Loading...
1969-06-18 /-</6, MINUTES of the public hearing of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals held at the Town Office Building on June 18, 1969 at 8:00 p.m. Those present were: John Fitzgerald George Kurosaka James Keller Charles Sicard Allison Ellsworth The minutes were approved as read. Mr. Fitzgerald, chairman, read the proof of publication for the application for a Variance #102 of Howard and Julia Crannell, 191 Dixon Road, Glens Falls, N. Y. to erect a seasonal dwelling on an under-sized zone lot 50 x 100 ft. on the property situated at Palmer Drive, Town of Queensbury. Appearing as attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Crannell was Mr. John Hendley who told the Board his clients purchased the 50 foot lot in April, 1968, from Stephen and Lillian Shappey, who had purchased it in 1954 from Henry and Earl Palmer along with another 50 feet of frontage. Mr. Hendley stated that his clients applied for a building permit from Mr. Ferguson who pointed out that the lot was too small. The building was started and the front wall was erected. Later Town Attorney, Harold Katz, advised that the lot was not separately recorded but was part of a 100 foot lot and the permit was revoked. Mr. Katz advised that the lot was - created after the time of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Hendley /-</0. submitted pictures to prove the amount of work that had been done, and pleaded hardship in the light of the $3800 already invested by the Crannells under the permit which was issued. He further stated (as background information) that all of the land along the easterly side came from a common grant core. In 1954, the land was surveyed and a map was filed describing 20 lots (each 50 x 100 ft) which map is on record in the Queensbury Office under the title of "21 Lots, Lands of Henry and Earl Palmer." Mr. Hendley told the Board that the entire trànsaction had been entered in good faith by both parties and it would be a hardship for the Crannells if they were not allowed to continue their building project. Opposing the application were Elric Gifford who lives next to the lot in question, Wayne Kellogg who lives on the other side, Mrs. Louis Van Wagner who owns approximately 129 acres including road frontage on both sides of the River, and Mrs. Lawrence LaMarque, another neighbor. Mr. Gifford stated that the surrounding property owners warned Mr. Crannell that they would protest if he started building. Mrs. Crannell replied that they had received no such warning since they were in Florida at the time. Mr. Fitzgerald pointed out that the ordinance is a matter of public record. Mr. Keller questioned the character of the homes - seasonal --' or year around. Mr. Sicard questioned access to the cottages. People were answering without formal recognition and Mr. Fitzgerald warned, "We can't have people jumping out of the / 'i7. "'--' audienc.e like jack-in..the boxes." The neighbors opposing the application blamed the Shappeys and Building Inspector Norman Ferguson as well as the Crannells for the confusion. "All of us feel that the law should apply to all," Mrs. LaMarque said. "None of us wanted this to happen. We called Jerry Solomon, Mr. Ferguson...everyone of them told us it couldn't be done. We tried to avoid this trouble and hoped it would be settled before anything caused hard feelings." Mr. Ferguson replied that he sent Mr. Crannell back to make sure that Mr. Shappey did not sell any more land and that he had a letter to that effect. "I had hoped it could be shown that it was an honest mistake," stated Mr. Ferguson and that the "lot pre-existed the ordinance." He questioned the assemblage, "Did I not have a right to issue a building permit?" Mr. Hendley advised that he had no copy of the ori- ginal deed, and Mr. Kurosaka stated that tax receipts have a bearing on proof. Mr. Fitzgerald remarked that inter- pretation of the facts could be left to the Board's dis- cretion. He then asked if there were any other facts involving the application. After Mrs. LaMarque's statements, Mr. Fitzgerald asked for any other appearances (there were none) and thffistated that the problem was one not of what has been done in the past but if the Board were going to L/ ð" /1 . grant a variance. The Board: RESOLVED: Application for a Variance #102 by Howard and Julia Crannell for the erection of a seasonal swelling on a non-conforming lot on Palmer Drive be disapproved in that insufficient grounds for granting a variance have been shown. The next item of business was application #103, for a variance of GOODYEAR TIRE COMPANY BY JUDGE SIGN CORPORATION TO PLACE A DOUBLE FACED PYLON SIGN 25 FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE AND 5 FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE ON THE PROPERTY SITUATED AT 679 UPPER GLEN STREET, ROUTE 9 (WOODBURY BUILDING) TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, for which Mr. Fitzgerald read proof of publication. Appearing for Goodyear Tire Company was Dave Kollar representing Judge Sign Corporation, who told the Board that they were requesting a variance for a minimum setback. Mr. Fitzgerald asked if there were pictures to identify the sign in question. Mr. Keller asked why this request was not thought of on the original variance, and was of the opinion that it was extremely poor planning. Mr. Kollar answered that the matter had been handled mostly by mail and since that time, Goodyear had asked for Judge Sign Corporation's recommendations. Mr. Sicard advised that they had originally planned to move the building back. Mr. Fitz- gerald's observation was that the size of the sign would be conforming and the question was solely of location setback. Mr. Sicard asked about flashing illumination to which Mr. I ~ / '-1'7, Kollar replied that the construction was internally illum- inated. There weD9no other appearances. The Board (with Messrs. Fitzgerald, Kurosaka, Sicard and Ellsworth voting for and Mr. Keller against): RESOLVED: Application for a Variance #103 by Judge Sign Corp. on behalf of Goodyear Tire Company to erect a double faced pylon sign 25 feet from the ROWand 5 feet from the side property line be approved as applied for being that it is the minimum variance necessary for reasonable use of the property. Mr. Fitzgerald then read proof of publication for application for Variance #104 of HEAT COMPANY, INC. FOR PERMISSION TO USE DELONG'S DAIRY OFFICE AND GARAGE LOCATED IN AN R4 DISTRICT FOR LIGHT ELECTRONIC MANUFACTURING ON THE PROPERTY SITUATED AT 235 BAY ROAD, TOWN OF QUEENSBURY. "- Appearing for the application were J. Edward Greengard, Jr. Vice-President of Heat Electronics and Technology Co., Inc. and Herbert DeLong, owner of the property in question. Mr. Greengard described the operation he had in mind. Mr. Fitzgerald asked if the application were only for the rear property and when he questioned the existance of a plot plan (to which Mr. DeLong replied negatively) advised that normal requirements are for a plot plan, and, therefore, the application was incomplete. Mr. Greengard described in detail the plan and the location. Mr. M. E. Scoville, Dr. Charles Eisenhart and Emmett Tubbs, immediate property owners ---- 1/)-0. in the area, while not objecting, asked some questions about the operation. Mr. Scoville had technical queries about high frequency testing, radiation, and television interference and indicated he was satisfied with the answers. These same answers seemed to satisfy Dr. Eisenhart and Mr. Tubbs. The Board: RESOLVED: Application for a Variance #104 by Heat Co. Inc., to use an existing building on Bay Street for light manufacturing be approved in that it is in conformity with the character of the area. Mr. Fitzgerald's reading of the proof of publication of application for Variance #105 by RAY SUPPLY COMPANY, ROUTE 9, UPPER GLEN STREET WHO WISH TO ERECT A SIGN LARGER IN AREA THAN 50 SQ. FT. AND WISH TO LOCATE IT LESS THAN 50 '~ FEET FROM R.O.W. (3 present signs to be demolished due to widening of Route 9) ON THE PROPERTY SITUATED AT ROUTE 9, MILLER HILL, TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, initiated the appearance of Mr. Robert Stewart, attorney for Ray Supply Co. and Mr. John Goetz, president of the company. Mr. Stewart explained the problems created by highway relocation and the need for a sign that can be seen in time to slow down safely. The Planning Board had recommended approval of the sign, except for "lightning bolts" and with the stipulation that it would be lighted only during business hours. Mr. Stewart said the~' lightning bolts had been part of the Ray Supply trademark for more than 32 years and argued that after- -- hours illumination was proper in the heavily-commercial area. Mr. Goetz described the new no-glare lighting being /sl. installed and the precautions taken to avoid any disturbance to neighboring property owners. He said he understood that the objection to illumination after business hours is ob- jected to mainly in residential areas. He advised the Board that one house to the south is sheltered by a large tree, and Mrs. Dewey Miller on the north had no objection; in fact, preferred its lighting because it made her feel more secure. Mr. Hoffman of Signs of Progress was also there to answer any questions from the Board or dissenting adjacent property owners. There were no other appearances. The Board: RESOLVED: Application for a Variance #105 by Ray Supply Company for the erection of a sign 96 square feet, 48 feet from the relocated ROW of Route 9 be approved providing that the sign be illuminated only during the hours of business, being that this is the minimum variance required for the reasonable use of the property. The last item of business for which Mr. Fitzgerald read proof of publication was the request for a Variance #106 by QUAKER VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR PERMISSION TO CONDUCT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT IN A C-3 DISTRICT ON THE PROPERTY SITUATED AT QUAKER VILLAGE, BAY AND QUAKER ROAD OCCUPIED BY U. S. CATHETER AND INSTRUMENT, TOWN OF QUEENSBURY. Because of his association with Quaker Develop- ment Corporation, Mr. Kurosaka asked to be disqualified for this application. "--" Appearing on behalf of the application was Stephen / (:)- ~ , ""--' Zemanek, developer of Quaker Village, and Carl Wilk, plant engineer for U. S. Catheter who presented an architect's rendering of the proposed research building, 80 x 100 feet and of Colonial brick architecture. Mr. Fitzgerald asked the Board if they had any questions. Mr. Keller asked about production - if it would involve any heavy industrial equipment that would create noise, to which Mr. Wilk replied negatively, further stating that a very small (less than 1/3 h.p.) motor would be the only noise and anything made would be a prototype of a kind and would be turned over to the larger plant for construction; there would be no odors nor air pollution. Mr. Ellsworth went on record as having no objections. Appearing (perhaps in opposition) was Willard Shanahan, nearby property owner (Cronin Road) who expressed fear that the building might ultimately be used for manufacturing and questioned the workings of the ordinance. Mr. Fitzgerald advised that the Board's purpose was to interpret the law and consider variances, to which Mr. Shanahan replied, "1 am in variance with the law." Mr. Fitzgerald stated that certain restrictions were incorporated into the ordinance and when certain situations create hardships, it is the purpose of the Board to relieve these hardships. Mr. Zemaneck told the Board that the development would be restricted to 15 people who would be specialists basically doing research. Mr. Shanahan seemed satisfied after further ',- / ó-3. explanation of the nature of the new facility. The Board, therefore,: RESOLVED: Application for a variance #106 by Quaker Village Development Corp. for the erection of an 80' x 100' building to be used for research and development in a C-3 Zone at Quaker and Bay Roads be approved providing that the building be used only for research and development and under no circumstances be used for manufacturing, and that the building be the same architecture as presented to the Zoning Board, and providing approval of the Planning Board for a large development is granted. In the matter of new business, requests for variances #107, 108, 109 by Chris Drellos, Glens Falls National Bank and Trust Company and Otto and Elizabeth Schweikhart be referred to the Planning Board and heard at the next public hearing of the Zoning Board on July 16. On a motion by George Kurosaka, seconded by Charles Sicard, the meeting was adjourned. me& W· ~-el\ Secretary '-