Loading...
1990-05-31 SP -- --- QUEENSBtJRY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SPECIAL MEETING MAY 31ST, 1990 INDEX Use Variance No. 32-1990 U-Haul of N.E. New York, Inc. l. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. '- --- QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SPECIAL MEETING MAY 31ST, 1990 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN SUSAN GOETZ, SECRETARY JOYCE EGGLESTON BRUCE CARR CHARLES SICARD MICHAEL SHEA JEFFREY KELLEY DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY-KARLA CORPUS ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-PAT COLLARD SENIOR PLANNER-LEE A. YORK STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI USE VARIANCE NO. 32-1990 TYPE: UNLISTED CR-15 U-HAUL OF N.E. NEW YORK, INC. OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 112 MAIN STREET FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A METAL BUILDING TO CONTAIN SELF-STORAGE UNITS. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 135-1-4 LOT SIZE: 2.43 ACRES SECTION 4.020-1 MR. TURNER-The subject of the meeting is Use Variance 32-1990, U-Haul Company of N.E. New York, Inc. Last time around, there was a tie vote, no action. MRS. GOETZ-Read U-Haul motion from last meeting: 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 m~n~mum variance that would alleviate the unnecessary hardship. A review of the Short EAF Form shows that no negative environmental impact would be forthcoming. The vote was three yes, three no, nO action, deadlock. MR. TURNER-Before we get started, Karla. MS. CORPUS-Alright, I just wanted to clarify and correct a couple of things that I said. According to our Ordinance, of course, we're here because the Board has 30 days from the final adjournment of a public hearing to make a decision and, now that we have seven members, I'm sure that we'll have an outcome, one way or another. The second reason is, we must do SEQRA, prior to the motion regarding the variance. Third, the thing that I said about the Board's no action turning into an automatic approval after 30 days is blatantly incorrect, I take full responsibility for that, that's site plans and subdivision approval and not the Zoning Board. What happens, at the end of the 30 days, if the Board does not make a decision, then that's when the applicant's rights accrue, regarding any legal pursuit. If it were deadlocked, that's what it would stay. MR. TURNER-I didn't hear you the last time. MS. CORPUS-Okay, after 30 days from the final adjournment of a public hearing, if the Board were still deadlocked, at the end of that time, it would not be an automatic approval. I was incorrect. It would stay a deadlock and, what would happen at that time is the applicant would have a chance to pursue his legal remedies, which would, I assume, would be, possibly, an Article 78 to compel the Board to make a decision, I wouldn't know, but that's where we stand on that. 1 ,-.--- -- -.-. MR. TURNER-Okay, the Board is open for discussion, then. MR. KELLEY- I guess, basical1.y, Charlie is our guy that probably needs to hear our feelings on both sides because we're divided. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. SICARD-Well, I've got a copy of the minutes, here. MR. KELLEY-I guess, Charlie, from my standpoint, I voted yes, to approve it and, I think, my feeling was, if you look at all the Use Variance criteria that the Ordinance talks about, and a question I had in my mind was, all of these things are fine, but it doesn't say, this is what you should look at if there is a preexisting nonconforming use. If they were coming in here with a vacant piece of land and asking for a variance, then you'd say, well, why can't it do all of these things..for whatever the reason. MR. SICARD-Yes. MR. KELLEY-But the fact that they preexisted this Ordinance with this use, I think that changes the character of what you have to look at and that's what I based a lot of my decision on. MR. SICARD-Well, I've been thinking about it from the first meeting, the fact that they were established here, and, also, that these two things seem to be rather allied, somebody moving and so forth's got to.. and that I s the first thing they think, let's go through like it's happening to us, they rent a truck and load the furniture they have to move, but they no place to put it and when.. I think there's some allied things here. I think there's a lot of ways to look at this thing. MR. KELLEY-There's always two sides to the story, but I think that's, kind of, where I was coming from. Mike? MR. SHEA-I guess I would agree, in principle, as to where my thinking develops and that is that it was a preexisting nonconforming use. However, I would also, for the record, like to say that I think that the reason that they are not able to get a reasonable return and have shown numbers that lend some credence to that, I, particularly, think that that is a weak argument because I would agree with some of the Board members that they would not be there as long as they have if they were not able to produce some kind of profit or break even scenario, but I think, in essence, since it was a preexisting nonconforming use and, in my belief, it is not detrimental to the Ordinance and, in my view, is in, somewhat, keeping with the nature of the kinds of businesses that are in that area and that I foresee developing in that area, I voted in favor of it. MR. TURNER-Bruce? MR. CARR-The reason that, again, I voted for that resolution or that motion, I believe they have met the criteria that is stated for a Use Variance. Unlike Mike, I do believe that the financial information submitted does show that they are not making a reasonable return on the property and one of the things that swayed me is a listing of the National U-Haul Centers and that this Center is, like, ranked 1,009th, or something, in the Country, that's not a figure that they made up or just pulled out of the air for this meeting. It just seems to me that a national rate, being company wide, they aren't going to juggle the figures to put them down low just for this meeting, sO I do feel that they have demonstrated the financial difficulty required of a Use Variance, as well as all the other three criteria. MR. TURNER-Now we'll hear from the other side. Joyce? MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, as you know, I voted against it, and I still feel the same way. I feel that one of the things you have to prove for a Use Variance is that they must show an inability to yield a reasonable return on the property under any of the other allowable uses in their zone and I don't feel they proved that. I think anybody that's been in business as long as they have, in that spot, is certainly making money and I'll say that if they were trying to sell the property, I'm sure that the report could yield a fair return. I do think it would be detrimental to the purpose of the Ordinance. I don't think it would look good in there and there is the residential street that borders, very closely, right 2 - -- in back and th~r~'s pot~ntial of a 20 in back of it. I just f~~l that, n~c~ssary to grant this varianc~. acr~ or 25 acr~ d~v~lopm~nt going in dir~ctly it just do~s not m~~t all th~ r~quir~m~nts MR. TURNER-Su~? MRS. GOETZ-I vot~d no b~caus~ I f~~l it do~sn' t m~~t th~ r~quir~m~nts that you n~~d to prov~ for granting a Us~ Varianc~. Y~s, Charli~, th~ alli~d, or th~ associat~d us~ of most mini-storag~ is nic~ to go with U-Haul, but it's v~ry clos~ to Light Industrial zon~ wh~r~ th~y could, possibly, g~t som~ land that th~y could us~ and it wouldn' t b~ too far from th~ pr~s~nt U-Haul op~ration, that is v~ry valuabl~ prop~rty. I cannot b~li~v~ that th~y ar~n't yi~lding a r~asonabl~ r~turn. I 'm conc~rn~d about th~ proximity to th~ Suburban R~sid~ntial and, knowing all th~ r~asons that th~ Citiz~ns Advisory Committ~~ cr~at~d a Comm~rcial R~sid~ntial Zon~ and a Suburban R~sid~ntial zon~, I f~~l it would b~ d~trim~ntal to th~ purpos~s of th~ Ordinanc~, that's it. MR. TURNER-I vot~d no for, basically, the sam~ r~asons. Numb~r One, I f~lt that that was a w~ak demonstration of a financial r~turn becaus~ that's an accounting proc~dur~ that' s us~d in many busin~ss~s to show a loss, for som~ v~ry obvious r~asons and, the oth~r on~ und~r..would b~ mat~rially detrimental to th~ Ordinance and to th~ property in th~ district, esp~cially in the Suburban Resid~ntial zon~ in the back and also th~ zon~ which is th~r~ now, which was Highway Comm~rcial at the tim~ that they w~nt in th~re and, at the time that they w~nt in th~r~, that was a Texaco gas station. It hasn' t chang~d a whol~ lot. They still use part of th~ facility for th~ir own purpos~s, storing gas and for th~ir own use and I think it's weak becaus~, again, it's d~trimental to th~ Ordinance. MRS. GOETZ-Can I say something? MR. TURNER-Y~s. MRS. GOETZ-Charli~, I just want to r~mind you about all the probl~ms about th~ batch plant in that ar~a and I, for one, l~arn~d a big lesson in that and I really am v~ry cautious about putting a Light Industrial us~ in, so clos~ to a Suburban Resid~ntial ar~a. MR. KELLEY-May I ask a qu~stion? I'm thinking about other storag~ faciliti~s that ar~ in our Town and we've got th~ one ov~r on Meadowbrook Road. MR. TURNER-Y~s. MR. KELLEY-Now that's in an HC-1 acr~ zon~. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KELLEY-So, that wasn't a p~rmitted us~ in ther~ and, did w~ grant them a varianc~? w~ must hav~. MR. TURNER-Y~s. MR. KELLEY-Th~y w~re here and that bord~rs SFR-1 acre zon~ across th~ str~~t. MR. TURNER-Unfortunat~ly, J~ff, I vot~d in favor of it at the tim~, but, knowing th~ history of it and knowing what's happ~n~d th~re, it destroy~d the residential charact~r right n~xt to it. MRS. GOETZ-Right, I m~an, just think of th~ probl~ms that man has had, that liv~s right next door. MR. TURNER-He's had that hous~ for sal~ for, going on, thr~~ years now and h~ hasn't b~~n abl~ to s~ll it, right next to it. MR. KELLEY-I know. MR. TURNER-And that was th~r~ long befor~ Highway Comm~rcial ca.m~ down Quaker Road, that house was ther~ b~fore Quaker Road was th~re. MR. SICARD-Of cours~, that whol~ area, there, is changing with th~ enlargement of th~ excavation people there, that whole area, probably should hav~ been Light Industrial. The complex across th~ street, th~r~. .0'Connor has increas~d and, of course, th~ Town put a pump station in there that do~sn' t h~lp th~ looks of the vicinity nor th~ owner. I don't know if you've been down through that street, but. . . 3 -- - MR. TURNER-Well, I think I go by there all the time. MRS. GOETZ-Yes, and we did site inspections there, recently, for O'Connor. MR. SICARD-They.. into there and, as I say, that's pretty industrial and, as I understand it, that place is just about. .all the time.. .putting things in there, although I agree with you, it probably isn't exactly the right place. MR. TURNER-I'll make the comment, again, the last time that we talked about this was the last meeting that I approached the people that owned that land and they told me that 50 percent was the average. MR. SICARD-Is that right? MR. TURNER-He said, yes, 100 percent now, but, he said, next week I'll be right back to 50 percent. Although we asked them to check around and see what the occupancy rate was. MR. TOWNE-The occupancy rate is... MR. TURNER-That might be right now, but, come fall or come winter, it might be down. MR. SICARD-He told me himself, of course he goes south for the winter, you know him pretty well. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. SICARD-He told me himself that it was a.. .percent variable. I asked him if it was a good investment and he said it was a very good investment because he buys and sells everything..I've been up there a couple of times and I don't know..take a look at it and..till we find out where it's going. MRS. GOETZ-But we're not debating what a good business it is. We're debating, is this the right place to put it. I mean, how good it is, financially. MR. TURNER-You know, they're going to have to come for an Area Variance, too, if they get this. I just think it's the wrong place for that type of operation. Yes, that's kind of a stripped development right now, but I think, in the future, you're going to see that develop in a lot better ways than it is now. It's just going to come because every house on that street is for sale, the State's going to take the high road. MR. SICARD-That's what I mean,..lands. MR. TURNER-I can see it coming. MR. SICARD-It's increased now. The sale of houses in that area was high, at one time, and then it diminished and now it seems to be accelerating. MRS. GOETZ-And that's why we're supposed to consider the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. MR. SICARD- If they remOve all those houses down through there, it's going to be some long strips for some type of development. MRS. GOETZ-But bigger lots. MR. TURNER-Bigger lots, that's why we zoned it CR-15. but they were there when it was Highway Commercial. Yes, they've been there, MR. CARR-Everybody' s saying that it's abutting this SR-l acre zone that's going to be proposed housing in the future, but, if you look at the map, that zone also abuts a Light Industrial zone. So, that zone also abuts where this could properly go, without a Use Variance. So, I mean, moving it 200 feet to a business that it is right in conjunction with, and putting it in a CR zone, I don't see a problem with it, that it's going to be abutting an SR zone because it could anyway. I mean, it's not that the Light Industrial zone's a mile away from where this place would even be located. The map, I mean, allied 1 acre COmes right up that Suburban Residential 1 acre zone that's going to be developed at some future time. 4 - - MR. SHEA-They're all in close proximity. MR. KELLEY-Does your property border Niagra Mohawk? MR. FERRIS-Yes. MR. KELLEY-Okay, so Niagra Mohawk separates your piece of property from the Light Industrial. MR. TOWNE-Yes, and it also separates us from MR. SHEA-From the residential. MR. TOWNE-From the residential. MR. SHEA-I think, Bruce, if you take a look at the map, I think your point's well taken. It's six of one, half dozen of another. The Light Industrial borders the present property, as does the Suburban Residential zone. MR. CARR-Okay. MR. KELLEY-Yes, I mean, it's bad to have it here because this a Suburban Residential, but they shift 10 feet and it's okay. Here's the piece of property, here. You're saying we're protecting this zone here, but if he shifts over to, basically, on the other side of that line, it's okay over here. MR. TURNER-Mr. Towne, did you want to speak? MR. TOWNE-Well, I just wanted to say that, adjacent to the residential zone,..cut out on our plan that we I re not putting any development in and our property, in the back, has a lull of trees comparable to what's across the street, so there'd be at least a 50 foot buffer of trees between us and the Residential zone. In fact, between all of our neighbors in the back, including the Industrial zone, there'd be a buffer of trees. The other thing, I don 1 t know, the figures that we've given you, with respect to showing losses, I think they show, in the last seven years, we have a combined loss of $48,000. Some years we have a gain. Some years we have a loss. The law doesn't require that we show a loss. It requires that we be allowed a reasonable return on our investment which we would have the right to come before you and say, we're only making 3 or 4 or 5 percent net profit on our investment and that might be considered by the courts as insufficient to, or is not an adequate return on our investment. So, we don't even have to show losses. We just have to show that we have a facility there that's worth $200,000. It's reasonable that, if we sold it and put the $200,000 in the bank, we could make $20,000 a year. So, the courts would look at that standard rather than whether or not we're actually showing a loss. In this case, we've shown a loss 5 of the 7 years. MR. TURNER-Alright, no further discussion? Motion's in order. MR. CARR-Ted, I'd like to make the same motion I made the other night. MRS. GOETZ-Jeff, will you be seconding that? MR. KELLEY-Yes, 1111 do that. MS. CORPUS-Excuse me, Mr. Turner, will you be doing SEQRA? MR. KELLEY-It's your recommendation, we better. MS. CORPUS-Yes, to be added, I guess, to the motion. MR. CARR-Didn't we say that at the end of the motion. We said at the end of the motion there was no negative impact. MRS. GOETZ-We added that on. MR. CARR-Yes, we added that. MR. TURNER-We added that. MS. CORPUS-Bruce, you're right. 5 -' - MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 32-1990 U-HAUL CO. OF N.E. NEW YORK, INC., Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for it's 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 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 31st day of May, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ke lley , Mr. Shea, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Carr NOES: Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner MR. TOWNE-Could I just say, on behalf of my client and myself, we appreciate the consideration you gave us, the time and I'm extremely impressed with how seriously you take your job. Thank you, and I would have said that regardless of how the vote came out. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Theodore Turner, Chairman 6