Loading...
1990-03-28 QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING KARCH 28TH, 1990 INDEX Sign Varianc~ No. 19-1990 Ar~a Varianc~ No. 20-1990 Ar~a Varianc~ No. 21-1990 Sign Varianc~ No. 22-1990 Ar~a Varianc~ No. 23-1990 Warr~n County Assoc. of Realtors 2. Mike Hayes, Owner, Daggett Vending 4. John T. Whalen 8. Wayn~ P~lak; "Imperial Motel" 10. Edward John Pacyna 14. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. '- QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING KARCH 28TH, 1990 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN SUSAN GOETZ, SECRETARY BRUCE CARR JOYCE EGGLESTON CHARLES SICARD MICHAEL SHEA JEFFREY KELLEY DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY-KARLA CORPUS ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-PAT COLLARD PLANNER-JOHN GORALSKI CORRECTION OF MINUTES: February 21st, 1990: Page 5, third sentence from bottom, where it says "Mr. Stewart Stated it is now", sib Mr. Turner; Page 9, middle of the page, where it says Mr. Stewart, second line down, septic system sib sewer system; Page 11, on Motion to Approve Area Variance 1442, sixth sentence down, where it says 36 feet at its closest part of the house to the, sib shoreline, not door; Page 7, at the bottom of the page, where Mrs. Goetz is speaking, the last sentence says "It's like nature" sib major; same page, middle of the page where Mrs. Goetz is speaking, where it says Town Council, sib Town Counsel; Page 12, down where Mr. Kelley is speaking, discussion of the variances, just before Area Variance No. 9-1990, "Mr. Kelley Stated he agreed to it, sO I guess yes, he should", there was a question about the following paragraph, specifically where it says "variance recorded approval", it was discussed: MRS. GOETZ-That part about the variance recorded approval in the County Clerk's Office? MR. TURNER-That was in relation to the holding tank. MRS. GOETZ-Right, but, I mean, the way that's worded. MR. TURNER-Yes, I know. MRS. GOETZ-It just doesn't sound right. I just want to make sure we get across the idea that we restricted that use of that house on the property to seasonal use. Isn't that what we wanted recorded in the County Clerk's Office? MR. TURNER-Yes. The fact that it was seasonal use and the fact that it was a holding tank associated with a seasonal use. MRS. GOETZ-So that if they tried to sell the property, then the potential owner would know that there were restrictions on it? MR. TURNER-Right. MRS. GOETZ-So, how do we change that? MR. TURNER-I think you can go right back to the tape and pick that up. MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBBDARY 21st, 1990 AS CORRECTED, Introduced by Charles Sicard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Susan Goetz: Duly adopted this 28th day of March, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Shea, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Mr. Turner Carr, NOES: NONE 1 -- NEW BUSINESS: SIGN VARIANCE NO. 19-1990 TYPE: UNLISTED LI-IA WARREN COUNTY ASSOC. OF REALTORS OWNER: SAKE AS ABOVE 269 BAY ROAD TO INSTALL A FREESTANDING DOUBLE FACED SIGN MADE FROM ~ INCH MEDEX, OVERALL SIZE 30 IN. BY 30 IN (6.25 SQ. FT.); SIGN WILL HANG FROM A WROUGHT IRON BRACKET ATTACHED TO A 4 IN. BY 4 IN. ON A 10 FT. POST. THE SIGN WILL NOT BE SET BACK THE REQUIRED DISTANCE FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX:MAP NO. 107-1-29 LOT SIZE: N/A SECTION: SIGN ORDINANCE JOHN HERZOG, AGENT FOR APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HERZOG-My name is John Herzog and I'm a member of the Association of Realtors and the reason we asked for 10 feet was because of the foyer to the building. If you put it on to the building, in any type of direction, whichever side you put it on, one side won't see you, that's the approach to the building and we have to move it up a little. What we felt, when we measured from the property line, 10 feet would be the beginning of the sign and the pole would actually go in 15 feet, practically, from the property line, or 13 feet on one side because you have 30 inches plus you have some space and then you have the pole and that would not interfere with the sidewalk, it would be a ways up, maybe about 2 or 3 feet up on the green. MR. SICARD-Is that sign going to be lighted? MR. HERZOG-No. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Warren County Planning Board approved STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (attached) MR. TURNER-John, does the Staff feel comfortable with 13 feet? MR. GORALSKI-Well, the reason I said that is just that, if you really pushed it back as far as you possibly could and made every attempt to meet the requirements, 13 feet would allow you to see the sign driving both ways and would still be a minimum relief. MR. HERZOG-Would 13 feet be from the front of the sign because it's facing out or is it from the pole? MR. GORALSKI-The closest point from the sign to the property line. MR. SICARD-Did you try setting it back 13 feet? MR. HERZOG-I tried to set it back as much as I could, that's why I took the line with the foyer where the post is going go in and unless then have a sign coming out, and that would be about 10 and a half feet from the property line. MR. SICARD-Do you feel it could be seen from both directions at 13 feet? MR. HERZOG-I don't think so. MR. CARR-You're saying you went to the front of the foyer and just, went a parallel line and that's where you stuck the pole. MR. HERZOG-Right. MR. CARR-John, isn't that where you, also? Maybe you're not using the same lot line. MR. GORALSKI-I used the plan that was submitted. What I'm saying is, if you put the edge of the sign that is closest to the building, I left one foot between a line at the plane of the front of the foyer and the part of the sign that would be closest to the building. 2 '-- MR. CARR-Okay, now Mr. Herzog is saying that he went right from the..a foot of that plane, but right from that plane, forward, and he got lO and a half feet. MR. HERZOG-To the sign, Okay. You take the 30 inches, plus you're going to have about, 3 or 4 inches between the sign and the post and the post is 4 inches, sO that's why we felt that if you put it at the front of the sign, 10 feet from the property line, that would be quite a ways up and the pole would be practically parallel with the foyer. MR. CARR-I think you're both talking about the same spot. MR. HERZOG-It's just that we're talking about 3, 2 and a half feet here. MR. CARR-Well, you're both talking about taking a.. off the front of the foyer and putting a pole right on the foyer, right on that imaginary line. You're talking about putting it a foot closer to the road. MR. GORALSKI-The way I did it, if you look at the plan, there's 17 feet from the front of the foyer to the property line. Assuming that you add the poles and everything to do with the signing, you have about 36 inches. So, if you take the 17 feet to the building, they have a one foot space between the building edge and the sign, 36 inch sign, you still have 13 feet to the property line, that's how I came up with 13 feet. MR. SHEA-Mr. Herzog, I would have to agree with John Goralski, in that, if you're able to move this back, it appears to be 2 to 3 feet and then, apparently, and I looked at the property, you still would be able to see the sign from either direction and then be in accordance with asking for minimum relief which is something you're going to have to do. MR. CARR-Mr. Herzog, do you have a map in front of you? MR. HERZOG-Yes. MR. CARR-Where the proposed sign is, it's in front of the foyer. Is that where you measured from? Look at the back of where the pole is on your map, it seems like a good 3 or 4 feet in front of the edge of the foyer. MR. HERZOG-Right. MR. CARR-Is that an accurate picture or should it have been farther back? MR. HERZOG-Yes, it's almost accurate the way I put it there. The reason for that is, number one, this building is the one, if you notice when you drive by, it's the one that sits furthest back. So, if you're coming down the road, you already have the signs from the other buildings on both sides already facing you, so, as you're moving, 30, 35 miles an hour, then, all of a sudden, you come to our building which is set back, the only bUilding there that's really set back, you'll miss it and that's another reason. We have the biggest lawn there. MR. CARR-Yes, but the point is stil1..setback. I mean, are those people 16 feet back? MR. HERZOG-No, they're not because they're closer. property line than we are. We are further back. The house is closer to the MR. SICARD-I think they should be taking into consideration, also, the speed limit around there is a lot more than 35 miles an hour. It's closer to double, except when college opens up in the morning. After it lets out, it's right up there again. So that still makes it a lot more difficult to see the sign. MR. HERZOG-And all we're talking about, really, we're talking about 2 feet here, give or take, and if it gives us greater visibility, because we are down.. Landscaping the area, we had a proposal in to, really, put flowers around, bushes and make it look pretty because we want a nice, picturesque place there, being realtors. So, we felt that this would be, possibly, the best spot for visibility for the public to see you. MR. KELLEY-Where you give you're sign dimensions and so forth, it says height, 6 feet. 3 MR. HERZOG-Yes. MR. KELLEY-Was that to the top of the sign? MR. HERZOG-That's to the top of the sign, six feet. It's four feet to the ground on a 10 foot pole. MR. KELLEY-So, I guess that would be another argument for me to see you move the sign back, if it's six feet to the top and it hangs down 30 inches, the farther back you go, I think you're going to have a little better visibility because your driveway, if you stood in the street, your entrance and parking and so forth is on the right hand side. With the traffic and so forth, I'd kind of like to see you keep it back, from a safety standpoint. If I remember right, the ground kind of goes up there a little bit, too. MR. HERZOG-Yes, it goes up. We have a ground, sort of a hill. MR. KELLEY-I think, in terms of a sign and the type of business you have, that peop Ie are probably going to be specifically looking for the Board of Realtors. It's not like you're out there selling hot dogs or you're trying to catch everybody going by. I think there's a little bit of a difference in terms of your clientele there. MR. HERZOG-Okay, but I know the regulations says 15 feet and I measured 15 feet and that was quite back there, otherwise I would have said, well, could we put it there, but the visibility was poor at the 15 feet. MR. KELLEY-Well, yes, your post would be behind your porch. MR. HERZOG-That's right. So, I'm just trying to see if we can, maybe even split the difference, but whatever you gentlemen think, that's fine, but as far as we can bring it out to make it visible, the nicer it would be, but I go by what you feel is right. MRS. GOETZ-Well, I feel the 13 feet is right. It's a pretty straight away there. It's not like you've got trees allover the place blocking your view and I agree with Jeffrey that it's not like an impulse item. You know, you don't go by and say, oh, I think I'll buy a house today or look at a house today. MR. HERZOG-We're also a tourist area, you know, but you're right. MR. GOETZ-I would agree with the Staff Input, 13 feet. MR. KELLEY-I suppose we should compliment you that you've kept it to 30 by 30 instead of 50 square foot sign. MR. HERZOG-Well, we wanted to make it look nice. It's a nice neighborhood. It's to our advantage. MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 19-1990 WARREN COUNTY ASSOC. OF REALTORS, Introduced by Jeffrey Kelley who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael Shea: The recommendation is that this sign will be located so that the closest point of the sign to the street would be 13 feet. The post will be placed 16 feet from the property line. The requirement is 15 feet, but by granting the 13 feet, this is a minimum relief. This will enable his business to be visible from the highway. This is a reasonable request. AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Shea, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-1990 TYPE II LI-1A MIKE HAYES OWNER: MIKE HAYES, DAGGETT VENDING OFF WESTERN AVENUE, END OF PAUL ST. FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A WAREHOUSE 0,200 SQ. FT.) THAT WILL NOT MEET THE FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 117-9-27 LOT SIZE: 50 FT. BY 128 FT. SECTION 4.020 N PAT DEPALO, REPRESENTING MIKE HAYES, PRESENT MR. DEPALO-Pat DePalo representing Mike Hayes. 4 '-- MR. TURNER-Pat, is th~r~ any mov~ to buy any additional prop~rty that's adjac~nt to that. MR. DEPALO-W~ tri~d to buy th~ Eggl~ston prop~rty that would b~ on th~ ~ast sid~ of Lot 27. MR. TURNER-How about th~ on~ that's on th~ oth~r sid~? MR. DEPALO-On th~ oth~r sid~ it's vacant and th~ p~op1~ ar~ not int~r~st~d in s~lling. Th~ p~opl~ to th~ north, H~rmanc~, flatly r~fus~d. MR. TURNER-You could t~ar down th~ ~xisting building and build on th~ footprint that's th~r~ and ~nd up with 840 squar~ f~~t. MR. DEPALO-W~ll, you'r~ probably right, but, according to my ~ngin~~r, h~r~, Harv~y Wolfridg~, h~ mad~ an ass~ssm~nt and, if you r~ad that l~tt~r you' 11 s~~ that th~r~'s a.. that I didn't tak~ into consid~ration. Th~r~'s a whol~ bunch of littl~ sh~ds, if you guys hav~ b~~n up th~r~ and saw th~ on sit~. Wh~r~ you s~~ all thos~ 1itt1~ sh~ds th~y'r~ all. MR. TURNER-Y~s, but th~y'r~ not associat~d with th~ principal structur~. kind of lik~ an acc~ssory us~. Th~y'r~ MR. DEPALO-Th~y coll~ct wat~r, th~y sh~d wat~r, that would b~ th~ only it~m that I could giv~ you, mys~lf. Right now, you hav~, actually, 1,910 squar~ f~~t, according to our calculations, on th~ roof. So, whil~ you' r~ r~ducing that to 1200 it c~rtainly wouldn't MR. TURNER-W~ll, th~ only thing is, you know, you'v~ got a r~ally small lot and it was zon~d as Light Industrial and you' r~ asking for a v~ry substantial r~li~f in all dir~ctions. MR. DEPALO-I und~rstand that. MR. TURNER-And that's th~ probl~m. MRS. GOETZ-On~ but I' v~ h~ard wond~ring about qu~stion I hav~, I don't know wh~th~r you sp~ak for Mr. Hay~s, talk that h~' s consid~ring oth~r locations in th~ Town and I'm building som~thing hug~ th~r~ and th~n moving out. MR. DEPALO-W~ll, h~ would c~rtainly put th~ building to us~, Mrs. Go~tz. His plans ar~ to r~locat~ his busin~ss b~caus~ h~ can't buy any prop~rty up th~r~ right now, ~nough to supp ly his n~~ds. H~ n~~ds, approximat~ly, 16, 000 squar~ f~~t. That do~sn't m~an that h~ would not put that building to us~. H~ has storag~ buildings all ov~r th~ City. H~ has oth~r storag~ buildings. H~'s r~nting spac~ right now, from m~, of approximat~ly, 1, 000 squar~ f~~t and h~ mov~d, just last w~~k, two tractor trail~rs in th~r~, for storag~, that h~ has park~d in th~ back of his coff~~ building which is th~ old..and h~ has buildings that h~ r~nts from m~ on Big Bay Road and down on Fourth Str~~t in GI~ns Falls, h~ has approximat~ly, 1,000 squar~ foot building that h~'s using for storag~. So, it b~hoov~s him to consolidat~ his MRS. GOETZ-It's quit~ a m~ss th~r~. MR. DEPALO-Isn't it t~rrib1~. MRS. GOETZ-It is t~rribl~ and, if h~ has all this storag~ ~v~rywh~r~, why do~s that look lik~ such a m~ss? MR. DEPALO-All th~ storag~ that h~ has is und~r cov~r. It's not ~xpos~d, lik~ a junkyard. It should mak~ an improv~m~nt, right? I thought you p~opl~ would tak~ that in to consid~ration. Th~ fact that you may look at a junkyard up th~r~ for th~ r~st of your lif~, I m~an, putting a brand n~w building up th~r~ with landscaping, it would c~rtainly improv~ th~ prop~rty valu~ lik~ 300 p~rc~nt. MRS. EGGLESTON-I'm just saying, in looking at th~ lot, I think what discourag~s m~ in l~tting th~ 1200 squar~ f~~t go is that th~ pr~s~nt sit~ of Dagg~tts V~nding, ~v~ry squar~ inch of th~ prop~rty has b~~n uti1iz~d with som~ sort of d~bris or ~v~rything from pap~r box~s to all kinds of storag~. Th~r~ is no mor~ room, on th~ prop~rty you hav~, to put a p~bbl~. So, if you w~r~ to go up and in th~ back and...say, 1200 f~~t, I'm cl~ar in my mind that ~v~ry squar~ foot of that prop~rty would hav~ som~ sort of d~bris on it and, r~ally, it's a chanc~, h~r~, to tak~ that lot, k~~p th~ small~r siz~, work with what you hav~. You can't hav~ ~v~rything you want and I think I would f~~l diff~r~ntly if th~ pr~s~nt sit~ w~r~ b~tt~r k~pt, b~tt~r maintain~d. 5 MR. DEPALO-I can respect your feelings about that. Your absolutely right. MRS. EGGLESTON-So, why couldn't you be satisfied, then, with 800 square feet and start building up that street. You're getting rid of a shack, so why not improve on the conditions of that small lot. MR. DEPALO-It wouldn't be feasible, economically speaking, Mrs. Eggleston, because the building does not suit their needs right now. It could be utilized somewhat, not exactly the way it is now, but it wouldn't be adequate, not even slightly comparable to a brand new building because I don't even know what the structure of the floor is. You know, if you put heavy machines in there, you're liable to cave in because it looks like, just like I described on the statement there, it's a junkyard. I couldn't classify it as anything else. MRS. EGGLESTON- It certainly is and why take a junkyard and turn it back into a junkyard. MR. DEPALO-Well, if you feel that way, then, I can't argue with that point, if you feel that way, but it's not our intent to keep it a junkyard. We intend to conform to all your codes. I'd say if Mr. Hayes is in violation of a lot of things, you guys should cite him for the conditions. I can't speak for a proposed building that may be unsightly. I'm only explaining the needs that he has. MR. SICARD-He could put a second floor on his back. MR. DEPALO-That's a possibility and I was going to ask you people if you did grant it, would it be difficult to put a second floor on it. You've got another request, that's how bad he is fqr space down there. MR. SICARD-John, is that within the confines of the Ordinance, the existing building to go up to the second floor, if it meets all the specifications? MRS. COLLARD-He could do that. relation to the lot size. We'd have to figure out the square footage in MR. SICARD-Is there something relative to square footage for lot size for the existing building? MR. GORALSKI-What he could do is rebuild a new building within the same footprint. As far as putting a second floor on, Mrs. Collard would have to determine what the maximum square footage that would be allowed on that size site. MR. SICARD-John, are you saying that he can't do that with the existing building? MR. GORALSKI-He could do it with the existing building if he wanted to, or he could build a brand new building, if it was within the footprint of the existing building, without a variance. MR. SICARD-I'm not saying that. I want to talk about the old building. Can he put a second floor on the old building, if it's prepared to support it? MR. GORALSKI-I believe so. MRS. COLLARD-Certainly. MR. SHEA-Mr. DePalo, the building, right now, is used strictly for storage? MR. DEPALO-That's all we intend to use it for. MR. SHEA-And the new building will be used strictly for storage? MR. DEPALO-Oh, the building, now, existing, is not being used for a thing, nothing. It's a junkyard. MR. SICARD-Pat, as a contractor, do you feel that that building can be repaired back to the..? MR. DEPALO-Totally not feasible. MR. TURNER-No, it's not feasible. 6 '--' MR. DEPALO-We either utilize it as it is, you know, take whatever space you can get. MR. SICARD-You've got 800 and some odd feet there. MR. DEPALO-Yes, but, you know, there's partitions in there. MR. SICARD-And you're asking for 360 feet in addition. MR. DEPALO-Roughly. MR. SICARD-Roughly. MR. DEPALO-..retired, really, but he's still a little active, but, according to the engineer's statement, here, you know, this is what I base my 1200 square feet on, the fact that you have now, we wouldn't change the runoff situation one iota. MR. SHEA-Mr. DePalo, I don't think it's the Board's position to comment on how someone, necessarily, runs the business, but, it would appear to me, that by increasing the size of the storage building, that it's really kind of a short-term fix on a situation that doesn't seem to be improving on that particular piece of property and I would have to agree with Mrs. Eggleston, that if we allow the building to increase in size, all that we're going to be doing is pushing the debris closer to the property lines because I don't think that that's necessarily going to disappear by increasing the size of the building with the dimensions that you're asking for. MR. DEPALO-I would argue that point, that pushing the debris, I'd say that wouldn't be a fair assessment to make, you know, if you're judging it on what. The place might be unsightly because they lack space, but I think, if you've been there lately, you'll see a big improvement because I think that, all winter long, there was no equipment laying around the outside of that building. We keep it all under cover and then rented some tractor trailers to alleviate that condition, so I'd say that the condition has improved one hundred percent. There's a garbage room there, if you make note that's completely enclosed with hardware cloth, you know, I'd say that was, more or less, conforming. It has a dumpster, too, inside, and I don't think it's, I can respect where you're coming from, Mrs. Eggleston, it has been an awful mess out there for years, but it has improved one hundred percent, the last three or four months. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, I drive by there every day and...I'm not trying to give you a difficult time, but it's my neck of the woods and I really don't see an improvement there. My apprehension is that, if we got the bigger. .on the back that's 100 feet long and the whole lot would be, either there would be cars. There's cars parked every bare spot on the existing lot and I just feel it would be the same. MR. TURNER-I'd have to agree with Mike, that it's a short-term solution to a long-term problem. MRS. GOETZ-That's why I brought that thing up in the beginning, because it was my understanding that he would be moving the whole thing to another location, such as an industrial park. MR. DEPALO-I think you might be right, there, but I think he'd still utilize the building. He wouldn't be about to put something up there that he wouldn't utilize, one way or another. MR. SICARD-Pat, does he have an interest in the property on Big Bay Road? MR. DEPALO-No. MR. SICARD-He doesn't? MR. DEPALO-No, no interest whatsoever. PUBLIC HEARING NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE 7 Warren County Planning Board approved STAFF INPUT Notes from Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner (attached) MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-1990 MIKE HAYES D/B/A DAGGETT'S VENDING, Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Susan Goetz: This would be a 1200 square foot building on a lot size 50 feet by 128 feet, maximizing the intent of the use of the lot. Using the lot under the rules of the Ordinance would not deprive him of reasonable use of the property. The applicant has not shown monetary hardship by not being allowed to build the l200 square foot storage building. Duly adopted this 28th day of March, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Shea, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOE S : NONE .AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-1990 TYPE II LC-42 JOHN T. WHALEN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ROUTE 9L TO FOX ROAD, IIDNTER LANE TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE WITH LESS THAN THE REQUIRED SETBACKS. TAX MAP NO. 26-5-32 LOT SIZE: 0.54 ACRES SECTION 4.020 A JOHN T. WHALEN, PRESENT MR. CARR-Are you John T. Whalen, Jr.? MR. WHALEN-No, senior. MR. CARR-Okay, sO the the lots are owned by your son, the other two lots and when did he buy those? MR. WHALEN-I would have to look that up for you, it was a some time ago. MR. CARR-In the 80's or 70's, did he buy them from you? MR. WHALEN-I transferred them over to brother and sister. I subdivided the land, basically, so that I could have money to send the kids to college and I turned the lots over to them..and..whatever I could to pay that tuition. MR. CARR-It was done, approximately? MR. WHALEN-Most of it was done, I would say, for the early 80' s, when they were going to college. MR. KELLEY-Guess, if I had a concern, it would be the 25 feet distance from Hunter Lane to the front of the house. Even in like a single family residential 1 acre zone, it's said they have to be 30 feet from the street. I wondered if maybe that could be..not that it's a big deal. MR. WHALEN-Let me and that's a very section is only would be, like, appearance wise, tell you a little about that, Jeff. The Town requires 50 feet small road. Hunter Lane is just a very small road. The blacktop 18 to 20 feet across. So, actually, from the road itself, it 15 feet to the edge of the Town line and then 25 feet, so, it would be like 40 feet back. MR. KELLEY-I understand that. MR. WHALEN-The reason I put it at 25 feet was to give myself a little leeway in case, when we get into a drain field, if we hit some soil that doesn't look any good, if we want to put another length or two of pipe in there. That's the reason why I put it in there, rather than 30 feet. You need about 5 feet to put another trench in there. MR. KELLEY-I think, though, that you're showing 28 feet from the house to the closest absorption line and I think, actually, you could probably be, I think the tank has to be 10 feet from the house and then to the closest line. 8 -" MR. WHALEN-It's 10 feet to the house to the septic tank and the septic tank is 10 to 12 feet long. MR. KELLEY-The way I look absorption fields, you could say, well, I add one more, but you can also lengthen them to get extra footage or whatever. You know, I look at my own house, you know, I live on Meadowbrook Road and I think my house is like 30 feet from the property line and I'm kind of like you are, the road ends and then there's a Town piece of property that comes at you from where the blacktop is back to where the property line is and I look at mine and said, if they ever came through there and wanted to plow where they owned, I mean, my house is close to the road and I believe it's probably like 30 feet and I just would like to see you have the 30 feet out of, maybe, it would be nice for yourself should they ever- widen the road or something. I don't know if they're going to do that, but I think your lot is, to me, big enough that I think 30 feet would be reasonable and I think that is, probably, a fairly normal setback in most developments. I know, in the ones I've seen, 30 feet is fairly common. MR. CARR-Mr. Whalen, Lot 31 has a house on it now? MR. WHALEN-No, it doesn't. MR. CARR-In other words, this is still vacant property? MR. WHALEN-It's still vacant. ~R. CARR-But there's a variance on them, to build? MR. WHALEN-There is a variance. MR. CARR-Does Lot 33 have a house on it now? MR. WHALEN-No. MR. CARR-I hate to go back to this time frame, but we've just done a motion, last week, based on this. Can you tell me, were these lots transferred prior to 1985? MR. WHALEN-I can't tell you this right now. MR. CARR-Because I have a problem, Ted, with what we came up with last week about lots in a subdivision kind of merging after 1985, and sO a subdivision prior to 1982, I think it's important that we have to know when that was transferred because if was transferred.. .like if it was transferred after 1985, then I don't think it was a proper transfer of the lots. It was an improper subdivision. MR. TURNER-If it was transferred after '82, it becomes a new property because it's the same motion. MR. CARR-No, because '82, he has three years. MR. TURNER-He had three years after that MRS. EGGLESTON-from '85. MR. TURNER-Right '85, you're right. MR. CARR-Right, so if, this is under the nonconforming lot sizes, what we're talking about. If you transferred after 1985, you couldn't transfer that lot, based on our Ordinance. You would have to transfer the whole, the two of them. Do you see what I'm saying. MR. WHALEN-Which two? MR. CARR-32 and 33, in fact, I have a problem with our variance on 31, if that's the case, but that's another real sticky issue. MR. WHALEN-Can you say that again, Bruce? MR. CARR-Okay, our Ordinance says, if it's a lot within a subdivision, you have three years to transfer that lot out to somebody, okay. After three years, so you have to put, if you own the two lots in the subdivision, you have to put them together to try to build as big a building lot as you can to meet zoning requirements. Those provisions are in the '88 Ordinance as well as in the '82 9 -..-' ,) ;.) I \ f'\t 'C " Ordinance and, by motion of this Board, just last week on an interpretation, we interpreted that, if a subdivision lot, a subdivision of record in '82 still had lots available that were not transferred out by 1985, and two contiguous lots were owned by the same owner, they would have to be put together to form a building lot. So, if you had transferred the one lot out, say, in '86 to your son, John Whalen, Jr., that would be a self imposed hardship by creating a substandard building lot which means that he could not get a variance on that. He would have to put the two lots together. Am I correct? MR. GORALSKI-Mr. Chairman, can I just throw one more wrench into this, and I'm not sure what the answer is. Under the Zoning Ordinance, the one previous to this one, 1982, I'm not sure what these lots were zoned. MR. TURNER-They were RR-3. MR. GORALSKI-They were RR-3? MR. TURNER-RR-3 or RR-5. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. MR. CARR-So, I mean, if you could tell me under, you know, if it's prior to '85, I have no problem. If it's after '85, I have a problem. You know, you said early 80's, but you couldn't tell me for sure. MR. WHALEN-They were transferred by my lawyer and I assume that he did right for me. MRS. GOETZ-You can't assume that, though. You would be able to provide the information, it's just that you can't do it tonight? MR. WHALEN-I can't do it tonight. MRS. GOETZ-Right and it would be better to speak from a.. MR. WHALEN-I could go home and look it up and come back. MR. CARR-That would be fine. I think that's where we're going and we may ask you to table or you may ask us to table, somebody's got to table it. MR. WHALEN-I would prefer not to table it because I'm building a house for a fellow and he's hot to trot, so, if I could get it tonight. MR. CARR-Oh, you think you coµld go home and come back. MR. WHALEN-Oh, definitely, I'm not that far away. MR. TURNER-We can go on to the next order of business and take him last. MR. WHALEN-Can we do that? MR. TURNER-Yes, sure. Go home and get it and come back and we'll deal with the other applications, alright? MR. WHALEN-Yes. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 22--1990 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-1A WAYNE PELAK OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 29 AVIATION ROAD "IMPERIAL MOTEL", JUST EAST OF THE SILO, EAST OF NORTHWAY EXIT 19. TO REMOVE SIGN, ERECT A NEW SIGN (PROPOSED FREESTANDING SIGN READING "ECONO LODGE"); 5 FT. TO 10 FT. FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 72-5-13 LOT SIZE: N/A SECTION: SIGN ORDINANCE JAMES DAVIES, AGENT FOR APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TURNER-Somewhere I think you said that sign was a conforming and Mr. Davies, Sign Number One,..square feet. MR. DAVIES-My names is Jim Davies. I represent Mr. Pelak. There are two signs, presently. MR. TURNER-Have you got a Sign Number One? 10 MR. DAVIES-Sign Numbßr Onß is thß proposßd sign. Sign's Numbßr Two and Three are MR. TURNER-That's 70 square feet, right? MR. DAVIES-The proposed sign will be 70 square feet. The existing signs are 50 square fßet and 45 squarß feßt, a total of 95 squarß fßet. MR. TURNER-John, I don't know if maybß you could answßr it, but, any way, I'm going to throw it out to you. Thß sign that's thßrß, was therß a variance grantßd for that? MR. GORALSKI-I don't know. MR. DAVIES-This is a prßßxisting sign. MR. TURNER-I know, looking at it, was that sign put up by Ruby? MR. DAVIES-Yes, Mr. Ruby, a long timß ago, prior to this Ordinance. MR. SICARD-How big is that sign, do you know? MR. DAVIES-Thß two signs are a total of 95 squarß feßt, now, but what we' rß proposing is actually a lßsser square footagß than what ßxists presßntly. MR. SICARD-But closßr to thß road? MR. DAVIES-No, and, as a mattßr of fact, it's actually going to bß 2 fßßt farthßr from thß road. MR. TURNER-Yßs, farther. MR. DAVIES-But it dOßsn' t conform. many years. Thßre's bßßn a nonconforming sign therß for MR. TURNER-Yßs. MR. DAVIES-And I think the rßason that no action was eVßr taken with rßspßct to thß prßsßnt nonconformity, notwithstanding thß new sign ordinancß and the lßßway pßriod that was allowßd, is bßcausß thß propßrty linß, about whßre the sign is placßd, prßsßnt1y exists and wherß the proposßd sign is proposßd to be, is 56 fßßt from the pavßd portion of thß road at a point where thß road kind of curvßs, it makßs it difficult to Sßß to bßgin with. Thß ßffect is, essßntially, most of the roads would gßt a 60 foot sßtback, as opposßd to a 15 foot if you'rß talking about thß pavßd portion of thß road. Wß know we havß to bß on our own propßrty, but Wß bßlißvß it's certainly rßasonablß that we bß allowed to come as cloSß to that propßrty linß, in view of the fact that we havß to bß at lßast 56 fßßt from the roadway to bßgin with. MR. SICARD-It's rathßr unusual for propßrty to run to a pavßd sßction of thß road and call that thß pro:perty linß. Is that thß actual :propßrty linß whßre your property linß goes to thß paved section of thß road? MR. DAVIES-No, the propßrty linß is 56 feßt from the pavßd portion of the road. MR. SICARD-I undßrstand. MR. DAVIES-The Town owns thß rßst of that propßrty for, possibly, futurß ßxpansion and I might add, right off thß bat, in the ßVßnt that road is ßVßr proposßd to bß widenßd, thßrß's no problßm in moving thß sign back, but, right now, Wß are forced to :put the sign no closer, not by rßason of this, but by rßason of the propßrty that hß owns, than 56 fßßt from thß road and wß' rß actually moving it 2 fßßt farthßr back onto thß property and thß total squarß footagß of thß sign is actually going to bß some 25 fßet less than what now ßxists, so wß'rß actually, :probably, going to havß a morß attractivß sign and I'd likß to show it to you. MR. TURNER-We'vß got it right hßre. MR. DAVIES-Is that, do you have this? MR. TURNER-Yßs, Wß don't havß the colorßd, but we havß it. MR. DAVIES-Well, thßse arß thß colors, you know, ßssßntially, rßd lettßrs and a whitß background. 11 MR. TURNER-You're going to be on the boards on the Northway, right, north and south? You're on there now, aren't you? MR. DAVIES-Yes. MR. TURNER-You're going to be on those? MR. DAVIES-Yes. MR. TURNER-The Econo Lodge. MR. DAVIES-Yes. MR. TURNER-So that gives you some leverage right there, that gives you a direction as to where to get off. It doesn't tell you exactly where it is. MR. DAVIES-That's the difficult part. MRS. GOETZ-I'm against the 70 square feet. I think it's great that you're reducing it and the setback is not a problem, to me, you're improving the setback, by being on those reader boards on the Northway, that's a big help and I would vote to have the setback at your proposed location, but to go with 50 square feet. MR. DAVIES-Well, Mrs. Goetz, if I may suggest, an alternative is available to us, would be to have two freestanding signs which could probably say, essentially, the same thing and be 100 square feet. We could have an Econo, 50 square feet and a Lodge, 50 square feet. We don't particularly want to do that, but we could, and what we're asking for is just one neat sign that would be 70 feet instead of two signs, right together, as we now have, actually, with the Imperial Motels, with only 70 square feet and, in view of the setback, I think that minimizes the fact that the sign is going to be a little bit larger than what, otherwise, would be allowed, as well. A motel may have two, freestanding signs, but, you know, I don't want to apply that as leverage, I think the main point is that, because we have to be so far off the road, I think it tends to minimize the effect of having a sign that's a little larger than what would otherwise be allowed. MR. SICARD-How does that line up with the Silo sign. MR. DAVIES-Well, they're setback. MR. SICARD-They'd be behind it? MR. DAVIES-Yes it would. MR. SICARD-They would be behind it? MR. DAVIES-Yes, especially where the road curves there, you know, it makes it difficult to see. That sign is, essentially, blocked, right now, by buildings, the way the road is, it's hard to see. If we we're asking to be, even 15 feet from the road, from the paved portion of the road, and asking for 70 square feet instead of 50, I think that point might be more valid, but, because we're setback so far already, as I say, I think it tends to minimize the extra 20 square feet we're looking for in the size of that sign. MR. SICARD-Do you feel the existing sign, where it's placed, is a good location for a sign? MR. DAVIES-It's the best we can do, yes. MR. SICARD-The existing. MR. DAVIES-Right, and that's where the present, it's where the proposed sign is going to go too, essentially. MR. SICARD-John, can the reading on a sign be changed? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, the copy could be changed. MR. SICARD-The copy can be changed? MR. GORALSKI-However, I should point out that that is a nonconforming sign. It's supposed to come down, period. 12 MR. TURNER-But, according to the sign ordinance, hotels, motels, it's a freestanding sign, it's 50 square feet, so he's asking 20 over the first 50, 30 on to the first 100. MR. KELLEY-The other thing, Ted, I was just talking to Mike about it, and if those property line were out at the road where..at 25 feet, a person is allowed 64 square feet and here he is at 61 feet back and the Ordinance says he could have a 100 square foot sign, I'd rather see this than 200 square feet. MR. TURNER-Yes. I would too. MR. SHEA-I think the other consideration has to be the width of the property in the front of the road. If the applicant were forced to put two signs on there, I think that would be far less desirous, from an aesthetic point of view, than one sign where we might give some kind of consideration. MR. DAVIES-Mr. Pelak is here, tonight, also. MR. SICARD-Mr. Pelak, you could answer this, probably, when will this sign be lit? WAYNE PELAK MR. PELAK-Probably the first two weeks in June. MR. SICARD-I mean, daytime wise. MR. PELAK-Oh, daytime wise. Most likely, dusk. MR. TURNER-Is it going to have a timer on it? MR. PELAK-No, hand, manual. MR. TURNER-Manual? MR. PELAK-Yes. MR. SICARD-So, it will be out, what time? MR. PELAK-12 o'clock, when we close. MR. SICARD-12 o'clock? MR. PELAK-Oh, yes, when we close the doors, it will be off. MR. SICARD-Is that 12 o'clock, when you close the doors? MR. PELAK-Between 12 and 3. MR. TURNER-Stormy days the light will come on. MR. PELAK-When it's dark out, possibly. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Warren County Planning Board approved STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (attached) MR. KELLEY-Just for clarification, the distance from property line says 5 feet, so that is from the closest point, right? MR. DAVIES-That's from the actual property line. That property line is 56 feet from the road, from the paved portion of the road. 13 MR. KELLEY-So, you're saying 5 feet from the property line to the nearest part of the sign, not the center of the sign. MR. DAVIES-Actually, that is the post. MR. PELAK-No. MR. DAVIES-That is the nearest part of the sign? MR. PELAK-If we move the extra two feet, it'11 IIlëike up that difference. MR. TURNER-That would be the front of the sign? MR. PELAK-Yes. MR. DAVIES-The post would be about 7 feet, then, from the property line. MR. KELLEY-The signs 10 feet away. MR. DAVIES-Yes. There's about two feet on each side. MR. KELLEY-The post would be.. MR. DAVIES-Yes. MR. KELLEY-Just so we know what we're talking about reference there. MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 22-1990 WAYNE PELAK, Introduced by Michael Shea who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: This approval is in view of the fact that we see no adverse impact in granting the sign variance. Unique circumstances exist. The top of the building is 56 feet back from the road. The willingness of the applicant to erect 70 square foot sign rather than the allowed, which would be two signs of 50 square feet each, is taken into consideration. The applicant has agreed to make the setback five feet from the property line to the front of the sign. Duly adopted this 28th day of March, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Shea, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOES: Mrs. Goetz AREA VARIANCE NO. 23-1990 TYPE II CR-15 EDWARD JOHN PACYNA OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 40 MAIN STREET TO TEAR DOWN THE OLD GARAGE AND CONSTRUCT A NEW GARAGE THAT WILL NOT MEET THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 131-5-25 LOT SIZE: 0.172 ACRES SECTION 4.020 L EDWARD JOHN PACYNA, PRESENT MRS. GOETZ-Read application and letter from Edward John Pacyna (on file). MR. TURNER-Where does your absorption fields go for your septic tank, do you know? Do they go out in back or out on the side or what because it kind of looks like you might be putting a garage right on top of it. MR. PACYNA-Yes, I know. Well, yes and no. That's why I proposed to build a new one because I can't add on to that existing one being that the septic tank is right there. MR. TURNER-Yes, but I'm talking about your absorption pit here? Does it come right out here, like this? Do you know? Do you know how big that tank is? MR. PACYNA-I'm not positive. MR. TURNER-Have you ever had it pumped out? MR. PACYNA-No. MR. TURNER-You haven't. How long have you owned the house? 14 MR. PACYNA-Three years. MR. TURNER-Three years? MR. PACYNA-It was three years this month. MR. TURNER-Well, you know, you're proposing to put a substantial garage on a very small lot. MR. PACYNA-Yes, I know. MR. TURNER-You're asking for maximum relief here of a foot each way. Do you have another alternative? Could you go with a car and a half or a one car garage? How many vehicles are you going to put in there? MR. PACYNA-Well, I have two. I drive one and I have an older car. MR. TURNER-Yes, you've got a pick up truck, right? MR. PACYNA-After I drew this up and turned this in, that foot difference, of course you're going to have an overhang on the garage. MR. TURNER-Yes, right. So, your going to be right under that. MR. PACYNA-Right. The only other thing that I thought of was, as this is proposed, the front of the garage is facing west. MR. TURNER-Yes, right. MR. PACYNA-If I moved that garage so it faced north and in the middle of that lot, as in, right now, it's in the corner, move it so it could be 10 feet On each side. MR. SICARD-The only problem there you might get into your septic fields. MR. TURNER-You're going to get into your septic fields. MR. PACYNA-From the back of the lot to the end of the garage, there's 50 feet. So, if I went 24 feet deep, that still gives me close to 25 feet and then there's approximately 6 or 7 feet where a vent or whatever is coming up through the ground. That's, right now, where this is. MR. SICARD-Most of those houses in that area are pretty tight. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. PACYNA-Yes, they are. It is a small lot, but it's not feasible to do anything with that one that's there. MR. TURNER-Could you live with a smaller garage and still accomplish the same thing, do everything you want? MR. PACYNA-How small. MR. TURNER-A car and a half Or something. You've got a two car garage there now. MR. PACYNA-Well, if I proposed it the new way, putting in the middle of the lot and came out 24 feet, would that be a problem. I go the 28 long and I have 50 feet there to play with. So, I have 10 on each side. MR. SICARD-But then, it would interfere with the septic system. MR. PACYNA-I don't feel that it MR. SICARD-But you don't know where it is. MR. PACYNA-No, I know where that, I have an approximate idea where it is. As far as where it drains and all that, I don't know if it drains out or if it drains to the side. MR. TURNER-Is it a tank or is it just a drywell? MR. PACYNA-It's a tank. 15 MR. TURNER-You don't know how many runs are off it? MR. PACYNA- I'm going to say, when I bought the house, they told me that there was some kind of a leach field of some kind directly north from that for laundry, things like that. MR. TURNER-Yes, that's off by itself. MR. PACYNA-Right. Now, whether that drains that way too MR. TURNER-It probably does, it probably drains...now. MR. PACYNA-Well, if that was the case, it would drain toward the side. MR. TURNER-It might even be a pit. MR. PACYNA-I'm not sure what it is. MR. EGGLESTON-I was noticing on the lot right in back of you there was an above ground swimming pool that was right up to the line, pretty close. Was that there when you bought the property? MR. PACYNA-Yes, it was. MRS. EGGLESTON-It was there. So, it's been there a lot. Isn't that close, though, to the line. It seems like everything back there was kind of tight. MR. PACYNA-Yes, it is. It's kind of tight. No, I must be somewhere between 15 and 20 feet. He has a little shed right there, on the line, just a little storage shed. MR. SICARD-I think the moving is the best plan, especially if you have to deal with the septic system. MR. PACYNA-The other option there, too, is, the person that was going to do this when I got ready to pour a cement path. He asked me if I would like to move that because I was concerned about it. I really hate to. MRS. GOETZ-To move what, you're septic? MR. PACYNA-Yes, because, like I say, the lot's small. MR. TURNER-You're almost going to move it. MR. SICARD-Well, if he takes the garage down, the old garage, he has a little latitude there. If he doesn't use that drive way MR. TURNER-He could come right out this way. MR. SICARD-If he doesn't use that drive way. Are you planning on using the old drive way with the..on your old garage? MR. PACYNA-Yes. MR. SICARD-Is there any reason why you couldn't move that old garage... If you did that, there'd have to be a road. MR. PACYNA-Yes, and I'm thinking, down the road, if I do sell this or if they do expand that road, you're going to need room to turn around, not only is the garage, but the turn around. MR. TURNER- I know you're like the peop Ie on Bay Road,... going to be right up to that. . . MR. PACYNA-Right, so if there's room to turn around, it'll be no problem. MR. EGGLESTON-...backing out onto the Corinth Road. I go up and down that everyday and you see people coming out of those houses and they take their life in their hands because that's the only way you can get out. MR. PACYNA-Right next to me, on the east side there, that's a single elderly woman and she's in her 80's and she has a big car and she'll wait there and wait there 16 - and wai t then~. I try to turn around and... in one lane when she's got to take up both lanes of the road and I've seen her sit there. I tried to buy her property. Her width of the lot is double and I said, that suits me perfect. MRS. EGGLESTON-I guess say, on the other hand, that you knew this when you bought this..whether it had... MR. PACYNA-Yes, I did. MRS. EGGLESTON-And it hasn't been that long since you bought it. you have had limited capabilities. So, really, MR. PACYNA-I wanted to buy a house and not rent, so I took what I could get and I got a very low interest rate and I moved quick and I was happy. The upstairs, and this is a small, two bedroom house, the upstairs is all just open and it was just bare rafters and I've insulated that and I'd like to make a bedroom up there, but I have insulation and all kinds of stuff. MR. TURNER-Why couldn't you take where the old garage is, move that garage back and move it over. MR. PACYNA-Right, that's what that other proposal would be. MR. TURNER-Move that garage back and move it over. the west. Get away from the line to MR. PACYNA-Right. MR. TURNER-And then come right on out. MR. PACYNA-Right. MR. TURNER-Then you wouldn't have to, you probably wouldn't have to p lay with your septic system. MRS. GOETZ-You mean just move that back. MR. TURNER-Move this back and move it over. MR. GOETZ-Are you talking about a smaller garage? MR. TURNER-Well, yes. MRS. GOETZ-He's talking about a smaller garage than the proposed. MR. TURNER-You've got l2' 4" on the one you've got. Can you put the vehicle in there and get out? MR. PACYNA-I don't even put my vehicle, no. MR. TURNER-No, you can't. MR. PACYNA-My truck is almost 18, anyway. MR. TURNER-What I'm saying is make..garage a little bit smaller than what you've got proposed, but move it over to the east and mOve it back to the south. In effect, you're doing the same thing. You're going to save yourself some rOom for your absorption field, for your septic tank if you ever have trouble down the road. MR. PACYNA-So, as far as length wise, as in east to west, I could go 28 feet? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. PACYNA-As far as long wise, because I've got..to play with. MR. SHEA-You're talking about putting it in the middle of the property? MR. PACYNA-Right. MR. SHEA-Yes. 17 -- MR. PACYNA-So, now we're just concerned with the depth of it. MR. SICARD-About the tank, move down. MR. TURNER-Well, you know, you said yourself, you're going to be right on the property line if you put it where you've got it now. MR. PACYNA-No, I'm saying move it in the middle. Like you're saying, 28 feet, so there's 10 plus on each side. MR. TURNER-Yes, because you've got to save some room there in case you have trouble with your septic tank. MR. PACYNA-Right. So, I said earlier that there's, from the fence, to the edge of the garage, there's 50 feet. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. PACYNA-So, if I went the proposed 24, that still give me another 25 before I get close to that. That's still too big. MRS. EGGLESTON-Ted, we were sort of of the op inion that, what if we gave them a variance on the back of the garage and moved this garage over so you weren't violating the sideline setbacks. Is that so bad? I mean, you've got to admit, it's kind of a MR. TURNER-Yes, it is, you know, he hasn't got much to work with. MRS. EGGLESTON-Not much to work and I don't see any neighborhood opposition. MR. TURNER-No. I don't think there's any. MR. PACYNA-No, I went around and asked them because I wasn't even going to bother, you know, I wasn't out to create any hardship. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, could you work with something like that? Would that interfere with the septic do you think? MR. TURNER-Probably not, but the problem is, he doesn't know where his leacharms are off the septic tank. You know, if he has trouble, he could take and go to the east and put his outlet out the side. MR. TURNER-Come right up here and sketch out what you're to do, then we'll know what we're dealing with. MR. KELLEY-You're talking 5 feet off the rear, 5 feet off the east, and 17 off the west? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KELLEY-And 28 was left to right. MR. PACYNA-Yes. MR. KELLEY-Do you think that's better or is the 28 better the other way. MR. PACYNA-No, because then you're going to be laundering, you're going to be closer to your septic tank now. See, you're cutting yourself 4 feet, plus, you get a vehicle in there, you're cutting, as far as turning around, your shortening the lot up there. MR. TURNER-It would be right into his leach field. What do you think, Mike? MR. SHEA-I think that it's acceptable to do it that way. MR. TURNER-Really, he's restricted to what he's his problem. That's his practical difficulty. admit that, but most people today have two cars. got to work with there. That's It's a good sized garage, I'll PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 18 -- - CORRESPONDENCE Warren County Planning Board approved STAFF INPUT Notes from Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner (attached) MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 23-1990 EDWARD JOHN PACYNA., Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael Shea: The pnctical difficulty is the size of the lot which is 50 feet wide. The applicant has agreed to set the garage 5 feet from the rear line, 5 feet from the east line, and 17 feet from the west line. Septic system and leachfield are close to the proposed garage. The applicant has no other feasible alternative as to placing the garage on the lot. This would enable better access to Main Street and would be a safety factor as he would not have to back into Main Street. Duly adopted this 28th day of March, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Shea, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE MR. TURNER-Now we'll get back to the application on Mr. Whalen's. We left off requesting a transfer of the deed and the time frame. MR. WHALEN-I've got most of the information and, to further complicate this, everybody better get their maps out. Lot 32, that's the middle lot there on the lot. MR. TURNER-Right. MR. WHALEN-I transferred that to my daughter in 1982, Jennifer Whalen and I transferred lot 31 to my son in 1985. MR. TURNER-What month, do you know, John? MR. WHALEN-I don't know the month, I just wrote down the year. MR. CARR-And lot 33? MR. TURNER-33? MR. WHALEN-I couldn't find the information on lot 33. MR. CARR-I think that's okay. I think, as long as the middle lot was transferred in 1982, it was effectively... MR. GORALSKI-They weren't contiguous lots, sO it doesn't matter. MR. CARR-Yes, right, you're safe. MR. KELLEY-Would you have an objection to making the front setback 30 feet? MR. WHALEN-No. MR. CARR-Mr. Whalen, was this lot transferred back to you? MR. WHALEN-Well, not yet. MR. CARR-It's still in Jennifer's name? MR. WHALEN-Well, this is what's complicated. The history of it is that, I transferred it to Jennifer. She sold it to a guy named Dan Murphy. He used to live in Albany and was living in Florida.. .back to New York again. Lot 31, I was going to build a house on for a fellow from New Jersey and he decided that he'd rather be on lot 32, so this is where it gets complicated. So, Murphy hadn't built on his lot yet, sO I contacted Murphy to see if he wanted to sell it. He said he would and he hasn't sold it yet, to me, but I have a contract signed and the reason I listed myself as the owner, I thought it would be cleared up by now, but the lawyer's been dragging his feet, so I haven't, he sent me up an agent. 19 -- -.....-' MR. CARR-Do we have procedural problem? MR. GORALSKI-Currently, you don't own Lot 32? MR. WHALEN-Murphy owns it now. MR. GORALSKI-And you have not owned Lot 32 since 1982? MR. WHALEN-Right. MR. GORALSKI-So, as long as you don't take title of Lot 32 MR. CARR-No, I'm not talking about that because I don't think he has problem anyway because those have been, you don't own Lot 33, do you? MR. WHALEN-No. MR. CARR-Or Lot 31? MR. WHALEN-No. I don't own any of them, but I was going to buy Lot 31 from Murphy. MR. GORALSKI-So, he still doesn't have a problem. MR. CARR-Procedurally. MR. DUSEK-Oh, as far as, if he's under contract with the owner, I think he has a basis for coming before this Board for a variance. MR. CARR-Okay. MR. DUSEK-Yes. I think that's enough of a basis. You are under contract to buy the lot? MR. WHALEN-Yes. MR. DUSEK-Okay, just to make sure we don't have any misunderstandings at this point, Lot 32 is currently owned by a Mr. Murphy. MR. TURNER-Right. MR. DUSEK-And you are under contract with Mr. Murphy to buy that lot, right now? You have a signed contract it's not just a hand shake? MR. WHALEN-A signed contract. MR. DUSEK-And you do not own either Lot 31 or Lot 33? MR. WHALEN-No. I don't. I have an agent form from Murphy. I didn't use it because I figured by this time, I would own the lot. So, is it okay if I buy that lot or should I have my daughter buy that lot? MR. GORALSKI-No, you can buy it because you don't own the other two. You're all set. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE STAFF INPUT Notes from Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner (attached) MR. KELLEY-Mr. Whalen, what is the distance from the property line to the south wall of the proposal? I tried to add them up, but there's like a little 8 or 10 foot jog there, sO I couldn't do that. MR. WHALEN-From the property line to the south wall of the house. 20 --' MR. KELLEY-Right. MR. WHALEN-Okay and the scale is 1 inch in 20 feet and I have the original blocked off. It's about 50 feet there. I could scale it if we have a ruler. MR. GORALSKI-I don't have a scale. MR. WHALEN-Well, here's the original, it's got the 1 inch square. 40 and I'm saying that's about a half. There's 20, MR. KELLEY-So that's 40 and a half, so it's 50. MR. WHALEN-So, it's 51, it looks like. MR. Kelley-So, that little jog is somewhere's around 10 or 12 feet, I would guess. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-1990 JOHN T. WHALEN, Introduced by Jeffrey Kelley who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: John Whalen is acting as agent for the owner of the property, Daniel Murphy. This is an area variance. The practical difficulty is that this is a preexisting lot in a subdivision which was a reasonable sized lot. With the change in zoning, it became Land Conservation 42 acres with large setback requirements. This is a reasonable request. There are several variances needed and they are as follows: the front of the house will be 30 feet from Hunter Lane. This is a variance of 70 feet as 100 feet is required. On the north side of the building, setback will be 35 feet in lieu of the 100 foot requirement, a variance of 65 feet. The south side of the building was scaled to be approximately 50 plus feet from the house to the property line, a variance of approximately 50 feet. This is a 100 foot side setback requirement. The rear setback would be 68 feet from the rear of the house to the west property line, a variance of 32 feet as 100 feet is required on the rear setback. This would not be detrimental to the neighborhood. No adverse effect on public facilities and no opposition from the neighbors. Duly adopted this 28th day of March, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Shea, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOE S : NONE MR. KELLEY-Ted, we've got an error. MRS. GOETZ-We do. MR. TURNER-What happened? MR. KELLEY-Well, when I was adding them up, I looked at his measuring of 25 and was requesting them to be 30 feet from the front. So, it should be a 37 foot variance instead of a 32. MRS. GOETZ-Okay and it doesn't change the 68 feet from the rear of the house to the west property line? MR. KELLEY-No., I'm just looking here. The house would be 63 feet from the rear property line. Okay? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KELLEY-So, it's 63 feet from the rear property line, which would be a 37 foot variance. Do we need to re-vote or anything? MR. DUSEK-I think you should vote to amend the motion and vote on it. MOTION TO AMEND AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-1990 JOHN T. WHALEN, Introduced by Jeffrey Kelley who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: For a correction of the distances in error previously. The change is that the rear of this particular house will be located 63 feet from the west property line which creates a variance of 37 feet, 100 feet being required. 21 '- Duly adopted this 28th day of March, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Shea, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Theodore Turner, Chairman 22 · ~ ~{¡1JIìiiI1ià ~, - -- TOWN OF QUEENSBURY Planning Department RNOTE TO FILER Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: By: March 27. 1990 John Goralski Area Variance Use Variance ~ Sign Variance _ Interpretation SubdiWdOD: Sketch, _ Pre1imiDary, Site Plan Reflew Petition for a Change of Zone Freshwater Wetlands Permit FiDal Other: Application Number: Si?,n Variance No. 19-1990 Applicant's Name: Warren County Assoc. of Realtors Meeting Date: March 28, 1990 *************************.*.*...*.....***..*.****........*..*.....*.***.*.*..*.*...*.......* Although the conditions on this site may not be neighborhood, they are unique with respect to the typical office building. Because the enclosed entry is 17' from the the sign would not be clearly visible if it were set back 15'. unique in the setback for an property line, It does not appear that this variance would have an adverse impact on the neighborhood character. In order to minimize any possible impact the sign could be set back 13' and still be visible from both directions. This would be the minimum variance necessary to relieve the specified difficulty. JG/pw ~ .- - TOWN OF QUEENSBURY -' PlAnning Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: March 26, 1990 By: Stuart G. Baker -L. Area VariaDce Use Variance - Sip. Variance == Interpretation Other: 5ubdmåoa: Sketch, Site P1aD Reriew - - Petition for a ChaDge of Zoae - Freshwater WetlaDds Permit Pt'eIim~..- _ -T' FiDal Application Number: Area Variance No. 20-1990 Applicant'. Name: Mike Hayes dlbla Daggett Vending MeetiDg Date: March 28, 1990 ............................................................................................ The applicant is proposing demolishing the existing structure and constructing a 1,200 sq. ft. storage building. The existing dwelling's footprint is for 840 sq. ft. The application does not appear to meet any of the criteria necessary for an area variance. Strict application of the Ordinance would not deprive the applicant of reasonable use of the property. The applicant has the right to rebuild the existing structure on the original footprint. This would allow for 840 sq. ft. of storage. SGB/pw t' ~ -" i·..·, A& ViJaø - TOWN OF QUEENSBURY P1,.nni~g Department -NOTE TO FILE- - Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: March 26, 1990 Stuart G. Baker By: --L Area Variaace Use Variaace - Sip Variaace == Interpretation Subdi~ Sketch, _ PrelimiDary, Site Plan Rmew - == Petition fer a ChaDge of Zoae Freshwater WetJaDda Permit FiDal Other: Application Number: Ar~a Varianc~ No. 21-1990 Applicant'. Name: ~Jnhn Whalpn MeetiDg Date: March 28, 19CJO ............................................................................................ The applicant proposes to construct a single family home with less than the required setbacks. The lot in question is 0.54 acres, as approved in the 1970 subdivision. The current zoning of the property is LC-42A, which requires 100 ft. setbacks in the front, rear, and side yard. A lot of this size in 42 acre zoning is an obvious practical difficulty. Strict application of the Ordinance would deny the applicant use of the property as a residential lot. Approval of this variance application would not be detrimental to the Ordinance or to the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Public services would not be adversely affected by construction on this lot. SBlpw .. ·..._.u_ ..__ .. -, - -- TOWN OF QUEENSBURY P1anning Department "NOTE TO FILE" Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: By: MRTCh 28, 1990 John Goralski Area Variance Uøe Variance --XSigDVarlance := Interpretation Subdinaion: Sketch, _ PreUmiDary, Site Plan ReYiew - Petition for a Change of Zone - Freshwater Wetlands Permit FiDal Other: Application Number: Si2n Variance No. 22-1990 Applicant'. Name: Wayne Pelak Meeting Date: March 28. 1990 ............................................................................................ The applicant wishes to remove the existing signage and replace it with an oversized sign that will be 5' from the property line. Because the property line is 56' from the pavement, the setback variance would have no impact on the neighborhood character. It does not appear that the argument for an oversized sign is substantiated. By placing the sign in the proposed location there will be ample sight distance provided from either direct ion. The applicant states that there is "....A profusion of traffic signs and signals..." in the area. I agree that this area is· densely developed and contains an abundance of signs. I do not agree that this is a reason to erect an oversized sign. In fact, an oversized sign would only exasperate an already bad situation. JGlpw f _u__._ ,..__ ~. ~ - '--' TOWN OF QUEENSBURY - PlSlnniw-.g Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: By: March 26 r 1990 Stuart G. Baker -L Area VariaDc:e U. Variance - Sip Variance == IDterpretatioa Other: Subdi.œc.: Sketch. _ PrelimiDary, Site Plan Rmew - - Petition far a ChaDge of ZcDe - Freshwater WetlaDda Permit FiDal Appticatioa Number: Area Variance No. 23-1990 Apptic:ant'. Name: Edward John Pacyna MeetiDg Date: March 28. 1990 ............................................................................................ The applicant is proposing removing the existing a new 24 x 28 ft. garage in the southeast corner applicant is requesting variances from the 20 ft. requirements. The proposed setbacks would be I ft. on garage and constructing of the property. The rear and side setback the side and rear. The lot in question is undersized for its current zoning. With the current location of the house and sept ie, any relocation of a garage ~lOuld require area variances. The applicant is requesting maximum relief from the requirements of the Ordinance. Other design alternatives with larger setbacks should be looked into by the applicant. SB/pw . .