1990-04-18
QIJEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 18TH, 1990
INDEX
Area Variance No. 6-1990
Byron B. Ris t
l.
Sign Variance No. 24-1990
Capital Area Community
Health Plan, Inc.
6.
Use Variance No. 25-1990
Stephen Britton
10.
Area Variance No. 26-1990
Florence Gallagher
23.
Area Variance No. 27-1990
John E. and Martha G.
Schmulbach
25.
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF
REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR IN THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND
WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES.
r:__
~
QIJEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR. MEETING
APRIL 18TH, 1990
7:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN
JOYCE EGGLESTON, ACTING SECRETARY
CHARLES SICARD
BRUCE CARR
MEMBERS ABSENT
SUSAN GOETZ, SECRETARY
MICHAEL SHEA
JEFFREY KELLEY
DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY-KARLA CORPUS
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-PAT COLLARD
ASSISTANT PLANNER-STUART BAKER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
OLD BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 6-1990 TYPE II WR-3A BYRON B. RIST OWNER: MARY CAROL WHITE
ROUTE 9L, 3/4± MILE WEST ON INTERSECTION WITH BAY ROAD TO ADD A 16 FT. BY 17
FT. ADDITION THAT WILL NOT MEET THE 75 FT. SHORELINE SETBACK, OR THE 20 FT. MINIMUM
SIDEYARD SETBACK. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) (ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY) TAX MAP
NO. 3-1-4 LOT SIZE: 0.85 ACRES SECTION 7.010
JOHN RAY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. RAY-Good evening. My name is John Ray. I work with Walter Rehm
together,.. .Mary Carol White. In this variance application as, I believe you
have copies of the recent Coulter & McCormack survey, all that she's seeking is
permission to, basically, extend the bedroom, one bedroom of her house with an,
approximately, 16 ft. by 16 ft. addition. Because of the location of the house,
which has been there for some 20 years, it's necessary to seek relief from a number
of specific Ordinances here. As you mentioned, it is 4.020 with regard to the
sideyard setbacks. Twenty feet is required. What we're seeking in this variance
is 10.2 feet. I think it should be noted that, 10.2 feet is also a sideyard
setback, as it exists right now, for the building. There's also a variance
requirement that there be a total of 50 feet. Again, this would require a total
of 35.7 feet. Again, it is the existing dimensions of the property as it is and
has been for quite some time. We also seek relief from 7.010 subdivision 3, the
shoreline restrictions. Seventy five feet is required. The entire bUilding,
as it now exÍBts, is within that 75 feet from the shoreline. With this 16 ft.
by 16 ft. addition, the entire building will, again, remain within 75 feet of
the shoreline. If we could move to consider the specific requirements of the
Ordinance for a Zoning Variance. Now, these were alluded to in the file notes
of Stuart Baker. Let me just expand on them, perhaps, a little bit. Special
circumstances that apply to this lot stem from the fact that the building, as
it exists right nOw and has existed for almost 20 years, does not meet any of
the side setback or shoreline setback requirements. Also, because of the lot,
or the building is situated on the lot, they're very limited as to where they
could put any addition. Where this particular addition has been located is,
essentially, the only spot that we could have an addition, save for, directly
on top of the septic system, which would also not alleviate the problem they have
with the bedroom, or they could have gone straight up in the air. I don't think
that would have been desirable. It would have stuck out like a sore thumb, both
from the Lake and from the road. If we move on to practical difficulty, which
I think is really, the only real issue that we have here, the primary difficulty
that they encountered, and Byron Rist will speak a little bit more on this, the
existing bedroom on that corner of the house is approximately 12 ft. by 11 ft.
In essence, you put a Queen size bed, a dresser, into that room, two people wake
up and want to get dressed at the same time, they have to alternate, they have
to move back and forth so they can get around the rOom. Opening closet doors
restricts walking around the bed, simp ly doesn't work as a full sized bedroom
for two adults. Also, a second area of practical difficulty, if you will, is
1
the need for an additional bathroom. The bathroom on this floor of the house,
as it exists now, is, more or less, down at the other end of the house, is small
and opens up right onto the dining rOom and the kitchen. What they're seeking,
by this variance, is the ability to put, what would amount to, I guess a master
bathroom, if you will, although this is certainly not what you would consider
a master bathroom. It's relatively small. It simply alleviates the congestion,
the traffic, and the, for lack of a better term, lack of privacy, where the bedroom
is located right now. One other element, a third element, if you will, of practical
difficulty, and I don't mean to say that this is gigantic, but it is one other
element that could be considered to add into the total score, if you will, is
the need for heat. They're. .designed into this addition, first of all, I should
start, the addition includes a closet, a bathroom, a fireplace, and some additional
area through the bedroom. Now, the fireplace, if you will, could be considered
another element of practical difficulty, simply, as a need for heat. Now, granted,
they do have electric heat in the house. What this would give them is the ability
not to have to turn on that electric heat and run up the heat bills. They want
to just put a little, take the chill off the room at night, they can light a small
fire and, basically, take care of that problem. Now, moving on to the other
requirements, again, as alluded to in the file notes of Stuart Baker, I don't
believe there's any material detriment to the Ordinance by this addition. Now,
it mentions that it should be considered whether this addition would be detrimental
to the adjoining property owner. It should be noted that, the one house, just
to the west of this, belonging to the Mathews, the building, itself, is situated
down the hill, closer to the Lake, and there is a slight buffer of land in between
the two. It will not be readily visible, this particular addition is also going
to be setback into the hill, it's relatively steep around there. Aside from a
visual impact, which I think is very minimal, I don't see where there's going
to be any effect on this Mathews property. Lastly, consideration whether there's
any impact on public facilities or services, obviously, I don't believe there's
any at all. There's no sewer here. The addition of a bedroom certainly isn't
going to make for any additional impact on the roadways or public services. In
essence, it's a relatively small variance. It seeks dimensional setbacks that
are equal to what presently exist on the property. There's no further encroachment
either on the sideline or on the Lake. This particular addition, where it's
located, is not visible from the Lake, nor is it visible from the road. Again,
I believe it's a very minimal variance that's being requested. I believe it's
very reasonable. It will eliminate the difficulties that Mrs. White and her husband
do have with the property and we would hope that it would be approved. If I could,
I'd like to turn the microphone over to Sandy Rist. I believe he can have a little
more insight as to how this came about.
BYRON RIST
MR. RIST-Byron Rist, I'm the applicant for the White's. Basically, I would just
like to say that the White's approached me, last fall, with the idea of making
their present bedroom more usable, that it was inadequate for closet space,
inadequate room for dressers and beds and sO on. To increase the present, 11
by l2, to add a 16 by 16 we're, ultimately, not gaining that much bedroom space,
but we're still adding a bathroom and we still need a closet. Primarily, the
fireplace will be used as a heat source and the need for the bathroom, as John
said, is, basically, because the other bathroom is down at the other end of the
house and, in order to get there, they'd have to walk all the way down there and
be exposed to whoever was in the diningroom and or kitchen and living room area.
With that in mind, I came up with this design that you see now. Basically, as
the minimum variance that would be required by the zoning, so that we wouldn't
be encroaching any farther on any of the existing setbacks and no detrimental
effect on the neighborhood character, that's how I came up with the design I have
nOw. Any questions?
MR. TURNER-The second story of the house, is that the main floor of the house?
MR. RIST-That is the main floor.
MR. TURNER-That fireplace...on which side, the fireplace for the bedroom?
MR. RIST-It will be right here (referring to map).
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JOHN MATTHEWS
MR. MATTHEWS-John
opportunity, maybe,
Matthew's, neighbor. I would, first, like to take the
if you give me the opportunity to look at the plot plan.
2
MR. RAY-Here's g xerox of thgt, of the main portion.
MR. MATTHEWS-Okgy, I, first of gll, want to say, I do not oppose the gddition.
What I oppose, or, what I'm very strongly in fgvor of, is g thorough check, gnd
complignce with the now existing septic system gnd gll the setbgcks. I know,
for g fgct, thgt the septic system is not up to todgy's standards. I was there
when the house was built and I live right across the street. My fgther live's
next door and we hgve been well awgre of any changes thgt have been mgde in the
19st thirty years. I helped the previous owner dig the system up when I WgS g
youngster and I remember exgctly what WgS there. Thgt is my main emphgsis, right
now, with gll that's going on on the Lgke, and the Lgke George Park Commission
hgs set rules gnd the Town, supposedly, our ggencies, gre to police these rules
in their vgrignce gnd site plgn review procedures and I would like to see this
checked up on. The second thing thgt I'd like to bring up, which I WgS unawgre
of until just this minute, in seeing the site plgn, I notice a plgin ggrgge on
the property, 7 and a half feet from the line. This gargge was built less than
two yegrs ggo. Now, I want to know how they were gble to build thgt ggrage 7
and g half feet from the line gnd, glso, that 7 and a hg1f feet should be taken
into considergtion for the 50 foot setback. Actuglly, the relief sought in the
addition is a lot more thgn whgt they're seeking, in my opinion. I think, reg1ly,
that's all I hgve to say. Thank you.
MR. SICARD-On that septic tgnk, is there some evidence, there, thgt it isn't working
right, in your visug1 evidence?
MR. MATTHEWS-We have noticed, over the yegrs,
the Bgy, along the shoreline, is tremendous.
feet high that weren't there when I WgS a kid.
the plgnt life and the growth, in
There are weeds out there, 5, 6
MR. SICARD-That's pretty true in a lot of parts of the Lgke.
MR. MATTHEWS-I know, but it's all rock. It's all ledge. There's very little
soil. There is, basicgl1y, no soil where this septic system is. It's all crushed
rock and sgnd. It's, gpproximgtely 50 feet or less from the Lgke on gn incline
of about 45 degrees. Now, you know, gS well as I do, which Wgy it runs gnd I
know whgt's in there.
MR. SICARD-Dgnny Olsen been ground there gt gll, or gnything?
MR. MATTHEWS-I hgve no idea, but it's my feeling, and I've been fgced with this
in other projects, that now's the time to cgtch these things. Whether it works
or not, it doesn't meet the up to date stgndgrds.
MR. SICARD-That's..g lot of them right now.
MR. TURNER-Unless it fails, I don't think there's anything the Town cgn do.
MR. SICARD-It's existing. It's been there a long time.
MR. TURNER-Let's Sgy you go up and put dye in the tgnk, gnd the dye ends up in
the Lake.
MR. MATTHEWS-Well, I disagree with you there, because I've been gt several of
these meetings where the question hgs come up, how old is that system gnd they'll
Sgy, well, 20, 30 years old and you'll say, well, there's got to be gn old tin
tgnk in there gnd we know that g tin tank, when it's 20 years old or 30 yegrs
old, stgrts legking and you have insisted thgt they hgve an engineers design system
or g letter stgting thgt the system works.
MR. CARR-I don't know if thgt's our Board or the Plgnning Bogrd.
MR. BAKER-Mr. Chairman, if I can jump in and clarify g few things here. The septic
system will be reviewed by the Plgnning Bogrd and, with the gddition of g bgthroom
onto the existing system, they will need to hgve thgt system certified gS working
gdequately by a licensed engineer, so that will be reviewed, thoroughly, by the
Plgnning Board.
MR. MATTHEWS-Thgt's all I'm looking for.
MR. CARR-Well, thgt's the next Board they have to go through.
3
"--
-..,./
MRS. EGGLESTON-I'm going by m~mory, but did you hav~ a qu~stion on th~ lot lin~,
last tim~ you w~r~ h~r~, b~for~?
MR. MATTHEWS-I did, but th~y'v~ don~ a surv~y, now.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay, sO you'r~ satisfi~d with what th~y'v~ show~d you.
MR. MATTHEWS-Wh~r~ it is, it is and it was nO wh~r~'s n~ar this, b~for~.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay, sO youlr~ satisfi~d that that's b~~n corr~ct~d?
MR. MATTHEWS-Y~s.
MR. TURNER-Do~s anyon~ ~ls~ wish to b~ h~ard in opposition to th~ application?
FRANK MATTHEWS
MR. MATTHEWS-My nam~ is Frank Matth~ws. I 'm th~ n~xt door n~ighbor. From what
I und~rstand, wh~n this addition is to b~ put in, th~r~ will hav~ to b~ som~
blasting don~. If this varianc~ go~s through, I want to s~~ a c~rtificat~ of
insuranc~ on th~ blasting b~caus~ I am no mor~ than 25 f~~t away from that building.
Also, th~ sun com~s up in th~ ~ast and, with that addition, that is going to block
th~ sun coming in to my b~droom ~ar1y in th~ morning, which w~ hav~ ~njoy~d.
Both distanc~s ar~ against th~ ~xisting law, th~ 75 foot and th~ sid~ varianc~.
So, I'm against it.
MR. SICARD-Byron, do you anticipat~ any blasting th~r~ from th~ construction?
MR. RIST-Byron Rist, again. Th~r~ is a good chanc~ that th~r~ will have to be
som~ blasting don~, but w~ don' t r~a1ly know that until w~ actually g~t th~re
and w~ anticipat~ that some of th~ rock, if not all of it, will b~ abl~ to b~
dug out with a larg~ backho~. Blasting is a possibility, but it's definitely
within th~ r~alm of possibility w~ won't have to. There's a lot of loose..at
that point. W~ may be able to get it out without the blasting.
MR. SICARD-How deep hav~ you got to go ther~? How de~p, for footings?
MR. RIST-W~ll, probably, at th~ far ~nd, th~ depth will b~ six or s~v~n f~~t.
MR. SICARD-Naturally, you'd hav~ insurance, of course, that would cover the
neighbors, too.
MR. RIST-W~ hav~ to hav~ insurance in ord~r to do business in th~ Town.
MR. SICARD-Okay, thank you.
MR. RIST-Can I just address th~ thing about th~ sunshine? I really doubt if Mr.
Matth~w's se~s th~ sunshin~ in the morning ther~, with the hill b~hind him.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Would you do th~ blasting yourself or would you hire someon~?
MR. RIST-No, I don't hav~ a 1ic~ns~ to do blasting..
MR. TURNER-Anyone els~ wish to be h~ard, that is oppos~d to th~ application?
CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING
CORRESPONDENCE
L~tt~r from Whit~ Management Corporation, to L~~ York, dated March 13, 1990 (on
fil~)
STAFF NOTES
Not~s from Stuart G. Baker (attach~d)
MRS. EGGLESTON-And th~ Short EAF.
MR. BAKER-It's not n~cessary to go through th~ EAF. This is a Type II action.
We did not receiv~ th~ written results of the Warr~n County Planning Board.
MR. TURNER-That was in January, wasn't it?
4
MR. BAKER-They were not sent to Warren County in January, they were just sent
this month's. Warren County did approve this application as well as all other
applications before them, this month.
MRS. COLLARD-It might be in there. It came in late today.
MR. BAKER-Is it in there?
MR. CARR-It's approved.
MR. BAKER-Okay.
MR. TURNER-Okay.
MR. TURNER-Any discussion on the application. Do you have any comments?
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 6-1990 BYRON B. RIST, Introduced by Bruce
Carr who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard:
This would allow relief from the minimum side yard setbacks above the minimum
shoreline setback. Through the evidence taken tonight, I believe the app licant
has shown that there are special circumstances applying to this property in that
the whole building is entirely within the 75 foot setback zone from the Lake and
any additions to the home would necessarily be in violation of that particular
ordinance. The home is also currently in violation of the side yard setback and
this addition will not decrease that violation in any amount. I believe that
because of the layout of the land as well as the location of the home on the
property, the applicant has shown that strict application of the ordinance would
result in a practical difficulty and that the requested relief is not detrimental
to the ordinance in that it is the minimal relief necessary for the applicant
to accomplish the desired addition and that public services are not effected by
this addition. Referencing the fact that we are granting relief from the shoreline
setback based upon the distance shown on the site plan before this BOard.
Duly adopted this 18th day of April, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Shea, Mrs. Goetz
MR. CARR-Well, the side yard setback is a relief of 9.8 feet and the shoreline
setback is a relief of, Byron, do you know how far the back of the house is from
the shoreline, as it stands now?
MR. RIST-That's what we're trying to ascertain, here.
MR. TURNER-It's about 30 feet behind the house.
MR. CARR-About 30 feet?
MR. RIST-It appears to be, probably, 65 feet.
MR. TURNER-From the back of the house to the 75 foot mark?
MR. RIST-Oh, no.
MR. TURNER-Yes, that's about 30 feet.
MR. RIST-From the back of the existing house?
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MR. RIST-Well, the scale is 1 inch in 30 feet and that's about a half inch.
MR. TURNER-Yes, but the proposed addition's about 30 feet. Your proposed addition
will be about 30 feet from that line.
MR. BAKER-Mr. Chairman, I believe if the Board were to granted relief from the
shoreline setback, based upon the distance shown on the site plan before you,
that would cover it.
5
/"~
~
MR. CARR-Can I just reference that?
MRS. COLLARD-Yes.
NEW BUSINESS:
SIGN VARIANCE NO. 24-1990 TYPE: UNLISTED KR-5 CAPITAL AREA COMKUNITY HEALTH
PLAN, INC. OWNER: JOHN NIGRO, NIGRO REAL ESTATE OF ALBANY, NEW YORK 694 UPPER
GLEN STREET TO MAINTAIN THE EXISTING TWO WALL SIGNS WHEN ONLY ONE WALL SIGN IS
ALLOWED. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 99-2-1 LOT SIZE: N/A SECTION
6.103 OF SIGN ORDINANCE
LEWIS BERGMAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. EGGLESTON-This is a letter from Lewis A. Bergman to Ms. Patricia Collard,
Zoning Administrator, Dated January 31st, 1990 (on file)
MR. TURNER-Who's representing the applicant?
MR. BERGMAN-Hi, my name is Lewis Bergman. I'm representing CHP. I'm the author
of the application that you read. In the interest, I guess, of, since you did
such a nice job, it's not really necessary for me to repeat all of what I did
say. Basically, in other words, the reasons why we did want to have the signs,
were made pretty, that we do think it's in the interest of patient safety, coming
in either direction and the reasons why we have the signs there nOw or have had
the signs there since December of '87, and are coming before you now, is because
we really had nO idea that we were in any kind of violation at all. As a matter
of fact, when Pat Collard called me up to say, did we have a variance for this,
I said, well, if we were supposed to have one, I'm sure we did because that's
generally how we do business ànd Pat checked her records and couldn't find one
and then..bàck to mine and went back to the àrchitect, he cited this thing, or
this Section 12.071, essentially, which is what he went by, in terms of criteria
for issuance of a building permit, which lead him to believe and us to believe
that, basically, with the issuance of the building permit, it was already determined
by the people who did issue the building permit, that the signs did comply with
the sign ordinance.
MR. TURNER-But it doesn't because, obviously, thàt's why you're here tonight,
but it says complies with provisions of the sign ordinance. Somebody overlooked
it on the print. When you submitted the print, somebody overlooked that sign
on the print.
MR. BERGMAN-Yes, we had no idea that..
MR. TURNER-Yes, but are you aware that, and, evidently you're not, but sometime
ago and I think it was probably.. to you moving in there, we granted Nigro Real
Estate a freestanding sign out by the road?
MR. BERGMAN-No, I hàd no knowledge.
MR. TURNER-The yellow sign, right above Càrvel Ice Cream, right out by the road?
MR. BERGMAN-No, I had no knowledge of that.
MR. TURNER-In doing so, we said that the people that were in that establishment,
there, could put their name on that reader board that's under that sign because
of that distance from the road ànd the fact that you're at an angle to the màin
road, not being able to see it.
MR. BERGMAN-I do know which sign you're tàlking about, in other words,
think of the visibility of what's there now.., there is a difference.
was not àWàre of thàt.
if you
No, CHP
MR. TURNER-Evidently, he never told you, becàuse this came before you went in.
MR. BERGMAN-As I said, we, certainly were not aware of it, of course, ignorance
is never a reason for not knowing, but we actually thought we were in compliance
and I add, even looking àt it now, with this available, I think we really were
in compliance and should not be penalized for perhaps...
6
MR. TURNER-Well,
one freestanding
on the wall.
that's a
sign and
shopping plaza and a shopping plaza is only allowed
the rest of the signs, that he's established... sign
MR. SICARD-How about the Ordinance, Ted, pertaining to establishment's like this,
being on a corner?
MR. TURNER-He's got to front two streets.
MR. SICARD-This is an unusual situation, coming from the south. I'm pretty familiar
with it and they wouldn't be going down,.. the Ordinance says it's only allowed
one sign regardless of how many ingress or egress there is, pertaining to the
location. I think that, coming from the south, you don't get a chance to see
that sign on the south. I think it's a rather unusual set up there because it
has so many ingresses and there is, I think there's four or five and most of them
located, coming from the south, you wouldn't know what was in there until you
got to the front of the building and then it's too late, you've gone by the side
entrance. So, they're not using the front entrance of CHP, they're using the
side entrance which is, again, their prerogative to change, however, this is the
way it is and I think if you've all, probably, been up through there, from the
south, from the video. . and noticed that that front sign is just, practically,
useless. I saw that, it was in the Ordinance, that was something new and it just
recently went in, about having only one sign regardless of how many entrances
on the main road.
MR. TURNER-Yes, no, that's always been there.
MR. SICARD-That's always been that way. Here's a particular case, there's very
few like this, shopping centers in our area, this many entrances is unique.
MR. TURNER-That's why we granted them the variance, the relief for the freestanding
sign out by the road and the relief under the name of the plaza, to insert the
names of the establishments.
MR. SICARD-As I say, this is fine, Ted, but, coming from the south, it's a quarter
of a mile, at least, before you get to it, before that sign.
MR. TURNER-You can't see it from the south until you turn into the video, into
the driveway next to the video.
MR. SICARD-That's right. It's a very unusual situation and I think it's different
than, perhaps, across the street, or any of the others. You go up the road, and
it's the same, identical thing. A lot of these signs, coming from the north,
are not visible and that single sign out there, I fail to agree with whoever wrote
the Sign Ordinance because, you're coming from the south, you're at least a quarter
of a mile from where that front sign is in the front. If you're going to CHP,
whether you're a patient or selling books or regardless of it, you're going to
be right up on top of it and all this sign comprised of was just simply three
initials, CHP and if somebody has an appointment, they know what CHP means. It
removes the traffic from the main entrance, if you will,..so there's an entrance
north and south of the bank and north and south of the video store, there's plenty
of ingress and egress there, in that particular area, but you don't know where
you're going. That's why I'm, sort of, leaning, toward it, myself.
MR. CARR-I have a problem with a couple of things,
land lord should allow you space on that sign,
everybody's problem.
one, if that's true, that the
which would, I think, solve
MR. BERGMAN-We do have space on that sign. I think on the sign in front, the
one in front, you're saying, the one that your..
MR. CARR-Right.
MR. BERGMAN - I think our name is on that.
MR. TURNER-Is it? Then, you've got three signs.
MR. CARR-But I've got a problem because, the patients are not the same as the
customers,..Blockbuster used that same exact item about the safety and the entrance
and we denied them and I just don't, my feeling is, I don't know how we can approve
CHP' s, unfortunately, and I'm afraid we're going to get Blockbuster back here
in about a week and they're going to say the same exact argument.
7
MR. BERGMAN-But, essentially, my argument is really two fold. Number One is the
angle of the building, which you so rightly pointed out, is such that, you know,
it's just angled in a funny way that, you know, if the signs were missing from
one of the sides, you wouldn't see it, that's, you know, and all the safety
arguments that go along with it and the second argument is I really do think that,
you know, this document that I cited is really grounds to believe that we did
act correctly.
MR. TURNER-You acted in good faith, no doubt about it, but somebody didn't pick
it up, that's all.
MR. CARR-Yes, and, unfortunately, the way it's written even if the public servant
makes a mistake, the applicant really can't..
MR. TURNER-I also might point out that there's a directional sign at the entrance
to the, by the video store.
MR. SICARD-There aren't any names on it.
MR. TURNER-No, but it says that there's a plaza there.
and black.
You know, it's yellow
MR. BERGMAN-Well, at least you're all familiar with that area.
MRS. EGGLESTON-live got to admit that, I don't go up to the plaza very often,
so, on my way here tonight, I was going to do this site review. I had read all
of the periphenalia, that I was going to look at the building and, I don't know,
I went up and down Glen Street three times and didn't find it, so, I don't know
what the answer is, but it is difficult, because all it says is 694 Glen Street.
So, I went up and down, but there aren't really signs that you can see, on Glen
Street.
MR. BERGMAN-It's tough. It's real tough and as you also mentioned, sir, that
we're really in the back or side of the shopping center, too. Now, one might
argue that we could have made our front entrance along where Fay I s and Wheel's
are and all that other stuff, but, in terms of the layout of the building, it
couldn't have worked for us.
MR. SICARD- I think there was something in there, also, on the app licant, from
what I read in the application, about the Beautification Committee. Now, if you've
been through there in the summertime, I think it's probably the one shopping center
that bends over for fresh flowers. There's fresh flowers in the front and there's
fresh flowers on the side and it's kept that way all summer and.. the fact that
he's talking about plastic flowers in his report and I didn't see any plastic
flowers there and I'm sure, that within a very short time, if you go through there,
you're going to see there I s fresh beds of flowers on both sides of the door and
flowers all along the front.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
CORRESPONDENCE
Warren County Planning Board disapproved.
Queensbury Committee for Community Beautification disapproved.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from John S. Goralski, Planner (attached)
MOTION TO DENY SIGN VARIANCE NO. 24-1990 CAPITAL AREA COMMUNITY HEALTH PLAN,
INC., Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bruce
Carr:
Strict application of the Ordinance would not deprive the applicant of the ability
to advertise his location.
8
--
Duly adopted this 18th day of April, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner
NOES: Mr. Sicard
ABSENT: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Shea, Mrs. Goetz
MR. TURNER-No vote.
MS. CORPUS-No vote. No action.
MR. CARR-What does that mean?
MR. TURNER-That means we have another motion.
MS. CORPUS-You could have another motion or this could be tabled, motion to table.
MRS. EGGLESTON-I just want to mention to Charlie, I should have put it in my motion.
He hasn't proven that it would be detrimental to his business if he only had one
sign.
MR. SICARD-It's probably true, but I still think that this Sign Ordinance needs
a little changing, along with a lot of other things.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, they're doing that. They're coming out with that, in another
couple of months.
MR. SICARD-I don't think we should penalize these applicant's because the Sign
Ordinance is wrong. . . . go along until the Sign Ordinance is changed and table
it and come back in again, that's fine, that's the way I feel.
MR. TURNER-We can table him, we've got 45 days to act. We could table it until
next meeting and hear it when we have enough here to vote on it.
MR. SICARD-I think there are situations, such as this one, that the Sign Ordinance
underwriters ought to take a little look at. If you ride up there, from the south,
you just cannot see it and maybe it applies to the rest of the stores up there.
Maybe, instead of just having that ingress sign on the bank lawn, that should
be changed with a mortar board with small letter mortar board, where people will
know, that also is an ingress to the shopping center and maybe this applies to
other shopping centers in the same way. (TAPE TURNED) Montegomery Wards and Sears
Roebuck and Albany..they're miles away from the main street, but you come in the
back of the store and I'm sure you'll see signs back there that say Sears Roebuck,
Montegomery Ward and Albany and they're only on one street.
MRS. EGGLESTON-But going under the rules that we now have, and having set a
precedent, like Bruce said with Blockbuster across the way, where we denied and
it was a similar circumstance.
MR. SICARD-Well, you probably denied it on the rules, but that doesn't necessarily
make it right.
MS. CORPUS-Mr. Sicard, if I might interject. Mrs. Eggleston's correct. Legally,
we can only go by what's currently in the Ordinance.
MR. SICARD-I understand that.
MS. CORPUS-And that, as a basis for either an approval or denial, it has to sit
right as the Ordinance stands right now.
MR. SICARD-We've had this happen before, where, later on, we change the rules.
It's like playing poker, if you don't win the first time, you change the rules.
MR. TURNER-I tend to agree with you in some sense, Charlie, but we did grant them
quite a bit of relief by letting them have their names out by the road. You know,
you can put signs up allover the place and a lot of people, they don't even read
it when they go by.
MR. SICARD-You can't read it at the speeds they're traveling at, that's why I
think we need mortar board. In that part icu1ar, down there, they I re coming down
55 and 60 and coming up the same way. How much do you see, at that speed? So,
9
--
that's a reason to believe that there should be signs on every entrance, or at
least at both ends, on both ends of the plaza. We have the same thing up to Ames
where they're back that far, but we increased the size of the signs. There's
only one entrance to that, that's a little different story up there and a lot
of these other plazas where there's only one entrance, that would apply, I guess.
If you take this instance, there's four or five entrances, from both sides of
the Grand Union, all the way down, both sides of Carvel, there's even more than
five entrances, if you want to count, that's my feeling.
MR. CARR-Ted, I'd like to make a motion to table this. Can we table it until
next week?
MS. CORPUS-It's up to the Board whether you want to table it until next week or
not.
MR. CARR-Why don't we table it until next week.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Will we have a full quorum next week?
MR. TURNER-I don't know where we stand with the members, that's all.
MR. SICARD-I think that they would go along with waiting until the next month's
meeting. I don't think that's a problem. It's been up there for two years, now.
MR. TURNER-And we've got 45 days.
MRS. COLLARD-Is the hearing closed on it, though, the public hearing?
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MRS. COLLARD-No public hearing next month?
MR. TURNER-No public hearing.
and then vote on it.
We'll review the information we've had tonight
MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 24-1990
INC., Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved
Eggleston:
Tabled for one month.
CAPITAL AREA COMMUNITY HEALTH PLAN,
for its adoption, seconded by Joyce
Duly adopted this 18th day of April, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Shea, Mrs. Goetz
USE VARIANCE NO. 25-1990 TYPE: UNLISTED SFR-lA STEPHEN BRITTON OWNER: STEPHEN
C. AND LORI BRITTON SOUTH SIDE OF CRONIN ROAD, APPROX. 650 FT. SOUTHWEST OF
INTERSECTION OF CRONIN ROAD AND RIDGE ROAD TO ALLOW THE CONTINUED PARKING AND/OR
STORAGE OF VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT USED IN APPLICANT'S BUSINESS: BRITTON EXPLOSIVE
SUPPLY, INC. AND BRITTON ENTERPRISES, INC. TAX MAP NO. 59-3-14.1 LOT SIZE:
1.68 ACRES SECTION 9.014, 9.010
WILSON MATHIAS, AGENT FOR APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. EGGLESTON-There's a letter from Wilson Mathias, to Mr. Turner, Chairman,
Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, dated March 5, 1990 (on file)
MR. MATHIAS-My name is Wilson Mathias. I'm an attorney. I have offices at 525
Bay Road. I'm here on behalf of the Britton's. I'd like to start off by saying
that I wish that I hadn't written the letter on March 5th, which, as you can see
in the packet, my request was denied and probably was a good reason it was denied
because what's actually out on that site is critically important to this
application. Usually I kid engineers and surveyors that they never get attorney's
to become involved in these applications until it's time for an Article 78 and
so I hope that no one will be offended by my drawing and rendering of the property.
The perimeter outline is based on the survey of the property that was prepared
and I don't think there are any disputes, in terms of setbacks of the building.
I hope that the members of this Board have actually gone and taken a look at this
site to see what's out there because, certainly, in my opinion, we've got a to
10
do here over, really, nothing. I understand that the neighbors are concerned.
They're here tonight. They were here in 1985. There are, my review of the record
of 1985 indicates that there was no one, other than the applicant and the people
who wanted to sell the property, who spoke positively about the variance in 1985.
I hope tonight, maybe we'll get a couple of positive comments, but, understandably,
the same people that didn't like the project in 1985, don't think it's any better
right now, but the fact of the matter is that in June of 1985 a Use Variance was
granted by this Board and the nature of that variance was for corporate offices
for two main corporat ions and also for the parking of corporate vehicles. Now,
it maybe that, couched in that language, you know, you think about corporate
vehicles as maybe a limousine or some cars for secretaries, but I don't think
that was the point and I don't think that peop 1e really, or the Board at that
time, was, had the wool pulled over their eyes about the kind of vehicles that
were going to be used there. The real questions concerned trucks and trucks
carrying explosives. That was the issue that got decided in 1985, in favor of
the applicant and I don't think that, at this point, you have any legal authority
to limit what was granted in 1985. I think that it's very important to remember
that, based on the approval in 1985, my clients substantially improved that
property, that was a concrete bunker back then, it's now a board and.. building.
If you've looked at it, it looks like a residence. They put in a lot of
landscaping. Originally, the Queensbury Beautification Committee, if you look
in the original variance application minutes, said, please deny this because they
haven I t gone far enough and, as a condition of the variance, my clients were
required to comply with the recommendations of Queensbury Beautification Committee
and, in fact, they did that and I think, we take the position, went even a little
further, in terms of what was done to make the site more presentable. You know,
as I say, used to have a concrete block building, looking like a bunker, that
was used for a chemical manufacturing company, that's what the old use was. I
think that what's there is, certainly, substantially more consistent with the
neighborhood than what was there before. In addition, what my clients have done,
and if you take a look at the property, as I did on March 24th when I went out
and, basically, drew that plot plan. You'll see that the corporate vehicles that
are out there, which are trucks, primarily, are lined up behind the building,
for the most part. They're set up in a manner that is the least obtrusive, in
terms of taking into account the neighborhood, etc. There was a backhoe, a piece
of equipment that we got there that..backhoe, that was not lined up, but was clearly
visible from the road, but it was set behind the building, sO it had to be at
least 100 feet back from the road. The other pieces of the equipment that I think
are the. .of all of this that were there when I was there, there were two air
compressors situated at the far back side of the building, the far back side of
the property.
MR. SICARD-Wilson, excuse me just a minute. I think we better get this up on
the board. Nobody knows what he's talking about.
MR. CARR-Pat, we don't have a copy of the 1985 variance packet, do we?
MRS. COLLARD-The application?
MR. MATHIAS-In the southern portion of the property line, there were three drills
that are used in blasting equipment, blasting business that were located in this
portion of the property. The compressors that were there. The two that I saw,
were located, again, over here, in the southern portion of the property. The
back hoe is right over here on the western portion of the property. Those were
the, and there were several pick up trucks, cars, that were parked on this western
portion of the property. There was also a car, just a regular sedan, parked on
this paved area, when I was there and these are the vehicles that are. .on here.
What I submit the problem here is the same people who didn't like what was proposed
for the property in 1985, still don't like it and I understand that, but I don't
think that, at this point, this Board can tell my client, after he's invested
monies and approved this property in reliance in the original variance, that he
has to do something different. Since 1985, in June, he's come in and he's taken
over this property. The pieces of equipment, some of these construction pieces
that I've talked about right now, have been on that property, located on the
property, on and off, since 1985. The fact is that we've got several, very few
pieces of equipment, really, that are in issue and it's our position that those
pieces of equipment are necessary, incidental, that they come within what was
originally granted by the variance. I know that there IS, one of the problems
in this particular instance is that once the original variance was received, there
have been some junk cars on the property that were concerns to the neighbors and
some comp 1aints were made to the Building Department and those junk cars were
removed. There was some concern, by the neighbors that certain, certa.in repairs
were being made to the corporate vehicles or the construction equipment that was
loca.ted on the
11
--
site and there is, in fact, there are two fuel drums located on a concrete pad
behind the building that were added after the variance, those..Just like a homeowner
sometimes changes the oil in his car, this is something that gets done there,
occasionally. There is no, there are nO major repairs that are done on the vehicles
at this site, because there really isn I t the facilities to do it in there and
my client's prepared to testify that, as to the repair bills that he's had, but
he's not performing repair service on his vehicles other than what any normal
homeowner might, occasionally, do with a vehicle that's located on his property.
The issue, it seems to me, here, is one that really comes down to a couple of
minor pieces of equipment that are associated with this business. There wasn't
anybody trying to pull any wool over the Board's eyes back in 1985. It was said
it was a construction business and it was said it was a blasting contracting
business. I think that what's located on this site is not inconsistent with other
businesses that are operating in the Town of Queensbury under those similar types
of uses. When there were some complaints about a log truck being placed on the
property, you know, that's beyond the bounds of what was sought in the original
variance, and that was apiece of equipment that was removed, but I think that
the three drills, the two compressors are simp ly part of the equipment that's
normally associated in this type of business and is really no more than an
individual homeowner who has a snowplow and leaves the plow off his car, or truck,
when spring comes. These things aren't offered for sale. He's not storing
equipment for anybody else. These are a limited number of items that are generally,
reasonably associated with his business. I think that, in this instance and,
again, I understand where the neighbors are coming from and their position's
consistent. They didn't like it in '85 and they don't like it now, but we're
not doing anything more, now, than what was contemplated or discussed in 1985
and I don't think that, although we're here, in front of you, now, we're here,
really because of the discussions between the applicant's then attorney and the
Building Department about possible enforcement proceedings and it was thought,
at the time, that maybe this was the best forum and the appropriate place to discuss
these issues, but I think, really, what we're talking about are three pieces of
equipment or four, there's actually five, that are reasonably associated with
his business and we feel that those pieces of equipment come within what everyone
considered to be the parking of corporate vehicles for those types of industries.
One of the things that I think, and I'll let the folks here speak, too, obviously,
but one of the things that I think has been confusing here or raises a source
of concern is, the element of the explosives. My client doesn't store any kind
of explosives on this premises on an overnight basis. He can't do it. That's
just not what's happening and so what we're talking about here are a couple of
trucks, a couple of other pieces of construction equipment, and I would submit
to you that if you take a look at this entire Town, businesses that are permitted
to operate, these couple of items are not an inconsistent with the types of uses
that goes on here and it's permitted without any problems. No one comes to a
landowner and says, wait a minute, sir, you've got to put your snowplow, get it
off of here, it's not a residential use and I think that what we're asking this
for is to take a look at this and to, basically, decide, once and for all, that
the uses that exist right now, on the property, are consistent with the original
variance and we're not asking for any more than this.
MR. TURNER-Let's start from Day 1, Zero Hour. When he came, when Mr. Britton
came for the variance in '85, the only thing that was discussed and the only thing
that ever came up was the dynamite supply business and if you look at the minutes,
that's the only thing that's in there. He didn't indicate there was any heavy
equipment going in there. He didn't indicate there was any equipment going in
there that was associated with the business what sO ever. Had he indicated that,
at that time, he probably wouldn't have got the variance.
MR. MATHIAS-Ted, I wasn't there. I'm looking at what's in there.
MR. TURNER-I know you weren't, but I'm telling you
MR. MATHIAS-What Mr. Baird said, what his notes say there is, my client was asked,
specifically, what if you can't have trucks, not just dynamite trucks, but trucks,
that's what the minutes say and my client said, I can't live with that. The
neighbors said, don't vote for this, vote it down. The Queensbury Beautification
Committee said, vote it down, but that didn't happen.
MR. TURNER-No trucks on the premises meant no dynamite trucks because that's what
he was talking about.
MR. MATHIAS-Well, you know, I think that there was more than that.
MRS. COLLARD-Mr. Chairman, on the original application, I think someone has it,
you have it in front of you? Under proposed use
12
MR. SICARD-I think s.t ths.t time, probs.bly, the Bos.rd was
corpors.te vehicles s.pplied to, or didn't apply to trucks,
like a little interpretation of ths.t.
under the impression
they app lied to, I'd
MRS. COLLARD-I met with Paul Dusek, the Town Attorney, on that, and he said that
any of the vehicles registered in the Company name are corporate vehicles.
MR. SICARD-In other words, be it a truck or a trs.ctor trailer?
MRS. COLLARD-That's correct.
MR. SICARD-I just have a little trouble with that. I didn't know that, but I'm
sure ths.t at the time the Board reviewed this and it was their thought that
corporate vehicles was probably four or five cars because, at that time, I think
that, someone asked whether it ws.s in the record or not, how many peop 1e were
going to be working there and I think the fact that there was two or three, that
we were led, probably, to believe that that's all he was going to have is an office
there. I don't know about the rest of the Board members, I guess I'm the only
one left.
MR. EGGLESTON-Well, we're at a disadvantage, Bruce and I, because we weren't here,
but I would like to make the comment that I have been at the site over various
times since it's come back before the Board and I've seen everything from logging
trucks. I was there last. .as a matter of fact, and there is a motor home and
camper stored there. Just to say it is not entirely corporate vehicles or maybe
they're registered to the corporation and I don't know that, but I don't see where
they have any relevance to the operation of the business. Just to let you know,
I know I have looked at it many times and it has been one mass of different vehicles
that maybe wouldn't be construed as blasting or his business of construction,
like logging trucks and you've moved them, now. They were gone.
MR. MATHIAS-We've moved out the logging truck and I don't think that that's a
vehicle that's going to come back, all though I think that, if the corporation
took title to it, arguably, we say, that's a corporate vehicle. I think what
we're looking to be able to preserve and, you know, to preserve the investment
that he's already invested in here. He's been there almost 5 years, with the
ability to keep those vehicles that are res.sonably associated with the businesses
that he's in and I think, as a reasonable man, I can say, if we can't have logging
trucks, then I think that's why he moved them.
MR. SICARD-Wilson, to be associated with and to own are two different things.
You. . vehicles in there to be associated with, this is probably where the problem
exists. Somebody to help him out, to do something, not his particular vehicle.
I can understand the vehicles that he owns, this apparently, is going to be, but
to have some of these other vehicles in there, I think this is the problem. He's
done a fabulous job on the building. He's certainly improved the grounds there
and done a good job there. However, something I've been hearing, repairs at two
or three 0' clock in the morning and this kind of thing it's probably whs.t' s
upsetting the people in the surrounding area and rightfully so because I'm sure
I wouldn't like it, and I don't think Steve would like it in his yard. If this
is going on or was this a temporary thing at that time, he didn't know that he
shouldn't do it. I think this is the problem. There's no trouble with what he's
done there. Certainly, he's done a lot more than s. lot of people that get into
the same situation, but it is a residential area and I think the Board over
backwards in granting the variance and that's why we all were under the impression
that what Steve was going to do Ws.s put office headquarters in there and, at the
time when I talked to Steve with the possibility of going out to the airport,
there wasn't any place to get out there, at the time, and I see, now, in the letter
that you wrote, that he's still pursuing this thing. That he plans on moving
sometime when he can get in and I know he's expanding and eventually he's going
to have to move, but we're trying not to set a precedent there for this type of
storage. Somebody else moves in there and decides to store log trucks and all
of this stuff, a lot of them. It is in a residential area. We can't forget that.
MR. MATHIAS-I know, and also there are other, you know, the Freihofer trucks and
everything else are down there, too and I'm not saying that that gives him any
kind of leg up to store equipment, but I also don't think that, in looking at
the face of the application, and I wasn't here, Ted, in terms of what actus.lly
went on, but looking at the fs.ce, what his original application was in '85, that
the corporate vehicles, with the knowledge that he was going to operate two
businesses there, that we've talked about, that what's going on is beyond the
rights granted under that variance.
13
--
MRS. EGGLESTON-I do know, from the insur8.nce field, that corporate vehicles C8.n
include 8. lot of different things. Just this week, we had, like, a marin8. in
L8.ke George come register 8. motorcycle 8.S a corporate vehicle. I've seen them
register a b08.t to 8. corporation that has nothing to do with the business. It's
just 8. W8.y of h8.ndling banks for tax purposes or whatever, but that doesn't mean
th8.t they're necessary to the operation of the business, but I think that's the
problem here, in that, the word "corporate vehicles" was used when the motion
W8.S m8.de.
MR. SICARD-It's too broad a classification.
MRS. EGGLESTON-And if things are registered to the corporation, I don't know,
it would seem to me, they're a corporate vehicle, since it was not defined,
corporate vehicle..so I'm kind of between a catch, here.
MR. SICARD-I still maintain that 8. corporate vehicle must be owned by
the...corporation.
MRS. EGGLESTON-They are 8.nd they're registered and owned.
MR. SICARD-I don't think, if he's in the repair business, I don't know how some
of that equipment got in there, but it certainly belong in there unless he's the
owner and if he's the owner I think we've got a.. . and we're getting better as
we get older and we should define these things, maybe this is a little lesson
to us.
MR. TURNER-How many vehicles do you lease?
STEVE BRITTON
MR. BRITTON-We don't lease any.
MR. TURNER-You own them 8.1l?
MR. BRITTON-Right.
MR. TURNER-You know where the problem comes, 8.nd I'll tell you... I don't know
whether you W8.nt to hear it or not, but the night that this was heard, the only
thing that came up was the question of the dynamite supply business. Nothing
else was r8.ised.
MR. SICARD-No, there was a question raised and I think we should hear.. I don't,
I was under the impression, at the time, that corporate vehicles, th8.t, just
vehicles they rode in, that didn't include the trucks, but, now that we're
MRS. EGGLESTON-I might ask, Wilson, I do know you can register to a corporation,
but certain things are titled to someone else. Are all of the vehicles, in
question, here, titled to whom?
MR. BRITTON-Yes, to me.
MRS. EGGLESTON-As Britton Explosives?
MR. BRITTON-Correct.
MRS. EGGLESTON-They are owned, by title, not just registered to?
MR. BRITTON-I should correct that, they're owned by me and the bank.
them as soon 8.s I pay for them.
I '11 own
MRS. EGGLESTON-But the actual titles 8.nd everything are in the names of either
Britton Explosives or the Britton Associates that you're
MR. BRITTON-Correct. Yes, and I have, of course, I've had to sign, personally,
at the bank to guarantee the note, but they're actually registered both, Britton
Explosive Supply, Steven Britton.
MRS. EGGLESTON-I'm referring to title. Everything has titles, now, as you know,
all vehicles, new vehicles, after, I think, 1982, maybe, 8.11 have titles, that
you C8.n have a title in one name and register it in another, sO are you saying
these 8.re all titled to Britton Explosives.
MR. BRITTON-Right.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay.
14
--
MR. MATHIAS-I see what you're getting at, but, you know, that's too easy for us
to change, isn't it, in terms of saying, if that's what that means, whichever
way it is, we'll put that. I mean, I'm not sure whether he's a subchapter S
corporation or what, so he gets, however he can best benefit. You know, that
really isn't a land use question, how he benefits from depreciating these things
and, it seems to me, it shouldn't make any difference. I think that what should
make a difference and I think that we are prepared to abide by that, is that the
vehicles have to be involved in the corporate purposes that were set forth in
the 1985 application. I don't think that we could stretch that if the Britton's
decided to get into the tour bus operations or Britton Enterprises.
MRS. EGGLESTON-How do you apply them to the motor home and the camper and the
logging truck, going by what you just said?
MR. BRITTON-Let me address that. There was a few things that, after the last
app lication I put in, Pat Collard came down with Dave Hatin and they made some
recommendations to me. There was three vehicles there that had been sitting,
two of which were licensed, one of which was not. They said to me, as long as
it's licensed, it can stay there. I got rid of all three of them. There was
a logging truck that did not belong, I was strictly doing a friend a favor. As
soon as they told me to get rid of it, it was gone within, probably, two to three
days, and has never been back. There was a well drilling truck that I had, you
know, they said, what's all that about, I got rid of that. They made some other
recommendations to pour a slab where my fuel tank was, clean the area. I did
absolutely everything that they asked me to do. As far as the motor home, I
purchased that motor home, probably, a year ago and that's the first time that
it's ever been to that piece of property and it was only there because I had a
bunch of my family and my relatives up for Easter. It was there strictly so I
could have some room to park some cars at my house and, I think, Tuesday, I went
back down and got it and that was it. As far as the camper goes, the one that
sits in the back, all of us, including the Chairman, has a camper sitting in his
house.
MRS. EGGLESTON-I don't think you can compare what you have to home, I mean, in
all fairness.
MR. BRITTON-Well, what's the difference if the camper sits in back of where my
office is or in back of somebody's residence?
MRS. EGGLESTON-Because the question before this Board is vehicles parked in the-
MR. BRITTON-Okay, well, I'd be more than happy to get rid of that, that really
isn't the problem.
MRS. EGGLESTON-I just brought it up and I'm asking a question, how that relates
to what he said.
MR. BRITTON-No, I agree with you. There's something else that I'd just like to
say, while we're here, I'd like to, first of all, commend my neighbors, because
they've all done their homework and after I submitted my application for a building
and found out how they felt about me, I'm in the process of trying to find a spot
to relocate. In fact, I have put a deposit on a piece of property. I'm not going
to sit here and tell everybody that I'm going to be out of there in six months.
I'll tell you this, as soon as I have the funds to be able to afford to build,
I will move. Now that I know that they don't want me there, and I'm not going
to say that I blame them, I just want everybody, including my neighbors, to know
that I'm not here to pull the wool over anybody's eyes. I'm not trying to bully
anybody and I'm not trying to get away with anything. I think Pat can tell you,
as soon as she came down, it wasn't more than a week that everything she and Dave
Hatin asked me to do was done. I'm involved in other real estate deals in Town,
I don't want to be known as a flim flam, shabby type of person. Anything that
we do with the explosives, I'm under the thumb of the federal government, the
state, the local people. We get inspected, twice a year. I have a magazine
facility up in Hartford where I store all my explosives. I have a facility, there,
for the state police, if they get a bomb or anything. I cooperate with everybody.
In fact, speaking of cooperation, when Mrs. Clements turned 40, the bank called
me and asked if they could park all their cars in my parking lot so they could
surprise her for her 40th birthday and I had nO problem with that, and I don't,
again, hold that against you. I can tell you this, as soon as I get the funds,
I'll be out of there. I don't know what more I can tell you.
15
-
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
GEORGE SHANNON, SUPPORT
MR. SHANNON-George Shannon. I reside at 62 Cronin Road and I also own a piece
of property at 64 Cronin Road. I'd like to speak on behalf of myself and my
mother- in-law, who resides at 66 Cronin Road, who can't be here because she's
in Florida, on vacation. In the five years that we've know Mr. Britton, we've
never had a problem with him. He's been very supportive of everything that we've
talked to him about. The building, compared to what it used to be, is in a lot
better shape. The parking of the vehicles has never been a problem to myself,
my family, or my mother-in-law. We have more problems with the trucks from
Friehofers than we ever did with Mr. Britton's trucks or equipment. The road
is, basically, a very busy road. Mr. Britton doesn't add a tremendous amount
of traffic to that. The equipment sitting in the back of his yard, really, has
never bothered us. There's other things on the street, I think, that are less
appealing. . . .my own yard and also the strip mining that just went on next door
to Mr. Britton's which exposes his property from the road.
MR. SICARD-What did you say that was, strip mining?
MR. SHANNON-Well, the cutting of the trees and leaving all the brush and...there,
looks, I think, a lot worse than Mr. Britton's property ever will.
MR. SICARD-What's going to happen there?
MR. SHANNON-I really don't know and I don't know if it will eventually be developed
or, really, why they did it, but everyone has pulled out and, hopefully, it will
be cleaned up and, if not, then we'll live with it, but, again, I really have
no problem with that. A persons property is a persons property and as long as
it doesn't interfere with myself or my family, I really have no problem with it
and I cannot see that Mr. Britton has ever done that and that's really all I have
to say.
MRS. EGGLESTON-I'd just like to ask, how close are you to Mr. Britton?
MR. SHANNON-62 Cronin is sort of kitty corner, we're about, maybe 100 feet.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Down by Friehofers?
MR. SHANNON-Right, we live almost directly across the street. My mother-in-law
does live directly across the street, at 66.
MRS. EGGLESTON-That's right across from Britton's?
MR. SHANNON-Right, and my other piece of property, 64, is also directly acrOss
the street from Mr. Britton.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay, thank you.
ROBERT NELSON, SUPPORT
MR. NELSON-Robert Nelson, 18 Cronin Road, speaking for my dad. Everything is
beautiful except the clear cutting that has been done lately. I don't who's done
that, but and your Town sewer created a water problem down there that's tremendous.
The cellar's been flooded all the time. Things are not good, as far as that's
concerned, but as far as Mr. Britton, he's done a beautiful job up there. This
clear cutting that's done next to him, has exposed him. So, it's going to make
these people all the more upset, everybody goes up and down the road and sees
which they didn't see before, but, well, maybe if he put some spruces or something
like that to hide that a little bit, maybe everybody would be happy. Thank you.
MR. CRONIN
MR. CRONIN-I'd just like to say that we hold no malice against Mr. Britton, as
a matter of fact, personally, I really haven't had any contact with him at all.
I do understand business because I'm in business myself and I understand that
a growing business, you certainly need room to expand. Initially, I'd like to
say that, his attorney, Mr. Mathias, I think, has oversimplified how many vehicles
and the problems that have been there. I'd also like to say that, in the minutes,
in 1985, as we look back on those, attorney Tarantino said, at that time that,
Mr. Britton is planning to use this just for office space. At that time, if you
16
remember, there were trees almost up to the back of that building and there was
no parking, really, at all, behind that building. I think that, probably, the
people that live on Cronin Road and the people that are here that are opposed,
think that that was going to be just an office space. Corporate vehicles, at
that time, were, like, vehicles that would have been driven in to go to work in
an office, is what the feeling was.
MR. SICARD-This is the way I feel, too. I think that we didn't, I know we didn't
realize that it meant trucks at that point, but our Town Attorney, here, what
did they say was the definition of a corporate (vehicle), he said it was anything
owned
MRS. COLLARD-Any vehicle registered.
MR. SICARD-Registered by the corporation?
MRS. COLLARD-Yes.
MR. SICARD-That's changed a little bit.
MR. CRONIN-That's true. I think that that wasn't the intent of this Board, nor
was it the understanding of the people that were here, opposed to it, that corporate
vehicles would include, not only trucks and things that were licensed, but, in
this case, also, equipment and I don't know if you can call a drilling rig or
something like that, I don't know if it's licensed and it goes out on the road
or not, maybe it's a trailer or something like that, I'm not sure, but I really
think that the intent of the people on the Board, at that time, and the
understanding of the people that wen~ against it was that that was going to be
strictly a place where an office was going to be. They were going to be doing
paperwork there and, occasionally, as a matter of fact, as Mr. Sicard said, no
trucks to stop, at any time, with explosives on them and I think that, at that
point, you thought that there would be a truck or two going in and out to pick
up some papers from an office type of atmosphere. What I've done is I've summarized
some of the things that we went over at the last meeting and, also, in which the
variance was taken back, and, also some things that were from the first variance
and I like to pass those out to the Board members, if I could. Read this summary
(on file). Now, Mr. Mathias said, maybe you've gone by that property. Last time
we were here, I left a video tape of the property. I have a copy of that, again,
and I also have some videos of, approximately, a year later, just in the last
week and I think that there are, definitely, more vehicles and more equipment
there than were portrayed earlier. (Reading from summary sheet) The Applicant
has not conformed to the intent of variance 1H001 as approved in May 1985. As
examples we cite the following: a) The building is used for more than just office
space. b) Storage of equipment, including blasting equipment and explosive
supplies, are present, including tool lubricants and rock drill oil. c) There's
storage of fuel and petroleum products there, which I don't think that we really
thought there would be in 1985. The Beautification Committee requested that there
be 5 Hemlocks, 7 spreading yews, 4 junipers, 1 dogwood, 2 burning bush, and 2
sand cherry trees and I don't believe that those are all there and I don't believe
that all the dead trees or shrubs or plants have been replaced as the Beautification
Committee asked, nor has proper maintenance been given to all the p 1antings, nor
has the applicant abided by, no trash bins or dumpsters outside the building.
There have been dumpsters and trash bins there, and there continue to be. There
also continues to be storage of personal trailers, those are lumped into corporate
vehicles. They're lumped into corporate vehicles, but I don't think that was
the intent either. There's even a portable toilet that's there now, and the mobile
home that you were talking about before. In the past they've had, cement trucks,
logging trucks, excavating equipment, and there are building materials there,
including windows and frames. (TAPE TURNED) The back of the building has been
expanded for parking for other than corporate vehicles for equipment by, with
my estimate, more than 500 percent of what it was before. The trees have been
cut down and they've not been replaced and that's without any variance or approvals
at all since 1985. Our concerns and complaints are as follows: The previous
owner, Mr. Hendry, although the building was cement, it, in no way, harmed the
beauty or continuity of the neighborhood concept. The continued misuse of the
property has significantly reduced, not only the beauty of the neighborhood, but
also the value of the homeowners property who surround them. We've invested
considerable amounts of money in our homes and fear that we could not recoup market
value by the appearance of these unsightly surroundings. The traffic is also
negatively effected by the increased use of the heavy industrial trucks and
equipment. The neighbors wish to maintain the peaceful suburban surroundings
which is being destroyed by the appearance of the applicants property and lack
of concern for his neighbors. Consider these words: Environmental audits,
hazardous material, health and safety
17
hazards. This is a business that should be located in an industrial park not
in a residential area. I would also like to say that I'm pleased to hear that
Mr. Britton is contemplating moving to an industrial park, but I think what we
might be talking about here is, a vote that is going to decide whether, if he
doesn't move, whether that can continue to be there, or, if he does mOve and sells
it to someone else, whether it will continue to be there under sOmeone else's
property. I don't want to try to speak for everyone here and, certainly, anyone
else, if anyone else would like to come up and say that they're opposed, I'd
certainly invite them to do that, also. There was one other thing that I wanted
to add, that the trucks with Britton Explosives written on them, were not to be
parked in the front of the building and that was something that was stipulated,
but not written down in the minutes, I believe, in 1985. That's all I have.
SUSAN KOZAK
MRS. KOZAK-My name is Susan Kozak and I live right next door to Mr. Britton with
my husband and two small children. I'm opposed to anymore construction on this
property and the present condition of it. He has not followed the agreement of
the first variance and I am in fear that he will continue in this manner. He
hasn't abided by the first ~ariance, so why should you give him another one?
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TURNER-Did you want to respond?
MR. MATHIAS-If I could, please. I really..with your last comment. I don't think
we're here asking for another variance. I really don't think we need one.
MR. SICARD-Your application says you do.
MR. MATHIAS-I know and that's really because, in terms of, it says that it's an
alternative, where we talk about it and the alternative, if you find that what
we're dOing here doesn't come within the original application. I think that it's
our position that it does and I understand that the neighbors disagree with that.
One of the facts that I did want to bring out to you was that, there was a 5,000
gallon fuel tank on the property when it was purchased by my client. So, there
was some fuel being stored there when he took over the property. I think that,
if there's an interpretation or decision that's made, that comes out of here,
it seems to me that it can't reduce the language that was originally approved
that talked about corporate vehicles and I think that my client could push that
to an outrageous extreme. I don't think that's what we're looking to do, here.
We're talking about the vehicles and equipment that are there, you know, not the
mobile, you know, the motor home, but the vehicles that are associated with the
construction and, primarily, the blasting business and nothing else.
MR. TURNER-Wilson, let me just say this, let me ask Mr. Britton a question. How
many fingers does Britton Enterprises have?
MR. BRITTON-How many fingers?
MR. TURNER-What does Britton Enterprises do? What are they into?
MR. BRITTON-Well, I'll tell you, Britton Enterprises was actually set up as a
corporation to do business out of state. I used to have a business in Connecticut,
another office. As of April of '89, I sold that out and Britton Enterprises is
now defunct. There's a few trucks with the name on it, but, basically, we're
defunct and there was never any vehicles ever registered to Britton Enterprises.
All my insurance certificates and everything is Britton Explosives.
MR. TURNER-Again, going back to '85 when we granted you the variance for the office
there, granted for Britton Explosive Supply and I see that the application says
Britton Enterprise. It was my feeling, at the time, that when you came before
the Board that that was going to be an office and that office was going to serve
Britton Explosive Supply, Britton Enterprises, period. We never discussed the
heavy equipment going in there. You didn't bring it up. You didn't ask for it.
and I guess that's where it stems from, right there, that's the crux of the matter,
right there.
MR. BRITTON-You know, I think there was two problems there, Ted.
confused as you were, apparently, that night.
I was just as
18
MR. TURNER-I wasn't confused because you didn't raise the issue. You didn't say,
Britton Explosive Supply or Britton Enterprises was going to bring any heavy
equipment in. You didn't allude to it at all.
MR. BRITTON-Now, by heavy equipment, do you mean drills?
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MR. BRITTON-You're correct, absolutely correct.
MR. TURNER-You didn't allude to it whatsoever.
MR. BRITTON-You're correct. Where I was a little confused is, when I originally
app lied for that, that property was Light Industrial and Light Commercial and
all I wanted to do was have it be the same.
MR. TURNER-It was Light Industrial by use, but not by zone.
MR. BRITTON-Apparently, so.
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MR. BRITTON-When I originally approached the owner of the
he was doing there and I..in the definition of Light
Commercial, I felt that that piece of property would fall
I wanted to do.
property and saw what
Industrial and Light
very nicely into what
MR. SICARD- I think what you're talking about there, possibly, is, that probably
goes back prior to '68 when, before zoning, sO it's immaterial what he had there
at that time, it was before zoning.
MR. TURNER-But what I'm trying to say is, you know, that night that we granted
you the variance, and I'll tell you, I'm not going to speak for everybody, I'm
just speaking for myself, it was my determination, at that time that we granted
you the variance, that all you were going to have there was an office and you
were going to be allowed to park some trucks in the back and they were going to
be allowed to come by and pick up deliveries tickets. Do you remember that?
MR. BRITTON-That's correct. Sure.
MR. TURNER-That was it and that's all we talked about.
MR. BRITTON-That's correct.
MR. TURNER-We didn't allude to anything else, you didn't either. You didn't say,
gentlemen, we're going to create a construction yard there. We're going to have
heavy equipment in there. You didn't associate any of that equipment with your
business, at that time, whatsoever.
MR. BRITTON-You're right.
MR. TURNER-And, I think, in hindsight, the Board felt that all that was going
to be there was that office and..use of that office, associated with your business
and that was it and that's why they granted the variance, but I think, again,
hindsight, you could have said, look it, I'm going to have a major storage area
there for heavy equipment associated with my business. They might have said,
no.
MR. BRITTON-I don't know what your definition of major storage yard for heavy
equipment.
MR. TURNER-We11,..down to a Light Industrial use.
MR. BRITTON-I have four employees that work for me now and at the peak, which
was probably '87, I had a total of seven employees. You know, I'm, by no means,
the biggest drilling and blasting contractor in New York State or biggest supplier.
MR. TURNER-I know you're in business to make money, like everybody else, but that's
beside the point. The point is, if you'd have said, up front, this is what I'm
going to have there, I don't think it'd have gotten off the ground.
MR. BRITTON-Well, you keep referring to "up front" like I was trying to pull the
wool over somebody.
19
MR. TURNER-No, I'm not saying that, I'm just saying you didn't tell us. We didn't
ask you.
MR. CARR-...I know Wilson wasn't there, but it says, in the minutes, one of the
first phrases, says "Mr. Britton", this is Attorney Tarantino speaking, "is planning
to use this just as office space." I mean, that's right from the minutes. Now,
just office space and a storage yard, I think, are two different things.
MR. BRITTON-Well, it was also approved for parking of corporate vehicles.
MR. MATHIAS-That's spelled out in the application and that's submitted along with
his original application.
MR. CARR-How many corporate vehicles did you have in 1985, compared to how many
corporate vehicles that you have now?
MR. BRITTON-At the time, I think I had four. Right now, I have seven.
MR. CARR-Okay, I mean, if you want to get technical, maybe the application was
approved for four corporate vehicles,..as presented to the Board.
MR. MATHIAS-It wasn't limited to that and I don't think, at the time, the Board
said, how many corporate vehicles are there.
MR. CARR-But you're limiting us to the strict app lication, strict words in the
application and, by implication, the strict rule of that application was there
were four vehicles at the time.
MR. MATHIAS-I don't think that you give a, when you give a use variance for
something like this, which is what he needed, I don't think you can condition
the number of vehicles associated with the business.
MR. CARR-But you do when it's a non-conforming use because then, if you expand
your non-conforming use, you're supposed to come back to the Board. So, yes,
we do condition it, based on this use and what it is, presently, you're asking
us to do.
MR. SICARD-I think what you're saying is the corporate vehicles that he had in
use at that time
MR. CARR-At the time, maybe he has a, I'm reading this as maybe he
to keep them there because it is a little unclear, but I think it's
by his own attorney at the time said, this is just office space.
it I S a reasonable assumption that there would just be a few vehicles
know, I don't know, I'm only going by what I've got in front of me.
had a right
also clear,
So, I think
there. You
MR. MATHIAS-They talk, clearly talk about trucks and they talk about trucks carrying
explosives.
MR. CARR-And in 1985 he had four trucks.
MRS. EGGLESTON-I think that's another point, Wilson, in that, his attorney says,
he goes on to say, "He mentioned that this a group licensed in the area of explosive
supply". No mention, whatever, of a construction business along with an explosive
supply which, had it been mentioned, it would have been brought to light that
there might be equipment for construction, whatever.
MR. BRITTON-Bruce, I think that the reason that the office part was stressed so
much is because the night that I applied for that, everybody in the neighborhood
was in a panic that I was going to be making dynamite down there or something
and somebody was rambling on about World War II and Pearl Harbor and being bombed.
So, I think that's the reason that the office part got stressed so much.
MR. CARR-But, I mean, being at that disadvantage of not being there that night,
I mean, I don't know how the rest of the Board feels, but my feeling, is maybe
we table it because I understand that Mrs. Goetz was also present, that night.
I can see from the minutes, and that would be at least three out of the seven
Board members who were there that night and help, maybe, clarify what went on
that evening.
MR. TURNER-You know, I think, again, you know, the minutes, I think, speak for
themselves and Steve's alluded to the fact that none of that was ever brought
up. He totally agrees with what I asked him, that nothing was brought up in
reference to any equipment.
20
--
MR. MATHIAS-You know, you' v~ also got to tak~ into account what th~ fac~ of th~
application says, that's what's in front of th~ Board, too, and that's th~ docum~nt
that th~ varianc~ is bas~d on. I m~an, w~'r~ not making up this languag~.
MR. CARR-Right, it's bas~d on th~ application and th~ circumstanc~s at that tim~.
---
MR. TURNER-At that tim~.
MR. CARR-And b~caus~ it is nonconforming, any addition to that ~xpansion has to
com~ back to th~ Board. I m~an, I think that's cl~ar in th~ Ordinanc~.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Was h~ in th~ construction busin~ss in 1985 wh~n this cam~ to this
Board.
MR. MATHIAS-I think th~ kind of ~quipm~nt associat~d with th~ blasting busin~ss,
that ar~ th~r~ now, was what h~ was associat~d with in 1985.
MR. TURNER-Wh~n you w~nt on Cronin Road, what ~quipm~nt did you hav~, associat~d
with th~ ~xplosiv~ supply busin~ss?
MR. BRITTON-I think I had thr~~ or four trucks and I had on~ drill and a compr~ssor.
MR. TURNER-On~ air tract?
MR. BRITTON-Y~s.
MR. TURNER-On~ air tract and on~ compr~ssor?
MR. BRITTON-Right. Ev~rybody k~~ps m~ntioning th~ construction busin~ss. I think
mayb~ b~caus~ th~y saw th~ backho~ down th~r~. I bought that backho~ b~caus~
I got tir~d of having 10ad~d caps and dynamit~ in th~ ground, of having my blasting
mat sit on a trail~r and waiting for a guy lik~ Howard LaRos~ who promis~d m~
h~'d b~ th~r~ tw~nty minut~s ago that n~v~r show~d up and ~nd~d up staying th~r~
lat~. I got a litt1~ impati~nt and I w~nt out and bought that backho~ for th~
purpos~ of lifting blasting mats. I am not in th~ construction busin~ss. I don't
dig tr~nch~s. I don't dig hol~s. I don' t hav~ any dump trucks. I don't own
any bulldoz~rs. That' s th~ only pi~c~ of construction ~quipm~nt that I own is
th~ backho~.
MR. TURNER-But, at th~ tim~, you had four trucks?
MR. BRITTON-Y~s.
MR. TURNER-An air tract and a compr~ssor?
MR. BRITTON-Y~s.
MR. TURNER-Okay, so th~ r~st of th~ ~quipm~nt cam~ aft~r th~ fact?
MR. BRITTON-Corr~ct.
MR. TURNER-So, that's an ~xpansion.
MRS. EGGLESTON-I know your n~ighbors do say you had building mat~rials, including
windows and fram~s, stor~d on your prop~rty.
MR. BRITTON-Y~s, wh~n, I bought th~ old EP Foy's and turn~d it into th~ Crocodil~
Club and wh~n w~ r~novat~d that, th~r~ w~r~ som~ doors and things of that natur~
that I thought w~r~ too good to throwaway and that's corr~ct th~y'r~ back th~r~.
I m~an, you know, things 1ik~ that, w~'r~ just r~aching for straws, now, if that
kind of stuff is a prob1~m.
MR. MATHIAS-Y~s,
do~s that m~an,
got to, you know,
Bruc~, what if, you know, w~ ask~d for corporat~ offic~ spac~,
if h~ hir~s anoth~r s~cr~tary who's going to park th~r~, sh~' s
w~'v~ got to com~ back h~r~?
MR. CARR-Sh~ do~sn't driv~ a Mack truck ~ith~r.
MR. MATHIAS-Y~s, but sh~ driv~s a car, that's an ~xpansion.
corporat~ v~hic1~.
It's an incr~as~d
21
--
MR. TURNER-Yßs, but I think, you know, Wilson, whßn you start putting hßavy
ßquipmßnt in thßrß, not onß air tractor, thrßß or four, two or thrßß comprßssors,
a backhoß and front ßnd 10adßr, a rotary drill, which is mountßd on a truck likß
hß said hß took out of thßrß, that's an ßxpansion.
MR. BRITTON-Logging truck.
MR. TURNER-Logging truck, whatßvßr, you know, whßn you start adding additional
ßquipmßnt, you'rß ßxpanding your 0pßration. Wß didn't grant him that.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Wß11, I think Brucß had thß right idßa, that Wß tablß. So thßrß's
no sßnsß, rßal1y, to hash this morß tonight, would you say, if wß' rß going to
tablß it.
MOTION TO TABLE USE VARIANCE NO. 25-1990 STEPHEN BRITTON, Introducßd by Brucß
Carr who movßd for its adoption, sßcondßd by Charlßs Sicard:
Tablßd for onß month.
Duly adoptßd this 18th day of April, 1990, by thß following votß:
AYES: Mr. Sicard, Mrs. EggIßston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turnßr
NOE S : NONE
ABSENT: Mr. KßI1ßY, Mr. Shßa, Mrs. GOßtz
MS. CORPUS-Bßforß you do that, can I just spßak for a sßcond. In light of all
thß confusion, I just wantßd to makß somßthing clßar. I agrßß that thß Board
should probably tab1ß tonight, with only four mßmbßrs and a litt1ß bit of confusion.
It's my Ißgal opinion, it sßßms that thßrß arß two things that thß Board would
havß to look at. First of all, whßthßr a variancß is rßquirßd at all, that would
bß thß first thing, you'd havß to movß on that. Sßcond of all, if a variancß
is rßquirßd, what tYPß of variancß, and if it wßrß going to bß limiting in anyway,
whßthßr it was dßfinition of thß building as in thß Staff NotßS or whßthßr it
was limitation of parking, that tYPß of thing. Thß Board dOßs havß quitß a fßw
issußs to think about, at this timß, so I think that tabling would bß appropriatß.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Tßd, do Wß finish thß public hßaring whßn Wß do this, or how do
Wß do that?
MR. TURNER-It's oVßr.
MRS. EGGLESTON-It's all finishßd.
MR. MATHIAS-Wß11, I'd 1ikß to, whßn, and I'm surß that thß nßighbors may wish
to bß ablß to spßak to, whßn you start gßtting somß additional input.
MR. TURNER-I'll probably opßn it up again.
MR. CARR-I don't know if I should ask Wilson this bßforß Wß votß or not, but I'm
going to anyway. Wilson, Mr. Britton mßntionßd hß's got a dßposit on a pißcß
of land, that I gUßss, is, potßntially, going to contract. My fßßling is that,
if thßrß arß somß dßfinitß plans that hß's thinking of moving out of thß
nßighborhood, it might hßlp, you know, I know, a month, you can't rßally makß
~ lot of plans, but if, you know, any morß information in that rßgards, you know,
in your Ißttßr you askßd for an 18 month, you'd sßttlß for an 18 month ßxtßnsion,
or whatßvßr, you know, maybß thß nßighbors can 1ivß with it for anothßr 12 months,
if hß promisßs hß will makß a diligßnt ßffort to Ißavß thß arßa bßcausß hß wants
to ßxpand his businßss or whatßvßr. I gUßss my point is that I think that should
bß ßxplorßd and maybß a littlß morß information, if possiblß, could bß supplißd
at thß nßxt mßßting.
MR. SICARD-Wilson, I'd almost think, also, that, it sßßms to mß, tonight, thßrß
wasn't too much said about noisß ingrßss and ßgrßss. It sßßmßd to bß morß on
how it looks. I was just probably wondßring as to whßthßr StßVß would considßr,
and I'm just talking now,... to do with our variancß, a good looking fßncß across
thß front to kßßp that ßquipmßnt bßhind bars, if you will, whßrß you can't Sßß
it from thß road and I would say along thß sidß on onß sidß or thß othßr so no
onß can Sßß thß ßquipmßnt, that's just a thought.
MR. BRITTON-I offßrßd that bßforß, Charliß.
I don't havß a problßm with that.
22
MR. SICARD-Well, it's just a thought.
vehicles and put a fence up.
We get you down to about four Or five
MRS. COLLARD-He would have to come see you for a variance to do that.
MR. MATHIAS-Well, we're in front of you now, and it seems to me whatever, you
know, I hope that we can resolve this once and for all.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 26-1990 TYPE: UNLISTED SFR-1A FLORENCE GALLAGHER OWNER:
SAME AS ABOVE CRONIN ROAD, WEST OF BAY MEADOWS GOLF COURSE TO SUBDIVIDE THE
LOT INTO TWO PARCELS, AND BUILD A SECOND SINGLE FAMILY HOME. REQUESTING RELIEF
FROM LOT SIZE, AND LOT WIDTH ON COLLECTOR STREET REQUIREMENTS. TAX MAP NO. 60-2-7.2
LOT SIZE: 1.32 ACRES SECTION 4.020H
BROOKE WITHAM, AGENT FOR APPLICANT, PRESENT FLORENCE GALLAGHER, PRESENT
MR. TURNER-Miss Witham?
MISS WITHAM-Just what the attachments had said.
MR. TURNER-You know you've got to have relief from the collector road requirement,
300 feet?
MISS WITHAM-300 feet, setback or..?
MR. TURNER-From the...
MISS WITHAM-Yes, that's what I just read. I wasn't aware of that, 300 feet.
Something that was there, that I didn't put in the
MR. TURNER-There was a trailer there.
MISS WITHAM-There was a trailer there. The gentleman had had a trailer there,
five years ago, with the provision that he build a house within a specified period
of time within that five years.
MR. TURNER-Was that between Mrs. Gallagher and him?
MISS WITHAM-No, between the Queensbury Board.
MR. TURNER-The Town Board. He kept the trailer there on hardship or what?
MISS WITHAM-No, he put in, within the provision that he'd build a home within
two years or three years.
MRS. GALLAGHER-Within five years.
MISS WITHAM-Five years and when it came time for him to build a home, he didn't
have funds to do sO and, at that time, the provision was dropped..leave the trailer
there.
MR. TURNER-That was Mr. Allen, is that correct?
MRS. GALLAGHER-Yes, Mr. Allen.
MISS WITHAM-And, since then, he moved and the trailer was removed. The question
back there was, if it was allowed then, why wouldn't it be allowed now?
MR. TURNER-We changed the Ordinance.
MR. CARR-I've got a question, Miss Witham. Mrs. Gallagher's address, does this
say Gloversville?
MRS. GALLAGHER-Gloversville.
MR. CARR-Is that where you're living now?
MRS. GALLAGHER-This home
lived in for 20 years
winterized.
is
and
not winterized.
in winter time,
This is the summer home
I go to Gloversville.
that
It's
live
not
MR. TURNER-The home that's next to the brook?
23
MRS. GALLAGHER-It's n~xt to th~ brook, my hom~, y~s.
MR. TURNER-Th~y'r~ in th~ flood plan at Halfway Brook, I think.
MR. BAKER-I didn't ch~ck on that.
MR. TURNER-I think th~y ar~.
MRS. COLLARD-I think th~y ar~, too.
MR. BAKER-That may v~ry w~ll b~, floodplain land th~r~.
MISS WITHAM-..go to th~ DEC b~caus~ of it b~ing within th~ w~tlands and th~ first
r~spons~ I got back was that that parc~l of land was too small to b~ r~gulat~d.
Th~ s~cond r~spons~ that I got back was that it was r~gulat~d and would r~quir~
a DEC p~rmit. Th~ indication I got from th~ DEC was that th~ p~rmit would most
lik~ly b~ grant~d b~caus~ of th~ siz~ of th~ prop~rty. So, as far as th~
w~tlands. . .
MR. TURNER-Y~s, th~y'r~ changing th~ Ordinanc~, in r~lation to that Halfway Brook.
I think th~y'r~ flagging a lot mor~ prop~rty in th~ w~tlands than what was th~r~
b~for~.
MISS WITHAM-That's th~ r~ason for building on this land.
MRS. GALLAGHER-This prop~rty has n~v~r b~~n flood~d and, of cours~, as I say,
I'v~ b~~n th~r~ 20 y~ars and, tru~, th~ brook has tak~n som~ of my land and som~
of th~ golf cours~ land, but th~r~ has b~~n no flooding. It's not w~t th~r~ wh~r~
I am, ~xc~pt way in th~ back wh~r~ it might ov~rflow its bank, wh~r~ it com~s
around th~..
MISS WITHAM-Also, I'd lik~ to say that, was it, a month ago, Mrs. Gallagh~r's
hom~ was brok~n into, b~ing that sh~' s not th~r~ in th~ wint~r, it was brok~n
into.
MR. TURNER-Y~s, it's isolat~d.
MRS. GALLAGHER-Th~r~'s nothing around that sid~, th~ ~ntir~ building.
MRS. EGGLESTON-I was noticing, T~d, th~r~ is a hous~ right across th~ str~~t from
this prop~rty.
MR. TURNER-That's a n~w hous~.
MRS. GALLAGHER-Y~s, it's back in th~ road, a coupl~ of hundr~d f~~t, but you can't
~v~n s~~ it wh~n th~ l~av~s ar~ out, of cours~, I hav~n't b~~n th~r~ this wint~r.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Th~n I qu~stion, T~d, is this th~ p~op1~ that w~r~ notifi~d and
I don't s~~ thos~ p~opl~.
MR. TURNER-W~ll, I gu~ss wh~n th~y built th~ir hous~,
hous~,..foundation wh~r~ it's abov~ th~ l~v~l of th~ brook.
th~y built a
MRS. EGGLESTON-But, shouldn't th~y hav~ b~~n notifi~d?
MR. BAKER-Y~s.
MR. TURNER-Y~s, th~y should hav~ b~~n.
MR. BAKER-Th~y w~r~ notifi~d.
MR. TURNER-Th~y w~r~. It's in th~ fil~.
MRS. GALLAGHER-Th~ir nam~ was Amrod.
MRS. EGGLESTON-You just don't put all th~ nam~s on th~, or th~y don't. Okay.
MR. TURNER-McDonald's b~~n notifi~d.
MR. CARR-On~ of th~ probl~ms h~r~ is not that w~'r~ cr~ating on~ lot that's just
und~r th~ acr~, w~'r~ cr~ating two lots. W~'r~ cr~ating on~ that's only a half
acr~ in siz~, as w~ll as this oth~r on~ that mayb~ just und~r what th~ Ordinanc~
r~quir~s and I think, you know, w~'r~ going to hav~ to liv~, now, with two lots,
24
-
building lots in an area that is supposed to only have one building lot. You
know, I think that's one of the reasons changes were made under the Ordinance
was to make sure the density of some of these areas of building lots did not get
too great or too clustered.
MISS WITHAM-Again, I'd like to point out the fact that it is surrounded by the
golf course and stream and pond. It's not like...
MR. TURNER-Yes, the golf course is to the west, separated from that by the brook,
not really surrounded by the golf course, it's across the street.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
CORRESPONDENCE
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner (attached)
MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 26-1990 FLORENCE GALLAGHER, Introduced by Bruce
Carr who moved for it's adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard:
In that the applicant has not demonstrated the required criteria for the granting
of the area variances. The granting of these variances would be detrimental to
the Ordinance.
Duly adopted this 18th day of April, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner
NOES: Mr. Sicard
ABSENT: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Shea, Mrs. Goetz
MR. TURNER-No vote.
MR. CARR-Can I make a second motion to table this for one month?
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 26-1990 FLORENCE GALLAGHER, Introduced by Bruce
Carr who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston:
Tabled for one month.
Duly adopted this 18th day of April, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Shea, Mrs. Goetz
AREA VARIANCE NO. 27-1990 TYPE II WR.-1A JOHN E. AND MARTHA G. SCHMULBACH OWNER:
SAKE AS ABOVE SEELEY ROAD, CLEVERDALE FOR AN ADDITION OF A 6 FT. BY 7 FT. UTILITY
ROOM AND AN 8 FT. BY 16 FT. ON-GROUND DECK AT THE FRONT OF THE COTTAGE. REQUESTING
RELIEF FROM THE FRONT AND REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING)
TAX MAP NO. 16-1-51 LOT SIZE: 7,961.39 SQ. FT. SECTION 4.020-D, 9.010
JOHN AND MARTHA SCHMULBACH PRESENT
MR. TURNER-You were here, once before, weren't you?
MR. SCHMULBACH-Yes, and we made application to build on this and then, shortly
after that, I spent a good deal of time in the hospital and we decided not to
build a house and now, after two years has elapsed and we're back and, we hope,
full speed ahead, but we're not asking to build a new house, now, just to make
some structural changes. If you look at the map, and you have the map in front
25
--
of you, what I'm requesting, there, the hatch marks on the front of the house,
on the front is the part that's marked as porch. Now, in front of that porch,
there's a concrete deck, slab, there that would be, approximately, in front of
the RCH letters of the porch, it's already there because that's where the front
door is to that porch. It's called a porch because that's what it used to be
and it's been enclosed, I suppose, for about 20 years and Charlie Hallen and he
was the brother of Dean Hallen who built all those little cottages together back
in the 50' s. So, it's been there, and everything I can see in the house since
we bought it, looks like it was put together in the early 50' s. So, but they
poured a slab there and there's a slab at the backdoor also. That, you can't
stand on the slab when you open the door, you have to back down off of the step.
It's just two steps high.
MR. TURNER-Yes, we went out and looked at it.
MR. SCHMULBACH-Oh, you did. Okay.
MR. TURNER-We're well aware of what's there.
MR. SCHMULBACH-Okay, so all I'm asking is to build a deck there. It would replace
that concrete block slab.
MR. TURNER-Yes, right.
MR. SCHMULBACH-And, aesthetically, I don't know as Martha gave you any photographs.
MR. TURNER-Yes, we've got some here.
MR. SCHMULBACH-Well, did you get these?
MR. TURNER-Yes, we got them. Those might be a little better, though.
MR. SCHMULBACH-Why don't you look at these. If you look at the front of the house,
instead of having just that little slab in front of the door, it would have a
wooden deck that would be more attractive than that. I noticed that, in some
of the previous sessions you've had, there was a discussion of beauty and property
and adding things, well, that's where we're at right now, I guess, is adding
something that will make the property more attractive. We could probably put
a deck chair out there, but that being on the road, really it is not where we
sit and watch the cars go by. We really aren't into watching cars go by and we
like the privacy of that area and we use the back part of the house more often
than this. What this would give us, is a better appearance to the house instead
of just looking like a tool shed, which is what it originally was. When Hallen
built the house, he built it from tool sheds, or construction sheds, as I recall.
The other part of that request, the hatch marks in the corner, in that little
jog, you can see in those photographs there's a jog about a 6 by 7 jog in the
house, now, the only I can figure out, as why it was left that way in the beginning,
is that that porch area was nailed on to it after the other part of the house
was built and they must've had just another shed that they built on to it and
once siding has been put on the house, was put on the house, you couldn't tell
that there were three separate buildings that were fastened together and it's
now turned into a small cottage. So, what I'm asking, here, is to build, to enclose
that 6 by 7 area and we can use that for a storage area which there is very little
of, right now and maybe we could get the vacuum cleaner out of the back hall and
the ironing board which is a constant nuisance and I realize that's not a part
of what the law's all about, but that, basically, to provide, if that's lengthened,
if that area of porch is lengthened by adding this room and then the deck is
equidistant from the corners of the house, it would have a better appearance and
it would look balanced. Symmetry is of value in the appearance. It would also
give us, if we opened the screen door, out of the front door there, you can stand
back, step back, and still stay on the deck and you don't fall backwards, that's
the thing that I find a problem and other people do too. Most people don't notice
this. When I fall down, I'm like a walrus getting up because my knees don't bend
too well, so when I fall down, it's a major project to get back up. I can't jump
back up and I've had this happen. I'm learning to do it. Also, there was a
letter sent by Keating.
MR. TURNER-We've got it. We'll read it when we get to the correspondence.
MR. SCHMULBACH-Okay, after you review it, I'd like to make some comments about
it, but I would say about this area here, where the, in that little 6 by 7 area,
right there where, there's a mark called spike, that's a property line spike,
there, right at the corner of that little, that jog in the building.
26
MR. TURNER-Right on the northe~st corner?
MR. SCHMULBACH-On the northeast, right. You can see a little round circle with
a dot in it that says spike, there ~re three evergreen trees in there, three pine
type of trees. They extend touching th~t other house ~nd touching the corner
of our house. They ~lso provide privacy to both houses, even though the tree
extends over th~t property line on both sides. I'm not sure who's property it's
on. It's probably right on the property line, those three trees th~t run
along..where this pine tree is ~nd then two more b~ck tow~rd, I guess, the
southe~st, back ~long those property lines. Not tow~rd the front, not tow~rd
Seeley Ro~d, but ~w~y from Seeley Ro~d. So, there is, from ~n aesthetic st~ndpoint,
those ~re good to have there because they give us both privacy, give the Ke~tings
privacy and give us privacy.
MR. CARR-Did you want to, I think we've all looked ~t the letter if you w~nt to
~ddress.
MR. SCHMULBACH-The letter?
MR. CARR-Yes, the comments you w~nted to make or w~s th~t it, ~bout the trees?
MR. SCHMULBACH-Well, no, let see, Mrs. Keating remarks that there w~s ~ problem
with our being near here bedroom ~nd ne~r the b~throom. When we sit at the back
of the, on the ground-level deck, it's generally in the morning hours on weekends
because that's where the sun comes and it's warm b~ck there. We're not loud ~nd
noisy. We re~d the paper and we don't have, the gr~ndchildren th~t we h~ve, I
wish they c~me more frequently, but they don't because one lives in K~ns~s City
~nd the other lives in Phoenix ~nd the other two children live in C~liforni~.
So, we don't see them th~t often and we h~ve to go visit them. So, we don't have
the problem of noise. Now, I addressed th~t p~rt, it has nothing to do with
this, . . I ~nswer the letter th~t she wrote in this respect. Mrs. Keat ing does
rent th~t property. I don't to whom, but they show up with children and dogs
~nd when they play, they play in front of her cottage and our property line goes
di~gon~lly across the front of the yard. So, those children ~nd the dogs play,
p~rt1y on our lawn ~s well as theirs. I don't say anything about them. They
pl~y frisbee ~nd they play touch football ~nd things like that. Mrs. Ke~ting
~lso h~s five of those little powder puff dogs that go yap, y~p, y~p ~ll the time
~nd in order to keep at le~st some friendship in the neighborhood of the five
houses th~t are loc~ted there, there are five f~milies there that are on this
property, the Ke~tings, there are two Keatings, ~s Mrs. Ke~tings f~ther ~nd mother
live in the next house. The senior Mr. Keating, who's probably in his e~rly 70's,
mows ~ll the l~wns for all of us and we pay him. Now we don't put up fences and
shrubs because, by mowing all that property, it looks like ~ big exp~nse of green
grass ~nd it's very ~ttractive. If we chopped it up or put a fence down that
property line, it would look terrible. It would just cut up these horribly sh~ped
lots, ~nyw~y, they're terrible little pieces of pie shaped property, but by le~ving
it ~ll big l~wn, it looks fairly decent. Now, the next step, five people h~ve
lived here, five f~milies h~ve lived here, for 30 years ~nd we're the l~test
members. We don I t h~ve ~n ~ssoci~tion. We're trying to est~b1ish one ~nd it
bec~me very important to us, when that man w~s killed who r~n into the dock down
on the L~ke, from where we ~re, I guess a year ago this p~st summer. He drove
his motor bo~t into the Shonwetters property which is right on the point leading
into Warner's Bay. He was killed ~nd his wife then sued Shonwetter' s and they
sued other people. Now, it w~sn't those people's fault that that dock was there
th~t they r~n into, or that concrete abutment, but they sued them ~nyway. So,
we've decided we ought to form an ~ssoci~tion. The Ke~tings are keeping us from
forming an ~ssoci~tion because, without them, you can I t h~ve an ~ssoci~tion to
protect ourselves, on ~ liability basis, from any dam~ge th~t would h~ppen to
us if somebody runs into the dock ~nd then decides that we' re ~t f~u1t bec~use
the dock w~s there and got in their w~y. So, I'm saying this bec~use, to set
up the attitude ~nd there' s ~ rather thin line of civility th~t we're trying to
m~int~in with the Keatings or with Mrs. Ke~ting bec~use she's the one th~t's holding
up the ~ssoci~tion. She's also s~ying that our deck would bother her priv~cy
or wh~tever. So, I question that, on the b~sis of her attitude toward the
associ~tion. I guess I'm getting into the psychology of the whole thing, there,
but we don't complain about her dogs and her people being there, so I guess I'm
sort of on the defensive on that kind of thing ~nd we're not ~sking for ~ big
v~ri~nce. The only vari~nce would be th~t foot ~nd ~ half there from the corner,
of filling in that sp~ce with ~ room.
MR. TURNER-Th~t' s ~ ground-level deck? You're just going to step from the deck
down to the ground, or something?
27
MR. SCHMULBACH-Right, well, the house is only about 12 inches off the ground.
MR. TURNER-Yes, but I mean, railings on the front, Seeley Road.
MR. SCHMULBACH-It's not going to be a railing.
MR. TURNER-It's not going to be a railing? How about a deck?
MR. SCHMULBACH-I think if we just get a deck, yes, it would be a deck made out
of Redwood and the water would drain through it and we could also, it's safer
to step on than that cement. I have to scrap off, the cement forms a kind of
moss on you because water does stand on it and it's old cement, so you have to
scrap that off to keep it from being slick. If, let me ask you this, if I may,
is, since the concrete deck is there, is it within the perimeters to build a wooden
deck where that concrete deck is, already?
MR. TURNER-If you stay on that footprint.
MR. SCHMULBACH-Alright, now, how far away from where that deck is, can I go with
a wooden deck, in other words, it's about 4 ft. by 4 ft., I guess. If I extended
it, how far over can I extend it toward that property line and I'm still within
the perimeters of what I legally càn do without any request for variance.
MR. TURNER-Well, you violate the side setback. You've got to stay away from there.
MR. SCHMULBACH-Okay, but the concrete block is already over the side setback.
MR. TURNER-It's not over the side, is it,
you got, 20 and a half feet, right here?
there to the deck and then you've got
MR. SCHMULBACH-Oh, that's the length of the building. The building is 20 feet
to that mark and it's 27 feet. So, I figure, if that's 20 feet from, there to
there, then it's 7 feet from there to there. So, what I was asking, if you fill
this in, that wall would be 27 feet to match this wall, which is 27 feet. So,
the side setback is this line, here. So, it's this little setback.
the side setback? Twenty, what have
What is that there, eight feet from
MR. TURNER-You go out there 8 feet, if you expand this out, like you've got on
here, ..go out 4 feet, you can stay on that footprint. Thirty foot line intersects,
right there, the setback line.
MR. SCHMULBACH-So, alright, and
so it would be where this line
I stay within that setback line,
the concrete block that's already there..RCH,
is, it already is over the setback line. So, if
you could build.
MR. TURNER-You could tear that up and build a little deck right there, alright,
so you could walk out and go down to the ground, but you couldn't do any of this
without the variance.
MR. SCHMULBACH-Couldn't go any of this?
MR. TURNER-You can only go a very short ways.
MR. SCHMULBACH-And yet, the concrete porch is already there.
MR. TURNER-Right,...replace that.
MR. SCHMULBACH-Okay, I could just replace that.
MR. TURNER-That's it.
MR. SCHMULBACH-Okay, I guess then, I'll ask, how far can I go along there, when
I measured it at 68 feet..in other words, exactly where it is now.
MR. TURNER-Where it is now.
MR. SCHMULBACH-So, if I covered that concrete with wood, then that would be
MR. TURNER-You could rebuild that, what you've got there now, period, but to do
any of the other, you need a variance.
MR. SCHMULBACH-Okay and then this request included a variance for that?
28
MR. TURNER-Right.
MRS. EGGLESTON-He's going to go with that.
MR. TURNER-He's going to go with that, with what he's got.
him, like he said, two years ago. I'm not sure of what we,
was, I don't know what the variance was, what that entailed.
We did grant it to
two years ago, that
MRS. SCHMULBACH-But, again, it was for a deck. The house that we were
MR. TURNER-The deck we're talking about now?
MRS. SCHMULBACH-No, it was for, if you note on this survey, there are two possible
setbacks. There's the one that this house occupies now. This is the setback
that this house occupies now. Now, there was an alternative setback and that
was this one, over here.
MR. TURNER-Yes, right.
MRS. SCHMULBACH-And the house we were going to build was swung over into that
area. This was going to be.. and the house was going to be.. over there, so that
the deck was out in this direction.
MR. TURNER-Okay.
MRS. SCHMULBACH-And it just went over the setback line a little bit.
MR. TURNER-It wasn't very much.
MRS. SCHMULBACH-And that's what we asked for a variance for. Otherwise the house
is complete the same house.
MRS. COLLARD-Mr. Chairman, I have a.. this should be considered as the front
yard..below the road, so there would also be a variance required between the road
and the point of this deck here.
MR. TURNER-Right.
MRS. COLLARD-Okay, I don't think I pointed that out, before.
MR. TURNER-Yes, I think you did.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
CORRESPONDENCE
Letter from Katherine Standbridge and Marie Smith, to Queensbury Zoning Board
of Appeals, dated April 16th, 1990 (on file)
STAFF INPUT
John S. Goralski, Planner (attached)
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 27-1990 JOHN E. AND MARTHA G. SCIlMULBACH,
Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bruce Carr:
The applicant has proven a practical difficulty in that the present structure
at 723.3 square feet is unusually small and it is reasonable to want to enlarge
the dwelling. The only way to enlarge is by variance. It would not be detrimental
to the neighborhood as it already is a high density area. This will allow for
a relief on the northwesterly side of the property of 12 feet and relief on the
front setback of 8 feet.
Duly adopted this 18th day of April, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Shea, Mrs. Goetz
29
~
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Theodore Turner, Chairman
30
~
..
-
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
Planni"'B Department
-NOTE TO FILE-
Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner
Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Aaailtant Planner
Date:
April 4, 1990
By:
Stuart G. Baker
x Area VuiaDce
Uee Variance
- Sip Variance
== IDterpretatiOD
Other:
SubdmIiGa: _ SketcJa, Pre1haiury,
Site PIaD Reriew
- PetitiOD far a ChaDge of Zcme
- Freshwater Wet1a:Dd8 Permit
FiDal
ApplicatiOD Number:
Area Variance No. 6-1990
Applicant'. Name:
Bvron B. RIst
MeetiDg Date:
ADril 18.1990
............................................................................................
The applicant is applying to build a 16 ft. by 17 ft. addition onto the
home of Mary Carol White. An amended site plan submitted by the applicant
shows that the addition encroaches on both the shoreline and side setback
requirements for that land use zone.
After reviewing the application according to Section 10.040 of the
Ordinance, I have the following comments:
I. There are special circumstances applying to the existing building in
that it only complies with the front setback requirements. The existing
structure encroaches on both side setbacks and on the shoreline setbacks.
The Board should consí~er whether these conditions are such that strict
application of the setback requirements would deny the owner reasonable
use of the property or building.
2. The applicant must show that strict application of the dimensional
requirements would result in a practical difficulty to the applicant, as
demonstrated by "significant economic injury."
3. The variance requested does not appear to be detrimental to the
purpose of the waterfront residential zone. The Board should discuss
whether the variance would adversely effect the adjacent property owners
to the west. The variance does not appear to conflict with the policies
of the Master Plan. The variance requested appears to be the minimal
relief necessary for the desired addition.
4. Public services would not be affected by this action.
SBlpw
..
~
.-
-
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
PlAnning Department
-NOTE TO FILE-
Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner
Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner
By:
April 18, 1990
John S. Goralski
Date:
Area Variance
Use Variance
-X Sign Variance
== Interpretation
Subdivision: Sketch, _ Preliminary,
Site Plan Review
- Petition for a Change of Zone
- Freshwater Wetlands Permit
Final
Other:
Application Number:
Sign Variance No. 24-1990
Applicant's Name:
Capital Area Community Health Plan. Inc.
Meeting Date:
April 18. 1990
*****.......................*...........*.................*.................................
I have reviewed this application with respect to the conditions listed on page 2 of
the application.
1. It does not appear that this property is different from other businesses in this plaza,
nor is this plaza different from other plazas.
2. The applicant is allowed to maintain one sign. Strict application of the Ordinance
would not preclude the applicant from having a sign. Simply being on the corner
of the building is not a reason to grant a variance.
3. Although this proposal would not be detrimental to the public welfare, it does promote
the proliferation of signs which could be considered detrimental to the visual character
of the neighborhood.
JSG/sed
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
_ COMMITTEE FOR COMMUNITY BEAUTIFI CATION
tjtE COpy
Robert L. Eddy, Chairman
17 Owen Avenue
Queensbur,y, R. Y. l280~
Mrs. Arthur J. Seney, Secretary
8 Queensbury Avenue
Queensbury, N. Y. l280!
TOI
(X) Warren COunty Planning Board
( ) Queensbury -Town Planning Board
(x) Queensbury Town Zoning Board of APpeals
( ) APpli cant
DateI4/9/90
o AREA
o USE
. SIGN
VARIANCE NO. d. ;.¡ - / q q 0
Rei Sign Variance #..... - CBP. Office
Glen Square
We have reviewed the request fori (X) Variance, ( ) Site Plan Review,
( ) Other - and have the following recommendations I
( ) Approval (x) Disapproval
This applicant, we are informed, not only did not apply for a sign
permit, but placed two wall signs on the premises they occupy, contrary to
the Sign Ordinance of the Town of Queensbury.
The Queensbury Committee for Community Beautification is opposed
nonconforming signs and in this instance has disapproved
application for a variance from the provisions of the sign ordinance
allows one wall sign for each tenant of a shopping center - Section
paragraph 4.
to
this
which
6.103
In addition to the above landscaping, screening and planting provisions,
the Committee wishes to go on record that it does not approvel
1. Non-conforming signs,
2. Plastic or artificial trees, shrubs or flowers.
In approving the above (or attaohed plans), the Committee has the expressed
or implied agreement of the applicant to replace immediately dead trees,
shrubs or plants, and to give proper maintenance to all plantings. All
rubbish containers or dumpsters shall be screened, all plantings shall be
mulched and trees shall be retained or planted, as agreed.
fully ,2.Ubmi tted,
v Ã. ~~
L. Eddy, Chaifan
,
~
I~~
~,
-
'-'
--
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:
April 18, 1990
By:
John S. Goralski
Area Variance
X Use Variance
- Sign Variance
== Interpretation
Subdiflsion: _ Sketch, _ Preliminary,
Site Plan Review
- Petition for a Change of Zone
- Freshwater Wetlands Permit
Final
Other:
Application Number:
Use Variance No. 25-1990
Applicant's Name:
Stephen Britton
Meeting Date:
April 18, 1990
............................................................................................
This application has been before the Zoning Board of Appeals, in various forms,
several times. If the Board feels that a use variance is warTanted, I would recommend
that the use be specified as either "construction company" (#=64), or "office building" (#=185).
If the Board grants a use variance for an office building, the motion should state that
no construction equipment will be stored on site.
JSG/sed
..
4a.
~
-
'--
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
PlAnning Department
-NOTE TO FILE-
April 10, 1990
Mrs. Lee A. Yark, Senior Planner
Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner
Date:
By:
Stt1~,..t ~ R;::a1.rør
x Area Vmimace
Uøe Variance
- Sip Variance
== Interpretation
Other:
SubdhiIIiaa: Sketch, _ Prelliaiury,
Site PlaIa Re'riew -
- Petition far a ChaDge of Zone
- Freshwater WetlaDda Permit
Fiu1
Application Number:
Area Variance No. 26-1990
Applicant'. Name:
Florence Gallagher
MeetiDg Date:
April 18, 1990
................**..............................**..................**....**................
.
The applicant would like to subdivide a 1.32 acre parcel in a SFR-IA
zone, and would like to build a second one family house. Two variances are
necessary for this proposal. I) An area variance is necessary to create two
undersized lots (approx. .498 and .822 acres). 2) Variances are needed to
create two lots with less that the required double lot width on a collector
road. 300 ft. lot width is required for each lot to be created. The existing
lot currently is only approximately 161 ft. wide.
The required variances are substantial when compared to the Ordinance
requirements. There do not appear to be any spec ia1 condit ions applying to
this land which have denied the applicant of reasonable use. The difficulty
experienced by the applicant is a personal hardship which is not caused by
conditions on the property or by the requirements of the Ordinance.
SB/pw
/
-
~1
-
'-
'-
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
Pl:lnning Department
-NOTE TO FILE-
Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner
Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner
Date: April 18. 1QQO
By: John S. Goralski
X Area Variance
Use Variance
- Sign Variance
== Interpretation
Subdirision: Sketch, _ Preliminary,
Site Plan Review
- Petition for a Change of Zone
- Freshwater Wetlands Permit
Final
Other:
Application Number:
Area Variance No. 27-1990
Applicant's Name:
John E. and Martha G. Schmulh;¡~h
Meeting Date:
April 18, 1990
............................................................................................
Any difficulty with regard to the site is of a personal nature. It is not caused by
the unreasonableness of the Ordinance.
This area appears to be very densly developed. Increasing the density would be detrimental
to the property in the area.
JSG/sed
"