Loading...
1989-09-27 ---- "- -- -..- QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 27TH, 1989 INDEX APPLICANT PAGE Area Variance No. 105-1989 Dana & Catherine Ball I. Area Variance No. 106-1989 Gerald & Kim Kasier 2. Area Variance No. 107-1989 John R. Lynch 2. Area Variance No. 108-1989 Martin S. Johnsen 3. Area Variance No. 109-1989 John & Rite Flynn 4. Use Variance No. 110-1989 Scott McLaughlin 8. Area Variance No. 111-1989 Tiernan, Bernstein, 10. & Pinchuck Use Varifmce No. 112-1989 .Rona1d P. Dufour 15. Area Variance No. 113-1989 Thomas Greene 17. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING M0NTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. ---- -- -......../ QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 27TH, 1989 7:35 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN SUSAN GOETZ, SECRETARY CHARLES O. SICARD JEFFREY KELLEY JOYCE EGGLESTON MICHAEL MULLER TOWN ATTORNEY-PAUL DUSEK JOHN GORALSKI, PLANNER PAT COLLARD, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DAVE HATIN, DIRECTOR OF BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT NEW BUSINESS AREA VARIANCE NO. 105-1989 DANA AND CATHERINE BALL BAY ROAD OPPOSITE TOWN OFFICE COMPLEX TO PROVIDE PARKING FOR A HEARING AID OFFICE WITHOUT THE REQUIRED 20 FT. WIDE ACCESS DRIVE. THE DRIVEWAY WILL BE L) FT. WIDE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 48-3-35 SECTION 7.071 LOT SIZE: 20,000 SQ. FT. MR. BALL PRESENT MR. TURNER-Stated this is relief for the driveway only and this is a permitted use. MR. KELLEY-Stated that according to the plan you have provided four parking spaces, asked if the driveway is going to be wide enough. MR. BALL-Stated that the driveway itself is going to be used for employee's use, customer parking would be in the front. MRS. GOETZ-Asked if there would be a way to avoid the second roadcut? MR. BALL-Stated the second road cut wouldn't have to come out onto a main road. Stated it's 43 feet from the front of the house to the line. The parking probably will run to the house rather than what is shown. There would be room for 4 parking spaces along the front plus the driveway and we are using the roadside of the property to get over to the driveway. MR. TURNER-Asked if the proposal is to eliminate the upper driveway and come in blacktop driveway and go around to the back of the building and to reduce the curb cut to one? MR. BALL-Yes. MR. MULLER-Asked if the proposed 10 ft. driveway will go between the well and Bay Road? MR. BALL-Yes. Stated it will come out to the east side of the driveway towards Bay Road. MR. MULLER-Stated one of the recommendations of the planner was if the Board approved a 10 ft. driveway he would recommend that a clear right-of-way be maintained between the house and property line. Asked if Mr. Bell, would be willing to put this in his deed? MR. BALL-Stated there shouldn't be any problem, I'm going to have to keep it opened anyway. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Warren County Planning approved. (on file) STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (on file) 1 --- -~/-' MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 105-1989 DANA AND CATHERINE BALL,Introduced by Michael Muller who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: The applicant has demonstrated a practical difficulty in trying to situate adequate parking access to the site. The vehicle parking along the dwelling is the most practical alternative. We will require the instrument of conveyance, have the language approved by town counsel saying that there should be clear access maintained as a right-of-way on the north side of the property. Only one road cut being the present one at the south of the property. The short EAF has been reviewed shows no negative impact. Duly adopted this 27th 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. 106-1989 GERALD AND KIM KASlER 3 JOHN CLENDON ROAD SFR-lA TO CONSTRUCT A TWO CAR ATTACHED GARAGE THAT WILL BE 18.4 FT. FROM THE WEST PROPERTY LINE RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 20 FT. TAX MAP NO. 82-2-19 SECTION 4.020 LOT SIZE: 16,796 SQ. FT. GERALD KAISER PRESENT MR. TURNER-Stated they are part of the original subdivision. Stated the alternative would be to construct a garage behind the house without violating the side line setback. MR. KAISER-Stated in order to have the setback 20 feet I would have to put the garage partially behind the house. When we bought the property we built the house offset in such a way so we could put up the garage. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Letter from Lucize and Shar10tte Potvin, in favor of area variance no. 106-1989. (on file) Letter from Francis and Bertha West, dated September 19, 1989 in favor of area variance no. 106-1989. STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (on file) MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 106-1989, GERALD AND KIM KAISER,Introduced by Jeffrey Kelley who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: This is a lot in a preexisting subdivision and they have 100' on John C1endon Road. The practical difficulty is that they have the 100' lot requirement and that they have a 20' side setback. They would like to build a 22' garage, this is the minimum width for a garage. The relief will be 1 ft. 8 in. from the westerly property line; this is a reasonable request. The alternative would be to put the garage behind the house or make a smaller garage. This will not be detrimental to the Ordinance or to the neighborhood. The short EAF form shows no negative impact. Duly adopted this 27th 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. 107-1989 JOHN R. LYNCH HC-lA CORNER OF MEADOWBROOK ROAD AND QUAKER ROAD FOR A 500 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO THE HEIDELBURG INN THAT WILL BE 10 FT. FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 25 FT. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 59-5-1 SEC'I10N 4.020 LOT SIZE: 16,796 SQ. FT. 2 -- .-/ --- JOHN LYNCH PRESENT MR. TURNER-Stated that Mr. Lynch is limited by the expansion of Quaker Road and that his establishment abuts Mead's Nursery. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Warren County Planning approved. (on file) Queensbury Beautification Committee approved. Comments applicants does not have his planting plans complete at this time. In the spring he has agreed to return with specific. STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (on file) M0'I10N TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 107-1989 JOHN R. LYNCH,Introduced by Jeffrey Kelley who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Turner: This is an area variance and the practical difficulty is that the lot fronts on two streets in a HC-1A zone. To meet the setbacks as required he can't build anything. This is an existing business it's a reasonable request not detrimental to the area. Other area variances have been granted for the same reason on Quaker Road. He needs relief on the south which is called the rear he will have a 10' setback a relief of 15'. The relief from the front setback on Quaker Road is needed, the Ordinance calls for a 75 foot setback he will have a 64 foot setback II feet of relief. Public facilities are not adversely affected. Duly adopted this 27th 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. 108-1989 MARTIN S. JOHNSEN WR-lA SECOND HOUSE EAST ON GLENMORE LODGE ON GLEN LAKE ROAD TO BUILD AN ADDITION THAT WILL BE LESS THAN THE REQUIRED DISTANCE FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINES. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 38-4-13 SEC'I10N 4.020-D AND 9.010 LOT SIZE: 7,300 SQ. FT. MR. JOHNSEN PRESENT MR. TURNER-Asked what is to be added to the rear of the house? MR. JOHNSEN-Stated it's the front or the roadside of the house. We had two additions, one 7 ft. by 13 ft. and the other 6 ft. by 13 ft. We're going to make them 20 feet and adding a full roof on the house. MR. TURNER-Asked what amenities does this add to the house? MR. JOHNSEN-Stated their going to relocate the bathroom and put a tub in. MR. TURNER-Asked the zoning administrator is Mr. Johnsen needs relief from the shoreline setback? PAT COLLARD-Yes. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Warren County Planning approved. (on file) 3 / --- ---- STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner ( on file) MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 108-1989 MARTIN S. JOHNSEN,Introduced by Michael Muller who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Turner: The property needs a shoreline and side setback relief, the applicant has demonstrated practical difficulty. There is only one feasible alternative in adding to the structure this would be to fill in the natural footprint. There will be a 6 foot variance from the shoreline setback it is to be built 69 from the lake. There is only 10 ft. on either side of the dwelling a total of the side setbacks should be 50 feet, the relief sought is reasonable. This is a preexisting undersized lot which is oddly shaped this is a minor addition and a reasonable request. Duly adopted this 27th 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:None AREA VARIANCE NO. 109-1989 JOHN AND RITA FLYNN MANNIS ROAD, 6/10 MILE PAST FITZGERALD ROAD WR-lA TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE F AMIL Y HOUSE THAT WILL HAVE A POOL AND DECK THAT WILL BE LESS THAN THE REQUIRED 75 FT. FROM THE SHORELINE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 40-1-43 SEC'I10N 7.010 LOT SIZE: 22,000 SQ. FT. ATTORNEY DAVID PHILION FROM JIM DAVIES LA W OFFICE MR. TURNER-Stated that there is a vertical cut on each side it looks like 90 degrees straight up, asked if this issue could be addressed? MR. HATIN-Stated that they are in the process of putting up retaining walls on both sides. It is my understanding with the interpretation of the Ordinance the slopes where the retaining walls start at the top of the retaining wall and go back to natural grades. His intentions are to put a retaining wall up as high as necessary to maintain the dirt. MRS. GOETZ-Asked if this was going to take of that? MR. HATIN-Stated the Mr. Flynn claims he is going to step it back. MRS. GOETZ-Asked if he would have to step it back to a certain specified area? MR. HA TIN-Stated the Ordinance says 30%. MR. KELLEY-Asked if there was a stipulation saying that it has to be engineered in any way? MR. HATIN-No. Stated retaining walls other than shorelines are not really addressed in the Zoning Ordinance. MR. TURNER-Asked Mr. Hatin, if he knew the elevation from the ground level to the top of the hill? MR. HA TIN-Stated he doesn't know the exact elevation. MRS. GOETZ-Asked if the deck and pool could be put some place else? MR. PHILION-Stated the size of the lot and the slopes on the easterly and westerly line there isn't a way that a deck and pool could go in here. The 20 foot setback from the easterly line cannot be moved further easterly because of the setback requirement for the side. MRS. GOETZ-Asked about a two story home? Stated a exercise pool could be put in the house. MR. PHILION-Stated it would be too expensive. In the papers that were submitted it states the applicant does have a problem with arthritis and a two story home would cause a problem. MRS. GOETZ-Stated the Board isn't able to consider this as a hardship. MR. PHILION-Stated the property was purchased in August of 1988. At the time of purchase they were putting together the plans for submittal and the setback requirement was changed 4 '-,- ..-/ -' from 50 feet to 75 feet. The variance would call for 25 feet so the deck and pool combined would be 50 feet which would be in compliance with the old ordinance. MR. KELLEY-Asked if they left the plan intact could you move the house so it is within the 75 foot requirement? MR. PHILION-Stated the septic tank is going to be there and if you move it southerly the wetlands are there. MR. KELLEY -Asked about moving the septic over to the west this would allow the garage to be moved out and the deck and pool to be placed in the rear? MR. PHILION-Stated if you move it to the west it doesn't allow the garage to be brought down. The distance between the garage and septic tank would have to remain the same. DISCUSSION BETWEEN MR. KELLEY AND MR. PHILION MR. KELLEY-Feels that there is a feasible alternative. MR. PHILION-Stated the problem would be with the driveway. The septic system would have to be on the other side of the driveway which is on the retaining wall. Feels there isn't enough room to place septic system on this side. MRS. GOETZ-Asked about alternative septic systems? Stated the applicant has to consider the constraints of the property in a sensitive area. MR. PHILION-Stated this would be the most feasible septic systems for this location. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DR. HOROWITZ-resident of Glen Lake. I was coming here tonight as an observer and received several calls in my capacity as President of the Glen Lake Association, to visit this property which I did for the first time this evening before it got dark. Frankly, as you mentioned, it is appalling to look at what has happened to that land. The sides go up at least 30, 35 feet, and there is an 90 degree angle. Frankly, I can't see how this can be cut back at 30 degrees since the walls of the property are on the property line. While I was sitting here, I made several notes, and as I listen to the application that was made I take issues at several of the answers that were given on the environmental sheet. I can tell you as someone who knows the lake at this point there is no other similar situation around the lake. Most if not all lots on Glen Lake are irregular and most people need variances, but nothing has been done and nothing apparently is going to be done or is in the works that is as absurd as what is going on here. The land has been as you've seen 98% clear cut, there may be I counted about 4 trees on the lake side of the property, the rest of it has virtually been raped. There is no other pool on Glen Lake certainly between the home and the lake itself. Where this comes into importance for us is as people use the lake in the weather like we had last week and this week where there is a lot of wind, chlorinated water is going to be pushed onto the ground and into the lake we don't need that. As I said, the setback for that should be maintained. I have all the respect in the world for my colleague Dr. Tedesco, however, swimming for arthritis is not a 3 month event and out door swimming on Glen Lake does not occur after December and before May. Certainly there are alternatives which I can mention right here which no one asked me, but people can put in a small hot tub which can be put in and out of doors. With the season if indeed swimming which is good for arthritis wants to be done, I can tell you as a former competitive swimmer and I wanted to swim all year round, it is possible to put a swimming tub in ones house. They run about 7 or 8 feet long and about 4 feet deep you put a bungie cord around yourself and swim as if you were in the ocean. In terms of a two story house, there are . . . and elevates that can be put in and certainly. . .for cardiac patients and arthritics. The major point here, in the overall sense, is that there has been no history of responsible land use here and there is no reason to believe that there will be. Another thing that I might mention is that I received letters from some of the neighbors of this property, one of them from the Hughes family mentioned that somewhere in the range of 5 variances have been granted certainly this is an absurd thing. I asked that this all be denied in light of all of this that's going on. I might also add, I can't believe the town let all of this happen. The land looks terrible and it does not look like any other piece around the lake. It should of never happened. MORIAH SMITH-I own the land adjancet to this. I brought pictures for you to see what the land looked like before this rape. (Presented pictures to Board) Now, I would like you to see this horror this doesn't begin to show it you would have to be there to see it it's unbelievable. It takes nature 100 years to produce one inch of topsoil few of us will live to see the replacement of 80 year old trees. Before Mr. Flynn bought this property Stanley Konigof the Warrensburg Department of Environmental Conservation wrote Victor Lefebvre, he's the one who issues the building permits, of the Queensbury Building Code Enforcement division exempting the Flynn's mind you from the mine land law. (Presented copy of law to the Board) Remarkable 5 --...- ~/ --.-/ is that the person issuing the building permit is on such a cozy basis that he's also making a request to have the people exempt from the Mine Land Law. Although Article 7, Section 7.012 paragraph D, clearly states that the owner may either clear 20% of trees for lake access under Section D, or as an alternative 30% of trees in excess of 6 inches in diameter within 35 feet of the lake. Mr. Hatin allowed Mr. Flynn, to do both. As a result more than 50%, there is really more than that, but he allowed him to clear 50%. The latter 20% by a construction gang who arrived at 7:00 am on September 8th, and worked through 7:30 p.m. cutting down 80 year old trees clearly marked for preservation with surveyors tape as a result of the previous cutting. (Presented pictures to Board of trees) As part of your Zoning Ordinances, Section 7.051 says, excavation slopes caused by excavation shall not exceed 30%. It goes on to say in Section 7.063, grading and development shall be preserve. . .natura1 features such as trees, groves, natural terrain, waterways, and other similar resources and shall conform substantially with the natural boundaries and alignment of water. . ., none of this has been done. As you go on and read the rest of the code all of it points to the idea that every effort should be made to preserve the character. As you can see there is a 50 foot shear drop down from my property. Am I liable if somebody falls off? That's a very unstable wall and they are digging under it now. If my trees fall on this property who is liable? I have been working for a year to try to prevent this and Mr. Hatin, nobody would pay attention to me. This language does not sanction tearing down 60 feet high hills, clear cutting the trees and putting up ugly high retaining walls which I'm told by owners of construction companies will hold back land of that height. This ugly raw land has stood like this for 6 months despite Section 7.063, Section A which says, exposed land should be kept to the shortest practical period and in your subdivision regulations it's limited to 2 weeks. Section J, provides for temporary vegetation during construction, Section 7.063 part M says, permanent vegetation should be successfully established and erosion structures shall be installed within a time specified on the building permit. I have the building permit here and no time is specified. All section A through M have been violated in clearing the land. An engineer has estimated that upwards of 9,000 cubic yards of fill have been removed from this property at today's prices this could generate a $160,000 not to mention the logging profits from the 80 year old trees. As soon as the land was stripped of it's valuables Mr. Flynn put the land up for sale it is listed by the Debbie Williams, Real Estate Agency. Doesn't it seem odd to you that anyone asking for a variance to build an unusual swimming pool on land that is currently up for sale and being actively marketed. Since last March Mr. Flynn has made no attempt to build a house or obey any of the ordinances and it becomes increasingly clear that he bought the land to rape it for profit. This request to build a swimming pool appears to be another ploy to avoid building the required private residences which he would have to do in order to be exempt from the land mining permit that he asked for. Since it's far cheaper to dig a hole for a swimming pool and sell that fill and with winter coming on more delays can go on. The whole business here there appears to be collusion, I think one of the first things that you should question is Mr. Flynn's sincerity in what he is asking for. Most of us who wish to sell a piece of property don't try to get a specific thing that most people would not like, I think this is another ploy for delay. Immediate attention is needed so the residents of Queensbury are aware that their Building and Code Enforcement bureaus are not working for the good of the people and that great damage to the environment is being done while they look away. This excavation is of great danger to children and to others. I feel right now that some action must be taken so that I am not liable for any accidents that occur under this rape of the land that has been allowed to take place. I think I showed you this engineer estimate on the amount of fill that has been removed. Dr. Robert Hughes, has written you and many of the things he has written should be brought to everyone's attention. Mrs. Smith, read the following letter: Who is legally responsible and liable to any damage, death, or injury resulting in excavation created by the F1ynns for erecting this single family dwelling? (1) What happens if a tree falls from the Smith's property onto the Flynn's home or into their property? What happens if a death or injury occurs to someone currently on the Flynn's property? Who is legally responsible? Are the Smith's responsible for an object falling 50 feet down a cliff they had no control over the creation of? (2) Who is legally liable and responsible if a child falls from this 50 foot cliff? (3) What would be the responsibility of the 2 property owners if this cliff result in erosion of the Smith's property? What happens if someone is injured from the erosions? Who is responsible for the damage to the Flynn's house if the Smith's property erodes onto the Flynn's property? I do feel that you people should go out and take a look at that. BOARD-We did. MRS. SMITH-It's unbelievable. Thank you. MR. PHILION-A lot of the concern here has to do with the removal of dirt and the construction that has taken place there. I don't know too many building lots where you can build and not 6 ~..- .--/ -- take down a couple trees in order put a house in. I think at this stage of construction there is a lot more work that has to be done in order to get it in shape. As far as taking down trees by the lake, that has not occurred and there has not been any shoreline that has been affected. I think the proposal made for alternative are fine, however, it's an expense I don't think the Flynn's should have to incur. I think the only issue here is a variance for 25 feet to allow a deck and pool to be constructed in back of the house. This would be in accordance with zoning laws that were in effect at the time they purchased the property. Two months, as I said, after they purchased the property that was changed and the requirement for the variance was necessary for that. I don't see any other alternative to position the house and to have it conform with the setback from the lake front. I think that the septic system on the west side of the property, I don't feel it can fit in there with the driveway coming through the way it does and with the propose retaining wall on the western boundary how the septic system can fit in there. I think this is the only alternative that they have with the size of the lot their working with. MR. MULLER-I want to ask a question of Mrs. Smith, will you tell us the date on the building permit? MRS. SMITH-November 22, when Mr. Flynn closed on this property on August 10th, he was well aware of the fact that the zoning laws were going to be changed and in fact, he seems to have a very buddy relationship with Mr. Lefebvre. If he knew ahead of time to apply for this exemption to Stanley. . .we would have to assume that he was very knowledgeable about how the zoning laws were going to change and how it might affect it. In any event this building permit is dated November 22nd, 1988. MR. MULLER-John, did this owner have to go through a site plan review before he was able to excavate? MR. GORLASKI-No. MR. MULLER-Should he have? MR. HA TIN-Mike, to answer your question, no. MR. MULLER-Jeff and I were reading this section here we are trying to figure out why it doesn't apply. Section 7.061, construction on slopes in Subsection A it reads, except for approved existing subdivisions site plan review shall be required for the following: removal or excavation of 100 cubic yards or more of rock soil or vegetation on site. This is not in an approved existing subdivision it's an application that came at the time the Ordinance was in effect. MR. HA TIN-Let me explain my interpretation. If your going to construct a house on a slope then that would not apply this house is being constructed on level ground. TAPED TURNED MR. HA TIN-It's the same thing we went through with the Bavarian Palace. If your going to build on the property that's being excavated they do not issue a permit. If you are not going to build on a property that is being requested for. . .then you must get a permit. MR. MULLER-I can understand that analysis your looking at what would be the principal use of his property. The principal use is not a mining use, but I think the neighbor's legitimate concerns would have been addressed if a site plan review had been done, but obviously we don't have one here. Even if we were to grant or deny this thing there is still a pretty miserable situation out there. MR. KELLEY-In that same section that Mike refers to you go a little further under the next item that says 2, the last comment there says, maximum cover fill shall be 6 feet from finish grade for all residential construction. MR. HA TIN-All I can tell you is the same answer I gave you Jeff. My interpretation when we read the excavation permit it was not a construction on a slope that they would be excavating to fill the. . .in the ground and that's the position we took. No one has appealed that decision to this date. MR. MULLER-Obviously you relied on the heading this is not a construction on a slope. MR. HA TIN-Correct. MRS. SMITH-Since Mr. Hatin doesn't seem to understand the word "alternate", and allows Mr. Flynn to use both cuttings when it came to the section about the trees, I would questioned Mr. Hatin's interpretation. It's one thing to say your not building on a slope if you send in a bulldozer to tear the slope down, but that slope did exist there, and I challenge your interpretation. 7 ,.-- -' -- MR. HA TIN-That's your right to appeal my decision Mrs. Smith. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Letter to Lee A. York, Senior Planner from Richard A. Hughes, Jr., dated September 22, 1989. In opposition to area variance no. 109-1989. (on file) Warren County Planning Board approved. (on file) Letter to John Goralski, Planner from Robert J. Hughes, M.D. dated September 21, 1989. In opposition to area variance no. 109-1989 (on file) Letter to Queensbury Planning Board from Robert J. Hughes, M.D. dated September 21, 1989. In opposition of area variance no. 109-1989. (on file) STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (on file) DISCUSSION HELD MRS. GOETZ-Asked if they needed to address the liability, asked if this was a civil matter? MR. MULLER-Stated they shouldn't address it. MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO 109-1989, JOHN AND RJTA FLYNN,Introduced by Michael Muller who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Turner: Although there would be no adverse effect on public facilities the project has other feasible alternatives. They could move the house back and garage to the west the personal hardship isn't going to be addressed this had to do with practical difficulty and constraints of the lot. The lot is as level as it's going to get there are other houses closer to the lake, but this is not a sufficient reason to grant a variance. The landowner should investigate putting the house in a different shape they have not exhausted all the feasible alternatives. Duly adopted this 27th 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. nO-1989 SCOTT MCLAUGHLIN DIX A VENUE AND QUARRY CROSSING TO CONSTRUCT AN OFFICE BUILDING FOR EXISTING FARM AND CONSTRUC'I10N SALES. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. m-7-5 SECTION 9.014 LOT SIZE: 1.41 ACRES ELAN CHERNEY REPRESENTING SCOTT MCLAUGHLIN PRESENT MR. TURNER-Asked if there was some arrangement with the adjacent property owner to buy some property? MR. CHERNEY -Stated there is no proposal to change the property lines. Stated he wants to erect a building so that he can move most of the operation inside. MR. TURNER-Asked what would be the propose construction? MR. CHERNEY-Stated the building will be 16 ft. high. MR. MCLAUGHLIN-Stated the building will be metal. MRS. GOETZ-Asked if equipment would be parked outside? MR. MCLAUGHLIN-No. Stated the building is for an office and workshop. Equipment will be parked outside for display. MRS. GOETZ-Stated it seems like it's close to the road, asked if there anyway to improve the situation? MR. MCLAUGHLIN-Stated when the building goes up we can move the trailer that we have for an office and move the van that we're using to store tools, all of this will be inside. MRS. GOETZ-Asked if there were rules on how far back equipment should be parked from the road? 8 /' -' --" MR. HATIN-Stated not unless the Board specifies it in the variance. MR. CHERNEY-Stated as part of the variance they would have no problem agreeing to a 50 ft. setback from the road to where any outside equipment can be parked. The equipment that is outside now is equipment that would be for sale. MRS. GOETZ-Stated she would like to see this specified how far back this would be in the variance motion the Board would make. Asked if the truck trailer in the back are going to remain and to be used as storage? MR. MCLAUGHLIN-Yes. MR. TURNER-Asked if small equipment is stored inside of the trailers? MR. MCLAUGHLIN-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-Asked if there would be a way to fence part of this? MR. CHERNEY-Stated one of the main purposes of putting up the building is to organize things better at the site. A lot of what's there now you won't see as you drive by it will be inside. Once the building is constructed, Mr. McLaughlin, has no problem agreeing with the town as part of the variance granted that no equipment shall be displayed or stored less than 50 ft. from the road. MR. SICARD-Asked if there were plans for a sign? MR. MCLAUGHLIN-Stated he would like to have a sign out by the road or on the building if the variance is approved. Stated if he were to put a sign up he would like to put it in the grass area. MR. MULLER-Stated they are 50 ft. back from Quarry Crossing Road and 50 ft. back from Dix A venue, it looks like there is i acre of land to house inventory and the building, asked if this was going to be sufficient? MR. CHERNEY-Yes. Stated they are willing to work within the constraints of the property. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED BEN COLVIN-live across the road from this outfit. There is a 50 ft. buffer that he hasn't maintained at all. There is a environmental problem the machines are being washed down all the diesel oil and grease is going into the ground. MR. TURNER-When they steam clean the trucks? MR. COLVIN-Yes. MR. TURNER-How about paint? MR. COLVIN-Just the paint that's on them. MR. TURNER-Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Warren County Planning Board approved. The applicant needs to secure approval from the Queensbury Beautification Committee. (on file) Queensbury Beautification Committee disapproved. The application disapproved for landscaping, screening and p1antings have not been submitted or are incomplete. (on file) DISCUSSION HELD MR. TURNER-Asked Dave Hatin if there were any other limitations on the site plan review? MR. HA TIN-Doesn't believe there was. STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (on file) 9. ..-' - DISCUSSION HELD MRS. EGGLESTON-Asked if the former approval that was issued in 1987 had a time limit? MR. TURNER-Stated it was highway commercial at the time that's why it went to site plan. MRS. EGGLESTON-Asked if this would have to for site plan? MR. GORALSKI-Stated for construction of the building or to maintain the sales? MRS. EGGLESTON-Either. MR. GORALSKI-Stated for construction of the new building he is going to have to go for site plan review. PAT COLLARD-Stated the site plan that was approved in 1987 will not be addressed. MR. KELLEY -Stated he is not sure what kind of use variance he is requesting. MR. HATIN-Explained that you have to look at this as an expansion the repair facility was never there before now it will be. MARTHA COLVIN-Stated he has another place to store the machines. MR. TURNER-Asked if she came to the previous site plan review? MRS. COLVIN-No. MR. TURNER-Asked if they voiced any objection then? MRS. COLVIN-Yes. Stated they do not want it there. Feels they should move the pool and the garden. MR. BEEBE-back yard neighbor. Feels the placement of the garage would make the area better. MR. TURNER-Asked if he objected to this? MR. BEEBE-No. MR. TURNER-Asked if he would rather see the work done inside now? MR. BEEBE-Yes. M0'I10N TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. nO-1989 SCOTT MCLAUGHLIN,Introduced by Michael Muller who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: The applicant has shown that this is a preexisting nonconforming use of truck and equipment sales this is an alternation of the existing plan to be built as a 40 ft. by 70 ft. by 16 ft. high structure for office space and interior use for repair of equipment for resale. This is a reasonable and an cillary use. This will improve the situation it will remove the outdoor repair. We expect full compliance with the May 1988 site plan as well as our own requirement that he stay back 50 ft. from both Quarry Crossing and Dix A venue and there will be no equipment stored or parked within the 50 ft. The granting of this variance will protect substantially the rights of the surrounding property owners. He will be required by site plan review to meet with the Queensbury Beautification Committee. Duly adopted this 27th 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. ID-1989 'I1ERNAN, BERNSTEIN & PINCHUCK CORNER OF QUAKER ROAD AND GLEN WOOD AVENUE HC-lA PC-lA TO CONSTRUCT A BANK THAT WILL BE 41 FT. FROM THE QUAKER ROAD PROPERTY LINE RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 75 FT. FROM AN ATERIAL ROAD. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 104-1-4.4, 4.31, 4.32 SEC'I10N 4.033 LOT SIZE: 1 ACRE ATTORNEY MARK SCHACHNER REPRESENTING TIERNAN, BERNSTEIN, AND PINCHUCK 10 -- -' .......- PLANS SHOWN TO BOARD MR. SCHACHNER-Stated they have modified the proposal and the proposed area slightly. (Presented new plans to Board) Explained that the change is minor and involves the building propo~ed. T~e. area ~ari~nce previously involved construction of a 6 sided building now it is a 4 sIded bUIldIng WhICh IS almost a perfect square. The reason of the provisions is that one of the standards for granting an area variance is that we get the minimal variance that we could possible need. Tried various designs and site plans for this configuration to see if there was a way to push the building back across the setback line. Previously we were going to be 37 ft. back from Quaker Road now we are going to be 41 ft. back from Quaker Road, the variance being sought is 34 ft. instead of 38 ft. Thinks that there has been misconceptions on the county and staff levels. Explained that the applicant owns approximately 4 acres and is proposing to develop 28,000 sq. ft. This is not maximizing of what the applicant could do under law. The only way to make this work from a financial point is this type of configuration. The third building is there because in order to make this work you need a credit tenant that is going to occupy almost as an anchor tenant that is going to have a stand alone operation. Stated banks are only willing to occupy this site if they have some type of stand alone building on its pad. Negotiated with several banks and they have been absolutely adamant about this. Thinks it's important that the Board look at this in a big picture context. In the contents of setbacks from Quaker Road you have other properties with similar setbacks. In the plans you will see a dotted line. This is the existing building which is grandfathered and could be allowed to remain under any scenario. The minor modification decreases how much of the building we're putting across the line. With the 6 sided building this would of put 2,400 sq. ft. over the setback line and we have mapped this down to approximately 1,700 sq. ft. We have worked with the configuration of interior circulation and traffic flow and it's the only way they we see it could work. This is an unusual situated lot with Hovey Pond behind it and Quaker and Glenwood Roads, there are special circumstances that apply to this land and that don't apply to land throughout the area one of which is the sewer easement. The sewer easement for the new sewers coming up Quaker Road does not stay within Quaker Road, it cuts in across our property. There is no way because of the sewer easement to situate the buildings differently than what is currently proposed. The practical difficulty is there is no other way of doing this it can't be done without having a negative impact on the internal traffic circulation. MRS. GOETZ-Stated it was her understanding his clients asked to have the sewer easement put where it is. MR. SCHACHNER-Stated this is essentially correct. These clients purchased the property on either January 31st or February 1, of this year. At the time they had a title company do the title search; they also engaged Rist Frost to do a survey and they asked the sellers attorney about any easements. The title company report disclosed nothing, the survey disclosed nothing, and the sellers attorney said they haven't granted any sewer easements. Stated he has letters from Attorney Mark Lebowitz that say they have never given any easements. However, in the previous time the same grantor did sign an easement, our client had no idea this was true until they came up and saw work being done on Quaker Road including on their property. Spoke with Paul Dusek about this situation. Mrs. Goetz, is correct our client went to the town to ask for relocation of the easement. It was relocated to our benefit, but it is not a perfect situation. It used to go through the heart of the parcel and now it cuts through a corner of the parcel, but there is no way to maintain the setbacks from the roads and the setbacks from the sewer easement now without seeking a variance. MRS. GOETZ-Stated in the staff report it says that the applicant owns additional property. MR. SCHACHNER-Stated he is not sure if staff is aware of this, but the applicant does not own a block of property contiguous to this straight across Quaker Road, there is a gap in the applicant's ownership. Off of Quaker Road in back there is a narrower strip that connects two holdings, but there is no way to put anything like this project on the applicants contiguous holding because this is their contiguous holding. MRS. GOETZ-Asked where it was on the map? MR. SCHACHNER-Showed Mrs. Goetz the location. MRS. GOETZ-Stated the new ordinance was put into effect to improve the situation we have. I would be against making a small setback. Thinks now it the time to improve the mistakes that have been made in the past. MR. SCHACHNER-Stated the point they're making without condoning the fact that other properties are of equal setbacks to what we seek is to keep a couple of things in mind. This same property has a structure on it that already has that setback and can be allowed to remain there as of right now. This applicant can only do this project by placing a new building on essentially a similar location with the same setback as the existing building. Thinks under the circumstances feels this is the minimal variance that can be sought. Thinks they meet the standards in the 11 '-- -- -~ New York State Law and Town Law. MR. MULLER-Asked Mr. Schachner to explain the traffic pattern? FRANK. . .-from C. T. Male Associates, landscape architect. Explained that underneath the canopy there would be a 12 inch . . .in the island with the cars pulling up between the island and the building. The other side of the island will have a drive up to it, but we expect that the traffic pattern will be coming in and if there were any stacking of cars in that area it would be right up to the corner of the building which would take two cars possible three that might come around the corner, but with the additional service of two windows that two cars could pull up at once the intent of this is to limit the amount of stacking. Having two windows will eliminate that and get it out to the wider portion of the site and eliminate any problems with circulation going through there. MR. SCHACHNER-they would like to submit additional information because one of the staff comments talks about reasonable return on the property. (submitted this information to the Board) Explained that this entire projection is done to demonstrate the financial hardship and the dollars and cents prove for why we need to have the bank building. The financial projection assumes that you don't have this building and you only have the other two buildings which are 16,000 and 10,000 sq. ft. MRS. GOETZ-Asked if you will be able to go into this facility from Quaker Road? KEITH MANZ-C.T. Male. Stated the main access points are one on Quaker Road which is a right turn out and right turn in only. There are two main access points off of G1enwood, with each of them one line in and out. MRS. GOETZ-Asked how they are going to keep people from making a left hand turn? MR. MANZ-Stated the entrance and the exit will be curved so that traffic can only exit curving to the right and traffic can only enter the site from Quaker curving to the right. The curves will make it that if someone wanting to turn left from Quaker into the site couldn't to this effectively and the same going out onto Quaker Road. MRS. GOETZ-Asked about the service entry on G1enwood? MR. MANZ-Stated the southern service entry will be primarily for service because the service locations for the buildings are in the rear. The northern one is only strictly for service. MR. SCHACHNER-Stated he wanted to point out something to do with the easement. Stated the reason that nothing disclosed the easement was because the Town of Queensbury did not record the real property documents that which the sewer easements were granted. MR. KELLEY-Stated this has to go to site plan and the traffic will be discussed there. MR. MULLER-Stated to address the issue as to feasible alternatives. Asked about making the bank smaller? MR. SCHACHNER-Stated they have contacted a number of banks to discuss possible alternatives. My understanding is that banks with own market ability reasons will only come to a location with a separate building. DREW BERSTEIN-Ta1ked to several different banks. Thinks that all of them had similar requests as to what they wanted. Stated they are personally talking to banks that have no identities in the area. On all occasions they did not want to go into this because it didn't present the image that they wanted to have. They required the separate image because they had no identity and they wanted to create a certain image. All of the banks we talked to had the same requirements. MS. . . Marine Midland Bank. Stated if they could build the building they like with the accesses that we need to be successful and if can reach terms with the developers they we are very committed to building on this site. MR. SCHACHNER-Stated the applicant cannot dictate what they would like, but the standard is practical difficulty. We show why we meet the standards and some proof that we need some type of anchor tenant in that sort of building in order to make this not a losing proposition. Feels they meet the standard of practical difficulty for an area variance. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT 12 --- -~ PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Warren County Planning Board disapproved, no comment. (on file) Beautification Committee disapproved. Disapproved for landscaping, screening and p1antings for the above applicant. Asked to refer applicant to their committee for approval of its plans prior to granting the application pending before your Board or before the construction permit has been granted. Letter from Gary Roth, 4 Pine Avenue. Opposing area variance no. 111-1989. (on file) Mr. & Mrs. Robert Whiting, 37 Glenwood A venue, opposing area variance no. 111-1989. (on file) STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (on file) DISCUSSION HELD MR. SCHACHNER-Stated that the two residential properties owners if we were looking for a use variance those would be relevant comments. We're in a permitted zone and to this extents the Town Board and Town of Queensbury has decided this is the location for this type of commercial project. Stated this is not maximizing the property. This is a struggle to break even on a significant property with significant carrying costs. In regard to traffic we are in an area that although this type of use. Quaker Road is being widen because there is this highway and plaza commercial along Quaker Road. Asked them to keep in mind the type of operation that is going to going in this location. MR. KELLEY-Asked if he would consider this to be a feasible alternative the building to be turned 40 degrees? MR. SCHACHNER-Stated they tried this proposal, but it is not a feasible alternative because of the internal traffic situation and flow, but there is also a concern from the banks standpoint a visibility concern. MR. BERSTEIN-Stated there is also a problem of getting a required amount of parking for the area. Stated if they tried to move the parking if you brought it up to the line we were also loosing some of this parking (refers to map). We weren't able to cover the amount of parking that we now have on this plan. MR. SCHACHNER-Stated if your going to need a setback variance you would probably want it on Quaker Road not on G1enwood. MR. KELLEY-Stated they are supposed to grant minimum relief, asked what would be minimal relief? MR. SCHACHNER-Stated they are submitting that the minimal relief would come from the Quaker Road setback rather than the G1enwood setback. MR. MULLER-Stated the first proposal was a smaller bank in otherwords you have amended your plan to try to alleviate the setback relief you would need. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. m-1989, TIERNAN, BERNSTEIN, &: PINCHUCK,Introduced by Susan Goetz who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jeffrey Kelley: There is an adverse effect on public facilities there are feasible alternatives. The request made is a substantial change relative to the Ordinance. Duly adopted this 27th day of September, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston NOES: Mr. Muller, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Turner ABSENT:N one DISCUSSION HELD MR. TURNER-Asked why Warren County Planning denied this? MR. BERSTEIN-Stated one of the reasons they were denied was that we represented ourselves doesn't think the facts were properly presented. The principal reason was that we were unable 13 '-~ to respond to a lot of the question. A lot of questions they had revolved around the fact that they felt our move of the sewer pipe was a self inflicted hardship and it was denied on this basis. Believes at the conclusion of the meeting there was an attorney that made comments that they did not look at alternatives about moving the bank and there was some concern about traffic. MR. SCHACHNER-Stated that we are talking about an area variance not a use variance an existing building just as close or a little closer to Quaker Road, and we're on Quaker Road which as zoned allows this type of development. MR. BERSTEIN-Stated they have consulted more than one architect in order to design a center that we think is going to work architecturally. Spent a considerable amount of time talking to credit type tenants. We are being conscious of what we think is going to work. MRS. GOETZ-Stated it should be the proper design and the right setbacks. MR. BERSTEIN-Stated he didn't buy into this situation. Thinks what they are requesting here is to try to get into a situation that is going to minimize the effect it has. MR. TURNER-Feels a bank being in this location will have less impact on the area. MR. MULLER-Stated with this proposal there is an argument that can be made that they're taking that existing wood frame building and removing it and in it's place putting up the same type of setback and yet improving upon the look of the piece of property. Thinks a bank is an upscale proposal. MR. SCHACHNER-Stated they have made many attempts to try to do this in any fashion that minimizes or eliminates the need for a variance. MR. KELLEY-Stated if they made all of these attempts why didn't you bring them as evidence? MR. SCHACHNER-Stated if this is going to be the critical factor we can come back at a future date. Stated he would agree with Mr. Kelley, but having been through what this applicant has been through to try to come up with a better plan. MR. MANZ-Stated there were 4 plans done in Canada, 9 plans done by Environmental Design Partnership, and C.T. Male did 6. UNKNOWN-Stated they didn't look at the site from a term from staying within the area between an easement and the setback line, tired alternatives where we moved them to the other side of the easement and functionally as to interior circulation thinking of items such as where the parking would be located in relationship to the buildings nothing worked to get the amount of parking that was necessary and to get an even flow that was of a safe nature where we were going to have pedestrians crossing areas of vehicular circulation unnecessarily. The three buildings in the position where they are provides no sense for vehicular circulation. MR. SCHACHNER-Stated the internal traffic situation has to be evaluated and our consultants did compromise their principals on the issue. MR. MULLER-Stated if you deal with the question of whether there is a practical difficulty on this piece of property and you address that and if your given approval of a setback relief on this your not endorsing this project. Your endorsing the proposition that this is a piece of property that has a practical difficulty hand it over to the Planning Board to see if they would like it. Feels that it has a practical difficulty because the applicant ought to be allowed to use that piece of property. MR. KELLEY-Agrees that the lot has some difficulty, but wasn't convinced that all the avenues were explored. MR. MULLER-Asked if the planning staff was satisfied that this is the only variance that would be necessary based on this plan? MR. GORALSKI-Stated the original plan that I had was not. MR. SCHACHNER-Stated the current plan is also not. This is a tiny setback in one corner that we thought was so minimal and insignificant that we be granted it. Thinks they can make this work because it is small. MR. MULLER-Doesn't think this is a problem. Asked if there was any paved parking within 50 feet any body of water or stream? 14 ",- - -------' MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. M0'I10N TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. m-1989, TIERAN, BERNSTEIN, &: PINCHUCKIntroduced by Michael Muller who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: This would allow the construction of a bank that would be 41 feet from Quaker Road rather than 75 feet required from an arterial road. The proposed retail space would be allowed to be situated within the 75 foot setback. The applicant has shown that there have been 3 dozen plans pivoting the bank several different ways. The uses available to this parcel in a HC zone are a important aspect to consider a bank is a more suitable use. We are concerned about the visual aspect this can be addressed by site plan review. We hope the planners are concerned with the traffic around the ATM. Now this plan would improve the site because the existing building is unsightly. It is unfair to deny the applicant reasonable use of the property it seems to be boxed in by the sewer lines. Duly adopted this 27th day of September, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Muller, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: Mrs. Goetz ABSENT:N one USE VARIANCE NO. n2-1989 RONALD P. DUFOUR LYNN A VENUE BETWEEN PffiLLIPS AVENUE AND PARK AVENUE UR-I0 TO OPERATE A TRUCKING BUSINESS IN A ZONE WHERE IT IS NOT AN ALLOWABLE USE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. m-2~, 7 ,8,9 SECTION 4.020-E LOT SIZE: 37,500 SQ. FT. RON ALD DUFOUR PRESENT MR. TURNER-Asked how much repair work is done at this site? MR. DUFOUR-Stated some is done at the site. Anything extensive that has to be done it's taken out. MR. TURNER-Asked if he owns the lot on Dix Avenue where the equipment is stored? MR. DUFOUR-Yes. MR. TURNER-Asked what his intentions were of this lot? MR. DUFOUR-Stated when he gets financially situated would like to put up a wood frame garage to park equipment there. MR. TURNER-Asked if he has any vandalism problem? MR. DUFOUR-Yes. PRESENTED PICTURES TO BOARD OF HIS PROPERTY AND THE CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE MR. DUFOUR-Stated he has a petition signed by neighbors that are in agreement of his proposal. MR. SICARD-Asked what the hours of operation are in the winter? MR. DUFOUR-Stated it varies. MR. SICARD-Asked about summer? MR. DUFOUR-Not before 7:00 p.m.. MR. SICARD-Stated this is a residential zone. MR. DUFOUR-Stated before it was changed to residential commercial it was highway commercial. MR. SICARD-Stated we have to look at the way things are today. MR. DUFOUR-Stated when he gets financially situated he plans on moving the trucks out of the area. Everyone that would be affected by the trucks starting signed the petition in my favor. Stated the trucks are not as loud as what you hear in the neighborhood. PRESENTED A RECORDING OF NOISE THAT IS HEARD IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE 15 .--..- --- BOARD MR. MULLER-Stated the area along Dix A venue has become highly commercialized it's highly unlikely to sell property as residential confirmed by contacts with realtors, asked Mr. Dufour to explain this. MR. DUFOUR-Stated if he sold this lot the realtor said it would interfere with the value of the property. Stated he isn't here to put of a building when I get situated I will put up a garage on Dix A venue. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED PAUL GRINNELL-he lives in back of me. I have no problem at all with his trucks. MR. TURNER-His hours of operation don't concern you? MR. GRINNELL-He can operate as long as he wants. KEN FRENCH-live almost directly across from Ron Dufour. The trucks aren't a major problem down there. The noise doesn't bother us my parents right across from me they don't bother them. The only thing that bothers us down there is the cement works with the dust and everything every time it rains the cement dust is poured into the air and nobody does nothing about it. ECON was surprised that Queensbury would do nothing about it. Ron and I were down to the canal and took pictures when this was happening and it seems every time it rains the cement company does this. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Warren County Planning Board approved. (on file) Beautification Committee approved. (on file) Letter from Charles Ribaudo, lives at 11 Marion A venue owns property at 9 Phillips A venue. In opposition of use variance no. 112-1989. (on file) STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (on file) DISCUSSION HELD MRS. GOETZ-Stated in his back yard there is quite a bit of a mess asked if he was going to be cleaning this up? MR. DUFOUR-Stated he could clean this up. MRS. EGGLESTON-Stated these people in the neighborhood may want to sell their homes in the future and this may have an impact on the value of their homes. UNKOWN-Stated he was looking to use this for only a short term basis. MR. DUFOUR-Asked his neighbor Mr. Kendall, if his trucking business had any effect on his selling of his property, he stated no. MR. TURNER-Stated that if the Board grants a use the use goes with the land it doesn't go to anyone else once the use is there the use stays. This is residential he has to prove hardship he is using it as zoned he is using it for a permitted use. The Ordinance says, he cannot operate a business in that zone. He has expanded the use since he started it and this is the issue that we have to address. MR. DUFOUR-Stated he did expand the use, but he is still self employed. MR. MULLER-Asked if over the course of years if he maintain his own business vehicles at his home? MR. DUFOUR-Stated when he started out I had the same trucks then I upgraded my equipment. MR. MULLER-Asked when he started his business? MR. DUFOUR-1978. MR. SICARD-Asked if he would be relocating his trucks within a year? 16 .~ ,-..- MR. DUFOUR-Doesn't believe he could do this. MRS. GOETZ-Stated she doesn't want the applicant to be mislead by what uses that could be put in a residential zone. Doesn't want him to be mislead by thinking he could put up a garage behind him on Dix A venue. PAT COLLARD-Stated he would need a variance for this. M0'I10N TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. ll2-1989, RONALD P. DUFOUR,Introduced by Mr. Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: To approve this application for one year to give the applicant ample time to relocate which means to buy or rent or move the operation out of the UR-1O zone. This was a preexisting use in the zone since 1978 and the application is for an expansion of that use. Duly adopted this 27th 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. 113-1989 THOMAS GREENE UPPER GLEN STREET BETWEEN WOODBURY'S AND WENDY'S PC-lA TO OPERATE A RETAIL SALES BUSINESS WITH 15 PARKING SPACES; 39 ARE REQUIRED. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 103-1-20.4 SEC'I10N 7.072 LOT SIZE: 20,565 SQ. FT. THOMAS GREENE PRESENT MRS. GOETZ-Asked about the parking and Woodbury's? MR. GREENE-Stated Woodbury's uses this for parking. MRS. GOETZ-Asked what could be done about this? BILL HALL-Woodbury Lumber. Stated the building was built by Woodbury's quit some time ago. Those people that are parking there from our place don't have to do that anymore. Our door on Glen Street doesn't have a lot. MR. SICARD-Asked how many employees are they going to have and where they are going to park? MR. GREENE-Stated they were going to have 4 employees and they will be parking in the rear. MR. GREENE-Stated they have had the curve moved the big trucks can pull in from our own lot and can turn and back in without going out into the street. MRS. EGGLESTON-Asked what happens if there are customers parked there? MR. GREENE-Stated deliveries occur before the store opens and only delivers once a week. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HALL-Stated the building was operated by Goodyear Tire Center, and I've been there since 1965, 1970, and never as a tire center was the driveway very crowded. What is was after then I don't remember exactly, but then Garvey Vo1kswagon was in there they would leave cars out there that were damage waiting to go in and they had parking for a few other people it was not crowded. I'm saying for what is going on I have never seen a time when there is not room. Their wall against Wendy's property line takes car of that side our wall against their driveway takes care of the other side it's not been very over crowded. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Warren County Planning Board approved. (on file) Queensbury Beautification Committee approved. (on file) M0'I10N TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. ll3-1989, THOMAS GREENE,Introduced by 17 '--, "-- - - .---' Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Turner: This request will have no adverse effect on the neighborhood character it's in the plaza commercial zone where there is already substantial retail. No adverse effect on public facilities the size of the preexisting lot allows no feasible alternatives for parking spaces the requirement is for 39 spaces this will have 15 parking spaces. No neighborhood opposition. The short EAF form shows no negative impact. Duly adopted this 27th 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 18