffic flow, even though it may be mitigated somewhat, compared to a wholesale distributor or something of that nature, there’s still going to be increased use of vehicles. I think that impacts directly on the welfare of certainly minors in the area and things of that nature, and I have my biggest problem with Number Three. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I have no doubt that this changes the essential character of the neighborhood. The neighborhood existing is residential. Before this business went in, again, without a variance or permit of any kind that I’m aware of, the property was essentially used for professional space and offices, by the design company. The current business is 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and while I understand that they drive five or six cars in to work there, and they take four or five cars out, there is an increase of use and intrusiveness which simply wasn’t there when it was used as an office. So I’d have to say that it does change the essential character of the neighborhood and makes it much more commercial, and entirely outside of the scope of Type II uses under the Zoning Code. Is the hardship self-created? I sympathize, but with all due respect, a person has to take property subject to whatever the existing law was, and by going out and renting this property to someone who does not fall within the types of uses permitted within the zone, that’s self created. I think there may be other uses you can put this property to, but I would not be in favor of passing this Use Variance as it sits here today. The alleged hardship is unique to the property in some sense of the word. It is restriction, the MR-5 restrictions, that applies across the area as a whole. I don’t see the choice being simply using this property as residential and nothing else. So I suppose it is unique, but in the face of three and four, I can’t say I’m in favor of it at all, and I don’t know how tabling it is going to help that, to be honest with you. MR. THOMAS-All right. So far we’ve got six that wouldn’t pass it because of Number Three, and I’ll make it seven on that one, because it will change the essential character of the neighborhood. Like the other Board members have said, there was “a professional office” in there, in the graphics office, which was, you know, I wouldn’t say it was professional office, but it was an office space, and it was used as an office, eight to five, five days a week. Whereas this business here is 24 hours a day, seven days a week, as Jamie stated. As far as Number Two, the alleged hardship unique to the property? Yes, it is, because the building has existed before the zoning was 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/97) in place, and is the alleged hardship self-created? There again, the building was in place before the zoning. So I don’t believe the hardship was self-created, in the sense of the building itself, but the use of the building, there are other uses that it could be. So there again, I’m on the fence with that one, but as far as I can tell, as a seven member Board, no one would approve this variance, as far as Question Number Three. So having said that, we have to satisfy all four of the criteria for granting this variance, and nobody can seem to get past Question Number Three in a positive way. So it looks like this variance would be shot down anyway. So, having said that, would someone like to make a motion? MOTION TO DENY USE VARIANCE NO. 79-1997 SUPER SHUTTLE , Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: Kim Butterfield, 10 Connecticut Avenue. The applicant proposes a commercial use as a limousine service in an MR-5 district. The Super Shuttle business is currently in operation at the site, in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant seeks relief from the requirements of Section 179-18, MR-5, a commercial use as a limousine service, which is not otherwise permitted in an MR-5 district. It’s my motion that the application be denied. One, because the applicant has not demonstrated to this Board’s satisfaction that a reasonable return can be realized as the property is currently zoned under each and every of the permitted uses in an MR-5 zone. There’s been no financial data whatsoever submitted of a hard number type character, and I don’t think there’s been any opportunity or endeavor to try to rent the property for some of the other permitted uses, at least there’s been no showing of that, to my satisfaction. While the alleged hardship may be unique to the property, the requested variance is going to alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Initially, the character of that neighborhood is residential. In view of the numerous complaints from the adjoining property owners regarding the intrusive nature of the limousine operation, I have to agree that this proposed variance will change the character. Four, while one might argue whether or not a design company’s use of the office space as a facility for design type functions is a professional office, it clearly was a type of use which was less intrusive than the proposed and the existing current use as a limousine service, both in the hours of operation, the frequency of use, the number of days of operation, and the type of work being performed at that location. Lastly, it’s my position that the alleged hardship is self-created. While certainly the property, as Chris has noted, does pre-date this circumstance, the fact that the property has been already leased to a use which is not permitted within the zone is, in my opinion, self-created, and for that reason, I would move that this application be denied. th Duly adopted this 17 day of December, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE MR. THOMAS-That’s a seven to nothing vote, and I’m sorry, the variance is denied. MR. DOYLE-Mr. Thomas, what do I do now? I need a timing date here. MR. THOMAS-You would have to talk to Staff what your next step would be, what’s called an Article 78 proceeding against the Zoning Board. MR. DOYLE-No. MR. ROUND-You can give me a call in the morning. MR. DOYLE-I only have so much time to get out. MR. ROUND-Yes, give me a call and we can discuss that. MR. THOMAS-Yes, call Mr. Round and he will give you a time table that is acceptable to the Town and will be acceptable to us. Okay. Sorry, but that’s the way it goes. MR. DOYLE-I thank you very much. MR. THOMAS-You’re welcome. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/97) NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 5-97 QUEENSBURY BAYBRIDGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION APPEAL OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION REGARDING PLACEMENT OF FILL/CLEARING OF LOTS ON WALKER LANE. LOCATION OF PROPERTY: WALKER LANE, NORTH SIDE (OFF BAY RD.) TAX MAP NO. 60-7- 13.2, 13.3, 13.4 ROBERT VOLLARO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LAPHAM-Queensbury Baybridge Homeowners Association, Subject: Compliance with the Town Zoning Law. This was written on October 31, 1997, Attention: Mr. Fred Champagne, Supervisor “This letter concerns the current activities of Mr. Richard Schermerhorn on property bordering the north side of Walker Lane [adjacent to the Baybridge community] in the Town of Queensbury. This property, according to the Warren County Clerk’s office, is currently deeded to Mr. John H. Dorlon, Jr. residing in San Antonio, Texas. Therefore; Mr. Schermerhorn is not the owner of record. On Saturday, October 18, 1997 Mr. Schermerhorn began loading significant amounts of fill onto the property taken from another of his projects just off Blind Rock Rd. Inquiries were made by Baybridge residents asking; “What’s going on at Walker Lane?” Telephone contact was made with Mr. Dave Hatin at his home since this all took place on a Saturday morning. Following some discussion, Mr. Hatin said; “I think Rich has building permits for his work on Walker Lane.” Mr. Hatin suggested I come to town hall on Monday morning and he would show me the permits. I came to town hall at 8:00 am; they were the wrong permits. At that time Mr. Chris Round, Code Compliance Officer, became involved in the discussion. He located the properties in question and began searching the computer for pertinent information under the names of Schermerhorn or Dorlon. There were NO applications of any kind filed under either name. Mr. Round said he would look over the properties in question and get back to me. The next day [Tuesday] I received a call from Mr. Schermerhorn stating he had been to town hall and everything was O.K. and he was in compliance with the zoning law. I received no communication from a town hall employee confirming Mr. Schermerhorn’s position. The Baybridge Homeowners Association feels there IS a problem of non-compliance. Facts: Ref. Zoning Ordinance under land Subdivision regulations Article 1 B. entitled Clearing of Land. This section allows a MINIMUM of activity prior to sketch Plan submission. It makes no mention of moving considerable amounts of vegetation or bringing in large amounts of fill. It does however allow vegetation removed in connection with required surveying, engineering tests and inspections. Article 111 Sketch Plan Conference This article is broad and encompassing; it requires the developer/applicant to meet with the planning board AT ITS REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETINGS to discuss his/her intentions. To our knowledge, the intent of this article has NOT been complied with. Additionally, the properties in question contain potential environmental impact and ANY activities thereon should comply with the State Environmental Quality Review Act. This association feels that Mr. Schermerhorn must submit a Sketch Plan to the Planning Board stating his position on ownership of the property and his future intentions. As stated under Article III, “The purpose of the sketch plan review submittal is provide a cursory review of the proposed subdivision”. In our Tele-Con Mr. Schermerhorn stated, “I’m not sure what I’m going to do with the property…I may not subdivide…I’m just not sure”. In our view Mr. Schermerhorn is operating outside the regulations of the zoning law. In the event this matter ever comes to litigation this association would be seeking the complete removal of all fill placed on the property prior to the sketch plan conference and subsequent Preliminary Plat Review. The zoning law is in place for good reason and its incumbent on the town’s elected and appointed officials to oversee activities such as described therein and take prudent and appropriate action when non-compliance is in evidence. Very Truly Yours, Robert J. Vollaro Board member Howard Greer President Baybridge Homeowners Association cc: John H. Dorlon, Jr. Dave Hatin, Steve Pinchook, Chris J. Round, Richard Schermerhorn, Tim Schuler, Ted Turner, Valente Builders” And one for the file. MR. CUSTER-Mr. Chairman, I need to recuse myself from this, as I was served notice, as a local land owner, or adjacent land owner. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MRS. LAPHAM-And I’m going to abstain because I have a relative connection, but I will continue to read, as Secretary. Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, Chris Thomas, Chairman, Queensbury Town Office Building “Dear Mr. Thomas:”, this was written December 17, 1997 “I have received notification that the Queensbury Baybridge Homeowners’ Association, by its agent Robert J. Vollaro, has sought an interpretation of the zoning ordinance at your December 17 meeting. The inquiry and concerns that Mr. Vollaro has raised were initially raised in his October 31 letter to Queensbury Town Supervisor Fred Champagne. That letter was respond to by John Goralski, the Executive Director of Community Development for the Town of Queensbury. In that 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/97) letter, Mr. Goralski sent Robert Vollaro a copy of a memo that he had sent to Fred Champagne indicating my activity on this property was in compliance with Queensbury Town Code. I assume that this memo is available to the Zoning Board. In response to the allegations that Robert Vollaro made in his October 31 letter, I voiced my objection to the factual assertions which he made to John Goralski. I continue to disagree with his description of my activities but I know the Town has made its own investigation. Since entering into a contract to purchase this property on October 3, 1997 I have made a good faith attempt to contact all neighboring property owners and indicate to them that I planned to develop the property. I have had extensive discussions with Dan and Liz Valenti regarding their goals for the Browns Path Subdivision as well as my goals for this property. I have a lot of respect for Dan and Liz for all that they have done in the past as builders and developers and I will continue to work with them as best I can to see that all of our needs are met. I have attempted, unsuccessfully, to contact Steve Pinchook and I have also spoken with Mundy Leombruno, the owner of the Old Coach Manor apartments. After entering into the contracts, I spoke with both John Goralski and Chris Round of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Department and told them my intentions from the very beginning about clearing and filling the Walker Lane property and they both confirmed, as Mr. Goralski put in his memo to Fred Champagne, that it was permissible for me to undertake these activities. I have continued to keep them informed as to any activity which I have undertaken on this property. I also spoke with Mr. Vollaro on two occasions in October. Mr. Vollaro advised me of his qualifications as a retired engineer and he advised me that he felt the Queensbury Town Planning Department was wrong to allow the current activity on the property that I was undertaking and he made degrading remarks about the effectiveness of the Town to which I took exception. I have been advised that on November 17 at a Town Board meeting Mr. Vollaro advised the Town Board that I am attempting to subvert the intent of zoning with regard to my activity on this property. My contacts with interested parties, including the town, at the very outset indicate that this is simply not the case. As this Board is aware, I have undertaken substantial activities in the Town of Queensbury in recent years. Queensbury is a town in which I grew up and a town in which I continue to reside with my wife and children. It is the town in which my business is located and in which most all of my business activities are undertaken. My record as a builder and developer in the Town of Queensbury should speak for itself. It is important to me to maintain a good relationship with the Town of Queensbury Planning and Zoning Department and clearly this could not be accomplished if I were to subvert the Queensbury Town ordinances in this area. I would only like to say at the present time to everyone who has an interest in this potential project to please be patient and I will try to meet everyone’s needs including my own when the time comes to formulate a final plan for its development. In the meantime, I would hope that this Board would not act on Mr. Vollaro’s inquiry until all of the facts can be properly presented in a carefully prepared development plan. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Richard P. Schermerhorn, Jr. President Schermerhorn Construction Corporation” MEMORANDUM, to the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, copy to John Goralski, from Chris Round, Code Compliance Officer, dated December 12, 1997 RE: Queensbury Baybridge Homeowners Association appeal of Zoning Administrator’s decision “Mr. Rich Schermerhorn has placed sand fill on several lots (tax map Nos.: 60-7-13.2, 13.3 & 13.4) located on Walker Lane. Additionally, Mr. Schermerhorn has cleared brush at the site to facilitate placement of the fill. Based on several site visits, communication with Mr. Schermerhorn, and review of the Town of Queensbury Zoning and Subdivision Regulations, no permit is required for the activities. The Baybridge Homeowner’s Association contends the activities are a prelude to a subdivision of the property and therefore would require submittal of a subdivision application and conformance to the subdivision regulations.” MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. Vollaro, do you want to come up here. Is there anything else you’d like to add, say? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, there is. My name’s Bob Vollaro. I’m a member of the Queensbury Baybridge Homeowner’s Association, and before we begin, I’d like to make a brief statement. Baybridge Homeowner’s Association has no intention of arbitrarily trying to limit or prevent any builder from exercising his or her right to develop their property, and in this case property they intend to acquire (lost words) in the future, since Mr. Schermerhorn is not the owner of record. This appeal concerns the interpretation of the intent of the written zoning law. Now, you have the three letters that we talked to. There are three letters that I gave to the Chairman, and some of them have not been read. You all have copies of it. Letter Number Three is a letter from Mr. Goralski to me. It says, “Attached is a copy of a memo I wrote to Fred Champagne in response to your letter dated October 31, 1997. Please consider this my written determination regarding the alleged Town Code violations contained in your letter. If you disagree with my determination you may appeal it to the Zoning Board of Appeals within 30 days of the date of issuance. Please contact me if you would like to obtain the necessary paperwork for such an appeal. Yours truly, John Goralski Executive Director Zoning Administrator” Next I’d like to refer to some 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/97) photographs that are up at the top here, to give you an idea of the scope that we’re talking about, 11.1 acres of land, and we’re talking about excavating, filling, pushing back considerable amounts of topsoil, bringing in considerable amounts of fill. Now I’m talking probably 50 trucks. Chris, if you’re in the room, you can correct me if I’m wrong on that, or Richard. Approximately six acres have been effected by the activity. So it’s about roughly 50% of the property, just to give you an idea of the scope of that. Number Seven of the application refers to two articles in the Subdivision Reg’s, Article 1B, clearing of land, and Article III of the Sketch Plan Conference. Now, with your permission, I’d like to read the definition, in the Ordinance, of Subdivision. I think we’ve got to get clear in our minds what does the Ordinance say a subdivision really is, and I’ll read it, it’s Number 289 in the Definitions under Subdivision Law. Subdivision means, “A division of any residential, commercial or industrial land into two (2) or more lots, parcels, or sites, whether adjoining or not, for the purpose of sale, lease, license or any form of separate ownership or occupancy by any person or by any other person controlled by, under common control by any such person or group of persons acting in concert as part of a commons scheme or plan; provided however that this shall not apply to conveyances of small amounts of land to correct a boundary of a lot so long as such conveyance does not create additional lots. For the purposes of these regulations, a condominium shall be reviewed as a ‘subdivision’.” Now, this appeal really hinges on whether or not the builder’s activity on Walker Lane qualifies as a subdivision activity or not. That’s a fundamental pivot in this discussion. Now lets go back to Article 1B. 1B is the clearing of land. I’m just going to paraphrase this. If you folks want me to read it all, I will. What it says is that “Whether any subdivision of land is proposed to be made which is subject to review hereunder and before any part thereof is made and before any land is cleared or vegetation removed, except vegetation removed in connection with required surveying, engineering tests and inspections, and before any permit for the erection of a structure in such proposed subdivision shall be granted, the subdivider shall make application for and receive final approval of such proposed subdivision in accordance with the Town of Queensbury Land Subdivision Regulations.” Now, Article III is the Sketch Plan Conference, and it’s rather long and I won’t bore everybody with all of it, but I’ll try and pick up the important parts. “Before filing an application and before preparing a preliminary plat pursuant to Article IV, the applicant should meet with the Town Planning Board at its regularly scheduled meeting to discuss his intentions.” Regularly scheduled meet. “The purpose of the sketch plan review submittal is to provide a cursory review of the proposed subdivision.” It’s to give the Town an idea of what this builder is going to do to that property. “Sketch plan shall contain the following elements:” And it goes on to talk about the elements that the sketch plan, and I won’t go through them all. We can read them if we want to. It’s rather involved. It also talks about wetland streams and intermittent streams. Now there is a stream involved in this particular property. There is no webbing around that stream, no preventing of all of that topsoil that’s been, not top soil, but sand fill that’s been put in there from leaching into the stream. Now, when I go back to the letters, I notice that in Mr. Goralski’s letter to Mr. Champagne, he says at the end he called, this is a letter from Goralski to Champagne. “Please be aware, I’ve spoken to Mr. Schermerhorn several times regarding this property and I have asked him to keep me informed as to his intentions for the property. Our Code Compliance Officer will be monitoring the site and Mr. Schermerhorn has been asked to stabilize the exposed soil to prevent any erosion problems.” Unless Mr. Schermerhorn can tell me what he’s done to help stabilize that, since that letter was written, I don’t see any stabilization efforts. So getting back to what we’re talking about here is really a question of whether or not the builder’s activity on Walker Lane qualifies as a subdivision activity and therefore does require him to submit a sketch plan prior to going in there and doing the extensive work that he’s done. If you take a look at some of the photographs, and I don’t know who has them at the present time. MR. MC NALLY-Do you need them back? MR. VOLLARO-No. I just want you to take a look at some of the extensive work that’s been done. This is not work that’s been done in connection with surveys, checking boundary lines, doing percolation tests and so on. This is almost equivalent, to me, to site preparation. Now, I’ll take any questions you have in mind. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any questions for Mr. Vollaro from any of the Board members? MR. MC NALLY-Can I ask, sir, do you have any documents or evidence that would indicate an intent on Mr. Schermerhorn’s part to actually have that land divided, or Mr. Dorlon’s part, if that’s true? Is there anything that you’ve got, any conversations, statements, letters? MR. VOLLARO-No. What I have is conversation with Mr. Schermerhorn, when I asked him what his intent was, and this is stated in my first letter to Mr. Champagne, that I don’t know. That means that non-disclosure, silence on my part, allows me to build it. So circumvent the law. I can 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/97) just continually say to you, I don’t know, when I’ve got the property completely done, graded, filled, and then I come to site plan review and somebody like yourself says, well, what about that slope, and what about your percolation, and what about and what about, I might just say, hey, I’m sorry, I’m finished. I’m done. It’s costing me a lot of money to do this, so I’m finished. I feel for you and the members of the Board, but I am done. That’s my problem, is that to me there’s an intent to skirt the definition of subdivision review, and I’ll go a step further. In looking at the Subdivision Regulations and in looking at the Sketch Plan Conference, I consider it to be somewhat onerous on the part of the contractor, having to fulfill what I consider to be some fairly heavy financial requirements on the part of the builder to do what it says. So I can see why a builder might want to intentionally skirt this part of the law. If it is onerous, get rid of it. All I’m saying is, I’m a newcomer here. So I didn’t know any of what’s taking place in the past and all that. I read the law as it is currently written, and my feeling is, it’s not being complied with. I hope that answers your question, sir. MR. STONE-What is the size of these three lots? MR. VOLLARO-Eleven point one acres. MR. STONE-Each of them? MR. VOLLARO-No, in combination, all three lots equal 11.1. MR. STONE-But there are three identified lots? MR. VOLLARO-Three identified lots, and they are contiguous. MR. STONE-And approximately three and a half acres each? MR. GORALSKI-No. I don’t know what the individual sizes are. The total is about 11 acres. MR. STONE-Well, but there are three lots there now. MR. GORALSKI-Correct. MR. STONE-And as an individual lot, the owner of that lot can do, he could put fill in his own lot. MR. GORALSKI-My answer to that is yes, Mr. Vollaro’s is no. That’s why we’re here. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. What you’re saying then, Lew, is we’re not considering this 11.1 acres. We’re considering it three, three and three. MR. STONE-Well, I’m presented with information that says there are three lots, 60-7-13.2, 13.3, and 13.4. I’m just trying to find out, so that I can get more involved, what are the size of these three lots? If it’s 11.7, I’ll just assume, for my purposes, they’re three and a half acres each. I mean, I’m happy, they’re sizable lots. They could be subdivided, which is your contention, but right now they are large lots. That’s all we know about them. They’re large lots. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’d like to ask a question, then, so long as Mr. Schermerhorn is here. May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman? MR. THOMAS-Well, go ahead, you can ask it to me, and if and when Mr. Schermerhorn comes up here and talks, he can. MR. VOLLARO-Is it his intent to couple these three lots into a single operation? I’m taking my cue from what he’s done on Blind Rock Road. MR. THOMAS-Well, according to his letter, on the top of Page Two, it says “Since entering into a contract to purchase this property on October 3, 1997 I have made a good faith attempt to contact all neighboring property owners and indicate to them that I planned to develop the property.” Right in his own letter. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So he does plan to develop the property as three contiguous parcels. MR. THOMAS-Well, he didn’t say that, but if and when he comes up here, he has the option of coming up or not coming up. 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/97) MR. VOLLARO-But to further Mr. Stone’s reasoning, however, and I understand what it is, because there can be a basis here for saying, these are three independent lots, and maybe, John, that’s what your basis is, too. I don’t view it like that. I view this as him beginning to prepare, you take a look at that site preparation you see there, that’s not being prepared as a single lot or three separate preparations. That preparation goes through the entire 11 acres. MR. STONE-Well, he owns all three lots. It would be simple to bring the fill in to all three lots at the same time. I mean, that would be an economy of scale, if you would. He does say in his letter, to quote further, on the bottom of page two, and I don’t know if this is a positive or a negative, quite frankly. “In the meantime, I would hope that this Board would not act on Mr. Vollaro’s inquiry until all of the facts can be properly presented in a carefully prepared development plan.” MR. VOLLARO-That to me, that’s the Sketch Plan that should have come up. MR. STONE-One could argue that way. Yes. I might. MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, I’m finished. Unless the Board has anything further. MR. MC NALLY-Is it your position, sir, that if he chooses to develop these three lots as a single parcel he should file a site plan review? MR. VOLLARO-You bet. MR. MC NALLY-Even if he has no intent of subdividing any of the existing lots? MR. VOLLARO-If he says that he’s going to survey off three lots and put three homes, one house on each lot, he is not subdividing. You’re absolutely correct. MR. MC NALLY-Suppose he were to put up multifamily housing on those three lots? In compliance with the zoning code. Would you feel the same way? MR. VOLLARO-And he was developing them as multifamily, as? MR. MC NALLY-Within the existing ordinance. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but I’m trying to follow Lew Stone’s line of reasoning. If we say that they are three separate properties, and they are not contiguous and not one but really three, even though they have common border, then I would say that he’s developing that, and he’s not subdividing. He’s using that, lets say three, three, and three for the sake of talking. Lets say it’s roughly nine acres. MR. HAYES-You understand that we’re supposed to be interpreting whether Mr. Goralski correctly interpreted, not whether there’s going to be three houses? MR. VOLLARO-I understand that, but I’m trying to answer Mr. McNally’s question. I think what he said was, and correct me if I’m wrong, what would my feeling be if he developed it as multifamily housing, using the term three individual lots, and therefore he’s not really subdividing this big piece. He’s putting within the zoning regulations of MR-5 a building with the number of units that that lot would allow, based on 5,000 square foot of unit, because that’s the MR-5 requirement. MR. HAYES-Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought that Mr. McNally was saying, if Mr. Schermerhorn was to develop the property as zoned, within code, do you think that he would be subject to site plan review. MR. VOLLARO-If he’s, in any way, going into subdivision, the answer is yes. MR. HAYES-But that precluded that by definition. If he’s going to use it as zoned, and not subdivide the property, I mean. MR. VOLLARO-And not subdivide? Fine. You’re going to build a single house on each of the three. MR. STONE-He could put 30 units on each of those lots. 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/97) MR. HAYES-Yes, it’s MR-5. MR. STONE-MR-5. He could put approximately 30 units. MR. VOLLARO-Well, he’s got to allow for roads. MR. STONE-Five into forty-five is nine, times three is twenty-seven to thirty. MR. THOMAS-Yes. He could put 30 units on each three acre lot, because it’s zoned that way. MR. VOLLARO-Well, he’s got roads and he’s got cuts and he’s got curbs and he’s got septic and he’s got parking. MR. HAYES-Which is all subject to review under the proper authorities. MR. THOMAS-By the Planning Board, but he has to submit that to the Planning Board before they can consider it. So, as far as we know, Mr. Schermerhorn hasn’t submitted anything to the Planning Board, nor do we know if he combined all those three lots into one, nor has he executed his intention to buy it. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I haven’t seen any, not even a letter of intent. MR. STONE-He says that. MR. VOLLARO-True. MR. STONE-He’s on record, though. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. STONE-With a date. MR. KARPELES-Can I ask a question of Staff? Evidently he doesn’t own that land yet? Mr. Dorlon owns it? MR. GORALSKI-That’s correct. MR. KARPELES-Has anybody contacted Mr. Dorlon and asked if it’s okay for somebody to dump fill on this lot? MR. ROUND-Well, Mr. Vollaro’s letter went to Dorlon. So he’s in receipt. MR. GORALSKI-I guess the way to address that question is to say that you’re talking about an issue of trespassing, as to whether or not Mr. Schermerhorn has a right to do anything on that property. MR. KARPELES-I’m concerned. I see a lot of activity on that property. I was just wondering if this is legitimate? Can that be done legitimately, when he doesn’t even own the property? MR. ROUND-There’s nothing to trigger our involvement. That’s our position, is that unless there’s a complaint filed by a landowner or. MR. HAYES-That’s not an area of your authority. MR. ROUND-Yes, right. MR. GORALSKI-It’s not in our authority to determine whether or not, you know, he can go and dump fill there. If the property owner made a complaint to us, then we could act on it or the Sheriff’s Department could act on it as a trespassing violation, but beyond that, it’s not up to us. MR. KARPELES-Mr. Vollaro, have you made any, have you contacted Mr. Dorlon? 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/97) MR. VOLLARO-The only effort I made to contact Mr. Dorlon was to send him a copy of my letter and that’s it. I haven’t heard from Mr. Dorlon at all. The short answer is, no, I haven’t contacted him. MR. GORALSKI-I can also say that Mr. Dorlon got a notice of this meeting. I know that for a fact, that he was notified of this meeting. MR. THOMAS-Are there any more questions for Mr. Vollaro? If not, Mr. Goralski, is there anything you want to say? MR. GORALSKI-No. You have my memo to Fred Champagne and my letter to Mr. Vollaro. It’s my position that the Subdivision Reg’s don’t apply because there’s no proposed subdivision. I mean, I don’t disagree that there’s been substantial activity out there. It’s just that I don’t believe that, based on the Subdivision Regulations and the Zoning Ordinance, that I have any authority to do anything about it. MR. THOMAS-Are there any questions for Mr. Goralski? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application for appeal, which would be those that agree with Mr. Vollaro and the Queensbury Baybridge Homeowners Association? Come forward and speak at this point. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN WILLIAMS MR. WILLIAMS-I’d like to say something. My name is John Williams, and obviously I’m saying something because I want to say something. In the first place is this. Right now there are about 70 homeowners that use that one road to get to Baybridge, 70 homeowners, 70 cars, maybe, 100 cars, however many. Now this one plot of land has one road off the same road that all the homeowners use at Baybridge, if there was something going in to this development. Depending on how many people will be in that development, they would all use the very same road, Walker Lane, as far as I can see, as far as anybody can see, as it looks right now, to this development. So that’s one thing I would like to point out, the traffic, not necessarily the amount of traffic, but how do you handle the traffic? How do you handle all the things that go with the traffic, the kids, going to the school buses, the fire engines, the 911, whatever comes up. MR. HAYES-You understand, sir, that there is a review process for all of those requirements, and that’s not what this appeal is about. MR. WILLIAMS-I agree with you. MR. STONE-This is a very narrow point that we’re asked to decide here tonight. MR. WILLIAMS-It may be a very narrow point, but from what I’ve heard tonight, there’s a lot of narrow points been talked about before, and other things, a lot of narrow points. Nobody took much of a lead on any of them, as far as I can see. A lot of narrow points went on, and this is just another narrow point, that if it doesn’t come up now, it’s going to come up later. Thank you very much. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor of this appeal, those wishing to agree with the Queensbury Baybridge Homeowners Association? JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-I have one question. It was mentioned here before that if these three lots, individual lots, were to be developed within the zoning regulation, that is MR-5, there would have to be a site plan? MR. THOMAS-If they were, yes. MR. SALVADOR-There would have to be site plan review? MR. THOMAS-Yes, there would. 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/97) MR. SALVADOR-Okay. As Mr. Vollaro said, this whole issue turns on the fact to whether or not what’s going on on that property can be determined to be the advanced stages of a subdivision. A subdivision would require site plan review, also, okay. So regardless of what we do, we’re heading for site plan review. MR. THOMAS-Absolutely. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. I’d like to digress a minute and remind this Board of a variance application that I had before you, involving a Zoning Administrator’s determination that was Mr. Goralski’s predecessor, in which he denied my application, based on the fact that the project had a capacity to do something. Contrary to my efforts to claim that we had no intention to do this, the design didn’t support this, okay, and this determination came before this Board and most of you were sitting here then. His determination that my project had a mere capacity to do something caused it to be denied by this Board. Now, I mention this because I believe that if it can be determined that this land has a capacity to support a subdivision, then in the absence of it being proven that it won’t be subdivided, it must be considered to be a subdivision. For instance, the owner of the land could show that he could get a reasonable return as doing it as it’s zoned, and not a subdivision, in which case you’ll have to go to site plan anyway, and then he’ll walk into these problems, but do consider that. This land, if it has a mere capacity to support a subdivision, then I believe what’s going on on that property should be considered the advanced stages of the subdivision and should be subject to site plan review. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor of this? Would anyone like to speak opposed? Would anyone like to, let me put it this way, agree with Mr. Goralski, and the Planning Department’s decision? Would anyone else like to speak period, end? RICH SCHERMERHORN MR. SCHERMERHORN-Hi. Rich Schermerhorn for the record. I was actually asked by several people not to speak tonight, but I guess I just wanted to answer a few questions that came up. A, the property is under contract. I did want to close on the property back in October, but Mr. Dorlon didn’t want to close until after the first of the year, which probably some people could understand. We are scheduled to close, like my letter said. The other purpose of bringing the fill in is I’m doing the apartments on Blind Rock Road and Bay Road out here. There’s several hundreds of yards of fill that come out of those basements, and I actually have no place to put that fill over there, and I did contact Mr. Goralski and Chris Round before doing any of this. So I had full intentions of keeping everybody alert of what’s been going on. So I’m not trying to go behind and sneak things in. That’s not the intentions here at all. I guess that’s all I can say at this point. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So you don’t own the land right now? MR. SCHERMERHORN-No. Like I said, it’s under contract. It’s in the contract that I have permission to go ahead and fill the property. All that, I’ve got insurance covering the property. I have it under contract right now, and it’s due to close, like I put in my letter. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but like you said, you have an agreement with the owner that you can bring fill in? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Filling it, clearing the brush off. I want to clarify that again. I’m sure the pictures look, you know, I haven’t seen them. They look real ugly when you look at them and stuff, but if you walked out there, and I welcome anybody that would like to go out there, and I know Fred Champagne and a lot of Town members have. There’s clearly brush. I mean, you won’t find a tree larger than four inches, five inches in any of the piles out there. It’s mostly brush. As a matter of fact, it used to be farm land, and you’ll see that there’s just brush piled up. There was a perfect place to place the fill. I actually am running out of room where I did fill to put any more placement of fill. The next step would be taking trees down, large trees, and at this point I’ve decided I’m just going to hold off and go from there before I do any more. MR. THOMAS-You’re not filling any wetlands or within 100 feet of a stream? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Absolutely not. That was the first thing I addressed when I bought the property. I’ve already had Army Corps of Engineers out there. if you walk out there, it’s all been flagged. All 11 and a half acres I had flagged. There’s not a whole lot of wetlands, except for the east side of the property. but if you do walk it, you’ll see blue flaggings everywhere. I’m not even 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/97) probably within 50 feet of the flagging. I’m quite a ways a way. So I’m very well aware of what I can and can’t do. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any more questions for Mr. Schermerhorn? MR. STONE-Two things. You just said 11 and a half. You think of it as 11 and a half acre parcel? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Three parcels, we’re considering it as a whole here, okay. I don’t know how you want to break it up. MR. STONE-I just want to get you on the record one way or the other. MR. SCHERMERHORN-There’s three parcels that I have, and I brought the tax map, because nobody has it. There’s one that’s 5.85. There’s one that’s 2.79, and there’s one that’s 3.16. Someone said 11.5. I said 11.8, I believe. MR. STONE-All right, and what did you mean by your last paragraph on Page Two, that I previously read, “a carefully prepared development plan”, until you can properly present a carefully prepared development plan? MR. SCHERMERHORN-I don’t know. I guess it’s a figure of speech, until I get ready to, I mean, see, I shouldn’t even be up here talking about this, because there will be a site plan review process for this, and my intentions in coming up here were to put the people at ease. I’ve asked them to please be patient. I’m going to work with the Valenti’s. I’m going to work with all the adjacent people, Mr. Pinchook. I’m going to do everything I can to accomplish what everybody’s looking for. Yes, I am going to develop the property, may be this year. I might be 30 years from now. I don’t know. MR. STONE-The concern that I hear, I know we’re at a very narrow issue and I’m first willing to say that, but the concern the people have expressed a concern, in terms of, are you doing something now that you should have, that couldn’t be done normally until you had a site plan review, until you had a sketch plan review? That’s the concern that I hear people expressing. Now that does not say that I am going to disagree with John’s interpretation. That’s, under the law with which he has to work, maybe you found a loophole. Maybe it is a loophole. I don’t know that. I’m not accusing you of anything. I’m saying, if the law allows that, it allows it, and John has to go by the law, and so do we. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right, and here again, like I stated in the letter, I’m absolutely, I’m not trying to find a loophole in the system. I’ve been clear, before I did any sort of clearing or filling whatsoever, I went and talked to Chris Round, Mr. Goralski. Like I said, I’ve got all this fill that come out of those basements, and I have no place to put it, and as a developer, I’m not going to give it away, but it’s an ideal spot to put it. That’s the bottom line. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Do you have anything else you want to add, Mr. Vollaro? MR. VOLLARO-No, sir. I do not. I want to thank the Board for their attention. We’ll see where it goes from here. I’ll be watching. I just want to make some statements. When the preliminary plat comes in, and the fill’s been identified, and we start talking about percolation, you’ll see me again. Because all of that fill is laid on hard clay pad, every bit of it, and it’s right next to that stream. So we’ll see how that works out. I don’t want to see a perc test done a year from now and say, gee, boy, I dumped a bucket of water in and it took off just like that. That’s a concern I have, but I’ll let you know what that is up front. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. Vollaro gave us three letters. The first one we already read in. I’d like you to read the other two in, letters two and three. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. To, Fred Champagne, From John Goralski, RE: Filling activity on Walker Lane, November 4, 1997 “On Monday November 3, 1997 Chris Round received a copy of a letter addressed to you from the Queensbury Baybridge HOA. There are several inaccuracies and incorrect statements in this letter that I wish to address. Dave Hatin did speak to Mr. Vollaro th on Saturday October 18. However, Dave did not say, “I think Rich has building permits for Walker Lane.” Although I cannot quote Dave he has told me that he told Mr. Vollaro that Rich did have a couple of building permit applications in but he didn’t know if they were for Walker Lane or Hunter Brook Lane. The applications were for Hunter Brook Lane. The letter correctly states 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/97) that Chris Round did not get back to Mr. Vollaro regarding his complaint. However, Chris did speak to two residents of Baybridge at the site and they indicated they would report back to the HOA at their upcoming meeting on that Wednesday night. With regard to Article 1B of the Subdivision Regulations; it appears that this is a reference to Section A183-2. The first line of this section states, “Whenever any subdivision of land is proposed…” There is currently no subdivision of land proposed. With regard to Article 111 of the subdivision regulations; it appears that this is a reference to Article III. Once again because no subdivision is proposed, this does not apply. With regard to the State Environmental Quality Review Act; because there are no discretionary approvals required for the activities currently taking place, SEQRA does not apply. Is filling, in any way, considered site prep.? Please be aware that I have spoken to Mr. Schermerhorn several times regarding this property and I have asked him to keep me informed as to his intentions for the property. Our Code Compliance Officer will be monitoring the site and Mr. Schermerhorn has been asked to stabilize the exposed soil to prevent any erosion problems. I hope this information helps to clarify the situation on Walker Lane. cc: Ted Turner, Chris Round, David Hatin” Robert Vollaro, 5 Gentry Lane, Queensbury, NY, November 19, 1997 “Dear Mr. Vollaro: Attached is a copy of a memo I wrote to Fred Champagne in response to your letter dated October 31, 1997. Please consider this my written determination regarding the alleged Town Code violations contained in your letter. If you disagree with my determination you may appeal it to the Zoning Board of Appeals within 30 days of the date of issuance. Please contact me if you would like to obtain the necessary paperwork for such an appeal. Yours truly, John Goralski, Executive Director, Zoning Administrator cc: Rich Schermerhorn, Town Board” MR. THOMAS-All right. Does anyone have any more questions for Mr. Goralski or Mr. Vollaro? All right. Lets talk about it. Mr. Karpeles, we’ll start with you. MR. KARPELES-Okay. I think that Mr. Vollaro and Mr. Salvador have both raised some very good points, and I think I agree with them. I think this should be subjected to the Planning Board, to have a sketch plan conference and so forth. MR. THOMAS-Lew? MR. STONE-Well, it seems to me that there is a loophole, and I would appeal to the Town Board to correct that loophole, but certainly the law as written, Mr. Salvador’s contention not withstanding, we’re here to determine whether or not Mr. Goralski obeyed the law. We’re, in a sense, acting like a judge, and basically, he did follow the law. It seems to me that there is an obvious problem with the law, and as Mr. Salvador says, that if your property is large enough or creates enough of a precedent, that there should be a concern that maybe it is going to be developed some time, but that is conjecture, and I think the law should address it, but in the meantime, I think Mr. Goralski followed the law as he has it before him. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jaime? MR. HAYES-I agree with Lew. I think we’re here tonight, in this case, to decide whether Mr. Goralski properly interpreted the law as it’s written, as he’s charged with enforcing, and I think he did exactly that. I think his explanation is right on the money, and I would be in favor of denying the appeal. MR. THOMAS-Bob? MR. MC NALLY-If there was an ambiguity on the law, if there were something that had to require an interpretation, then I think we would be faced with the task of making that interpretation and resolving that ambiguity, but if I look at A183-2, the subdivision code, which is referred to by Mr. Vollaro, it requires site plan review where two conditions are met, where a subdivision of land is proposed, and before any land is cleared of vegetation, except for testing and whatnot. In this case, I don’t see that any subdivision of land has been proposed. I don’t see how any one of the three lots, anyone has applied to divide further, and while the combination of lots may add up to 11 some odd acres, each lot is a separate parcel, and no one has proposed a division of any of those lots yet. There’s no application made whatsoever. With all due respect, I do think site plan review’s going to come one day if there’s anything done beyond that stage, but this property owner, or this property vendee, since he’s only a contract vendee, is entitled to add fill or change fill or cut down trees, and short of some kind of proposal to subdivide it, I don’t see where we can stop it, and I think our zoning administration did an appropriate job. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bonnie? 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/97) MRS. LAPHAM-I’m going to abstain. MR. THOMAS-She’s out. That leaves five of us, right? Okay. I find that Mr. Goralski made the right decision on this. As Mr. McNally pointed out, that the two conditions for land clearing and filling were not met, and there was no proposed further subdivision of the three acres, and to carry that one point farther, there was no proposal to combine all three lots into one large lot. I know from experience in the Town of Lake George, in their ordinance, they state that you cannot bring in fill over 100 cubic yards without permission from the Planning Board. What I see in my experience in this Town, I have never seen that written of any kind in our ordinance. I would like to see it in there at some point in time, the sooner the better, but as far as I can tell, that’s not in there, and Mr. Schermerhorn is within every one of his rights to go in there and fill the land that he has a contract on with the permission of the owner from which he’s going to buy it. So I would deny the appeal also. So having said that, since there are five of us left. I would ask someone to make a motion to either approve or deny. MOTION TO DENY NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 5-97 QUEENSBURY BAYBRIDGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION , Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally: Appealing of the Zoning Administrator regarding placement of fill and clearing on the lots of Walker Lane. th Duly adopted this 17 day of December, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. McNally, Mr. Thomas NOES: Mr. Karpeles ABSTAINED: Mrs. Lapham ABSENT: Mr. Custer MR. THOMAS-So we find that, that’s what, 4-1? And that’s all we need because Warren County wasn’t involved in this in any way. MR. GORALSKI-That’s correct. MR. THOMAS-So we find the appeal has been denied. That takes care of that. AREA VARIANCE NO. 80-1997 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED LC-10A KELLY CARTE OWNER: SAME OWNER FULLER ROAD, OFF WEST MT. RD. ¼ MILE DOWN ON LEFT, 2 ACRE FIELD BETWEEN YELLOW RANCH HOUSE AND GREY RANCH HOUSE TO THE RIGHT OF IT. APPLICANT PROPOSES BOUNDARY LINE AGREEMENT-TRANSFER OF PROPERTY. NO NEW LOTS WILL BE CREATED BUT APPLICANT REQUIRES RELIEF FROM SECTION 179-13 LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY TAX MAP NO. 123-1-15.1 LOT SIZE: 4.43 ACRES SECTION 179-13 KELLY CARTE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 80-1997, Kelly Carte, Meeting Date: December 17, 1997 Project Location:Description of Proposed Project: “ South Side of Fuller Road Applicant proposes boundary line agreement/transfer of property. The applicant proposes sale of a 2.19 acre portion of an existing 4.7 acre property to an adjoining neighbor. The transfer will not create any Relief Required: new lots. The applicant’s lot is currently undersized with respect to the zoning district (LC-10 Acre) and therefore alteration of the lot requires relief from the minimum lot size Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to requirements of Section 179-13. Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: The applicant would be allowed to sell 2. Feasible alternatives: a portion of his lot to an adjoining property owner. Feasible alternatives 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: are limited to no action. Relief may be 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: interpreted as substantial. Minimal impacts are 5. Is this difficulty self-created?Parcel History anticipated as a result of this action. Yes. (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):Staff comments: None applicable The lot is currently 42 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/97) non conforming with respect to lot size. Transfer of the property will not create any additional lots SEQR Status: and minimal impacts are anticipated as a result of the action. Type II” MR. THOMAS-All right, and there’s nothing from Warren County? MRS. LAPHAM-No. MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. Carte, nice to see you again. Is there anything else you’d like to tell us about this? MR. CARTE-Well, I can just reiterate what I’ve put down there. I own the house with four and a half acres on it. It’s a little basic 1960’s ranch house, about 1,000 square feet. I plan on putting it up for sale in the future. I own land across the street from it that I’m going to be building a house on, and Chris St. Andrews is going to be my future neighbor. We talked, the house really consists of a two and a half acre lot that the house sits on, and then there’s another two acre field with a tree line and everything separating the two, off to the right hand side of it, and this is between my house and Chris St. Andrews’ house, and we discussed the property, and Chris approached me with purchasing that two acres because he’d like to be able to control, or have a buffer between himself and whoever purchases the other house. I would like to be able to sell it to him for that same reason, and the fact that the house is under valued in relation to the land. It’s difficult to sell an inexpensive little house on an expensive piece of land, and four and a half acres of nice level partly clear, partly treed and everything is worth almost as much as the house is worth. So when people go to a bank to try to get financing on something like that, the banks don’t look very favorably on that, because the loan, the land to improvement ratio is not in line with what they’d like to do, as I’ve run into several times in the past. So it seems like a win/win situation, that I sell it to him, nothing changes. He puts it on his deed. It becomes his vacant field instead of my vacant field. It’s not a separate lot. It can’t be built on. He’s not going to do anything with it other than keep it as a buffer, and I’m going to end up selling the house and the other two and a half acres. It is nonconforming, but one lot will be made a little less conforming and his lot will be made a little more conforming. His lot is two acres. So there really is a net loss here, as far as the land use is concerned. On the map that you have there, the surveyor was supposed to put the line on the, he put it on the wrong side of the trees. CHRIS ST. ANDREWS MR. ST. ANDREWS-He put it on this side. It was supposed to be on the other side. There’s a six foot difference. MR. CARTE-We need to just change that by six feet here, because I want to give him the row of trees here, because I know he’ll leave the trees standing, and if I sell the house to somebody, I don’t know who that. MR. STONE-It’s moving toward your house, the line? MR. CARTE-It’s moving towards the house another six feet, yes. MR. HAYES-Now does that change the acreage a little bit, too? MR. CARTE-Whatever that changes, yes. MR. STONE-Chris will figure that out. He’s good at that. MR. THOMAS-It’s six by five hundred, three thousand square feet. MR. STONE-Six by forty-five, three over forty-five, a little bit. th MR. THOMAS-.15 of an acre. MR. CARTE-He was supposed to put it on the side. He put it on the other side, and so we just need to shift it so that the trees remain with this piece of property, because he wants to make sure that they stay there, and not get cut down. MR. THOMAS-Okay. One problem has just popped up. If you put that line there, your side setbacks become less than the 100 feet required in this zone. 43 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/97) MR. CARTE-Well, they’re less now. I mean, that’s part of the variance. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but see before on the one side there, the setback was 64 plus 186, okay, that was pre-existing nonconforming. Now that you’re putting this lot line in here, you’re giving me a nonconforming side setback. MR. CARTE-Well, the setback is 100 feet on each side. MR. THOMAS-Yes, right. MR. CARTE-In this zone. MR. THOMAS-But the 80.1 is grandfathered, but if you move that lot line over, that throws a stone in the works here. You’d need a variance for that side, too, and I don’t know, it wasn’t advertised for that. What do you think, Chris? MR. ROUND-I don’t know. Let me take a look at the map. MR. CARTE-I don’t think I understand you. MR. THOMAS-Because you’re creating a new lot line, that’s less than the 100 required, you need a variance for that. MR. CARTE-Well, that’s what I put on the application was both area and side lot setback. MR. THOMAS-I didn’t read that in there. MR. MC NALLY-Was it advertised in that fashion? MR. STONE-It says lot size. MR. THOMAS-Was it advertised that way? MR. ROUND-Well, it’s relief from Section 179-13. MR. THOMAS-Do you want to go on that? Close enough. We’ve got that cleared up. MR. STONE-I mean, the application is right. It says 59 and a half. MR. HAYES-And that’s part of the file, right? MR. THOMAS-Yes. All right. MR. CARTE-Instead of 64, we’re going to say 58. MR. THOMAS-Yes. They’d need 42 feet of relief. Anything else? Any questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOE BRAYTON MR. BRAYTON-I don’t know if I’m really opposed, but I’ve got a couple of questions. MR. THOMAS-Well, we’ll see if we can answer them for you. MR. BRAYTON-All right. My name is Joe Brayton. I live on Fuller Road. I have one thing in question here. If you give him a variance on this property, and say Chris doesn’t get the money or decides not to take it, and he’s got the variance, then he’s going to turn around and say, hey I want to sell that lot separately, and it’s a 10 acre zoned property up there. We went through this before. That property belonged to the Fullers. It was in three generations of family. One of the daughters wanted to build on it and was not able to because they wouldn’t give her a variance, and all I’m trying to say is, if this goes through, I want to see all the papers signed at the same time. I want you not to give him a variance until you see in writing that he’s taking the property. 44 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/97) MR. THOMAS-Well, he can’t get the property until we give him the variance, but we can make the variance contingent on him obtaining the property, and if he fails to obtain the property, then the variance becomes null and void. We can do that, right? Is that reasonable? MR. BRAYTON-All right. MR. ROUND-Yes. It should be clarified. We’re not creating a new lot. So there’s not a lot. MR. BRAYTON-I don’t mind that. If Chris gets the property, it’s fine, and I don’t think any of the neighbors have a problem with that, but we don’t want, I want a stipulation in there that if for some reason he drops dead or he can’t get the money and doesn’t want it, we don’t want another lot. Because he’s going to come back in two years and say, hey I want to sell that lot and build a house on it. MR. THOMAS-Because I believe that Mr. St. Andrews is going to incorporate that into his existing lot, to make his pre-existing nonconforming lot more conforming. MR. BRAYTON-That’s right. I’d go along with that. That’s fine. (Discussion ensued) MR. BRAYTON-But you can put that in there, that stipulation in there? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. BRAYTON-All right. MR. THOMAS-It’s a reasonable request. MR. BRAYTON-Okay. MR. CARTE-We intended on doing that. MR. THOMAS-What we couldn’t do is ask him to do handstands down Fuller Road. MR. STONE-We couldn’t ask him to open up the road either. I was going to ask. Has the value of land appreciated since the road has closed? MR. BRAYTON-It sure hasn’t depreciated. MR. THOMAS-Is there anyone else that would like to speak opposed? Is there any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-I don’t think so, but let me make a quick check here. No. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-All right. Lets talk about this one. I’ll start with Lew this time. MR. STONE-I have not one problem with this thing. I think it’s a win/win situation. Mr. Carte makes his land more salable. Mr. St. Andrew makes his lot more conforming, and that’s what we’re here about. I have no problem whatsoever. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jamie? MR. HAYES-I have nothing to add. The benefit to the applicant is obvious, and the neighborhood, if anything, is benefited. So I have no problem at all with it. MR. THOMAS-All right. Brian? MR. CUSTER-It’s pretty much all been said. 45 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/97) MR. THOMAS-Mr. McNally, would you like to give us your soliloquy on this? MR. MC NALLY-Ditto. MR. THOMAS-Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-I think this is fine, particularly since no new lot’s going to be created, and it will even further reinforce that another house can’t be built there. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. Bob, short timer, Karpeles. MR. KARPELES-I agree with everybody else. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I have no problem with this subdivision, with the conditions that we talked about being put on it. So having said that, I would ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 80-1997 KELLY CARTE , Introduced by Brian Custer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jamie Hayes: South side of Fuller Road. Applicant proposes a boundary line agreement transfer of a portion of his parcel. The applicant proposes the sale of a 2.19 acre portion of an existing 4.7 acre property to the adjoining neighbor. The transfer will not create any new lots. It will be one contiguous lot to the transferee. The relief required to satisfy the requirements of Section 179-13, in the LC-10 Acre zone of seven and a half acres, plus or minus. The approval of the motion will benefit the applicant by allowing him to sell a portion of his lot to the adjoining property owner. The feasible alternatives are limited to this action. Relief, in my estimation, is not substantial to the cause. The effects on the neighborhood or community are minimal, and the difficulty is self-created. We also need relief under Section 179-13, the side setback requirement of 100 feet will now be reduced to 58 feet, therefore requiring relief of 42 feet, and the variance is contingent upon the sale being completed and the parcel being part and parcel of Mr. St. Andrews. th Duly adopted this 17 day of December, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE MR. THOMAS-There you go. MR. CARTE-Thank you. MR. ST. ANDREWS-Thank you. MR. THOMAS-You’re welcome. AREA VARIANCE NO. 81-1997 SEQRA TYPE II FRANCIS & BRIANNA O’DONNELL MR-5 FRANCIS & BRIANNA O’DONNELL OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 64 MICHIGAN AVENUE APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A FOUNDATION FOR A DOUBLE WIDE TRAILER AT A LOCATING REQUIRING SIDE SETBACK RELIEF FROM SECTION 179-18. TAX MAP NO. 127-3-16 LOT SIZE: 0.14 ACRESSECTION 179-18 FRANCIS & BRIANNA O’DONNELL, PRESENT MR. CUSTER-Basically, all you’re saying is you need an extra foot and a half here? MRS. O’DONNELL-Basically, the contractor screwed up and went too far, and now we have to pay $50 to come back up here. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 81-1997, Francis & Brianna O’Donnell, Meeting Date: Project Location:Description of Proposed Project: December 17, 1997 “ 64 Michigan Avenue Applicant has constructed a foundation for the placement of a double wide trailer at a location 46 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/97) Relief Required: requiring setback relief. The proposed project requires relief from the side setback requirements of §179-18. The required setback is 10 feet, the proposed setback is 4.39 Criteria for feet. Area Variance 37-1997 (July 16, 1997) granted an allowable setback of 6 feet. considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: 2. Applicant would be allowed to continue construction at the current location. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives are limited to demolition of the existing foundation 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: and placement in the correct location. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or The additional relief may be interpreted as insubstantial. community:5. Is this difficulty self-created?:Parcel Minimal impacts are anticipated. Yes. History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): As indicated the applicant was granted 4 feet relief from the ten (10) foot side setback requirements on July of 1997. A copy of the previous Staff comments: resolution is attached for review. The contractor indicated the foundation SEQR Status: location was established without the benefit of a land surveyor. Type II” MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. STONE-I have a question of Staff. A mobile home, when does it stop being a mobile home? When it’s put on the foundation? MR. ROUND-That’s a New York State Building Code, and it’s outside of my avenue of expertise. How’s that? MR. STONE-In other words, don’t go there. MR. CUSTER-That works for me, Chris, I’ll uphold that. MRS. LAPHAM-Actually, I could tell you, but nobody really needs to know. MR. THOMAS-Does anyone have any questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-Well, is the guy going to pay your $50 to come here again? MRS. O’DONNELL-No. MR. O’DONNELL-No. He’s paying half. MRS. O’DONNELL-And the reason there was no extra from the surveyor is because he didn’t wait for the surveyor. So, it’s his fault. It’s not ours. MR. MC NALLY-It’s a concrete slab, did someone say? MRS. O’DONNELL-It’s a full basement. MR. STONE-It’s a full basement. It’s a full foundation. MR. THOMAS-The walls are up. MRS. O’DONNELL-It’s been up for three weeks. We’ve been waiting. We just have been waiting for tonight. MR. STONE-It was always slightly canted? I didn’t recall. MRS. O’DONNELL-The land. MR. STONE-I was just curious. MR. ROUND-Yes. It was square on the lot, six feet on either side. MR. STONE-It was square on the lot, yes. I thought. MR. THOMAS-Can you go back to the builder and make him move the wall over, you know, pour a new wall on the inside, on one side, and pour a new wall on the outside? MRS. O’DONNELL-I wanted him just to take it all down and start from scratch, just to annoy him, but he said no. 47 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/97) MR. THOMAS-Since when do you listen to him? MRS. O’DONNELL-Usually never. MR. STONE-Your neighbor, I noticed, their fence is well off the property line. MR. O’DONNELL-Right. MR. STONE-And obviously they’re not here to complain. MR. O’DONNELL-No. MRS. O’DONNELL-We actually talked to them. MR. O’DONNELL-There’s a new owner there now, and I talked to him, and he didn’t have any problem. Because we put a little bit of dirt on his land. He asked if we were going to clean it up. I said, yes, we’ll clean it up and seed it for him. He said that’s not a problem. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Any more questions of the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this variance? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Are there any more questions for the applicant? No questions for the applicant? Lets talk about it. Mr. McNally at the end. MR. MC NALLY-Given the inadvertent nature of the problem, the fact that you gave them relief this summer, the additional relief is insubstantial and no one seems to have a problem with it. I think it meets all five criteria, and I’d be in favor of it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Brian? MR. CUSTER-Ditto. MR. THOMAS-Jamie? MR. HAYES-Likewise. MR. THOMAS-Lew? MR. STONE-Agreed. MR. THOMAS-Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Now, you’ve got to remember, Bob, this is your last chance to talk. MR. KARPELES-No problem. MR. THOMAS-I don’t have a problem with this either, but I’d like to have the contractor in here to hear his side of the story, but I don’t think that would work too well. So having said that, we will ask Mr. Karpeles to make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 81-1997 FRANCIS & BRIANNA O’DONNELL , Introduced by Robert Karpeles who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: 48 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/97) 64 Michigan Avenue. The applicant has constructed a foundation for the placement of a double wide trailer at a location requiring setback relief. The proposed project requires relief from a side setback requirement of 179.18. Required setback is 10 feet, and we will grant relief of 4.39, and 6.29 feet of relief. The benefit to the applicant is the applicant will be able to continue construction at the location. The feasible alternatives are limited to demolition of the existing foundation and placement in the correct location, which would be ridiculous. This additional relief is not substantial, and the effects on the neighborhood or community, this additional relief has very minimal impact, is anticipated, and is this difficulty self-created? I don't feel it is. I think the contractor made the mistake. th Duly adopted this 17 day of December, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE MR. THOMAS-There you go. I hope you get it set on there before the snow flies. MR. O’DONNELL-Yes. MR. THOMAS-One last thing is for the minutes of the October 15, 1997 meeting. CORRECTION OF MINUTES October l5, 1997: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 15, 1997 AS TYPED , Introduced by Chris Thomas, seconded by Jamie Hayes: th Duly adopted this 17 day of December, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE MR. THOMAS-Does anyone else have any business for the good of the Board? I just have one more thing. I would like to thank Mr. Karpeles for his five years on the Board. He has contributed a lot to this Board, even though he and I do sometimes go in opposite directions, but his expertise in the engineering field has pulled our buts out of the fire more than once. So, Bob, thank you very much. MR. KARPELES-Thank you very much. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Thomas, Chairman 49