Loading...
1983-10-19 cJsy '-- Regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury was held on October 19, 1983 and was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Cornwell. The following members were present: K. Cornwell S. Goetz D. Griffin, T. Turner, C. Sicard and S. Rich~rdson. ' J. Mills was absent. Also present were Mack Dean and his assistant. First order of business was the approval of the minutes of the September 21, 1983 meeting. After corrections were made to said minutes, the minutes were approved as amended. NEW BUSINESS 1. VARIANCE NO. 865 - Myron Rapaport Assembly Point Road LR-1A Application for use variance to construct a single family dwelling with a side setback of 10' on each side in lieu of the required minimum 10' one side and a total of 30' for the two sides. Mr. Steve Lynn, representing M. Rapaport, was present. Mr. ~ynn ~tated that his client has house plans for his property ~n Ma~ne and n~w wants to use the same plans for his property on Assembly Po~nt Road. Mr. Lynn stated that there were no feasible alternatives in locating the house on the property. The Board raised the issue of possibly changing the house plans to avoid a variance. After the Board's discussion, the hearing was opened to the public. Mr. James Harrington, a neighbor on the northside of Rapaport's land, voiced his objection to the variance because he felt that Niagara Mohawk service to the pole lines along the boundary may be affected. The Board disagreed with Mr. Harrington. Mrs. Tre110, a neighbor on the southside of Rapaport's land, raised the question of whether the proposed house site would block her view of the lake. Mr. Lynn assured her that the house site would be set back behind her house and therefore would not block the view. Mr. Charlie Adamson, representing the Lake George Association, raised the question whether it would be a wise decision to grant such a variance when the owner was aware of the 30' requirement prior to purchasing the land. There being no further questions from the public, the public hearing was closed. After further discussion, motion was made by Mrs. Richardson to deny variance no. 865 based on two reasons--one, self-imposed practical hardship; second, there are feasible alternatives. Motion was seconded by Mr. Griffin. Vote was as follows: Yes - Goetz, Griffin, Turner, Cornwell, Richardson Abstain - Sicard '-- ;)5r 2. VARIANCE NO. 866 - WENDY A. SAVALE (Ship Shape) 97 G1enwood Avenue HC-15 "'-- Application for area variance to construct a 10' x 28' addition to substation for storage with 12' front set back in lieu of the required 50'. Ms. Sava1e was present and stated that the proposed addition will not be as close to the road as the existing building, but will still not be within the required setback. After the Board's discussion,the hearing was opened to the public. and there were no questions from the public. Discussion took place regarding referral to the Beautification Committee and Ms. Sava1e stated that she did receive a letter from the Beautification Committee offering' their assistance. After the Board's discussion, motion was made by Mr. Griffin to approve variance no. 866 because practical difficulty had been shown and there is no adverse affect on the neighborhood, with the stipulation that the applicant confer with the Beautification Committee. Motion was seconded by Ms. Goetz. All members voted affirmatively. 3. VARIANCE NO. 867 - Herbert and Margaret Kane Fitzgerald Road and on Glen Lake SFR-30 Application for area variance to construct a single family dwelling less than 50' from Glen Lake. Mr. Kane was present and stated that he would remove the present house and build a new house with a different foundation at the most 6' closer to the lake. He also stated that the house cannot be moved farther back because of an existing right of way. A septic system will be installed in the rear. Mack Dean stated that no part of the house would be closer than 34' to the lake. After discussion, motion was made by Ms. Goetz to approve the variance based on the fact that practical difficulty has been established; there will be improvement in the septic system location; there are no feasible alternatives, no adverse affect on the neighborhood. Motion was seconded by Mr. Sicard. All members voted affirmatively. 4. VARIANCE NO. 868 - Robert Seeley Morgan Drive SR-20 Application for area variance to expand the garage with 4' side setback in lieu of the required 10'. Mr. Seeley was present and stated that he needed more storage space for cars and that the proposed expansion would conform to the present garage structure. "-- > After the Board's discussion and no questions from the public, motion was made by Mr. Sicard to approve variance no. 868 based on reasonable use of the property, not out of ch~racter "'-- - J. JJ- (p with the neighborhood, improvement in the value of the area. Motion was seconded by Mr. Turner. All members voted affirmatively. 5. VARIANCE NO. 869 - William F. Chambers LI-1A south side of East Sanford Street Application for use variance to construct a single family dwelling with small office incidental to residence in a light industry one acre zone. Mr. William Chambers was present. Mr. Chambers questioned whe~the1and could be used for light industry and Mr. stated it could be used for small industry. Mr. Chambers stated that he felt a home and office would make a good buffer zone and that it would improve the area. Discussion took place regarding whether unnecessary hardship has been proven and regarding grounds for rezoning the area to residential. The Board recommended that Mr. Chambers take his most reasonable proposal to the Town Board and possibly have the area rezoned. Motion was made by Mr. Sicard no reasonable return possible seconded by Mrs. Richardson. disapprove. to deny the variance because has been shown. Motion was All members voted yes to 6. VARIANCE NO. 870 - Gail DeGregorio HC-15 southeast corner Route 9 and Kendrick Road Application for a use variance to convert a two-family dwelling to three apartments in a highway commercial 15 zone. Mr. DeGregorio and Attorney Patricia Watkins were present. Mr. Cornwell stated that the Board will need proof that the property cannot be sold as zoned and questioned whether three apartments would produce a profit. Ms. Watkins stated that the property has been on the market as highway commercial zoned and that there is substantial interior damage. Mr. DeGregorio stated that he did not have any floor plans yet but plans to have two apartments downstairs and one apartment upstairs. After discussion, motion was made by Ms. Goetz to defer action on this application until next month for lack of information. Motion was seconded by Mr. Griffin. All voted affirmatively on the motion. The Board advised the applicant to provide floor plans, sketch of parking lot, and proof of efforts made to sell the land as zoned and asked that such information be submitted at least ten days before the next Board's meeting. ~§7 7. VARIANCE NO. 871 - John M. Hughes west side Bay Road UR-5 - Application for use variance to construct professional office buildings lots 1 and 2 in Urban Residential 5 Zone. John Hughes and Doctor Brasse1 were present. Dr. Brasse1 stated that his practice has outgrown his present office building and he need a larger building. He hopes to lease the present building to professionals. There will be no entrances from Bay Road; parking will be in the rear; entrances will be through Walker Lane and another road will be constructed in the rear. Dr. Brasse1 stated that the property would not be suitable for residential use as it located on Bay Road. After discussion, the hearing was opened to the public. Elizabeth MPst~, a shareholder of Costick Enterprise, on Walker Lane expressed concern over the traffic through Walker Lane. Mrs. McNare of Walker Lane expressed no objection but would like the residents of Walker Lane to be aware of any subdivision plans in advance. After discussion, motion was made by Mr. Sicard to approve the variance becaues it is consistent with the plans of the Planning Board and it is consistently with the character of the neighborhood. All members voted affirmatively. ~~..l II' ." It? ~~Wl "