Loading...
1988-10-19 ---' ',-- '- ~ QUBBIlS_RY ZO_.IIOARD OF APPBALS Regular Meetingl Wednesday~ October 19, 1988 at 1130 p.m. Present I Theodore Turner, Chairman Daniel Griffin Jeffrey Kelley Susan Goetz, Secretary Michael Muller Charles O. Sicard Paul Dusek, Town Attorney (in Counsel's office) Mary Jane F. Moeller, Stenographer Chairman Turner called the meeting to order at 1130 p.m. Minutes from the September 21 and 28, 1988 meetings were discussed and corrected as follows I September 21, 19881 P2, Para. 3, Fire Chief sIb Fire Marshal P3, Para. 5, it is no .. sIb .. it is not P5, Para. 1, land to be built to .. sIb .. new dwelling had to comply with the ... ~ Per the tape, the typed text is correct, however, Mr. Kelley's revision technically clarifies the statement. P12, Findings I Seconded by Mr. Sicard, Passed Unanimously. September 28, 19881 Paul Dusek, Counsel (in Counsel's office) P14, Top (Area Variance No. 1423), Findings I Passed Unanimously P14, Area Variance No. 1424 Motion I sIb Mr. Kelley moved APPROVAL of Mr. Sicard moved APPROVAL of the September 21 and 28, 1988 minutes as corrected. Seconded by Mrs. Goetz. Passed Unant.ously OLD BUSIRBSS USE VARIAlCB RO. 1385 Clark's Used Auto Parts Robert Clark This is a proposal for a junkyard on Sanders Road, LI-1A The application was erroneously scheduled on the Agenda, as the Zoning Board of Appeals and Mr. Clark agreed that the Use Variance would not be 1 ....~ ~ '-- scheduled, until Mr. Clark had received a letter from Niagara Mohawk Cor- poration regarding an easement and submitted it to the Planning Depart- ment. SIGB VARIAI(B RO. 1395 Dunham Shoes The proposal is to remove existing signs and replace with metal panels (painted) at Routes 9 and 149, HC-15. The applicant wishes to add flood lights or similar lights above to light up the exterior. Mr. David Grover, Marketing for Dunham Shoes, represented the applica- tion. Mrs. Goetz advised that the Sign Variance was Tabled previously to give the applicant one more opportunity to reword the application. Mr. Grover stated that essentially the application is the same, Dunham is go- ing with what was proposed based on the recommendations of the Zoning Board on 6/15/88, after which the signage was decreased and designed to be more coordinated, that proposal was presented on 8/24/88. Because Dunham's now has three stores, it is considered a Shopping Center. Mr. Grover referred to Section 6.103 (4) of the Sign Ordinance, which indi- cates -1 free standing sign ... for each entrance fronting a different street or highway.- (Notel Applicable sections of the Sign Ordinance re- ferred to are attached as Exhibit A). Dunham's is located on a corner lot and has two entrances, which allows two free-standing signs of 50 square feet. Based on that, Mr. Grover feels that the proposal is in order to use one (1) free-standing sign or pylon sign, with 60 square feet of sign- age, however, it does indicate the three businesses that house in the com- plex. Mr. Grover is resubmitting the proposal and requesting approval. In addition, he submitted a compromise. The compromise would be to maintain the current signage, with the stipulation that the Factory Handbag sign would be color-coordinated with the Dunham sign. Mr. Grover found it hard to believe that the Town would approve two signages for two businesses in the area and then, when one store was added, request that one of the prev- iously-approved signs be taken down. He reminded the Board at an earlier meeting that deleting a leasee's sign can violate a leasor/leasee con- tract. Mr. Grover said there is no indication in the Sign Ordinance of the requirement of a new heading and change in signage, when d complex is increased. He suggested to the Board that it recommend to the Building Department that a stipulation should be in the Ordinance, which would refer to this type of problem. He sign, to use continued that Dunham's is allowed an additional free-standing however, he feels there is no need for it. Again, the proposal is the signage in front and maintain it. Mrs. Goetz alluded to the 2 ---' large Tall Man's sign on the roof, she questions if it is legal. Bert Martin of the Building Department was called by Mr. Grover and Mrs. Goetz and indicated to them that the requirements were one free-standing sign and each business was allowed 100 sq. ft. of signage (per business) on the building. There was discussion as to whether the Tall Man sign was con- sidered a rooftop or wall sign. Mr. Muller referred to Section 6.103 (3.) of the Sign Ordinancel ·A building on a street corner lot or contiguous to 2 streets shall be allowed 2 building signs and one free-standing sign.· However, Mr. Grover said the Board referred to Dunham's as a Shopping Center, not a Business. Mr. Muller continued to Section 6.103 (4.)1 ·Each occupant of the Shopping Center shall be permitted 1 wall sign on the portion of the exterior wall.· (It was agreed that, so far, there were allowed two free-standing signs and three wall signs.) The Ordinance also states ·Wall signs for each occupant of a Shopping Center shall be coordin- ated as to material, shape, lettering, ..... Mr. Grover took exception to this because he said that Mr. Martin indicated ·that the Town likes them coordinated,· he did not say they had to be, however, this will be done by Dunham's. Mr. Grover did not understand why the previously-approved signage be- comes a hindrance, when the area increases to three stores from two, it is not any more unsightly, it does not cause any more hazard than in the past, especially when the businesses have been established for a period of time. Mr. Turner noted Sign Ordinance 2.100 (19.)1 ·Shop~ing Center - Three (3) or more businesses conducted on the same premises.· Mr. Grover reminded the Board that Dunham's cut 20 square feet off the Dunham's sign after a previous meeting, and that there is no more room for expansion. Due to lack of space for the wall signs in the area between the top of the windows and the roof, he recommended that the ·Big and Tall Man's· sign stay on the roof, but the size be decreased. Applicable to this discussion, Mr. Muller read Section 6.102 (2.) of the Sign Ordinance 1 ·Buildings which are located within or at a distance of 100 linear feet from the front property line are permitted to have a wall sign or a permitted roof sign of up to 100 sq. ft.. Buildings with more than 100 feet setback from the front property line will be permitted an additional 10 sq. ft. of sign surface for each 10 additional ft. of setback to a max- imum sign size of 300 sq. ft.. Shopping center with a group of stores or sales or service buildings shall not be eligible for this permit.· Sec- tion 6.103 (4.)1 ·Each occupant of the shopping center shall be permitted 1 wall sign on the portion of the exterior wall.· After analyzing the above-referenced sections in the sign ordinance, the Zoning Board did determined that Dunham's is entitled to two free- standing signs and three wall signs of 100 sq. ft. each. The absence of a second free-standing sign is an improvement, however, there is a problem with the over-sized roof sign. The suggestion was made to conform the roof sign to the size of the other two signs. Mr. Grover said he would agree to a stipulation that the roof sign be decreased to 48 sq. ft.. No Variance is needed for the free-standing sign, as the leading edge is 15 3 ...-' "'--' ft. from the property line. Variances being requested for this applica- tion are to allow an additional 10 sq. ft. on the free-standing sign, and the three signs presently located on the roof will be 48 sq. ft. Public .earia.. no comment Correspondence. warren County Planning Board disapproved. Mr. Muller moved APPROVAL of Sign Variance No. 1395, Dunham Shoes. The applicant has demonstrated practical difficul~y in all signage that he would like and yet is offering a 8ubstantial compromise, in light of what he would be entitled to by the Queensbury Sign Ordinance. 1. The free-standing 8ign as proposed in the application is 10 ft. wide x a total of three (3) unit8 of six (6) feet, for a total of 60 sq. ft.. 2. The building is designed in such a manner that the wall signs cannot be placed where they can be seen. Instead of on the wall, the signs will be placed on the roof below the ridge line. The compromise that has been proposed is that each occupant will have one wall sign over its business, which will be placed on the roof below the ridge and measure 3 ft. x 16 ft. The signs will conform to the Sign Ordinance Section 6.103 as to coordination of material, color, size and shape and match the free-standing sign. 3. The Big and Tall Men's clothing sign will have to meet the require- ments of the other two units and Section 6.103 in shape and size and be no greater than 48 sq. ft. The Variance is that the zoning Board of Appeals is granting a variation from the strict requirement of the Ordinance, in compromise with what was proposed. The applicant is taking les8 of an opportunity for maximum sign- age, and the Board is granting some consideration in that regard. Seconded by Mrs. Goetz. Pa..e. Unaat.ou.ly ADA VAJtIAIICB 110. 1426 George and Barbara Arakelian The application is to remove the existing two bedroom Cabin and con- struct a two-car garage with living quarters on top of the garage, located on Trout Pavilion Road at Kattskill Bay, LR-IA. It will be two bedrooms and one full bathroom. No kitchen facilities. It will be occupied by family members. There are no future plans for renting this or building a 4 --/ '--' kitchen on to it. This use will be for Summer only. (Notel Cross Refer- encel Area Variance No. 1410, Article 4, Section 4.020-c). Mrs. Goetz read the Attachment justifying the request by Mr./Mrs. Arakelian (Exhibit B). Mrs. Barbara Arakelian represented the application and verified to Mr. Turner that the Arakelian's have owned the property for 16 years and rented it for four years before that. The house was re- built on the same location in which Mr./Mrs. Arakelian and a daughter have resided, the two-bedroom cabin has housed the three sons. Although there is a lot of acreage, the Arakelian's do Bot want to build a house for the sons, only sleeping quarters. The subject cabin is close to the stream and needs to be rebuilt to be habitable. The neighbors are very support- ive of the project. The new septic system will accommodate five bedrooms. Although Mrs. Goetz did not find a problem with the construction be- cause the bedrooms are there now, Mr. Turner felt that down the road the project might create a problem, if the Arakelian's decide to sell. He does not see a hardship, as the property is being used as zoned. The only amenity missing the garage. Mrs. Arakelian explained that it would be very difficult to locate elsewhere because of the septic system. The existing cabin has two bedrooms, a bathroom and a front porch, it has its own septic system, which is close to the brook. Mrs. Arakelian would have liked a garage attached to the house, but there is not enough room. Mr. Muller reviewed the history of the site. There are 2.7 acres that were formerly owned by Mr. Palmer. In addition, to the north is land noted as -Trout Pavilion, Inc.,· approximately 4-5 acres and belongs to Mr. Arakelian and a corporation. On the 2.7 acres, there is one house and a cabin with sleeping quarters, bedroom and porch, in a one-acre zone in two towns. The use is not being changed, because of the present sleeping quarters being demolished and new one. being built, there is an exapansion of a nonconforming use. Erecting a two-story garage is permitted. The existing cabin is 621 sq. ft. and the living area of the new garage (se- cond floor) is 780 sq. ft., 159 sq. ft. more than presently exists. An owner is permitted to have the pre-existing uses whether they conform or not, and then if a harship is able to be demonstrated and it is a differ- ent hardship test, an identical use is being taken and upgraded. Also being alleviated are other difficultiesl 7 ft. off an intermittent brook, an older septic system, and it would be impossible to add two stories to the existing dwelling. The main house is two stories and up against the lake, approximately 30 feet on the north, 46 ft. on the west side, and 12 ft. off the brook. This can constitute a hardship, which can be size, shape and topography. Public Bear!aWI no comment Correspondence I Warren County approved, letter from B. & J. Anthony, neighbors, who approved. Mr. ~elley moved APPROVAL of Use Variance No. 1426, George and Barbara 5 --" --- Arakelian. The Use Variance is required to meet specific tests. One of the specific tests is Hardship. 1. The existing house is located on the property in such a way that its proximity to the lake and the brook to the south of the house prevent an expansion of bedroom facilities, which the applicants are attempt- ing to accomplish. Namely, remove an old cabin with two sleeping quar- ters, bathroom and porch, and update the pre-existing, nonconforming facilities, so there would be two bedrooms and a bathroom under better circumstances. 2. In relation to the existing house, no addition can be made to the east and south, because of the existing septic system. It would be imprac- tical to add on to any side of the house. Another test is Topography. This relates to the brook that cuts the 2.7 acre parcel in half and, be- cause of the brook. a. the applicants desire to remove the cabin which is 7 feet away, and b. another building could not be moved or built farther back on the property, because it would be difficult to service a new building with water and septic across the brook. The proposal to build the two-car garage with two bedrooms and bath- room over it in the position indicated on the map is a reasonable request. In addition, the proposal is not detrimental to the Zoning Ordinance for the area, the neighbors feel it will be an improvement. This new two-story building, which is a garage on the first floor and two bedrooms and bathroom on the second floor will have no kitchen. It will be used only by the family members. The dwelling is to be tied to the principle dwelling, it will never be a principle dwelling and cannot be sold as a separate residence. If sold, the garage would go with the principle dwelling. The applicants will be required to demolish the existing cabin which measures 46 ft. x 13 1/2 ft. Seconded by Mrs. Goetz. Pa.... ....lao.sly ADA VAJtIAIICB IIO. 1410 6 ---/ ~ George and Barbara Arakelian The application is to remove the existing two bedroom Cabin and con- struct a two-car garage with living quarters on top of the garage, located on Trout Pavilion Road at Kattskill Bay, LR-1A. It will be two bedrooms and one full bathroom. No kitchen facilities. It will be occupied by family members. There are no future plans for renting this or building a kitchen on to it. This use will be for Summer only. Mrs. Goetz read a Statement attached to the Application, which justi- fied the request. Mrs. Arakelian represented the project and noted a cor- rection on the Statement I Page 2, 75 ft. should be 50 ft. Public Hearingl no comment Correspondence I Warren County approved. Mr. Griffen moved APPROVAL of Area Variance No. 1410, George and Barbara Arakelian. The applicant has demonstrated practical difficulty in that the location of the garage is on the only side available, considering the present location of the septic tank, driveway and brook. The relief requested is 16 ft. on the southwest corner. There is no adverse effect on the neighborhood character. Seconded by Mr. Turner. pas..4 Unaniaously NEW BUSIIIBSS AREA VARIAIICB RO. 1427 John Linehan The proposal is for an inground swimming pool, 16 ft. x 32 ft., with a four (4) foot rear setback in lieu of the required 20 foot setback (a vari- ance of 16 ft.). (Article 7, Section 7.074(4b). John Linehan represented the application and verified that there is a four-foot fence in back at present. Mr. Turner expressed concern about the septic system being located directly off the back of the house, and if the system failed would there be enough room to adequately meet the code. Mr. Linehan has been living in the house for 15 years, there has been no septic problem and it was new just before occupancy. The dry well is 13 ft. deep x 8 ft. wide. The request is for a relief of 4 ft. on the back, there will be a 7 ---- -- patio in the back, the rear fence is on the line. The present chain link fence will come down and be replaced with a stockade fence. Public Hearingl no comment Correspondence I None Mr. Linehan stated that the pool is set towards the east side of the backyard, thus leaving enough land to the northwest of the house for a dry well Should~sePtic fail. Mr. Sicard moved APPROVAL of Area Variance No. 1427, John Linehan, as the proposed location is the only place to locate the pool. The entire property will be surrounded by a six-foot stockade fence. The practical difficulty is that this is a pre-existing, nonconforming lot size, the re- lief is four (4) feet from the rear property line. / Seconded by Mr. Turner. Passe. Uaaaimou.ly AREA VARIAlfCB RO. 1428 Richard Mozal The application is to increase the size of the present deck (8 ft. x 18 ft.) to 12 ft. x 22 ft. and enclose it for future living quarters. The setback would be 36 ft. from the lakeside, in lieu of the required 50 ft. setback (a variance of 14 ft.) (Article 4, Section 4.020-f) Daniel Barber is Agent and represented the application and stated that the addition will be one story consisting of kitchen and dining quarters. There are three decks, the lowest deck is 16 ft. from the water line. The enclosed finished area will be 36 feet from the lake. There will be no outside expansion. (Notel Further pertinent information was unintelligible, as the remainder of Mr. Barber's presentation took place at the dais.) PUblic Hearingl none Mr. Griffen moved APPROVAL of Area Variance No. 1428, Richard Mozal. The practical difficulty is that there is no other way to expand. There is a bank on the south side towards the lake and the houses on the east and west are close together. The proposal will be an enclosed structure 36 feet from the ~ater line. The structure cannot be seen from either side. There is no visual impact and no adverse effect on the neighborhood character. 8 ---- --/ Seconded by Mr. Turner. pa...d Unaai....1y. USE VARIAlCE RO. 1429 Rosemary Threw The Variance is for an addition onto the storage/warehouse/manufactur- ing business on Big Bay Road, LI-1A. The addition will be used for sales and repair of on and off road vehicles. (Article 4, Section 4.020-m). Michael O'Connor, Esq., represented the application and stated the applicant would like to have permission to sell heavy duty equipment and trucks. The requested use is permitted under Site Plan Review in the old Ordinance (prior to 10/1/88). Site Plan Type II, Section 11, lists a heavy machinery repair facility, Section 10 lists a truck repair facility. Something new is not being introduced to the site or neighborhood, as to what would be permitted. Mr. O'Connor proceeded with an idea that a vari- ance is being granted but, at the same time, a Site Plan Review is being conducted. Presently, there is a construction facility, the owner's own equipment and a repair facility for the equipment. It is a natural out- growth of the owner repairing his own equipment. More than one vehicle may have to be purchased, in order to have enough parts for the repair of one, therefore, after the repair there will be surplus equipment. The applicant would like to have the ability to sell that equipment. There will be no major franchises or an operation like a major truck center. The intent is a minor expansion of a present use. Under the old Ordinance, it was not spelled out as a permitted use, that could be the reason the Planning Department put the application in under Use Variance. Procraft operates the same type of business on Big Bay Road, but the type of approval/permit is unknown. In addition, Scotty McLaughlin's business is on Dix Avenue in a residential neighborhood. The Beautification Committee suggested screening which is now in place, the entrance to the property should be no wider than 40 ft., and a line of white pine trees planted on either side of the entrance way, which has been done. Warren County approved. Mr. O'Connor noted the caption under Use Variance No. 1429, Page 2 of 2 of the Agenda. .... The addition will...· The applicant does plan an addition, but it is not part of the Variance. The addition will be 64 ft. x 40 ft. off the south side of the building. The entrances for the vehi- cles to that addition will be on the south side of the building at the back, so the front will be a solid wall facing the street. The appearance of the operation from the street has been greatly improved. Immediately south of the property is a Town sanG pit, immediately to 9 '--" --- the north is the Decan Construction Company, north of that is Procraft, Adirondack Welding, and other small businesses many of which are vehicle- oriented along the road. At this location, there might be a display area for vehicles for sale, which is the only difference than what is at the site presently. The re- pair facility will be set up so that one will not be able to tell which vehicles are being repaired, either vehicles for sale, vehicles of others, or vehicles owned to be put on the road. Vehicles for sale will not be a large part of the business, a proper permit must be received before the business starts. Vehicles could go behind the trees for display purposes. William Threw stated that parking for the employees will be to the left of the driveway, along with the new addition which starts 20 ft. from the road. Public BeariD§1 Audrey Kiernan I Big Bay Road (at the end behind the Rest Area on the river) . Ms. Kiernan stated that Mr. Threw has made a big improvement on his property in the last two days. She complained that Big Bay Road has no zoning, there are houses, shacks and trailers, to a nice residential area at the end. Procraft has a steel building, nice appearance from the front, all heavy equipment is kept to the back, there is nothing in. the front, and is very neat and clean. The welding shop has very little traf- fic, welding supplies are sold and the owner lives above his business. Mr. Threw probably has the most traffic on the road, there are a substantial number of trucks, as does Procraft. The road is paved with no shoulders and the pavement is broken from the large trucks. Ms. Kiernan asked for clarification of ·storage/warehouse/manufacturing.· From the road, one can see a great deal of equipment, tractor trailer boxes, no trees are left, there is gravel and dirt, a pay loader and much more. The property is very unkempt, and Ms. Kiernan was looking for some restrictions as to the care of the property. Mr. Muller advised stored indoors, if it She also asked if there inuity in the styles mente Ms. Kiernan that salvage materials have to be is not being done, then Mr. Threw is in violation. was going to be continuity in the businesses, cont- of homes. There is also a great need for improve- In response, Mr. O'Connor said the Light Industrial does not go all the way to the river. Eagen Road is to the south of the property, and from the southwest corner of the back of the Town property (sandpit), the line runs askew to the south until it hits the northerly boundary of Eagen Road, then it goes north to the to the Carrie property, where the Light Industrial ends. Mr. Threw has built his own single family residence immediately to the south of Eagen Rd., he is not in the area to make it 10 - -' unattractive. Jeffrey Threw, William Threw's son, is in the process of building a single family residence nearby. Recent attempts to screen the front speak of how Mr. Threw would like to improve the site. There is a difference of opinion on the term -dead equipment.- Mr. O'Connor feels that everything that is outside now is legitimate and is permissible, it is not equipment or something that is used everyday, but it is not abandoned. The equipment will be used at some time. The recent cleaning up of the property is a good faith attempt on the part of the applicant. The entrance to the property has been cut down to 40 feet, it used to be wide open. Mr. Turner spoke of the area as a -junkyard,- as the applicant is stor- ing old equipment, backhoes, old trucks, old truck bodies, etc. Parts are being dismantled for the equipment that is being refurbished up front, which constitutes a junkyard. Mr. O'Connor felt that there is a distinc- tion in that Mr. Threw attempts to get rid of the equipment that no longer has salvage value, he keeps the equipment that is salvagable and has poten- tial for use. Mr. Threw said he manufactures concrete steps, holding tanks and con- crete walls. Mr. O'Connor commented that if a formal Site Plan Review were being considered, then there might be a discussion on traffic flow/traffic patterns, and he did not feel they were applicable questions. Site drain- age on site and to adjoining properties might be considered, if the park- ing lot is left as permeable, there would be no question. Screening from the highway has been started. Mr. Muller explained that the Zoning Board of Appeals has no jurisdic- tion to do Site Plan Review, so basically the application is for a Use Variance. Basically, the applicant is dismantling vehicles to make a vehicle, and maybe they are entitled to be stored outdoors in a Light Industrial zone under the new Ordinance. This application is before the Board to see if there is a hardship, if one does exist, then a Variance should be granted. If there is no hardship, then the application should be denied and resubmitted under the new Zoning Ordinance. If just the question of hardship is going to be addressed, Mr. O'Connor requested that the application be looked upon as a natural expansion in perhaps another categorization of the present use. People who have the amount of equip- ment that Mr. Threw has on site from time to time sell the equipment, that is the subject of the application. Maybe legitimitizing what has been going on here, he has sold equipment. There is no heavy duty construction outfit in the area that has not sold equipment as part of the operation. The applicant does not anticipate a great deal of sales and does not want to be criticized for doing so. A new application is not desired for the same identical purpose, the applicant is entitled to be considered under the new Ordinance because of the date of filing (3-4 days prior to 10/1/88). Further, Mr. O'Connor thought the Board could either find that 11 --- -./ that is a reasonable explanation to the burden of proof for hardship, or alternatively he would ask that a declaration be made that the application is mute because of that fact that a Variance is not required, that would be preferred as opposed to a finding of denial. Again, he stated that this is a natural outgrowth, it is not a major or substantial variance, it is not an introduction in any manner of anything new to the neighborhood. It is the same thing, a different user, the same product. To answer, Mr. Muller stated that the Zoning Board could not make an Interpretation, because there is no Interpretation before the Board, a pUb- lic notice is needed. The attornies disagreed as to which Ordinance was in effect for this application, Mr. Muller made reference to the Agenda which stated that the old Ordinance was in effect. However, Mr. O'Connor said that if it was to the applicant's prejudice, it was required to apply the old Ordinance, if it is not to the applicant's prejudice, the Board is required to apply the new Ordinance. (Note. Mrs. Goetz suggested that Counsel be called to the meeting, a five minute recess was taken.) Mr. O'Connor reiterated to Mr. Dusek that the application was filed 9/29/88 or thereabouts under the Old Ordinance. The question came up as to whether the Board could make an Interpretation. Mr. Muller stated that the Board would be required to follow the rules for an Interpretation under the old Ordinance, which would require a public hearing and notice. Mr. O'Connor stated that, if the Board desired to do so it could give an Interpretation because, under the new Ordinance, there are no notice re- quirements and there really is no procedure, as it appears to be governed when or how the Board gives an Interpretation under the new Ordinance. His theory is that the -grandfathering- of the application by filing prior to 10/1/88 is a ·one-way street.- It gives the applicant the right to claim a right under the prior Ordinance. If it is thought that the loss of that right is to the applicant's prejudice, but if in fact the appli- cant has the privilege of saying ·You apply the law as it is at the time of the decision,· (as in a Court of Law), as opposed to saying the Board has the right go back and say -The law at the time of the application was ...., that is what will be applied· - it is a technical question. Basical- ly, is the applicant right saying that he can claim that he can go under the new Ordinance, as opposed to the old Ordinance, even though the application was under the old Ordinance? Mr. Muller explained to Mr. Dusek that, under the Use Variance Rosemary Threw proposes as part of her position the storage/warehouse/- manufacturing business, which is allowed in the Light Industrial zone. In addition, there is a proposal to add to that the sales and repair of on and off road vehicles. For the Use Variance application a hardship has to be shown, Mr. Muller suggests that there has been no evidence of hardship. Mr. O'Connor feels that the Board can still be allowed to find, through an Interpretation, that sales/repairs of on and off road vehicles is under- stood to be or applied within storage/warehouse/manufacturing business (as 12 '--- ~ construction vehicles, dismantle of vehicles, rebuilds some vehicles, etc.). Ordinarily the Board requires this to be in writing through an Interpretation process, which was in the old Zoning Ordinance. A prece- dent was set for an immediate Interpretation through a prior application for a batch plant. In summary, Mr. Muller asked if the Board can proceed with a ·one-way-street Interpretation,· or does it require prior notice of an Interpretation? Mr. Dusek explained that the Board does not have to render a decision on the spot regarding anything at any meeting. In many instances, when issues are addressed Interpretations are made, no matter what decision is made, no formal announcement of an Interpretation is made but as the Ordinance is read to decide the case, one is interpreting the words of the Ordinance. Mr. Dusek's rationale would be that, if the Ordinance is inter- preted in the process of deciding the case, he does not see where that is prohibited. Mr. Muller said that, when you get by Interpretation which could not be obtained by Use Variance, the problem issue still has not been addressed, which is the concern of outdoor, exposed storage of materials or goods which, under the existing Ordinance is not permitted. However, Mr. O'Connor stated that, if the decision is limited under the reading of the Ordinance to ·prepare and sell vehicles of others· and exclude from that decision ·any likeness or any permission for outside storage· and leave that an unresolved issue, he would have no objection. Mrs. Goetz again expressed concern about the outside storage. Mr. Dusek was advised that a ·junkyard· is allowed under the new Ordinance. Although the applicant is before the Board for an issue relative to the old Ordinance, the applicant can still come in under the new Ordinance as a Site Plan Review. Mr. Dusek explained that an Interpretation of the Ordinance will have to be made and then also, once it is decided what the Ordinance means, then the Board will have to consider whether the criteria has been met for granting the Variance. Mr. O'Connor explained that the applicant is pretty much authorized to do what is being done. It is part of a normal construction operation or operation of a construction business in selling equipment from time to time. What is being talked about is already there, storing outside, every- thing is there, vehicles are already being repaired, occasionally vehicles are sold in which the applicant has no interest. Occasionally the appli- cant would like to take vehicles in for the purpose of sale, it will not be any different use or impact to the neighborhood. The only reason that the applicant is before the Zoning Board of Appeals is because the use is not specified on the Use Schedule for that area under the old Ordinance. The basic question is ·Is it that similar to what is permitted, so it should be allowed?· This request is not unreasonable. Mr. O'Connor asked the Board for a consensus, Mr. Muller stated he had heard no evidence of hardship. 13 -- ......../ No. give said Michael O'Connor, Esq., and the applicant moved to TABLE Use Variance 1429, Rosemary Threw, for three months (no later than January 1989) to the applicant time to proceed with a Site Plan Review. Mr. O'Connor he will provide a letter to the Planning Department. ADA VA!tIARCB RO. 1430 George B. and Lucy F. Cooke The application is for the addition of a deck 12 ft. x 6 ft. to be situated on the south side of the dwelling (facing Glen Lake) on the north shore of Glen Lake, SFR-30. The applicant is asking for minimal relief for the nonconforming proposed deck, 20 ft. setback from the lake, in lieu of the required 50 ft. setback (a variance of 30 ft.). Directions I right off from Ivy Loop Road to the end of the road. (Article 7, Section 7.011 A3) . Mrs. Goetz read a letter signed by surrounding neighbors that they have no objection to the construction of a deck (on file). Ben Bardin is the agent for the application and stated that, due to the age and physical condition of Mr. and Mrs. Cooke, they are unable to attend the meeting. Mr./Mrs. Cooke have lived on the lake for forty (40) years. The rea- son the deck was started prior to the application is that Mr. Cooke thought that, as long as he did not put on an addition, he would not need a variance. Public Saari.,. no comment Correspondence I Warren County approved. Mr. Griffen moved APPROVAL of Area Variance No. 1430, George B. and Lucy F. Cooke. This seems to be an honest mistake, as the applicant did not realize that he needed a variance prior to construction. The deck will not affect the neighborhood character, most of the buildings and decks are closer to the lake on both sides of the dwelling. There will be a side setback relief of 30 feet. Seconded by Mr. Sicard. Passed VaaniMo.sly AJtBA VAJtIAIICB RO. 1431 John E. Daly The applicant is to place a mobile home on the lot, requesting a 14 '",--- ---./ 3 ft. 4 in. rear setback in lieu of the required 10 ft. (a variance of 6 ft. 8 in.) on the east side of Ohio Avenue, UR-5, SS-Mobile Home. Direc- tionsa first vacant area past South Avenue going north on Ohio Avenue. (Article 4, Section 4.020-d). John E. Daly represented the application and stated that recently five trailers have been installed on Ohio Avenue, all of the lots are smaller than the subject lot. Public Bearings Ken Cossanta Mr. Cossant approached the adjoining neighbors and those across the street and received signatures of approval. Mr. Turner moved APPROVAL of Area Variance No. 1431, John E. Daly. This is to grant a relief of 6 ft. 8 in. on the rear setback. Practical difficulty is the small 60 ft. x 100 ft. lot, to get the amenities neces- sary for the trailer and the front setback. The trailer is 66 ft. 8 in. long. Also attached to the application is the Short RAP, showing no nega- tive impact. Seconded by Mr. Sicard. pa.... Uaaniaously ADA VARIAIICB BO. 1432 Robert A. Balogh The application is for permission to line setback, in lieu of the required 15 at Lot 98 Hidden Hills Drive, SPR-10. placement of the house. (Article 4, Section maintain the 13 ft. 6 in. side- ft. (a variance of 1 ft. 6 in.) This i8 to remedy an error in 4.020-f). Michael J. O'Connor, Esq., represented the application and stated that the mistake i8 insignificant and requested approval of the variance. The setback is 1.5 ft. on the front corner of the north side of the building, and 1.9 ft. on the rear corner of the north side of the building, the lot is tapered. Public Bearing, no comment Correspondence a Warren County Planning Board approved. Mr. Muller The application moved APPROVAL of Area Variance No. 1432, Robert A Balogh. has demonstrated practical difficulty and the minimal 15 '-' '-/ requirement will be allowed, which is a 1.5 ft. variance on the front corner of the north side of the building, and a 1.9 ft. variance on the rear corner of the north side of the building. Seconded by Mr. Kelley. .a..ed UnaDI....ly Mr. Turner adjourned the meeting at 9150 p.m. €-- Theodore T Chairman ~ tenographer /1, 7- r? 16 '/" ,r/":/ '-- --/ SIGN ORDINANCE TO~~ OF OUEENSBURY WARREN COUNTY, N~! YORK JULY 1976 Adopted July 27, 1976 Effective August 14, 1976 I:? YIHß¡r IT '-.-/ '-' 19. S.h.t.~pop.i.'~C..C.f!.n.t.c_r_ - Three () or more hUN'¡lImwc!'; cCIII\Juclcd 1111 tile sam(" premises. 20. S}.¡.;,n. - ^ siCn is ~ n,1n,,·.ulentHicøtloll, dc·s~riI'Ltoll. ,li::pl;IY. mlOounc(:'- ment. df>daréltlon. ....·vice. demonstration, or ilJu~tr.llj') 1 which is .. . óJffixcd lO or '¡13illll·d. or repfL'scnted c.1il"l.'I'II~' III' ill.lln"otly upon a buildi~, \f;lructule. or parcel or properL)' .IIIJ wldch ,Ijrc'clf' Attcntion to an object. prolluct, pla~e, persons, activity, irmtitutioll, orJ;aniz;alion, or t>usincss. 21. SiJ;n $trllrlure - The supporls, u 1ri¡;htf', h ,:ldIlJ~ :IlId Iraml'wllrk for lIlt' ..................... sicn. In the cast" of a slgn ..tructure cOlIsir.LiIlJ·. 1'1. "'n (2) or mnr(" sid,'~ wlwre lhe angle formed bet",een any of IhC" Sjdl'S or the projl'f'lions lltcr"uf c'xu'rJs thirty (jO) d.'J;rcl's, each ::1.1,' :;lIall I,,' l'I\II!~;cl('n',I" scpar<.llc f;jtn struI'ture. 11. Sign SlIrfa\:c or ^n'&) - The ent ht! arCíI ",ilhill a :;illJtll', CIIIII inuolIs .......-............. .. pl.'rim\.'ll'r cnclosin¡; 6111 c1c.'mcnl~ of the f'igll ",Iddl (orm ..n intcgral l);Jrt of" lhc' JispJay. 'I'll(:' struclun' ~u.l'IHlrtill).: a ~;jgn Rita I 1 IIIIt h~' incllldc'lI UIIJ,~ss lh... !>lruclllrt> is dc~jl~lIëJ in;a wa)' l.. IlIrPl ,III ¡IItl'l\ral bad"l\rouIìlJ for till' dispJay. Only Oil!,! ral'(' of a dOllhl"-lacc'tI &;'1\11 ,;h:dJ Þc illdm.lt·¡ :I"¡ !'òur f;)çc or area or such 61 '. ¡gn. II', Sl.\I!d.lr,i Olllnoor ^clVcltislnA I'élncl:; - ^n :HI': 'rlisill)~ 1':111.·1 stnll:lllCC' . . . . . . .. .. .. . .. . .. - --. .. . .. . . . . . . -" ...... -òIpplOJlim,1lely 2~' IlUrizHnta.1I', and 1;¿' v"rli,',IIJy IIM'cl 1111'11,,' postillJ: Clrp:I'ntillJ; of advt!rtisill~ C'r puhJh sc·rvi,'" "IIPY. ,. ..... SI r....'l - ^ rubJic wny which -illlurd:.; lh~ Jlri.u·jpal nlt'.anS .., .u,,'t'!-\S Iu altllll Jn~ properly, incJuding lYt'nI"'. pln"",wilY, ,II iVI'. 1.11"', huult'valll, hi¡;hw,lv. toall and ;.ny other l·\llr'IU~III.1rt' "1.';"1'1.111 .III,·v. 2). W,..I,L. ~.L.J;,II. - ^ sign whidl Is al ladlt'd t.o lilt' "";IJ I ·1 :a IlId I""II~ willi th,' r.ll'~ in till' plane p.lr.d 1,-,1 (U ~u, h ..'a I I, :anol nol "xtl'lIclilll~ '"llrr. tlt:m 'ill,'cn (15) i/lch("!o from the I.n',· (If liuçh 101;111. :ECTION '1,100 ",ECTION (·.101 . P.CTJON ".102 -- ..- '\ ARTICLE 6 SIGNS FOR WHICII PERMITS SHALL DE, ¡u.:QUIREU. .~{'.!~{:r.:~...1_ - No sign or other device for advertising purpose shall be erected, f'stablishl'd, constructed, reconstructed, enlarged. extended. movt'd or structually allf'red nftc.'r tht~effective date fJ!, this Ordinance without applicntion for and Issuance {If .1 (wrmit, exc('pt as provided for by this Orùinaru.:". ,Sy.t.b.a.c.k... :~}_1:..t:._ !'}:1E_e..'!!.c!l_t_~n~.u.!!.b~~_ .!!.ei~l~t. ~:I~d_ _(~(_r.-_P.r.{:m_l_s_('_s. }~l.r.e_c_ t_j_o.'~;¡}_ _~ IJP~ I.imitation!'; of Permitted Signs - - - -... - - -.. - . þ. - -~.. - -......... ..- ------- Setback: 1. free Standing Signs The 'setback for fn'e standing sigw; shall he a minimum distance of 15 feet from any property line. Size: 1 . frct' standing signs - The surface area of I 51dt' shall not t'xceed 2. ',0 S(I. It. at 15 ft. setþack, or, M sq. fL. .It 2~ fL. f-il'lback. I I (a) Sir.nr att.1ched to buildings (w;¡ll signs and 'permittt'd roof si~ns) - The ~.¡urfabe area of signs attac::hcd ~o any buiJding shall not exceed I 2')7. 0/ lhl' area of the wall or roof LO wldeh 5tJl:h sign is atlaclwd. ^ .minimum area of 30 sq. fto shall be allowed in any C<\Sl~. Size of wall 5 igns and permitted ù istalH'c be the building roof signs will befurlher regulated by the from the front property line. BuHdings which I within distance of 100 linear feet [rom the arc! loca t('d or at ~ frolll pruperty line are permitted to have a w.1l1 sign or a permitted roof ~; ~III of lip to 100 sq. ft. nuiJdlngs with murf' lll;ln Ino I('llt ! sel ,;Il:k frum the front properly line will hL' pt.·rmilll·d all addjlion;¡1 10 sq. fl. of sign surface for each II) additIonal It. of f,etback tu .. m;¡ximum sign size of 300 sq. fto ^ ShoppinR Ct.'ntt·r with a troup ul !>lorc~i or sales or service buildings shall not be 1'\ j~jhlc for I I / :ECTION 6.103 "-- J this permit. (b) In order fur a roof sign to be permitted. there must be compliance with aU other provisions of this ordinance. If a roof sign is pendtte under this ordinance witn" respect to a particular building or structure, only either a roof sign or a wall sign shall be allowed. not both, and the total permitted surface area of either such roof sign or wall sign shall be as set, forth in subdivision (a) above. Placement and Number: ). free standing signs shall be allowed in C and H zones only, except as provided for in this ordinance. 2. Signs attached to buildings shall be allowed in C and H zones only, except as provided (or in this ordin~nce. ). A business located on a parcel of property shall be granted a permit loe 2 signs: 1 free standing. double-faced sign and 1 5i.~n attached to a building (wall sign or permitted rooC sign), or 'l signs attached to a building. A building on a street corner lot or contiguous to 2 str~ets shall be allowed 'l building signs and one free standing sign. Where a building is situated on a corner lOll one wall sign, will be allowed on each side of the building [acing a public street. Only one freestanding sign will be permitted in these circumstances. 4. Shopping Center - I free standing sign, d~nol.n~ thl' IIame of the shoppinK center shall be pe-:mittcd for ('ad, ('Ill r:lII\ (' ronl jll~ a d if f erent s tn!Cl or h Ighw,lY . Lich oCl''' lólnt ." thl! shupp illJ; center shall be p(![mittcd 1 wall sign on th~ porlinl1 of till' cxtl'rior w..J 1. Wa 11 signs fòr eat:h occupant of a shoppin~ c"lItl'r !OlIa) 1 ht' coord j n.1lcd as to material, IOhap£>. lettering, color and/or dl!Cor"llv(' ell!ml.!IIlS, -/ -- ATTACHMENT Arakelian Use Variance Application 1. A reasonable return is not possible under the current zoning restrictions. The property 'at issue is a valuable piece of 'lakeside property purchased to accommodate the entire Arakelian 'family. The existing home was built to accommodate three family members, ,and it,was anticipated that an existing cabin on the property would accommodate the other family members. A septic system was installed at great expense which was designed to adequately handle all waste water from the primary home and this cabin. ¡ has become apparent since the time that these plans were made, ·that the cabin will have to be removed because its continued structural integrity will become suspect. Therefore, it has been proposed to rebuild the structure, including the present accommodations from the cabin; and a needed garage, close to the location of the existing cabin, but further away from the brook that traversed the property, and thereafter the cabin would be removed. Under the ordinance, only one primary residence may be ,built per acre of land. The Zoning Board of Appeals, on September 21, 1988 determined that this new structure would be a violation of that provision of the ordinance. Consequently, the Arakelian's may not build the proposed structure unless they are granted a variance from this ordinance. Unless this variance is granted, the Arakelian's will be unable to accommodate their entire family in the present home. It is believed that they may be required to put in an entirely separate septic system if they are required to build the garage on the portion of their property that is on the east side of the brook, and this would result in enormous additional cost, if, in fact, approvals for such a system could even be obtained. They built the existing home at great cost, and now believe that additional expenditures will preclude them from realizing any reasonable return on the property. 2. The lot is unique because it is effectively cut in the middle by a brook which creates significant difficulties for building on the 2 1/2 acre site in terms of making provisions for water supply and waste water disposal. The shape of the lot does not allow any alternative placement of the structure, considering the location of the brook. This unique condition is due solely to the configuration of the lot, and not due to any conduct of the Arakelian's nor to any provisions of the ordinance. k'Y:llt/;$lf g '~ ~ 3. The requested variance will allow the Arakelian's to build a~ aesthetically pleasing structure on their property, in place of the existing old cabin which requires significant repair. The building of this structure will serve to preserve the property value of the neighboring lands and will provide à much more attractive vista for those same neighbors. "-' ,----' PAGE 3 - ATTACHMENT 1. There is no adverse effect on neighborhood character because the proposed structure which is aesthetically attractive will merely be replacing an unattractive structure which is currently serving virtually the same purpose that the new structure will be serving, excepting only the primary purpose of the new structure is the shelter of automobiles. 2. There is no adverse effect on public facilities since this structure is, again, merely replacing an unattractive structure which was capable of accommodating the same number of individuals. 3. Additionally, requiring placement of the structure on a different location on the parcel in question would require the installation of an entirely separate septic system since the only alternative location for the structure is on the easterly portion of the property, on the east side of the stream which runs through the property. It is unlikely that it would be acceptable to install a septic system that would traverse that stream to use and connect to the already approved leach field. (The leach field was approved on the basis of five bedrooms. The primary residence, again already approved, has only three bedrooms.) Consequently, it is necessary to place the structure on the west side of the stream as proposed. The position of the driveway further restricts the placement of the structure to the proposed location. 4. The variance requested is a variance for relief of the setback RX ~ / ø IT (!..." "---' ~ ptlV 5° requirements under zone LR-IA. The ordinance requires a~ set back from any water. The present building and septic system are only 7' from the brook in question which is only a spring-time flowing brook. Our requested variance to the ordinance would replace and move the present building and place it a distance of 34' from the brook and replace the old septic system with the new, already approved 5 bedroom septic system. '-- TOWN OF QUEENSBURY COMMITTEE FOR COMMUNITY BEAUTIFICATION --' Robert L. Eddy, Chairman 17 Owen Avenue Queensbury, N. Y. 12801 Mrs. Arthur J. Seney, Secretary 8 Queensbury Avenue Queensbury, N. Y. 12801 To s (~Warren County Planning Board Date I 10/10/88 ( ) QUeensbury Town Planning Board { ~ Queensbury Town Zoning Board of APpeals ( ~ APpli cant Re. Variance # 1429 Rosemary Threw Big Bay Road We have reviewed the request fors(X) Variance, ( ) Site Plan Review, ( ) Other - and have the following recommendationss (x)) Approval ( ) Disapproval This is not one of the applications where we can point with pride at our approval, but we are not sure what can be done wi th this prcpp.r~y that would enhance it I S appearance. The applicant informed the committee that the front of the building is to have board 'n batten and, at least for the time being the tree line along the edge of the property toward the Town of Queensbury property line would be continued. The tree line along the other side of the property would also be retained. There is a 75 ft. buffer toward the house. A 6 ft. berm either has been or will be placed toward the house to absorb sound. De Can Construction is 1,200 feet away. The applicant has agreed to plant some pine trees along Big Bay Road to screen the property from view from the' road which will reduce the curbcut to about 40 feet. The applicant has also agreed to clean up the property, leaving parking area permeable and to neatly park vehicles on the property that are there for repairs or for sale. This is not a business that lends itself to attractive appearance and pride of upkeep to attractive customers. In addition to the above landscaping, screening and planting provisions, the Committee wishes to go on record that i~ does not approve. 1. Non-conforming signs, 2. Plastic or artificial trees, shrubs or flowers. In approving the above (or attanhed 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 plantings. All rubbish containers or dml1psters shall be screened, all plantings shall be mulched and trees shall be retained or planted, as agreed. R~uJly s~~ tted, ~ ;:: _ C~{~~ Robe'rt L. Eddy, chairmaJ<' ¡;:- 'il!-IØ, I 7 b