Loading...
1987-05-20 -- Page 1, Page 4, 301 QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Regular Meeting Held: Wednesday, May 20, 1987 at 7:30 p.m. Present: Theodore Turner, Chairman Jeffrey L. Kelley Charles O. Sicard Susan Goetz, Secretary Michael Muller Gustave Behr Mack A. Dean, Building and Codes Enforcement Officer R. Case Prime, Counsel Susan E. Davidsen, Stenographer, Planning and Zoning Department Absent: Daniel S. Griffin The meeting was called to order by Chairman Turner at 7:30 p.m. The minutes of the April 15, 1987 meeting were corrected as followed: existing side setback of 6 feet; should be 9 feet. Sign Variance No. 1204, Enough space would be available to put 5 to 10 foot long... ; should be 5 =- 10 foot long .... The April 15, 1987 minutes were accepted as corrected by consensus. Passed Unanimously. Page 3, Page 4, Page 6, Page 7, Page 7, The minutes of the April 22, 1987 meeting were corrected as follows: that Perillo would continue to operate.... ; should be ...that Gauger would continue to operate... Area Variance No. 1236, Mr. Coe said the addition would be 16 ft. by 8 ft. Should be ...16 ft. towards Ridge Road and coming out 8 ft. by Quaker Road. Joseph DeMario should be DeMeo. Use Variance No. 1241, delete the sentence of - Attorney Bob Stewart said the applicant previously received a variance for 5 additional units. Elaina Bissell said her deed allowed parking on the whole lot. This should be per the rental agreement. The minutes were accepted as corrected. Passed 5 yes (Turner, Muller, Sicard, Kelley, Behr), 1 abstain (Goetz). '~ 1 305' -- OLD BUSINESS USE VARIANCE NO. 1225 Michael Blackmer Mr. Turner stated that this application was tabled and the public hearing was closed at the March 18 meeting with the agreement that the applicant get counsel. The applicant was not present at this time and it was agreed upon by Board members to move the review of this variance to the end of the agenda. Mr. Turner stated that Use Variance No. 1234, Don E. Gauger has been tabled until June '87. AREA VARIANCE NO. 1235 Keith W. Coe Mrs. Goetz read a letter from Case Prime to Stuart Mesinger, dated May 6, 1987. The letter stated that Mr. Mesinger should be receiving a letter from Tom McCormack certifying that the lot proposed to be conveyed to Mr. Coe does contain 30,000 square feet to comply with the ordinance. The letter stated that an enclosed map of VanDusen, dated July 23, 1966, shows the access easement (easement for turn around and proposed 50 foot road). The map also shows the centerline of a 15 foot right of way across the front of Mr. Coe's lot and other adjoining lots. All of the easements and rights of way impact the proposed Coe lot and are still in existence and valid. Maps dated July 1 and September 8 of 1981 also show the easements and their locations. The letter further stated that there can be no construction or impediment on the easements as shown on the maps. In addition, Mr. Prime's letter said that in plotting out the buildable area on the Coe's lot by using a setback of 50 feet from the lake shore and 30 feet from the south property line would probably allow sufficient room to build a residence and appurtenances. Mr. Prime stated that at the last meeting there were questions on whether the easement should be excluded from the lot to compute the square footage for density purposes. It was resolved that the easements can be included within the square footage of the lot. It was noted that there should be a letter in the file from Tom McCormack that certifies that this lot contains 30,000 square feet which complies with the density requirements of the area. This should include the easements. The question raised now is, what is the buildable area of the lot? A plot plan was needed to show setbacks. Mrs. Goetz stated that there was no such letter in the file stating that the lot contains 30,000 square feet to comply with the ordinance. Mr. Coe stated that Mr. Freebern who represents Mr. Cross and not him was supposed 2 æh to be here with something to do with the right of way and the deeds. -- Mr. Prime stated that the maps in the file show the rights of way but do not show the location of the turn around; a viable right of way. It has to be shown that with the setbacks that Mr. Coe is not impeding on those rights of way for the construction of the house, septic, and water systems. This is the issue that needs to be resolved. Mr. Coe stated that this was not his understanding from the last meeting. Mr. Coe said he had not come prepared to this meeting to address the issue. Mr. Turner MOVED to TABLE Area Variance No. 1235 for further information to show that the proposed building can be built on the lot within the Zoning Ordinance setbacks without violating the easement. Mr. Sicard seconded. Passed 5 yes (Turner, Sicard, Goetz, Behr, Kelley), 1 abstain (Muller). Mr. Turner stated that the public hearing was closed at the last meeting for Area Variance No. 1235, Keith W. Coe but that the Board may consider to entertain any comments from the audience at the next meeting (¥'Y '87). j"lJ..V\e Mr. Prime explained to those in the audience who were there to hear Mr. Coe's proposal that there would be no construction on the easements that are a part of the property. He stated that if there was anyone that has a right to use those easements that there is not going to be any construction, no appeal under those easements. He further stated that there would not be any impact on the use of those access roads. USE VARIANCE NO. 1061A Wayne Mechanick Mrs. Goetz read the Zoning Board's findings on this variance from 1986 and stated that this variance was previously granted in April 16, 1986. It was resolved to approve the variance because specific hardship is that he makes his living in the garage; testimony that the same kind of preexisting use existed when he purchased property. This is not detrimental to the ordinance; preexisting nonconforming use. There will be 3 stipulations: 1. Visible from outside; limit number of customer cars -(4). 2. One year limitation to variance. If the applicant can conform to the variance for 1 year with no problems, the Zoning Board will reconsider the variance with no time limit at the end of the year. 3. The fence that should remain is an L-shaped fence behind the garage. Car parts should be stored within the L-shaped fence. Mr. Behr stated that he had visited Mr. Mechanick's property. He said he was impressed with one portion of the property which had been cleaned up and leveled. However, there was an excess of 15 cars on the property. This was a great concern; it looked more like a used car lot rather than a repair shop. Mr. Behr stated that cars should be kept to a minimum. Mrs. Mechanick stated that on the day (Sunday) that Mr. Behr was there visiting, they were cleaning up their backyard. Five cars were theirs (all licensed 3 307 and on the road) and another 5 cars were owned by people who were working on cleaning up the backyard. This accounted for the excess cars. Mr. Sicard stated that he had been in the area, talked to a neighbor of Mr. Mechanick and felt there had been ~ an effort to improve the circumstances of the property. "bLA.He. Public Hearing Opened: no comment Public Hearing Closed. Mr. Sicard MOVED to APPROVED Use Variance No. 1061A as a permanent variance. This is a vast improvement in the area. With this motion, the same conditions as applied with Variance 1061 will apply. Mr. Behr seconded. Passed Unanimously. AREA VARIANCE NO. 1245 John DeMarco Mrs. Goetz read the application. Applicant: John DeMarco. Agent: John Richards. Owner of the property: Lena Hall. Location of the property: Rockhurst Road, Queensbury. Recent use of property: single family dwellings, boat dockage facility. Proposed use of property: single family dwellings, boat dockage facility. Is there an adverse effect on the neighborhood character? No. The applicant is rebuilding the principle dwelling on this parcel. The existing principle dwelling, the cottage on the south end, will be torn down. One building is being replaced with another and all other features of the parcel will remain the same. Is there an adverse effect on public facilities? No. No public facilities currently service this parcel. Are there any feasible alternatives? No. The building was partially erected under a building permit issued by the Town Building Department. Due to the builders error, the building was placed in violation of the rear setback requirements. No viable alternative exists as the building is already in place. Is the degree of change substantial relative to the ordinance? No. It was the erroneous placement of the building by the builders which makes this variance request necessary. Attorney John Richards from LaPan, Reardon, Morris, Fitzgerald, Firth represented the applicant John DeMarco. He said that the application was made concurrently with the Site Plan Review application which was denied at the May 19, 1987 meeting by the Planning Board. He said he was here to obtain relief on the existing violation of the 20 foot rear setback requirement. The actual structure is 1 7% feet from the rear line. He said the problem is stated in the application; due to the builders error. Mr. Richards said he had an affidavit from the builder stating that through an error on the part of Adirondack Contracting, the house was constructed in violation of the rear setback requirement of the Town of Queensbury. Mr. Richards stated that practical difficulty exists for the following reasons: The variation is minor; a little over 2 feet. That 2 foot difference will not cause any increase 4 3œ '-- in density on public facilities or services. There certainly will not be any change in the character of the neighborhood by virtue of the 2 feet. Because the structure is there, there are no other mitigation methods practical because of the 2 foot difference. Mr. Behr stated, liThe only issue at hand is the setback and the setback can only be put to use, when and if they get final approval that the building can be in place and erected because there is litigation." He further stated, "The Board could approve the setback with the proviso that it's only in effect, when and if the work order/stoppage is lifted and final approval is given to erect the building without any reference to whether or not its depending on any court action or any other action for the structure; the 2% variance would be in effect." Public Hearing Opened: Mrs. Hall, Rockhurst resident, no relation to the applicant, said there is an impact upon the neighborhood because Mr. DeMarco is now calling his business a dockage facility. She said he is leasing his launching ramp to Boats by George for other commercial use. His parking facilities are not sufficient. He does not, as of yet, have any bathroom facilities; boaters are already there. Mr. Behr stated, "The Zoning Board is not approving the building of the house or the operation or anything else except the setback and that is only in the event that they get final and higher authority to build that house. Otherwise the 2% setback will not come into play." Mrs. Hall asked if the setback was to keep the house close to the wetlands. Public Hearing Closed. Mrs. Goetz read a letter into the record, dated April 8, 1987 from Ann R. Hannon and Mrs. Joseph of Rockhurst Road expressing their disapproval of the Mr. DeMarco's variance request. Mrs. Goetz read a letter into the record, dated April 10, 1987 from Margarett Colacino, Rockhurst resident stating her disapproval of the variance request and for the site plan review application. Mrs. Goetz read a letter into the record, dated April 8, 1987 from Robert E. Burgess, Rochester, New York, an attorney representing Mrs. Colacino. The letter stated that adjoining land owners are overburdended by the particular use of Mr. DeMarco's property. Also, the letter stated that any changes would be extremely detrimental to the adjoining property owners. Mrs. Goetz read a letter into the record, dated April 3, 1987 from Frank Gallagher and Helen Gallagher, attorney at law and resident property owner on Rockhurst Road. The letter expressed their disapproval for the erection of the illegal building on Rockhurst Point. Warren County Planning Board recommended approval. Mr. Muller MOVED APPROVAL of Area Variance No. 1245. The applicant merely asks for minimum relief in placing a building in this spot. There have been other applications before the Board in the Town where the builders made a mistake. To be fair to the applicant, if it doesn't differ substantially from the requirements of the ordinance, this 2% foot setback variance will not be detrimental to the ordinance. In every other respect, the applicant must satisfy all other requirements imposed upon him by our Zoning 5 309 Ordinance. --- Mr. Sicard seconded. Passed Unanimously. AREA VARIANCE NO. 1247 Noble True Value Mr. Turner stated this application had been tabled from the last meeting because the applicant needed to submit plans for the construction of the storage building in more detail. Mrs. Goetz read the application for construction of a storage building for warehousing merchandise (30 ft. by 40 ft. addition) with less than required rear setbacks on the property situated at Upper Glen Street in a Plaza Commercial 1A zone. Chris St.Andrews and Ken Noble, owners of Noble True Value stated they would have a 30 ft. by 40 ft. storage building which would be connected to the back of the building. Mr. Behr expressed his concern regarding nearby residents who may have their view obstructed by the construction of the storage building. Mr. St.Andrews submitted a letter into the record, dated May 19, 1987 from Frank and Susan Macey, adjoining residents and property owners. The letter stated: "We, Frank and Susan Macey have no objection to Noble True Value building a 30 ft. by 40 ft. building attached to the rear of their store, of which one corner would be set back 28 ft. from.&trt" land." D(J.( Public Hearing Opened: no comment Public Hearing Closed. Warren County Planning Board recommended approval. Mr. Kelley MOVED APPROVAL of Area Variance No. 1247 based on the piece of property and proposed plan which demonstrates practical difficulty. This is a minimum variance necessary to alleviate practical difficulty. Mr. Turner seconded. Passed Unanimously. NEW BUSINESS '--- 6 3fÓ NOTICE OF APPEAL NO.8 -- Keith Harris, Appeal of Building Permit No. 87-56, Barn on Pickle Hill Road Mrs. Goetz read a letter from Paul Davidson and neighbors, dated April 7, 1987 regarding their appeal of Keith Harris's building permit to erect a barn on Pickle Hill Road. Mr. Davidson stated in the letter: "Under the zoning regulations for the Town of Queensbury, Rural Residential 3A, Animal Husbandry and Agricultural uses require Type II Site Plan Review. The property has been used most recently by the owner as a logging business, maintenance and repair facility and junk yard. This nonconforming use is now under litigation. Therefore, the issuance of the building permit for a barn did not comply with the Zoning Regulations and therefore was improper. Criteria for issuance of the permit is further defined in Section 12.071. We, the neighbors, wish to appeal the issuance of the most recent building permit to erect a 192 ft. by 60 ft. barn. It is also our contention that since there is no legal notice given that a building permit has been issued, there can be no legal time limit to appeal that action. Thank you for your consideration of the above information. We will appreciate being kept informed of any action you may take in this matter." Mrs. Goetz read a letter into the record from Paul Davidson, dated May 7, 1987. The letter describes the history of existing problems on the property which makes his action necessary; the appeal of the building permit. The letter stated that in March 1986 a building permit was issued to erect a 40 ft. by 60 ft. cement block commercial type garage on the property in violation of various provisions of the Zoning Ordinance (property used as a logging, repair and maintenance business and junk yard). The letter expressed Mr. Davidson's concern as well as his neighbors to protect the quality of life and the value of their properties. Legal action (Article 78) had been taken to try to correct the conditions. He further stated that as a result of their action, the Town had instituted legal action against Mr. Harris; the legal action - still pending as of May 7, 1987. The letter further stated that they do not object to the use of land for farming (raising of crops or few animals) but expressed strong objection to the erection of a building of that type and size (192 ft. by 60 ft. by 32ft. high barn) proposed at the site on Pickle Hill Road. Mr. Davidson and the neighbors expressed in the letter that they feel the barn is planned as an act of spite, and will be placed where it will cause the most harm visually and cause the most annoyance to the neighbors. Also, it will be clearly visible to most of the surrounding area. Keith Harris's attorney (John Rt.t'-st Raæc Rot k!io..n) stated to the Board that he felt the appeal of the barn was to determine if Site Plan Review was needed prior to the issuance of the building permit. He felt that the history of the use of the land has no place being discussed or the letter dated May 7, 1987 from Paul Davidson being read out loud. Mr. Prime disagreed and said that any information bearing on the condition of the property and present situation should be part of the record on this appeal. Mr. Davidson reiterated to the Board, facts and concerns as to why he and his neighbors were objecting to the erection of the Harris barn. Mr. Dean stated that the concern is with the zone schedule itself which was brought to life by an application for farm use. He stated this is the first time it's been brought forth since the current Zoning Ordinance was adopted in 1983; there haven't been any farms that have applied for this use. The issue is how to proceed, given that this is a given 7 3(( ."'-" use by right; farms of all classes in that zone. Also, a Site Plan Review Type II requirement for all agriculture and animal husbandry uses. He further stated, a right is permitted in the zoning schedule and also on the other hand a requirement to go before the Board for approval for those very same permitted uses. Mr. Dean stated that his department is looking for direction from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Public Hearing Opened: Phyllis Marvin and Mary Tanzer, Boulderwood Drive spoke in support of Mr. Davidson. Dorothy Burnham, Boulderwood Drive, stated she would like to see the applicant go for Site Plan Review. ~(V'' ·~'S tLtfo(,Vle~ John Ray, BÐig:kßor expressed his concern on whether a Site Plan Review would be necessary. Marianne Potter, neighbor living quit close to the Harris property felt this would change the character of the neighborhood. Public Hearing Closed. Mrs. Goetz MOVED to GRANT the Notice of Appeal No.8. A building permit cannot be issued without a Site Plan Review Type II from the Queensbury Planning Board. Refer to Section 4.040: sub paragraph A of Queensbury Zoning Ordiance. Mr. Kelley seconded. Passed. Unanimously. AREA VARIANCE NO. 1248 Lawrence J. Fredella Mrs. Goetz read the application to construct a single family residence on an undersized lot on the property situated at Bonner Drive in a Suburban Residential 20 Zone. Mr. Turner asked if his property is part of the existing subdivision. Mr. Fredella said it's not. Mr. Behr stated that the map showed the first lot to be 22,432 sq. ft., second to be 18,340, and the remaining three lots to each be 17,500 sq. ft. There is ~roblem with the ~ lot on the corner of Mt. View Lane and Bonner Drive; it's in excess of the required , ::'f;¡i~r 20,00u sq. ft. Mr. Fredella stated the problem is with the corner lot; the building of garage in the future. He wants the house set far enough back from the two roads. The required setbacks for a corner lot is 30 ft. from both roads. Public Hearing Opened: Paul Vesterbee, Bonner Drive questioned the lots and the development behind it. He wanted to know if Mr. Fredella would be putting in an access road. 8 3/;) --- Public Hearing Closed. Warren County Planning Board recommended approval. Mr. Kelley MOVED APPROVAL of Area Variance No. 1248. Practical difficulty has been shown. On the 2 lots he has, one is under 20,000 sq. ft., the other is a little over 20,000 sq. ft. Both lots are consistent with all the other lots in the neighborhood, in fact they are larger than the surrounding lots. Therefore, this is minimum relief for the problem. Mr. Sicard seconded. Passed Unanimously. AREA VARIANCE NO. 1249 Thomas and Darlene Clark Mrs. Goetz read the application to construct a garage addition with 10 foot side setback in lieu of the required 20 feet on the property situated on the north side of Homer A venue in a Light Industry 1 A zone. .(f/.\""{.i~ Mr. Behr questioned the exact placement of theJlSlab. Mrs. Clark submitted a letter into the record, dated May 20, 1987, from Phil and Carol Rozell of 14 Homer Avenue, stating that they have no objections on the Clark's construction of a garage which will be at least 60 feet from their existing home. Mrs. Clark said that she had the approval forms from 1984's building permit to approve the slab at a 10 foot side setback. Public Hearing Opened: no comment Public Hearing Closed. Warren County Planning Board recommended approval. Mr. Muller MOVED APPROVAL of Area Variance No. 1249. This is not a substantial variation from the Zoning Ordinance requirement. This is not detrimental to the neighborhood. The slab is already in place. Mr. Behr seconded. Passed Unanimously. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 1250 The Covered Bridge Inn Mrs. Goetz read the application to maintain existing freestanding wooden sign on the property situated at the corner of Bay Road and Route 149 in a Suburban Residential 9 313 30 zone. --- Deborah Monsour submitted a letter into the record addressed to the Board members. It read as follows: "In April we received a letter from the office of Mack Dean. In the letter we were asked to confirm the distance of sign #1 (THE COVERED BRIDGE INN) from the state right of way. It was noted that according to the records the sign was 11.3 feet from the state right of way not the required 15 feet. In effort to confirm the actual distance, I spoke in person to Herb Stephens from the state Highway Department. He showed me state highway maps and measured the distance from the road center to my property line and concluded the state right of way at 28 feet. I then measured the distance from road center and found the sign approximately 1 foot from state right of way. I have also conferred with Stuart Mesinger and Mack Dean and it was recommended by them to apply for a variance. The documents I have turned in with my application for the variance will show that we have no other place to locate the sign. I am sure that Board members have inspected the situation and we ask that the Board grant us a variance." The letter was signed by Samuel and Deborah Monsour. Mr. Turner asked if the sign was the original structure. Mrs. Monsour said yes. Mr. Dean stated that he had been involved with the restaurant in the past years. He stated that the sign has existed in that exact location for years. Public Hearing Opened: no comment Public Hearing Closed. Warren County Planning Board recommended approval. Mr. Behr MOVED APPROVAL of Sign Variance No. 1250. Practical difficulty is the size of the lot and position of the lot at the intersection. Mr. Turner seconded. Passed Unanimously. AREA VARIANCE NO. 1251 James H. Rozell Mrs. Goetz read the application to construct a nonconforming addition (front setback 14± foot setback from street line) on the property situated at 13 Harris Street (south side). The recent use of the property is a one family residence with existing nonconforming front setback of 14± feet from the street line. There were no questions raised by Board members. Public Hearing Opened: no comment Public Hearing Closed. ',- 10 3/i '--' Mr. Behr MOVED APPROVAL of Area Variance No. 1251. This doesn't change the original setback. Practical difficulty is the size of the lot. The building has been in place for many years and will not change the neighborhood character. Mr. Turner seconded. Passed Unanimously. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 1252 Great Escape Amusement Park Mrs. Goetz read the application to add four directional signs at each parking lot entrances on the property situated on the east and west side of Lake George Road in a Recreation Commercial 15 zone. The application also stated: "The Queensbury Sign Ordinance permits directional signs but the pr~~osed signs are not in compliance because the sign would be higher than a 10 foot ~ height requirement and the area requirement. There is an obvious need for these signs. The Great Escape Amusement Park attracts many visitors in the summer and greatly increases traffic on Route 9. The sole purpose of these signs is to alert motorists of where to park to lessen traffic congestion and to free up the entrances and exits of the parking lots. The former signs were located in the middle of the entrance and created an obstacle for the traveling public to negotiate. The signs will improve public safety and perform a necessary function. Pictures of the proposed signs are attached and a sample sign has been placed on the east lot so that Board members and the public appreciate the need for this variance. Attorney Malcolm O'Hara represented the applicant. He stated that Great Escape had to process this application because they already owned the signs. The need for the height of the sign is for buses and large recreational vehicles to pass under the sign. The need for the width is to get two way traffic to pass through the sign. Mr. Behr stated that someone would have to be directly in front of the sign in order to read it. Mr. O'Hara said that their plan may not be the best plan for the parking lot but it's an improvement on what's already there now. They're not advertising signs. They are just signs to direct the traveling public. A Board member asked if the signs would be lighted. Mr. O'Hara said there would be no lighting on the supports of the sign but would be on the message board itself. Mr. Kelley asked why he would want to be putting up nonconforming signs after having already gone through with a previous variance application for nonconforming signs. Mr. O'Hara stated that the signs came with the concrete blocks. They are the supports. Mr. Kelley stated that a traffic light was there for the purposes of traffic control. Mr. Prime expressed his feeling that the applicant really has no justifiable reasons for erecting the proposed signs. Public Hearing Opened: no comment Public Hearing Closed. '- 11 315 '- Warren County Planning Board recommended disapproval. Mr. Muller MOVED DENIAL of Sign Variance No. 1252. The applicant cannot support any hardship or any difficulty that needs to be substantiated. Passed 5 yes ( Sicard, Goetz, Muller, Behr, Kelley), 1 abstain (Turner). SIGN VARIANCE NO. 1253 AlIens Arts and Crafts Mrs. Goetz read the application to maintain existing freestanding sign (10 ft. by 4 ft. double faced aluminum - all metal framing) on the property situated on Route 9, Zayre Plaza in an Urban Residential 5 and Highway Commercial 15 zone. The application stated that the view of shopping buildings from Route 9 is obscured traveling north by a bank in front of the property, traveling south by a curve just prior to the property. In addition, a passerby would think the Zayre Department Store is the only store at this location. Mr. Behr said that everything else on the pylon should be considered; all the stores cumulatively, not just individually. Mr. Sicard MOVED to TABLE Sign Variance No. 1253 to get more information regarding all other signage on the property. Mr. Muller seconded. Passed Unanimously. AREA VARIANCE NO. 1254A and USE VARIANCE NO. 1254B Docksider Restaurant Mrs. Goetz read the application for an area variance to build a patio deck with less than required setback from the lake and for a use variance to expand nonconforming bar and restaurant on the property situated on the north shore of Glen Lake in a Single Family Residential 30 zone. The application also states that the business has existed for over 40 years and would not create any additional adverse effect. J. Paul Barton, owner said that the expansion is needed to accommodate people for the summer season. There are 26 seats in the front room which fill up very quickly. Mr. Barton said that he has had many people ask about having a deck added on so that they could be closer to the lake. Mr. Behr questioned the actual distances from the lake. He said the east shoreline cuts in very sharply and towards a big tree. Mr. Barton said his closest point to the lake is 15 feet. Mr. Behr question the front setback stating that it isn't 50 feet as shown on the map; it is a 26 foot setback. ',,- 12 310 '-' Mr. Behr asked if there would be a canopy over the deck. Mr. Barton said no, not at this point. Mr. Turner was concerned about the noise factor. Mr. Barton stated he has been in operation since July 19, 1985. He said he has year round activities (picnics, etc.) and broom ball in the winter time. The activities are a great part of his business and has never had any complaints from neighbors. Mr. Dean stated that he has been present at the Docksider Restaurant during the winter season when they have had broom ball games. He said that on a number of occasions the players have gotten excited and banged their brooms on the boards; the noise echoed over the lake. He added that he expected to hear complaints (to the Building Department) about the noise but never received any. Public Hearing Opened: no comment Public Hearing Closed. Mr. Behr asked if he intended to use the deck during the same hours as the existing establishment. Mr. Behr was concerned about the noise from the juke box. He asked if it could be heard from outside. Mr. Barton said the juke box is inside. In the summer time, most all windows will be opened but the music won't carry that far. There won't be any juke box outdoors. Warren County Planning Board recommended approval of the area variance. Warren County Planning Board recommended approval of the use variance, commenting that neighbor's concerns be examined. Mr. Sicard MOVED APPROVAL of Area Variance No. 1254A. It meets all criteria of the ordinance. This shoreline isn't a true shoreline at the present time. The relief granted is a minimum. Front setback is 26 feet from the lake. This is in lieu of 50 feet. The side setback is approximately 13 feet rather than the required 50 feet. Having granted this area variance, the Zoning Board is combining the request in Use Variance No. 1254B to include approval to expand the nonconforming use of a bar and restaurant to allow reasonable return. This doesn't add to impact on neighborhood. Mr. Kelley seconded. Passed Unanimously. USE VARIANCE NO. 1255 Gates Enterprises Mrs. Goetz read the application to construct a fast food restaurant on the property situated at 97 and 98 W. Main Street in a Highway Commercial 15 and Urban Residential 5 zone. A portion of the property can be used for fast food restaurants, diners, bars, etc. but the balance of the property is restricted to duplex residential use. '-- 13 3/7 "- A statement attached to the application was read. It said that the 1982 Zoning Ordinance split the subject premises into two zones. The southerly 250 ft. of the premises are zoned Highway Commercial and the northerly 50 ft. of the premises are zoned Urban Residential - 5,000 sq. ft. The statement gave various reasons on the problems that arise from the unique character of the property. The property is bounded on the north by a cemetery; on the west by a cemetery; on the south by Corinth Road and on the east by two lots which are currently used as residences but which are actively being marketed for sale as desirable commercial property. Attorney Robert Stewart reiterated concerns that were stated clearly on the application and in the statement attached to the application. Mr. Turner asked about the septic system. It wasn't indicated on the map. Mr. Stewart stated they hadn't applied to the Health Department yet. A preliminary design has been done. Soils in the area were discussed. Public Hearing Opened: Mr. Monsour, neighbor was very concerned about a buffer zone between his home and the proposed fast food restaurant. He would like a fence put up. Public Hearing Closed. Warren County Planning Board recommended approval with Beautification Committees comments. Mr. Kelley MOVED APPROVAL of Use Variance No. 1255. Hardship is demonstrated by split zoning. The majority of the zone is commercial. This use is permitted. The rear of property is UR-5 - no access unless through commercial because of existing cemeteries. Not detrimental to the neighborhood. Minimum variance necessary to relieve problem. A 6 foot privacy fence is to be constructed to extend north to south, 5 feet beyond the front of Mr. Monsour's house on the east. This fence will be maintained as long as there is residential use. Other: Queensbury Beautification Committee recommendations should be followed. Waive 50 foot buffer zone's requirements on north (UR-5) and west; no residences exist there. A 50 foot buffer zone variance on east (Monsour) is granted. The residence is in HC-15 zone. The Zoning Board is requiring Mr. Monsour's request for the fence. Mr. Muller seconded. Passed Unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 11:35 p.m. G-? ... a ~~ u'U/bI ... v '--- Theodore Turner, Chairman 14 Minutes prepared by Susan E. Davidsen, Planning and Zoning Department