Loading...
1989-09-20 ~.- ---- QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 20TH, 1989 INDEX APPLICANT PAGE Sign Variance No. 84-1989 Log Jam Factory Stores I. Area Variance No. 93-1989 Walter Dombek 4. Use Variance No. 98-1989 Frank Parillo 9. Use Variance No. 1001 Stephen C. Britton 9. Area Variance No. 99-1989 Janet Blagbrough 10. Area Variance No. 100-1989 Donald LaPlant II. Area Variance No. 101-1989 George Winters 12. Area Variance No. 102-1989 Anthony Russo 13. Area Variance No. 103-1989 Priscilla Sanderspree 13. Area Variance No. 104-1989 Stephen Borgos 14. "--- OARD OF APPEALS ---" MEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN SUSAN GOETZ, SECRET AR Y CHARLES O. SICARD JEFFREY KELLEY MICHAEL MULLER JOYCE EGGLESTON TOWN ATTORNEY-PAUL DUSEK JOHN GORALSKI, PLANNER PAT COLLARD, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DA VE HA TIN, DIRECTOR OF BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT CORRECTION OF MINUTES August 16th, 1989 Page 5, middle of page Mr. O'Connor, sib 68 feet of relief. Page 4, Wallace Dean sib Wallace Bean. Page ll, top of page, area variance no. 91-1989, 1st sentence s.b the practical difficulty is the narrowness. MOTION TO APPROVE THE AUGUST 16TH, 1989 MINUTES OF THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AS CORRECTED,Introduced by CharI es Sicard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Susan Goetz: A YES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Muller, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:None OLD BUSINESS SIGN VARIANCE NO. 84-1989 HC-lA LOG JAM FACTORY STORES/REST. PETER B. MCHUGH WILLEY CREEK DEVELOPMENT CO., INC. FOR A DIRECTORY SIGN ATTACHED TO THE WALL FACING ROUTE 9. AT THE ROOF PEAK WOULD BE THE LOG JAM INSIGNIA. BELOW WOULD BE THREE DIRECTORY SIGNS APPROX. 4 FT. BY 6 FT. MOUNTED ON THE WALL. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 36-1-34.3 SECTION: SIGN ORDINANCE RONALD DE ANGELIS ATTORNEY FROM SCHENECTADY LAW PARTNER OF PETER MCHUGH, REPRESENTING LOG JAM MRS. GOETZ-Stated in August this application was tabled until September so the applicant could review the previous minutes of the meetings held in 1987. MR. DE ANGLIS-Stated this application is made for a sign variance on behalf of the applicant and he seeks to make use of the directory sign which would be flushed to the first building on the eastern portion of Route 9, in an effort to help traffic and motorist who are proceeding in a northerly direction on Route 9, be able to determine what individual stores are located withm:the shopping center. At the present time they are entitled to one sign which they have and individual stt1>re has a 1 ft. by 4 ft. sign in the front of the stores. Vehicles traveling in a northerly direction are not able to see what individual stores are in the shopping center. Stated the Board has granted variances to other shopping centers in the area in particular the Adirondack Factory Shopping Center, and the Mark Plaza. The minutes of the previous meeting indicate the Board made their decision in that instance that the situation was identical to the situation of the present applicant. After reviewing the minutes, request that the adoption of this variance on the grounds that it is very reasonable and necessary, and it meets all the criteria of the sign variance. MR. TURNER-Stated that the Board granted the variance to the Adirondack Factory Outlet because at the time the motel which is to the north had two cabins which abutted the property of the Adirondack Factory Outlet on the north and they obscured the view of those businesses that were in that mall along with a tree located on the lot. To the south there was a house on the south side near the present border of the Factory Outlet which also obscured the view from the south. Since this time changes have taken place and they're gone. MR. DE ANGLIS-Referred to the minutes of the previous meetings in 1987, in regard to the Mark Plaza the Board indicated the hardship and practical difficulties are that it is considered 1 --~- a shopping center because the buildings are situated perpendicular to the highway you can't --" see the stores going in a westerly direction. In regard to the sign variance granted to the Adirondack Factory Outlet, it indicates that Attorney Bob Stewart explained the layout of the building the back wing extends 300 feet which is blocked by the front wing. Motorists won't be able to see allowed wall signs over each store. Stated that their situation it is exact in that the shopping center is perpendicular to Route 9. Motorists traveling on Route 9 in a northerly direction are unable to see what the shopping center is composed of. The directory signs that we request are small and list each store that is within the shopping center. Thinks that their considerations are exact to the prior applicants. If you did grant us the variance I would respectfully request that it follow it's own precedent. MR. TURNER-Stated that the directory signs are small. The amount of traffic that goes up and down that road, and the situation that you have in the summertime, you're just asking for a c1amity. Feels people will not be able to read the signs that are on the wall. MR. DE ANGELIS-Stated the signs are 4 ft. by 6 ft. MRS. GOETZ-Asked if he thought of making better use of his freestanding sign? MR. DE ANGELIS-Stated he wasn't privy to this. MRS. GOETZ-Stated she suggested this to Mr. McHugh at the last meeting, would like to know what he did about this? MR. DE ANGELIS-Stated that Mr. McHugh didn't relay any information in regard to that. MR. TURNER-Feels that they don't have a problem with drawing people into their plaza. MR. DE ANGELIS-Stated that in all fairness believes that their client is entitled to the same treatment for the same reasons as the other shopping centers in which you have already granted variances. MRS. GOETZ-Stated when they were( talking about Mark Plaza, we were talking about their freestanding sign so we are talking about twao different signs. Would like to know if the Planning Department found any sign violations in the area? STAFF-No. MR. TURNER-Asked if the French Mountain Commons Plaza was in violation? STAFF-No. MRS. GOETZ-Asked Mr. De Angelis to tell Mr. McHugh that the plaza was not in violation because he brought this up at the last meeting. MRS. GOETZ-Read the following letter: 9/5/89 Warren County Planning Board Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Re: Variance # 84-1989 - Log Jam Shopping Center, Lake George Road The Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals has traditionally disregarded reference to other propoerties in reviewing applications for variances. The hardship (s) on the property for which the applicant has applied for a variance is the only evidence considered. As chairman of the Queensbury Committee for Community Beautification I review all variances and site plan applications each month to invite applicants to bring their landscaping, planting and screening plans to assist the Town Zoning Board of Appeals, the Town Planning Board and the Warren County Planning Board in being certain that such plans meet the specifications of Queensbury's Zoning Ordinance. Occasionally, there is a sign variance applications in the files. Due to my fiftenn years connection with and interst in our sign ordinance, fhose applications are given a quick view. In this instance I note that same one representing the applicant has gone to a great deal of trouble to look at sign applications and sign variances of many businesses. To be sure, the files are public property and anyone has the right to look at the files. In this instance many files have been photostated and a great deal of time of employee (s) has been spent on a fruitless venture when such evidence is inadmissible. As a resident and taxpayer 2 "'-, --- -~ I resent the wasting time of employees in this manner. I am ~pposed to the logo being uses as proposed and notified the Willey Creek owners on previous occaSIon. That logo could be placed on the shopping center sign permitted by the ordinance but there is no other place where it can be used. ' In ~ddition, the ?l~cement of the building is a self-imposed hardship. The developers, supposedly, desIgned the buIldmg for the best use of the property. The fact that only southbound motorists are the only ones that can see the face of the stores in the center is not a problem of the Zoning Board of Appeals. With traffic as heavy as it is on that "million dollar half mile" no motorist has an opportunity to determine the stores whether going north or south. With the sidewalk installed all along that strip, the motorist can park anywhere and walk into the plazas to locate the stores in which they may be interested. Respectfully submitted, Isl DISCUSSION HELD MRS. GOETZ-Feels there is room to make better use of the freestanding sign. Would be more willing to grant a variance for this. MR. KELLEY-Asked what is the size of the freestanding sign? MRS. GOETZ-Stated it is 15 feet from the property line. MR. MULLER-Asked if a test on the sign ordinance is hardship? MRS. GOETZ-Stated it's practical difficulty. MR. TURNER-Stated that here you have a applicant that has maximized the property for the total buildout he put his freestanding sign out and has a sign over the businesses that are there although they don't have any visibility from the south. Feels the freestanding sign advertises the buildings adequately. MR. MULLER-Asked that when the Board approved the sign variance for Adirondack Factory Outlet was that one of the considerations was that he was compromising on his sign, he was talking less than what he was entitled too? MRS. GOETZ-R~d the motion that was granted to the Adirondack Factory Mall as follows: Mr. Muller moved approval to place 5 signs on the south side of the building and five sign on the north side of the building. There will be a maximum of 150 square feet of signage on each side. Each side will have 5 maximum 30 square foot signs uniformed in color and size and would be in pyramidal shape. The applicant will select tenants to be advertised as such. Each tenant will have conforming 25 square foot signs on the wall over each tenants store. The unique problem is that the 6 stores cannot be seen from the road it is possible for up to 12 tenants to request 100 square foot signs each of which the Zoning Board of Appeal has strict application of the sign ordinance. The request is in general harmony with the neighborhood and the intent of the ordinance. This applicant is taking 60% of the allowable signage allowed. MR. KELLEY-Stated the sign ordinance says, that each store in the shopping center can have up to 100 square feet of sign. MRS. GOETZ-Stated it has to be over their door. MR. KELLEY-Asked what the signs were over their store? MRS. GOETZ-Stated they are 1 ft. by 4 ft. per store. MR. KELLEY-Asked how many stores were in the mall? MR. DE ANGLIS-Stated 12 stores. MRS. GOETZ-Asked how many stores could he put in the mall? MR. DE ANGELIS-Three more. Stated at the present time the signs in front of each store are 1 ft. by 4 ft. square feet. MR. KELLEY-Stated that he is asking for 10% of what he is allowed. MR. TURNER-Stated his probe1m with this is the traffic. 3 '''--'''-- --- MRS. EGGLESTON-Stated that she can't see where this size sign is going to make a difference. MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 84-1989 LOG JAM FACTORY STORES/REST,Introduced by Jeffrey Kelley who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael Muller: The facts are that they are looking for three 4 ft. by 6 ft. signs on the front of the building. This is 10% of the permitted signage that they could have based on 12 stores. They could have 12 ft. by 100 ft. square foot wall signs, they have twelve 1 ft. by 4 ft. signs they are asking for their three 4 ft. by 6 ft. additional this would be a minimum request. The reason they want them on the front of the building is that the store faces north the traffic flowing north cannot see most of the building there is no way of knowing what stores are contained in the shopping center from the south this is the practical diffiGulty. The configuration of this lot allows the present situation of the building. The proposedLog Jam logo will not be included in this approval. There is a stipulation to the variance, they have requested the three 4 ft. by 6 ft. foot wall directory signs this variance is limited to this and will apply even if more stores are added to the shopping center. What names that are listed are up to the owner, but no more size in signs will be allowed. Duly adopted this 20th day of September, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Muller, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:N one 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 MRS. GOETZ-Stated this was tabled at a previous meeting due to the fact that the neighbor was not properly notified of the variance request. There was an error on the application as to ownership of Mr. Healy's property. We recommended that this would be referred back to the Warren County Planning Board. MR. GORALSKI-Stated that Warren County Planning Board felt they had all the information they needed and the applicant did not reappear. MR. WINN-Stated they did attenp a.meeting on September 13th, 1989 this is when they decided they didn't want to put us on ;thei.fagenda. Stated that this is a application for a variance on the setback for the Meadowbrook mini storage. There are presently four buildings there. Noted that the building at the proposed location would be further away from the residences in the area it would be closer to the Quaker Ford property. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MICHAEL O'CONNOR-law firm of Little and O'Connor, representing Bernard and Margaret Healy who own the property immediate adjancet to the premises of Mr. Dqrnbek, and they do object to the granting of the request for the variance before you. _'lhe!r . use of their property is residential they have now been zoned so their property is now highway commercial. There used to be a 50 foot buffer zone between their property and this particular property which I think is how the property was developed in the past. There was a 50 foot buffer zone that was left they now want to go into that 50 foot buffer zone based upon the rezoning of the property. The requested variance itself I don't think will allow the construction of the building as they had sighted it on the site which I will explain to you in a moment. The basic problem that the Healy's have is that they used to be able to mow the back of their property before the fill and the development of the Dombek property, now th,at.P}'operty is a wet area and they cannot even mow it because of the development. They wish.. to have no further development on the Dombek property mainly for that reason. The point that I bring to your attention is that there is a request here for a setback variance from the back line; I hear nothing discussed as the practical difficulty at all which I think is one of your basic requirements for an area variance. If you also look at the zoning for a highway commercial one acre zone you will see that the side line setback requirement is a minimum of 20 feet and a sum of 50 feet. If you look at the southerly line of this property you will see that they have built the building within 4 '.--..- 20 feet of that southerly line which would require them to have 30 feet on the north line.- __ They propose the building less than 30 feet, in fact they propose a building which is 20 feet on the northerly line. I would want it to be clear, I think it's for a denial of the variance as they've shown it on this particular site. You can't build that building they way that they've sighted it. TlIrIere is::æœ11rth:ér restriction within the Ordinance that says, that there will be a setback for any and all buildings principal an<;J assessory of 75 feet in any stream. You will see that they show a stream which has a partial culvert through their property, this is a stream that runs for the full year. If you take a look at the corner of the building it is less than the required 75 feet from that stream. You will see that they shew a stream which has a partial culvert through their property, this is a stream that runs for the full year. If you take a look at the corner of the building it is less than the required 75 feet from that astream as the stream comes out of the culvert and then runs along the adjoining Healy property. A further question that I would have on the site and I haven't mathematically figured it out because I had sent my mpa on to Brian La F1ure, I don not believe that they still after this construction if you consider the hard surface or the parking areas that they are putting in will have the 30% of green space. What they've presented to you is development to the max, in fact probably beyond the max and they've shown no practical difficulty this is a use that was commenced a copu1e years ago which we persume it was. . . a reasonable return to the applicant tehy simply are coming back and trying ato expand that without any justification. MR. TURNER-On the orgina1 Ordinance Mike, that was highway commercial 500 feet back from Quaker Road. MR. O'CONNOR-I don't know where the original line was to Healy, I think Healy was at the end of the line. MR. TURNER-Further down the road. MR. O'CONNOR-If you go back and look at the 84, 86, and what applications at that time they were making them maintain buffer zones to the Healy property. MR. TURNER-This is the only buffer zone they required right there. MR. O'CONNOR-If you have a buffer zone along the adjoining line, I would submit yo you Mr. Turner, that it would be the full property line not necessarily just where the houses were. I don't claim the right to a buffer zone at this point because the Healy property is entirely within the highway commercial. I do claim a right to a 30 foot side line setback and they are zoning a building 10 feet over that. I also claim a right to a 75 foot setback from the stream as it's shown on their mapping and their building within 30 feet of that. If you want some sections, I think on the. . .schedu1e itself for highway commercial it picks up the sum that two side yards must be 50 feet and Section 7.071 C that was parking all parking must have a buffer area of 5 feet. The shoreline is Section 7.012, all commercial zones are 75 feet. MR. TURNER-In reference to the original applications I know they got a permit to put the culvert there; it's a D.E.C. permit. MR. O'CONNOR-But, that isn't a culvert to the full width of their property. I think the setback requirements mayor may not be taken care of by the cu1verting, I don't think that's clear I haven't made my own determination as to whether or not you still have to have a setback even if you culvert. I don't think there is an exemption within the setbacks for culvert extremes. MR. MULLER-I guess you could make that argument, but you could make the argument what's in a culvert you don't have a shoreline there. MR. O'CONNOR-You do have a shoreline here. . . Basically the building cannot be sighted as proposed in their application. I also call to the Board's attention the definitions that we're using here. In a highway commercial, boat storage is permitted and I think it was purposely worded in that manner. If this building is going to be the same as all the other buildings that are there, I think it is going. . .prob1em. Outside storage other than boat storage is permitted only in light industrial. We may be creating a administrative problem for code enforement as to the actual use of the property. The only place general storage is permitted is in light industrial. MR. KELLEY-Before this building ordinance, where did the 500 feet come from? MR. TURNER-Where did it terminate? That's a buffer that Mr. Dombek agreed to maintain between the residential use that was on that side and his piece of property. MR. KELLEY-Because of zoning he had to do that? MR. TURNER-No. I think the 500 feet extends well beyond Mr. Healy's house. MR. WINN-If my recollection is correct on that, I think there was a thought that even though the Healy property had been highway commercial becuase it was still residential the buffer 5 - _ z:rt>ne may still exists. I think it's pretty clear now that there is no particular buffer zone filt.-.:e but it's a practical matter it's seems like a good idea as long as the Healy property is bein~ used residentially to maintain that distance. MR. TURNER-At the time it was given Mr. Healy didn't own that property Mr. Fountain owned the property. He was not the owner at the time the variance was granted. MR. WINN-But still it seems like a good idea to keep the building away from the residential property. MR. MULLER-John, is this idea conceived or agreed upon or eventually approved by the Planning Board, as far as the site plan review? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. MULLER-So there are some considerations on the record that I'm not aware of that perhaps one of these things' will approve this site plan if Mr. Dombek stays back 50 feet from the residence. MR. TURNER-That's right. MR. WINN-I don't that was specifically set forth in that, but that was the understanding anyway. MR. MULLER-I think we need to know that. MR. WINN-Not along the back section of the property; along the front section. I would note that the at the water break the Healy property was developed only back to the water point. That back is completely undeveloped, I think we would be stretching the imagination in calling that a residential use of any kind back there. If anythinl:f, undescriptive1y it's described as undeveloped brush and overgrowth, I don't think there is any real residential consideration. MR. MULLER-How do we get to know what the. . .is required? MR. TURNER~ TheY~uired that buffer zone right there. MR. O'CONNOR-I've got some of the minutes, but there have been at least three variance applications and. two site plan applications for the property. This is the first time that I have been involved; Mr. Healy who know!" is at work or. . .so I don't have his personal knowledge. In September of 1987, apparently Mack Dean was then involve with the application and he was talking about then and saici if it was in 50 feet of a wetland and within a residential area they would have to go back to the Planning Board. At that time they were talking about a wetland. I haven't seen it as a designated wetland the area that's wet behind the property. At that point, also they made an application to, I think to this Board place the building near Meadowbrook Road and that was denied by this Board, and they were told to use the back part of the property because of the residential use adjoining it. Again, I don't make claim to the right of a buffer zone by Zoning, Law. I do think though, they are showing you on the plan that they've submitted that theY'r«going to infringe upon the sideline setback by 50% and that they are going to infringe upon the stream setback (tape turned). MR. WINN-I did bring the income statement for the year ending June 30th, 1989. If you look at that it will show that the property did not make a return. MR. KELLEY-What is the percentage of occupancy of these buildings that already exist? MR. WINN-Presently 100%. MR. MULLER-I'm confused, it's 100% rented, but it doesn't make a reasonable return. MRS. GOETZ-Could you explain that? MR. WINN-If you look you'll see the overhead costs will remain the same, but the rental would increase with the addition of the building. If you take the depreciation the property breaks even, but the cost will not increase with a additional building although the revenue would increase. The investment on the property is approximately $200,000. MR. MULLER-John do you know how many boats will go in there? MR. WINN-Ten. There is a portion along the front portion that is marked. The portion that adjoins the Healy residence will change from 50 foot of grass to 71 feet of grass. MR. MULLER-John, if he gets a variance approval does he have to go for site plan review? 6 ·--1V1R. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. TURNER-Do you know the stream that Mr. O'Connor is talking about that was planned many years ago by Mr. Ouderkerk, and his sons that was never a natural stream. MRS. EGGLESTON-Michael do the Healy's own back where it says undeveloped brush, is that all part of the Healy property? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. If you increase the ability to build on that property yod't'oing to increase the traffic, your going to increase the hours that they use it. Your only obligation here is we're talking about hours. . .and abiding by those hours. There is a problem with preexisting residential being in this area that's been zoned commercial trying to get both of them to balance each other needs. This is just an intent to develop this to the maximum even beyond the maximum your talking about your normal setbacks your normal side yard setback is 30 feet, why would you vary that, why would he be allowed the density beyond that? He claims that he is going to need this 30% he meets his 30% if he uses part of the setback for his building. If he doesn't use that setback he doesn't meet the 30%. I'm a little confused to some of the figures that he's given again, I don't think you've seen any practical difficulty or unreasonable use of the property. If it's unreasonable use of the property it's self created. This whole thing began in 1986 this is not that old; we haven't changed the facts or circumstances. When he began it he was allowed this particular amount he's been here for at least three variances application to get what he's gotten. I have eight different applications in the file so what he has is self created it's not created necessarily by the Ordinance, if anything the Ordinance change has made it so that he can do more, but we don't think it's change to the point that he can do what he proposes to do. I grant that it must go on to site plan review because it's an expansion of a commercial use, but I think sometimes the "buck" can stop here. If you do not think that it is reasonable and will have an affect on adjoining properties it's detrimental I just don't see the justification. The side line in the back which is the only thing the application is for or the rear setback in the back is not significant because you do have a commercial use there. He can't show you on that application that he is going to violate the Zoning Ordinance and that's what he has shown you here. MR. WINN-Under the permitted uses in a highway commercial zone you have a day care center, restaurants, professional offices, greenhouse, nursery, veterinarian clinic, all uses that are permitted in a plaza commercial zone. Mr'i.tO'Connor's insinuation that this is a particularly offensive use to residential property, I think'Is to the contrary. Jt was intended to be something that would be mild if you wilJ ,than the uses permitted in a highway commercial zone. If you :at the idea of 10 boats being 'stored in a building, I don't think that we need to have a special traffic study to count the number of cars that are going to go in and out every year there will be very little impact here. As far as the density of the building on the property the. . .given the size of the lots may appear to be a little more given the fact that the building is separated from one another. I think we have to keep in mind that the front half which is the only half that Healy uses in any fashion"is probably 100 ft. from the property line to any building . MR. EGGLESTON-Are you saying the practical difficulty is your loss of money? MR. WINN-I think the loss -Œ:ïr~ome is certainly a fact that is involved here, but I think the other factor that is involved is the consideration given to the property across the street and the Healy property right next store is' maintaining what now is almost a 100 ft. of unused space. Certainly 71 ft. of grass is being maintained not because of the Zoning Ordinance requires it in any fashion, but because of the accommodations to the residential use. In Qar.t, .people say even though you can put a building along the front we would be not likely to do that because of "the fact there is a residence there so if you accommodate to the back which adjoins on probably 2,000 cars at Quaker Ford which are on the entire length of the Healy property it doesn't bother them because they never go out on the back portion. To locate the storage building in the back is not anything that is going to be offensive to them and yet at the same not only maintain, but improve the grass area in the front. MRS. EGGLESTON-Are there any plans for this front corner? MR. WINN-On1y to increase the grassed area. There are plans secondar1y to replace some trees that were previously planted and died this year. MR. O'CONNOR-I don't mean to prolong our discussion back and forth you've got a long adgenda. A couple points though that I understand a discussion has been had with the Planning Board to put a building in the front and the applicant has been told that no way they've approved that as part of their site plan review. There are setbacks requirements from the stre~ greater. setbacks requirements would probably permit a building out there so what we're talKing about is just the back parcel and that's the only thing that is before you. I don't know if it's a matter of overhead whether or not Mr. Dombek has any adjoining parcel that he might also incorporate into this to put some of his use on that property and still use the same office and same overhead. My understanding is that œ does own adjoining property that might be a suitable alternative 7 ~ __ .....v what he proposes here we heard nothing at all about that. I think there is also a quest"rtm that generally comes up when your talking about a variance are there available alternatives the applicant has simply stood here and said that he wants to have a variance. I haven't had an. opportunity to go over the income statement again, I think that is self-imposed. I'm not gomg to prolong my argument, I think the argument is clear there is really no basis on your record to grant the variance requested. MR. TURNER-John is there an alternative? MR. WINN-The Midas Muffler property that adjoins used tgeowned by Mr. Dombek, but isn't anymore. The Quaker Ford property is technically owned by. . .but that's under a long term lease with an option to buy, I think there are 18 years to run of that. Mr. Dombek has no right to possession of the Quaker Ford property. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. KELLEY-Asked if they knew the distance between Building D and E? MR. WINN-Believes it's 25 feet. MR. KELLEY-Feels if the building was faced the way the other ones are they would have the extra 10 feet they need. MR. TURNER-Asked if there was an entrance on both sides of Building E? MR. WINN-Stated on Building D and E there are entrances on both sides? CORRESPONDENCE Warren County Planning Board approved. (on file) STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (on file) DISCUSSION HELD MR. O'CONNOR-Stated that he doesn't believe staff stands by the last comment. MR. GORALSKI-Stated he agrees with Mr. O'Connor that they do need a side yard setback if they wish to maintain the 20 feet. MR. TURNER-Stated at the time this variance was granted for what is there now the highway commercial was 500 feet from Quaker Road. Asked Mr. Healy when he bought the property on Meadowbrook Road was it presented to him as residential or commercial? MR. HEALY-Stated as residential. MR. O'CONNOR-Stated the shoreline setbacks he referred to are the same setbacks for streams, lakes, and wetlands. Thinks this is a major consideration here. Feels there has been no steps taken here to protect this stream. MR. WINN-Stated that they are not putting anything into the ground there is no waste that's going in the stream. Stated D.E.C. didn't have a problem with this. MR. TURNER-Asked how far away the building is going to be from the stream? MR. KELLEY-Stated 25 feet. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 93-1989 WALTER DOMBEK,Introduced by Michael Muller who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Turner: To approve the relief sought on the rear setback of 5 feet. The practical difficulty is that the building should be in line with the other buildings which are 20 feet from the westerly side this would alleviate any nonconformity in size or setbacks of buildings. This building must conform to all other aspects of the Zoning Ordinance. Duly adopted this 20th day of September, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Sicard, Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Muller, Mr. Turner NOES: Mrs. Goetz 8 ~ -- - 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 BOAR LAUNCHING. TffiS 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 JOHN RICHARDS REPRESENTING FRANK P ARILLO/MR. PARILLO PRESENT MR. RICHARDS-Stated that due to circumstances the matter was not reviewed by the Warren County Planning Board last week. Believes that the Board could not make a decision tonight. MRS. GOETZ-Asked why the Warren County Planning Board didn't act on this? MR. GORALSKI-Stated it was the Planning Departmenfs fault for not forwarding it to them. Previously what happened is that they would not hear the application since it was not signed by Mr. Parillo. Mr. Parillo did come in and sign the application, however we sent the packet to Warren County without the signed application. MR. RICHARDS-Stated they are willing to discuss the matter tonight, but would want to reserve the right to submit further information between now and the time the vote is taken. MRS. GOETZ-Asked Mr. Richards if he would object to holding the public hearing? MR. RICHARDS-No. Stated he would want to make it clear that they would want to reserve the right to submit additional information. MR. TURNER-Asked if anyone had an objection to this? TOM WEST-resident of Dunham's Bay. Objects to continuing the public hearing beyond tonight. Stated if the Board was going to allow further submission then you have to give the public an opportunity to see what is submitted and listen to their input on that and come back for an additional public hearing. This has been carried on all summer and in the meantime the boat launch has been opened. Thinks this case is very clear cut that the variance should be denied. MR. RICHARDS-Stated as an applicant they would want the opportunity to submit the information and it's certainly not something we want to have the Board have to wait a month to vote on. MR. TURNER-Stated this has been going on for three months and people have come and been very upset that it hasn't been heard and now we're in a position to hear it. and I'm in a position to have it heard. Asked if the applicant was prepared to answer all the questions? MR. RICHARDS-Stated they can address information here, but doesn't know what issues will come from the County. MR. MULLER-Asked the applicant to make a choice whether they want to proceed under the constraints we've offered or table it? MR. RICHARDS-Stated with those two choices we would have to table it. MOTION TO TABLE USE VARJANCE NO. 98-1989 FRANK PARILLO,Introduced Mr. Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael Muller: Table application at the request of the applicant because the Warren County Planning Board didn't act on this as they did not have the proper paperwork that should have been forwarded from the Queensbury Planning Department. This will be re-advertised, but not at the expense of the applicant. Duly adopted this 20th day of September, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Muller, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:N one USE VARIANCE NO. 1001 STEPHEN C. BRITTON SR-30 SOUTH SIDE CRONIN ROAD APPROX. 800 FT. FROM RIDGE ROAD FOR A CLARIFICATION OF THE CONDITIONS OF THIS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED VARIANCE. 9 ~-- _ RS. GOETZ-Read the following letter: -- Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Queensbury Bay & Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 RE: Britton Explosive Supply, Inc. Cronin Road Premises Gentlemen: The undersigned will be unable to appear this evening as representative of Britton in reference to the above matter scheduled for discussion. I would respectfully request that the matter be put over to the next Board Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. We had intended to meet with Dave Hatin to review the file in detail and to also confer with the Town Attorney's Office on this matter. I had informed Dave Hatin earlier in the week of my travel schedule. Unfortunately I have been unable to adequately review the matter in anticipation of this evening's meeting. We would welcome any comments in reference to our previous request but would also like the opportunity to review the entire matter at the next Meeting. Very truly yours, Kenneally and Tarantino Isl DJT I ct cc: Britton Explosive Supply, Inc. DISCUSSION HELD " MR. TURNER-Asked whyarftlere any ambiguities as far as the original variance goes? MR. HA TIN-Stated he wrote a letter to Dennis Tarantino in reference to the Britton property basically telling him that after conference with Paul Dusek their variance was approved for professional offices and storage of corporate vehicles only; this was my position and the zoning administrator's. Apparently they disagree with that position and requested the Board clarify if this was the approval or not. MR. TURNER-Stated he thinks the question is corporate vehicles. MR. HA TIN-Stated the question is the definition of corporate vehicles and what this encompasses. Also there is a workshop in the back in the property whether this was even discussed at that time. MOTION TO TABLE USE VARIANCE NO. 1001 STEPHEN C. BRITTON,Introduced by Mr. Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: To adjourn the topic at the request of the applicant. We will deal with it at the October Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. Duly adopted this 20th day of September, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Muller, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:N one NEW BUSINESS AREA VARIANCE NO. 99-1989 JANET BLAGBROUGH AVIATION ROAD TO OWEN AVENUE LEFT ONTO SUNSET FOR AN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING GARAGE THAT WILL BE 16 FT. FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 20 FT. TAX MAP NO. 81-7-2 SECTION 4.020 H LOT SIZE: 17,500 SQ. FT. 10 -""" RICK CHASE BUILDER --- ---' MR. TURNER-Asked if there was any storage in the other place? MR. CHASE-No. MR. TURNER-Asked if the house was under fire restoration? MR. CHASE-Yes. MR. KELLEY-Asked if the family room was behind the garage. MR. CHASE-Yes. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN CREEDON-6 Owen Avenue, which is adjancet to the B1agbrough property. I have no objection to this. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (on file) MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 99-1989 JANET BLAGBROUGH,Introduced by Jeffrey Kelley who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: This is for approval the applicant due to the testimony the of the builder has shown a practical difficulty. The existing garage is in a split level home and it's 18 ft. by 20 ft. The applicant is asking for an addition to the easterly part of the building to house normal household items this will be a relief of 4 ft. on the easterly property line the zoning calls for 20 ft. the addition would be 16 ft. from the property line. There are no other feasible alternatives this would not be detrimental to the neighborhood. The short EAF form shows no negative impact it's a Type II action under SEQRA not necessary. Duly adopted this 20th day of September, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Muller, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:N one AREA VARIANCE NO. 100-1989 SR-lA DONALD E. LAPLANT RAINBOW TRAIL, GOING NORTH ON RIDGE ROAD, TAKE A RJGHT ON JENKINSVILLE ROAD TO CONSTRUCT A 24 FT. BY 24 FT. ATTACHED GARAGE THAT WILL BE n FT. FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 15 FT.. TAX MAP NO. 52-3-4.1 SECTION 4.020-G LOT SIZE: 13,500 SQ. FT. DONALD LAPLANT PRESENT MR. TURNER-Asked if he had a one car garage under the house? MR. LAPLANT-Yes. MR. TURNER-Asked what he was going to do with this garage? MR. LAPLANT-Plans on using it as a garage to store antique cars. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED DISCUSSION HELD MR. KELLEY-Asked the size of the Tougas property? MR. LAPLANT-Stated a little under 3 acres. II " -' -' MR. TURNER-Asked John if this was an old subdivision? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. KELLEY-Asked if they had access to the backyard? MR. LAPLANT-Yes. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 100=1989 DONALD LAPLANT,Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Turner: This is a preexisting approve.d10t in a subdivision that was previously approved. It's a narrow lot width and is a minimum request of 4 feet on the north side of the property. There is no neighborhood objection, there appears to be no other feasible alternatives. It would not affect the character of the neighborhood and the variance would not be detrimental to the purpose of the Ordinance. The short EAF form shows no negative impact. Duly adopted this 20th day of September, ], by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Muller, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:N one AREA VARIANCE NO. 101-1989 GEORGE WINTERS SFR-lA 4 JOHN CLENDON ROAD TO CONSTRUCT A BREEZEWAY AND GARAGE THAT WILL BE n FT. FROM THE EASTERLY PROPERTY LINE RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 20 FT. TAX MAP NO. 82-1-8 SEC'I10N 4.020-H LOT SIZE: 19,500 SQ. FT. MR. WINTERS PRESENT MR. WINTERS-Stated he started this garage 15 years ago and would not like to complete it. MR. TURNER-Asked if this was in a preexisting subdivision? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. MULLER-Asked if the ridge on the garage is going to run north and south? MR. WINTERS-Stated opposite the house. The breezeway will be running the same way as the house? MR. MULLER-Asked if the garage will be running the opposite way? MR. WINTERS-Yes. MR. MULLER-Stated the slab would be II ft. from the Mason property line, asked if there would be an overhang? MR. WINTERS-Stated one foot. MR. MULLER-Stated then the base of the garage would be II ft so you would actually need to be 10 feet from the side lot line. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Letter from Lucen and Shar10tte Potvin, neighbors of the Winters. In favor of area variance no. 101-1989. (on file) STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (on file) M0'I10N TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 10]-1989 GEORGE WINTER8,Introduced by 12 ',,-- 1\tIichae1 Muller who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jeffrey Kelley: _/-- The applicant has demonstrated practical difficulty in that the slab exists on location this is the most feasible location to put the garage counting eaves the garage can be placed 10 ft. from the easterly side line. No negative neighborhood impact. Duly adopted this 20th day of September, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Muller, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:N one AREA VARIANCE NO. 102-1989 ANTHONY RUSSO HC-lA ROUTE 9, 1/4 MILE NORTH OF ROUTE 149 TO CONSTRUCT A BILLIARD PARLOR 509 FT. FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 75 FT. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 34-2-1.2 SEC'I10N 4.033 LOT SIZE: 1.331 ACRES MR. KRANTZ REPRESENTING MR. RUSSO MAP SHOWN TO BOARD MR. GORALSKI-Stated from his staff notes when Mr. Russo went through site plan review the consulting engineer realized there was a travel overlay zone, therefore he is required to have 75 feet for the setback for the front yard instead of the 50 feet. MR. KRANTZ-Stated when they were here the last time they sought a rear yard setback which was approved. The town confirmed that there WaS no problem required for this operation, therefore the Planning Board has to determine on ·it'~·own what they felt was adequate parking and this has been determined with the Planning Board. Stated they need a setback of 25 feet so that the building can be setback 50 feet as to opposed to 75 feet. The practical difficulty is the shape of the lot. To meet all of the other requirements of the Town of Queensbury in particular with respect to the parking they desire this is the only way this building can go. The only neighbor that is impacted by thi1', is across the~ mj that's the Stark's who own the Mohican Motel. Read letter from George and Marilyn Stark, dated September 20th, 1989. Stating they are in favor of the variance. (on file) PUBLIC HEARJNG OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (on file) Warren County Planning approved. (on file) M0'I10N TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 102-]989 ANTHONY RUSSO,Introduced by Susan Goetz who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Turner: Because this property is a travel corridor overlay zone the 75 foot setback from the front property line is required, but due to the narrowness of this lot it's totally impossible to do it. There is no neighborhood opposition and no adverse effect on public facilities. There are no other feasible alternatives. The short EAF form shows no negative impact. The relief is 25 feet they will have a front setback of 50 feet rather than the required 75 feet. Duly adopted this 20th day of September, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSTAIN:Mr. Muller ABSENT:None AREA VARIANCE NO. 103-1989 PRISCILLA SANDERSPREE LC-42A CORNER FOX ROAD AND HUNTER LANE TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE THAT WOULD NOT MEET THE FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. TAX MAP NO. 26-5-29 SEC'I10N 4.020-A LOT SIZE: 2/3 ± ACRE 13 '-- PRISICILLA SANDERSPREE PRESENT ~-----' MR. TURNER-Asked if this subdivision is grandfathered? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. The lot area is grandfatherd. MR. TURNER-Stated he doesn't have a problem with this. Stated there is no way that she could meet the setbacks. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (on file) MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 103-1989, PRISCILLA SANDERSPREE,Introduced by Michael Muller who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: For all the reasons in the staff notes being that. strict application of the dimensional requirements of the Zoning Ordinance would make this lot unbuildab1e. This lot is in an approved subdivision and development of this site would have no impact on public facilities and services. Duly adopted this 20th day of September, 1989, by the following vote: . A YES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Egg~eston, Mr. Muller, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:N one AREA VARIANCE NO. 104-1989 STEPHEN BORG OS LC-IOA BUTLER POND ROAD FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 10 FT. BY 19 FT. STORAGE SHED THAT WILL BE 30 FT. AND 90 FT. FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINES RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 100 FT. TAX MAP NO. 85-1-21 SECTION 4.02o-A LOT SIZE: 4 ± ACRES MR. STEPHEN BORGOS PRESENT MR. BORGOS-Stated that they have a irregular shaped lot. The site that is proposed is in th~~ckyard. When built this the zoning was 3 acres and the setback was 10 feet and the pool at ·closeg..qs 10 feet from line. This is between the edge of the pool and th~ ad the nearest it is to the lot line is 30 feet and over 100 feet to the rear line. It's 85 -90 feet' on the other side, and over 500 feet to the front. MRS. GOETZ-Asked how did he realize he was making a mistake? MR. BORGOS-Stated he researched this and found that it had to be 100 feet. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED BERT MARTIN-Butler Pond Road. I have no objections to Mr. Borgos building this shed it's the only practical place on his land. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Letter from Dorothy and William Grant, Easy Street. Property owners in the immediate vicinity of Mr. Borgos are in favor and have no objections to the construction of this shed. (on file) STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (on file) MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 104-1989 STEPHEN BORG08,Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: The applicant has demonstrated a practical difficulty due to the irregular shaped lot there is no alternative to placement of the building it would have to be on a steep hill or in a driveway. 14 '" ',-- ""There is 100 feet needed on all sides the relief will be 10 feet on the northerly side, 'õ1)~et on the westerly side. The propose location would have no impact on the neighborhood parcels it cannot be seen from any other properties. The short EAF form shows no negative impact. Duly adopted this 20th day of September, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, 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 15