Loading...
1989-11-15 -- --.~' QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 15, 1989 7:30 P.H. APPLICANT PAGE Area Variance No. 128-1989 DAVID DALEY 1 Area Variance No. 129-1989 ELIZABETH PERKINS 2 Area Variance No. 130-1989 JOHN N. BOOMER 3 Area Variance No. 131-1989 CHARLES H. COFFIN 3 Area Variance No. 132-1989 VICKI BEECHER 5 Area Variance No. 133-1989 PAUL KASSELMAN 7 Area Variance No. 134-1989 N. QSBY. VOL. RES. SQUAD 9 Use Variance No. 135-1989 JOHN DOTY D/B/A/ U-RENT ALL 11 Area Variance No. 136-1989 WAYNE PELAK nÅ“ERIAL HOTEL 11 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. -- QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 15, 1989 7:30 P.M. ~....-' MEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN SUSAN GOETZ, SECRETARY CHARLES O. SICARD JEFFREY KELLEY JOYCE EGGLESTON MICHAEL MULLER BRUCE CARR JOHN GORALSKI, PLANNER PAT COLLARD, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR CORRECTION OF MINUTES, September 27, 1989 Page 4, middle of page where Mrs. Goetz is speaking, care sib entered in. Page 5, in the middle of the paragraph where Dr. Horowitz is speaking, 15 line down, that sib inserted after people. Next line down sib evaluate. Bottom of page, bottom line, starts with Flynn's mind you.... sib use land law. Next page, 19th line down, but sib entered before nobody. Page 12, 2nd paragraph from the bottom, 2nd line that sib inserted in place of they. Page 16, where it says Ken French, 2nd line, live sib inserted before right. Page 4, middle of pg, Mr. Hatin stated (that sib inserted instead of the). MOTION TO APPROVE MINUTES, SEPTEMBER 27, 1989, Introduced by Charles Sicard, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mrs. Goetz: Duly adopted this 15th day of November, 1989, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kel1ey, Mr. Muller, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Carr NEW BUSINESS AREA VARIANCE NO. 128-1989 DAVID DALEY 28 BUENA VISTA DRIVE TO MAINTAIN THE 12 FT. BY 20 FT. STORAGE SHED WHICH DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK. SFR-1A TAX MAP NO. 79-3-9 LOT SIZE: 100 FT. BY 150 FT. SECTION 4.020-H. MR. DALEY PRESENT Letter from Mary and Raymond Gordon (on file). Letter from Solo Po1adian (on file) . MR. TURNER-Asked how long Mr. Daley owned the house. MR. DALEY-Stated he had been there five years. MRS. GOETZ-Stated in Mr. Daley's attachment he talked to several people. MR. DALEY-Stated he worked for Scott Paper and there were a 10t of people there in the Queensbury area. MRS. GOETZ-Asked if he talked to anyone official? MR. DALEY-No. MR. TURNER-Asked how the shed was attached to the ground? MR. DALEY-Stated it was on concrete cement. MR. KELLEY-Asked John Goralski about rear yard setback listed on the side of the house. 1 "-- - '---- MR. GORALSKI-Stated that there are two front yards because this lot is bordered on two sides by roads. Stated also that that was an interpretation made by the zoning board. MR. KELLEY-Stated that he believed that there are deed restrictions as to side yard setbacks that were in place long ago that they had to be 15 ft. on a side property line. MR. GORALSKI-Stated that that might be possible but the definitions of side yard and front yard in the deed restrictions may be different from the definitions in our zoning ordinance. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED STAFF INPUT Notes from Stuart Baker, Assistant Planner (on file) MRS. EGGLESTON-Noted in the ordinance this zoning larger than 200 sq. ft., size of the shed. that storage sheds so he '11 also need aren't permitted in a variance from the MR. TURNER-Correct. MRS. GOETZ-Stated that this could be included in the motion. MR. MULLER-Asked how a distinction would be made from this and someone who comes in and wants to put a building 7 ft. from the line and 240 sq. ft. rather than 200 sq. ft, and rather than setback 20 ft. from the line. MRS. EGGLESTON-Stated there is a 10t of room on this lot. There is room to meet all of the setback requirements without a hardship to the applicant. MR. TURNER-Asked Mr. Daley that he was not aware that there was a zoning ordinance in the Town of Queensbury, that he needed a permit? MR. DALEY-Stated that he was not aware that he needed one for a yard shed. MR. MULLER-Asked if there was a leachfield in the backyard? MR. DALEY-Stated that he was sure there was, but he bought the house constructed, it was built in 1972, and he didn't know exactly where it was. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 128-1989 DAVID DALEY, Introduced by Michael Muller who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: Unfortunately, it was built in advance of a permit process and any necessary variances. It was not done with mean spirited intent. Substantial relief is requested. The closest neighbors do not object. Purpose of letting it stay here is to keep it from being visible to Buena Vista Drive. Present garden site is taken into consideration. It will be 7 ft. from the rear line, 13 foot relief. It will be allowed to stay at 240 sq. ft. The short EAF form shows no substantial adverse impact. Duly adopted this 15th day of November, 1989, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Sicard, Mr. MulIer, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Turner NOES: Mrs. Goetz ABSTAINED: Mr. Carr AREA VARIANCE NO. 129-1989 ELIZABETH PERKINS OFF PILOT KNOB ROAD, TAKE DIRT ROAD ON LAKESIDE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 6 FT. BY 12 FT. DECK AND STAIRS (ADDITION). THE ADDITION WOULD ENCROACH UPON THE REQUIRED SETBACKS FROM THE LAKE. WR-1A (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) LOT SIZE: 2± ACRES SECTION: 7.012 TABLED BY APPLICANT UNTIL NEXT MONTH. 2 " ""-'- -- AREA VARIANCE NO. 130-1989 JOHN N. BOOMER ROUTE 9L TO LOCKHART LOOP ACROSS FROM LOCKHART MT. RD. FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 16 FT. BY 16 FT. SUN-ROOM WITH A 14 FT. BY 6 FT. DECK WHICH DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIRED SETBACK FROM LAKE GEORGE. WR-3A (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 1-1-32 LOT SIZE: .72 ACRES SECTION: 7.012 Applicant Not Present PUBLIC HEARING OPEBIID NO COMMENT PUBLIC BEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Warren County Planning disapproved. application (on file) Letter from Lionel Barthold supporting STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner DISCUSSION WAS HELD: MR. KELLEY-Stated what they were proposing was too close to the lake and questioned whether there were any alternatives? MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 130-1989, JOHN N. BOOKER, Introduced by Michael Mul1er who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: Applicant is not here so we can I t ask any questions. The problem is that this is a request for substantial relief. The proposal is to be 34 ft. from the lake, the requirement is 75 ft. There is all kinds of room to the rear of the house where the addition could be put. Without more information, it looks like there could be other alternatives. The property is about 3/4 of an acre. Duly adopted this 15th day of November, 1989, by the fo110wing vote: AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mr, Muller, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSTAINED: Mr. Carr AREA VARIANCE NO. 131-1989 CHARLES M. COFFIN WEST SIDE OF RIDGE ROAD, 2 MILES NORTH OF ROUTE 149 A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FOR COMPLETION OF AN ADDITION (20 FT. BY 24 FT.) TO THE HOUSE WITHIN 75 FT. OF A STREAM. RR-3A LC-42A (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 22-1-7 LOT SIZE: 30 ACRES SECTION: 7.012 A3 CHARLES COFFIN PRESENT MR. SICARD-Asked how big the stream was? MR. COFFIN-Stated it was 3 ft. at the most and it drys up in the summer. MR. SICARD-Asked if the dimensions meet the definition of a stream? MR. GORALSKI-Stated a stream isn't defined by the width. stream by the DEC, the APA, and its a stream on our maps. It is considered a MR. KELLEY-Stated, from the drawing presented, it 100ked as though the particular addition was 36 ft. from the stream and asked if his existing house was 32 ft. wide? MR. COFFIN-Yes. MR. KELLEY-Stated that would be 68 ft. and even if he attached it on the furthest side of the house.... 3 '-- MR. COFFIN-Stated a cellar entrance is what he was trying to have and that cellar entrance was only 6 ft. from the end of the house on which the stream is. MR. KELLEY-Stated even if he put it on the extreme end of the house, he is still within 75 ft. MR. COFFIN-Stated at the time he built it was 15 ft. MR. TURNER-Asked when the original construction was? MR. COFFIN-Stated 1978. MRS. GOETZ-Asked if zoning was only 15 ft. from stream when built? MR. COFFIN-Yes. MR. KELLEY-Asked if stream runs down into Dunham I s Bay and how far back is it - the wetlands? MR. COFFIN-Stated about 1500 ft. maybe 12. ft, before you get to wetland. Stream would take you about 2,000 PUBLIC BEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC BEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Warren County Planning Board approved. STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (on file) MRS. GOETZ-Asked about variance for expansion of a non-conforming structure, was it covered? MR. KELLEY-Stated he didn't understand what makes it nonconforming. MRS. EGGLESTON-Stated it was nonconforming in that it's at the required setback from the stream. MR. KELLEY-Asked if the nonconformity were the setback? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. KELLEY-Stated if a variance were given, it would not have a nonconformity. MR. GORALSKI-Stated the existing building is nonconforming. It doesn't meet the setback requirement from the stream. A variance is being given to put the addition closer than 75 ft. from the stream. This does not change the fact that the existing building is less than 75 ft. from the stream and is therefore a pre-existing, nonconforming building. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 131-1989, CJl.ARLES M. COFFIN, Introduced by Jeffrey Kelley who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: This is an area variance and calls for a 75 ft. setback from the stream. The applicant has an existing home where the addition is being attached, 36 ft. from the stream. They started construction in 1978. Then the requirement for setback was 15 ft. They had a shortfall of money and had just installed the foundation. Since then, the ordinance has changed twice. The requirement is now 75 ft. back from the stream. The strict application of the present ordinance causes a practical difficulty. The addition placed here is to cover the entrance to the basement. It is not detrimental to the neighborhood. It is a reasonable request, No negative impact on public facilities. The short EAF shows no negative impact. No neighborhood opposition. 4 " -- -- -- Duly adopted this 15th day of November, 1989, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Muller, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSTAINED: Mr. Carr AREA VARIANCE NO. 132-1989 VICKI BEECHER 6 CARROLL STREET TO ALTER THE ONE FAMILY HOME INTO A TWO FAMILY HOME. DUPLEX ZONING REQUIRES 20,000 SQ. FT. OF LAND; THIS PROPERTY IS 10,725 SQ. FT. ONLY INTERIOR ALTERATIONS WILL BE DONE. UR-10 (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 111-5-12 LOT SIZE: 65 FT. BY 165 FT. SECTION: 4.020-E VICKI BEECHER PRESENT MR. KELLEY-Asked, as he saw it, if that was her driveway with the house to the left of it? MRS. BEECHER-Yes. MR. KELLEY-Asked if the house she lives in is an individual lot? MRS. BEECHER-Stated that it is now, but it wasn't 2 years ago. It was all one lot. The Beecher's were left the lot across the road. The 10ts were subdivided, three lots into two lots. MR. KELLEY-Asked if the property line, in reference to the edge of the driveway that's towards her house, was on the west side? MRS. BEECHER-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-Asked if she were in the process of building her own home? MRS. BEECHER-Stated they have put their own home there. They had to take the siding down from the house and repairs were done. They have a lot of water damage. The roof leaks. MR. MULLER-Asked what the interior of the structure would be? to have two families in there? She proposes MR. BEECHER-Stated it was a two-family at one time. They would like to close off the entrance way that goes up the stairs and make that into a living room and put a kitchen where one of the bedrooms used to be. MRS. EGGLESTON-Asked if there were any other two family houses other than down on the corner? MRS. BEECHER-Stated she didn't believe so. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CATHERINE DARE-I'm Catherine Dare and I live at 6 Carroll Street in the downstairs. I was born in that house 70 years ago. I have lived there most of my life and I'd like to die there. There's no reason, if you don't do anything to the exterior, it'll look the same. It's a two story house. Full two story and I would like to be able to live there and with the lady living upstairs she sort of keeps watch over me because I am 70 and I'm not too well. I'm for it. LARRY FOUNTAINE-Larry Fountaine, I live right across the street, 5 Carroll Street. I lived in that house for 17 years and I'm strongly opposed to this. As far as I'm concerned, there isn't room enough over there. There's already two trucks and two cars in that driveway. As far as applying for a variance, the steps are already in and the entrance is in. The land is only half as big as the requirement. There isn't room enough. This is going to be low income housing. It's going to devaluate my property and all the property of my neighbors. I definitely don't want this in here. There's no other two family home on the whole street except the one on the corner. Matt Taylor, he lives next door, he isn't here now, but he is also opposed to it. I don't want it. It's only going to bring low income housing. 5 -' -Maybe someone is living there now that's related to someone a couple of years ago, five years ago. I'm definitely opposed to it. I don't want it. I think the steps should be taken down. I think the entrance should be taken out. They were done without a variance. He asked me in August if I minded. I said yes I do, I don't want you to do it and he went ahead and did it anyway and I wouldn' t even dream of doing something like that. He had no right to do it and I want those steps out and I want that entrance out and that's how I feel about it. I I ve lived in that home of mine for 17 years and I don't want to see the neighborhood turned into a dump. Thank you. ...-' ..-' DAVID BUTLER-David Butler, 11 Queensbury Avenue, I live on the corner adjacent to the property in question and I oppose it because I don I t think the land is big enough. Beecher has a business there. He has a big business truck there. A pickup truck. His wife's personal car and Mrs. Dare's car. We have more family I s in there you' 11 have another car or maybe possibly two. It'll just be a congested area. The property is way too sma11 for what they are proposing. MIKE WALPO-I live right across the street. Since this has been going on, I am very concerned about the safety of my kids on the street. There's a lot of cars that seem to be going by fast. GARY BOLDIN-I live at 3 Carroll Street, across the street. I'm not too concerned about the families they plan on putting in there at the present time. As everybody else, I'm concerned about what could happen in the future. Who could move in there and the activity over there. The activity in the past two years has increased an awful lot. Traffic on the street is just, it's like I don It know where it's coming from. I don't think it should go in because of the future. What could happen in the future. Who could move in there. DARLEEN PIERCY-I live on 11 Carroll Street. I lived there 15 years. I agree with Mr. Fountaine and Mr. Butler. Traffic, it's like a hotel there. People in and out at all times of the night and during the day. The street I s going down the hill - fast. LEE BUTLER-Lives at 11 Queensbury Avenue on the corner. We've been in our home 19 years this January and we have put most of our extra money remodeling our homes, ours happens to be almost 100 years old. We have all of our hopes and dreams in that house. We do not plan on leaving. That house is our special home and we do not want the neighborhood added and increased and the traffic and everything else that is involved and our families are growing up, yes, but we are staying there. Thank you. RUSSELL GREEN-We live behind the area in question at 119 and we own business property at 117 Dix Avenue. Could I ask a question about rentals of a one family house. Can you rent your house out as a one family house now? Yes. So the only question is whether it I S a two family. (To the Board) I was also supposed to ask you if you received a letter from Mattison Taylor. (Board said yes). I haven't made up my mind yet. I was gonna listen to everything and try to make a decision. We don't like the entrance in the back. That's the main concern, as well as the future. The way it stands now, if they get a variance, and this thing goes through, you could rent it as a two family to unrelated people. MRS. GOETZ-That's one of the big points. These particular people might have some kind of a personal hardship which we cannot consider because the variance would go for the property and if it was granted to them, whoever was in that house would be able to have it as a two family house. MR. GREEN-So you don't look it as a hardship case and then put a limitation. MRS. GOETZ-In my opinion, it is not a good idea to do that. MR. TURNER-From a sense of a financial gain or being able to use the house and prevent it to obtain financial gain to pay for whatever, like Mrs. Goetz said it's not a good idea. MRS. GOETZ-We might be sympathetic with somebody' s personal, we ourselves, but we can't consider them because personal hardship doesn't come into it. It would have to be financial hardship. 6 - - ~ -' PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Letter from Mattison and Grace Taylor, 8 Carroll St., To Town of Queensbury Zoning Board, (on file) Warren County Planning Board approved. STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (on file) MR. TURNER-Asked Mrs. Beecher if she had any thing else? MRS. BEECHER-Yes. Stated a lot of the cars people had complaints about belonged to these people's children. The lady who is moving in is already living there. She is disabled and will never own a car. She doesn't plan on renting to kids. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED LARRY FOUNTAINE-If this is right now, what's to say in two years from now, that your not going to have a house full of people, two car driveway that just can't accommodate it all. Another thing, if this one party is allowed to turn their house into a two family house, what's to stop all the rest of us from doing it? This area isn't zoned that way. I rea11y don't think that it's practical to do this now because of a hardship when five years from now you're going to have a whole house full of people over there. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. EGGLESTON-Stated that this would change the character of the neighborhood. MR. MULLER-Stated this is something that might be addressed in the site plan. He hasn't heard proof that allows it to go from a half acre down to a quarter acre. MR. KELLEY-Stated it is zoned as an urban residential and it's a single family house now so it's being used as it's zoned. MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 132-1989, VICKI BEECHER, Introduced by Michael Muller who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: The applicant cannot demonstrate practical difficulty to depart from the substantial difference in the land requirement for duplex. To allow the duplex without the additional land would be a detriment to the ordinance. This property is about one-fourth acre. Duly adopted this 15th day of November, 1989, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Muller, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSTAINED: Mr. Carr AREA VARIANCE NO. 133-1989 PAUL KASSELHAN PLUMB POINT, ROUTE 9L FOR MODIFICATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE. WR-1A (WARREN COUNTY PLAHHING) TAX HAP NO. 3-1-9 LOT SIZE: 1± ACRE SECTION: 7.011, 9.010 JIM MILLER, NORTH FIELD DESIGN, REPRESENTING PAUL KASSELMAN MR. TURNER-Asked what the amenities contained in the house now were? MR. MILLER-Stated that it was a 3 bedroom residence with a large combined kitchen-living-dining space. Sunroom/recreation room off to one side. It's not on a foundation at this time. MR. KELLEY-Asked if it were two-storys? MR. MILLER-Yes. It's a story and a half. The second story will be built into the roof structure. 7 '- ~ MRS. GOETZ-Asked if this will be a year round residence? MR. MILLER-Stated it wil1 be designed as such. MRS. GOETZ-Asked if this addition would obstruct the house behind their's view? MR. MILLER-Stated on the angle it may, but it wouldn't be much more of an obstruction than what's there now. MR. TURNER-Asked if he could go up with the addition instead of out with it? MRS. EGGLESTON-Stated, building so close to house next door. It shows disregard for them. MR. MILLER-Stated Mr. Kasselman desired to maximize the view from his property. MRS. GOETZ-Stated while he was maximizing his view, he was minimizing the next door neighbor's view. MRS. EGGLESTON-Stated that there may be another alternative. MR. TURNER-Stated that he has an existing deck and asked if the other proposed deck would be cosmetic? MR. MILLER-Stated it would be a functional deck. the whole design together. Cosmetically, it would tie MR. KELLEY-Asked if the addition was just one bedroom? MR. MILLER-Yes. Stated they would be changing the existing house which has bedrooms and living space into all living space. MR. TURNER-Asked if he had a plan of the house? MR. MILLER-Stated that it alternative considered was existing structure. was very to develop preliminary at this point. The other a whole new structure and demolish the MR. TURNER-Asked about the difference in cost if it were demolished? MR. MILLER-Stated there would be a difference of about $20,000. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Letter from C.T. Brickman and Associates, To Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, including an attachment from Paul Kasselman to C. T. Brickman and Associates, (on file) MRS. GOETZ-Asked if Mr. Kasselman just bought the house? MR. MILLER-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-Asked if Mr. Kasselman were aware of the zoning. MR. MILLER-Yes. Warren County Planning Board disapproved STAFF INPUT Notes from Stuart Baker, Assistant Planner (on file) MR. MILLER-Asked if they were to go off the back of the building, approximately 80 ft. from the lake, would this require a variance? 8 '...... '-. _/ MRS. COLLARD-Stated it would need site plan review from the planning board. MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 133-1989 PAUL KASSELMAN, Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Susan Goetz: The applicant has not shown practical difficulty. There are other reasonable alternatives. What he is requesting is detrimental to his neighbors and to the shoreline setback. Duly adopted this 15th day of November, 1989, by the following vote: AYES: Turner Mr. Kelley, Mr. MulIer, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. NOES: None ABSTAINED: Mr. Carr AREA VARIANCE NO. 134-1989 NORTH QUEENS BURY VOL. RES. SQUAD CORNER OF ROUTE 9L AND CLEVERDALE NEXT TO FIREHOUSE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO BE USED FOR BAY AND STORAGE. REQUESTING A SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 12 FT. IN LIEU OF THE REQUIRED 30 FT. NC-1A (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 10-1-8.2 LOT SIZE: 100 FT. BY 100 FT. SECTION: 4.020-M MR, EDWARD P. CARR REPRESENTING RESCUE SQUAD MR. TURNER-Asked Mr. Carr to define....storage? MR. CARR-Stated the site to the south was to house the new ambulance the squad has purchased. They have certain gear they have to have ready access to. MRS. GOETZ-Asked if the property were filled in a long time ago? MR. CARR-Stated most of it had been built up. Fill was put in in the last few years by the State of New York. MR. MULLER-Asked if there were a road there at one time? MR. CARR-Stated there was an existing road. MRS. EGGLESTON-Asked if the building will be right on the corner where the drop off is into the wetlands? MR. CARR-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Stated that there was a lot of space to move the firehouse and asked if he couldn't go the other way and avoid the setback? MR. CARR-Stated he could, but it precludes the firehouse from further expansion. They want to maintain the separation between the buildings. MRS. GOETZ-Asked what could be done to keep from erosion where he wants to put the building? MR. CARR-Stated there wouldn' t be much of an erosion problem. Would like to put some type of rip rap along that side to stabilize it. MR. TURNER-Asked if he had any problems when he initially built it? MR. CARR-Stated there hasn't seemed to be any problems. MR. KELLEY-Asked if the lot size were 100' by lOa'? MR. CARR-Yes. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN OWEN-President of Rescue Squad, in support. One of the reasons we didn't come towards the fire company was for the fact that, it's actual being used right now as a play area. If we did that would cause problems 9 '- "- with parking. It would cause problems with the children playing in that particular area. There's no guarantee that we're going to get the back property that we're trying to get at this present time. ----..- MR. TURNER-The back, you mean, to the east? MR. OWEN-Yes. It would be to the east. MRS. GOETZ-Do you feel there will be any more filling of the wetlands? MR, OWEN-I don't know. You'd have to ask the State about that. MRS. GOETZ-The staff says there should be no further filling of the wetlands. You have no control at all? MR. OWEN-We have no control. They come down with their trucks and they bring their sand trucks in there and they do what they want. ED CARR-Since we're going to be moving the runoff from the eaves closer to that side, I'd like to put some cobbles or some rip rap along there to more or less stabilize so we don't run the risk of doing any damage. MR. OWEN-I think you could also 100k that the building is only going to be 20 feet wider than it already is and if you walked around the property, we're still quite a ways away from the wetlands and we've never filled anything in and, by the way, when the property was cleared, we hauled all the brush out. Any of the brush that was there we didn't have anything to do with - the State of New York. It was built in '72 and, by the way, you see, Jeff(Ke11ey) I think you were a member back then when we had this problem, that the rescue squad was fighting with the fire company at the time. They were going to give them 70 feet then they said they were going to give them 80 feet and I've got the deed and they gave us 100 feet, 100 by 100 by 100. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Warren County Planning Board approved STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (on file) MR. KELLEY-Stated that the actual building would be extended 20 ft. and if they put the 20 ft. on the other side they would still need a variance on the opposite side. MR. OWEN-Stated it is exactly the same from the edge of the building on either side. MR. MULLER-Stated this is an essential public service, and asked if it was al10wed in any zone, does it have to be on the schedule of uses? Also, are we up against a site pIan review? MRS. COLLARD-Stated she would have to look into the answer. MR. GORALSKI-Stated that this should be researched. Necessity for a variance had been discussed, Something that the Zoning Administrator and Town Attorney should look into. They may need a site pIan approval. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 134-1989 NORTH QUEENS BURY VOL. RES. SQUAD, Introduced by Michael Muller who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: This is a setback variance asking for relief to place a building 12 ft. from the sideline. The requirement is 30 ft. sideline setback. Considering all other feasible alternatives and the constraints of a 100 by 100 ft. lot, this relief is necessary. They are placing a holding tank instead of a septic. This is an improvement. One stipulation will be that rip rap swa1e will be installed to prevent further erosion. This grants them the relief of 8 ft. on the front setback where the requirement is 50 ft. Short EAF shows no negative impact. 10 " _/ Duly adopted this 15th, day of November, 1989 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Muller, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr, Turner NOES: None ABSTAINED: Mr. Carr USE VARIANCE NO. 135-1989 JOHN DOTY D/B/A U-RENT ALL 684 UPPER GLEN STREET FOR THE REMOVAL OF THREE EXISTING STORAGE BUILDINGS. THE BUILDINGS WILL BE REPLACED BY ONE POLE BARN 60 FT. BY 60 FT. PC-IA (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 102-1-9.2 LOT SIZE: 9.2 ACRES SECTION: 4.020 J JOHN DOTY PRESENT MR. TURNER-Asked how long he had owned the business? MR. DOTY-Stated he had owned it for 14 years. MR. SICARD-Asked if the building had anything for water or sewage? MR. DOTY-Stated it has cold storage. MRS. EGGLESTON-Asked if the tractor trailor and dozers on the side of the building will go in the storage building? MR. DOTY-Stated, as in the plan, one of the buildings being removed is a garage building on the right side. A lot of the equipment will be moved from the left side to the right. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Warren County Planning Board approved STAFF INPUT Notes from Stuart Baker, Assistant Planner (on file) MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 135-1989 JOHN DOTY, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: The practical difficulty is that this is a pre-existing, nonconforming use, This will remove three deteriorating buildings. The new building will store the major part of the equipment which is now stored outside. It improves security. No adverse neighborhood impact. No input from the neighbors. The short EAF shows no negative impact. Duly adopted this 15th day of November, 1989, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Muller, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSTAINED: Mr. Carr AREA VARIANCE NO. 136-1989 IMPERIAL MOTEL WAYNE PELAK 29 AVIATION ROAD FOR EXPANSION OF THE MOTEL FROM 31 ROOMS TO 48 ROOMS. HC-IA (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 72-5-13 LOT SIZE: 1 ACRE SECTION: 4.020-K RICHARD JONES, RICHARD JONES ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS REPRESENTING WAYNE PELAK MR. JONES-Stated this was before the zoning board last August and granted a variance at that time for the square footage of the units which brought 11 ...... c_ --- .-' it up above the 15,000 sq. ft. 1evel. Submission was made to the planning board last month. They would not act upon it because of the gravel area. Now, they are looking for a variance to proceed with the project. Looking to have 20 percent permeable, grass, area on the site. MR. TURNER-Asked if he would be acceptable to taking the gravel out and putting something permeable in? Also, how much would that entail? MR. JONES-Stated it was discussed with the planning board the option of changing the gravel drive to a grass area. They were not agreeable because they felt eventually the grass area would become matted down and would not be a permeable surface either. They can't delete parking because they need one for each unit. MR. TURNER-Ask if they would go along with the green area? MR. JONES-No. MR. MULLER-Asked if they have some criteria that says that they can do that? MR. GORALSKI-Stated the definition of permeable surface in the zoning ordinance was discussed with the consulting engineer. This is where it was decided gravel parking was not a permeable area by definition. MR. MULLER-Asked if one car per unit was needed? MR. JONES-Yes. MR. MULLER-Asked if they want us to say that 20 percent of the lot being permeable is acceptable? MR. JONES-Yes. They have a drainage system designed for the piece of property which retains all water on site. MR. SICARD-Stated that the water doesn't leave the property. MR. JONES-Correct. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Warren County Planning Board approved STAFF INPUT Notes from Stuart Baker, Assistant Planner (on file) MR. KELLEY-Stated at the planning board, feasible alternatives for obtaining 30 percent permeability were thoroughly discussed and none were found to be acceptable. Asked if he had the storm drain plan? MR. JONES-Yes. MR. KELLEY-Stated this was not acceptable. WAYNE PELAK-Stated he didn't know that they said it was not acceptable, but they wanted to see 30 percent permeability. They saw the drywalls. MR. KELLEY-Asked if he was going to blacktop it, since the gravel driveway is considered non-permeable? MR. JONES-Asked the Board if they could blacktop it? MR. KELLEY-Stated it would be a better alternative. MR. TURNER-Asked if it was stone dust or rubble? 12 '-- '- ..- -../ MR. JONES-Stated it was stone dust. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. Introduced by Jeffrey Kelley who moved Turner: 136-1989 IMPERIAL for its adoptions MOTEL WAYNE PELAKs seconded by Theodore This is an area variance. The applicant is requesting a 20 percent permeability in lieu of the required 30 percent requirement by the zoning ordinance. The applicant has submitted the drainage plan designed to handle storm water runoff. It is designed for the 50 year flood situation. The soils here are sand with good perc rate. This pIan offers a feasible alternative to the 30 percent requirement. Reasonable request. Not detrimental to public facilities. The public sewer system is here. Gravel parking area which is determined by the Queensbury Planning Board not to be permeable. We recommend that this parking area in the present gravel area be blacktopped. This would enhance the drainage system. This is a reasonable request. Short EAF shows no negative impact. Duly adopted this 15th day of Novembers 1989, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kelleys Mr. MulIers Mr. Sicards Mrs. Goetzs Mrs. Egglestons Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSTAINED: Mr. Carr On motion the meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTEDs Theodore Turners Chairman 13