Loading...
1982-10-20 /5~ MINUTES Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Wednesday, October 20, 1982 7:30 P.M. Present: Kirkham Cornwell, Chairman Theodore Turner, Secretary Susan Goetz Daniel Griffin Charles Siccard R. Case Prime Absent: Sjoerdje Richardson The October meeting of the Queensbury Zoninq Board 0': l1p:wé'1~; \flaS called to order by ChEc.1 rnan Cha.irroan Cornwell asked at: this time for a motion to approve the minutes of the meeting conducted September IS, 1982. Mrs. Goet~ pointed out that Variance 780 "B" should read in the resolution AS REQUESTED - free standing sign be disapproved. Also the actual resolution should read RESOLVED: The Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals hereby grants an area variance as applied for in application for an addition to the rear of the present building and a 7 1/2' canopy on the front of the building. Mrs. Goetz also asked for clarification of wording on Variance 785. Motion by Mr. Sicard to approve the minute of the September meetin<J wi'ch the appt"opria te corrections, seconded by Hrs. C;oetz_ Voting as follows: Yes - Goetz, Griffin, Cornwell, Sicard and Prime No - None Abstain - Turner The first item on the agenda was an interpretation - NPSC Corp. Northway Plaza, Route 9 - The Corporation was represented by At.torney Kafin. Mr. Kafin explained that he was representing the new owners of the Northway Plaza Shopping Center. They are undertaking a program of renovation of ~he center including the repaving and a variety of other changes in the center itself but not the con- struction of any new buildings or the demoli~ion or reconfiguration of the site. Their main concern is getting it into a situation where i tcan be rented completely once again. It is the owner's intention to change the mix of use within the center. It has been predominantly retail with a mixture of other uses including office. When completed it is expencted to have a center that is part retail, restaurant, office etc. Their main concern is that 15-S each time a tenant is attracted to them and alterations are required for the premises, a building permit has to be applied for. In looking this over with the Building Inspector the question came up as to whether or not the change in the over- all mixed occupancy was something that would require a site-plan review by the Planning Board. We have come here to explain that since there is no reatl change in the buildings themselves and that all the proposed uses are permitted uses, the mere change in the mix shouldn't require any site-plan review. Applications for building permits would be sufficient to make sure that the Town reviews any alteration plans that are proposed. The interpretation that they are looking for here is that no site-plan would be required for a change in the mix of use. Chairman asked if the Corporation was claiming that there is pre-existing use as offic space now. Mr. Kafin said there have been several offices in the past, he mentioned the recruiting office and several others. He then introduced Mr. S2anson, W. L. Christopher, Inc. Mr. Swanson explained how the Montgomery Ward building was pre- viously used in that it was both retail and office or mixed use such as warehouse space. Mr. Kafin again asked that if these are all permitted uses, the question wru.ld be can you get just the building permit for the alterations or if no alterations are needed, can the tenant move in without a site-plan review. Mr. Prime had some concern regarding the parking areas including the ingress and egress of the areas involved. Mr. Kafin explained that in a predominately retail plaza you would have the highest movement of people, when you go in the direction this owner is planning from the retail use to a US2 of greater office space you would reduce the amount of tra.ffic in and 011 t.. Mr. Prime then asked if this change of traffic flow and p~destrjan patt-:ern woulàn' t then trigger a site-plan review. Mr. S~anson interjected a few [acts such as the ingress and egress situa~ion is now ~ontro]led by the State. There is sufficient road capacity and the parking consIderation required will continue to be observed. To have to come before the site-plan situation every time an office is rented is time consuming. 'rhe property is there, the buidings are there, to have to every time a tenant changes or alterations need to be made have a review is also expensive. There is no real impact on the elements that would make this necessary. Chairman noted that he would entertain a motion that because they are adding one new use, added by amendment to the ordinance, that with one site-plan review the Planning Board could outline or give jS?o Page Three October 20, 1982 - any misgivings they may have regarding the change. They could give a blanket site-plan review covering the whole sii~e as it now exists. 'I'hey would cover the whole deal at once and list all the uses that would be permitted. Mr. Kafin added that everything that they are planning to have theLe häs been there before, the question came up in ~lr. Lynn's office of the change of use. Mrs. Goetz mentioned that she thought they were 'stretching' it when they said there has been a lot of office use there in the past. She also said that she could see in the future some parking problems. If there are to be any problems, the Planning Board - Site-review would pick this up. She also said that people working in an office will park closest to where they work. Mr. Swanson then noted that if you use a mixed use in a develop- ment such as this, you would separate your users so that you don't belnd retail and office. We have to supply the 5.5 parking spaces in the whole area. Mr. Prime interjected here that this board was not here to pass on what their plans are. This Board is here to pass on whether they will require a site-plan review under any criteria that is in the zoning ordinance. His issue was--does the chanqe of mix which brings in the different class, permanent employees, change the traffic and pedestrian flow. Would this require a site-plan review under the criteria that is in our zoning ordinance. Mr. Kafin, in essence, stated that if the owner plans on renting space or altering the buildint, he can't do so until he spends much time in meetings, etc. getting all the permit.s he would need. He has to do that every time as it stands now. Tenants could be lost during this process. He asked that the Board rule that a change of use in this particular property, as long as it is a permitted use, not require a site-plan review. Otherwise, every time there is a tenant turnover from one permitted use to another, a site-plan review is needed. INTERPRETATION NO. 14 - NPSC Corporation Northway Plaza Route 9 Motion by Mr. Sicard, seconded by Daniel Griffin, all voting affirmatively RESOLVED: That Northway Plaza is hereby defined as pre- existing mixed use according to the schedule of permitted uses. / :;-7 Page Four Octobel. 20, 1982 VARI~:l\NCE ~JO. 787 - Arthur Robillard , Jr. 7 Linden St., So. Glens Falls Mr. Ror-illard represented himself. The proposed use is to construct a single family SUlT1.mer dwelling at a 35' setback from the shores of Glen Lake in lieu of the required 50'. He is also planning to construct this building on a lot that does not front on a public row. Chairman asked if the lot was buildable under the old ordinance. Mr. Robillard replied that he had purchased the lot in 1960. At the time of the purchase he was in compliance with the zoning law at that time. He mentioned he had intended to build but things prevented his doing it. He would now like to build, circumstances have changed and the time is right for him now. The laws have now changed and the plans must be approved because of the size of the lot. Chairman next asked about water supply and septic system. !'1r. Robillard answered that there would be a 2000 gal. holding tank installed and water would be no problem. Mrs. Goetz asked what the property has been used for during the years with Mr. Robillard answering that the family had used it for general relaxation. Mrs. Goetz then asked if he had ever tried to purchase the property across the road with Mr. Robillard answering yes. Mr. Griffin then asked if there was any reason why the side set backs couldn't be met. Mr. Robillard answered that mathrnatically there was no way. It was then noted by the Chairman that someone had already started to dig. Mr. Robillard said that it was his family but they were now \l>7<3.i ting for the results of the request here toniaht. Chairman opened the meeting to the public asking if there was anyone present either for or against the application. There was no one present either for or against. '", It was noted that the Town Planning Board passed a motion for no action on this application. Planning Board members could not locate the property due to insufficient directions and did not want to pass judgment.. The v7arren County Planning Board recoIT'J'1.ended approval. /S"J Page 5 October 20, 1982 Mr. Sicard ~entioned that Mr. Robillard has shown practical difficulty here, the shortcomings in this have been overcome by putting in the type of septic system he is planning on. Motion by Mr. Sicard to approve Variance No. 787, seconded by Mr Turner, all members voting affirmatively- RESOLVED: The Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals hereby does approve Variance No. 787 based on the purchase in 1960 and that practical difficulty has been proven. Approved. VARIANCE NO. 789 - Emmanuel Haille Luzerne Road Mr. Maille was present and represented himself. Reapply to continue Variance No. 729 to operate his auto repair shop on the North side of Luzerne Road. Chairman asked if there would be any changes to what he was permitted previously with Mr. Maille answering no. Chairman noted next that at the last request it was stated that if there were any problems that we would have to go over the request again. Therefore, the first thing to do tonight is ask if there was anyone present who had any rpoblems with the operation. Hr. John Mahan, Luzerne Road came forward and stated that he felt that Mr. Þ1aille should be granted the variance. He was a neighbor and was adjacent to Mr. Maille and there have been no problems. The Town Planning Board approved and recommended approval. There have been no comments from the neighborhood and the applicant has made improvements to the building and land. Motion by ~,~r. Prime for approval of Variance 789 which would make Variance 729 permanent, seconded by Mr. Sicard all voting affirmatively RESOLVED: The Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals hereby approves Variance No. 789 based on uncontested compliance with Variance 729, no change in circumstances. Approved. VARIANCE NO. 790 - Alan Monroe 4 Second Street Mr. ~~onroe was present and represented himself. /5'1 Page Six October 20, 1982 Mr. Monroe said that he wants to place an apartment for his elderly parents over an existing two-car garage on his property at 4 Second Street. He stated that this apartment would be only for family use. Chairman asked if all conveniences would be in the apartment. Hr. Monroe answered yes. Chairman then noted that it could then be rented. Mr. Monroe said yes that it could but that it wasn't his intention to rent it. It would only be used for his family and at the time it was for his parents but future it could be used by one of his children. Mr. Monroe also stated that there would be no structural changes. The only change would be the stairs leading up and a small porch, the windows are there now. It would also be fully in- sulated. Meeting next opened to the public. There was no one present either for or against application. The Town Planning Board recommended approval as did the County Planning Board with the condition that the property be owner occupied. Chairman noted that the motion here should also include the words' owner occupied.' Motion by Mrs. Goetz for approval, seconded by Mr. Sicard all voting affirmatively RESOLVED: The Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals hereby approves Variance No. 790 on the basis that unnecessary hardship has been established and that this be owner occupied only. Approved. VARIANCE NO. 791 - Enoch and Patricia Zy10wski Mr. & Mrs. Zylowski were represented by Mr. McCormack from the firm of Coulter & McCormack. Mr. McCormack started out by saying the proposed use would be a 12 lot subdivision with the lots to be less than the required one (1) acre. The main reason for the request was the change in the Zoning Ordinance. The original plans were submitted to the Planning Board in September, 1981. Presentation made to the Planning Board on January 7, 1982 at which time a conceptual approval for the subdivision was granted. In as much as the project was subject to approval by other agencies we then began /00 Page Seven October 20, 1982 the approval routine and on January 26, 1982 the application to APA was made. In February it was determined that 12 lots would be the greatest number that could be developed on the property. Basic reasoning for that was that there were 12 existing principal buildings on the property now and they would then allow a 12 lot subdivision. This was two (2) less than the Planning Board had conceptually approved. The plans were then revised to show a 12 lot subdivision. One of the conditions of approval by the APA was the issuance of a permit by the Environmental Conservation Department for the community sewer system. That process was then started and following the DEC review, they determined that a transportation corporation be formed to own and maintain the sewer system, that process was also started. After all this is in the process, we find on June 11, 1982 we now have a new ordinance. At this point Mr. Zylowski has already expended a sum of money trying to meet all the other requirements. It wasn't determined until late September that, in fact, we would have to go for a variance. There is no transition period for projects under review when the new ordinance came into effect. The approval process made it impossible to have this completed in time for final approval by the Planning Board before the new ordinance came into play. Mr. Lynn, Building Inspector, noted that at the time of the original application the plan was within the lot size require- ments of the old zoning ordinance. There would have been no reason for this to come before the Zoning Board of Appeals at the time of the original application. Mr. McCormack added that at the time they started the plans, the Zoning Ordinance was 10,000 sq. ft. and now each lot is 1 acre. The total area of the property is a little over 12 acres. The average density would be one principal building per acre. Chairman then asked the average area of the proposed sites. McCormack mentioned that the average would be 1 acre or a little over an acre, there are 12.4 acres involved. Chairman next asked if this acreage included the roads that would be dedicated. Mr. McCormack answered that it excluded the roads. Mrs. Goetz then asked if the present buildings are rentals. Mr. McCormack said they were. Mrs. Goetz then asked if they would still be rental units. ~/ Page Eight October 20, 1982 Mr. McCormack said there would be a gradual phase-out of the rental operation. Mr. Zylowski is a home building contractor. Basically he would be putting four (4) new buildings on the property. There are 12 buildings now and there will be 12 buildings when they get through. Some of the cottages are rather small, there are two or three on the lake that will be removed. They possibly will be relocated to one of the back four lots but more than likely, he will build larger substantial homes on those four back lots. Mr. McCormack next put plans up for members of the public to glance at. He was asked if there were any docks available on the lake and he said there was approximately 350' total lake frontage. Chairman asked about water supply. or single wells for each dwelling. be single wells for each dwelling. Would it be central water McCormack said there would The municipal sewage system was next discussed. Mr. Zylowski feels that for economic reasons he needs the 12 lots. The decision to put in this type of sewer system was his, based on advise from the Coulter & McCormack firm and the engineer in- volved in the project. The point to make here is that due to no fault of Mr. Zylowski's we are caught in the change of the zoning ordinance. Chairman noted that the case would be based mainly on the pre- existance of 14, later 12, lots before the zoning ordinance was changed on June 11, 1982 and that the plans had been submitted to the Planning Board prior to that time. The proposal to take care of any adverse affect on the neighborhood with the sewer system and the fact that you have increased the size. You will have 12 principle buildings and you have 12 now. Chairman noted for the benefit of all that there are 12 acres to be divided up 12 ways including the streets. There will be a sewer system to take care of any adverse affect on the lake and also individual wells for each building. McCormack pointed out that the water wells will be drilled by Mr. Zylowski. Mr. Prime was concerned and asked for clarification of the fact that there are now 12 buildings on the property and if they are planning to build 4 new ones this would add up to 16. 11cCormack explained they are going to build 4 more, Mr. Zylowski could remove 4 of the buildings from their present location, two of which are on the lake shore. They would be moved to some of the back lots. Some of the buildings are small, and wouldn't be moved to another lot, they would be converted to non- residential use such as storeage buildings. There will be ~~ Page Nine October 20, 1982 just 12 principal buildings. He also mentioned that there has been an indication of approval by the APA. Meeting was opened to the public. Elizabeth Cline, adjoining property owner, represented the following residents of the area who could not attend: Robert Irvin, Mrs. Jack Roach. She said there was a letter submitted by her to the board. The main concern is for the drainage in the area. She pointed out her location and that of the others on the map. She stated there is low land in the area and quite a bit of drainage from the road. Recent years have brought growth of weeds in the lake and they feel there is already some drainage corning from the road and from the area of the property being discussed tonight. The new septic system might very well lead to further drainage and thus very well pollute the lake. She questioned the omission of the drainage ditch and a culvert from the map brought by Mr. McCormack. Mr. McCormack showed Mrs. Cline where the drainageway and the culvert were located on the map. Charles Adamson felt that Mr. McCormack was giving false in- formation. He has indicated the flow was to the South, it does not flow to the souty but to the north. Mrs. Cline also pointed out that one of the reasons there is so much confusion is this is the first that most of the people have heard about this proposal. If it was in February, 1982 that the APA did their first inspection they probably wouldn't have even seen the drainage areas because of the weather last winter. She asked if there was an envoronmental impact statement required. McCormack said that they still needed to get approval from the Conservation Department and the Health Department and several other steps yet. We have a long way to go after we get this approval here tonight. Our main concern here is the acre problem. Chairman interjected that this is not a final decision here tonight, there is a long way to go yet. Some of the concerns voiced here tonight should be taken up at other meetings. The other organi- zations would put your thoughts into their decisions if they proved to be a concern. Mrs. Cline added that it was her understanding that the Town adopted the acreage as a protection to the lake. She also mentioned that the lots, as proposed, were not the acre. Mr. McCormack next read from the map the size of the lots as proposed. He also explained that everything has come to a halt as Mr. Zylowsky does not feel that he can continue with the expenses without first geting approval from the Zoning Board. /iP3 Page Ten October 20, 1982 Mr. Sabella, Assembly Point objected to the decrease in acreage from what the Board has declared is allowed. Unforuunately he said he wasn't prepared because he didn't know what was going on there. None of the area residents knew until they received a notice that there was to be a meeting. He then mentioned a resident in another area basically having the same problem, buæ since he could obtain other land, he had to comply and buy land adjoining him. He said that Mr. Zy¡owski is not suffering any hardship whether he has 10 or 12 lots, he should comply with the Zoning. Chairman asked Mr. Sabella if Mr. Zylowski should divide the acres exactly into 12 squares no matter where the squares would end and he answered that he didn't care how it was done as long as they all complied with the ordinance. Mr. Adamson asked if they were talking area or use variance with the Chairman answering use variance. Mr. Adamson sait that we were talking size tonight and that is area. Mr. Lynn explained just how it came to be a use variance. Mr. Adamson then said- aren't there two steps then, don't you have to approve a subdivision. What you are saying then and waht the gentleman before me is objecting to is that once you approve the subdivision, then we come to the area variance. Mr. Lynn answered that was incorrect. After the variance has gone through, the whole project will then go back to the Planning Board. The subdivision cannot receive any approval at this time because the area in the individual lots would be non-conforming. Once the variance to put the subdivision in as proposed and it goes through the procedures to develop the property and has all the approvals from the Planning Board, then an area variance would be invoked if the buildings were to be put in a location where it did not meet the required setback. Chairman noted that the only concern here is whether or not he should be able to make a subdivision here in this lakefront residential lA Zone. A subdivision is not provided for under the permitted uses. Mr. Adamson also said that a practical difficulty does not exist. Elimot Harris - North Crossover Lane mentioned that the ordinance was made to protect the residents of Assembly Point. It states 1 acre to a lot and to protect the people there you should stick to that ordinance. Chairman asked Mr. Harris to explain why he feels 12 houses on 12.4 acres of land is more harmful than 12 houses on exactly 12 single acres. /(P~ Page Eleven October 20, 1982 Mr. Harris answered he wasn't contending that. He felt that each house should have 1 acre according to the ordinance. It should not be less than the acre. It it is more than we can't complain. Mr. Zyiowski bought the property as one single piece. He can divide it up into acre lots, if he doeen't get 12 houses there, he will get 11 and we can't object. Mr. McCormack commented on the placement and density of the buildings. He said there is approximately 2.28 acres between Bay Parkway and the lake on which there are now 6 principal buildings. Someone in the audience corrected him stating that there were 7. Mr. McCormack corrected his statement. Robert Rohn - Assembly Point asked Mr. McCormack to show the six houses which he did and also the small seventh one which has never been used. Rohn questioned how many houses they would be removing, Mr. McCormack pointed out the ones and showed where they would be put. He also said that if they were not moved to other lots then they would be done away with. Mrs. Cline pointed out that these houses are all summer properties and are not adequate for year round occupancy. Moe Leinoff - corner Crossover and Lake also spoke about the present rental of the buildings, and also the proposed uses. Chairman noted here that these buildings existed long before zoning, they are old and we can't do anything to take them away. Lemnoff said that under present renta, they are a pre-existing situation but as a sale you are changing the entire thing, therefore violating the orminance. Dr. Weiss - Assembly Point was concerned about the sewage disposal plan Mr. Sabella once again said he couldn't see any hardship for Mr. zylowski. He owns all the property, he is not suffering any hardship, he can make 10 or 12 lots, he is a builder. Mr. McCormack, in answer to Dr. Weiss's concerns about the sewage disposal said that all the concerned agencies that will deal with it have indicated that this plan is a workable solution. Dr. Weiss then asked why the lots were not the minimum of 1 acre. Chairman said mainly the layout of the land involved. ßç Page Twelve October 20, 1982 Chairman asked where the disposal plant would be. Mr. McCormack said the sewage disposal area was not on a numbered lot, it is 1.06 acres and part of the 12 being discussed. He then gave the size of each individual lot as proposed. The size had a lot to do with the existing buildings on them. The lots were planned around the existing buildings. He said that presently the plans include the moving of 4 ~uildings. David Stark suggested holding off any decisions for tonight until a map could be produced showing exactly where the roads would be, and where the sewage plant would be. Chairman said this was all explained earlier by the applicant. Mr. Stark then said that as far as the members of Assembly Point were concerned they had very short notice of these plans. There was a question as to whether this map shows the roads, sewage plant and how much land will be left. Chairman once again stated that this time, the only thing of concern here a subdivision of the size requested. taken up in great detail after. Mr. Stark was concerned mostly with the net acreage. was not the concern at this tonight was the variance for The other things will be Mr. McCormack said the total would bEe 9 acres left. Mr. Lynn next explained the procedure process after and if approval is given. Chairman noted letters from other residents of the area. Dr. Weiss asked if there were any restrictive clauses in the deed to the property. Chairman answered that that had nothing to do with zoning and was not the business of the Board. Mr. McCormack spoke again stating that whether you like it or not, and most people don't like changes, the plan complies with all of the various ordinances with the exception that each and every lot is not a full acre. Everything else has beend addressed. Town Planning Board recommended approval. as did the Warren County Planning Board. A member of the audience interjected here and asked if a decision would depend on the accuracy of the map shown and the Chairman mentioned that if the map was inaccurate any decision would be void. This gentleman said the map was not exactly correct, he explained and was satisfied with the answer given by Mr. McCormack. /&6 Page Thirteen October 20, 1982 Motion for approval of Variance No. 791, s¥cMnoemubner, seconded by Mr. Sicard RESOLVED: The Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals hereby approves Variance No. 791 based on the following: The Hardship has been shown by the passage~of a new Town Zoning Ordinance, June 11, 1982 by which the applicant had no control. The granting of this variance reduces the density of houses on the lake and eliminates sewage into the lake, the variance requested is the minimum which would alleviate the specific hardship found by this Board. Before the vote was taken, the Chairman explained again that approval of this variance is just the beginning for Mr. Zylowski, but as had been said many times before we are concerned only with the lot size. Any problems with drainage, etc. have noting to do with this Board. We are just talking about the reasonableness of having the plot plan as presented in 1982 continued. Everything else will corne back to the building department. Mr. Lynn said that it was not the building department. It would be under the scruntny of the subdivision review with review of the planning board and noties are Bentsenttbe þhel~cblic but are published in the newspaper. We have also been requested in the past by the L.G.A. to notify them of any actions taking place within the 12 mile shoreline of the Town of Queensbury. Chairman noted here that any deviation of this plan would require another variance. Mr. Lynn said any deviation after the subdivision is approved would have to go back to the Planning Board, not the Zoning Board. Vote on Variance No. 791---- Yes-Griffin, Turner, Chairman, Sicard and Prime No -Mrs. Goetz Variance approved. ~7 Page Fourteen October 20, 1982 VARIANCE NO. 792 - The Salvation Army, Inc. Represented by Irene Baker, Chairman of the Advisory Board. Mrs. Baker stated that the proposed use was for the Salvation Army Thrift Store which is presently located on Park Street in Glens Falls. She said they were asking for a change here from Highway Commercial to Retail. The Town Planning Board recommended approval of the Use Variance as it would be in keeping with the presentlcharacter of the area as it is also a retail outlet. There was no one present in opposition to the granting of the variance. Chairman noted that retail sales of this type are for the con- venience of the highway public and the Planning Board had stated that highway commercial was such as operations more associated with travelers along a highway but their intent was not to eliminate t¥is type of operation fecm those zones. He next recommended that the Salvation Army be refunded their fee. Mr. Lynn said that the Board could make the recommendation but that it would have to go to the Town Board for approval. The Warren County Planning Board concurred with the Twwn Planning Board. Motion by Mr. Prime, seconded by Mr. Griffin all voting affirma- tively RESOLVED: The Queensbury Zoning Board is of the opln~on and agrees that the Salvation Army comes under the heading of operation for the convenience of the travelling public and as such a variance is not required and the Zoning Board recommends to the Town Board that the fee be refunded. It is the Board's opinion that the Salvation Army business, as proposed, on this location is one that will primarily serve the highway public. 30 6 Approved. VARIANCE NO. 793 - Michael and Barbara Gould 7 Dorset Place Mr. & Mrs. Goula represented by John Arpen Chairman explained that this is another case of the old and new ordinance. They are requesting an area variance because of the change in the ordinance. The house is fully constructed. ~ð Page Fifteen October 20, 1982 The Goula's requested site setback of 10'6 in lieu of the required 15' setback. The builder constructed the house pursuant to the understanding and belief that the setback requirement was 10' and the house was so constructed Mr. Lynn explained that a permit was not issued, what happened was that they addressed the Building Dept. and at the time we were still under the old ordinance and at that tfurne the in- formation was given about the required setback which was 15' for the two sides with a minimum of 5' on one side. They were under pressure to get under construction so we allowed them to go ahead and start the foundation. Between that time and the time they originally talked to us about it, the new ordinance had started. We issued the Building permit after the foundation was in and it was after June 11. At that time the plot plan was still not submitted. The plot plan was submitted and reviewed. We found that it was no longer true that the side setback was only the 5' and now it was 15. This is why they are here. What we have done is issue a temporary certificate of occupancy pending the granting of the variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Chairman then asked if the Building Department didn't get itself in trouble by letting this go without seeing the plot plan. Mr. Lynn answered that basically that would be correct but if we were aware that within the next few weeks we would have a new Zoning Ordinance, we would have given that information that the setback would be the 15'. At that time no one was sure when it would go into effect. fhere was one member of the public preeent but his concerns were not applicable to this particular variance. Town Planning Board recommends approval. Motion by Mr. Sicard for approval of Variance 793, seconded by Mr. Prime, all voting affirmatively RESOLVED: The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves Variance 793. Practical difficulty due to change in transition period between the old and new ordinance and a mistake in setback byqbmt¡ment understanding by builder, Town Building Department and owner because of the Zoning Change. It is recommended also that the Town Board refund the fee. Approved. /0/ Page Sixteen October 20, 1982 VARIANCE NO. 794 - Helen O. Hadley 21 Cedarwood Drive Mrs. Hadley was represented by Robert Ruggles Mr. Ruggles explained the water problem existing on the property. Every possible means has been taken to avoid and alleviate the problem but to no avail. The only way to prevent this again would be to block the overhead doors on the present garage, waterproof the wall and then erect a new garage to the rear of the property. Dr. & Mrs. Schwartz, residents to the rear of Mrs. Hadle~ were present. They questioned where the water would go after this has been done. Mr. Ruggles explained what was being planned. He explained the proposed size of the ?arage and it waule be a one story building approximately 12 behind the house itself. He also explained that the entire area would be filled and graded to prevent any re-occurrence of this condition. The possible removal of trees was also discussed with Mr. Ruggles agreeing that a few would ,have to come down. Motion by Mr. Griffin, seconded by Mrs. Goetz, all voting affirmatively RESOLVED: The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves the Variance No. 794 . The practical difficulty being proven is the flooding problem. Approved. VARIANCE NO. 795 - Great Bay Seafood Restaurant 19 Main Street Harold Hotmtr represented the firm. Mr. Hotm!r explained the reason for the proposed addition to the restaurant. There would be 35' 6" front setback in lieu of the required 50' setback. He explained, after being questioned, that there would still be ample parking. Mr. Prime asked what the capacity would be after this would be completed. Hotmer answered approximately 76. Mrs. Goetz asked if the Restaurant owned the land behind the building. Mr. Hotmer said that they did not own it, Jack Lebowitz was the owner. They could not purchase the land and they are basically going to keep their operation the same as it is now but they would like to have a little more room. /70 Page Seventeen October 20, 1982 There was no one present either for or against the request. Motion by Chairman Cornwell, seconded by Mr. Turner, all voting affirmatively for approval RESOLVED: The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury hereby approve Variance 795 with the practical difficulty being the maintaining of the access to eHisting building with adequate parking. Approved. There being no further business to come before the Board, the Chairman asked for a motion to adjourn. Motion by Mr. Turner, seconded by Chairman Cornwell, all voting affirmatively that the meeting adjourn RESOLVED: The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns the meeting of October 20, 1982 Approved. ~~~LdM