Loading...
1999-05-26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/99) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING MAY 26, 1999 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS THOMAS, CHAIRMAN PAUL HAYES LEWIS STONE CHARLES MC NULTY ROBERT MC NALLY MEMBERS ABSENT BONNIE LAPHAM DANIEL STEC CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI AREA VARIANCE NO. 18-1999 TYPE II WR-1A JOHN STAALESEN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE GLEN LAKE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 3,626 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO EXISTING (870 SQ. FT. ) CAMP. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND FOR EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. ALSO RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM THE SHORELINE AND WETLAND REGULATIONS. CROSS REF. SPR 15-99 TAX MAP NO. 43-2-1.1 LOT SIZE: 1.42 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-79, 179-60. RON RUCINSKI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. THOMAS-The members have a new map submitted by Mr. Rucinski. MR. RUCINSKI-We’ve pushed the building back so that the front of the building facing Glen Lake is fully meeting the 50-foot setback requirement. We are still maintaining a connection to the existing camp, and that connection, then, the porch that is attached too, still, violates the shoreline setback on that side by 12 feet. There was some concern expressed at the last meeting about the size of the footprint of the residence, and it dawned on me tonight that a couple of you weren’t here the first night that this came before the Board, and if you’ll just bear with me, I’ll give you a quick background. The Staalesen’s own a home in Wilton, NY that is three stories, and I’m going to guess that it’s 5,000 square feet. Mrs. Staalesen has an arthritis problem that is steadily getting worse, and they were looking to move or build a one story house that would accommodate her needs, should she ever become wheelchair bound, and a house that she could take care of if she were in a wheelchair, and this property happened to come on the market, and it met their needs in two ways, one, being on the lake, and being if she does become housebound, you know, it’s a place to be that’s fun to be, even if you can’t participate, and secondly, it gave them an opportunity to build a one story house. So that’s how we get to the one story house. Unfortunately, the water table on the site, well, even if the water table weren’t that high, the water table is about four or five feet below existing finished grade. So a basement is not possible. So, we’re trying to design a house that has storage space that you and I would use in a basement. Well, I wouldn’t use it in a basement. I wouldn’t have a basement, but that you might use in a basement, that has to be put above grade, and that got us to the three-car garage, and a large storeroom. If we look at the footprint, in terms of actual living space, it’s four bedrooms and 2600 square feet, which is not a large house. I mean, it’s not a small house, but it’s not a large house either. MR. STONE-Does that include the old cottage? MR. RUCINSKI-That includes the camp, and again, I’ve got to emphasize, I have a feeling sometimes some of you don’t believe me. The camp is an integral part of their living space. They have a large family, many, many children, many, many grandchildren. They have a mother-in-law that spends summers with them, and their social life revolves around their family and family visits, and most of their children live in the Capital District, well, all of John’s children live in the Capital District, and most of his brother’s children live in the Capital District, but far enough away that coming to Glen Lake is going to be overnight visits, in many, many instances. So they’re trying to build a space, continue the family gatherings that they normally have, that they’re used to having, and in the fashion that they’re used to doing, and that’s why the footprint may seem large, but it suits their lifestyles and will accommodate Mrs. Staalesen’s personal needs, and I’ll stop there. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/99) MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any questions for Mr. Rucinski? MR. STONE-Yes, well, first of all, let me say that I appreciate your willingness and Mrs. Staalesen’s willingness to listen to our concerns. I, for one, think that you have done an admirable job of listening and trying to come to where we think we are, but the question I just have, you just mentioned it, you talked about large family, large number of overnight visitors. How big is the septic system? Is this being sized for all of this activity? MR. RUCINSKI-The septic system is sized for the bedroom count, based on the Town standards. This is primarily weekend activity that during the week, once Number Five, whichever son, the last son, once he moves out, he’s graduating from high school in a few weeks, during the week, it’s going to be basically two people. Usually engineers say you can have a peak load on the weekend, if you’ve got a rest period, it’s not a problem. On the other hand, if somebody wants to impose a higher standard on sewage disposal, we can deal with it. MR. STONE-It’s not our concern. MR. RUCINSKI-But usually if you have these gangs there, and it is a crowd. They’ll have 15, 20 people or more. If that were on an ongoing basis, for weeks on end or something, it would really challenge that sewage disposal system, but for a couple of days, and then a week rest, it’s a non-issue. MR. STONE-I ask that question because I know around the lake, Glen Lake and Lake George, there are a lot of rental properties that people jam in an inordinate amount of people for weeks on end, for septic systems that weren’t designed for more than two people to begin with. MR. RUCINSKI-Yes, I know exactly what you mean. No, this is their, this will be their year round residence. It’s not a rental. MR. STONE-Does this have to go to Site Plan, I assume? MR. THOMAS-Yes, it’s in a CEA. Are there anymore questions? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for Mr. Rucinski? MR. STONE-What’s the construction of the hallway? What’s it going to look like, the connecting hallway from the outside? MR. RUCINSKI-We really haven’t designed it. Mrs. Staalesen is really into plants, and we have a solarium which will be sort of greenhouse like, and I envision this connection link being glassed on two sides, with a roof that would be like an extension of her solarium, I mean, you know, like a plant space. MR. STONE-With thermal windows and all that? MR. RUCINSKI-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-You are proposing it’s a one-story structure throughout? MR. RUCINSKI-Yes. It’s one story or an elevator, and I’m not getting in elevators. MR. THOMAS-Any other questions? Lets talk about it. MR. MC NULTY-Well, I like what’s been done with the new part. I am still bothered about the existing camp. I have a little trouble seeing the logic of why they want to hang on to the rather than add that much space to the new proposal, and while before it bothered me because the main house was into the setback, now it bothers me because we’ve almost got two separate residences on the property, and the only reason we don’t have two separate ones is because of the long hallway. I’m not sure which way I want to go on this. I guess I’ll see what other people have to say, but I’d love to see that old camp torn down and just that space added to the new structure. MR. THOMAS-All right. Bob? 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/99) MR. MC NALLY-This is the third time the applicant has been here, and on each occasion they’ve made concessions to the request that we’ve made. They’ve moved the main structure back, in large part, within the 50-foot setback. So that makes me happy, that there’s been compliance with the Ordinance. There is still the small portion 12 feet extended into the setback, which in my opinion is not significant. The camp is existing, and again, I don’t really necessarily see the common sense of having it connected to the main structure, but if this is what the people want, by taking down the bunkhouse, they’ve made a concession of removing something from the frontage in exchange for maintaining the old residence. So I don’t really think that the relief that they’ve requested is substantial, and I don’t really see any significant effect on the neighborhood. If this is what they want, it’s not, in my opinion, something we should stand in the way of. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jaime? MR. HAYES-Well, I agree with Bob, essentially. There’s clearly been an evolution of plans put forth to the Board that have really exhausted feasible alternatives toward the positive, and the effort has been made, as Lew pointed out earlier. This is a large lot to begin with, which provides for, you know, even though it is a significant footprint, this is a very large piece of property, and I don’t think it’s being overbuilt or overdeveloped, in my mind. I also agree with Bob that the portion of the new building that’s planned to be within the setback requirements is relatively insignificant, considering the change that this new plan represents, as far as where the overall house is. Most of the encroachment has been removed, to the point where this is the only practical alternative to connecting to the old camp. So, I feel that, in that sense, that the preservation of the CEA has been obtained, to all practical senses, and therefore, I don’t think there’s a detriment to the neighborhood, and I think the benefit to the applicant, including the possible retirement of the Misses, in this circumstance, places the balance of the test in favor of the applicant. So I would be in favor of it. MR. THOMAS-All right. Lew? MR. STONE-Well, as I said earlier, I applaud the applicant’s willingness to consider our concerns and to make these concessions. Obviously, the bunkhouse was always going to go, but it’s still a concession to the property that is an existing structure. Commonsense tells me that, as far as the lake is concerned, we are not really encroaching on the lake any more than the old cottage was, even though there is a requirement for a variance for 12 feet of relief from St. Mary’s Bay, but I think, as both Jaime and Bob said, that’s minimal. If I had my druthers, I would like to see the other thing removed because I would like to get everything in compliance, but it’s there. It’s been there for a number of years. It’s not going to be any worse by being there and being connected to the house. As I said, however, I would love it not to be there, but considering everything else, and considering where we started and considering the size of the lot and the fact that it is not going to overburden the lot, and it’s not really going to encroach upon the CEA, I would vote in favor of it. MR. THOMAS-All right. I agree with the other Board members. The applicant has made two concessions that we have requested. As far as the existing camp that’s there, it’s there, and it’s been there for a long time. So we really can’t say much about there. The applicant has it configured the way he would like it to be, and I think he has done an admirable job on it. I don’t have any problem, like Bob said, with the 38 foot setback on the St. Mary’s Bay side, because really that’s just their own waterfront. So, having said that, I would ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 18-1999 JOHN STAALESEN, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally: Glen Lake Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 3,777 square foot addition to an existing 870 square foot camp, construction of a new driveway, parking areas and construction of a new sewage disposal area, and on-site stormwater management. Specifically, the applicant requests 12 feet of relief from the 50-foot minimum shoreline setback requirement of both the WR-1A zone, Section 179-16, and the Shoreline and Wetland Regulations, Section 179-60. Since the existing structures do not meet the setback requirements, nor will the portion of the addition, and the proposed expansion is well in excess of 50% of the existing floor area. Therefore, relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure is requested, per Section 179-79. The allowable 50% expansion of the existing camp would be 435 square feet. The applicant is requesting 3,342 square feet of relief from the 50% requirement. We’ll reference the most recent submission from the applicant. The construction shall be in accordance with the plans submitted by Rucinski Architecture, 24 May 1999. The benefit to the applicant would be that he would be permitted to increase the living space of an existing camp. The feasible alternatives are limited, based on the shoreline setback requirements and the fact that they are trying to attach to the existing camp. Is the relief substantial to the Ordinance? I don’t believe that the 12 feet of relief is substantial, based on the fact that the CEA has been protected in almost every direction, outside of this small encroachment, which is, in fact, there to attach the camps. As far as the Floor Area Ratio, that relief is substantial, but I believe there is no negative impact on the neighborhood. Therefore, the weight falls in favor of approving, and as far as effects on the neighborhood or community, I believe that the improvement of the property in a way 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/99) that is satisfactory and protects the environment will be an improvement in the neighborhood, and therefore I move for its approval. Duly adopted this 26 day of May, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Stec MR. THOMAS-There you go. MR. RUCINSKI-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 31-1999 TYPE II WR-1A CEA HAROLD A. SMITH OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ROUTE 9L TO HANNEFORD ROAD APPROX. ½ MILE, NEW CONSTRUCTION ON RIGHT SIDE OF ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 4 FT. BY 60 FT. WRAP AROUND DECK ATTACHED TO A NEW 3-CAR GARAGE/APARTMENT AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF. CROSS REF. SPR 21-94 SPR 30-94 AV 52-1993 AV 27-1994 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING TAX MAP NO. 19-1-57.4 LOT SIZE: 0.23 ACRES SECTION: 179-16 HAROLD SMITH, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 31-1999, Harold A. Smith, Meeting Date: May 26, 1999 “Project Location: Hannaford Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 240 square foot wrap around deck and seeks setback relief. Relief Required: Applicant requests approximately 4 feet” This number is going to change from 4 feet to 5.7 feet, “of relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback requirement, and one foot of side setback relief from the 20 foot requirement of the WR-1A zone, § 179-16. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct an accessory structure in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may appear to be limited to no construction, as a deck along the sides would not appear to satisfy the applicant’s wishes. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 5.7 feet of relief from the 30-foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. This construction should have been considered during the original design. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV52-1993 res. 1/19/94 lot width SPR38-1994 res. 4/18/95 PB review as condition of variance modified 10/20/98 Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. An as built survey, necessary for new construction, will yield accurate setback dimensions and relief requested. If the existing structure does not meet the setback requirements, it shall be deemed nonconforming and any addition thereto will be expansion of a nonconforming structure. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. BROWN-And also since the construction is shown on this as-built survey, doesn’t meet the setback requirements, you want to consider relief for the structure itself? MR. STONE-Was it advertised, though? MR. BROWN-It wasn’t advertised that way, no. MR. MC NALLY-Your application is just for the deck. MR. BROWN-Just for the deck, okay. MR. THOMAS-Yes. When was it, back in ’94 when he got a variance to put the building up? MR. BROWN-The variance was to create a lot, a nonconforming lot. They didn’t need a variance for the building. They just needed to create the lot. MR. THOMAS-What was the ’93 variance? 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/99) MR. STONE-Lot width, it says here. MR. BROWN-Yes, to create a lot with less than the required lot width. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. BROWN-So we’ll address that another time. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. BROWN-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form 6 May 1999 Project Name: Smith, Harold ID #: QBY-AV-31-1999 County Project #: May99-33 Current Zoning: Residential Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes to construct a 4’ x 60’ wrap around deck attached to a new 3-car garage/apartment. Staff Notes: A copy of the applicant’s site drawing is included with the summaries. It appears that the only dimensional issue from this application is that the front yard setback is required to be at 30’ and the applicant is proposing 26’. The difference of 4’ in setback from a Town road does not appear to impact County resources. County Planning Board Recommendation: NCI” Terry Ross, Warren County Planning Board” MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. Smith, is there anything else you want to add, tell us about? MR. SMITH-Just, when I was in here before we had had some water drainage problems, and that’s what caused some of the shifting of the unit itself to make an excess of a pond, which I built the whole water retention, that one of the neighbors was having a problem with runoff, and that’s sort of what shifted when we went to do the foundation, everything, but I've come in here before when we’d had a problem with one of the neighbors with runoff. MR. MC NALLY-What did you just say? How does that effect tonight’s application? MR. SMITH-Well, as far as, when they had started talking, as far as the setbacks on the side and everything, that the building did get shifted to the south of it, because of the building of the pond and such. MR. MC NALLY-That’s not on tonight’s application, though. MR. THOMAS-No. MR. STONE-Craig, what you gave us, this is not the as-built survey, is it? MR. BROWN-Yes, it is. MR. STONE-I see, the building itself is just slightly, that’s all he needs is about less than a foot, for that 30-foot setback? MR. BROWN-From the south side it’s 28.3. MR. STONE-So that’s 1.7 there. MR. BROWN-Right, but when you put the four foot deck on, now you’re at 5. MR. STONE-Okay, but the building is in violation, as it sits on the property. MR. HAYES-That corner. MR. BROWN-That’s correct, that corner. The other corner is 29.9. MR. HAYES-What’s the side setback on this? MR. BROWN-Twenty. MR. HAYES-Twenty, so that’s fine, the other part’s fine. MR. BROWN-The building sits fine for the side setback, but the four-foot deck would be in violation. MR. STONE-When you read the application, you said, you read the words “three car garage” and you didn’t say with apartment. The apartment was always part of the variance that was granted? I mean, it was supposed to have the living structure with garage underneath, always was that way? 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/99) MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-You couldn’t have a garage on a separate lot without a living structure. MR. STONE-I understand that. That’s why I asked the question. MR. MC NALLY-And this map, have we resolved ourselves where Hannaford Road really is, or wide Hannaford Road really is? We're taking it from the macadam, and that’s the extent of the Town’s right of way? MR. THOMAS-According to this survey, it’s almost right there at the macadam. MR. STONE-The property line and the road are just about, almost the same, but there’s two feet, 1.7 and 2.2 difference. MR. THOMAS-This isn’t a signed survey map, either. It hasn’t got a stamp on it. MR. SMITH-It will be, it’s just in a, I had it done just recently, and he just, I’ll get it stamped. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is there any reason you couldn’t put that deck on the side of the building on the north side, rather than the south side? MR. SMITH-I can do that. MR. THOMAS-Because that way it’ll get away from the. MR. SMITH-Why I was doing it there was there’s a side entrance, and I was trying to use the deck as shelter as roof for the door/walkway, whatever. MR. THOMAS-So, if you took that four-foot and you put it on the north side, then you wouldn’t need that side setback relief. MR. SMITH-I can do that. MR. STNOE-So, your intent, as I understand in your answer to Mr. McNally’s question, you intended it to be 30 feet. The building, before you considered the thing, it slipped, just because of? MR. SMITH-Yes. There were some errors done with the person who did the concrete and foundation work, plus he’d run into water and some problems, and as well as then we turned around and we increased the size of the pond on the side because of some of the neighbor’s requests. MR. STONE-That pond in the back, that’s on your property, that thing in the southeast corner? MR. SMITH-Yes. MR. STONE-You made that? MR. SMITH-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there anymore questions for Mr. Smith? MR. MC NALLY-So you would be willing to move the deck to the side, though, is what you’re saying? MR. SMITH-I will. MR. STONE-In other words, go from, on the north side and the west side. MR. THOMAS-Yes, the deck would be on the north and the west. MR. SMITH-Yes. MR. THOMAS-So that way it gets away from the side setback. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/99) MR. STONE-Right. MR. THOMAS-And he still has just the front one at 5.7 feet. Anymore questions for Mr. Smith? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? Is there any correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. BROWN-Yes. It’s from Dave & Jane Hopper. What they did is they returned their public notification. On the bottom they’ve written “Madame Secretary: We, the undersigned, have no objection to Mr. Smith’s project. Dave & Jane Hopper 35 Hannaford Road” MR. STONE-And Hopper is where? MR. BROWN-35 Hannaford, I think they’re to the south, maybe a lot or two. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Are they to the south? MR. SMITH-Yes. MR. STONE-But they’re not adjacent properties, not contiguous? MR. SMITH-No, two down. MR. STONE-Two down, okay. MR. THOMAS-And you own right across Hannaford Road to the west, also? MR. SMITH-That is correct. MR. STONE-Just one question that was in the Staff Notes about this difficult being self-created. Comment was, the construction should have been considered during the original design. How do you answer that? MR. SMITH-It should have been. Like I say, it got shifted around when we got going through and redesigning for water problems and stuff, and it got overlooked. MR. STONE-There’s a stairway inside at the moment? MR. SMITH-There is a stairway inside, correct. MR. STONE-Inside the door on the south side? MR. SMITH-Yes. MR. STONE-Or obviously through front garage door, too, I suspect. MR. SMITH-Correct. MR. STONE-Are you proposing another stairway down? MR. SMITH-Yes, there will be another stairway down. MR. STONE-Now on the north side? MR. SMITH-It will be now on the north side. MR. THOMAS-I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there anymore questions for Mr. Smith before we talk about this? All right. Lets talk about it. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I’m disturbed that while the building could be constructed without need for a variance or for any particular permit, it was built contrary to the existing front setback, and I think that anyone building a structure should have anticipated that they were going to build a deck on the 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/99) front, which would even push the building envelope further toward Hannaford Road, which would result in more of a request for setback relief. There’s plenty of property to the rear that they could have set it back in, and I understand it, and I looked at it, you filled all that wetland there to put in that building. So you could have filled in further if you really wanted to, I think. MR. SMITH-I could have, but there again, that area is used for, it holds water. MR. MC NALLY-Sure, but the whole area used to, as I remember it. MR. SMITH-Yes, pretty much, and that’s why taking every bit that we took away was less that would be there for holding water. MR. MC NALLY-The amount of the relief that the applicant’s asking for is relatively minimal, and I spoke with a neighbor this afternoon who said he thought that the change would actually improve the structure, because it’s something of an unfinished building as we sit here today. I think it was self-created. I don’t think the effects on the community are going to be that significant, however, or that the relief is that substantial. My gut says that I would be in favor of it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jaime? MR. HAYES-Well, I agree with Bob that there’s really no doubt in my mind that this is a self-created difficulty, and folding that in to the rest of the test that we’re charged with here, as far as an Area Variance, I don’t think that the 5.7 feet of relief is substantial, now that the applicant has decided or agreed to push the deck to the north, away from the southern part of the building, and I think that’s going to have less of a visual impact, as people come up Hannaford Road as well, and I also agree with Bob’s neighbor that in this particular circumstance, it is actually the possibility that the deck may improve the overall visual implications of this construction. So, in that sense, I think that the obvious benefit to the applicant is enough, considering that the detriment to the neighborhood is minor, if any. I could go with this, fairly reluctantly, but I could go with it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew? MR. STONE-Well, first I’ll make my standard speech, when somebody comes before us with a building built in violation. I don’t like it. I recognize it’s a very small violation, but when you combine that with the need, and I think the neighbors probably have expressed it very well, a need to make the building look better and look like a finished structure, with the porch, or the wraparound deck, that should have been taken into account, but having said that, having said I really object when people do this. Listening to your explanation that there were construction problems and maybe measurements weren’t as good as they, I don’t think there was an obvious attempt to pick up a half a foot or a foot of distance. I think that’s obvious, and again in using the test that we use, the fact that it is self-created is certainly evident, but I think in general, it’s certainly going to be better for the neighborhood. When I was up there a week ago, because we had another piece of property on Hannaford Road, and I drove by this garage, I couldn’t help but move my head very quickly to the right and say, what's that, and I think the deck certainly will make it look like a more finished building and blend into the space much better. So, having said that, I can reluctantly vote for the variance. MR. THOMAS-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Basically, I guess I echo Lew. It bothers me to have the deck sticking out four feet more into the setback, especially since it struck me that the house next door is set back better. At the same time, I’ll agree that I think putting a deck on the current building is going to make the appearance a lot better. So I, too, I guess reluctantly will go along with it. MR. THOMAS-All right. I agree with the other Board members. I was a member of this Board when the first variance was given back in 1994, and at that time there were problems with the water, as can be seen on the map. There’s a culvert that comes right across the road right there. There was water, and I do believe you’ll find that there’s a lot of rock down in there, too, ledge, and I think that we gave, that variance application was for lot width, and I do believe this picture of this garage and apartment was on that application, and he said he could fit it in there and keep the setbacks at that time, but I have no problem with the deck going on the, along the west face and across the north face, and a set of stairs going down on that north side. Mr. Smith has said he would change his plans from the south side to the north side. MR. BROWN-Just a suggestion, a question I’m not sure if I have the answer to, in light of this new information and the setback from the front property line to the existing garage, maybe the applicant would like to re-word his decision, and include that in the relief, give us time to advertise that, rather than giving relief for the addition before you give relief for the main structure itself. MR. THOMAS-Why can’t we call this a pre-existing, nonconforming structure? 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/99) MR. MC NALLY-It’s not pre-existing. MR. BROWN-It’s not really pre-existing yet. MR. THOMAS-Well, it’s pre-existing this application. MR. BROWN-But you know it’s in nonconformance. MR. THOMAS-So was the last one. MR. BROWN-It’s just a suggestion. MR. STONE-I think what he’s saying is that we know, it’s okay to call it a nonconforming if it’s been a period of time. I think the fact that we just found out today, there may be some people who violently object, even more than I do, to the fact that it’s. MR. BROWN-That the building itself, yes. MR. STONE-The building itself. MR. HAYES-It’s a separate issue. We’ve talked this out. We should vote on this one part of it, or else we’re going to have to re-hear it, right? MR. THOMAS-If I leave the hearing open. MR. MC NALLY-What would you do, Craig? Would you re-advertise it? MR. BROWN-Yes, I think it should be re-advertised, and address the fact that the building itself is in violation of the setbacks to start, and now you want to add on to that, so you need relief for the expansion of a nonconforming. I mean, I don’t think there’s going to be a problem with it. I just want to make sure. MR. MC NALLY-You’d like to do it all at one, rather than do it piecemeal. MR. BROWN-Yes, have him come back with another application, he’s got a pending application that can just be tabled until it’s amended, re-advertised, and I think you guys have come to a consensus on it that it’s not going to be, you know which way you want to vote. So, just to get it all done in one shot. MR. MC NALLY-There’s some sense to that. MR. MC NULTY-Yes, it would make a lot more sense, just in case somebody came back with some substantial reason not to approve the basic. MR. BROWN-Yes. You don’t want to give him relief for the deck and have people object to the building. MR. STONE-Yes, and can you use modifiers in the advertising to say, inadvertent? MR. BROWN-Well, it’s additional information that’s been provided. MR. STONE-Well, I understand, but can you modify the language, instead of saying, it’s way over the line, saying, you know, it’s very slight. I don’t know what the legal language is. MR. BROWN-Certainly. MR. STONE-It is inadvertent. I think we all recognize that. I do have one question. You talk about wetness on this land. Do any of your neighbors provide drainage that you might consider excessive onto your property? MR. SMITH-It comes from all the neighbors, even from the north, the whole road and driveway from the north runs back into mine, as well as everything from the mountain, from Schultz’s comes back and comes across through. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. SMITH-Very little it mine. It’s all from the neighbors. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/99) MR. STONE-Has there been any attempt to remedy this, besides your digging a pond? MR. SMITH-Not to my knowledge. MR. THOMAS-So we want to table this until June 16, and get it re-advertised. th MR. STONE-Yes. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 31-1999 HAROLD A. SMITH, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally: Until no later than the June 16, 1999 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. This means that any new information requested by the Board must be submitted by the filing deadline for that month. The applicant may appear on the agenda in the previous month if the filing deadline for that month can be met. The reason for tabling this application is to re-advertise the fact that the existing building has nonconforming setbacks. Duly adopted this 26 day of May, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Stec MR. THOMAS-So, we’ll re-advertise it, be back here on the 16, you’ll be first on the agenda, and th we’ll get this thing all straightened out. We just don’t want any legal mistakes. MR. SMITH-Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Thanks. AREA VARIANCE NO. 32-1999 TYPE II WR-1A CEA ERIC & JANET REYNOLDS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ROCKHURST ROAD, CLEVERDALE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION TO CONTINUE ROOF OVER EXISTING DECK AND HOUSE AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF AND RELIEF FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING TAX MAP NO. 15-1-11 LOT SIZE: 0.22 ACRES SECTION: 179- 16, 179-79 SEAN CALLAHAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT JANET REYNOLDS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 32-1999, Eric & Janet Reynolds, Meeting Date: May 26, 1999 “Project Location: Rockhurst Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a roof to cover an existing deck and requests setback relief. Relief Required: Applicant requests approximately 18 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, § 179-16. Additionally, the applicant is requesting relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure per § 179-79. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct a roof structure above an existing deck in order to provide shelter for the same. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include a smaller proposal and no construction. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 18 feet of relief from the 30 foot requirement may be interpreted a moderate to substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. However, the deck in question is an existing structure and the proposed covering if it does not appear to increase the “footprint”. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SPR 6-98 res. 3/17/98 covered boathouse/sundeck Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. An accurate property line survey depicting the limits of Rockhurst Road will define exactly the amount of relief requested. Rockhurst Road is currently a 16- foot wide roadway. However, the paved surface appears to be wider than 16 feet. If the applicants’ plot plan depicts measurements from the edge of the pavement, the requested relief may be inaccurate, as the actual limits of Rockhurst Road would appear to be narrower than the paved area. It is apparent that the original intent of the subdivision of Rockhurst envisioned small lots with seasonal camps. The use of these properties has changed to include year round conversions and 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/99) expansions of the original camps. The undersized lots do not appear to be able to adequately support the new development without several forms of relief. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. BROWN-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form 6 May 1999 Project Name: Eric & Janet Reynolds ID #: QBY-AV-32-1999 County Project #: May99-30 Current Zoning: Residential Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicants propose to construct a continuation of roof over an existing deck and house. Staff Notes: The applicant has a .23 acre parcel and is proposing to add a 12’ front yard setback in lieu of the required 30’. The existing front yard setback is at 12’. This appears to be a change in the building roof line and does not appear to significantly impact County resources. Staff recommendation therefore is NCI. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Terry Ross, Warren County Planning Board MR. THOMAS-All right. Mrs. Reynolds, I presume? MRS. REYNOLDS-Yes, I’m back. MR. THOMAS-Is there anything else you want to tell us about this expansion. MRS. REYNOLDS-Yes, sir. What I’ll tell you is we were planning on putting an awning up, at first. We have no shade there. It’s a deck off our door to the kitchen. So we were going to put an awning, like our neighbors across the way, but they had trouble with it this winter, of pulling away from the house. So we said we have to replace this roof on the house, the shingles, so lets just extend the roof over to give us some shade, and that’s all that we’re going to, that’s all we wanted to do, because my hair just can’t take that sun all day, and I just needed some shade. MR. THOMAS-All right. Are there any questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-You have a drawing. Did I get a drawing? MR. THOMAS-Yes. It’s on the back of the application, the last page of the application. Apparently you didn’t get one. MR. STONE-I didn’t get one. Did you guys get a drawing? I didn’t get it. Okay. That was one of my comments. I didn’t have a drawing. MR. HAYES-I guess the big question for me is what the open area, the deck’s extended. Are you proposing screening or? MRS. REYNOLDS-No, just an open roof. MR. HAYES-With no screening, no windows, no nothing? MRS. REYNOLDS-No, because we have decking down below, and my husband says it’s silly to put a screen on it. He wants it open. MR. STONE-How far is the roof going to extend out beyond the end of the deck? MRS. REYNOLDS-It’s going to be even with the roof, correct, Sean? MR. CALLAHAN-My name is Sean Callahan. What it’s going to be is an exact extension of what there is there with maybe a one-foot overhang. MR. STONE-I assumed there was going to be an overhang. That’s what I. MR. MC NALLY-At the north end, you’re saying? MR. CALLAHAN-Yes. MR. HAYES-The existing steps up onto the deck, too, none of that’s going to change? MR. CALLAHAN-It’s all going to be the same. MR. MC NALLY-So the 14 by 18 dimensions of the existing deck is actually the footprint, and the roof actually is going to extend a foot further on the north side? MR. CALLAHAN-Right. MR. MC NALLY-But otherwise it will be continuous with the existing structure, and the footprint. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/99) MR. CALLAHAN-It’ll be right on the footprint. MRS. REYNOLDS-What I wanted to do, I wanted it to look a little cosmetic, but we can’t do it because we didn’t have enough, I wanted it to come down from the roof, you know, to be down a little bit, and then come out, but we couldn’t do that. MR. CALLAHAN-The structure wasn’t tall enough to have a step layered roof. So the idea was just to run it continuous, so it didn’t look too out of line. MR. MC NALLY-And the setback from the lake is okay. MR. THOMAS-Yes, there’s no problem there. Is this an accurate drawing? MR. CALLAHAN-Fairly, off the tax map. MR. THOMAS-Those are off the tax map. MR. MC NALLY-Staff had some question regarding whether the drawing was taken from the pavement to the edge of Rockhurst Road. MR. CALLAHAN-My measurements came from the edge of the pavement. I didn’t know that it was oversized or something at the time. MR. STONE-In Queensbury you have to ask about every road, where is the road. MR. CALLAHAN-I know. Each one is a little different. MR. MC NALLY-Staff said the paved surface was larger than 16 feet wide. MR. STONE-That’s what it says. That’s what it asks for. MR. MC NALLY-And that the road itself is only 16 feet. MR. HAYES-So that would mean they need less setback than what they’re asking for. MR. BROWN-Exactly. If you remember the Springer/Varano application from last week, the map showed that their property line was out in the pavement. It wasn’t dimensioned, but it appeared to be a couple of feet. So I’m just trying to nail down an accurate number. MRS. REYNOLDS-It says into the road or something. Back then, when they were all built, I think they all owned the road. It was all dirt. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there anymore questions for Mr. Callahan or Mrs. Reynolds? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? Is there any correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. BROWN-We have one from Henry and Emily Nagamatsu, the same thing as the previous commentor did, they returned their public notification, May 22, 1999, “To Whom It May Concern: We are the next door neighbors and approve their request. Henry and Emily Nagamatsu” PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Have you talked to your neighbors across the street? Is this going to block any of their view? MRS. REYNOLDS-Yes. The Stewarts, they’re the ones that have the awning. Our houses are identical, and when they put up their awning, they came over and said, we’re going to block your view, and we said, that’s okay. We're going to put up our awning, and that was no problem. Because before they put up their awning, we just looked straight across over into Warner Bay, but this is no problem with the Stewarts at all. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So you’re looking into Sandy Bay. They’re looking into Warner Bay. MRS. REYNOLDS-Yes, but they’ll be able to look through. We already sat down on their deck and went like this, and they can see through there, they’ll be able to. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/99) MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there anymore questions for the applicant? If not, we’ll talk about it. Jaime? MR. HAYES-Well, the controlling question for me, as I looked at the project, was what was going to be the nature of what you were going to put underneath that roof, as far as screening or windows, I guess how intense was the underlying usage of under the roof going to be. As I look at the property, even though you’re asking for a lot of relief from the front setback requirement, your house is entirely consistent with the other front yard setbacks in the neighborhood, which is part of what we’re to review when we look at those type of things. The project itself will not increase the footprint, as far as the land. The deck is already there, and the roof is just going over it. So there’s no real issue there. As I look at how the house sits on the lot, there is a great deal of room to the right, on this property. The lot is, it’s not crowding. There’s quite a lot of room there. You’ve covered the infringement on possible neighbor’s view, and that’s always a concern, when we’re dealing with lake property, but in particular, on Rockhurst, the views primarily have always been out to the lake from your own property. MRS. REYNOLDS-Correct. MR. HAYES-So in this particular case, that wasn’t a big concern of mine but the fact that the neighbors are okay with it is even better, and in other circumstances we, in my mind, we’ve approved more intense expansions of camps on Rockhurst than you’re asking for here. I mean, I think the fact that it’s going to remain open and just go over the footprint makes it a fairly low intensity expansion, even though we’re not really happy about expansions for the most part, but the Critical Environmental Area is still well protected. You’re not going any closer to the lake, and again, that’s a big criteria, and you have the well wishes of some of your immediate neighbors, and that has to be part of what we consider. So I think when all of those things are considered, I think the benefit to you outweighs any negative impact on the neighborhood, which, in my mind is almost really nothing. So I’m in favor of the application. MR. THOMAS-All right. Lew? MR. STONE-Well, the Board has granted a series of variances on Rockhurst Road. I have usually voted against variances on Rockhurst Road, and while this is a minor project, it still goes to the position that I've been maintaining, that we are, we have very close homes. The higher we go up, the more it seems like, I think someone described last week, like Wall Street, and I recognize this as a minor change, but at the moment, I have to be true to the feelings that I've expressed on a number of occasions on this particular piece of road, and vote no on the variance. MR. THOMAS-All right. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Well, I have mixed feelings. I’m inclined to, on the one hand agree with Lew. I hate to see anything more built on Rockhurst Road to increase the canyon effect. At the same time, I have to agree with the other Board members. We’ve approved other things that strike me as being more substantial than this, and as long as this is not going to be closed in underneath, and not going to make additional living space of any sort, I guess I’m inclined to go along with it. MR. THOMAS-All right. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-If we had to approve Rockhurst Road, or were asked to approve that subdivision, it would never happen, but the fact of the matter is, all the homes on Rockhurst are on relatively small lots, and all are close to Rockhurst Road, and Lew’s characterization of Rockhurst as similar to Wall Street is very apt, because on that side, the houses facing the road, it’s just sheer buildings, but this lot, in my opinion, is one of the larger lots, actually, on Rockhurst. It’s 89 by 110 which is humungous compared to some of the places we’ve seen. The yard, on the north side of this home, is quite wide. There’s plenty of room, and the actual setback of the deck is further from Rockhurst Road than the building itself is. So I don’t see any significant difficulty with approving this. The effect on the neighborhood is going to be minimal, given the way it already is, and on balance, I’m in favor of it. MR. THOMAS-All right. I agree with the other Board members that are agreeable to this application. As far as I’m concerned, like Chuck said, or Bob said, that the deck does sit back farther than the house does, but the roofline will continue and maintain that 12-foot setback from the road. The Board members have said this is a fairly large piece of property with a fairly small house on it, and it is, like Lew calls it, the Wall Street effect, with the canyons, but I think this is one of the smaller variance requests we’ve had on this, on Rockhurst in recent years. So I would have no problem approving this application. MR. STONE-I have a question. Was there a variance granted to build a deck? 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/99) MR. BROWN-Not that I can find any record of. MR. STONE-So the deck is. MR. HAYES-Pre-existing, nonconforming. MR. STONE-Well, it’s pre-existing, nonconforming, but it was in violation without a variance? When was it built? MRS. REYNOLDS-There was a deck there. MR. BROWN-Yes, if it was there before any zoning so that it couldn’t be. MRS. REYNOLDS-The deck was the conforming deck when we bought the house. The deck was Mr. Gallagher’s deck. MR. HAYES-Yes. It’s not conforming, but it was pre-existing. MR. STONE-When did you buy the house? MRS. REYNOLDS-’97. This is our second summer. MR. BROWN-Just a question, I guess, for clarity. I think, maybe I misunderstood something that Bob said. The deck, the roof is going to continue right along the same front line of the house. It’s not going to step back and only cover the deck. There’s going to be an area that is no deck, and just roof. Were you planning on moving the deck out? MR. CALLAHAN-I can’t remember, it was so long ago. MR. BROWN-Just let me show you a picture, here. The deck’s not going to be any bigger, though? MRS. REYNOLDS-No. MR. STONE-So the roof is going to be a foot over on all sides, isn’t it? So it’s coming out to the front of the house? MRS. REYNOLDS-It’s conforming with the existing roof. MR. CALLAHAN-It’s running out to continue the same roofline. MR. HAYES-So it’s a linear extension, period. MR. BROWN-Don’t get me wrong. It’s not only sized over the deck. It’s the whole roof continues. MR. MC NALLY-The house is 24 feet wide, the deck is 18 feet wide. So you’re saying the roof is going to extend six feet over on one side? MR. BROWN-Past the deck. MR. MC NALLY-Past the deck. MR. CALLAHAN-Beyond the deck, to run the same as the roof. MRS. REYNOLDS-No, just to the end of it. MR. THOMAS-We're talking about as it faces the road. MR. STONE-If this is the roof of the house, facing north, right? The new roof is just going to go exactly but on both ends? MR. CALLAHAN-And follow it out, is what the original proposal is. MR. STONE-Okay. So you’re going right out to the building line with the roof? MR. CALLAHAN-Yes. MR. STONE-So it’s not going to be as you said. MR. MC NALLY-I thought it was just over the deck on that side. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/99) MR. STONE-It’s going to go right out to the edge of the house. MR. THOMAS-This follows the same plane as the existing roof, it’s just a continuation of the existing roof with the same pitch. Because that deck could have been built back to the, at the time, it could have been built back to the edge of the house, and I think it would look better going back that way, rather than having to step it back like that. MR. STONE-I agree, but it’s a matter of knowing that it’s going to be, the whole thing is going to be. MR. HAYES-That six feet’s going to have to be (lost words). Because we’re not approving expansion of the deck, obviously. MRS. REYNOLDS-That’s our lawn there. That’s our little lawn there. You only have a little bit between the street and your house, and we would never extend that deck further. MR. THOMAS-Not when you’ve got that nice deck over the boathouse. MRS. REYNOLDS-Yes, we don’t need anymore decks. MR. THOMAS-It has something to do with hair. All right. Are there anymore questions for the applicant? We’ve talked about it. Would someone like to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 32-1999 ERIC & JANET REYNOLDS, Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: Rockhurst Road. The applicant proposes the construction of a roof to cover an existing deck and requests setback relief. Specifically, the Reynolds’ request approximately 18 feet of relief from the 30-foot minimum front setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, Section 179-16. Additionally, the applicants request relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure in accordance with Section 179-79. The benefit to the applicant would be that they would be permitted to construct a roof structure over an existing deck in order to provide shade and shelter to people on the deck. The feasible alternatives may include a smaller proposal or no construction, but given the nature of Rockhurst Road, the relief that they’ve requested of 18 feet from the 30 foot requirement, is not, in my opinion, substantial, given the other properties in that neighborhood. For that same reason, it’s my opinion that the effects on the neighborhood or community will be minimal, and while the property expansion may be self-created, the deck in question is an existing structure. It’s a pre- existing, nonconforming use, and the proposed covering does not significantly increase the footprint of the structure. Therefore, I move the approval of this application. Duly adopted this 26 day of May, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas NOES: Mr. Stone ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Stec MR. THOMAS-There you go. MR. CALLAHAN-Thank you. MRS. REYNOLDS-Thank you. MR. THOMAS-You’re all set. AREA VARIANCE NO. 33-1999 TYPE II RR-5A PATRICK GERUSO OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 185 LOCKHART ROAD NORTH ON BAY ROAD, LEFT ON TO LOCKHART MT. RD. SECOND HOUSE ON LEFT APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 288 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO THE REAR OF HOUISE AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF FOR THE EXPANSION, IN EXCESS OF 50 PERCENT, OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF. AV 82-1996 (EXPIRED) ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING TAX MAP NO. 23-1-28 LOT SIZE: 0.78 ACRES SECTION 179-15, 179-79 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/99) PATRICK GERUSO, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 33-1999, Patrick Geruso, Meeting Date: May 26, 1999 “Project Description: 185 Lockhart Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicants’ application proposes construction of a 288 square foot addition. Relief Required: Applicant requests 24 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum front setback requirement of the RR-5A zone, § 179-15. Additionally, the existing structure does not meet the minimum square footage requirement of 800 sf, thereby making it a non conforming structure. The proposed construction will increase the living space of the existing structure by more than 50% of the original floor plan, therefore, relief for the expansion of a non conforming structure is requested per § 179-79. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the addition in the desired manner. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited as the existing structure is under the minimum required for new construction and any expansion would require relief. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 24 feet of relief from the 50-foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate to substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. However, the structure is pre-existing and non conforming both in location and size. Any expansion of this home will require some level of relief. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 82-1996 res. 9/18/96 24 x 24 addition Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. Apparently, after discussion with the applicant, this project may include second story addition to the entire structure. Please see the enclosed additional elevations depicting the full second story addition which will require 24 feet of relief. The additional elevations and plans depict an additional 1023 square feet of living area. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. BROWN-I guess that’s it. MR. THOMAS-No Warren County? MR. BROWN-It says it went to Warren County, but I don’t see the referral. MR. GERUSO-When I called him, he said it wasn’t on the agenda, but he said there shouldn’t be a problem. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. GERUSO-Because I called about going over there. MR. BROWN-I don’t think it should have gone. I don’t know why it says it did, but it doesn’t meet the criteria to go. MR. THOMAS-Yes, that’s what I thought. Mr. Geruso, is this basically the same application you asked for three years ago? MR. GERUSO-Similar. MR. THOMAS-Similar to it? MR. GERUSO-Yes. MR. STONE-You don’t do all your work this way. Only for yourself. MR. GERUSO-Yes. It’s called financial, it works out best. MR. STONE-So what’s the difference? MR. GERUSO-It’s actually only six foot to the rear setback relief, and if I do the second story, it’ll be an 18 foot, because the back of the house is actually 44 feet from the road, and that’s a 50 foot setback. MR. THOMAS-Are you going to put the second story on at this time, the whole thing? 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/99) MR. GERUSO-Yes. What I want to do is take off the hip roof and slate roof. Right now there’s a loft/bedroom, and I’m going to add walls and change it to a scissors truss system. Looking at it, it was cost effective to do it that way, actually. MR. THOMAS-Are there any other questions for Mr. Geruso? MR. MC NALLY-Is there any height setback, height requirement? MR. GERUSO-I don’t think so. MR. MC NALLY-How high are you proposing the structure to be, at the peak? MR. GERUSO-You mean overall? MR. MC NALLY-Yes, from the ground level. MR. GERUSO-It’s going to be an additional six feet higher. Right now it’s one and a quarter story. MR. BROWN-Thirty-five feet’s the requirement. MR. GERUSO-Yes. MR. BROWN-I don’t think you’re going to be even close to that. MR. GERUSO-No. It’ll be less than a standard two story. MR. MC NALLY-There’s no restriction in this zone, is there? I don’t find any, for height or anything. MR. STONE-Thirty-five feet. MR. BROWN-Well, other than 35 feet. MR. STONE-That’s the restriction, 179-15. MR. MC NALLY-I see it, never mind. This will be within it. MR. GERUSO-Yes. MR. STONE-I noticed when I was up there today, you’ve graded to the west. MR. GERUSO-The driveway part? MR. STONE-Is that a driveway? MR. GERUSO-You mean the north? MR. STONE-Going up the hill. MR. GERUSO-That’s north. The road runs north and south, I believe. Looking at the house, to the right side? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. GERUSO-It’s a driveway. MR. STONE-That’s a driveway. MR. GERUSO-That’ll be a wraparound to the house driveway. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Any other questions for Mr. Geruso? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/99) NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for Mr. Geruso? If not, lets talk about it. MR. STONE-I apologize. Looking at the map at that particular point, it does go north/south, but coming up the hill, it’s going west. MR. GERUSO-The sun rises in front of it. MR. STONE-It always amazes me, going on 9L, there’s a point going east that you’re actually going south. MR. GERUSO-Yes. MR. STONE-Due south. MR. GERUSO-On the Ridge end of it, Ridge Terrace. MR. STONE-No, Joshua Mountain, Joshua Rock it goes south. Two and a half years ago, Mr. Geruso came. I thought this was a good project. It’s taking a structure which was in disrepair, an old schoolhouse, which I guess it’s still an old schoolhouse, in an area of town that certainly can use some nice structures. That road goes from not good to bad, and I think a project of this nature is a positive for the road and for the community, and I believe that the small relief, and it’s relatively small since the building is there, it’s been there for umpteen years. I think it’s a good project, and I have no problem granting this variance. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I’m torn again. When I understood this as being simply an addition off the back of the house, I didn’t have any real problem with it. I’m a little more bothered in adding the second story on the front of it, just simply because it means that we’re approving a new construction that is clearly within the 50 foot setback, and on the other hand, I’ll agree it certainly is an improvement over what is existing there now. I guess I’d like to hear what the rest of the Board members have to say about it. MR. THOMAS-All right. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-Twenty-four feet of relief from the fifty foot requirement is substantial, but given the relatively rural location of the property, given the fact that there’s an existing structure there, and given the fact that it will be an improvement, I don’t have a problem with it. MR. THOMAS-All right. Jaime? MR. HAYES-I agree with Bob that, essentially, things can only get better phrase comes to mind here, and it’s a pre-existing building, and I think even the amount of relief requested is a function, largely, of the fact that it’s in an RR-5 zone. In another zone you don’t need that much front setback relief. So I guess it’s a pre-existing building and it’s going to be an improvement. I’m in favor of the application. MR. THOMAS-All right. I remember two and a half years ago, doing this one, and at the time it was the slope in the rear that was really the big kicker on this one, because it does go down so steeply in the back that you really couldn’t, there’s really no other place on that property to build that, unless you went on the back side of that stream. As far as the second story, I have no problem with that because of its rural, and I think it’ll be an improvement. It’ll also bring the house into compliance because the existing building is below minimum for a building, according to the building code for Queensbury. So I have no problem with this application. Would someone like to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 33-1999 PATRICK GERUSO, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: 185 Lockhart Road. The applicant’s application proposes construction of a 288 square foot addition. The applicant, specifically, requests 24 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum front setback requirement of the RR-5A zone, Section 179-15. Additionally, the existing structure does not meet the minimum square footage requirement of 800 square feet, thereby making it a nonconforming structure. The proposed construction will increase the 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/99) living space of the existing structure by more than 50% of the original floor plan, and therefore, the applicant is requesting relief for expansion of a nonconforming structure, per Section 179-79. The benefit to the applicant would be that he would be permitted to construct the addition as so described in these plans. The feasible alternatives are limited, based on the fact that this is an existing structure that is already in noncompliance with certain Sections, and the applicant wishes to expand the living area in the house. Is the relief substantial to the Ordinance? 24 feet of relief from the 50-foot requirement is moderate or substantial, but I believe that that is also a function of the fact that this pre-existing lot is in an RR-5A zone, which has an enhanced setback requirement. So the effects on the neighborhood or community, I believe that it’ll have very minimal effects on the neighborhood. In fact, they may be positive, as an overall improvement of the property. Is the difficulty self-created? I don’t believe that it is. I believe that the house was already there. The need for the addition is obvious, based the fact that the house itself is already under the minimum square footage requirements, and therefore, it has more to do with the pre-existing, nonconforming state of the house now, versus being self-created. So I would move for its approval. Also, that the proposed construction that will be an expansion of the nonconforming structure will, as far as relief, be less than or equal to 1,000 square feet, the amount that’s above the already allowed expansion. Duly adopted this 26 day of May, 1999, by the following vote: th MR. STONE-Do we want to get the numbers in, the 1023, are those numbers correct, additional square feet, and did we say 24? I guess you did. MR. THOMAS-Yes, he did say 24. MR. HAYES-When we grant relief from expanding a nonconforming structure, do we give a specific amount of relief on that, or is it a yes, no type thing? MR. THOMAS-No. Yes, it’s a yes, no thing. I don’t remember doing the square foot expansion for something like this. MR. STONE-Well, we just did. MR. THOMAS-I know, for the. MR. HAYES-Do we want to put that in there? Should we clean that up? MR. BROWN-If you want to. MR. STONE-Yes, since it’s beyond the minimum. MR. HAYES-Do you know what the overall square footage? MR. GERUSO-What the house is now? MR. HAYES-What the total square footage addition is going to be. MR. STONE-1023, according to what you wrote. MR. BROWN-1023, that’s what I came up with, yes. MR. GERUSO-Did you put the second story on that? MR. BROWN-Yes. The 16 by 18 bottom floor and then the full rectangle upstairs. That’s where I come up with that number. MR. HAYES-1023, then. MR. BROWN-But he’s allowed 50% of the original 432. So he’s looking for 807, is the number you’re looking for. MR. HAYES-807. Are you okay with that? Because I could make it up to 1,000 square foot, because that’s still specific. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. GERUSO-Did you put in the side addition with that? There’s a side. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/99) MR. THOMAS-The dining room. MR. BROWN-No, I didn’t. MR. GERUSO-Which is actually a second part, just because of the way the house is going to have to be done. MR. STONE-And what’s that size? MR. THOMAS-Ten by fourteen. MR. GERUSO-Ten by fourteen. MR. STONE-That’s another 140. So 807 is 947. MR. THOMAS-Make it 1,000. MR. HAYES-I will. AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Stec MR. THOMAS-Are you going to do it this time? MR. STONE-Now build it this time. MR. GERUSO-I’ll have a permit soon. Thank you. USE VARIANCE NO. 34-1999 TYPE: UNLISTED SR-1A RICHARD SEARS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE HAROLD HARRIS ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES EXPANSION OF A NON CONFORMING USE. THE PROPOSAL IS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 6,000 SF PREFABRICATED METAL BUILDING TO PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR THE EXISTING USE. CROSS REF. VARIANCE NO. 141 VARIANCE NO. 908 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING TAX MAP NO. 96-1-9 LOT SIZE: 5.69 ACRES SECTION 179-19, 179-79 MICHAEL HUPENCE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; RICHARD SEARS, PRESENT MR. BROWN-There’s a couple of letters in here. I think they’re to address the financial evidence. Do you want to read them now, as part of that? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. BROWN-Yes. It’s from Richard Sears Tree Experts, dated 20 April 1999 “To Whom It May Concern: Existing site and surrounding parcels are a mix of residential and light commercial. Existing buildings on site are used for storage and light commercial. In order to use land as residential would require the razing of existing structures. This would prove to be economically prohibitive. A monetary return would not be feasible due to excessive cost of razing existing buildings and constructing new buildings to use land as presently zoned. Sincerely, Richard Sears” There’s another letter from Richard Sears Tree Experts, dated 5/1/99, To Town of Queensbury Zoning Board, Queensbury, NY “Please be advised of the following: The property which I own on Harold Harris Road in Queensbury, which consists of approximately 4 acres, has been for the last 25 years used for the operations of Richard Sears Tree Experts and for storage of equipment either owned or leased, but the buildings on the 4 plus acres are used only for storage of tree equipment, there are four buildings now which are being used for storage of such equipment. It is my request to build a new building to store our new Vermeer Tub Grinder and support equipment used for recycling of wood products. This machinery is in the cost bracket of $400,000 to $500,000. It is too expensive and too large to leave outside to the elements. I propose to erect a new steel building 60 x 100 on the same property as the existing buildings and to be used for the same purpose as the existing buildings. We at Richard Sears Tree Experts believe it is important to keep this equipment inside. Thus the reason for the new building, the four acre property consists of large storage buildings, with the exception of our home and an old 2 story home which my daughter lives with her (2) daughters so the property is not and has not for 25 years been used for residences. It would be financially impossible to remove all these existing buildings. The cost would be $500 to $600,000 to remove all the buildings and then make the land usable for single family dwelling and if this was to 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/99) ever take place, it would place a hardship on an existing, tax paying business and employer of other Queensbury taxpayers. We feel we have lived in Queensbury for 30 years and have grown and hope to continue to grow and keep our business in Queensbury, NY. We need this building now for the new equipment and the new services we are able to offer to the towns, city’s to recycle wood waste and yard waste. We have bought the equipment and we do need the building for the equipment. It would be a financial handicap not to have a place to store the equipment and keep it in working condition. Thank you. Sincerely, Richard Sears” STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 34-1999, Richard Sears, Meeting Date: May 26, 1999 “Project Location: Harold Harris Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes expansion of a non conforming use. This proposal is to construct a 6,000 sf prefabricated metal building to provide additional storage for an existing use. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief from the Suburban Residential zone – SR-1A, § 179-19, as this type of industrial/commercial use is not allowed in the zone. Also, per § 179-79, a non conforming use may only be enlarged or expanded by use variance. 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? Apparently, the cost of removing the existing non conforming buildings and reconfiguring the property to allow permitted uses would be substantial. 2. Is the alleged hardship relating to the property in question unique, and does this hardship apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood? The property in question contains a mix of residential and commercial/industrial uses. This property lies within a predominantly residential area. 3. Will the requested use variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the neighborhood? The essential character of the immediate neighborhood is somewhat difficult to define, as the property in question contains several uses. However, the adjoining parcels, with the exception of the Niagara Mohawk Transmission line right of way, are residential in nature. 4. Is the alleged hardship self-created: The alleged hardship could be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Variance 141 – res. 11/5/69 to allow warehouse in residential area Use Variance 908 – res. 4/18/84 12,000 sf storage building Staff comments: Moderate impacts on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. One of the current uses of the property was previously approved by use variance. This proposal is requesting a similar project. If approval of this use is considered, a reasonable condition may be the implementation of a buffer area between the proposed industrial/commercial use of this property and the adjoining residential properties. Some level of screening may be considered. Additionally, no documentation can be found for approval of the tire recovery business, the applicant’s agent has been informed of this. SEQR Status: Type: Unlisted” MR. BROWN-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form 6 May 1999 Project Name: Richard Sears ID #: QBY-UV-34-1999 County Project #: May99-32 Current Zoning: SR-1A Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 6,000 sq. ft. prefabricated metal building. Staff Notes: A copy of the applicant’s drawing is included with the summaries. This is an expansion of a non-conforming use in a residential neighborhood surrounded by Dixon Heights Townhouses and other residential uses. Staff has concerns about the compatibility of this use with surrounding uses but is not convinced that the issues presented here are of a County nature. Staff therefore is recommending discussion for Board comment and consideration. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact w/stipulation that the proposed building be used for storage only and not for equipment maintenance.” Terry Ross, Warren County Planning Board MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. Sears, is there anything else you want to add, tell us about, say? MR. SEARS-We bought some very expensive equipment for recycling of wood products, yard waste, leaves, brush, things like this here. It’s too big to go into the buildings that are there now. It’s too high, and it currently sits outdoors, and what we want to do is put this new building up there to house this equipment, and basically that’s it. MR. THOMAS-Is that that big piece of equipment on the left hand side, as you drive up the road there? MR. SEARS-That’s that big piece of equipment on the left-hand side. MR. STONE-What does it do, takes in trees and turns out toothpicks? MR. SEARS-It will take a five-foot block of wood and chew it up into mulch that you can use around your trees. MR. STONE-That’s what it looked like. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/99) MR. SEARS-It’s the same mulch that you buy for $23 or $24 a yard. The problem exists today as to what do you do with this stuff? You can’t take it to the landfill. You can’t eat it. You can’t bury it. So, Vermeer manufacturing are building these machines, and they’re selling them like hotcakes because everybody wants to get rid of this material. We have bought it basically because of the ice storm up north. We used it for a lot of that and getting rid of the debris from the ice storm. The problem, again, is that you can’t burn this debris. So, it’s got to be turned into something that’s usable, and the mulch seems to be what everybody wants. That’s why we bought the machinery. MR. STONE-Can it be palletized for wood stoves? MR. SEARS-No. MR. THOMAS-Is that machine driven around to the different locations to be used? MR. SEARS-Yes. Different towns and villages and things like this here. MR. THOMAS-Okay. You don’t pull up in front of somebody’s house and use it? MR. SEARS-No. The thing weighs about 30 ton. MR. STONE-And will not be used in the storage building that you propose? MR. SEARS-Absolutely not. No. It’s basically to get it inside out of the weather. It sits, a lot of the time it sits there and it’s just something that I don’t want to leave out in the weather. MR. STONE-Is there an existing storage building in Town that you could rent? MR. SEARS-Not to my knowledge, not that I know of. MR. STONE-That was one of the questions that I thought. MR. SEARS-It would have to be large and high. MR. THOMAS-Are there any other questions for the applicant? MR. SEARS-The property has been used for this for the last 25 years, basically for the tree equipment and other equipment in the area, but basically for the tree equipment. We're not asking to do anything differently than what we’ve already done for the last 20 or 25 years. MR. HUPENCE-If I could interrupt for a minute. My name is Michael Hupence. I’m his agent. I have some other drawings. In the interim, Dick has considered rotating the building 90 degrees, so I put together another plan, the notes on the plan. If you’d like, I can give you copies of them right now that you can take a look at it. MR. STONE-I did notice on the application you had it pinned corner to corner with the existing building. Is that what you’re talking about? MR. HUPENCE-Right. No. MR. STONE-Like this. Let me see what you have. MR. SEARS-Yes. We decided that might not be too good of an idea. MR. STONE-That was the application. MR. HUPENCE-That was originally the idea, then we separated here, but what I have now is I've got another drawing that’s what I call SP-2, and this shows this rotated 90 degrees with some separation between the buildings, and I ran copies, in the interim, in case you wanted to see the difference. MR. STONE-What is the size, the square footage, the footprint of this piece of equipment? MR. SEARS-Of the building? MR. STONE-No, of the piece of equipment that you’re going to store in it. MR. SEARS-It’s about 47 feet long, and it’s just about 14 feet high, and just about eight feet wide. MR. STONE-So it’s 47 by 14, would be its footprint. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/99) MR. HUPENCE-No, 47 by 8, about 14 foot high and about 8 foot wide. MR. STONE-Forty-seven by eight. Well, that’s only 400 square feet, and this is a 6,000 square foot building. MR. SEARS-Now you need a truck to move it. You need a tractor-trailer to move it, and then you have to have a Payloader or. MR. STONE-This goes on, this does not go on its own wheels. MR. SEARS-No, the overall length is 60 or 65 feet long. So, either you’ve got to get it in lengthwise, or whatever, or unhook it, put a tractor trailer type of thing inside of it, and then you have support equipment, such as a pay loader, bulldozer, trailers and so on and so forth that go along with it, that you have to have also with it to support the machine. This thing will produce 70 to 80 cubic yards an hour. So you have to have machinery to bring the material to it and take the material away from it. So it’s not. MR. STONE-You don’t go to Mr. Thomas’ house and grind up three trees? MR. SEARS-We probably can, but we’d take house and all. We’d put it all through the machine. It will take just about anything. It’s quite a sophisticated piece of equipment. You can use it to get rid of building material. The only thing required is that you don’t have a lot of steel pipe and so on and so forth, but it will grind up building material, and it will separate the nails from the material. It has magnetic rollers in it that will take the nails out of it. So, in fact, you could use the material, even building material, you can use it for mulch around your shrubbery’s and things like this here. It has a lot of advantages to it. It’s going to take some promoting, obviously, to get the thing off the ground, but I think it’s a heck of an idea, and it’s an answer to a lot of the problems. When they had this ice storm up above, we worked for the Town of Peru, and we had all of their roads, and they’ve got probably equally as many roads as the Town of Queensbury, mileage wise, and all of this debris was down along side of it, and that’s what we did with it. We mulched the whole darn thing up, and there was acres and acres and acres of it. We first brought it in and put it in a big field, and then took a bulldozer and pushed it to the machine, and just ground it up into mulch, and the mulch was a sellable item afterwards. So it was an answer to a pollution problem. It’s an answer to getting rid of this stuff. This is the coming thing. Anything you can recycle is for the better of mankind, I guess. MR. THOMAS-Would this piece of equipment be used on your property right here? MR. SEARS-No. MR. THOMAS-It would always be used off the property? MR. SEARS-Always off the property. It might be in the Town of Queensbury. It might be for the City of Glens Falls, Town of Peru, City of Plattsburgh. It’s not like a chainsaw we start it up once a week or whatever, once a day. It’s a machine, when you move it, you’ve got to move excess equipment in order to support it, support equipment. When you move this thing, you’ve got to move it to a site where they have a lot of material. To start it up and run it 15 minutes doesn’t even warm it up. You’ve got to start it up and use it for two or three days at a time. So when it goes to a site, it stays there and does the job that it’s supposed to do. If you’ve got a half-acre of trees and brush and logs, that’s what you grind up, and you grind it up into mulch. MR. STONE-So how many days a year do you have to use this thing to make it pay? MR. SEARS-Believe me when I tell you this, the payments are very expensive, and we have to use it a lot. MR. STONE-I assume so. So it won’t be stored very much. MR. SEARS-In the winter time, basically, but there’s a lot of pieces of equipment that go along with it, and that’s why we’re asking for the bigger building. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there anymore questions for Mr. Sears? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/99) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for Mr. Sears? MR. STONE-Just a question that was raised by Mr. Brown in his notes. What about the tire business? MR. SEARS-That’s a recycling operation, also. Now, Charlie’s Tire Recycling, he was working for Warren Tire for, as a salesperson or whatever for Warren Tire, and somehow he got into this tire recycling, and he was in a bind and he needed a place to keep his truck. That’s how it all started out, and we didn’t really think it was much of a problem, and basically he’s not running a business out of there. What he’s doing is actually storing. He stores his truck there and he picks up tires and stores them there and puts them in another truck and they go out of there. He’s not doing any kind of a business production such as recycling or cutting them up or any of that sort of a thing there. He brings them in on a truck. He puts them on the ground. He puts them in another truck. They go away, and he’s limited. We keep it down to a limitation where there’s not excessive amounts there, and he keeps a pretty neat operation. It’s not a real, to me it’s not a business. Maybe it’s considered a business, but he runs his business out of his home. All his paperwork and everything is done out of his home. So that’s where we’re at with Charlie. MR. HAYES-So you rent the space to him? MR. SEARS-Yes. It’s a lot smaller building. It only has like a 12-foot door in it. It’s not big enough. Years ago when the buildings, when we started building these buildings up there, we started with a small building, and we got bigger, and we got bigger and we got bigger, and now we’ve got bigger equipment. We need a bigger building. MR. STONE-What about the building, the street there’s a bunch of old trailers. MR. SEARS-Walton Lane? MR. STONE-Yes, is that your building? MR. SEARS-That’s my building, too. That used to belong to Howard White. Howard White ran Howard White’s Fuel Oil Company down there for 100 years, and he died, and I had an opportunity to buy that building, and again, it’s not big enough to do much of anything with. There’s been a guy that’s been there for years, probably 10 years, maybe longer, time passes, like you say, so quickly, but the trailers have been around there for years and years, probably 20 years over a period of time they’ve been on the property, and they get moved around, shuffled around here and there. The fellow that rents that property has been in that building for 10 or 12 years, and what he started out doing is just kind of piddling around, I guess, that he went in there and started working on trailers a little bit, and storing trailers. If you had a camp trailer, he would take care of it and he’s winterize it and he’d park it out back and in the spring of the year you came and got your camp trailer and left. Well now, I guess over a period of time, he’s bought several of the trailers. So they’re there. The trailers are there, and the building’s there. I don’t know if that answers your question or not, but it’s another building that, it was, for years, run as a business. It has always been run as a business, that piece of property there. MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions? Because since this is an Unlisted action, we have to go through the Short Environmental Assessment Form. MR. STONE-We also have to have competent financial evidence, too. Have we seen any? MR. THOMAS-I think that letter that he wrote was pretty good, four page letter. MR. STONE-Well, it talked in words that it’s an expensive hardship. I understand that, but I always thought that a Use Variance we had to have competent financial evidence? I thought that was what we were supposed to have, according to Number One. This is not to say I’m being negative. I just, do we have competent financial evidence? I always thought in Use Variances, which of course we don’t have very often, that we’re very tough on Number One’s. MR. THOMAS-I, for one, read the letter that Mr. Sears sent along with the application and I went down all through the uses of the property, looking at the property the way it is now, and thinking, could it be turned into anything else? Such as multi family dwellings, professional office incidental to home use, a funeral home, a farm – all classes, a planned unit development, a school, a church or synagogue, a hospital, nursing home, or health related facility, a day care center or duplexes. MR. MC NALLY-Is the test that is no reasonable return from the existing code or under the existing use? 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/99) MR. THOMAS-No reasonable return under the existing use. MR. BROWN-No, it’s as zoned. MR. MC NALLY-As it is now, he’s making a profit as a business. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-So the question is, is this, is there no reasonable return? He has to show that, and he has to show that by numbers. Is it from the use or is it from the Code? MR. STONE-Well, it’s an expansion of a non conforming use. That we all agree with that? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-See, if I were on the Town Board, in the wink of an eye, I would change the zoning on this property, to allow these. Can we grant a Use Variance? That’s got a different test. It’s a pretty stiff test, too. MR. THOMAS-Yes. It is pretty stiff. MR. MC NALLY-But I mean, clearly, the property has been used for 30 years, as Mr. Sears has said, for the use that it’s currently being put to, and I don’t see much of a harm to the neighborhood or community. It’s just, I don’t know if he’s really demonstrated that, personally. This is something the Town Board should address. MR. THOMAS-Well, in the letter here he states it would cost $400,000 to $500,000 to, I take that back. MR. MC NALLY-Maybe that’s what the equipment cost. MR. STONE-No, to remove all the buildings. MR. THOMAS-Five or six hundred thousand to remove all the buildings and then make the land usable for a single family dwelling. MR. STONE-But that’s not the issue. It is nonconforming right now, and it’s an existing business, and we’re not saying it’s a bad business. We're saying to expand it, to justify the expansion, as I read the Use Variance, and I think Bob is saying the same thing. MR. MC NALLY-Well, I’m asking. That’s my concern. MR. STONE-Okay. I’m asking, too. I know that you’ve been through the big one, it was an expansion of a non conforming use, on the Mooring Post, and that required numbers, dollars and cents, profit and loss, and that he could not exist if he couldn’t expand the business, if the Zoning Board did not grant him relief from the expansion, did not allow him to expand. This is kind of the same thing, and I just want to be sure that we are not failing the test of asking the question. I mean, I think the business, I’ll state where I’m coming from. I think the business is a good business. It’s a good use of the property. You’ve had it for years and years, and it appears to me, since nobody came forth to say, it’s a bad, we don’t like the idea, but the thing is, we have to justify a Use Variance by competent financial. The number that he has in there says to turn it into residential would cost a half a million dollars. That’s not what we’re asking him to do. We're asking him to say, can he not continue to make a reasonable return on the property as it’s now used? Not as zoned, in this case. As used, because it’s non conforming. MR. HAYES-How about if we turn this around and examine it from the perspective, we’ll presume that you’re the expert in the tree business. Is this piece of equipment essential for you to say in the tree business, at a profitable level? I mean, is it essential? MR. SEARS-It is because it has come to a point now, and we all know this, what do we do with the tree in your back yard that we take down? Most people aren’t burning firewood. What do we do with it? We chip the brush. We take the chips. There’s such a momentum of pile of chips available to the public today, nobody wants them. What do we do with them? We can’t burn them. What’s going to happen, and has happened, right now, unless you can decompose this to something reasonable and usable, you’re not going to be in the business, because you can’t get rid of the stuff. We can’t pile it up. We can’t take it to the landfill. We can’t burn it. In answer to your question, is 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/99) this detrimental to my business? Absolutely. I mean, we can’t go out there and, per se for the Town of Queensbury, take down 10 trees and no place to go with them. We have to take them to this machine some place and grind them up. MR. STONE-And that’s the kind of financial numbers. If you’re saying that, at least to me, if you’re saying that it’s going to cost you, to get rid of this thing, by other means. MR. SEARS-Absolutely. MR. HAYES-Yes. I’m making more of an economic viability argument versus taking down the buildings as is. I mean, you know that in Queensbury you can’t do those things, right, Craig? You can’t bury it. You can’t burn it. MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. STONE-You can bring wood to my house. I mean, I’ll take a cord or two. MR. SEARS-If I bring one load to your house, you’ll be all summer cutting it. MR. STONE-I know that. MR. SEARS-Don’t say that. Be careful, now. We had a lady the other day, we were working down in Saratoga. She wanted a load of wood chips. No problem. Where do you want them, lady? Right over there. I've got to go down Saturday and pick them all up. You take 40 yards of wood chips dumped in her front yard, she had no idea. It was a big pile of wood chips. She says, yes, I know that, dump them there. We dumped them there. Now we’ve got to clean them up. So it is a problem, and it’s going to get worse. The guy says, well, dump me a load of wood in his front yard, and he takes all summer long just to cut it up, and we’re glad to give it to you. You want a load of wood, you’ll have it. No problem. MR. STONE-I think the point we’re saying, Mr. Sears, is that at least as I understand this test, you need to show us that, to take down, well, take the ice storm. I don’t know how many trees you took down. What it would have cost you to get rid of those trees, if you couldn’t use this piece of equipment, which you certainly have a right to store on your property. I mean, I think that’s where we’re coming from. The test says competent financial evidence. MR. SEARS-Yes, but where do we get this information from? I’ll give you a scenario. The City of Plattsburgh decided, during this ice storm, that they would pile all this stuff up to their civic center, and in the spring of the year, they would burn this, in the City of Plattsburgh. Now, obviously, you realize, when you have four acres of trees and brush and wood, you’re not going to burn it, because it’s going to kill somebody, Number One. The guy down the street is going to sue because he’s got emphysema. Now the City of Plattsburgh decides, we’re going to grind this all up. That’s fine, but it cost them $98,000 to do it. Now I don’t know where you want this financial information as to what kind of a hardship or what it would cost, but here’s a case where they work, say, two months, and it cost them $100,000 to get rid of the stuff that they piled up in a pile, and it took them forever because they hired some gypsy outfit out of state to do it, but it still cost them $100,000 to get rid of this debris. Had they done it when it was being done, the cost would have been nil, but they didn’t. MR. STONE-Well, again, I think we’re missing the point slightly. You’re in business. You are making a profit at taking down trees and getting rid of these trees, as far as the homeowner or the community is concerned. It is becoming increasingly difficult for you, as I understand it, to find a way to dispose of the trees that you take down. MR. SEARS-That’s correct. MR. STONE-Obviously, they’re a mixed batch. I don’t know if you sell them to paper mills or not. So there’s a cost involved in doing this, and it seems to me that you can say, well, if I have to pay the going rate, or whatever it is, to get rid of these trees, wherever they go, that means I either have to raise my rate so high that I’m not going to get any business, or it’s going to cut into my profits, but if I buy this piece of equipment and store it on my property, because that’s the cheapest place to store it, I’m going to be able to make a reasonable profit, using my existing prices, so to speak. I think that’s what we need to, I need to know. I can’t speak for everybody else, but I think that’s what we’re talking about evidence. Am I off base with this, Craig? MR. BROWN-Well, I think maybe in an effort to refocus a little bit, the first thing you want to keep in mind is, regardless of what’s in the building, you’re talking about the warehouse itself, the building, a warehouse is not allowed in the zone, and the expansion of the tree service business, by way of this building, what the relief is sought, Use Variance is for, and I think maybe I’ll just read through the criteria again that’s in the application, just to get back on track. It says, the following questions are 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/99) based on Section 267, which requires a showing by the applicant that, applicable zoning regulations and restrictions have caused unnecessary hardship, and I think that’s the applicant’s contention. However, in order to prove such unnecessary hardship, the applicant shall demonstrate that for each and every permitted use under the zoning regulation for the particular district, that the applicant cannot realize a reasonable return, provided that a lack of return is substantial as demonstrated by competent financial evidence. So I think to go through all the listed uses, which is what the Chairman was doing earlier, a multi family project, professional office, a funeral home. To get financial evidence, I guess you could interpret that, show what it would cost to put a multi family dwelling on the property, and how that would be detrimental to maintaining your existing use, and go to the next use. If it’s an unnecessary hardship as demonstrated by financial information, to do each and every one of these uses, well then I think that’s the financial information you’re really looking for. MR. MC NALLY-Can I add? I’m looking at the State of New York Local Government Technical Series for the Zoning Board of Appeals, and it’s got a blurb on nonconforming uses. It says, it would be good to mention briefly that a property use that is especially hard hit by the reasonable return requirement is a nonconforming use. A nonconforming use upon which an especially heavy burden falls when it must be shown that the user cannot derive a reasonable return from any permitted use. An applicant who maintains a nonconforming use must not only show that all permitted uses will be unprofitable, but also that the nonconforming use itself cannot yield a reasonable return. In a case in which the owner of a nonconforming gasoline station applied for a variance, the court pointed out this additional burden, and the court said, in order to demonstrate hardship, petitioners had the burden of showing that the land in question cannot yield a reasonable return if used for the purpose allowed in the zone. Since the operation of the gasoline station as it presently exists was a nonconforming use, which was suffered to continue because it had been devoted to such use before the regulatory zoning ordinance took effect, it was a use that was allowed in the zone. So when you’re actually looking at the Use Variance, to say permitted uses, it’s also permitted nonconforming uses. That’s a tough burden. MR. STONE-That’s the point I’m making. It’s a very tough burden, as it was in the Mooring Post, which was expansion of the business that he was in, and this is, in a sense, an expansion of the business in which he’s in. He’s putting additional storage capacity for his business, this nonconforming business. MR. HAYES-Right, that’s the point. MR. STONE-And if it weren’t for this test, I don’t have a real problem with what you’re trying to do. MR. MC NALLY-I don’t either. It’s a Town Board problem. MR. SEARS-Yes. We’ve got another factor here that enters into all of this. Is, Number One, this property borders Niagara Mohawk property, which you can’t obviously put a housing development or homes in there. On one side is a nine-acre or twelve-acre sand pit, which they took sand out of it. So you’re not going to build anything there. You’re not going to build a home there, obviously, and right in back of there is the septic for John Burke Apartments. Who’s going to want to live and smell that septic in a new home? You’re kind of limited as to what can be put on there. MR. STONE-Why a Use Variance, though? MR. THOMAS-Because it’s expansion of a nonconforming use. MR. STONE-Yes, okay. MR. THOMAS-But like I said before, I went through all these things that are allowed in that zone, you know, multiple family dwelling project, but if you go back and look at the beginning of 179-19, anything in an SR-1A zone, if it’s multiple family, you can only have, it has to be one acre per unit, and this is a four acre piece of property. So if you put a, which the maximum you could put on there would be a four-plex. MR. HAYES-And he’s got the expense of taking everything down, too. MR. THOMAS-Yes. You have to take into consideration the expense of taking everything down, which Mr. Sears said would be between $500 and $600,000, clean up of the property, okay, putting in water, sewer, water and septic, and then building a four-plex, and then what return would you get on that four-plex? MR. STONE-Chris, I agree that the permitted uses, it would be overly expensive. You can’t do it, but that’s not the point that Bob was reading there. It says also we must consider that existing 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/99) nonconforming business, would it not continue to be a successful business if this variance weren’t granted. Is that what you said? MR. HAYES-Yes, that’s what this says, but it seems like, that we can rely on the fact that he’s the expert on whether he could continue to run that business and have to dispose of that. MR. THOMAS-Well, it’s like Mr. Sears said, what is he going to do with all these trees that he cuts down for people? He can’t eat them? MR. SEARS-We can pile them up where that building is going to be. MR. MC NALLY-We have a Town Board member here. What would be the odds of a zoning change passing through this Town Board for something like this? Your ballpark estimate. PLINEY TUCKER MR. TUCKER-How long would it take? MR. STONE-But is it spot zoning, though? MR. THOMAS-That’s spot zoning. Because it’s one particular parcel in a whole zone. That’s spot zoning. That’s illegal. MR. MC NULTY-I think the test we’ve got to meet with financial is the question Lew was getting back to, the Mooring Post. Can this business continue to operate profitably with what he has there now? And if the answer is yes, then our answer has to be no. If the answer is no, that he can’t continue his business without this piece of equipment, and he needs shelter for the equipment, then it’s a different. MR. THOMAS-But it’s like Mr. Sears said, he has nowhere to put the wood that he cuts down anymore. So if you don’t have anywhere to put the wood, you’re not going to cut the tree down. MR. SEARS-And you’re not going to stay in business. So the answer is no. MR. THOMAS-And you’re not going to stay in business, and if you read the paper, I think that Scott McLaughlin’s landfill is going to be shut down by the end of the year. MR. HAYES-It is. MR. SEARS-And that’s going to be a worse problem yet. MR. STONE-But the Town’s going to open one, right, Pliney? MR. TUCKER-But we’re not going to take Mr. Sears’. MR. STONE-Yours is not construction and demolition. MR. SEARS-They won’t take my trees either. I think they’re discriminating against me. MR. THOMAS-So it’s really a Catch-22 situation. MR. STONE-As I say, I agree with you, Chris, that I think the way the world is going, that he needs this piece of equipment, and if we could ignore competent financial evidence, because it is logical to assume that if he doesn’t do something, have a piece of equipment like this at some point, that he can’t be in the large scale tree removal business that he’s in. He might be able to be a small tree removal, but that’s not Richard Sears Tree Experts. MR. SEARS-But you’ve got to also understand that the small guy’s got the same problem. The small guy’s got to do something with this stuff, and the small guy’s can’t afford to buy a piece of equipment like that, and even if they could, where would they keep it? So it’s the same problem, whether they’re in Queensbury or Glens Falls or Fort Edward, I mean, they’ve still got the same problem, and, absolutely, I mean, it’s just a matter of time. It’s not right at this point, yet. There’s a lot of people that still burn firewood, but it’s not, it’s the coming thing. It’s a problem. You’re not going to stay in business unless you have a way of doing something with this material. MR. HAYES-Economically. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/99) MR. SEARS-Absolutely. Well, it’s not a case of economically, either. It does not matter. Scotty McLaughlin’s closing. Now you can go to Scotty’s McLaughlin’s and pay $500 a load on one truck, but he won’t take it. MR. HAYES-Right. That’s what I’m saying. It’s got to be an economic argument, that it’s not viable. MR. SEARS-Yes. He won’t take it. MR. THOMAS-So there’s your reasonable return right there. If Mr. Sears doesn’t have this piece of equipment, and keep it stored, he’s going out of business. MR. STONE-Chris, I think we’re getting to the point. We're making statements. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but I think you’re looking for dollars and cents. MR. STONE-Well, I was, but the more we talk about it, I think it’s a reasonable assumption that if he can’t get rid of these trees, then we don’t have the dollars and cents, but economically, you know that the bottom line is going to go away. It’s going to turn to red. MR. SEARS-Absolutely. MR. THOMAS-Is there anymore discussion or anymore questions? We’ll do the Short Environmental Assessment Form. Because this is an Unlisted Action. MR. STONE-That’s true. MR. THOMAS-All right. “Could action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?” MR. STONE-How noisy is it to get this machine in and out of the garage, out of the building? MR. SEARS-About as noisy as your car. It’s not noisy. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BROWN-Solid waste production. MR. THOMAS-Yes, right. MR. STONE-But he’s not going to make it on the site. MR. THOMAS-Not on the property. MR. STONE-He said he’s not going to do it on site. MR. SEARS-No. There’s not enough room there to do what we have to with the machine. MR. THOMAS-“C4. A community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources.” MR. MC NALLY-This is a change of use, though. MR. THOMAS-Well, I think it’s an expansion of a nonconforming use. MR. STONE-Expansion. There is storage on the property. You do store equipment on the property now. MR. SEARS-Absolutely. MR. THOMAS-It’s not a change in use, well, it’s a change in the intensity. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. HAYES-So that could still be no. It’s not a change in use. It’s just a change in intensity. MR. THOMAS-Yes, right. Yes or no? 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/99) MR. HAYES-No. MR. STONE-No. MR. THOMAS-Okay. We’ll go with no with that one. MR. STONE-This will not be maintained in this building. Wasn’t that one of the considerations? MR. BROWN-It was a County stipulation. MR. SEARS-One of the big concerns with Warren County was that, you know, at midnight you’re not out there beating the metal, you know, with a hammer to make it work the next day. Vermeer Manufacturing, in Castleton, NY maintains the machine. So anything that goes wrong with it, we take it to them. They fix it. It’s our contract with them. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. THOMAS-All right. MOTION THAT THIS PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE AN ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT AS PROPOSED, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: Duly adopted this 26 day of May, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Stec MR. THOMAS-Okay. That takes care of that one. Now, are there anymore questions for Mr. Sears before we talk about this? If not, we’ll talk about it. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Well, I’m not particularly a big fan of warehouses in or near residential areas. This is an ongoing operation and, for me at least, it weighs pretty heavily that there’s been no neighbors to show up to object to it. Therefore, I assume they don’t have a problem with it. So I guess I’m inclined to go along with it. MR. THOMAS-All right. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I’m in favor of the project, but with all due respect to the Sears, I don’t think that they can meet the first test. I’d like to be able to give them a Use Variance. I don’t think we can, because I don’t think they’ve demonstrated lack of reasonable return. Otherwise, I’d be in favor of the project. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jaime? MR. HAYES-Considering this is an ongoing operation, I do not think that this will alter the essential character of the neighborhood, and I do think it’s a fairly unique hardship in this particular case, based on the way it sits now and the fact that he’s been using this property for 30 years. It’s clear to me that this question is going to revolve around Number One in our test, and that relates to reasonable return. Having a great deal of experience in the development of land from other uses, I do not have a problem attesting to the fact that I think it would be impractical or uneconomical to develop this land, the requirement of removing buildings and going to another use. So I don’t have a problem with that. Now as Bob has brought up, we’re also required to determine that it would be uneconomical or a hardship to continue the business that Mr. Sears is running now, and I’m a firm believer, in this circumstance, that a credible applicant in his own industry might be, in fact, a better judge of the economics of the hardship than a CPA or a lawyer, in this particular evidence, and examining evidence from that particular person in that way, while not, I think the word “competent” applies to Mr. Sears in this circumstance. So in this particular case, I believe that, based on the changes, and my own personal knowledge that if the disposal of the waste involved with these trees is a problem for everyone, and an expensive one in certain circumstances, that this could significantly impact his business, and may even, from an economic standpoint, make him uncompetitive with other people that have such a machine. So, while not a clear cut, not necessarily a clear cut satisfaction of section one, the fact that this is an operation for 30 years, and there are no neighbors here to complain, I think that I 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/99) can live with the balance of this test in favor of the applicant, ever so slightly, but I’m okay with this application. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew? MR. STONE-Bottom line, I’m okay with it. I recognize, as the person who brought up the competent financial evidence, I have been convinced by Mr. Sears, as Jaime says, an expert in the field, that in this ever changing world of environmental concerns, and I’m very much in favor of environmental concerns, I’m very concerned about the environment, this is obviously going to be a requirement to be in the tree removal business, tree removal being while they’re standing or when they’re on the ground. It’s going to have to be gotten rid of. As I read the Use Variance criteria, it says to allow a use not otherwise allowed in zoning, an applicant must demonstrate to the Board unnecessary hardship. In this particular case, this is not a new part of the business. Getting rid of trees has always been part of Mr. Sears’ business. You don’t cut a tree down and let it sit on the ground and walk away. The job is take down and removal, and I’m sure every contract he has ever written has take down and removal. So this is not an extension. It’s not a new use. It says, we have to find better ways to remove trees, and I can contrast it with the Mooring Post, in which there was, which was the classic case, as far as this Board is concerned, in recent years, where it was a new kind of operation, the so called quick launch and other things that came into play. This is merely a new way to remove trees, a necessary, to get rid of trees. MR. SEARS-Get rid of trees. It’s not a new business. MR. STONE-No, it’s not a new business. I agree. No, I’m saying it’s a new way to get do the removal job that is part of your thing. It has to be. MR. SEARS-It has to be. MR. STONE-And I think Mr. Sears, the applicant, has said that he would not be able to continue in business without the equipment that’s going to stand in the subject building, which is why we’re here in the first place. He will be forced out of business due to environmental constraints. I’m ready to accept that as competent financial evidence, because if one isn’t in business, they don’t make any money, and therefore, they can’t get a reasonable return if you’re out of business. The rest of the test, the alleged hardship being unique. Well, it is unique to the tree business to get rid of these things in a particular way, and again, just to re-iterate, it is part of the tree, of the removal part of the aspect. The neighborhood is what it is. Yes, it’s classified as a residential neighborhood, but I have to admit, when I drove in there, I had never been aware, driving by on Dixon Road, that this operation exists there. MR. SEARS-You wouldn’t even know it’s there. MR. STONE-That’s correct. That’s how I found out, and in a sense, it’s not even self- created, because the exegesis say you’ve got to get rid of trees in an environmentally friendly way. So, I think it’s passed the test, and I recognize the legal limitations on us, but I think we can demonstrate, with the motion that we’ll make, that we have, in fact received evidence of reasonable return. MR. THOMAS-All right. I agree with Chuck, Jaime and Lew. I think they’ve just about said it all, and in looking down through the allowed uses in that zone, I myself, in my own mind, can’t see where a reasonable return could be had by any one of those uses, particularly a multiple family dwelling, even a single family dwelling on one acre lots. Seeing that this is four acres, it can only have four dwellings on there, but after the clean up of the property, subdividing the property, selling it and building the houses, I don’t think Mr. Sears could get a reasonable return from that, for what the land is used as now, and as far as the other three criteria for considering this, the alleged hardship is unique to that property. The variance will not alter the neighborhood because nobody has complained about it, and like Lew said, he couldn’t even see it, didn’t even know it was there. The alleged hardship, well, I don’t think the alleged hardship has been self-created, because theta was a pre-existing, nonconforming use of the property. Even before zoning. So I don’t think the hardship was self-created. So, having said that, I will ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 34-1999 RICHARD SEARS, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: Harold Harris Road. The applicant proposes expansion of a nonconforming use in that he wishes to build a 6,000 square foot prefabricated building to provide storage for a particular needed piece of equipment to continue his existing business, and therefore the existing use 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/99) of the property. Specifically, the applicant requests relief from the Suburban Residential zone, SR-1A, 179-19, as this type of industrial/commercial use is not allowed in the zone. That is the current tree service business that is currently housed on this property. Also, per 179-79, a nonconforming use may only be enlarged or expanded by a Use Variance. The criteria for considering a Use Variance, can the applicant realize a reasonable return provided that lack of return is substantial as demonstrated by competent financial evidence? In considering this very basic test and very difficult test, we recognize that Mr. Sears is in the tree removal business. This business has become more complex as certain environmental constraints have been placed upon it. Mr. Sears is interested in buying an additional tree removal piece of equipment that must be housed in a satisfactory storage. The applicant has said that he would not be able to continue in business without this particular piece of equipment, and he would be forced out of business, owing to environmental constraints. While the applicant has not provided numbers, he certainly has stated, as an expert, that without this equipment he would not be in business. Also, we have noted that the allowed uses in this particular zoning cannot possibly return a reasonable rate of return, since to make it necessary to do some of these uses, the property would have to be raised, and according to the applicant, this would cost $500 to $600,000, just to make it ready for whatever could be put on there. Is the alleged hardship relating to the property in question unique? The property, while it does contain a mix of residential and commercial/industrial uses, the residential uses are all those of the owner of the property and his family, and while the property does lie within a predominantly residential zone, it is almost impossible to see another house from anywhere on the site. The third criteria that we must consider is, will the requested Use Variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the neighborhood, and as I previously stated, the essential character of the immediate neighborhood is somewhat difficult to define. While it is purported to be residential, as I said earlier, you can’t see a house, except the owner’s house, from anywhere on this property, and this hardship can really not be interpreted as self-created, because the nature of the business, the requirements of the business, have been changing over the years, and it is essential that a particular piece of equipment be procured, and thus be able to be stored and protected from the weather. In granting this variance, we place the restriction upon the applicant that this building be used for the storage of this particular piece of equipment, and the auxiliary equipment that is necessary for its proper operation. It is further noted that maintenance will not be done in this building. It is merely for the storage of this equipment, related to the tree business. Duly adopted this 26 day of May, 1999, by the following vote: th MR. BROWN-You may want to consider, if you’re going to grant the Use Variance for the storage of this particular piece of equipment, which he already has, and he’s going to use whether he gets the building or not, limiting the use of the building for the storage of equipment, not to allow another tire recovery business or another use. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. SEARS-Basically tree equipment. MR. STONE-Yes. AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas NOES: Mr. McNally ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Stec MR. THOMAS-There you go. MR. SEARS-Thank you, gentlemen. MR. THOMAS-You’re welcome. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 35-1999 TYPE: UNLISTED PC-1A JAMES A. BETIT OWNER: ALEXANDER POTENZA, FRANK BORK 694 ROUTE 9, MILLER HILL MALL APPLICANT PROPOSES THE ADDITION OF A 12 SQ. FT. SIGN TO EXISTING 50 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SIGN SIZE REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. SV 22-1993 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING TAX MAP NO. 72-7-2 LOT SIZE: 4.13 ACRES SECTION 140 JAMES BETIT, PRESENT 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/99) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 35-1999, James A. Betit, Meeting Date: May 26, 1999 “Project Description: 694 Route 9, Miller Hill Mall Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 12 square foot sign to an existing 50 square foot sign. Relief Required: Applicant requests 12 square feet of relief from the 50 square foot maximum allowed for a sign at a 15 foot property line setback, per the Sign Ordinance, § 140-6B.,(2),(a). Additionally, based on a field inspection, it does not appear that the sign meets the 15-foot setback from the side property line. The amount of relief from this requirement is uncertain. Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct and display the desired sign and increase advertisement for his business. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include relocation of sign to a compliant location for a sign of this size. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 12 square feet of relief from the 50 square foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction, site plan, variance, etc.): Sign Variance 22-1993 – res. 6/16/93 to allow tenants names on FS sign Site Plan Review 33-1991 – res. 7/16/91 utilize shop for body shop and repair Use Variance No. 30-1991 – res. 4/24/91 utilize shop for body shop and repair Use Variance No. 62- 1990 – res. 8/20/90 signs and awning sales. Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The existing sign appears to be in violation of the setback requirements, if this is the case, relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure must also be considered along with the accurate dimension from the property line. SEQR Status: Unlisted” MR. BROWN-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form 6 May 1999 Project Name: James Betit ID #: QBY-SV-35-1999 County Project #: May99-20 Current Zoning: PC-1A Project Description: Applicant proposes an addition of a 12 sq. ft. sign to existing freestanding sign. Staff Notes: The applicant is proposing to add a sign to an existing non-conforming sign. The existing sign was allowed by variance in 1993 with the stipulation that there be no expansion. The applicant is now proposing to add a 12 sq. ft. expansion for a business that is located behind Miller Hill Mall. Staff recommendation is for discussion. County Planning Board Recommendation: Approve because of nature of hardship and unique character of site location. *Comments: In regard to this issue, the County Planning Board requests that the Town of Queensbury look at all signage on-site to verify that all variances have been achieved.” Terry Ross, Warren County Planning Board MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. Betit, is there anything else you want to tell us about, add, say? MR. BETIT-I need a sign up there because in the winter time it gets dark early, and nobody knows that my building is back there, plus I've got a little direction sign out there by the road, and they plow snow over it every winter. So nobody can see my business even exists in the wintertime. So I really, this year is my hardest year up there to run the business. So I need something up there. Otherwise, in the wintertime, I better go to Florida or something, and I can’t. That’s where I do my work and that’s where I’m staying. MR. THOMAS-You don’t have any other signs up on Route 9 anywhere? MR. BETIT-No. MR. THOMAS-Are there any on the building that’s visible from the road? MR. BETIT-Well, if you want to stop and take a look at it, and probably smash up or something on the way through. MR. THOMAS-I've seen it. I know right where it is. I don’t remember seeing a sign on there. MR. BETIT-I've had people go up and down the road trying to find my place, and at doing 40 or whatever, watching the traffic and stuff, they don’t take their eyes off and look way over there, plus now they’re getting trees up there. A few years ago I cut the trees down so they could see the building, so that they could see the sign, but now the trees are starting to go back up there, and so I've got new trees going, and pretty soon they aren’t going to be able to see anything out there. In another couple of years, the trees are going to be back up there, and I got in trouble cutting them down the first time. 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/99) MR. THOMAS-You don’t want to do that again, then. MR. BETIT-Not really. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any other questions? MR. MC NALLY-Northway Car Care, is that the one moving to Quaker Road? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. STONE-Well, is he moving or expanding at Quaker Road? MR. BETIT-He’s expanding. MR. STONE-I thought it was expanding, yes. MR. BETIT-He’s staying there, plus he’s going to have that shop. MR. STONE-That was my understanding. MR. THOMAS-I thought he was moving the whole operation down there. MR. BETIT-He doesn’t want to let another competitor get in there to compete against him. So he’s going to keep both places. MR. MC NALLY-Who owns the property? MR. BROWN-Alex Potenza. MR. STONE-Have we determined that the existing sign, freestanding sign, is in violation of the setback? MR. BROWN-I haven’t determined that, no. MR. THOMAS-The existing sign is there by variance. MR. BROWN-Yes, not for location, but evidently in a previous Sign Ordinance you were only allowed to have a freestanding sign identifying the Mall. MR. THOMAS-Right. MR. BROWN-Relief was given to allow the owner to put the tenant’s names on the freestanding signs. MR. THOMAS-Yes, that’s what it was. MR. BROWN-And I think the Ordinance has been changed since then. So it wasn’t for location, because it was shown in a compliant location on the plan. A question just came up, was it constructed in a compliant location, originally, before that variance, and now if we’re going to expand on that, do you want to consider that. MR. STONE-And the previous variance said, as long as there’s no expansion of the existing sign MR. BROWN-That was in the resolution. MR. STONE-And that was the sign, the sign that was authorized in ’93 is the current sign? MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Are there any other questions for Mr. Betit? MR. STONE-No, unfortunately, the questions I have are for the owner of the other buildings, the other properties. I think it’s an extremely cluttered piece of property when it comes to signs. I’m not sure I know what we do with that. MR. THOMAS-We’ll think of something. If there’s no more questions, I’ll open the public hearing. Would anyone like to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Would anyone like to speak opposed? Opposed? 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/99) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions of the applicant? MR. STONE-Let me ask a question of the applicant. Has your business been successful to your satisfaction where it is, with the present signage? I recognize the winter’s a problem, but I mean, have people found you down the hill? MR. BETIT-Well, I think I lose a lot of business from that. Because I don’t get the traffic off the road. The only time I get traffic is people that know me, and people that recommend, and they specifically say that I’m down behind Subway. I don’t get any off the road traffic. MR. STONE-Well, how do body shops normally get business? MR. BETIT-Well, most of the time they have a lit sign out there. If you go by a number, most people do their business by a sign up near the road, where I don’t have, really, a sign. MR. STONE-Okay, but do you get references from garages, from dealerships? MR. BETIT-No. I do a few dealerships, but they’re only strictly used car stuff that stay in with the business. So they don’t know who’s doing the work. Like I do some of Nemer’s and stuff like that, but that’s strictly in with the businesses, but I do outside work, too, from people, like I’d like to do a little more collision work and stuff like that. If I could get that, that’s where it comes off, like say if you bump your car, you don’t know where to go, and you go right by my shop, and I've got a lit sign and you see it, well, I might pull in there and get an estimate, so I could pull a little more work out of this deal, but right now, I don’t get hardly any of that, and that’s where the money is. If I could get one a month, that would be nice for me. MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions? If not, we’ll talk about it. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I have no problem with the applicant wanting to construct and display a sign to increase his advertisement. The feasible alternatives include somehow trying to relocate the sign to a compliant location, and include Mr. Betit’s name in this freestanding sign, so people can see him, while complying with the existing Ordinance. The relief, I think, is moderate to substantial, given the nature of this property and the congestion and the numbers of signs that are present there. I don’t like signs close to the road, as they are here. MR. BETIT-That sign there exists. I measured it from where the property line from the highway, it’s 25 feet off the road, off from the property line, where the Town, where the State owns the road, right to that is 25 feet off. So it’s set off the road quite a ways. MR. STONE-You’re talking about the current freestanding sign, not your sign? MR. BETIT-Right, well, it’s the sign that I want to hang mine off of. MR. STONE-I understand that. MR. MC NALLY-So that’s what I think. MR. BETIT-It says 15 feet in there, but it’s farther. I measured it out, and it’s 25 feet clearly. MR. MC NALLY-I read the 15 feet. What was that, from the side or from the front? MR. STONE-The side property line. MR. THOMAS-The side property line it looks like 33 feet. MR. BETIT-Well, that’s from a different, that isn’t right there. MR. BROWN-No, I think the 33 feet is from the road bounds back to that, where it says “IPF”. 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/99) MR. BETIT-Off the corner of the building, or something. MR. BROWN-That a, some distance on that property line. MR. MC NALLY-The only reason that he’s limited to 50 square feet is because it’s so close to the road as it is. MR. BROWN-He’s limited to 50 square feet based on the drawing that was submitted with the application that said it’s 15 feet from the highway bounds. If it’s in fact 25 feet from the highway bounds, he could go up to 64 square feet and you may only be considering relief to modify the previous variance that says he can’t expand it. If he wants to provide some information that shows it’s 25 feet, he doesn’t need size relief, you just need to modify the previous variance that said you can’t expand it, but based on this application, it says it’s 15 feet. MR. STONE-There’s obviously a difference of opinion. Mr. Betit is saying that he measured, now, again, we always have problems with where the right-of-way really is. You’re measuring from the edge of pavement, I would assume. When it comes to Route 9, it’s very questionable about where the right-of-way is. Does the Travel Corridor Overlay come into play with signs? No. I didn’t think it did, but we need to know where that sign currently is in relationship to the property line. MR. BROWN-I would think so. MR. BETIT-Well, I know for a fact, they say, you know, it doesn’t show any telephone poles or anything. Nobody knows where that property line is, the property from Northway Plaza is. They say, the Northway Plaza says they own the telephone poles, up to the telephone poles. So the telephone poles are on their property. If you measure over to their property, it’s well into 15 feet, give or take. You’re close, but I think that’s why they brought the sign back 25 feet, to come in with that 15 feet from one side, from that border line over there. MR. STONE-Have you had any discussion with the property owner? I mean, the sign is owned by the property owner. MR. BETIT-Right. MR. STONE-In terms of moving it further off the highway, so, as Mr. Brown says, it can be 64 square feet, legally? MR. BETIT-I’m not moving it. It’s been there, it’s been through two Boards, and I’m not moving it. It’s been passed before. They just went through this before. Why should I have to move it to put my sign on it? Really. MR. STONE-Because it’s illegal to make it bigger unless we say so. I mean, if you move it back, if it’s 25 feet off the road, it can be 64 square feet. MR. BROWN-It may, in fact, be there now. The applicant says he’s measured it. It’s 25 feet. MR. HAYES-So as far as locating, you’re trying to avoid a surveyor or something. I know they’re pricey. MR. BETIT-Well, I’m asking for a variance. If I wanted to do that, I could have just probably moved it back. MR. STONE-Well, can you move it back? I’m not talking your side. MR. BETIT-I’m not going to move all that back and move all the wiring and all that stuff. I’m asking if I could hang mine off that existing sign. I’m not going to move, it’s like asking me to move the building up front. I can’t move my business up front, either. MR. STONE-Do you have permission of the property owner to hang your sign out there? MR. BETIT-Yes, I do. It’s right there in the paperwork. He signed all the paperwork saying that I could move it. MR. MC NALLY-See, a sign has to be 50 square feet, and you’re asking us to give you a break and let you have another 12 square feet, something this Town, the Board has not 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/99) historically done. So we’re just inquiring about your willingness to make any concessions. So that if we grant you some relief, then perhaps you might consider moving the sign or something else, like providing us with a survey to show that it’s further from the road than 15 feet. Someone must have a survey, Mr. Potenza or someone you can get a copy from. MR. BETIT-Well, right there is the only one I've got. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. MR. THOMAS-The Owner/Agent Form. MR. STONE-Well, that just says he’s an agent. That doesn’t say you have permission to put the sign on there. MR. BROWN-That’s something that would be addressed when you apply for the sign permit. They’re required to get the property owner’s signature, which I don’t think will be a problem, since he signed this authorization. MR. THOMAS-Yes, since he signed this form. MR. MC NALLY-We can table this for you to get that information. MR. THOMAS-It looks like the property line is right on the backside of those power poles, that straight line. MR. BETIT-It’s in with the specs, the 15 feet, because I went out there and measured. I’m not a surveyor, but. MR. THOMAS-It’s 50 square feet, if it’s 15 feet back, and it’s 64 square feet if it’s 25 feet back So is it 15 or is it 25? MR. BETIT-Well, from the property line? From which one are you talking about? MR. THOMAS-The front property line. MR. STONE-The front property line. MR. BETIT-It’s 25 feet. MR. THOMAS-Okay, because you’ve got, on this thing here, it’s written 15. MR. BETIT-Yes, but that was a copy that Subway, when they got. MR. THOMAS-Somebody gave you this? You didn’t go out, this isn’t your writing, that 15 feet? MR. BETIT-No, Subway, see, I got all the specs from the Subway, when he got his Sign Variance to change the sign up there on Miller Hill, to Subway, Northway Car Care and Glass Shop, that’s the paperwork they used. MR. THOMAS-You didn’t happen to bring that folder for that ’93 variance, did you? MR. BROWN-Absolutely. MR. THOMAS-That’s got to have a good. MR. BROWN-This is the map. This was taken from that file, yes, that’s where he got the map from. MR. STONE-But it says 15 feet on this, if that’s what you’re reading. MR. BETIT-But I don’t know where they, it’s like you say, you don’t know where they took their measurements from. MR. STONE-Well, it says highway boundary from highway map. I mean, that’s the only thing we’ve got to go on. It says 15 feet. 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/99) MR. BETIT-I’m not a surveyor. I don’t know where they took the measurement from. You could probably stand there where the sign is and measure out there 15 feet, and say, okay, there’s the line. MR. BROWN-It’s the same map that’s in this file. MR. STONE-And it says 15 feet in there? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. STONE-I think that’s what it says. I was wondering if it was any clearer on an original, maybe. MR. BROWN-No, it’s just a copy. MR. STONE-I doesn’t say anything there, that I could see. Okay. So that does permit one freestanding and one wall sign for each. That’s another thought that I had. I didn’t count them all, but I thought there were at least two for one business. This is not against you, but I think there’s too many signs on the property, but that’s another story. MR. THOMAS-You’ve got to remember how old this place is. MR. STONE-But it says, one per business. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. HAYES-Not exactly the specter of compliance in a number of ways. MR. THOMAS-Yes, right. You can’t do anything about that, but that sign, as it sits right now, is legal. MR. STONE-The freestanding sign. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. STONE-I’m not arguing about that. It’s legal for three businesses on there at 50 feet. MR. THOMAS-So all you have to do is modify that motion from ’93, so they could add another one. Make a motion to amend the motion. Well, what do you want to do with this, guys? MR. MC NALLY-The applicant isn’t willing to come back with anymore new information so we can move on it. MR. THOMAS-Well, is it 15 or is it 25? MR. STONE-I mean, if it’s 25, he can put the sign up, well, we need the side variance, I guess, but which is, when you consider there’s nothing going down the hill but a hill, doesn’t certainly bother me. MR. HAYES-I know the Ordinance calls it to be 15 feet from the property line. I’m just wondering if the desired effect has to do with where the sign is, in terms of the road and how that presents sign pollution or not sign pollution. Like in this particular case, even if it is 15 feet from the property line, in effect it’s 25 feet or more from the road, which is what we’re talking about, as far as the. MR. THOMAS-I don’t think you could move that sign back any farther, because of the way the building is there, the corner of the Northway Plaza, as you come up the hill. MR. STONE-You can see right over Northway Plaza. MR. THOMAS-As you’re coming around the curve and up the hill, you’ve got to get up there pretty far before you see that sign. MR. STONE-When you’re going around that curve, through the traffic light, I hope you’re not looking at signs. MR. THOMAS-Yes, right. 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/99) MR. STONE-Quite frankly. MR. BETIT-Plus, if you’re coming down through, the farther you get the sign over, the less you’re going to see coming from north to south. MR. THOMAS-See, that’s why, in ’93, we let them put all the businesses on that one sign, because anything with three or more is supposed to just have a mall sign saying the name of the mall. Then every business could have a wall sign. The problem was, nobody could see the wall signs on the auto business, the glass business. I don’t think the Subway was in there at the time. The glass business was. MR. STONE-I guess I would like to know exactly where that sign is, and what happens if you made it compliant to be larger. I mean, I understand your need. That’s not our concern. I mean, that’s not the subject we’re talking about. We're talking about, we have a very tough Sign Ordinance in Queensbury, and we have, as the protectors, if you will, of the Sign Ordinance, we’ve been, I can’t speak for everybody, obviously, I don’t know where they stand, but we have been particularly tough on Sign Variances, and if it’s possible to give you what you need, by moving that sign slightly to give it a larger size, then it’s a win/win situation. Obviously, it’s going to cost a dollar or two to do, but it’s a win/win situation, but I don’t know, since we don’t know exactly where it is. Am I talking out of turn, guys? I don’t want to. MR. BETIT-It depends on where you measure it. If you measure it from the sign to the road, then who knows where the line is. It could be 15 feet. It could be 20 feet. It could be, if you measure out to the side of the road, it might be 40 feet. It all depends on who measured it. MR. STONE-We need accurate measurements to grant variances. MR. BETIT-Well, I’ll tell you what, I don’t have any of this stuff. I’m not going to do it. MR. STONE-This is not personal. We're not against your need to have a sign. We just have to make sure we’re doing it right. MR. BETIT-Well, how come Subway didn’t have to go through it? How come when they put the sign there in the beginning, when they put Northway Mall Plaza on there, how come that sign is there when you guys have got all these stipulations now? How come that wasn’t put back, and say if it wasn’t in the, all I want is a variance to put my sign off of that sign. If it’s in the right location now, that’s what I want, I want to put my sign on that sign, the way it is. That’s what I’m asking. I’m not asking to move the sign. I’m not asking to do anything. If you move it 15 feet over this way, they’re going to have problems seeing the sign. It is sitting off the road quite a ways. If you go up by there now, and you look at it, it’s off the road quite a ways, compared to a lot of the other signs. MR. THOMAS-Yes. It is back off the driving surface quite a ways. MR. BETIT-And plus you’ve got power lines closer to it, and all that stuff. You’ve got stuff going by there. It’s not like you can just pick it up, and, there, you’re all set. MR. STONE-We didn’t finish talking. MR. THOMAS-Yes, we haven’t even started talking about it. Well, we’ll start now and see what happens. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I already started. MR. STONE-Yes, Bob started. MR. THOMAS-Bob started, and you got cut off. MR. STONE-Repeat yourself. MR. MC NALLY-I understand your desire to build a sign. I think in some sense it’s an imposition on the Town. The property owner is limited to a 50 square foot sign. If he’s got five businesses in there, and they have a problem putting five signs on it, well, that’s the property owner’s problem, and I don’t necessarily see why the Town should have to vary its Ordinance, in this particular case, where the applicant’s not willing to have a survey done, not willing to even consider moving the sign. This is Mr. Potenza’s problem. There are other feasible alternatives, such as reconfiguring that sign. The relief, I think, is substantial 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/99) relative to the Ordinance, and I think there’s a lot of congestion of signs over there. I think that it will have a substantial effect on the community. MR. THOMAS-All right. Jaime? MR. HAYES-Well, as Lew pointed out, it’s been a tradition of this Board to examine sign applications with a great deal of scrutiny, for good reason in my mind, and I know that we’ve done that in the past, but in this particular circumstance, I think that this is an extremely unique piece of property, based on the history and the configuration of the existing businesses that are there, to the point where a view toward reasonableness, I could open the door to a view toward reasonable proposals under that light. In my mind, the sign pollution that we have tried to avoid in this Town through our strict enforcement of our Sign Ordinance has to do with distance from the property line, but also, in a practical sense, the distance from the travel lanes that are involved, the people that are looking at the signs, what people’s perception of, is it too much signage, is it not. In this particular circumstance, I think that a four by three sign, which is only 12 square feet, is a very small sign. I think it’s reasonable. I think that the need to demonstrate the location and the viability and the existence of one’s business, in this particular circumstance, is understandable, and I think, while I agree with Bob that this could go on, I think that, examining this one proposal as it stands now, I think that, in balancing the test, I think that I could be okay with this proposal, as it sits now, with the stipulation that it’s a professionally done sign. MR. BETIT-It will be. MR. HAYES-And that that would have some guarantees as to the quality and nature of it. MR. BETIT-Yes. It’s Champion signs that’s building it. MR. HAYES-So I guess my approval rests more with the fact that I don’t think there’ll be that big of an impact on the neighborhood, in that I think this is an extremely unique parcel, based on a long history of different uses and number of uses and I mean, that building in the back is going to have some use, in my mind. So I’m okay. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew? MR. STONE-I need to know more information, quite frankly. I mean, as I said earlier about the Sign Variance, I recognize the applicant’s need for a sign, and I’m very sympathetic to it, and I recognize he’s only asking for 12 feet. I would like to know, first of all, exactly how much relief are we giving? Where exactly the sign is. Because even if we talk about relief, there’s a 15 to 25 foot spread between 50 square feet and 64 square feet. If, for example, this sign were at 24 feet, or you say it’s 25, even if it was 24 or 23, I would be more inclined to say, okay, the relief is mitigated a little bit by the fact that it is further away from the road. If it is at 15 feet, I’m not sure I want to grant the relief for 12 additional square feet on top of a 50 square foot sign. So I really need to know where this freestanding sign is right now, and I’m not saying it’s your responsibility. I need to know before I can grant relief for the Sign Variance. MR. THOMAS-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I, too, understand the applicant’s need for a sign, and it sure seems like he should have one out there, but I also agree with the statement, I think it’s not our problem. I think it’s the property owner’s problem. It strikes me that he should be providing space on his existing sign for all of his tenants. He obviously is not at this point, and assuming the sign is at the 15 foot mark, I think there’s more than enough signs in that particular area already. So I’m inclined to say that it needs to go back to the property owner to solve. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I was here in 1993 when they gave this relief for the existing sign to have all the businesses named on the sign, rather than just a mall sign. I think back in 1993, this business should have been included. Did you own the business in ’93? MR. BETIT-Yes, I did. I've been there before the glass shop and Subway was in there. I've been there before, but they wanted an outrageous amount to put my name up there on that sign, and I figured, it was a hardship, it was in the middle of winter when they went through this stuff, so I didn’t have the money to cash out on putting my sign up there, but you’ve got to figure, if you’ve got another person up on that sign, that’s even all the smaller the size of the names are going to be, too. So, you know, you’ve got one way outweighs the other. It’s like, okay, now you’ve got another name in there, so all the signs are going to be smaller. So then it’s going to be even harder to read. So, I don’t know. 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/99) MR. THOMAS-I think you should have been included in the 1993 Sign Variance. Did they even ask you? MR. BETIT-Yes, they did, but it’s been, it took this long to hit a slow spot to, I wanted to improve business a little bit, and hardship has come, a little bit here and there, and I figured, well, maybe this will help me out. MR. THOMAS-Because I also remember, in 1993, when we were talking about this, because of the distance the sign sits back from the driving surface, and also due to the fact that the highway limit is farther back than the normal 25 foot from center line, that this sign was given, the variance was given, in ’93, for that, and because of the way the road curves and goes up and down a hill, in both directions, it was very hard to see the signs on the building, and in this case, Mr. Betit’s business doesn’t even have a sign up on the road. All he has is a small directional sign, and I think in order to stay in business, because this is a unique piece of property, that he should be given the 12 square foot sign he wants, even though it’s 15 feet back from the property line. So, having said that, would someone like to make a motion? Would you like to table it? MR. STONE-I’d like to table it, until we can get some kind of measurement, even if it’s. MR. HAYES-You’re going to probably need to table it, because you don’t have support, I’m sure. MR. THOMAS-We’ll table it and have a letter sent to Mr. Potenza, to get an accurate measurement, since it is his sign and his property, to have an accurate location of that sign. Rather than the applicant. MR. STONE-I think that’s reasonable. MR. THOMAS-So, it’s just going to be delayed a month, but we’ll lay it into Mr. Potenza’s lap to give us the measurements we want, because it is his property and his sign. Right? MR. BETIT-Yes, but it’s my business. MR. THOMAS-Yes, it’s your business, but all we’re going to do is just table it for a month. MR. BETIT-He said it was all up to me. If I want to put a sign up there, I’d go through the stuff and he’d help me out. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, we want to know where his sign is. MR. HAYES-He might have a survey on file or something, too. MR. BETIT-Right, because I called him up. He’s been pretty busy, because his father’s been ill and he’s been out there. So, he’s been real busy going out there and stuff. So, I've been trying to get a hold of him, but I haven’t had any luck getting the paperwork. It’s going to take some more paperwork, where the property lines and all that stuff are, but I. MR. STONE-Craig, we can serve him with certified mail to get it or something, can’t we? Not serve. MR. THOMAS-Registered, send a registered letter. MR. BROWN-We have to send him a copy of the tabling motion requesting. MR. BETIT-I can call him and see what. MR. STONE-We can do it, too. I mean, we’ll do it officially. MR. THOMAS-We’ll do it this way, and that way, because we’re asking the property owner, not the applicant, which is you. MR. BETIT-I get along with him fine. There’s nothing wrong with that. MR. BROWN-To be fair, the map does appear to be somewhat outdated. It’s not even in the current property owner’s name, and it reflects a 1929 highway taking, which, you know, and the bounds could be a lot closer to the driving surface now. The road could have been realigned. This may not be accurate at all. It could be 50 feet from the road bounds. 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/99) MR. THOMAS-Yes. So we’ll lay it on to the property owner to come up with the right measurements. So, we’ll get the measurements from him, and then we’ll go from there. Okay? MR. BETIT-I guess so. MR. MC NALLY-If Mr. Potenza doesn’t provide us with this information, or refuses to, I mean, there should be a certain obligation on your part to try to help us get that information. MR. STONE-He said he would. MR. MC NALLY-Just to reinforce that idea, if we go by a month and Mr. Potenza doesn’t do anything, he’ll be back in the same place. That’s not good. Do you know what I mean? MR. BETIT-I guess so. MR. MC NALLY-All right. MR. THOMAS-At that time, we’ll do the Short Environmental Assessment Form. MR. BETIT-So I’m all done? MR. THOMAS-For right now. We have to do a motion. MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 35-1999 JAMES A. BETIT, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: Until no later than the July meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. This means that any new information requested by this Board must be submitted by the filing deadline for that month. The applicant may appear on the agenda in the previous month if the filing deadline for that month can be met. The reason for tabling this application is to get an accurate survey as to the location of the highway boundary and how far the sign is back from that highway boundary. Duly adopted this 26 day of May, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Stec MR. BROWN-You may want to make that the July meeting. Today’s the deadline for the June meeting. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Make it for the July meeting, please, and we will write a letter to Mr. Potenza. MR. BROWN-I’m assuming that we send out copies of the tabling motion. MR. THOMAS-Yes, put a note in there, that he is, since he’s the property owner, he’s responsible for these measurements. MR. STNOE-I thought the property owner was responsible for the site? When we did the one up at 149 and 9, wasn’t that the property owner who sought the variance for the extra sign? Of course then they went out of business, too. MR. THOMAS-Yes. That was the Radio Shack, yes, the guy flew up from Texas for that one. MR. STONE-Right. AREA VARIANCE NO. 36-1999 TYPE II SFR-1A (CURRENT) SFR-10 (OLD) MATTHEW C. & BARBARA STEVES OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 4 PLEASANT LANE, HIDDEN HILLS SUBDIVISION APPLICANT PROPOSES A 396 SQ. FT. ADDITION ONTO THE SOUTH SIDE OF EXISTING HOUSE. SEEKS RELIEF FROM SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS (SFR-10) AT TIME OF SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR HIDDEN HILLS SUBDIVISION. TAX MAP NO. 93-5-78 LOT SIZE: 0.38 ACRES SECTION 4.020.F OLD SFR-10 42 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/99) MATT STEVES, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 36-1999, Matthew C. & Barbara Steves, Meeting Date: May 26, 1999 “Project Location: 4 Pleasant Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 396 sf addition and requests setback relief. Relief Required: Applicant requests 3.71 feet of relief from the 15 foot minimum setback requirement of the SFR-10 zone, §4.020.f (old SFR-10). Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the chosen addition in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include reconfiguring the addition while maintaining a similar amount of square footage. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: 3.71 feet of relief from the 15-foot requirement may be interpreted as minimal to moderate. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None applicable Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. While the same square footage could be achieve via an alternate configuration, a narrower addition may not allow the applicant to achieve the desired floor plan. However, a reconfiguration in the form of downsizing the deck may allow for a similar plan. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. BROWN-This did not go to the County. MR. THOMAS-It did not go to the County. Mr. Steves? MR. STEVES-Good evening. My name is Matt Steves. As Craig was saying, as far as the setback is required, it’s 3.71 feet, as far as our other reasonable alternatives, that’s why, believe it or not, I've looked at this quite hard as to what other ways I could do this. I've had the architect and a structural engineer look and see if it was possible to put the addition off the back of the house where the existing deck is, where the hot tub is located. The problem with that is that there is a small bedroom in the southeast corner of the house, which only has two windows, and by the roofline, it would effect that one room in the bedroom, and for architectural or New York State Building Code, as far as ventilation and light requirements, they would not meet that requirement. So therefore I can not put it off the back. Also another reason for putting it and wrapping it around the side the way we have done it, is the proximity of the septic tank. If I were to push it to the north, I would also encroach upon the setback for the septic tank, and if I was to go straight off the back of the house, I’d have problems with the light requirements in the upstairs bedroom, the septic tank, and possibly one of the drywells. So in the three or four different scenarios we have come up with, we hve found this to be the best location. The reason for accommodating a fourth bedroom on the main floor, it is a three-bedroom house that exists now, with just a half bath downstairs. Ten years ago, my wife was diagnosed with arthritis. It is getting progressively worse, and we’re just looking into the future, to get her onto one floor. Earlier this year, or actually the latter part of last year, I did facilitate by bringing laundry services and stuff up on the main floor. So what we’re trying to do is basically turn our house into a ranch for my wife. The upstairs bedrooms would be for my two sons. The extra bedroom that would be upstairs would just be converted to like a den or an office. So that’s the reason for it. MR. STONE-Where’s the entrance? MR. STEVES-The entrance into the addition will be coming off on the south side, or in the middle of that 10-foot area, there’s actually five windows in the livingroom. That’s the livingroom on the south side, as you can see on Sheet 2, that’s approximately 14 by 24. So that we would still have the light and ventilation requirements of that room would still be maintained. Another reason for it is we’re going to emulate where they, a (lost word) into the (lost word) of the house on the south side, to emulate the breezeway on the north, and then turn the roof pitch the same as it is on the garage. So it, effectively, would be a symmetrical addition, as it is on the north side. MR. STONE-I assumed that when I looked at it, yes. MR. STEVES-And as far as the setback distances, yes, I can attest that that is correct. MR. STONE-As prepared by Van Dusen and Steves. 43 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/99) MR. STEVES-And another thing that I hope will be in my benefit is that I don’t have my typical cohort sitting next to me, and Jon Lapper, so I thought that would help me out tonight. MR. THOMAS-The zoning at the time that subdivision was approved, what were the side setbacks then? MR. BROWN-Fifteen feet. MR. THOMAS-Fifteen feet. Because that’s what we’ve been going by is this. So he’s looking for 3.71 feet from a 15. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for Mr. Steves? MR. STONE-This is just going to be one story? MR. STEVES-Actually, that one bedroom in the southeast, as I was discussing, is a very small bedroom, like 9 x 9, with a notch in the wall, because it’s the gambrel roof, so it has that (lost word) in the corner. So that’s even taken out, and that’s two by two taken out of it. So like I say, what we’re effectively going to do is still maintain a three bedroom. It’s going to be turned into basically an office, and my oldest son who’s 13 will be moving in to the existing master bedroom upstairs. MR. STONE-Is there going to be a doorway out to the hot tub from this thing? MR. STEVES-Out onto the deck, that’s correct. MR. STONE-There will be. So there will be two ways in and out of this? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DAVE EVERLY MR. EVERLY-My name is Dave Everly. I live to the north of Mr. Steves, next door. They’re great neighbors. We like having them around. We sure don’t want them moving out. They keep a nice dwelling, nice yard, and we have a good neighborhood there. MR. THOMAS-Okay. You’re on the north side? MR. EVERLY-I’m on the north side, yes. MR. THOMAS-And the addition’s going on the south. So you’re not on the same side as the addition. MR. EVERLY-I’m not on the same side, no. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Thanks. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor of this application? Would anyone like to speak opposed? Any correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. BROWN-Yes. I have one from Paul DiPhillips, 36 Hidden Hills Drive, Queensbury, NY “To Whom It May Concern: I, Paul DiPhillips, residing at 36 Hidden Hills Drive, Queensbury, NY support the efforts of the Town of Queensbury and the Steves to allow for modification in the current zoning laws to facilitate the addition of 396 sq. ft. to 4 Pleasant Lane. I have the confidence, based on the diligent manner in which the Steves have maintained 4 Pleasant Lane in the past, that the project will enhance the entire Hidden Hills development. Tremendously, Paul DiPhillips 36 Hidden Hills Drive, Queensbury, NY 12804” 44 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/99) MR. STONE-He wasn’t within the 500 feet, was he? MR. BROWN-Yes. He got a notification. MR. STEVES-Yes, because of my proximity to Maple, those lots are about 130 feet deep on the north side. So then you have all of Hidden Hills Drive on the other side. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. STEVES-So it touches the back of all of those properties. MR. THOMAS-So a lot of notices went out. MR. BROWN-Six pages worth. MR. STEVES-And I did speak to the neighbor to the south, Sullivan. I don’t know, because he had actually purchased the house and closed the day after the application went in, and I knew he was closing. That’s why I put “Sullivan” on the application and on the map, and their names are Pat and Susan Sullivan, and I've talked to them, and they have no problem. As a matter of fact, he said he would try to stop up and drop off a letter to Craig, but I guegss he didn’t make it. MR. THOMAS-No, he didn’t make it. All right. If the correspondence is all taken care of, I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for Mr. Steves? If not, lets talk about it. Jaime? MR. HAYES-Well, the applicant has given a good reason why he needs to construct this addition. It seems clear to me that he has, in fact, examined feasible alternatives in trying to be in compliance with existing rules and regulations. This appears to be the best possible plan. I think the relief is very minor in this particular circumstance, you know, three plus feet, and the effects on the neighborhood or community. I examined the property and it is very well kept. I have a firm belief that the addition will only continue that idea, and there’s been positive neighborhood input, including one gentleman staying here for three and a half hours to make that comment. So I believe it’s firmly held, and I don’t believe the difficulty is self-created. I mean, the alternatives are limited, and this is a good plan and a good project. So I’m entirely in favor. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew? MR. STONE-This is the kind of thing I think the Zoning Board was created for. It’s minimal relief. It’s an addition to a very well kept piece of property. I, too, was impressed, in looking at the landscaping and the condition of the premises. As Jaime said, the applicant has given ample reason why he needs to do this. It’s unfortunate that he has to, but those are the vagaries of life, unfortunately. He certainly has addressed the other alternatives, none of which appear to be readily feasible, in terms of what he’s trying to achieve. The amount of relief is obviously minimal. The effect on the neighborhood certainly would be minimal at best, particularly when you consider the size of the lots and the fact that it’s going to be close, but there’s plenty of room on the neighbor’s side, not that we have to consider the amount of room that he’s given, but certainly it’s not going to put him very close to the property, and while this is self-created, that’s a very small part of why I would grant this variance. So I have no problem at all in terms of granting this variance. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I basically echo what’s already been said. The relief actually is about 25%, but it’s not gigantic, given that there’s no other readily available alternatives, and given that there’s been no objections from neighbors, I’ll be inclined to go along with it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I agree with the other Board members. I think it will be an excellent project, and I think it will be well done. I’m in favor of it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I agree with the other Board members. This is the only feasible place that the applicant could put this addition, because of the explanation he gave us with the building requirements for the State of New York. There’s no opposition from any of the 45 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/99) neighbors. In fact, one neighbor, like Jaime said, sat here for three hours, just to say his peace. So, having said that, I would ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 36-1999 MATTHEW C. & BARBARA STEVES, Introduced by Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally: 4 Pleasant Lane. The applicant proposes to construct a 396 square foot addition, and is seeking setback relief. Specifically, he’s asking for 3.71 feet of relief from the 15-foot minimum setback requirement of the SFR-10 zone, Paragraph 4.020-f. Benefit to the applicant would be that he would be able to construct the chosen addition in the preferred location. Feasible alternatives while they appear to be reconfiguring the addition or moving it a little bit, it appears that the proposed location is the only practical alternative. Is the relief substantial to the Ordinance? The relief is probably minimal, 3.71 out of 15 feet. Effects on the neighborhood and community will be minimal, from what it appears. The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created, but there’s certainly justification. So I move approval. Duly adopted this 26 day of May, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Stec MR. STEVES-We thank you. MR. THOMAS-You’re quite welcome. MR. STONE-Just a quick thing, Craig. I was noticing there were two owners listed on the previous one. There’s a Frank Bork. Should we send to both of them? It says Potenza and Bork are owners, on the agenda. It might speed an answer. MR. BROWN-Okay. Yes. We’ll send them to the owners of record. USE VARIANCE NO. 37-1999 TYPE: UNLISTED CR-15 CAROL MARTIN OWNER: HAROLD & RONALD HOTMER c/o GREAT BAY CLAM CO. 19 MAIN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES A PUB/TAVERN/RESTAURANT USE OF BUILDING FORMERLY GREAT BAY SEAFOOD. PUB/TAVERN USES ARE NOT LISTED AS PERMITTED USES IN THE CR-15 ZONE. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING TAX MAP NO. 130-3-25 LOT SIZE: 0.48 ACRES SECTION 179-24 MICHAEL BORGOS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. BROWN-There’s a letter dated March 22, 1999, from Harold Hotmer, to the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, regarding Carol Martin. d/b/a The Filling Station Pub & Restaurant Application for Use Variance at 19 Main Street “Dear Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals: I am the owner of the real estate at 19 Main Street, Queensbury which is the site of applicant’s present business referenced above. I write this letter in support of their application for a use variance and in order to substantiate the hardship resulting from the present zoning of this parcel. My brother and I operated a restaurant known as Great Bay Seafood at this location for 15 years. At best we were a marginal business venture for most of the time and lost money until we were forced to close down due to a lack of business. Following our closure, we rented the property to another restaurant business known as Bangkok Thai and they too were forced to close down due to a lack of business. The financial burden of this property has been terrible until Ms Carol Martin opened The Filling Station Pub & Restaurant at this location. For the first time in 5 years, we have been able to start paying on our property taxes, something we were unable to do as a restaurant. Ms. Martin has been able to do what the past two businesses have been unable to do, that is run a business that can show a profit at this location while at the same time improving the property and preventing the loss of sales tax revenue and the inherent hazards of a vacant building. I sincerely hope you can see fit to grant the use variance which is sought since I truly believe it is the only chance for a viable business to survive on this property. Thank you. Sincerely, Harold C. Hotmer” STAFF INPUT 46 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/99) Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 37-1999, Carol Martin, Meeting Date: May 25, 1999 “Project Location: 19 Main Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes Pub/Restaurant use in the building formerly Great Bay Seafood. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief from the Commercial Residential zone, CR-15, § 179-24 as Bar/Tavern/Pub uses are not allowed uses in this 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? Evidently, the applicant’s current use of the property as a bar/restaurant has shown to be a profitable venture when compared to previous uses. 2. Is the alleged hardship relating to the property in question unique, and does this hardship apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood? The hardship does not appear to be unique to the property in question. Restaurants along Main Street appear to be surviving without a Bar atmosphere. Lox of Bagels, Wags Diner, Subway and Dunkin Donuts. 3. Will the requested use variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the neighborhood? While the listed purpose of the CR-15 zone is to allow for the transitioning from residential to commercial uses, the majority of uses in this immediate area are still mainly residential. 4. Is the alleged hardship self-created: The alleged hardship could be interpreted as self-created, in that the applicant has chosen to add a bar element to the restaurant rather than another approach to stimulate business. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None applicable Staff comments: Moderate to substantial impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. In May 1998, when the Certificate of Occupancy was issued, the applicant was clearly informed that a tavern is not an allowed use in this zone. Shortly thereafter, the applicant performed interior renovations to include several elements typically found in a Bar/Tavern; dance floor, bandstand, pool table, etc. all at the expense of restaurant seating. The applicant has operated the establishment as such since that time. A Pub/Restaurant use in a predominantly residential area may have significant impacts in the form of noise, hours of operation, traffic flow (patrons and deliveries), etc. Should this project be approved, referral to the Planning Board for Site Plan Review would be appropriate. SEQR Status: Type: Unlisted” MR. HAYES-Mr. Chairman, at this time I’d like to excuse myself, based on a possible conflict of interest with the Mangy Moose. MR. THOMAS-All right. MR. BROWN-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form 6 May 1999 Project Name: Carol Martin ID #: QBY-UV-37-1999 County Project #: May99-27 Project Description: Applicant proposes to establish a pub/tavern/restaurant in a building which previously was the Great Bay Seafood restaurant. Staff Notes: A copy of information from the applicant’s file is included with the summaries. The applicant is proposing to use the existing structure and ingress/egress points without any substantial change. Staff believes that the issues presented by the use of this structure as a restaurant are of a local concern only since Great Bay operated in that facility for approximately 15 years with the same type of use. Staff sees no significant change in usage from what was there and there were no identified County impacts with those pre-existing uses. Staff therefore is recommending No County Impact. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact Terri Ross, Warren County Planning Board MR. THOMAS-All right. You’re up. MR. BORGOS-Michael Borgos, Muller & Muller, for the applicant. I think the best way to start discussing this project is to explain how we began this application to begin with. The applicant did obtain a CO in May or June of ’98, and at that time, they were seeking to operate as a restaurant, but the question arose, through conversations with the members of the Building and Code Enforcement personnel and that Department as to what they were operating. Was it really a restaurant? So we’re talking about the definition of a restaurant. The applicant believes that her current use is a restaurant, or maybe even a subset of restaurant, and that is a pub. You might want to define that as a more friendly neighborhood atmosphere than some other place where they have maybe the Olive Garden or numerous examples that you could think of, but essentially, we believe that it is a restaurant. The problem was presented to the applicant, though, that is Code Enforcement sought to enforce the zoning, and brought an enforcement action in Queensbury Town Court. The applicant was presented with the question, do I try to oppose this at the Town Court level and seek a determination from the judge. If the decision from the judge was adverse, the business would be shut down. That would require some outside source of funds to seek a variance before this Board and go through this procedure to get a Use Variance. The applicant knew that her only source of income was operating the business, so she decided to go through the Use Variance procedure, initially, to seek a determination 47 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/99) from the Zoning Board of Appeals, essentially, as to what is the definition of a restaurant, and if was determined that restaurant is something that does not include a pub or tavern type usage, then we would be seeking the Use Variance to expand the current approved restaurant use to include pub/tavern, whatever the Zoning Board would determine that definition to be. I think it’s important to note that Great Bay Seafood had a bar that served alcoholic beverages in it during its 15 years of operation. I don’t know if the restaurant or uses before that had such a bar, but I know the bar was there for at least the past 15 or 20 years. The current applicant did expand the size of that bar, and there were some other things that were changed inside, but I think what the Staff notes indicate is not a current reflection, a reflection of what is currently there. It’s an indication that there was a dance floor that was added. The applicant would assert that, rather than being a dance floor, it was part of the floor that was tiled, but she didn’t have enough money to complete the entire floor area. So that’s where it stays right now, until she’s assured that she’ll be able to continue to operate there, before she makes the investment to complete the rest of the floor. So that’s in transition. There is no bandstand, per se. There’s an area where the bands typically set up when they do play, but it’s not a raised platform of any kind. A pool table was added where their space was available. Instead of tables with chairs, there are now the existing tables with booths that were purchased from another restaurant. Again, that’s the type of thing to create the pub environment with a tavern of a more neighborhood, you know, spaces within the restaurant for conversations, for extended stays rather than come in and then quickly leave. I believe there are also a number of televisions within the establishment that typically show, on the weekends, the NASCAR broadcasts that are very popular these days. So it’s created a niche in the community and that neighborhood, which we have seen change greatly in recent years, and I think we’ve mentioned, and what Craig read in the submitted papers, certainly the change in Main Street from two lanes to what is now, I believe, three lanes, widened highway, it was discussed perhaps to five, that’s an indication the change in residential to commercial use along this highway, and I think the Dunkin Donuts across the street is another indication of that. The CVS store, a couple of doors down, is stronger evidence of that, and I imagine that the vacant properties, or the rental properties that are along the roadway that will be encroached upon by this expanded roadway will also give way to other commercial uses over time. So we don’t think that this use is really any different from what was there before, but beyond that, we don’t think that a tavern or pub use is out of character with this neighborhood. MR. THOMAS-All right. Any questions for the applicant? I’ll throw the first one out. What are the hours of operation? MR. BORGOS-Currently, weekdays it closes at midnight, and on weekends, it’ll stay open until two or two thirty. The law permits them to stay open until four o’clock in the morning, but it was my understanding that this never occurs. MR. STONE-Would you agree, Ms. Martin, that the restaurant business is personality based and also based on food service, décor and so forth? CAROL MARTIN MS. MARTIN-Yes. I don’t even understand your question. MR. STONE-Well, to be successful in the restaurant business, you have to have good food, good drink, the hostess, the owner if it’s going to be on the premises, has to have the personality that people are going to like and come and so on. MR. BORGOS-It sounds like you’re speaking of atmosphere. MR. STONE-Atmosphere, décor. I mean, it’s got to be, it can’t be, depending upon what kind of restaurant it is, décor is important, what it looks like and how it’s furnished, so on and so forth. I mean, I have a basis for this question, obviously, because we’re eventually going to get into the thing that we got into earlier with the Use Variance, and I’m ready to maintain that the fact that other restaurants were not successful as restaurants has no bearing on not being able to make a reasonable return of this property used as a restaurant, when the personality of the owner and the atmosphere that’s created in there is considered. It can be argued that the Great Bay restaurant went downhill because attention wasn’t being paid, because the quality of service failed. Ms. Martin has not attempted to run a restaurant on that business, which is one of the permitted uses, and going back to something that you said, Mr. Borgos, the definitions in our Code are very clear. Tavern, Restaurant. They’re two things. We don’t mention pub in our Code. We mention Tavern, which is, just for the record, “a place in which the principal income is derived from the sale or serving of alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, with or without live entertainment”. A Restaurant is “a place for the preparation, serving and consuming of food and beverages, 48 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/99) other than a Tavern”. It’s very clear that they’re very different, as far as our Code is concerned, and you can’t argue one is the other. I’m suggesting that Ms. Martin, running a restaurant on premises, we don’t know whether it would be successful or not. You can’t use the experience of other people, because the restaurant business is personality driven in many cases. So, what you have said, that they were not successful, does not bear on the fact that you cannot make a reasonable return using this property as zoned, as far as I’m concerned. MR. BORGOS-If I may just address that, since you’ve just brought that up? MR. STONE-Please. MR. BORGOS-What you’re talking about seems to be more theoretical than the historical evidence as we’ve presented. We’ve presented not just one restaurant, we’ve presented several. Bangkok Thai also went out, and it’s my understanding there was a pizza shop and maybe a bakery or a deli before that. .All of them have met with some sort of failure, and I think that’s related not so much to the personality, perhaps, but to the physical limitations of the site. We have, it was originally a residential structure that was modified or changed, or altered over time, and as those uses evolved, one owner or another decided to make an addition or an alteration. The end result is that the current applicant is left with a structure that may not be suitable, in the current marketplace, to utilize for a restaurant, no matter what her personality might be. So she’s tried to find a way to operate what she thinks is a restaurant that serves alcoholic beverages and is kind of what we call a pub, and that’s indeed what the name is on the sign. MR. STONE-There’s no definition in our Code for a pub. MR. BORGOS-That’s part of the problem. We would like to call it a pub because we believe that’s what it is, and I think the whole thrust of what we have to say is that there is this hazy or gray area between tavern and restaurant, and we think pub falls right in there, but there is no clear definition as to what that is. MR. STONE-I think these two definitions, when one definition includes the other word, saying it’s not, I think it’s very clear that a restaurant is not a tavern. A tavern is not a restaurant. MR. BORGOS-That part is clear, but there is no mention of what a pub is. MR. STONE-I understand. MR. BORGOS-And that’s the distinction we wish to draw here. I think that the financial evidence we’ve presented, as far as the liabilities and responsibilities of the owner, as far as paying the debt on the property, are significant, and he needs to have a tenant of some kind in there. The previous tenants have failed, and he is in arrears on his mortgage payments, and on his property tax payments. The owner, as an interested party in this application, wants to make sure the Board understands that if the applicant is not permitted to use this property as a pub then it is likely that the property would go to tax sale and may become vacant and perhaps go downhill and be an eyesore rather than a well-kept, income producing property as it is now. MR. STONE-I recognize that, and Ms. Martin is to be congratulated for running a successful business, although a nonconforming business, on the premises, and as I say, the fact that two other people, three other people, were not able to do something, although Mr. Hotmer was in business for 15 years. I don’t know how long I would stay, if I were losing money. So here’s a little bit of, yes, I know it went downhill. No question about that, but as I say, the restaurant business is a, first of all, it’s a very difficult business, but it is very dependent upon what you are offering to people, and Ms. Martin has not tried to run a restaurant, which is a permitted use on that premises. She has run, by your definition and her definition, a tavern/pub, if you want to call it, but she’s run a tavern, by our definition. I hope I’m not whistling in the dark on this thing, guys, but this is where I come out as looking at this very difficult test. MR. MC NULTY-I end up, I guess, hearing two things. One thing that you said indicated to me that you feel, really, you are running a restaurant, not a tavern. MR. BORGOS-That’s correct. MR. MC NULTY-But that a restaurant might also sell alcoholic beverages. MR. BORGOS-Most usually do. 49 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/99) MR. MC NULTY-And I gather that the Zoning Administrator said, no, you’re running a tavern. MR. BORGOS-Correct. MR. MC NULTY-So, on the one hand, it could be that they should be here, instead, appealing the Zoning Administrator’s determination to start with. That would be an option they have. Instead, you’re here applying for a variance, which is basically saying, then, to me, that you’re accepting the Zoning Administrator’s determination that it is a tavern. Reading the definitions in here, it does strike me that the definition for restaurant does not say that a restaurant can not serve alcoholic beverages. The trip over is, I think, in the definition of tavern, where it says the principal income is derived from the sale or serving of alcoholic beverages. MR. BORGOS-That’s where we found a problem as well. I think if you look at a lot of restaurants around Town, we haven’t done a survey, but I think maybe, it’s unfortunate that Mr. Hayes isn’t here, because he could probably comment on this from his experience, but I think the majority of the restaurants in Town derive a substantial portion of their business from the bar. Now we don’t know exactly what that number is, as a common number. We don’t have a restaurant expert, other than Ms. Martin here, to talk about it, but it’s my understanding there’s a substantial amount of it that is from the bar, and if it is greater than 50%, then those are taverns. It’s a question of where the line is. MR. MC NULTY-Using that definition, (lost words) a tavern. MR. BORGOS-It’s my understanding that we would be deriving more than 50% of the income from the bar business. MR. MC NALLY-That’s kind of a side issue to you, because like he pointed out, they’re here asking for a Use Variance. So that’s an admission, an acknowledgement that they’re a tavern. MR. MC NULTY-Right. I remember the Great Bay Seafood Company. It was quite busy there for a good long period of time. Thai food is not a very popular kind of food in this area. It’s like the Indian restaurant up by Great Escape. It’s not going to last very long, just by the nature. MR. STONE-The Thai one in the Mount Royal didn’t last very long, either. MR. BORGOS-Well, the problem that I see with Mr. Stone’s proposal is that the applicant would have to go through some tremendous hardship, financially, in order to even appear before the Board and meet the criteria, and at that point, there would be no way to recover from that tremendous financial loss, if she were to try just to be a restaurant. MR. MC NALLY-You present some financial evidence, you’ve had assertions as to what the rent was, this and that and the other thing, but there’s been no analysis as to what Mr. Hotmer’s expenses are. The question comes down to, what’s a reasonable return. We have no idea whether he has a mortgage, whether he doesn’t have a mortgage, what the mortgage is, what other expenses he has associated with it. The same goes for your client’s, in so far as what her actual expenses and income are, based on food sales and other items. MR. BORGOS-I believe that we’ve tried to include as much of the financials as we have available to us, and I think the evidence that’s been presented about the arrearages and mortgage payments and tax payments is a strong indication that there’s not sufficient income to off-set the expenses. MR. STONE-No, but competent financial evidence, I recall, and I was not on the Board, and I’ll go back to what I referred to earlier, the Mooring Post. One of the problems the applicant had there is his funds were so co-mingled, that it was impossible for this Board, am I speaking correctly, Chris? MR. THOMAS-So far. MR. STONE-To determine what he was making or not making on the business that was under discussion. I don’t know Mr. Hotmer. I don’t know his businesses. I don’t know what he does. I don’t know how he does his finances, and the fact that he says he lost money, does that mean he lost money, or the Great Bay lost money, or his corporation lost money? I don’t know that until I see numbers. 50 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/99) MR. MC NALLY-Or didn’t make as much money as he wanted to, which is just, I don’t make as much as I need. MR. STONE-Right. Well, what I need is one thing, as I want is another thing. MR. MC NALLY-It’s anecdotal evidence. I mean, I always have this problem. MR. STONE-I know you do. MR. BORGOS-Well, it would be nice to have experts come in and testify as to what the exact number should be, or maybe even an accountant come in and testify according to that, but there was a prior applicant here tonight who merely mentioned a few numbers that seemed way out of line to me, yet they were accepted by the Board, with far less evidence than what we’ve presented. MR. STONE-But there was a difference, as I tried to explain, in that one, that his nonconforming business was continuing. It wasn’t expanding. It was something that was required of his business. That’s what satisfied me. The $500,000, we mentioned it, but the most important thing was he was trying to maintain his existing business. So, by making a statement that, knowing his business and what he does for a living, that he couldn’t do it on the scale that he has operated, the scale that he’s expected to operate on, because he is probably the largest tree man in the area, that he needed that equipment. I can buy that. Here, it’s very clear that, first of all, we’ve got a definition problem, definitional problem of tavern versus restaurant. A tavern is not permitted. A restaurant is. Without demonstration that Ms. Martin can’t get a reasonable return on a restaurant, you haven’t demonstrated that, to me, and that’s, as I read the Use Variance, that this is a permitted use, we don’t know how she would do in the business. There are all kind of restaurateurs in this world. Some very successful and some very unsuccessful, and it’s a business in which personality is very important in the business. If you’re a grouch and serve lousy food, you’re not going to last very long. MR. BORGOS-Upon that analysis, then, there would be always a reason to deny this application, because there always would be some other unidentified person who could be with a greater personality to attract business. MR. STONE-That’s one of the reasons we don’t get many Use Variances, because the law of New York State has made it extremely difficult, as Bob read earlier. It’s an extremely difficult test. You’ve been here how many years, Chris? You agree, right? MR. THOMAS-Too many. It is. MR. STONE-We haven’t had many. MR. BORGOS-I believe the standard is whether the applicant can make money, not some great restaurateur from New York City or somebody with some other outside experience. MR. STONE-How do we know that? How do we know that the applicant can’t get a reasonable return in a restaurant business? MR. BORGOS-Because I believe that she can tell you here tonight that, from her experience operating for the last year, that would be impossible. MS. MARTIN-I've run a restaurant before, and it wasn’t very successful. MR. BORGOS-Ms. Martin had operated the Gold Shade restaurant for a time. MS. MARTIN-A year prior. MR. STONE-The restaurant business is location, location, like real estate, location. MS. MARTIN-I’m a real estate broker, also. I know about real estate. MR. BROWN-I think one of the criteria also mentions that for each and every permitted use. MR. STONE-I know that. I didn’t go into it that far. MR. BROWN-Okay. Just to narrow it down, it has to be a viable restaurant for each use. 51 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/99) MR. STONE-Agreed. MR. BROWN-I don’t know if you have that evidence, either. MR. STONE-That’s a very good point. I didn’t want to make it too complicated at the moment. MR. BROWN-Okay. I just didn’t want you to focus on that. MR. STONE-Well, I have the logic on the side, on the definitions when I do this one. MR. MC NALLY-When a CO was issued, were you told that you couldn’t have a tavern? MS. MARTIN-It wasn’t that I couldn’t have a tavern. It was to be used as a restaurant use. There was a bar in there. There’s always been a bar in there. They knew I had a liquor license coming. All I did was, well, the knew the wall was open. All I did was I extended my bar down approximately 17 feet (lost words) and that’s when this all came about because I had gotten permission from the liquor authority, and I had to send a certified letter to the Town, letting them know the change. MR. MC NALLY-So the bar was increased in length by 17 feet? MS. MARTIN-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-And you did not put in a dance floor? MS. MARTIN-I've started tiling the floor. MR. MC NALLY-Tiling the floor, and the remainder of the floor consists of what? MS. MARTIN-It’s still the old carpet, and as I am going, I am going around the whole place with tile. The entire floor will be tile. I also put in a window, so you could see the back parking lot, made repairs. I've remodeled the entire upstairs where I live with my children. MR. MC NALLY-How soon after did you, after the CO was issued, did you begin making these renovations, after the bar was open? Was it right after? MS. MARTIN-No. MR. MC NALLY-Well, when was it? MS. MARTIN-It was probably issued in May, June. MR. MC NALLY-It was issued in May of ’98. MS. MARTIN-I didn’t do the floor until probably, or the bar until, the window was probably October. The bar was probably September/October. Then the floor. MR. MC NALLY-Within six months or so, you’re saying? MS. MARTIN-Right. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. MR. STONE-Craig, do you have a copy of your file note, or your letter that you wrote? MR. BROWN-I don’t have that file with me. I can go get it if you want. It’s on my desk. The actual building permit file. MR. STONE-Well, I mean, this was described in kind of, well, yes, he kind of said it. Were you more specific than that, that this, you have to be a restaurant, not a tavern? MR. BROWN-At the time the CO was issued, the Zoning Administrator issued a letter that basically summarized this is your CO. It’s for a restaurant use. Should the character of the use change to, I’m not sure if in the letter it said a bar/tavern/pub, but if the use changes from restaurant, additional review, via Use Variance, Site Plan Review, whatever the use changes to, would be required. So it was specific to restaurant only, and I could get a copy of that if you really would like to know. I should have it. 52 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/99) MR. MC NALLY-Do you live in the building, too? MS. MARTIN-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-Is the upper stairs occupied by your family? MS. MARTIN-No. MR. STONE-Maybe if he doesn’t have it on the record, it might be a good idea. Chris, I don’t want to usurp your job. Do you think we should have that letter? MR. THOMAS-Yes. I’d like to see it, or hear it. MR. BORGOS-If I might just add the additional comment to further muddy the waters here, I thought the definition of what this thing is, I see in the Code, a Type II Site Plan Review use that’s acceptable is a social club or fraternal organization, and when I see that definition, I think of the Elks or the Knights of Columbus, and I think we all know that that is essentially a bar. It’s a gathering place for people to go and sit and converse, rather than a neighborhood group, which is what this establishment is. It’s a group of people with other interests that are similar, but the purpose is the same. It’s to have a bar and a gathering place. I still think that’s what a pub is, just for different criteria. Maybe there’s not a membership roll. Maybe there’s not an annual dues, but it’s the same purpose, and that’s why I think there is this vague gray area between what is a pub and what is a restaurant. If it’s just based on where you derive the majority of your income, I suppose you could reduce the price of the drinks and elevate the price of the food and require that somebody purchase a few hotdogs with every drink, and perhaps that would change the income stream, but you’re really changing the identity of the use. MR. STONE-Just to counter, I mean, what you’re saying. Again, using the bible, you’re right. Social club or fraternal organization. You go to “Social Club”. It says “See Club”. You go to “Fraternal Organization”, it says “See Club”. “Club An organization catering exclusively to members and their guests, or premises and buildings for recreation or athletic purposes, which organization or premises and buildings are not conducted primarily for gain, provided that there are not conducted any vending stands, merchandizing or commercial activities, except as required for the membership and purposes of such Club”. It’s clear to me that this is not a Club, and this definition does not get me into a tavern either. MR. THOMAS-Yes. The only thing that bothers me is that, under Section D(2)(f), where it says, “unenclosed deck used for restaurant, club, tavern or other bar purposes”. Why is that in there? MR. STONE-That’s a good question, and I pondered that, and it’s obviously, the operative words, as far as I’m concerned, are non-enclosed deck, which is an auxiliary for various kinds of businesses, but if you don’t allow a tavern business, then you don’t allow a non- enclosed deck is the way I would interpret it. Obviously, Mr. Borgos would interpret it differently, and that’s why the book is not perfect. That’s why we have lawyers. MR. BORGOS-That’s why we have a Board, to make those determinations. MR. STONE-That’s why we have a Board. Right. I see the operative words, that you can have a non-enclosed deck for various kinds of businesses if they’re allowed. If they’re not allowed, you can’t have it. We found, last week, that the Local Law No. 14-, no, that’s a different one. They must have passed a lot of laws back in ’91, Local Laws. Pliney, did you, on this Code? MR. TUCKER-I wasn’t there in ’91. MR. STONE-Because there was one November that we had a big discussion about last week. MR. THOMAS-Yes, that’s right, too. MR. TUCKER-I was there for ’92 and ’93. MR. STONE-It’s interesting. There was a lot of changes made back in ’91. MR. THOMAS-Yes. 53 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/99) MR. TUCKER-I think they were on a kick at that time at looking at everything and changing the wording. MR. THOMAS-Well, we’re at a standstill here. MR. MC NALLY-Should we take public comments? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-In the interim. MR. THOMAS-All right. I’ll open the public hearing. Would anyone like to speak in favor of this application, in favor of? Would anyone like to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MARY WELCH MRS. WELCH-My name is Mary Welch. I own 17 Main Street, which is a medical office building next door to this facility. I guess my biggest concern here is that I think a tavern that might have longer hours than, say, a restaurant or whatever. It may change the complexion of the neighborhood there. There are young families in that neighborhood, even though there are commercial businesses nearby. There is a house on the other side of that tavern, and it does have children in it. There are people in the back, some streets that are in the back there. I have heard people mention that there’s noise in the evenings from the music that’s going on there. So I think it’s going to change the complexion of that area there, and I don’t know that that’s a good thing. I’m not saying that anything has happened so far, but I think it’s a lot different having a restaurant next to my office building than having a tavern there, and that’s a concern that I have, but as I said, I’m basically wondering why we need to change what’s happening in that area now. Just because there’s a lot of business on that road doesn’t mean that everything has to change to commercial. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Thanks. DAVE WELCH DR. WELCH-My name is Dave Welch. I’m the other half of the duo here, and I run the medical practice next door, and I would make several comments. Number One, I think that the character of the operation in that building has changed over the past several months. When I first heard that this was coming before the review, I was confused because I didn’t understand the difference between a tavern and a restaurant. The fact that they’ve been operating there for nearly a year in this capacity raised the question in my mind of why this was suddenly coming before the Board. You’ve answered part of that question for me tonight, and I don’t envy you your decision-making process. The other comment is that we’ve been in that building almost 17 years now. Much of that overlapped with the operation of Great Bay Seafood. My contention, in part, is that one of the reasons that Great Bay Seafood failed was that they tried to expand and become too big. Prior to adding on the addition, which was the bulk of the seating, and is now the largest portion of what is the bar area, prior to that time, they were a successful operation. They were selling fish as a fresh fish market, and they were running a restaurant simultaneously, and were successfully in business, and according to their own application, it was only the last five to seven years of their business that they truly started to lose money, and that was after the addition of that expansion to the building. The third comment is that there are several other restaurants along that corridor. It was mentioned that Lox of Bagels has done a very good job and has been extremely successful. Pizza Hut chose to go in on that corridor and has done very well. The Northway Diner is certainly not what I would consider a high-class restaurant, but continues to remain in business and appears to be viable. Dunkin Donuts clearly is purely a business, in the business of selling food, and has no drink or alcoholic beverages, nor do I understand the Northway Diner does, other than perhaps beer, and around the corner is the complex in the Berry Mill Mall, which has both a restaurant and a coffee shop, which are doing well. The only other restaurant that failed in that immediate corridor was not a failure, but the Mangia restaurant that was in the Hannaford Plaza was making a profit, and the only reason they went out of business is they were not making as big a profit as they were in their Plattsburg and Albany area operations. So that one went out. If you continue down the street, you have the Double V or whatever it’s called, Steve’s Place there, that also continues to do an excellent business, largely by serving a lunch and breakfast population, but also runs a dinner operation and makes a very good business with no alcoholic sales. So I think that there is a concern that it changes the character of the neighborhood. I agree that this has not proven to be a failure as a restaurant location. There are several others in the area that 54 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/99) have succeeded, and I am concerned about the quality of the neighborhood character. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Would anyone else like to speak opposed? Do you know if there were any letters? MS. MARTIN-I could get my neighbors to come in here, the ones that are on the other side, that have children, the ones behind that. MS. GAGLIARDI-It doesn’t look like it. MR. THOMAS-No correspondence? MS. GAGLIARDI-No. MR. THOMAS-All right. MR. STONE-But I can only tell you, it’s always helpful when people who are on your side are here, because we certainly, not that the Welch’s were extremely negative. They were concerned, but we like to hear both sides, and we seldom get the people who say. MS. MARTIN-I haven’t changed anything in the last year. I've been running this business in the last year. I've had no complaints. The police have had no complaints. I've spoken with the Liquor Authority. They’ve had no complaints. My neighbors haven’t come over complaining. I get along with most of them. This is the first time I've seen Dr. Welch’s wife, and have met them before. MR. BROWN-It was here all along. MR. THOMAS-We’ll let Craig read it in. MR. BROWN-I’ll need one back, then, because I only had two copies, unless you’d like to read it. MR. STONE-I’ll read it, if you want. MR. THOMAS-Why don’t you read it in. MR. STONE-This is dated May 15, 1998, from Chris Round, Director of Community Development, carbon copy to Dave Hatin, to Ms. Carol Martin, doing business as the Station Pub, which I guess your name was at that point, the Station Pub. MS. MARTIN-The Filling Station. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, 19 Main Street, Queensbury, NY 12804 “Dear Ms. Martin: This Office is contemplating the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) for the “Station Pub” located at Main Street in the Town of Queensbury. The site was formerly the Great Bay Seafood restaurant. Although no additional discretionary approvals are required from this office for operation of the facility as a restaurant (other than the CO), it should be noted that taverns are not an allowed use in the CR-15 zone. A tavern, as defined in the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance is “a place in which the principal income is derived from the sale or serving of alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises”. The CO, when issued, will reflect the facility will be operated as a restaurant and should the character of the operation change or the NYS Liquor License indicate information other than that known to us presently, we reserve the right to rescind the CO. If you have any questions or comments regarding this or any other issues please feel free to contact our offices. Sincerely, Town of Queensbury Chris Round, Director Community Development” MR. THOMAS-I've already opened the public hearing, pros, cons. Okay. I’ll leave the public hearing open for a while because I don’t know where this is going to go. Are there anymore questions for the applicant? I guess we’re going to talk about it, then. Lew? MR. STONE-Well, as we’ve been saying all evening, a Use Variance has very strong criteria, and I will just read the thing, to allow a use not otherwise allowed in zoning an applicant must demonstrate to the Board unnecessary hardship. Such demonstration includes all of the following, for each and every permitted use: 1. Cannot realize a reasonable return substantial as shown by competent financial evidence. What I have heard is a lot of anecdotal information about restaurants that apparently began as successful restaurants and went downhill, at least the Great Bay Seafood. I, myself, had eaten there on a couple of 55 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/99) occasions. The fact that this restaurant failed, eventually, and that the Thai restaurant that followed it failed, or went out of business, we don’t know whether it failed or not, to me, as I said, is anecdotal, and is not competent financial evidence, because of my feelings that the restaurant business is, in many ways, personality driven, and that Ms. Martin has never operated a restaurant at that site. The other three criteria, alleged hardship is unique and does not apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood is almost, by definition, this is a restaurant in a commercial zone. Well, it’s not really unique, because there are restaurants in the zone, in this Commercial Residential zone, that are successful. We also have to show that the requested variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, and there is some question whether this nonconforming use will alter the essential character of the neighborhood, and certainly the alleged hardship is self-created, because you have chosen to ignore the advice, if you will, of the Community Development Director and operate a business which, by Town definition, is not a permitted use. Therefore, I have no alternative but to deny this Variance. MR. THOMAS-All right. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I’m inclined to agree that we haven’t seen substantial financial evidence that nothing else is viable in the area. I think your point, several other restaurants operating successfully in the area speak to that. I also feel that it would/will vary the nature of the neighborhood. So I am also inclined to deny it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-The applicant has four criteria they have to meet. The first one is whether they can realize a reasonable return. The current use of the property as a bar is certainly profitable, but I don’t think that there has been any competent financial evidence demonstrating an inability to earn a reasonable return in one of the permitted uses. Dr. Welch’s comments about the number of restaurants within a several block distance, right on Main Street, were a little bit surprising to me. I remembered Lox, and I remembered Wags Diner, but I had forgotten all about the Pizza Hut and I had forgotten all about Steve’s Place, and the coffee shop in the Berry Mill Plaza. These are successful restaurants within two, maybe three blocks, if not on the same block. So the fact that a restaurant apparently was not successful in that one particular building, is not a hardship unique to that. This is an area which is replete with restaurants, and I think that there could have been better evidence to show the need for a Use Variance, which there wasn’t. The variance also, if requested and granted, is going to essentially alter the character of the neighborhood. There is a distinct difference between a restaurant and a tavern, as the Code defines it, and they draw different crowds. They stay up different hours, and I think that the Town Board, in making the distinction, had some justifiable reason for it. So I think that that would be another characteristic that would go against this application, and lastly, and with all due respect to Ms. Martin, it is self-created. It’s clear that the Town specifically said it was not to be operated as a tavern. Yet within a very short time, it was. So I don’t know how much of an effort was really made to try to run this as a restaurant, where liquor could be served, but only as a side, not as a principal source of the income for the business. Since it doesn’t meet the test for a Use Variance, I can’t support the application. MS. MARTIN-So what is the difference between a restaurant and a tavern? For me to run that as a restaurant. MR. MC NALLY-If you look at the Code, the restaurant is a place where food is sold and liquor may also be sold. A bar is where liquor, or alcoholic beverages, actually, is the principal source of income. So it’s an income test. It’s a test as to how much money do you make from selling booze. That’s what the difference is. If it’s more, if it’s a principal amount, it’s a bar. If it’s an aside, or sideline, it’s not. It’s a restaurant. MS. MARTIN-So if I start serving, open a full fledged kitchen, and make at least 50%, 75% from food, then I’m considered a restaurant? MR. MC NALLY-Well, I think that our Town is going to have to abide by its Code, and I think that’s what the Code says, but just having a kitchen doesn’t make. MS. MARTIN-I could get a petition now with at least 500 people in the last two months that have eaten in my restaurant. MR. MC NALLY-Well, then, perhaps you should not be asking for a Use Variance, but as Mr. McNulty’s suggested, you should be challenging the determination that you are a tavern, but that’s not what we’re here for tonight. We're here for your Use Variance application, and that’s a different issue. 56 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/99) MS. MARTIN-I do serve a lot of food on premises. MR. MC NALLY-That’s an issue of fact, and the materials, the books, finances, are things that show that. Okay. MR. THOMAS-Can you show us that, that, you know, in your books, do you keep the separation between the? MS. MARTIN-I haven’t been, but I will from now on. I put everything all in. MR. THOMAS-Lump it all into one. There’s no way you can separate the two out? MS. MARTIN-I could. I will start. MR. THOMAS-But I mean from now back to when you started. MS. MARTIN-I could try. I’m not sure how accurate I could be. Like I said, I could get a petition of everybody that’s eaten there. I’m always serving food. Always. MR. MC NALLY-It is only a certain timeframe that they can challenge the Administrator’s decision. MR. THOMAS-Yes, 60 days. MR. BORGOS-Are you aware of the definition of “prinicipal” within the Code? Is there one, or is that arbitrary? MR. MC NALLY-Principal, if it’s not defined, I think, given it’s commonsense effect, and if there was really a dispute, then the issue of what do you mean by that comes to us, and we have to define (lost words). Make an interpretation. I don’t see it’s listed as a defined term in our Ordinance. MR. BORGOS-I haven’t found it, either. Is that something that the Board can make tonight? Make that determination? MR. STONE-No. The Zoning Administrator has to make that decision, and then you can challenge his decision, and then it comes to us again. MR. BORGOS-So the query to the Zoning Administrator would be what is “principal”? MR. BROWN-There is a definition for principal use. MR. STONE-Principal use, but not principle income. MR. MC NALLY-We're like an Appellate Board on issues that they do. MR. STONE-I didn’t bring my dictionary tonight, which is very important. MR. MC NALLY-So, if a decision is made in that regard, then you could (lost words). MR. THOMAS-What we can do for you is table this for up to 62 days. MR. BORGOS-I don’t see what good that would do, based upon where we are tonight. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Well, Jaime can’t sit here because he’s abstained himself, but there’s two more members. MR. STONE-Well, where do you stand, Mr. Chairman? MR. THOMAS-Well, I agree with the other Board members, that we haven’t been shown, that’s why I asked if you could separate out the food from the liquor, if you could separate the two out. That’s why I asked. If you can do that and show us that the restaurant makes more money than the bar, well then it’s, you know, you don’t derive most of your income from the bar. You get it from the restaurant. MR. MC NULTY-But that’s not the issue that’s before us. MR. THOMAS-No. 57 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/99) MR. MC NULTY-The issue is whether or not we will give them a variance. So what we need to do is within the timeframe from when Chris made his determination, you need to appeal his determination and come in with evidence that more of your income comes from a restaurant operation. MR. STONE-That was a year ago. I read it clearly, I thought, ’98. I emphasized that. MR. MC NULTY-Well, in ’98 is when he warned them. MR. BORGOS-That’s when he contemplated the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. MR. STONE-Was there a citation? MR. BROWN-I think so. MR. MC NALLY-In Queensbury Town Court somewhere. MR. BORGOS-There’s been no hearing as of yet. MR. STONE-But when was the citation issued? Do you have any idea? MR. BORGOS-I don’t know exactly when that occurred. All proceedings were suspended because of the application that was pending before the Board here. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BROWN-March 1. This appearance ticket was issued March 1. stst MR. STONE-Okay. So that’s well past 60 days. That could have been challenged, then, as a definition at that point. I guess that’s a declaration by the Zoning Administrator that you were running a tavern rather than a restaurant. Would you agree that that’s why the citation was issued? MR. BROWN-That’s why the citation was issued? Yes. MR. STONE-Yes. Do you want us to vote? MR. MC NALLY-Do you want to table it? MR. BORGOS-I think at this time we’ll withdraw our application. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BORGOS-Is that acceptable to the Board? MR. THOMAS-It’s acceptable to us. You still have to contend with the Community Development Director, whatever he comes up with. MR. BORGOS-We're aware of that. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Okay. If you’ll withdraw it, we’ll take it off. MR. BORGOS-Okay. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 39-1999 TYPE II SR-1A PETER & GLORIA IMPERIALE OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 38 MORNINGSIDE CIRCLE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 552 SF DETACHED GARAGE AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM DEFINITIONS ADDRESSING GARAGES, BOTH SIZE AND NUMBER. TAX MAP NO. 149-2-30 LOT SIZE: 2.14 ACRES SECTION 179-19 PETER IMPERIALE, PRESENT 58 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/99) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 39-1999, Peter & Gloria Imperiale, Meeting Date: May 26, 1999 “Project Location: 38 Morningside Circle Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has constructed a 552 square foot freestanding garage and seeks relief from the garage definition. Relief Required: Applicant requests 246 square feet of relief from the 900 square foot maximum allowable square footage for private garages, § 179-7. Additionally, per the listed allowable accessory structures in § 179-19, parcels in this zone are allowed a private garage. This application is requesting relief for a second garage and for a total of 1146 square feet of garage area. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to maintain the non conforming structure in the existing location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include downsizing to a total of 900 square feet of garage space, expansion of the existing attached garage and removal. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 246 square feet of relief from the 900 square foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate to substantial effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None applicable Staff comments: Moderate to substantial impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The addition of a freestanding second garage on this property would appear to be for the expansion of the applicant’s contacting business. While a garage may be used for the storage of a commercial vehicle, the definition excludes businesses from being conducted therein. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. BROWN-And there’s no County referral. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. Imperiale? MR. IMPERIALE-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Would you like to tell us a story? MR. IMPERIALE-I just need the other garage for storage, basically. MR. THOMAS-What do you store in the garage? MR. IMPERIALE-My truck, my tools, my lawnmower, odds and ends. MR. THOMAS-What about the garage that’s attached to the house? MR. IMPERIALE-You’d have to talk to my wife about that one. The kids bikes, her car, and all the other stuff that’s in there, I can’t put my truck in there. MR. STONE-What kind of a truck do you have? MR. IMPERIALE-A van. MR. THOMAS-What kind of contracting business do you do? MR. IMPERIALE-Builder. MR. THOMAS-Building? MR. IMPERIALE-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Did you get a building permit for that garage? MR. IMPERIALE-No, I didn’t, but I applied for one. MR. STONE-After the fact. MR. IMPERIALE-After the fact. I did it out in the open. I didn’t hide it from anybody. A year later, somebody said something. I admit I did wrong, but as far as anything else in this Town is concerned, I’m one of the better builders in this area, and I apply for all my building permits, other than my own. MR. STONE-How big is your current built-in garage? 59 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/99) MR. IMPERIALE-It’s a two-car garage. It’s 20 by 23. MR. STONE-So 460. MR. IMPERIALE-Yes. I’d say about 500 square feet. I've got two boys, a wife that doesn’t park her car right. You know as well as I know, when you (lost words) garage with everybody else. I needed a place to store my truck, get it out of the snow. It’s not a $500,000 unit, but it’s still worth money to me. MR. STONE-Do you run the business out of your house? MR. IMPERIALE-I wouldn’t say I run the business out of my house. I bring my truck home at night, and I store my tools in the garage, just like I store my tools in my van. I wouldn’t say I run, per se, out of my house. MR. STONE-No, but you prepare bills, addendum, and all that sort of stuff? MR. IMPERIALE-Yes, sure I do. MR. STONE-You do this yourself? MR. IMPERIALE-Yes. MR. STONE-You have no employees on the premises? MR. IMPERIALE-No. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. IMPERIALE-I’m just saying, I do just like anybody else. MR. STONE-There’s nothing wrong with running your own business out of your house, as long as you don’t. MR. IMPERIALE-No, I don’t, employees, no. 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? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED PLINEY TUCKER MR. TUCKER-I’d like to make a couple of comments about the system, if I may. I’m Pliney Tucker, Fourth Ward Councilman. I’m the gentleman that filed the complaint on this situation. I had two different people claim that Mr. Imperiale was bragging to them, he put a garage up without a permit, and it was brought to my attention because of the business I’m in, a politician, to see if could do anything about it. So I brought it to Mr. Brown’s attention. It appears to me that Mr. Imperiale, even though he’s a contractor, and a good one he says, doesn’t believe in the system. Now, I’d just as soon have been home tonight falling asleep watching t.v. than sitting up here watching this show, and the same thing with Mr. Brown. Now, I know our system isn’t perfect, but it wouldn’t have taken Mr. Imperiale very long to get a permit to build this garage when he built it, and I just feel that he made me look dumb. He made Mr. Brown look dumb, and, guys, I think he made you look dumb because he didn’t want to follow the system, and that’s why he’s here in front of you. That’s the only comment. The two people that brought this complaint to me said to me, they ought to make him tear it down. So that’s how they feel about it. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-All right. Is there any correspondence? MR. BROWN-Yes. I've got a signature, a petition that reads, “To Whom It May Concern: Let it be known we do not have a problem with the garage variance that Mr. and Mrs. P. Imperiale are applying for.” And there’s 18 signatures on here. MR. IMPERIALE-That’s all Candleberry and Morningside Circle, and I have four other ones that are right in my neighborhood. Because that was more than 500 feet away right 60 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/99) there, and as far as me bragging, I never bragged to anybody, and who are these two people that said I bragged? MR. TUCKER-I’m not going to tell you. MR. IMPERIALE-Of course not. I never bragged whatsoever, and I did not do it on purpose, not applying for a building permit. I did it out in the open. If someone said a year from what I did it, they should have come down a lot earlier and said something. MR. THOMAS-When did you build it, last year? MR. IMPERIALE-It was in June or July I built it, last year. These people, I bragged. I didn’t brag anything. MR. THOMAS-I've got three letters that are attached. MR. IMPERIALE-There should be four letters there attached, plus I got Candleberry and Morningside Circle. MR. THOMAS-Yes, there’s three on the back of the application, plus the. MR. BROWN-Yes, let me do the ones on the back of the application. You might recognize these names. Some of them I can’t read. MR. STONE-That’s a support? MR. IMPERIALE-These are all supports. Tim Blake, Nina Dean, Dorothy Volk, Craig MacEwan, Barrett, Frank Nicholas, Simays, Lorraine Nicholas, Lauren Newman, Tim Brewer, Robin Brewer, Mr. Aikens, and Quintos. MR. BROWN-And I’ll read the letters in the file, they’re attached to the application. It’s from John and Cathy Arcuri, 36 Morningside Circle, “I’m the homeowner of the above address. Please be advised that I have no objections to the garage structure recently erected. I feel that the structure is aesthetically pleasing to the eye. Best regards, John and Kathy Arcuri 36 Morningside Circle Queensbury, NY 12804” This is from 34 Morningside Circle “I’m the homeowner of the above address. Please be advised that I have no objections to the garage structure recently erected. I feel that the structure is aesthetically pleasing to the eye. Best regards, Don and Reine Monroe 34 Morningside Circle Queensbury, NY 12804” 42 Morningside Circle, Grace Ciafardini “To Whom It May Concern: I am the homeowner of the above address. Please be advised that I have no objections to the garage structure recently erected closest to my property line. I feel that the structure is properly placed on the property and is aesthetically pleasing to the eye. If I can be of any additional help, please let me know. Best regards, Grace Ciafardini 100 Kilmer Road Mahwah, N.J. 07430” I only have three letters, then the one that came in dated 5/24. The actual letter is dated May 20, 1999, to Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, Attention: Chris Thomas, Chairman, regarding Area Variance No. 39-1999 Pete Imperiale “Dear Chairman Thomas and Board Members: My apologies to the Board for not being able to attend the public hearing regarding this application, but please enter my comments as part of the public hearing. As a neighbor to Mr. and Mrs. Imperiale, I have no objections to the additional garage, which was constructed on their property. The building does not pose any impacts to neighboring properties, as it is located toward the rear portion of their property. Additionally, the garage’s location will not impact any potential development of the adjoining rear property, as there is a buffer of natural vegetation and Clendon Brook, which isolates the Imperiale property by several hundred yards. The garage does not pose a negative appearance for adjoining properties, as it’s design and construction complements the surrounding house design. I am disappointed that Mr. Imperiale didn’t apply for the proper permits before he proceeded with construction but none the less, I find that his garage will not pose any negative impacts to our neighborhood. Thank you for the opportunity to present my views. Respectfully, Craig E. MacEwan 3 Candleberry Drive” MR. THOMAS-Okay. That’s it? MR. BROWN-That’s it. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for Mr. Imperiale? MR. MC NALLY-How long have you been working in this Town? 61 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/99) MR. IMPERIALE-About 10 years. I did wrong. I admit I did wrong. MR. STONE-I guess I have trouble understanding, if you get building permits for your customers, why are you different than your customers? MR. IMPERIALE-If I didn’t realize, Number One, normally, when I, even when I do apply for building permits, and you can even talk to Dave Hatin about it, I call him up on the phone and say, do I need a permit to side this house? Do I need a permit to do this? I got so fed up, in my garage, that I just went and did it. Every night I went out there and I worked on it. I have no excuse for what I did. If you want me to tear it down, I’ll tear it down I don’t care, just to please him. MR. TUCKER-You’re not pleasing me. MR. STONE-This overhang that is shown on this map of a survey. MR. IMPERIALE-Right. Van Dusen and Steves did the survey, too. MR. STONE-Okay, but you’ve got an overhang on the back side, and I don’t necessarily see it. I see it here, but I don’t see it on the overhead. Or that’s just a slab? MR. IMPERIALE-That’s just a slab. MR. STONE-So why is that overhang? MR. IMPERIALE-I put my snowmobile trailer (lost word) back of the shed. I have 45 feet back there, and I own the 11 acres behind my property. So there’s no impact to anyone. MR STONE-Six foot overhang, okay. MR. THOMAS-How high is that building? MR. IMPERIALE-It’s, I’d say approximately 15 to 16 feet high, to the ridgeline, from grade to ridge. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-And these are as-builts? MR. IMPERIALE-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-You had them done after. MR. STONE-Was this poured concrete? MR. IMPERIALE-Yes. MR. STONE-You had a truck come in? MR. IMPERIALE-Yes. Believe it or not, there’s other people in this Town that do things without permits besides myself. That do a lot more than build a garage. MR. STONE-That’s why we have enforcement. MR. IMPERIALE-I know, and I agree. MR. BROWN-Just for reference, it scales 20 feet 6 inches tall. MR. IMPERIALE-I don’t know if he drew that to scale, though, Craig. MR. BROWN-There’s a scale. It says, scale, quarter inch. MR. IMPERIALE-I think it’s less than that. MR. BROWN-Okay. That’s just what it scales on the drawing. MR. THOMAS-All right. Anymore questions for the applicant? Okay. We’ll start with Jaime. 62 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/99) MR. HAYES-Well, in the past, quite often in these circumstances when we’ve had a project that’s been built out of compliance, and it’s standing, I try and envision, or we’ve tried to envision the project as if it weren’t, and would we approve it independently of that fact, and I’m not sure that I would, in this particular circumstance. I understand the benefit to the applicant, but clearly, there were feasible alternatives to constructing the garage in addition to an existing garage over the total square footage of a garage. Is the relief substantial to the Ordinance? I believe that 246 square feet of relief on a 900 square foot requirement is moderate to substantial, in this particular circumstance. Effects on the neighborhood and community, we’ve heard mixed bag from the neighborhood, but I can’t help but think that this type of infringement on both the enforcement process. The possible expansion of a business use in the garage going forth, and considering you’re in the contracting business, and also oversized total square footages of garages in neighborhoods that would be a negative precedent to endorse, and is the difficulty self-created. There’s absolutely no doubt in my mind that this difficulty is self-created. You’re in the building business. You didn’t get a permit, even though you get permits when you build other houses. It’s impossible for me not to believe that this was self-created. So, in my mind, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of not approving the variance, versus the benefit to the applicant. So, I would be opposed. MR. THOMAS-All right. Lew? MR. STONE-Well, again, as I have stated on many occasions, I get very upset when I see our zoning laws flaunted. I sit on this Board, and I've been on this Board now for three or four years, and I’m very proud to be on this Board because I think we have a good zoning code. Is it perfect? No, it’s not perfect at all. There are a lot of things that could be fixed, but it does attempt to regulate growth, some controlled growth in the Town of Queensbury, so that those of us who live here will want to continue to live here, and when someone who should know better, I mean, we have people who come before us, and they are maybe not as knowledgeable as you are, I’ll be kind. They know nothing, and they do it, and we get very upset. When someone who should know better, because he gets building permits all the time, does this, I literally have, I look upon it as a flagrant disregard of zoning, and I just am not comfortable. I could not live with myself, quite frankly, if I would grant this variance, because it flies in the face of everything we know about zoning. Yes, you have a big piece of property. It’s a lovely piece of property. It’s a lovely spot. I was very impressed when I went down there today, but if everybody did what you did, it wouldn’t be a very pretty piece of property. The whole area would be very changed in character, and that’s why we have zoning, and that’s why we have a Zoning Board of Appeals to say, we don’t think that this is reasonable behavior, and I have no alternative but to deny the variance. MR. THOMAS-All right. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Like Jaime, I’m trying to look at this on the basis of would I have approved it if it had been requested prior to construction, and I've got to say, no, I wouldn’t have. I just don’t see any reason for the extra square footage. I see nothing wrong with building a separate garage that stayed within the total square footage that’s allowed by the zoning, but to go over the size, with no real justification, I wouldn’t approve it. MR. THOMAS-All right. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I don’t know what I would have done had he come to us the first time, but if I look at the five factors, the benefit to this applicant, Mr. Imperiale, would be that he would be allowed to maintain a second garage on a lot where you should only have one without a variance, and total garage square footage in excess of the 900 allowable square footage the Code provides. There were a lot of alternatives, and are a lot that he could have considered, from downsizing to 900 square feet, expanding the existing garage, coming in and getting a permit initially. I find that the relief is substantial relative to the Ordinance. Two hundred and forty-six square feet of relief from nine hundred square feet is a big change, almost a 30% change, and I also take into account it’s a substantial change, not only because of the square footage, but as you get the second garage where only one was allowed. So it’s not only square footage, but the number of structures that are present on the property. I honestly don’t see any effect whatsoever on the neighborhood or community, to be honest with you. Mr. Imperiale has said he owns the 11 acres behind the structure, and certainly the neighbors in the community have no objection to his having built the property, but I join with my Board members in agreeing that the difficulty is self-created. Every time something like this happens, I sit here and I wonder, did this person really intend to do that, or is just telling us after the fact that he made a mistake? And most of the time, you get some person who doesn’t know what the heck they’re doing, some guy who’s a lawyer or an architect, not an architect, or a gas station pumper, or something like that, and never built a 63 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/99) damn thing in his life. You’ve built a lot of things in your lifetime, and you should have known. MR. IMPERIALE-I didn’t know I needed a variance for it. That I didn’t know. Seriously. I did not know we were not allowed a second garage in the Town of Queensbury. I did not. That’s why you ask questions, though. MR. MC NALLY-Maybe my thoughts are more along the lines, you’re in the business. So you know at least enough to ask and find out, or should have. MR. IMPERIALE-I agree with you, and I’m paying my dues for it right now. So now I’m going to have to change things differently, right? MR. MC NALLY-And that’s why I could not support this Area Variance. MR. THOMAS-All right. I also look at these variances as if somebody just built a building, and then comes in for a variance, would I have approved it or not. In this case, I would have asked Mr. Imperiale why he needed this second garage, and if he had told me that because of storage of bicycles, kids stuff, lawnmowers and stuff like that, I would have said, instead of a garage, why don’t you, a storage shed to take care of that, so he could park the vehicles in the garage, which it was meant for, and store the other stuff in an outbuilding, in a storage building, and I think we probably could have come to some kind of consensus with that, and he would have been able to do what he wanted to, but as the other Board members have said, this was built before, Mr. Imperial knows he needs a building permit in the Town of Queensbury, because he is a general contractor, and even though the neighbors, I’m surprised a few of the neighbors signed that petition, and have signed it, but maybe they’ll be in next week for a variance, or maybe they’ll be building a garage next week without a permit. So I really can’t go along with this, but if you had come in before, I think we could have gotten this all straightened out, where Mr. Imperiale could have had a storage shed instead of a second garage. So, would someone like to make a motion? MR. BROWN-I think at this point, if Mr. Imperiale is open to it, he could reconfigure the building, so that there would be no vehicle storage in it, and it would be a storage shed, which is an allowed accessory structure. MR. THOMAS-All right. MR. STONE-But how big? MR. BROWN-There’s no definition for storage sheds on size. MR. THOMAS-There’s no size on a storage shed. MR. BROWN-You brought up the fact that if it had come in that way before. I think there’s still the opportunity to reconfigure. MR. IMPERIALE-What about a boathouse? MR. THOMAS-Well, boat storage, a boathouse goes on the water. Boat storage is on land. MR. IMPERIALE-I've got Clendon Brook behind my house, though. Now, I’m really getting carried away. A pole barn garage. MR. BROWN-Accessory use, private boat storage is an allowed structure. That’s for boats. It’s not vehicle storage. So, I mean, there is that option there. That’s up to the applicant, to reconfigure the building so that you can’t store vehicles. MR. IMPERIALE-You’re allowed boat storage. MR. THOMAS-But only boats. You can’t put your tools. MR. IMPERIALE-There’s a boat in my driveway. MR. THOMAS-Yes, I saw it there, but the only thing you can put in there is the boats and anything that goes along with a boat. You can’t put your tools, your bicycles, your lawnmower and stuff like that. MR. IMPERIALE-Then I can’t put my lawnmower and stuff like that in there, or anything like that? 64 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/99) MR. THOMAS-No. Boat storage is for boat storage. We're talking, now, if you can reconfigure that to a storage shed, there’s no limit on the size of a storage shed. MR. IMPERIALE-Right, I understand what you’re saying. MR. THOMAS-So you’ve got your choice of two things right now. You can either withdraw the variance, or we can table it, and if you can come up with something that’s acceptable to the Town. MR. IMPERIALE-Then I guess my truck stays outside. We're going to go for the storage shed, then. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Well, you could always take the stuff out of the garage that’s taking up your spot and put it in the storage shed. MR. IMPERIALE-Yes. I’ll throw my wife out with it, too. I don’t think so. I’ll convert it to a storage shed, then. I’ll take the garage door off. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So you want to withdraw the application? MR. IMPERIALE-I want to go to the storage shed, yes. MR. THOMAS-So the application is withdrawn by the applicant. Okay. MR. IMPERIALE-We’ll do it that way. MR. THOMAS-There you go. MR. IMPERIALE-Thank you, sirs. MR. THOMAS-You’re welcome. MR. IMPERIALE-And I apologize to the Town. Thank you, Craig. MR. BROWN-You’re welcome. MR. THOMAS-All right. We haven’t done minutes all year. We’ve got to do these even though. MR. STONE-I find that very unacceptable, very unacceptable, and I’m not happy at all. I’m not happy. We had a vote here. We had five of us who said no. I am not happy. MR. TUCKER-Can any of you gentlemen sitting up there say that this man built that building according to Code? Can you? You cannot. MR. THOMAS-What Code, the Building Code of the State of New York? MR. TUCKER-Yes. MR. THOMAS-I don’t know. MR. STONE-It wasn’t inspected. MR. TUCKER-You don’t even know what’s in the concrete pour. Yet you’re going to allow him to keep the building. MR. BROWN-Well, that’s up to, when he applies for the building permit. If it passes all the building code requirements, then the Building Department will allow him to keep it. MR. TUCKER-How are you going to determine that it’s built according to Code? You cannot. MR. BROWN-The building inspectors will go out and take a look at it. MR. TUCKER-When I pour a slab of concrete, they come and look at it before it’s poured. 65 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/99) MR. BROWN-Hopefully, they’ll go out and inspect that. That’s what they do. I know they’ve done that in the past, made people do some excavation to see what’s there. Footings, depths, thickness of concrete. MR. TUCKER-If the monolithic pour is supposed to have re-rods in it, they can tell if the re-rods are in it? MR. BROWN-They’ve made them drill holes in it before. MR. TUCKER-Craig, you won’t allow the system to work. MR. STONE-I’m very concerned, Craig. I really did not like what happened. MR. BROWN-Well, what could have happened is you could have denied him to have the garage there. MR. STONE-Well, why didn’t we? MR. BROWN-And he would have come in tomorrow to amend his application and say, I don’t want to have a garage. MR. STONE-Fine, but I would have like to have denied it. MR. HAYES-I think we did that, though, effectively, didn’t we? MR. STONE-No, we didn’t. It’s not on the record. We did not have a denial motion, and I’m very concerned by that. MR. THOMAS-Here’s what he gave us, Pliney, is the building. MR. TUCKER-What I’m saying, Mr. Thomas, when I apply for an application, I have to have about six hundred questions on the building permit. MR. THOMAS-I know. I've been through the same thing. MR. TUCKER-Okay. MR. THOMAS-So, if he has to drill a hole through the floor, or bust a piece of the floor out to see what’s in there, so be it. MR. STONE-But that won’t happen. MR. THOMAS-Well, how do you know it won’t happen? Maybe Mr. Hatin will make him do it. MR. STONE-I don’t believe he’s made anybody do anything. MR. TUCKER-Can I get a copy of that petition with the two Planning Board member’s names on it? MR. BROWN-Yes, I’ll make a copy of it for you tomorrow. MR. HAYES-I think he makes everybody do everything, Lew, take my word for it, Dave. He will. MR. BROWN-He’s made people core drill out concrete. MR. STONE-I would like to see it, because as we say, this, when five of us are saying, we’re going to deny it, I think that’s for you to talk tomorrow when he comes in and says, now what do I do. MR. BROWN-Well, the Chairman brought up the point that if he had reconfigured it previously, and I just made the connection. MR. THOMAS-That’s right. It’s like we’ve said before, what if the guy was coming in brand new? MR. STONE-Fine. You gave him that thought, Chris, but I still think we should have voted, and then he can come in and go through this canard of calling this outbuilding a 66 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/99) storage building, which it’s still too big, as far as I’m concerned for storage. We don’t have a Code. I understand that. I’m just very annoyed. MR. BROWN-To be fair to the applicant, he should know all of his options. If he wants to withdraw, he can withdraw and change it. If he wants to say, no, put it to a vote, it’s his application to do with what he wants, I guess. MR. MC NALLY-But as a Board, we’ve got citizens here coming to us, should we make suggestions? MR. TUCKER-Now, the people that filed the complaints, when they ask me tomorrow what happened, I've got to say to them the Board didn’t take a vote. MR. THOMAS-That’s right. MR. STONE-That’s correct. MR. THOMAS-Because he’s going to reconfigure it into a storage shed. MR. HAYES-I don’t know why you wouldn’t say he withdrew his application. MR. TUCKER-Do you know what they’re going to say? Why bother with the system? You get away with more if you do it without the system. MR. BROWN-Well, I think you tell him that the Board denied him to have a garage there. MR. HAYES-And he withdrew his application. MR. BROWN-I don’t want to argue with you. MR. STONE-Pliney, you can’t say that. We did deny him. We denied him a garage. He had an option of making a storage building, but on the other hand, I think that’s a loophole in what I just praised here. I can build a storage building 10,000 square feet on my property, as long as my property is big enough. That’s ridiculous, in a residential zone. MR. MC NALLY-Just don’t call it a warehouse. MR. STONE-Just don’t call it a warehouse, yes. MR. TUCKER-I sat in front of this Board one night, and this guy had 10 acres, and he wanted to build a three car garage to store antique cars in. He had a garage on the premises. He was denied. Period. MR. STONE-We granted one like that, Pliney. MR. TUCKER-This guy was denied, the night I sat there. MR. STONE-Well, we had one on Ridge where we allowed it. MR. THOMAS-All right. We’ve got to do notes here. We haven’t done them since the beginning of the year. I don’t want them to keep going and going and going. MR. TUCKER-Thank you. MR. THOMAS-You’re welcome. CORRECTION OF MINUTES March 17, 1999: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF MARCH 17, 1999, Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: Duly adopted this 26 day of May, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE 67 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/26/99) ABSTAINED: Mr. Hayes ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Stec April 28, 1999: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES AS PRINTED, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: Duly adopted this 26 day of May, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Stec MR. THOMAS-Does anybody else have anything for the good of the Board? I’ll make a motion we adjourn. MR. MC NALLY-Second. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Thomas, Chairman 68