Loading...
1989-03-15 í' .... '- Area Variance No. 8-1989 Area Variance No. 11-1989 Sign Variance No. 12-1989 Sign Variance NO. 2-1989 Appeal No. 2-1989 Area Variance No. 23-1989 Area Variance No. 25-1989 Area Variance No. 27-1989 "'"' INDEX ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH 15, 1989 APPLICANT PAGE 4. Charles Freihofer III H.G. Anderson Equipment 8. Champlain Oil Company 9. Victory Markets, Inc. 10. Queensbury Factory Outlet 14. Noble True Value 14. Ethel C. O'Rourke 15. Francis A. Giroux 21. ,ø QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING MARCH 15,1989 7:30 P. M. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: THEODORE TURNER-CHAIRMAN SUSAN GOETZ-SECRETARY CHARLES O. SICARD DANIEL S. GRIFFIN MICHAEL MULLER JEFFREY L. KELLEY JOYCE EGGLESTON LEE A. YORK-SENIOR PLANNER JOHN GORALSKI-PLANNER PAT COLLARD-ZONING ADMINISTRATOR TOWN ATTORNEY-PAUL DUSEK APPROVAL OF MINUTES RESOLVED TO APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 6, 1989 MINUTES OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AS CORRECTED,Introduced by Charles Sicard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Susan Goetz: Duly adopted this 15th day of March, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Griffin, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Muller, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:None CORRECTION OF MINUTES February 15, 1989: Page 1, Para. 4...1st line s/b...stilts, Page 7, Para. 7th...2nd line that sib the. Page 11, Para.2...5th line...incline of the property is such. RESOLVED TO APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 15, 1989 MINUTES OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AS CORRECTED,Introduced by Jeffrey Kelley who moved for its adoption, seconded by Susan Goetz: Duly adopted this 15th day of March, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Griffin, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Muller, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:N one RESOLVED TO APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 22, 1989 MINUTES OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AS CORRECTED,Introduced by Susan Goetz who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: Duly adopted this 15th day of March, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Griffin, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Muller, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:N one BUSINESS NOT ON AGENDA THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS IS ASKED TO REPLY TO THE PLANNING BOARD'S REQUEST FOR LEAD AGENCY STATUS UNDER SEQR REVIEW REGARDING STORYTOWN USA, INC., D/B/A THE GREAT ESCAPE: TAmTIAN TEMPEST WATER PARK, ROUTE 9, APPROXIMA TEL Y 25 YARDS NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION WITH ROUND POND IN A RECREATION COMMERCIAL 15 ZONE. (FILE: SITE PLAN NO. 4-89) TOWN ATTORNEY-On this particular application this is coming to you because the Planning Board has before it a Site Plan Review for the water park. The Zoning Board will also have '--- before it shortly a Variance Request for the park, because this is a type line action there is going to be a elaborate SEQR process that as to be undergone before any agency can made a decision. The application in this letter was sent over to the Board the E.A.F. that was submitted on project was sent to the Board, however, the application that was submitted to the Planning Board it appears that it was not sent to the Board, therefore what I would like to recommend to the Board is that if the Board would be agreeable to put this off 1 week until such time until such time that the application as well as the E.F .A. is before the Board. The reason why I am making this request is that the SEQR regulations requires that you not only have the letter but you have the E.F .A. and you have an application, so that we can be in total compliance with the regulations I would make that recommendation to the Board. ROBERT STEWART-REPRESENTING MR. WOOD AND STORYTOWN USA, INC., D/B/A THE GREAT ESCAPE So that their is no further confusion can we have it clear as to who is going to make sure that information is to the Board before the next meeting, am I to do it? MRS. GOETZ-No. JOHN GORALSKI-I will do it. MOTION TO TABLE REPLY TO PLANNING BOARD'S REQUEST FOR LEAD AGENCY STATUS UNDER SEQR REVIEW REGARDING STORYTOWN USA, INC. D/B/A THE GREAT ESCAPE: TAIßTIAN TEMPEST WATER PARK, UNTIL NEXT WEEK'S MEETING,lntroduced by Jeffrey Kelley who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: A YES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Griffin, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Kelley NOES: None ABSTAIN:Mr. Muller, Mr. Turner OLD BUSINESS CLARIFICATION OF USE VARIANCE NUMBER 1274A, CURTIS LUMBER (1) CONTRACTORS SALES ONLY: NO RETAIL SALES JIM DAVIES REPRESENTING CURTIS LUMBER SUSAN GOETZ-Read Motion made by the Zoning Board of Appeals dated July 15th, 1987. MR. TURNER-Asked Lee York if this was in reference to the Site Plan for clarification that was requested. SUSAN GOETZ-Asked what was the problem here. LEE YORK-What happened here was, it is my understanding that in your Resolution, in your discussion with this applicant there was an agreement that there would be no retail sales at this facility. There have been continued retail sales which is really difficult to disallow in this particular type of business for people who walk in and purchase something. It was brought at Staff Review, by Dave Hatin, after some discussion with Board Members it was decided to bring it back to you and ask you how you want the Code Enforcement Officer to enforce this type of thing and if there is in fact any way that they can logically do that. They are before the Planning Board on another matter. but this is going to relate to the Planning Board action. MICHAEL MULLER-I don't know on what manner that are violating, my understanding was that certainly the person walking in could purchase the retail items and they would not advertise to attract retail customers. LEE YORK-O.K. I had no knowledge of what transpired and the Planning Board I know wanted to address this issue if it is an issue indeed, if it isn't an issue here that's fine. MR. TURNER-What happened was that they came in with the application and this was more or less going to be a distribution center with very limited parking, its a small piece of property, basically that is how it came about they agreed to curtail their retail. DANIEL GRIFFIN-That's what they asked for, "wholesale only." JEFFREY KELLEY-The reason for that was (1) there was a concern about parking, (2) it was to be basically a backup closer facility to handle lumber sales that they might have made to contractors in the area. I remember talking about the contractors sales aspect that it was ---- - a limited piece of property, they said that they we're not going to promote and advertise in flyers and I remember agreeing that it was probably a wise decision, because since it was so small it would only to injustice to your customers. CHARLES SICARD-But they are operating retail sales. Is there anything legally that they cannot at this point, except for lack of parking, is this the issue? JEFFREY KELLEY-I think that's probably the feeling of the Building Department. SUSAN GOETZ-Anytime that I have been up there just on other site inspections their are always tractor trailer trucks parked right smack in the road behind it, they just use the road as their parking lot, Holden Avenue, its like there isn't adequate space there I think that's why we said no retail sales. LEE YORK-There is no real logical way to enforce it. CHARLES SICARD-I think there in the process of buying more property. LEE YORK-They are. JIM DAVIES-We do have a Site Plan application for the Planning Board at its upcoming meeting which is going to address a lot of what has been mentioned here, its not a matter of purchasing some additional property, Curtis Lumber already owns substantial property across the street, the development of that property in the manner in which they applied for Site Plan Review will alleviate all of the problems connected with whatever problems their might be with traffic or parking. I don't know of any complaints that have been heard as to any of those areas up to now. I think tonight's meeting on this subject might be the time to clarify these restrictions on the granting of the Use Variance. I do note that the Variance was approved in this light industrial 1 Acre area, and that it was approved because it meet the four criteria that was involved in granting a Use Variance, and then there were the conditions attached to it. I agree with some of what has been said here tonight, but its just not practical to ask someone who comes into your store and to your counter if they are buying these things for themselves or if your supplying these materials to someone else, its not a practical kind of restriction, I think also that there is a legal problem perhaps in trying to have this kind of restriction. There is no question that the Zoning Board of Appeals has the power to place certain restrictions on the granting of a Use Variance, but these restrictions must have something to do with the Ordinance, (cited case from the Appellate Division Slocher vs. Michaels). Just as a basic proposition I just think its highly impractical to try to impose these kind of conditions on a business, maybe all this will fall into place when there is the application for a Site Plan Review which will take care of some of the problems which perhaps initiated these restrictions. SUSAN GOETZ-Why do they use the road as a unloading zone? JIM DAVIES-I'm not aware that they do, but to the extent that they do, once again this is a problem that will be solved by approval of the Site Plan application. SUSAN GOETZ-Has Curtis Lumber purchased additional property since this Variance was passed? JIM DAVIES-It owned the property at the time this Variance was passed, but it requires the demolition of some buildings and requires some development across Holden A venue. MR. TURNER-The time that they obtained the Variance it was a UR 10 zone but now its light industrial. JIM DAVIES-Yes, that's another point. This is a zone right now which is zoned for building supplies and lumber yards. I really don't think any of the restrictions are either appropriate or legal. I would request that those restrictions be removed. CHARLES SICARD-What restrictions specifically are you objecting to? MR. TURNER-Retail sales and no advertising? JIM DAVIES-Retail sales because its difficult to make a distinction. They haven't really been advertising but they would like to be able to in there flyers, by the way its estimated that 90 to 95 per cent of there sales at the present time are just to contractors, its hard to find those few people who are not and who come into buy on their own account. SUSAN GOETZ-Why would they have to advertise then? JIM DAVIES-Contractors take all forms and sizes, a contractor might be a person who has just been hired a small one man firm to do a job or something was it the intention to restrict that person, that person it going to want to see advertising to see where he can get good prices, '"---- - '£ as well as the big construction firms, where do you draw the line. SUSAN GOETZ-Will you be unloading truck in the middle of the road with your new plan? JIM DAVIES-No. There will be a lumber across the street with the new plan which will take care of incoming trucks for deliveries. MR. TURNER-Where is it across the street? JIM DAVIES-Directly across Holden Avenue. LEE YORK-Maybe he should come back and request an Amendment to this Variance after a Site Plan Review. JEFFREY KELLEY-The other thing is that its been re-zoned now. MR. TURNER-After you approach the Planning Board with your Site Plan Review comeback with an amended application. MR. DAVIES IS TO COME BACK AFTER PLANNING BOARD WITH AN AMENDED APPLICATION AREA VARIANCE NO. 8-1989 CHARLES FREIHOFER, ill ROUTE 9L, LAKE GEORGE FOR AN ADDITION OF A BEDROOM AND BATH, STUDY AND GARAGE. LOT SIZE: 1.1 ACRES (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) (ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY) TAX MAP NO. 2-1-3 SECTION 4.020 d PETER SIPPERL Y LAW FIRM OF FARRAR JONES AND SIPPERL Y /REPRESENTING MRS. EILEEN P. GRANDE/DAVE ROBERTS BUILDER/ CHARLES JEFFS REALTOR IN LAKE GEORGE ROBERT STEWART/REPRESENTING MR. FREIHOFER/JOE ROULIER BUILDER PETER SIPPERL Y-It is my understanding that with a Variance request with the Zoning Ordinance that its the responsibility of the person requesting the Variance to demonstrate certain requirements, and its my understanding that they were not presented at the last meeting, if this Board would clarify that for me. MR. TURNER-When we left it at the point you were just talking about, we left it with the idea that Mr. Jones was going to come back with a plan showing where the house was going to be located on the lot of the Grande's. PETER SIPPERL Y-I would asked then if Dave Roberts would come forward. Mr. Robert's is a builder who reviewed this property on behalf of Mrs. Grande, he will address the Board as to placement of the house on the lot. DA VE ROBERTS-Firm of Smith Roberts Construction we're single family and general contractors in the Warren Washington Saratoga County area. At the request of Mrs. Grande I reviewed the lot in question for the site of building a single family structure, recreational type structure. This is a narrow piece of property that runs down from the roads to the lake and there is quit a difference in elevation between the road and the lake, exactly what it is I can't tell you, as one proceeds from the road down toward the lake the property drops off quickly from the road and then levels out somewhat for a space, in that space where the Friehofer's residence was constructed is on that first flat area, there is also on the opposite side, north side of the property of the Grande property a structure for the home that exists on that property that is constructed in that sort of plain, right across from the Friehofer's residence is a garage, and I believe its infringing on the side yard requirements for that lot. On that flat area it is crowded by these two structures and while that flat terrain might be of the type one would want to use for construction it wouldn't seem to be possible to put up a home there in competition with the facades of these buildings and it would be much more in keeping with the lot and with the terrain to move it forward, the problem with doing that is in going ahead of the Friehofer property and ahead of this garage you proceed proceptively about 18 feet almost straight down, you can walk its not straight down, and then it slows down a little bit and right in that area is where I would recommend that one would consider constructing a home. This home would have to be built and designed for this sight specifically, you would have to enter this home on the second level, it would make a nice arrangement and it would fall into a nice line with the other structures. The structure to the north which has this infringing garage is built even farther down this escarpment so that these three structures, the Friehofer home and the proposed Grande home, and existing structure on the next lot would be in a diagonal line running down toward the water. I couldn't see any reason to object to the plans that I saw from the Friehofer application as they affect the rear of the Friehofer property if they needed to infringe on the side yard requirements and get close to the Grande property to the rear of the Friehofer property, I wouldn't see any reason why one would object, but I would think that any kind of .~- construction in the front of that property to the south complying or not would probably not be in the best interest of construction on the Grande property, because you would be projecting forward and you would be enclosing your structure on the potential for the Grande structure, and that it is infringing makes it even worse. I think it would be better for the general layout of the terrain if that projection didn't take place at all. MAP SHOWN TO BOARD PETER SIP PERL Y-Mrs. Grande does not now have any plan to build on this property in the immediate future we're not here asking for a Variance we're opposing it. MR. TURNER-I understand that, but when we left here the last time it was my opinion that you Gentlemen were going to bring back some topographical information of the land showing the Grande property and showing where a house was to be located on that piece of property in reference to the Friehofer property. DA VE ROBERTS-The idea would be to build the Grande property in front of the current line created by the existing facade of the Friehofer property as it looks towards the lake and be built down this embankment here somewhere in this area (refers to map) so in anyway that this proposed structure would project down the proposed side yard of this structure it would be an infringement of the certain space of that structure, whether it infringes 6 feet, 3 feet, 2 feet, this way or not just having that structure there would probably not enhance the building lot. MR. TURNER-I think the big concern here was that the view of the lake was going to be blocked by Mr. Freihofer's structure. DA VE ROBERTS-It wouldn't be the view of the lake to the south. This part is flat (refers to map) adjacent to the Friehofer structure, this garage is to the north its very close probably 4 feet from the Grande line, that area there has to be conceded to the neighbors, you have to move ahead of that in order to stay behind the building line which I believe is 75 feet from high water you really have a very limited area in which to build and its going to have to be partially on this embankment right here to the extent of any projections to the lake side of this structure would impose itself on a view or otherwise I just think its not a nice thing to do with with the space. I think that having these three structures in some sort of diagonal like this is the desirable way to configure those structures and that any thing that Friehofer wanted to do from its existing facade back I don't think should have any impact on the Grande property, anything that they do projecting forward it should at least be made to comply. MR. TURNER-It could go forward as long as it doesn't violate the setback. DA VE ROBERTS-I'm saying that even if they did go forward in compliance we wouldn't have any control, but it would be undesirable for this building lot complying or otherwise. MR. TURNER-Do you agree that this slope is all heavily wooded? DA VE ROBERTS-I do. DANIEL GRIFFIN-Has a proper view of the lake? DA VE ROBERTS-That has nothing to do with what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that the use of this space (refers to map) being that its very narrow and being that you already have a preexisting nonconforming use on the other side is at the very least a undesirable development for the Grande property speaking as a builder. MR. JEFFS-Mrs. Grande asked me to look at this property to see if I felt that the proposed structure that would be allowed by the Variance would have any kind of a adverse effect on her property. I went over and looked at these properties and this is what I saw. From the highway the property drops very rapidly within perhaps 50 feet or so down probably about 10 to 12 feet in elevation, then it slopes off and still continues to drop in elevation toward the lake but much more gradually for a distance of perhaps 200 feet or so at which point there is another very abrupt drop down to a lower level I would estimate that drop is another 12 to 14 feet, and then there is a much smaller leveling off, which is really not level and that must be pretty close to a 75 foot lake front building set back at that point. As you can see from the map this lot narrows down towards the highway, the deed description notes that to the center of the highway at this point is about 51 feet of frontage along the shores it winds and turns and then there is about 160 feet of frontage, the shore line of the lake front is about 155 feet. On the right hand side (east side) is the Prol property and there is a two car garage which is 8 feet from the Grande property, there is a house on the Prol property which is about 30 feet or so from the Grande property line and that is down within just about at the 75 foot set back line. On the westerly side is the property of the Friehofer's. Their is an existing building there that is about 48 feet in length that's parallel to the Grande, Freihofer common '- .'" -/ line. SUSAN GOETZ-What is your opinion of this? MR. JEFFS-That building is a very high building, it is a full two stories, it has a full height attic, the ground slopes off very rapidly along the side of that building and as you get towards the lake front almost the entire basement level is exposed, so your looking at a building that is at least 35 feet high if not more. The proposal is to add on to this structure so it goes towards the lake and at the rear so that there would be a building about 100 feet long and a good portion of it would be as high as the existing building. To have a structure of that size as I understand it would be within 7 i or 8 feet of the Grande property line, I think that would be very detrimental, I think it would prevent anyone who had a house on the Grande property from enjoying it. In my opinion the best place to build on the Grande property is right in the area where the slope is rather than go down over the ledge. I do feel that it would be very detrimental from a sales point of view if the property were to be put on the market after such a structure was built, or from an enjoyment point of view if someone should build on the property. PETER SIP PERL Y-I'm not sure why Mrs. Grande was asked to come back here and demonstrate to the Board that in fact there would be some problems with her property other than to deal with the third requirement that the applicant should have and that is to demonstrate to the Board that it will not have any detrimental effect to adjoining land owners. We have demonstrated by the testimony of Mr. Jeffs, that there will be a detrimental impact on Mrs. Grande property if in fact this encroachment is permitted. The first criteria under the Area Variance requires that the applicant demonstrate if the Variance is not granted he will be deprived of his reasonable use of that property, from that alone Mr. Freihofer has had the opportunity to use this property as a house for several years, we're not depriving him of any reasonable use of the property by contesting this Variance. Further, we are well aware that he can construct his addition outside of the required set backs and have actually what he wants without encroaching on Mrs. Grande's property. We recognize that there is nothing we can do from preventing him from doing that. We are opposed and will continue to be imposed to any Variance that would allow Mr. Freihofer to encroach on the setback of the side yard that will place a building within this required setback when in fact he has the potential to do it else where on his lot which will not encroach on Mrs. Grande. ROBERT STEWART-The problem that the Freihofer's have is that because of there growing family they need to enlarge the house. We can enlarge it going forward but its very difficult, if we go the west we would start to encroach on the 75 foot set back. (Sketch shown to Board of the house), this is how the proposed addition would look if we could put it out equal distance from where the side deck is now move it over and put it out this would save and salvage the front of the building. In terms of what the financial problems would be to Mr. & Mrs. Freihofer Joe Roulier is here to testify instead of moving the existing building over just the same size and shape just squeezing it over the eight feet would cost about $8,000 more. The estimates we have from the supplier of the shell of the materials, that if we we're to move over and break into that wall with the glass and go up to the roof line your talking over $40,000 in excess of the propose cost for materials and that does not include labor. JEFFREY KELLEY-In your original drawing you show the building encroaching on the side property line, however its low and the peck doesn't come above the ceiling level of the second floor why is it when you move over the building goes up verses the exact same thing just moved over. ROBERT STEWART-It does not have to be, that the point I made we can take it just as it is and just move it over level with it and cut into the glass and tear all of that up. At this point your getting a peculiar looking addition that doesn't seen to blend in or tie in to any existing tie line or roof line of the building. The only point that I'm trying to make is that if we do move it over whichever cost we ended up taking or how the architect finds a way to cut it in your talking a minimum of $8,000 and up in addition to what it would cost just to do it the way it was proposed. If this is going to cause a significant problem to the Grande's then we would have to do it. I think that we have showed proof that we will be injured if we are not granted the Variance. The question then is under the law that constitutes out burden of proof to get a Area Variance unless the Board finds that in doing so we will significantly hurt the people next store. I saw the record last month and I saw nothing to indicate that we would injure Mr. and Mrs. Grande next store, and I heard Mr. Jeffs, and Mr. Roberts and I think both of them made the point that I came here tonight to make, and that is the Freihofer's are entitled to enlarge there building, they can go forward the 36 feet that is required they can go forward either in line with there existing side deck or tRey can move it over the 2 feet and go straight up, either way the building is going to be there and it is going to have some impact on the Grande's building wherever they build it. We don't feel that the side of the house is going to have any adverse affect on their view, the only question is, is the lot going to be a few feet closer to them or away, not is the building going to go out 36 feet to the north because we can do that anyway without a Variance. They produced both witnesses tonight who said if the building goes out 36 feet to the north which it is allowed to do the damage will be done, '-,--- ,/ - that's what they both said they didn't say anything different they didn't indicate that for one moment whether its a few feet to the east closer to the Grande's or a few feet to the west has anything to do with it. MR. TURNER-What does that basically do to the proposed floor plan if you have to stay back with the existing now verses what you propose? JOE ROULIER-The proposed addition the floor plan if its moved over approximately it would remain the same, what happens though the entire structure of the house as it is today would have to be completely re-done to accommodate the lateral movement of the addition, but the proposed addition itself would remain the same. MR. TURNER-Architecturally speaking on the front of the house the windows would they stay like they are or would you have to do something with them. Would you eliminate one and leave the other or would you take them out and do the whole front over? JOE ROULIER-The entire front of the house would have to be completely re-done. JEFFREY KELLEY-I don't understand why you would come over the total distance and then you have to go all the way to the ridge verses...Is there any room for a compromise between the two parties? JOE ROULIER-We are changing this because we feel as though this is aesthetically from the side of the house and from the front of the house it is very pleasing. The house is a large house in order to maintain the lines and styles of the house we feel that we would have to increase the size of the roof and we feel as though it would be better to keep it in the same plain as the roof exists today, to do that it would increase the costs, we have cost figures right now from Yankee Barn of approximately $40,000 in materials and the labor cost would probably be in the area of that. PETER SIP PERL Y-The Freihofer are presently enjoying reasonable use of this property the Variance is not necessary for them to continue to enjoy the reasonable use of this property, they do not need to encroach on Mrs. Grande's property by developing a larger building. I do not believe that at any time Mr. Jeffs indicated to the Board that the 36 feet out was not going to be detrimental whether its 8 feet or 20 feet away, I believe that his statement to the Board was that the 36 foot extension is going to cause and effect this property, it would be a greater effect if it is 8 or 10 feet to the property then it will if its 20 feet from the property. Right now the Ordinance requires 20 feet on the side yard setback, there is no practical difficulty, there is no loss of reasonable use of this land, we're talking about $80,000 of work, building materials and labor, with the potential of a 10 per cent increase if they have to move 8 feet, that's not Mrs. Grande's problem, Mr. Freihofer is attempting to make it Mrs. Grande's problem and we continue in our opposition. MR. STEWART-Apparently its Mr. Robert's position suggesting that the house should not be built on the level area approximately where the level where the Freihofer's are it should go that last drop down to 18 feet and you should enter into the house from the second floor. Mr. Jeffs if I understood it correctly was disagreeing with that he said "no the house should be back on that plateau", which is essentially the same plateau as the Freihofer's house now is, but I don't think that's really a significant distinction there entitled to a difference of opinion, I think the point is that the house can go out 36 feet there absolutely entitled to it, they've shown that they have grounds for a Variance because they would be financially injured, its only an Area Variance they don't have to show undue hardship, they do not have to show the property cannot be put to any reasonable use those are the grounds for a Use Variance not an Area Variance. The burden then shifts over to the Grande's to show that the 36 feet addition will be much more detrimental to them if its about eight feet closer to there property line than that, and I do not think they have made that case, and I don't think its correct, and the final point, of course, is beyond that area that the house is going to go out is the high strand of trees which prevents any direct view from the Grande's lot up to the west in any effect. One final point I would like to make is that Mr. Roulier tells me is that to build the house as presently proposed we would have to cut down a minimum of three trees and it might be as high as six, three to six we can put that house in and cut very few trees, if we have to start moving over then your going to see a much more sufficient number of trees cut and the natural terrain thereby effected. MR. JEFFS-I don't recall saying anything about a view or passing any opinions for a view, my opinion was based on the proximity of the structure to the Grande property. My adverse opinion was that on a 2i story structure that is 23 feet away is going to have less, its going to have an adverse effect on it but it will be less of an effect than if it is 7 i feet away of the property line. I don't recall talking about views. ROBERT STEWART-Their is nothing in our application that request that we be allowed to ~- -- 8 come 7t feet from that boundary line, we can stay outside the 10 foot setback. MR. TURNER-I think it shows on the map 12'6. ROBERT STEWART-Its almost that. The side of the house and the boundary line are precisely parallel, there just a slight inch of deviation there. MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 8-1989 CHARLES FREIHOFER, m Introduced by Jeffrey Kelley who moved for its adoption, seconded by Daniel Griffin: This denial will be based on the testimony that (1) granting a Variance would be detrimental to other property in the district the testimony shows that this is true (2) The property can be used as zoned there is enough land to be used reasonable there is no need for a side setback Variance. The application doesn't meet two criteria needed to pass an Area Variance. Duly adopted this 15th day of March, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Griffin, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSTAIN:Mr. Muller AREA VARIANCE NO. 11-1989 H. G. ANDERSON EQUIPMENT/GETTY PETROLEUM 122 AVIATION ROAD FOR INSTALLATION OF A 24 FT. BY 24 FT. SINGLE COLUMN CANOPY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING TAX MAP NO. 91-1-1 SECTION 4.020 M LOT SIZE: .32 ACRES GlOVINA S. WALDO AGENT FOR H. G. ANDERSON EQUIPMENT TABLED FROM LAST MONTH'S MEETING MR. TURNER-The proposal is for a 20 ft. by 20 ft. canopy, the width of the island is 3 feet. GlOVINA WALDO-The length of the island isn't going to change. MR. TURNER-The island was 5 foot before its 3 foot now, the drive on each side it was 8 foot before now its 8t feet. A 20 ft. by 20 ft. canopy changes the setback 12 feet from the canopy edge to Dixon Road and 8 feet from the canopy edge to Aviation Road, the height is 14.6, as stated before the facia depth is 30 inches. CHARLES SICARD-Is there a sidewalk around that whole corner? GlOVINA WALDO-No. DANIEL GRIFFIN-There is on the Aviation Road side, but not on the Dixon Road side. CHARLES SICARD-Is that part of the plan? GlOVINA WALDO-To plan sidewalks no. MR. TURNER-It shows it on the drawing. GlOVINA WALDO-Not to my knowledge there is no sidewalk around that property. DANIEL GRIFFIN-There is on the Aviation Road side. DANIEL GRIFFIN-Is this self service? GlOVIN A W ALDO- Y es it is now, its all self service. DANIEL GRIFFIN-It just change? GlOVINA WALDO-I don't know when it changed, but long before I ever applied for a Variance because when it went self service they had to install a fire suppression system which would have to be modified if there is a canopy installed. MR. TURNER-Is this going to become a Convenient Store? GIOVINA WALDO-No its not. '- -- ~ MICHAEL MULLER-I like that we're heading for the minimum relief now. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 11-1989 H. G. ANDERSON EQUIPMENT,lntroduced by Daniel Griffin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: The applicant has demonstrated practical difficulty. The applicant has reduced the original size of the canopy from 24 ft. by 24 ft. to 20 ft. by 20 ft. with an 11 foot setback from the Dixon Road side and an 8 foot setback from the Aviation Road side this is a minimum relief. One practical difficulty is the unique shape of the property it is a triangular shape making it difficult to meet the setbacks. Duly adopted this 15th day of March, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Muller, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Griffin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:N one SIGN VARIANCE NO. 12-1989 CHAMPLAIN OIL COMPANY U. S. ROUTE 9, NEXT TO MONTCALM RESTAURANT PROPOSAL TO ADD A WALL SIGN 30 FT. FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. WIDTH: 3 FT., LENGTH 3 FT. HEIGHT 3 FT. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 35-1-4.2 SECTION 6.103 LOT SIZE: .734± ACRES TONY CARINS REPRESENTING CHAMPLAIN OIL COMPANY TABLED FROM LAST MONTH'S MEETING TONY CARINS-If I remember from last fall we had an approval on this canopy and on the print that we had approved at that time we had the sign shown on the bottom of the print, I was under the impression that it meant approval, obviously I was wrong, that's why I'm here now we would like to submit approval for the three 3 ft. by 3 ft. signs on the canopy the way that the print shows. MR. TURNER-There is some additional signage underneath the canopy over the gas pumps. TONY CARINS-We had that before they are informational signs for self service, for no smoking... MR. TURNER-No, their are other signs that says "approved"... TONY CARINS-"Only Approved In Dispensers", that is information for the fire marshal no smoking... MR. TURNER-No, their is something else a bigger sign. TONY CARINS-We have stand in which the self service signs sit on that say "auto fuel," and on the ends in says "self serve no smoking". MR. TURNER-That's kind of a two fold thing? TONY CARINS-Right. MR. TURNER-Your advertising the product under the guidance of informational signs. TONY CARINS-They designed it that way so that we wouldn't have signs hanging off the columns so that they kind of conformed to one sign. As I said in the application that if its an alternative, our nearest just down the road has Mobile on there canopy. MR. TURNER-On one side the north side. TONY CARINS-Correct. MR. TURNER-I'm not sure that it belongs there, It might be in violation. PAT COLLARD-I'm meeting with the Attorneys for Mobile to discuss that sign. MR. TURNER-Is it in violation? """- "-, .ll)-" PAT COLLARD-Yes it is. TONY CARINS-I wasn't sure when I made the application whether these were allowed or not. What we're trying to do is if there not allowed at all in the community then fine, but what we're saying is that if they are allowed then we would like to have them. MR. TURNER-Down the road Aviation and Route 9 Mobile came here with an application and they had signage on there facia of there canopy and there gone. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Warren County Planning Board disapproved. STAFF INPUT Notes on File, from John Goralski, Planner MOTION TO DENY SIGN VARIANCE NO. 12-1989, CHAMPLAIN OIL COMPANY,lntroduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jeffrey Kelley: Previous history has dictated on the policy of the Zoning Board of Appeals is that in general the signs along Route 9 are conforming. There is no practical difficulty demonstrated they can conform to the sign Ordinance all signs on the property shall conform to the Ordinance any existing signs on the property that now advertise a product and directions at the same time shall be removed the only signs to remain will be those dictated by law. Duly adopted this 15th day of March, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Griffin, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Muller, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT: SIGN VARIANCE NO. 2-1989 VICTORY MARKETS, INC. FORMER SHOP RITE GROCERY STORE UPPER GLEN STREET FOR A SIGN TO READ nGREA T AMERICANn (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 103-1-1 JOHN RICHARDS REPRESENTING GREAT AMERICAN/LEE MOST/MOST SIGNS/ROBERT STEWART REPRESENTING SAUL I. BIRNBAUM JOHN RICHARDS-I would like to correct Page 4 of that application, I think that their are special circumstances now. I would like to address the issue of how to we interpret Section 6, of the Sign Ordinance. I call your attention to Section 6.102 this is where the Ordinance sets forth two aspects that a sign has to meet, their has to be no more than 25 per cent of wall area and also no more than a 100 square feet in size unless its set back more than 100 feet from the property line, in which case then you add on 10 square feet for each 10 feet that is set back beyond 100, now if you stop there its quit clear they we wouldn't have to be here for a Variance because we're 330 feet back from the road and we're taking about 11 per cent of the wall space. The position that I would asked which I feel is a logical one is that we don't have to be here, as it goes on it says "a Shopping Center with a group of stores or service buildings shall not be eligible for this permit", and the question is that the Shopping Center referred to each individual store within the Shopping Center or the entity of the Shopping Center itself. Driving around I noticed other malls with big shopping center signs, this one has no mall sign. Following down to 6.103 Subsection 4, it says "Shopping Center one free standing sign denoting the name of the Shopping Center", as it refers to businesses it say "each occupant of the Shopping Center is entitled to one wall sign", following that thought it seems logical there trying to restrict the size of the Shopping Center sign but we certainly be discriminated against because we happened to be in a section of three or more businesses and another store like a Price Shopper or Shop and Save that is just as big or bigger and is standing alone. I would like to have the Board's opinion of this as to whether we even have to apply for a Variance in this case. JOHN GORALSKI-There is no application for an Interpretation of the Sign Ordinance for this. "- '-- n- MRS. GOETZ-I thought we have gone through all of this at previous meetings about Price Chopper. JOHN RICHARDS-I wasn't aware of that, I'm not sure as to the answer. MR. TURNER-Yes there was. MR. TURNER-John looked it up, the request was Grand Union and Price Chopper, Price Chopper's was way back and not in the Shopping Center, Grand Union is a 100 square foot sign there not in a Shopping Center. JOHN RICHARDS-I know that we're in the definition of a Shopping Center, but your considering our store as a Shopping Center for purposes of this Ordinance our individual store. MR. TURNER-More than three stores is a Shopping Center. JOHN RICHARDS-I understand that, I not at issue at all with that, the question is what sign are we talking about, the sign for the entity like Northway Plaza or the sign of the individual store. MR. TURNER-I think it addresses that there in a couple places what is says is that "a Shopping Center will be eligible for a free standing sign and the store and the Great American would be eligible for wall sign". MRS. GOETZ-Your one of the store's.. JOHN RICHARDS-Your considering me to come under this umbrella which is subject to the 100 foot condition. I really don't think its all that clear and the other thing is that is doesn't say where we have to have the 100 square feet. MICHAEL MULLER-I agree with you the Sign Ordinance should be rewritten. JOHN RICHARDS-This is rough on the smaller open malls that don't have a mall identity. DRA WING OF SIGN SHOWN TO BOARD JOHN RICHARDS-This is the sign of 255 square feet that we would like to put on there from what we can tell by the measurements before the Shoprite Sign is about 220 feet so this is huge wall space as I say its 250 feet would be about 11 per cent of the wall surface, its about 2300 square feet. MR. TURNER-What size is the sign that is on the wall right now? JOHN RICHARDS-About 87 square feet. SHOWED PICTURES TO BOARD OF SHOPRITE SIGN JOHN RICHARDS-The Shoprite Sign is not a whole lot smaller than the one we're planning to put up its maybe about 30 square feet smaller. We can show special circumstances that warrant the granting of this Variance (1) We are part of a strip mall without the mall identification we are subject to the restrictions for mall, but there is no mall draw. (2) The land slopes away from the highway so this is not something you would pick up as your driving.(3) The building itself is at a angle not directly towards the road its really angled more towards the parking lot and is more difficult to see. (4) Competitors that we deal with which are obviously food stores and also the strip malls many of those occupants have larger signs then we have right now in excess of 100 square foot. COMPARISON CHART SHOWN TO BOARD WITH MEASUREMENTS OF SIGNS OF AREA STORES JOHN RICHARDS-This shows the climate that we're competing with in this neighborhood. It really is a financial hardship if we're not able to at least advertise our goods in a aesthetically pleasing but still an attractive manner like the others are. I feel that without this Variance we have a major factor in attracting people into are store. MRS. GOETZ-Did I misunderstand you it sounded like you said said that the Shopping Center doesn't have a sign denoting there identity, "Queensbury Factory Outlet". JOHN RICHARDS-I haven't see one. '- ~ --' 12 MRS. GOETZ-There is a free standing sign. JOHN RICHARDS-I missed it. MRS. GOETZ-That's the identity of that Shopping Center. MICHAEL MULLER-He made a good point, it doesn't help his application as much as it points out that we're still not being consistent other stores that make up a Shopping Center why do we let them have oversized signs. JOHN RICHARDS-I feel that our has special conditions because we are down out of the way we're not easy to see. MR. TURNER-I go along with you there entirely on that point. You send out flyers every week with sales on them and if you can't find the place then their is something wrong. JOHN RICHARDS-The flyers only reach residents. It doesn't hit any casual shoppers, that's really the main point of the sign. MRS. GOETZ-They new what the situation was when they went in there. You are right the sign ordinance should be re-worded. Are the temporary signs still up? JOHN RICHARDS-They should be down. MR. TURNER-They are down. LEE MOST-I do feel the Ordinance is a very workable Ordinance, I have no objection to the Ordinance, again it was a problem and it was my advise to the Company that you had to approach that based on my interpretation of when I read the Ordinance. When we applied for the permit that's when we realized we had a problem so I thought then we it occurred with the store front that they we're referring back to the other section because it became inconsistent with all the other stores being allowed a 100 square feet apart and not direct with... MR. TURNER-Basically the other stores in the other Plaza's brought in a plan, we accepted there plan with the signs on the stores, free standing signs they can have. JOHN RICHARDS-30 square feet is a slight addition I agree, but there really trying to replace the Shoprite Sign. LEE MOST-In all other aspects in keeping the aesthetics and feeling of the Ordinance the percentage, size, the setback. MR. TURNER-Not necessarily the establishment of that section of the Ordinance was well maintained to stop the proliferation of huge signs in a Shopping Center. They had a problem with it and they didn't want things to become over burdened, where a smaller place maybe a little farther back needed more identity. MICHAEL MULLER-Just as a purpose for discussing an alternative I realize you have the proposals, the two parallelogram the white and the blue you are to add those to the existing sign, that is slightly larger than the lower letters, how many square feet would you be adding to your existing sign? LEE MOST-I think maybe 6 feet altogether. MICHAEL MULLER-I think we should point out here that if we grant a Variance that we make other businesses take signs down actually when we're in pursuit of conformity. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN ROBERT STEWART-LAWYER IN GLENS FALLS/REPRESENTING SAUL I. BIRNBAUM/QUEENSBURY FACTORY OUTLET CENTER/OWNERS OF THIS PROPERTY ROBERT STEWART-(1) This application is not signed by the owner of this property or the lessor of the store, my client is both, my client opposes this application. (2) The applicant (Avaition Mall), promised that they would limit the signs to 65 per cent of the total allowed square footage if this Board in exchange would give us some flexibility as to what sign would be small, and what sign would be large. To the best of my knowledge they constructed that bargain and there total wall signage is about 65 per cent of what the Ordinance allows it to be and that was done on a specific Variance with that trade off being made. Over the years I have come before this Board many times and you have enforced the Shopping Center 100 square foot limitation, I would hate to count the files I came in here when the ten year moratorium burned out and all of the large signs then became legal we came in for Variance after Variance "- '--- 13 trying to sell you some of those signs, with the exemption of the chicken at Martha's... to throw all that away now and just go back and start granting Variances I think would be unfortunate. I heard nothing tonight other than we're a Shopping Center and would like a bigger sign, how many clients would love to parade in here tomorrow and say exactly the same thing. I don't think that there different than any other Shopping Center, I don't think there situation is anymore unique than any other Shopping Center. If you want to go back and rewrite the Ordinance if you feel that their are some areas that should be adjusted that's fine and we can all debate it and then we all can live with whatever new Ordinance is arrived at, but if most of the business community is asked to stick with the existing Ordinance and many have torn down signs worth many thousands of dollars your going to just explode the thing if all of a sudden you start to look the other way. For those two reason on behalf of my client I would object, Thank you. JOHN RICHARDS-To reply to Bob Stewart's comments I'm not so sure all of the things that I meant to say. I think four unique circumstances about this particular mall and just to highlight I say its a strip mall and still say it has no active mall identification, if I can't find it going up and down a couple times I would assume it is not. The land does slope away from the highway and its more difficult to see. The building is angled it does not face the highway on a line of a Present Company, and I just went through the whole Comparison Chart to show that there are strip mall stores with oversized signs or signs that obtained Variances everyone I named there did have a sign permit I wasn't saying that they we're violating the Ordinance and as I was saying those are competitors in exactly the same field either as the strip mall occupant or as a field market that we're facing, that's what we have to deal with and it really makes a unique discrimination on us if we didn't have a sign that could at least replace the one that was there, we're not asking for any huge increase or gaudy sign, we're just asking to replace the one that's been there for years long after any ten year moratorium run out I don't really want to get into the great...in question I did file some materials that indicated that co-owner of the property consented to this and we feel that Mr. Birnbaum consented by virtue of the original lease which we now hold, I think that this issue has already been addressed by this Board previously. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Warren County Planning Board meet January 12, 1989, to consider this and they disapproved it. Queensbury Beautification Committee meet January 9, 1989, they also disapproved this application. DISCUSSION HELD MICHAEL MULLER-My concern would be that we worked very hard to try to make a brand new Ordinance, which I thought was about as evenly applied as we could have possibly have done it and it didn't cost thousands of dollars. Now to grant a Variance basically on the basis that your talking about you need a bigger size, we haven't denied them a sign, under the Ordinance I think that it is an adequate sign. I tend to agree with the applicant that the Sign Ordinance is very difficult , I want to go on record saying that something should be done to study to spruce up our Sign Ordinance so that its brought up to some understandable language. If there was any relief that should be considered is that the two parallelograms that is part of there logo it takes it six additional feet over, now how would I be able to justify in light of what was heard this evening and also what we have done to other businesses, well we did grant some relief on setback size 50 foot square limitation we went 53, 54 feet, there were 15 foot setbacks we went 14 feet. Its not an unreasonable request. MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 2-1989 VICTORY MARKETS, INC.,lntroduced by Michael Muller who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Turner: For a wall sign that will read "Great American" which is 87 square feet and added to it will be the two parallelograms to complete there logo, the entire sign will not exceed 106 square feet. Practical difficulty has been demonstrated and this is the minimum relief this will not be detrimental to the Sign Ordinance or to the other stores in the Shopping Center. Duly adopted this 15th day of March, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Muller, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Griffin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSTAIN:Mr. Sicard NEW BUSINESS NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 2-1989 -- 14 THE LAW FIRM BARTLETT, PONTIFF, STEWART, RHODES & JUDGE, P.C. REPRESENTS SAUL L BIRNBAUM, OWNER OF THE QUEENSBURY FACTORY OUTLET CENTER. PURSUANT TO SECTION 14.100 OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY SIGN ORDINANCE, THEY APPEAL THE ISSUANCE OF SIGN PERMIT NO. 89-1150 TO VICTORY MARKETS, INC. FOR SAID PREMISES. QUESTION OF WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE OWNER AS REQUIRED BY THE SIGN ORDINANCE. ROBERT STEWART/LAWYER REPRESENTING THE APPELANT IN THIS CASE/ SAUL I. BIRNBA UM ROBERT STEWART-The underlying facts involving this Appeal are in litigations to the Court in Warren County and we're advised by Judge Dier that we will be granted a hearing on that as soon as he returns from a tour in New York City, which will be the later part of April. In view of that fact, with the thought that it might resolve all of those issues and not to dump it on the shoulder's of this Board I would respectfully request that the matter be tabled for two months until we can receive Judge Dier's decision. MOTION TO TABLE NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 2-1989, QUEENSBURY FACTORY OUTLET CENTER,Introduced by Michael Muller who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Turner: Tabled by the applicant's request. Duly adopted this 15th day of March, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Griffin, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Muller, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:N one AREA VARIANCE NO. 23-1989 NOBLE TRUE VALUE AL BOYCHUCK MARK PLAZA, UPPER GLEN STREET, ROUTE 9 TO MAINTAIN THE CONSTRUCTED STORAGE SPACE OF APPROXIMA TEL Y 700 SQ. FT. FENCED IN AREA WITH ROOF OVER IT. REQUEST FOR SETBACK VARIANCE. LOT SIZE 1.2 ACRES WARREN COUNTY PLANNING TAX MAP NO. 72-6-24 SECTION 4.020 CHRIS ST. ANDREWS ONE OF THE OWNERS OF NOBLE TRUE VALUE MR. TURNER-How long has this been up? MR. ST. ANDREWS-About 2 months after we put the addition up, which is about a year. MR. TURNER-It was fenced in initially and a roof put on initially or was it just a roof and then a fence came later? MR. ST. ANDREWS-No. First I asked Mack Dean about the fence, which he said was fine to do so I did that first, we had poly blue tarps over the merchandise which occasionally it got wet and got to be a problem, I went back to Mack again and asked him if I could put up corrugated 4 by 8 sheets over it, he said it would not be a problem so I did it. It stayed there for a year until Dave Hatin came in about a month ago and said that I needed a permit. MR. TURNER-Did this get picked up when they reassessed the property? MR. ST. ANDREWS-No. Dave Hatin pick it up when he came in our building and went in the back. It had been there a year and I didn't know that it was a problem. I did go to Mack and asked if I needed to do anything and that was the information I was given. MR. TURNER-There was no buffer at the time between commercial and residential, now it requires a 50 foot buffer. MRS. GOETZ-You are a victim of this. MR. ST. ANDREWS-I thought that I had to do something because I put the addition up and that is why I asked him if I was going about this properly. I had no intention to close in the walls or pour a floor, we have pallets out there, its full storage. MR. SICARD-Do you use that in the Winter time? --- 15 MR. ST. ANDREWS-We use it all the time, we have a shortage of space. MR. SICARD-Year round? MR. ST. ANDREWS-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-I don't see any problem with this. MR. GRIFFIN-Is it a stockade fence? MR. TURNER-Yes. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Warren County Planning Board approved. STAFF INPUT Notes on file, from John Goralski, Planner Letter from Susan Macy, on file approving this Variance. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 23-1989,NOBLE TRUE VALUE,Introduced by Jeffrey Kelley who moved for its adoption, seconded by Susan Goetz: This is for an 18 foot setback from the westerly property line. There is a practical difficulty they we're advised by Mack Dean that no Variance was required. The constructed fence was in good faith and were told it was all right. It is not visible from the parking lot or neighbor to the west, this neighbor has no objection and the neighbor's land slopes up hill. The short E.A.F. form shows no negative impact. Duly adopted this 15th day of March, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Griffin, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Muller, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:N one AREA VARIANCE NO. 25-1989 ETHEL C. O'ROURKE EAST SIDE OF WEST MT. ROAD PARCEL IS 0.13 MILES SOUTH OF TINA LANE AND 0.7 MILES NORTH OF INTERSECTION OF WEST MT. ROAD AND CORINTH ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE HER PROPERTY OF 2.0 ACRES INTO 2 ONE ACRE PARCELS AND CONVEY THE VACANT PARCEL TO HER DAUGHTER, WHO PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE-F AMIL Y RESIDENCE ON SAME. LOT SIZE 2 ACRES (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 125-2-3.1 SECTION 4.053 CHARLES NACY /COULTER & MCCORMACK REPRESENTING MRS. ETHEL O'ROURKE MAP SHOWN TO THE BOARD CHARLES NACY-Mrs O'Rourke owns a 2 acre parcel of land on the west side of West Mountain Road. She currently lives there with her husband, and daughter, and granddaughter in a two bedroom house. She wishes to be able to maximize the use of her two acres by subdividing the property in two one acre parcels and conveying the rear portion to her daughter who will construct a one family residence on that parcel. The constraints of this Section 4.053 it requires to have double the lot width, the current width that is required is 150 feet, Mrs. O'Rourke's - 16 - lot as she required it is approximately 200 feet so she would not have sufficient room with either parcel to be created surrounded the existing residence or the proposed parcel to meet that particular part of the Ordinance. All other aspects of the Ordinance could be meet with this attitude with regards to setbacks, one acre density, and also be able to maintain the minimum required before the project can get off its feet. The suggestion made by the Warren County Planning Board as to the stipulation of approval by the Board that in order to alleviate the problem of two possible driveways on this property that Mrs. O'Rourke would (1) eliminate and cut out and abandon the existing driveway on the northern portion of the property and construct on the southern portion of the property a doublewide common entrance off of West Mountain Road the center line of which would be a prolongation of the southerly line of the parcel that she would retain. As soon as the common doublewide driveway would cross the roadway line it would diverge the most southerly portion of the driveway leading back into the parcel that Mrs. O'Rourke hopes to convey and the other portion of the driveway would then in the northeasterly direction and run to a point where it would connect with her existing driveway. MR. TURNER-Asked Mr. Nacy to point out on the map what was proposed. MR. NACY EXPLAINED TO THE BOARD THE PROPERTY LINES MR. KELLEY-I was looking at the tax maps information in reference how this lot compares to the size of other lots in the neighborhood in terms of those being on West Mountain Road and it appears that it is a two acre lot. MR. NACY-That's right. MR. KELLEY -It looks like the rest of them are at least in close to being that size or bigger and then as you get more towards Corinth Road they may become a little narrower but I would guess its about over an acre. Is it still a SR 1 Acre zone? MR. NACY-Where Mrs. O'Rourke is, yes. PUBLIC HHARING OPEN JOHN & CAROLYN LORD-with live adjacent to this property on the north side. MRS. O'ROURKE-May I show them the proposed driveway? MR. TURNER-Yes, whoever can help them out. MRS. O'ROURKE-Explained to Mrs. & Mrs. Lord what the Warren County Planning Board recommended. They recommended to do away with this driveway (pointed out on map) which is almost adjoining your property and move it down into the proposed new subdivision so that it would be more or less not to the extreme south of it, but in about just a little bit more than the middle of the property so that it would just be one common driveway, and that way when you come in from the road I can just go to my garage like this, and then Cathy (daughter of Mrs. 0' Rourke) could go out to where her house is. This driveway would be done away with because then there would still be only one driveway going out on West Mountain Road. MRS. LORD-I have one question as to where the pool area is, would all this (refers to map) be done away with in this section. MRS. O'ROURKE-Yes, this would have to be closed right off. Where the driveway comes in now that would be closed right off we would probably plant more trees there. MR. LORD-The access road would be closed off? MRS. O'ROURKE-The access would be closed off. MR. LORD-But this would be the valid driveway. MRS. O'ROURKE-This would be all done away with that would be landscaped, and the driveway would come in here and then come up this way, we don't want to remove all of those trees. and then come in front of the trees. MR. LORD-Is this going to be raised like you have here? MRS. O'ROURKE-This is what I had Coulter & McCormack come over for. MR. LORD-What about drainage? MR. NACy-If your concerned about drainage the current subdivision regulations in the Ordinance 17 require that a certain grade be maintained away from the new construction and we would be adhering to that as far as the pitch away from the proposed house as required, a normal 2 per cent grade away from the house so that there would be drainage away from the basement, but the....are such that we believe that their would be no detrimental effect. Hopefully the screening fact that the trees are still there will mostly be maintained with the exception of the area that would have to be cleared for the house construction and the septic system. MRS. LORD-One concern that we had is the fact that when this house was originally built it was built with the basement pretty much above the ground quit a bit of fill was brought in around this house so the terrain of the land has actually been changed then what it originally was. Their is run off it does come down to the north side of the property, and that we are kind of concerned with because it appeared that it could happen on both sides of the property especially where have a certain amount of trees that are going to have to be removed here (refers to map). MR. LORD-You also have a pool that's not graded yet they have topsoil that's not graded around the pool so when this gets graded off your going to have...your going to cut trees down here which is going to change into it, this is flat land. MR. NACY-Obviously you have to have some sort of driveway around the proposed house so we can maintain the building requirements in the Town of Queensbury. MRS. LORD-Well we don't want the situation where there is more and more fill brought in so that the terrain of the land is more sloped and more sloped so that the run off is going to occur on our side, and the north side, as well as on the south side. MR. NACY-I understand that. With any new construction must adhere to these drainage patterns whether it be here or down the street or on the lot. It just so the water doesn't back in to the proposed building. MRS. LORD-What about this construction to the north side? We're on a slap in the back portion of our home. When you get ground run off especially in the situation we've had this winter we've had a tremendous amount of water which is laying on the surface of the ground, ground level right where we are so that we are getting seepage in the back of our house. MR. NACY-What's the source of this water? MRS. LORD-The ice, the ground freezes up. MR. NACY-Right, but is it partially on O'Rourke's property? MR. LORD-Its just from rain its just the way it settles, its not coming from O'Rourke's. They haven't graded over here yet. MR. NACY-We're really not addressing that point right now. MR. TURNER-That's not an issue of this Board, that is a Planning Board issue, they have to get by this Board first. MR. LORD-What is this for, for a Variance of... MR. TURNER-They have the acreage but the lot width has to be double the lot width on an arterial highway. MR. NACY-The current zoning stipulates that the minimum lot width is a 150 feet because of the adjoining West Mountain Road which is a designated arterial highway the Section of 4.053 of the Ordinance requires that the proposed reality lots be double the lot width, we are seeking a Variance from that. MR. LORD-So this length is going to give you the 300 feet minimum. MR. NACY-That's why we're seeking the Variance. The original parcel is only 200 feet wide. MRS. LORD-So in essence this is what the half acre parcel that this house is going to be sitting on. The other half acre in reality is this driveway, is that correct? MR. NACY-It may occupy an area that is encompassed by a half acre, but the lot total is one acre which meets the density requirements of the zoning. MRS. LORD-What I'm saying is that where the house is actually going to be situated is far less than what this is right here, (refers to the map), its really being situated itself on a half acre parcel or there about. ~,- 18 MR. NACY-I don't agree with that. Realty lots have different configurations, this one because of access and because of setbacks from existing residences and structures for example, the pool, it requires that it have some sort of configuration like this, and total this one acre. MRS. LORD-All right correct. It is over 431 feet long with a width of only 50 feet. MR. NACY-Minimum width which is required for a lot would be 40 feet, we made this 50 feet so we can keep the proposed driveway as far to the north as possible. MRS. LORD-Do we have assurance that this would eventually be all out of here so that we wouldn't have this because it is very close to our property line. MR. NACY- The driveway being used now has been there for sometime. MR. TURNER-Some of the issues that you raised aren't before us, the only question before us is the width of the lot. MR. NACY-If this Board sees fit to grant this Variance this would be before the Planning Board which additional details would have to be provided at that time by the applicant in order to address these question such as run off. MRS. GOETZ-Are you for or against the Variance? MR. LORD-I can't say that I'm not against it because I have property here (refers to map). If I ever applied for a Variance I would like consideration to, but I have four acres and each time the Town comes up with bigger parcels of land to put a building on I look at my property, I have four acres now and eight years ago I could have put four or five houses up, now I look at my property and I figure well now I have four acres and I only can put at least maybe one house up. That's what I'm thinking, I'm landlocked, 300 feet frontage you have to have, you have to have directly in front of your house 300 feet from the road? MR. TURNER-On the road. MR. LORD-So I have a house... Variances I don't understand. MR. TURNER-If you were to subdivide your property later on or whenever, you would have to come here for a Variance. MR. LORD-I know. I think that right now... MR. TURNER-You would have to go to the Planning Board also. You would be in the same sequence that they are in. MR. LORD-What I can see, I think that there putting to much on one piece of land. CHARLES & SANDY BALDWIN-We live directly next store. We have five acres and no way do we want a house in back here. CHARLES BALDWIN-Right here I have a pool for one thing (refers to map), right here in a pool house, and I have a nice back yard. I have five acres of land and I have a pool and now there going to take and put a road down through here right by my pool, and a house. If that won't devalue any property. . . SANDY BALDWIN-We also have a well right in there that we use for drinking and cooking, we do have Town water, now we get run off from that... CHARLES BALDWIN-If they build this road up everything from there is going to run down on my property, its got to. Its low out there, all low even over there. SANDY BALDWIN-Like you said everybody along there owns quit a bit of land, but if this is passed everybody can go and do that, we would end up with little villages and that's what that would be like to put a little house out in there. CHARLES BALDWIN-They want to face it right towards my property. MRS.O'ROURKE-Our plan is not to remove one tree, not a one. SANDY BALDWIN-There is no way that you can get down there without moving a tree. MRS. O'ROURKE-Yes their is. All bordering trees would remain. -- 19 SANDY BALDWIN-Those are our bordering trees that's why they remain, but all the rest of them have to come out we looked at. You can't get a car down through there unless you take a lot of trees out of there. These are just scrub trees right in here close to the adjoining property. CHARLES BALDWIN-You would have to build this road down, you would have to put gravel in here you could never drive through this, its topsoil and when you build that up your going to push every bit of water that's in there right into my backyard. MRS. O'ROURKE-I'm not an engineer, I don't know. DA VID HUBERT-I live on West Mountain Road, I'm about four residence south of the proposal. I would just like to go on record as being opposed to this subdivision. I would like to go on record as being opposed to this subdivision on the basis that it just kind of destroys the plans that have been made to keep these lots on a reasonable size and I think its going to change the whole attitude if you start doing it with one as stated earlier your going to have to consider doing it with probably some of these others, people are going to sell and get out, take the money and run. Their are a number of these parcels that could be subdivided on the same basis here and probably allow for a more generous lot zone, my decision is being against it. NANCY WALKER-I also live on the West Mountain Road and we also own five acres of land and we would never consider putting five house on five acres, we're totally against it. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Letter received from David and Kathleen Hubert, opposing Area Variance No. 25-1989. Letter received from Carolyn Green opposing Area Variance No. 25-1989. Warren County Planning Board approved with conditions. STAFF INPUT Notes on file, from John Goralski, Planner DISCUSSION HELD JEFFREY KELLEY-We talked about the drainage that comes off West Mountain and crosses the road, asked Charles Nacy if he was familiar with this? CHARLES NACY-Not familiar with where it is. This point would be addressed at the Planning Board submission. JEFFREY KELLEY-I'm asking because they talked about if public facilities would be affected and that's part of an Area Variance. CHARLES NACY-I'm not sure as to exactly what the problem is here. There is an additional drive which is obviously in the same drainage way and we're eliminating one to construct another, it would obviously be constructed so that it would carry into the small waters that pass along West Mountain Road. JEFFREY KELLEY-They talked about direct drainage towards Bedford Close so it makes me think that it has to run along the side property line. LEE YORK-When I went out to do a site visit, there is a culvert right here (refers to map) before the telephone pole, it comes under the road and then there is another culvert and it directs drainage from the West Mountain area right across here (refers to map). I talked to Roger Gebo, he said that it was a County drainage way and it has been there a great number of years, and it did take care of a lot of the drainage from that entire area. He did indicate to me that their may be potentially be no conflict here, but he would have to approve any plans prior to any driveway being constructed in or near that drainage way. MRS. O'ROURKE-Mr. Baldwin seem to be concern about drainage. I was away for six years but we built many structures in Lake George, and my husband was a plumber in the Glens Falls area for forty years, so we're very familiar with all the Health Department rules in building, and we're certainly not going to allow anything that we construct to drain on someone else's property. We would conform in every way to everything that was required in building permits and health permits, so their would never be any problem. Yes there is fill from the swimming pool, but that was there when I bought the property and that will all be taken care of this Spring. We didn't close on this property until October, and the Winter was there before we had a chance to do anything. There were trees cut down just laying out in the back of that property and all rotted for god knows how long, and we had all that mess removed the first week that we -~ 20 bought the property, because it was creating carpenter ants, spiders, and everything that rotting wood would just laying around, so we had to pay a lot of money to have all that removed. I don't think my neighbors have to worry about bad drainage or anything else, we would conform to every single rule. MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 25-1989,lntroduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded Mr. Turner: It would change the character of the neighborhood. The four requirements are not meet for granting an Area Variance, this is an area of single family homes on large lots, it would set a precedence if this Variance was granted and affect the entire West Mountain Road area. This doesn't result in a practical difficulty the applicant resides on the property and has full use of the property. It would be in direct conflict with the Master Plan their are questions about drainage and public facilities would be adversely affected. MRS. O'ROURKE-Asked for this to be tabled so I can consult an Attorney about this. This is inconsistent with the Zoning Laws, the Zoning Law is a one acre parcel of land, now because my neighbors have four acres on one side and three or four acres on the adjoining side to the north and one to the south, that is not what the Zoning Ordinance reads. The Zoning Ordinance reads "a one acre minimum parcel", this is a one acre minimum parcel that I would like to convey to my daughter. The only inconsistency was the driveway going out and that was that Article 4.053... MR. TURNER-That's the total lot width. You have to have double the lot width, and your far from that, and that's the question your here for. MRS. O'ROURKE-That's because of the driveway. We would change that. MR. TURNER-It still wouldn't change the lot width, you still have to meet that requirement. MICHAEL MULLER-Your proposing to create two nonconforming lots. Right now you have a preexisting nonconforming lot because the Ordinance is going to require that you have 300 feet of frontage. MRS. O'ROURKE-This is why I asked to have it tabled so I can consult with an Attorney. MRS. GOETZ-That isn't going to change the law. You can't meet that requirement of double the lot width. BOB O'ROURKE-I think that she should have this tabled at this time because her Attorney is under a censorship, he cannot be here to advise her on her rights to do, or what to do, not to do, with the Board or the neighbors. MRS. GOETZ-Asked what it meant by under censorship? MRS. O'ROURKE-Wilson Mathias is my Attorney. BOB O'ROURKE-I think at this time just for her own benefit, I'm not aware of what going on. I think its at her advantage to consult her Lawyer, who is not able to be here at this time. MRS. O'ROURKE-I don't understand your reasoning. MR. TURNER-You don't meet the requirement of the lot width. MRS. O'ROURKE-It appears to be inconsistent with the Zoning. MR. TURNER-Its an arterial highway and it requires the double lot width. We can table this, but it isn't going to change anything. The facts are the facts. MRS. O'ROURKE-I would like to table it. Asked Mr. Muller if their was a Supreme Court ruling two years about down zoning a piece of property, this is what she would like to look into. This would be down zoning my property, in otherwords, I cannot use the property for what I want. There is only 4 and 5/10ths of a per cent of that two acre parcel actually being used right at this time. This is certainly not anywhere near 50 percent is it which is allowed. MICHAEL MULLER-It it important for you to study whatever it is that you want to present and come with a representative who can handle your application. If you feel the decision of this Board is incorrect. . . MRS. O'ROURKE-At this time I do. MICHAEL MULLER-You certainly have the right to adjourn this. I honestly think that, however, ~. 21 that having heard it all you put whoever the Attorney is, if he should corne with you in a difficult position because basically we've now closed all the opportunities procedurally, that is if you allowed a decision this evening, lets say that it was a negative decision hypothetically, when you have that negative decision you can take action against the Town, that is you have a right to move against this Town within a very short period of time. Our jurisdiction is fairly limited and that is apply the Zoning Ordinance as its written and allow exceptions as provided by law. If we don't give you an exception and you feel that you are entitled to it, the right place to have your appeal is before a Judge, the Judge must apply those laws that you are referring to. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 25-1989, ETHEL C. O'ROURKE FOR ONE WEEK,lntroduced by Michael Muller who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: Duly adopted this 15th day of March, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Muller, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Griffin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:N one AREA VARIANCE NO. 27-1989 FRANCIS A. GIROUX 14 COLUMBIA AVENUE TO REPLACE THE EXISTING DWELLING WITH A NEW DWELLING OF 24 FT. BY 40 FT. AT APPROXIMATELY THE SAME LOCATION INCREASING THE FRONT SETBACK LOT SIZE; .114 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 117-6-8 SECTION 4.010 E FRANCIS GIROUX PRESENT MAP SHOWN TO THE BOARD FRANCIS GIROUX-I believe everything is self explanatory on the lot plan and the application. TAPE TURNED FRANCIS GIROUX-There are two fronts Fled Avenue and Columbia Avenue. The first setback off Fled Avenue measures out to 20 feet. MR. TURNER-He has to be 10 feet from the house to the septic. Width of the lot is 75 feet the front is 30 feet. The width of lot has to be 75 feet and he is two feet shy on the one side. FRANCIS GIROUX-This could be push out so that it would the front. MR. TURNER-How long have you owned the lot? FRANCIS GIROUX-A year and a half. MR. SICARD-I see that you would repair it if you didn't get a Variance, will you be putting that in the same location? FRANCIS GIROUX-It was livable, just recently it was condemned because of a few problems with a recent tenant. MR. SICARD-Was it condemned by the Zoning Department of the Town of Queensbury? FRANCIS GIROUX-The Town Board. MR. SICARD-Was it structurally unsound? FRANCIS GIROUX-They said that there was a couple of rotted sills that need to be replaced but they will allow me to replace them and get the C.O. MR. SICARD-Your ready to tear it down and build a new one. FRANCIS GIROUX-I want to see if I have that option, I don't want to say that I will do... MR. TURNER-Its not firm that your going to do it, it just that you want that considered. FRANCIS GIROUX-I don't have to do it. -'"! " " ~_.,...' 22 DANIEL GRIFFIN-How long has it been vacant? FRANCIS GIROUX-Two months. One of the main reasons I haven't fixed it already is that one of the problems is that water runs off the road into the front door and into the cellar. I had it fixed it had the drainage ditch around the side of it to drain the water and the tenant filled in the ditch. JEFFREY KELLEY-The property to the north of this or in the backyard, Wayne Mechanic's, now is that land for sale? FRANCIS GIROUX-When I bought this land at the tax sale he was bidding against me and he wanted this. JEFFREY KELLEY-The only reason for asking was this is about half the size of a conforming lot if you could get the other 45 feet. FRANCIS GIROUX-All he owns back here is another 50 feet, and then Niagara Mohawk owns 50 or 100 feet. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE None STAFF INPUT Notes on file, from John Goralski, Planner MonON TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-1989, FRANCIS A. GIROUX,lntroduced by Daniel Griffin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Turner: This is a preexisting nonconforming lot it will be an improvement. There requesting a two foot relief on the north side, seventeen feet on the south, and also a relief from the square footage of the lot, it will be seventeen feet from Columbia A venue, and twenty feet from Feld Avenue. The new building will be back from Feld and Columbia Avenues and improve the appearance of the neighborhood. The short E.A.F. form shows no negative impact. There are no feasible alternatives other than overwhelming the existing building. Duly adopted this 15th day of March, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Griffin, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Muller, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:N one Chairman Turner adjourned the meeting at 11:05 P. M. Respectfully Submitted Theodore Turner, Chairman