Loading...
1989-08-23 // '"-- ~ ---- QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 23, 1989 INDEX Area Variance No. 93-1989 APPLICANT Walter Dombek PAGE 1. Use Variance No. 98-1989 Frank Parillo 3. Area Variance No. 94-1989 Dawn Sweet 4. Area Variance No. 95-1989 Anthony & Mindy Mifsud 6. Sign Variance No. 96-1989 A viation Road Development Howard Johnson Motor Lodge 7. Area Variance No. 97-1989 Loggers Equipment 9. Area Variance No. 90-1989 Robert Lent 13. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. -- QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 23, 1989 1:40 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN SUSAN GOETZ, SECRETARY CHARLES O. SICARD DANIEL GRIFFIN JEFFREY KELLEY JOYCE EGGLESTON MICHAEL MULLER TOWN ATrORNEY-PAUL DUSEK JOHN GORALSKI, PLANNER PAT COLLARD, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR APPROVAL OF THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF JULY 26TH, 1989,Introduced by Charles Sicard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael Muller: Duly adopted this 23rd day of August, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Griffin, Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Muller, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:N one NEW BUSINESS AREA VARIANCE NO. 93-1989 HC-lA WALTER DOMBEK MEADOWBROOK ROAD, OFF QUAKER ROAD TO MEADOWBROOK ROAD, 1,000 FT. FROM QUAKER ROAD INTERSECTION, ON LEFT GOING NORTH TO CONSTRUCT A 15 FT. BY 100 FT. BOAT STORAGE BUILDING WITH LESS THAN THE REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK. THE BUILDING WILL BE 20 FT. FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 59-2-13 TAX MAP NO. 59-1-8.21 SECTION 4.020 K LOT SIZE 300 FT. BY 145 FT. (IRREGULAR) 226 FT. IN REAR JOHN WINN REPRESENTING WALTER DOMBEK MAP SHOWN TO BOARD MR. WINN-Stated that the application has been looked at by the Town of Queensbury planners with recommended approval. It has also been looked at by Warren County Planning Board and has been approved. Requested that the variance be granted. MR. TURNER-Stated the initial application was that the front piece of property with the grass and the trees on it would stay. MR. WINN-Stated that the area that Mr. Turner is referring to is in the front of the property, and we propose adding an additional 21 feet of grass. This would be more obvious to the Healy property next store than the residences across the street. We are proposing to increase the grassy area along the front of the property. In the front of the building we have already planted arborvitae trees. MR. SICARD-Asked what type of storage was this going to be? MR. WINN-Stated the intended use is boat storage. MR. SICARD-Asked if he meant just boat storage or storage of something else? MR. WINN-Stated boat storage and related assessory. MR. SICARD-Asked if there was going to be any repair work done on the premises? MR. WINN-No. Stated at the Warren County Planning Board meeting there was a question as to whether or not flammable materials would be stored. The answer to that is no. Part of the contract is that the people that occupy the storage facilities agreed that there would be no flammable material. Stated that in these particular storage units there will be no boats 1 -- ---' .~. that will have 40 or 50 gallons of fuel in them. These are smaller storage areas. Will we be sure that people will empty the gasoline out before they store it. MR. MULLER-Asked if the building that is proposed here which says it's 15 feet wide is going to be storing boats from the bow to the stern that are going to be less than 15 feet? MR. WINN-Right. MR. MULLER-Asked if there are separate compartments so that a tenant locks their boat up? MR. WINN-Stated that there are separate compartment doors facing on the south and west sides only. MR. MULLER-Asked if the maximum compartments are going to be ten? MR. WINN-Correct. Stated that they may take out one or two of the compartments later on if we need a larger storage area. The maximum that would ever be in there is ten boats. No doors would be open facing the Healy's property. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MICHAEL O'CONNOR-Law firm of Little and O'Connor, representing Bernard and Barbara Healy, the owners of the property that is immediately to the north of the premises that you are considering on Meadowbrook Road, and it is their single family residence. I would object as I attempted to do before Mr. Winn spoke, first to the jurisdiction of this Board because Mr. Healy received no prior notice of tonight's meeting except for a notice that he received in today's mail. He was deprived of the opportunity to present his questions to the County Planning Board not knowing that it was going before the County Planning Board. As I understand it is the custom to give notice to the immediate adjacent owners of a pending variance application. I believe this is partly because the applicant on paragraph six of his application indicated that he in fact owned not only his own parcel, but the Healy parcel. If you take a look at that, you will see that he indicated that he owned Parcel 13, that is in fact the parcel of Mr. and Mrs. Healy. Staff did not pick up on that and apparently notices were not sent out. I would think that this should be tabled, it should be returned to the County Planning Board. Mr. Healy should have the opportunity to present argument to the County Planning Board before going before this Board. MR. TURNER-It was my understanding that a notice was hand delivered to Mr. Healy, Monday morning. MR. O'CONNOR-I understand it he received it today by mail. MR. GORALSKI-I believe it was Tuesday morning. MR. O'CONNOR-Either Monday or Tuesday, it wouldn't comply with what is normally required, fi ve days. MR. TURNER-Correct. MR. MULLER-We should give him the opportunity. You can grant all the relief that Mr. Dombek is entitled to, but I think we're wasting our time. MR. TURNER-I move to table it. MR. O'CONNOR-We recommend that it be forwarded to the County Planning Board so that Mr. Healy can have the opportunity to present his argument. MR. WINN-I would like to note that on paragraph twelve of the application, Mr. Healy is listed as the owner of the property. MR. O'CONNOR-As I understand it they set their compass points to determine the footage. What they did is use the tax map numbers on the front of the application. You have it both ways in there that created the problem. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 93-1989 WALTER DOMBEK, Introduced by Mr. Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: That the application be tabled and forward to the Warren County Planning Board for their review. Duly adopted this 23rd day of August, 1989, by the following vote: 2 '- --- A YES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Griffin, Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Muller, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:N one USE VARIANCE NO. 98-1989 FRANK PARILLO LC-42A ROUTE 9L AND BAY ROAD TO OPEN THE FORMER ELLSWORTH MARINA FOR PUBLIC BOAT LAUNCIßNG. TIßS USE HAS BEEN DISCONTINUED FOR OVER 18 MONTHS. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 23-1-19 SECTION 4.020 LOT SIZE: 24.33 ACRES MR. TURNER-Stated a letter was received from John Richards requesting to table application until next month. The reason for this is that Warren County Planning Board tabled the application for lack of signature and did not act on the application. TOM WEST-property owner in Dunham's Bay, representing himself. Stated that there was no effort made to notify anyone about this. Concerned at this point, because we have a illegal operation going on and Mr. Parillo has been operating this as a public boat launch this summer. Last time when I was here when the 18 month issue was heard and decided by this Board, I was informed by Mr. Hatin, that there was an understanding that as long as Mr. Parillo filed for a variance in order to get the matter on for this meeting the Town would allow the boat launch to continue. We were content to live with that understanding recognizing the difficulties of enforcement knowing that it would heard and determined tonight. MR. TURNER-Stated that Warren County Planning tabled this, they made the decision. MR. WEST-Doesn't see why the public hearing can't be held. Thinks the Town should direct the applicant to seize the illegal use pending the outcome of the decision. MRS. GOETZ-Asked Paul if the Board could hold the public hearing? MR. DUSEK-Stated legally the public hearing could be held. His recommendation to the Board would be to have the public hearing, but just keep it opened until the next meetings. MR. MULLER-Asked if the applicant was called? MR. TURNER-Stated that he discussed this with John Richards and had a conversation with him. I called the Town and talked to them then called John Richards back. He wanted to know if this was on the agenda, I told him no it was off tabled until September. MR. DUSEK-Stated that is a point, the right to cross examine the individual. MR. KELLEY-Stated that the problem is that Mr. Parillo is going to be running a marina all summer because of a procedural aspect of this. Asked Paul if they couldn't give a stop work order until he gets a permit? MR. DUSEK-Stated that this particular situation is different in the way it got started, in which the understanding between Mr. Hatin, and myself, and the attorney's is that we would give him sometime to come in before the Board because it was a questionable issue in which way the Board might go with this because Mr. Hatin wasn't exactly clear on the issue himself. This first came to us for a interpretation request, thinks this was a unique circumstance given raise to the way it what handled. MR. WEST-Thinks, if counsel is correct when this first came up there was some unusual circumstances and the issues was opened as to whether or not there had been an abandonment, but if the Board recalls that issue was determined at the last meeting believes more than 30 days has past since that decision was made so that is final and binding. Stated that as to the use variance issue that is before the Board, thinks it's very clear that it has to be denied. If there were a summary denial procedure available in variance proceedings that this would be appropriate for it. Thinks this unfair to the property owners in Dunham's Bay and the lake in general to allow Mr. Parillo to operate this illegal marina. Asked if the Board was going to be taking testimony from anyone tonight? MR. TURNER-No. LEO LOUGHREY-Submitted petitions to the Board from Dunham Bay residents opposing the marina. MR. TURNER-Stated that these will be read at the hearing. MR. DUSEK-Stated that Town law does provide that there is a mandatory stay in any proceedings 3 '"-- by the Zoning Administrator once the variance has been applied for which has happened here. The Town is unable to take any action in any event. Thinks that at the time the agreements were made that was one of the elements that was considered. Wanted to verify this. MRS. GOETZ-Asked why not go with what is legal? MR. DUSEK-Stated that the deal, so to speak, was not just an agreement which was primarily at the point where there was a question that had to be decided by this Board and was decided and the assumption was that the variance would be immediately decided this month. Since this hasn't happened, I will look into the matter again. AREA VARIANCE NO. 94-1989 SFR-IO DAWN SWEET MALLORY AVENUE, OFF SHERMAN AVENUE BETWEEN VETERANS DRIVE AND WESTERN AVENUE TO MAINTAIN THE ABOVE GROUND SWIMMING POOL AND CONSTRUCT A 6 FT. FENCE IN A SIDE YARD AREA. TAX MAP NO.ll7-2-5 SECTION 7.074 (4) (b) LOT SIZE: 65 FT. BY 106 FT. DA WN SWEET PRESENT MR. TURNER-Asked if the contractor for the pool told her she had to have a permit? MS. SWEET-Assumed that the contractor would do everything. MRS. GOETZ-Asked did she find out that this wasn't the way it should be? MS. SWEET-Stated when the Town told her. MR. TURNER-Asked why does she want the 6 foot high fence? MS. SWEET -Stated it doesn't have to be 6 feet. MRS. EGGLESTON-Asked if she had plans on moving the pool back? MR. TURNER-Stated the pool could go where the proposed garage is going to be and the garage could go in the side yard. MS. SWEET-Stated she can't drive over where the pool is because the septic is in front. Stated that the problem with going with the front is that the driveway is only going to be there for a short time I'm not going to own all of that only what's on the plans. The driveway is technically not on my property. We plan on coming in off Harris street. MRS. EGGLESTON-Asked if she owned the property on Harris Street? MS. SWEET-Yes. MR. KELLEY-Asked if the proposed garage is going to be 18 ft. by 24 ft. MS. SWEET-Stated these are the plans that are drawn up for it. It could be smaller or bigger. MR. KELLEY-Asked which way the garage doors would face? MS. SWEET-Stated from Harris Street. MR. KELLEY-Asked how far the proposed garage would be from the property line? MS. SWEET-Stated probably 12 or 14 feet. MR. KELLEY-Stated that there are things that have to be considered. Asked if the garage was going to meet the zoning requirements? MS. SWEET-Yes. Stated it's 75 feet from the pool to the property line. MRS. EGGLESTON-Asked why can't she move the pool back? MS. SWEET-Doesn't understand the reasoning if the fence was up why would the pool have to be moved back? MRS. EGGLESTON-Stated the fence would have to be very close to the road and as you turn down the road all you will see is a fence. Trying to encourage to move the pool in your backyard or at least move it back. MS. SWEET-Stated she could move it back, but it would require taking it down getting a contractor 4 '------ -- this would be costly. MR. TURNER-Asked who the contractor was? MS. SWEET-Jim Rossi Pool Service. MRS. EGGLESTON-Stated when you drive into the street from Sherman Avenue there sits the pool. Stated this would block the view of neighbors. MS. SWEET-Stated that she doesn't have any neighbors. There are no houses directly across the street. You have Mallory, Harris, my house then three vacant lots. MR. TURNER-Stated that although the lots might be vacant now there are buildable lots. This doesn't make the lots across the road very salable with the pool in the front yard. Asked how long the pool has been up? MS. SWEET-Since July 6th. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Petition with regard to the existing pool on Mallory Avenue. Neighbors in support of area variance no. 94-1989, petition signed 14 signatures. (on file) STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (on file) DISCUSSION HELD MR. TURNER-Asked where the septic was in relation to the pool? MS. SWEET EXPLAINED TO BOARD LOCATION OF SEPTIC MR. KELLEY -Stated what's on the application is different than what's on the map. MS. SWEET-Stated at this point right now she owns everything, but it's drawn up in a settlement that I have half of the vacant lots this is where the dimensions come from. It hasn't been signed, but is drawn up. MR. MULLER-Stated in granting the relief that is needed we need to know the proper setbacks. Asked if she knows how much frontage she has on Mallory A venue as of today? MS. SWEET-Stated she could get the document for the Board. MR. TURNER-Stated you need to show exactly what you own. MR. MULLER-Stated by looking at the drawing we cannot tell how far the house is from the boundary line, the pool is from the boundary line. MR. KELLEY-Stated they also need to know the diameter of the pool. MR. TURNER-Stated she needs a drawing to scale. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 94-1989, DAWN SWEET,lntroduced by Susan Goetz who moved for its adoption, seconded by Daniel Griffin: Table so the applicant can provide exact dimensions of her property. The applicant must be clear as to what property she owns and present a plan drawn to scale. Duly adopted this 23rd day of August, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Griffin, Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Muller, Mr. Turner NOES: None 5 ',- --- --' ABSENT:N one AREA VARIANCE NO. 95-1989 SR-IA ANTHONY AND MINDY MIFSUD QUEENSBURY FOREST DEVELOPMENT BRIGGS COURT, LAST HOUSE ON RIGHT NUMBER 22 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 6 FT. FENCE IN THE FRONT AND SIDE YARD. TAX MAP NO. 121-ll-3 SECTION 7.091 B, 7.090 C LOT SIZE: 0.51 ACRES ANTHONY AND MINDY MIFSUD PRESENT MR. TURNER-Asked if there is a convenant in the deed with restrictions to have fences in the subdivision? MR. MIFSUD-No. Stated there are no deed restrictions. There is a convenant that exists but is heresay. In the convenant it states that you can have a 4 foot fence, however, if you're going to have a swimming pool installed you can have a 6 foot fence. Handed copy of deed restriction to the Board. Have 25 letters of support from neighbors submitted to the Board. Mr. Mifsud read the following letter: Patricia Cameron 12 Briggs Court Queensbury, N. Y. 12804 Susan Goetz, Secretary Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Queensbury Warren County, NY re: Variance of: Anthony and Mindy Mifsud To whom it may concern: As an owner of property in the immediate vicinity of the property of Anthony and Mindy Mifsud I would like to comment on the proposed construction of a 6 ft. fence in the front and side yard of their property. I am in favor of the project and feel that it would not detract from the aesthetics of the development. It may in fact add to the overall individuality of the homes in Queensbury Forest. The development is in fact a very young family oriented place to live and each of us is concerned with very young children having such easy access to Peggy Ann Road and Ferriss Road where traffic is becoming increasingly heavier and speeds increasingly faster. The Mifsuds have definitely shown that they are concerned with the aesthetics of Queensbury Forest, their new home reflects the care and pride they have invested in a place they have chosen to raise their children. I am certain that their plans for the proposed fence will be as pleasant an addition to Queensbury Forest as have all of their landscaping and home improvement projects. Thank you for the opportunity to express my opinion. Yours Truly, /s/ Patricia Cameron, Ph. D. 12 Briggs Court Queensbury Forest Queensbury, N.Y. 12804 MR. MULLER-Stated in the document that they presented is not a copy of the actual recording, but believes that this has been recorded in the Warren County Clerk's Office titled Declaration of Restrictions and Easements by Masulo Brothers Builder Inc., for Queensbury Forest. Stated number five addresses the issue of what is called protective screening and fences. Basically what is happening here is that the developer is restricting what fences or screening can be placed on these lots. It says, any fence, wall or screen located on a lot shall be maintained by the grantee, (this would be the purchaser of the lot) the grantee of such lot in a neat and orderly condition. No fence, wall or screen shall be maintained so as to obstruct the site lines for vehicular traffic. No fence, wall or screen shall be permitted in the front of any lot except as specifically set forth herein any, fence wall or screen located on the lot shall not be more than 4 feet in height. If the fence, wall or screen encloses a swimming pool, such fence, wall 6 '-- or screen shall not be more than 6 feet in height. Stated that this is not the key as to whether or not these are enforceable. Stated if the Zoning Board were to take action, I think that your still restrictive and prohibited which is that your asking for something that the developer has said to you, you can't do. Thinks what he has in his subdivision is a prohibition on this type of fence. Asked he proposes to get around this? MR. MISFUD-Stated that it says, if you install a swimming pool. MR. MULLER-Stated it said you could have a 6 foot fence if it encloses a swimming pool. Stated it sounds like there is a restriction in what you want to do. Stated this type of restriction could be change. MRS. MISFUD-Stated that they could put in a pool. MR. TURNER-Stated that the fence would have to go up right afterwards. MR. MISFUD-Stated that Lou Masulo and Jim Revena who are the developers mentioned to us two days ago and said that we could do this. MR. MULLER-Stated that the fact that Mr. Masulo writes a letter doesn't undo a restrictive covenant. Stated that if the Board were to favor the application subject to getting the restriction lifted doesn't think it's going to help. MRS. MIFSUD-Asked how would they go about getting this change so they could put up a fence? Asked what Masulo's definition of a front yard was compared to the Town's? MR. MULLER-Stated your controversy or your concern is not with the Town, but in reality it's your developer that has prohibited you. MRS. MIFSUD-Asked what she needed to do go to the developer and say, define what you consider my front yard. If he says my front yard is Briggs Court which I'm to believe it is then I have the right to put up a fence which I consider my side yard. MR. MULLER-Stated that you could put up a fence with other permission that you obtain from the Town that will not be in violation of the restriction. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 95-1989, ANTHONY AND MINDY MlFSUD,lntroduced by Michael Muller who moved for it's adoption, seconded by Mr. Turner: To table until the applicant can produce proof that the deed restriction is no longer required, this could be by court order or mutual consent of neighbors. After the proof is presented the application will be placed on the agenda. Duly adopted this 23rd day of August, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Griffin, Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Muller, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:N one SIGN VARIANCE NO. 96-]989 PC-]A AVIATION ROAD DEVELOPMENT HOWARD JOHNSON MOTOR LODGE/REST. AVIATION ROAD TO REPLACE THE EXISTING FREESTANDING SIGN WITH A NEW FREESTANDING SIGN OVER THE ALLOWABLE HillGHT (25 FT. ALLOWED, 32 FT. REQUESTED); AND GREATER THAN THE ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE (100 SQ. FT. REQUESTED). (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 98,]-1-1 SECTION: SIGN ORDINANCE LOT SIZE: N/A MALCOLM O'HARA REPRESENTING AVIATION ROAD DEVELOPMENT/JIM DIER SIGNS OF PROGRESS PLANS SHOWN TO BOARD MR. O'HARA-Stated that the piece of property is unique in the interpretation of the Queensbury Sign Ordinance impact on this property. It's been the interpretation, I believe of this Board in order to have a separate business on the premises you have to have separate I.D. numbers. Each business in entitled to their own sign. The Howard Johnson Motel and Restaurant are separate pieces of property they are separately owned. They have for years combined on one sign which was grandfathered when the current Sign Ordinance was passed this variance expired in August of 1986, we applied for a variance of the existing sign at that time and were denied. The Warren County Planning Board has approved this. Stated what the sign would do is take 7 '- ..----- two businesses each whom would be entitled to a 50 or 64 square foot sign depending on their setback and combine it into one 100 sq. ft. sign on one of the businesses parcels. It's the logical and convenient place to locate the sign and it's the obvious place to attract tourists off the northway. We think it cuts down on the visual pollution by reducing the impact of two separate signs. The sign also required a height variance due to the grade of the property. We seek to have a 32 foot high sign the Ordinance permits a 25 foot high sign. MRS. GOETZ-Stated she has a problem with the height of the sign. Doesn't think they need it higher than 25 feet. You're listed on the northway signage both ways. Going south from 20 your totally visible. Referred to letter of October 30th, 1987. You said, it is our intention to continue with our appeals to the court. .. Has a problem with now your back in, but I want to work with you too. JIM DIER-Stated that the grade compensation from the center of the roadway from Aviation Road to the base of the sign drops between 5 and 7 feet. The bridge for the northway crest higher than the roadway from the restaurant. Basically what we're trying to do in asking for the increase for the height is have the geographic base located at the same terrain level that another business up the road and maybe 150 feet across the road who his sign would be legally 6 or 7 feet higher than our sign. Concerned with keeping the lowest portion of the sign high enough above the road so when traffic passes by or your looking at from a distance or close proximity that we can see the topping on the sign. Trying to have the same advertising advantage essentially at the 25 ft. elevation, but at the proper grade level. MR. SICARD-Asked if he was saying that you can't see the sign at the legal height coming down the southbound lane? MR. DIER-Stated the current sign in place now is 38 feet high. We are going to be located 5 feet lower which would essentially be the whole top section to the top of our sign. MR. SICARD-Stated his concern is also the height of the sign. Stated that with the Carl R sign they set up a temporary mark and that was what the decision was based on. MRS. GOETZ-Asked Mr. Dier if he put the temporary mark on the Carl R sign? MR. DIER-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-Asked Mr. Sicard if he was saying that he would like this down again? MR. SICARD-Stated that it is a good way to determine the height. MR. MULLER-Asked if the footprint of the sign sits in the parking lot? MR. O'HARA-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-Stated that she found it helpful when Carl R had they're's spotted. MR. O'HARA-Asked if they could vote on the area portion of the variance then we could spot the sign and review the determination ourselves as to whether we feel the height portion is necessary to pursue. If we find after we spot the sign and you have been able to see the sign spotted that we don't need the height variance then we wouldn't have to come back. MRS. GOETZ-Stated that they have to vote on what has been proposed. MR. DUSEK-Stated that the Board has some flexibility. If the applicant wanted to withdraw that part of the variance, the height of the sign this may be one way to handle it. To spJit the variance and grant parcel approval and leave the other part pending, I don't know of anything saying you can't do it that way. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED BOB PATTERSON-resident of the Town of Queensbury, speaking on behalf of my mother who lives across the street from Howard Johnson, also as a person who uses that road a lot. Since you have put up the light the traffic hazard there of rear ends, I've seen at least three or four rear ends myself already just driving through there. I can't see where a larger sign will be a benefit, in fact I can say it's a detriment. It's one more thing to distract people's attention. That area, the neighborhood where I grew up has seen a tremendous development. I remember before the Northway, it's quite a different place the neighborhood is under seize by commercial development, of course, it has benefited Queensbury tremendously our new building and so on, but some area have suffered more than others and I think that area has suffered quite a bit. Over the last five years I think I got a call from my mom about at least five or six different variances up and down the Aviation Road it seems like a normal occurrence. I say, enough is enough the Town tax payers paid our elective representatives to work out a sign ordinance 8 ----- - and spent hundreds of dollars probably working this thing out and I say, let's live with it. MR. SICARD-Are you referring to the larger sign or the higher sign? There are two items here that they are talking about. Basically they're entitled by reason of the fact that they have two business and are entitled to two signs. What they have done very nicely is consolidate two businesses into one sign they have reduced one pylon which is reducing if you wish coming up Exit 18 on the egress they've increase the amount that you can see on the road itself coming up to the light. The thing is the height one of the things that we're talking about basically was the height of the sign. By reducing the height in. . .you'll reduce of the amount of obstruction for people on all sections. I agree with you on many things, but I seem to be pretty well satisfied and comfortable with the site itself to do. .. As Mr. Muller just said, they have made some concessions here. I'm satisfied with the site as it is the thing that I'm not satisfied with is that their going up into this type of height if you don't need it, why do it. MR. PATTERSON-That's basically what I'm concerned about. There is a clump of trees that does protect that house. It doesn't seem reasonable that Papa Gino's could come in for a variance for a couple hundred feet and they are way down at the bottom of Aviation Road hill. MRS. GOETZ-We turned down Burger King, they didn't want it higher, but they wanted to add. .. MR. SICARD-I think what you've said, there is enough sign and hazardous on that road especially in that particular area without having two signs. If you have to take this into consideration. MR. PATTERSON-It's the height that I'm worried about. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Warren County Planning Board approved, overall the size and the height. (on file) Letter to the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals from Robert Eddy, 17 Owen Avenue. Suggested before the Zoning Board of Appeals makes a final decision the applicant should be referred to the Planning Board. If this suggestion is acceptable to the applicant the application can incorporate this. Not speaking for the Zoning Board of Appeals or the Planning Board, but this suggestion might appeal to the applicant. To seek an oversize sign or menu sign should be denied. (on file) MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 96-1989, AVIATION ROAD DEVELOPMENT, HOWARD JOHNSON MOTOR LODGE/REST.,lntroduced by Michael Muller who moved for its adoption, seconded by Susan Goetz: To approve the combined sign of 100 square feet with no variance from the Ordinance on the height. The applicant has shown no need for relief on the height. Duly adopted this 23rd day of August, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Griffin, Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Muller NOES: None ABSTAIN: Mr. Turner ABSENT: None AREA VARIANCE NO. 97-1989 LI-lA LOGGERS EQmPMENT OFF CORINTH ROAD BEIßND NORTH COUNTRY SIGNS ON MICIßGAN A VENUE TO CONSTRUCT A NEW F AClI~ITY FOR STORAGE AND SALES OF HEAVY EQmPMENT. THE SITE DOES NOT HAVE THE 40 FT. FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC ROAD. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 127-8-25.2 SECTION 7.077 LOT SIZE: 4.39 ACRES MARK SCHACHNER FIRM OF MILLER, MANNIX, PRATT REPRESENTING LOGGERS EQUIPMENT SALES/BILL BUCKINGHAM OWNER OF LOGGERS EQUIPMENT MR. SCHACHNER-Stated that the reason they are here tonight is to discuss the area variance that pertains to the acquirement of ownership of public road frontage of 40 feet. What is proposed is to come in off the Corinth Road to a 50 foot right-of-way to the back portion of the site which is very secluded. (Submitted aerial photographs of property to the Board) Stated the operation will be hidden in all respects. I MR. TURNER-Asked if a buffer will be maintained all the way around the property? 9 ,-..~ --./ MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. Stated that there will be an access to the right-of-way and the rest of the buffer will be maintained. MR. TURNER-Asked if they were going to thin out the under brush in the buffer? MR. SCHACHNER-Stated as far I know we're not going to touch it. MR. SICARD-Stated in the application it states servicing and parking of heavy equipment. Asked what kind of service etc? MR. BUCKINGHAM-Stated they generally have approximately a million dollars worth of inventory. Generally have about 5 new trucks and between 6 and 10 used trucks; approximately 10 log skidders; 5 used log skidders; and about 10 to 15 used log rollers. MR. SICARD-Asked if he was saying that he was going to have 35 to 40 large vehicles? MR. BUCKINGHAM-Yes. Stated that they own an acre of land and we have room for this. MR. SICARD-Asked what would be the hours and days of operation? MR. BUCKINGHAM-Stated Monday through Friday, 6:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., no weekends. MR. SCHACHNER-Stated this is a facility that does generate noise. Thinks it's important to keep in mind the distance and the buffer zone. Going to be coming back in several hundred feet on the total site which is 4 times the size of the current size. Proposing to use the 50 foot right-of-way that gets us back off the Corinth Road and maintain the buffer all the way around so it will be a visual buffer and to some extent a noise buffer. MRS. GOETZ-Asked how many logging trucks go in and out in a day? MR. BUCKINGHAM-Stated it varys between 5 and 12 trucks. MRS. EGGLESTON-Stated that the new routes of the fire trucks that come over Luzerne Road and down the Corinth Road, there has already been one bad accident on that road. MR. SCHACHNER-Stated that there is an alternative which would be to come in off Michigan and Wisconsin. Thinks this would be worse from the prospective of the Town. I know that Corinth has the capacity to handle this kind of traffic with no problem. MR. MULLER-Asked if the Board were to approve this does it go to the Planning Board? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. MR. MULLER-Asked if they were creating a parcel out of a larger parcel? MR. SCHACHNER-Stated that there is a two lot subdivision occurring. Stated that the entire rectangle is one parcel and Loggers is going to purchase the rear portion of that. MR. MULLER-Asked if the grantor is going to retain the 2.5 acres? MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. MULLER-Asked if the grantor is going to be giving the right-of-way through some of the property that they are retaining? MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. MULLER-Asked if Corinth Road is an arterial? MR. GORALSKI-Yes it is. They are not creating a lot on Corinth Road that's why they are asking for the right-of-way. Stated that are talking about creating a lot that does not have physical access on a public road. It does have frontage on Michigan Avenue. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED TOM JOHNSON-TAPE ILLEGIBLE MR. TURNER-When we had meetings on the new Zoning Ordinance this was drawn out as being light industrial you should have come in and made some complaints then. 10 ,-.~ LAURA JOHNSON-We did go. MR. TURNER"'""Did you go more than once? MR. JOHNSON-Once. As Mrs. Eggleston said right across the road from Country Signs there is going to be a big industrial park there is plenty of room right there where Northern Distributing is. MR. TURNER-This is a permitted use in that zone. MRS. EGGLESTON-Mr. Chairman, what about his question of having three business on a right-of-way. MR. TURNER-I missed that one when he said it. MR. JOHNSON-On that roadway I don't understand the roadway from the Corinth Road. How wide does that have to be? MR. TURNER-40 feet. MR. JOHNSON-Forty feet wide, how about a buffer between the house, the road and the other properties? MR. TURNER-Let me just read to you what can go in there. Light industrial allowed use all by site plan review: freight terminals, extraction of sand, stone, and gravel, restaurant, batch plant, building supplies, lumber yard, light manufacturer's assembly or other industrial research operation that meet with the requirements of the Ordinance. Warehouse, wholesale business, laboratory, office building in excess of 10,000 sq. ft., truck repair facility, heavy machinery repair facility, T.Y.. and radio station, construction company, logging company, heavy equipment storage, heavy equipment sales, junk yard, agricultural service use. These are all permitted. MRS. EGGLESTON-Actually if you looked on Big Boom Road in the light industrial you would realize that there is not much that you can't put in there. MRS. JOHNSON-We realize that. In his thing he is saying he is moving from a basically residential, I realize it's zoned that way, but it's in the middle of a residential zone. There are houses all the way around this is the point we're trying to make we realize it's zoned that way. Like I said, that being totally surrounded with that kind of noisy business with the residents all the way around. MRS. EGGLESTON-It covers a lot of territory. MRS. JOHNSON-We realize that. MR. JOHNSON-We like to find out about the road. MR. SCHACHNER-First I think the answer is it is a light industrial zone, obviously we are seeking someplace where we are a permitted use. Mrs. Eggleston and I go back just a few years to know how broad that category can encompass. I think there must be some misunderstanding about the subdivision and how many businesses will be created. First of all, Mr. Buckingham and Loggers don't own any of this right now and he is not subdividing or creating anything. He seeks to occupy the rear 2/3rds of this lot. The grantor, as Mr. MulJer mentioned would retain the front approximately 1/3rd so there would be a total of the two businesses whenever he sells the front 1/3rd too, and our business the North Country Signs is already there. There is no scenario that I'm aware of where three new businesses are being created nor is Mr. Buckingham or Loggers creating anything more than just a Loggers operation. Nothing else will be created by this applicant. Thirdly, on the road I believe the Ordinance requires 40 feet, but what we're actually making is 50 feet for several reasons; (1) As Mrs. Goetz had mentioned we need some extra width. In addition it will provide additional buffer by way of that width. As I mentioned in response to your question Mr. Turner, the entire site is heavily wooded as it is shown in the photographs obviously the entrance way off the Corinth Road right by North Country Signs is already an entrance way and this is how it would stay. MRS. EGGLESTON-I think we would have to agree that the lot. . .was not a previous site. I think I'd asked the Board when they entertain this that there would be a strict revision that the trees would never be removed fro m the buffer zone. The buffer zone is 50 feet and that no part of that be removed or vehicles parked within that through the bush or whatever. MR. SCHACHNER-I'm not sure you may want to ask staff, but I know it's 50 feet in the rear I'm not sure, but it might be 30 feet along the sides. MR. GORALSKI-The only place where there is a requirement for a buffer zone as it is defined in the Ordinance would be at the north end of the lot where it butts the States A venue section. 11 '--'~ There are setback requirements around the remainder of the lot. MR. TURNER-Light industrial is 50 on the front, 30 on the sides, and 30 on the rear. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. MRS. GOETZ-When we rewrote the Zoning Ordinance we were very careful on the description of the buffer zone because we've had so many problems and we should see that this is enforced. I'm going to read it. The buffer zone means an unpaved natural area without buildings designed to do just the possibility of adverse impact on land and water quality and or conflicts land use between two or more areas. No parking or storage of vehicles of any kind or objects associated with the use of the property is permitted. When uninhabited with natural woodyp1ants such as trees and shrubs sufficient to visual screen adjoining uses or zones such buffer areas shall be planted regrated and or fenced as approved by the Queensbury Beautification Committee. I don't think Mr. Buckingham would want any trouble I can't see why he wouldn't abide by the buffer zone. MR. SCHACHNER-We are in agreement to keep the buffer zone. What I was pointing out is that it is 50 feet on the north end adjacent to the Michigan and Wisconsin Avenues and it's 30 feet along the sides. We will leave that the forest that it is today, absolutely true. I just wanted to point out one more thing since Mrs. Goetz has just mentioned the buffer definition and it involves the Beautification Committee. I hope the Board realizes that the early communication from Mr. Eddy recommending denial has been superceded by the letter that you have received from him today. Much to my surprise when I spoke to Mr. Eddy on the telephone he didn't realize that the application was to go off the Corinth Road, he was still with us up on Lawton Avenue. That's why you have the new letter. MR. JOHNSON-On the right-of-way he said the 40 foot width of the road. MR. TURNER-That's what is required. MR. JOHNSON-Does this cover buffer? MR. TURNER-He is going 50 feet. MR. MULLER-There is no buffer in the right-of-way. Why don't you take a lock at this. MR. KELLEY-Here is the Corinth Road (refers to map) he is actually going to propose 50 feet of this right-of-way to get to his property. The only buffer that he is required to have is 50 feet back here (refers to map). He doesn't have to have anything on either side. MR. JOHNSON-It won't affect this lot here. (refers to map) MR. KELLEY-The way the Ordinance reads, I believe it's the buffer where it adjoins the residential zone. I believe the property to this side is still this light industrial 1 acre zone. The actual residential zone is somewhere over in here. MR. JOHNSON-What I'm trying to get at is that they give them right-of-way here all of a sudden this is subdivided to me. MR. MULLER-It is. MR. JOHNSON-There is one lot there and now he is making it two lots that would be subdividing. The way I understood that you have to. . . a public road. MR. TURNER-You do that's why he is here. MR. JOHNSON-Okay. That's why I'm against it plus the noise. MR. KELLEY-A 50 foct buffer zone was enacted to protect residential houses. The way the \ Ordinance reads it doesn't really effect us maybe the way that it should. I agree with the 50 foot buffer on the north side of the property where it comes out on Wisconsin and Michigan A venue that abuts the residential zone. To the west side of the piece of property there has to be 6 different residences I would say they are in a light industrial zone so therefore they don't need to be buffered. However, as a home owners I think I would want it buffered on that side as well. The Ordinance doesn't call for that. MR. TURNER-He is agreeing to leave a 30 foot buffer along the sides. MR. KELLEY-A buffer or a setback? MR. SCHACHNER-It's a setback that we will leave as a buffer. 12 - -~~- MR. TURNER-They are going to leave the trees in the 30 foot setback as a buffer. MR. KELLEY-So it's 30 feet, not 50? MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. Let me point out one more thing which is the applicant would a18(; be willing to construct a fence to assure that buffer remains that way on the inside border of that buffer. I would assume it would be to every ones advantage including the applicant. MR. MULLER-Or as the fence is designed an inner perimeter of 30 feet back from sor.1e residences and 50 feet back Wisconsin and Michigan A venue. MR. SCHACHNER-Precisely. Instead of on the property line on the inner border. That will also cut off the access to the Wisconsin and Michigan Road. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Letter dated August 21, 1989 from C. Thew & Elia Thew, in opposition of area variance no. 97-1989. (on file) STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (on file) Letter dated August 23, 1989 from Robert Eddy, Queensbury Beautification Committee. This letter offset an earlier communication August 7, 1989 which disapproved. (on file) Warren County Planning approved. (on file) PUBLIC HEARING REOPENED MILTON BAREFOOT-resident of Michigan Avenue. Just a couple things I would like to point out why I would be opposed to this application is mainly that I believe the West Mountain area if it keeps developing more and more is going to cause more traffic than there is already. On this map, I would like to point out my residence is in the upper right hand corner at the end of Michigan A venue there is a fence. That fence is in line with approximately one foot on the pavement area is not fenced on there. Mrs. Goetz, when you were down on Michigan A venue the other day if you drove a little bit farther you could go right straight through the buffer zone the same thing also on Wisconsin A venue. I also had another question about Illinois A venue which is more to the opposite side of Michigan A venue. I had a question earlier which was answered earlier. I was going to request a fence to be put around the buffer one on the inside instead of the way the plans show it. The employees as traffic builds on the Corinth Road will say, look I don't want to go out into traffic they might come out Michigan Avenue or Wisconsin. The area of land at the end of Illinois A venue is like a desert it is not a wooded area. Any three of the road you can drive a car right straight through and keep right on going to the Corinth Road. Other than that I would be more than happy to see some land occupied. I would really like to see all of the three roads built right through with residences. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 97-1989, LOGGERS EQUIPMENT,Introduced by Jeffrey Kelley who moved for its adoption, seconded by Daniel Griffin: This is a request for an area variance pertaining to the fact that the main entrance to this property is on a right-of-way and not on a Town road. Testimony has been given showing this to be a reasonable request the actual property is on two Town roads. The applicant has chosen not to locate there, this would create heavy traffic through a residential zone. The proposal is a lessening of the impact on the neighborhood. The use is permitted in the zone by site plan review. The applicant has offered to put a fence on the inside of the property along the perimeter 50' on the north within the buffer zone, on the west side it would be at 30 feet, the south property line 30 feet, the east the fence would follow the property line. The recommendation is that there be no increase in the use or subdivision of the parcel unless physical access to Corinth Road is provided. Duly adopted this 23rd day of August, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Griffin, Mr. Muller, Mr. Turner NOES: Mrs. Eggleston ABSENT:N one AREA VARIANCE NO. 90-1989 ROBERT LENT MOONmLL ROAD 13 -."-' -- KEITH MANZ LAND DEVELOPMENT MANAGING ENGINEER C. T. MALE REPRESENTING MR. ROBERT LENT MAP SHOWN TO BOARD MR. GOETZ-Stated this was tabled last week so the applicant could return to the Zoning Board of Appeals in one week and have a map showing everything that is on the land. MR. MANZ-Stated that last week there were three remaining survey issues that the Board wanted resolved prior to acting on the area variance. One of them affected Parcel B, as of the last meeting there wasn't a clear location of the two existing driveways that go into Mr. Hana's property. The map now shows the two driveways located as well as the structures on his property. Both driveways to go across Mr. Lent's property on the way to Mr. Hana's. There are no easements on this property. They claim that there is an easement by prescription, but no easement by prescription can exist unless it's been heard by a Judge, therefore the map as submitted stands as being correct. Within the last week Mr. Lent has been in touch with Mr. Hana's lawyer and has offered a proposal to grant him an easement across Mr. Lent's property. Two points essentially are agreed upon by Mr. Hana. One of the points is this red area (refers to map) shows a 15 foot proposed easement he essentially agrees with this. The two driveways do not go up along this easement so Mr. Lent has offered to provide two loads of gravel, labor and equipment needed to relocate the driveway near Mr. Hana's house onto the propose easement. Mr. Hana, according to Mr. Lent was in agreement with this. The third point is Mr. Hana is requesting that Mr. Lent pay Mr. Hana a sum of $2,000 to grant Mr. Lent this easement. Mr. Lent feels this is not reasonable since he is granting the easement which he essentially doesn't have to do because Mr. Hana does have access directly to Moonhill Road, so there is no hardship case. If it did come down to a . . . and an easement by prescription that might not even be granted because although he has been using these two drives for years he could have his own driveway directly opposite Moonhill Road. Right now we're at an impasse, but I go back to my original statement that this is more or less a civil issue and the philosophy of that variance of these two lots could still be acted upon this evening. Spoke with John Goralski on this issue he was going to speak to the Town Attorney to get his opinion on that. MR. DUSEK-Stated when this came up the first time my primary concern was that we didn't know bif the map was accurate. Now that the Board has in front of them what exists here I think you know more about it, and now you can make a decision as to whether you feel that particular easement, let's assume for the moment it is an easement does that impact the application that is before you. The application that is before you is to simply add land to an existing lot. I guess the question is how would that really affect the easement now that you can see it there. Now that you know, I think you could answer that question. If you find that it affects what your doing then something has to be ironed out about it, but if you find that it does not affect what your doing adding more land to this lot then I think you can go ahead and entertain the application. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED HAROLD RA THBUN-Moonhill Road, grantor of the original deed to Robert Lent. The easement your talking about, Robert Lent never owned that property it was never intended that Robert Lent own that property. All he had was a right-of-way through that 128 feet. I have here his original purchase offer, as you can see by reading this purchase offer he found it necessary to have the grantor furnish him with two right-of-ways since he had none on a public highway. The deed that on their own map. . . the right-of-way is explained here. (refers to deed) For somebody to say that they will give somebody a easement on something they don't own is pathetic. MR. MULLER-Mr. Lent and yourself entered into a contract for approximately 12 acres of land? MR. RATHBUN-Right. MR. MULLER-That 12 acres of land you produced a deed here that is between Mr. Lent and Joseph Paeglow to Robert Lent, of course, that's not the deed from yourself to Mr. Lent. MR. RATHBUN-That is the deed that is referred to that has the ambiguities that is in the ledger of C.T. Male survey map. MR. MULLER-The contract is not going to help us an awful lot because it gets swallowed up in the deed. The deed is extremely important, but the deed that you handed to me is a deed that is between Mr. Lent and another individual to Mr. Lent, that's a 1980 deed, was there a deed in 65? MR. RATHBUN-In 1965 I deeded to Robert Lent and Arleen Lent, his wife. 14 ----- ~ MR. MULLER-The deed in 1965 we don't have. MR. RA THBUN-I have it. MR. MULLER-Can we see that? MR. RATHBUN-Yes. MR. MULLER-The deed that you first look at there is a reference in there after the entire deed description it says, is the intent of the parties hearing that the 128 feet as set forth in the first paragraph of this deed and indicated as north 27 degrees west, a distance of 128 feet is to border and run along County Highway known as Moonhill Road to provided ingress and egress to the land. . . convey. I haven't had any time to read the description, but what is it your saying that meant? MR. RATHBUN-I had a road that I had brought in to that 128 feet that went back to the property that I deeded to him. MR. KELLEY-Can you show us where it is on here? MR. RATHBUN-Right here. MR. MULLER-The transaction Rathbun to Harney is that what you are saying? MR. RATHBUN-It never happened. That's why I made it very clear to Robert Lent that he was not buying the 128 feet that went off of Moonhill Road, only have it to use as access. MR. MULLER-Have you reviewed these deeds? MR. MANZ-I have not reviewed the deed per say. Our survey group manager has reviewed all the deeds. They're the ones who actually performed the boundary survey. I just like to point out that Lot B is an existing lot that has been created and filed as well as Lot A, and Lot C. Lot B, as shown is what is filed is correct. That triangular piece of those two driveways coming in maybe it wasn't suppose to have been sold, but that is an existing lot with the variable distance as shown on the map,. . .a building permit may have been issued on that lot I'm not sure. It has to be an existing lot or the 54,200 wouldn't come out and conform with the existing zoning. MR. MULLER-What is today know as the Hanna lot used to be the Harney lot. MR. RATHBUN-Right. Hanna's present and talked to Harney prior to the meeting tonight. MR. MULLER-There was a gentlemen's agreement if you will, that you had with Harney about conveying some more property to Harney at the time he owned the lot there, and that never came about? MR. RATHBUN-Correct. Harney couldn't afford it. MR. MULLER-That never came about and then there came a time that you transferred the property to Mr. and Mrs. Lent? MR.RATHBUN-CoITect. MR. MULLER-Within this deed there is a reservation or limitation you have held back on some of your property in otherwords you left a little slice in there? MR. RA THBUN-. . .a added triangle to the ease of their right-of-way that Harney would of had a private home to the west. We created two triangles one would have been Lent's when he got it properly survey. When he did survey we had no problem allowing Harney to have that land and he take the other side. MR. MULLER-Hanna the lot that was formally Harney's, and the land that you convey to Lent there would be a piece of property between those two? MR. RATHBUN-Correct. MR. MULLER-You would of have reserved you never transferred it to? MR. RATHBUN-It was never my intent to transfer it. 15 -- MR. MULLER-You never transferred it to Harney or Hanna, and never to Lent? MR. MULLER-Correct. MR. MULLER-If what you say is so logical you would be the owner of that piece. MR. RATHBUN-Logical. MR. MULLER-It's possible that it was also conveyed to Mr. Lent. I haven't had the opportunity to plot this out and the surveyor has. He has said there is no land between the two boundaries. You have a different set of facts, he's not saying that there is no driveway there, he is saying there is no land there when they measured it. You dispute that and say that there is a piece in there. MR. RATHBUN-There is. There are enough ambiguities in that deed. . . if he will sit down with me we will come up with what we originally agreed to. He will not have one foot less in that original agreement, and he will not have one foot more. (Map shown to Board) They said the road frontage on this came from highway map #63. Showed to the Board what property he owns. Everyone along this highway at the time of construction. . .was entitled to a 50 foot blacktop access. Harney gave up on his because we put one in over here (refers to map) we have a garage in this corner facing that right-of-way facing east. For years he drove into that right-of-way and drove into his garage. MR. MULLER-In what you say, if it's so, would be reflected there as the angle piece. It's one of these things of the three things that are controversy. MR. RATHBUN-I believe they're going way over to the edge of the now existing Hanna property. MR. MANZ-First of all, Lot B is an existing lot and it's filed. If any individual has a disagreement with any misfiled deed, they can litigate and come to some reasonable conclusion, but let's assume that piece is not owned by Lent, if that isn't owned by Lent, in reality that even gives us more of a reason to want to add area to this lot because this lot would even be smaller and would need this area added to it so access to this lot could be provided from this proposed cuI da sac. If anything that makes your decision with respect to the area variance even more reasonable. This may be a condition that the situation gets litigated to the final subdivision approval, but for the area variance if anything it just makes it a stronger case. MR. MULLER-This Board could grant the relief that you need for the reasons that are appropriate and reserve to Mr. Hanna, Mr. Rathbun, and whoever else may have rights, whatever rights they have, you don't take them away. MRS. GOETZ-When I was reading in the file letters of opposition, the letters had a tone that they wanted us not to grant subdivision lots that were less than the required acreage. It doesn't sound like that's what we would be doing if we approved adding land to these lots because isn't that the Planning Board that would be actually granting that? MR. GORALSKI-You have kind of a technicality here. Before the properties Lots 8 and 9 can be conveyed to Lots A and B, they first have to be created by subdivision. In order to create the 22,500 sq. ft. lot and the 35,000 sq. ft. lot you need a variance to do that. We can only be so clear in our notices to the public and we always state on the letters that they come in and review the plans. What I would recommend if you do decide that it's appropriate to retain each lot and you feel that the only way it's appropriate is to have. . .lots you could make this a condition of approval. MRS. GOETZ-Make what a condition of approval? MR. GORALSKI-That your creating Lot 9, only if it's conveyed to Lot A. That your creating Lot 8, only if it's conveyed to Lot B. MRS. GOETZ-If we do that aren't we making a subdivision, that doesn't meet the requirements? MR. GORALSKI-You aren't making a subdivision, what you are doing is your are approving undersize lots. It's up to the Planning Board to approve a subdivision. What your doing actually is after you placed all those conditions you're creating larger lots than now exist. MRS. GOETZ-Right. I'm not against that, but I also don't want to approve a subdivision that doesn't have lots of the size that they should be. MR. MANZ-Just to clarify it. There are actually three existing Lots A, B, and C that join in. . .to the change in zoning. Right now they're one acre and a little over. What we're doing is creating new lots from these undersized lots that already exist and making them bigger than they already are, but they are still not 3 acres. 16 ./ --' -..,....- MRS. GOETZ-Right. MR. MANZ-That's why we need the area variance. MRS. GOETZ-It's not an approved subdivision at this point either. I know they have to get this first, but can't they still be turned down as a approved subdivision? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-I would like to leave that opened; this is my main concern. I don't want to be a part of approving a subdivision prior to final approval that doesn't have lots of the size that they should be under the new Ordinance. MR. GRIFFIN-How close are you to three acres? MR. MANZ-It's about 89,200 as opposed to 120,000 acres roughly. Your talking about Lot B. You are 1 i acres on one and the other about 2 acres. We can make them part of lots across from the proposed cuI da sac; that's another option, but we felt that this is more particular to add them to lots that adjoin them rather than having the pieces across the street from them. If we added them to lots across the street from them they wouldn't be contiguous lots, but we wouldn't have a area variance that was needed. MR. MULLER-Basically let me see if I have an understanding here and maybe to help some of the people out in the audience. Mr. Lent, has some prior rights here he has some undersize Lots A, B, and C. Lot C doesn't enter into this it's separate sold the owner. . .this side of the construction right? MR. MANZ-Lots A, and B are under the same category as Lot C, it's just that Lot C is under construction now. MR. MULLER-With Lot A we're going to (taped turned). . .whoever owns them they are going to be bigger lots in otherwords we're not going to be in a position to approve smaller lots. MR. RATHBUN-My only thing is last week we came in here and we were told that we had to be a licensed engineer; ordinary people didn't understand this thing. It upset me because I spent years on this particular piece of property trying to understand it and be fair about it. To have somebody come in and present a plan, Paragraph 2 said their were ambiguities there so smart we're so stupid; I hate to see a body like yourselves of dedicated citizens be included. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Letter from Denise Hatick, 45 Kings Place, Queensbury. (on file) In opposition of area variance 90-1989. Letter from Carl R. and Barbara W., and Joseph B. DeSantis. In opposition of area variance no. 90-1989. (on file) Letter from Harold Rathbun Sr. in opposition of area variance no. 90-1989. (on file) MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 90-1989, ROBERT LENT,lntroduced by Michael Muller who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Turner: The application seeks an area variance. The applicant has demonstrated they have a preexisting Lot A, and a preexisting Lot B, each lot is undersized for the zone by technically they are adding land, but failing to meet the area needed for the zone. They're meeting the practical difficulty test in that they are alleviating the difficulty by added to the preexisting undersized lot by making it less nonconforming. They're conveying to Lot A, by adding 9, which adds 23,500 sq. ft. additional land. They're conveying to Lot B, by adding 8, which adds 35,000 sq. ft. The resolution doesn't diminish the claims by Mr. Hanna and Mr. Rathbun, these claims will be resolved before the Planning Board can consider this subdivision. Duly adopted this 23rd day of August, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Griffin, Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Muller, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:N one On motion the meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED, Theodore Turner, Chairman 17