Loading...
1990-01-17 '!" '-' -- QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR HEETING JANUARY 17TH, 1990 INDEX Ar~a Varianc~ No. 27-1989 Francis A. Giroux 1 Ar~a Varianc~ No. 1442 D~bbi~ & St~v~n Sch~ib~1 2 Sign Varianc~ No. 1-1990 Tribun~ M~dia S~rvic~ 13 Ar~a Varianc~ No. 2-1990 Char1~s A. Di~h1 14 Us~ Varianc~ No. 3-1990 Mark W. Darius 30 Us~ Varianc~ No. 4-1990 Kar~n L. Somm~r; Dav~ Goodall; 35 Sh~ldon Chas~ Sign Varianc~ No. 5-1990 John A. Brock 38 Ar~a Varianc~ No. 6-1990 Byron B. Rist 47 Us~ Varianc~ No. 7-1990 Airron Industrial Corp. 51 Ar~a Varianc~ No. 8-1990 Ralph & Micha~l Woodbury 57 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 FIRST REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 17TH, 1990 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN SUSAN GOETZ, SECRETARY JOYCE EGGLESTON JEFFREY KELLEY BRUCE CARR HEKBERS ABSENT CHARLES SICARD DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY-KARLA CORPUS ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-PAT COLLARD STUART BAKER, ASSISTANT PLANNER CORRECTION OF MINUTES December 20th, 1989: Page 11, the name Fred A1exus sib Fred Alexy, all the way down the page; Page 21, middle of the page, Mrs. Goetz stated there were some good aspects to the application, further on, the last sentence, very often the Board likes to sib give not get the minimum relief; Page 29, at the top, enforcing their sign ordinance, or they shouldn't have one: if they're not going to vote on it sib if they're not going to enforce: it; Page 4, fourth item down, Mr. Kelley, asked if the swim platform were 50 beyond, I I m talking about if the swim platform were out beyond that meaning the dock or was that included in the 25 feet, was more like that should read; next part, where it says Mr. Davies stated he believes the swim platform was probably beyond that another 25 feet, I believe the tertninology probably was more like another few feet; on that same page, on the bottom, the fourth list up, where Mr. Muller talks about rafters on the building as being 2 foot by 6, foot, sib 2 by 6 in rafters; Page 22 second paragraph, Mr. Kelley is speaking, end of the big paragraph, since there's no way you could build bigger than his.... print sib footprint; Page 27, third paragraph down, sib would they still put the store there, not door; Page 23, first sentence, sib element of surprise, not disability of supplies; Page 19, referring to plat sib plot plan; Page 13, half way down sib plot plan, not plat; Page 7, Part way down, where Mr. Muller asked if they were to grant this variance, they wouldn't have to reach the question whether or not the ramp is a good idea, not it. MOTION TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED, Introduced by Susan Goetz who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: AYES: Mr. Carr, Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 27-1989 TYPE II UR-lO FRANCIS A. GIROUX 14 COLWOIIA AVENUE FOR EXTENSION OF THE VARIANCE APPROVAL OF MARCH 15 t 1989 TO REPLACE ~ EXISTING DWELLING WITH A NEW DWELLING OF 24 FT. BY 40 FT. AT APPROX. THE SAME LOCATION, INCREASING THE FRONT SETBACK. TAX MAP NO. 117-6-8 LOT SIZE: .114 ACRES SECTION 4.010 E MRS. GOETZ-Read letter. On March 15th, 1989 an area variance was granted on my property at 14 Columbia Avenue, Queensbury. I applied for a construction loan and FHA mortgage on June 15th, 1989. That application is still being processed and I would ~ike to renew my variance. It is an area variance number 27-1989. Please put me on the agenda for the next available meeting. Signed Francis Giroux. MOTION TO AP:fROVE EXTENSION OF AREA VARIANCE NO. 27-1989 FRANCIS A. GIROUX, Introduced by ¡heodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jeffrey Kelley: ( \ To extend the variance for a period of 1 year. Duly adopted this 17th day of January, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carr, Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE 1 ABSENT: Mr ~i~"_~ 1/qD \" , -- AREA VARIANCE NO. 1442 DEBBIE AND STEVEN SCHEIBEL DARK BAY ASSOCIATION DRIVE, APPROX. 0.80 OF A MILE WEST OF BAY ROAD ON ROUTE 9L, DRIVE IS ACROSS THE ROAD FROM BOAT COVER BUSINESS. FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY YEAR-ROUND RESIDENCE. AT PRESENT, IT IS VACANT WITH AN EXISTING DOCK AND STORAGE SHED. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 2-1-6.8 SECTION: NIA BOB STEWART, GLENS FALLS LAWYER REPRESENTING DEBBIE AND STEVEN SCHEIBEL MRS. GOETZ-Read application. Stated it was zoned Lakeshore Residential 3 acres, and that's been changed to Waterfront residential 3? MRS. COLLARD-Stated I think it's WR-1A. MRS. GOETZ-Stated ok, Waterfront Residential 1 acre. (on file). Read Planning Board motion (on file). Read Zoning Board motion MRS. COLLARD-Stated, Mr. Chairman, that's Waterfront Residential 3 acres. MR. STEWART-Stated for the record, my name is Bob Stewart and I'm a lawyer in Glens Falls, and 1'm here representing the applicants and the owners of the property, which, in reality, is DEBARON Associates. This application for an area variance was filed by the owners themselves, without an attorney, back in October of 1988 and they indicated that Mr. and Mrs. Scheibel were the owners. Well, that isn 't really accurate. The truth of the matter is, that Ron Durante, Barbara VanSlooten, and Debra Scheibel, three children of Mr. and Mrs. James Durante, have owned this property back since January 1974. Those three children, in December of 1981, deeded the property from themselves, as individuals, to a partnership that they formed called DEBARON Associates and DEBARON is Debbie, Barbara, and Ron. It's the three children, only they decided to hold it in the form of a partnership and I would offer, for your records, a copy of the 1981 deed that recites the history and shows that these three children, either individually or in partnership form, have owned this property since 1974. So, what we have, in reality, is when Debbie Scheibel and her husband came up, they are acting as agents or representatives of the family of the three of them, their partnership. Now, they came before this Board in October 1988 with a simple application for an area variance. The lot in question is a small lot. It has some slopes to the water and it's obviously a somewhat difficult lot to work with, however, it was a preexisting lot in a subdivision. It was approved in 1969 and it was reapproved and the map duly refi1ed in Warren County as late as 1976. So, it's a duly authorized, residential lot in an approved subdivision. It has been appraised or, assessed is the correct word, by the Town of Queensbury for the years 1987, 88, and 89 for an assessed value of $200,000. I, of course, was not representing these people nor was any lawyer at the time and I've got to make a couple of guesses here, but I think the Board felt that the application before them was a simple application. It was for a relief from that 75 foot lake shore setback. It had been rented many times before. I'll bet I've been there a half a dozen times, it had been rented. Nothing peculiar, in and of itself, except that the lot was a small lot and this Board thought it might be helpful, particularly since you have the right to approve it with conditions, to send it to the Planning Board to get their comments as to slopes, sewer, etc. and receive whatever judgement they had to offer. You did that some 15 months ago. About 10 months went by and the applicant, sensing they were not getting anywhere, finally retained the services of my law firm and I have been back before the Planning Board for about 5 months trying to get some response. The Planning Board obviously would prefer that no house be built on this lot. They somehow got the idea that they were functioning as the Board with the authority as though it were a site plan review or something and they had the right to say yes or no, but, of course, only this Board had the right to make that decision. All you asked them for was some advice or comments that you could consider and adopt or reject. A series of questions arose, and if you've gone through the files, and I'm sure you have, a whole raft of questions, confusion, and misinformation is built up over 15 months, so I took the liberty of giving a little handout to each one of you, just to clarify a few of the problems, I think we better do that or we'll be here till midnight debating things. Number one, is there any need for a density variance? The Lake George Association wrote something saying, well they've got to get a density variance. Well, we don't. We're under Section 8011 of the Zoning Ordinance. I've attached a copy of that Section B, if you want to look at it. We're a preexisting, nonconforming lot, in an approved subdivision, and we are legal and proper and we do not have to comply with any density. No variances are required in that regard in the clear language of that Section. So, we don't need any density variance. Someone suggested that we might be within the jurisdiction of the Lake Gêorge Park Commission and that was raised, apparently, for two different 2 .- reasons. Number one, of course, we are wi thin the Lake George Park and Number two, after this application was filed and around December of 1988, the Lake George Park Commission declared all of the land within 500 feet of the shores of Lake George, a critical, environmental area. So, some thought was raised, maybe that requires the jurisdiction of the Lake George Park Commission. So, we wrote the Lake George Park Commission and if you look at Exhibit D, there's a letter from them saying, no, they have no jurisdiction whatsoever in this matter. Now, that still leaves us with the question of the critical, environmental area and that comes up because it raises the question, is a SEQRA review of this project required. Now, this application before this Board is simply for relief from a setback requirement and under the SEQRA requirements, Section 617.13 of the SEQRA Reg's and I've attached a copy of that also as Exhibit E, we are what is know as a Type II action. A Type II action is a proceeding before a Board which requires absolutely no review, no procedures, no action whatsoever by that Board under SEQRA and it lists under that Section, and I highlighted it in yellow, certain projects that are Type II and exempt from SEQRA and a request for an area setback variance from a frontline setback, for a 1akefront setback, is exempt from SEQRA. So, we are not covered under SEQRA. No area variance is covered under SEQRA. Now, if we are, however, in that critical, environmental area that we... back around December of 1988, again, I point your attention to Exhibit F. The suggestion was that if we were in a critical, environmental area, that we might become a Type I project under SEQRA, requiring a full environmental review. However, the Section clearly states that the only projects that would trigger off a Type I review in a critical environmental area, are, so called, Unlisted Actions and we are not an Unlisted Action, we are a Type II action, we are exempt from SEQRA, whether we are in or whether we are out of a CEA, Critical Environmental Area, and, therefore, we don't come under SEQRA at all, and again, I have attached copies of those provisions to try to clear away some of this confusion. There is another question that was raised. We are, of course, building on slopes, and Section 7061 of your Zoning Ordinance suggests that, If a project is to be built on slopes, it may have to go through a site plan review by the Queensbury Planning Board. However, that Section, and I attach a copy of that as Exhibit C, specifically excludes lots in previously approved subdivisions. So we are not involved in any way in that requirement. What I'm leading up to, as quickly as I can, is that the only issue before you, when you clear away the dead wood, is are we or are we not entitled to relief from that 75 foot setback. There is no other issue. No other review. No other procedure that needs to be followed. In probably 25 years or so before this Board, I don't think I've ever had one quite as clear cut as to the ... I have attached, as Exhibit A, the grounds from your own Ordinance for area variances such as this is. I've also attached use variances, but I think this Board probably has those memorized after all these years. On area variances, the applicant only needs to show that the lot, because of some situation with the land, he has a practical difficulty to make it difficult for him to comply with the strict rules and regulations (TAPE TURNED) Board to establish that if they gave him the variance that he seems to be entitled to, that they would create some enormous problem within the community. A Use Variance has a much tougher standard. There, an applicant has to show that because of some peculiar situation with his lot, he literally would lose any possible use of his lot or any reasonable return whatsoever from his lot because of the situation with the land and the present zoning. Although, we are only asking for the easier area variance, the truth is we meet all requirements for either area or use and the reason is very simple. Here on the black board, I don't know if you can see it very well, is the outline of the lot. The lot is only 75 or 80 feet deep. If the lot had to comply with the 75 foot setback from the shores of Lake George, you could never build a residence on it at all. The only use, the only legal use, that this particular lot can be put to in this zone is a single family residence. Nothing else is allowed on it. All that's on the lot at the present time is an old dock which is, if I understand correctly back many, many years ago, they had a small little shed, which I think they used to house life jackets and stuff like that in connection with the boat. The dock is there, but the dock, according to your Ordinance, is unusab 1e. When the Planning Commission and the Town Board amended the Ordinance back in the fall of 1988, they inserted a provision that says that you cannot lease docks in private residential zones. There was some talk that maybe the Town Board would amend that later on and there was some criticism of that, but I don't know that they ever did. As far as I know, and I may be wrong, that is still the law. If so, we couldn't even rent this dock to anyone if we wanted to. As far as the dock being a reasonable use, as Mr. Cartier, I spoke to him afterwards and he laughed and said, well, that's not going to fly, but that's what we're going to say, the thought that that dock constitutes a reasonable return on a piece of property worth $200,000 just doesn't make any sense whatsoever. As a matter of fact, not only can the dock not be rented, if we want to get technical about it, I don't even believe it can be used by any member of the family, technically. I believe that 3 the Boards have always interpreted the Queensbury Ordinances as provided, that you can not have the benefit of an accessory use to a piece of property such as a dock, on a lake front lot, unless the property was being put to its principal use. That if you have a house, you can have a dock that goes with it as the accessory use, but you can't take a lot and just add docks with no house. I believe, . . . that I've been involved with over the years, that has been the interpretation of this Board, whether there's been any deviation from that, I don't know, but, in any event, obviously, the utilization of a dock either renting it out to somebody or using it yourself, is not a fair, full, reasonable return on a $200,000 lake front lot on the shores of Lake George. So, what we come down to, very simply, is that this Board will grant this minimal area variance that's all that's being requested and there's nothing else they can do. The area variance that they can build the house back to an existing retaining wall, approximately 30-34 feet back from the lake, build it back behind that retaining wall, or they cannot build any house at all and they cannot use this property in any way, shape, or form legally under this Ordinance. It's as black and white, I think, as any case I've ever seen. You're all familiar with the rules that relate to the request for variances. To take this lot that these people have been paying these taxes on over the years and just render it useless, obviously, it's a taking. The constitution doesn't allow it, the Zoning Laws of the State of New York do not allow it, if a property owner is placed in this kind of situation with a legal, proper, validly approved lot, then really the Board, whether it mayor may not enjoy it, almost has no choice, it seems to me. I'll go further than that, I submit that the Board has no choice but to grant this minimal variance and allow the people to use their lot as a residence and then, one last thing before I get carried away, if you look at your file and if you see the various objections raised by various people, you will note one interesting fact, not a single one of the comments or the objections go to granting the relief from the 75 foot setback. Every single comment, every concern is whether or not any house should ever be allowed to be built at all, on that lot because, somebody suggested well, the people who bought the inland lots, their view might be effected if a lake front lot was developed. Well, if a lake front lot was developed, 75 foot setback or no, obviously, it's going to have some effect on the internal lots, but the internal lot owners knew that when they bought those lots. That's what they bargained for when they bought the cheaper, inside lots, but the 75 foot setback has nothing to do with it. Concerns about septic, concerns about soil or erosion, those all relate to any construction on that lot. They have nothing to do with the limited request in front of this Board which is simply to grant that minimal area variance relating to the setback. Now, in the 14 or l5 months before the Planning Board, every single thing that the Planning Board, I won't say requested, demanded, that the owners do, the owners have agreed to do. They asked for elevations, more sketches of the property and that was submitted. We have a full set of them here and I'm sure copies are attached to your plans. It's a relatively small house. It only has a footprint of 855 square feet. Most of the comments were addressed to the septic. The plan that was before you some 15 months ago, had the house here, on lot number 4, and had a pump station for the septic up along this road leading up to this lot, which was owned by another member of the family, where a septic system was to be built up there to receive it. The Planning Board did not like that in any way, shape, or form, said that that would require a site plan review by them. They were correct on that point. That under no circumstances would they approve such a site plan review and that if we had any dream of being successful, we would have to abandon that plan and fall back to a holding tank on the property. Mr. Cartier told me flat out, if you don't agree to that, you don't have a prayer. Now, I want to be fair. He didn't say if you do do it that way, we're going to approve you anyway. He did not say that, but he said that's the minimum that we insist. So, we've done that. We have scratched all of this lot number 8 involvement in pumping up there and we have put in a holding tank. The holding tank, of course, has to comply with all the rules and regulations of the Town of Queensbury which are very strict now. It has to have a huge capacity. When it reaches less than half capacity, bells and alarms go off. When it reaches three-quarters capacity, more bells and alarms go off. It has to be placed in certain distances to meet all their requirements. We happen to have a contract with a pump truck that they will come in and agree that they will pump it automatically at regular intervals. All of this we have to do to install it and all of this we will do and it will be in strict, total compliance with the Ordinances of the Town of Queensbury and the Building Inspector tells me that that holding tank is perfectly fair and legal because it is only an occasional use house. It is not a full time use house. It's perfectly fair and legal and meets their requirements. Questions were raised, would we agree to be very careful during construction and impose erosion control so that dirt and mud wouldn't flow down. This is always a problem when you disturb earth during construction. Here, incidentally, are all of the plans for the holding tank, if you want to see it and all the requirements and so on. We have agreed that we 4 will impose very strict erosion control during construction and here is a rather elaborate layout of silt fences, bales, even road constraints as construction trucks drive out of a construction site on to the highway they can pull mud and dirt with them, so we have even made proposals to have crushed stone to receive and catch any mud and so on to prevent that from being carried away. One of the comments of Mr. Cartier, in his Planning Board resolution, is that this plan suggested that you put top soil and seed and mulch where the slopes are to try to get some good ground cover in there so that when rain water comes, it won't wash away and we did that, but he comments that the plan suggests that we try to get some good grass and ground cover growing there quickly so that we fertilize that topsoil to give it a good start. He objects to that. The Board wants, we will agree, not to fertilize it. You're right if you go left, you're right if you go wrong, if you don't fertilize and get that ground cover started quickly, then you're not going to get the solid ground that you would hope to have to prevent erosion, but if this Board feels, and only this Board has the say, if this Board feels you want us to forego putting any fertilizer on there to get the ground cover started, we'd be glad to do that. We have done, the applicant has agreed to do, every single thing that the Planning Board demanded with one exception, the Planning Board's position, clear and simple, is abandon your property and agree never to build a house or use that $200,000 piece of property. This the applicant simply cannot do. Cannot do it and it will not do it. It's not a fair request, it is not a reasonable request, it is not within the law. If this Board has any thoughts, if this Board has any ideas of the way that we can do this better or different, we will be glad to comply with those. We want to do a quality project here, but we've got to get the use out of this valuable lot. So, I've probably said all I need to say. I'll answer any questions that the Board has. MR. CARR-Asked, this issue and that's the there an amendment to is more to Karla, Bob's been saying that there's only one setback. The Ordinance, I know, was amended in '88. Wasn't the Queensbury Ordinance in '82? MS. CORPUS-Stated I wasn't even in Glens Falls at that time. MRS. COLLARD-Stated yes there was. MR. TURNER-Stated there was a new Ordinance in '82. in '88. There was a new Ordinance MR. CARR-Asked was there a Section 8.011 in the '82 one and if there was, did it have the same Section that says, you have three years to use this nonconforming lot or it loses it status? MR. TURNER-Stated yes, I believe there was. MR. CARR-Stated then the issue is not just an area variance, it's also a variance on the nonconforming lot. MRS. COLLARD-Stated the nonconforming lots have continued to be grand fathered through each Ordinance adoption. MR. TURNER-Stated each time they adopt the Ordinance. MR. CARR-Asked so, once he uses it, it goes back, any time the Ordinance..... MS. CORPUS-Stated it looks like, probably, an amnesty. MRS. GOETZ-Asked if it does, then why have we had them before us? MRS. COLLARD-Stated we can talk about that some other time, but this is a preexisting, nonconforming lot. MR. TURNER-Stated in an approved subdivision. MR. CARR-Stated I'm not sure it is. I'm really not sure it is, I mean, why have this 3 year thing that, every time you amend it, it comes back up again. I mean it seems once you lose your status as a nonconforming lot that doesn't need a variance, then you become a nonconforming lot that needs a variance. MRS. COLLARD-Stated it's just the way it's worded. I can't explain it to you any other way. I've discussed it with Paul Dusek and it's the wording and the lots back in 1973 are still grand fathered nonconforming lots, preexisting. MR. STEWART-Stated and if you read that Section that I copied out, which is Exhibit B, I think that's what it says. It's very simple. 5 MR. CARR-Stated what I'm saying, though, is it says that if it's an approved subdivision, it doesn't need a variance. MR. STEWART-Stated we are an approved subdivision. MR. CARR-Stated but if this provision was in the '82 Ordinance, in '85 you would have lost your nonconfortning status as a preexisting subdivision and I'm saying I don't see how it can be resurrected just because we amended it again. It seems like that's crazy. MR. STEWART-Stated I am not sure that there was any time limit in the older Ordinance ...the fact a three year time period. MR. CARR-Stated right, that's why I'm asking the question. MR. STEWART-Stated however, I would point to something else and, maybe now I wish I had a copy of that, the Section immediately ahead of that. Right at Section 8.011 and the Section preceding that, this Section relates to subdivision, but even if you have a preexisting, nonconforming lot which is not in the subdivision and if you don't own any contiguous land around it that you can lump in with it to make it bigger, you can continue to use that lot as a legal lot forever, not for three years, not for five years, not for any period of time. And we're in that position too. We do not own any contiguous land that can make this lot any bigger. So, whether it's Section 8.0l0 or 8.011, either Section, I say that we're protected, but I see your point. MR. CARR-Stated I didn't look at 8.010. Is that what that says? MR. STEWART-Stated I have a copy here. 8.010 says, "Any nonconforming lot of record as of the date of this Ordinance, which is October of '88 I believe, which does not meet the minimum lot area andlor minimum lot width requirements of this Ordinance for the zoning district in which such lot is situated, shall be considered as complying with such minimum lot requirements and no variance shall be required, provided that, as of the date of this Ordinance, such lot does not adjoin other lots in the same ownership. Provided, however, that all such lots in the same ownership shall be treated together as one lot except that this doesn't apply to subdivisions.." So we have no adjacent land that we can lump together to make it larger. We are protected or grandfathered, if you will, under both Section 8.010 and 8.011. MR. TURNER-Asked do you remember where this came from? The subdivision at Sunnyside, the same thing. They were grandfathered. MR. STEWART-Stated incidentally, I might add that, few, if any of the houses along the east side of Lake George comply with that 75 foot setback and, matter of fact, there's a letter in this file from a lady attorney in Albany whose name is Susan Webber. I read it this morning, but I don't have a copy. I'm sure it's in your file. Her family owns in this subdivision. She was opposed to it and she pointed out that almost all the lots in this very subdivision are 50 feet back from the lake front. So she's saying right then and there, that even those don't comply with the 75 foot setback. Really, few lots on the east side of Lake George comply with the 75 foot setback. Most of them were built, over the years. The name of the game was to build them as close to the water as you could. Even after the 75 foot setback came into effect, many variances had been granted. The usual one that I used to run into was the fellow who wanted to build a new house and if he went back 75 feet, his two neighbors were up at 35 feet and he was sort of back in the hollow and this Board has, without exception, in any case that I've been involved with, granted such a relief from that 75 foot setback. It's not a unique or unusual request here and that is the only request in front of us now. MR. CARR-Stated I understand that the conclusion is probably correct. I'm just wondering, then, why do we even have this 3 year requirement in the Ordinance? MRS. COLLARD-Stated Bruce, I don't think this 3 year was in the '82 Ordinance. MR. STEWART-Stated one thing I'd like to point out to you. If I owned 2 lots in a subdivision, side by side, I wouldn't have to merge those 2 lots under the subdivision rule, under 11. At least for 3 years, I could sell each one separately, but under 10, if I'm not in the subdivision and I own 2 lots together, I've got to merge them. So that is the distinction. 6 '~ MR. KELLEY-Stated if gives you a chance to sell them. MR. STEWART-Stated a burnout. It gives me a sellout, right. MR. KELLEY-Stated I understand where you're coming from and the idea of ... of preapprova1 and so forth. Now I guess I've got to justify some other things, that being we know that the: bui 1ding is supposed to be 75 feet from the shore front. I believe you stated from the stone wall to the stair that's approximately the front of, I say the front, the closest part of the building that water runs along that retaining wall? MR. STEWART-Stated that's right. If you look at these plans, at the front of the building, the front porch is built right to the edge of that stone retaining wall. MR. KELLEY-Stated to grant an area variance, as you know, we're looking for as much relief as possible. I guess my question would be, or your testimony should state, why maybe you can't move it back further from the water. That would be my question to you, you're saying it's 30-34 feet back. Could you go back another 10 or 12 feet or something else? MR. STEWART-Stated we have two problems. We have a 30 foot setback from the road, which is also in this Ordinance, on the rear lot that we have to comply with and also if you've had a chance to see the lot, or if you've looked at the Denis Dickenson survey which I have here in my hand, there is quite a steep drop from the road directly down on to the lot. Then there's a level plateau where the house and the holding tank would be installed supported by the retaining wall and then, again, there's a fairly steep drop to the water's edge. Just about the only place that you could build without excavating into the bank and undertnining the road, is the new location shown on .... MR. KELLEY-Asked what was the footprint size of this house approximately? MR. STEWART-Stated the house itself is 855 square feet. It has a porch which sticks out in front of it, 1125 feet. It has a 27 foot entrance porch and a 150 square foot patio, but the basic house itself is 855 feet. MR. KELLEY-Asked the part that sticks out toward the Lake, is that the porch? MR. STEWART-Stated yes. This may be better than the smaller, Xeroxed copy that I think we submitted to you. This is the east elevation, the east face of the house, that facing the Lake directly. Here is the existing stone wall running along here. The house is brought out and it's dead ended right at the top of that wall. Here is a side elevation, which I think shows it better. I better correct myself. Here is the existing retaining wall, the base of the house comes out to there. The porch comes out in the air beyond that and is supported down by some wood.. Here's another view of it looking at it from the other side. MRS. GOETZ-Asked is it 30 feet back to here(referring to map) to the Lake? From that porch support to the Lake? MR. STEWART-Asked who has a ruler? MRS. GOETZ-You said 30-34, we have to know exactly what it is. MR. STEWART-Stated the best representation I can make to you is, again, to show you Denis Dickinson's plot plan which shows the house and shows the front of it ending at the wall and if you scale that, you've got about 30 some feet back from the Lake. MRS. GOETZ-Stated here's the wall, but it seems to come out closer than the wall and you're saying it's 30 feet back to the wall, so it looks like it's closer to the Lake than 30 feet. Whatever shall we do about that? MR. STEWART-Stated I think that we will have to agree that we will build a house back no closer to the Lake than the retaining wall. MRS. GOETZ-Stated because that's pretty bad. MR. STEWART-Stated we will agree to make that stipulation we will build a house no closer to the Lake than the existing retaining wall which is a thick monument in the ground, you can't miss that. 7 MRS. GOETZ-Stated the other thing is, we have to know whether it's 30 or 34 because in a motion, we have to know exactly what it is. We can't say about something. MR. STEWART-Stated the language, I think, in the Planning Board's file is approximately 34 feet. It varies a little bit, you see, because the shoreline is steep there. So, depending on whether the water is low or high, in a given period of time, you get some in and out.. MR. BAKER-Stated it should be measured to the mean high water level. MR. STEWART-Stated if anyone knows where that is in a given moment. MRS. GOETZ-Asked am I correct in saying we have to know exactly what it is? MR. BAKER-Stated yes. MRS. GOETZ-Stated so that would be one thing I'd like you to answer, not that you have to answer right this minute. MR. TURNER-Asked, Bob, the porch in the front at the base of the Lake, is that a necessity in that position? Could you position it on the side and pick up another 8 feet? MR. STEWART-Stated I know what you're talking about. This sketch is right. The engineers plan shows it one way, the architect's plan shows it slightly different. He shows the porch overlapping the stone wall, the engineer shows it behind. I want to be as candid, at this point, as I can be. I'm not an architect, nor have I spoken with this architect whose out of town. If it is the feeling of the Board, that, for the best protection of the neighbors and the neighborhood, that we draw back another 8 feet and eliminate that porch and relocate it to one side or the other, that's what we will do. MRS. GOETZ-Stated and then you can come back even further. MR. STEWART-Stated that's what Mr. Turner is suggesting. (TAPE TURNED) MR. GOETZ-The engineers report said there was not enough soil in the holding tank,.. if that was stated in the Planning Board's minutes. MR. STEWART-Stated I don't think the engineers said that. I didn't see the engineers report that says that. All I can tell you there is, we cannot install a holding tank unless we install it in total compliance with the rules and regulations of Building Department of the Town of Queensbury and they're all spelled out in writing and there have to be so many bells and certain size for the number of bedrooms and Mr. Dickensen tells me we can comply. If we can't, we have a problem. I'm not asking you to waive any rule whatsoever, in that regard. It's understood that if we're going to go to a holding tank, we've got to be a legal, proper, order. MR. TURNER-Stated according agree with that one there. to your plans, Bob, this one is wrong. It doesn't The porch is over here and the dining room is here. MR. KELLEY-Stated we were looking at this, we're saying this is the porch, saying now maybe take the porch and put it on the side and gain another 8 feet of setback, but in reality, it's a dining room with a screened in porch over here, which wasn't even shown on this particular plan. MR. STEWART-Stated I think what happened is Denis Dickensen had this much information to do it this way and as he's revised from time to time, he's gone back to the same drawing as the house. Well, these plans were submitted by an architect later at the Planning Board's request and apparently they didn't 100 percent jive and Denis didn't have copies of it. I didn't notice the difference myself. But, anyway, your suggestion is can we, in one form or another, keep the house 8 feet back from the edge of that retaining wall? MRS. GOETZ-Asked are your clients here tonight? MR. STEWART-Stated I understood that Steven Scheibel was going to try to come up from Philadelphia. When I last looked, he wasn't in the room and I don't see him. MRS. EGGLESTON-Asked the plan doesn't show driveway access to the property? MR. STEWART-Stated the entrance to the property, I believe, if you look at this, the. . . area near the road is up in this corner here where you don't see the ... the access ramp to come in across the top here. 8 MRS. EGGLESTON-Asked are there any rights-of-way across there. MR. STEWART-Stated no. When we begin to go down on this lot there's a right-of-way along in there to pump water from the Lake up to some docks... MRS. GOETZ-Asked do you feel confident enough that you can speak for the clients about changing the house design? MR. STEWART-Stated yes, the clients aren't here. I wish I didn't have to, but he has to face reality too. He understand that.. .on this lot and we have to do what the Board asks us to do and if the Board is more comfortable trying to protect the neighborhood by asking for additional 8 feet then we'll have to rej iggle it a little bit. I take it the understanding would be we'd still be entitled to the same square footage, it's a question of maybe broadening the width of the house and pulling back a step from the Lake. MRS. GOETZ-Stated we have to be concerned with not granting a maximum relief. You kept saying that you don't think it's max., you think it's minimal. MR. STEWART-Stated a relief from the 75 feet is essentially just... Now, if you talk about, well, can you get by with 35 feet or 37 feet, that's always a bargaining, but there is very little level land to work with and it lies, pretty much, from this first pitch shown on these contour lines down to the retaining wall and in there is about the only place where that house can go. MRS. EGGLESTON-Asked so we'd be looking at 67 feet, front and 8 feet from the... MR. STEWART-Stated I think when we say 8 feet back behind the retaining wall, we have a known measuring factor where your building inspector could come, or six months from now, and say, you violated it or you didn't violate it. You have to give him the best control. MRS. GOETZ-Stated I would just like to make the comment that I don't think saying that it's only seasonal use should come into it because we all know what can happen. It might be seasonable use now, but I'd like to think that we must consider that it could be year round at some point. MR. STEWART-Stated that's a valid point, but we're going to comment, under the holding tank provisions of Queensbury, the house can operate with a holding tank only as long as it continues to be used on a seasonal or part-time basis. It cannot function on a holding tank if it's going to be used year round. So there are some limitations there:. MRS. GOETZ-Asked are there any rules about what constitutes seasonal, a time limit under that septic law? MR. STEWART-Stated the Building Department tells me that they're interpretation is if it's obviously being used as a second home, weekends, two, three weekends in the summer, that type of thing, part time, it's seasonal as far as they're concerned and is entitled to a holding tank because I checked with them before we agreed to go to a holding tank, obviously had to do that. Now, if the owne,r would want to sell this house to someone who wanted to live there on a full time, year round basis, they could not do it, unless and until we end up getting a sewer system along the east side of Lake George which we prayed for for years, but we've never seen happen. These pe,op1e live in Philadelphia, they're not going to be here. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED SUSAN WEBER, ATTORNEY FROM ALBANY MISS WEBER-My name is Susan Weber. I li Vß at 123 A1bany- Shaker Road, Albany. I'd just like to give you some Lake George credentials. My grandfather bought some land on the east side of Lake George in Catskill Bay in about 1930 with some farm land he built a house there, and I'vß been going there since I was a baby. Then, it's been in summer sale and then later on my father built a house kitty corner across from the point upon which the Scheibel's propose to build on this tiny piece of land. I will try to bß brief. A lot of issues have come up here and I know there are other people who would like to speak. I have some que,stions that I would ask the Board address before they rule yes or no on this application. First question has come up here at the, meeting tonight. Mr. Carr's question about the 3 year grandfather provision is a good one. If a zoning law provides a 3 year 9 grace period and that law is passed in 1982, the 3 year grace period ends in 1985 and ther~ after, there is no exception for that particular piece of land. It would have to go through th~ normal process, again, as if it was being proposed for th~ first time, th~n, and after new zoning ordinance in 1988 and provide for a grand fathering , that's fine. That grandfatheríng provision would last for three y~ars also, but I think it's very important that it be d~termined yes or no and not hav~ the word of the attorney for the proponent here b~ 1ist~ned to as if it were the, judge. Second thing is, an issu~ was raised conc~rning whether you can request a variance and use your hardship argument if a lot, a nonconforming lot, were held in the same ownership, at one point or another, with an adjacent, conforming lot. I don't know if it's made c1~ar here that the entir~ subdivision, the land h~re, we're talking about, was purchased by three individuals, I believe, back in the sixties, Mr. Durante, Mr. Rift, and Mr. Behrens'. Mr. Durante, in fact, owns the lot next door, adjacent to this piece of property that I s before you tonight. I think that a real search needs to be mad~ of the property records for this land to determine, whether, in fact, the pi~ce of property we' r~ talking about tonight was owned by Mr. Durant~ and, therefore, is not entitled to any kind of special tr~atment. I'd like to speak, for a moment, about hardship. It seems to me that the fact that th~ Durante family and probably, the Durante' s hous~ is located next to this piece of property. The Durante's house has no dock. It has no way down to the water. It's on the top of a ste~p hill. The way down to the water is across this lot. The dock, for the Durante house, is located on this property. For the, twenty plus years that Mr. Durante's house has been ther~, Mr. Durante has used this lot as access to the water. It's been a reasonable use, appar~nt1y. Mr. Durant~ has never seen fit to build a dock of his own. There's been some question raised about whether it's legal to r~nt that dock on that property to Mr. Durante and thereby gain some amount of value out of th~ property. I would venture to say that you might not be able to rent the dock, but you could certainly r~nt the dock and the land and gain a reasonable use out of that property. It certainly has be,en a reasonable use for Mr. Durante for over twenty years. This, as Mrs. Go~tz pointed out, in one point in this application, this proposal is ref~rred to as a s~asona1 residence. In another point, it' s referr~d to as a y~ar round residence. I think you have to assume that it's a y~ar round resid~nc~. You're not going to have people patrolling to make sure that no one uses it out of season. That point also is relevant when we're talking about th~ holding tank. Mr. Stewart mentioned that he was told by the Building Department, I be1iev~, that h~ was entit1~d to a holding tank if the home w~r~ to be used only for weekends and two to three weeks in the summer. I don't think it's reasonable that w~ could believ~ that a house like this, th~y're going through all this troub1~ to build, would b~ used for only weekends and two to thre~ w~~ks in the summer. If that wer~ the case, they could visit th~ir dad, Mr. Durant~, 1ik~ we visit my mom, Mrs. Webb~r, and for two or three w~eks in the summer. W~ don't try to build a house on our tiny lot either in front of my mother's house. We use what we hav~. I submit that they could build this hous~ and then sell it tomorrow. Th~r~'s nothing to stop th~m from doing that. Similarly, there is anoth~r lot in this subdivision that's owned by the family corporation, the family partnership, lot numb~r 8. Building on lot numb~r 8 and providing access through this existing parcel as is provid~d to the Durant~ house, would harm no on~. It would not imped~ the view of th~ property owners nearby as this would do. It would not create problems for the Lake quality, the water quality that this proposal will do. It will not provide a density prob1~m. You may not have legal capacity to consider thes~ issues, but we as property owners nearby, do consider them. You're talking about a n~ighborhood where the lot sizes are approximately 50 by 600 or 100 by 600 f~et d~~p and you'r~ putting a tiny house on a tiny lot on a tiny point with no depth of soil and on a cliff. I be1i~ve that what you have b~fore you is several conflicting plans. Th~y can't get their act tog~ther and come up with one building. You've got three differ~nt buildings here they're describing and we haven't had a chance to look at one of them. Constructed on that lot right now, and last summer, I believe it was constructed, is a shed. They call it a shed. Isn't it necessary to obtain a building permit for that kind of construction. It's within 20 fe~t of the water. W~ don't know what it is. Do you know what it is? Has anybody looked at it. Last wint~r, th~y dumped a load of fill on that property. They dump~d a load of fill, I don't think th~y had a permit for that. It's raised th~ soil depth about 5 f~et on a portion of that property and you'll see in the engin~ers reports, that refers, as Mrs. Go~tz said, to a problem with putting a holding tank th~re, that it's a11~ged that som~where on the property there's 5 foot depth of soil. That depth of soil was created by an illegal fill. I think there are a lot of problems with this proposal and I know the Board wants to h~lp provide these people with some re1i~f here. I urge you that th~y do not need relief. They have had use of this property for twenty years. They had th~ opportunity to build on it years ago, before the water quality of that Lake began to det~riorate so badly and I submit that one of the r~asons the water quality det~riorated was because w~ didn't 10 '--- have a body like you here, to protect the Lake, to prevent ill-conceived and ill-designed proposals like this from going forward. Now we do. We have the Park Commission, we have the master plan. I ask you to please do whatever you can legally do to prevent this proposal from going forward which would violate the purposes behind your very existence, the purpose behind the master plan, the purpose behind the new regulations we have in place to protect and save the Lake for all of our enjoyment. Thank you. JOHN MATTHEWS MR. MATTHEWS-John Matthews, Queensbury. I'm a neighbor. 11m opposed to the relief on the Lakeshore setback. The Lake needs the protection of the 75 foot setback and we're in the day and age and the rules have been laid out to follow and I think we should continue to follow them. I would also like to point out a couple of more discrepancies on the Durante Plan. Number one would be the setback from the proposed well to the existing septic system of the Durantes. The Durantes septic system is not where it's shown. The septic system from the Durantes is back over right where the lot 3 designation is on there. The septic system, the reputed septic system, for the folks, is much further down the driveway, here. They had to revamp it because it was running out over the ground a few years ago and they dug up the driveway right in the middle here and put a big drywell right on the edge of the bank there. Right behind that bank is where their drywell is. One other thing that I think has been totally forgotten about here. This lot does not have frontage on Route 9L and I'm sure that we need a variance for that. I built another house in this subdivision. I had to go through that procedure also. I also wanted to say that Mr. Durante has realized a benefit from the lot. Since he has built his house in '71, '72, he has used that existing lot as his beach and lakeshore access and I also know that in going through a process of thinking about buying some lots in the back there many years ago, it was explained to me that this lot belonged to the Durante's and would never be built on so there would be no fear of having a house there to block anybody's way. That's why it hasn't been built on up until now. I'd also like to point out the illegal fill that Susan mentioned. This area over here where you can see the contour lines have been changed to the north side of the house right behind the shed. This whole area was filled in some time betwéen last year and the year before with all the blast rock that was taken out when they built John Behrens' garage. I know that because they came to me looking for a spot to dump it and this is where they ended up dumping it and I questioned them and I called several people at the time and nothing was done about it. As I scale off the print, this existing out building, it seems to be a little bit more than lOO square feet and I do believe that there should have been a permit for that particular house. Knowing the history behind the lot and the property, I feel that the Durante's and their relatives will basically go to any extent they have to do to build On this tiny little lot. Believe me, part of the display of plans that you've seen here, one being one way, another being another way, is nothing unusual. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Warren County Planning Board disapproved Letter from Susan Weber, to Chairman of Planning Board, January 10, 1990. (on file) Letter from Lake George Association, to Planning Board, Dec~mber 7, 1989 (on file) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MATTHEWS-I just wanted to mention that very close neighbors, the Gushes, bought a piece of property from Mr. Mitchell, adjacent, Mrs. Mitchell, adjacent to this property on the base of the Bay and they have gone to all expense to meet setback, setback, and density problems on the property. They didn't try to push to have their house right on the water's edge or anything and I feel that someone else goes to that extent in this day and age with the rules and regulations the way they are, the rest should follow suit. MR. TURNER-Did their lot meet the zoning? MR. MATTHEWS-Size wise? No. MR. STEWART-Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I may make one point of clarification, just one, in reference to the well, back on September, I advised the Queensbury Planning Board that we were withdrawing any request that a well be put on this lot number 11 4 and to pump water from the Lake rather than att~mpt to uti1iz~ a well and that's our position and that stands. I think the w~ll still got l~ft drawn on the site, but th~ Planning Board was advis~d back in S~ptember that we were waiving any r~qu~st for a well. MR. CARR-Can you address this fill qu~stion that's been brought up by two p~op1~. What's this fill that's been going on on the prop~rty? MR. STEWART-A couple of things. I can addr~ss wh~th~r or not Mr. James Durante ever own~d the lot. The deed that I fihd shows that the land originally own~d by Durant~, Rife, and Behrens. They conveyed it to th~ thre~ Durante chi1dr~n who in turn conv~yed it to th~ir own partnership. (TAPE TURNED) I know nothing about any fill. I don' t hav~ any r~ason to believe that th~r~ was any ill~ga1 fill, but I r~ally can't add any light to that subject. I know nothing about it. MR. CARR-Can you people shed some light on the legality of filling on the property? I mean, would it be permissible? MRS. COLLARD-Th~y would have to have Planning Board approval to fill within 50 f~et of the Lak~. MR. CARR-Is that som~thing h~ should look into before proce~ding? MRS. COLLARD-That's up to you. MRS. GOETZ-There ar~ a couple of oth~r l~tt~rs I believ~ I should r~ad into the record. D~cemb~r' 89 is from a Beverly Winney: As a r~sident of th~ Dark Bay Association, I would like to voic~ conc~rn as to the propos~d building on the D~bbi~ and Steven Scheib~l lot locat~d off Route 9L, Lake George. As has been stated pr~vious 1y, the lot size is too small to conform to the current regulations which have b~en imp1~m~nt~d to pres~rv~ and protect Lake George. The Que~nsbury Town Planning Board ag~nda stat~s that the lot has an ~xisting dock and storag~ sh~d, how~ver, the sh~d was built only within th~ last 3 years. Currently, th~ Scheib~l's are r~questing to have a holding tank installed on the lot. How will th~y be abl~ to guarantee that this holding will not ov~rf1ow into th~ base du~ to the sloping nature of this lot. This lot is locat~d n~xt to th~ Dark Bay Association dock and swimming area. I am concerned as to the pot~ntia1 harmful effects to Lak~ George. Th~r~fore, I am r~questing that th~ Planning Board ask the D~partment of Health to b~come involved to ass~ss whether a holding tank or s~ptic syst~m is feasib1~ for this lot because of its und~rsiz~d proportions and proximity to th~ Lak~. I would like to thank the Planning Board for entering this into the r~cord and I await your action on my request. MR. KELLEY-Th~r~ was a statement made by Miss Web~r that, I don't know wh~th~r it was a partnership or, with th~ Scheibel's, any way, apparently own~d the lot numb~r 8. Are you familiar with that property own~rship at all? MR. STEWART-The subdivision map, which I have a copy of here, indicat~s that that lot number 8 is owned by a Robert Durant~, not the thr~e chi1dr~n who ar~ involved here. Robert Durante is indicated as b~ing the owner of lot 8. All I se~ is the map with th~ nam~. I do not know who owns lot numb~r 8. It is not contiguous, of cours~, to lot number 4, they do not abut, they can't be joined tog~th~r to mak~ lot 4 any bigger. MR. KELLEY-Do th~ two...join anywhere? MR. STEWART-No, th~y'r~ separat~d by the road. MRS. GOETZ-Wh~r~ was the lot that th~y said they w~r~ going to pump th~, one possibility? MR. STEWART-That was 8. Robert had apparently given his cons~nt to let th~m install the septic syst~m on lot 8 which is pres~nt1y a vacant lot. Th~ Planning Board did not 1ik~ that approach, so w~ abandon~d it. MR. KELLEY-Bob, could you ~n1ight~n us a 1itt1~ bit about, since this is a pr~approv~d subdivision, is this a town road that runs down in th~r~ and if it is, that's one thing. If it isn't, I would t~nd to be1iev~ they n~~d a varianc~ for a building p~rmit..or hav~ 30 or 50 f~et. MRS. COLLARD-It's just I can't approv~ a building permit that the parc~l do~s not front on a Town road. 12 MR. CARR-Does this parcel front on a Town road? MRS. COLLARD-As I look at it now, no. MR. TURNER-Is it 110 feet on the Lake? It needs 150 feet. Does he need a variance for that? MR. STEWART-No, because that's the width of the lot which we're exempt from because we're a preexisting lot. I don't know the ownership of that road, to tell you the truth, whether it was ever deeded to the Town, or whether it's maintained as a private right-of-way. If, I assume every other lot in the subdivision has been given permission to build using the right-of-way. If it's necessary to apply, we will immediately apply for that relief. STAFF NOTES Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner (attached) MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 1442 DEBBIE AND STEVEN SCHEIBEL, Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Susan Goetz: Until further details are submitted by the applicant to matters including but not limited to: frontage on a Town road, fill being put on the property, whether or not a pertuit is needed for the out building already located on the premises, a more descriptive detailing of the building to be placed on the premises, and any other matters pertinent to the request for a variance. MR. KELLEY-Stated I guess I was in hope that when they got into the shed permit, they'd look into the size of it and also it's setback from the Lake? MRS. EGGLESTON-Stated that's what I meant by the building already on the premises. Duly adopted this 17th day of January, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carr, Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Sicard NEW BUSINESS: SIGN VARIANCE NO. 1-1990 TYPE: UNLISTED SR-1A TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICE LINE ROAD TO MAINTAIN EXISTING WALL SIGN (8 FT. 4 IN. BY 2 FT. 4 IN.) COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 55-2-18.1, 18.2 COUNTY (WARREN JOHN KELLEHER, GENERAL MANAGER MR. TURNER-Stated this got caught up in a zoning change? MR. KELLEHER-Stated yes, my name is John Kelleher. G~orge couldn't make it today. MRS. GOETZ-Stated it says suburban residential so it's supposed to be, it was light industrial. So now, because it's residential, it should just have a smaller size. MRS. COLLARD-Stated yes, Sue. MRS. GOETZ-Asked what's the square footage of that existing sign? It just looks like they're a victim of the zoning change and it's a preexisting distance that should be identified. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Letter from Warren County Planning Board that said they couldn't act upon it because they didn't have a quorum at their meeting. 13 STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (attached) MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 1-1990 TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICE, Introduced by Susan Goetz who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jeffrey Kelley: So that they could keep their existing wall sign which is 8 ft. 4 in. in length, 2 ft. 4 in. in height because it was a light industrial zone prior to the 1988 zoning change and now they've gone to suburban residential 1 acre. It's a preexisting business that is entitled to identification through a sign and this is a reasonable size sign. The Tribune Media Service is renting from Torrington industries which is an existing business complex at that location. Duly adopted this 17th day of January, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carr, Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Sicard AREA VARIANCE NO. 2-1990 TYPE: UNLISTED SR-1A CHARLES A. DIEHL SOUTH SIDE OF SHERMAN AVENUE APPROX. 4,000 FT. EAST OF INTERSECTION OF WEST KT. ROAD AND SHERMAN AVENUE APPLICANT WISHES TO SUBDIVIDE 11.14 ACRES INTO 7 LOTS. THIS WILL BE A CLUSTER SUBDIVISION. SIX LOTS WILL HAVE 4 UNITS EACH. ONE LOT WILL REMAIN VACANT. THE VARIANCES REQUIRED ARE MINIMUM LOT SIZE, FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC ROAD, DOUBLE THE LOT WIDTH ON A COLLECTOR STREET. TAX MAP NO. 121-1-22 LOT SIZE: 11.14 ACRES SECTION 4.020, 7.077, 4.053 WILSON MATHIAS, ESQ., AGENT MR. MATHIAS-Stated my name is Wilson Mathias. I'm a lawyer in Queensbury. I'm here representing Charles Diehl, the applicant. Basically, I'll try some handouts on you and hope that I will have better success than Mr. Stewart did. To really be brief, these units are up there. What you see out there is what is on Sherman Avenue right now. In 1988, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board authorized two additional lots right here. Those structures have not yet been built, but they've . been authorized under the site plan review provisions of the ordinance. We're not asking to increase density. We're not going to build anymore units. We're not going to increase traffic into this area. We're not going to increase water or sewer. Nothing is going to change here except for the fact that my client believes there's a market for 4 family houses and he thinks that individual investors will purchase these houses. We're not building anything closer to the road or anything else. These structures are going to exist. One of the purposes of the provision that doubles the width of lots on collector streets, and I'm familiar with that particular provision and I helped draft it, but the purpose for it was to, as Mr. Carusone said, internalize subdivisions. Well, that already exists here. There's not going to be a new driveway going on to Sherman Avenue. The entrances on to Sherman Avenue, before or after this variance, are going to stay the same. There's not going to be any increased or additional entrances on to Sherman Avenue which is one of the reasons for the provision that requires internalization of roads. So, we're not going to increase traffic. I think that if you look, and I'm sure the staff has looked carefully at this application and the plot plan that's been drawn by Morse Engineering, I think that we meet all the 10 foot sewage, septic requirements so that I don't think there's a need for a variance because we comply with those regulations. The main point here is that we're not going to make anything bigger. We're not going to change the use that already exists. We're going to change the form of ownership. This property has been on the market for several years. I brought here today, Wally Bean, basically for purposes of providing some testimony in terms of how long the property's been on the market and the difficulty that the current owners have had in marketing it as it currently exists and I'd just ask him to say a couple of words along those lines. WALLACE BEAN MR. BEAN-Stated my name is Wallace Bean. I'm a real estate broker. I live in South Glens Falls. I am also an appraiser. This property has been on the market, on and off, for better than 3 years. Some of you may know that there have been different contracts or whatever, they just never came to be. Some of the reasons are, they are fourp1exes, they are of good size, they're approximately 1,020 square feet per apartment, around 4, 000 squar~ feet per, and I'm looking at the ranches 14 now, building. They ar~ worth a c~rtain amount of mon~y and the doctor want~d... cons~qu~nt1y, Char1i~ cam~ around and said if we can se:ll thes~ individually and we can get it changed, then, y~s, I am int~r~sted in buying your property and that takes it out of one category. You're: now not d~a1ing with two of a kind or thre~ of a kind in financing an apartment compl~x, but you'r~ financing a structur~ that you can g~t a 30 year mortgag~ on and you can get b~tt~r rat~s. You can g~t fixed rates. Cons~quent 1y, y~s. It become:s more f~asib1~ to get rid of th~ property or profit by sub1~tting. MRS. GOETZ-Ask~d, wh~n you say that it was on the mark~t, you mean it was on th~ market to sell ~very sing1~ unit to one own~r? MR. BEAN-Stat~d y~s. MRS. GOETZ-Asked, and you're proposing to s~ll each individual building or each apartme:nt? MR. BEAN-Stated no. Charlie: will be buying the entire parcel and then it's his application to chang~ it to sell a fourp1ex, four apartm~nts, one apartm~nt building individually. MRS. GOETZ-Asked, so that do~sn' t com~ und~r any classification we' v~ ever heard of? I me:an, is that a townhous~? MR. BEAN-Stat~d no, it's not a townhouse. family hous~. It's a whole building? It's a four MRS. GOETZ-Stat~d w~ don't hav~ a description for it, is that it, for what it is? MR. BEAN-Stated it's a fourp1ex, a four family dw~lling. MRS. COLLARD-Stat~d it's a multifamily dwelling. MRS. GOETZ-Stated so, it's und~r multifamily, alright. I'm surpris~d that th~r~'s be~n such a problem s~lling th~m. Isn't that affordable housing, what~ver affordable housing is? MR. BEAN-Stated on a fourp1~x, affordab1~ housing? When you start talking $200,000 for a fourp1ex, that do~sn' t come under, you know. It's not what you're looking at on P~ggy Ann Road. It's a diff~r~nt sty1~ ~ntir~ly, different situation. We're not looking to s~ll individual units. MR. MATHIAS-Stat~d let me clarify that. As a matter of fact, it's my op~n~on that if h~ wanted to condominiumiz~ these units, you wouldn't have to appear before any of your Boards, but we want to subdivide them. W~ want to sell fourp1exs, four unit apartm~nt buildings, so that an individual investor can buy one of those units and th~ garage facilities that go along with them, but th~re:' s no chang~ of USe whatsoev~r. The kind of chang~ is the: form of ownership and, as Mr. Bean's pointed out, I think that th~ 1ike:1ihood, with individual investors, is that you're going to have som~on~ who mak~ tak~ b~tter care of their particular units than what's transpired in th~ past as a comp1~x in general. MR. BEAN-State:d in many cases, a fourp1ex, an owne:r lives in one of th~ apartments, especially of this size and rents out th~ other three. MR. MATHIAS-Stat~d I'd also 1ik~ to point out, in t~rms of the difficulty of sa1~, and if this sale goes through it would be a matter of public record, th~ contract price for thes~ units is $750,000 for this parcel of prop~rty tog~ther with th~ adjoining land holdings that Dr. Karp has. It's a total of 58 arc~s. This is only ll. 140 part of it. Th~ assesse:d va1u~ of that property is over $890,000. So, it's be:ing sold for less than what th~ current ass~ssment is and I think that c~rtain1y is.. proof of the economic difficulties in tertus of marketing it as a comp1~te packag~. MR. TURNER-Asked, th~ conc~pt, from day one, was to build thes~ and then turn th~m into income in the s~nse of selling off? MR. BEAN-Asked, day on~ from whom? MR. TURNER-Stated from Dr. Karp. MR. BEAN-Stat~d no. 15 MR. TURNER-Asked, no? MR. BEAN-Stated no, because I'm familiar with Dr. Karp and I've done a little bit of work with... Dr. Karp owned two pieces of property, one on Sherman Avenue that he built his residence. His reside,nce is still there. The apartments are on the easterly side of the property. The,re was another property on Peggy Ann Road that the doctor bought and then, consequently, turned around and sold and that's where you're coming up with the duplexes where they sold each individual unit, but that was not Dr. Karp's, he, did not even complete that subdivision. Someone else complet~d it. MR. TURNER-Asked, you're talking about this one, I'm talking about? MR. BEAN-Stated it was nev~r built to sell it as individual units, n~ver. It was built as investment for the doctor. MR. KELLEY-Asked, as apartments? MR. BEAN-Stated as apartments. MR. MATHIAS-Stated and it's going to stay as apartme,nts. There's no change. The only way of effectively changing it is to knock it down. MR. KELLEY-Asked, I'm familiar with the property, the roads that access, these two story units, ranches, whatever, that is a private road? MR. MATHIAS-Stated yes. It's a private road right now and it will remain a private road under what we propose to do. MR. KELLEY-Asked, so then you're going to have some kind of a provision amongst the owners to form an association to plow it. MR. MATHIAS-Stated similar to the situation at Evergreen Park, for instance. roads in there are private and they don't have a Homeowners Association. just have a declaration of covenants and restrictions and say we're going to we have a common area and we're all going to pitch in a sixth. The same would be true here, obviously. Those They have, thing MR. TURNER-Asked, what happens to the 47.142 acre,s that are associated with the property down the road. MR. MATHIAS-Stated down the road, those will be, the intent there is to subdivide them, in accordance, with the ordinance and it's something that, obviously that portion of the property will have to come back before the Planning Board to ...the subdivision and approve it. I can tell you we're going to seek that type of approval as soon as this falls forward. MR. TURNER-Asked, so you'll access this lot here which is 4.85 acres through the- MR. MATHIAS-Stated no, let me, just make that really clear. big lot back there, the Planning Board said... The 4. 8 acres, the MR. TURNER-Stated that's a green area. MR. MATHIAS-Stated yes, for whatever reason, they said you can't build on it and we are not proposing to build on it. It's got to be eithe,r a common area or the potential remains, I suppose, for, again potential, of donating it for public use and right now it's heavily treed. It's a separate lot only in the sense that, to designate it as such, it can't be built on and we understand that. MR. KELLEY-Stated the part where the ranches are, We know that there's two buildings that are existing. Now, on this map that I'm looking at, it shows two proposed buildings. MR. MATHIAS-Stated right. Those two buildings were proposed and approved in 1988 by the Planning Board. MR. KELLEY-Asked, now is that plan that they're going to build two more four unit apartment buildings and sell those, one..? MR. BEAN-Stated y~s, that's why we're saying it's seven lots. We have six. 16 -- MR. KELLEY-Asked, where's the seventh one? MR. MATHIAS-Stated well, the seventh is the back lot that you can't build on. MR. KELLEY-Stated that's the seventh, ok. MR. MATHIAS-Stated there's nothing that we're proposing that's going to increase the number of units that have been authorized for this property. MR. TURNER-Stated what happened, I guess, is you went OVer you're time frame. Is that correct for the approval on the two lots in the back? Did you go over that? MR. BEAN-Stated that got really confusing. The minutes were lost. You didn't lose them. I didn't mean that. Thanks to their office, we got it cleared up because the minutes were lost of the particular meeting where they had the approval of the six lots and then we came in in '88. I believe that Phil MacIntyre, that firm was representing the doctor. MRS. COLLARD-Stated I'm not Lee. I'm Pat. MR. BEAN-Stated well Pat. Anyway, they came in and they got approval, ok, of those six lots at that time, to be built on that particular acreage that we're speaking of now. MR. KELLEY-Asked, did this piece of property change zones when the Town got rezoned? MR. BEAN-Stated yes, it I s got increased from SR-30 to SR-1 acre and that's again why, in a se:nse, the area situation was required. Also, right now unde:r SR-1A, I don't think we'd be able to have two and I know we wouldn't be able to have a multifamily complex without obtaining a Use: Variance. Really the remaining reason for the need for the variance is that those two units that have not been constructed yet although the others have actual road frontaga, those two do not. So, that's why that's part of our request for relief and I would simply say that no matter how they're owned, the plan, which has been approved, provides for actual physical access to those newer areas for emergency vehicles which is what the purpose is for that provision in the ordinance. MR. MATHIAS-Stated these maps all should jive. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED GEORGE PENNANT MR. PENNANT-I'm fairly new to this whole routine. My name is George Pennant. I live at 208 Upper Sherman Avenue. Just for the record. It all says Sherman Avenue. It's actually Upper Sherman Avenua. I don't know if it makes a difference. I am the neighbor to Dr. Karp. I don't know the man very well yet, but I do know a little bit about his thinking. I know that he owned this land where we had built our home and I know that the land behind Dr. Karp's house and all of the property he still owns, he keeps that as a wildlife bird sanctuary. So, I kind of think Dr. Karp has in mind one thing. I don't know if it's in line with what these gentlemen want to do with cluster housing. I do believe that this takes away from the whole neighborhood of this Upper Sherman Avenue area. You people just approved a development in that area which is a couple houses away from me. It's called Cranberry Lane, buil t by Higgs and Crayford and what they are building there are nice, single family, residential homes on one acre plus lots. What these homes here, these cluster homes, would be doing would be pretty much coming in line and bordering these singh family dwelling homes. So I don't agree that it fits in with the neighborhood or with what I think, I believe, is your master plan. As far as the population increase, I do think it would increase population in that one particular area. We're looking at 104 possible homes, assuming everyone has a car or what we know nowadays as two car families, we can be looking at as much as 48 automobiles coming in and out of this one development. I think another interesting point is that fact that they haven't been able to sell what they currently have there now, I think is an indication that it's not what people are looking for in this particular area. I don't think the solution to the problem is to increase the number of cluster housings in this area. Thank you. WALT SIMONS MR. SIMONS-Walt Simons, a concerned citizen that lives very, very closed to th~ proposed development. 17 MR. TURNER-What's your name? MR. SIMONS-Walt Simons. I am not a lawyer so I'll try to make it brief. I guess I get a little confused with the proposal of, well, we're only asking for a change of ownership. That seems to be a fairly simple process. I live in C1endon Ridge it's a very small development, very family oriented. We were notified that this proposal was going to effect us somehow. I do have some concerns, the fact of density factor, how close it's going to be to their proposal and I submit to you that, we don't have a whole lot of information, you've got a lot there to pass around and look at, we really don't and that makes us very, kind of, in the back of, hey, somethings going on here that we're concerned about. Road frontage, C1endon Ridge is a very small development, very family oriented, I know when I bought the property, I, myself, had to make some changes, not come in to the committee to say, can I have lO more feet over here, but I made the changes. Those roads going from here to here that are 15 years old and all of a sudden it seems like, it's going to be 40 houses 500 feet behind us. It's very, very confusing. The development is very family oriented, block parties and, not to discredit the density factor or people wanting to mOve in to the area, I know the housing situation is somewhat of a concern. It sounds like the individuals are talking about money. Say, well, we're just talking about change of ownership. It sounds like they're talking about a whole lot of money and concern is, we're talking about families, very nice families and I would like to know, well, if they're going to build, what's next on the committee's proposal, these roads going here and these roads going there. We don't have a whole lot of information and I would ask, if you can table it until more information is presented to us so we have the specifics. I've never seen this plan. It sounds like people are talking about a lot of money and change of ownership versus change of money. If you can table it until some people have a chance to look at the proposal a little bit more in-depth maybe we would support it, but it sounds like gee, there's just, I wouldn't want you to make a decision so quickly and I know you wouldn't put out people that are very concerned about what's going on and not have a little bit more information. MR. TURNER-Well, my question was, you see the area that's blocked out and kind of heavy lines? MR. SIMONS-Yes. MR. TURNER-Those two buildings are not there. The The two to the right are there, that front the road. to do with the rest of the property. Who's going to buy the whole piece. His comment was, there were to the ordinance, that means one acre lots. two in the front of them are. I asked him what he was going to buy it. Mr. Diehl's going going to develop them according MR. SIMONS-One acre lots? MR. TURNER-The rest of them. MR. CARR-Ted, they have a right, now, to build those things. I mean, that's already been approved. MR. BAKER-The approval on that has expired. MS. CORPUS-Bruce, it might help if, when we get to read the Staff Notes, a lot of that information's in there. MR. TURNER-Do you understand what I'm saying now? MR. SIMONS-Well, I haven't looked at it very closely. MR. TURNER-Walk right up to it (the map). MR. SIMONS-I couldn't do that, in a matter of minutes, and make a decision. MR. TURNER-Well, you know what's there if you live there. MR. SIMONS-I don't live there, but I live very close to it, 500 feet away, I guess. MR. TURNER-Those two on your left are there, that are near the road. They run at a right angle to Sherman Avenue. Those two to the right are parallel. Those are already there. They want approval for the two in the back. The rest of the property they're going to develop according to the ordinance, to the zone that's there which they have a right to do with just a simple review on permits. 18 MR. SIMONS-So that's it. MRS. GOETZ-Do you hav~ problems with that neighborhood now. MR. SIMONS-No, no, I don't. I know som~ people were notifi~d of, w~' re going to have, this hearing and v~ry 1itt1~ information ~xcept for what's on here, and it's like, wow, gee, this is a big impact. I thought, when I bought th~ property, I'm sure oth~r people in th~ development said well, if they... this plan that if you had to hav~ 1 acre lots. Maybe I'm speaking out of turn becaus~ I don't know the information that's pr~sented. MR. TURNER-Those that w~re built there wer~ built there according to the old zone. All th~y n~eded was sit~ plan approval, what is there now. The old zone was 30,000 square feet. The new zon~ is one acre. MR. SIMONS-And th~re' s no proposal for roads to connect that with Luzerne Road or anything in the futur~? MR. TURNER-They are connected right now. MR. SIMONS-This road's a dead end. MR. TURNER-That road dead ~nd' s right there. there. The access is out to Sh~rman Avenue MRS. GOETZ-It's good that you came to th~ public hearing, numb~r one and it is confusing wh~n you come and you us~ all thes~ terms, but there really isn't much mor~, w~'re learning at th~ same time you are. We have just what you have in our hearing. I think that we're somehow not explaining it well enough that they understand that, to me, it doesn't seem like a major change. Maybe I'm not understanding it corr~ct1y, but it's just the own~rship type part of it that we're considering. I know there are oth~r variances, but becaus~ it's already there, it's not going to be that much of a change and any neW dev~lopment will hav~ to go within the zoning ordinanc~ requirem~nts. Do you have a problem with people or ~vents that go on in the existing buildings now? MR. SIMONS-No. MRS. GOETZ-Ok, because you m~ntioned the family orientation with your neighbors. MR. SIMONS-Obviously, w~ were sent a l~tter saying th~re was going to be a hearing so it effects us in th~ sense of, what, 500 fe~t to the proposed changes and it's still a question of which way the roads are going to go in our development to connect Birch, Luzerne, Sherman. Ther~' s, I think, still a lot of questions and we do have a very close family unit. MRS. GOETZ-Ok, are they questions with your own development or questions with this proposal? MR. SIMONS-I really can't speak for the other people in the development. If you have to approve it tonight, you hav~ to do what you have to do. Not having any of this information and being invited to a hearing, it's like, this is what I'm looking at. What is a collectors stre~t. I have no idea and that's my... MR. TURNER-What it means is ev~ry lot that fronts on that street has to be two times the lot width. The lot width is 150 fe~t requir~d. A Co11e,ctor Road means it has to b~ 300 fe~t. MRS. GOETZ-I can See why he doesn't know what's going on be,cause it's hard for us to und~rstand what's going on. It's like the definition of Collector Road. That's like a basic that the aVerag~ p~rson on the street isn't going to understand. I don't think, so can you describe it to him. MR. BAKER-Wh~n peop1~ within 500 fe~t of the proposed development rec~ived their notic~, I beli~v~ on th~ notic~ they r~ceiv~d it does say that they can call the Planning Department with any questions and we would be happy to go over the information with them. So that opportunity was and is there in situations like this. MR. TURNER-You see, certain str~ets in a town are designat~d arterial highways and collector roads and the dimensions change for those kinds of roads. 19 MR. SIMONS-Ok, thank you. MRS. GOETZ-I'd like to mention, the gentleman before you mentioned that this Board approved the subdivision Cranberry Lane, that would be the Planning Board, because I think this should be a learning experience for the public and I want to make it clear, we don't approve subdivisions. JOHN GREENE MR. GREENE-I'm John Greene and I live on the north side of the road, 193 Sherman. I just wanted to make a comment, again, on the population. We're looking at these four family typed dwellings which looks to me like it's going to at least double the population that's already there. It looks like this is described, this area, this is on a sort of a curb of the road which is probably one of the more dangerous areas of the road, especially in the bad area. We're talking about increased population, increased traffic, perhaps children and things like that. I don't know how much consideration was taken in to that, but I feel that that definitely should be looked at. The other thing, again, was the value. You're talking about the duplexes that we're there that we're up for purchase. Obviously, they had some problems with that. Now, we're going to a four family dwelling. In my opinion, again, it would be that their worth would be even less than a two family, especially when you look at the other houses along that road and if it's, you're going to be building towards the back with one family's, it just doesn't Seem feasible you're going to have four family dwellings and then go in to one family dwellings. Thanks. MR. BAKER-I'd like to clarify a few things for this gentleman, if I might. We we have at this site already is four existing fourp1exes and what is proposed is two more, which were previously approved, that approval has run out. So they're all fourp1exes, they're not duplexes and those four are existing fourp1exes, the four buildings there now. TIM CHASE MR. CHASE-My name's Tim Chase. I lived, for four years, on the right side of the property and every car that is in the subdivision there, went by my house. Truthfully, there was no problem with the apartments, if anything. I didn't even know the apartments were there and I had no problem with them. Not to create a problem with these people behind me, but the main flow of traffic would come from the Town, never would hit there, doesn't go down to where, I think, the people live. I didn't know how it would effect them. MR. TURNER-Yes, the only traffic is local traffic, right? senSe of the people who live there. Local traffic in the MR. CHASE-Their traffic is who lives down there. This traffic, and I have no ties to these people whatsoever, I had no problem with living there for four years and I still own the property, but I rent it out. MR. TURNER-Anyone else wish to be heard in reference to this application. MR. PENNANT-I have a question I was just concerned about. Is there any kind of consistency or plan within the Zoning Board or Planning Board as to what We want to do for the Town of Queensbury in particular area. Are we going to go haphazardly and do some apartments here, single residence here. Two months from now someone else will propose something else across the street. We're already looking at neighborhood's like the other gentleman said from C1endon Ridge, by maintaining that type of living environment. It's just a question I would throw out to whoever is responsible. MR. BAKER-There are two main documents that have been approved by the Town Board which are meant to guide development in the Town. One is the Zoning Ordinance which creates the different zones for different types of development throughout the Town. The other document is the "Comprehensive Land Use Plan" and that addresses many of the same items as well as many environmental concerns for different areas of the Town. Those are the two main documents that guide growth and development in the Town and they are available at the Town Hall. MRS. GOETZ-Stuart, that map, the Zoning map. MR. BAKER-The Zoning map comes directly from the Ordinance. MRS. GOETZ-And a good way to look at it is, it tells where the zones are and then you take the Zoning Ordinance and it tells you what can do on in each zone. 20 ........- MR. PENNANT-Let me just follow it up then. Can I assume that a particular area should be all one type zone then? MR. BAKER-Yes. MR. PENNANT-So in this area up in Sherman area where, I think our turn down is SR-1, which means a one acre lot and you people... just approved Cranberry Lane and that development there. Why then, 500 feet down the road, would there be a different type of zoning for this cluster housing? I don't understand. MR. BAKER-I'm not familiar with the Planning Board's approval of the. cluster deve.1opment on this site, that was before I began working for the Town, but cluster development is allowed in certain circumstances. MR. PENNANT-Because it was previously approved be.fore this, before we got into this SR-1. Is that how it works? MR. TURNER-Yes. See, it was a permitted use under the zone at that time, on those size lots. They could exceed the size, but the couldn't go under the size. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Letter from Barry and Roberta Converse, at 1 April Lane: We., as landowners and taxpayers in the Town of Queensbury, believe that all landowners should be able to use their land as to its best advantage, that zoning and spot variances shoul~ be granted to all or none. This letter is in a way to notify Mr. Diehl that an area bordering the south of his land is zoned for the use of mobile homes. This area includes our combined acreS of 16.35. So that, any time in the future, Mr. Diehl cannot USe the excUSe he was unaware of this zoning. This area's only use is for mobile homes due to the already heavy concentration of mobile homes. Throughout the years, as owners of our 16.35 acres, we have had and have now, the land in real estate hands. It is unsalable for any other purpose. STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner (attached) MR. KELLEY-Asked, Susan, you mentioned (referring to Notes) unde.r 3., A, B, C, and D. I don't have a D on mine? MRS. GOETZ-Stated that D, Stuart, from the Staff, added that. MR. KELLEY-Can you read that one more time? MRS. GOETZ-Stated sure. MR. BAKER-Stated that's an addition from Lee York. MRS. GOETZ-Stated Section 7.03 regarding multifamily dwellings, b1 "All roads into multifamily projects shall meet all Town standards for public roads". MR. MATHIAS-Stated I'd just like to respond briefly to that and simply say that these units aren't going to go away if you don't grant the variance. They are fourp1exes out there. The roads aren't going to get any bigger if you don't grant the variance. They already Were approved. There isn't any more traffic going in and out. They're not going to get any less wide and they're not going to get any wider. I think that what we're· looking here is for the minimal relief for a utilization of this property. It's not inconsistent, in fact, it's the same way it's being used right now. We're not increasing density and I think that's what you have to look at and the burdens of proof shows here what it is the ordinance is trying to do with Collective Streets, with the widths of roads into multifamily housing and what it's trying to do isn't going to change what's happening out here. There's no nexus between the requirements and what's going on because the roads are as wide, they're as close as they are to the road. So, I think that we really are seeking the minimal relief with virtually no change other than the form of ownership. If we go further, we've got to come before the Planning Board. You're going to get notice of that and, as a matter of fact, there may be more people that get that notice because we've got to give a wider range of notices for that. We're going to have to appear before the Planning Board at least three 21 times to obtain some input in terms of what we want to do here. What we're asking for is the ability to start on that road and we can get comment from staff at that point or whatever. MR. CARR-Asked, if we give you everything you're asking for tonight, what happens to lot 5 and 6? MR. MATHIAS-Stated we'd still have to go to the Planning Board and say we want to get these back. MR. CARR-Stated so, really, our approval on that would not... their reemergence or whatever. MR. TURNER-Stated he could combine those two lots and still end up with over an acre. He's going to incorporate the rest of the land into the zoning. He's missed his approval date on that one. MR. MATHIAS-Stated well, that's what the Town says and whether we have or We haven't isn't an issue, but I'm not sure that,'s positive here. We filed this thing back in December, in time to notify everybody of what was going on. MR. TURNER-Stated those two units don't exist. The only thing that exists are the two in the front that are..and the two to the right which face the road. The other two, you combine that one lot and have another acre off. MR. CARR-Asked, Ted, maybe you could help me on this. Our approval is that he can subdivide those four existing units, lets go with just the four existing ones right now, to sell them individually. So our approval would be minimum lot size. MS. CORPUS-Stated Bruce, your right. I was going to suggest to the Board that we take it one step at a time which was deal with each individual variance. Start with what's there and then work your way to what's not there and I did have a question for Wilson. Was the original approval for these units to remain in single ownership? MR. MATHIAS-Stated there wasn't any condition of it. MS. CORPUS-Asked, but you had not proposed this subdivision of lots? MR. MATHIAS-Stated I didn't represent the applicant when he applied, no. Although I can't, for the life of me, consider what the governmental interest in, is how it's owned. MS. CORPUS-Stated I just have a question. On the lots 1 through 7, then the remaining 47.124 acres, that's all currently part of the same ownership? MR. MATHIAS-Stated part of the same ownership. MS. CORPUS-Stated I just wanted clarification, that's all. MR. MATHIAS-Stated in terms of the density, and that is important to us, the density that was given to Dr. Karp for those four families, relates to the 11.140 acres which is in front of you tonight. MR. KELLEY-Asked, Wilson, the total piece of property for the seven, so called, lots is ll.140? MR. MATHIAS-Stated right. MR. KELLEY-Asked, and when it was originally approved, it was approved for 24 dwelling units? MR. MATHIAS-Stated that's right. MR. KELLEY-Stated so, 24 was for ll.140. Now that the zone has changed, it says you can't have a 30,000 square foot lot, square footage, per dwelling and if it says you have to have 1 acre per dwelling unit and that's where you're saying you're increasing the density in a sense. You aren't really adding any more dwelling units. MR. MATHIAS-Stated right, we're not adding any because the ordinance has changed. MR. KELLEY-Stated that's where you're saying you need the variance from. 22 MRS. GOETZ-Asked, Karla, when you suggest taking it one step at a time MS. CORPUS-Stated you've got in front of you, what amounts to about four different types of variances. MRS. GOETZ-Stated right. MR. TURNER-Stated vote on each one separate so there's a clear record. MS. CORPUS-Stated right, and it's my opinion that the Board would have to engage in the balancing of whether there were practical difficulties, balance the ...harm and alternative solutions for the applicant versus those of the community that you've heard. MRS. GOETZ-Asked are lots 5 and 6 included in anything that we talk about as we go point by point? MR. MATHIAS-Stated it seems to me that it is. what we gave you fourteen copies of. I mean, that's the plan. That's MRS. COLLARD-Stated Bruce, it has to go back to the Planning Board for reapprova1 for site plan and subdivision, not reapprova1 of subdivision, but approval of subdivision, if the variance is granted. MR. KELLEY-Asked, Pat, let me ask you another question. If it got that far and they go back to them, then they would probably address this Association or whatever is required as to whose going to maintain the roads and all that sort of thing, right? MRS. COLLARD-Stated I couldn't answer that. MR. KELLEY-Stated we don't do it. Somebody must do it. MR. BAKER-Stated that would be handled by the Planning Board. MR. MATHIAS-Stated I think that that's something that you have to put.. . like the preliminary application, the preliminary approval stage on the subdivision. I would like that We could make a one stop shop here, but I know that we're going to have to make a number of trips in connection with this project. Let me just say this, if you say you're only going to give me the four lots. What are you saying that happens with 5 and 6? That just floats? MR. TURNER-Stated he's going to buy the complete parcel, that ..acreS. That includes lots 5 and 6. Lots 5 and 6 are not developed. MR. MATHIAS-Stated no, they're not developed yet. Let me just make sure I understand this. You'd let us add those lots into the density of the remaining lots, right? MR. KELLEY-Stated it still doesn't make Sense. MR. TURNER-Stated well, maybe not, but I'm just throwing it out there. MRS. GOETZ-Stated it's just a possibility. MR. KELLEY-Stated I was going to say, if you're going to cut them back, if you're saying that it's 1 acre zoning has already got 16 dwelling units that exist, he's already more than 1 building per acre. MR. TURNER-Stated on that one. MR. KELLEY-Stated right. So whether you make that one, one acre lot or whatever you do to that, he's over that before you even look at it. MR. CARR-Stated yes, but Jeff, to do with their remaining ....is I think I misunderstood it, what their planning develop it into single family residence. MR. MATHIAS-Stated single family residence, one acre lots. MR. CARR-Stated the density had been approved there for 24 units in this small area, but maybe now we should reconsider, or if they want them back they could probably go to the Planning Board and ask them for those two units. 23 MR. TURNER-Stated they've got to get a varianc~ first. They missed their deadline. That's what I'm saying, they missed it. They had approval of that, they've lost th~r~ right to that, I think they want it back. MR. BEAN-Asked are you giving it back to us or are you giving us a variance? MR. TURNER-Stated you're asking for approval of what you've got there. MR. BEAN-Stated, yes, but we had approval on the six lots, ok. W~ did not build in the adequat~ period of time. We originally had approval for six lots with that .. .acres. We did not build in that period of time, so now your coming back to us and saying, w~ll, you didn't build in that period of time, but w~ got it approv~d und~r the pr~sent zoning. MR. TURNER-Stated under the old zoning. MRS. COLLARD-Stat~d no, they got approv~d under the pres~nt zoning. MR. BEAN-Stated und~r the present that wasn't under the old zoning. if I'm not mistak~n. zoning, We got it was approved for th~ six lots and it approved under the present zoning, MRS. COLLARD-Asked, you didn't get subdivision approval? MR. BEAN-Stat~d no. MRS. COLLARD-Stat~d you didn't get six lots, you got site plan approval to build to buildings. MR. BEAN-Stat~d for those two lots. MRS. COLLARD-Stated no, just for two buildings. MR. BEAN-Stated two buildings, excuse me. MRS. COLLARD-Stated right, lets not get it confused. MR. CARR-Asked Pat, which two buildings are w~ talking about. MR. MATHIAS-Stated 5 and 6. MR. BEAN-Stated ok, but I think that what we're asking for is a variance to be able to sell 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 separat~ly. MS. CORPUS-Stated Mr. Turner, I guess I just wanted to clarify that and for Mrs. Goetz too, because you asked me once at that time, where you stand. With the existing units, the Board, as I understand it, has the power to eith~r take this as it stands 1,2,3,4,5,6, and 7 or not. You can take ~ach individual existing unit and subdivide that off without addressing these two proposed apartment buildings. I would think that you could decide 1,2,3, and 4 first and then go on to 5 and 6 if that would make it easier for you to decide on that. MR. MATHIAS-Stated basically here's th~ problem. As a practical matter, what we're going to do. We've got those two lots that haven't been built on. They total in excesS of an acre. What we're saying is, under the zoning at this point, the only thing we'd be pertuitted to put up, if this was a brand new thing, would be a single family residential unit, one, one family. MR. TURNER-Read Duplex and multifamily projects require 1 acre of land per dwelling unit. MR. MATHIAS-Asked what happens if w~ said we'd combine lot 5 and 6. MRS. GOETZ-Asked together they're on~ acre, right? MR. MATHIAS-Stated right. MR. KELLEY-Stated the ordinance says one acre per dwelling unit, that's only one unit. You're talking about four units in one building. MR. MATHIAS-Stated right. 24 MR. KELLEY-Statßd 1ßt me ask, I think maybe you said this bßfore, but I don't know. I want to get it straight again. Let's say tomorrow, if you wanted to go out and put up 5 and 6. Could you do that as apartment units or did that expire? MR. BAKER-Stated that expired. buildings 5 and 6 again. They need to go through site plan rßview for MRS. EGGLESTON-Asked, Wilson, can you clarify for me, it says the original approvals were for townhouse apartments which would remain in single ownership. Does that mean Mr. Karp owned the existing complexes and they're rented or do they buy? MR. MATHIAS-Stated no, they'rß rented. MRS. EGGLESTON-Asked, are they rented now, and he's getting a fair return on all of these buildings. MR. MATHIAS-Stated I don't know if he's getting a fair return. MRS. EGGLESTON-Stated, well, I'm looking at it from an angle of wanting more density. MR. MATHIAS-Stated Joyce, he's got the density now. give mß those two lots, he's got four, four families units on ll.140 acres. I mean, that's a given. You have a prob1ßm with the other two. Even if, let's say you don't out there. He's got l6 dwelling They're not going to go away. MR. TURNER-Stated yes, we're trying to cut down the density. That's why we rezoned it that way. MRS. GOETZ-Stated I think this is a chance to improve the situation, that's the purpose of the new ordinance. MR. BEAN-Stated we got it approved under the present zoning for six dwellings. MS. CORPUS-Stated I'm also confused. Isn't the approval for the existing dwellings, isn't that part of a 58.264 unit? MR. BEAN-Stated no, it is not. It was not. MS. CORPUS-Stated we're talking about the approval for the two additional unit, was part of an 11 acre? MR. BEAN-Stated yes. MS. CORPUS-Stated ok. MR. BEAN-Stated that's what the maps that were submitted to the Planning Board and everything were on 11. some acreS. MRS. GOETZ-Stated it's not our fault that it didn't get built. MR. BEAN-Stated I agree with you. MR. MATHIAS-Statßd Sue, here's the practical matter too. This isn't a brand neW thing, you know. This is something that's been kicking around in terms of filing with the Planning Board and thßn being told that We had to file in front of you prior to the expiration datß and you're right. What probably we should have done, in hindsight, is run out there and paid for a building permit, in which case we would have had six months to do nothing. These are why we got together tonight. These are some of the tough questions that you've got to anSWer and I think, frankly, we're looking for an anSWer from you about what way we can go with this thing. Wß're asking for, in effect, six buildable lots. The seventh to remain unbuilt and you tell us whether We can do it or not. MR. BEAN-Stated Joyce, one other thing. You had asked about, isn't he getting an adequate return. He is not and that's the sole reason why he wants to sell it because in order to have the financing he has, it is hooked with Prime and if you want to go through the numbers thing, if you take $50 a square foot on 4,000 square foot, that's $200,000. So there's four of those buildings, that's $800,000, without including the land, that's just construction costs and now the doctor is throwing in 46 other acres, that's not an adequate. return. 25 MR. TURNER-Asked you're saying $800,000 to construct what? MR. BEAN-Stat~d four, fourp1exes. Four buildings on 11. some acres. MRS. GOETZ-Asked are all the apartments r~nted? MR. BEAN-Stated no, they are not. MRS. GOETZ-Asked what is the occupancy? MR. BEAN-Stated it's about 75 percent right now. MRS. GOETZ-Asked has it always been 75 perc~nt? MR. BEAN-Stated no, it's been full at times. At other times, it wasn't. MRS. GOETZ-Stated it sounds to me like two diff~rent sets of, does he get a reasonable return. Does he get a reasonable return on the rentals versus a reasonable return on selling the whole package with a change in the ownership? MR. BEAN-Stated if you want to go on the income approach to value and on advertising his income, if you take... of $650,000 it gives you a payment, before taxes, of somewhere around $6000, $6500 per month. If you tak~ $550 rental of the units, of 16 units, that's approximately $10,000 per month. Now, we have maint~nance, We have vacancy, We have taxes, which is a good shot, and you've got insurance that's almost $7,000 and that is not a reasonable rat~ of return. MRS. GOETZ-Asked, do you know why they're not renting 100 percent with th~ d~mand for apartments? MR. BEAN-Stated I wish the hell I knew. MRS. GOETZ-Stated because all the publications say that we're just d~sperate for apartments. MR. KELLEY-Stated yes, but at the $300 or $400 dollar range, not the $550 range. MR. BEAN-Stated I have known Steven and Susan Karp since th~y came to Glens Falls. I sold them this property. In answ~r to this gentleman, Susan Karp does like birds and everything else, but remember one thing, Steven and Susan Karp originally built these apartments on the southern end of this property. MRS. EGGLESTON-Asked, what's the point of that? MR. BEAN-Stated well, he had mentioned that it was a bird, that the Karp's had meant to k~ep it forever wild. Basically, they bought the property originally, I sold it to them, they were looking for a three acre parcel of land and I sold them 100 acres because it was a good transaction at the time. MR. PENNANT-Stated what I wanted to say was I thought you brought up a real good point about the apartments in question as to, well, why aren't these renting. Why aren't they at full occupancy and I think that was the point that we in the neighborhood were trying to get across, maybe we did and maybe we didn't, that this is not the area for this type of housing. You're changes in ordinances in that area to one acre lots is an indication that you have come to that conclusion yourself in the future. What we're talking about is something that happened in the past. The indication that they aren't full at this point in time says that peop1~ that are interested in renting are not going to rent out in the suburbs or th~ outlying areas of Queensbury or Glens Falls. They're looking for apartments that are closer to the City, closer to mass transportation and things of that nature. I do beli~ve that that's a good point. The other thing I did want to say is I understand where these gentleman are coming from from a profit standpoint, but I also think that what they are doing is they are definitely setting precedent and they have a lot of ambiguous proposals to me, and their presentation is not very sound as to what they want to do in the future. What they want to do with those other two lots is definitely get into more cluster housing. Now, I don't see where, by knocking down what isn't being filled now by renting people and putting up more of the same type, is going to change anything in that area. What it's going to do is just take away from that area of single family homes in that entire area. It's the only ~xception to the rule in that entire part of Upper Sherman Av~nue. MRS. COLLARD-Stated I'd like to clarify, it's not cluster housing, it's multifamily. 26 MR. PENNANT-Stated ok. MR. MATHIAS-Asked Ted, if I could just..to one thing. You're going to do the ones that We requested in our application plus the one that Mrs. York has also advised you of so that we're not going to have to get, assuming we're successful, come back here. MRS. GOETZ-Stated what we've been talking about is leaning towards granting the variances on the existing dwellings, but not on lots 5 and 6. MR. KELLEY-Stated what we're saying is before that exists, exists. MRS. EGGLESTON-Stated there's nothing you can do about it. MR. KELLEY-Stated I'm familiar with the property. I looked at it, one time, myself and I think Mr. Karp has that problem selling it because I know it's gone on the market. I think maybe it is a possibility for him to sell this, but it's obviously going to be easier for a person to buy a fourp1ex rather than 16 units on a lot. MRS. EGGLESTON-Stated right. MR. TURNER-Stated the whole concept, even though it was approved... Whether it got caught between the cracks or not, still, the idea was not to have that .... with density in that zone and that's why we zoned it the way we did. If you missed the boat, well, you missed it. That's my feeling. If you're going to develop the rest of the land into SR-1 acre, then why not develop that one acre lot that you're requesting the variance on into the rest of the property. MR. MATHIAS-Stated so that I understand this, that one acre lot, lot 5 and 6 actually we can include in the plan for the rest of the 50 acres, is that right? MR. TURNER-Stated yes. That's the way I feel. You know, what you've got, you've got there, you can't do anything about it, but you don't have the other two. MR. CARR-Stated Ted, before you agree to that, I think you've got to get some information from Karla or they may have to look into that because the original subdivision for the initial site plan approval was on 11 acreS. They could have six of these dwellings, but they've lost those two through whatever, but I don't know if that automatically sends that acre back out. MR. TURNER-Stated I don't say that it does. That's just the way I feel about it. MR. CARR-Stated ok. I think that might have to be looked into. MS. CORPUS-Stated Bruce, I think that you're right and the Board, I believe, in my opinion anyway, has the authority to take the lots as they stand or change the configuration in anyway, whether it was for density or for whatever purposes you believe it's important to keep them 1,2,3, and 4 and ignore 5 and 6 or whether it's combine 1 and 5 or 2 and 6 or whatever that would be up to the Board, but you're right, it is an issue that should be addressed in th~ motion. MR. CARR-Stated my question is, I don't know if we have the power to say take that acre and make up single family dwellings. MR. TURNER-Stated I didn't say we do. I'm just saying that's the way I feel. MS. CORPUS-Stated you could also table it if that were an issue you wanted further clarification on what else could be done. MR. CARR-Stated as far as I'm concerned, if we're going to take away the two or not give them the variances, We might as well give them the land back to build it with one single family. I just want to make sure if we're going to do it, we're in the position to do it. MR. DUSEK-Stated Mr. Chairman and Board members, if I may just address you for a moment on this. The only thing I would like just to bring to your attention is that, I understand what the Board is indicating here that there may be some potential for looking at various divisions of this property other than what is set forth herein. The only conCern I would just present to the Board is that, there are, obviously, several ways in which this thing could be divided. It could be divided with this little lot here, this little lot here, this one here, this 27 one here, that one there and then this entire parceL.. could divide it this way, this way. The only conCern I would just raise to the Board is whatever you did, this parcel down here for some reason was left as a reserved area by the Planning Board. The question that comes to mind is that is it appropriate to leave that as a separate lot, or should that parcel be made part of one of these lots. Now the applicant hasn't brought that before you. The applicant has brought this particular proposal to you and I think this is the proposal that you would probably be looking at for the one variance request that would come before you unless the applicant is prepared tonight to make a change in his request, but I think this is what he's asked for. He's asked for this, this, this, this, this, this, and this, whatever this is and I just wanted to bring that to your attention and if you now restructure the variance without his indication that that's what he want's, I don't know if that would be appropriate. It may be an issue to that you might want to find out from the Planning Board why it is that parcel is like that. Maybe that parcel should be attached to the other parcels and what happens if you do carve that off. Can he develop that at a later date? I just bring these issues to your attention because I just See this thing opening up. MR. MATHIAS-Stated I'd just point out the reason we set it up in this configuration was after my discussion with Mrs. York. There's a lot of things that we thought about. We could have made the lots a lot bigger if we added in, if we drew them in a geometric shape that would allow us to put the acreage in the back into the front lots and it seemed that, by having it as one unit, separately, that the Planning Board whose got to approve this if we get a variance anyway, can give us some input as to maybe they'll want it subdivided that way or it gave us the flexibility of the potential of offering it for public USe or for simply some form of buffer area between the existing USes. So, that was the reason for it. I guess I would submit that if you don't do anything about 5 and 6, it's a one acre and We don't need a variance for a single family unit on that. MR. BAKER-Stated I'd like to add something about joining lots 5 and 6. If the Board is going to recommend that they be joined into a one acre lot, then the Board will need to consider granting a variance from the required road frontage if that lot is to be built upon. MR. MATHIAS-Stated I guess we agree, at this point, any condition upon a further variance about that. We're not looking to get a building permit for that lot this evening. MR. KELLEY-Stated I don't know how you can do a...variance on density if you don't know what you're dealing with. MR. MATHIAS-Stated what more can we do. You've got the lots now. You know what the tests are. What are we going to be able to do a month from now. MR. KELLEY-Stated I think the concern is no one knows, in my mind, I don't know what's going to happen to lot 7. Should that be divided among the other 1,2,3, and 4. MR. MATHIAS-Stated well, as long as it can't be built on, as a practical matter, what do you care? MR. KELLEY-Stated I think what you want to do, you're saying you want to sell four lots. Forget 5 and 6 for the minute. You want to sell four lots and each lot has a fourp1ex on it. MR. MATHIAS-Stated right. MR. KELLEY-Stated well, we need to know how many acreS per lot we're dealing with so we know what kind of variance to give on each lot. MR. MATHIAS-Stated I think you're dealing with them as they are. Now it may be, when we go to get subdivision approval, which we have to get, the Planning Board's going to say, we want you to give everybody and undivided one-sixth interest in that, or one-fourth interest in that lot. I don't know what they're going to do. MR. CARR-Asked isn't there a rule about selling so that you're creating a land-locked lot? MR. MATHIAS-Stated we own the property adjoining it, so it's a buildable lot. MR. TURNER-Stated he's going to buy the whole 58 acres. 28 '- MR. CARR-Stated ok, then I think I'd like to know... what was m~ant from lot 7? How com~ this huge lot was left blank? MR. TURNER-Stated it's a green area, by the Planning Board. They can't build on it. MR. CARR-Ask~d, who owns it right now-Dr. Karp? Mr. Diehl. buys everything, then he sells lot 4, 3. Ok, say Mr. Diehl MR. MATHIAS-Stated yes, but then, Bruce, it Seems to me, you I re getting out of the business of the Zoning Board of Appeals and you're becoming a Planning Board which we got to go in front of anyway. MR. EGGLESTON-Stat~d I agr~e. (END OF FIRST DISK) 29 MOTION TO GRANT THE VARIANCE REQUEST AREA VARIANCE NO. 2-1990 CHARLES A. DIEHL, Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Egg1~ston: Granting th~m re1i~f from th~ one acre re:quirem~nt on lots number 1,2,3, and 4 in that a practical difficulty and undo hardship has been shown sinc~ the buildings are: already in existence and ther~ would not b~ an adequate return to have them be r~quired to be sold as one unit. Granting them relief from Se:ction 4.020. The: s~cond part of this is granting them r~lie:f from S~ction 4.053 for those same numb~red lots 1,2,3, and 4 which requir~s that all resid~ntial lots fronting on Collector Stre:~ts shall hav~ two times the: lot width, which in this caSe is, th~y are re:quired to have 300 f~et, w~ will base it on the map as presented with the application. As to lots five and six, I think it's best just to say that we're: denying the application for the variances regarding those lots because a practical difficulty has not been shown. Duly adopted this 17th day of January, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carr, Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Kel1e:y, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Sicard USE VARIANCE NO. 3-1990 TYPE: UNLISTED NC-lO MARK W. DARIUS 121 AVIATION ROAD ACROSS FROM SOKOL'S MARKET FOR USE AS A GENERAL REPAIR TO AUTOMOBILES SUCH AS TUNE-UPS AND COMPUTER REPAIR. TAX MAP NO. 78-1-8.1 LOT SIZE: 1. 71. ACRES SECTION 4.020 BRUCE JORDAN REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT AND THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY MR. JORDAN-Stated I got involved in this matte:r somewhat on the tail end of it you might say. I was not involved in the preparation of the application that you just read into the: record. I was contacted after th~ application was prepared and filed with the Town and I would like the opportunity to clarify a few things for you relative to the application. Firstly, I'd like to identify the parties and what's really going on here. Mr. William Maille, known to the community as Tinker, is the owner of the property that we're talking about. Mr. Darius who is indicated as the applicant on the papers that are fil~d is int~nding to rent one bay of a garage structure that's situated on this property, under a leasing arrang~ment. He's not intending to buy th~ property or change the ~ntire use of the property for his intended purpose. He's going to rent one bay from Mr. Maille to conduct what amounts to an automotive computer tuneup analysis and repair. As you may know, the cars that we all drove in here with this evening, have computer brains, so to speak, that operate th~ ~lectronic ignitions and so forth and basically, Mr. Darius is som~what of an expert in that field I'm told and he's going to conduct that type of diagnosis and repair of vehicles in one of the bays owned by Mr. Maille:. It's basically a ve:ry small operation. What you'll see:, if this comes to be, is an operation that is staffed by Mr. Darius rather than a number of ~mp1oy~~s and will probably service up to a maximum of three cars at any particular time at this location. I think, in order to appreciat~ the background of this particular application, and for us to explain to you the real hardship that exists in the landowners mind, it's important to realize what this property is and what it has been over the years. Basically, the property is currently used by Mr. Maille as a site for his ~xcavating busin~ss. He's in heavy ~quipment, maintains his vehicles ther~. He has a small office there, in support of a busine:ss and do~s his repairs on his machinery and equipment and there is also, to the rear of the building, I do believe you have a site: plan in your files as part of your application. To the rear of the building is a business that is invo1v~d in basically pipe:, as listed in the application, a war~house to distribute pipe from that location. Up until very recently, in one of the bays in this garage structure, w~ have: an operation known as Northeastern Power Products which was repairing small ~quipment and machinery out of the sam~ location that Mr. Darius proposes to ope:rate from. Prior to that, Myron Cement Company operated there as a distribution point for its cement products and, as I understand it, prior to Mr. Maille's operation, which has been going on for an e:xcesS of 10 years now, this structure was used as a transit mix plant location in the Town of Queensbury. Essentially, this particular site has b~en us~d either for manufacturing type of uses, who1~ sale and retail distribution of products in the form of pipe and c~ment and also for the mainte:nance of his heavy equipment business that Mr. Maille has been op~rating. Those uses are granted nonconforming uses under th~ current ordinance with regard to the proposed use of the diagnostic evaluation of thes~ comput~r systems and repair of those systems. We're told that we need a variance because that t s not one 30 '-- -- of the permitted useS in the neighborhood commercial zone:. Essentially, if you are familiar with the: property, we: have a structure, as indicated on your plot plan, that is approximately 11,000 square feet in size. We have a situation wher~ a small portion of the structure, to the rear of the building, is leased to the pipe company. We: have a portion which is indicated on the map which is actually being used by Mr. Maille in connection with his excavating business and we: hav~ an ever increasing area of space that is basically lying fallow, if you will, it is not producing any income. He doesn' t hav~ any USe for it and he: is seeking a USe for it at the current time to defray the increasing costs of maintaining a business or the business property, rather. As you drive by this structure and this also is indicated on your map, you wi 11 see, in the front, three very large overhead garage doors which are basically designed to allow a vehicle the size of a tractor trailer to drive into it. On the front of the building, there are three of those side by side. To the right hand side is a little office area. The overall structure of the building is concrete block. It has some stucco on it. It's basically de:signed to be: a garage for a plant type of facility. It's neVer be~n anything else and that's one of the: problems that we have here and we submit for your consideration tonight. Mr. Maille, wh~n he bought this property, found it in pretty much it's current condition. I have submitted for you, when We were on the recess, a memorandum that details, in summary form, our position about the hardship that exists with this particular piece of property and also the unique circumstances that exist and both of those issue:s can be found to exist in terms of the building that is currently on that piece of property. In particular, we are an applicant as here with Mr. Maille finds himself in a situation where he has, conceivably, a piece of property that has a building on it that's been there for 10 years or more, that is really not suited or designed for any of the other uses that we See that are now available to us under the neighborhood commercial zone. He can demonstrate by the fact of those, you might say almost obsolete, improvements, that he does have a hardship that exists with regard to his prope:rty. For example, if we go ahe:ad with Mr. Maille's proposal and we utilize one bay of that garage to re:nt it to generate additional income to COVer the costs of maintaining this property. It's hard to envision a situation where we could, for example, put a barber shop in one of those bays, a dental office, a professional office, a grocery store like the one that's across the street, Sokol's Market, and what have you. Those being the permitted uses in that particular zone. On the other hand, this particular structure is uniquely designed and fitted for an operation like Mr. Darius proposes, you roll up the door, you roll in the car, you hook it up to your diagnostic equipment and you figure out what the problem is with the electronic system in that vehicle. In addition, contrary to the Staff Input that will be read into the file later, this very structure does make this particular piece of property unique as opposed to other properties that are located in the same neighborhood commercial district. As you drive the area along Aviation Road where this particular neighborhood commercial district is located, you don't see other buildings that have been designed and constructed in the fashion that this one has. You see one building that has these types of restrictions in terms of my client's ability to convert that structure to another USe that would fit in that particular zone. So, in that sense, the physical improvements that are on the property, as well as the unique aspect of those improvements establish this hardship which is an essential and required finding under the terms of the ordinance. Although this particular use is not a permitted use, and that's obviously why we are here, I don't see, in any significant way, if this Board approve:s this variance, that it's going to alter the essential character of the neighborhood for this reason. We have a structure that has three garage bays on it right now that face Aviation Road. Those bays, like the project that We had a mom~nt ago with Wilson Mathias, are there, they are legally there, and they are entitled to remain there whether Mr. Maille is using the entire structure to house an expanded excavation operation or Mr. Darius is behind one of those closed doors hooking his customers car up to an oscilloscope to evaluate the electronic ignition. It doesn't have any real significant impact on the neighborhood. This is not a situation where we're taking a vacant lot, putting up a structure like We now have here and asking for a variance to conduct that type of USe in that structure. MRS. GOETZ-Asked is it all going to be: inside with the door closed? MR. JORDAN-Stated yes. MRS. GOETZ-Asked, no parking outside, because there are some cars parked out there already? Are the cars that are parked outside now, in connection with Mr. Maille? MR. JORDAN-Stated yes, his current operation. In other words, if Mr. Darius is working on a car and he has two other customers, they will be parked outside the construction, yes. He will have one, possibly two in there at a time, is that right Mark. 31 MR. DARIUS-Stat~d yes. MR. TURNER-Stat~d he's only got that one litt1~ bay, then, that h~' s going to b~ able to work out of. MR. JORDAN-Stated the bay that will b~ uti1iz~d is on th~ west side. MR. TURNER-Ask~d, reasonab1~ r~turn, can you addr~ss thatl MR. JORDAN-Stat~d yes I can. Th~ probhm with this particular building for my client is, the invo1v~ment of his construction is taking less and less of th~ building all the time. Originally, h~ had up to fiv~ emp1oy~~s. He's operating on th~ basis of hims~lf and his son at the curr~nt time. Th~re's be~n a r~duction in the amount of ~quipment and h~ now has this avai1ab1~ space that is, as I said when I started, basically lying fallow. It's not producing any incom~ whatsoever. He's not r~ceiving any return on probably 40 p~rcent of th~ building currently. We heard, a moment ago in the application that was just heard and granted, that an owner of a pi~c~ of property who had upwards of 75 percent occupancy of a r~sid~ntia1 structure had a hardship because h~ didn' t f~e1 h~ had an adequat~ return on his investment when he almost had full occupancy' of the building and in this particular case, We have a very limited occupancy of that building and a v~ry limited return for th~ inv~stment that ~xists in that property. The opportunity to r~nt one of these bays to Mr. Darius to conduct his op~ration is going to generate some income from a space that's basically lying empty right now. MR. KELLEY-Stated previously you stated that Northeast Pow~r Products had rent~d or l~ased space ther~. MR. JORDAN-Stat~d yes, for a year and a half. MR. KELLEY-Stat~d so th~y w~r~ th~re, Mr. Maille was th~re, and Ramso was there. Th~re wer~ basically thr~e t~nants previously. MR. JORDAN-Stated previously, that's correct. MR. KELLEY-Asked, what about prior to Northeast Power Products, was th~re somebody there b~fore that? MR. JORDAN-Asked, in that space? No. MR. KELLEY-Ask~d what would be the number of tenants that hav~ commonly been th~r~? Have you had two or three? MR. JORDAN-Stat~d two MR. KELLEY-Stat~d two. Now that Mr. Maill~' s r~ducing his work force and amount of space that he requir~s, this is freeing up a space, that's what you're saying, right? MR. JORDAN-Stated essentially is, yes. MR. KELLEY-Ask~d, Mr. Maille, do you look for tenants to rent out this spac~ or do they come to you? I guess what I want to know is if you adv~rtised that you had spac~ for rent, what kind of tenants appli~d and w~r~ looking for spac~ in your particular busin~ss. MR. MAILLE-Stated it's hard to find somebody to go into that typ~ of a building, un1ess...pipe or automotive. MR. KELLEY-Stated I guess, what I'm getting at, it says in this particular n~ighborhood comm~rcia1 zon~, permitted uses are gas stations, professional offices, laundromats, day care centers, drug stores, stationary stores, grocerys, meat stores, Barbers. Did any of these p~op1~ apply to your ad? MR. MAILLE-Stat~d I don't think a grocery store would want to go in th~re with the diesel running. MR. KELLEY-Stated I don't eith~r. MR. MAILLE-Stated I m~an a day care or anything 1ik~ that there. 32 MR. KELLEY-Stated so the unique circumstance that you're building is different than what th~ zone's be~n called for. MR. JORDAN-Stat~d We understand that. MRS. EGGLESTON-Asked, is Mr. Darius already in operation there since ther~ was a car in front of that garag~ with the hood up th~ day w~ did our site inspection? There Wer~ also about 10 cars park~d along th~ sid~, som~ without plates and an app~aranc~ of not having b~en us~d. MR. JORDAN-Stat~d som~ of thos~ cars parked out on the side did not belong to us. They b~long to Ace Courier and Stewarts n~xt door. MRS. EGGLESTON-Ask~d, the one's with no plates? MR. JORDAN-Stat~d no, th~ one's with no plat~s, one is my son's and the other was Virginia Slat~'s. MRS. EGGLESTON-Asked, and th~ car that was b~ing worked on with the hood up, is he in operation? MR. JORDAN-Stated yes, he is in operation. MR. KELLEY-Asked, at one tim~, didn't they also garage school buses there? MR. MAILLE-Stated yes. MR. KELLEY-Stated so there's kind of be~n a history of... something th~re. Ther~ was transit mixers, school buses, we had th~ Couri~r there, your ~xcavating busin~ss has been ther~. Henry Slate had an excavating. MR. TURNER-Stated Henry Slat~ had a batch plant there. Ashton Ready Mix had a batch plant there. MR. KELLEY-Stat~d Henry was also known to have an ~xcavating business. MR. TURNER-Stat~d a c~m~nt distribution business was ther~. MRS. GOETZ-Asked, where's Ace Courier? Ace Courier, where's that located? MR. MAILLE-Stated it's on th~ other side of th~ building that h~ rented from somebody else over th~r~ on Manor Drive. MRS. GOETZ-Ask~d, and they park their Ac~ Couri~r cars at your p1ac~? MR. MAILLE-Stated yes, they were parking their cars there becaus~ there was no place for them to park, but now th~y bought the firehouse? MR. TURNER-Asked, didn't they buy the firehouse? MR. MAILLE-Stated yes, th~y bought the firehouse and they've still got three of their cars there. MRS. GOETZ-Ask~d, ar~ they going to stay th~re? MR. MAILLE-Stated no. MR. TURNER-Asked, any of you know the history of th~ building, the Henry Slate Building, years ago? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE MRS. GOETZ-Asked, would you like me to read this memorandum that you passed out as part of th~ public r~cord? 33 MR. JORDAN-Stat¡;d I don't know if it ne¡;ds to be made part of the public record b¡;cause We did not Seem to hav¡; any public commenting. I would hope you would consider that in your d¡;lib¡;rations. STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, P1ann¡;r (attached) MR. JORDAN-Asked, may I hav¡; an opportunity to r¡;spond to Staff's comments? If you look at the m¡;morandum that I submitted, I think that addresses at least thre¡; out of four of the issues that are raised by th¡; Staff and I'm not r¡;ally being critical, they had, what I consid¡;r, a rather sketchy application to this thing that was submitt¡;d and I'm trying, at this point, to fill in som¡; gaps in th¡; d¡;tai1s and soforth. Number one, the Staff finding is that it do¡;s not appear that this prop¡;rty is unique compar¡;d to other prop¡;rty in th¡; n¡;ighborhood. I think W¡;' ve demonstrated that it is unique by virtue of the improv~m~nts that are on th~ premis¡;s. In th¡; memorandum I've sited Professor And¡;rson' s treatise on N¡;w York Zoning and some oth¡;r cas¡;s that sp¡;cifica11y have found that improv¡;m¡;nts on pr~mises can cr¡;ate a uniqu¡; circumstance to a particular piece of property, separating that from other properties in the neighborhood. S~cond1y, with r¡;gard to finding numb¡;r two, I think we've established her¡; tonight that th~re are two uses on the property, not three and that th¡; incr¡;asing amount of vacant, untenantab1~ space or untenanted space I should say, has made it impossib1¡; for Mr. Mai11¡; to gen¡;rate any r¡;asonab1e return on the dollar in this inv¡;stment. Finding numb¡;r three, that the variance is n¡;cessary for th¡; preservation of a prop¡;rty right. In this particular case, this applicant, un1ik¡; many of the other prop¡;rty own¡;rs in that zon¡; or any zone, b¡;cause of th¡; uniqu¡; circumstanc¡;s of this particular structur¡;. Is finding it difficult to use th¡; ¡;ntire structur¡; for his own purposes and is seeking the opportunity to US¡; it for oth¡;r purpose,s that are reasonable, given all the, facts and circumstances as they relate to this particular piece of property and finally, I think I've a1r¡;ady addre,ssed this ¡;ar1ier on, that it would not b~ mat¡;ria11y d¡;trimenta1 to the ordinance. I don't see any use of this nature that is going to occur, basically b~hind c1os~d doors. We'r¡; not talking about an autobody shop where we'r¡; going to have virtually d¡;mo1ished cars tow¡;d into th¡; yard and laying around waiting for insurance adjust¡;rs to come and look at th¡;m b¡;fore the repairs are done. We're talking about a rather clean type of auto diagnostic work and repair. So, for that r¡;ason, I think the findings of the Staff are r¡;ally at varianc¡; with issues that we 've d~monstrated to the Board tonight. Thank you. MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 3-1990 KARl.{ W. DARIUS, Introduced by Jeffrey Ke11¡;y who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: The applicant, Mark Darius, asks for a Use Variance and will hav¡; to prov¡; th¡; four tests for that particular variance. This is a neighborhood commercial, 10,000 square foot zone and I think the first test we hav¡; to address is wheth¡;r th¡;re is an unnecessary hardship and whether there are any unique circumstanc¡;s and I be1Üve th¡;r¡;' s an answ¡;r to both of those. On¡;, I think the building size and th¡; configuration of the building itself mak¡; it uniqu¡; to the area. It is a very large building and I think because of its d¡;sign, that b¡;ing that it has large, ov¡;rhead doors, it was previously us~d as a construction business and also a ready mix plant. It does not hnd itself well to the USeS that would b~ allow~d in a Type II sit~ plan r~vi~w. Th¡; second part of the t~st would pertain to, can the applicant rec¡;ive a reasonable r¡;turn. It's been used under, again, the, Type II us¡;s and I b¡;li¡;ve the answ¡;r is no to that. Again, it's a large, building. Th¡; owner of th¡; building has an excavating business and he is cutting back in th¡; space that he, himself, USeS and as a result of that, th¡;re' s som¡;wh¡;re, around 40 pe,rcent of th¡; building left vacant. H~ apparently has one, t~nant and previously had anoth¡;r on¡; who left and he would lik¡; to r¡;p1ac~ th¡; one vacancy with a neW tenant by doing so, h¡; fe¡;ls he then can have a reasonable r~turn. Th¡; third part would be in reference to the preservation of a property right. I guess th¡; answer to that is he has the right to make the most USe out of th~ building that pr~~xist~d the ordinance and th~ fourth part would be, is this particular variance detrimental to the ordinance. I be1iev~ the anSWer is no. Section 10 says that it should enable r~sidents to obtain staples, necessary, and other goods. I feel that b~ing abh to get your car running or repaired is something that residents should be able to do. This Use Variance would tertninate on the ceasing of Mr. Darius's operating this particular business. MR. JORDAN-Stated could I get a clarification on that please. 34 MR. KELLEY-Stated th~ int~nt to that, as I would stat~ it is that, 1Hs say Mr. Darius l~av~s, if you had a Use Variance for his car tuneups, now someone else comeS and wants to do a similar busin~ss, but he has ten employees and they want to park 25 cars out front. If w~ had a mass production thing, I think we might vi~w that, ev~n though it's the same type business, W~ might want to look at it in a different light based on th~ siz~ of th~ busin~ss. MR. JORDAN-Stat~d I See. If that' s th~ concern, if I may, I would suggest that we tailor the qualification to what's going to occur there rather than whether it's Mr. Darius or Mr. Brown b~caus~ lets say Mr. Brown com~s in and he wants to work on ~l~ctronic ignition ~quipment and h~' s going to do it himself and h~' s going to have three cars outside, or what have you. It I S a rather expensive and time consuming proceSs to go through Use Variance application and then Site Plan Review application to do the sam~ thing all over again. If, on the other hand, Mr. Brown, as you say, is going to have 25 ~mployees, that's a different situation because you're going beyond the scope of th~ variance that was granted by the Board and I think it's within your discr~tion, if not your obligation, to grant the minimum variance nec~ssary to e1iminat~ a sp~cified hardship in this caSe as it is in oth~rs and if we could qualify it 1ik~ that rather than th~ identity of the individual. MRS. GOETZ-Ask~d, should we limit it to that on~ bay becaus~ it would b~ easy to expand th~ use and use the whol~ building for th~ car repair. MR. KELLEY-Stat~d it was pr~s~nt~d to us as one bay. MR. JORDAN-Stat~d that's how it was submitted and that's what We will stick to. MR. KELLEY-Stat~d I think that Use Varianc~s, being th~ tougher of the two that we hav~ to go through, personally I think I'd want to k~~p it that Mr. Darius, w~ tend to los~ control. You don't know what's going to happen. MRS. COLLARD-Stat~d Mr. Chairman, I beli~v~ a Us~ Variance runs with th~ land. I just didn't want to hav~ a whole building full of car repair. MR. TURNER-Stat~d suppos~, down th~ road, Mr. Mai11~ sells th~ property. MR. JORDAN-Stated y~s. MR. KELLEY-Stat~d to Mr. Darius. MR. TURNER-Stat~d or to whoev~r. MR. JORDAN-Stat~d to tell you the truth, if that's a conc~rn, I don't think I would hav~ any, I can't think of a legal objection or a practical on~, that w~ could rais~ that th~ variance would terminat~ on his sa1~ of the business. MR. TURNER-Stated let m~ ask him. business? Do you have a problem if he terminat~s th~ MR. DARIUS-Stated no, I don't hav~ a prob1~m. MR. JORDAN-Stated my client say he does not hav~ a problem with it, for th~ r~cord. I'll abide by his d~cision. Duly adopted this 17th day of January, 1990, by th~ following vote: AYES: Mr. Carr, Mrs. Egg1~ston, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. K~ll~y, Mr. Turn~r NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Sicard USE VARIANCE NO. 4-1990 TYPE: UNLISTED WR.-1A KAREN L. SOMMER; DAVE GOODALL; SHELDON CHASE ROUTE 149 TO OXBOW HILL ROAD, MAKE RIGHT, PROCEED TO FIREHOUSE, SITE IS ACROSS STREET, GLEN LAKE ROAD BUSINESS WILL BE CHANGED FROM A TAVERN TO A COUNTRY STORE. STORE WILL SELL GROCERIES AND OTHER SUNDRY ITEMS. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 44-1-1.22 LOT SIZE: .866 ACRES SECTION 4.020 MARK LEBOWITZ, AGENT FOR APPLICANTS, PRESENT MR. LEBOWITZ-Stat~d my name is Mark Lebowitz. I'm her~ on behalf of the applicants, Kar~n Somm~r, Dave Goodall, and Sheldon Chas~. The reason a variance is required 35 in this instanc~ is b~cause the ordinanc~ provid~s that, in th~ ~v~nt a nonconforming use is t~rminat~d, th~ USe th~r~aft~r should b~ in conformity with th~ zoning for that ar~a. In this particular instance, th~ zoning in the, are,a is now Wate,rfront Re,sidentia1 one acre. The permitted uses for that zoning classification are, single family residence and hunting and fishing cabins. This particular property, you're probably all familiar with. It's been a bar for many, many years. It was Greene's and then Buyer's and then the Hacienda and most recently Rumors. It's a cement block building. The building is OVer in the corner of the, lot to provide the maximum space for parking. The proposal here is to change it from one commercial us~, that being the Tavern, to another comm~rcia1 use, that being the stor~ facility. No physical changes ar~ proposed with respect to the exterior of the building. It's unique in that se,nse, that it is designed for commercial use in a residential area. It's also impossib1~, given the structure and it's prese,nt use, to expect a reasonable return to be made by using that facility as a hunting and fishing cabin or as a single family reside,nce. I think the premise of the application is ad~quate1y stated in the papers before you. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JAKE DUGREE MR. DUGREE-My name is Jake Dugr~e and I'm a resid~nt of the Town of Queensbury and I own a general stor~ located approximately 2 miles from this proposed change in zoning ordinance. It's my understanding that the Queensbury master plan was put in to effect to do away with spot zoning throughout the Town. Th~re are a number of other comm~rcia1 establishm~nts and like Sunnysid~ on Ridge Road and throughout th~ Town, which are pr~s~nt1y nonconforming uses, such as this particular one. I fe~l that you' r~ s~tting a very dangerous pr~cedent in taking a busin~ss which is commercial, has a nonconforming use, and allowing a Use Varianc~ in order to change it to a diff~rent typ~ of comme,rcia1 use, because if this one's allowed, who's to say that mor~ couldn't be allowed on many of these oth~r business~s or zones throughout this ar~a of Queensbury. I know of He1ffrich Automotive on Ridge, Road and Sunnyside Parr Three on Sunnyside. There may be, others on Bay Road which, Gwinup's Store which is a nonconforming us~ on Ridge Road, Williamson's Store which is a nonconforming use on the Ridg~ Road, which, when the master plan was put into ~ffect, an attempt was made, by the Town, to do away with the zoning for Gwinup's, to do away with the comme,rcia1 zoning for Williamson's Store, to do away with commercial zoning for property I own across the stree,t from my own store which is zoned commercial and in two of those three instanc~s, attorney's were hired and a great deal of exp~nse was put out by the, p~op1~, that's the Williamson's and also Gwinup' s, to maintain their general store as a nonconfortning use and not to have that particular zoning taken away. Now, I'm coming h~re tonight and hearing a nonconforming use, a re,quest for a Use Variance to change a historic use into a different use and if this is allowed, who's not to say that it won't become a prec~dent for oth~r similar situations throughout this ar~a of the Town. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Th~ Warren County Planning Board could not act because they didn't hav~ the quorum. Letter from Joan Winchell, Nacey Road: Let it be known that I am in favor of this change. STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (attached) MRS. GOETZ-Stated I'm just thinking that it's far back from the Lak~. possible demolition or new construction ~ffect the Lake. How could MR. TURNER-Asked Mr. Chas~, have you tried to advertise it for any other use then any use permitted under zone or are you just searching out for a variance. MR. CHASE-Stated I adv~rtised for the use of the building as a single family residence, no. MR. TURNER-Asked, hav~ you tried to sell it at all? MR. CHASE-Stated yes, Phyllis Holtz had it for a year. Phyllis Holtz had it listed for a y~ar, but she had no buyers. 36 '-- MR. TURNER-Ask~d, for what? MR. CHASE-Stat~d as a bar, as a tav~rn that's what it was, not as a sing1~ family. You couldn't show it as a sing1~ family. MRS. GOETZ-Ask~d, did you run th~ bar? MR. CHASE-Stated right, for four y~ars. MRS. GOETZ-Ask~d, why did you d~cid~ not to hav~ a bar? MR. CHASE-Stated I had a chanc~ of plans. MRS. GOETZ-Stat~d as far as th~ reasonab1~ r~turn go~s. MR. CHASE-Stat~d to get out of th~ bar busin~ss. MRS. EGGLESTON-Stated it would hav~ b~~n nice had you, like in our previous cas~ wh~r~ th~y bring a r~a1 ~stat~ p~rson who says how th~y'v~ tri~d to s~ll it and it had not sold. MR. LEBOWITZ-Stat~d I think th~ standard h~r~ is not wheth~r reasonable va1u~ can b~ obtain~d from its us~ as a bar. Th~ prop~rty in qu~stion cannot yi~ld a r~asonab1~ financial r~turn us~d for any p~rmissib1~ us~ applicab1~ to th~ zoning district in which th~ prop~rty is locat~d which is as a single family r~sid~nce or a hunting and fishing cabin. I don't think that th~ applicant should b~ requir~d to k~~p th~ prop~rty for a y~ar, mark~ting it as a single family r~sidenc~ to demonstrat~ th~ conclusion that ~v~rybody should acknow1~dg~ that it just do~sn' t hav~ a va1u~ for that purpos~. MR. TURNER-Ask~d, what was th~ asking pric~ of it as a bar? MR. CHASE-Stat~d as a bar, $225,000 and Phyllis Holtz could confirm that. MR. KELLEY-Asked, I think I was in th~r~ y~ars, and y~ars, and y~ars ago, but anyway, could you d~scribe, roughly, what th~ int~rior configuration is? MR. CHASE-Stated y~s, it's on~ op~n door. MR. KELLEY-Stat~d it would b~ 1ik~ a truss roof? MR. CHASE-Stat~d a truss roof right, 10 foot c~i1ing. MR. KELLEY-Stat~d th~ basic...wou1d just b~ two bathrooms. MR. CHASE-Stat~d two bathrooms. MR. KELLEY-Stated so if som~on~ wer~ to conv~rt this to a r~sidentia1 building, it wouldn't b~ t~rrib1y hard to do. You can put th~ walls anywh~re you want. MR. CHASE-Stated well, you'v~ got 10 foot c~i1ings. It's not an app~a1ing looking r~sid~nce. It sits to th~ side of th~ lot which, it' s push~d all the way ov~r. It's a pr~tty good siz~d lot, but it's pushed, crowded to on~ ~nd of it. You hav~ a plot plan as part of th~ application. I'v~ got som~ pictur~s of it too. MR. TURNER-Stat~d th~r~'s no proof to substantiat~ th~ argument that they couldn't s~ll it if it wer~ r~sidentia1. MR. CARR-Stat~d I think w~ can mak~ that assumption. I m~an, would you buy a cind~r block, ~x-bar? I m~an as a hous~. MR. KELLEY-Ask~d, how far is this from th~ Lake? MR. CHASE-Stated I'd say b~tw~~n 4 or 500 f~et. MR. KELLEY-Ask~d, at th~ Lak~, is th~r~ any p1ac~ n~ar a public b~ach that som~one would hav~ acc~ss to? MR. CHASE-Stat~d no. It could also be ~xtr~m~ly und~sirab1~ as a residence b~ing directly across the str~~t from th~ Bay Ridg~ Fir~ Company. It do~sn' t add to th~ r~sidentia1 flavor. 37 - BRUCE JORDAN MR. JORDAN-Stated my name is still Bruce Jordan, as before. In this case, I'm wearing a hat on behalf of Karen Sommer whose th~ purchaser in this particular transaction and if I could just address a couple of points. First of all, you were asking a question about the nature of the structure. I think Mr. Kelley said, well, if you've got a truss roof, why can't you throw up a few p~titions and have bedrooms where there was a dance floor. W~ll, if you look at th~ structur~ of this ar~a, th~ structure in particular, it has v~ry 1imit~d window spac~. It is concr~te block construction. It's not th~ typ~ of structur~ that would b~ ~asi1y or r~adily convertible without substantial investm~nt to basically destroy the structur~ and rehabilitate it to something that you would want to hav~ as a residence. As Mr. L~bowitz just said, you do have the add~d problem of the location of the structure in the v~ry corner of the lot and also its proximity to the n~w fir~hous~ that' s dir~ct1y across the street. Finally, th~ g~nt1eman whose nam~ ~scap~s me now, was talking earlier in opposition to the application, said that we hav~ to be concerned that we're not ~stab1ishing kind of a dangerous pr~ced~nt h~re for changing prior nonconforming uses to oth~r comm~rcia1 us~s that on~ particular party or anoth~r may want to hav~ the Board consider. Well, I would submit to you that the inh~rent protection under the ordinanc~ is th~ very crit~ria that the applicant has to establish in each case, for a Use Variance. You will have the opportunity, as th~ Zoning Board of App~a1s, to evaluate the circumstanc~s as they apply to each particular case. In this particular situation, you'r~ going to look at this structure, its prior use, its int~nded use, wh~re it is in r~lation to th~ road, the Lake, and so on and so forth and I think that's really th~ protection and the safeguard that citiz~ns have in the community with regard to the dangerous precedent issue. That's all I have. Thank you. MR. KELLEY-Asked, Pat, do you know what th~ zoning was before it was WR-1A? MRS. COLLARD-Stated no, I don't. MOTION TO GRANT USE VARIANCE NO. 4-1990 KAREN L. SOMMER DAVE GOODALL SHELDON CHASE, Introduc~d by Bruce Carr who moved for its adoption, second~d by Joyce Eggleston: For the applicants to establish a grocery store at that location. They m~et all the requir~ments necessary for a Use Variance. That strict application of th~ ordinance would create an unnecessary hardship on the applicant and that the ordinance only allows sing1~ family residenc~s or hunting lodges within this zoning and that this building is not suited for that purpose and has never be~n used as such. S~cond, that a reasonab1~ financial return cannot b~ r~a1ized by th~ applicant by strict adh~rence to the ordinance. That same r~asoning applies to th~ pr~servation of th~ property rights of the applicant and last, that th~ variance would not be detrimental to the purposes of the ordinance in that this building has always b~en nonconfortning, commercial prop~rty and I be1i~v~ a groc~ry store is pr~f~rr~d over a tav~rn. Short EAF shows no n~gativ~ impact. Duly adopted this l7th day of January, 1990, by th~ following vot~: AYES: Mr. Carr, Mrs. Egg1~ston, Mrs. Go~tz, Mr. K~ll~y, Mr. Turn~r NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Sicard SIGN VARIANCE NO. 5-1990 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-1A JOHN A. BROCK ROUTE 9 MALL TO KEEP EXISTING ROUTE 9 MALL SIGN AND ADD INDIVIDUAL STORE SIGNS BELOW: "FRANKS A LOT", "LAS VEGAS", "PATS DINER", "MOORING POST". (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 36-1-33.2 JOHN BROCK PRESENT MR. TURNER-Ask~d, do you hav~ a prob1~m r~nting th~ buildings that ar~ th~r~ now? MR. BROCK-Stat~d that' s th~ problem. I hav~ had th~ mall for six y~ars now. Originally, it was thought that th~ probl~m was, the gas station out front. I tri~d to r~nt th~ gas station. I had two or thr~~ t~nants in th~ station which couldn't mak~ it. I had no t~nants in th~ mall at all wh~n the station was th~r~. I took th~ station down to giv~ b~tt~r visibility so that th~y could s~~ the mall. 38 Sinc~ that tim~, th~ station's b~~n down for ov~r two y~ars now, almost thr~~ y~ars. w~ hav~ n~v~r gott~n mor~ than 50 p~rc~nt occupancy in th~ mall. Th~ t~nants will com~ in, th~y stay a y~ar or so, and th~y'r~ gon~. It's b~~n on~ t~nant aft~r anoth~r th~r~ and th~ bigg~st prob1~m, ~v~rybody t~lls m~, is p~op1~ driv~ by, th~y don't s~~ th~ mall. Ev~n putting a Rout~ 9 Mall sign hasn't don~ it for us. That' s b~~n about a y~ar and a half now. With th~ building of th~ Days Inn and Boon~' s R~staurant coming out furth~r, and also th~ Log Jam coming out furth~r on both sid~s, w~ s~t lik~ in a tunn~l and th~ p~op1~ just driv~ by. I had th~ boat busin~ss th~r~ and p~op1~ would driv~ by and s~~ th~ boats out th~r~, thinking boats w~r~ stor~d th~r~, and th~y just didn't driv~ in. W~ f~~l th~ only alt~rnativ~ w~ hav~ now is to put a listing of th~ stor~s that ar~ th~r~ out on th~ ~xisting sign so that p~op1~, wh~n th~y'r~ riding by, will at l~ast s~~ th~ Las V~gas Golf, or th~ Franks a Lot, or any of th~ oth~r stor~s that ar~ th~r~ and turn to look in and it g~ts p~op1~ to com~ in. As of right now, th~r~' s a r~asonab1~ r~turn, but I can't mak~ it on 50 p~rc~nt r~nta1. MRS. GOETZ-Ask~d, ar~ you moving th~ boats? MR. BROCK-Stat~d th~ boats ar~ going, y~s. MRS. GOETZ-Stat~d b~caus~ that should improv~ your visibility. I agr~~ that that's b~~n a big prob1~m. MR. BROCK-Stat~d w~ll, wh~n th~ boats Wer~ out front, that was a prob1~m, but th~r~ hasn't b~~n any boats in th~ front of th~ mall for, six to ~ight months, now. Th~y'v~ b~~n all along sid~ which is 1in~d up b~hind th~ Days Inn and that do~s not block th~ visibility at all b~caus~, if you rid~ by, th~ boats, if you'r~ going south, th~ boats ar~ 1in~d up, in th~ background is Days Inn. If you' r~ coming th~ oth~r way, you hardly s~~ th~ boats until you g~t by th~ Days Inn b~caus~, again, th~y'r~ 1in~d up b~hind th~ Days Inn, right down that right of way. MRS. GOETZ-Stat~d I still think it's a prob1~m. MR. BROCK-Stat~d th~y'r~ going anyway. MRS. GOETZ-Stat~d I still think that will improv~ th~ situation bacausa, I agr~e., I wante.d to find tha Las Vagas T~nnis and Golf Discount and all I could s~~ w~r~ those. boats and I think that' s b~~n a prob1am tha whole. tim~ and I'm against the. sign varianc~ b~caus~ I think you'll se.t a pr~c~dant. Th~n av~ry oth~r mall up the.re. will come. in and say th~y hava to have. all thairs. MR. BROCK-State.d some. of th~ othar malls hav~ a1r~ady gotte.n a listing of thair store.s out front on the.ir buildings. MRS. GOETZ-State.d but th~r~ ar~ re.asons for that b~caus~ the.y' r~ building are. situat~d a diff~r~nt way on Rout~ 9. Lik~, th~ Log Jam. Th~y said th~y ne.~de.d it b~caus~ the.ir building ran the. opposite. way from yours and the.y hava a similar situation. MR. BROCK-Stat~d but the.y hav~ th~ir building right out front by the. road so that whe.n you driv~ by th~re. you automatically se.e. the. building. Wh~n you driv~ by ours, you don' t s~~ th~ building. W~ s~t back w~ll ov~r 200 f~~t from th~ road and w~ s~t down and if you driv~ by th~r~, you just don't S~~ it. MR. CARR-Ask~d, ar~ you hoping to hav~ som~ sort of color sch~m~? MR. BROCK-State.d y~s. Now, wh~n you say that, color sch~m~, as far as on th~ sign go~s? MR. CARR-Statad W~ hopad that may b~ you'd ~ncourag~ your t~nants all to hav~. MR. BROCK-Stat~d the. bigg~st prob1~m with that is, Las V~gas Golf is a chain, 1ik~ McDonald's, Burg~r King. Th~ir signs ar~ always on~ color. It's 1ika McDonald's, it's always going to b~ the. sama color, lika Burg~r King, 1ik~ Las V~gas Golf. C~rtain chains hav~ c~rtain color signs and if thay can't put that color sign up, th~y don't go in. So, if I had to chang~ that sign, I would los~ a t~nant. MRS. GOETZ-Stat~d I think that wall signs hav~ to conform and w~ just turne.d som~body down, Blockbust~r Vid~o, be.cause. w~ said w~ can't ha1p it. If a chain has to hav~ a ce.rtain color, th~n mayb~ that isn't th~ b~st p1ac~ for a chain stor~ and I just don't s~a how w~ could grant a varianc~. 39 MR. BROCK-Stat~d I'm not asking for a varianc~ on th~ front, on this sid~. MRS. GOETZ-Stat~d I know you'r~ not tonight. MR. BROCK-Stat~d I'm asking to put th~ listing on th~r~. MRS. GOETZ-Stat~d it is a probhm th~r~, though, lik~ th~ Las V~gas sign r~ally shouldn't hav~ b~~n a11ow~d to go in with thos~ colors, but you had no color sch~m~. Th~ c1os~st sch~m~ would be th~ r~d and whit~ of that din~r and th~n you hav~ on~ oth~r that had som~ r~d and whit~ in it, furth~r down th~r~, but, at som~ point, you' r~ going to hav~ to ~stab1ish a color sch~m~ th~r~, for all your stor~s and if Las V~gas can't go with it, th~n that might not b~ th~ p1ac~ for a chain that has to hav~ a c~rtain color sign. MR. CARR-Stat~d or mayb~ h~ could adopt th~ir colors. MRS. GOETZ-Stat~d or adopt th~ir colors, right. MR. BROCK-Stat~d that's a possibility too. MRS. GOETZ-Stat~d mak~ th~ oth~rs go with th~ y~llow and black. MRS. EGGLESTON-Stat~d w~ notic~d you had a truck park~d out by th~ road, paint~d on th~ sid~. MR. BROCK-Stat~d I didn't hav~ th~ truck park~d out th~r~, th~ truck was th~ir's. I was told that th~r~ was a prob1~m with that truck, on a Friday and on Monday, th~ truck was gon~. MRS. GOETZ-Stat~d but it was th~r~ wh~n w~ did th~ sit~ insp~ction. MRS. EGGLESTON-Stat~d l~t m~ ask you this, did it bring in any trad~? You'r~ saying a sign out by th~ road will h~lp. That is a sign by th~ road. MR. BROCK-Stat~d I was told that that brought in busin~ss. Sh~ didn't want to mov~ it and I said, it's got to go and it was gon~. It was gon~ in two days aft~r I was told it was a prob1~m. MRS. GOETZ-Stat~d it was th~r~ on Monday. MRS. EGGLESTON-Stat~d Monday of this w~~k, wh~n w~ did sit~ insp~ction. MRS. GOETZ-Stat~d it was th~r~. not looking. Th~y probably driv~ it in and out wh~n you' r~ MR. BROCK-Ask~d, was it gon~ and th~n back? MRS. GOETZ-Stat~d no, it was out in front. MRS. EGGLESTON-Stat~d it was right out by th~ road. MRS. GOETZ-Stat~d with an arrow pointing in towards th~ din~r. MRS. COLLARD-Stat~d it' s be~n gon~ most of th~ tim~ th~ last two w~~ks. prob1~m, I will admit. It's a MR. BROCK-Stat~d I didn't know that it was th~r~ again, but I hav~ had it gon~ and it's b~~n gon~. MRS. COLLARD-Stat~d th~r~'s nothing you can do about it. MR. BROCK-Stat~d 1~ga11y, I can put pr~ssur~ on th~ t~nant. MRS. GOETZ-Stat~d actually, it looks ch~~sy and t~rribl~. MR. BROCK-Stat~d if w~ put th~ listings on th~ sign th~ way w~ hav~ th~m sk~tch~d out, it would b~ much mor~ attractiv~. MR. TURNER-Stat~d th~ only probhm I s~~ h~r~. H~ had on~ point. H~' s 210 back from th~ road. H~'s on a d~c1in~. MRS. GOETZ-Ask~d, you m~an it's 1ik~ Zayr~'s? 40 MR. TURNER-Stat~d lik~ h~ says, you don' t ~v~n notic~ it yours~lf. Just driv~ up by th~r~. You might go right by it b~for~ you ~v~n s~~ it. That' s th~ only difficulty I hav~. It is down 6 or 8 f~~t from th~ road. MRS. EGGLESTON-Stat~d it is. MR. TURNER-Stat~d that's 210 f~~t back. I'm not saying I'm for it, but I'm saying that's just th~ things that ar~ th~r~. MR. BROCK-Stat~d w~'r~ looking to chang~ th~ ~xisting sign. I'm going to d~cr~as~ th~ siz~ of th~ Rout~ 9 Mall sign to accommodat~ th~s~. MRS. GOETZ-Stat~d J~ffr~y's just mentioning that B1ockbust~r was far back from Rout~ 9 in th~ proposed location. MR. CARR-Stat~d yes, but I think that mall's a litt1~ mor~ op~n than th~ Rout~ 9 ma ll. MRS. GOETZ-Stat~d it is a litt1~ mor~ op~n. MR. TURNER-Stat~d this is a sma11~r mall. MR. CARR-Stat~d I m~an with C.K. Boone's coming out so far and the Log Jam. MR. TURNER-Stat~d w~ll what's happen is .... th~ oth~r on~ on th~ oth~r sid~... it kind of diminish~s what h~'s got th~r~. MR. CARR-Stat~d I think h~ ought to g~t som~ r~li~f som~wh~r~ and it would b~ nic~ if h~ would agr~~ to put up a nic~ sign, color coordinated. That's kind of a minimal r~li~f for a v~ry s~rious problem. MRS. GOETZ-Ask~d, would you b~ ab1~ to g~t th~ wall signs coordinat~d in color? MR. BROCK-Ask~d, th~ ~xisting signs? I can try to do that. I can d~finit~ly do th~ sign w~'r~ talking about with no prob1~m. MRS. GOETZ-Stat~d right, but I'm talking about th~ wall signs. I m~an you should, by virtu~ of th~ ordinanc~, it n~~ds to b~ don~ and don't you have a lot of vacanci~s right now? MR. BROCK-Stat~d y~s. MRS. GOETZ-Stat~d so it's a good tim~ to start it. MR. BROCK-Stat~d I can start, 1ik~, I can g~t, wh~r~ th~ tanning hut was, I can g~t that sign. Th~r~ ar~ s~v~ral of th~ signs. Th~ bigg~st probhm is going to b~ th~ Las V~gas Golf. MRS. GOETZ-Stat~d mayb~ you can g~t th~ color, though, to go with Las V~gasls colors. G~t the oth~rs to go with that. MR. BROCK-Stat~d to go with black and y~llow or som~thing along that 1in~. MRS. GOETZ-Stat~d right. MRS. COLLARD-Stat~d if you will try to work with your t~nants, in that v~in, I will also work toward that. W~'ll work tog~th~r on this. MR. BROCK-Stat~d y~s, I'll try to work with that. MRS. COLLARD-Stat~d ok? Alright. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MARIA FISHER MS. FISHER-Maria Fish~r, I just want~d to say that it is, 1ik~, in a tunn~l. You r~al1y don't ~v~n know that mall exists wh~n you drive by it. MRS. GOETZ-What's your nam~? 41 MS. FISHER-Maria Fish~r. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Warr~n County Planning Board could not act du~ to lack of quorum. STAFF INPUT Not~s from Stuart G. Bak~r, Assistant P1ann~r (attach~d) L~tt~r from Rob~rt Eddy, Qu~~nsbury B~autification Committ~~ (on fi1~) MR. CARR-Stat~d I r~ally f~~l th~r~ ar~ uniqu~ circumstanc~s h~r~ in that it's not going to op~n up to, as Mr. Eddy says, ~v~ry oth~r shopping c~nt~r. I think th~ distanc~ back from th~ road, and it's not 1ik~ th~ B1ockbust~r mall wh~r~ th~r~'s a lot of op~n spac~s. I m~an, th~y r~a11y ar~ kind of in a tunn~l, a vacuum down th~r~. Just b~caus~ of th~ building around it. I think it's an unfair advantag~ to oth~r busin~ss in th~ ar~a and I hav~ a f~~ling that, if som~ r~li~f is not grant~d, that may chang~ th~ occupancy rat~, that that mall would hav~ an ~mpty mall th~r~ and that's not going to look v~ry good ~ith~r. MR. KELLEY-Stat~d I gu~ss th~ count~r... to that is th~ mall wh~r~ ProFast... it's all gn~n. MRS. GOETZ-Stat~d Northway, Northway Shopping C~nt~r. MR. KELLEY-Stat~d th~r~'s stor~s th~r~ that hav~ no visibility to th~ road. Th~y'r~ down in th~ ho1~. Th~y hav~ no visibility at all. MR. CARR-Stat~d that's only, 1ik~, on~ or two stor~s within th~ mall. MR. KELLEY-Stat~d if you do it for this, th~r~'s about 20 busin~ss~s, th~y'r~ all going to want th~ir nam~s out th~r~. That's th~ prob1~m that I hav~ with it. I'm not saying you don't hav~ som~ ~mpathy for Mr. Brock, I just for~s~~ a nightmar~, mys~lf. MR. TURNER-Stat~d th~ only on~ that w~ a11ow~d, at on~ tim~ MRS. GOETZ-Stat~d th~r~ w~r~ two, Zayr~'s in Mark Plaza and Nigra1, Pr~s~nt Company. MR. TURNER-Stat~d w~ allow~d that b~caus~ th~ building .... th~ nam~. You can't s~~ it from th~ south at all. W~ al1ow~d th~m to put a fr~~standing sign out by th~ road with th~ nam~s on that. MR. CARR-Ask~d, has that op~n~d up th~ flood gat~s? MR. KELLEY-Stat~d that was uniqu~ circumstanc~ b~caus~ it was at an angl~. MR. TURNER-Stat~d it was a uniqu~ circumstanc~. MR. CARR-Stat~d an ang1~ that you couldn't .... s~~. Now look at th~ situation. Look at th~ adjoining prop~rty own~rs to this g~nt1~man's prop~rty. I m~an, you'v~ got C.K. Boon~'s within how many f~~t of that front. You'v~ got Log Jam wh~r~...just built up this who1~ gr~at big thing and all of a sudd~n h~' s back 200 f~~t and th~ p~op1~ right n~xt to him. Th~ building may b~ facing forward. That' s gr~at, but I still think, by th~ tim~ you g~t th~r~, you' r~ asking th~ driv~rs to turn th~ir h~ad 90 d~gr~~s to th~ right or l~ft and tak~ th~ir ~y~s off th~ road to s~~ what's down th~r~ 200 f~~t and try to r~ad th~ signs. I think you'r~ cr~ating a traffic hazard. I can s~~ th~ point about op~ning th~ f1oodgat~s, but I s~~ uniqu~ circumstanc~s h~r~ much along th~ sam~ 1in~s as, I gu~ss it's Bank Squar~, or what~v~r it's ca11~d. (TAPE TURNED) MRS. GOETZ-Stat~d th~ truth is, though, it should happ~n anyway. MR. KELLEY-Stat~d this shouldn't ~ff~ct wh~th~r h~ do~s or do~sn't do th~ colors. MRS. GOETZ-Stat~d I think it's a va1uab1~ pi~c~ of prop~rty and ~v~n if it do~s, I'm not hoping that it go~s vacant or anything, but furth~r up, th~y knock~d down a mot~l to put up out1~ts c1os~r to th~ road and, say it was totally ~mpty, that's va1uab1~ prop~rty and mayb~ som~thing ~ls~ could mov~ som~thing c1os~r to th~ road. 42 .- MR. CARR-Ask~d, so you'r~ forcing him to s~ll his prop~rty? MRS. GOETZ-Stat~d no, that's just my thought, ok. L~t's fac~ it, it is va1uab1~. MR. KELLEY-Stat~d it might b~ mor~ va1uab1~ as som~thing ~ls~. MRS. GOETZ-Stat~d right. MR. KELLEY-Stat~d if h~'s trying to g~t a r~asonab1~ r~turn....mayb~ h~ could s~ll it. You don't know. I m~an, how do you know? MR. TURNER-Ask~d, what's th~ d~pth of th~ building? MR. BROCK-Stat~d th~ building is 60 f~~t d~~p. It s~ts 210 f~~t back. Sixty f~~t and 210 £e~t long. Th~ building its~lf, th~ lot frontag~ is 285 f~~t and th~ building is 210, that's how narrow that is down through th~r~. It is narrow now that th~ oth~r two hav~ com~ up to th~ front. MR. KELLEY-Ask~d, what's th~ lot d~pth? MR. BROCK-Ask~d th~ lot d~pth? It' s thr~~ and a half acr~s all tog~th~r, so it's got to go back about 550 f~~t. MR. CARR-Stat~d mayb~ h~ could turn his building sid~ways, th~n w~'d hav~ to giv~ him th~ cov~rag~. MRS. GOETZ-Stat~d it has b~~n a m~ssy phc~ of prop~rty with a lot of activity that draws your ~y~ wh~r~ you don't know wh~r~ to look. So, mayb~ g~tting th~ boats out of th~r~ and g~tting that truck out, it will forc~ you to look back th~r~. I w~nt up th~r~ and shopp~d and I mad~ a point, b~caus~ I want~d to go to that stor~, I was ab1~ to find it, Las V~gas. MR. BROCK-Stat~d that' s b~caus~ you liv~ in the ar~a and you want~d to go to that stor~. That's an unfair comparison b~caus~ th~y n~~d th~ p~oph that driv~ by and if th~y don't g~t thos~ p~op1~, th~y don't mak~ it. MRS. GOETZ-Stat~d but th~ p~op1~ ar~ coming to shop at th~ outl~ts and th~y' r~ going to g~t out and find out what stor~s ar~ in all of thos~ p1ac~s as a d~stination p1ac~ and I do think it would b~ s~tting a pr~c~d~nt to allow it. MOTION TO DENY SIGN VARIANCE NO. 5-1990 JOHN A. BROCK, Introduc~d by J~ffr~y K~ll~y who mov~d for its adoption, s~cond~d by Susan Go~tz: I think on~ of th~ comm~nts that the staff mad~ kind of sums it up in two sent~nc~s. Th~ applicant app~ars to a1r~ady have r~asonab1e us~ of th~ prop~rty and that strict adh~r~nc~ to th~ sign ordinanc~ should not depriv~ him of this us~. I f~~l that if h~ w~r~ to g~t a varianc~, w~ would hav~ many oth~r busin~ss~s applying for varianc~s b~caus~ w~ s~t a pr~c~d~nt. All stor~s in this Rout~ 9 mall ar~ visib1~ from th~ highway. AYES: Mrs. Go~tz, Mr. K~ll~y, Mr. Turn~r NOES: Mr. Carr, Mrs. Egg1~ston ABSENT: Mr. Sicard MR. TURNER-Stat~d it's 3 to 2. MR. CARR-Ask~d, so what happ~ns? MR. TURNER-Stated w~ mak~ anoth~r motion. MRS. GOETZ-Stat~d Warr~n County, th~r~ was no action, wasn't th~r~? MS. CORPUS-Stat~d right, but that was approv~d b~caus~ th~y had no quorum. MR. TURNER-Stat~d automatic approval. MRS. GOETZ-Stat~d so w~ n~~d a majority plus on~. MS. CORPUS-Stat~d a majority plus on~. 43 MR. TURNER-Stat~d Warr~n County Planning Board approv~d it. MRS. COLLARD-Stat~d th~y approv~d it. MR. TURNER-Stat~d th~y didn't d~ny it. Th~r~ no majority plus on~. MR. BAKER-Stat~d no, you n~~d a majority plus on~ to ov~rrid~ any d~cision by Warr~n County Planning. MRS. GOETZ-Ask~d, if ours is diff~r~nt from th~irs, it n~~ds th~ majority plus on~? MR. BAKER-Stat~d corr~ct. MS. CORPUS-Stat~d all of th~ on~s that w~nt b~for~ th~ Planning Board this tim~ w~r~ approv~d. MRS. GOETZ-Ask~d, so w~ n~~d anoth~r motion? MR. CARR-Stat~d why don't w~ talk about this b~caus~ anoth~r motion is just going to go th~ opposit~ way. I m~an, it's going to go two, thr~~. MR. TURNER-Stat~d l~t m~ just say on~ thing. I think th~ prob1~m, mayb~ it isn't a prob1~m, th~s~ stor~s ar~ 60 f~~t wid~? MR. BROCK-Stat~d no, 60 f~~t d~~p. MR. TURNER-Stat~d d~~p. MR. BROCK-Stat~d that m~an$ th~ d~pth, th~y'r~ not 60 f~~t wid~. MR. TURNER-Stat~d alright, !d~pth. What's th~ squar~ footag~ wh~r~ th~ boats w~r~? MR. BROCK-Stat~d 3600. 20 f~~t. T!hat particular stor~ is 60 f~~t. Th~ n~xt on~ is only MS. CORPUS-Stat~d Mr. Chaiirman, I' d lik~ to bring som~thing to th~ att~ntion of th~ Board, I'm not sur~ of this mys~lf, but it s~~ms as if you'v~ vot~d and c1os~d th~ discussion and you w~r¢ unab1~ to ov~rrid~ th~ Planning Board. I hav~ a qu~stion as to wh~th~r that P1annihg Board d~cision stays th~ way it is, approval, b~caus~ you hav~ a1r~ady vot~d. I!don't know if it's possib1~ to r~op~n that. MR. TURNER-Stat~d I'm not :r~op~ning h~r~. I just want to ask him about th~ squar~ footag~ of th~ building for furth~r discussion and mayb~ anoth~r motion. MS. CORPUS-Stat~d that's mt qu~stion. I'm not sur~ if anoth~r motion MR. COLLARD-Stat~d w~ll, . th~y would hav~ to withdraw th~ir pr~vious motion and start ov~r again. MR. TURNER-Ask~d what's th~ squar~ footag~ of... MR. BROCK-Stat~d 60 f~~t. MR. TURNER-Ask~d this is t~~ frontag~? MR. BROCK-Stat~d y~s. Th~n you hav~ 40 f~~t and 20 f~~t and 20 f~~t. MOTION TO WITHDRAW MOTIO~ 5-1990, Introduc~d by J~ffr~y KÛhy who mov~d for its adoption, s~cond~d by Susan Go~tz: AYES: Mr. Carr, Mrs. Egg1~ston, Mrs. Go~tz, Mr. K~ll~y, Mr. Turn~r NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Sicard MR. BROCK-Stat~d th~r~'s 13,200 f~~t total footag~. MRS. GOETZ-Ask~d what's th~t got to do with it. What's your id~a? MR. TURNER-Stat~d my id~a is that mayb~ why this do~sn' t r~nt so good is, th~s~ buildings ar~ kind of small. 44 MRS. GOETZ-Ask~d, and? MR. TURNER-Stat~d and it's not b~caus~ th~ sign is not out by th~ road. It's just b~caus~ th~s~ ar~ smal1~ri in siz~ and mayb~ som~body coming up th~r~ is not going to r~nt a building that sm~ll. Mayb~ h~ can't g~t a r~turn. MR. BROCK-Stat~d th~r~'s ~our siz~s ar~ r~a11y no diff~r~nt th~n th~y ar~ at Fr~nch Mountain Commons, or th~ !Log Jam. Th~r~ th~ sam~ siz~ stor~s. Th~y' r~ laid out at 20 foot s~ctions and th~y rang~ from th~ 20 to th~ 60, d~p~nding on th~ siz~ of th~ stor~ you want to p*t in. MRS. EGGLESTON-Stat~d I $u~ss my prob1~m is, I do hav~ to agr~~ with th~ man. You do not s~~ thos~ und.1 you ar~ right up th~r~. Th~ mot~l com~s out on this sid~ and on this sid~ is i th~ shopping mall. Wh~n you' r~ in front of it, you' r~ trying to look and s~~, ~ut how many p~op1~ ar~ going to tak~ a 90 d~gr~~ right hand turn and tak~ a cha6c~ on g~tting r~ar~nd~d or run ov~r or what~v~r. Onc~ you' r~ by it, I don' t t~ink you com~ back. That's my thoughts. I do think it sits back. It's a disadv~ntag~ and it's unfortunat~ b~caus~ I appr~ciat~ how hard you guys hav~ work~d on ith~ sign ordinanc~. You' r~ torn b~tw~~n what's fair to th~ man and what, and I th~nk I'v~ gon~ this rout~ b~for~, th~ Town and th~ ordinanc~ r~a11y ~xp~cts of us. MR. CARR-Ask~d what was th~ rationa1~ for th~ oth~r, I gu~ss Log Jam got a sign varianc~. MR. TURNER-Stat~d b~caus~ ðf th~ way th~ building s~t on th~ prop~rty. MR. CARR-Stat~d ok b~caus~ of th~ way it s~t, b~caus~ it wasn't going to b~ s~~n from. MR. TURNER-Stat~d it maxim~z~s th~ prop~rty... MR. CARR-Stat~d but th~ !r~ason you p~rmitt~d it, th~ varianc~, was b~caus~ you couldn't s~~ th~ stor~ sign from th~ road, right? I m~an, just b~caus~ this building is diff~r~nt1y p1ac~d, st~ll, th~ physical fact is, you cannot s~~ th~ stor~ signs w~ll from th~ road. Thati's why I'm saying, it might b~, y~s, p~rp~ndicu1ar right to th~ road, that's fin~,i but you'r~ sitting 200 f~~t back with two big buildings coming up on ~ith~r sid~! of you, so I think th~ ~ff~ct is th~ sam~ as an ang1~ building and I know you w~r~ worri~d about th~ f1oodgat~s op~ning, but Bank Squar~, I m~an, th~ f1oodgat~s h~v~ now op~n~d. I think th~r~ ar~ uniqu~ circumstanc~s h~r~ that r~ally diff~r~rltiat~ this from th~ gr~~n, Northway Plaza and a lot of th~ oth~r plazas in town ~nd if th~r~ ar~ oth~r plazas that hav~ th~ sam~ situation, th~n, p~rhaps, th~y d~s~~v~ a varianc~ from th~ sign ordinanc~. Just b~caus~ w~ may hav~ to giv~ variancþs to diff~r~nt shopping c~nt~rs, if th~y ar~ d~s~rving of th~m, th~y should b~ grant~d th~m and I f~~l that Mr. Brock's plaza is d~s~rving of a sign varianc~. MR. KELLEY-Stat~d th~ o~ly thing I comm~nt on, at l~ast, as pr~vious1y..a fr~~standing sign is supp~s~d to b~ th~ on~ that says th~ nam~ of th~ mall on it. Ev~n if h~ list~d his sbk busin~ss~s that could b~ th~r~, it still was in th~ 64 squar~ f~~t of what a f~~~standing sign was v~rsus th~ gr~~n mall. If you had 20 stor~s in th~r~, th~t'~' s no way th~y' r~ going to g~t th~ir 20 nam~s in a conforming siz~ sign wh~r~i at l~ast this on~ is a 64 squar~ foot sign. MR. CARR-Stat~d th~ thing 'about that mall, I think it's quit~ ~vid~nt, from anywh~r~ you' r~ driving on G1~n Stir~~t, that that is a mall and you' r~ pr~tty sur~ th~r~' s going to b~ a lot of stot~s in th~r~ and if you'r~ a mall shopp~r passing through th~r~, you know that's a ~a11. You'r~ going to stop in th~r~. I think th~ prob1~m, in Mr. Brock's mall is, þy th~ tim~ you s~~ it's a mall, you'r~ by it and a lot of thos~ p~op1~ ar~n' t goiing to turn around, ~sp~cially in th~ summ~r tim~ or ski s~ason on Rout~ 9, to com~i back. MR. TURNER-Stat~d I would agr~~ with you on that. MR. CARR-Stat~d you'v~ got a lot of op~n spac~ th~r~. I think that...th~ oth~r plazas in town and Mr. Brock's plaza. Th~r~' s tim~ to think that that's a mall, so th~r~ might b~ som~thing in th~ squar~, wh~r~, on Rout~ 9, with th~ traffic curtai1~d, you don't hav~' a lot of tim~ to think, oh that's a mall, I want to go in th~r~. MR. TURNER-Ask~d, th~ s~tback was 15 f~~t from th~ prop~rty lin~? 45 MR. BROCK-Stat~d y~s, it was what~v~r I had to hav~ at that tim~, th~ p~rmit, that th~ ~xisting sign conform~d, wh~n I put that in and conform to what~v~r that had to b~. . MRS. GOETZ-Stat~d it said ~5 on th~ application. MR. TURNER-Stat~d but this sign is now 64 squar~ h~t. b~ back 20 f~~t. That m~ans it's got to MR. CARR-Ask~d, how big for 50 f~~t? MR. KELLEY-Ask~d, for 50 f~~t? MR. TURNER-Stat~d... f~~t ~~~p and 25 for a 64. MR. CARR-Ask~d, can you doia 50 squar~ foot sign? MR. TURNER-Ask~d, can you g~t th~ nam~s on th~r~ at 50 squar~ f~~t? MR. BROCK-Stat~d I tri~d i to hav~ th~ sign company lay it out. In ord~r to g~t 8 inch l~tt~ring on th~ $ign, ok, this is how it had to b~ and it was f~lt that with l~ss than an 8 inch l~tt~r, you'r~ just not going to b~ ab1~ to s~~ it. MRS. GOETZ-Ask~d, how about not having Rout~ 9 mall and just having th~ nam~s of th~ stor~s? MR. BROCK-Stat~d th~n thelr~' s no id~ntification. of th~ Rout~ 9 mall down. That's why w~ shrunk th~ siz~ MR. CARR-Ask~d, is it poss~bl~ for you to put it back 25 f~~t? MR. BROCK-Stat~d I think !it's a minor, I m~an w~' r~ only adding two f~~t to th~ bottom of that sign. Th~i sign s~ts will r~main. Th~r~ will b~ nothing b~low 12 f~~t. You'll hav~ 12 f~~t of op~n spac~ to look right und~r that sign or through that sign. You won't b~ b¡ocking anything. MRS. EGGLESTON-Ask~d, ar~you saying that if you r~nt mor~ stor~s, you won't com~ back h~r~ and ask to put a*oth~r sign hanging on this? MR. BROCK-Stat~d I 'v~ got it laid out just th~ way it is with th~ six stor~s. No, I will not com~ back a~king to put anoth~r sign up. MR. TURNER-Ask~d, ...th~ b~rd~r at th~ bottom? MR. BROCK-Stat~d it's 12 inch~s m~ta1 to m~ta1, bringing in a two inch bord~r, so that only giv~s us an 8 inch l~tt~r. MRS. COLLARD-Stat~d you could ~nt~rtain a varianc~ from th~ s~tback. MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN V~RIANCE NO. 5-1990 JOHN BROCK, Introduc~d by Bruc~ Carr who mov~d for its adoption~ s~cond~d by Joyc~ Egg1~ston: Which would allow him to. hav~ a shopping c~nt~r sign with provisions on it for th~ stor~s locat~d within ,th~ sign up to a maximum of six and I would furth~r grant him a sign varianc~ bas~d þn th~ s~tback from Rout~ 9, granting him a 10 foot r~li~f for a 64 squar~ foot sign. I would 1ik~ to mak~ this conting~nt on Mr. Brock working with th~ Planning and Zqning and Building D~partm~nts as to color, and sty1~, conformity, within th~ sl)opping c~nt~r. Th~ r~asoning is that th~ location of th~ shopping c~nt~r is s~t so far back from Rout~ 9 and surround~d by adjac~nt prop~rty own~rs that hav~ d~v~lop~d th~ir prop~rty in such a way as to mak~ it difficult and possibly d~ng~rous for pot~ntia1 custom~rs to s~~ th~ t~nants and this has cr~at~d a v~ry un~qu~ situation. Duly adopt~d this 17th day of January, 1990, by th~ following vot~: AYES: Mr. Carr, Mrs. Egg1~$ton, Mr. K~ll~y, Mr. Turn~r NOES: Mrs. Go~tz ABSENT: Mr. Sicard 46 AREA VARIANCE NO. 6-1990 ¡TYPE II WR.-3A BYRON B. RIST ROUTE 9L, 3/4± MILE WEST OF INTERSECTION WITH BAY: ROAD TO ADD A 16 FT. by 16 FT. ADDITION THAT WILL NOT MEET THE 75 FT. SHORELINE SETBACK. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) (ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY) TAX MAP NO. 3-1-4: LOT SIZE: .85 ACRES SECTION 7.010 BYRON RIST REPRESENTING MARY CAROL WHITE MR. RIST-State:d w~' re: sim¡p1y proposing to ~xpand th~ size: of the: ~xisting mast~r b~droom and add a bathroo~ ....dime:nsions of th~ building, 16 by 16 foot addition. It is within th~ 75 foot s~tback from th~ Lak~, according to the: n~w zoning, but th~ addition will not be:. c1ose:r to th~ Lak~, as I IV~ state:d, and also will not b~ c1os~r to th~ sid~ lot;: lin~. It's actually farth~r away from th~ Lak~ or th~ r~ar lot lin~ which actually bord~rs on Rout~ 9L and is far and away b~yond th~ s~tback r~quire:m~nts for th~ r~ar lot 1in~. So we:' r~ r~a11y just ~xpanding an ~xisting mast~r b~droom. MRS. GOETZ-Ask~d, what would the: r~lie:f n~~de:d be: in the: s~tback? How far back is this. I know it' swiithin the: 7 5 f~~t, but w~ have: to know how much re:li~f. You have: 1ll fe:~t back to the: carpool. Do you know how far back it is to th~ ~nd of wh~r~ th~ house: is now? MR. KELLEY-State:d it's going to b~ about 66 f~~t. MR. RIST-Stat~d right, it would b~ 66 fe:~t. MR. KELLEY-Stat~d 9 fe:e:t of it's within the: 75 fe:~t and 7 f~~t is out of it. MRS. GOETZ-Stat~d so it' Si only a re:1ie:f of 9. Th~r~' s a bank th~re: that looks 1ik~ you hav~ to do som~ wørk to g~t th~ room to make: th~ b~droom e:xpansion. MR. RIST-Stat~d right. MRS. GOETZ-Ask~d, how do yøu do that? MR. RIST-Stat~d w~ll, w~ 'r~ susp~cting that w~' re: probably going to hav~ to put a 1arg~ pi~c~ of ~quipm~nt in th~r~ to dig it out. MRS. GOETZ-Ask~d, ok, th~ se:ptic syst~m? MR. RIST-Stat~d I'm r~a11y not sur~. Th~ syst~m(TAPE TURNED) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN MATTHEWS MR. MATTHEWS-John Matthe:ws, Qu~~nsbury, a r~sid~nt, and I'm also spe:aking on be:hal£ of my fath~r who owns t1!1~ prop~rty adjac~nt to this. I'm que:stioning why th~y w~r~...on that application for a sid~ s~tback. MR. KELLEY-...1ook that up and s~~ what it says. MRS. GOETZ-It's 22 f~~t th~re:. MR. RIST-I m~asur~ it to bè be:tw~e:n 16 and 17 fe:~t. MRS. GOETZ-On h~r~ it shows 22. MR. MATTHEWS-I look~d at that today and I qu~stion~d it. I w~nt ov~r and I me:asure:d it this aft~rnoon and I $~~m to r~m~mbe:r that wh~n I built th~ addition that was th~r~ b~for~ th~m, that th~y'r~ lining up with, th~ s~tback was diffe:r~nt. It was only 15 f~~t that youn~~d~d at the: tim~ and we: just m~t within th~ r~quir~m~nts at that point. MRS. GOETZ-So you'r~ qu~stioning th~ 22? MR. MATTHEWS-Y~s. MRS. GOETZ-You think it's 16. MR. MATTHEWS-W~ll, it's c~os~r to b~twe:e:n 16 and 17 f~~t, from what I could m~asur~ today. It's pre:tty slipPèry, but th~re:' s a f~nc~ th~r~ and I know that th~ f~nc~ is v~ry c1os~, if not right on, th~ 1in~. 47 MRS. GOETZ-Did you m~asur~ it yours~lf? MR. RIST-I m~asur~d accorliing to wh~r~ Mary Carol Whit~ told m~ th~ lot lin~ was and that's wh~r~ I cam~ up with thß 22 f~~t. MR. TURNER-Sh~ has no surv~y? Hav~ you got a surv~y? MR. RIST-Th~r~ was not a ,surv~y map pr~s~nt~d to m~. I don't know anything about th~ Zoning Ordinanc~ y~ars ago and wh~thßr or not John comp1i~d with it or not, but as far as I know, fro~ wh~r~ sh~ told m~ th~ lot 1in~ was, I m~asur~d 22 f~~t. MRS. COLLARD-It's int~r~sting. If you total up th~ 22, th~ 62 foot wid~ hous~, and th~ 38 on th~ oth~r si~~, you g~t 122 and th~ lot's 124 f~~t wid~ at th~ Lak~. MR. RIST-Th~r~ might bß spmß discr~panci~s in th~ hous~ from what's th~r~. if you'r~ m~asuring th~ ov~rhang or not m~asuring. I m~an MR. MATTHEWS-Th~ s~cond qu~stion I hav~ is, for th~ public, and I saiy that th~r~ is an say that th~r~ is an advèrs~ ~ff~ct for th~ is not att~nd~d to and if th~ varianc~ g~ts it's not tak~n carß of in sit~ plan r~vi~w, som~thing that should b~ øonß b~caus~ I know it's in bad shap~. It's not a good systßm. th~y say th~r~' s no adv~rs~ ~ff~ct adv~rs~ ~ff~ct for th~ public and I public if th~ ~xisting s~ptic syst~m to b~ approv~d, I'd lik~ to s~~, if that that asp~ct is put in th~r~ as right wh~r~ th~ s~ptic syst~m is and MR. TURNER-How old is it? MR. MATTHEWS-Th~ syst~m w~s put in '57, '59, it consists of a 500 gallon tank right outsid~ th~ back door and it drains around th~ front corn~r of th~ hous~ b~hind th~ r~taining wall th~r~. I h~lp~d to dig, for on~ of th~ pr~vious own~rs, to dig it up on on~ occasion, wh~n it was malfunctioning. Th~ oth~r qu~stion I want~d to addr~ss was, and as I m.ntion~d on a pr~vious thing tonight, was th~ st~~p slop~s. I wond~r~d if that would. hav~ any ~ff~ct on your d~cision. Oth~r than that, I s~~ no r~ason why th~ bu:ï;lding can' t b~ add~d to. I just want to mak~ sur~ that th~ Lak~shor~ things ar~ a¢t~nd~d to along with th~ s~ptic. MR. RIST-As I und~rstand, this is to go to sit~ plan r~vi~w, at which tim~ th~ Planning Board will r~viEiw th~ s~ptic syst~m r~quir~m~nts and what~v~r and also addr~ss th~ st~~p slop~s ~nd so on and that r~a11y shouldn't b~ tak~n into account h~r~. As far as th~ ~xis~ing syst~m, as I said, I don't r~a11y know what's thßr~. Th~ Whit~' s didn' t r~a11)t know what was th~r~, according to what th~y told m~. I'm just not sur~, if in fact, sinc~ John saw th~ syst~m go in, wh~th~r or not it's b~~n a1t~r~d sinc~ or wh~th~r or not it's b~~n chang~d, upgradßd or what~v~r. That's a possibility. That' s som~thing that will hav~ to b~ addr~ss~d at sit~ plan. MR. TURNER-Ar~ you going tø us~ th~ hous~ for full tim~ us~? MR. RIST-No, it's just før s~asonal. As far as th~ sid~ s~tback, as I said, I m~asur~d from whßr~ Mrs. Whit~ told m~ that th~ sid~ lot 1in~ was and that's wh~r~ I cam~ up with th~ 22 f~~t. MR. TURNER-I think you ought to hav~ a surv~y or at l~ast g~t on~ from h~r b~caus~ if w~ 'v~ got to addr~ssit again, to grant you that r~li~f. Wh~r~ do~s it put you as far as tim~ fram~ gø~s, for construction? MR. RIST-March. MR. TURNER-Lat~ March. n~xt m~~ting? wt11 you bring us back a surv~y if w~ tab1~ it until th~ MRS. GOETZ-Sh~ might hav~ $om~thing avai1abl~, you know, to giv~ you. MR. RIST-I r~ally doubt if sh~ do~s b~caus~ I ask~d h~r for it and sh~ couldn't find it. MRS. GOETZ-R~a11y? MR. RIST-Y~s. ...sign surv~yors com~ up. MR. CARR-Ar~n' t you going to n~~d on~ for a sit~ plan any ways b~caus~ I think th~y'd want to know. 48 MR. TURNER-W~ll, you obviously, h~ has mor~ I don't know how long ago did th~y buy it? kn~w, obviously, with John's fath~r living n~xt stor~, o£ a history of th~ p1ac~ than th~ n~w own~r would hav~. tlJj~y'v~ own~d it, but th~y must hav~ a surv~y. How long MR. RIST-I think in '72. MR. TURNER-Th~y must hav~ a surv~y. MR. MATTHEWS-I know that it has b~~n surv~y~d b~caus~ th~r~'s b~~n a disput~ ov~r th~ f~nc~ throughout th~ years. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Th~ Warr~n County Planning Board could not act on it du~ to lack of quorum STAFF INPUT Not~s from Stuart G. Bak~r, Assistant P1ann~r (attach~d) MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARiANCE NO. 6-1990 BYRON B. RIST, Introduc~d by ThMdor~ Turn~r who mov~d for its adoption, s~cond~d by Joyc~ Egg1~ston: To tab1~ this until th~ sUrv~y is pr~s~nt~d which would t~ll us what th~ sid~yard s~tbacks ar~. AYES: Mr. Carr, Mrs. Egg1~ston, Mrs. Go~tz, Mr. K~ll~y, Mr. Turn~r NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Sicard DISCUSSION WAS HELD. MR. KELLEY-Ask~d, do you w~nt th~ surv~y to th~ building and th~ ov~rhang? MR. TURNER-Stat~d y~s. MR. CARR-Ask~d, what's th~ m~aning of this m~mo from Warr~n County. I m~an you'v~ got an opportunity, now that h~'s got to com~ back anyway, should w~ s~nd it back to Warr~n County Planning? It will automatically go back? MR. TURNER-Stat~d I would think so. MRS. GOETZ-Stat~d w~ hav~ to r~qu~st that. MR. TURNER-Stat~d th~ Planning D~partm~nt has to r~qu~st it. Wh~th~r th~y want to addr~ss it. Th~y didn't addr~ss it anyway b~caus~ of lack of quorum. MR. CARR-Stat~d right, th~n what I'm saying, in a s~ns~, sinc~ w~ can't act on it, I didn't know if w~ had to tak~ som~ action. MR. RIST-Ask~d, am I wrong to und~rstand that, b~caus~ th~y didn' t hav~ a quorum, that it's out of my...and that's th~ only r~ason it got to this Zoning Board? MRS. GOETZ-Stat~d w~ll, it would com~ to us anyway. MR. TURNER-Stat~d y~s, it would com~ to us anyway. MRS. GOETZ-Stat~d this m~mO from th~ Warr~n County Planning Board say "Du~ to this uniqu~ situation th~ optiOn is grant~d to th~ community to r~submit any of your January r~f~rra1s for our· F~bruary m~~ting". So could w~ ask th~ Staff to s~nd this back to th~ County aft~r w~ g~t th~ information? MR. BAKER-Stat~d c~rtain1y. W~ would n~~d th~ n~w information by th~ d~adlin~ for F~bruary submissions and that is th~ 31st of this month at 2 pm. MR. RIST-Ask~d can you r~rèad that stat~m~nt..b~for~ that p1~as~? 49 MRS. GOETZ-Ask~d th~ Staff or th~ Warrên County Planning Board? MR. TURNER-Ask~d or th~ motion I madê? MRS. GOETZ-Ask~d, th~ motiøn? MR. RIST-Stat~d from thê Staff. MRS. GOETZ-R~r~ad th~ Staff Notês. I havê an ~xtra copy. MR. TURNER-Ask~d h~ has a bathroom facility in th~ hous~ now, right, Byron? MR RIST-Stat~d y~s. MR. CARR-Stat~d, T~d, I døn't think h~ has to prov~ ~conomic 1nJury. I think hê's got to prov~ practical dilfficu1ty for an Ar~a Variancê. I think êconomic injury, isn't that USê Varianc~? MRS. COLLARD-Stat~d USê Varianc~ is a hardship and Arêa Varianc~ is practical difficulty. MR. BAKER-Statêd and th~ way to prOVê practical difficulty is through ~conomic hardship. MR. CARR-Statêd that's onê way. build a b~droom 7 5 h~t back and to start proving. Th~r~',s oth~r practical difficulty. I jU$t don't I don't think h~ has to prov~, I m~an, h~ can't havê an 8 foot spacê. I mêan, th~s~ arê on~ way ways, othêr than ~conomics, that you can prov~ want to mis1êad th~ applicant. MR. BAKER-Stat~d right, th4t's tru~. MR. RIST-Ask~d so, dOês this m~an that th~ applicant must prov~ that strict ~nforc~m~nt of th~ ordinan¢ê would crêat~ an ~conomic injury. MR. CARR-Stat~d no, it m~a~s that th~ applicant must prov~ that you hav~ a practical difficulty and that makês. and that may mêan you can provê it ~ith~r in ~conomics or 1andscap~ or how~v~r you fê~l you can provê you hav~ a practical difficulty and you n~êd r~li~f from th~ ordinanc~. MR. KELLEY-Stat~d your p~actica1 difficulty is that thê hous~ is within thê 75 foot s~tback. MR. RIST-Stat~d I thought ¡ a1r~ady prov~d that. MR. KELLEY-Stat~d if you want to attach your building, you hav~ to g~t that and th~ oth~r on~ that you'v~ got to addr~ss is thê sid~yard and w~ think mayb~ that's what, probably thê sidêya~d is our r~a1 qUêstion, at this point. What is th~ tru~ distanc~. W~'v~ got to know thê distancê from th~ ov~rhang, not just th~ wall b~caus~ this thing has, whát looks 1ik~, two foot ov~rhang or mor~. MR. RIST-Stat~d it also $tat~s that this is a two b~droom hom~. a four bêdroom hom~. It's, in fact, MRS. GOETZ-Stat~d it look~d pr~tty big for a two bêdroom housê. Do you know that you hav~ to show it from th~ oVêrhangs to th~ sidê. MR. RIST-Statêd I though lid a1rêady don~ that. MRS. GOETZ-Statêd may bê you hav~. MR. RIST-Stat~d isn't that on th~ plot plan? MR. KELLEY-Stat~d a 1itt1~ mor~ d~tai1 th~r~, a 1itt1~ surv~y and a 1ittl~ dêtail. MR. CARR-Stat~d hê r~ally do~sn' t ~v~n n~~d a who1ê surv~y. All hê n~~ds is a surv~y to run that 1in~ and m~asur~ ov~r to thê hous~. I m~an, that's all w~ n~~d. MRS. GOETZ-Statêd Wê just bav~ to know wh~r~ th~ r~ar 1inê is. MR. CARR-Stat~d y~s. MR. RIST-Ask~d so it dOêsn't hav~ to b~ a full blown surv~y? 50 ~ MR. CARR-Stat~d I wouldn't think so. MR. TURNER-Stat~d no, but ~f shß's got on~, it would b~ a good idßa. MR. CARR-Statßd y~s, if sh~'s got on~. USE VARIANCE NO. 7-1990 TYPE: UNLISTED LI-3A AIRRON INDUSTRIAL CORP. COUNTY LINE ROAD 145 QUEENSBURY AVENUE, 1.4 MILES NORTH OF DIX AVENUE TO MAINTAIN A TWO-FAMILY HOUSE IN A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 109-5-3 LOT SIZE: 11.39 ACRES SECTION 4.020 JEFF MCMORRIS REPRESENTING APPLICANT MR. MCMORRIS-Statßd My nfim~ is J~ff McMorris. I'm with th~ offic~ of Richard McLßnithan. I'm r~prßsßnt~ng th~ applicant. To ßxp1ain to th~ Board, I just handßd out somß furth~r docum~ntation to supp1~m~nting th~ ~ar1i~r application with rßgard to th~ financial situatio~ that w~ hav~ up th~r~. Also, a map, and I apo1ogiz~, somßwhat, for th~ quality of th~ map, but w~' r~ fac~d with prop~rty that's right on th~ bord~r b~tw~~n QU4~nsbury and th~ Town of Kingsbury in Washington County. So w~ 'vß had to jam two of thos~ maps tog~thßr and try and com~ up with th~ r~pr~s~ntation wh~r~ th~ prop~rty is 10cat~d. You Sß~ a s~ction, probably a third of thß way up from th~ bqttom, just to th~ 1ßft of th~ 1arg~ Kingsbury, is a box, I m~ant to bring a r~d p~n with m~ to indicat~ that that' s th~ location of th~ hous~ and I forgot that tonight . That box th~r~ is th~ approximat~ location of thß hous~ in r~lation to th~ surrounding propßrti~s. What w~'r~ asking for tonight, is a USß Varianc~ rß1at~dto th~ conv~rsion of th~ propßrty from a on~ family hous~, a prior nonconforming us~ in an industrial zon~, a11ow~d to b~ us~d for a two family r~sid~nc~, two apartm~nts. Laying out our situation in front of th~ Board, th~ prop~rty of this hous~ has b~~n subj~ct to som~ discussion, n~gotiations and talks with th~ Town of Qu~~nsbury in th~ last coup1~ of months. Th~ hous~ has pr~s~nt1y b~~n conv~rt~d to th~ tWQ family. I think in som~ sßns~ of b~ing unawar~ of th~ actual r~quir~m~nts of th~ cod~, Wß ar~ now app~aring b~for~ this Board to s~~k to hav~ that approv~d andw~ apo10gizß for thß prior us~ and s~~k your forgivßnßss for that. Wß' r~ talking ~ in r~lation to your cod~, to s~v~ra1 r~quirßmßnts as far as th~ uniqußn~ss of th~ prop~rty. As you can s~~, ~spßcia11y from th~ 1argßr map d~tailing th~ surrounding nßighborhood, thß prop~rty h~r~ that sits just to th~ ~ast of th~ airport and just to th~ south of th~ industrial park. It has b~~n zon~d industrial and it's my cli~nt' s f~~ling that that is thß optimum us~ for th~ prop~rty. Unfortunat~ly, w~'rß fac~d with holding th~ prop~rty for a significant, w~ hopß not a significant, l~ngth of tim~, but at l~ast som~ tim~, until th~ prop~rty can ߣfßctivß1y b~ turnßd into an industrial us~. Th~ prob1~m that w~'v~ had is that, iþ trying to mark~t this prop~rty for industrial purpos~s, w~' r~ fac~d with comp~tition or compßting against th~ industrial park, th~ir lots s~lling for approximat~ly $8,000 an acrß, a pric~ s~t 10 y~ars ago wh~n thßY ~stab1ish~d th~ industrial park, significantly l~ss than th~ pric~ that Airron paid for th~ propßrty h~:rß. Th~ industrial park has, or is in th~ procßss of, b~ing sold out, at l~ast as far as it's lots ar~ conc~rn~d. Thßr~ ar~ oth~r vacant, industrial prop~rti~s in that ar~a, SpßC, war~hous~s arß sp~c, buildings put up and not y~t occupi~d or cßrtain1y thos~ in th~ industrial park its~lf and also vacant lots in th~ park. W~ anticipat~ that at a tim~ in th~ futur~, hop~fu11y, not too distant futur~, th~ industrial n~ßds of both Qu~~nsbury and Kingsbury ar~ such that all that propßrty' s b~ing ~ff~ctiv~ly utiliz~d. This prop~rty can th~n b~ ~ff~ctiv~ly mark~t~d and ßv~n to th~ point of taking th~ risk and putting up a sp~c building for administrativ~ purpos~s and r~a1izing r~turn on that. In th~ m~antim~, w~' r~ fac~d with th~ situation of sitting on a fairly ~xt~nsiv~ tract of vacant land with th~ ßxc~ption of this housß with th~ ~xcßption of this hous~. Right now, th~ housß has b~~n ass~ss~d as bßing taxßd as a two family. Th~ ass~ssmßnt was raisßd last Yßar with a conv~rsion. Th~ situation that Wß hav~ is that wh~n you look at. thß amount of mon~y that is b~ing sp~nt by Airron to maintain that prop~rty, it's not thß samß as if Wß wßrß talking vacant, industrial prop~rty, which, in and of its~lf, mayor may not b~ a hardship, but thßn w~ wouldn't b~ d~aling with a building and Wß cßrtainly wouldn't put up a hous~ in industrial prop~rty to try to rais~mon~y. H~r~ w~ do hav~ a houSß b~ing tax~d and paying th~ carrying charg~s on that and s~~k to put that hous~ to somß us~ to gßnßratß somß mon~y to h~lp pay for th~ propßrty its~lf whilß W~ w~r~ waiting for th~ d~v~lopm~nt to catch up with us. Right now w~' rß looking at 10ss~s, as out1in~d th~r~, of 1988, almost $7,500, 1989, of ov~r $9,000. Th~ propßrty, as I said, was incr~as~d to th~ ass~Ssm~nt of $13,600 in 1989, as a r~su1t of th~ chang~ from th~ on~ family to a two family. Thß furth~r qu~stion, as far as ~xplaining th~ diff~r~nc~ b~twß~n a on~ and a two family, th~ prop~rty has b~~n on th~ mark~t for r~nta1 as a onß family unit, th~ approximat~ r~nt, $500 a month. It' s b~~n 51 -- on the market, on the rent41 market, for over a year with no showing or no statements of interest whatsoever. ':there is a significant difference, in trying to approach the rental market, between a $500 a month for a single family home which may be somewhat at the top end of the market and certainly, given the distance of this property from the City o~ Glens Falls, etc., makes it a difficult showing. The difference there, between· that and a two family, is that we can then reduce the asking rental for each of the two units and realize enough, while combining with the two, to actually begin recouping some of the investment and erasing some of those annual losses. So that's really the concern that we have. As far as the neighborhood, again, we're faced, immediately to the west, with the airport. Just to the north of this property is the airport easement continuation as far as their runways. What that does, the effect from air traffic is minimal, but the effect on the property is significant in that we cannot develop that in any way, no trees, no buildings of certain heights, there are significant limitations on what can be done there and that is an enormous buffer if there was anything to the north of that and there's not. We have a certain amount of residences and small businesses a certain distance from this property. We are not talking a typical, residential ne:ighborhood every hundred, two hundred, three hundred feet. This is getting into the rural area of the Town and we do have some significant distance between neighbors. MR. CARR-Asked, is this loss all due to that one property or is this the loss from the Corporation? MR. MCMORRIS-Stated that loss, I believe, is due to this particular project. ANTHONY POLIS, REPRESENTINq AIRRON MR. POLIS-Stated that los$ was for, as it says here, real estate tax, utilities, accountants, legal fees, éIlnd insurance for that property, not the 11.39 that that house sits on. MR. TURNER-Asked does that encompass that storage shed? MR. POLIS-State:d no, that's capital improvements. I've got the books here, if you'd like to look through them. There's a difference between expense and real estate tax.. .uti1ities, accounting, legal fees and insurance and capital improvements, capital improvements being improvements to the house and then if the property were ever to be sold, then it would be made up on that end, as far as paying taxes there. For the items listed, these are the losses that have been incurred. MR. MCMORRIS-Stated I think we're getting into the area of accounting situation, how you account for the e~pense versus the capital on a piece of property and here what we have listed are Simply the expenses of carrying charges for the piece of property. It does not go into anything else that the corporation for federal or state income tax or capital gains taxes down the road, will be allowed to treat a little differently. MRS. EGGLESTON-Asked did you try to rent it when it was a one family house, as an office? Was it on the: real estate market or in the papers as an office or something that would fit the light industrial class? MR. MCMORRIS-Stated I think it's been advertised for rental for, specifically, one family residence because of the house itself. When you look at it and the way it is set up, it's virtually impossible to convert that into an office or anything like that. The requirements for an office...the handicapped accessibility, bathrooms, the layout of the facility, I would require, to the extent of gutting it, at the very least, and possibly the exterior as well, certainly, ramps and other access points. The house is old and I think the decision there, you're talking a certain amount of money to go in and convert it to an office, is simply not economically feasible at all. .:::-¡ MR. POLIS-Stated I'd like to add to that Jeff, also, a quarter of a mile down the road,...on County Line Road, they own another house, that's in the Town of Kingsbury and that's zoned Industrial also. I had a sign up there for six months, zoned business, $800 a month, and that, I was going to pay for the utilities, just to carry me through the winter, and I haven't had a bi~n that either. So, in answer to your question if this house could be rented, I see know way because the one down the road that has a sign as big as those windows, I haven't got one response. 52 - MR. MCMORRIS-Stat~d (TAPE TURNED) .... it's just b~coming or could b~ coming to th~ point wh~r~ it could b~ an e,conomic situation to do that. Th~ prob1~ms with th~ s~w~r, lack of s~w~r, and public se,w~r, up the,r~, the, probl~ms that's causing right now with the, ind~stria1 park, th~ir e,xpansion plans, n~c~ssari1y ~ffe,ct ~ve,ryon~ ~ls~ in th~ n~ighborhood. Th~ prob1~m simply is th~ lack of industrial custome,rs and us~rs. Sim,p1y too many comp~ting e,ntitie,s and not ~nough custom~rs to do it, plus the, ~conornics of th~ industrial park its~lf and th~ir und~rcutting as far as pric~ and faci1iti~s. MR. TURNER-Stat~d ~vidently, th~ light industrial asp~ct of it hasn't tak~n off? MR. MCMORRIS-Stat~d no. MR. TURNER-Stat~d wh~n Mr. Chartrand came, h~r~, I don't know, four ye,ars ago, h~ was d~ni~d a varianc~ for a change, of use, for a light industrial us~. MR. MCMORRIS-Stat~d it was b~for~ our offic~ was invo1v~d. MR. POLIS-Stat~d h~ was looking for he,avy ~quipm~nt sa1~s which was allow~d in th~ Town of Kingsbury and not in th~ Town of Qu~e,nsbury and that's why th~ us~ was d~ni~d. MR. TURNER-State,d but in light of that, whe,n th~ Town was re,zon~d w~ took his advic~ into consid~ration and it was r~zon~d to light industrial. MR. POLIS-Stat~d it has it Ll-3A and Mr. Fish~r at th~ sam~ time,. Mr. still r~main~d Ll-3A. always b~~n L1-1A until the, n~w r~zoning and th~y re,zon~d across th~ stre,~t and Mr. Chartrand, Airron, all pe,tition~d Fish~r was grant~d his L1-1A back. Airron wasn't, th~y MR. TURNER-Askêd, th~y p~tition~d th~ Town Board for r~zoning? MR. POLIS-Stat~d y~s, th~y both did at th~ same, tim~. Mr. Fish~r was grant~d, Airron wasn't. That land has always b~~n industrial. It was L1-1A until the, r~zoning and th~n that w~nt to Ll-3A. Mr. Fish~r, b~ing th~ f~llow across the, road to th~ w~st, was grant~d. So that has always b~~n industrial. MRS. EGGLESTON-Ask~d, what's th~ total ass~ssmènt? MR. POLIS-Stat~d th~ total ass~ssm~nt is, th~ land is $48,000, total ass~ssmênt, $63,600. MR. MCMORRIS-Stat~d b~for~ th~ work, th~ land was also $48,000. Th~ land ass~ssm~nt stat~d th~ samè. Th~ tota¡ had b~e,n $50,000. So, it was rais~d $13,600. It was not on th~ basis of the, land, it was obviously on th~ basis ...th~ actual building. MR. KELLEY-Askêd, wh~n I was th~r~, it looks like, you'r~ building a po1~ barn? MR. MCMORRIS-Stat~d y~s. MR. KELLEY-Aske,d ar~ you adding on to that or is that totally n~w? MR. POLIS-Stat~d no. That's thè ~xisting building p~rmit sinc~ w~ start~d, off that garag~. Th~ garag~ was th~r~. MR. KELLEY-Stat~d so you built th~ basic pole, barn. Would that b~ part of this ass~ssm~nt. MR. POLIS-Stat~d that I can' t answ~r you. I don't think so b~caus~ w~ hav~n' t inc1ude,d th~ po1~ barn y~t and don't th~y r~ass~ss aft~r th~ building... MRS. COLLARD-Stat~d it will be, put on th~ roll about March lst. MR. KELLEY-Stat~d, wh~n I t:a1k~d to you today, you m~ntion~d that wh~n you g~t th~ po1~ barn compl~t~d, it was in hop~s you could r~nt it for boat storagè or som~ kind of storag~. MR. POLIS-Stat~d boat storag~ or som~thing of that natur~. MR. KELLEY-Stat~d som~thing that fits in that Ll-3A zon~. MR. POLIS-Stat~d y~s. 53 --' MR. MCMORRIS-Stat~d I think th~ basic point is w~' r~ trying to look for any way to ~ras~ or at l~ast ~as~ som~ of that dabt or loss on that prop~rty on an annual basis and it's through th~ ranta1 of part of tha barn and if w~ can...that's fin~, rath~r than l~av~ th~ hou$~ sitting vacant, trying to accomplish with that prop~rty as w~ll. MR. POLIS-Stat~d that's anoth~r point I'd 1ik~ to mak~ as far as th~s~ housa b~ing vacant up th~ra. It's v~ry, v~ry dark and w~ hav~ had prob1~ms with vandals. So w~ would lik~ to g~t somabody up th~r~ to watch ovar tha p1ac~ a littb bit. Th~ra's no str~~t lights or anything 1ik~ that. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Warr~n County Planning Board did not act du~ to lack of quorum. STAFF INPUT Not~s from Stuart G. Bak~r, Assistant P1ann~r (attach~d) MR. MCMORRIS-Stat~d if I could just, a coup1~ of things in th~r~. Th~y talk about th~ qu~stion of th~ loss of th~ prop~rty. I think w~ hav~ in that, again, fault or probbm in rushing, trying to g~t an application in, as oppos~d to taking th~ tim~ and going through th~ tax r~turns and compiling th~ oth~r information. As far as th~ uniqu~n~ss of th~ prop~rty, I think it's location and zoning and th~ n~ighborhood, as far as th~ airport and th~ industrial park and its industrial charact~r, ar~ r~nd~ring it a uniqu~ piac~ of prop~rty. Wa ara not disputing, and ind~~d I think v~ry much in favor, of th~ light industrial classification of th~ prop~rty. It's simply a cas~ of from now, thr~~ y~ars, four y~ars, fiv~ yaars, at som~ point wh~ra th~ prop~rty can b~ uti1iz~d ~ff~ctiv~ly for industrial purposas, h~lping to pay tha bills. MRS. EGGLESTON-Ask~d, wh~n was this particular pi~c~ of prop~rty purchas~d? MR. POLIS-Stated March of 1988, ~xcus~ m~, March of 1986. MRS. EGGLESTON-Ask~d it is not within th~ industrial park? MR. POLIS-Stat~d no it's not. It abuts th~ park. MR. TURNER-Stat~d ... th~ tim~ b~for~ you cam~ in, to utiliz~ th~ land for h~avy ~quipm~nt salas and that wasn't a11ow~d at th~ tima, but now it is. MR. KELLEY-Ask~d, is that on this pi~c~? MR. TURNER-Stat~d that's this pi~ce. MRS. GOETZ-Ask~d what happenad to that th~n? MR. TURNER-Ask~d is ha still housing any ~quipm~nt th~r~ whatso~v~r, at all? MR. POLIS-Stat~d h~ I s got his lawn mow~r and on~ bu11doz~r th~r~ that h~ push~s ov~r fill and stuff with, but as far as s~lling ~quipmant th~r~ or anywh~r~ a1s~ right now, no. MR. TURNER-Stat~d b~caus~ this list that' s h~r~ now wasn' t includ~d tha last tim~ around. MR. POLIS-Stat~d b~caus~ anything ...industria1 park zoning MR. TURNER-Stat~d th~ industrial park was a1r~ady th~r~. MR. POLIS-Stat~d what I'm saying, wh~n th~y latar r~zon~d th~y probably includ~d what was in th~ industrial park. MR. TURNER-Stat~d thas~ w~ra just som~ of th~ id~as that cam~ up through this kind of conv~rsation and W~ thought th~r~ was a n~ad for it sinc~ it was zon~d light industrial to start with. 54 MRS. EGGLESTON-Stat~d, Iwond~r if h~ kn~w, wh~n hß mad~ it two family, it was not acc~ptab1~. MR. TURNER-Stat~d thß hous~...prop~rty. H~'s r~novatßd th~ hous~. H~ kn~w wh~n h~ was h~rß thß last timß, hß couldn't us~ it as a hous~. It was...1ight industrial. R~sid~ntia1 Us~s arß not al10w~d in thß zon~. MR. MCMORRIS-Statßd th~ h¢us~ itsß1f is a prior nonconforming uSß as far as a on~ family r~sid~nc~. So I think th~r~ may hav~ b~~n somß qUßstion about it. MR. TURNER-Stat~d it's b~~n vacant th~r~ sinc~ hß own~d it. tim~ h~ cam~ h~r~, last tim~. It was vacant at th~ MR. MCMORRIS-Stat~d still w~ would hav~ to tak~ th~ position that th~r~ is still a qu~stion, at l~ast as far as th~ nonconforming us~ for th~ r~sid~nc~, wh~th~r or not th~ know1ßdgß, that I don't know as far as whßn th~ work was don~. I think th~ fact is, and c~rtain1y admit, that ~vßn if it was not known, it b~camß known v~ry quickly and I'll wOJt"k with th~ Staff h~r~ in trying to rßso1v~ th~ probl~m as far as th~ conv~rsion that is don~ that's what has brought us h~r~. MR. TURNER-Statßd th~ conv~rsion was don~ aft~r thß othßr r~qu~st for a chang~ in us~. MR. MCMORRIS-Stat~d y~s. That's what I'm saying, w~ don't know th~ answ~r, sp~cifica1ly, to th~ qu~stion that at th~ tim~ th~ conv~rsion was don~, wh~th~r or not h~ kn~w whßth~r that was a110w~d or not. I don't know wh~th~r h~ kn~w or not, but I think as far as that go~s, h~ kn~w v~ry quickly aft~r th~ conv~rsion was don~ that it was a prob1~m and working with th~ Town h~r~ and trying to r~solv~ it. MR. POLIS-Statßd th~ h~avy ~quipm~nt sa1ßs was not going to hav~ anything to do with th~ housß. I want to point that out. MR. TURNER-Statßd pardon me? MR. POLIS-Stat~d th~ h~avy ~quipmßnt sa1~s varianc~ that you' r~ sp~aking of, that h~ cam~ for in '87 MR. TURNER-Asked is it going to bß on that pißc~ of prop~rty? Is he going to uSß th~ po1~ barn to stor~ th~ ßquipm~nt? MR. POLIS-Stat~d is going to b~ on th~ north~rn sid~ of th~ hous~ b~tw~en the airport ~asßm~nt and th~ hous~ with no building b~caus~ a building couldn't b~ put up th~r~ b~caus~ of s~tbacks with th~ ~as~m~nt and with th~ house its~lf. H~ was going to display h~avy ~quipm~nt on that pi~c~ b~tw~~n th~ hous~ and the ~asßm~nt. STAN RYMKEWICZ, JR. MR. RYMKEWICZ-Stat~d my name is Stan Rymk~wicz. I liv~ at 141 Qu~~nsbury Av~nu~. To answ~r som~ of your qu~stions, the r~ason nothing has b~~n don~ with this prop~rty is b~caus~ I'v~ b~~n working with the Planning Board to stop it. .pßtition. This Company has bßßn doing things without pßrmits. Th~y do things first, thßn wh~n th~y' r~ told, th~n th~y gö g~t a p~rmit. That's why nothing's bßßn don~, that's why the hous~ is unr~nt~d. He did know about th~ dup1~x b~forß hand. Th~ hous~ has b~en rßnt~d. W~ stopp~d that b~caus~ th~rß' s no fir~ ßscap~s and this was brought up in thß last.. I have no obj~ction to having a dup1~x just as long as it go~s through corr~ct proc~dur~s. MRS. EGGLESTON-Stat~d I just want~d to say, th~y' r~ looking for r~nting apartm~nts as an alt~rnativ~ to making mon~y. I mßan, they couldn't r~nt on~ apartm~nt th~r~, by their own admission, on th~ mark~t for a y~ar and didn' t g~t on~ inquiry. So what ar~ w~ doing to h~lp them. If th~y can' t r~nt on~, how on ~arth are th~y going to rßnt two apartments? If th~y can't r~nt a who1~ hous~. MR. MCMORRIS-Stat~d that's what I'm saying as far as th~ ~conomics of th~ diff~r~nc~ in pric~. If you hav~ a housß on th~ mark~t to rßnt, a thr~~ b~droom hous~ for $500 a month, th~rß' s a diff~r~nce b~tw~~n that and a two b~droom apartm~nt for $300, $350 which I think would r~nt fairly quickly and th~n th~ sßcond, on~ b~droom apartm~nt for another $250, $300. What you'r~ going to ~nd up with is your pricing structur~ for th~ full hous~ bßcaus~ you' rß only on~ shot, has got to b~ so high to try and cover your ~xp~ns~s that you'r~ not going to g~t into th~ r~nta1 mark~t wh~r~ you can ßff~ctiv~ly mark~t this pi~c~ of prop~rty. You 'v~ got to hav~ th~ 55 -- r~nta1s down low ênough to attract p~op1~ to ov~rcom~ th~ handicaps with that pi~c~ of prop~rty, its location and distanc~, and th~ only way to do that and ~conomica11y do that, is with two as opposêd to on~. MRS. EGGLESTON-Ask~d what would you b~ asking for r~nt? MR. MCMORRIS-Stat~d w~'r~ talking now about $125 a w~êk. MRS. EGGLESTON-Statêd so if you had low~r~d th~ rênt on a hous~ to- $125 a w~~k! MR. MCMORRIS-Statêd for êach apartm~nt. MR. TURNER-Ask~d, youlr~ going to rênt th~m by th~ w~~k inst~ad of th~ month? MR. MCMORRIS-Stat~d that's th~ numb~r w~'r~ throwing around for accounting purpos~s, it fits within th~ schêdu1e. MRS. EGGLESTON-Statêd you 'r~ asking $500 a month for an apartm~nt that you a1r~ady couldn't rênt for $500, a who1~ housê for $500 a month. MR. MCMORRIS-Stat~d that' s wh~r~ w~' r~ starting or talking at this point. Again, th~ diff~r~nc~ th~r~ b~tw~~n a w~~k1y r~nta1, if w~ do go with a w~êk1y r~nta1, if that is, look at th~ numbêrs and if that is too high and w~ can cut that down to $100, ~ff~ctiv~ly $400 a month, thên w~ cut it down to $350, onc~ w~ actually g~t to th~ situation wh~rê w~ go into th~ mark~t and start looking, at 1êast 1~ga11y- MRS. EGGLESTON-Ask~d, is this g~nt1~man corr~ct, it has b~~n r~nt~d? You told us it has not b~~n. H~ 1iv~s th~r~. H~ says it has. MR. MCMORRIS-Stat~d no, I didn't say it hadn' t b~~n r~nt~d. w~ didn' t g~t into that. It has b~~n conv~rt~d. I b~li~v~ th~r~ was som~on~ ~ith~r had sign~d a l~as~ or had just mov~d in or somêthing 1ik~ that, at that point. MR. CARR-Stat~d it hasn't b~~n r~nt~d in th~ past y~ar. MR. MCMORRIS-Stat~d I don't think I said anything about MRS. EGGLESTON-Stat~d you said it had b~~n on th~ mark~t for ov~r a y~ar. MR. MCMORRIS-Stat~d as a housê, as th~ full housê. MR. CARR-Statêd ok. MRS. GOETZ-Askêd, ar~ you proposing to rênt it by thê w~~k or is that just coming up with a pric~? MR. MCMORRIS-Stat~d I think w~'r~ just coming up with a pric~. MRS. GOETZ-Stat~d it would bê by th~ month, wouldn't it? You' d r~nt it by th~ month. MR. MCMORRIS-Stat~d it d~pênds on how w~ do it. If thêr~' s a mark~t out th~r~ for a w~~k1y r~nta1 thên c~rtain1y w~ would rênt it by th~ wê~k. If th~r~' s a mark~t for th~ month and w~ can fit that in with th~ ~conomics and th~ budgêt.. MR. POLIS-Stat~d it's b~ên r~nt~d by th~ w~~k. MRS. GOETZ-Ask~d, it has b~~n? MR. POLIS-Stat~d that inc1ud~s th~ utilitiês. You s~~ what happ~n~d h~r~ is that w~ couldn't r~nt th~ who1~ hous~. w~ only could r~nt on~ of th~ units and w~ hav~ b~~n trying to r~nt ~ithe¡r th~ top or th~ bottom and w~ hav~. W~'v~ had p~opl~ in. W~'v~ had p~op1~ out, but only on~ unit at a tim~ b~caus~ it's not a two family. MRS. GOETZ-Ask~d, is it furnish~d? MR. POLIS-Stat~d s~mi-furnish~d. MRS. GOETZ-Stat~d I'm just wond~ring who mov~s in and out by th~ w~~k. MR. POLIS-Stat~d I had a Stat~ troop~r living th~r~ this summ~r. down stat~ and was training h~r~ for six months. Sh~ 1iv~d th~r~. Sh~ cam~ from 56 -- MRS. EGGLESTON-Ask~d is this prior to it b~ing mad~ into a two family? MR. POLIS-Stat~d wh~n it was a two family. MRS. EGGLESTON-Ask~d, how long has it b~~n a two family? MR. POLIS-Stat~d w~' r~ caught b~tw~~n th~ rock and hard p1ac~. W~ 'v~ got this hous~. W!: can't do anything with it industrially. W~ can't do anything with it r~nting it as a on~ family b~caus~ it's cut so funny and it's so small as far as a family living upstairs and down. It's just not cut up that way. So th~ only way that w~ can g~t th!: rèturn and try and start g~n~rating som~ mon~y out of th~r~ would b~ to r~nt th~ top and th!: bottom and that's why w!:'r!: h~r~ tonight. MR. CARR-Ask~d, wh!:n was it conv~rt~d to two family? MR. POLIS-Stat!:d w~ start~d r~novations probably two y~ars ago. b~tt~r answ!:r that for you by looking at th~ books h!:r!:. I can probably MR. CARR-Ask~d, pursuant to a building p~rmit? MR. POLIS-Stat~d no. MR. CARR-Stat~d th~ stat~m!:nt has b~~n mad~ that it hasn't b!:~n r~nt~d in th~ past y~ar and you'r~ just t~lling us that you had a stat!: troop~r th~r~. MR. POLIS-Stat!:d no, as a on~ family. You s!:~, w~'v~ got two units. W~'v~ got a downstairs unit and an upstairs unit. W~ 1~ga11y can, l~t m!: point out h~r~ as th~ Building Insp~ctor said, as a hous~ or a moth~r-in-1aw apartm~nt. I tri~d that. I don't know if you'v~ ~v~r rod~ by th~r~, but I had a gr~at big sign out th~r~. I couldn't g~t any r~spons~ th~r~. MR. CARR-Stat~d ok, so your position is you can' t r~nt it as a on~ family. W~' v!: had succ~ss r~nting as a two family b~caus!: of...stat~ troop~r. MR. POLIS-Stat~d but only on~ unit at a tim~. So, I'd 1ik~ to try to, that's why I'm h~r~ tonight, to try to g~t it to r~nt it as a two unit or two family and if you want to, you can put limitations if you want m~ to com!: back and s!:!: you or what~v~r. MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 7-1990 AIRRON INDUSTRIAL CORP., Introduc~d by Susan Go!:tz who mov~d for its adoption, s~cond~d by J!:ffr~y K!:ll~y I do think th!:r!: is a raasonabl~ r!:turn possib1!: if th~ land is us~d as zon~d, but I do think th~r~ is a uniqu!: situation in that this is a r~sid!:nc~ in a light industrial zon~ and that ~v~ntua11y it will r~v~rt to light industrial us~ just for financial r~asons. It will b~ advantag~ous to b~ us~d as light industrial. I don't think that this will hav~ an adv!:rs~ ~ff~ct on th~ n~ighborhood charact~r. I would 1ik~ to propos~ that w~ r~vi~w this again at th~ ~nd of on!: y~ar. Duly adopt~d this 17th day of January, 1990, by th~ following vot!:: AYES: Mr. Carr, Mrs. Go~tz, Mr. K!:ll~y, Mr. Turn~r NOES: Mrs. Egg1~ston ABSENT: Mr. Sicard AREA VARIANCE NO. 8-1990 LAFAYETTE STREET AND UPPER THE REQUIRED SIDE SETBACK. SECTION 4.020-J TYPE II PC-1A RALPH & MICHAEL WOODBURY CORNER OF GLEN STREET TO MAINTAIN A STORAGE SHED WITH LESS THAN (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 104-1-35.2, 27 JOHN LAPPER, AGENT, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS MRS. GOETZ-R~ad l~tt~r from Wayn~ Jon~s, G1~ns Falls National Bank and Trust Company, to Pat Collard, Zoning Administrator, dat~d D!:c~mb~r 29, 1989 (on fi1~) MR. LAPPER-Stat!:d for th~ r~cord, my nam!: is John Lapp~r. I'm an attorn~y in G1~ns Falls and I r~pr~s~nt Micha~l and Ralph Woodbury. What happ~n~d h~r~ was th~ bank cam~ to us and r~qu~st~d b!:caus!: th~ uniqu~ situation h~r~ is this strang~ lot configuration, that th~r~ 's this Woodbury parc~l in b~tw~~n two parc~ls that th~ bank owns. Th~ bank would 1ik~ to b~ ab1~ to chang~ an upgrad~ th~ pav~m!:nt of th~ir driv~ through 1an~s to bring it a litt1~ bit c10s~r to th~ Woodbury' s lin~ and to b~ ab1~ to 1andscap~ b~tw!:~n th~ two prop~rti~s. Right now, what's in that 57 narrow strip is just som~ shrub brush and th~n th~n~' s a parking lot, so that, what this will facilitate is that th~ bank, on th~ on~ hand, can c1~an up this litt1~ strip, thay'll own it, and tha prop~rty that's going to th~ Woodbury's can b~ us~d for a parking lot for th~ lumbar yard which is across th~ str~~t, for th~ ~mp10y~~s. It' s curr~nt1y, partially, b~ing us~d as a parking lot, but this will h~lp th~ 1umb~r yard parc~l b~caus~ it giv~s th~m a litt1~ mor~ parking and th~y will th~n own th~ land that' s b~ing parkad on, rath~r than th~ bank owning that. It's just th~ strang~ configuration, hav~ ~v~ry othar lot... and it'll just c1~an it up. MRS. GOETZ-Stat~d on~ thing, wh~n th~ Woodbury's sold th~ 1umb~r yards, but th~y'r~ still invo1v~d? MR. LAPPER-Stat~d y~s, wa did that d~a1 on thair b~half. Th~y own th~ land and th~y'r~ 1aasing it to th~ Company. It's a matt~r of public r~cord in th~ C1~rk's Offic~. Th~r~ I s a s~v~n y~ar l~as~ with an option to purchas~ at that tim~. So th~y still own th~ land. That's why th~y'r~ th~ applicants h~r~. Th~ n~w Company that bought th~m out hav~ consant~d to this as 1~ga11y.. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Warr~n County Planning Board didn't hav~ a quorum. STAFF INPUT Not~s from Stuart G. Bak~r, Assistant P1ann~r (attach~d) MR. LAPPER-R~spond~d to staff not~s. I r~aliz~ I didn't talk at all about th~ s~tback. Th~ m~ta1 storag~ sh~d is pr~~xisting right now. It is 30 f~~t from th~ lin~. Th~ only party that would b~ harm~d h~r~ is th~ bank and th~y' r~ in favor of this. Th~ buffe.r batwa~n th~ two us~s won' t b~ chang~d. Th~ own~rship will b~ chang~d, but in t~rms of th~ buildings, th~ location of th~ buildings and th~ improv~m~nts, that won't ba changad. It'll in fact b~ improvad by landscaping and by c1~aning up that brush that I s right th~r~. Th~r~' s no ,impact on th~ charact~r of tha n~ighborhood b~caus~ this isn' t anywhar~ n~ar any of th~ public str~~ts or rights-of-way. It's an insid~ parc~l and no on~' s going to b~ ab1~ to sa~ it r~a1ly from ~ith~r Lafayatt~ Str~at or G1~n Str~~t. It's not going to chang~ anything ~xc~pt th~ boundary lin~ and although it's significant in t~rms of th~ numb~r 30, it's raa11y insignificant in t~rms of th~ land us~. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 8-1990 RALPH & MICHAEL WOODBURY, Introduc~d by J~ffr~y K~ll~y who mov~d for its adoption, s~cond~d by Bruc~ Carr: This is an Ar~a Varianc~ and I b~li~v~ that th~r~ ar~ sp~cia1 circumstancas which apply to this particular pi~c~ of proparty. Th~r~ is an ~xisting 1umb~r storag~ sh~d which was built 30 f~~t from tha southar1y prop~rty 1in~ and it now s~ams that th~y ara asking for a varianca so that this building could b~ 10catad 13.9 f~~t from a proposad prop~rty lin~. It happ~ns that G1~ns Falls National Bank is a n~ighbor on this particular southar1y prop arty 1in~. Tha Bank also owns a s~parat~ parca1 of land to th~ north of this that would b~ s~parat~d by Woodbury prop~rty. Th~ proposal is to hav~ th~ Woodbury's conv~y a portion of land to tha Bank and in r~turn Bank will giv~ Woodbury's a comparab1~ pi~c~ of prop~rty. In doing this switching of prop~rty tit1~s it will allow aach party to hava a c1~an~r pÍßc~ of prop~rty. Tharè' s no public diss~nsion. It app~ars that this is for th~ b~tt~rm~nt of th~ community and prop~rty own~rs. AYES: Mr. Carr, Mrs. Egg1aston, Mrs. Go~tz, Mr. Kallay, Mr. Turn~r NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Sicard On motion m~~ting was adjournad. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Th~odor~ Turn~r, Chairman 58 - .. - '- TOWN OF QUEENSBURY Planning Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: January 10, 1990 By: John Goralski X Area Variance Use Variance - Sign Variance == Interpretation Subdi~oø.: Sketch. _ Proe1imiDary. Site P1aD Rmew - Petition fer a CbaDge of Zone - Freshwater WetlaDds Permit Final --X. Other: request for extension of approval from March 1989 Application Number: Area Variance No. Z7-1989 Applicant's Name: Francis A. Giroux Meeting Date: January 17. 1990 **.......................................................................................... The applicant has requested an extension of a variance granted in March of 1989. It does not appear that any of the conditions under which the approval was granted have changed. I would recommend an extension of this variance until January 17, 1991. JGlsed " -.--.----.... -~ ~ . - TOWN OF QUEENSBURY Planniwtl D~eDt -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: By: January \0. 1990 Lee A. York x Area VariaDce - U_ VariaDce - Sip VariaDce - IDterpretatica Other: Subdi.uïca: Sket-I.. Prelim' - ...... - mary, Site Plan Re'riew - Petitiora fQl" a CbaDge of Zcae - Freshwater Wet.1aDù Permit FiDal ApplicatiaD Number: Area Varia~ce No. 1442 Applicant'. Name: Debbie & S~even Scheibel MeetiDø Date: Januarv 17. 1990 ............................................................................................ This application originally was submitted on October 10, 1988, for relief from the 75 foot setback requirements of the Ordinance. Due to the number of environmental issues regarding use of this parcel the Zoning Board of Appeals requested a recommendation from the Planning Board. The Planning Board has requested that the Zoning Board of Appeals receive the ent ire unofficial minutes of the discussion of the application. (attached) The applicant must meet all four of the criteria to be granted an area variance. The criteria are: I) That there are special circumstances applying to the land which are not generally applicable in the neighborhood and that strict application of the Ordinance would deprive the applicant of reasonable use of the property. The applicant and owners are listed as Debbie and Steven Scheibel. Testimony and the original subdivision map indicate that the owners are Deberon Association. For the record the owner and applicant should be clarified since the applicant should be the owner, who is being deprived of use of the land. -1- ,. - .. - ~ TOWN OF QUEENSBURY pI:ann;"'g Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: By: Januarv 10. 1990 Lee A. York X Area Variance Use Variance - Sign Variance == Interpretation Subdi'risioa: _ Sketch. _ Pt'eIimiDary, Site Plan Rmew - Petition for a Change of Zone - Freshwater Wetlands Permit Final Other: Application Number: Area Variance No. 1442 Applicant's Name: Debbie & Steven Scheibel Meeting Date: January 17. 1990 ............................................................................................ The strict application of the 75 foot setback requirement from Lake George would deprive the applicant of use of this property for residential purposes. The property is between ±79 feet and :89 feet from the shoreline to the back property boundary. This was measured where the house would be located. The property currently has a stairway, large dock and existing building, as identified on the plan. This would indicate that there has been use of th is property by the owner. There are also a number of other docks that appear to be on the property. These are not shown on the plan. (Re fer to picture 113 in file) This also indicates that there is use of the property. 2) That the strict application of said dimensional requirements would result in a practical difficulty. The applicant could not use the property for residential purposes without relief from the 75 foot setback. 3) Would the variance be materially detrimental to the purposes of this Ordinance or the objectives of any plan or policy of the Town. The Ordinance states that the purpose of the Waterfront Residential Zone is, "To protect the delicate ecological balance of all lakes and the Hudson River while providing adequate opportunities for development that would not be detrimental to the visual character of the shoreline." -2- . . ----_.--- ~ . - TOWN OF QUEENSBURY P1anning Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner' Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: Januarv 10. 1990 Lee A. York By: X Area Variance - Use Variance - Sign Variance =: Interpretation Other: SubdiYisiOD: Sketch. _ PreUmiDary. Site Plan Reflew == Petition for a Change of Zone Freshwater WetlaDds Permit FiDa1 Application Number: Area Variance No. 1442 Applicant's Name: Debbie & Steven Scheibel Meeting Date: January 17, 1990 ..*....*.................................................................................... The Master Plan for the Town states with regard to Geological and Topographical concerns: (Page 9) Protect the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the Town of Queensbury by establishing development patterns appropriate to the engineering qualities of the land. Develop land use densities based on soil and slope characteristics whereby areas with soil limitations or steeper slopes receive less development and areas with good soil characteristics and gentle slopes receive more development. The Master Plan states on page 16: The following community goals respond to issues related to water resources in the Town of Queensbury. Restore, protect and enhance water quality and associated aquatic resources in streams and the Hudson River and critical shoreline areas associated with fish and wildlife habitat. Minimize the threat to life, property and natural resources from flooding by preserving the natural hydrologic functions of stream basins, wetlands, ponds and lakes. Restore, protect, develop recreational and visual amenities shoreline areas of ponds and lakes. and enhance the of urban and rural historic, cultural, stream corridors and -3- ( -~----- ~ t. - -' TOWN OF QUEENSBURY P1:!1nning Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: January 10, 1990 By: Lee A. York x Area Variance Use Variance - Sign Variance == Interpretation SubdiYiaion: Sketch. _ Preliminary, Site Plan Rmew - - Petition for a Change of Zone - Freshwater Wetlands Permit Final Other: Application Number: Area Variance No. 1442 Applicant's Name: Debbie & Steven Scheibel Meeting Date: January 17, 1990 ............................................................................................ Protect those bodies of surface water and underground water sources used as public drinking water supply for the health, safety and welfare of the residents of Queensbury and Glens Falls. Stated on Page 17: Strategies The following strategies are designed to implement the policies for water resources in the Town of Queensbury. Establish development setback requirements more appropriate to the sensitivity of the water resources in the Town of Queensbury. Establish stricter guidelines for the removal, grading and erosion control adjacent to all water bodies. Reduce the potential development intensities in the vicinity of sensitive water resources especially those used as public drinking water supplies. Stated on Page 43: Goals - Encourage grading and storm water runoff design to minimize runoff intensity thereby reduc ing the potent ia1 for flooding, erosion, and siltation of Queensbury's water resources. -4- ._~-----~- Aa .. - TOWN OF QUEENSBURY P1,.nning Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: January 10. 1990 By: Lee A. York x Area Variance Use Variance - Sign Variance ~ Interpretation Subdi.ïaion: Sketch, Preümift_- - - -I' Site Plan ReYiew - Petition fer a Change of Zone - Freshwater WetlaDds Permit FiDal Other: Appücation Number: Area Variance No. 1442 Appücant's Name: Debbie & Steven Scheibel Meeting Date: January 17. 1990 ............................................................................................ It would appear that development of a 15,000 square foot parcel with a slope of ±33% in a State designated Critical Environmental Area would be in opposition to the Town of Queensbury Ordinances and plans. In fact, the Zoning Ordinance (Section 7.061 Construction on Slopes) specifically prohibits construction on slopes over 15 percent except by approval of the Planning Board. The rational by which this project is not required to have Site Plan Review is that it was an approved subdivision in 1967. 4) Public facilities and services would not be adversely affected. Lake George is a drinking water source and is a designated AAS body of water by DEC. This is the highest classification they have. Further the Lake and all properties within 500 feet of the mean high water mark have been declared environmentally sensitive. Development of this parcel would not protect this identified resource. LAYlpw ,. -.-----.-.-..----. - · .. - TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PI~nning Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: January 11, 1990 By: John Goralski Area Variance Use Variance -X Sign Variance == Interpretation Other: Subdiflsioa: Sketch, _ Pre1imiDary, Site Plan Re~ew - Petition for a Change of Zone - Freshwater Wet1aDds Permit Final Application Number: Applicant's Name: Si5i!:n Variance No. 1-1990 Tribune Meq.ia Service Meeting Date: January 17, 1990 ............................................................................................ A Sign Variance is required because this business is in a residential zone. If this sign were in a commercial zone, it would meet all of the dimensional requirements of the Sign Ordinance. In lieu of the fact that this was a commercial enterprise prior to the 1988 zoning change, it is my feeling that they are entitled to a sign of this size. JGlsed " - -- - - -- TOWN OF QUEENSBURY Planning Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: January 11, 1990 By: Lee A. York -2L Area Variance Use Variance - Sign Variance == Interpretation Other: Subdirision: _ Sketch, _ Preliminary, Site Plan Re~ew - Petition for a Change of Zone - Freshwater WetJ.auds Permit Final Application Number: Area Variance No. 2-1990 Applicant's Name: Charles Diehl Meeting Date: January 17. 1990 ............................................................................................ The property for which the variances are requested is owned by Steven and Susan Karp and is located on Upper Sherman Avenue. Dr. Karp received Planning Board approval (Site Plan Review No. 54-88) on December 19, 1988, to construct the additional apartment buildings comprising four two bedroom apartments. This approval lapsed on December 19, 1989 (last year). Therefore, lots 5 and 6 would need to be reapproved should the variances to subdivide be approved. The original approvals were for townhouse apartments which would remain in single ownership. The applicant wishes to subdivide the property to a¡low separate ownership of each building. In order to accomplish this, a number of variances must be obtained. These have been listed by the Zoning Administrator and are attached to these notes. The criteria for an Area Variance are as follows: 1. That there are special circumstances applying to this land or buildings which do not generally apply to others in the neighborhood, and that strict application of the Ordinance would deprive the applicant of reasonable use of the land or buildings. There are apartment buildings in a Suburban Residential zone. Multifamily dwelling projects are an allowable use under Type II review in the SR zones. The owner is cUlTently receiving a reasonable use of the land and buildings. 2. The strict application of the dimensional requirements would result in a practical difficulty or undue hardship. page 1 of 2 -' There does not appear to be a practical difficulty or hardship other than the applicants inability to subdivide unless the dimensional requirements are varied. Is the inability to subdivide a hardship? If so, then any property owner who wishes to subdivide and cannot meet the density requirements would have a hardship, effectively negating the Zoning Ordinance. 3. That the variance would not be materially detrimental to the Ordinance or in conflict with the objectives of any plan or policy of the Town. The variances requested are: A. For density and setbacks, B. lot width on collector streets, C. 40 feet of frontage for a principal building on a road. These requests are substantial for a single piece of property and are in opposition to the purpose of the Suburban Residential 1 acre zone which is "To enhance and protect the character of Queensbury's suburban neighborhoods". 4. Public facilities and services would not be adversely affected. No. The facilities and services are already there. LA Y Ised .- -TOWN OF QUEENSBURY Bay at Haviland Road, Queensbury, NY 12801·9725 - 518·792·5832 December 7, 1989 WILSON S. MATHIAS, ESQ. 525 Bay Road Queensbury, New York 12804 RE: ADIRONDACK PLANTATIONS SUBDIVISION - SRLA ZONE Dear Mr. Mathias: Per our conversation today concerning the above-referenced subdivision, the following variances will have to be requested before the Planning Board can consider the subdivision plan: Section 4.020 Suburban Residential 1 Acre of the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance requires 1 acre of land per dwelling unit for multi-family dwelling projects, a 201 rear yard setback, 10' minimum/total 30' side yard setback, and 30' front yard setback. Section 4.053 of the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance requires all residential lots fronting collector streets shall have two (2) times the lot width permitted in the zone in which the lot is located. Section 7.077 requires frontage for one principal building shall be forty (40) feet and such frontage shall provide actual physical access to and from the lot to be built upon. I suggest you reference the check list A-S in the area variance application before submitting a plot plan to the Zoning Board. If I can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, ~~fcfdL. PATRICIA M. COLLARD Zoning Adlinistrator ¡~ 1 i PMC/jjd . ~ ~ "HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY. . . A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE" SETTLED 1763 I ¡ , Aa .. - -- TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PI;lnning Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: January 10, 1990 By: John Goralski Area Variance X Use Variance - Sign Variance == Interpretation Subdi.uicm: Sketch. PreümmaryO - - , _ Site Plan Rmew _ Petition fer a Change of Zone Freshwater Wet1ands Permit Final Other: Application Number: Use Variance No. 3-1990 Applicant's Name: Mark W. Darius Meeting Date: January 17, 1990 ............................................................................................ Section 10.040-B lists four circumstances, all of which must be found to exist before a variance is granted. 1. That the strict application of the use provIsIons of this Ordinance would result in a specified unnecessary hardship to the applicant, which arises because of extraordinary circumstances applying to this property. It does not appear that this property is unique compared to other properties in the zone. 2. That the property cannot yield a reasonable return if used for any permitted uses. This property cUITently houses three preexisting nonconforming uses. No evidence has been presented to support the contention that a reasonable return cannot be realized. 3. That the variance is necessary for preservation of a property right. It does not appear that the owner of this property has been denied any property right which is enjoyed by other owners in the same zone. 4. That the variance would not be material detrimental to the Ordinance or to other properties in the district, and that the variance would be the minimum relief necessary . The purpose of the Neighborhood Commercial zone is to enable residents of Queensbury's outlying areas to obtain staples, necessities, and other goods. The proposed use does not appear to be consistent with this purpose. JGlsed ~ t. - - TOWN OF QUEENSBURY Planning Department "NOTE TO FILE" Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner By: January 11, 1990 John Goralski Date: Area Variance ---x Use Variance - Sign Variance == Interpretation Other: Subdi.œOD: Sketch, Prelimmary' - - , Site Plan Rmew - Petition for a Change of Zone - Freshwater Wet1aDds Permit Final Application Number: Use Variance No. 4-1990 Applicant'. Name: Karen L. Sommer. Dave Goodall. Sheldon Chase Meeting Date: Januarv 17. 1990 ............................................................................................ In order to grant a Use Variance, all of the following circumstances exist: 1. That the strict application of said use provisions of this Ordinance would result in a specified unnecessary hardship to the applicant (1) which arises because of exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the property and not applying generally to other properties in the same district, and (2) which results from lot size or shape legally existing prior to the date of this Ordinance, or topography, or other circumstances over which the applicant has had no control; Response: Because the existing structure was built for a commercial use and the lot was laid out for a commercial use, the property is unique within the WR-1A zone. 2. That the property in question cannot yield a reasonable financial return if used for any permissible use or site plan review applicable to the zoning district in which the property is located; Response: It seems unreasonable to expect this structure to be used as a single family residence. I do not think that anyone would buy this property for residential use. page 1 of 2 ----.- --- --- - 3. That the variance is necessary for the preservation of a property right of the applicant substantially the same as owners of other property in the same district possess without such a variance; Response: As I stated previously, it appears very unlikely that the property can be put to any of the allowable uses as it presently exists. 4. That the variance would not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this Ordinance, or to property in the district in which the property is located or otherwise conflict with the description or purpose of the district or the objectives of any plan or policy of the Town, and that the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the specific unnecessary hardship found by the Zoning Board of Appeals to affect the applicant. Response: The purpose of the Waterfront Residential zone is to protect the delicate ecological balance of the lakes and rivers in Queensbury. By allowing the use of the existing building, the impact on the lake from possible demolition or new construction will be minimized. Also, the proposed use will have little impact on the lake in the future. J G I sed page Z of Z , .-- --- -.--.- ~ t;¡ - - TOWN OF QUEENSBURY Planning Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: By: January 9. 1990 Stuart G. Baker Area Variance Use Variance -X Sign Variance == Interpretation SubdiYiaion: _ Sketch, _ Preliminary, Site Plan Rmew == Petition for a Change of Zone Freshwater Wet1aDda Permit FiDal Other: Application Number: Sign Variance No. 5-1990 Applicant's Name: John A. Brock Meeting Date: January 17. 1990 ............................................................................................ The applicant would like to install a free standing sign at the Route 9 Mall listing the plaza name as well as the store names in the plaza. There are no special circumstances applying to this property which does not also apply to other plazas in this area. The shops in this plaza have an advantage over other plazas in that all shops are visible from Route 9. The applicant appears to already have reasonable use of the property. Strict adherence to the Sign Ordinance should not deprive him of this use. The proposed sign could significantly impact the neighborhood character. With the exception of the Dunham's Shoe plaza, all plaza signs along this 1/2 mile section of Route 9 conform with the Sign Ordinance. The proposed Sign Variance would have signi ficant visual impact and would be a substant ial change from the Ordinance requirements. SBlpw ( - . --.---_..-- --"- ----- '- ROBERT L, EDDY 17 OWEN AVENUE QUEENSeURY. N. Y. 12801 . <II L ...... , - 1/8/90 CMU CUll ¡a:all VARIANCE NO.5 /:?~ Q Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Warren County Planning Board Re: Sign Variance #5-1990 John A. Brock - Route 9 Mall The Sign Ordinance is quite clear in reference to Shopping Center Signs. The Committee, of which I was a member when the present Sign Ordinance was considered, in writing this section of the Sign Ordinance wished to control the proliferation of signs, especially in shopping centers. In Section 2.100 - Definitions - paragraph 19 reads as follows: Shopping Center - Three (3) or more businesses conducted on the same premises. Section 6.103 - paragraph 4. spells out signs allowed, as follows: Shopping Center - 1 free standing sign, denoting the name of the shopping center shall be permitted for each entrance fronting a different street or higway. Each occupant of the shopping center shall be permitted 1 wall sign on the portion of the exterior wall. Wall signs for each occupant of a shopping center shall be coordinated as to material, shape, lettering, color and/or decorative elements. Therefore, it is requested that this application be denied, as to do otherwise would negate the intentions of the Sign Ordinance Committee and open up such a request from all other shopping centers in the Town of Queensbury. Respectively submitted, ~.~ f"cd~. . , ._-----~.- - .. - TOWN OF QUEENSBURY Planning Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: January 9, 1990 By: Stuart G. Baker x Area Variance Use Variance - Sign Variance =: Interpretation SubdiYiåom Sketch, Preümma_ - - -I' Site Plan Rmew - Petition far a Change of Zone - Freshwater WetlaDds Permit FiDal Other: Application Number: Area Variance No. 6-1990 Applicant's Name: Byron B. Rist Meeting Date: January 17, 1990 ............................................................................................ The applicant proposes expansion of the master bedroom of the White residence. The proposed expansion would encroach on the 75' shoreline setback by 7 fee t . The owner current 1y has reasonable use of the property. This is a two bedroom home. The applicant must prove that strict enforcement of the Ordinance would create an economic injury to the owner. SBlpw . . ----,_._~ ------~ Aa .. - TOWN OF QUEENSBURY Planning Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: January 9, 1990 Stuart G. Baker By: Area Variance -;r Use Variance - Sign Variance == Interpretation Other: Subdi.uïon: Sketch, PreJimi",..- _ _ -I' Site P1aD ReYiew == Petition for a Change of Zone Freshwater WetlaDda Permit FiDal Application Number: Use Variance No. 7-1990 Applicant'. Name: AÙTon Industrial Corp. Meeting Date: January 17, 1990 ............................................................................................ The applicant is seeking a variance to maintain a two family house in Light Industrial zone. Houses are not an allowable use in a Light Industrial zone. The applicant was aware of this when the one family house was renovated into a two family house. According to the application, Ain-on Industrial Corp. has not earned income in the last three years. In order to be granted a Use Variance, the applicant must show that a reasonable return is not possible if the land is used for any of the allowable uses for Light Industrial zones. The amount of industrial land in Queensbury is limited, therefore it seems more appropriate to leave industrial lands available for the allowable uses. Multifamily homes are more appropriate in the numerous residential zones in Queensbury. A preexisting nonconforming use does not make a lot unique. Uniqueness of the lot must be based on extraordinary circumstances applying to the property or lot size and shape. Preexisting structures do not make a lot unique according to this criteria. SBlsed " -------- ~ lJli - '-' TOWN OF QUEENSBURY Planni-.g Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: By: January 9, 1990 Stuart G. Baker x Area Variance Use Variance - Sign Variance == Interpretation Other: Subdi.uïon: Sketch, Pr-eJimn...- _ _ -I' Site Plan Re'riew - Petition for a ChaDge of Zone - Freshwater WetlaDds Permit Final Application Number: Area Variance No. 8-1990 Applicant's Name: Ralph B. and Michael G. Woodbury Meeting Date: January 17, 1989 ............................................................................................ The applicant is proposing exchanging equal sized land parcels with the Glens Falls National Bank. As a result of this exchange, the applicant will need a variance from the side yard setback for a storage building. The applicant is requesting a 17 ft. relief from the 30 ft. requirement. This relief request is substantial relative to the Ordinance requirements. This situation is a self-imposed hardship. The applicant should submit proof of economic injury (practical difficulty) created by strict adherence to the Zoning Ordinance before variance is granted. SBlpw -~~-~--_._----