1969-01-15
/00..
MINUTES of the public hearing of the Town of Queensbury
- Zoning Board of Appeals held at the Town Office Building on
January 15, 1969, at 8:00 p.m. Those present were:
John Fitzgerald
James Keller
George Kurosaka
Charles Sicard
Allison Ellsworth
John E. Fitzgerald, the Chairman, presided. Minutes
of the previous meeting, held on December 18, 1868, were
approved by motion of George Kurosaka, seconded by Charles
Sicard.
After an executive session held previously at 7:30 p.m.,
decisions regarding former applications were announced by
John E. Fitzgerald. Mr. Fitzgerald stated that the Board
has received opinions of the Town Attorney and has voted
decisions on the following applications:
#66 Application for a Variance by Zayre Shopping Center,
Cummings Sign Company:
RESOLVED, based upon the information presented at the
public hearings and,physical inspection of the property
in question, the Board is of the opinion that denial
of the application would cause the applicant financial
hardship, and the permitted variance is in general
harmony with the restrictions established in the area,
and is necessary for the reasonable use of the land,
and that the variance as granted by the Board is the
minimum variance that will accomplish this purpose.
#62 Application for a Variance by Harold Veeder, Shore
Colony, Assembly Point, covering all unsold non-conforming
lots at Shore Colony:
RESOLVED, after due consideration of the information
presented at the public hearing and the Memoranda of
/01.
Laws presented for the record, and the review of the
Memoranda of Laws by the Town Attorney which is part
of the record, the Board is of the opinion that suf-
ficient grounds for granting the variance have not
been shown.
"This application is two-fold. It is for an overall
variance to permit the sale of non-conforming lots in a sub-
division created prior to enactment of the Zoning Ordinance.
It is also for a variance with respect to Lot No.6 - Block
G as shown on a Map of The Shore Colony dated June 12, 1957
and revised August 17, 1957 and filed in the Warren County
Clerk's Office September 5, 1957. Said Lot No.6 was con-
veyed by Harold G. Veeder to George Miller who seeks a
variance to permit construction of a single family residence
thereon.
A hearing on both applications was held by the Zoning
Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury on November 20,
1968 at which time witnesses and counsel were heard both
in favor of and in opposition to both applications.
The Zonigg Ordinance for the Town of Queensbury became
effective August 30, 1967 following due enactment by the
Town Board. Said Ordinance designates the area known as
Assembly Point as an "R-l Residential District." Each lot
in such district is required to have a minimum frontage of
75 feet, minimum depth of 100 fett and a minimum area of
10,000 square feet. "The Shore Colony" property is located
in such area.
The Map of "The Shore Colony" shows a subdivision of
96 lots of varying sizes, many of which do not meet minimum
--
/ OJ..
standard for size established by the Zoning Ordinance.
Approximately 45 of the lots remain unsold at this time.
Section 1.200 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of
Queensbury states:
"The intent of this Ordinance is to establish compre-
hensive controls for the development of land in the
Town of Queensbury, based on the Master Plan for the
Town and enacted in order to promote and protect
health, safety, comfort, convenience and general wel-
fare of the people."
Section 1.300 of said Zoning Ordinance states:
"Such regulations shall be made in accordance with
the Master Plan and designed to lessen congestion in
the streets, to secure safety from fires, flood, panic
and other dangers; to promote health and general
welfare; to provide adèquate light and air; to prevent
overcrowding of land; to avoid undue concentration of ¡
the Public, to facilitate the provisions of transpor-
tation, water, sewage, schools, parks and other public
requirements. Such regulations shall be made with
reasonable consideration, among other things, to the
characteristics of the district and the requirements
of particular uses and with a view to conserving the
value of buildings and encouraging the most appropriate
use of land throughout the Town."
Section 5.103 of said Zoning Ordinance states:
"Required Area or Space Cannot be Reduced. The area
or dimension of any lot, yard, parking area or other
/03.
space shall not be reduced to less than the minimum
required by this ordinance; and, if already less than
the minimum required by this ordinance, said area or
dimension may be continued and shall not be further
reduced."
Section 5.501 of the same Ordinance states:
"Existina Zone Lots of Record. In any R-District, only
a single-family detached dwelling may be erected on
a nonconforming zone lot of official record at the
effective date of this ordinance irrespective of its
area or width, the owner of which does not own any
adjoining property which would create a conforming lot
if all or part of said property were combined with
subject zone lot, provided, however, that no lot or
lots in single ownership shall hereafter be reduced
so as to create one (1) or more non-conforming lots."
The applicant, Harold S. Veeder, contends that he
cannot be prohibited from selling lots which do not conform
to the zoning standards and that the purchaser of such a
non-conforming lot is not prohibited from constructing a
single family residence thereon. We agree with the first
assertion but not with the second.
Article 5 of said Zoning Ordinance Govers Supplementary
Lot, Height and Yard Regulations. Said Article 5 includes
Section 5.103 and 5.501. Although sections of the same
Article they must be individually interpreted in light of
the general intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance as
a whole.
Section 5.103 clearly prohibits the reduction in lot
/ 0 -'-I,
size to less than the minimum required by the ordinance and
the further reduction of any lot, yard, parking area or
other space already less than the minimum rquired by the
ordinance.
Section 5.501 clearly permits the erection of a single-
family detached residence on a non-conforming lot, "the owner
of which does not own any adjoinina property. which would
create a conformina lot if all or part of said property were
combined with subiect zone lot . . ."
Except for those lots which are landlocked, the owner
in this case, Harold G. Veeder, can make the remaining lots
in The Shore Colony conforming lots by.. combining all or part
of adjoining lots as established in the subdivision. It
is true that this would result in fewer lots but the increased
size should also enhance the value of said individual lots
that result. I do not belie¥e that the petitioner Veeder has
clearly established that any economic hardship would result
from this enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance and denial of
the petition herein. The evidence offered at the hearing
is at best incomplete and vague as to such economic hardship.
It is insufficient to overcome the intent and purpose of the
Ordinance.
The petition should be denied.
As to the application of Mr. and Mrs. George Miller,
I must also recommend denial.
They purchased their lot No.6 in Block G from Mr.
Veeder on August 15, 1968. At the time Mr. Veeder also owned
'-
/0S:
adjoining Lot No.5 on the east; Lots Nos. 7 and 8 on the
west. Thus, Mr. Veeder owned four adjoining lots, each 75
feet wide and 100 feet deep. Lot No. 6 was in the center
of these lots and could have been enlarged to meet the zoning
requirements. Since this conveyance took place a year after
enactment of the Zoning Ordinance, we must assume that both
parties had notice thereof. In the very least, they had
constructive notice thereof.
Although I sympathize with the Millers' predicament,
I cannot do but recommend the denial of his petition.
Respectfully submitted,
Harold W. Katz
Town Attorney"
#50 Application by George Miller for a Variance to
locate a seasonal dwelling on a non-conforming lot in Shore
Colony:
RESOLVED, after due consideration of the information
presented at the public hearing and Memoranda. of Laws
presented for the record, and the review of the Mem-
oranda of Law by the Town Attorney which is made a
part of the record, the Board is of the opinion that
sufficient grounds for granting the variance have not
been shown.
"---
Still in the order of old business, Mr. Dorr Martin
appeared and questioned the Board's denial of appeal of
Special Permit #6 to build a seasonal travel trailer court
on the former D & H right-of-way on Farm-to-Market Road.
Mr. Fitzgerald stated that there was no procedure for re-
considering the decision of the Board. The Board has re-
viewed the points and reaffIDrms its prior decision. Mr.
Martin was advised that he may appeal this. Mr. Martin
questioned the procedure for getting the record of the minutes.
Mr. Fitzgerald advised Mr. Martin that for a small charge, Mr.
/ () to,
Martin could request the Town Clerk's Office (Mr. George
Crannell) to provide him with photo-copies of the minutes
since they are a matter of public record.
The Board then proceeded to the order of new business.
Mr. Fitzgerald read notice on the following public hearing:
Application #73 for a Variance by Judge Sign Corp. of
659 Broadway, Albany, New York, for permission to erect an
oversize SIGN for HOUSEHOLD FINANCE COMPANY on the property
situated at NORTHWAY PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER, Town of Queens-
bury, Warren County, New York. Mr. Joseph Judge, agent for
Household Finance Corp. and Mr. William Bellauboer appeared
in favor of this application. Photographs were offered in
evidence showing five (5) similar installations throughout
the country. It was their intent to substantiate a claim
that these signs, even though exceeding the limit by a few
square feet, are standard signs. The sign, 64 sq. ft.,
is a facial sign not visible by the traffic on the road and
is single faced under the overhanging eaves section. After
discussion in an executive session, the following resolution
was made, seconded and carried unanimously:
RESOLVED, that is is the opinion of the Board that
since no objections have been raised, the proposed
sign is in general harmony with the restrictions
established for the area and therefore, approve the
application.
Application #74 for a Variance of Charles F. Hauser,
M.D., Woods Point, Lake George, for construction of NEW
HOME on a non-conforming lot on the property situated at
WOODS POINT ON LAKE GEORGE, NEW YORK. Appearing for Dr.
101.
Hauser was Robert E. Tierney, Esq., 188 Broadway, Fort
Edward, New York. Mr. Tierney stated that it was Dr. Hauser's
intention to utilize the construction as a year-around resi-
dence. The home would cost in excess of $30,000 and would
comply with the zoning ordinance, meeting sanitary rEJquirem.ents.
Mr. Tierney also noted that plans of the house are available
for the Board's perusal.
Mr. Fitzgerald questioned if the existing building were
going to be m.oved. In other words, was Dr. Hauser planning
to sub-divide the existing lot? Mr. James Keller questioned
the use of structure "A." Mr. Tierney stated tha.t it would
be used by the doctor while he was constructing a new home
and ultimately used to provide a home for a member of his
family, and added that, in the meantime, Dr. Hauser might
rent it. Structure "AN would be painted to blend with the
adjacent buildings.
Mr. Gordon Hemmett, attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Ira
Hedges of Rockland County and who had initially objected,
stated that there were three (3) problems involved: frontage,
sub-division, and change of use from a seasonal to a year-
around dwelling. Mrs. Hedges, a former member of the Rock-
land County Planning Board, then offered a letter for the
record which was accepted by Mr. Fitzgerald. There were no
other appearances.
After discussion, the following resolution was made,
seconded, and carried unanimously:
RESOLVED, that the proposal calls for two residential
buildings on a single lot existing prior to zoning and
) o?:.
in the op1n1on of the Board, no hardship has been
shown and the proposal would not be within the general
restriction established for the area and is disapproved.
Application #75 for a Variance of Leslie M. Quay, R. D.
#2, Ballston Lake, New York, for permission to relocate a
sign at the GULF OIL GAS STATION located on the SOUTH SIDE
OF AVIATION ROAD. This is brought about by the proposed
widening of Aviation Road. The property is situated at 50
Aviation Road. Mr. Leslie M. Quay appeared on behalf of
the Gulf Oil Company. He stated that the plot plan sub-
mitted is an old plan and that the red line on this plan is
the new change. He also stated that an Atlantic Company
engineer was present when the original location was chosen
and that the Atlantic Company wou¡d prefer the sign on the
west side. Mr. Norman Ferguson presented the Atlantic plan
to the Board.
Mr. Robert Hoffman appeared representing the Atlantic
Oil Company. Mr. Quay stated that Gulf Oil Company would
be willing to relocate the same sign on a two (2) foot
higher pole; in other words, the sign would be on a 16 ft.
pole.
Mr. Wayne Judge, attorney, appeared representing the
Howard Johnson complex, owned by Carl DeSantis and Charles
Wood, stating that they would object to Atlantic's moving
their sign. There is no objection to Gulf's move. But the
relocation of both signs would give a honky-tonk effect to
the area. After further discussion and acknowledgement that
the Planning Board had referred it to the Zoning Board with
/091
no action because of insufficient evidence, the Board
deferred action on the application suggesting all three
parties study further a proposal acceptable to all con-
cerned for presentation before the February meeting.
Application #76 for a Variance of MUSLER'S STORE,
NORTHWAY PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER, for permission to use an
oversize sign on facia of building as presently constructed
on the property situated at Northway Plaza Shopping Center,
Town of Queensbury. Appearing for MUSLER'S was Mr. Samuel
P. Frankel, 153 Barrett Street, Schenec~ady, New York. Mr.
Frankel submitted a picture of the sign stating that it was
92 sq. ft., but not illuminated. Mr. Frankel said Mr. Musler
did not realize that there was a sign ordinance and offered
apologies to the Board. Mr. Keller questioned Mr. Ferguson's
notifying Mr. Musler about the lack of compliance with the
ordinance. Mr. Ferguson stated that he did see Mr. Musler
and thought he was the same Musler who had operated a store
in Glens Falls some years ago. Mr. Ferguson then discovered
that the first application had been improperly filed with no
picture, drawing or size given. When advised of this dis-
crepancy, Mr. Musler turned over the application to someone
in Ve~ont and when it was returned, it did describe the
size of the sign. Mr. Frankel then contacted Mr. Harold
W. Katz, Town Attorney, and they made application for a
variance. After discussion, the following resolution was
made:
RESOLVED, that Variance #76 be approved as being in
general harmony with the restrictions established in
I/O-
the area with an admonition that the board will not
continue to condone such post-facto applications and
will be very strict with its enforcement.
During the discussion of the #76 variance, Mr. Jay
Stecker, 18 Carlton Drive, questioned the Saveway Sign.
Mr. Ferguson stated that the problem was in the hands of
the Town Attorney, Mr. Harold Katz. Mr. Fit~gerald told
Mr. Stecker that the Board has no policing powers and can
consider only variances.
The next o~der of business to come before the Board
was a public hearing for the Application #77 for a Variance
of PIC-WAY SHOE STORE, ZAYRE'S SHOPPING CENTER, for per-
mission to errect an oversize sign on the marquee of Pic-
Way Shoe Store on the property situated at Zayre Shopping
Center. Appearing for Pic-Way Shoe Store were Messrs.
Noel Finnagan and Terry Ryan who stated that the size of
the sign was 20 ft. x 5 ft. or 100 sq. ft. They gave a
description of the sign and placed it on file with Mr.
James Keller, Secretary. They stated that the sign has
flashing lights and is completely illuminated. It was
noted that the Planning Board does not approve this ap-
plication on the grounds that it is not esthetically har-
monious to the surrounding area.
Mr. William Richardson, 16 Greenway Drive, Glens Falls,
voiced vigorous objection on the grounds of its being over-
sized and flashing. He lives in the area and does not
believe that it would blend in with residences. Charles
O. Sicard questioned Mr. Finnagan and Mr. Ryan asking them
if they were aware of the ordinance. These gentlemen replied
I ~ 1.
negatively. They stated that it had been installed ap-
proximately in the middle of August and found to be in
violation approximately the first of October.
Mr. Jay Stecker of 18 Carlton Drive also objected to
a flashing sign. The Zoning Board's decision was as follows:
RESOLVED, it is the opinion of the Board that this
sign is not in the general harmony with the restriction
established for the area and that the proposal does
not promote and protect the general welfare of the
people of the Town of Queensbury and that it be dis-
approved.
Mr. LeRoy Philips was instructed to cause removal
of the sign.
There being no other business to come before the
meeting, upon motion duly made, seconded, and carried
unanimously, the meeting was adjourned.
d"me.s W.'¿~~\q-
Secretary