Loading...
1998-06-17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6//17/98) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUNE 17, 1998 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS THOMAS, CHAIRMAN BONNIE LAPHAM, SECRETARY LEWIS STONE PAUL HAYES ROBERT MC NALLY BRIAN CUSTER MEMBERS ABSENT JOSEPH PORTER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR -CHRIS ROUND CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER -CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER -MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-1998 TYPE II SFR-1A SOPHIE BENDER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE SOUTH CORNER OF BAY ROAD AND TEE HILL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-28, TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE. TAX MAP NO. 47-4-9 LOT SIZE: 0.33 ACRES SECTION 179-28 KEITH BENDER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LAPHAM-Do you want me to just read the tabling motion? MR. THOMAS-Yes, read the tabling motion. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. “To Sophie Bender, 73 Gage Hill Rd., Lake Luzerne, NY The Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed the following request at the below stated meeting and has resolved the following Meeting Date: May 27, 1998 Variance File No. 21-1998, an Area Variance, has been tabled Motion to Table Area Variance No. 21-1998 Sophie Bender: Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: We are asking the applicant for a survey showing the house located on the survey as far back as possible from Bay Road. Also, with respect to the well and septic systems of the property in question, and th also the adjoining properties. Duly adopted this 27 day of May, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Custer, Mr. Porter, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham” MR. THOMAS-All right. Keith, have you got the map we’re looking for? MR. BENDER-It doesn’t show the house on it because they just did this a couple of days ago. It took them that long to get there, but it shows, there is a buffer zone between Bay Road and the start of our property of about 15 feet. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So, as we see this survey, and looking at the map that you gave us last week, where you’ve got it situated, from the map that you submitted with the application, is probably about the only place you can put it. It’s the only arrangement you can make on that lot, due to the fact of the septic, the well. We’re not going to put the two car garage on there, because that’ll be into the house. SOPHIE BENDER MRS. BENDER-That’s right. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6//17/98) MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. BENDER-And you were curious to know if, well, we have to put that well right on that front right corner, and there is room for Bay Road to be expanded there without hitting the well or whatever. That was one of your concerns. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Okay. Does the Board have anymore questions for Mr. Bender? MR. STONE-You said Bay is, the right-of-way, is considerably onto what you thought of as your property? MR. BENDER-Exactly. According to that, you can judge it by the 25 foot setback line. It looks like there’s about 15 feet from the edge of the pavement to the start of our property. MR. STONE-Well, that’s what we were worried about, is much wider than the roadway. MR. BENDER-Exactly. MR. THOMAS-Are there any other questions for Mr. Bender? I did leave the public hearing open. Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of this variance? In favor of? Would anyone like to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Lets talk about this one. Lew? MR. STONE-Well, if there’s room to put the house in, given all this information, that’s fine as far as I’m concerned. I am concerned that what you’re going to do with the buffer zone. I mean, it’ll be open. So you’re going to have to cut down whatever’s there so the intersection becomes a better intersection, as far as people approaching that. MR. BENDER-We’ll maintain it, I’m sure. We don’t want it just to grow up over. MR. STONE-Our concern was exactly, could you fit it in, and do we need a variance if? MR. THOMAS-Yes, we do, because it’s in a Travel Corridor Overlay Zone. MR. STONE-Yes, but he’s not going to put it in here, though. MR. THOMAS-No, but the zone requires 75 feet from the front property line. MR. STONE-Seventy-five feet. So we need, well, we still don’t know how much relief we need. MR. THOMAS-Yes, we do, because the map he gave us last week said that the house would be back 30 feet from the front property line. He would probably be 45 feet back from the edge of pavement, but 30 feet back from the front property line. MR. HAYES-So the thing we’re worried about was the property line being into the road. MR. THOMAS-Yes, where was the property line. MR. STONE-Well, the property line, this 25 foot setback is from the property line, right? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. STONE-This right here, and there’s an extra 15 feet. MR. THOMAS-Probably an extra 15 feet between the road and the property line. MR. HAYES-So our concerns have been alleviated, as far as the property line being (lost word). 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6//17/98) MR. STONE-Yes, right. MRS. LAPHAM-So it looks like he could fit it. MR. THOMAS-Absolutely. MR. STONE-Well, if he puts in a 10 by 10 house, he could. MR. THOMAS-Without relief. MR. STONE-Without relief. So what you’re proposing to do is where you showed a two car garage, that’s basically where the house is going to be now? MR. BENDER-Yes, I mean, that’s not going to be there. The footprint is only 28 by 40. The garage is underneath it, and we’re going to put it, it may even be back farther than the 30 feet, if we have the room for the back. MRS. LAPHAM-From what I read, it’s a simple raised ranch. MR. STONE-Now it is, yes. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes, and that’s very economical for ground, from a footprint. MR. STONE-Yes. Basically, I guess what I’m really saying is that now knowing where it is, and knowing where the house is going to be, my concerns were, obviously, sight lines for the road, and can we fit the house in, with wells and leach fields and all that stuff, and I guess we can, and so we’ll figure out exactly what we have to grant. MR. THOMAS-Jamie? MR. HAYES-Well, it’s my understanding that we tabled the motion last month to primarily get an idea of where that southeast property line was. Was it close to Bay Road, and would that make for less setback than we’d be comfortable with, but looking at this survey, I think that the property line is far enough back from the road that the Travel Corridor Overlay concerns have been alleviated in my mind, as long as the house remains as Mr. Bender has proposed, 30 feet back from the southeast property line, as demarcated by the survey. So, I have no problem with it under that condition. MR. THOMAS-All right. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-Did I understand that this lot was purchased before the Travel Corridor Overlay was really put into effect? MR. THOMAS-No. This lot was established before the Corridor Overlay. MR. MC NALLY-It was established? MR. THOMAS-Yes. It’s a pre-existing, nonconforming lot. MR. MC NALLY-I don’t have a problem with it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Brian? MR. CUSTER-I think everything that needs to be said has already been said, and I tend to agree with all of them. So I have no problem. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-I agree, and furthermore, it’ll make the corner a lot neater. It looks like a jungle now, and with a house and landscaping, it’ll be a lot better visibility. So I’m for it, too. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I have no problem with this application, as long as the applicant can maintain the 30 foot setback required in the SFR-1 zone. As far as the, and the two side setbacks, 20 feet. I think he’s proposed 25 feet, but the big thing was the 30 foot setback from the property 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6//17/98) line that he had proposed in relation to the road. So, absolutely no problem with it. Having said that, would someone like to make a motion? MR. ROUND-Could I ask a question, first. Does the map identify the 25 foot setback line? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. ROUND-And you’re talking 30 feet? MR. BENDER-Van Dusen and Steves put that in. I don’t know why. MR. ROUND-Just so that you’re clear. It’s proposed 30 foot setback. MR. BENDER-It’s 30 foot right. MR. ROUND-Okay. I just wanted to make sure that the variance reads correctly. MR. THOMAS-Yes, because. MR. STONE-Yes, we’re going to figure that out. MR. THOMAS-Because he’s going to need 45 feet of relief. MR. ROUND-Right. MR. MC NALLY-But otherwise there are no other variances except for that one? MR. THOMAS-No, because he meets all the side, rear. The sides are in an SFR-1. The sides are 20, the front is 30 and the rear is 20. There are no sides. This is front and rear. So it’ll be a 30 and 30. MR. MC NALLY-I mean, your house will fit that rear setback. MR. BENDER-Easily. MR. MC NALLY-The only setback we’re talking about is the Travel Corridor Overlay. MR. THOMAS-Yes. That’s the one he needs relief from. He also needs relief, and the building can be no closer than 30 feet to Tee Hill Road either, because it is a corner lot. MR. STONE-Right. MR. THOMAS-So, would someone like to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-1998 SOPHIE BENDER , Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: She proposes the construction of a 1,120 square foot single family dwelling without a garage on a pre-existing lot which is encompassed within a 75 foot setback required by the Travel Corridor Overlay Zone, Section 179-28. Additionally, a driveway, drilled well, and a site septic system are to be constructed. The benefit to the applicant is that she would be permitted to construct her desired residence and other necessary structures. The lot is a pre-existing, nonconforming use, and it would be difficult to construct a building on this lot to meet the intended purpose of being a residential parcel, with this 75 foot Travel Corridor setback requirement. There are no feasible alternatives, given the size of the lot, the fact that it’s an existing lot, and the fact that the front and rear setbacks would be interfered with if the applicant was to actually set the house back 75 feet from the road edge. I don’t think the relief is substantial relative to the Ordinance. As I understand it, the applicant is seeking relief so that she can place the house 30 feet from the front of the road, along Tee Hill and Bay Road, so that would be a 45 foot amount of relief requested from the Travel Corridor Overlay requirement. While it is certainly a large number of feet, given the layout of the property, and given the proposed structure, I don’t think it’s substantial. th Duly adopted this 17 day of June, 1998, by the following vote: 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6//17/98) MR. THOMAS-Okay. I have one question of Staff before we go on with this, it just popped into my mind. Travel Corridor Overlay Zones, Dunkin Donuts on Main Street, they came back for another variance because they were on a corner lot also. MR. ROUND-That was because they were looking for front setback relief that second time around. It wasn’t identified that there was a 50 foot setback for commercial. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Because it was commercial, they needed that 50 foot. MR. ROUND-Yes. It was commercial, I think it was a 75 foot setback in that zone, and just coincidentally, it was the same setback as the Travel Corridor Overlay. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Okay, but that doesn’t have anything to do with this. MR. ROUND-Correct. MRS. LAPHAM-I just have one thing. This might be nit picky, but Bob said in the motion, they’re building it without a garage. MR. THOMAS-Right. MRS. LAPHAM-But they’re having a garage under the house. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but it’s not a separate. MRS. LAPHAM-But it’s not a footprint. MR. MC NALLY-My intent was a separate structure as they originally applied. MRS. LAPHAM-I didn’t want to have it read that they couldn’t have a garage. AYES: Mr. Custer, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Porter MR. THOMAS-There you go. Get your building permit. MRS. BENDER-I just want to say that my address is not 73. I haven’t been living there. I’m at 35 Sugarbush Road in Queensbury. So, I know you’re still putting my mail on 73. I’m living with my sister right now. I don’t know if that matters, but I just wanted to let you know. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 34-1998 TYPE: UNLISTED QUEENSBURY PLAZA HOWARD CARR, MANAGING AGENT FOR ILENE FLAUM OWNER: ILENE FLAUM QUEENSBURY PLAZA, INTERSECTION OF ROUTE 9 AND QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES THE RELOCATION OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BUILDING TO A DIFFERENT LOCATION ON THE SITE. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 5/14/97 TAX MAP NO. 103-1-1.1 LOT SIZE: 1.22 ACRES SECTION 179-22 JON LAPPER & HOWARD CARR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 34-1998, Queensbury Plaza, Meeting Date: June 17, 1998 Project Location:Description of Proposed Project: “ Route 9 and Quaker Road Applicant proposes relocation of a previously approved building to another area within the Queensbury Plaza. This project received a variance AV26-1997 for the same activity, however the variance Relief Required: expired on May 28, 1998. Applicant requests 30 feet of relief from the 50 foot front setback requirement and 29.52 feet of relief from the rear setback requirement of the PC-1A Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. zone. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to relocate a commercial building to the 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6//17/98) 2. Feasible alternatives: desired location. Feasible alternatives include relocating to an 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: alternative location and no construction. 4. Effects Thirty feet of front relief and 29.52 feet of rear relief may be interpreted as substantial. on the neighborhood or community: Minimal effects on the neighborhood are anticipated as a 5. Is this difficulty self-created? result of this action. The difficulty may be interpreted as self Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): created. Area Variance AV26-1997 relocation of a previously approved commercial building to a site requiring 30 feet of front setback Staff comments: relief and 29.52 feet of rear relief. Applicants previous variance expired May SEQR Status: 28, 1998. This application is for an extension/renewal of the same variance. Type II” th MRS. LAPHAM-“At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 10 day of June 1998, the above application for an Area Variance to construct a previously approved building within the plaza was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Approve Comments: With local conditions.” Tracey M. Clothier, Chairperson. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. Lapper. MR. LAPPER-For all the reasons that this was approved last year, we would like this to be re- approved. There are two reasons why this hasn’t been built yet. One is that we’ve been working with the Town Board to purchase an approximately 30 by 30 foot piece of abandoned portion of Bank Street, across the street from Evergreen Bank, which is part of, we need as part of this site. Chris has been working with us. It was delayed for a while, when John Goralski was here, some paperwork with the appraiser, and it took awhile for the appraiser to get going, but the Town Board has now retained an appraiser to just determine the price of this, so that we can buy it from the Town, and we think that that’s all moving forward now, and we’re working with NiMo to get a license agreement for the land necessary on their power line corridor, and that’s moving slowly but moving forward as well. As Bonnie read, we think this is going to be a major improvement over what was previously approved, because it moves it to the back of the site, and allows the parking, instead of having the parking on the previously approved site, which would have been where this building is, the parking is now in between here and Red Lobster, so that it can be shared by this use and by Red Lobster and its slightly smaller building. The fact that we need the Area Variances are just because of the narrowness of this site. You can’t make the building any smaller than 30,000. We’re already giving up 2,000 square feet of space, but the only impact would be on Niagara Mohawk, and they obviously don’t care because it’s a power corridor, which is very wide at this area, and that’s why they’re going to give Howard the right to use that for an access drive, and we at the Planning Board last night, and they extended the site plan approval. The Planning Board approval included a lot of conditions, which will positively impact the Plaza when this gets built, including widening the drive aisles, eliminating a space on each side of that main drive aisle, which is an extension of Bank Street, running up to the main entrance, and putting some good sized trees in new islands, which would be curbed islands rather than the wooden islands that are there now, and making that Bank Street extension to look like a real drive, or a wide boulevard, what Howard’s saying, with trees on each side. It’ll just be designated as a main thoroughfare, rather than just an aisle within the parking lots, and that’s a big plus, and Howard is with me tonight to answer questions as well. MR. STONE-This building has been moved back since the Variance we granted last year? MR. LAPPER-No. The variance that you granted last year was to move it back from what was previously approved. MR. STONE-That’s what I thought, but I remember talking about the two buildings opposing each other. MR. LAPPER-We’re here just to. MR. STONE-I understand that, Jon. I wasn’t. Where does Bank Street end? I know where it begins, I guess, on the street, but where does it end? MR. LAPPER-Right here. MR. STONE-It ends behind the building. MR. LAPPER-Yes. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6//17/98) MR. STONE-Okay. MR. CARR-This hammerhead shape extends over here also, currently. MR. LAPPER-And that’s the piece that we’re working with the Town Board to buy. MR. CARR-And the Town retained rights in the title, for access through the shopping center. MR. STONE-This is a Town road? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. CARR-Up to this point. MR. STONE-And you’re proposing to open this up a little? MR. CARR-Yes. This gets widened. MR. STONE-It’s widened. Okay. MR. THOMAS-Last year you asked for a 32,000 square foot building, and this year you’re asking for a 30,000 square foot. MR. LAPPER-No. Before last year we asked for 30,000. We had approval for 32,000, which was left over when we used some of the approval to put the Red Lobster in. MR. THOMAS-Right. MR. LAPPER-And so that would be, if you continue the Parts America building, that would be where it could be 32,000. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Do you have a tenant in mind for this building, yet, or has a contract been signed? MR. CARR-Just today I met with the prospective, one of the two prospective tenants who we’ve been working with on this project. It is not signed at this point. These things take a little bit longer than we had hoped, plus we’ve run into the problem with Niagara Mohawk. It’s just been slow. One hand just can’t seem to tell the other one what to do. MR. THOMAS-Are there any other questions for 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 JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador. I heard Mr. Lapper say something about a road that’s been abandoned. How has this taken place, and who performed this act of abandonment? How was it done, and, frankly, I drive on Bank Street and cut right through that mall to get to Glen Street, to 9, to avoid the intersection of Route 9 and Aviation Road. I figured it’s a public thoroughfare. I don’t see anything that tells me anything different. I don’t see any “Private Property” signs. I don’t see any “Dead End” signs. I use it as a public thoroughfare. What has been abandoned. MR. LAPPER-Unlike some other famous roads in Town, this is a road by dedication, rather than a road by use. So what we’re talking about here is the Town selling this turn around here, is mirrored right over here MR. SALVADOR-Where is the dedicated road, the limits of the dedicated road? MR. LAPPER-Just like it goes here, it also comes right in here, as a turn around. So that the plows can come and back up, and the reason why you don’t, you can’t tell the difference of where the road stops and where the Plaza ends is because there’s no obstruction. So Evergreen Bank, coming out and driving to the Red Lobster, you’re coming, the end of the Town road and entering 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6//17/98) the property of the center. Nothing will change. What we’re proposing to purchase from the Town, for fair market value as determined by the Town’s appraiser, is this piece here, and the reason why that’s not necessary is because as part of this, we’ve agreed to grant to the Town an easement for the Town’s plows to turn around within the parking lot. MR. SALVADOR-How about the public? Does the public have an easement to do the same? MR. LAPPER-As a shopping center, there’s no, I mean, it’s not closed to the public. It’s open to the public. MR. SALVADOR-You could some day close it? MR. CARR-No, John. When this shopping center was originally approved, in the title records, the Town retained the right to continue this as a thoroughfare that comes up through here to Route 9. That’s why we don’t have the rights to block this off, other than for maintenance purposes. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. Then the public has a right to that thoroughfare. MR. CARR-The public has the right to the use. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. MR. CARR-Correct. MR. SALVADOR-As a thoroughfare, as a road. MR. CARR-Yes, as an easement. Right. MR. LAPPER-It doesn’t make it a Town road. It’s still private property. MR. SALVADOR-Right, but the public has a right of superior use to that land, in the form of an easement, and only the public can abandon that right. The Town can’t. MR. LAPPER-But that’s not what we’re talking about here. Howard’s talking about within our site, over here. This piece here is a dedicated road. The only reason you have a hammerhead shape is because that’s dedicated. MR. SALVADOR-But in effect, what you would do is cut off the public’s access to their easement. MR. LAPPER-No. The access to the easement is right here. It’s not necessary. MR. CARR-Really what happens is that there exists now a situation, I’m not an architect, but this same configuration exists over here. This is what’s being acquired, up to the edge of Bank Street, which is right here. Okay. So that this is still a paved road, dedicated highway. MR. SALVADOR-So no roadway is being abandoned. MR. LAPPER-It’s not being abandoned. It’s being sold. This piece right here is, right now, owned by the Town. MR. SALVADOR-Is owned by the Town. MR. LAPPER-And is being sold to the developer, but it has no use. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. So the public access in and out of here will not change? MR. LAPPER-Exactly. MR. CARR-You’ll never know it happened. MR. MC NALLY-We’re not passing on any of that. MR. CUSTER-Except for your part, John. Just a little levity. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6//17/98) MR. THOMAS-Is there anyone else who’d like to speak opposed? Is there any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-No. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Are there any more questions for the applicant or his agent? If not, I’ll start with Brian. What do you think? MR. CUSTER-Well, since I made the motion to approve it last time, I certainly don’t think I’m in any position to change it after hearing the re-presentation in favor of granting the variance. MR. MC NALLY-Having heard the presentation and read the documentation, I’m in favor of it, too. MR. HAYES-Ditto. MR. STONE-Certainly we approved it last year, and, actually, it sounds even better than it was last year, because of the fact that you’re going to widen the road a little bit and do some more landscaping, and it is a little tight. I, too, use it as a thoroughfare. I’m not sure what no right turn means going into the Red Lobster, but I go there somehow anyway to get through over to Bank Street. MRS. LAPHAM-I tend to agree with the other Board members. I liked the project last year. I think it’ll really clean up that lot and that section back there. That is definitely an eyesore at this point, and so I’m for it. I was for it then, and I am now. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I have the same feelings as the other Board members. I approved it last year, or two years ago, and I’ll approve it again this year. MRS. LAPHAM-So who are your tenants going to be, Macys and Lord & Taylor? MR. CARR-Bloomingdales. We’re going to take them away from the Mall. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. I’ll give you two votes. MR. STONE-I just hope Jon isn’t doing your negotiating, because he’s got a little conflict of interest, in terms of getting stores. MR. LAPPER-I don’t see it as conflict of interest. There’s room for everybody in Queensbury. MR. THOMAS-Brian, would you like to make the motion? MR. CUSTER-Yes, I would, Mr. Chairman. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 34-1998 QUEENSBURY PLAZA , Introduced by Brian Custer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: Route 9 and Quaker Road. Relocation of a previously approved building to another area within the Queensbury Plaza. This variance would provide 30 feet of relief from the 50 foot front setback requirement, and 29.52 feet of relief from the rear setback requirement of the zoning area PC-1A. By granting the variance, we put the following criteria to the test to approve this variance. One is the benefit to the applicant. In granting it, it would allow them to relocate a commercial building in a better siting on the plot. Feasible alternatives are somewhat limited due to the location that the building is being sited. Relief is somewhat substantial, but necessary in order to accommodate the new project. Effects on the neighborhood appear to be minimal, and the difficulty could be interpreted as self created, but nothing is detrimental to the continuance of the project. This variance is conditional on being granted the satisfactory real estate terms with the Niagara Mohawk parcel in the back, and the closure of the purchase of the land from the Town of Queensbury. th Duly adopted this 17 day of June, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Custer, Mr. Thomas 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6//17/98) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Porter MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. THOMAS-You’re quite welcome. USE VARIANCE NO. 25-1998 TYPE: UNLISTED WR-3A CEA CRAIG F. BROWN ANTIGUA MOTEL OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 27 ANTIGUA ROAD, PLUM POINT APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A NINETY-SIX (96) SQ. FT. DECK. THE MOTEL IS A NONCONFORMING USE IN A WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL 3A ZONE, SO REQUIRES A USE VARIANCE TO EXPAND PER SECTION 179-79. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 6/10/98 TAX MAP NO. 1-1-8 LOT SIZE: 1.02 ACRES SECTION 179-79 CRAIG BROWN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 25-1998, Craig F. Brown, Meeting Date: June 17, 1998 Project Location:Description of Proposed Project: “ 27 Antigua Road, Plum Point Applicant proposes construction of a ninety-six (96) sf motel room addition and a ninety-six (96) sf deck. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief for expansion of a non conforming use, Section 179-79 Currently there is a non conforming use at this site. (Commercial use in the WR-1A zone.) Criteria for considering a Use Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Can the applicant realize a reasonable return, provided that lack of return is substantial as demonstrated by competent financial evidence? The project site is currently operating as a commercial hotel/motel. The lack of return from one additional room may be interpreted as 2. Is the alleged hardship relating to the property in question unique, and does this minimal. hardship apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood? The alleged hardship 3. Will is unique to this property as it is currently the only commercial use in the immediate area. the requested use variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the neighborhood? The requested variance would apply to an interior portion of the site and would have minimal impacts 4. Is the alleged on the character of the neighborhood. Onsite parking issues have been raised. hardship self-created:Parcel History The alleged hardship could be interpreted as self created. (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):Staff comments: None applicable. The expansion and/or enlargement of a non conforming structure, a commercial use in a residential zone may be interpreted as substantial relief although the expansion is relatively minor. Since the construction has already begun, the impacts of demolition and removal may be noted. Will the existing covered SEQR Status: porch above be another motel addition in the future? Type Unlisted” th MRS. LAPHAM-“At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 10 day of June, 1998, the above application for a Use Variance for the construction of a 96 sq. ft. deck was reviewed, and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact” Signed by Tracey M. Clothier, Chairperson. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. Brown, is there anything you’d like to add, say? MR. BROWN-Like the application says, it’s basically a clean up operation, basically closing in the other side of a porch, and sided the building at the same time, and essentially improve the property there, besides trying to enhance the rentability of the particular motel unit. MR. THOMAS-Okay. In the past, the application says, you’ve had trouble renting that room because of its configuration? MR. BROWN-Yes, it was very poorly designed, skinny and narrow, and it didn’t have a lake view like the rest of my units, or had a poor lake view. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any other questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-Well, there’s the usual question, this being a Use Variance, and we are compelled to answer all of the questions in the affirmative, and the Number One is that you cannot realize a reasonable return substantial as shown by competent physical, financial evidence, and I guess that’s what we need to see. Specifically, I think you and I had a conversation when I was there. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6//17/98) I’d like to know, is this the last unit to always rent? Are you always full, and is this always rented? I mean, are you 99% full with the exception of this unit, because then, if you’re not, then there’s a concern that you’re suffering no financial hardship because of this room, and that’s what I need to know, personally. MR. BROWN-Yes, that particular room, we would be 100% occupied if it had the minor, the 96 square foot addition and the repairs needed. In most cases, during July and August, we’re fully occupied, except for that room, just because it was poorly constructed from the beginning, and it needed updated electrical, besides a general face lift. MR. STONE-But the word in the Number One is competent financial evidence. That does not mean that I’m saying that Craig Brown isn’t telling me the truth, but I need, and the Board needs, at least in my judgment, data that suggests that this is the last room to rent, that most times you could have rented it because you needed it, because you were full up otherwise, and just saying it is not, in my judgment, competent financial evidence. MR. BROWN-Well, our records from last year are from that particular unit, and as opposed to projected records, or projected revenue. That particular unit is always the last one to rent. So it obviously made less money than the rest of them. MR. STONE-And that’s fine, if you can show us that. Saying it, to me, is just not enough. You’ve got to be able to show me that, if you’ve got 15 units, and the other 14 were always rented, and this one may or may not have been rented, then you can make the case that you’re making, but I need to see that, as I interpret, what I need to grant a Use Variance. MR. THOMAS-Anyone else? Do they agree, disagree with Lew? MR. CUSTER-We’ve always pretty much held pretty true to that, what Lew just said. We need some kind of physical evidence here in front of us for us to determine that there is a financial hardship, you know, go back through your books, show us that room rents poorly, or is one that’s always holding this up. That would substantiate the fact that you’re not making a return here that’s adequate, and probably go forward on that, but, I don’t know. I think I’m in favor of the variance. I know you’re not asking that now, but I agree with Lew. I think we’d have to see something. MR. THOMAS-Bob, what do you think about that? Do you want to see something? MR. MC NALLY-Well, I look at this as a small and inconsequential change, because it’s only 96 square feet, at least with respect to the building, and I always look at it, it’s within the footprint of the building that’s already there. I was curious as to why this was in need of a change of use anyway, because that portion of the house below the deck, that was used for commercial purposes, for storage and everything else. The nature of the commercial use has changed, but it’s still being used for the hotel like it always was. They just enclosed it, but the point that you need financial information is well taken. I suppose, if you need the formality, and we’ve stuck by it beforehand, we should continue that practice, and I’m not opposed to the application. MR. STONE-Nor am I. I didn’t mean to imply that I was. I can see, just as Bob said, it’s internal to the property. Nobody’s going to see it, but it is a Use Variance, and that’s my concern, because we, we’re bound by State law on Use Variance. MR. THOMAS-Brian, what do you think? MR. CUSTER-I concur with Lew. MR. THOMAS-Jamie? MR. HAYES-Well, I think that, you know, that having an evidentiary level that we’re comfortable with is the important part, and obviously, the Use Variance is the hardest test that we really examine, as a matter of a Board, but we have a Board for a reason, to determine. I think in this case that we’re talking about a minimal variance, and I think, being that it’s one room, and whether that room rents or not, in a business of many rooms, that Mr. Brown’s word, in this particular circumstance, would be enough for me, being that we’re not being asked to change buildings into a plaza or something where we would want very definite records because of the magnitude of the project. I think that what you’re contemplating here is reasonably, is minimal, and that level, your expertise and your own business is evidence enough for me in this circumstance, because of the 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6//17/98) level of the work that’s being done, so that would be my position, but I’m also not opposed to the variance, per se. MR. THOMAS-Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-Well, I tend to agree with Jamie, because it is a minor addition. It’s interior. It effects no one really. So I would be willing to take him at his word, plus having seen the property before Mr. Brown took ownership, and it was such a disaster, and he’s done a lot in cleaning it up and making it a lot more presentable. I would tend to be for it, too, and I’d tend to want to do it tonight, but that’s up to the rest of the Board. MR. THOMAS-Yes. I agree with Bonnie, and Jamie, that this is within an existing footprint, and it’s minimal. Mr. Brown knows his business. I really don’t see any need for any really hard financial evidence. I would take Mr. Brown on his word on this one. So that’s where everybody sits on that one. MR. MC NALLY-I wouldn’t be opposed to making an exception in this instance. MR. THOMAS-No, okay. So it looks like we’re four to two on this one. MR. STONE-We haven’t heard the public. MR. THOMAS-No, we haven’t heard the public, yet. So if there’s no more questions for Mr. Brown, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this variance, in favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. STONE-Mr. Chairman, can we ask Staff why this is a Use Variance, just so we get it on the record? MR. ROUND-Continuation of a nonconforming use you can enlarge or expand a nonconforming use requires that the Zoning Board hear the application, and it was a difficult decision for us to make as well. The expansion does take place beneath an elevated porch, but it is an expansion of floor area, expansion of living space, and that we considered as an enlargement of the structure. We face a lot of these, and we have a lot of customers that aren’t real happy with our decision making, but that’s, we’re reading the letter of the law, and that’s the decision that we struggle with each and every day. So we have to be consistent as well, and since it is a nonconforming use, it’s not a setback, it’s not an area, a typical way you think of Area Variances. It doesn’t specifically address it under the Town law, a Use Variance, for expansion of, but since it is a nonconforming use, and it’s an expansion of a nonconforming use, we constitute that it’s a Use Variance. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lets see. I closed the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for the applicant? If not, we’ll talk about it. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-From my comment earlier, I think you know that I’m basically in favor of it. I think that the existing unit, without the 96 square feet, is undersized. It’s between two buildings. So it’s not as if they’re changing the area. The essential character of the property is a hotel property anyway. The hardship in the property is unique. This is the only property in the area that I understand is commercial in use. It’s away from other private property owners, like I said, between two buildings in the commercial use. So it’s not likely to cause anyone a problem. I don’t know if the hardship is self created, per se. I don’t know the history of the property, but it seems to me that this was wasted space, underneath an existing deck, which could be converted to year round use for living space, and I’d be in favor of it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jamie? MR. HAYES-I agree. I think if we take Mr. Brown’s word, and the first part of the test, the only thing, you know, would be the obvious concerns about the effect and essential character of the neighborhood, and Bonnie, who knows better than I, has said this property has been dramatically improved, and that this could honestly be considered a continuation of that process, even though it 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6//17/98) is an expansion of a nonconforming use. So, I think the bases have been touched, and I think it really is minimal relief. So I would be in favor of it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew? MR. STONE-Well, having made my speech about the Use Variance and concerned with precedent, I certainly think that this is a reasonable variance. If we look at two, three, and four, all of those we can answer yes. Alleged hardship is unique. You’re the only commercial property in the area, it will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The neighborhood is what you are, and nobody’s going to see, as the rest of the Board had said. Self created. You had a space. You actually had a room, and it wasn’t working. It wasn’t selling. So, I think I could answer that it’s not self created. The only concern I have is the reasonable return. Listening to the rest of the Board members, being only concerned with precedent, and certainly understanding that that’s the way it is, the way you state, I certainly could, I guess I could grant approval, I could vote for approval. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-Well, I still feel the same way I did five minutes ago, plus the fact, I don’t see any of his neighbors here complaining. In fact, I asked Mr. Brown if he had spoken with his neighbors, and he said he had, and that most of them were in favor of it, and of course they were appreciative of the general clean up that had been done over the past two or three years. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Brian? MR. CUSTER-I, too, agree that Numbers Two, Three, and Four are pretty much answered satisfactorily. My main concern was Number One, as I already addressed, along with Lew’s concerns, that it sets a little precedent, if we’ve heretofore asked for a hard copy, financial data, but again, I think it’s of such a minimal request that I can live with a waiver of that, and accept Mr. Brown’s word. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I agree with the rest of the Board members. This is a pre-existing, nonconforming use in a WR-3 Acre zone. What Mr. Brown has done is really just filled in under an existing second story porch or deck and expanded a room that was unrentable. I did see the, or Mr. Brown did show me the room, when I was at the site last month, and he showed me what the room looked like before the expansion, and I, myself, would not have stayed in that room. I have no problem with this. The unnecessary hardship, Number One, I can bypass that because this is very minimal. As said before, the alleged hardship is unique, because this is a pre-existing, nonconforming use. The variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. In fact, it’ll improve it, according to what one Board member had stated, because Mr. Brown is cleaning up the property. The alleged hardship has not been self created. I would say it’s not been self created, because it was pre-existing, nonconforming, and he did need to fill in that space to expand a room, and it really hasn’t hurt any part of the property. It’s only improved it. So I would have no problem. Would someone like to make a motion? MOTION THAT A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM SHOWS THAT THERE ARE NO NEGATIVE IMPACTS CAUSED BY THIS PROJECT , Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: th Duly adopted this 17 day of June, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Custer, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Porter MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 25-1998 CRAIG F. BROWN ANTIGUA MOTEL , Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Custer: 27 Antigua Road, Plum Point. The applicant proposes construction of a 96 square foot motel room addition and a 96 square foot deck. The applicant requests relief for expansion of a nonconforming use Section 179-79. Currently, Mr. Brown’s facility is a nonconforming at this site, which is zoned WR-1A. Going through the criteria for a Use Variance, can the applicant realize a reasonable return provided the lack of financial return is substantial as demonstrated by 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6//17/98) competent financial evidence. I believe that, while in the past, the Board has expected hard core, written proof, in this circumstance, based on the minimal relief, Mr. Brown’s word and knowledge of his own business will carry that part of the test. Is the alleged hardship relating to the property in question unique, and does the hardship apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood? It is unique because this is a pre-existing, nonconforming structure. There is no other business like this in the neighborhood. Will the requested Use Variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the neighborhood? I don’t think it will. In fact, Mr. Brown’s efforts apparently have improved the facility and thereby improved the neighborhood. I think the impacts would be minimal, if not an improvement, and lastly, is the alleged hardship self created? I don’t think that it is. I think that really the hardship was based on design flaw in the room or the building itself, in this particular circumstance, and that the applicant is really reasonably and minimally attempting to rectify that flaw, and so I would say that I don’t think it is self created. th Duly adopted this 17 day of June, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Custer, Mr. McNally, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Porter MR. THOMAS-There you go. MR. BROWN-Thank you very much. MR. THOMAS-You’re quite welcome. AREA VARIANCE NO. 26-1998 TYPE II HC-1A FERRARO ENTERTAINMENT, INC. OWNER: ANTHONY J. & MARY SUE FERRARO 1035 ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES RENOVATIONS TO GO-CART TRACK AND EXPANSION. APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF FROM SECTION 179-28, THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE AND RELIEF FOR EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE, SECTION 179-79. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 6/10/98 TAX MAP NO. 73-1-8.3 LOT SIZE: 3.224 ACRES SECTION 179- 28, 179-79 CROSS REF. SPR 33-98 STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 26-1998, Ferraro Entertainment, Inc., Meeting Date: June Project Location:Description of Proposed Project: 17, 1998 “ 1035 Route 9 Applicant Relief Required: proposes renovation and expansion of existing go-cart track. Applicant requests relief from the setback requirements of the Travel Corridor Overlay zone - 179-28 and relief for Criteria for considering an Area Variance according expansion of a nonconforming structure. to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to 2. Feasible alternatives: expand existing go cart track. Feasible alternatives may include 3. Is this relief substantial relative to construction in compliance with the setback requirements. the ordinance?: Currently the “kiddie track” is adjacent to the area in question, so the relief may 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: be interpreted as moderate. Minimal effects on 5. Is this difficulty self- the neighborhood or community are anticipated as a result of this action. created?Parcel History (construction/site The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. plan/variance, etc.): SP 14-93 resolution dated 4/22/93 2800 sf addition; AV 1230 resolution dated 3/18/87 water slide SP 6-87 resolution dated 3/17/87 water slide SV 1124 disapproved Staff comments: 8/27/86 Currently the “kiddie track” exists in an area of the proposed expansion, however, no track exists in the area for which the relief is sought. Relief in the form of further encroachment on the TCO may have significant impacts in the form of additional requests SEQR for relief. Attached is a letter from the Zoning Administrator in regards to this project. Status: Type II” MR. ROUND-If I might interject right here. There are two pending appeals for this particular project. I issued the letter that you’re about to read into the record. I issued a letter indicating that setback relief would only be required for that portion of the new track that will be developed on area that’s not currently developed. Ken Ermiger has contested that decision, and Mike O’Connor, the applicant’s representative has also contested that determination, different viewpoints. They both have different reasons for appeal. The appeals will be heard next week, in regard to this matter, and the Zoning Board is precluded from making a determination, since appeals are on the 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6//17/98) table. I would suggest that we open a public hearing tonight, since it was advertised, and if there are individuals here, they could be heard, and then make a recommendation to table it until next week. MRS. LAPHAM-May 22, 1998, Mr. Michael O’Connor, Esq., 19 West Notre Dame Street, Glens Falls, NY RE: Skateland Go Cart Track Route 9 “Dear Mr. O’Connor: In response to your letter inquiry dated May 21, 1998 I offer the following reply. It is my understanding the present owners of the property are proposing renovations and improvements to the existing recreational use facility, a go cart track, at the Route 9 location. The renovations will occur within that area historically utilized for similar or identical purposes, with a minor exception. On the basis of the drawing submitted with your correspondence, the area historically occupied by the track (within the fenced area) is located approximately 65 feet from the Route 9 R.O.W. (the easterly property line) and is located directly adjacent to the southerly boundary line. The “kiddie track” portion of the facility is located as close as 30 feet to the easterly boundary line. It is my determination the renovations/improvements that occur within the area historically occupied by the recreational use do not require relief from the setback requirements. However, that portion of the proposed track that is to be located outside the fence line requires the granting of an area variance. If you have any questions or comments please contact our office. Sincerely, Town of Queensbury Chris Round, Director Community Development” th MRS. LAPHAM-“At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 10 day of June 1998, the above application for an Area Variance for proposed renovations to go-cart track and expansion was reviewed, and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Approve Comments: With the condition that the Applicant provide adequate landscaping.” Signed Tracey M. Clothier, Chairperson” MR. THOMAS-Did you read the Notes? MRS. LAPHAM-Notes to File? Yes. I read that first, then I read the letter. Then I read the Planning Board. MR. THOMAS-Okay. All right. Since no one’s here to represent the applicant, I will open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. THOMAS-And I will leave the public hearing open until this variance comes to a conclusion. At this time, I’d like to ask anyone who’d like to speak in favor of this variance to come forward, in favor of? Anyone that would like to speak against this variance? Against? Is there any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-No. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 26-1998 FERRARO ENTERTAINMENT, INC. , Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: Until two applications for appeal of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Administrator’s decision can be resolved. This tabling cannot go more than 62 days without an extension from the Board. th Duly adopted this 17 day of June, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Custer, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Porter MR. THOMAS-Okay. So this will be tabled for no more than 62 days, pending the outcome of the appeals of the Zoning Administrator’s decision. That takes care of that one. AREA VARIANCE NO. 27-1998 TYPE II RR-3A JEFFREY & MICHELLE KAIN OWNER: FREDERICK & BARBARA CHAMPAGNE NORTH ON BAY ROAD, TURN RIGHT ONTO SUNNYSIDE NORTH LEFT ONTO JUNIPER DRIVE APPLICANT 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6//17/98) HAS CONSTRUCTED A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WHICH CANNOT MEET THE FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. TAX MAP NO. 49-1-4.1 LOT SIZE: 0.69 ACRES SECTION 179-15 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 27-1998, Jeffrey & Michelle Kain, Meeting Date: June 17, Project Location:Description of Proposed Project: 1998 “ Juniper Drive Applicant has Relief constructed a 1627 sf single family dwelling that does not meet the setback requirements. Required: Applicant requests 5.08 feet of relief from the front setback requirements of the RR-3A zone Section 179-15. The required front setback is 50 feet. The applicant proposes a 44.92 foot Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: setback. 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct and occupy a single 2. Feasible alternatives: family dwelling at the desired location. Feasible alternatives are limited 3. Is this relief substantial since a substantial amount of construction has already taken place. relative to the ordinance?:4. Effects 5.08 feet of relief, (10%), may be interpreted as minimal. on the neighborhood or community: Minimal effects on the neighborhood or community are 5. Is this difficulty self-created? anticipated as a result of this action. The difficulty may be Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): interpreted as self-created. None Staff comments: applicable. 5.08 feet of relief may be interpreted as minimal. No adverse SEQR impacts are anticipated on the neighborhood or community as a result of this action. Status: Type II” MR. THOMAS-Mr. Steves. MR. STEVES-Yes. Good evening. My name is Matt Steves. I represent Mr. and Mrs. Kain on this application. One quick correction, as far as the ownership of the property. That is in the ownership of the Kains at this time. I believe that was deeded over in December. That’s the only correction I have. As far as the setbacks, as you can see on the plan, we are looking for 5.08 feet. The location of North Sunnyside Road as shown on the plan is considerably to the south side of the right-of-way. So we’re typically, on a 50 foot wide right-of-way, 24 foot of pavement. You have 13 feet from the edge of the pavement to the property line. In this instance, we have about 18 and a half feet. So it looks a lot farther away than it really is, and you can see how close the property line is to Juniper Lane. So they were trying to equalize that on the site, honest mistake. It is, like I say, a considerable distance off the edge of the actual pavement on North Sunnyside Road, approximately 63.4 feet from the edge of the pavement. So I see no real problem here. MR. THOMAS-Okay. My first question is, how did this happen? MR. STEVES-During construction, the placement of the house, when they were digging the foundation, there was a grade going up toward Juniper Lane, there’s a little bit of a bank there, and like I say, the placement, trying to equalize between the two roads, and during construction, excavation, it was a little too far, or a little too close to Sunnyside Road. MR. THOMAS-Did you do the staking out, or you or your company do the staking out for the construction, for the excavation? MR. STEVES-We did 10 foot offsets of the building, correct. MR. THOMAS-They built it to the offset rather than where they were supposed to? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. They went right to two of the stakes and used those as corners, instead of to the offset stake. MR. THOMAS-Do you carry insurance in case something like this happens? MR. STEVES-I staked out the building. I don’t build the building. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. STONE-Is 10 foot offsetting standard procedure? MR. STEVES-Standard practice, yes, it is. You have to allow room for excavation. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6//17/98) MR. STONE-So you rely on the excavators to be able to measure 10 feet from these offsets? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. THOMAS-Did this excavator know that that was a 10 foot offset? MR. STEVES-That’s a question he’d have to answer. MR. THOMAS-Have you ever worked with this excavator before? MR. STEVES-I believe it was Chris Crandall. We’ve worked with him a minimal amount, not as often as most of the other excavators, no. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any other questions for Matt? MR. MC NALLY-I don’t think I understand what a 10 foot offset is. What do you mean when you say that? MR. STEVES-You take an envelope of the entire shape of the building, and you offset the 10 feet, so that when they dig the house, or the basement, you have stakes that you can string back off of to do your foundation work. MR. MC NALLY-I see. So in other words whatever the foundation hole would be, you put stakes 10 feet further out so that they can measure from there to find out the exact dimensions? MR. STONE-And like a corner, 90 degree corner, is that how you put them up? MR. STEVES-Well, actually, there’s just a single stake, four stakes. MR. STONE-Just a single stake, though? MR. STEVES-Right. If you look at this map here, and you do an extension of the front of the house, a 10 foot stake either way. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. I understand now. MR. THOMAS-Are there any other questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED FRED CHAMPAGNE MR. CHAMPAGNE-I’m the alias owner. Mr. Chairman, I do live across the road on Juniper Drive. My name is Fred Champagne. I’m sorry I didn’t introduce myself earlier. We obviously see no problem with it. I guess part of the problem here that we’re looking at tonight can be identified as the guy that overshot the boundary. What happened, in reality, is an honest mistake, and I think the question was asked, on these 10 foot offsets, at the time that they were staked out, there was some conversation, certainly with the excavator, and I have to tell you, Chris Crandall is an outstanding excavator, does a fine job, but unfortunately the interpretation was that we had a 10 foot offset that really was the envelope that we had to stay within, and at the time that this foundation was laid out by Mr. Crandall and Fred Champagne, obviously we took advantage of that 10 foot offset. We moved the house southeast, primarily to get it located in a position where the sharpest part, it’s a very slopy lot to begin with, and in order to actually avoid a high sloping lot on the northwest side, the house was moved southerly and easterly, and that’s where we jumped over the line by a few feet. That’s all I have to say. Thank you very much. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak in favor of this variance? CRAIG BARDIN MR. BARDIN-My name is Craig Bardin. I own property adjoining this lot. I see no problem with it at all, as far as I’m concerned, as being a next door neighbor type thing. I think it’s an improvement over what some other properties are in that area. So I have no problem with it. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6//17/98) MR. STONE-Are you down the hill? MR. BARDIN-Yes, I am. MR. STONE-Where there’s a pool. MR. BARDIN-No, next door to that house. MR. STONE-Next door to that, okay. MR. BARDIN-My property runs back, adjoining their property. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BARDIN-Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Would anyone else like to speak in favor of? Would anyone like to speak opposed? Opposed? Is there any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-No correspondence. MICHELLE KAIN MRS. KAIN-There should be. MRS. LAPHAM-Here’s one. In fact, there’s a whole lot of them in here. It just wasn’t noted. Okay. June 14, 1998 “Dear Mrs. Lapham: Because of a death in the family, I will not be able to Public Hearing NoticeJEFFREY AND attend Wednesday night’s regarding the variance for th MICHELLE KAIN on Juniper Drive. I will be downstate this Wednesday, June 17, to attend the funeral of my sister. I offer these comments that I intended to make, had I been able to attend That piece of property is a substantial size. Much to our consternation, we watched out our window and from our back porch as every evidence of nature was bulldozed and obliterated. Not one tree appears to be left standing. A house was constructed that towers over surrounding homes. And now, after the fact, we are told it does not conform to building code requirements. How does this happen? Recently, to the right of me in the same rear of my house, a man built a home that needed a septic variance because of his proximity to Lake Sunnyside! How does it work up here in Warren County….you do what you want and subsequently file for a variance? We just moved here from Rockland County two years ago thinking we were blessed to be in an area where people regard their environment with pride. I don’t begrudge anybody having the same chance my wife and I were given….and, I’m sure the Kains are wonderful people, probably the best neighbors we could ever want. But, one has to wonder why we bother with building code at all. So, what is our recourse now? Move the house a couple of feet now that it’s built!!!! What purpose does soliciting our comments even serve? This is obviously just a formality. The building of the house in question has already cost us money. My wife and I planted a few trees and will be doing more. If we have any recourse, please tell them to do the same. We’d love some smidgeon of privacy and nature restored. Respectfully, Eugene J. Casella” Zoning Board of Appeals, June 17, 1998, “To Whom It May Concern: Please note that as the closest neighbor to Michelle and Jeff Kain’s house, we have no objection to their request to meet a front yard setback requirement from the Zoning Board. Sincerely, Roger and Linda Hewlett 31 North Sunnyside Road Queensbury, New York” Memo to Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York, Zoning Board of Appeals, from William and Judith L. Shaw, Area Variance No. 27-1998, Type II, subject, front yard setback requirements, June 16, 1998 “Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals: As property owners within the immediate vicinity of the dwelling located on Tax Map No. 49-1-4.1, we would like to submit this proxy statement for the meeting of Wednesday, June 17, 1998. We both would like to state our approval of the single family dwelling constructed by Jeffrey and Michelle Kain. We have no objections to the said dwelling not meeting the required front yard setback. Respectfully, William J. and Judith L. Shaw Property Owned: 1029 Bay Road, Queensbury, NY” MR. THOMAS-And that’s it? MRS. LAPHAM-That’s all I found. MR. THOMAS-All right. I’ll close the public hearing. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6//17/98) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Lets talk about it. Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-Well, I went up and looked at the property, and the house itself, and the way it sits certainly doesn’t detract from the neighborhood, and I really don’t have much of a problem with it. It’s just it’s so difficult when these things come after the fact, and it probably was an honest mistake, and I don’t feel as though I want to sit here and say, well, they have to tear it down, but on the other hand, I’m just a little bit miffed that it’s after the fact, again. That’s all I have to say, even though I do think it’s going to be a nice house. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew? MR. STONE-Well, I guess I’ve got to make my speech. I, too, agree with Bonnie, and I’m particularly concerned because this a rubber stamp, and I don’t look like a rubber stamp, and I don’t want to be accused of being a rubber stamp. I am very concerned when a property is put up that needs a variance and doesn’t get it. I am doubly concerned when I go to that property two days in a row with this action scheduled to be heard tonight and see work continuing on this particular house. I resent that terribly, because that seems to say that I am a rubber stamp, and I am not a rubber stamp, and I feel very compelled to not grant this variance. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jamie? MR. HAYES-Well, you know, the usual admonishments apply. We don’t like to see properties come to us after the fact. I guess, taking into account that Van Dusen and Steves, they’re very reputable surveyors and the people that are involved seem reputable, I can believe that it was an honest mistake. So, outside of that, there’s not really too much more to add. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I keep remembering Dr. Vittengl who was here last month or the month before with a similar problem. He had a side setback of only 15 feet, and I think he went over it by seven or so, and we asked him to speak to his neighbor about buying some property, but this is a larger setback here. We’re talking 50 foot, and the actual distance to the house as built is only 44.92 feet setback. So the amount of relief is only 5.08. That’s a lot less than what we approved in the Vittengl case. The other thing is here, the corner which really encroaches on that setback doesn’t face a neighbor, per se. It faces a road. There is no neighbor on that corner. The amount of the encroachment is really minimal, and I don’t like after the fact approvals any more than anyone else does, but, hey, mistakes happen, and if this were something that came to us beforehand, and they sought approval for the variance, I would be inclined to approve it, as simply a minor variation on an existing lot, the way I look at it. MR. THOMAS-Brian? MR. CUSTER-Well, as I’ve been on the record before, we don’t like when they have to come back to us for a variance, after something’s already started, but I think the particulars here have been explained, and it seems to be an honest mistake, and certainly is not a great mistake, in the amount of variance requested. That turns me back to, what would I have done had the request been made prior to construction, and it’s so minimal, I would have been in favor of the variance at that point, but I do have to side with Lew a little bit. If work was going on after the variance was requested, I do take some umbrage with that, and I wish, I did not witness it when I was driving by there, but I wish that there would have been some concerns about that, that the work would have stopped, but having said all that, I’ll approve a variance. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I have drafted a letter to the Town Board, and we’ll talk about it next week, when I have copies of it, concerning what we’ve talked about before is the change in the way the building code in the Town of Queensbury reads. I won’t talk about it tonight, but I do have the letter drafted, and we will talk about it next week. As far as this variance is concerned, I do believe it was an honest mistake, being on a corner lot, in an RR-3 Acre zone, that, you know, they’re trying to get the house centered on the lot, and where it is now looks centered on the lot, but it actually isn’t. If they had come in for a variance for this, for this configuration, I would have said no, because they would have been able to fit it in there, in the envelope that’s drawn there, but seeing that it’s, you know, it’s built, there was an honest mistake made, I have no problem with it. I do have a problem like, I think it was Jamie and Brian said, that once the mistake was discovered, that construction still proceeded, and I don’t think that’s right. I think the construction should have 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6//17/98) stopped right then and there, until a variance was sought and granted. So, that’s all I have to say about the subject. So, I will ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 27-1998 JEFFREY & MICHELLE KAIN , Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: Juniper Drive at its intersection with North Sunnyside. The applicant requests 5.08 feet of relief from the front setback requirements of the RR-3A zone, Section 179-15. The required front setback is 50 feet, and the applicant has constructed a building whose corner is 44.92 feet from that setback. The benefit to the applicant is that they would be allowed to construct, or allowed to continue to have the existence of the existing structure, to occupy that structure as a single family dwelling at that location. There are no feasible alternatives, as they are now. The applicant should have been more careful. The applicant should have stopped construction upon noticing the error, but this is water under the bridge. It was an honest error, in my opinion, and there are no feasible alternatives now, given the amount of construction that has taken by, and given the fact that the relief requested is insubstantial, relative to the Ordinance, 5.08 feet of requested relief is only about 10% of the front setback, and I think it is insubstantial. The effects on the neighborhood or community, with respect to this problem, are minimal. The property is well situated on the lot, and it looks like, ultimately, at least with respect to this corner, it’s going to be a lovely home, and of benefit to the area. Is the difficulty self created? Yes, it is, but on balance, I think that the variance should be approved. I move that it be approved. th Duly adopted this 17 day of June, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Custer, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas NOES: Mr. Stone ABSENT: Mr. Porter MR. THOMAS-There you go. MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. THOMAS-You’re welcome. We don’t want to see you back here again, Matt, for the same reason. We like seeing you, but not for this reason. MR. STEVES-Well, it wasn’t intentional. MR. THOMAS-We hope so. We know it wasn’t. MRS. KAIN-Thanks. AREA VARIANCE NO. 31-1998 TYPE: UNLISTED WR-1A/CEA ERIC AND BRETT PEEK OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ROUTE 9L TO CLEVERDALE TO ROCKHURST LAST HOUSE ON RIGHT SIDE OF ROCKHURST ROAD BEFORE END HOUSE ON POINT, HOUSE KNOWN AS THE “SNUGGERY” APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 618 SQ. FT. FAMILY ROOM ADDITION ABOVE EXISTING GARAGE. APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF FROM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND CONTINUATION/EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF. SPR 34-98 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 6/10/98 TAX MAP NO. 15-1-25 LOT SIZE: 0.29 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-79 KEVIN MASCHEWSKI, REPESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 31-1998, Eric and Brett Peek, Meeting Date: June 17, 1998 Project Location:Description of Proposed “ Rockhurst house known as the “Snuggery” Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 618 sf addition above an attached garage which violates the front setback requirements. Project is in the Lake George Critical Environmental Area. Relief Required: Applicant requests 7 feet of relief from the 30 foot front yard setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, Section 179-16 and relief for expansion of a non-conforming Criteria for considering structure which does not meet the setback requirements, Section 179-79. an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6//17/98) 2. Feasible Applicant would be permitted to construct an addition in the desired location. alternatives:3. Is Feasible alternatives may include a down sized addition or no construction. this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 7 feet of relief which does not increase the 4. Effects on the neighborhood or setback violation it may be interpreted as minimal. community: Minimal impacts on the neighborhood or community are anticipated as a result of 5. Is this difficulty self-created? this action. The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):Staff comments: None applicable. The proposed addition does not increase the existing setback violation. Minimal impacts are anticipated on the community as homes of similar size and construction currently exist. This SEQR Status: proposal is in compliance with the Floor Area Ratio worksheet. Type Unlisted” th MRS. LAPHAM-“At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 10 day of June 1998, the above application for an Area Variance to construct a 618 sq. ft. family room addition above existing garage was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact” Tracey M. Clothier, Chairperson. MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. Peek or Mr. Maschewski, is there anything else you’d like to add, say? MR. MASCHEWSKI-The applicant, Rick Peek, and I’m Kevin Maschewski, looked at this, as far as putting a family room addition, and it only made sense to go up instead of go out, and keep within the footprint of the building, so there was due diligence there, to keep it within that footprint and still provide some additional area, living area, which would be turned into basically just an entertaining area, pool table, that kind of stuff, sitting area. So there’s diligence there made to just go up and not go out for this additional area. MR. THOMAS-Okay. You said this was a seasonal, part time residence. Is there any thought of turning it into a full time residence at this time? I know you could change your mind in five minutes or five years. ERIC PEEK MR. PEEK-It’s not looking like it. MRS. LAPHAM-Now when you say “seasonal”, do you mean that you occupy it seasonally only, or it is only equipped for seasonal usage? Could it be lived in all year round if you wanted to, in other words? MR. MASCHEWSKI-You could if you wanted to, yes. MRS. LAPHAM-Because it looked like a year round house to me, when I looked at it. MR. STONE-It has heat? MR. PEEK-It has heat. MRS. LAPHAM-And it has insulation, and plumbing. MR. THOMAS-Are there any other questions for the applicant? MR. MC NALLY-How far is the lake from the house, from the back? MR. MASCHEWSKI-It ranges from approximately 60 feet over on the far, if you’re looking at the site plan, on the far left, to about 31 feet where the garage is. MR. THOMAS-Any other questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-Just for the purposes of the record, how high is the chimney going to be? I mean, you’re up at 28 feet which is the peak of the roof, which is all you’re allowed, and the chimney is intended to be above it, and I know we have a dispute over whether chimneys are, in fact, counted. MR. MASCHEWSKI-By the design and by scale, approximately a foot to a foot and a half above the roof. Yes. By Code, you’ve got to be two foot above the peak, at a 10 foot horizontal distance out. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6//17/98) MR. STONE-I didn’t mean to get into whether you were meeting Code, because we have an ongoing dispute of whether the height of the chimney is not counted when you talk about the height of the building. MR. MASCHEWSKI-I had the same question. MR. THOMAS-Where is this setback from, the road? Is that the required relief from the road? MR. STONE-Yes. That’s the one I’m talking about. MR. PEEK-Actually, the road that comes into the house is a private driveway, the whole Point is private. We own half the driveway. MR. THOMAS-Where does the Town road end, right theree at that gate? MR. PEEK-At the gate, yes. MR. STONE-It’s not plowed at all? MR. PEEK-No. MR. BROWN-It’s not a public road. They don’t need relief from that. They need it from. MR. ROUND-The shoreline. MR. STONE-That’s from the shoreline that we’re talking about. MRS. LAPHAM-See, because there are places where it’s only 30. MR. STONE-But it’s 50 feet. MR. THOMAS-Is required. MR. STONE-Fifty feet’s the required. MR. THOMAS-And they’re 31, so that’s 19, to me, not seven. MR. BROWN-Well, I probably put in the notes from the road, which I thought was a Town road at the time. MR. HAYES-So it’s only expansion of a nonconforming that we’re talking about then, right? MR. THOMAS-No, shoreline relief. That means this wasn’t advertised right, was it? MR. ROUND-It was. MR. BROWN-It was advertised for setback relief. MR. THOMAS-For setback relief. Okay. MR. ROUND-We try to keep them as generic as possible. MR. THOMAS-So you need 19 feet from the 31 foot that exists. Is that what we’re saying, from the shoreline. MR. ROUND-We advertised it that way. I know the Board has taken two different positions, and being new at the position, whether it actually requires setback relief, because there is a footprint. It’s not expanding upon the building envelope. MR. STONE-Yes. One could argue 179-79B. MR. ROUND-Well, we include that, an expansion of a nonconforming structure. The structure does not currently meet the setback requirements, but by building up in the same building envelope, is not requesting additional, you’re not seeking setback relief because you’ve already been granted that for, I mean, you’ve already grandfathered yourself with that portion of the structure. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6//17/98) MR. STONE-So we’re only talking relief for a nonconforming. MR. ROUND-Correct. We wanted to include both because I don’t know what the historical, because there’s such a discrepancy between the historical record, so that we want to identify that as well. MR. HAYES-So do we deal with it or don’t we? MR. STONE-It’s up to us. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-This is a nonconforming, pre-existing use. MR. STONE-Right. MR. MC NALLY-And the proposed addition is an expansion of a nonconforming use. MR. STONE-179-79. MR. THOMAS-Yes, structure. MRS. LAPHAM-And that’s what we’re considering, right? MR. ROUND-Correct. MR. MC NALLY-And it’s nonconforming with respect to the setback from the lake. MR. THOMAS-Right. MR. MC NALLY-Floor Area and everything else is fine? MR. ROUND-Everything else is satisfactory. MR. THOMAS-So we’re talking relief from 179-79B, and that’s it. MR. ROUND-Well, again, that’s what we advertised for, both setback and for nonconforming, because of the discrepancy in the historical record, that the ZBA, whether you actually need to grant setback relief for this type of, so I’m of the perspective it doesn’t require setback relief, but the historical record read both ways So we wanted to make sure that when we advertised it publicly, that we’re covered, and that we didn’t have to have the applicant come back around again, as we’ve had in other instances. MR. STONE-Well, but does this fall under 179-79A then? Which says it doesn’t require anything? MR. ROUND-No. Because it’s in, under “F”, it’s in a Critical Environmental Area. It’s on the waterfront. It requires relief. MR. THOMAS-So it’s going to have to go before the Planning Board, too, because it’s in a CEA? MR. ROUND-No, excuse me. It’s not an enlargement on the setback. MR. STONE-I’m not sure it’s anything, Chris, even in the waterfront zone. MR. ROUND-Under “A”, it says you can expand, provided all setbacks are met, and it’s not meeting all the setbacks. That’s under “A”, 179-79A. MR. STONE-Okay. So the fact that it doesn’t meet it, but it’s not. MR. ROUND-If you encroached on the road, but you wanted to build on the back, even though your structure is not conforming, but your expansion will conform to all the setbacks, you still need to come to the Zoning Board for relief, under our Ordinance, and that’s what this is similar to, in that regard. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6//17/98) MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any other questions for the applicant or Staff? All right. I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this variance? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. THOMAS-Is there any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-Well, there’s a telephone conversation, 6/12/98, a neighbor within 500 feet/Pam Whiting, Subject: Eric Peek “A lady called who may or may not be able to attend the meeting due to a previous appointment. Her question is will there be any clearing of trees to put on the addition? The trees are over the garage now.” Actually, that was one of my questions, too. MR. MASCHEWSKI-They won’t actually be physically taken down. They’ll just be trimmed up. Because I think the closest tree is probably in the range of four to five feet from the garage. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes, that’s what it looked like, but the branches hang way over. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes, no physical trees will be dropped. MR. THOMAS-Just limbed, just take the limbs off. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Just take the limbs off. MR. THOMAS-Okay. All right, there’s no other correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-Well, a letter from the Planning Office, but I don’t have that letter. I don’t have it in my packet, and it’s not in here, that I know of. MR. THOMAS-Craig, according to the notes, there’s supposed to be a letter from the Planning Office. MRS. LAPHAM-It says between Ronald Suen and Pam Whiting of the Planning Office. MR. THOMAS-That’s not the telephone conversation, is it? Is that something different? MRS. LAPHAM-No, I guess it is the telephone conversation. Telephone conversation. 6/12/98, between Ronald and Pam Whiting, Planning Office. So that’s the same one. MR. THOMAS-That’s the one you just read in. Okay. All right. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for the applicant? If not, lets talk about it. Bob, what do you think? MR. MC NALLY-In large part, I don’t have a problem with this. It seems to me that the proposal is relatively modest. It concerns me, though, that it’s so close to the lake. This is at the end of the Point, and it’s quite, I took a walk behind the building, and it’s going to be noticeable, but, I don’t know. In other buildings on Rockhurst, I didn’t think there was as much impact. I’m concerned there might be more here. MR. THOMAS-You’re concerned about the what? MR. MC NALLY-More impact on the lake itself, visibility from the lake. From the road it doesn’t really matter. I don’t see any impact on that side. MR. THOMAS-All right. Brian? MR. CUSTER-I really don’t have any problems with the project. I understand Mr. McNally’s concerns, but when I compare this project to some of the other ones that I have approved, relative to size and square footage, I think it’s really fairly minimal, even from the lake viewpoint. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jamie? 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6//17/98) MR. HAYES-I agree with Brian. I think we’ve approved ones that, in the past, have had a more substantial impact, and in particular in this case, I think the way that those properties sit on the end of that Point, that the neighbor’s views are primarily out by the lake from where they are, including the properties to the north, and what would be west, I guess, and I agree, I think it’s a modest project, and it’s pretty well thought out. So, I don’t have a problem with it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-I don’t have a problem with it, generally, and it’s already a nonconforming use, but there’s no construction that’s going to move this closer to the lake, and I was waiting to see if any neighbors would complain, and be upset with it, and there haven’t been, and it’s not going to obstruct anybody’s view, because it’s a point, and so everyone on that road has a view of the lake. So, I mean, I basically don’t have a problem with it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew? MR. STONE-Well, I do have a concern. I’m looking back in my own record’s, and I had a concern back in August, on a property further down, further south on Rockhurst Road, an addition that I did vote against because I thought it was going to be, this was a slightly different thing. This was a 50% expansion, but I do think that Rockhurst, given the nature of the Point and the nature of the buildings, it’s a problem, it’s, aesthetically, a problem, and while we’re not, on this particular case, concerning ourselves with the road side, we are concerning ourselves with the lake side, and this is one of the requirements that we’ve been asked to look at. We had one last month where we were worried about the visual impact from the lake, and I think this is a similar situation. It’s not that the addition is going to be at the farthest point from the lake. It’s actually going to be at the nearest point, and that troubles me, that within 31 feet, we’re going up the maximum height allowed, and I just think, I think it’s too much. MR. THOMAS-All right. I really have no problem with this variance. It doesn’t encroach on the lake any farther. The applicant has stated that this is going to be a recreation room, a family room. So that means there won’t be any additional bathrooms in there. Am I right? MR. PEEK-Correct. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So there’s no additional encumberance on a septic system, which could fail, and that would definitely empty right into the lake. There’s no substantial removal of trees. In fact, there’s no removal of any trees, and if they’re only going to be taking limbs off, as far as the 28 foot height, well, that’s what it’s allowed by law. So there’s no problem with going up to the 28 feet. There was no negative, there wasn’t any negative feedback from the neighbors, with any concern over this. So I have no problem whatsoever granting this variance. Would someone like to make a motion? MOTION THAT A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM FOR THE APPLICANT ERIC AND BRETT PEEK AREA VARIANCE NO. 31- 1998 SHOWS THAT THERE ARE NO NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT CAUSED BY THIS PROJECT , Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Custer: th Duly adopted this 17 day of June, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Custer, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Porter MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 31-1998 ERIC & BRETT PEEK , Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Custer: The Rockhurst house identified as the “Snuggery”. The applicant proposes the construction of a 618 square foot addition above the attached garage, which violates Section 179-79 for expansion of a nonconforming structure which does not meet the setback requirements. The benefit to the applicant would be that he would be permitted to construct a recreation room above the garage. The feasible alternatives, of course, are no construction. Is the relief substantial relative to the 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6//17/98) Ordinance? I don’t believe that it is, being that the addition itself, what is being proposed as far as the project, is modest, and I don’t believe it’s substantial. Effects on the neighborhood and community, the property, when I visited it, was very well kept. I believe that, based on the prints that have been provided, that the construction will be done in a way that’s contiguous with that property as it stands now, and the fact that the neighbors, we’ve heard no negative comments from the surrounding neighbors, I think it would probably be a compliment to the community, or most definitely not a negative, and is the difficulty self created? It probably is self created, in that he wants the project, but it is a small camp, and they’re trying to expand the use. So I would move for its approval. Additionally, the applicant requests seven feet of relief from the 30 foot front setback requirement of WR-1A zone, Section 179-16. So the applicant is requesting 19 feet of relief from the 50 foot shoreline setback requirement, and also the expansion of a nonconforming structure of Section 179-79. th Duly adopted this 17 day of June, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Custer, Mr. McNally, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Porter MR. STONE-Chris and Craig, can we get something about chimneys, I mean written somewhere? MR. ROUND-As far as height restrictions? MR. STONE-Yes. I mean, I hadn’t heard this one tonight. We have Code that says it’s got to be two feet above. MR. ROUND-Yes, in order for proper flew draft, you have to have, yes. MR. STONE-So we ought to say, chimneys should be 30 feet or something, make them go to 30 feet. MR. ROUND-Well, generally, there’s really not a cosmetic reason to enhance your chimney height, and I’ll leave it at that. MR. STONE-Now that’s an interpretation. MR. ROUND-No, I mean, there’s really not a motivating factor by making your chimney taller than is structurally necessary. I guess that’s the point I’m trying to make. MR. STONE-If you’re in a valley, and there’s no wind going over your chimney, you might want it higher, so that you get a little more draft. MR. ROUND-I’ll see if we can pull something together for you, Lew. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Okay. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 35-1998 TYPE: UNLISTED RR-3A JOHN P. BRUHNS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 1689 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES OPERATION OF A COMMERCIAL GREENHOUSE AND ROADSIDE STAND. APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE AREA REQUIREMENTS OF THE RR-3A ZONE (SECTION 179-15), SETBACK RELIEF FROM THE SIGN ORDINANCE (CHAPTER 140) AND RELIEF FROM THE SIGN ORDINANCE (CHAPTER 140) FOR NON PERMITTED (A-FRAME) SIGN. CROSS REF. SPR 31-98 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 6/10/98 TAX MAP NO. 27-1-8 LOT SIZE: 1.43 ACRES SECTION 179-15, 140-6 JOHN BRUHNS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6//17/98) Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 35-1998, John P. Bruhns, Meeting Date: June 17, 1998 Project Location:Description of Proposed Project: “ 1689 Ridge Road Applicant proposes operation of a 616 sf commercial greenhouse and roadside stand on the same lot with a residence in Relief Required: the RR-3A zone. Applicant requests 1.57 acres of relief from the 3 acre area requirement of the RR-3A zone, and relief from the Sign Ordinance Section 140 for both setback Criteria for considering an Area requirements and for a non permitted sign (A-frame style). Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant 2. Feasible would be permitted to operate a commercial greenhouse and road side stand. alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include acquisition of additional property and no 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: construction. 1.57 acres of relief may 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: be interpreted as substantial. Moderate to substantial impacts on the neighborhood or community may be anticipated as a result of this 5. Is this difficulty self-created? action. The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):Staff comments: None applicable. Applicant proposed operation of a commercial greenhouse on the same lot with a residence. 3 Acres are required for this additional use, the applicant currently has 1.43 acres. While the Sign Ordinance makes provisions for roadside stand signage; (2 signs, each not to exceed 32 sf.) setback relief and relief for the utilization of an A frame sign are required. Additionally, this project is subject to Site Plan Review by the Planning Board. Moderate public opposition has been SEQR Status: observed. Type Unlisted” th MRS. LAPHAM-“At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 10 day of June 1998, the above application for an Area Variance to erect green house to grow plants and an arbor to hang plants was reviewed, and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Approve” Tracey M. Clothier, Chairperson. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. Bruhns, is there anything else you’d like to add, say, talk about, tell us about? MR. BRUHNS-Not really. She pretty much covered it there. I have measurements that I was requested of Chris Round. I haven’t gotten back to him, not that I didn’t try, about parking area, such hard paved area, gravel area, lawn area. I’d just like to say that it’s a hobby that grew to the front door. I find the word “commercial”, as not applying to the operation I’m doing here. This is an exempt agricultural. Everything that goes out that front door is grown in that yard, whether it be perennials or annuals that are started in the greenhouse. There’s no commercial trucks coming in. There’s no wholesaling, trucks bringing product in, and in turn being sold for retail. The arbor, you’ll have four visible neighbors from my front door. Three of them have come over and offered to come here with me and/or give me a letter, which one of them did. The other one is in Albany. Her daughter just had open heart surgery two, three days ago. They’re there in the recovery room. They’re not here to be here with me or supply me with a letter. I do have one from the neighbor across the street, and her father-in-law basically feels the same way about my front yard, which I know some of you have been by there. I think it’s relatively attractive. It’s an improvement, actually, to what was in that lot, and laid fallow for 10 years with sumacs and brambles and briars. It’s quite an improvement. MR. THOMAS-As far as the sign is concerned, the sign is an A frame, one of these that stands up? MR. BRUHNS-No. There’s a nice, professionally made sign that merely says “my back yard nursery”, hangs from a post with a rod iron support above it. The sign size is three square feet. MR. MC NALLY-Is that sign on your arbor? MR. BRUHNS-It’s on the arbor. It’s hanging on the arbor now. MR. MC NALLY-Existing one that’s there. MRS. LAPHAM-The one that faces sideways, not to the road. MR. STONE-Facing sideways right now, though, right? MR. CUSTER-I pictured more like a sandwich board sign. MR. THOMAS-Yes. That’s what, you know, in the Staff notes they said an “A frame”. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6//17/98) MR. BRUHNS-What I did have there was like a sign from a gas station, you know, Camel cigarettes $2.45 a pack. I had painted that white, and on a computer printout, I had put, six packs a $1.50, and taped that on, and that sat by the road edge. That’s just pick it up and take it back in type thing. It’s not an A frame, nor is it any kind of permanent anything. MR. THOMAS-Where did you guys come up with this “A frame”? MR. BROWN-When Mr. Bruhns was in the office and he, along with myself and Laura Nowicki in the Planning Department, determined that he wanted to display an A frame sign, as part of this variance. So if he wants to withdraw. MR. BRUHNS-An A frame is terminology that they. MR. STONE-Well, sandwich sign, two sided, stands on its own weight, and it comes to a point, like that. MR. BROWN-It was identified that you wanted to display one of those signs along with the freestanding, hanging sign, the three square foot sign you referenced. MR. BRUHNS-The A frame terminology was derived downstairs here in Queensbury. I explained what I had. It’s a freestanding, on legs, pick up and move. Basically, we’re talking the same amount of area. What we’re talking here is the design of the sign. It is not a sandwich sign. It’s not an A frame sign. MR. THOMAS-It looks like a For Sale sign in front of a house. MR. STONE-There is a For Sale sign, too, in front of the house. There’s a couple of signs there. MR. THOMAS-Is there a realtor For Sale sign? MR. STONE-No, it’s For Sale for his plants. It’s a For Sale sign, but underneath it says, perennials or. MR. BRUHNS-Yes, right. MR. STONE-There were a couple of signs there. MR. THOMAS-What about the setbacks from the property line for the greenhouse? In the application it says a “temporary” greenhouse. MR. BRUHNS-Well, it’s a green house. It’s iron pipes driven into the ground with hoops set in it, and plastic tautly pulled over that. MR. THOMAS-That’s what I saw, but is that going to be there temporarily or permanently? MR. BRUHNS-A green house is not a permanent structure. It does not require a building permit. It’s a temporary building. It can be dismantled, probably, in an hour. There’s no footings there. There’s no poured foundations. MR. THOMAS-I was looking through the site plan review uses. Does he really have to be here for this? MR. BRUHNS-No. MR. THOMAS-Because under the Type II, it says a commercial greenhouse. That would be site plan, unless there’s setback violations. MR. ROUND-Right. Well, there’s an area instance, okay. He’s in a RR-3 acre zone. He’s got a residential use on his property. So if it was a three acre property, you’ve consumed that density requirement, all right. Now you’re proposing another operation, proposing a commercial use. So now you have two uses on a singular property. It’s as if you wanted to build, conceive of it as two houses on this lot, all right. You have a single house on an acre and a half lot, now you want to build another house on an acre and a half lot. You don’t have, you don’t satisfy the minimum density requirements. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6//17/98) MR. THOMAS-I, myself, don’t see it that way. MR. ROUND-Well, just for scenario sake, okay, you have a house, now you have a commercial greenhouse. Now you want to do another business on this site. When do you regulate the density of how many operations you can have on a single property? MR. THOMAS-Well, you know, it says under Accessory Uses, a private greenhouse. MR. ROUND-Correct. MR. THOMAS-Under site plan review, under a Type II, it says a commercial greenhouse. MR. ROUND-Right. If this was a vacant property, and a commercial greenhouse wanted to go in on this particular property, it’s a site plan review use, and they wouldn’t be in front of you. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So if the house wasn’t there, they wouldn’t be seeing us. MR. ROUND-Correct. MRS. LAPHAM-Well, what about if it was a hobby greenhouse? MR. ROUND-Well, the character of the operation has grown so that they advertise. They sell material out of the site. It’s been identified as a commercial operation, and I mean, you could debate either side of that, but we’ve made the determination that it’s a commercial operation. MR. STONE-When it says “Accessory Uses”, Chris, you can have one of each, a private garage, a storage, a private greenhouse, you can have one of each? MR. ROUND-Generally, that’s been the historical record, yes. MR. THOMAS-Well, are there anymore questions for the applicant? We might as well move this thing along. MR. BRUHNS-Well, this commercial thing, would anybody like to hear the definitions that I read out of the dictionary tonight, in commercial? MR. THOMAS-Well, we have our own definitions of commercial. MR. BRUHNS-I don’t feel that I’m anything to do with commercial. I don’t think that it can be classified as commercial. It’s strictly a backyard agricultural thing. It’s exempt from all the above. It is definitely not commercial. There are not trucks coming and going. I’m not buying wholesale and selling retail. This is a side yard operation with some excess plants put in hanging baskets and put out for half the price of any place else in Town for friends, relatives and neighbors to stop by, say hello, pick one up, and adorn their porch or their front yard, and, you know, I have a letter here from a neighbor who thinks it’s quite splendid. MR. THOMAS-The zoning definitions for commercial use, “Any use involving the sale or rental or distribution of goods, services, or commodities, either retail or wholesale, or the provision of recreation facilities or activities for a fee. The term shall include but not be limited to the following: a drive in restaurant, fast food operation, filling station, public garage, restaurant, retail store, retail stand, and a tavern”, and you’ve told us that you sell those flowers. You don’t give them away. You sell them. So that falls under a commercial use, as defined by the Ordinance. MR. BRUHNS-I didn’t hear the word “greenhouse” in there. I heard tavern, stores. MR. THOMAS-It says, the term shall include but not be limited to the following. It includes those plus anything else. “Any use involving the sale or rental or distribution of goods, services, or commodities, either retail or wholesale”. So you’re selling those flowers retail. So that makes it a commercial use. MR. BRUHNS-This is falling under agriculture. This is falling under, from what I understood, from what I’ve been told by people who have been through this, what I’ve been told, unsolicited by a lawyer who has gone through the same thing with another greenhouse operation, I am exempt as to the effect that I am growing in that yard, and I am selling in that yard. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6//17/98) MR. MC NALLY-Can you tell me where you get that from, and from the Ordinance, where in the Ordinance you find that, sir? MR. BRUHNS-From what he just read? MR. MC NALLY-No, no. Where do you get the idea that you are totally exempt from regulation of the Ordinance, other than this conversation? MR. BRUHNS-Well, I’ve been told that by a lawyer, and I’ve been told that by Fran Martindale, who’s Supervisor of the Town of Fort Ann, who also has a greenhouse on 149. MR. MC NALLY-But can you point out anywhere in the Ordinance, sir, where that right is given to you? MR. BRUHNS-I don’t have any access to the Ordinances. I haven’t any legal books to reference. All I know is what I’ve been told by people who supposedly are in the know, and from there, the rest I can say is here’s a letter from a neighbor. I’m sure one or two or three or four of you have been by. You saw what it looks like. There’s nothing near being offensive to anybody, and as far as selling for profit is concerned, that’s debatable right now, what profit we’re going to see out of that. If you want to take my hours into consideration, I’m probably working for about a dollar an hour. MR. STONE-Profit’s not listed here. MR. THOMAS-Profit’s not listed. It’s, if you sell it and take money for the flowers, that’s considered a commercial operation, according to the Ordinance. Is there any other questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? MR. BRUHNS-I can submit this one letter I have. MR. THOMAS-We’ll read the letters at the end. Would anyone like to speak in favor of this application? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED PAUL DAVIDSON MR. DAVIDSON-Greetings. My name’s Paul Davidson. I live approximately a quarter of a mile away from this site on Pickle Hill Road. I pass by it three, four times a day. So I have a knowledge of the property, the area in general, and the roadway, and I also have a lot of experience, unfortunate experience, with the zoning in the Town, the applications of the zoning in the Town, and I’m opposed to this on the grounds that it is commercial, and on the grounds that these operations generally start as someone selling flowers from a stand, and the next thing you have is fertilizer, Christmas trees. You have propane. Once you give someone a variance, I’ve seen them expand and never seen them stopped, never once, and I think that that should be strongly considered. The size of this piece of property needs to be considered. There’s a home, probably several people, and one family living in it, and it’s less than half of the required area in our zone for a home, and we’re adding another use to that piece of property, and probably most important to me, personally, is the location. It’s on a hill, in a passing zone, 55 miles an hour, with limited visibility coming out of the property, and limited parking area on the property, and I’ve very concerned about the safety issues in that area. So I’d like you to take those points into consideration, please. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak opposed? JOANNE GAVIN & ISOBEL MUNOFF MS. GAVIN-We have two letters that were sent. Will they be read at the end? MR. THOMAS-Yes. If we have them in the file, we will read them. MS. GAVIN-Yes. We brought copies, just in case. We own to the property just to the south of Bruhns. Joanne Gavin, and I, along with five sisters, this one, Isobel Munoff, is one of the other owners. We own the property just to the south of John Bruhns property, and I have one sister who 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6//17/98) sent a letter, who’s in there, who also owns the property just to the north of John’s, directly adjacent to his property, all sides. Everybody in our family is adamantly opposed. There are a number of reasons. The gentleman before us explained some of them. There are a number for us. It is a very dangerous situation. Yes, the flowers are beautiful. Yes, it is commercial. It’s already been commercial, all spring he’s been selling flowers. As far as the greenhouse, yes, it can come down. Is it too close to our property line? I believe that it is, even if it is a temporary thing. He didn’t have to have a building permit. He put it right where he wanted. This has been the history with this neighbor since we’ve owned the property. MRS. MUNOFF-Can I just interject something here, too. In case you haven’t been out to see this particular piece, and there are no pictures available or whatever here, or layouts or whatever, the greenhouse is really quite large for that property. I would guess that, he says 14 by 44, but if you can get a picture of that in your mind, it’s probably about the width of those two sets of those double doors down to about where maybe Paul is sitting, and I mean, that’s quite large. Not only that, the arbor you talk about, when you picture an arbor in our head, what do you picture? One of these nice little porticos that go over a sidewalk. Well, it isn’t. The arbor is probably about equally as big to this greenhouse. So they are two fairly large structures that were built on this property. Yes, temporary. Can you take them down in an hour? I doubt it, and so, you know, kind of keep that picture in your mind, you know, is it nice to have a hobby? Are flowers beautiful? Yes, we all like them, but this is beyond what I would consider a hobby. MS. GAVIN-Not only is it beyond a hobby, it will go beyond what it is now, from our past experience. The property that John owns now, a portion of the property that he owns, that allowed him to even put that greenhouse up, we sold to him, because he wanted more room for his home. He wanted more room for his family. He hasn’t improved his house. His house is still not finished. It’s been there for over 13 years, and it’s still not finished, but he’s going into a business endeavor, and doing all these other things, and has nothing to improve his own home. Nothing. MRS. MUNOFF-You talk about history of the property being, I think there was a comment made earlier about the history being irrelevant or, you know, not adding to anything here. Well, history is part of it. We talk about having sold him this piece of property, and it was nice, I mean, you know, try to be accommodating, and it was several years back when we did still own that property that we sold him, and he, at that time, you know, was into his gardening and all that, but, you know, which we didn’t mind. That was okay, but low and behold, one day we wake up and he has put a driveway with a turnaround black-topped right onto the property that we owned, without ever having sought permission. I mean, to go ahead and just blacktop over onto somebody else’s property, and then to say that it’s just a hobby with a business, and you don’t ever plan to, I mean, I just, there’s a lack of trust there. MR. BRUHNS-Excuse me. That driveway and that turnaround was there, existed long before you ever bought that property. MS. GAVIN-No, it wasn’t. MRS. MUNOFF-It was existing, but it was not on his property, and he was encroaching on our property. So what we finally had to do was put a fence up around his property. MR. BRUHNS-It was existing before you owned that property. MRS. MUNOFF-Yes, it was, but it was not your property, John, but we put a fence up around, and put it right through that driveway, and of course with all of his trucks, with his, whatever business he has with all his trucking, because he does have back hoes and maybe some of the other people here know all of his vehicles. I don’t know them all, but there’s four of five of them, dump trucks, all kinds of things. He continues to, basically, encroach on my sister’s property to the north. Will go around the fence, will mow the lawn, has been trying to ask me numerous times if we’ll sell him that property. We will not sell him that property. There is no way that his property is going to expand to meet that three acre requirement, because we will not sell him that property, not after what we’ve seen he’s done with this little piece that we sold him. We couldn’t trust him. We tried, but we couldn’t, and that’s why we are here. I’d appreciate it if you would read both of the letters, because it explains, all of us as owners, it explains our feelings very carefully. MR. STONE-A couple of questions. Cathy Martinez, is that one of your sisters? MRS. MUNOFF-That’s one of the owners of the property to the south of this. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6//17/98) MR. STONE-Okay, and who owns the barn behind his property, to the west? FRANK MUNOFF MR. MUNOFF-We do. MR. STONE-You do, and we’ll hear from you. Okay. I’m just curious, and your sister owns to the north, right off this? MRS. MUNOFF-My sister Patricia. MS. GAVIN-Patricia Gavin, and they’re in North Carolina, which part of the problem with that was is they got notification of the meeting yesterday. MR. STONE-Okay. MS. GAVIN-Just, again, to repeat the gentleman that spoke before us, we have the same safety concerns along that stretch of highway. We also have concerns about the setback. We have concerns about commercial business going in. I actually did witness, I think it was Mother’s Day, somebody going onto Mr. Bruhns’ property to take a look at the flowers that were displayed for Mother’s Day, and the woman actually backed up onto Ridge Road, out of his driveway, because there is no parking. It’s just a short little driveway. There’s no parking. There’s no turnaround capability, backed out, and she almost bought it. I’m going to tell you big time. So, it’s a safety concern. MRS. MUNOFF-I did see somebody back out of the driveway yesterday when I was there. Now my mother lives in the house next to John. None of us live in there. My mom is in the back there, and she has a lot of concerns, just even trying to get out of her own driveway in that zone. With the signs up, it makes it even more difficult, because the signs are out near close to the road. There are plants out near close to the road. So the vision is very, very blocked, and it’s very hard for her to see getting out, let alone people that are coming right out of his driveway, and backing out of the driveway. MS. GAVIN-And it is a passing zone, and not to mention the fact that it is a residential area, and there’s no business, no commercial business from Route 149. I think the next commercial business along that property is probably the Ridge Terrace Restaurant. As we all know, that’s been there for years, and years, and years, and then next being Ronnie Williamsons’ store, up near the Pilot Knob Road. So it’s not that the stretch is speckled with some commercial and some residential. It is truly residential, and then even behind Ridge Road, you know, there’s developments behind there. So it is really purely a residential area, and to add a commercial business only invites more encroachment of commercial property along that road, and we all know, the property values being what they are, this would only do more damage to homeowners in the area. MRS. MUNOFF-Her just mentioning that about the problem with properties and selling them, the piece of property that is to the north of John’s has been for sale for a while. For some reason, the sign is suddenly missing since the past two days, and the property that we own to the south, the house, has also been for sale for about three years, and the sale of the house, a few times people have come in, I would say three times we have had people come in, look at the property and say, you have a commercial, you have a business next to you. I don’t want to live next door to a business, and that was what started getting us real hot about it. We can’t sell the house because of things like that, and that’s a real problem for us. MR. BRUHNS-Can I interject here, so I don’t forget? MR. THOMAS-Well, are you ladies done? MRS. MUNOFF-I think so. MS. GAVIN-I think so. MRS. MUNOFF-He’ll have more to add. MR. THOMAS-Okay. 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6//17/98) MR. BRUHNS-The greenhouse has been covered for three months. The house has been for sale for way over three years. MRS. GAVIN-It doesn’t matter. MR. BRUHNS-Exactly. My little driveway is 150 foot long of paved driveway. Other than the paved driveway, if somebody backs out into that road, which I certainly, if I was standing there, I would tell anybody don’t do it. There’s plenty of room to turn around. Other than the paved driveway of 150 foot long, it’s average 15 foot wide. I have 708 foot of hard gravel parking, and another 613 foot of paved parking. The arbor, which is so offensive, is 20 by 12. The greenhouse is 44 by 14. The display area consists of two plywood sized tables, a total of 64 square feet, on Ridge Road. In that RR-3A, anybody is entitled to 100 square foot stand in front of their house, anybody. Anybody in that area. So there’s a lot of discrepancy here. There’s a half acre of grass that one can turn around on. The dump trucks and machinery that I have consist of one dump truck, and one back hoe. The back hoe is way out in the back yard where it’s pretty much not seen by anybody. The truck is gone, on the job, five days a week like anybody else would leave their bread truck or their milk truck or their pick up truck to go to work. I go to work in this, daily. MR. THOMAS-What kind of business do you do, I mean, normally, are you an excavator? MR. BRUHNS-I’m a heavy construction truck driver. I own and operate my own truck, and I hire out to, right now I’m on the Northway up in Warrensburg. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. BRUHNS-I’m gone all day. The people that have been in and out of that driveway is no more than normally would stop on any given weekend. It’s basically neighbors, relatives and friends. That’s who’s been in and out of there. I know what we’ve sold, and I know who’s bought the stuff. Yes, we did meet some new people from Pickle Hill, and they, you know, they’ve been back three or four times, because they’re quite placed at the prices that the stuff is offered at, and they like the looks of it, and they like the looks of the product. I still have a problem, my biggest problem is I have a problem with the terminology “commercial”. I don’t see this as a commercial venture. MR. THOMAS-I just read you right out of the Ordinance what it means. MR. BRUHNS-Yes, but it didn’t say yes or it didn’t say no, as to what I’m growing in my yard. MR. THOMAS-It said exactly yes. It’s a commercial venture. Plain and simple. I mean, you grow flowers and sell them. I mean, it’s like Stewarts. They sell milk. It’s the same thing, the same idea. If you sell it, it’s commercial. It’s a commercial venture. MR. MC NALLY-That’s a commercial greenhouse, too. Doesn’t 179-7 say over 300 square feet is a commercial greenhouse? It’s defined as a commercial greenhouse, greenhouse commercial. MRS. LAPHAM-You’re gone all day. Is your wife at home all day? MR. BRUHNS-No, she works. The kids are home, now, for the summer. MRS. LAPHAM-Who sells the flowers when you and your wife aren’t home? MR. BRUHNS-Nobody. I find a $10 bill stuck in the door or a $5 bill under a tray, or $3 stuck in the pot, and I’m not worried about it. People stop. If they want something, they’re going to leave the money. MR. ROUND-Just to remind the Chairman, this is the public hearing aspect of tonight’s meeting. MR. BRUHNS-Mr. Bruhns is answering questions that are asked. All right. I’ll go on to the next one. Would anyone else like to speak in opposition? FRANK MUNOFF MR. MUNOFF-Good evening. My name is Frank Munoff. I’m the husband of one of the ladies that was up here previously, Isobel Munoff. I don’t live anywhere near Mr. Bruhns’ property. My wife is part owner of the property adjacent, south, and my mother-in-law, who’s in the back row, I 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6//17/98) do want to make mention of this, only because I think the Board should be considerate of it, and the next time it happens, possibly make some accommodations. I do most of the communication for my mother-in-law, because I live on Route 9L, just up the road by Katskill Bay. So I’ve had most of the communication for her, and one of the communications was, at night, my mother-in-law is on oxygen from nine o’clock. So we tried to time this procedure this evening where it would be conducive for her, and she was told that she would be seen, I’m not here to complain, but believe me, I think it’s an important point that the senior citizens should get some accommodation. She was told she would be on between, I think it was 7:30 and 8:30, and I’d just like to know, if we have to come back, what accommodations can be made? She was told that on the phone, and I just wanted to bring that to the Board’s consideration. The thing I’d like to say is that I’ve had many phone calls over this piece of property, asking, I’m very confused at the way the government works. Why we are here, can you just start a business, and just put something up and then come here? And at first when the greenhouse was up, and this was quite a while ago I called, I got the answer that, yes, you can have a private greenhouse, no problem. When I found out that it was commercial, and what John, Mr. Bruhns said is correct, that house has been for sale for some time, and never before had anyone ever made a comment about a commercial business next door, and the reason is simple. There never was one before, and two of the prospective buyers, within the last three months, that was their comment, and only because it does exist now, and so I asked about the sign going up and where it was going, and as we leave this meeting here tonight, gentlemen, I’m going to tell you, that business is going to go, you talked about rubber stamping earlier. Well, this is a self inflicted hardship. Built a greenhouse on this small piece of property. I’m sure it doesn’t meet the setbacks to my mother-in-law’s property. I’m not sure the arbor in the front meets the setbacks from the road. It’s got an acre and a half. You need three. I’m surprised we’re even here. Now, talking about the vehicles on the property, we’ve never had any problems with that. My mother-in-law has never ever had any problems with that, but I’m surprised Mr. Bruhns is applying for another, because I think under the Town, and you can help me out with this, gentlemen, you can only have one commercial vehicle on your property, I think. MR. THOMAS-That I couldn’t tell you. MR. MUNOFF-Is there anyone here that can? MR. ROUND-For a residential purpose, if you have more than one commercial business, I think that’s generally the (lost words). MR. MUNOFF-Then Mr. Bruhns is in violation of that right now. MR. BRUHNS-Not so. I’ve got one commercial vehicle. MR. MUNOFF-There’s a truck and a back hoe, and there’s another one. MR. BRUHNS-That back hoe’s not registered. MR. MUNOFF-It doesn’t have to be registered. It has to be on your property, I believe. MR. ROUND-I don’t know if a back hoe is, we could debate, but it’s open for interpretation, I guess, if you have a back hoe on your property, I guess, whether you’re operating a farm operation. MR. MUNOFF-There’s a lot of things happening on this small piece of land, but I would like an answer as to how, don’t you need a site plan review? And as Chris had told me on the phone, yes, you need a site plan review to have a business. Don’t you have to be registered? Don’t you have to pay sales tax? Do you just put up a sign and start a business, and then come here? I’m totally confused. Help. MR. THOMAS-Before he can go to site plan review, he needs a variance. MR. MUNOFF-Okay. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-But he will have to go to site plan review. As far as, the Town of Queensbury does not require a business license. MR. MUNOFF-Okay. I didn’t know that. 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6//17/98) MR. THOMAS-So, as other towns around us and the City of Glens Falls does, and why, I couldn’t tell you. MR. MUNOFF-Okay. I asked about the site plan review and how a business can operate until the site plan review is heard, and the answer I got was, and respectfully from everyone, this is the way it’s been done, that you don’t enforce it, you don’t stop the business, when there is a hearing pending. Am I correct, Chris, that’s been the nature? MR. ROUND-If we identify violations of this nature, we seek compliance, Number One. So we identify, yes, you did something in advance of obtaining the necessary approvals, and in good faith, if somebody’s going to follow through with the process, and we indicated please submit a site plan review application. The applicant did so. If he hadn’t, we would have proceeded with an enforcement action, and notice of violation and pending criminal or court action. Historically, it’s not an effective use of our time if we proceed with an enforcement action, the judge says, well, this is a site plan review use. Do you have a site plan application, he says, no, well, make one. It’s like is your car un-inspected, you know, yes, it’s un-inspected, well, get it inspected and then come back to me. It’s a similar thought process, I guess, on the part of a judge, but that is a policy. It’s not a written policy. That’s just been a historical policy. MR. MUNOFF-And I did get that answer, verbatim, from Chris on the phone, that it would be ineffective use of their time, because it would be, if it went before a judge. So I researched it that, and I did go to one of our Town judges, and in nine years, he’s never had one come across the bench, and he took offense that that was being used. Not enforcing it because of the time that it would take to bring it to court, that they would get a stay, and he said in nine years, one has never come. So, I’m a little confused why the law isn’t being enforced, and I understand, Chris has been very helpful, and I appreciate everybody listening to what I’m having to say, but I am concerned. There is a law. You have to have a site plan review to have a business, and I’m not, I’m just wondering, the guy that was going to sell used cars on the corner of Quaker Road and Bay, you remember that. I’m sure you do, he had to have a site plan review to sell the used cars. He couldn’t start selling the cars without the site plan review, but yet this one’s different, and if anyone could offer me a reasonable explanation as to why this is interpreted different than that, I’d like to hear it. MR. STONE-Because he probably asked. MR. MC NALLY-He went ahead and did it the right way. MR. STONE-There’s a difference. MR. MUNOFF-Okay. MR. ROUND-And I know, we’ve had discussions with Town Board members of Mr. Munoff’s concern. Also, and this is a unique situation, that this has evolved, and the people here themselves, it was a private greenhouse, evolved into road side stands, evolved into a commercial operation. So that also, it’s not, cars didn’t appear on a particular site and started a business. So it’s unique to this particular activity also, and I’m not making excuses. That’s my explanation. MR. MUNOFF-No, I understand. MR. ROUND-And complaints have been made to my predecessors, and information, in fairness to Mr. Bruhns, it was a road side stand or a seasonal produce, and that was allowed. So he’s been allowed to continue, and it has evolved into it where we’ve seen significant public input, and the character of the business has changed, and so that’s why we’re here tonight. MR. MUNOFF-Okay, and greenhouse takes the word “seasonal” right out of it. Greenhouse takes the word “seasonal” right out of this operation. Greenhouse is commercial. The size of that is commercial, and I guess the last thing I want to say, maybe Mr. Bruhns is growing everything on his property. The business on 149 has been approached, as to whether they could have some of their produce taken down there to sell. So I’m not so sure everything that Mr. Bruhns is selling has been grown on his property. I am sure of this. There’s an awful lot happening on that small piece of property, and it’s a matter of time before you have an accident backing out of there. That’s all I have to say. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in opposition? 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6//17/98) DOROTHY BURNHAM MRS. BURNHAM-I’m Dorothy Burnham, 56 Boulderwood Drive. I have a few comments to make about this which pertain, I would repeat what Mr. Davidson and a couple of other people have said about safety on that stretch of road. It is a passing zone, which makes it doubly unsafe in that particular, but my main concern is with the creeping commercialism in the Town, and I have lived here for 20 years, and I have businesses start up, similar to this, and grow and grow and grow. They’ve just been allowed to proceed, and historically what happens, they start out with the simple little sale of flowers. The next thing you know, there are additions, and there seems to be no end. A prime example of that is George Ryan’s property on 149, and having sat through many of the Zoning Board of Appeals meetings, Town Board meetings, and Planning Board meetings, he was starting with just a very simple operation. The next thing you know he has propane tanks and he has a variety of things going, and it just increases, and I’m very afraid that something like this, once started, will proceed unchecked. I also feel that because of the poor visibility, I fail to see how a commercial operation could really prosper there. Coming southbound, you almost cannot see the entrance to that property. It is dangerous. It is just totally inappropriate, and I feel that it is a self imposed hardship to have started this, and then has proceeded with it without the proper variances and without, I don’t know if a greenhouse needs a building permit. Perhaps it does not, but it was my understanding that an accessory building could not exceed 100 square feet. Is that true? MR. THOMAS-A storage shed can’t go over 100 square feet. The definition in the Zoning Ordinance for a greenhouse is, if it’s 300 square feet or less it’s considered a private greenhouse. If it’s over 300 square feet, it’s considered a commercial greenhouse. MRS. BURNHAM-But Mr. Bruhns has declared it a commercial greenhouse, in his application, according to the information that I have been furnished. I live behind him. I live in Grant Acres, adjacent to the Potter property, and my, the corner of my property probably touches the corner of his property, and another thing is, if a variance is granted, and I understand it goes with the land, not with the person, what assurance do we have that, in another year or two, there will not be another business added? Mr. Bruhns has teenage sons. Maybe they’d like to sell motorcycles or something. What assurance do we have that that sort of thing cannot happen? Can you put restrictions upon your, if the variance would be granted, can you put restrictions upon it that it must be confined simply to the sale of flowers grown on the property? MR. THOMAS-Yes, we can put stipulations, and stuff like that can be added. MRS. BURNHAM-But who enforces it? MR. THOMAS-The guy sitting on the end there in the blonde hair. He’s the Town Code Enforcement Officer, Craig Brown. MRS. BURNHAM-I’ve been away for about six months. So I’m sort of out of the loop. MR. THOMAS-Well, there’s been a big change of personnel down in there, too. MRS. BURNHAM-Yes, but I really think it is an inappropriate use of that property. It is an RR- 3A zone. If you start with this commercial operation, then someone across the street says, well he’s doing it. Maybe I could have some other kind of little business going, and the thing just snowballs. It just keeps growing and growing and growing, and I would very much, I would be very opposed to seeing this kind of creeping commercialism happen in this area. We have already, I have in the 20 years, I’ve spent about 18 years with a major problem of this nature on Pickle Hill Road, and it started with one truck. The man was driving one truck for his own purposes, and it grew into a heavy industry operation. So I feel very strongly that this should be denied. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Would anyone else like to speak in opposition? MARIANNE POTTER MRS. POTTER-I’m Marianne Potter, and I live at 52 Boulderwood Drive. We live west of John’s property where that barn is. We’re very much opposed to anything like this. John mowed, with his back hoe, mowed down our hedgerow. So we will be viewing all his commercialism over there, when all the leaves are off the trees. We have been. I don’t trust John because of what he’s done. He cut down our hedgerow without asking. He’s creeping on our property now with little piles of 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6//17/98) his stuff. So, I don’t want a commercial, I don’t want to look at it, to begin with, and we bought with the idea that there wouldn’t be anything commercial around there. It wasn’t zoned as such. So I’m opposed to spot zoning, which this is. MR. THOMAS-No. This isn’t spot zoning. It’s relief from the law. We aren’t changing the zone. We’re just giving relief from it. MRS. POTTER-Well, I’m against the relief, can I put it that way, because knowing John, as he doesn’t go by the rules. He started this without any permission or anything. So next year I feel he may be manufacturing greenhouses. So, we just, we’re against it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else who’d like to speak in opposition? If not, correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. June 12, 1998, Queensbury Planning Board, “Dear Sirs and Madames: As owner of the property directly north to John Bruhns’ home on Ridge Road, and owners of the property directly south, we are writing this letter in opposition of the re-zoning of Mr. Bruhns’ property from residential to commercial, and in opposition of a permit for year round produce sales on said property. Our reasons are many, and we will try to outline our concerns as succinctly as possible. First and foremost, we all know the residential property values in Queensbury have suffered much in the past years. We believe the placement of a commercial business within an established residential area would only further decrease the long term value of our properties. The specific structure, Ridge Road, under discussion here, is on one of the most dangerous areas of that road. There is certainly a blind spot when approaching the property from the south, and a commercial business in this area would only increase the risk of serious accidents. Having lived on Ridge Road for many, many years, we are well aware acquainted with this particular stretch. It also has one of the few passing zones directly in front of the property in question, which would further increase the danger of accidents by people pulling out while someone is passing from the north. Many of us are small business owners, and we had to search long and hard for the appropriate location for our businesses, in order to ensure success and comply with the zoning laws in place. Never did it occur to us to ask that our homes be re-zoned just for our convenience. We also realize that would be unrealistic and unfair to ask this of our neighbors. We have spent hours looking at commercial properties, and we suggest Mr. Bruhns do the same, as he has major competition right on the corner of Route 149 and Ridge Road. We are not sure the area needs another similar business. Placing his business at the site of his home would do little to boost the success of his business. Having dealt with Mr. Bruhns on other property uses, we’ve found him to very unreliable on what he says he’s going to do versus what he actually does. For years, he has encroached upon both of our properties to the north and south, regardless of the number of times we have asked him not to do so. At times, his response to our request has been quite volatile, and in the end, they fell on deaf ears. Therefore, we have little faith that he will confine his business to what he has proposed. For example, it should be known to the Board that Mr. Bruhns had already set up a commercial sign, which was removed at the request of the adjacent property owner. We think this shows how he does what he wants, regardless of the zoning regulations that were put in place to protect the environment and the surrounding residential community. We have great concern over what he will actually do if his residence is re-zoned for commercial use. We do understand, at the times, zoning laws need to be changed, especially when they benefit the community, re: a new road or a community health center, a church, or needed retail stores, but we do not believe they should be changed for the benefit of one person. We sincerely hope the petitioner’s request will be denied. Sincerely, Patricia Gavin, Cathleen Martinez, Lillian Gavin, Margaret Gavin, Isobel Munoff, and Joanne Gavin” “To Whom It May Concern: This letter is to express our concerns to both the Site Plan Review Committee and the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding John Bruhn’s proposal for commercial use of his property. We are requesting this letter be read at each meeting concerning this matter (Wednesday, June, 17, 1998 & Thursday, June 18, 1998). As an owner of the property adjacent to that of John Bruhn’s, I am adamantly opposed to his being granted any special consideration for the commercial use of his residential property. There are several points I would like to make to provide a rationale for my objections. These objections are based on legal, ethical, experiential, practical, and personal points. First, and I would hope foremost, is Mr. Bruhn’s blatant disregard for the legal protocol for establishing a commercial business. Mr. Bruhns began this most recent venture some time ago. At first it seemed he was developing his property in such a way as to use it for gardening purposes. He put up a large greenhouse and a large open pole-barn type structure near the road. Although these structures seemed large for personal use, there was no indication that he might “go commercial”. In more recent months it has become apparent that this was exactly what he intended all along. He has been operating commercially without having followed the “rules” as any other prospective business owner would have to do. What he has established to date, before getting proper approvals 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6//17/98) because it might be unlikely that a commercial business would be approved, seems to be in violation of Town Law. His property does not meet the three acre requirement that is necessary for operation of a commercial business in a residential zone. Even if it did, it seems his business would not be a seasonal venture. He has erected a commercial size greenhouse which is an indication that the business would likely be year round. In addition, his property does not meet the setback requirement. Mr. Bruhn’s did not consult with the Town prior to beginning construction and operation of his business. He had hung out his sign and opened his doors for business long before attempting to follow the proper protocol. Had he done so he probably would not be operating at this moment. He has blatantly defied the Town’s zoning and commercial business operation laws by going into business before filing applications, providing plan documentation, etc., etc. Only when he received a warning about operating without the appropriate approvals did he begin the process we are engaged in at present. Perhaps he thought it would be easier to gain the Town’s approval if he “had it all there” first. It should be noted that if Mr. Bruhn’s attempts to persuade the Town on the grounds of “hardship”, it would be better described as “self-imposed”. Mr. Bruhn’s has a history of “doing first, asking later”. The only hardship that exists now is the one he has imposed on his neighbors through his own self serving interest. There is no commercial establishment on Ridge Road between Stewart’s, at the junction of 9L and Route 149, and the Ridge Terrace Restaurant. Essentially, Mr. Bruhns is asking that the Town allow spot zoning for his proposed business, a zoning practice which seems to have been very much against the Town’s direction in the most recent years. For a number of reasons the Town should stick with its stand against spot zoning in this case. The property has been residence, in a residential area, for as long as anyone can remember. It is on a 55 mile per hour highway, on a straight-a-way that allows for passing. His property has no provision for parking or turn around. This is an extremely dangerous situation. Already cars have been witnessed backing out of his driveway, unaware of the dangers of passing and often speeding cars. There is a great potential here for a fatal accident waiting to happen. Spot zoning in this case would also detract from the residential character of the neighborhood, open the gate for increasing encroachment of commercial upon residential property, and in turn reduce the already declining residential real estate values. In my own case with this situation at least two potential sales have been terminated because the buyers were very much afraid of what “the next door neighbor was developing”. They stated they did not want to live next to a commercial property. They were also questioning the number of heavy equipment vehicles Mr. Bruhns stores on his property for his other commercial business. In closing, I am asking the Board to deny any considerations or variances that would allow any commercial business of any nature to exist on Mr. Bruhn’s property. I ask this not only because of this one request that is being brought forth, but to prevent any commercial development along this part of Route 9L. Should you deny his request, I would also ask that you provide assurance that his business be “deconstructed” and that he not be allowed to “start up” at will in the future. Thank you for your consideration of these points I have made above. I would be happy to expand on any of the concerns I have outlined. I trust you will act in the best interest of the residential neighborhood and the integrity of the Town Law. Sincerely, Isobel Munoff Property Co-owner” Neal B. and Leisha Hubbell, 1680 Ridge Road, Queensbury, NY “Town of Queensbury, We have no disapproval regarding the operation of the commercial greenhouse and road side stand owned by John Bruhns. From our direct view of the Bruhns we feel the sign as well as the commercial greenhouse were constructed in good taste and blends in well with the community. The sign does not block your view at all driving either way on Ridge Road. Both John and Alice Bruhns have always been considerate neighbors. Neal and I own and operate a home-based business in Washington County and know the importance of community support. We both feel the principle of supporting your community is being forgotten in society today. Very truly yours, Leisha and Neal Hubbell” MR. THOMAS-All right, that’s it for correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-Yes, that’s it for correspondence. MR. THOMAS-Does anyone have any questions for Mr. Bruhns? MRS. LAPHAM-I had one. The greenhouse, if it was under 300 square feet, it wasn’t commercial, but if it’s over 300 square feet, it is? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MRS. LAPHAM-How big is the greenhouse? MR. BRUHNS-616. 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6//17/98) MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. That was probably in my notes somewhere and I forgot. Okay. MR. THOMAS-Are there any other questions for Mr. Bruhns? Is there anything else you’d like to add, Mr. Bruhns, or answer any of the concerns of the neighbors that you’ve heard, or letters? MR. BRUHNS-Well, there’s a lot that was in that letter that’s very, very debatable. First of all, I did come to Queensbury last year, when I was putting the posts in for the greenhouse. I was told I didn’t need a permit, building permit. I asked them at that time about the sign, and they said there was no problem. They handed me a form that simply stated that it’s going to cost you $2 a square foot for a sign. So all it is stuff about me going ahead and building and doing this, I don’t know where they got this information. It’s completely bogus. I was to the Town. I did ask about the sign. I did ask about the greenhouse. I was told that I could operate up to 100 square foot of a produce stand, or whatever, on that property. I happen to have 64 square feet. I was told I could have a sign up to 32 square feet. I have a sign that’s three square feet. I never thought I would hear such animosity over somebody trying to sell a hanging basket with petunias. There’s a lot of other things that were mentioned here about mowing properties, and hedge lines, which is all very, very debatable, I might add, but has nothing to do with this at this time. If anybody would like to debate that further, I’d be more than glad to show them lines and pictures and photographs exactly, and I do have photographs. I also am a photographer. I have albums and albums of pictures, and a lot of it concerning this property, and development of, the improvement of. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there anymore questions for Mr. Bruhns? MR. STONE-One question I would ask. In your submittal, we have something in here which looks like covenants in a deed. Did you present this? MR. BRUHNS-Yes. There’s something that’s on my deed, it was put in back in the early 50’s, that says that that piece of property is allowable for running a grocery store, an antique shop, a wood craft shop, or any other number of building type. MR. STONE-That’s the previous owner putting a covenant. It has no basis in law, but it doesn’t say anything about a commercial produce operation or a flower operation, and it specifically says, as you just said, hobby, workshop, grocery store, clothing store, antique shop or gift shop, according to the covenants. That doesn’t have any bearing on the Town, but I was just curious why you might have submitted this, which seems to be restrictive of your own use of the property. MR. BRUHNS-Well, because in my opinion, a 64 square foot table out front that’s got some petunias and impatience on it for sale is far less than a grocery store, antique store, wood craft shop, where you’re talking a building here. You’re talking lights, neon, whatever. I have a stand out there. The stand is operational from Mother’s Day, through Memorial Day weekend, when everybody has their tomatoes and their pepper plants are done. Then I’m done with it. Then it’s all over. I don’t know why they assume that because I’ve got a greenhouse out there, it’s a year round operation. What am I going to grow in the fall and the winter? What are you going to sell in the winter? Who’s going to pay for the heat to grow what in the winter? I don’t think so. It’s still a two month operation, no matter what is out in back. MR. STONE-I would point out to you that the letter you submitted yourself, in support, uses the word “commercial”, in the letter that was given, that was just read, your letter. MR. BRUHNS-Because she was (lost words) it’s a commercial operation. MR. STONE-She used the letter, and you submitted it with that word in it. MR. BRUHNS-I don’t want to have to go on with it, where it’s going to, you know, and cause legal expenses to prove that this is an exempt, on site, growing on site, selling of an agricultural product. MR. THOMAS-Any other questions? All right. If not, lets talk about it. MR. ROUND-I don’t know if you closed the public hearing. MR. THOMAS-If not, I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6//17/98) MR. THOMAS-But I thought I did, right after all the letters were read. Bonnie, I’ll start with you this time. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. Usually, I really feel quite sympathetic to the neighbors concerns, but in this case, due to my own lifestyle, I really feel very strongly about the freedom to enjoy a person’s hobby. Now we were there. My husband and I stopped there last night to talk to Mr. Bruhns and look over the site and all, and we were there probably about 45 minutes, and the only car that I saw that even tried to come in was his wife, who we were blocking. I’ve been up and down Ridge Road, day after day, for one thing or another. We have property at the lake, and we live on Ridge Road near town, and I never even knew it was there. So, it doesn’t seem, and I asked Mr. Bruhns before, when we had questions, is he there all day to sell these plants or is his wife there all day to sell plants, and he said no. So, it would just seem to me that this had to be a hobby. How much money can you make in two hours a night for, you know, a few nights a week, and maybe a weekend, when there’s really no publicity or no real signage with this, and as I say, it struck me much more as a hobby, and I really feel strongly about that. In fact, a few months back, when we did the quilt lady, the only reason that I think I voted against that was because she said, I am here to sell these quilts, and then we discovered, too, that she had other artisans coming in, which did make it much more commercial. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Brian? MR. CUSTER-When I do the balancing, it’s pretty obvious by granting a variance, we benefit the applicant by allowing him to operate his road side stand and greenhouse, and I’m not against that, per se, because I think it’s a clean operation. It’s something, it’s a nice type of business, and in some ways I can help you, assist you in doing that, I’m for that. The feasible alternatives are, it would be nice if he could buy additional property, because that leads into Number Three, the relief we need to grant is, in my estimation, fairly substantial. You need three acres. You’re asking for one or one and a half acres of relief. I find that substantial to the effects of the variance. The effects on the neighborhood or community is more or less where I have most of my concerns, and I think it’s more traffic safety and things that have been addressed here tonight. Again, I listen to Bonnie, I hear that traffic may be light. I’ve been up and down Ridge Road many times over the last few years, and I think it varies at times, when that peak traffic is there or not, but I do have problems with that, and I’m not sure that that’s been adequately addressed at this point in time, and again, I think the difficulty is self created because of, you’re trying to have a business here. So I’m kind of on the fence right now. I’d like to hear what the rest of the Board has to say before I make my final determination. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jamie? MR. HAYES-I think that, you know, as much as I found Mr. Bruhns property tasteful and almost elegant in a way myself, that particular nature of Ridge Road is, in my opinion, one of the nicest parts of our community, as it stands, but unfortunately we’re bound by the Ordinances as they’re written, and we’re really bound to stick by that, and the definition of commercial venture, I think, as it stands now, as it’s written now, I think that Mr. Bruhns operation does fall in that, and therefore I think he needs a variance. So, when I look at the parts of the test that are involved in that, you know, the feasible alternatives, I think at this particular point he could stay with the stand that was in compliance with the Code. As Brian said, the relief is definitely substantial. He needs more than 100% of the property than he has now. The neighbors have shown up in force to voice a negative, their view of a negative impact on that particular community, and it’s difficult to say that this difficulty was not self created. I think Mr. Davidson’s comments that these particular businesses creep in nature, as far as their intensity, I think that that is a truthful statement. If my only concern is that, you know, as far as in favor of Mr. Bruhns, is that the comments were made, why are we here, why is this even happening, and I do believe Mr. Bruhns has a right to be here, to speak what he believes to be the definitions and the issues at hand, and I think that’s an important aspect of this Board, and that when it was mentioned that there’s creeping commercialism in Queensbury, I don’t think that that’s true at all. I think that, if anything, through substantial business contacts in this community, and personal experience, I think that enforcement in Queensbury is exemplary. So I don’t think that when it comes to making a decision about this particular property, I think we can have confidence in our own staff. So, I would say right now, I think his arguments have not carried the day, as far as this meeting the Area Variance criteria. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew? MR. STONE-Basically, I feel exactly the same way. Safety is one of the prime concerns. I drove there today to look at your property. The growth, while it’s attractive, is right out to the road. It 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6//17/98) makes it almost impossible for anybody approaching to see somebody coming out of your driveway, and probably impossible for them to come out of your driveway safely. I did not do that. I parked on the road, and then I thought I was in, I had my flasher lights on, and I was very concerned that I was still on the roadway, and I wasn’t particularly comfortable with that, but going to the five things that we have to consider, whether the benefit can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant, obviously, they cannot. You want to take a residential zone and turn it into a commercial operation. That’s the only way to do that, I mean, otherwise not be in business, or you could buy another acre and a half of land, and then say I’m going to be a commercial operation, but there’s definitely an undesirable change in the neighborhood, or the character of nearby properties, as evidenced by neighbors on all sides, from the north, from the south, from the west. Obviously, on the east side, we’ve got Ridge Road, which, in itself, is saying to me, I don’t like it, because I don’t think it’s very safe for this operation to be there, particularly with the two or three signs, or the two signs, at least, that I saw on either side of your driveway. One, they attract attention, but at the same time, they may startle somebody going by and trying to figure out what it is they’re coming to. It’s no doubt that the request is substantial. You’ve gone from what you call a hobby, and you like to still call a hobby, to a commercial operation. It’s just too much. You’ve got a 616 foot commercial greenhouse on the property. You have other structures, some of which are very attractive. I think your arbor is very attractive, but you also have equipment on the property. You’ve got a back hoe. You’ve got a truck. They really don’t, in my judgment, I don’t like to see them in residential neighborhoods. Lets put it that way. Obviously, if you’re in business, and you drive a truck to work, you certainly can park it on your property, a truck. You can only drive one vehicle at a time. If you get more than that, then you’re starting to get too much. The request will have an adverse effect on physical or environmental situations, if nothing else, just by all of the equipment and all of the building you have on the property. After a while, as pretty as it might be, it becomes cluttered. One wonders why an operation that is supposedly a residential home has paved driveways, long paved driveways, with access to a paved area to the left, a paved area to the right. It certainly is self created. You bought a home in 1965, I think it says, which was zoned, probably wasn’t even zoned RR-3A, but it has been 3A ever since you’ve been there. You’ve known it’s been RR-3A, and you knew the limits, and now you’re becoming a commercial operation. I see no justification, for myself, to grant this variance. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I’d like to know what the order of your choosing is, and what is your method? MR. THOMAS-The order of my choosing? Bonnie, being a commercial appraiser. MRS. LAPHAM-Well, I’m not a commercial appraiser. MR. THOMAS-Well, you’re an appraiser. MRS. LAPHAM-I’m a residential appraiser. MR. THOMAS-You’re an appraiser. MRS. LAPHAM-Certified. MR. THOMAS-Certified, and Mr. McNally. MR. MC NALLY-When I balance Mr. Bruhns’ benefit against the community’s safety, welfare and health, we look at these five factors, and I think everyone’s touched on the benefit to the applicant and the feasible alternatives, and I’m not going to repeat, but I do agree with everyone has said before. When I went by this property, I was struck by the fact that this is a commercial operation. With all due respect to you, sir, I don’t think people are upset, as you said before, that you’re selling a single hanging basket with petunias. Because when I went by there, I counted to about 60, and then I stopped, because I didn’t want to go any further. You have hanging baskets displayed across the entire frontage of your property along the road, 60 of them. When I was there, I must have seen 30 little pine trees, in big black pots, maybe one or two gallon sizes. It’s not the kind of things where you plant a couple for yourself and you have some left over and you put it out front for your neighbors. You had innumerable flats of plants. I was thinking of buying one of your window boxes, but there must have been a dozen of them out there, and again, you build window boxes and you plant window boxes, for one and only one purpose, and that’s to sell the things. It is clear, and I don’t think there’s any question, you’ve got a commercial gardening enterprise in your home, at your home. Bonnie’s touched on, you know, the amount of money is 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6//17/98) probably minimal, which is probably true, but I don’t think there’s been any evidence, as far as what you are or are not making, what profit you are or are not making on this property, and even if you did, I don’t think the amount of profit that you’re making is determinative. The question is, is it a commercial use, and the number of signs that said, a buck fifty a flat, $12.95 a hanging basket, $22.95 for a window box, they were spread throughout that entire property. It was just as if any Gardentime or any other commercial area nursery, you were set up the same way. I was struck by that. It may be seasonal, but I’ll tell you, during the summer time, it’s a purely business/commercial operation. You don’t have to be there to be a commercial business. You’re set up, you can sell a large volume. So as far as I can tell, you’re asking for substantial relief. I don’t find it a hobby. I did find it a danger. I got behind Lew and parked on the street, too, and I had to actually keep my door shut a few times, because I was in the road trying to get out. MR. BRUHNS-You shouldn’t have parked in the road. Why didn’t you pull in the driveway? MR. MC NALLY-Because I couldn’t tell I could turn around when I got in there. All I saw, sir, coming up on your property, was a road leading, and I didn’t know how else anyone else could get in or out. So I chose, perhaps I could have driven in, but I chose to park on the edge of the road. I think that there is substantial safety impacts, and that these impacts would be on the neighborhood, and it’s a negative impact. Is the difficulty self created? I don’t think, it may have started as a hobby, but it’s gone beyond that. So I think that, if you elected to pursue a commercial interest in this way, then it is self created. With respect to the Sign Ordinance setback, I don’t have any, I haven’t seen any evidence to us today that would indicate that you should not have to comply with the setback requirements, and for the same reason, if you have a nonconforming sign, I don’t think anything you’ve presented to us indicates that you should be entitled to a nonconforming sign. So, I’d be opposed to this application, very strongly, I’m afraid. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I agree with what Lew and Bob said. They went through the balancing test here with all of the five different things that we have to consider, and, to me, it’s already been said four other times. Can it be achieved by some other means? No. An undesirable change in the neighborhood character or nearby properties? According to the testimony and letters that we’ve gotten, yes, it would be an undesirable change. Is the request substantial? Definitely. Whether the request will have an adverse physical environmental effect? That one there you’d have to think about for a while, but I don’t, it would have some adverse physical, due to the safety, but, as far as the traffic and noise, stuff like that, that all goes to the Planning Board. That’s what they take care of. Is the alleged difficulty self created? It’s definitely self created, because Mr. Bruhns started out maybe as a hobby, with a greenhouse, a small one. I don’t know what size he started out with, but I know now he’s got a commercial greenhouse at 616 square feet. So, to me, there’s no way that I could grant this variance, no way whatsoever. It’s too substantial. Having said that, I would ask for a motion. MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 35-1998 JOHN P. BRUHNS , Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally: 1689 Ridge Road. The applicant proposes operation of a 616 square foot commercial greenhouse, which is already erected, and a road side stand on the same lot with a residence in the RR-3A zone. To grant this variance, we would have to give 1.57 acres of relief from the three acre area requirement of the RR-3 zone, and relief from the Sign Ordinance, Section 140, for both setback requirements, and for a non permitted sign style to be defined, style in question. In denying this motion, we have considered the five criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267 of Town Law. One, the benefit to the applicant. It is agreed that the applicant would benefit by being permitted to operate a commercial greenhouse and road side stand. Two, feasible alternatives. There are feasible alternatives, one, not doing anything on this property and using it as zoned, as a residential property, as it was for many, many years, or acquiring additional land, and we’ve heard tonight that that is almost an impossibility, as far as neighbors are concerned who own the land on all sides of him. In our judgment, the relief requested was substantial, namely 1.57 acres of relief. The effects on the neighborhood or community were thought to be substantial, in terms of visual impact of the commercial operation, the amount of traffic generated, the safety aspects for cars moving along Ridge Road and cars egressing the property, and it is agreed that the difficulty is self created. The land was bought as a residential land, and his hobby has turned into a commercial operation. th Duly adopted this 17 day of June, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Custer, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas 42 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6//17/98) NOES: Mrs. Lapham ABSENT: Mr. Porter MR. THOMAS-I’m sorry, the application is denied. MR. BRUHNS-All right, so what do I do up there? MR. THOMAS-You’ll have to talk to Mr. Round. He can tell you what you can do. Okay. All right. There’s one thing left, approval of minutes. CORRECTION OF MINUTES May 20, 1998: NONE MOTION THAT THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 20, 1998 BE APPROVED AS PRINTED , Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Custer: th Duly adopted this 17 day of June, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Custer, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mrs. Lapham ABSENT: Mr. Porter May 27, 1998: NONE MOTION TO ACCEPT THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING NOTES AS PRINTED , Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Custer: th Duly adopted this 17 day of June, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Custer, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mrs. Lapham ABSENT: Mr. Porter MR. THOMAS-Okay. Does anyone else have any business before the Board? If not, I’ll make a motion to adjourn. MR. CUSTER-Second. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Thomas, Chairman 43