Loading...
1990-05-23 '---' - QUEENS BURY ZONING BOARD OF APPJl'ALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING MAY 23RD, 1990 INDEX Use Variance No. 41-1990 Barbara Tebeau 1. Application for Zoning Interpretation No. 1-90 Stephen C. Britton 2. Use Variance No. 25-1990 Stephen Britton 13. Use Variance No. 32-1990 U-Hau1 Co. of N.E. New York, Inc. 13. Area Variance No. 39-1990 Patti S. Rathbun 26. Use Variance No. 40-1990 William F. Davidson 28. Use Variance No. 42-1990 Quick Lube 35. Area Variance No. 43-1990 Quick Lube 40. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. '- QUEENSBUR.Y ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING MAY 23RD, 1990 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN SUSAN GOETZ, SECRETARY JOYCE EGGLESTON BRUCE CARR MICHAEL SHEA JEFFREY KELLEY MEMBERS ABSENT CHARLES SICARD DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY-KARLA CORPUS ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-PAT COLLARD SENIOR PLANNER-LEE A. YORK STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES: April 25th, 1990: Pa.ge 10, fourth pa.ra.gra.ph up, where Mr. Knoblock is spea.king, sib 118 by 114, not 100 by 18; Pa.ge 9, a.t the top, Mrs. Goetz spea.king, sib improve, not include; Pa.ge 5, Mr. Turner spea.king, sib cha.nge the cut of the roof, not cha.nge the cut of the roa.d; Pa.ge 4, ninth pa.ra.gra.ph down, Mr. Kuda.n spea.king, la.st line, sib I rea.lly don't ha.ve a. side ya.rd, not I rea.lly ha.ve a. side ya.rd; Pa.ge 22, second pa.ra.gra.ph, Mrs. Eggleston spea.king, sib Nia.gra. Moha.wk pole line, not Nia.gra. Moha.wk fill line MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 25TH, 1990 AS CORRECTED, Introduced by Susa.n Goetz who moved for its a.doption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: Duly a.dopted this 23rd da.y of Ma.y, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Shea., Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Ca.rr, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Sica.rd USE VARIANCE NO. 41-1990 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-1A BARBARA TEBEAU OWNER: SAKE AS ABOVE 21 WEEKS ROAD TO ADD A NEW MOBILE HOME FOR SOLE RESIDENCE. REQUEST USE VARIANCE FOR NEW 14 FT. BY 74 FT. MOBILE HOME. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 73-1-14.2 LOT SIZE: 12.45 ACRES SECTION 4.020 K MR. TURNER-Is a.nyone here to a.ppea.r for Use Va.ria.nce No. 41-1990, Ba.rba.ra. Tebea.u? GENTLEMAN-Yes. MR. TURNER-Tha.t ha.s been ta.bled by the a.pplica.nt. GENTLEMAN-You will notify us, then? MRS. YORK-Yes, the a.pplica.nt is required to pa.y for re-notifica.tion if the advertising ha.s gone out a.nd then they request to be ta.bled. MR. TURNER-We have a. letter from Ca.rusone a.nd Muller, in reference to the Ba.rba.ra. Tebea.u a.pplica.tion, to the Zoning Boa.rd, da.ted Ma.y 22nd, 1990 (a.tta.ched) MRS. YORK-Would the Boa.rd like to vote on the ta.bling issue? MOTION TO TABLE USE VARIANCE NO. 41-1990 BARBARA TEBEAU, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its a.doption, seconded by Jeffrey Kelley: 1 Tablßd at thß writtßn rßqußst of thß applicant and this will bß rßschßdulßd for thß nßxt Zoning Board of Appßals mßßting in Junß. Duly adoptßd this 23rd, day of May, 1990, by thß following votß: AYES: Mr. KßllßY, NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Sicard Mr. Shßa, Mrs. GOßtz, Mrs. EggIßston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turnßr OLD BUSINESS: APPLICATION FOR ZONING INTERPRETATION NO. 1-90 SFR-lA STEPHEN C. BRITTON OWNER: SAKE AS ABOVE APPROX. 650 FT. SOUTHWEST OF INTERSECTION OF CRONIN ROAD AND RIDGE ROAD INTERPRETATION OF VARIANCE NO. 1001 APPROVED 6/21/85. VARIANCE APPROVED FOR PROFESSIONAL OFFICES AND "PARKING OF CORPORATE VEHICLES ON PREMISES" : DOES APPLICANT'S CURRENT USE FALL WITHIN TERMS OF VARIANCE APPROVED ON 6/21/85. TAX MAP NO. 59-3-14.1 WILSON MATHIAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; STEPHEN C. BRITTON, ALSO PRESENT MR. MATHIAS-Just brißfly, what Wß wßrß looking for is somß clarification that's arisßn out of, kind of a situation involving thß nßighbors complaining to thß QUßßnsbury Building Dßpartmßnt with rßspßct to thß activitißs that arß going on at thß sitß. I havß bßßn in contact with at lßast onß of thß nßighbors, Brian CIßmßnts, maybß that's why hß's not hßrß tonight, but what I'm authorizßd to proposß is to, basically, flßsh out thß tßrms of thß variancß that was dßcidßd on back in '85. First of all, what I want to do is, I'm going to filß, with you, a copy of an appraisal of thß propßrty. Mr. Britton has placßd thß propßrty on thß markßt for salß. It's activßly bßing markßtßd by Lßvac-Burkß, but Wß don't know what thß condition of thß markßt is right now. I can't makß any rßprßBßntations that hß'll bß gonß in 30 days or 60 days or 180 days, but what Wß arß prßparßd to do tonight is to statß that all of thß construction ßquipmßnt, thß drills, thß comprßssors, that arß currßntly 10catßd at thß sitß, will bß rßmovßd from it within 45 days from today's datß and will not bß rßturnßd to thß sitß, so that thß only vßhiclßs lßft at thß sitß will bß thß cars of thß officß pßrsonnßl and thß trucks that arß currßntly ownßd by thß applicant. I'vß got a list of thosß vßhiclßs. Thßrß arß 8 of thßm and wß'rß prßparßd to stipulatß that, Mr. Britton will not incrßasß thß numbßr of vßhiclßs bßyond what's on this list. Wß' rß also prßparßd to statß or makß a part of this, that thßrß has not bßßn truck rßpair going on on thß prßmisßs, but, apparßntly, thß nßighbors arß concßrnßd that thßrß is and Wß don't havß any problßm in making a rßprßsßntation that no rßpair of thß trucks will bß donß on thß sitß and that thß uSß of thß sitß will bß limitßd to thß officß uSß, which is what thß building is uSßd for, thß parking of staff, privatß automobilßs and thß parking of thß 8 construction vßhiclßs that arß part of his businßss. Thßy'rß all trucks and, furthßr, that no dynamitß will bß storßd on sitß bßcausß hß. .can't do that anymorß. As I say, I'vß run this by Mr. CIßmßnts who, I gUßss if hß' s not hßrß I don't know what his fßßlings arß, I would say, maybß, hß's satisfißd with that or hß'd bß hßrß, but I would BUggßBt that as a mßthod of flßshing this out and spßlling out ßxactly what can and can't bß donß on thß propßrty and somßthing that my clißnt can livß with and, hopßfully, thß nßighbors can too. Onß othßr things, I gUßss, that all thß vßhiclßs, all thß trucks, would bß parkßd, whßn parkßd, on thß sitß bßhind thß building. MR. TURNER-On thß ßast sidß of thß propßrty linß? MR. MATHIAS-Right. MR. TURNER-Wßll, I think that's finß, but that dOßBn't pßrtain to this application. You want a ruling on this? That's what you askßd for. MR. MATHIAS-Wßll, Yßs, it dOßs pßrtain. I don't know how ßlsß you do it. Othßrwisß you say, at lßast in my opinion, lßgally, you go what you'vß got. I don't think that you and Mrs. GOßtz can think back to what happßnßd in 1985. MR. TURNER-You don't think so? MR. MATHIAS-I don't. MR. TURNER-I think I can. I think I statßd it in thß minutßs. MRS. GOETZ-Why don't you think Wß can? 2 ',,---, MR. MATHIAS-Why not? MRS. GOETZ-Yes. MR. MATHIAS-I just think that you're recollection as to what happened, you've got a whole different Board. MRS. GOETZ-But I can remember what happened at the meeting that I was at. MR. MATHIAS-Well, I guess, and so can Mr. Britton. All I'm suggesting is, that I'm not sure that's furthering anything. MR. TURNER-I don't say we're furthering anything, but you're saying that we can't remember and I think that.. here at the last meeting, Mr. Britton and I had quite a lengthy discussion as to what transpired there and he seemed to agree with everything that I said in reference to his application. I think it's right in the minutes, as pertaining to 1985. You're asking for an interpretation. MR. MATHIAS-We're asking for an interpretation. What I'm suggesting, in order to help you in arriving at MR. TURNER-That's fine, but we'll deal with that one afterwards. You're asking for an interpretation for 1985 first, what we said in 1985. MR. MATHIAS-Well, I know what you said in 1985. I've got a copy of it. MR. TURNER-That's fine. So do we, but it says a professional office. MR. MATHIAS-And that's what it's being used for and it also says the parking of corporate vehicles. MR. TURNER-It hasn't been, that's why we're here. MRS. GOETZ-Well, first of all, I'm pleased to hear that Mr. Britton has come up with these thoughts about how to improve the present situation. So, procedurally, should we act on this interpretation? MR. TURNER-He asked for it. MRS. GOETZ-And then, I'm not sure how to handle what you've mentioned. MR. TURNER-Then he can bring it up in the Use Variance. MRS. GOETZ-Okay, so that would pertain to the next item on the agenda. MR. MATHIAS-Well, it just seems to me, it's all one thing, isn't it? MRS. GOETZ-Yes, but, procedurally, we have to go one by one, I would say, on the agenda. It's not that we're discounting what you just said. It's where we're going to put it. MR. TURNER-You asked for one thing, here, and you're asking for another thing in the Use Variance. MR. MATHIAS-Well, I asked for this other thing, frankly, because the Planning Board Staff recommended that I file this interpretation, sO that's what I did. MRS. GOETZ-That's good. MR. MATHIAS-We give you what you ask for. MRS. GOETZ-Okay, Karla, are we on the right track? How do we go about this? MS. CORPUS-If this particular application is left before you and not withdrawn, then you must act upon it. MR. TURNER-You've got to act on it. MS. CORPUS-Correct. MRS. GOETZ- I wasn't here at that meeting when this was all discussed. Did you leave it all up to me to COme back and say what I remembered? 3 '-' MR. CARR-Yes. Karla, is is, I guess going to be interpretation? I mean, they will be able to be public hearing is not MR. TURNER-..be heard on a it possible, I don't know, since what Wilson has proposed dealt with under the Use Variance, can he withdraw this it's not that the neighbors won't be satisfied because heard under the Use Variance, as I understand it, the vote? MR. CARR-Yes, but I wonder if it's even necessary to go through? MR. TURNER-I don't know, maybe they don't want to respond. MS. CORPUS-That's up to Mr. Mathias, if he wishes to withdraw that. MR. CARR-I mean it just seems like, if we're going to go through, we're going to say what we thought then, or what the Board interpreted back in '85 and it is important to what's going on now, but maybe because of the proposal made by Mr. Britton, through Wilson, maybe we should just go right on to the Use Variance. Let him, maybe, table this interpretation and, if things don't work out, it can always come up a month from now. MS. CORPUS-That's another possibility. MR. CARR-I mean, he doesn't have to withdraw. Maybe can table it,..and talk about a reasonable solution to what seems to be a real problem. MS. CORPUS-That's a reasonable alternative. The withdrawal, again, would be up to Mr. Mathias, if he chose to keep the application before the Board. Some action would be taken, whether it was tabling it with the applicant's consent or a motion by the Board. MR. CARR-I mean, what does the Board..Do you want to go through and decide what's a corporate vehicle? MR. TURNER-We went through it the last time. MS. CORPUS-The only problem I see that might be had here is, I'm not sure it's relevant, in light of what was given as a compromise by Mr. Mathias, but, legally, we will have, I don't know if you want to consider it problems, but the Board would be bound, pretty much, by what's in the written record of 1985. Although the recollections of Mrs. Goetz and Mr. Turner would be helpful, I don't think that they would be legally binding, at this point. We are limited to the written record. MR. CARR-Right, and as I read the written record, I know what Ted and Sue have said they remembered..but I know how the minutes were done, back in '85, and they were not complete minutes and I know what Wilson's saying, too, is that it's not spelled out in those minutes exactly what is a corporate vehicle. So, I think, you're right in what Ted and Sue are going to interpret and I wonder if we want to get into that because, obviously, there's going to be two different view points on it. MS. CORPUS-That's up to the Board. on that. I can't advise you, one way or the other, MR. CARR-I read the minutes, Ted, and I didn't think they were, exactly, clear. MR. TURNER-You read the minutes of April the 18th, when Mr. Britton and I had the discussion. We went back and forth as to what happened in '85 and we clarified everything right there. MR. BRITTON-Steve Britton, good evening. Ted, do you agree that, back in '85, I was granted permission to have an office and park corporate vehicles there, trucks? MR. TURNER-You were granted a variance to have a professional office and you stated, the last time around, at the time, you only owned 4 corporate vehicles. MR. BRITTON-That's true. MR. TURNER-And, in ' 85, when you app lied for the variance, you said that there might be one or two there that would stay over night and the rest would come by and pick up the delivery slips. 4 '--' MR. BRITTON-Vehicles? MR. TURNER-Vehicles, corporate vehicles, or trucks. MR. BRITTON-No, I never stated that. Any vehicle that I have, corporate vehicle, stays there every night and it's been like that. I think we're missing the ball here. I don't have to get permission from you to go buy a new truck and park it down there. MR. TURNER-I'm not saying that. MR. BRITTON-This is the way I interpret it. You gave me permission to park trucks there and you gave me permission to have an office. So, what I'm here tonight, telling you, is I'm going to abide by what you gave me in 1985. I'll get all the heavy equipment out of there and all that will be there is my office and trucks. I mean, if you want to have this thing go on and ramble forever, that's fine, but I'm willing to live up to what you granted me in 1985. Now, you never asked me how many trucks I owned then, how many trucks I own now, and that's irrelevant, whether it's 60 or 6. I'm not adding on to the building. I mean, Quaker Ford doesn't get permission when they get a good buy on cars and have 20 more cars in the lot, that's not a form of expansion. I'll park the trucks there and things will go on like they did in 1985. I think it'll save us all a lot of aggravation. I'm willing to get rid of all the stuff that the Board and the neighbors don't like. I'm willing to live by what was granted to me in 1985 and, like I said, the place is up for sale. If it sells, I'll get out of there just as soon as I can because it's not doing me any good the way it is either. So, in the long run, we'll all be happier. I'm not looking for anymore than you already granted me in 1985 and I'm willing to abide by what that was. MRS. GOETZ-It seems like it would be good to withdraw your interpretation request. MR. MATHIAS-Here's the problem I've got with that, just as a legal thing, and I don't want to drag it on, but I don't believe he's entitled to a Use Variance, that's just my opinion. My legal opinion is, if you give us a Use Variance and the neighbors complain, they're going to bring an Article 78 proceeding and I think they're going to win. MR. TURNER-I think they would because, like Steve says MR. MATHIAS-So, then I think the appropriate vehicle, here is to flesh out the 1985 variance to add the conditions that we're talking about, to clarify it. I think, to me, that's, it's first on the agenda, we can do it and that'll be it. MR. CARR-Wilson, what you're asking for, I guess, is for the interpretation to be what you just proposed as the settlement. MR. MATHIAS-Right. MR. BRITTON-There is no settlement. My problem is, I'm a dummy. I went and got a lawyer and tried to do things the right way. I should have left things the way it was because I wasn't doing anything wrong. Getting rid of the equipment, that I was wrong. So, I'll get rid of the equipment. MR. TURNER-That's the crux of the matter, really, I think. MR. BRITTON-Exactly. was. I'll get rid of the equipment and it'll be just like it MRS. GOETZ-It's a matter of enforcement of the variance already granted. MR. BRITTON-Exactly. MR. MATHIAS-But, Department or the again, we're here because of the suggestion Zoning Interpreter or somebody over there, from the Planning that we show up. MS. CORPUS-I think the issue here, if I'm not wrong, Wilson, is that what you're asking for is an interpretation as to whether there was an expansion, and, from what I've heard, it sounded like there was an agreement that there was an expansion and now there will be a limitation on that and a clarification, more or less, of the variance granted in '85. 5 MR. BRITTON-What's the Board's interpretation of an expansion? MR. MATHIAS-I think what they're talking abolit is the constrliction equipment that's stored on the site. MR. BRITTON-This whole thing started becalise I came in for an application to plit lip a pole barn in the back to store my eqliipment. If I didn't do that, I could've been down there and left alone and nobody would have bothered me. I'm willing not to put the pole barn lip. I withdrew the application and now they say that there's heavy equipment there and that wasn't the agreed procedlire that they granted me in '85. I agree. YOli didn't tell me I cOlild park back hoes there. YOli didn't tell me I cOlild park drills there. I'm willing to get rid of all that stliff, so there is no expansion. I mean, the only expansion is, I had 4 trucks then and I've got 8 trucks now, blit I don't know what your interpretation of expansion is. MRS. GOETZ-Well, first of all, we've learned a lot abolit how the minlites should be and how we sholild make motions and maybe at that time we wOlild have specified so many vehicles, etc., but we didn't and I agree with what yOli said a little bit earlier and, to me, it's just like, yOli, now, are admitting that yOli did have heavy eqliipment. MR. BRITTON-I admitted that from the first night. MRS. GOETZ-Right, and that's what we don't want. MR. BRITTON-The other thing that I want the Board to linderstand is, people had a problem with the trailer that was there and the camper. It's all gone and anything that the Board has asked me to do, I've done, inclliding the enforcement agencies. They asked me to pOlir some concrete, to get rid of SOme jlink cars. I mean, I'm not here to give anybody a bad time. I'm going to be in the Town of Qlieensbliry for a long time and I'm going to get involved in a lot more projects. So, I'm an lip and liP, straight shooter. If I'm doing something wrong, and what I was doing there was wrong. I didn't have permission to park that equipment then~. So, slap me on the hand and I'm willing to get it out of there. I don't have any problem with that. MRS. GOETZ-Yes, I don't think we sholild fight about it. to do the right thing by the Town and by the neighbors. I think YOli' re trying MR. BRITTON-Exactly. MRS. GOETZ-Even tholigh you might not have been doing it all along. So, how are we going to get to this in the most easy way? MR. BRITTON-Give me 45 days, the eqliipment will be Olit of there and it's life as uSlial. MR. TURNER-All we've got to do is jlist interpret what the variance said in '85, that's what he's asking for. Let's plit it in black and white and then we'll go on to the next piece of blisiness, the Use Variance. MS. CORPUS-I think the Use Variance wOlild then be unnecessary. MR. MATHIAS-We wOlild probably withdraw the application. MR. TURNER-On the Use Variance? MR. MATHIAS-Right. MR. TURNER-Alright. Are there any flirther comments? Okay. I'll open the pliblic hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MARWAM KOZAK MR. KOZAK-My name is Marwam Kozak and I'm one of the neighbors. I remember, in '85, when you gave them the permission to lise the property for parking for employees and..trlicks and he didn't obey what yOli said at that time. In fact, when he moved, we did help him, if you remember, you had no water in the building at all, and I let them lise my water for, I don't remember how long. 6 '-' MR. BRITTON-I don't ever remember you letting me use your water. MR. KOZAK-Yes, I did. In fact, Mr. Hundrey, the former owner of that property, asked us permission to use it and he would pay all the fees from you. Now, we said this is a new neighborhood. We will help our neighbors and we don 1 t want to start off on the wrong foot and then, he moved in in '85 and we start to see all kinds of machinery, heavy equipment. I work nights and afternoons. I remember coming home at 2 0' clock in the morning and hearing we 1ding machines. Is this part of this trucking, employee vehicles? Second, Mr. Clements couldn't make it because he had a course to teach in Saratoga, out of town. He sent a letter to the Board. If you want to give him permission to park his vehicles, it's fine. How many vehicles? What kind of vehicles? What kind of oil storage? Fuel? I mean, is this part of the permission, that's what we'd like to know? Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-We have a letter from Mr. Clements. MRS. GOETZ-Read letter from Brian Clements: We are sure that we are not strangers to this Board as we have attended various meetings regarding Mr. Britton's request for changes in his variance at 125 Cronin Road. As a matter of fact, we spent April 18th, 1990, our 20th wedding anniversary, at the Town building, hoping to come to a resolution on this variance issue. Unfortunately, because of various absences, the issue was tabled until additional members of the Board could be in attendance. Because of circumstances beyond our control, we are unable to appear in full for ce again tonight. We would like to express to the Board the outcome that we per ceive from the meeting of April 18th, 1990. One, it appears that Mr. Britton is required to apply for a variance for additional vehicles to be parked at his Cronin Road location. It appears the Board, Mr. Britton, did not have a clear understanding of the use of the property back in 1985 when the Board approved the variance. It appears that the Board would not have approved this variance had they realized the technicality relating to the parking of corporate vehicles. Three, the Board also felt that if they had understood that the property would be used for the storage equipment, then they would have never approved the original variance. Four, the Board and Mr. Britton both admitted that neither of them addressed the issue of trucks or equipment at the site in the 185 decision and it was assumed that corporate vehicles related to such vehicles that would be parked there during normal working hours and would be personal cars. Five, Mr. Britton relayed at the April 18th, 1990 meeting that when he applied for the variance in 1985, he owned only 4 corporate vehicles. We hope that the Board has had an opportunity to review our previous tapes and letters. We regret that we are unable to attend this meeting, but, again, st rong1y reiterate, we do not have anything negative to say about Mr. Britton, personally. We feel that the use of office property has grown out of control and Mr. Britton should be located in a conmercia1 location and not a residential area. We are pleased to see that Mr. Bri tt on is addressing our concerns by placing his property for sale and we hope he will be successful in selling it. We do feel, however, that the minimum requirement for the use of property would be to have the original 4 corporate vehicles on site and to remove all equipment currently stored on the property. As always, our concerns include the value of our own, personal properti es, environmental pollution, hazardous materials, and health and safety hazards. Respectfully submitted, the Clements family MR. TURNER-Does the Board want to discuss it? MRS. GOETZ-I'd like to ask Mr. Kozak, you said that Mr. Britton, from the beginning, didn't obey the variance. Exactly what do you mean by that? MR. KOZAK-Well, working, rigs. is, if you were I meant using the welding machine at night, okay. I mean, I'm not against a guy making a living, in my shoes, what would you do? Would you vote for Air compressors but the problem me? MR. BRITTON-The welding t ruck was part of the, it wasn't a welding t ruck. There was a guy, as you people know, that I used to let park his log truck there, Turcot Trucking. That's been gone, probably, 4, 5 months and he's the guy that was there at 3 or 4 in the morning, starting his truck. MRS. GOETZ-Those logging trucks cause a lot of trouble around Town. MR. KOZAK-It's not starting the motor, just... 7 "---' '-'" MRS. GOETZ-Okay, thanks a lot. MR. KELLEY-I looked at the original 1985 minutes, I guess, if you will and, in going down through it, Mr. Tarantino, who was Mr. Britton's attorney at the time, said they were going to use this for office space. So, there's one- office space. That there would be a substantial improvement to the building, that doesn't really weigh, here, except I think they did sub stantially improve the building. Mr. Tarantino says there will be corporate vehicles, but no storage of any kind. So, they're talking about corporate vehicles, that comes into play. A couple of lines later, Mrs. Goetz asked where the trucks. So, we've got trucks involved, now. Where, they would be stored and Mr. Britton answered to the rear of the building, there is plenty of room available. So out of that, so far, I would say we've got office space, improvement to the building, corporate vehicles, and trucks. We go on a little further, Mr. Bear asks if the trucks would have any painting on them, the answer was yes. Read down here a little further, Mr. Britton said the t rucks would have no explosives during the night, but might stop during the day. So, it sounds like the trucks are going to be there at night and they'll be coming and going during the day. MR. TURNER-They'll have to go to the. .pick up the dynamite for delivery and pick up the slip. MR. KELLEY-But it sounds like he's going to store trucks there at night. MR. TURNER-Yes, we knew that. MR. KELLEY-Okay. Mr. Bear asked Mr. Britton if he could live with the approval, but with no trucks on the premises. Mr. Britton said he couldn't under those conditions and after that, the motion gets approved. So, I would say he has a right to use this for office space, store corporate vehicles, but corporate vehicles I'm interpreting as meaning his trucks, storage, storage of trucks. I would assume that if you have an office, you should be permitted to park your car there during the day and go to work. MR. TURNER-How many staff do you employ, Steve? MR. BRITTON-Five. MR. TURNER-Your employees will park there vehicles there? MR. BRITTON-Yes. MR. TURNER-How many employees? MR. BRITTON-Five employees, five vehicles. MR. TURNER-Eight trucks, five employees. How many staff? MR. BRITTON-I have four drivers and a secretary, that's five. MR. KELLEY-Are you counting yourself? MR. BRITTON-No. MR. KELLEY-So, you've got to add one for yourself. MR. BRITTON-Okay, throw my wife in there too. She works once in a while. MR. KELLEY-Well, if you ask me, that's what I'd say. MR. TURNER-Yes, that's the way it is. I agree. MR. KELLEY-Anybody else have anything they want to say? MRS. EGGLESTON-Actually no limit on the number of corporate vehicles? MR. TURNER-We didn't specify. He didn't indicate. We didn't ask. the matter was the equipment being in there. The crux of MR. KOZAK-How about the oil storage, fuel, diesel, whatever you want to call it? How about fuel tanks, oil tanks, is this permitted to be on the property? 8 '-' -- MR. KELLEY-It doesn't say so. MR. TURNER-No, it doesn't say. MR. KOZAK-But you didnlt say yes, too. Does it say yes? MR. TURNER-It says no storage. MR. KOZAK-What does that mean? MR. TURNER-The guy has a tank to store the fuel on, right, Steve? MR. BRITTON-You know, when the word storage comes into play in that application, everybody was petrified of explosives and it specifically meant the storage of explosives. Unfortunately, it didn't say storage of explosives. The reason that the word storage keeps coming up is because everybody was in a panic that I was going to store there and it's against the law. I never could. We used to be out at the airport..cars. The word storage keeps coming because everbody's worried about the storage of explosives. MR. TURNER-What size are your..? MR. BRITTON-It's a 275 gallon MR. TURNER-Two hundred and seventy-five diesel fuel? MR. BRITTON-Yes. MR. TURNER-Fuel oil? MR. BRITTON-Yes, and I have 275 for kerosene. MR. TURNER-How about the barrels in the back? MR. BRITTON-The barrels in the back, the Board asked me to move, so I brought them inside, there are no barrels. MR. TURNER-You put them inside? MR. BRITTON-Yes. MR. TURNER-All your oil for your drills is inside? MR. BRITTON-Yes. MR. TURNER-How about the two truck bodies or whatever you had there? MR. BRITTON-There's miscellaneous tools, hand tools, hoses. I made a rack and everything's sitting inside the garage. There's no oil. MR. TURNER-Do you sharpen your bits there? MR. BRITTON-Yes, we do. Well, we have a couple of hand grinders attached right to the drill because they all work by air, now, but we do have one set of guns, there, that we do sharpen at the office. MR. TURNER-Do you repair your air hammers there? MR. BRITTON-No. We send all that out. MR. TURNER-You send them out? MR. BRITTON-Yes, everything has to be mailed out and all that because it's so tight in there. We can't do it. MR. TURNER-Any other questions? MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, I wanted to ask Mr. Kozak, since he lives right next door if, indeed, the 2 o'clock noise and do you see a considerable improvement as Mr. Britton has told us? MR. KOZAK-When they used their welding machine, that night, they were not using it every day, but it's still not a great thing to hear at 2:30 in the morning. 9 ~ MRS. EGGLESTON-When was the last time you heard this? MR. KOZAK-A while ago. MRS. EGGLESTON-But Mr. Britton just said MR. KOZAK-No, not in the last 5 months, no. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. So, do you see an improvement, in fact, an effort of an improvement to, not so much traffic? MR. KOZAK-The point is, when you approved the variance in 1985, he didn't obey what you said exactly and I don't know about now. If you say yes, what's going to happen the day after tomorrow? Do you have an inspector to go and check that property? MRS. EGGLESTON-I can understand your concern. MR. KOZAK-That's the question, that's our concern. We are not against him, personally, no. I wish him all the success, but we have our concerns about our value, about our kids, so on. MR. KELLEY-Does anybody have a problem with the fuel tanks? They're not highly explosive. MR. TURNER-No. MR. KELLEY-I mean, you could have a 5 gallon gas in your garage that would be worse than that fuel oil, probably. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, does the Town have any regulations on storage tanks, that they would be regulating these drums, these 250 gallon drums? MRS. COLLARD-I would think the fire marshal has visited the site. MR. BRITTON-Yes, the fire marshal was just there about 2 weeks ago and he made some recommendations of things that we should do inside. We had a couple of wall switches without the back panel on that he wanted us to hang a fire extinguisher inside the building, by the door and he walked around the whole premise. With the fuel tanks, there's certain things you have to do. You have to have a non-sparking special pump to do it with and I think the last time that Dave Hatin was down they asked, I think you were there, Pat, to pour a cement slab underneath. You know, we've done everything that everybody asked. MR. KELLEY-So, as far as you're concerned, Steve, it met with the fire marshal's approval? MR. BRITTON-Yes, I think so. MR. KELLEY-And you didnlt have anything there you shouldn't have? MR. BRITTON-No. MRS. EGGLESTON-And with Dave Hatin's approval, now? MR. BRITTON-Yes, he's been..made sure we got rid of the junk cars. MRS. EGGLESTON-The storage tanks, in particular. MR. BRITTON-Yes, David didn't have a problem with the storage tanks. MR. TURNER-Pat, did you go there with Dave? MRS. COLLARD-Yes, I went there with Dave and Mr. Britton complied with all of our requests, very cooperative? MR. TURNER-Any other questions? None? A motion's in order. MOTION TO DEFINE THE INTERPRETATION OF VARIANCE 1001 WHICH WAS APPROVED JUNE 19TH, 1985, THE DATE INDICATED IN THE MINUTES OF JUNE 21ST, 1985, Introduced by Jeffrey Kelley who moved for its adoption, seconded by Susan Goetz: 10 After reading the minutes and discussion, Mr. Britton should be confined to the use of the building as office space/use. Corporate vehicles could be on the property. This is determined to be trucks and cars and does not include logging trucks, back hoes, and skids. At present, there are the following corporate vehicles: 8 company trucks, 4 employee cars, and 2 owners cars. The applicant will not be limited to the number of vehicles allowed. Any gross variation from this may give cause for concern. The truck size will be limited to 60,000 1bs. gross vehicle weight. We are permitting the applicant to have one, 275 gallon tank for diesel fuel and one, 275 gallon tank for kerosene. Any other storage will be indoors. There will be no repair or maintenance of vehicles allowed on the property. The original application indicates, and we concur now, that parking should be in the rear of the property on the east property line. Duly adopted this 23rd day of May, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Shea, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Sicard MR. BRITTON-I have a question. Right now, things are a little slow, with the economy being the way it is. This time last year, we had 8 to lO people working, driving. I mean, I'd just as soon not be limited. I mean, I'm not going to have a used car lot up there, but I don't want to get pinned down to having 6 employees and 10 corporate vehicles. MR. CARR-Jeff, I agree. I think when it was first proposed, it was 8 corporate trucks. So, I think we should limit it because that's what Wilson proposed is 8 trucks. I mean that was your proposal from the very beginning. MR. BRITTON-Okay, well, I've retracted a lot of other things so I'm going to retract that. I just, I don't want to get pinned down. I mean, if I have to buy another truck, and there's 9 there, I don't want to have to come back up here. You know what I mean, that I s getting ridiculous. You can't tie me down to a number of vehicles. MR. CARR-I'm saying I don't have a problem with limiting the trucks, only because your first representative said that was your proposal, but I don't think we should limit the number of personal cars that employees could have. I mean, if he's got 8 trucks, he might have 8 employees that drive those trucks, plus a couple of staff people. MR. SHEA-May I make a suggestion? I think that, for the benefit of the motion, for the Board to vote on, that a stric t definition of what corporate vehicles are would be very meaningful, but that no limitation be set on that for the expansion of the business. However, I think it would be pertinent and valuable to put into the motion and into the minutes, the number of vehicles that are currently in use, so that if that goes from 8 to 108, that the neighbors and the Board then can look differently on the motion that's been passed and I think that that's pertinent and would be fair to all parties. MR. BRITTON - I agree. have this problem. Sure, and, hopefully, weill sell the place and we won't MR. MATHIAS-That would be the other thing, too. Just, if he sells it, strictly office space, let's say, and they have 12 staff people with 12 cars. Does that mean they've got to come back and get a variance? I would hope because it's zoned for office space, if it's really used for what a reasonable man would think of as office space, it doesn't seem they ought to be tied up with the number of cars and I think your suggestion's a good one. Obviously, if there are 100 trucks or they're flowing out into the street, it's a different ball game. MR. KELLEY-In terms of corporate trucks, could you give me some kind of an idea of what size limitation you feel is reasonable. I mean, are we talking 10 ton, 20 ton, I don't know trucks that well. MR. BRITTON-It'll never get that big, so if I throw out a number 20. MR. TURNER-A total of 20 trucks, but I don't think that's his question. MR. KELLEY-No, I meant size, in terms of how big. 11 '---' MR. BRITTON-We've got 2 trucks with a gross weight of 30,000. It's like a 5 year dump truck, that size. We've got one tractor trailer and the rest are 1 ton, duel wheel trucks. Small pickups. MR. KELLEY-What would be a tandem wheel dump truck rating? MR. BRITTON-Around 30,000. MR. KELLEY-Duel axles? MR. BRITTON-No, I don't have any duel axles. They're all single axle. MR. KELLEY-And what would the tractor trailer be? MR. BRITTON-That's 56, that's a duel axle. MR. KELLEY-So, if we put a limit of no truck larger than 60,000 1bs., that could handle your situation? MR. BRITTON-Sure. MR. KELLEY-So, if you had to get a bigger truck, that could do it? MR. BRITTON-Right. MR. KELLEY-We wouldn't hinder you? MR. BRITTON-Not at all. MR. TURNER-The tractor is..a Low Boy? MR. BRITTON-Yes, it's a 25 ton, so that's 50,000. MR. TURNER-How many 1 ton have you got? MR. BRITTON-Three. In the Connec ticut and in April of equipment. I just don I t see fact, it's shrunk now. past, too, I had a business also established in '89 I sold that, so I've gotten rid of a lot of it getting a whole lot bigger than it is now. In MRS. EGGLESTON-Should we say anything about working hours. So, it would eliminate the neighbors concerns about the night time. I know it wasn't in the original, but. MR. TURNER-Steve, let me ask you ask you, when the guys come back from the deliveries, what time do they get in, usually? MR. BRITTON-Our normal working day, we start anywhere's between(TAPE TURNED) If he heard welder, it was probably from that logging truck and that's been gone, I do have a welder at my office, but it's electric, so if he heard that he had to be sitting next to the guy welding. So, I mean, I think a lot of the problem was that logging truck. He was in at 3 in the morning with his big diesel. He went up and down the road. MRS. GOETZ-Do you like it now? Do you want to vote? MR. TURNER-Joyce, are you concerned about the business hours? MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, that was my question. I didn't know if you could. I know it wasn't part of the original application. MR. SHEA-I don't think it's germane. MR. TURNER-No. I think the concerns of the neighbors are pretty well addressed. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. TURNER-Because the heavy equipment's gone and the repair work's gone. MR. KELLEY-And a truck could be out on the road and you can't stop that. 12 '-' MR. TURNER-You can't stop that. USE VARIANCE NO. 25-1990 TYPE: UNLISTED SFR-1A STEPHEN BRITTON OWNER: STEPHEN C. AND LORI F. BRITTON SOUTH SIDE OF CRONIN ROAD, APPROX. 650 FT. SOUTHWEST OF INTERSECTION OF CRONIN ROAD AND RIDGE ROAD TO ALLOW THE CONTIN1JED 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 MR. MATHIAS-We withdraw the other(Use Variance). Just as a point of clarification, the reason that's dated that way(The Interpretation) is that's how you used to send out your notices for, and that's what the actual variance is dated. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. TURNER-Let the record show he withdrew. Use Variance No. 25-1990, Stephen Britton, withdrawn by the applicant. USE VARIANCE NO. 25-1990 STEPHEN BRITTON: For the record, we would like to note that the applicant, Stephen Britton, has withdrawn the Use Variance No. 25-1990. USE VARIANCE NO. 32-1990 TYPE: UNLISTED CR.-IS U-HAUL CO. OF N.H.. NE\W YORK, INC. OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 112 MAIN STREET FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A METAL BUILDING TO CONTAIN SELF-STORAGE UNITS. (WARREN COUNTY PI...ANNING) TAX MAP NO. 135-1-4 LOT SIZE: 2.43 ACRES SECTION 4.020-1 JAMES TOWNE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TURNER-This was tabled from the last meeting for additional information from the applicant for a breakdown of commissions and expenses. MR. TOWNE-We have delivered to the Planning and Building Department, the packet that you have showing the additional information which gives the general breakdown of what happens to the 65 percent fees generated in the whole facility, also indicated as the fees generated from the cold storage facility would remain, are not subject to commissions by the home office. You had asked for some information and Exhibit A represents a photocopy of the projections done by U-Hau1 prior to application that is in process and it shows what they project for an occupancy in a 20 year regular term for this facility if you allow it. Exhibit B represents P & L Statements which we include, have given to you or discussed with you, showing that the losses, over a period of time, were, approximately, $47,000 over the 7 year, 8 year, prior period and also showing the 11 months through February 1990 showing a profit of $6800. Twelve months of the year, they have the depreciation breakdown for the entire year and, consequently, anticipated a loss of between $5 and $10,000 for the year ending 1990. Exhibit shows the rates of occupancy for Cohoes, Albany, and Rotterdam facilities. Steve Ferris, who's here with me, again, tonight, has indicated to me that, in fact, the rate of occupancy for Albany, which is shown at 67.89 percent is 83 percent at the present time and that the Rotterdam shows here at 82.35 is 86 percent. I know that there was some discussion, when we were here last time that, perhaps, some of the other loca 1 facilities might not be showing these occupancy rates and, therefore, we might not be yielding a rate of return as anticipated. One thing I'd like the Board to keep in mind is that U-Hau1 has a fairly captive audience. Five percent of our customers, nationwide, take advantage of these storage facilities on site, whereas the other storage facilities don't have that initial.. renting a truck and go ing from point to point from storage facility to storage facility. So, we are in a little better position than our local competition. MR. CARR-But, Mr. Towne, also, just for your information, I think..we did a survey of local storage and the occupancy rate was about a 99.2 percent occupancy rate. MR. TOWNE-Great, thanks. MR. TOWN-Just one comment, Bruce, I did talk with one of the proprietors of..estab1ishment, and, although it's 100 percent now, it averages out 50 percent. MR. TOWNE-Well, it's certainly seasonal. MR. TURNER-It's seasonal. 13 '-- -.../ MR. CARR-Okay. MR. TURNER-That's what these indicated. MR. TOWNE-Steve was indicating what the present, apparently MR. FERRIS-We just shot up 15 percent. We average about 73. We average about 73 to 75 percent. MR. TURNER-Name please. MR. FERRIS-Steven Ferris with U-Hau1 Co., sorry. Figures are left there for the facilities that we control, in our area that would be sometime of measuring tool for you. We average about 75 percent a year and, certainly, right now, with college kids, it would go up, like everyone else, but 3 out of 4 rooms would be rented on a year round basis, if not, 10 out of 10, in certain periods. MR. TOWNE-The last Exhibit, D, is a photocopy of the U-Hau1 front line report for 1989. This shows a system wide ranking and one of the concerns the Board had. .across the line, last time, was whether or not U-Hau1 International was, basically, looting the locals and. .a11 the profits out to show a loss and 9 of the 10 facilities operated by U-Hau1 of Northeastern New York, who's the applicant here, show a profit. This particular Glens Falls facility is not. MR. TURNER-I notice you pay rent to International U-Hau1 of $1635 every month. MR. TOWNE-Yes, they own the facility. MR. TURNER-Yes, but you pay them rent? MR. TOWNE-Yes. MR. TURNER-We added that into your income to bring that figure up. MR. TOWNE-The other thing I obtained today from the controller of U-Hau1 International and 11m sorry for not getting this sooner, but we really don't have any control over U-Hau1 International, they actually control us, is some information showing that, U-Haul International is actually known as Amerco, and it's consolidated subsidiaries shows only a 4 percent net pre tax profit which, on revenues for 1989 of $918,000,000, they showed net earnings of $36,000,000 which is 4 percent. In 188, they showed total revenues of $862,000,000 and net earnings of $13,000,000, Which is a 2 percent net profit and, in 1987, they showed revenues of $863,000,000 and with a net earnings of $2,000,000, Which is less than 1 percent. So, clearly, they're not pulling money out of the locals to fund some 1ar~ profit on the International. That I s shown, not only by these figures, but also by the fact that 9 out of 10 facilities operated by U-Hau1 of Northeastern New York are actually operating at a profit and I should remind you, again, that the profit figures and commission figures are computed identically, not only through U-Hau1 of Northeastern New York, but also the commissions are pulled out uniformly throughout the country by the International. Do you have anymore questions? MR. SHEA-I think that it was certainly not the Board's intention to look to U-Haul of Northeast, here, to make them overly profitable or, certainly, have them show a loss. I think we were more concerned with the fact that, if it was not a profitable situation for U-Hau1, we obviously want profitable businesses in this community and want them to succeed. I think our only concern was, that if it was not a profitable situation, that U-Hau1 then would leave and then leave us with a property that may go into some other form of use, that was our main concern. MR. TOWNE-Okay, I interpreted it differently and, actually, I thought the concern that I had picked up on, apparently erroneously, was actually a legitimate question. Is the International, basically, bankrupting the local and they're not. As far as U-Haul' s commitment, I think that, When Steve was here last time, he indicated that the facility that we're proposing, unlike the ones that are presently on site and of use in the Town, they're proposing to spend an additional $50, to $75,000 to make this a permanent facility, so they intend to be in business for a long time to come. That $50 to $75,000 is above the normal cost of projections for similar facilities by making the expansion of the walls kind of block as opposed to sheet metal. Okay, thank you all very much. MR. TURNER-Do we have any additiona1..that the Board wants to discuss? MS. CORPUS-No, but the Board would have to address SEQRA, though. 14 "--- --- MR. TURNER-Does anybody want to discuss the application any further? MR. KELLEY-He doesn't need any area, right? It's just a Use Variance. He meets all the setbacks? MR. TURNER-What's the square footage of the lot? MR. KELLEY-How many feet, 2.43 acres and it's a CR-15. MR. TURNER-Is there any other use in the zone? They've got to have a m~n~mum of 1 acre, or any other allowed use? This is not a permitted use anyway. Any use in the CR zone. .an allowed use. I don't think we designated a CR zone on a major highway to have that kind of storage. That's a pretty busy area up there and the other question is, the property behind is residential. MR. SHEA-Did Bruce mention the definition of storage? MR. CARR-Yes, it fit into the Light Industrial. MR. TURNER- It fits into the Light Industrial. That I s the two problems I have. It's going to be a major facility, exposed right on the main highway and I don't think we zoned it CR-15 for that kind of use. MRS. EGGLESTON-I know, Ted, they are trying to make it look better coming from the Northway in. .they add attractively to the area coming in. I think you have to look at that as well. MR. TURNER-My thing is that that kind of facility isn't go ing to blend in with whatls already there. MR. CARR-Ted, you said this property behind him was residential? MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-It's suburban residential. MR. TURNER-It's suburban residential. MR. CARR-Directly behind him? MRS. EGGLESTON-To the left. MR. TURNER-To the left of him. MRS. GOETZ-And Light Industrial is over in appropriate spot to put storage of this type. but there were reasons why it was zoned the way that area and that would be the Not that they own property there, it was. MR. SHEA-Mr. Towne, you might want to address the Board with the concern that the Chairman is raising with regard to this effecting the nature of the neighborhood and, maybe, point out for us, how far back the storage facility will be from the existing U-Haul center and rental shop which is now on the property. MR. FERRIS-It would have to be a rough guess, right now, but it's going to be a substantial setback, I could give you footage, right now, what's it, 100 foot, roughly, based on what they're saying, behind the facility. MR. TOWNE-But in connection with your question concerning the residential area, the residential portion, on the zoning maps, is over in here. There are no houses that come, actually, close to it and we intend not to construct anywhere near that area or to intrude upon that, there's also a natural blanket of trees back there, intrude upon that residential zone with this facility. Concerning the increased use, as we indicated the first night we were here, they're expecting, the people who are going to be using this facility, almost exclusively, will be people coming and going in connection with the rental of trucks. There will be some people who, once they arrive, will go to pick up their goods, but they were looking at less than 5 visits per day, not related to truck rentals. So, it's not a greatly increased usage or traffic on the road and you won't see a great deal of increased activity. The other thing is that, if they. .and see if they can turn this particular facility profitable which statistics show that they can and which your own investigation is showing, at the present time, 99 percent revenue, 15 '--' ~ locally, they intend to make significant improvements in connection with the front canopies and the front of the property which, I think, goes to your concern, Mrs. Eggleston, that they're trying to improve the character of the neighborhood. We're certainly not changing the character of the neighborhood. It's obviously very commercial at the present time. MRS. GOETZ-Okay, the natural buffer of trees, is that on your property? MR. FERRIS-Yes, it's currently on the property. MR. TOWNE-Right. MR. CARR-Jim, I think you've got a problem with your buffer zone because you've got to have 50 feet. MR. TOWNE- I Use Variance. understand that, but that's our Area Variance application, not the We're here strictly, tonight, on the Use Variance. MRS. GOETZ-Where's the Area Variance? MR. TURNER-It's not here. MR. TOWNE-It's not before you until this is determined. MR. TURNER-He wants to see if this is going to fly. MRS. GOETZ-Right, well, I don't feel you can meet the Use Variance criteria listed on Page 99. MR. TOWNE-Well, the Use Variance listed on Page 99, indicates that we have to meet several tests. The first is the strict application of the said use provisions of the 0 rdinance would result in a specified unnecessary hardship which arises because of excessive or extraordinary circumstances applying to the property and not generally to other properties in the same district or which results from a lot size or shape legally reducing prior to the date of the 0 rdinance. As we indicated the first night we were here, we can't do anything with this property within the permitted uses of CR-15, as it presently exists, in order to make this property commercially profitable. It's clear, we went through that the first night we were here, in the permitted uses on Page 52 of your Zoning 0 rdinance, are private garage, storage shed, swimming pool, outdoor activity court facility, private greenhouse, single family dwelling, duplex, office building, social club, hospital, nursing home, day care center, restaurant, banking facility, gasoline station with or without automobile repair, home occupation, hotel, rote1, inn, retail business or veterinarian clinic. We can't do any of those things under the present re-zoning of CR-15 and this is for this facility and our use of this property pre-dates the CR-15 zone. In fact, to my mind, they've improved the use of this property by, it's no longer a commercial gas station, which it was when they first went on the property. .appear of it because of the canopy and the island, but, in fact, I think they've improved the usage, that's with respect to Item Number One. Number Two, the property in question cannot yield a reasonable financial return. I think we've shown that pretty clearly. We are not yielding a rate of return that makes this facility profitable and I don't think that we're obligated, under this Use Variance provision, to continue to operate at a loss. We I re not having figures showing that clearly. We're not pulling out profits unnecessarily. Number three, that the variance is necessary for the preservation of a property right of the applicant substantial the same as owners of other property in the same districts. It's true, with respect to our use of the property, in order for us to preserve our property right and we are operating a commercial establishment in CR-15 as are our neighbors and we can't do it profitably so I think we comply there. As to Number 4, that the variance would not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this Ordinance or that they would have a detrimental, hard impact with respect to the neighbprhood. I think that we've shown you that the usage is not going to be significant. A large bulk of the people are already..the property anyway. MR. CARR-Mr. Towne, as to Number Three, just to go back for a minute, I've got another question for, or maybe not you, but for the Staff. You said that the other property owners are, you know, you're showing us you can't operate at a profit, well they're operating at a profit, or else they wouldn't be there, using it for what it's zoned for. MR. TOWNE-Sane of our neighbors in the immediate area are in a different zone, that's the first thing. They're not all CR-151s in that area. 16 "--' '--' MR. CARR-But people in CR-15 are using it for what's allowed in a CR-15, and making a profit. MR. TOWNE-Clearly. Absolutely, but we're not required to change our use. We have been operating at a profit, periodically, and our use of this property pre-dates the CR-15 zone and we can't, within the present guidelines of CR-15, we have no alternatives to operate this facility, unless you want us to put up another gas station, which is not our business. We don't run nursing homes. We don't run hospitals. We don't running swimming pool centers. We don't run home offices. MR. CARR-So, what would you consider yourself. I mean, where would a rental facility be located? Maybe this is a question for the Staff, not for you. MRS. COLLARD-In a Light Industrial zone. MR. CARR-A Light Industrial zone? Okay, so what they have now is a preexisting, nonconforming use? MRS. COLLARD - Ye s . MR. CARR-Okay. When they bought the property, maybe this is going back awhile, I don't know if anybody knows, do you know what it was zoned then? MRS. COLLARD-I don't. MR. CARR-Ted, it was Highway Commercial? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. SHEA-At the original purchase time of the property, was this one contiguous, one total parcel of land? MR. TOWNE-Yes. MR. SHEA-It was not purchased, another piece was not purchased? MR. TOWNE-No. MR. CARR-And also, Ted, maybe you can answer this. At the time of their purchase, under Highway Commercial, just for my own knowledge, were self storage units allowed in Highway Commercial? MR. TURNER-No. MR. CARR-Do you know where they were allowed, or were they addressed or were they just a new..? MR. TURNER-The last Ordinance they were zoned Light Industrial, but they owned that, how long have you owned it? MR. TOWNE-Twelve years. MR. TURNER-Twelve years, '79, right? So, that would have been a CR-1 or 2. MR. CARR-What would have been? Where they are? MR. TURNER-In '79. MR. CARR-It would have been a CR-1? MR. TURNER-It would have been commercial. MR. TOWNE-The other thing I would point out is that, when we took this over as a gas station, there were junk vehicles stored in back, I mean welve improved the neighborhood, substantially, by cleaning it up and I certainly think that the storage sheds are going to be more attractive than the vehicles that were there 12 years ago when we bought the property. MR. TURNER-There's a little better job of policing now, than there was then. 17 -- --- MR. TOWNE-That's true, but I, again, would reiterate that I do believe we meet all the criteria, on Page 99, for a Use Variance. As to the Area Variance, that's a separate procedure and I think we would have to come before you and show the standards as to how we can ensure that. .buffer. .we're going to protect them from whatever. . we fee 1 we are going to cause and, in that regard, I certainly think that the engineers would propose berming and planting that would remain permanently part of the approval process if you grant the Area Variance. MR. KELLEY-As I say..preexisting, nonconforming uses. Welve kind of eyed them and talked about them and said, are they in the position where, maybe, they shouldn't expand anymore and you've got to realize you're in the wrong zone and should move, rather than keep adding on. I'm trying to think of a specific one we've talked about. Seems to me, Steve Britton is kind of in the same boat, in a sense. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. KELLEY-He started out. He had a variance and then that was loosely interpreted. I think that was the problem there, but here is a similar thing. You've got something that was in a zone, now it I s changed and why do you keep expanding? Where do you say, Whoa, I'm in the wrong place? MRS. GOETZ-Because this is a chance to make things right or not make them bad because there's vacant land around it which is zoned Suburban Residential and why would we want to go against the purposes of the new Zoning Ordinance and Master Plan? It's not like there's something already there that we have to deal with. MR. TOWNE-Well, my understanding of the Zoning Laws and the Use Variance application process, and the Town Attorney if 11m wrong, is that, within this zone, we're entitled to reasonable return on our investment, Which we're not receiving. We're entitled to a variance in order to obtain that, if we can I t find a use within the permitted uses and if we can show these various criteria and I believe we've shown them. MR. KELLEY-The only one question cannot yield permissible use or site the property is located gasoline station. MR. TOWNE-Correct. I have a problem with, it says, that the property in a reasonable financial return if used for any of the plan review applicable to the zoning district in which and you said, When they bought the building, it was a MR. KELLEY-And a gasoline station is a permitted use in that zone. MR. TOWNE-And those people, presumably, left because they weren't making a living. There's several other gas stations within the area. MRS. EGGLESTON-And they're all doing very well. MRS. GOETZ-No body's made you buy that. MR. TOWNE-Unfortunately, it was a permitted purchase at the time and our present occupancy of that property is permitted as a prior nonconforming use. We're allowed to operate that facility within the parameters of what we do for a living. We don't operate restaurants and it's just as likely for you to sit here and tell me we have to open up a restaurant, but that's not our business and we don't operate gasoline stations and we don't operate hospitals and social clubs and you can't force this company to go out and engage in activity, first of all, Which it's not licensed to do, and second of all, Which it has no qualifications, but we do know how to make money in the storage business. We're not going to adversely ;£"fect the neighborhood. They've been a good resident in this Town for a long time. They've been losing money up here and have come up with an alternative to make them stay at this facility, in this Town, as a taxpayer and I don't understand, with the reticence, When we've shown, I think, great sensitivity supplying you with infortnation to show you that we're not taking advantage of this loop hole and trying to create a problem. We have a serious problem. We've come to you and asked for help and I think theylre entitled to it. MR. TURNER-Well, no matter, from all the testimony you've stated and..I still have a problem with Item 1 and Item 4 of the Use Variance, the same as Mr. Kelley. MR. KELLEY-If you looked at Item 1, it says that the strict application of said use provisions of this Ordinance would result in a specified, unnecessary hardship to the applicant: One, Which arises because of exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the property and not applying generally to other properties in the same district. Well, I don't see a hardship on the property. lR '~ MR. TOWNE-As I explained to you the last time, Mr. Kelley, if you looked at the property without the proposed storage facility, we have a huge chunk of land in the back of this property we can't do with, within any of your permitted uses, that I s clear. We can't put a motel back there. We can't put a restaurant back there. We can't put a social club back there. We have a piece of property that we can I t fully utilize and that's what the use variance procedure is designed to address. We can't use that property. MRS. EGGLESTON-Is that not where they park trucks? MR. TOWNE-As we've indicated before, most of those trucks, and you asked before about the storage beds, they were all removed. A good portion of that property is vacant and is not yielding any return. So, there is something unique about this property. MR. CARR-Jeff, I do see Mr. Towne's point, a little, in that, meeting criteria, Number One, only, maybe this isn't Queensbury's interpretation, but it is a nonconforming use lot, if you will, of record, in that they have a use there that is Light Industrial. So, there is something a little bit exceptional about this particular lot. I mean, it's a rental facility and the other lots along that particular zone are all within the proper, as far as I can determine, within the proper scope of What that zone is designed for. So, I don't really have a problem with Number One. I don't think. .as much as others on the Board do because I do see it as a unique exception to this particular lot. I'd like to hear Number Three addressed again because I do have a problem with Number Three I think as well as others on the Board, but I think, I would just like to say that I haven't quite made up my mind about how I feel about this, but I don't think self storage units are as burdensome on a neighborhood that some other types of allowable uses within a Light Industrial zone. I can tell. .right now, if this goes through, I would be very hard pressed to allow a Use Variance as to a buffer zone because I think that's what the buffer zones are there for is to protect the residential. I would welcome a very nice Beautification Committee approved plan as to, even how to buffer any site.. in this place. My feeling on Issue Number One is that he does have reasonable grounds to prove that he has an exceptional lot, not applicable to other businesses in that same zone and that's my feeling on that specific. . MR. TURNER-Let me ask Mr. Towne, When you first bought the property, in '79, that was a Texaco gas station, I think. MR. TOWNE-Right. MR. TURNER-Didn't you keep the pumps in there for quite awhile before you took them out? MR. FERRIS-There is a pump still in there. MRS. EGGLESTON-There are pumps there now. MR. TURNER-No, I mean didn't you serve the public with a gasoline station? MR. FERRIS-Truthfully, I'm not aware of that. MR. TOWNE-I don't have the information. The pumps that exist now are just to service that trucks that are coming in and I don't know how long that's existed, in terms of, I don't know how long the public has not been able to come in and purchase gasoline. MR. SHEA-But I think the Chairman's right. At one point, there was the resale of gasoline at that station after U-Hau1 purchased it. MR. TURNER-And then they started, then U-Hau1 started.. .and it became the use it is today. MR. TOWNE-I couldn't challenge you or anything on that. information at all. I just don't have any MRS. GOETZ-Okay, it seems to me that your present use is the exception. You have the problem because of your own particular use and there's no exceptional thing, that I can see, applying to this property. Ted, I really think we should think about why we created that new zone, Commercial Residential. 19 '-- MR. TURNER-It's transitional from Residential to Highway Commercial. MRS. GOETZ-Yes, just let me finish. Because one thing that's been bad about that area is that businesses have gone in on tiny little pieces of property and, by creating the transitional zone, we wanted to pick up bigger pieces of property for the uses that are outlined under this zone. This is a prime piece of property there, to put the right kind of business that's outlined, here, on that and you've got, like, a Light Industrial use that you're proposing and, to me, I think it should go in Light Industrial zone. It would go against the purposes of the Ordinance to allow it because we want a nice big piece of property for the allowable uses as outlined. You've got to agree, that's a valuable piece of property. Maybe the present use that you have on it isn't serving you the way you want it to. MR. TOWNE-That's the purpose of the Use Variance procedure. MRS. GOETZ-Yes. MR. TOWNE-I'd point out that, if we came in today and tried to put this facility, just the rental business, on there, I don't think we'd qualify in the CR-15. Do you agree? MRS. GOETZ-Right. MR. TOWNE-So, æ have a prior nonconforming use and that's the reality we all have to deal with. As to the valuableness of the piece of property, the requirements for the Town to access any portion of this property would preclude us from even subdividing this property. We can't even sell off the back portion, which is one of the cases that New York State indicates, can you subdivide it? We can't even subdivide this property. We have no way to get to a commercial return, proper return, for the rear portion of this property and this is the only thing we can come up with. We I re already a nonconforming use. We're asking to expand that nonconforming use within the actual nonconforming use we're already in, to put in these storage units which, æ feel, are extremely non-intrusive and I think we've demonstrated adequately that we meet all the criteria. I think we, clearly, meet Number One. Bruce, I don't understand your concern with respect to Number Three. We can't preserve our property rights, as a nonconforming use, as our neighbors can in their conforming uses. When this, your Zoning Ordinances were amended, changed over the years, æ became a nonconforming use. We can't, now, first of all, T£ can I t be required to change our use to something that conforms, but we can't add any of those businesses and I think you'll all agree that the configuration of the property's, you couldn't effectively run any of these operations with our present operation on the facility. The storage unit business, to my mind, is the only thing we can do there and it is, in fact, in our business. MR. TURNER-It's in your business, but also listed under the uses as gasoline station with automotive repair. You have a Hitch World which, in a sense, puts on trailer hitches, installs trailer hitches. It I s kind of an adjunct to, not necessarily repair, but there was a live gasoline station there, at one time. You have to prove to us that that can't exist again. Tell me why that can't exist again. MR. TOWNE-One reason it can't exist is because we I re not in that business and we can't be required, as a nonconforming use MRS. GOETZ-But that isnlt our fault. MR. TURNER-You were in the business, 'at one time, and you decided to take it out yourself. MR. TOWNE-Well, T£ took it out and discontinued that use, by this corporation, prior to the time that you changed this zone. So, our prior nonconforming use is identical to the present nonconforming use and you can't force us to engage in a business that we're not licensed to do. MS. CORPUS-If I might interject just one second. I've been making sure I knew where the Board could stand on this. The Board has to decide whether Mr. Towne has proven the case as to whether the applicant, who happens to maintain a nonconforming use in this case, that not only is that, but he must show, not only that all permitted uses will be unprofitable, but that his nonconforming use of the premises isn't capable of yielding a reasonable return. It's a two pronged thing, that all permitted uses, Number One, will be unprofitable and that his nonconforming use isn't capable of yielding a reasonable return. The Board must decide whether the applicant has met that threshold. 20 -- MR. CARR-I understand prong one, okay. What's prong two? MS. CORPUS-That his current, nonconforming use of the premises is incapable, as it is, of yielding a reasonable return. MR. CARR-Okay, and thatls what all of the financial documents.. MS. CORPUS-So, basically, it was two pronged. That's the test and the Board has to decide whether, for that particular, for this nonconforming use, that he has met that. MRS. GOETZ-I think we should think about the intensity of the warehousing, also, because, think about Dombecks Storage that is on Quaker and Meadowbrook and there's a house smack dab right next to it and we've had to deal with that problem. Here we have empty, burgeoning residential land bordering on this property and I think it would be an eyesore to put any housing up there. I wouldn't want to live next door to it. MR. TOWNE-I appreciate that, but what can we do, within the permitted uses, to return to this company some kind of a profit from this facility. MRS. GOETZ-But. .make U-Hau1 change their use, the way they were operating their business. MR. TOWNE-As it came into the present Zoning Ordinance, it is a prior nonconforming use, identical to the way it is right now. So, the fact of what it was six or seven years before that, when we operated a gas station, if we did in fact, and I assume that you're right, is irrelevant, as to what is the nonconforming use at the time you enacted the Zoning Ordinance, it's identical to the present use. A month before we may have changed the operation, but what was it at the time you changed the Ordinance and we don't do gasoline stations anymore, like we don't do social clubs and restaurants and any of these other permitted uses. MR. KELLEY-I was just reading this and I think I understand where. .may be coming from. Under Use Variance it says, A variance to allow a use within a district other than a use allowed as a permissible use for site plan review, maybe granted only in the even that all the following circumstances are specifically followed. Okay, now that would be, let's say the property was vacant and he came in here and said, \Ie want to put this storage shed. Then you could say no because you haven't proved that you couldn't build something different there, okay, but he's coming in with a preexisting, nonconforming use, that makes a difference and it doesn't state in here that if you're coming in as a preexisting, nonconforming, then what do you do? It doesn't even address that. MR. CARR-I think it states that you take the property as you find it and, I mean, if it's a blank land, vacant land, it's vacant land. If it's already a preexisting lot with whatever on it, that's the way we take it. I mean, you take it as you find it. I mean, youlve got to deal with just the reality of what the property is at this time. I mean, thatls our mandate under the Ordinance. MR. KELLEY-It does make a difference. If the land was vacant, you could go down throu~ here, click, click, click and say, alright, here it is, but the fact is, the guy is there and it says, can yield a reasonable financial return. Well, that would be if he were coming in and saying, no I can't build a restaurant and make it work. I can't make a gas station, but how does that apply if he has a nonconforming use that's already there? There's a difference there. MS. CORPUS-To an extent. MR. KELLEY-This is designed, if you read this, I would say, that there's a raw piece of land and you want to do something on it other than what it says you can do..you follow all these things and everything will be great. MR. CARR-Yes..too, but you can't look at every piece of property because if you look at every piece of property as a raw piece of vacant land, within the zone, no one would ever qualify for a Use Variance because I don't see there's any circumstances that you could ever give a Use Variance, if all you look at is that the property is vacant and you want a Use Variance. I think you've got to look at the property, what itls got on it. I mean, it's got a preexisting, nonconforming use that should have been in a Light Industrial zone, but it's not, for whatever reason. MR. TURNER-Any further discussion? 21 '---'" -- MR. CARR-No. MR. TOWNE-Could I just make one comment? Mrs. Goetz, I respect the concerns that you have with respect to changing the neighborhood, but the law says that we're entitled to a reasonable return, that we can't be forced to vacate or to sell, that we get to use this Use Variance procedure and the only thing, I'm not trying to cram this down anybody's throat, this is the only thing we can do. There are no palatable alternatives, other than for us to turn the key on the door, which the law says we don't have to do and I'm sorry that, I understand your concerns for the neighboring, residential area and I appreciate and respect it, as does U-Hau1 and I think when you see them come in with their Area Variance documents, that you'll see they're very sensitive to that, but the point is, we are entitled to, I believe, this variance, and I think we meet the criteria and I think we've shown.. that we do meet those criteria and I know that you're having a..phi1osophica11y, and I don't blame you, but the law says we're entitled to do this and I believe that we can't be forced, as you indicated, to move or sell or do any of those things. The law says we don't have to abandon our property and I'm sorry to be in this position where I'm the guy wearing the black hat, but I think.. within the Ordinance and within the laws of the State of New York in making this application and it should be granted. MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 32-1990 U-HAUL CO. OF N.E NEW YORK, INC., Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jeffrey Kelley: The applicant has demonstrated the requirements for granting the Use Variance. There are extraordinary circumstances applying to this property and not others in the area, in that the applicant has a current, preexisting nonconforming use on the property which would make it impractical for him to require him to place a conforming use to achieve a reasonable return. Secondly, the applicant has demonstrated that reasonable financial return is not possible if used for a permissible use under the current Ordinance. The applicant has further demonstrated that this variance is necessary to preserve the property right that other property owners within the same district possess without the variance and that is, a reasonable return on the use of the property. We do not believe this variance would be materially detrimental to the Ordinance. This is a minimum variance that would alleviate the unnecessary hardship. A review of the Short EAF Form shows no negative environmental impact would be forthcoming. Duly adopted this 23rd day of May, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Shea, Mr. Carr NOES: Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner ABSENT: Mr. Sicard MS. CORPUS-I'm sorry, what's the count, 3 to 3? MR. TURNER-Three, three. MS. CORPUS-No action. MR. CARR-Which means? MS. CORPUS-The Board must make a decision within 31 days, if no action is granted by then, the applicant is approved. MRS. GOETZ-What type of action would we be likely to take? MS. CORPUS-Well, the Board could always make another motion. MR. TURNER-Entertain another motion. MS. CORPUS-Either now, or within 30 days. MR. CARR-Well, there's only one other motion. differences? Do we want to discuss our MR. KELLEY-He has to come back for an Area Variance, right? MR. TURNER- Yes. MR. KELLEY-If he gets approved. 22 --- MR. TURNER-If he gets the Use Variance. If he doesn't get the Use Variance MR. KELLEY-And that's going to, I would say, the feeling of this Board, require 50 foot buffers. I think theylre required, right? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KELLEY-Okay, so that's going to cut down on the size. So maybe in reality what we I re looking at, \\e' re talking about whether he can use the property or not, but then we're going to come back and. .\\e11, yes, we said you could use it, but you're only going to be able to use 2/3rds of what you originally proposed, but that's the chance he takes. Does anybody have any feelings on the fact that it would be smaller or you just don't... MR. TURNER-I just think it's the wrong place for that kind of facility in that area. MRS. GOETZ-I think we feel strongly about it because we were so involved in the planning process and this was a whole new zone created and we understand what was behind it. MR. KELLEY-Because you've changed the zone on a guy who had a business there to start with, you're really saying, because we've changed the zone, you can't be there anymore. MRS. GOETZ-But he might propose something else that we might say could go there. I happen to think warehouses would be an eyesore. MR. CARR-What else can he do there? I mean, let's be constructive, here. I mean, what else can he do here? There IS, how many gas stations are there, there's Cumberland Farms, there's Mobil, there's Sunoco, I think there's one other down there, I'm not sure, is there four there? Hess. I mean, how many gas stations can you have in one area. They arenlt in the business. I mean, they aren't going to open up a sub shop. I mean, they aren't going to have a restaurant. I guess, looking at what's allowed there to make this reasonable, to make this more profitable to them, what can they put there? MR. SHEA-I think welve overcome the profit and loss issue and the reasonable return on the property. I think that those who voted down the motion are more concerned with the nature of the neighborhood and that pertains to the kind of business that this storage facility is and I think that temporary storage facilities like this are a rather new entity and something that we're not totally familiar with yet and I have a limited experience on the Board, but I would believe that, and ask the Board to tell me differently, that a variance for a storage facility, particularly a self storage, has never come before us before and that it is a new type of business and mayor may not have been put in the proper category, with respect to zoning and I think that those that voted this down are really more concerned with how it effects and impacts that current neighborhood, not maybe so much the current businesses there, because we know that this is another commercial business in a heavily trafficked zone, but probably more so to the future residential backing up to the property and I think that's what you probably have to concern yourself most in trying to change the view point of those who voted this motion down. MR. TOWNE-Is it appropriate, Mr. Turner, for me to be heard now? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. TOWNE-Mrs. Goetz, one of the big items you kept hammering back at was, you wouldn't want to look out over this storage facility, that really goes to our Area Variance application and what we're going to have to show in order to get that by you. We're going to have to convince you we're going to buffer that residential area from this facility and it's not the issue of this Use Variance application. I know very well how much time you all put in to the Zoning Ordinance of this Town because I was heavily involved with the West Mountain sales property and, although you must have spent thousands of hours, some mistakes were made there, with respect to what zone it is in. This particular property, our prior nonconforming use, is not hard to. .and I think that when you look at it in the strict sense of the Use Variance procedure, that we qualify. Whether or not we're going to be able to convince you that we are entitled to an Area Variance and whether or not we can insulate the surrounding residential area, is a whole subject for another evening. 23 MRS. GOETZ-That's right, I'm talking about the Use Variance right now. even thinking Area Variance. I'm not MR. TOWNE-I understand that, but when you discuss the neighborhood(TAPE TURNED) MRS. EGGLESTON-I don't.. go through for my own thoughts. I mean the guy's been there since 1979. By his own admission, he's staying there. They're not going anywhere. You can't tell me people aren't making money. I see the people in and out of there. I still believe the parent company is bleeding it dry. Go to the parent company and say, don't take so much out of this place so we can make a reasonable return here. I just feel that the proof is not in the financial figures. I mean, it's so flooded with national figures and I just, in my mind does not prove the case. ...I'm going to stay here. I've been here since 1979. I'm not going any place whether I get this variance or not. MR. CARR-No, he didn't say that. MRS. EGGLESTON-He said he's not going any place, they intend to stay there, they can't assume they're getting this variance. MR. CARR-At the very first meeting they said that they might have to look for another location because they can't... MRS. EGGLESTON-Would you move if you didn't get this? MR. TOWNE-No, actually, what we'd do is go to the Supreme Court. MRS. EGGLESTON-I still feel you'd have a hard time, I just don't buy it. MR. TOWNE-I've done a lot of this work and I feel very certain that I would be able to convince a Supreme Court judge that we're entitled to this variance. MRS. GOETZ-But I don't think that we should be concerned with what you might do from this point on, legally. MR. TOWNE-Nor do I believe it's appropriate, under this variance procedure, to ask us whether or not we'd be leaving the property because, from the law, this state indicates that we don't have to leave this property, that we're entitled, by law, to a reasonable return and if you can show me some place, in all the documents that we've give you, there's a hole indicating that we're being bled by the national outfit, please, ~'ve got 9 of the 10 facilities owned by this corporation that are showing a profit. This is the only one that isn't. MRS. EGGLESTON-Are you telling me that on this list, that everyone of these people that make money have little rent buildings, are you going to tell me that? MR. TOWNE-No, but I will tell you, Mrs. Eggleston, if you look in the sheet, you'll see the ones that do, Cohoes, Albany, ~'ve given you all that information. MRS. EGGLESTON-There's a lot of them that do, that make money. There's a whole list of them. What is the difference between their entity and yours? MR. TOWNE-Mrs. Eggleston, if you would look at the list, and I don't mean to be a wise acre, but if you'd look at the list, that's the national, for all U-Hau1 facilities. Our facilities are marked with a star. We have given you the information on which ones have rental facilities. So, the information is readily at hand. MRS. EGGLESTON-I understand that, but they are all rentals, right? Are they not? MR. TOWNE-This Board is not entitled to look at any other subsidiaries of U-Hau1 International. It's entitled to look at the subsidiary MRS. EGGLESTON-Then why do you give us all that? MR. TOWNE-Because that is the only readily available source of infortnation that has all 1800 facilities around the country on it. MRS. EGGLESTON-11m sorry, but I just don't buy it. I think, since 1979. I live in that area. I see the traffic there. me they're not making money. 11m sorry, but that's my opinion. you've stayed there You can't convince MR. TOWNE-The alternative, Mrs. Eggleston, is to say that we're submitting to you false financial information. 24 MRS. EGGLESTON-I'm not saying that. MR. TOWNE-Well, the indicates that this operating at a loss. financial information that facility, unlike the other Either I'm lying to you we've submitted to you clearly 9 owned by this corporation, is or I'm...lt's one or the other. MRS. GOETZ-You're able to present your facts and you have and you have every right to. MR. TOWNE-Right. MRS. GOETZ-But we have every right to judge it as how we see it. you're bullying us. I feel like MR. TOWNE-I'm not trying to, but I feel like we're being asked to be put to a test that the law says we're not obligated to be put to or you're not allowed to put us to and I think your attorney will indicate, we have met the criteria. You can I t look at the items you're looking at. It's not part of the test that we're bound to meet. MRS. GOETZ-Our attorney will tell us to vote yes? MR. TOWNE-No, your attorney will tell you what the standards are under your Ordinance. MRS. GOETZ-You said our attorney will tell us that you've met the criteria. MR. TOWNE-Well, that doesn't mean that you have to vote yes, that we've meet the criteria. I don't feel there's any alternative. MRS. GOETZ-I would think it would mean that. MR. TOWNE-I would ask that the Board, if you're going to remain deadlocked, that somebody put forward a negative side, the reverse proposal and that it be voted on this evening so we do not have to wait the 31 days before we go to court. MS. CORPUS-Mr. Turner, if no action is taken and, within 31 days your granted your application. MR. TOWNE-I appreciate that, but I also recognize that Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Goetz, and Mr. Turner are very solid in their view points, that the seventh member can't participate in this and it's wasting 31 days of construction time to my client. We'll take the risk. MS. CORPUS-But even if they do vote, they're deadlocked with a denial, there's still the 31 days. MR. TOWNE-If they're deadlocked with respect to a yes and they're voted deadlocked with respect to the no, I believe you can get a Supreme Court judge to say, there's no alternatives, it's either yes or no. The 31 days, at that time, becomes inappropriate. I mean, it's clear Mrs. Goetz isn't going to change her mind. There's nothing I can say, nor is Mr. Turner, nor is Mrs. Eggleston. MS. CORPUS-But they do have that time period within which. MR. CARR-I think what Karla is saying is you can't start the Article 78... MS. CORPUS-It's not final until the 30 days have expired, Mr. Turner. that's just what I'm saying. I think MR. CARR-Yes, the decision won't be clear until either, we meet again, or 31 days and discuss the issue. MR. TOWNE-So, it's tabled then? MR. CARR-No, it's deadlocked for 31 days. MS. CORPUS-The Board neednlt make the motion if you don't wish, it's up to you. 25 - NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 39-1990 TYPE: UNLISTED MR-5 PATTI S. RATHBUN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE OHIO AVENUE, FROM CORINTH ROAD, PROCEED PAST FIRST BLOCK, 4TH AND 5TH HOUSES ON LEFT IN SECOND BLOCK. TO SUBDIVIDE PROPERTY WITH TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES INTO TWO SEPARATE LOTS. REQUESTING RELIEF FROM MINIMAL LOT SIZE AND SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. TAX MAP NO. 127-9-6 LOT SIZE: ±o.28 ACRES SECTION 4.020(F) PATTI S. RATHBUN, PRESENT MISS RATHBUN-Basically, what I'm trying to do is, I own two houses on one piece of land. I have had them on the listing with Century 21 for, about, almost a year. I spent over $300 on self advertising and, basically, what I'm interested in is splitting them up for the sale. I have had people interested in both dwellings, but not together, separately. I have gone through the neighborhood and I have 30 signatures from neighbors agreeing that, their permission, that they have no objections. MR. TURNER-Have you got the list? MISS RATHBUN-Yes. That's basically it. MR. CARR-How long have the homes been there? MISS. RATHBUN-Over 30 years. MR. CARR-Okay, they've both been there over 30? MISS RATHBUN-I think so. I'm not positive on that, but I think they both have. MRS. EGGLESTON-How long have you owned them. MISS RATHBUN-It's got to be 15 years. MRS. EGGLESTON-And did you buy them as one parcel with both houses on it? MISS RATHBUN-Yes, I did. I have a question. If I'm approved, what, as far as going to a Planning Board for subdivision, there are two existing building and I'm not adding on to them, so what I was wondering was why I had to meet with? MRS. COLLARD-You're splitting one parcel into two parcels and that is a subdivision and it will require Planning Board approval. MR. TURNER-Any division is a subdivision. MISS RATHBUN-Okay. MR. TURNER-The thing I'm looking at is, they're serviced by Town water, they have a septic, alright. Then they take the water. .well. The lot served, apparently the same size as the lots that front that street. It appears on this map as such. What is the asking price of the one, together? MISS RATHBUN-The asking price of the two, together? MR. TURNER-Yes. MISS RATHBUN-$96,500. MR. TURNER-And what do you expect to realize out of those two lots, if they're split? MISS RATHBUN-If they're split? MR. TURNER-Yes, what do you expect to get out of them? You've got a 4,000 square foot lot and a 7,000 square foot lot, 5,000 square foot lot, one to the left and one to the right. MISS RATHBUN-Alright the one to the left, I'm asking $65,000 and the one to the right is, $39,500, is that correct? MR. SHEA-Do you live in one of these dwellings, at the present time? 26 '"--" '-.-/ MISS RATHBUN-Not at the present time. MR. SHEA-Neither of them, they're both rented? MISS RATHBUN-One is rented and one is vacant. MR. KELLEY-Did you live in it at one time? MISS RATHBUN-Yes. MR. KELLEY-So, I was reading the thing while you were kind of talking about your real estate, so what's happened, you had them both on the market for $96,000 and you found you couldn't sell them. MISS RATHBUN-Right, we have parties interested in the dwellings, but separately, not together. MR. KELLEY-And how long would you say you've had them for sale as one whole thing? MISS RATHBUN-Over a year and I noticed that you mentioned something about the lot sizes. Most of the lot sizes are small, in the area, other than the one directly behind me. MR. TURNER-Yes, the rest of the lots are, basically, they only small lot is the one with your two bedroom house on it. MISS RATHBUN-And it's only, I think it's 2 feet. It's has to be 10 feet and it's 8 feet. MR. TURNER-Well, that existed. You can't do anything about that. MISS RATHBUN-That's irrelevant? MR. TURNER-The only thing we're concerned with here is the... MR. KELLEY-I think the interesting thing is, if you drove down that street and you didn't have this map, yould have no idea there was anything out of the ordinary going on. MR. TURNER-No. MR. KELLEY-You wouldn't know if it was one lot, two lots, no idea. Therels no question there's a need for $65,000 and $39,500 housing, that's hard to find. MR. TURNER-That's affordable housing. MR. KELLEY-Right. But for somebody to spend $96,000 in that neighborhood, they might think twice. MR. TURNER-Yes. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Warren County Planning Board approved STAFF INPUT Notes from Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner (attached) MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 39-1990 PATTI S. RATHBUN, Introduced by Jeffrey Kelley who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: The applicant residences on single family and this would if subdivided. proposes to take one piece of property with two single family it and divide the property into two individual lots, each with a residence on it. They are seeking variance on the northerly lot have 4,941 square feet and the zone requires 10,000 square feet, 27 ---- -- This is seeking relief of 5,059 square feet. On the southerly property, they are asking for a relief of 2,939 square feet. The applicant has shown that they have not been able to sell the property as it exists. They've give proof that the property's been on the market for over one year, on real estate lists and also by private sale. They have testified that a few people have been interested in buying the houses individually, but not as a group. The applicant has the right to get a reasonable return on the property and, by subdividing the lot, this would enable her to do this. There's no adverse effect on public facilities. No neighborhood opposition. It doesn't appear to be detrimental to the neighborhood. This is a reasonable request. Duly adopted this 23rd day of May, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Shea, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Sicard USE VARIANCE NO. 40-1990 TYPE II WR.-1A WILLIAM F. DAVIDSON OWNER: SAKE AS ABOVE CLEVERDALE ROAD, TWO HOUSES FROM END ON LEFT SIDE (WEST SIDE) FOR AN ADDITION OF 10 FT. BY 36 FT. DECK ON THE FRONT OF THE BOATHOUSE. THE PROJECT REQUIRES AN AREA VARIANCE 8.75 FT. SIDE REQUIREMENT FOR DOCK 1. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 14-1-2 LOT SIZE: 12,637 SQ. FT. SECTION 7.012 A(2E) WILLIAM F. DAVIDSON, PRESENT MR. DAVIDSON-Good evening, William F. Davidson, 536 Glen Street, Glens Falls, New York. I have some pictures here. MR. TURNER-You have some picture? Bring them up here. We'll take them. MR. DAVIDSON-These are of boathouse. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. DAVIDSON-And I have some of neighboring docks and I have s cme of, similar to what I want to do. Essentially, what I'd like to do has to do with the bottom section of that, not with the, I don't want to put anything above, say, the rail. I don't want to do the top part of that, no trellis work. MRS. GOETZ-That gingerbready stuff, you don't want? MR. DAVIDSON-No, I wasn't going to do that. What I would like to do is this section down here, not the trellis work. MR. TURNER-Yes, right at this level. MR. DAVIDSON-Now, my concern is, being able to place supports to hold the deck. I believe, according to the Ordinance, I would be permitted to do this by right. However, I encroach in the 20 foot area on the one side, there and, consequently, if I followed strictly to the Ordinance, I would get in a situation where the girder or the support would come in where the boat slip is. If you have a picture? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. DAVIDSON-So, when I run the boat in, the girder would be above it to reduce the head room for the boat to come in, that concerns me. MR. TURNER-How big, how much height have you got from the Lake to the MR. DAVIDSON-Total from the Lake to the head, or to the top of the...is 84 inches. MR. TURNER-What's the width on the opening? MR. DAVIDSON-The width is probably, I'd say, 7, 8 feet. MRS. GOETZ-How many apartments are over there? MR. DAVIDSON-There's a boathouse and then there's a house on the property. MRS. GOETZ-Right, we've been there, but there were two back doors on the boathouse. 28 -- -- MR. DAVIDSON-Right, an apartment. We're and it'll all be one that was something that the former owner was going to make not going to. We're going to use that as a seasonal residence dwelling unit. MRS. GOETZ-And then you're going to rent the house? MR. DAVIDSON-Yes. Now, as I understand the requirements for an Area Variance, is to prove or show practical difficulty and I believe the head room problem is the practical difficulty because if I move it over, I'm going to be infringing on the head room of the boats. MR. KELLEY-If you move over where? MR. DAVIDSON-Up, in the center, if I move it over into where the boat enters, see if I move it over in there MR. TURNER-What he's saying is, if he had to cut it off, this line here, he'd have to move that. .over here, over there. Even so, you couldn't go below that line anyway. Where are you..? Where does that infringe? The imaginary line comes out here, Where does that infringe? MR. DAVIDSON-It would be someplace right about in there. I could live with reducing this. I extended the proposed deck all the way to the end of the bui 1ding. I could live with it by moving it about 5 feet over, indented 5 feet on each side. With this area here, I could bring it over to there and the same thing, bring it over to there. So, I could reduce the width of the deck by 5 feet on each side. . MR. SHEA-So, it would be 26 feet... MR. DAVIDSON-Twenty six feet in.. MR. CARR-So, you'd still require a variance. MR. DAVIDSON-Yes, I would. lid still require a variance. It would be the m~n~mum that I could live with if I were to put that type of deck on. I personally think that this type of deck and that type of treatment would enhance the appearance of the building. I would also say that if you were to take a boat and ride by the houses and the boathouses on C1everda1e, you'll see that practically everyone of them has a deck. Most every house has a sun deck. This is a nonconforming building and it was built 73 years ago when those types of boathouses were permitted. MRS. EGGLESTON-It's a pretty good sized boathouse. I was wondering about your neighbors views by going further out with it. What are your thought on that? MR. DAVIDSON-Well, I'm sensitive to all my neighbors is permitted, by right to go out 40 feet and, according Dickinsen has done, I'm within that 40 foot limit. concerns, but, again, it to the drawings that Dennis MRS. GOETZ-But not on the side. So, I mean you are putting more out there, than- MR. DAVIDSON-I'm within the 40 foot. I'm not within the 20 foot on the one side. MRS. GOETZ-We need to look at it from, how do the neighbors feel because it will be more than what's there now, even though the 40 feet isn't a problem. MR. TURNER-Anyone else have any questions? MR. SHEA-No, the only other thing I would point is that it appears that the boathouse is in, somewhat the center of property, and, therefore, at least minimizing any kind of detrimental view or reduction of view to the neighbors on the side and if this were on one side or the other of the property, it might come into play more, in consideration of the neighbors view, but the fact that it's in the center of the property, to a large degree, I can I t see where it's really obstructing the view too much. It's certainly something to consider, but I don't really see it as a major factor. MR. KELLEY-The design of this, did you say you were going to have posts that come down into the water? MR. TURNER-No. 29 --- MR. DAVIDSON-No, I was planning to put steel girders out underneath the boathouse, out through the front so that I could get the most support for the least number of beams. So, that you just come out through the front of the building and extend out with steel girder. MR. TURNER-You're probably talking about 3, right? Three girders? MR. DAVIDSON-I have room for 3 big girders. MR. KELLEY-I don't know, I would question whether that's a safety hazard. You can't leave something out there 10 feet, a boat comes along with an antenna or lights. I don't know, I guess I'm not used to seeing things... If you've got a dock, the dock is there and there's a post there. You're going to run into a dock, but to go along where somethingls sticking out above, I don't think people are generally looking. MR. DAVIDSON-I think that is, I mean, you see them around the Lake, but that one in Bolton Landing. The other thing is, the County Planning Board did review it under the Section 239(m) for impact on just that type of thing, drainage, navigation, Whatever, that would impact the Lake in that nature, traffic. MR. out the TURNER - You're going to run out and under the deck wi th the beams or are you going to have an arch in the corner, Where the beams are, load, or are you just going to depend on the beams to carry the load? straight to carry MR. DAVIDSON-I was going to depend on the beams. I to get an architects opinion on it and, if approved, architect to make this aesthetically pleasing and I Whether I need an arch. can use an arch if I want then I would work wi th an don't know, structurally, MR. TURNER-Ten feet's not very far out for a deck with 3 beams under it. MR. KELLEy-It's already out a couple of feet. from where the end of the dock is. Where I'm talking about, like, MR. TURNER-Where the end of the dock is, right? MR. KELLEY-Yes, so it's got to be a couple of feet, and an inch, this distance that it sticks out now? MR. DAVIDSON-Yes, that's 3 feet, roughly. MR. KELLEY-So, that's 3 feet and then you're going to go another 10, so, from a water standpoint, you're 13 feet out from the nearest solid thing in the water. MR. DAVIDSON-Which is permitted under the Zoning..Regu1ations. MR. KELLEY-Well, yes, it says you can be out 40 feet. hang up with that. I guess I've just got a MR . DAVIDSON - I can reduce the size. the size. I put it in at it's maximum. I can reduce MR. KELLEY-No, I think I'd feel safer if I saw a post sticking out, at least you aren't going to go gliding under this thing. MR. DAVIDSON-I would say anybody that gets that close to the, to a structure like that, in any size boat would be in big trouble to begin with. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KELLEY-I mean, I've been in this house. that's an area where you come along, Where thing at night or, What about night time? I know what it looks like and I mean, I would say people cruise along the MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. DAVIDSON-To the best of my knowledge, it hasn't been hit yet. MR. KELLEY-It doesn't stick out there, yet either. 30 -- MR. DAVIDSON-No, væ11, it's sticks out 3 feet, but I would say, let me see, is there another one down here, that has posts on it, so you can't leave it out (referring to pictures). As I say, I own the property. I wouldn't want to do anything that's going to detract from the design. MR. KELLEY-Did you just buy this or did you own it? MR. DAVIDSON-Yes, I did. I closed on it March 1st. MR. TURNER-What he's is, he could come in, reduce this by 10 feet, come in 5 feet on each end and then he wouldn't violate that side line setback. MR. KELLEY-That doesn't bother me so much as it sticking out. MR. TURNER-What it does, it kind of drops, maybe it drops that, goes up the Lake, cuts the corner back 5 feet, farther to the north or the guy to the south.. His other alternative is, he's got to stop right there, or stop where he can, architecturally, structurally, put that beam out there, and have the deck back here so it doesn't violate him. He can put it there anyway. MR. KELLEY-Does this have to go to the Lake George Park? MR. TURNER-It's..agency. MR. KELLEY-So, they'd get it? MR. TURNER-Yes, they will get it. MR. SHEA-Mr. Davidson, if you thought to reduce the width of the deck 5 feet on either side, so as to ask for minimum relief, or have it fully extended on one side and reduce it to above the boat..Which would be more preferable to you? MR. DAVIDSON-I would rather bring it in 5 feet on each side because I think that would be symmetrical, or pleasing from the water. MR. SHEA-It would also minimize the view obstruction, if any, from both neighbors on either side of you, so that would, certainly, be a fair gesture. (END OF FIRST DISK) 31 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CARL KRETZ MR. KRETZ-My name is Carl Kretz and I have spoken to Bill Davidson. He's my new neighbor. He knows I'm opposed to this and I told him that I would say so at this meeting and he understands this. It's a little awkward for me to do this. This is the second time I've met my new neighbor, but, however, to have 10 feet more put on this boathouse is something I cannot agree with. I'd like to start off by reading a letter that I sent to Ted Turner and a carbon copy I sent to Lee York. In case you haven't read it, I'd like to read it anyway. It states my thoughts. Read letter: I am a neighbor of Bill Davidson's on the south side of his property on which he wants to add a 10 ft. by 36 ft. deck to the front of his boathouse. For 23 years I have lived next to this boathouse which is one of the biggest and nicest boathouses on the Lake. Having two full stories of living quarters above the boat slips. I have been in the boathouse many times with the previous owner and I can say that it has one of the most magnificent views of the Lake from any window. It is just fantastic. One can see all the way out past Bolton, past the Sagamore, up to northwest bay and also, in the other directing, around Tongue Mountain into the is lands of the narrows. A perfect 1y beautiful view. Now the reason I'm mentioning this beautiful view from the boathouse is that I, too, WDu1d have the same view if this boathouse wasnlt there. Now I'm not recommending taking the boathouse down, but I sure don't want a 10 foot extension of the boathouse. To extend the boathouse 10 feet further out into the Lake by the addition of the proposed dock on the front of the boathouse would further detract my view that remains. I, therefore, wish to voice my objections to this proposed dock or any part of the dock that would extend 10 feet further out or less, into the Lake. These are my thoughts and I'll be happy to answer any questions that you may have. MR. TURNER-You are aware that he can go out 40 feet? MR. KRETZ-Yes, may I just, one minute, I would like to look at this(referring to map). This is done by a professional engineer and it's stamped, is it not? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KRETZ-The drawing is wrong. I, too, am an engineer and I cannot understand, for the life of me, how an engineer who's been hired to make such a study, could make such a big mistake on such a simple measurement. It shows on that drawing that there IS 40 feet from the retaining wall, sea wall, or whatever you want to call it, it's out to the end of the proposed dock, Which is 10 feet further out, am I correct? MR. CARR-I guess, Wherels the retaining wall? MR. TURNER-Right there, see it? MR. CARR-There are two retaining walls there. MR. KRETZ-Yes, but take the one out furthest from the Lake, that's the one we're talking about. MR. CARR-How many retaining walls are there? MR. DAVIDSON-..has three. MR. KRETZ-You see, What Bill is referring to and is so correct ,as has been said here many times, from the shoreline, you're permitted to go out 40 feet and what Bill Davidson is saying is the shoreline, is this sea wall, Which we can argue that, that's about 10 feet from the shore, but we won't even talk about that. This is the sea wall. It is where the water ends and he wants to go from that point out 40 feet, am I correct? MR. DAVIDSON-Correct. MR. KRETZ-If he puts 10 feet out on the deck, he'll be out 44 feet. There's a 4 foot error in those drawings. Where it says 40 feet, that should be and will be 44 feet. MRS. GOETZ-Is it because of the angle? 32 MR. KRETZ-No, nothing to do with the angle or anything else. MRS. GOETZ-What is it, just pure measuring? MR. KRETZ-it's just such a simple measure you can do it with a yard stick if you want to. MRS. COLLARD-The Ordinance states that the measurement is 40 feet from the mean low water mark. MRS. GOETZ-So, and has anyone ever determined what that is? MRS. COLLARD-I didn't. MR. KRETZ-Bill, you know what's there. It's 4 feet of water. This sea wall is not at the shore. It's at 4 feet of water, depth of water, where that's measured from. It's not even at the end of the boathouse. It's 4 feet of water. High water, low water, it doesn't make any difference, that's where it is. It's a wall and that's where the engineer has said, from that point out to the end of the 10 foot addition is 40 feet. Well, it isn't. It's 44 feet. I measured it. That was the reason for me trying to contact you(Mr. Davidson). I know that you relied on your engineer for this information and I see it stamped, I just do not understand it because. I mean, this is such a simple measurement that there's no mistaking it and I couldn't believe it when I saw it. He's even got the 10 foot wide deck put on there which he. .and that measurement is 34 feet, plus or minus an inch, but besides that point, even if Bill wanted to put the deck back, take out the 4 more feet, it'll give you 6 more feet, I'm still against it. I'm still against it, but that's what I look at. I would look at a deck and, as I say, I've looked at the boathouse for 23 years now, and I don I t want to look at 10 more feet of it, blocking my view. That's my thought's on it. I'd be happy to answer any more questions. MR. TURNER-Alright. Let's see if anybody's got any. MR. CARR-I just have one question. Assuming we accept the stamped drawing as it is, we might have to do some research into MR. KRETZ-How can you accept it the way it is based on my statement? MR. CARR-Well, your statement, but a1s 0 we have, there I s two official documents, but I'm just assuming, let's just assume that MR. KRETZ-There's two official documents? MR. CARR-Well, it's your statement and... MR. KRETZ-There's one official document. This is just my thoughts. MR. CARR-Right. MR. KRETZ-And I will apologize to every person on this Board if I'm wrong. MR. CARR-Okay, just assuming he's within his 40 feet. Let's just assume that. MR. KRETZ-Alright. MR. CARR-He's offered to go in 5 feet on each end. Would that help? MR. KRETZ-It doesn't make any difference at all. You would have to be on my property to understand that, 5 feet in, I would have the complete view of the 10 feet, I might see 9 and a half feet of it. It would hid nothing, the 5 feet coming in. Believe me, it would hid nothing. MR. CARR-How could we determine said seawall issue? MRS. COLLARD-She's going out and measure. MRS. YORK-I I 11 go measure it. MR. CARR-How do we determine it tonight? MRS. YORK-I think you have to look at this on other issues. MRS. GOETZ-You mean we shouldn't act on this? 33 '-" -- MRS. YORK-If you want to act on it, you can. It's up to the Board. I will go measure it. MRS. GOETZ-Do you want me to read the rest of the input, just to get it on record? MR. TURNER-I haven't closed the public hearing. opposition? Anyone else wish to speak in PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Warren County Planning Board approved STAFF INPUT Notes from John S. Goralski, Planner (attached) MR. DAVIDSON-If I may. I don't quite understand some of the Staff Comments, in that, this would be, I guess, contrary to the intent of the Ordinance or whatever, for Lake George, in that, if you have a house or boathouse on the Lake, I would certainly think you would want a deck and I must be somewhat right because most every house that has a dock, has a deck on it, particularly in that area. So, I can see how a deck would be injurio\,1s to the Lake or the visual appearance of that building, particularly if it's done, v.orking in conjunction with architects and, if you have architectural review, I would be happy to work with the architectural review committee. MRS. GOETZ-Are you still Director of the Lake GeorgelLake Champlain Regional Planning Board? MR. DAVIDSON-So, I would assume you know something about how people feel about visual on the Lake. You bought this property knowing that this was what existed, as far as how it looked and the absence of a deck. So, I do think we have to consider that. MR. DAVIDSON-Okay, but I also bought it knowing the regulations of the Town of Queensbury and the Lake George Park Commission which says 40 feet, you can extend your property 40 feet out into the Lake. MRS. GOETZ-Right, except that now there seems, it's a possibility that it's going to be extending more than the 40 feet. MR. DAVIDSON-Well, I cannot violate the 40 feet. There's no question about that and, if I were to attempt it, I would have to go for a variance, Wlich, I would think, v.ou1d be very unlikely to be granted because I think that's pretty much carved in stone. So, I would not violate the 40 foot, if it's prudent to me that Dennis Dickinsen, WlO'S the licensed surveyor and done, as I called him today, has done 50 percent of his work on the Lake, knows the regulations, if he's proven to be wrong, I will adhere to the, certainly adhere to the 40 foot regulation. MRS. GOETZ-It must be pretty upsetting to hear that this could be a possibility, though . MR. DAVIDSON-Well, I didn't speak to Dennis himself, but I think it would be disconcerting to him as well. MRS. COLLARD-May I suggest that Dave Hatin meet with Mr. Davidson in, possibly, Dave's boat and measure it. MR. KRETZ-May I say sanething? May I be asked to be present at that meeting of measurement? Do you mind, Bill? MR. DAVIDSON-No, I don't mind. MR. KRETZ-Why I'm so sure of this is because I was so afraid that, Bill, I might be wrong, I think I've measured this 6 times, wi. th two different rulers because it's extraordinary to me that a licensed engineer can make such a big mistake on such a simple measurement. It takes all of 2 minutes to put a nail, Wlich I did, on the end of your boathouse here, and I went over to this wall, you know where that concrete wall, you know, the one we're talking about, you can do it 34 '-- in 1 minute and that dimension is 3l feet. You've got to add on and this is the only explanation I have for the engineer, but it's ridiculous. He should know that. You've got a 3 foot overhang, which you can see on the pictures. So, it makes 34 feet to the end of the boathouse, now, which, by the way, is further than most boathouses, much further than mine is out, and it's out there 34 feet, right now. So, if you add 10 more feet, it comes to 44 feet. I cannot understand him doing that. You said that you asked him, but he wasn't there? MR. DAVIDSON-No. I called Dennis's office today. He was not in at the time. It came as a surprise to me that there might be any inaccuracy in his measurements. I mean, he's a surveyor. They do this everyday. MR. TURNER-Gentlemen, Mr. Shea has a motion. I think we're going to move to table it until we verify the measurements. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 40-1990 WILLIAM F. DAVIDSON, Introduced by Michael Shea who moved for its adoption, seconded by Susan Goetz: As a result of information provided by Mr. Kretz as to the validity of measure relating to distance from shoreline. Duly adopted this 23rd day of May, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Shea, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Sicard MR. DAVIDSON-Mr. Chairman, you will notify me so that I could get Dennis out there as well because I really think he ought to come back and take a look at what's out there? MRS. YORK-Why don't you call Mr. Dickinsen and I will just call his firm when we make an appointment and tell him, if that's alright with you or would you rather be notified and you call him? MR. DAVIDSON-No, that's fine, if you want to call him. MRS. YORK-Okay, do you want to be there, too? MR. DAVIDSON-Yes. MRS. YORK-Alright. MS. CORPUS-Mr. Chairman, before you move on, the Area Variance 39-1990, 1NaS an unlisted aètion under SEQRA. SEQRA should be of that particular motion. Sorry I didn't catch it sooner. require a vote to amend the previous resolution. for Patti Rathbun, addressed as part I guess it would MOTION TO AMEND AREA VARIANCE NO. 39-1990 PATTI S. RATBBUN, Introduced by Jeffrey Kelley who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: The Short Environmental Assessment Form shows no negative impact. Duly adopted this 23rd day of May, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Shea, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Sicard USE VARlANŒ NO.. 42-1990 'ftPE: UtLISTED PC-lA QUICK LTJDBE OWfER: DAVID LEMAN 717 TlllPPER GLEN STREET '1'0 RENOVA'Œ EXISTING STRT/IJCTURE INm A 10 MImD'l'E OIL <alANGE CŒN'JEI... (aRREN œUfn PLANNING) TAX MAP NO.. 103-1-25 Lar SIZE: ±o..066 ACRES SECC7IŒ 1.072 DAVE THUERMER, AGENT FOR QUICK LUBE, PRESENT MR. THUERMER-I' d just like to introduce myself. My name is Dave Thuermer. I'm part owner of Quick Lube, have been so for 5 years. With me, tonight, is Mark 35 --' '- Levack, from LevacklBurke Realty, Dave Leman, the owner of the property. I wanted to start off by submitting, as requested by the Planning Department, a copy of the lease which covers the Niagara Mohawk property which is specifically intended to construct a driveway onto the premises and allow for parking for up to a maximum of 14 cars in that area. That's a copy of the lease and a cover letter from Niagara Mohawk indicating that they have a copy of the executed lease. The lease has been executed. As I said, Quick Lube has been in business for 5 years and operates 5, ten minute oil change centers in the Capital District. What we intend to do with this particular site is rather unique and ideal, from a planning standpoint. Given the Niagara Mohawk lease, we are going to increase the size of the property and reduce the size of the building. The present building is 5,018 square feet. \Velll reduce that to approximately 2,760 square feet and we'll, virtually, double the size of the lot. The existing lot owned by Mr. Leman is approximately .3 acres and that is increased to .66 acres, using the Niagara Mohawk property. Niagara Mohawk lease runs for 25 years. So, it is a significant period of time. There are numerous benefits to the project. Chief among them, I think, is traffic flow on site. Right now, there are 6 parking spaces in front of the existing building. Little opportunity to circulate around the site unless you go back out and re-contact Upper Glen Street. Once a potential customer or employee wants to enter the site, they pull into one of those parking spaces and then they must back out again, make a U-turn and come out the same entrance that they came in through. This is really unworkable as I think Mr. Rudnick will agree. One of his complaints has been that people are parking on his property as opposed to parking on Mr. Leman's property. Our use will eliminate those parking spaces by enabling a drive through service on the property where customers pull to the rear, are serviced inside the building, and exit from the front of the building. In addition, we will eliminate the eyesore that is presently at 717 Upper Glen Street. The building, right now, is simply a block facade with. .strips on it. It's badly in need of paint. There are some holes to the rear of the building. The building is in dilapidated condition, overgrown with landscaping. All of those will be eliminated. Our business is very much an image business. We rely on a relatively up scale customer who does not like to frequent a typical garage, so we very strongly stay away fran garage image and one of the ways we do that is through the appearance of our centers. This variance would represent the minimum variance needed for the site. Our use is a very low intensity use, 45-50 cars a day, \\hich is in line with national average for 10 minute oil change centers and also in line with Quick Lube, average of our 5 centers, is significantly less than would be seen in many of the allowed PC-1A uses. Also, because it is a While you wait, no appointment service and customer parking is not required, there is a need, only, for employee parking. The use does not compete with existing commercial neighbors and, as I say, it also increases the number of parking spaces fran 6 to 9 spaces and increases visibility on the road by removing the front portion of that property. If you have any questions regarding the actual need for the variance itself, I think the Planning review has shown that they're fairly well spelled out in this case. The property has been on the property for 23 months. It's been operating at a loss since March of 188, a significant loss, due to the fact that it's not been rented which, again, I feel is due to the shape of the property and this is a condition which does not exist in neighboring properties. Most of the properties are larger and all the properties are rectangular. When you layout a site, it's very difficult to do on a triangular piece of property. That goes directly to the inability to yield a reasonable financial return. No in-flow of cash, continuing out-flow of cash, represent a large loss and no plans to return whatsoever. MRS. GOETZ-In other communities Where you're located, What zones are you in there? MR. THUE RMER-They , re all commercial zones. We have one which we obtained a variance, and that was in the City of Troy, to operate a store, and it was in a residential zone, an R-2 or an R-3..mu1ti-tenant apartment houses, but the other zones are all commercial zones. We've obtained variances to operate on three of five and .. .operate four out of five and the fifth, in Kingston, they were in a state of flux with their zone and we did not need a variance. MRS. GOETZ-So, it doesn't seem that you, you're use doesn't really fit into many existing zoning plans? MR. THUERMER-Ten minute oil change use is a new concept, really. MR. TURNER-It's not addressed. MR. THUERMER-Yes, it's not really addressed in any of the Ordinances. It's not a retai1..to be perfectly frank, I feel, honestly. I have seen people come before Boards and make the argument that we I re not a garage, we're a retail use, that's 36 '--" - kind of stretching it, in my opinion. I mean, if you service cars, you I re not really retail use, yet. Some of the services we, specifically, do not perform are, muffler work, brake work, tire services, body work, auto painting, therefore we're not a garage. We don't sell gas. So, we're not addressed. Typically, welre before Boards seeking variances. MRS. GOETZ-Because, I don't know, I guess in our Ordinance, you're not addressed in any zone, your type of use? MR. THUERMER-That I s correct, fact, I've never opened the listed for anything. It's We were the first. and rarely are we ever addressed. As a matter of Zoning Ordinance and found 10 minute oi 1 change use a relatively new concept, especially in this area. MR. TURNER-No, you're not new here. We had one before. MRS. GOETZ-A proposal. MR. TURNER-Not us, but they went to the Planning Board and somehow it got.. MR. THUERMER-I know, before the writing of the Ordinance, is what I meant. MRS. GOETZ-Right. It's almost like, should it be, it's like a true variance request then, isn't it? MR. TURNER-Yes, it is. MRS. GOETZ-Because it's not addressed anywhere. MRS. COLLARD-But if he were coming in a Highway Commercial zone, I probably would have made the decision, since automobile repair is permitted there. MRS. GOETZ-But he says he's not. MRS. COLLARD-Well, he's not, but, in essence, he is. I probably would have made the determination that he would be a permitted use and then let you overturn me. MRS. GOETZ-Well, no, I'm just trying to think, is the proper route to take it to the Town Board for re-zoning, but then it's like spot zoning. I'm just trying to think it through as far as the Planning concept goes. MR. CARR-Sue, I think I agree with Pat's interpretation. I mean, no disrespect, but automobile repair and maintenance, if a guy only changes spark plugs, you know, it's a limited function. So, for our discussion, I think I would consider it automobile repair because that's where it would fit in under the Ordinance, just for the discussion purposes. MRS. COLLARD-Right, but it's not even a point tonight because it's a Plaza Commercial zone. MR. CARR-Right. MR. SHEA-I'd just like to say that I'm familiar with the kind of operation that Quick Lube is. I I ve seen these facilities in other parts of the country. I do believe them to be upscale and a definite improvement frcm a lot of the work that goes on at the variety of garages and gas stations that are in our community and I think that it would be an addition to that area and an improvement to it. MR. TURNER-Well, the other thing, too, is that a lot of places don't want to be bothered with 1ubing your car, changing your oil and that stuff. They do it on a special basis, like maybe the car dealers. It just affords the average guy a place to go to get his car greased, get his oil changed, get the necessary.. to his car that he doesn't normally do and some of the other places don't want to do. Now, \\hi1e you I re talking, you're going to need a variance for your sign, I guess. You're 6 foot 5 inches from the property line. MR. THUERMER-That was an oversight. I will put that sign within the... MR. TURNER-Now, \\hen you come out of the Quick Lube, you I re going to exit north and south? MR. THUERMER-Yes. 37 MR. TURNER-Both ways? MR. THUERMER-There is a turn lane at that point, on Upper Glen Street. Traffic flows fairly well, there. There's a traffic light, I didn't pace it off, but a good distance to the north and quite far to the south. MR. TURNER-That was one of my concerns, when I talked with Mark about it, I thought, was maybe just go north. MRS. GOETZ-Anyone in their right mind doesnlt go left. MR. TURNER-Because you're right across from the driveway to the, the plaza across the road and the bank, you know, youlre right there. It's tough to get out of that lot. MR. SHEA-It's even tougher backing out. MRS. GOETZ-Like Creative Dinettes used to have their big trailer trucks, in Route 9, unloading dinette sets, which was.. But it's more of a reason to get a business in there that wouldn't have similar problems. MR. TURNER-If I was going in there, I'd never make an attempt to turn left. Come right out of there, and go north at the light. . . plaza and back out Lafayette, back on Glen and there's another light, but there's lot of traffic there, believe it or not, a lot of it. MRS. EGGLESTON-I guess, since Susan brought up the subject, I'll ask you, what size trucks do you bring in your oil in? MR. THUERMER-The motor oil comes in, it's basically the size of a home heating oil truck? I don't know if you're familiar with that at all. It's not a tractor trailer truck. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. THUERMER-Frank1y, \æ tried that, at one point. It doesn't work. We will not, we. .did not take deliveries of motor oil and tractor trailer trucks. The filters are brought in on a weekly basis and they're brought in on a pick up truck load. We do have one supplier who delivers air..and they do it in a regular van, an econo-1ine, Ford van. MRS. EGGLESTON-Is there room there for the fuel oil truck to get through there? MR. THUERMER-Yes, and with the other, typically, \æ pull those right into the building to unload those. MR. TURNER-Are your lubes stored in 55 gallon drums, Or what? MR. THUERMER-No, the newest thing in our business is something called a lube cube. It's a rectangular tank, so it doesn't take up as much room as a 55 gallon drum. MR. TURNER-How much? MR. THUERMER-Off hand, on this store, I'm not sure. We probably have 1,000 gallons of the 10W-30 and, probably 500 gallons of the 10-40 and maybe 250 of the 53-30, something along that nature. PUBLIC BEARING OPENED NO UlmENT PUBLIC IlllEARlNG CLOSED OORBESPCJmEN at Warren County Planning Board disapproved, they agree with the Zoning Ordinance, that this is not an appropriate use. STAFF INP1DT Notes from Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner (attached) 38 - -' MR. CARR-Mark, could I ask days for. .Quick Lube, back in 189? Holding out, right? you, on your contract. .there was an exclusion for 30 in '89, was there some reason you didn't buy it back MR. LEMAN-I didn't get anything by holding out. MOTION TO APPIOVE USE VAJUANCE NO. 42-1990 QUICK LUBE, Introduced by Michael Shea who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: This is to approve the operation of Quick Lube and the property is currently zoned as Plaza Commercial One Acre. We believe the applicant has demonstrated that it has not been possible to receive a reasonable return on the property due to the unique nature of the lot. We believe, in granting this variance, it will not be detrimental to the Ordinance. The lease with Niagara Mohawk states that there is use for parking of 14 cars for the life of the lease of 25 years. This lease is dated 5/23/90. The Short EAF Form shows no negative impact. Duly adopted this 23rd day of May, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Shea, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Sicard MR. SHEA-There was something that you want to say in regards to.. MRS. GOETZ-It's not addressed anywhere in the zoning, the use isn't. MR. TURNER-It's not addressed, it's not a pertnitted use in any category in the Zoning Ordinance. MR. SHEA-Okay, and that the current use is not stated or permitted anywhere in the current Zoning Ordinance? MRS. GOETZ-I think it would be the proposed use. MR. SHEA-Okay, the proposed use. MRS. GOETZ-Is not allowed in any current zone in the Zoning Ordinance? is saying, but didn't we say it, if it's under Highway Commercial use. Joyce MR. CARR-It's a matter of interpretation. MR. TURNER-Yes, she has to interpret that. You might say no. MR. SHEA-So, at least it's in there. MR. CARR-Well, then, I've got a question. I mean, if we state it IS not addressed here, can anybody come in and say, I want to put in a Quick Lube in a residential zone, because it's not addressed anywhere in the Zoning Ordinance. MRS. EGGLESTON-And we felt that was..as an automobile repair. MR. CARR-I mean, then we can't say, it's only allowed in a commercial zone, \\2 say, \\211, it's not addressed anywhere in the Zoning. MRS. COLLARD-Well, I say it is. MR. TURNER-It's not a permitted use in the Zoning Ordinance, anyplace, not for her application, Wlat I s stated in the Zoning Ordinance. If she had to interpret it, she would interpret it under Highway Commercial. MR. CARR-Right. MR. TURNER-It might fit there, \\2 could overrule it. It I S not cast in stone. MRS. COLLARD-I don't think you can go through a Zoning Ordinance and list every business that might be coming in there in the United States. MR. TURNER-You can't list everything, but you might get an argument that that's not automotive repair. 39 - - MR. CARR-I know and that's just what I'm worried about, though. MRS. COLLARD-Well, that's up to our legal. MS. CORPUS-Well, I don't think it would need to be addressed. MR. CARR-I don't think it needs to be addressed and I would advise not addressing it in this particular motion. MS. CORPUS-That's up to the Board. MR. CARR-Because I'm afraid that if you say it's not addressed, so we're going to allow it, somebody else is going to come in and say, it's not addressed, so you've got to allow it, this type of argument. MR. SHEA-I would agree, just strike that last sentence. AREA VARIANCE NO. 43-1990 'nPE: U1LISTED PC-lA Qmc:K LœE CUD: DAVID LIIKAN 717 UllPPER GLEN STREET TO PROVIDE LESS THAN THE REQlIDIBD NTOHBER OF PARKING SP AŒS. (VARREN œœn PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 103-1-25 Lor SIZE: ±o.066 AQŒS SEU'IØf 1 .072 DAVE THUERMER, AGENT FOR QUICK LUBE, PRESENT MR. TURNER-can you speak to that? MR. THUERMER-Very briefly, just to state that we do have. .emp1oyees. We allow for parking for 7 employees and for..customers Who feel they need to park in front of the building. The nature of the business is such that it does not require customer parking. It is an increase from 6 to 9 spaces and should provide a much more orderly and safe traffic flow. MR. KELLEY-J.in here it states or talks about, off site parking? MRS. COLLARD-Well, Stu Baker is of the opinion that they don't need a variance because the parking schedule doesn't state that the parking has to be on the site and I'm saying we do need a variance because the intent is that parking is to be on the same site as the business. Stu and I are having a difference of opinion. MR. TURNER-There's two on site and the rest of them are off site. MR. THUERMER-By leasing that property,. .bringing that into the project. MR. TURNER-J .indicates that you will have use of the property and the parking. MR. THUERMER-Yes, the variance runs for the term of the lease, so they all come kind of tied together at that point. MR. TURNER-Yes. PUBLI C BEARING OpøED NO OOHMENT PUBLIC Bll'ARlNG (1.0SED œRRESPœDENCE Warren County Planning Board disapproved STAFF INPUT Notes from Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner (attached) MR. KELLEY-Ted, \Ie're saying that we're giving them a variance to have off site parking? MR. TURNER-Off site parking. They've got a lease agreement with Niagara Mohawk. The place abuts their property. They said that they own 14... MR. KELLEY-We're not saying that, because they've got the lease, now that kind of makes it on site? 40 ~ --- MR. TURNER-No. MOTION TO APPROVE ABA VAJUANCE NO. 43-1990 QUICK LUBE, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: For parking and this has been addressed by the lease agreement with Niagara Mohawk and this will take care of the off-site parking. The Short EAF shows no negative impact and a copy of the lease agreement with Niagara Mohawk is in the file with Variance No. 42-1990 and that the Variance runs for the term of the lease. Because of the unique circumstances of this lot, we are allowing the leased land to provide the off-site parking. Duly adopted this 23rd day of May, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Shea, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Sicard MR. CARR-Before we vote, I'd just like to make one point, not to throw a monkey wrench in anything. I think we I ve just got to realize, W1at we're saying is, we are now accepting leases for off-site parking. I mean, if somebody comes in, they don't have enough on-site parking, but they've got something next door to them that will lease them spaces, we are saying MR. TURNER-I think every application speaks for itself and I think you have to address it at that level. MR. CARR-Yes, we are, but we are also setting precedent. MS. CORPUS-Well, the Board could distinguish this application from all others. MRS. GOETZ-Okay, because he remembers a case we won. MR. CARR-That's right and Karla remembers that case. MS. CORPUS-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-DeMarco. MR. CARR-Because they wouldn't allow him to use right next door, off-site parking. I'm just saying, if he came in tomorrow, I think he would hard pressed to deny something like that. I'm for this application, I just think MS. CORPUS-The way to do that, Bruce, is to limit this as much as possible. The Board would have to make this set of circumstances very specific to this particular variance. MR. CARR-Maybe you should just make that statement, because of the very unique circumstances of this lot shape or size or something. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Theodore Turner, Chairman 41 ~ ;;; - '~ .- TOWN OF QUEENSBURY pI:nn"ing Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: May 23, 1990 By: Stuart G. Baker Area Variance -Ã- Use Variance Sign Variance == Interpretation Other: SubdiflsioD: Sltet-1. Prelim· - --. - mary, Site Plan Rmew - Petition far a ChaDge of Zone - Freshwater WetlaDds Permit FiDal Appücation Number: Use Variance No. 32-1990 AppUcant'. Name: U-Haul Co. N.E. New York, Inc. MeetiDg Date: Mav 23. 1990 ............................................................................................ Listed below are the cUlTent occupancy percentage rates for a few self-storage centers in the Queensbury/Glens Falls area. I hope this information will be helpful in your review of this application. Units Available Units Built Percentage Occupancy Adirondack Self Storage 1 212 99.5% Keylock Mini Storage 2 126 98.4% Meadowbrook 1 107 99.1 % Queensbury Mini Storage 0 29 100% SGB/sed '> .. . - - TOWN OF QUEENSBURY pI:IInning Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: May 21, 1990 By: Stuart G. Bakpr X Area Variance - Use Variance - Sign Variance == Interpretation Other: Subdi~oo: Sketch. Site Plan Review - - Petition fer a Change of Zone - Freshwater WetlaDds Permit Preliminary, FiDal Appücation Number: Area Variance No. 39-1990 Appticant's Name: Patti S. Rathbun MeetiDg Date: Mav 23. 1990 ............................................................................................ The applicant wishes to subdivide a 12,000 sq. ft. lot with two single family houses into two separate lots. A variance from the minimum lot size requirement is necessary for this action. The Zoning Administrator has determined that a variance from the side yard setback requirement is not needed. Because of the way the two existing houses, their septic systems, and the common driveway are situated, it is not possible to subdivide the lot without creating a nonconforming lot. The applicant cUlTently has reasonable use of the lot and the buildings. Strict application of the Ordinance would not allow the applicant to sell either of the houses alone. The variance requested would not be detrimental to the Ordinance, or to the sWTounding properties~ No additional development on these lots is anticipated as a result of the variance. 1Ifte nliv" ~ ~': ~. ft. fUHt\ tBe..f~ulil1ld.,-~ refltmemeuts is ....1._ iJlimal R8....IUY fer .Be p!'8l'ðSeà 8~¡uii- . .l'ô!u. No adverse effects on public services or facilities is anticipated. SGB/sed :;> ". v,!!$' - '- TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PI,.nning Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: May 23, 1990 By: John S. Goralski X Area V8riaDce Use V8riaDce - Sign Variance == Interpretation Other: Subdi.uïoa.: Sketch, _ Pr'elimiDary, Site Plan Rmew - Petition far a Change of Zone - Freshwater WetlaDds Permit Final Appücatioa. Number: Area Variance No. 40-1990 AppHcant'. Name: William F. Davidson MeetiDg Date: Mav 23, 1990 ............................................................................................ The Zoning Ordinance states that an Area Variance may be granted only if all of the circumstances listed in Section 10.040 are found to exist. - The applicant indicates on the application that there are no special conditions applying to this property. Furthermore, it appears that the applicant cUlTently enjoys reasonable use of the property. There are two dwelling units, a garage, and a dock on this property. This condition is legal, however, it is significantly more than would be allowable under the CUlTent Zoning Ordinance. The purpose of the Shoreline Regulations is to promote the goal of protecting the visual amenities of our lakes as stated in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Granting of this request would appear to be in opposition of this goal. JSG/sed ; -----"--.- ~ ~.._. ." TEL [518] 793-2535 FAX [518) 793-6238 J paw~ '~NNIN N' nF.PAR NT LAW OFFICES CARUSONE & MULLER 12 EAST WASHINGTON STREET R O. 80X 143 GLENS FALLS. NEW YORK 12801 .JOHN S, CARUSONE MICHAEL .J, MULLER R08ERT .J MULLER PAUL M, WASSERMAN LOUIS M. CARuSONE 1'903-19831 May 22, 1990 ~£A SE SIGN VARIANCE NO. If/-fer? 0 ~/~ Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Bay Road Queensbury, N.Y. 12804 Re: Barbara Tebeau's Application Use variance #: 41-1990 Dear Ladies and Gentlemen of the Board: I represent Barbara Tebeau and am unable to attend Wednesday night's meeting. My client feels very insecure in appearing without her attorney and I feel badly I cannot attend. I respectfully request that this matter be tabled for the next available meeting. Thank you very much. Very truly yours, CARUSONE AND MULLER By: # ~.'"\ i¥/~ S. Carusone JSC:fmp ._-~--"...__. . - 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: May 21, 1990 By: Stuart G. Baker Area Variance -X Use Variance - Sign Variance == Interpretation Subdi.uion: Site Plan Reflew - Petition far a ChaDge of Zone - Freshwater Wet1aDds Permit Sketch, Prelim· - mary, FiDal Other: Appücation Number: Use Variance No. 42-1990 App6cant'. Name: Quick Lube, David Leman MeetiDg Date: May 23, 1990 ............................................................................................ The applicant would like to open a Quick Lube Oil Change Center at 717 Glen Street. The most recent use of this property was for a multi-tenant commercial building. This building is now vacant. I have reviewed the application in accordance with the criteria listed in Article 10 of the Ordinance. This application appears to meet the criteria necessary for a Use Variance. The applicant should provide written consent from Niagara Mohawk for the use of their property. SGB/sed { -...---_._.~- ~ .. - -" 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: Mav 22. 1990 By: Stuart G. Baker X Area Variance Use Variance - Sign Variance == Interpretation SubdiWlioø: Sketch, _ PrelimiDary, Site Plan Review - Petition far a Change of Zone - Freshwater WetlaDds Permit Final Other: Applicaticm Number: Area Variance No. 4~-lQQO Applicant'. Name: Qukk Lube. David Leman Meeting Date: Mav 23. 1990 ............................................................................................ The applicant is requesting a variance from Section 7.072 (Off Street Parking) of the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Administrator has determined that a variance is necessary because not all of the parking is provided on site. Sections 7.070, 7.071, and 7.072 of the Ordinance address off street parking. No where in these sections does it state that all parking must be provided on site. The applicant should provide a copy of the lease agreement with Niagara Mohawk for the use of their land. This lease should be of a length appropriate to guarantee adequate parking for as long as this use is at this location. Adequacy of the number of· parking spaces will be determined by the Planning Board, (as per Section 7.071) since this use is not specified in Section 7.072. SGB/sed ~---_._--