1990-02-21
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 21ST, 1990
INDEX
Ar~a Varianc~ No. 1442 D~bbi~ and St~v~n Sch~ib~l 1
Ar~a Varianc~ No. 9-1990 Paul Cord~s 12
Us~ Varianc~ No. 10-1990 Don Dani~ls 18
Ar~a Varianc~ No. 11-1990 Aviation Road D~v~lopm~nt Corp. 22
Carl R'g Caf~
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.
QUEENS BURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 21ST, 1990
7:30 PM
MEMBERS PRESENT
THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN
SUSAN GOETZ, SECRETARY
BRUCE CARR
CHARLES SICARD
MICHAEL SHEA
JEFFREY KELLEY
MEMBERS ABSENT
JOYCE EGGLESTON
DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY-KARLA CORPUS
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-PAT COLLARD
JOHN GORALSKI-PLANNER
CORRECTION OF MINUTES:
December 20th, 1989: Page 30, under the Motion to Deny, in the narrative where
it says "the strict application of the ordinance would not deprive the applicant
of the reasonable. use. of the sign" sib "use of the propßrty" It was found that
it sib "use of the sign"
MOTION TO APPROVE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 20TH, 1989 AS CORRECTED, Introduced by Charles
Sicard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Susan Goetz:
Duly adopted this 21st day of February, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Shea, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Eggleston
OLD BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 1442 LR-3A DEBBIE AND STEVEN SCHEIBEL OFF OF ROUTE 9L IN
THE BEHRENS, DURANTE, AND RIFFE SUBDIVISION TO BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
FOR PERSONAL USE ON THE LOT THE ORIGINAL PLANS SUBMITTED TO THE ZONING BOARD
OF APPEALS HAVE BEEN MODIFIED BY RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS
REFERENCE: SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 32-89 (RECOMMENDATION)
BOB STEWART, REPRESENTING DEBBIE AND STEVEN SCHEIBEL
MR. TURNER-Asked, do we have any information from the Planning Department in respect
to the fill on the property, permit on the storage building? Can anybody answer
that?
MR. GORALSKI-Stated I believe the Zoning Administrator can answer those questions.
MRS. COLLARD-Stated concerning the fill on the property, I have been unable to
go out and look at the site because of the depth of the snow, but I did talk with
Mrs. York and Whitney Russell from the Building Department who had visited the.
site in either Nove.mber or December and their feeling at that time was, the. fill
was rather minimal and they didn't have too much concern about it.
MR. TURNER-Asked, any question on that part of it?
MRS. GOETZ-Stated yes. Did you receive any letters in Dave Hatin' s office from
anybody in the public, bringing up the matter of the fill, do you know?
MRS. COLLARD-Stated I didn't, but I think the Planning Department has letters
on file. Is that correct John?
1
MR. GORALSKI-Stated if we have letters, they would be in that file that you have.
MRS. GOETZ-Stated ok, I'll have to look. The other thing was, I wasn't sure that
Lee York's recommendation, how could she see what fill had been put in, in December?
MRS. COLLARD-Stated I just have to go by what they told me at that time.
MRS. GOETZ-Stated because I thought she told me that it was hard for them to see
what really had gone on and that there might have been a 1e.tter from some.body
in the public with more details as to where the fill came from and the date that
it was brought in. I'm just interested in any letters because I think that's
how the matter was brought to our attention. Somebody said they thought the illegal
fill had been brought in.
BARBARA BEALE, REPRESENTING THE LAKE GEORGE ASSOCIATION
MRS. BEALE-Stated I be.lieve that there's a letter date.d January 10th, 1990 that
was sent to Ted Turne.r, Chairman of the. Queensbury Zoning Board of Appe.a1s. The.
second page, second to last paragraph talks about the placement of fill on the
site. in the winte.r of 1988. The. 1ette.r is from a Susan Webe.r who is a next door
neighbor and also an attorney.
MRS. GOETZ-Stated I don't se.e. anything additional.
MR. TURNER-State.d we had a letter from he.r the last time, that was in that letter.
MRS. GOETZ-Asked, can I just ask John Matthe.ws? He's he.re right?
JOHN MATTHEWS
MR. MATTHEWS-Stated yes.
MRS. GOETZ-Asked, do you mind, Pat?
going to send a 1ette.r to Dave Hatin.
Because I think you were the one who was
Did you?
MR. MATTHEWS-Stated no, I didn't, but I was in the Building Department and I was
questioned by some of the. personnel in the Planning area as to what the situation
was and they were going to follow up on it.
MRS. GOETZ-State.d ok, there's nothing in he.re.
MRS. COLLARD-Stated, Mr. Turner, this matter of the fill being brought in, in
1988, this is a matte.r that I would like to confer with our Town Attorney and
see how we would proce.ed, if we can proce.e.d, on this matter.
MR. STEWART-Stated I might say, representing the applicant, I've.
information on that. Maybe, when you he.ar it all, it may clarify some
then you can decide what you're going to do.
got some
of it and
MR. TURNER-Stated alright, let me get to the next one. How about the permit on
the storage building 1e.ss than 100 square feet.
MRS. COLLARD-Stated if it's less than 100 square feet, there's no pe.rmit required.
MR. TURNER-State.d I know, but is the.re.
MRS. COLLARD-State.d I haven't be.en able to check on that eithe.r.
say, Te.d.
I'm sorry to
MR. TURNER-Stated now, Mr. Stewart.
MR. STEWART-Stated alright, ve.ry briefly, at the adjournme.nt of the. last meeting,
I was se.nt out to do some. home.work and bring back some answe.rs to the.se questions.
MR. GORALSKI-Asked, Mr. Stewart, could you please state your name for the record.
MR. STEWART-Stated my name is Robert Stewart, an attorney in Glens Falls, and
I'm here tonight representing the. applicant, DEBARON Associates. The. first que.stion
that I had was, was a permit needed for the storage shed? This was built back
before 1988 so we.' re going back to what was required in the ordinance that was
in effect in 1982 to 1988. The ordinance did not require a building permit unless
it was a building and it's not a building if the structure is not permanently,
2
somehow, fixed to the ground with footings and so on. This is a little storage
shed that's propped up on some concrete blocks, it is not permanently affixed
to the Lake. So it's not a building. No building permit is required. The next
question is, it is within, 50 and 75 feet, it's close. to the. shoreline. in any
eve.nt, and the. que.stion is does that violate the. shore.1ine. setback restrictions
and the. answer there is unless it is larger than 100 square. feet, it is not an
acce.ssory building by definition, and it's not a problem under the ordinance and
the map shows the. building. It's sca1e.d out. It's 10 fee.t in one direction,
8 feet in anothe.r or 80 square. fe.et, it's under 100 square feet, so it does not
violate. that provision. The. ne.xt question that came. up was fill. Was any kind
of a permit, or maybe a site. plan re.view, that wasn't asked but I think that was
in the mind of the Board, needed for any fill? The first time that the.re was
any kind of a restriction on filling along the shore.s of Lake Ge.orge was on June
the 22nd, 1985. That was whe.n the Town Board ame.nde.d the ordinance to prohibit
filling within 50 fe.et of the. shore.s of Lake. Ge.orge. There has been fill on this
lot going back from when this subdivision was approved back in 1969. I've spoken
to my clients. They te.11 me. that, to the best of the.ir knowledge, most of the
filling was done. pie.ce. by piece, little by little, mostly through the. 70's. If
you look at the. new sketch in front of you, you will see. the area that shows the
parking space. That's the area where the fill went in. They fee.1 that that was
done be.fore 1985 e.xcept that, in the last two or three years and somebody said
'88 so that might be close. to it, the.y trucke.d in some top soil and they put topsoil
over the fill in the. area where. you se.e the. parking area and that was done. after
'85. That was done about '87, '88, I'm not 100 percent sure. As far as I can
see, none. of that fill was within 50 feet of the shores of Lake George. in any
Ewent and, of course, if it's past the. 50 foot setback, no permit or site plan
re.view was re.quire.d. I say as far as I can se.e because. that's not an easy thing
to measure, but you have. in front of you, maps made in 1989 with topo levels at
e.very 2 feet. Your file also contains, and I brought with me, a copy of the.
original subdivision map that was approved and file.d back in 1969, 20 years ago.
Both maps show the stone wall that runs along the shoreline., 30 feet back from
the. shoreline., and it's cle.ar there's bee.n no fill be.twee.n the stone wall and
the shoreline.. The question the.n, has the.re bee.n any fill within the. 20 fe.e.t
back from the. stone. wall be.cause anything beyond that would be. 1e.gal. It's not
e.asy to answe.r the question be.cause. the topo lines and the.re. are topo lines shown
on the old map, we.re at 5 foot intervals. The topo lines, done. by De.nnis Dickinsen
in 1989 on the. ne.w map, are on 2 foot inte.rva1s so they don't exactly correspond
and also I've got to me.asure. out, with a ru1e.r, one map is at a scale of 1 inch
to 50 fee.t and one. map is on a scale of 1 inch to 20 fe.e.t. So, all I can tell
you is, I have done my be.st to compare the two topos. You can do the same and,
as far as I can se.e, the.y do not indicate. the.re has been any change. in the e.1e.vation
of the land in the. past 20 ye.ars from 1969 to 1989, that is within 50 fee.t. We.
have. le.ve.1ed up, ne.ar the. road, this area he.re(refe.rring to map)and you can see.
the. topo line.s going on. This has bee.n fille.d over the. ye.ars, back be.fore '85,
and topsoil has bee.n put the.re in the. last 2 or 3 years. Although, frankly, I
don't think topsoil is filling within the. definition of your ordinance, but your
ordinance. doe.sn' t have. a definition for what exactly is m.e.ant by filling, but
I don't think putting topsoil on a pie.ce of prope.rty is filling, at least in the
layman's sense. of that word. The. ne.xt que.stion that you se.nt me out to answer
was a variance nee.de.d for Section 7.077 of the. Zoning Ordinance. which se.e.med to
say that you couldn't build on a private. re.sidentia1 lot un1e.ss the. lot fronte.d
on a public stree.t and this is an approve.d subdivision that's serviced by a private
right-of-way. Well, I did a 1e.ga1 analysis of that and sent a re.que.st to the
Zoning Administrator and rece.ive.d a le.tte.r, which I be.1ie.ve. it's in the file. that's
be.fore the. Board, that says that is not a prob1e.m and, since the. subdivision was
approved by the. Planning Board, it's legal as is and that me.ets State. law and
that mee.ts local law. I'll go into detail on that, but I don't think the.re's
any question about it and I do be1ie.ve you've. all got a copy of that.
MR. TURNER-Stated ye.s, we have..
down?
Any questions for Mr. Stewart be.fore. he. sits
MR. STEWART-Stated another question was aske.d, who owns the. other dock because.,
along this southeast corner of the property, the.re are two or three smaller docks
there.. The answer is, there. is one. small dock down at our southeast corner which
be.10ngs on our property. It doe.sn' t show on the. map that you have. in front of
you be.cause. De.nnis Dickinse.n took an old map and did topo lines. He. did not do
a comple.te boundary survey, but he.re.'s the prope.rty, and on the. old map, in '69,
you'll se.e. the.re. was an old boathouse.. That's bee.n torn down, but one ridge of
it or stone crib, Charlie, you know.
MR. SICARD-State.d I think that's it.
3
MR. STEWART-Stated no, because that's off our property, isn't it?
MR. TURNER-Stated that off from this piece of property.
MR. STEWART-State:d there is one small dock which is a piece of the: remnant of
the old boat house which is on our property. There are a couple of more docks
to the south and those are on the land of, they be.1ong to the Association, the
Dark Bay Homeowners Association and, of course., we do have: this big dock that's
been there, shown there, 20 years ago. The last question, I think, I was asked
to answer was from Mrs. Goetz who said that she wanted to see, and she was
absolutely right, a more precise measurement of the setback required and needed
because the original application that was done by the clients, before they had
a lawyer, they didn't give precise measurements as to the setback. That's the
new sketch that I handed to you which measures it right out to the inch. She
also said, and she made herself very clear, that she wanted to see that house
pushed back just as far as it could be pushed back, so that, if a variance was
granted, it would be the minimal variance needed in order to protect the property
owners rights and we have done that. What we had to do, in the final analysis
is, the:re was a rear entrance going out the back of the house, that is closer
to the road. That had a porch over it so that the steps would be protected from
snow and ice and rain and the porch created a setback problem on the rear. We've:
removed the roof of the porch, been able to push the house back about 4 feet by
that device, and we've got it back into the bank and as close to the road as the
architect and the engineer says it can be done: and we are back, at the closest
point, 36 feet from the: shores of the Lake and so that I s the measure of our
application. I would point out, although I'm not sure it's legally relevant,
back when this subdivision was approved and these lots were sold, years ago,
sketches were laid as to the proposed, now these weren't actually buildings, this
was a sketch by the subdivider, and on this lot, you'll see he has it sketched
as close as 30 feet. I tried to get my old Zoning Map and I'd loaned it to your
Town Attorney a year ago and he hasn't returned it to me, but apparently, 30 feet
from the shore:1ine was legal in those days when this subdivision was approved
because it's sketched that close on the: map. Now, I don't know that that has
any enormous, legal significance, but I am saying, we're 6 or 8 feet back farther
than what was contemplated when this lot was approved and designed by the Planning
Board years ago and everybody bought in reliance on those standards. So, I guess
that's my pitch. Just one last comment, I opened with it last month and I'll
close with it tonight. This is zoned for one purpose and one purpose only and
that is a single family, residential lot. That's all it's allowed to be used
for. It can not be used for it unless we get this minimal area variance. We
have pushed and sque:e:ze:d to minimize the variance as much as possible. We: have
been before the Planning Board, as you know, for over a ye.ar. We have done every
single thing that they have requested us to do, except just not build on the lot
at all. That we can't live. with, but we've abandon the septic system. We've
gone to holding tanks with the alarms in full conformity with the Town rules and
regulations we've shrunken the s{ze of the house. We've pushed it back. We have
done everything that we could do to make this the least offensive variance that
is possible. I will remind you that the lot is assessed and the owne:rs have: been
paying taxes on the: basis of $200,000 of value. This is not an insignificant
matter and it can only be used to build a house and we can't build a house of
any size: without, at least, this minimal variance and, unless I can answer any
further questions, that's my pitch. Thank you very much for your patience.
MR. TURNER-Stated the Board is now open for discussion.
been closed at the previous meeting.
The public hearing has
MRS. GOETZ-Stated I made a list of things we should think about and one is the
copy of the contract for emptying out the holding tank.
MR. STEWART-Stated let me: try to answer that. Your approval is contingtmt upon
our putting in a holding tank that meets all requirements of the Town of Queensbury.
One of the requirements of the Town of Queensbury is, I must come forward with
a contract with a company that will agree to come on, whatever rules there are,
on a regular basis and pump it out. I haven't entered into that contract yet
because I'm quite a ways down the road, but, whatever approval you give me, is
no good unless I get the holding tank approved by the Town and that will require
my posting with them, a written, signed contract.
MRS. GOETZ-Asked, so that will be taken care of?
MR. STEWART-Stated yes, that has to be taken care, but I didn't bring it tonight.
4
MRS. GOETZ-Stated well, you seemed to cover everything else.
SUSAN WEBER
MISS WEBER-Stated excuse me, Mr. Turner, I was under the impression that this
was a public meeting, this particular matter tonight and I strongly urge that
it be treated as a public matter because
MR. TURNER-Asked, do you have any new infortnation that you didn't come forward
with the last time?
MISS WEBER-Stated yes I do and, in addition, I believe that the applicant has
brought new information before the Board.
MR. TURNER-Stated he brought the information that we requested.
MISS WEBER-Stated that no one has had a chance to see. If I remember correctly,
at last month's meeting, it was discovered that the applicant proposed to build
a porch.
MR. GORALSKI-Stated excuse me, could you state your name for the record.
MISS WEBER-Stated my name is Susan Weber. I'm a neighbor of the proposed
construction. At the last meeting, it seems that it was discovered that the
applicant's porch was to extend. It was a covered porch, in addition, it was
a roofed, enclosed porch that wa~ to extend 10 feet closer to the Lake than the
front of the building. So, in addition to being 30 feet from the water which
is requiring a major variance, it was going to be extended even further forward
by the porch and then, I believe, Mr. Stewart was sent back to come up with one
map that, he had three maps or two maps that showed different configuration of
the property. Now, you've got another map here that we haven't seen. It's like,
it's hard to hit a moving target.
MR. TURNER-Asked would you please, here's the old map, would you put that up there
with the other one beside it so she can see the difference.
MR. STEWART-Stated I would say Miss Weber is correct. It wasn't necessarily a
porch. The architect's layout showed a stone front in the front of the building.
. . . . and there's a stone wall on the property. That led to the impression that
the house was going to overhang the stone wall which you can see on your maps
was going to be closer to the Lake than I or the application said anything about.
So, I did go back and check that out and that was a mistake. The stone wall,
apparently, was some sort of a facade or fronting that the architect thought would
look nice. The stone wall is here on the property. The building will not overhand
the stone wall. The building will be behind the stone wall as was originally
proposed and we have also been able, as Mrs. Goetz asked us to do, push the house
back even farther so that we are now substantially back beyond the stone wall,
I'd have to scale it, but I would guess 6 to 8 feet behind the stone wall and
that the closest, 36 feet from the Lake frontage.
MISS WEBER-Stated I have a copy, here, of the original, 1968 map, that was filed
in the Warren County Clerk's Office. It shows the stone wall at 28 and a quarter
feet back from the Lake and that's the stone wall the Mr. Stewart indicates is
some 36, 38 feet back from the Lake.
MR. CARR-Stated that's not what he's indicating.
MISS WEBER-Asked he's not?
MR. CARR-Stated no. He's saying that the house is going to be 36 feet back from
the wall's going to remain the same.
MR. STEWART-Stated I scaled the wall at 30 feet, I could be off. I have the
original file map. It doesn't draw a line that says the wall is X feet. You
have to scale it. It's about 30 feet. It could be 29.
MISS WEBER-Asked, is the meeting going to be open?
MR. STEWART-Stated it is now.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MISS WEBER-Then I'd like to speak in opposition.
5
MR. TURNER-If it's a repeat of the last time, it won't be allowed.
MISS WEBER-No, no repeats. This land was all purchase.d by Mr. Durante., Mr. Be.hrens,
and Mr. Riffe. in 1968. Mr. Durante's children purchased this lot from him in
1974. In 1981, DEBARON Associates purchased the lot from the childre.n. DEBARON
Associate.s, is, I believe, three of the children. In 1982, a Zoning Ordinance
went into effe.ct which made the. lot size.s bigge.r in this area. The. Zoning Ordinance.
provide.d that the.re. would be. three. ye.ars, grandfathe.re.d, for lots on existing
subdivision plans. Those. three years expire.d in 1985. During those three. years,
I submit, DEBARON Associate.s had an opportunity to build the.ir house. Your statue.
gave. the.m that opportunity, gave the.m a thre.e year window. They did not choose
to build. They did not choose to build until last ye.ar. Last year (TAPE TURNED)
There's a reason for that three year variance. The three year variance gi ve.s
someone like DEBARON Associates an opportunity to build on a lot that's
nonconforming. It gives them three years, that's a long time. They didn't take
that opportunity. They kept using the property the way they had been using it
since 1968. All of the family kept their boats their, moored their boats, swam
off the dock, used the beach for their children, just like they did last summer.
They had many years to build their house there. They did not. We all know what's
been going on with Lake George, I think. We all know that it's been degraded,
seriously degraded, by overuse, by overbuilding, by people building too close
to the water, by people putting roofs. The Zoning Ordinance was designed to stop
that kind of degradation and I believe you should give it some teeth. The.re.' s
no re.ason why these people. ne.e.d to build this house. there.. They have another
lot that the family owns, up in the back. They can build the.ir house there, where
it won't hurt the Lake, and they can continue to use this tiny, narrow, piece
of property as boat access, the way they have over the years. Thank you very
much.
MR. CARR-...I think we spoke about that last time.
MISS WEBER-You brought it up.
MR. CARR-Yes. You know the argument is that, that same provision is in the. '88
Ordinance which has now resurrected that lot, once again.
MISS WEBER-No, I don't think you can raise something from the dead.
MR. CARR-Did you do any research on that or anything?
MISS WEBER-Certainly. It makes no sense. It's common sense, if you have three
years to do some.thing and you don't do it, you lose. your right. No matter what
happens in the future., you've lost your right.
MR. CARR-But then, doesn't it become, when the new Ordinance takes effect, doesn't
it just become your preexisting, nonconforming lot size?
MISS WEBER-No, it's lost it's right. It's abso1ute.1y lost it's right.
MR. CARR-To do what though, I mean, it's lost it's right to everything?
MISS WEBER-Yes.
MR. CARR-But, ok, in the Ordinance also, in e.very Ordinance there's for
nonconforming lot sizes. We can't tre.at them differently because. a lot size has
become nonconforming. It may be, in the new Ordinance we may re.quire three acres,
this lot's only an acre or whate.ve.r, but, I mean, it seems like the lots, I kind
of agree that that thre.e. year doesn't...because e.very time you change the Ordinance,
you resurrect that thre.e years, but it see.ms to me, also, that it may go into
that other provision. It's got to go somewhe.re.
MISS WEBER-Why?
MR. CARR-I me.an, eve.ry lot's got to be. classified somehow.
MISS WEBER-Well, then, to what lots do you apply the three acre requirement.
MR. KELLEY-Any ne.w subdivisions.
MISS WEBER-Is that it, just new subdivisions, not individual lots?
MR. KELLEY-If a piece of prope.rty's an acre, you can't make. it three. You just
t?ll .the. guy he's got a useless piece. of property, he. might as well do nothing
w1th 1t, pay no taxes on it, then.
6
MR. CARR-I guess, you know, my question is, when the '88 Ordinance took effect,
what was the status of that lot? I don't know where the status of that lot is.
MISS WEBER-I believe that the lot is not buildable.
MR. TURNER-It's a lot on record in an approved subdivision. That doesn't change
it.
MISS WEBER-Then what is this exemption for.
MS. CORPUS-It's required by law.
MR. TURNER-It's required by law, right, but that's for subdivisions that are now
in place or within that three year time frame.
MISS WEBER-Right, within the three year time frame.
MR. TURNER-I agree with you. They're not grand fathered every time.
MISS WEBER-No, but their supposed to be built on within the three years.
MR. TURNER-That doesn't make any difference. He's here for a variance. He missed
it.
MISS WEBER-Well, he
MR. TURNER-No, he's
from the setback.
in a subdivision.
else.
needs to be applying for a variance from
not here for a variance for that. He's only here for a variance
That's a preexisting, nonconforming, preexisting approved lot
All he has to have is a setback from the Lake, that's it, nothing
MRS. GOETZ-Well, isn't that saying that that exemption doesn't apply? That was
my feeling, that the Town Council changed it's opinion on this since the adoption
of the '88 Ordinance.
MS. CORPUS-I wasn't here then.
MRS. GOETZ-I know, but he did change it.
MR. STEWART-If the Board wants to, I'll wait until this matter is...whatever you
want.
MS. CORPUS-Well, I wasn't here then, Sue, you know that, but Paul and I did discuss
it. In fact, Bruce and I sat down. We did go over it and this happens to be
one of those situations that, I guess you could say, falls through the cracks.
Ted's right, every lot has to be taken into account when you're doing your master
ordinance and this was considered a preexisting, nonconforming lot. There is
no provision in, the Ordinance, that takes into account, the preexisting 1982
Ordinance. It's not mentioned. It disappears. It is no longer in existence.
Correct, if they had brought this variance to the Board in 1984 or, excuse me,
1987, something like that, before the new ordinance went into effect, correct,
they would have missed the three year period, however, all the research that I
did and everything else, just happens to fall into a category of lots that are,
again, more or less have a right resurrected just because they didn't come before
the Board. You cannot say that you don't have a lot. It has to be classified
as something. Now, I'm not saying that, perhaps, something could've been put
in saying referring to in 1982 Ordinance, that wasn't done and I did research
the law and they do have to be given, every time you create a new ordinance,
preexisting, nonconforming lots must be given a minimum of three years to conform.
MRS. GOETZ-It seems like, if this were to be voted down, it would be like this
huge test case.
MS. CORPUS-Right.
MISS WEBER-Based on that, if you were to vote it down, based on that.
MRS. GOETZ-Well, based on the fact that, does the Town have the right to say a
lot isn't buildable. That's how I see it. It's like nature, big time.
MR. STEWART-There's a very simple answer. It's not very complicated.
want to interrupt. I'll wait till you're done.
I don't
7
MISS WEBER- I can't imagine that you don't have the power to say a lot is not
buildab le.
MR. CARR-Well, we don't because, I think what he's going to say is, even if loses
it's subdivision rights, ok, as of 1988, it comes under any nonconforming lot
of re.cord as of the date of the ordinance and the date of the ordinance was, I
don't know, August 1st of '88 or whatever.
MR. GORALSKI-October.
MR. TURNER-October of '88.
MR. CARR-October of '88, ok, so that's a nonconforming lot as of the. date of the
ordinance and it's accepted from minimum lot standard because it was a lot of
record, I mean, there was a tax map...
MISS WEBER-You know that makes absolutely no sense. What that does is, means,
that a lot of record, that had no approval by the Planning Board, the Zoning Board,
wasn't even on an approved subdivision map, that nonconforming lot, has better
status than a lot on an approved subdivision map, that makes no sense.
MR. CARR-That's right, but we can't take away property rights from people either,
I mean, if people own property, we can't say, ok, we're changing the ordinance
and just because you cannot buy another acre around your area, you're stuck with
that land forever, I mean, we can't do that either.
MISS WEBER-You can usually do something with that.
are many things that could be done with it. Right
three boats and it's been used for water access by
door.
Now, in this instance, there
now, it's got dock space for
the family and the house next
MR. CARR-So you're saying we should make it into a marina, I mean, a commercial
use?
MISS WEBER-We.11, no, not a commercial use, but it certainly has been valuable
to the next door neighbor all these years, he's used it as a mooring facility.
Perhaps he'd buy it back.
MR. CARR-Well, you can't force people to sell their property.
MISS WEBER-No, you can't, but they've been using it. I'm saying they haven't
been deprived of their property rights. In fact, they've enjoyed what property
rights they've had, the way they wanted to, since 1968.
MRS. GOETZ-What's your simple answer?
MR. STEWART-There are two separate provisions of the ordinance and... One is
the standard provision in every ordinance that says a preexisting, nonconforming
lot is valid and legal and you can go ahead and build on it. However, that has
an exception to it, that if you happen to own a piece of land next door, then
they say you've got to squish the two pieces together and make as big a lot as
you can make and then, you can use it. So, that applies to anybody. We do not
own a piece of property next door that we can add to one small lot. The subdivision
rule is different, but it is not inconsistent. It is perfectly consistent, but
it's inte.nde.d to give subdivision a further, additional break. If I owned a single
lot in a subdivision and I didn't own anything around, then I'd be covered unde.r
the normal rule, pree.xisting, nonconforming lot and I can build on it 30 years
in the future, no question about that. However, if, when I bought in that
subdivision, I bought two lots, one to build on and one for making an investme.nt
or something, I haven't gotten around to build and now you come in with a new
ordinance and I own two lots, your normal rules say that I've got to push the
two lots together and make one big lot out of it. You gave the subdivision a
break from that exemption and you can say that it's a licensed subdivision and
the fellow owns two lots side by each, he can still treat each lot separately
and can sell or build separately for a period of three ye.ars. After that, that's
the burnout period, if he hasn't disposed or built in three. years, then he falls
under the regular rule., preexisting, nonconforming lot, and he's got to squish
the two together and make one big lot. So, subdivisions had a special protection
and that's why there's a little. bit of confusion, but we were not a subdivision.
Subdivision yes, but we didn't have the extra lot and so we don't come under the.
subdivision, but we didn't have. the extra lot and so we don't come under the.
subdivision rule. with the three. year bene.fit, we. come. under the. basic rule a small,
nonconforming, preexisting lot
8
is grand fathered and we can build on it. Do I answer that alright?
because they passed a new ordinance and were resurrected again, that's
the point.
And this,
not quite
MRS. GOETZ-Ok, Mr. Stewart, could you refresh my memory? When we talked before,
we were talking about considering this as a seasonal use versus a full time.
I'm thinking it was in connection with a septic question. Are there different
rules for seasonal uses?
MR. STEWART-The seasonal question came up with a holding tank. You are being
asked to approve this with a holding tank because we talked about putting the
septic system on a lot not adjacent, but down the road and the Planning Board
... .we absolutely withdrew it and went to a holding tank. We.'ve che.cked with
Zoning Administrator and the Building Departme.nt. A holding tank is legal and
proper as long as the house is a seasonal use, is not a full time occupancy.
That, as far as I know, is the only area where seasonal versus full time use comes
in. Your Zoning Ordinance doesn't... It's only this. The.se pe.op1e. are from
Boston. They come up here for the weekend or a couple of weeks in the summer
and they'll come up, occasionally, in the winter. This is a part-time, not a
full time house and I've discussed that with the. Building Departme.nt and the.y
tell me that we me.et their definition for a holding tank because if we don't,
if we don't get their pertuit for the holding tank, then everything comes to a
halt, but that's the basis of our application.
MRS. GOETZ-What if the house. becomes full time. later on.
MR. STEWART-Then, I think, the. purchaser, it cannot be sold and used full time.,
unless and until, god willing, we e.ver go to a septic system on the Lake that
would take care of it because. your Ordinances at the pre.sent time do not allow
it to be used as a full time residence with a holding tank and, incide.ntally,
that thought occurred to me if, as part of your approval, you wish the te.rms of
this approval to be recorded as a deed in the County Clerk's Office so that the
purchase.r is put on notice of that limitation, I have no objection to that.
MR. TURNER-Any further questions for Mr. Stewart? None.?
MRS. BEALE-My name is Barbara Beale again. I have some questions for you. This
is a critical area, a critical environmental area because it is within 500 feet
of the Lake George shore.line. Has the Queensbury chosen a lead agency either
between the Zoning Board or the Planning Board to do the SEQRA review? Are you
planning on doing a SEQRA review?
MR. TURNER-We're not at that point.
MRS. BEALE-Then what's sort of decision were you going to make tonight.
MR. TURNER-The. decision will either be to approve the request for the variance
or de.ny.
MRS. BEALE-My understanding about approving or denying a request for a variance
is that the environmental review has to be completed first, under SEQRA and that,
before you can make a variance decision under SEQRA, we need to review, have a
completed long environme.nta1 assessment form done by the applicant. You need
to choose a lead agemcy betwee.n the Zoning Board and the Planning Board and make
a de.cision about the environmental impacts on the project, whether or not they're
going to make... require an EIS and after that, the.n you can make a de.cision as
to whether or not to grant the variance.
MR. GORALSKI-Mr. Turner, if I could maybe help you with that. If you de.termine
that this is a Type II action under SEQRA, you're. not required to e.stablish a
lead age.ncy and go through the whole SEQRA process and one of the items of the
Type II actions is the granting of an individual setback and lot line variance.
So if you, from my unde.rstanding is that this was going to be considered a Type
II action because it was a setback variance. That's up to the Board to determine
and they should make that de.termination.
MRS. BEALE-Them shouldn't this be considered a de.nsity variance since it doesn't
meet the current subdivision approvals in the area and, as such, that would be
a Type I action.
MR. GORALSKI-This variance application that is in front of the Board right now
is for a shoreline setback variance. If you feel that they should require a density
variance also, based on the exemptions to the subdivision provisions in, I believe,
it's Article 10.
9
MRS. BEALE-We did state that in our letter. We sent in a comment to the Planning
Board.
MR. GORALSKI-Ok, then you should appeal the decision of the Zoning Administrator,
that decision that they don't need that variance. Right now, the Zoning
Administrator has only stated they need a variance from the: shoreline setback,
ok. If after they receive that variance, they apply for a building permit and
the building pe:rmit is granted and you fee:1 that that building permit was granted
without all the. proper variances, that you can appeal that building pe:rmit, but
the only thing in front of the. Board right now is the shoreline setback variance.
MRS. BEALE-The othe.r thing that was brought up was whether or not the filling
was ille:ga1 be.cause it was just the placement of topsoil. I worke:d for the. Corp
of Engineers in Philadelphia for the past three years dealing with filling and
wetlands and their legal definition of fill is "any amount of material that raises
the. surface. area of the land" and a discharge of topsoil would be considered a
discharge of fill material. One: easy way for you to check when the filling took
place would be to review aerial photography, which I'm surrG the State has, what
with all the Gypsy Moth spraying and that sort of stuff. We could e.asi1y review
arGria1 photography to see when the filling was placed and how large it was. That's
all I have. Thank you.
MR. TURNER-Anyone else who wishes to be: heard? Hearing none, the public hearing
is closed.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MRS. GOETZ-Asked, are you satisfied on the fill issue? EVrGn in light of what
she said about the Corp of Engineers?
MR. TURNER-Stated yes.
MR. CARR-Stated it just seems to me, I mean, I'm not in favor of ove.r developing
Lake George, but I think we're stuck with the words from our own Ordinance that
say this is a nonconfortuing lot, so we cannot talk about thrG size lot and now
we're just looking at whether there's a practical difficulty in this house and
it seems to me that the applicant has gone to a lot of expense over the: course
of a YrGar and to great 1e.ngths to move the house back as far as possible to obtain
a minimal variance when thrG optimal thing would be if there's no building on this
property, but I don't feel that we have the right to say that, that he cannot
build on this property.
MR. TURNER-Well, I think the gre.atest concern, to me, was the environmrGnt, in
respect to the septic tank. The first· time around, there. was discussion of a
septic tank. Now this building is going to be seasonal dwelling. It's going
to have a holding tank. A holding tank is going to be pumped out. There's going
to be no dispersion into the ground of any... There's going to be no well on
the property. The water's going to come from the Lakð. The only environmental
issue, if there is one, is...that I can Sðð.
MR. KELLEY-Stated I'm pre.tty well squared away thðre. I guess I may have a
question, though. It's a WR-3A not a
MR. GORALSKI-Stated that's a misprint on this month's agenda.
MR. KELLEY-Asked, so our other setbacks are ok, this is just the watðrfront?
MR. TURNER-Stated well, the only thing I'll, again, reiterating what Bruce. just
said, I think thrG applicant has gone to some great extremes to try to satisfy
a lot of people and the Town with respect to the septic system and I feel that
the applicant has demonstrated practical difficulty. It's a preexisting,
nonconforming lot of record. Denial of the use of the lot to build on would be
out of order in my estimation.
MR. KELLEY-Stated I might ask Mr. Ste.wart anothðr que.stion, though. I think when
you were hrGre the last time, you actually had a blueprint of this house, if I
remember right.
MR. STEWART-Stated yes.
MR. KELLEY-Asked, do you remember what the approximate squarrG footage of it is?
10
MR. STEWART-Stated it's exactly the same as is shown on the sketch that I gave
you. That was taken from those blueprints. In fact, I gave my copy to Dennis
Dickinsen to just do that and I don't have it back, but the footprint, shown on
th¡; new sketch is that house, except that the house that we had showed you on
those drawings, the architects plans from various angles and levels, exc¡;pt that
we took the roof off the rear steps to protect it from snow and ice, so that we
could meet that rear setback better and we could move the house back another 3
and a half or 4 feet. Other than the removal of the roof, the footprint of the
house that yo~ see on your new sketch, is the house that we showed you, and I
believe there's a copy in the files of the Board, I know there is, that we showed
you initially.
MR. TURNER-Stated I mean, I come up with 2257 square feet...does that sound...
MR. STEWART-Stated not a footprint. If you add up two or three stories, yes,
but no, the footprint on the land is quite small. There is, in the file, a copy
of the architects renderings, because I filed it. I had a copy. I left mine
with Dennis Dickinsen.
MR. TURNER-Stated I got 855.
MR. STEWART-Stated yes, 800 sounds closer to it.
MR. KELLEY-Stated Ted, your area's got to be including, I think there was a porch
on the end.
MR. TURNER-Stated there was a porch, yes, I've got porch.
MR. STEWART-Stated on the north end, there's a patio sort of sketch¡;d in, but
that doesn't really mean anything.
MR. KELLEY-Statðd that was a patio. I guess the thought being that ok, if you
have a lot and you put a house on it, should the house size be reasonable in
proportion to the lot. In other words, with a lot, you're going to put an 8,000
square foot house, that would be kind of over doing it.
MR. STEWART-Stated yes, but it's only 800 or 855, about that size.
MR. TURNER-Asked, any further questions?
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE 1442 DEBBIE AND STEVEN SCHEIBEL, Introduced by
Jeffrey Kelley who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard:
The applicant in this case being Debbie and Steven Scheibel as represented by
Mr. Stewart. The variance here is for a shoreline setback from the shores of
Lake George, the required distance being 75 feet. The proposed single family
residence seasonal is shown, on this map, to be 36 feet at its closest part of
the house to the door. I feel that this would be a reasonable request for a number
of reasons. One, there are special circumstances which apply to this particular
piece of land. It's a rather small lot in lieu of what the current Zoning Ordinance
requires. It's zoned as a 3 acre zone and this is a .37 acre lot. It's in a
preexisting approved subdivision and this would be, basically, a preexisting,
nonconfortning lot. Due to the size and shape of this lot, I feel that to make
this applicant say that his lot is not usable would be depriving him of reasonable
use of his land.
MR. KELLEY-Stated I do have a question here. We'll stop with this part of the
motion for a second. On our notes here from the Zoning Administrator and so forth,
it says the applicant and owners are listed as Debbie and Steven Scheibel and
testimony and original subdivision map indicate that the owners are DEBARON
Associates. Just for the record, the owner and applicant should be clarified
since the applicant should be the owner who is being deprived of use of th¡; land.
The map that I have refers to Debbie and Steven Scheibel.
MRS. COLLARD-Stated those notes were from
MR. GORALSKI-Stated from Lee York. I think you're going to have to ask Mr. Stewart
who the owner of the property is.
MR. TURNER-Stated Mr. Stewart clarified, the first time around, that DEBARON
Associates owned the property.
MR. KELLEY-Asked, DEBARON owns the property?
11
MR. STEWART-Stated right. I tried to clarify that. Debbie and Steven Scheibel
are partners in a three young family partnership called DEBARON Associates. They
came in and they filled out the application. They didn't have a lawyer. They
put their own name down, but they aren't the owners. They represent the family
organization and I stated that on the record and tried to clarify that last month.
The land is owned by, the building will be built by, and the applicant is, DEBARON
Associates.
MR. KELLEY-Stated so that should be in there and, at least, answer that question.
Another part of this area variance states that strict application of the dimensional
requirements would result in a practical difficulty and, in this particular case,
it is very true. The ordinance, again, calls for a 75 foot shoreline setback
and if you adhere to the 75 foot setback, you have nothing left, basically. That
is why I would recommend that we grant this variance. It also asks in here, would
this area variance be detrimental to the purpose of the ordinance and the objectives
of the Town and I think the answer to that would be yes, it is detrimental, however
you I re caught with the fact that it's a preexisting, nonconforming building lot
and would be unfair to render this piece of property as useless or not buildable.
As a part of this motion, the recommendation of the Planning Board that this
property is to have a building placed on it that will be used for seasonal use
only and it was requested that a holding tank be used in lieu of a septic system
or leachfie1d or something in that line. Mr. Stewart, the Scheibel's attorney
has stated that he would have a contract drawn up stating that the tank would
be pumped according to Town guidelines.
MR. KELLEY-Asked it has to be in the deed, is that right, Mr. Stewart? Is it
in the deed?
MR. STEWART-Stated it wouldn't be a deed because the prese.nt owners are the ones
that are going to build, but we record the approval of this Board as a deed in
the County C1e.rk's office. and that would be a good way to do it.
MR. CARR-Asked, Jeff, are you making that a requirement?
MR. KELLEY-Stated he. agreed to it, so I guess yes, he should.
In so far as to put it on record that, should this property change ownership,
the variance recorded approval in the County Clerk's office It was agreed to find
this particular variance a Type II action and will not need a SEQRA review.
Duly adopted this 21st day of February, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Shea
ABSENT: Mrs. Egg1e.ston
AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-1990 TYPE: UNLISTED SFR-1A PAUL CORDES 3 GLENWOOD AVENUE
TO SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY BACK INTO ITS TWO ORIGINAL LOTS WHICH WILL BE LESS THAN
THE REQUIRED AREA, AND BUILD A SMALL THREE BEDROOM HOUSE ON THE WINDSOR AVENUE
LOT. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 106-1-7 LOT SIZE: 55 FT. BY 200
FT. SECTION 4.020
PAUL CORDES PRESENT
MR. TURNER-Asked, is the applicant in the. room?
MR. CORDES-Stated yes.
MR. TURNER-Asked, would you care to comment any furthe.r on your application?
MR. CORDES-Stated I don't think I can expound any more than I have already on
the subject. It's really in the. same vein as the last one. It's a nonconforming,
preexisting approve.d lot back from 1899. The subdivision filed by Mr. Pargar.
Glenwood Terrace wasn't in those 10ts...these original deed..on 324, although
it used to be Caf1in Street, Windsor Drive used to be Caf1in Street, but I think
the original buyer bought them with the possible intention of doing something
12
with that additional lot. He had exercised his right to purchase. property and
I said he had a right to buy those two lots. I don't see what right...to be taken
away.
MRS. GOETZ-Stated it isn't exactly like the one we had previous because you have
two lots that are contiguous.
MR. CORDES-Stated ok, but I see that as an Article 8 exemption.
MR. CARR-Stated we wouldn't exempt them, technically, be.cause Article 8 says if
it's a nonconfortning lot..you have to put all the lots that touch each other
together. So, you have two lots that touch each other.
MR. CORDES-Stated however, if it's approved
MR. CARR-Asked, this was an approved subdivision by the Town Planning Board?
MR. TURNER-Stated this goes way back.
MR. CORDES-Stated it was an approved subdivision.
MR. TURNER-Stated yes, but that goes way back to the
MRS. GOETZ-Stated plus there's already a house on there and the lot we were just
talking about didn't have any house on it.
MR. CORDES-State.d that's correct. Have you seen the property?
MRS. GOETZ-Stated yes.
MR. CORDES-Stated it is visible: from... too. I don't want to do anything to be
against the community or upset the neighborhood. I think it would help the
neighborhood. That Windsor Drive is on a down hill slide, as you can see. You've
got a11....right across the street. The setback requirements are the same as
those houses on North Road. Now, if you're talking half million dollar property
because.. .60, 70 thousand dollar property, if that, I don't think that's fair.
How can you require the same setbacks for development on North Road and Garrison
and Fort Amherst as Windsor Drive. It renters property.. .other than, there were
junk cars back there. I've gotten them out. I've tried to clean it up. It's
not completely cleaned up, but it will be this year. There is a sewer line there
now. I think the. Town needs density. I don't think these sewer lines, they're
a burden on tax payers.
MR. TURNER-Asked does it...and pick up that piece of property of yours?
MR. CORDES-Stated both sides, yes. I paid two years for the sewer system. I
wasn't able to tie into it...paid a minimum usage rate too.
MR. TURNER-Asked, does anyone. else have any questions?
MR. CARR-Asked what part of the Ordinance are you citing that says that the lots
have to be brought back together perpendicular?
MR. CORDES-Stated 8.010.
MR. TURNER-Stated "Any nonconforming lot of record as of the date of this Ordinance
which does not meet the minimum lot area and or minimum lot width requirements
of this Ordinance with the Zoning...in which the lot is situated, shall be
considered as complying with such minimum lot requirements and no variance shall
be required, provided that as of this date of this Ordinance such a lot does not
adjoin other lots of the same ownership."
MR. CORDES-Stated which is doesn't.
MR. TURNER-Stated "Provided, however,
shall be treated together as one lot
to subdivision."
that all such lots in the same ownership
except that this provision does not apply
MR. CORDES-Stated well it was approved and filed by..
MR. TURNER-Stated it's not a subdivision in the eyes of the Town. Just because
it goes back to the early century, doesn't make it a subdivision.
MR. CORDES-Stated well, by definition, it is a subdivision.
subdivided.
The property was
13
MR. TURNER-Stated all property subdivides.
MR. CARR-Stated yes, but also then our argument is the same as with Mr. Stewart.
In '69 or '82 these .... three years. Well, whoever owned it, had three years
to build ..and three years is gone, so then you lose your subdivision status and
you go into just the regular nonconforming lot and that's where you are now.
You're a nonconforming lot. Either way, you don't get into subdivision. Either
it's not a technically approved subdivision...the Town or, if it was, you've lost
that right as of '85. Whoever owned the property at the time, lost that.
MR. CORDES-Stated I know the people that live. .and Mr. Gates, he owns the first
house. I know they've expressed an interest in trying to get some kind of a
commercial residential area there or something to give them some opportunity or
whatever. You're right near Price Chopper. You're right across the street from
Cole Muffler. The Firestone dealer, Inside Edge is all in that stretch. You
have very intense development across the street and that hurts residential areas.
MRS. GOETZ-Asked, then why would you want to put a residence in, an additional
one?
MR. CORDES-Stated I think that, if it's an affordable house and...I think they're
going to be salable.
MR. GOETZ-Stated but it sounds like you think it's going to go commercial.
MR. CORDES-Stated well, I think these people on Rt. 9, Matusik and Mr. Gates would
probably want to go commercial.
MRS. GOETZ-Stated well they tried to make it go commercial and there was a lot
of neighborhood feeling that they wish to keep their neighborhood pocket in there.
MR. CORDES-Stated yes.
MR. TURNER-Stated Mr. Armstrong, your neighbor on Windsor Avenue, was very vehement
about keeping that single family residential zone and Matusik was here for...
MR. CORDES-Stated yes, well I'm going to be the boundary. It's just going to
remain an eyesore. I think I have a reason... I don't know if I want to put
a lot of money into it to repair it. There's a house on Windsor Drive, on the
corner of Windsor, if you go down the street further, that's been abandoned.
There's been a car parked in that driveway with a flat tire for over a year and
the people have left the house empty for a year and a half. A tree fell on it.
I don't know if the tree has been removed off the house yet, but there's a house
across from that, the outside corner, that hasn't been painted in a long time,
years. I think a nice new small house that's affordable for a young couple or
an older couple would help the neighborhood.
MR. SHEA-Stated I don't know if it makes any difference, but is it's intention
for rental or resale?
MR. CORDES-Stated resale, right.
MR. SHEA-Asked, but you do rent the frontage property.
MR. CORDES-Stated yes,...two on the front.
essentially, the shed.
Well the garage is rented, too,
MRS. GOETZ-Asked, that's a two family house?
MR. CORDES-Stated yes.
MRS. GOETZ-Asked, how long has that been a two family house?
MR. CORDES-Stated I was trying to find that out. The lady owned it, well, the
people I bought it' from only had it for three years. The people they bought it
from moved to Texas. I got the number in Texas and I haven't been able to get
in touch with her or that number's been disconnected. The people there now,
upstairs, in that apartment, have been there since 1984. I checked with the phone
company. Their phone was turned on, in their name,.. .the service existed before
that, but their records, they don't go past six years. I tried to talk to the
installation people and everything and they cannot say really. Their records
are dead after six years. I said you mean to say you don't have your old paper
work on the original installation. No, it's gone.
14
MRS. GOETZ-Stattòd btòcause it would stòem 1iktò that was a violation. A two family
house in a sing1tò family rtòsidentia1.
MR. CORDES-Stattòd well, I can't say how long, when I bought the property, I had
no lawyer. Thtò stò1ler said Davtò Krogmann rtòpresents them. Thtò bank had an attorney
and I found out later that it was still btòing assessed as a single family. I
had an tòscrow shortage in my accounts, so, just out of curiosity, I was chtòcking
the taxtòs on what it was asstòssed at, I'd never done that, I just... thtò taxes
were about $1100 a year...by the se11tòr, and then I saw that it was a sing1tò family,
according to the assessors. Now, I kntòw that so I thought I'd come before thtò
Board and put that on the table too and I tritòd to look into how old. The guy
who lives there now, movtòd in, thertò was an old kitchtòn in there. He. said it
looked pretty old. The. doorways, it's a common e.ntrance and there are two doors.
There's a door to each apartmtònt and those doors are old. Thtòy' re at least 40
or 50 ytòars old. I don't know when it occurred, but I think it's been thtòre for
a long timtò. Thtò kitchtòn that existed, it was remodeled in '86 or 7 thtò one that's
thertò now, but there was an old kitchðn in there btòfore that which was ripPðd
out and. thrown away and thertò are old utilitiðs. Hð pu11ðd thtò stovtò out and
it 100kðd liktò it hadn't btòen pu11tòd away from thð wall in yðars bðcaustò of all
the stuff btòhind it. So, I can't say for surtò.
MRS. COLLARD-Statðd Mr. Chairman, thð asstòssors records indicattò as long as fivtò
years ago, it was a sing1tò family houstò.
MR. CARR-Statðd that's not...probab1y what it 100ktòd 1ikð.
MRS. COLLARD-Stated that's hard to dtòtðrminð on thtò assðssors rtòcords.
MR. CORDES-Asktòd, whtòn was that.. .would we havtò a datð becausð I can vðrify that
btòfore July 18th, 1984, thtòrð was.
MRS. COLLARD-Stated August 13, 1985.
MR. CORDES-Stattòd ok, that's false thtòn, that's wrong.
MR. CARR-Stattòd yðS.
MR. CORDES-Stattòd thð phonð company will tell you.
MRS. COLLARD-Stattòd wð11, I'm just saying this was on the assðssors rtòcords.
MR. CORDES-Statðd ok.
MR. CARR-Stated Wð just got a 1ðttðr from a ntòighbor saying that for stòve.n ytòars
it's beðn at 1ðast a two family and now it's pretòxisting, with thð ne.w ordinance?
MRS. COLLARD-Stated well, if it was a two family house. be.twe.en '82 and '88 that
wasn't pe.rmitttòd in the. zoning at that time.. If it was put into a two family
houstò prior to '82, then it was a pe.rmitttòd, two family use..
MR. CARR-Statðd I think wtò're....
MRS. GOETZ-State.d I don't btòcause I think it impacts the. use of the land.
MRS. COLLARD-Stated in other words, it was never a legal, conforming use if it
was turned into a two family house afte.r 1982.
MR. CORDES-Stated well, I don't fðe1 that it was from what I've been able to gather
and that's testimony.
MRS. COLLARD-Stated I havtò no way to prove.
MR. CARR-Stattòd I don't think it's up to us...that's not before us right now.
If it is a violation, it's up to the Building Department to look into.
MRS. COLLARD-Stated that's for me to look into and try to prove.
(TAPE TURNED)
MR. CORDES-Thðre were.n' t complaints,
kept up. It's been improved. It's
to my know1ðdgð and the property has been
btòen painted recently. It's betòn c1eantòd
15
up and I drive by it at least two or three times a week and I think it's important
that the building look decent, just to pres~rve my own investment if nothing else,
but it's better than a lot of the property in the area. If you drive by, you'll
see that.
MR. TURNER-Stated you're asking for substantial relief.
acre down to 5500 square feet.
You're going from an
MR. CORDES-Stated....bui1t thousands of houses on lots that size, but not anymore.
...if the property owns...doesn't that usurp the property owners rights?
MR. CARR-Stated only if we wouldn't allow you to build at all, you have a house
on there.
MR. TURNER-Stated you've got a house on there. Are you realizing a reasonable
return on the house now? I mean it's paying for itself?
MR. CORDES-Stated oh yes. It's not a practical difficulty in that way.
MR. TURNER-Stated you know, you're going with two lots that are 55 foot wide and
100 feet long, that's pretty narrow. You've got one good size house. You've
got one single family on G1enwood Avenue, that's a substantial house.
MR. CORDES-Stated it's not out of the character of the neighborhood, though, I
don't think. I think this has been zoned the same as North Road and to me there's
something that doesn't quite sit right there. You're talking $500,000 houses
versus
MR. TURNER-Stated we can't change that.
MR. CARR-Stated we have standards that we have to meet and you just told us you
don't have a practical difficulty or anything so, I mean, that's the standard
you have to meet, showing us a practical difficulty, an economic hardship and
all that. You, basically told us, that it isn't.
MR. CORDES-Stated well, ....remove...to try and support my family.
I do for a living, build houses..
That's what
MR. CARR-Stated you have to demonstrate that to us and I don't think you can
demonstrate it if there is a house already on there because at least it's getting
a return of value.
MR. CORDES-Stated I guess I'm gray on the fact that it was bought as two separate
lots.
MR. CARR-Stated and that wouldn't have been way in 1898.
MR. CORDES-Asked, when do the
greatgrandfather, it's ok then.
rights get usurped? It's
I don't understand that.
ok if the guy was a
MR. CARR-Stated once zoning came into effect,
MR. CORDES-Asked, when was that?
MR. CARR-Stated 1967.
MR. CORDES-Stated you need zoning. There's no doubt about that. If you drive
down that street and imagine a small house there, say two bedrooms, for an elderly
couple, limit the price to something affordable, $70, $65 thousand somewhere in
there, I think it would be better for the neighborhood than what exists now.
MR. TURNER-Stated I think it's just trying to put too much on a narrow lot and
a long lot.
MR. CORDES-Stated well, I think reasonable setbacks can be met. The same as you
required in a lot of...subdivisions, even Hidden Hills there was 10 foot setbacks,
30 foot and so on.
MR. TURNER-Stated I know, they got in a lot of trouble there too.
MRS. GOETZ-Stated we had a lot of problems with Hidden Hills.
MR. CORDES-Stated well, they like to...the Covenant was at 15 feet. I don't know
if the Town was at 15.
16
--
MR. TURNER-Statðd it sððmðd 1ikð 3 or 4 got into troub1ð.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
DOUG ARMSTRONG, NEIGHBOR, OPPOSED
MR. ARMSTRONG-My namð is Doug Armstrong. I own property adjacðnt to thð propðrty
you were discussing. I think it's been brought up here and I hope that what I'm
saying is a moot point. I can understand if Mr. Cordes wanted to build a house
on a piðcð of property 55 flòðt by 200 fðet, but really what hð wants to do is
put three families on thðre. He's got two fami1ilòs therlò now and as the next
door nlòighbor who has to put up with a lot of traffic going in and out of that
place, I think putting another family there would be ludicrous. As far as that
useless piðce of land that's right next to my house, I'd be willing to buy it
for a couple of thousand dollars and eliminate it. Quitlò frankly, my wife and
I rðally ðnjoy that building he's got on... It doðsn' t take away from Windsor
Drive. I hope that somlòone will ChðCk into the two family situation. I think
Mr. Cordes has been the owner of that property under two years. The rðason I
say that is because I've beðn thðre for about 2 and a half years and I have, on
two or thrðe occasions, phoned thð previous owner complaining about problems with
the next door neighbors. At one timð therð was a party going on in a van, by
the way, just to back track, they have a road that runs betwðen G1ðnwood and Windsor
Drive on that property and that is, basically, thðir way of gðtting in and out
and they go either way and there have been people living there with motorcycles
and with vans and thðre have been parties in vans and it just so happens, it happðns
to be right next door to our bedroom window and I've had to go out at 3 0' clock
in the morning to break that up. I like the neighborhood, by the way. I think
if you've eVlòr been down Windsor Drive, it's a prðtty nice p1aclò to live. We
don't look at thð Co1ð Muffler and all of thosð things. We don't seð thlòm. We
don't hðar thð traffic on Glen Streðt. Thðre are probably threð propertiðs on
our strðlòt that have morð land that could build a housð than a 55 foot lot whðre
thðy havð got a 10 foot drive way on. I'm not sure how you do that and still
get through all the setback rules. I'm against this proposal, for obvious reasons.
I hope, like I said, that you do check on thð variancð for a two family. I think
it's ovðrused now. It's not in accordancð with the building codes or whatever
codes there are and I hopð that you turn this down. Thank you.
THOMAS SPRING
MR. SPRING-My name's Tom Spring. I 1ivð on Windsor Drivð. I havlò a 1ðtter hðre
that was give to mð by Bill Gates, a nðighbor on G1enwood Avðnue, and I'm opposed
to it mainly becausð of the size of the lot, 55 by 100 is what it would be for
that housð. It just isn't big ðnough. If you werð to take that sizð lot and
divide thð rðst of thð strðet uP,. thð rest of thð land that's left on the streðt,
that would allow you to build at least 14 morlò hOUSðS on that strlòet. I own enough
land to build six, myself. Thank you.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
CORRESPONDENCE
Letter from William Gates, It is my sincere wish that the propðrty at 3 G1enwood
Avenue not bð changed to a two family status. I also bðlieve that to build an
additional home, whether two family or onð family, would be inappropriate for
so small a building lot. To do so would devaluate all of thð ...propðrties.
MRS. GOETZ-Statðd Wð received that has somð commðnts, but it's not signed.
MR. GORALSKI-Stated yes, that's up to thð Board whðther they want to hear it or
not, but, sincð it's not signðd, I don't think it's valid.
MRS. GOETZ-Stated in thð past, we havlòn't, if it hasn't bðlòn signðd.
Warrðn County Planning Board approvðd
STAFF INPUT
Notðs from Stuart Bakðr, Assistant Planner (attachðd)
17
MOTION TO DISAPPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-1990 PAUL CORDES, Introduced by Bruce
Carr who moved for its adoption, seconded by Susan Goetz:
In that the applicant has not demonstrated a practical difficulty due to economic
hardship. That he does have reasonable use of the land under the current zoning
and under the current status.
Duly adopted this 21st day of February, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Shea, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Turner
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Eggleston
USE VARIANCE NO. 10-1990 TYPE: UNLISTED CR-15 DON DANIELS 53 MAIN STREET
TO CHANGE THE USE FROM A RETAIL STORE TO A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE. TAX MAP NO.
130-2-14 LOT SIZE: 120 FT. BY 120 FT. SECTION: 4.020-1
DON DANIELS PRESENT
MR. DANIELS-Stated I'm Don Daniels and I own the property there. I have a list
of difffàrent businesses that I've had in there, to pass out to you, through the
years.
MR. CARR-Askfàd, Don, what's thfà, YOU'Vfà rented, converte:d to an office building?
Do you have a tenant there already?
MR. DANIELS-Statfàd yfàS. I rente:d it, January 1st, to these pfàop1e over he:re and
it comes unde:r thfà new ruling, as of October '88, that this building falls under
fàither retail or office type buildings. Now, I've never had to get any type of
variances in the past, and these different businesses that have been in there
for different periods of time. have just come along and wanted to get in the:re:
and I could give the:m a 1e:ase: at the: time: and 1e:t them start the day that the:y
signed the 1e:ase:. Now, with the new ordinance:, the: last business that I had in
there was video movie: rentals and the: one prior to that was an office building.
Now, the video movie: re:nta1s went in October 1st of '88 just prior to your ordinance
change and I had a vacuum sales office in the:re prior to that, so whe:n I let the:se:
people, the A1dens that had the Best Video, whe:n I let them in, they we:re: frie:nds
of mine:, the:y wante:d to try this and se:e: if it would be: succe:ssfu1, which it wasn't.
Now, whe:n the:y got out, the: end of last year and I wante:d to go back to the: office
type: busine:ss, I got faced with this change: in the: ordinance: because it was Highway
Commercial, now it's Comme:rcia1 Re:side:ntia1. So, I've ne:ver had to ge:t any kind
of a ruling as to retail sa1e:s or office: sa1e:s and what I'm asking tonight is
to actually have: some: kind of a ruling and my ruling would be to have: it c1assifie:d
as office: rentals and theon, in the: future, if the: people he:re:, if they were: to
go, the:n I will know that, without going through this again, I have: 10 or 12
differe:nt type:s of businesses that come under the: office: classification. I have
anothe:r form he:re:. This was from Mr. Alden and his vide:o busine:ss. Now, the:
one: busine:ss that's in the:re:, which was, the:re:'s some: like the: Pink Vanity Beauty
Shop and the: Barbe:r Shop, the:y we:re: busine:ss that were in the:re: for a pe:riod of
10 ye:ars. At the: time: that I bought the property, the: Pink Vanity Be:auty Shop
was in the:re: five: years be:fore: I bought it, which was 22 ye:ars ago and the:y stayed
with me: for 5 or 6 ye:ars after that. So, they re:a11y we:re the: 10nge:st people:
that we:re: in there and the:se other various businesse:s, e:spe:cia11y the: re:tai1 type
businesse:s, they just se:e:m to need so many pe:op1e coming in and going out that
they just could not do e:nough business the:re: and the: increase of traffic, now,
it's up to 20,000 cars a day. They just ne:e:d so many people going in and out
of there for those: small sales that the:se people: with the: video re:nta1s, who only
ge:t a small re:nta1 fee, the:y re:a11y ne:eded a lot of traffic and it re:a11y cre:ate:d
a re:al prob1e:m for them. It's not really my choice: to judge whe:the:r somebody
can have a business that's successful. I don't know. People: come along and se:e
a little shop and heavy traffic and they think that the:ir busine:ss is succe:ssful.
I don't fe:e:l I'm the: judge: or jury and say no, you can't go he:re:, the:re: 's too
much traffic. You ne:e:d a business whe:re: the:re:'s no traffic so you can truly fail.
MRS. GOETZ-Asked, what is this busine:ss that's rente:d the: space:?
MR. DANIELS-Stated a beauty shop.
MRS. GOETZ-Stated that's professional, define:d as professional office: in the:
ordinance:.
MR. DANIELS-Aske:d, comes under a professional office:, a beauty shop?
18
MRS. GOETZ-State:d right. So, I imagine: that's why it's a use: variance: because
you mentioned that you would like to have: it as an office building.
MR. DANIELS-Stated professional office is the classification under the: new ordinance
that beauty shops come unde:r. Be:auty shops are: unde:r professional office: use.
MRS. COLLARD-State:d he: me:ans profe:ssiona1 office:, Sue, not office building.
Professional office which allows for be:auty shop, architect, etc.
MR. GORALSKI-Stated if you read Stuart Baker's notes, I think he's bringing up
what you're que:stioning, as to whethe:r this is an office building or whe:ther this
is a professional office:. Now, I think it's up to the Board to determine: what
it is. If it's a profe:ssiona1 office:, which is not listed unde:r the: Commercial
Residential zone, the:n a use variance would be: ne:ce:ssary. If, in fact, this is
an office building, the:n no variance: would be required.
MRS. GOETZ-Aske:d, so this is like an interpretation?
MR. GORALSKI-Stated well, I guess it's up to you. I think that's the argument
Mr. Daniels is making. He wants to know whethe:r you feel this is an office building
or whether he needs a variance. He: app1ie:d for the: variance:.
MRS. GOETZ-Asked, if it's an interpretation, does it have: to be advertise:d as
such because it seems to me we:'ve gotten in trouble before handling inte:rpre:tations?
MRS. COLLARD-Stated I've made my inte:rpre:tation and brought this in under a
professional office:.
MRS. GOETZ-Stated and we: should take it from the:re:. Ok, let me re:ad Stuart Baker's
input.
STAFF INPUT
Note:s from Stuart Baker, Assistant Planner (attached)
MR. DANIELS-State:d that building has bee:n the:re for about 100 years now and it
has be:en used for offices and differe:nt types of rentals over the years. It's
always be:en a commercial rental building.
MR. CARR-Asked as far as you know, it's ne:ver been used as a single: family dwelling?
MR. DANIELS-Stated no. There: is an apartment upstairs above: it that's always
been there. The pe:op1e:, in 1900, the:y had a little: groce:ry store the:re: and they
lived upstairs.
MRS. GOETZ-Asked, is it an apartme:nt now?
MR. DANIELS-State:d ye:s. It's always bee:n an apartme:nt. It's always been a
commercia1..downstairs.
MRS. GOETZ-Stated one thing, it se:eme:d that there: was like no parking in the front.
MR. DANIELS-State:d the vide:o shop put a sign the:re that said no parking. They
had, what the:y considered, four space:s in front the:re, so the:y use:d to pull in
along the driveway because: the: drive: goe:s all the way around both buildings that
are on the: lot there.
MRS. GOETZ-Asked, and so pe:op1e would be parking in the back?
MR. DANIELS-Stated no, but they wante:d to ke:ep the: drive:way The man that
lives upstairs parks his car back there:. He didn't want people blocking his drive:.
MRS. GOETZ-Stated ok, so there would be: no business parking in the back at all?
MR. DANIELS-Stated no, nobody's eve:r parked in the back.
MRS. GOETZ-State:d because I don't think there:' s adequate parking.
big pile of snow there: too. I really question being able to ge:t
there.
There: was a
four cars in
MR. DANIELS-Asked, four cars in where?
19
-
MRS. GOETZ-Stated in front of the building.
MR. DANIELS-Stated well, we park all the way around the building and all the way
around the other side of the building.
MR. SICARD-Asked, will you be using the parking in front of the restaurant for
restaurant parking services.
MR. DANIELS-Stated they usually both have shared. It's never been a problem with
any of them, but they didn't want his driveway to be blocked, that man's.
MR. SICARD-Stated I understand that, but you didn't answer my question. Are you
using the restaurant parking to park cars for the professional building or whatever
it is?
MR. DANIELS-Stated sometimes in the morning when they have breakfast, there are
people that go over that way. I usually park my car on that side when I go in.
MR. SICARD-Stated so if we have a professional building and somebody operates
it with a secretary or something, they would use the two spaces in front and then-
MR. DANIELS-Stated well, the building is 25 feet wide, I think, and then there's
10 feet between that and the diner and there's 15 feet or so of driveway. Plus
we go about 15 feet in front of the church, but we let the church use the lawn
part. It doesn't appear that way, but part of the church is on my lot.
MR. SICARD-Stated I think when you get snow in the winter time I think it presents
a little parking problem. ...parking on some other businesses property.
MR. GOETZ-Stated I don't think it constitutes the parking schedule.
MR. GORALSKI-Asked, what's that?
MR. SICARD-Stated parking on somebody e1ses business property. If he owns the
property, the question I'd like to clarify, can he use the property in front of
the restaurant as a parking place for this separate building?
MR. GORALSKI-Stated I defer to the Zoning Administrator.
MRS. COLLARD-Stated I hear what you're saying and I would have to refer to the
parking section of the Ordinance and the site plan and see how much
MR. SICARD-Stated he's adequate parking, if he can, because he can park from there
down to the store down to the corner there. There used to be a fence in between
there, but I guess that's gone.
MR. DANIELS-Stated well, people from the pet shop have parked in front of the
diner for 20 years and people from the diner have parked over there all the way
in the back.
MR. SICARD-Stated if that's allowable under the Ordinance, that's fine with me,
but I would wonder how this would work with somebody that owned another business
or something. That's adequate parking if he can use the parking in front of the
restaurant to service the parking area in front of this building. It's a
professional building because, regardless of what he has, he's going to have extra
cars there. If he has only one person working.
MR. DANIELS-Stated the office classification would need, probably, a fifth of
the numbers of cars going in and out. They just would not have nearly as much
and the type of business that they want to have would be appointments, so if they
have one or two people there, they would be there for two hours at a time, getting
themselves taken care of. Whereas, this video shop, between 3 and 5, they would
have sometimes a hundred cars going in and out of there, which would not happen
anymore.
MR. SICARD-Asked, isn't there some parking behind the restaurant also, between
you and Maille?
MR. DANIELS-Stated I have about 50 feet in back of the restaurant. There's trees
that goes toward the back. We've never fully developed all the way back, but
we go quite a ways back there.
20
MR. SICARD-Stat~d Mai11~ com~s in pr~tty tight, do~sn't h~, too you?
MR. DANIELS-Stat~d y~s, w~ll, h~ has about 15 f~~t from his building. I hav~
most of th~ land back th~r~ b~caus~ I had bought an ~xtra lot in th~ midd1~ back
th~r~. You know, that could b~ d~v~lop~d if I ~v~r f~lt th~r~ was a n~~d for
it and w~ could 1in~ that up with, probably, 20 cars all th~ way across th~ back.
MR. CARR-Ask~d, Don, th~ building's 20 by 20 right, that's...in f~~t, squar~ f~~t?
MR. DANIELS-Stat~d y~s.
MR. CARR-Stat~d, ok, now, I can't find wh~r~ th~ parking p~rmit for prof~ssiona1
offic~ is. I'm assuming it's th~ sam~ as offic~ building?
MRS. COLLARD-Stat~d y~s, it is.
MR. CARR-Stat~d so that m~ans h~ only n~~ds thr~~ parking spac~s.
MRS. COLLARD-Stat~d that's right.
MR. CARR-Stat~d it s~~ms 1ik~, in front of that building, you could put thr~~
cars. So, I don't know if w~ ~v~n hav~ to talk about going ov~r to th~ din~r
and ov~rf1owing b~hind that.
MRS. COLLARD-Stat~d (TAPED TURNED) parking spac~ shall b~ r~quir~d as provid~d
for ~ach us~.
MR. CARR-Stat~d right, but this is two buildings, now w~'r~ in troub1~.
MRS. COLLARD-Ask~d, isn't th~ propos~d offic~ and th~ din~r conn~ct~d?
MR. DANIELS-Stat~d no.
MRS. COLLARD-Stat~d th~y' r~ two s~parat~ buildings, so you just n~~d it for th~
on~ building th~n.
MR. DANIELS-Stat~d if I n~~d~d mor~ parking spac~, I could go n~xt door to th~
church and t~ll th~m I hav~ to r~c1aim my lawn. I could probably park four cars
on th~ lawn and just cut th~ir lawn out.
MRS. GOETZ-Stat~d what about parking in th~ back, though. I know you m~ntion~d
th~ g~nt1~man didn't want to hav~ his driv~way b1ock~d, but 1ik~ if you said B~auty
Shop parking in r~ar. I m~an it s~~ms mor~ practical.
MR. DANIELS-Stat~d if w~ ~v~r thought w~ would n~~d that, you know, w~ could us~
th~ back, but w~ do, in th~ wint~r tim~, w~ try to push most of th~ snow back
th~r~ and k~~p it out from th~ front so W~ don't hav~ any in th~ front. Th~ Town
r~a11y puts a lot of snow and a lot of ridg~s of ic~ and slush in front of, all
th~ way across th~r~, you know. Th~ way th~ t~l~phon~ po1~ sits, to k~~p that
c1~an, th~y'v~ usually push~d it in th~ back and push~d it way back of th~ din~r
to g~t it all out of th~ way.
MR. TURNER-Ask~d, how many p~op1~ would b~ ~mp1oy~d th~r~?
MR. DANIELS-Stat~d just on~ op~rator, as far as I know.
MR. TURNER-Ask~d, on~ op~rator and two chairs?
MRS. GOETZ-Stat~d on~ chair.
MR. TURNER-Stat~d on~ chair.
MR. DANIELS-Stat~d now th~ oth~r girls that w~r~ in th~r~ b~for~, th~y w~r~ my
cousins, that op~rat~d it. Th~r~ was two of th~m, two op~rators, and th~y had
two chairs and th~y w~r~ th~r~ 10 y~ars at that Pink Vanity shop.
MR. SHEA-Ask~d, nothing is b~ing op~rat~d, at th~ pr~s~nt tim~, in th~r~?
MR. DANIELS-Stat~d w~ll, up till D~c~mb~r 31st. Th~y would hav~ b~~n in th~r~
on the 10th of January if th~y sign~d a l~as~ on January 1st.
MR. SHEA-Ask~d, and th~ driv~way l~ading to th~ parking spac~ b~hind th~ building,
is that, at all tim~s, cl~ar?
21
MR. DANIELS-Stat~d th~ man driv~s back th~r~ at night and parks.
MR. SHEA-Ask~d, ~v~n if all four parking spac~s w~r~ to b~ utiliz~d at th~ sam~
tim~, th~r~ is still acc~ss.
MR. DANIELS-Stat~d y~s.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING
CORRESPONDENCE
NONE
MR. TURNER-Stat~d this is consid~r~d a prof~ssiona1 occupation. It's not an a110w~d
us~. I think it's ~vid~nt, from th~ list of nam~s h~'s got h~r~, that a r~tai1
busin~ss is not going to surviv~ in that building and if h~ can't r~a1iz~ a r~turn
on it, h~'s losing mon~y.
MR. KELLEY-Stat~d it's diff~r~nc~, th~n, is that it's a prof~ssiona1 offic~ rath~r
than an offic~ building.
MR. TURNER-Stat~d prof~ssiona1 occupation, b~autician is list~d....
MR. KELLEY-Ask~d, what zon~ do~s prof~ssiona1 offic~ fall und~r?
MRS. COLLARD-Stat~d off th~ top of my h~ad, Highway Comm~rcia1.
MR. DANIELS-Stat~d it was my und~rstanding, wh~n I w~nt ov~r all this stuff with
Pat, if I had had an offic~ in th~r~, at th~ tim~, this wouldn't b~ n~~d~d b~caus~
it would hav~ b~~n c1assifi~d as an offic~ alr~ady. Wh~n you' r~ Ordinanc~ took
~ff~ct, I didn't hav~ an offic~ in th~r~, I had r~tai1 sa1~s, so that's why....to
hav~ this, so th~r~'s n~v~r b~~n a ruling on~ way or th~ oth~r on it.
MR. TURNER-Stat~d CR zon~ is prof~ssiona1 offic~.
MRS. COLLARD-Stat~d I think Highway Comm~rcia1 as w~ll.
MR. TURNER-Stat~d y~s, Highway Comm~rcia1.
chang~d it to Comm~rcia1 R~sid~ntia1.
That us~d to b~ Highway Comm~rcia1,
MR. KELLEY-Stat~d that's b~caus~ all thos~ sing1~ family hous~s...probab1y chang~.
MR. TURNER-Stat~d W~ though w~ could s~~ what's coming down th~ road, that's why
w~ did what w~ did.
MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 10-1990 DON DANIELS, Introduc~d by Susan Go~tz
who mov~d for its adoption, s~cond~d by Char1~s Sicard:
I don't think a r~asonab1~ r~turn is possib1~ if th~ land is us~d as zon~d, th~
Comm~rcial R~sid~ntia1. I think th~ circumstanc~s of this lot ar~ uniqu~ and
not du~ to th~ unr~asonab1~n~ss of th~ Ordinanc~. Th~r~ is no adv~rs~ ~ff~ct
on th~ n~ighborhood charact~r and this would b~ a varianc~ to allow a prof~ssiona1
offic~ us~. A short EAF has b~~n submitt~d and th~r~ s~~ms to b~ no n~gativ~
impact.
Duly adopt~d this 21st day of F~bruary, 1990, by th~ following vot~:
AYES: Mr. K~ll~y, Mr. Sh~a, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Go~tz, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turn~r
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Egg1~ston
AREA VARIANCE NO. 11-1990 TYPE II CR-15 AVIATION ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORP. CARL
R'S CAFE MAIN STREET (CORINTH ROAD), SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF
CORINTH ROAD AND ADIRONDACK NORTHWAY (I87-EXIT 18) FOR EXPANSION OF THE RESTAURANT
THAT WILL NOT MEET THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP
NO. 135-2-5 LOT SIZE: 1+ ACRES SECTION 4.020 1
22
MALCOLM O'HARA, BARTLETT, PONTIFF, STEWART, RHODES & JUDGE, P.C., PRESENT
MR. TURNER-Stated let the record show that I have a conflict of interest with
this application and Mrs. Goetz will chair the application.
MR. O'HARA-Stated my name's Malcolm O'Hara from Bart1ettlPontiff and I'm
representing the applicant. The State of New York is being exceedingly useful
by doing nothing in this case. They own that property. They have indicated to
us, through their silence, that they have no objection to this application and
their property, in effect, ...the Ordinance by providing the necessary buffer
or setback from the building to the property line. I should note that there is
also pending, in connection with this application, a site plan review, which will
go before the Planning Board as is required under the Ordinance, so my application
is addressed solely to the area variance. The existing building is on or near
the lot line and the shaded area that you see here, is the area that's effected
by this application. It would extend along the existing setback line, preexisting,
nonconforming setback line, for approximately 15 or so feet and that is the crux
of this application, that very minor line. This area will be a kitchen expansion
of approximately 500 square feet. The other addition, which is going before the
Planning Board for the site plan review, is the proposed addition of the dining
area. I think that you'd all agree that the improvements in this particular site
over the last few years have benefited the Town. This was, essentially, a truck
stop and it's now a very popular spot for all members of the community to go
for. . all meals. The general appearance of the property is much enhanced over
the last few years and this proposal is in keeping with that. If we were able
to acquire the parcel from the State of New York, we would not need this variance
application and diligent attempts have been made to do that, but we have no way
of knowing when or if that may occur. So, we're seeking only to continue the
building along this existing line by petition, expand the petition for the safety
of the employees so they have sufficient room to prepare the food.
MRS. GOETZ-Stated ok, now, Joyce Eggleston lives off, she lives on .. . Road which
is off Big Boom Road and she cou1dn I t be here tonight so she wanted me to just
bring up a few of her questions. She wondered about the septic always being ripped
up in the back.
MR. O' HARA-Stated that's going to be addressed at the Planning Board and you'll
see, on the map I've attached, Curt Dybas from Cushing and Dybas has prepared
very detailed sketches of the septic and drainage system on that lot and how this
is going to impact on that and that's one of the reasons why this has to go to
the Planning Board and, again, I am not in a position to answer those things.
Curt Dybas will be addressing those issues.
MRS. GOETZ-Stated another one of the concerns was visibility of people coming
out of Carl R's in the back. She said, like, so many out of town people that
they may not realize how busy Big Boom Road is and she had mentioned something
about a fence, to me, but when I did the site inspection I didn't see any fence.
MR. O'HARA-Stated there's no fence in that area, off Big Boom Road.
MRS. GOETZ-Stated right, you know, where the trash compactor is.
CARL DESANTIS PRESENT
MR. DESANTIS-Stated I'm Carl Desantis, Chairman of the Board of Aviation Road
Development Corp. The application says President, but I got moved up. There's
an enclosure there, behind the compactor. That area, the compactor is enclosed
and if it weren't enclosed, instead of seeing an enclosure, you'd see the compactor.
So, it's not much bigger.
MRS. GOETZ-Asked, will the compactor be moved once you expand the kitchen?
MR. DESANTIS-Stated yes, it will.
MRS. GOETZ-Asked where will it be?
MR. DESANTIS-Stated it's te:mporary, so we have:n't shown it on here(referring to
map), but it will be right back in he:re:. In this area he:re:.
MRS. GOETZ-Aske:d, and that won't block the: visibility.
23
MR. DESANTIS-Stat~d I don't think so b~caus~ cars can't start till th~y com~ h~r~
and th~ curb cut is way out h~r~. With this n~w sit~ plan r~view, we're changing,
w~'r~ putting in curb cuts. Now, there is nothing, this is wide open, so the
cars can come out like this. They won't b~ able to do that. Now, they're going
to hav~ to come out here. This is the new septic syst~m. It I s going out for
bid next week. It's been approved, I believe, by the Town and the State.
MRS. GOETZ-Asked, so you'll have more parking where now your septic, all those
little ...
MR. DESANTIS-Stated yes.
MRS. GOETZ-Stated well, that would seem to be an improvement then, to pulling
out on to Big Boom Road.
MR. DESANTIS-Stated yes, we think so. We occasionally get trailer trucks in her~.
Now these curb cuts will probably eliminate that and they aren't customers. They
just drop their trai1~rs and go, in the middle of the night som~. That'll give
us mor~ parking for our customers.
MR. SHEA-Stated if you're going to be expanding the back of the restaurant out
and, as Mr. Desantis said, the trash compactor is going to then be moved closer
to the road, at least in the diagrams that I have, from what I can see th~r~,
it would appear to m~, it would raise a question with me that that trash compactor
which, in trying to conceal it in any fashion, is not the most sightly of devices
is going to be that much closer to the road and I know we're discussing the s~tbacks
with regards to the building its~lf, but what you' re ~ssentially doing is moving
th~ trash compactor that much closer to the road.
MR. O'HARA-Stated when we filed this application,
Desantis said, the location of th~ trash compactor
I don't know that it is, as w~ speak, accurate.
I don't believe that, as Mr.
has been precisely ~stab1ished.
MR. SHEA-Asked, but would you agree with m~ that, if it wer~ to be even as it's
diagramed now, but it would be in a very sensitive ar~a in a sensitive place,
very close to the road, where people could see it and not, aesthetically, be the
most p1~asing thing.
MR. DESANTIS-Stated we'll enclose it the same way, with the fenc~.
MR. CARR-Ask~d, Mr. D~santis, wher~ is it located now? Is it 10cat~d where it's
located on the map right now?
MR. DESANTIS-Stated yes. The compactor now, is right here and it's a very small
unit. It's about 6 square feet and what we'll do is, we'll put it h~re.
MR. CARR-Stated so, basically you're moving it south?
MR. DESANTIS-Stated yes, south, you're right.
MRS. GOETZ-Stated so you're saying it wouldn't be a problem because you're now
putting in road cuts.
MR. DESANTIS-Stat~d yes. Before the cars, this is the existing building, the
cars could go out this way. Now, they have to come back over here and this is
all wide open so the little 6 foot enclosure for the compactor, and I don't think
it'll have an impact on the visibility of this road at all.
MR. SHEA-Stated I'm not talking about the visibility because I think the curb
cuts do efficiently control the traffic and make it a safer way to exit the parking
lot, but I, on the site inspection, took a look at where the trash compactor is
now and, again, it is a popular eating establishment, Big Boom Road is getting
more and more traffic now. They're going to be improving the parking in back
so there's going to be more people in the back by the increased seating capacity
of the restaurant and my only objection is, not infringing or reducing the
visibility of people pulling out, but the basic aesthetics of having that trash
compactor that much more close to the road than it is now. I didn't pace it off,
but it's going to be very, very close to the road~ if it is kept as you have it
diagramed now. If you can find another place for it, then it won't be right behind
the kitchen eith~r.
24
MR. DESANTIS-Stated it should
about 30 feet from the road.
come back here, maybe it would
It'll be enclosed with a fence.
be behind the kitchen, that's
If you look at this 29 foot
drop down to about 26 feet, but
It will not be open.
the idea. It'll be
dimension here:, you
it will be enclosed.
MR. CARR-Asked, those circles near it, are those p1antings?
MR. DESANTIS-Stated yes.
MR. CARR-Stated ok, so it will be behind some sort of p1antings.
MR. DESANTIS-Stated yes, there'll be some shrubbery along that area.
MR. CARR-Stated that's before the Planning Board, that goes to the Planning Board.
MR. GORALSKI-Stated the:y will address the location of the dumpster.
MR. GOETZ-Asked, the: plantings aren't there now, right?
MR. DESANTIS-Stated no, well, the:re is some along the side of the building. This
is... We won't be doing that so, we will put planting in here as soon as we,
you know, we have to acquire the land from the State, but e:ven without this, we
have enough green area, according to Curt Dybas. We have to get the variance
before we can go before the Planning Board.
MR. SICARD-Stated Carl, it seems to me: that I read some place about some waterlines
running through the parking lot.
MR. DESANTIS-Stated drainage lines.
MR. SICARD-Aske:d, drainage 1ine:s?
MR. DESANTIS-Stated yes, there:'s a drainage easement, here it is right here, and
you can pave over it, you just can't build on it and we can run our sewer lines
through it. This has all been investigated by Mr. McClenithan.
MR. SICARD-Stated that would be available to those who own the lines...
MR. DESANTIS-Stated it's not waterline, it's a drainage ditch from the Northway
over to where e:ver it goes.
MR. SICARD-Asked, did you, ...for your parking lot?
MR. O'HARA-Stated actually, Curt mentioned it to me:.
MR. KELLEY-Stated now, I guess, two things. One:, what is the: actual distance
that this new building is going to be from the property.
MR. O'HARA-Stated well, from the property line, it's shown on the map that the
existing building is within a foot or two of the property line. This is going
to proje:ct on the same parallel with the property line. The property line goes
back practically on the same parallel as the building.
MR. KELLEY-Stated the other thing that I think you have to address, I'm sure you
can, but I don't know that you'd stated it is, why you have to put this particular
building in this particular location.
MR. O'HARA-Stated well, the kitchen is located next to the kitchen addition, the
building has existed, prior to this new ordinance, in that condition. It would
be extreme practical difficulty, at this point, to relocate the entire kitchen
within the building. You have to, essentially, start all over again with the
design of the building. The building was massively renovated just since 1987.
I think for the benefit of... This is a relatively small addition in that kitchen,
but it's necessary and there would be an extreme practical difficulty if we tried
to move the whole kitchen and redesign the whole building.
MR. SHEA-Asked, has any consideration been given to the amount of traffic on Big
Boom Road and the possible need for future widening of that road?
MR. DESANTIS-Stated we went to Paul Naylor and, I believe, the.. .has a letter
from him stating he sees no foreseeable future use because of the 60 foot right-of-
way that exists on Big Boom Road now.
25
MR. O'HARA-Stated ok, but these are issues that the Planning Board is going to
address in connection with the site plan review which, under the new ordinance,
any change in this zone has to go before the Planning Board for site plan review.
So, we just had to come here first for the few feet along the property line.
MRS. GOETZ-Stated there is a letter in the file from Thomas Flaherty of the
Queensbury Water Department (on file).
MR. O'HARA-Stated with all due respect to that letter, the Town.. . easement over
that property... The New York State Department of Transportation owns the property
and I have that well documented in our file back at the office from our contact
with, negotiations with them in order to acquire the property and it's also
documented in the County Clerk's Office.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
CORRESPONDENCE
Warren County Planning Board approved
STAFF INPUT
Notes from John Goralski, Planner (attached)
MR. KELLEY-Asked, I have a question, I guess, for the Planners, again. The side
yard, is this a side yard or a front yard?
MR. GORALSKI-Stated I think the Zoning Board has made that determination.
MRS. COLLARD-Stated yes, it is a front yard.
MR. KELLEY-Stated front yard, that's 50 feet.
MR. GORALSKI-Stated 50 feet.
MRS. COLLARD-Stated well, I think, in that zoning, isn't it 75 feet for commercial?
MR. KELLEY-Stated I looked it up for a sideyard.
MR. GORALSKI-Stated no, it's 75 in ....and 50 in
MRS. COLLARD-Stated yes, but I think in CR-15, it says commercial has to be 75
feet back.
MR. O'HARA-Stated I believe the Zoning Board, if I may address this particular
situation, at the present time, we're not a front yard because we don't front
on anything. That property in between the road and us is owned by somebody else,
so we don't front on any streets.
MRS. COLLARD-Stated that's a good point.
MR. GORALSKI-Stated he's right.
MR. KELLEY-Asked, do you want to call it a side?
MRS. COLLARD-Stated yes, it's a side yard.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 11-1990 AVIATION ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORP.,
Introduced by Jeffrey Kelley who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bruce Carr:
This would be an area variance. The applicant is required to have a 20 foot setback
from the property line and currently his existing building is approximately 1
to 2 feet from this existing line and what he's asking is to add on to his existing
building and maintain the same 1 to 2 foot setback for a distance of approximately
15 feet. I feel that there are some unique circumstances. One being that the
adjoining land is owned by the State of New York and the way that it's designed,
26
thE:rE:' s rE:ally no way anything E:VE:r would bE: built upon this adjoining piE:cE: of
propE:rty and, thE:rE:forE:, from a visual aspE:ct, thE: propE:rty looks to bE: in kE:E:ping
with thE: nE:ighborhood. If thE: applicant WE:rE: to strictly adhE:rE: to our Zoning
OrdinancE:, hE: would havE: to totally renovatE: thE: kitchE:n arE:a of this E:xisting
rE:staurant and, basE:d upon E:xtE:nsivE: rE:novations which took placE: not too long
ago, this would bE: a major undE:rtaking and a difficulty to thE: ownE:r. Also, I
don't fE:E:1 that this particular addition that wE:'rE: giving thE: variancE: for would
bE: dE:trimE:nta1 to thE: ordinancE: or thE: nE:ighborhood. Also, this would not bE:
dE:trimE:ntal to public facilitiE:s and, in fact, with thE: plan that was givE:n to
us, it may improvE: parking and traffic flow. I would likE: to add that this is
a TypE: II action and no SEQRA is rE:quirE:d.
Duly adoptE:d this 21st day of FE:bruary, 1990, by thE: following votE::
AYES: Mr. KE:11E:Y, Mr. ShE:a, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. GOE:tz, Mr. Carr
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Egg1E:ston
ABSTAINED: Mr. TurnE:r
On motion mE:E:ting was adjournE:d.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
ThE:odorE: TurnE:r, Chairman
27
.
~,
-
'-/
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
PI~nn¡""g Department
-NOTE TO FILE-
Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner
Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner
Date: February 16, 1990
By: Stuart G. Baker
-L Area Variance
Use Variance
- Sign Variance
== Interpretation
SubdiYisiOD: Sketch
- ,
Site Plan Reflew
== Petition far a Change of Zone
Freshwater Wet1aDd8 Permit
Prelim .
- mary,
FiDal
Other:
Application Number:
Area Variance No. 6-1990
Applicant'. Name:
Bvron B. Rist
MeetiDg Date:
Februarv 21. 1990
............................................................................................
No new informat ion was submitted by the applicant this month. The
applicant has informed the Planning Department that the new information will
be submitted for placement on the March Agenda.
SB/pw
.
.
----,-_.~-
-
"
-
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:
February 15. 1990
By:
Stuart Baker
-L Area Variance
Use Variance
- Sign Variance
== Interpretation
Subdi.ïsioa: Sketch, _ Preliminary,
Site P1aD Rmew -
- Petition fer a Change of Zone
- Freshwater Wet1aDd8 Permit
FiDal
Other:
Application Number:
Area Variance No. 9-1990
Applicant's Name:
Paul Corde¡:;
Meeting Date:
February 21, 1990
............................................................................................
The applicant is seeking an area variance in order to create two lots of
approximately 1/8 acres each. The zoning for this neighborhood is SFR-IA.
This variance request is obviously substantial in relation to the lot size
requirements.
The G1enwood/Windsor Avenue
Increasing the density further
neighborhood appearance and could
services such as utilities.
neighborhood is already densely populated.
would only further enhance the crowded
potentially have an adverse impact on public
The applicant already has two uses on the property. Practical difficulty
by economic hardship must be demonstrated by the applicant.
SBlpw
;
·
-
-
-'"
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
PI:ann;ng Department
· NOT E T 0 F I L E. ·
Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner
Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner
Date:
Februarv 15. 1990
By:
Stuart G. Baker
Area Variance
X Use Variance
- Sign Variance
== Interpretation
Other:
SubdiYisioa: Sketch, _ Preliminary,
Site Plan Rmew
- Petition for a ChaDge of Zone
- Freshwater Wet1aDdø Permit
FiDal
Application Number: Use Variance No. 10-1990
Applicant's Name: Don Daniels
MeetiDg Date: February 2 I . 1990
............................................................................................
The applicant would like to use a small building on his property as a
professional office.
According to the information provided in the application submitted, the
applicant appears to meet all of the criteria listed in Article 10 of the
Zoning Ordinance.
A Use Variance should not adversely affect the neighborhood character.
It should be noted that the structure in question does fit the definition
of a office building unde.r Article 2 of the Zoning Ordinance. If it is
considered to be an office building, no use variance is needed since it is an
allowable use in a CR-IS zone.
SBlpw
,.
-------.
-
.'
-
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:
By:
Februarv 20. 1990
John Goralski
x Area Variance
Use Variance
- Sign Variance
== Interpretation
Other:
Subdi'riaioa: Sketch, _ Pre1imiDary.
Site Plan Review -
- Petition for a ChaDge of Zone
- Freshwater WetlaDds Permit
Final
Applicant'. Name:
Area Variance No. 11-1990
Aviation Road Deve10Dment CorD.
Februarv 21 . 1990
Application Number:
MeetiDg Date:
............................................................................................
In granting an Area Variance the Board must find that all of the
circumstances listed in Section 10.040 exist.
It does not appear, from the information provided, that there are special
conditions applying to this site that would deprive the applicant of
reasonable use of the property if the Zoning Ordinance were strictly applied.
The applicant currently has reasonable use of the property. Furthermore, the
existing building could be expanded without encroaching on the setback
requirements.
This proposal would not be detrimental to the Ordinance or to other
property in the zone. Theparce 1 on the corner of Corinth Road and Big Boom
road makes the building appear to be setback the required distance. The
corner lot could not be developed without several variances.
If this addition is constructed, it may impact public facilities in the
form of the intersect ion of Big Boom Road and Corinth Road. If more trips are
generated because of this addition the level of service of this intersection
will decrease.
JGlpw
--.---