1987-11-18
37b
QUEBNSBUl.Y Z01UBG BOAID OF APPEALS
'-
Regular Meeting held: Wednesday, November 18, 1987 at 7:30 p.m.
Present:
Theodore Turner, Chairman
Jeffrey L. Kelley
Charles O. Sicard
Daniel S. Griffin
Susan Goetz, Secretary
Michael Muller
Gustave Behr
R. Case Prime, Counsel
Mary Jane F. Moeller, Stenographer
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Turner at 7:30 p.m.
Mr.
minutes,
Turner said that no action
as they were not ready.
would
be
taken
on
the previous
OLD BUSIOSS
AlIA VAlIANCE NO. 1288
E1aina's Beauty Boutique
Mr. Turner MOVED that the Area Variance, No. 1288, E1aina's Beauty
Boutique, 15 Aviation Road, Urban Residential 5 Zone, be TABLED, as there
was no correspondence and the applicant did not appear.
AlIA VAlIANCE NO. 1296
Leo and Ruth Phaff
Mr. Turner explained the reason for last month's tabling of Area
Variance No. 1296, Leo and Ruth Phaff, Assembly Point, was to verify
measurement from the house to the garage, in relation to the septic tank.
Mrs. Goetz read the updated the application as Lake Shore residence of
one acre. The recent use of the property has been as a private residence.
The proposed use is for a garage and some storage. Construction of a
garage with a front setback of 7 feet and left side setback of 5 feet.
1
317
The applicants feel the need for a garage, since they are year-round
residents and desire to keep the car protected in inclement weather.
'-,
Dean Hull, original builder on the project who put in the septic
system, explained where the leach fields were in respect to the house and
the septic system.
Mrs. Goetz read a letter from Philip Morris, neighbor, consenting to
the proposed changes of the property.
Mr. Kelley questioned the location of the overhead doors and the
entrance to the garage, specifically pointing to the fact that the car
must back out into the parkway. Mr. Hull stated that the entrance would
be directly from the parkway. Due to the heavy condition of the soil and
placement of the leach field, it would be impractical to place the garage
in any other direction.
Mr. Behr said that this was not the original application. Mr. Hull
stated that the original survey had been corrected.
Public Hearing Opened: no comment
Public Hearing Closed.
Mr. Griffin MOVED APPROVAL of Area
as the applicants have demonstrated
cannot locate the garage any closer
tank and leach fields. This will be
from the property line on the north.
Variance 1296, Leo and Ruth Phaff,
practical difficulty in that they
to the house because of the septic
7 feet from Bay Parkway and S feet
Seconded by Mr. Behr.
Passed unani.ous1y.
/ I /18/B'1
USE VAlIABCE NO. 1297
James C. Fish
Mr. Turner said the application for Use Variance No. 1297; James C.
Fish, 6 Second Street; West Glens Falls; Split Zone, Highway Commercia1-1S
and Urban Residentia1-10, had been tabled pending a letter from the
BUilding Department and that the letter had been received (see attached,
Page 2A). Mrs. Goetz read the application to operate an office and shop
for glass business. The recent use has been a garage for business
vehicles and materials storage and for personal vehicles.
Mr.
location
Fish
to
explained the move of the glass business from its present
a larger structure on the property on the east side of Second
2
8r¡~
Street, and the renovation of the existing garage on the east side of
Second Street (see attachment, Page~A).
'---
Mrs. Goetz also read a letter from Mack Dean, Zoning and Building Code
Administrator, stating that "while the accessory structure is legally
existant, the use appears to be non-permissible."
Mr. Michael O'Connor represented Mr. Pish and explained how the garage
was built independently without a residence on the lot. In addition to
the letter from Mr. Dean, he presented a copy of the installment contract
under which Mr. Pish is purchasing the property. Mr. Pish is the owner of
adjoining property which joins with the vacant land. He bought the vacant
land in 1970 and then bought the small house next to it in 1984, under
this particular contract. He then applied for the building permit
11/2/84. It is being purchased under an installment contract from David
M. Harvey and Jaimee P. Harvey.
Mr. O'Connor explained that Mr. Pish has been in the neighborhood
since 1970, and in 1970 bought the vacant lot on which the garage was
built. He bought the little house in 1972, sold it, bought it back, sold
it and bought it again. He had been in the neighborhood for a long time,
and on his particular side of the street since 1972. Mr. Pish bought the
property from a Mr. Duell, who had operated a glass and gun shop since the
1950's (some 20 years prior to 1972). An explanation was given regarding
the various extensions. Mr. Pish's house is immediately adjacent to this
area.
Mr. O'Connor presented a drawing showing the shop on the west side of
Second Street and Mr. Pish's house immediately adjacent to it. It also
shows the property in question across the street, where Mr. Pish would
like to add a proposed addition to the side of the building, move the shop
and the office across the street and "legitimitize" the use of the
building for the present business.
Mr. Turner questioned when the extension was built. Answer: 1972.
Mr. Pish explained that he worked for Adirondack Glass and carried out his
own business at the same time. Adirondack Glass knew of this side
business and had no objections, since the work Mr. Pish was doing at home
was work that Adirondack Glass did not want. He left Adirondack Glass in
1982.
Mr. Behr noted that the glassworks did not exist at the time Mr. Pish
bought the shop. Mr. O'Connor agreed and said that Mr. Pish still main-
tains the necessary licenses to operate a gun shop, although the product
line has not been very heavy, in comparison to an allocation what the
business is doing.
Mr. Pish went into glass product when he started with the guns and it
(the glass business) grew from that point forward. Mr. Turner pointed out
that the area was residential then and residential now, and went from one
use to another without a variance. Mr. O'Connor said that if it was not
3
TO; Zoning Board of Appeals
Town of Queensbury
3'30
--
The purpose of this application for a Variance is to ,move
my glass business from i.t' s present location to a larger structure,
located on property owned by me, directly across the ,street.
If this variance is approved, I will be able to restore the
present office and shop to it's original use as a residential
garage. I would then obtain a building permit to build an addition
to the existing garage, on the east side of Second St. II would
then have all WY business in one location, with more than adequate
space to provide parking for customer's vehicles, and my own.
I welcome inspection, at any time, of my properties and business,
for I feel that it is kept neatly and has never had any adverse
effect on the neighborhood.
As you will see, by the plot plan submitted, a portion of my ì:
property is in a Highw~y Commercial' zone. The area is building up
as a commercial neighborhood; and with the existing businesses
nearby, and plans for more, I feel that I am not asking for an
unreasonable variance.
Thank you for
consideration,
¿t~
C. Fish, owner
Glass
Sept. 21. 1987
;SA
·l
,
3<6/
more non-conforming, he felt there was no restriction as to product line
if, in essence, it is solely retail.
''-"'"
Mr. Turner once again pointed out that this is in a residential zone.
Mr. O'Connor stated that Mr. Duell had his shop in 1952, which pre-existed
the zoning in 1967, so the property on that side of the street was
established for business use in the 1950's, before any zoning came about
in town.
Hr. O'Connor stated that their approach at this meeting was, rather
than have Mr. Fish go to the Planning Board for perhaps some permission
for expansion of a non-conforming use on the east of the street, that he
would rather clean up that side of the street and move everything into a
more modern facility across the street. This, the client feels, would be
a betterment to to the neighborhood, rather than an expansion by
"addition, to addition, to addition" on the west side of Second Street."
A petition was submitted signed by 29 neighbors and landowners, all in
the locale of 6 Second Street, consenting to the variance and requesting
approval. In addition, a second page with five signatures, which was
completed at a later date, was also submitted. Mr. O'Connor presented a
map showing the location of immediate landowners, who had no objection.
All of these persons were contacted personally.
Mr. O'Connor stated that the Warren County Planning Board had approved
this variance. The Beautification Committee had approved with some
comments by them (see attached, Page 4A).
An explanation of the proposed variance followed. Basically, an
addition of 15 x 40 on the north side of the existing two-car garage that
is there, which will be used for offices and possibly for shop. The small
attachment to the back of the two-garage that is there will be removed. A
driveway will be established at the north end of the building and drive
out to the back of the bUilding on the north and parking behind the
building. The operation is very clean and unobtrusive.
Mr. O'Connor explained the reason for present problems is that a
"pencil" drew the initial line someplace through Parcel 14, as opposed to
drawing it down further.
The applicant feels that the variance should be passed because it will
be:
1. beneficial to the neighborhood;
2. beneficial to the town;
3. there will be no detrimental effect to anyone.
Mr. Behr stated
seen very readily.
parking area behind
necessary.
that
Mr.
the
the trucks, at the time of his visit, could be
O'Connor stated that there will be a formal
garage and would comply to screening, if
4
3 <g ::J-
'-'
Mr. Prime
the change of
the street.
expansion.
possible,
provisions
requested clarification in the hardship in connection with
use in putting the commercial venture on the east side of
Mr. O'Connor stated the reason being is the need for
It would be almost physically impossible, although probably
to expand existing use on the south side under the expansion
for non-conforming.
Mr. O'Connor
on the west side
continue. What
moving it across
land were all one
there would not be
continued stating that there is a nonconforming business
of the road, and the right to maintain that business will
is being done is the shutting down of the business and
the street. If that were not a public roadway and the
parcel, and we requested the same renovation to be done,
a problem. Now we have a road that intervenes.
Mr. Behr requested acknowledgement that this is an expansion of a
nonconforming use.
Mr. Turner reiterated Mr. Prime's question as to how they are going to
prove hardship. Mr. O'Connor said that Mr. Fish is not in a position to
secure another location to expand the business. To expand on west side of
the street is not practical and it would be a hardship. Mr. Turner
suggested that a fair statement would be that Mr. Fish started doing what
he did initially and then all of a sudden a full grown business blossomed,
and now Mr. Fish is in a bind and has either to expand or move elsewhere.
Mr. Kelley asked if the two garage in existence now would become
retail space. Mr. O'Connor said "no".
Mr. Prime asked that a statement be made regarding the property on the
east side of the road, which will be used for commercial purposes. Mr.
O'Connor pointed to the Tax Map 134, Block 5, Parcels 15-16-13.
In answer to Mr. Behr's statement regarding the zoning of the
property, Mr. O'Connor stated that the 1972 property was not zoned
commercial, rather it is what Mr. Fish bought in 1984 that was zone
partially commercial. Mr. Behr then clarified that it varies about 4 foot
into the commercial zone on the east side, to about 12 feet by the time it
gets to the west side.
Mr. Prime asked if the gun business is to continued. Mr. Fish said
"no." Mr. Prime asked if the only commercial business to be held at that
site will be the glass business, and Mr. Fish answered "yes."
A side conversation then continued regarding the fact that Mr. Fish
could sell part of the property. Mr. O'Connor said that if the Board
stipulated that the parcel be kept in one piece, that would be done.
Mr. Behr was concerned about the future use of the property, should
Mr. Fish go out of the business. Mr. Fish stated he would have no
objections that the property would revert to residential zoning, if the
property were sold or the present owner go out of business.
5
3~~
Mr. Behr stated concern about the hardship created in the ability to
sell a 35 x 40 foot garage, which is 18 foot high. Mr. O'Connor also said
he had reservations regarding that stipulation.
Mr. Muller expressed his concern regarding Use Variances, TOWN OF
QUEENSBURY ZONING ORDINANCE, Article 10, Section 10.040 b).
1) and 3)
Mr. Fish owns property on both sides of the street and has non-conform-
ing use on one side, and he has conforming use on the other side. Mr.
Fish essentially will want to "travel" from one piece to the other.
This would be one parcel, except for the fact that there is a public
road going through property. This is the circumstance over which Mr.
Fish has no control.
4) Satisfied adjoining landowners, variance is necessary for preservation
of property around the applicant.
2) Mr. Muller felt that this section bothers him. There is the problem
of proving hardship. Mr. Muller said that Mr. Fish went to Mr. Dean's
office some time ago and requested a permit to build a two-car garage,
which is to be considered an accessory structure associated with his
residence. An explanation is requested to prove hardship.
Mr. O'Connor stated that the building is a 35 x 40 foot building, with
two commercial doors on it. It is more than the two-family garage for
which the permit was given in 1985. Mr. O'Connor was not aware of what
rules applied to that particular permit granted by the Building Depart-
ment. Mr. Fish was using it as an accessory to the property on the west
side of the street. He was not using at strictly as an accessory to the
residence on the east side of the street. He obviously intended to park
commercial vehicles there.
Mr. Behr stated a negative view regarding the prudence of the people
"downstairs" involved when issuing the permit as being an accessory
bUilding to anything, because there was already an accessory building to
the house that is on that plot. Mr. Behr did not understand how there
could be two garages as accessories. Mr. O'Connor stated that the build-
ing was inspected and an occupancy certificate was issued.
Mr. O'Connor argued that the total picture should be looked at, and
that Mr. Fish is living within the intent of the ordinance. Mr. Behr does
not believe that it is within the intent of the ordinance, specifically
pointing to Section 10.040 b)2).
Public Hearing Opened:
Mr. Frank Bly; Fall River Street; West Glens Falls:
Mr. Bly stated he was neighbor for last 40 years and that property has
always been used for commercial use. Jim Duell had a gun shop at
6
3~5
'-'
6 Second Street, stored "stuff" across the street at
Jim Fish does not park his vehicles in front; all
ends, holidays and at night are parked out of
neighbors want Jim as a neighbor and businessman.
his stepfather's.
vehicles on week-
sight. All the
Public Hearing Closed.
Warren County Planning Board: Approved.
Beautification Committee: Approved with specifications. (See Page 4A).
Mr. Muller wished to further discuss the present property versus
property owned by Mr. Blackmere on Monterey Road, which is a trucking
service operated out of Blackmere's home. He questioned why this
application is distinguishable from Monterey Road. Mr. Behr reported that
Blackmere's property has deteriorated since his quest was denied. Hr.
Muller pointed out that everything that the Board has heard about Hr. Fish
is positive and that this would not happen.
Hrs. Goetz stated that the variance goes with the property, so she
questioned whether another business could go in there. The answer was
"no". The property has to be considered as one and is not subdividable.
Mr. Muller brought out the fact that the present garage is one not
ordinarily associated with a dwelling house. He felt that Hr. Fish did
not purposely misrepresent anyone when requesting a building permit, but
that now there is a non-standard garage.
Mr. Turner stated that Hr. Fish has a business in a residential zone
and he has not proven hardship, has not proven reasonable return. He does
not feel that the circumstances are any different than Blackmere's. Hr.
Blackmere lived in the house for ten years and then started his trucking
business. Mr. Fish bought the house on the west side of the road, started
his business and now he wants to move it over to the east side of the
road. Hr. Sicard felt that the hardship would work into that area. Hr.
Fish cannot expand where he is and that hardship is alleviated when he
moves across the street.
Board members still felt that hardship must be proved. The question
was asked again as to how the original building permit was issued by the
Building Department. Hr. Huller felt that maybe that size garage should
never have been built.
The point was made that there are now six employees, with no proposal
to increase to size of the fleet, no proposal to increase the size of the
workforce.
Mr. Muller requested to know about the house in which Mr. Fish lives.
He stated that it is a story and one-half, 4 rooms and a bath downstairs,
two rooms upstairs, and a half cellar underneath. The adjacent, one-story
garage is 20 x 26; there is no 10ft; a 7 x 8 overhead door; a shed built
onto side of it, perhaps built 40 years ago.
7
_______--1
31;0
Mr. Behr reminded
the discussion involved
which we have to operate.
the committee of a session he had attended, where
the need to adhere to the various criteria under
Mr. Muller stated that the Board has had no proof that Mr. Fish could
not take the garage and sell it. Mr. Behr stated that that becomes a
problem because it has to have a principle bUilding.
Mr. O'Connor then offered to present a realtor on the above issue as
to the reasonable return on the garage. At that time, Mr. O'Connor
requested that this variance be tabled, to allow him time to present
expert testimony which should verify as to whether a reasonable rate of
return could be obtained from the property without getting "legitimized"
use or variance for this use. Mr. Behr requested that the opinion should
be on the total parcel of the house and other garage.
Mr. Muller then quoted from a manual used by the Board. "To demon-
strate a situation of the reasonable rate of return circumstance, the
applicant must positively establish that no use permitted by the zoning
will allow a fair return from the property, including the continuation of
an existing nonconforming use. The applicant must conclusively prove this
in dollars and cents terms. The statement or opinion of a realtor is
insufficient evidence. The applicant must definitely show the results
upon the property in issues of factors such as filed purchase price and
present value, expenses attributable to maintenance, taxes, mortgage or
other incumberances, other facts relevant to the particular circum-
stances."
Mr. Prime asked Mr. O'Connor to bring in additional evidence of the
commercial use of the property on the west side of the road, and the
continuation of that use into the present business enterprise, so that
this Board can feel satisfied with the fact that we are talking about a
continuous commercial use of the property, both on the east side and the
west side of the road. Mr. O'Connor said that that request would be no
problem. Mr. Prime then stated that it would help the Board to have on
record to show that there has been a continuous non-conforming use of the
properties.
Mr. Turner MOVED TO TABLE Area Variance 1297, James C. Fish. The
applicant has requested this application be tabled to bring in more
information as to the use of the property and reasonable return.
Seconded by Mr. Muller.
Passed ...ni.ausly.
8
)7~
Jown 0/ QueenðbuPfj
QyEENSBUR Y TOWN OFFICE BUILDING
~
~--)
---'
..s:u
BUILDING AND CODES DEPARTMENT
BAY AT HAVILAND ROAD
QUEENSBURY, NEW YORK, 12801
TELEPHONE: (518) 792-5832
TO:
TED TURNER, CHAIRMAN
MEMBERS OF ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FROM:
MACK A. DEAN, ZONING & BUILDING CODE ADMINISTRATOR
RE:
JAMES FISH
VARIANCE #1297 ACCESSORY STRUCTURE
In response to the Zoning Boards' request for certain information
regarding issuance of a Building Permit in July, 1985 for an accessory
structure on an apparent vacant lot, located on the east side of Second
St., I submit to you the following information.
At the time of application for a building permit for the garage, Mr.
Fish indicated he was purchasing the adjacent lot with an existing dwelling.
Both the vacant lot and occupied lot lacked required lot width for the
UR-10 Zone and had to be joined together to create a conforming lot (Article
8 Section 8.010 Zoning Ordinance) and, therefore, an accessory structure
would be permissible.
In addition, said structure may be used to house one commercial vehicle
not exceeding 1~ tons G.W.,(Article 2 Section 2.020-a-42 amend).
While the accessory structure is legally existant, the use appears to be
non-permissible.
2B
I
I
I
SETTLED 1763. , . HOME OF NAT,URAL BEAUTY. . . A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE
TOW N OF QUEENSBURY
COMMITTEE FOR COMMUNITY BEAUTIFICATION
3g3
Robert L. Eddy, Chairman
17 Owen Avenue
"-'"
Queensbury, N. Y. 12801
Mrs. Arthur J. Seney, Secretary
8 Queensbury Avenue
Queensbury, N. Y. 12801
To. (x) Warren County Planning Board Date. 10/12/87
( ) Queensbury Town Board
(x) Queensbury Town Zoning Board of Appeals
(x) APplicant
Re. Variance #1297
James C. Fish
Second Street,
We have reviewed the
( ) Other - and have
(X) Approval
WGF
request fori (x) Variance, ( ) Site
the following recommendations I
( ) Disapproval
Plan Review,
Applicant presented plans which should result in a great improv-
ment to the neighborhood in that he will convert present office and
shop to the original two car garage and co~struct an office attached
to his garag~ across the street. Parking of employees cars will be
I a~ the rear of that building and a driveway will lead to the
parking in the rear, thus eliminating parking toward the house to the
north which he owns and rents to others.
Plantings have not been finalized as yet due to delay of his
nurseryman. It was suggested he consider cluster planting which would
include planting of a pyrmidal (such as cedar) surrounded by two
low-growing spreading yews
In addition to the above landscaping, screening and planting provisions,
the committee wishes to go on record that it does not approve I
1. Non-conforming signs,
2. Plastic or artificial trees, shrubs or flowers.
In approving the above (or attached plans), the Committee has the expressed
or implied agreement of the applicant to replace immediately dead trees,
shrubs or plants, and. to give proper maintenance to all plan~ings. All
rubbish containers or dumpsters shall be screened, all plant1ngs shall be
mulched and trees shall be retained or planted~ as agreed.
~~fUl~.y~ubmitted,
~~Z.røt/'b
Robert L. Eddy, Ch;rfman
4A
39J7
NEW BUSIOSS
--'
Mr. Turner announced that the following new business would not take place:
Interpretation No. 39 - NYNEX Mobile Communications Company
Use Variance No. 1306 - Robert Buruchian (withdrawn/ resubmit)
Use Variance No. 1310 - Neil J. Fitzgerald (withdrawn/ resubmit)
Area Variance No. 1311)-NYNEX Mobile Communications Co.
Use Variance No. 1312 ) Big Boom Road
INTEIPUTATION NO. 38
Patricia Evans Washburn, DVM
Mrs. Goetz
Interpretation
specifically a
Commercial zone.
on Broad Street.
read that the purpose of
No. 38 for the permitted
veterinary clinic limited
The location is adjacent
the letter is to request an
use of a professional office,
to felines in the Highway
to Merrill's Shoe Repair Shop
Mr. Turner asked how much surgical. Dr. Evans answered as much
surgical as is involved with cats. There will have to be partitions put
on the inside, but with no expansion in mind. Will this be called a
veterinary hospital? Answer: Clinic, not a hospital. Cats will have to
be kept overnight after surgery, but it will not be a fu11f1edged hospital
(dogs, horses, cats, etc.).
Mr. Prime stated that he has no problem with the veterinarian use of
the facility in the highway commercial. He feels the problem is when the
animals are housed overnight, or boarded. Mr. Prime stated that if there
is going to be boarding in the facility, it would be subject to a
variance. As far as the professional use of the building is concerned, as
a veterinarian, Dr. Evans is a professional, and that it is authorized in
a highway commercial zone.
A conversation then ensued regarding the difference between
hospitalization overnight and boarding overnight. Dr. Evans pointed out
that hospitalization is after surgery and the animal will be receiving
treatment; whereas, boarding is when a party has gone away for a weekend
(so to speak) and has temporarily boarded a healthy animal. Charges are
very different. The question was asked if someone would be there
overnight to care for the animals. Answer: No, it is not customary. A
statement was also made that the noise from the cats might be distracting
to the neighbors. Dr. Evans disagreed.
Mr . Muller
Interpretation
explained to Dr. Evans that Mr. Prime was stating that the
for which she came to the board is satisfactory. However,
9
,
31)~
'-"
because
before
in the
we (the
you have
animals will
this board with
area will have
Board) will
in mind.
be kept overnight, it will be necessary to come
an application for a Use Variance. Also, neighbors
an opportunity to state their views. At that time,
be able to make a decision regarding the other uses
Mr. Sicard suggested that Dr. Evans hold up on signing the lease.
Mr. Turner advised Dr. Evans that she apply for the variance as soon
as possible, in order to get it on next month's agenda.
The
Patricia
request.
feel that
sional use
MOTION WAS MOVED by Mr. Sicard that Interpretation No. 38,
Evans Washburn, DVM, should be brought back as a Use Variance
We have addressed that portion of the Interpretation in that we
Dr. Evans is a professional and fits the description as profes-
in the highway commercial zone.
Seconded by Mr. Kelley.
Passed uBani.ously.
VAlIANCE NO. 1305
United Cerebral Palsy Association
Mrs. Goetz read the application for an Area Variance, No. 1305,
Aviation Road, Town of Queensbury, Single Family Residential-20, to
construct an addition onto the existing facility with a setback of 25
feet, in lieu of the required 30 feet. The original building was designed
per the 1978 ordinance, which required a 50'-0 setback from the centerline
of Mountain View Lane, which results in a 25'-0 setback from the property
line. Current zoning requires a 30'-0".
Curtis D. Dybas of Cushing, Dybas Associates, Architects, PC
represented the applicants.
Mr. Behr
the same line.
noted the fact that some trees have to be taken down to keep
The screening in the yard will remain the same.
Mr. Turner noted that it would be a hardship to change the
architectural lines by 5 feet.
Mr. Kelley discussed the circulation problems that would be created,
if there was to be a "jog" in the interior corridor. Mr. Dybas explained
that there is a central hallway at this time. If the "jog" were to be in
the hallway, then the visual aspects would be limited for the handicapped
clients. Room sizes cannot be altered for the type client that uses the
building.
10
3~q
Mr. Dybas was asked about the length of the hallway. Answer: 65
feet.
'--
Public Hearing Opened: No comment.
Public Hearing Closed.
Correspondence:
Letter from Peter Marshall on Whipporwill Drive.
Mr. Marshall has no objections to the United Cerebral Palsy addition.
He took the opportunity to give a negative view of the Mobile Home Park
adjacent to the Cerebral Palsy building.
Warren County Planning Board: Approved
Mr. Behr MOVED APPROVAL of Area Variance No. 1305, United Cerebral
Palsy. This is a minimum relief in a 5 foot setback. The difficulty has
come from the old ordinance requiring a setback from the road center. The
new regulations require a setback from the property line. There is no
adverse effect on the neighborhood.
Passed ...aiaously.
Seconded by Mr. Griffin.
SIGB VA1lABCB BO. 1307
Wilder's Garage
Mrs. Goetz read the application for Sign Variance No. 1307; Gerald
Wilder, 156 River Street, Hudson Falls; Heavy Industry-3A; three acres.
This is a free standing sign, where the pole existing and the sign is on
it temporarily. The distance from the property line is 3 feet. The sign
is 3' 6" x 7' 6". Mr. Wilder would like to add the sign to the existing
pole, as he feels that the present gas islands are too close to the road
and to each other to install signs per the new sign ordinance.
Mr. Turner asked if anyone was representing the applicant. No one
came forth.
Mr. Behr stated that there was no reason why the sign could not be
mounted on an existing stantion in one of the islands. Mr. Turner agreed.
Public Hearing Opened: no comment
Public Hearing Closed.
11
:/10
Mrs. Goetz stated that the Warren County Planning Board approved.
'--
Mr. Behr again stated that there is ample space, and that there is no
practical difficulty demonstrated as to why the sign cannot be set back.
Mr. Griffin agreed.
Mr. Behr pointed out that there would be a 50' setback if one island
were to be used, and a 60' setback if the second island were to be used.
Mr. Griffin MOVED to DENY Sign Variance No. 1307, Gerald Wilder, as no
practical difficulty has been demonstrated and that they can work within
the sign ordinance.
Seconded by Mrs. Goetz.
Passed unaDiaously.
AlBA VARIARCE NO. 1308
Leonard and Nancy Campagnone
Mrs. Goetz read the application for approval of Area Variance, No.
1308; Leonard and Nancy Campagnone; Lot 16 Hidden Hills Drive; Single
Family Residential-10; a single family dwelling setback that is 2'3" less
than the required 30 foot front setback. Application states that there
will be no adverse effect on the neighborhood, as the house still lines
up with the road. The fact that the house will be two feet closer to the
outside curve of the road will not be noticeable to the houses on either
side.
Mr. Pliny Tucker, contractor, represented the clients. Mr. Tucker
explained that the surveyor staked all front corners, and the contractors
drew a line from one stake to the other. There is a slight curve in the
road. We (the contractors) went ahead and built the structure. The
particular bank with whom they were working required the septic system to
also show up in the plot plan. So the house was well along in
construction before the surveyor came back to get the measurements from
the plot plan. This was discovered on a Friday afternoon. I (Tucker)
came early to the Building Department on Monday and asked if we were to
stop construction. Building Department said not to stop construction.
Mr. Tucker said that the Warren County Planning Board approved it
because we were within 500 feet of the northway. Mr. Behr asked who was
responsible for placing the house at the present location. Mr. Pliney
said he was responsible.
Mr. Behr stated his displeasure at getting surveys made after
construction is started is wrong. Perhaps fines should be considered for
the infractions for going off the lines. The Building Department said
12
39}
that possibly a survey could be submitted with the building application.
~
Public Hearing Opened: no comment
Public Hearing Closed.
Warren County Board approved.
Mr. Kelley made a MOTION FOR APPROVAL for Variance 1308, Leonard and
Nancy Campagnone. Practical difficulty is that the surveyor located the
four corner stakes, but the problem was that the road had a curve. The
surveyor probably should have set one stake to show the curve in the
road. The variance of 2.3' is not excessive.
Seconded by Mr. Behr.
Pa8.ed u..ni.o.sly.
AREA VAlIANCE NO. 1309
John L. Haanen
Mrs. Goetz read the application for Area Variance, No. 1309; John L.
Haanen, 253 Bay Road; Queensbury; Light Industry-lA, to purchase the
adjacent property from Mrs. Emmet Tubbs. The applicant is asking for a
setback of 22.8 ft. from the front property line, which is the same
setback of the applicant's present bUilding that was constructed in 1979.
In that year, a variance (No. 624) was granted for that setback. Also, the
applicant is asking for a 13 foot setback from the D & H property. The
property is presently used for an engineering office, machine fabrication
and assembly. The proposed use will be the same. The application states
that there are no feasible alternatives and it would be necessary for the
business to move elsewhere, if there was no approval. Letter from Mr.
Haanen is attached (Page 13A and 31).
Mr. Behr asked if there was any problem with D & H Railroad and the
railroad's use. Hr. Haanen explained that there is 34'-0 between the
centerline of the track and the property line. There is no problem.
There may be a train once a month.
Mr. Sicard asked how far Haanen Engineering is from the city line.
Mr. Haanen said that the city line is by Kubricky.
Mr. Behr commented that if the new addition is to look like the old
building, then there should be no problem.
Hr. Turner asked about shipping machinery out by truck. Would it be
from the new addition? Mr. Haanen explained that the back would be raised
and trucks would go to a loading dock.
13
3~)
=a
HAANEN ENGINEERING
~OHN L. HAANEN, RE.
253 BAY STREET - GLENS FALLS - NY 1.2801 518-793-7444
.~
October 28; 1987
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
Zoning Board of Appeals
Bay at Haviland Road
Queensbury, NY 12801
RE: Variance Application
253 Bay Street Property
Haanen File: 33-26-3
Dear Zoning Board of Appeals Members:
. '
We have the opportunity to purchase adjacent property from Mrs.
Emmet Tubbs. Both our property and Mrs. Tubbs property is zoned
light industry. The Tubbs property is not useful for our needs
unless there is a variance on the front and back set back. With
this application, we are requesting a set back of 22.8 feet from
the front property line which is the same as set back of our
present building that was constructed in 1979. That year, we
received variance No. 624. In addition, we require a set back
to the D & H property of 13 feet. Again this is the same set
back approved in 1979.
We appreciate your considering this application. Without this
variance it will be necessary for us to move most likely out of
Queensbury.
Thank you for considering our application.
Sincerely,
0, l~~~
J. L. Haanen
Jill/ cw
13A
~
RE: NEW PROPERTY
FILE: 33-26-25
PROPERTY SIZE
1 ACRE
43,500 SQ. FT.
=
EXISTING PROPERTY'
=
14,800 SQ. FT.
1/3 ACRE
.. I'" .
MRS. TUBBS FROPERTY
=
31,800 SQ. FT.
3/4 ACRE
EXISTING· & TUBB'S PROPERY
=
46,600 SQ. FT.
1.1 ACRE
CODE L1-1A ALLOWS: "
16,000 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA PER ACRE OR USE OF 37% OF LAND AREA.
PRESENT BUILDINGS ARE 3,600 SQ. FT., THEY OCCUpy 24% OF PRESENT
LAND AREA.
TOTAL PROPOSED BUILDING AREA - 8,350 SQ. FT. THIS WOULD BE 18%
OF EXISTING PROPERTY AND MRS. TUBB'S PROPERTY COMBINED.
l'3B
., . '" .
393
.
394
',-"
Mr. Behr asked about the
represented the Tubbs property.
rough extent of the driveway.
dotted line on the map, as to whether it
Mr. Haanen confirmed that the line is the
Mr. Turner asked what the business consist of. Mr. Haanen answered
that he has an engineering business, in addition to a corporation. The
corporation builds machinery that they design in the engineering business
primarily converting. A lot of machinery for Valcour, which licenses
people allover the world, sludge presses, etc.
Mrs. Goetz suggested that as many trees as possible be kept, because
of the nearby existence of a residential neighborhood.
Dr. Eisenhart attended the meeting to speak for the application, but
left because of the lengthy meeting. Mike Scoville, who lives diagonally,
signed a statement in favor. Bob Deyette, Prison Psychologist who is
leaving the area, is in favor. Joan Clarke, Chamber of Commerce, has not
given any indications.
Public Hearing Opened: no comment
Public Hearing Closed.
Warren County Planning Board approved.
Mr. Kelley made a MOVED APPROVAL, Variance 1309, John L. Haanen, on
the basis that the front setback being 22.8', rather than the 50 foot that
would be required, would be consistent with the previous variance, granted
by this Board, and the same criteria for the rear setback of 13 feet
rather than 20 feet. Again the previous addition was built and this Board
granted the variance for the same setback. Also that the rear setback in
this particular piece of property would be a railroad right of way, so
that there would be no problem with a residential nature as such.
Seconded by Mr. Turner.
Passed ...Ria.usly.
SIGN VAlIANCE NO. 1204
Howard Johnson's Motor Lodge
Mr. Prime stated that this Sign Variance No. 1204, Howard Johnson's
Motor Lodge; Aviation Road, Queensbury; is in regards to an oversized
sign. At the last hearing, a resolution was adopted which is deemed
inappropriate and needs to be modified and changed. Since the last Board
meeting, a letter was received from Carl DiSantis, President of Aviation
Road Development Corp (see File, Sign Variance 1304). Following the
14
395
reading and recording of the letter, Mr. Prime stated that he would like
to propose an amendment to the resolution to clarify this situation.
'-
Mr. Prime: Mr. Chairman, what I would like to propose is that you
amend the resolution that was adopted on October 28, 1987. Relative to
this application in the following manner, I propose this resolution:
"After hearing the application read, it appeared affirmatively that
the application is for an oversized sign and does not address the issue of
practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship. The Supreme Court of Warren
County within the past year denied this same applicant, for an oversized
sign at the same location, for the same business on the grounds that no
practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship had been shown and that the
applicant should conform to the ordinance. The present application is an
attempt to re-open the prior proceeding and this decision is, in effect, a
denial of the application. It should also be noted for the record that
the applicant still has an oversized sign on the premises and has not
complied with the court order for the sign ordinance."
Mr. Prime then MOVED that that resolution be adopted and take place of
the prior resolution that was adopted by the board at the October meeting.
Mrs. Goetz asked how the former resolution read. Mr. Prime: "On the
advice of Case Prime, Counsel, the Zoning Board of Appeals shows not to
hear Sign Ordinance 1304 because the points in the application had
previously been addressed."
Mr. Prime continued to say that the Board had based its decision on
what Mr. Prime had told them, instead of making decision on what was heard
from the applicant or based upon the application itself.
Mr. Griffin asked the question as to where is the enforcement action
in Queensbury. It was agreed that this was a good question, as there are
many signs where nothing has been done: Sunoco, Blacksmith, Mohican,
B1ackmere, etc.
Mr. Turner offered the information that he had discussed the B1ackmere
situation with Mr. Dean, who was unaware that the board had conditioned
the resolution that Mr. B1ackmere had sixty days to remove his business
from the premises. Mr. Dean made a notation of this and advised Mr.
Turner that he was unaware that the resolution existed.
Mr. Muller asked if an applicant is entitled to a hearing when making
an application. Mr. Prime responded "the best thing to do is to hear the
applicant out and make a decision based upon it. The rule is unless the
applicant presents some new evidence of his right to be heard and his
merits of the case of hardship, that that the Board does not have to hear
it. It is a discretionary thing. The better practice is to hear it".
Regarding the subject variance, Mr. Behr said we heard the appli-
cation, we heard the comments by counsel, Mr. O'Hara, and it was when they
showed a new, oversized sign, that I made comments that I was surprised
15
~0
~
that Hr. O'Hara was here, because it appears that there is an attempt to
coerce the board, because the conditions had not been changed and
everything had been addressed. That was purely because they had changed
the sizes of the sign, that the size of the sign was not the issue, the
issue was the hardship.
Hr. Prime said that it left some hard feelings, and he thought it
would have been better to hear them out. It was probably wrong to even
permit them to file an application.
Hr. Behr wanted to know if anyone from the Board told Hr. O'Hara to
make out an application. Hr. Kelley said he had talked to Hr. O'Hara and
told him that the better practice would be to hear this application out -
in other words, make a presentation, have it heard on its merits, open it
up to the public, close the public hearing, have a discussion and take a
vote.
Hr. Prime pointed out that the difficulty in that procedure is that it
opens the door to everyone to re-apply. Hr. Huller said that he is a
proponent of the sign ordinance, but gave the following example. If an
applicant came before us and was proposing a building that was an allow-
able use and we had turned him down, if they came back the following month
with a different application and a different bUilding, same allowable use,
I think we would be obliged to hear it. The fact that he is coming back
with a different sign is persuasive, to me at least, that the man is
entitled to be heard on the merits of this application. I think then, in
a hearing, he has to somehow rebut the presumption that the Board might be
harboring, which is that the application is the same as the first appli-
cation sought.
Hr. Huller stated that procedurally what he heard (on the tape, since
he was absent the night of the variance proposal) was that Hr. O'Hara got
up, said we have an application, and that the Board Chairman was
negative. Hr. Behr coutermanded that statement by saying he had asked
Mrs. Goetz to read the application. Then we let Hr. O'Hara get up and
make a statement to supplement that, before anything was said. Then when
Mr. O'Hara proceeded with statements, I (Behr) made the statement "__by
advice of counsel, we should not be hearing this because this matter
because it has been fully addressed and been supported by the courts. II
Mr. Kelley stated his belief that legally, since the Zoning Board is a
public body, persons do have a right to come with an application and seek
a variance.
Mr. Behr stated that the reason he talked to Mr. Prime was that he did
not want to jeopardize the Board, because we made a decision, went to
court and court was upheld and then we sit down and reverse ourselves.
Then we look like we don't know what we are talking about, we were capri-
cious.
Mr. Muller offered
other municipalities.
information regarding most zoning ordinances in
There is a breathing space on the application that
16
391
',-,
a person comes, is heard and cannot come back the following month with the
same sales pitch, but often times they either create new facts or, the
alternative is, a different proposition for which they are asking relief.
Mr. Kelley thought Mr. DeSantis was asking for something different - it
may have been based on the same theories of hardship, same property, but
it was a different sign.
Mr. Behr felt that event thougk the square footage was changed it does
not change the practical difficulty. Mr. Muller said it does change the
application, and what he proposes to do in terms of the sign permit. He
(Mr. DeSantis) is entitled to be heard. Mr. Behr said the decision was
originally was based on the fact that he had no difficulty with the
standard sized sign, so why should another oversized sign be considered?
Conditions have not changed.
Mr. Muller felt that what should be interpreted is that the decision
has been made by a court, which is that this person has shown no practical
difficulty and that he cannot come back to the Board ever again. Mr. Behr
felt that if Mr. DeSantis had taken the old sign and that he now had a
problem and the business had started to falloff, and he had not put up
the new sign, then I (Behr) might understand that there might be a
possibility of change. But he is still living with the old sign, so there
is no change in the practical difficulty.
A general discussion continued as to the pros and cons of the way this
particular application was and should have been handled, and the manner in
which to handle future situations that are brought before the Board after
the first application was denied. It was also felt that the Building
Inspector's office could be exercise more prudence in variances that are
issued.
Mrs. Goetz MOVED APPROVAL of the Þ.esolution put forth by Mr. Prime to
amend the resolution that was adopted on October 28, 1987, relative to
this application Sign Variance No. 1304, Howard Johnson Motor Lodge.
Seconded by Mr. Behr.
Votes:
5 Yes: (Kelley, Sicard, Goetz, Griffin, Behr)
o No
1 Abstain: Muller
1 Conflict of Interest: Turner
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
ti '7
. '/~~ ,::a?L.{
THeo ore Turner, nairman
Minutes prepared by Mary Jane F. Moeller, Stenographer
17