Loading...
1991-03-20 Use Variance No. 12-1991 Use Variance No. 13-1991 Use Variance No. 14-1991 Area Variance No. 15-1991 Area Variance No. 16-1991 Use Variance No. 17-1991 Area Variance No. 18-1991 ~EENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MARCH 20TH, 1991 INDEX Eric N. Heym Giuseppe Chiaravalle F. T. Collins Robert Northgard. Jr. Anthony and Linda Russo Regan and Denny Funeral Services. Inc. 29. Regan and Denny Funeral Services. Inc. 31. ---" 1. 4. 11. 18. 26. 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 FIRST REGULAR MEETING MARCH 20TH, 1991 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER. CHAIRMAN SUSAN GOETZ. SECRETARY JOYCE EGGLESTON JEFFREY KELLEY BRUCE CARR CHARLES SICARD MEMBERS ABSENT MICHAEL SHEA DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY- KARLA CORPUS ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-PAT COLLARD SENIOR PLANNER-LEE YORK STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES January 16th, 1991: Page 2. second line down from the top, where Mr. Keswick is speaking. at the very end it sib we're a separate corporation; Page 2. middle of the page. Mr. Keswick is speaking, very first sentence sib we rotate on eight hourly crews; Page 11. down below the Staff Input. the first sentence where Mr. Turner is speaking sib how long ago did you put the fence in. Mr. Gritch; Page 7. spelling of Shaaray Tefila MOTION TO APPROVE THE ABOVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED. Introduced by Charles Sicard who moved for its adoption. seconded by Jeffrey Kelley: Duly adopted this 20th day of March, 1991. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kelley. Mr. Sicard. Mrs. Goetz. Mrs. Eggleston. Mr. Carr. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea NEW BUSINESS: USE VARIANCE NO. 12-1991 TYPE: UNLISTED RR-SA ERIC N. HEYM OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ROUTE 9L, RIGHT HAND SIDE, SECOND HOUSE PAST RIDGE TERRACE RESTAURANT FOR TEJFORARY BOAT STORAGE FOR 1991 WINTER SEASON FOR 8 BOATS. (WARREN COUNTY ~LANNING) TAX MAP NO. 21-1-19 LOT SIZE: 2.25 ACRES SECTION 4.020 C ERIC HEYM PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York. Senior Planner. Use Variance No. 12-1991. Eric N. Heym. dated March 19. 1991. Meeting Date: March 20. 1991 "The request is for a Use Variance to be able to store 8 boats temporarily in a RR-5A zone. The location is Route 9L. The applicant is in violation currently. This petition was recommended for denial by the Warren County Planning Board. Commercial boat storage is not an allowed use in the RR-5A zone. I reviewed this petition with regard to the use variance criteria. 1. Is a reasonable return possible if the land is used as zoned? The property has a dwelling unit on it which indicates that the property can be used for residential purposes. 2. Are the circumstances of this lot unique and not due to the unreasonableness of the Ordinance? No.3. Is there an adverse effect on the neighborhood character? The property diagonally across from the lot in question is the recently renovated historic North Church. There are no immediately adjacent neighborhoods. However. it is possible to see the boats from the road. The rationale for zoning this area RR-5A is to protect the rural character. A boat storage yard is not in keeping with the intent." MR. TURNER-I guess you weren't aware you couldn't store boats there. right? MR. HEYM-Well. I really wasn't. no. I did make a mistake. I guess. putting them there. Years ago. I went to buy the lot next to me. the Barthol land. and that was zoned for boat storage and after that 1 -' deal fell through I tried to buy the old farm across from the Dunhams Bay Rod and Gun Club and that was zoned for boat storage. I just assumed, which I guess I was wrong, that I could put a few boats on my property. I really didn't want to put the boats there. It's nothing that I really wanted to do. I am buying a piece of property. I put a deposit on it last August. I thought the permit process would go faster. it's in the Town of Fort Ann, that I could put the boats over there by winter. I couldn't. so I put them in my yard. I was ob1igated to store them. That is my only income for last winter. MR. CARR-Where are you in the Fort Ann process? MR. HEYM-My pub1ic hearing is this coming Monday and the APA. I be1ieve. is the 11th of April. As soon as I get approvals from both of them. which I don't foresee a problem with that. I met with the APA 1 ast Thursday and I went along wi th everythi ng they wanted and I've already been through Fort Ann for the first meeting and they didn't have a problem with it. I should have a closing within two or three weeks on the outside. Then the first part of May I'll start building the new facility. MR. TURNER-Yes, but most of the boats will be gone in May anyway. right? MR. HEYM-Yes. MR. TURNER-They'll be in the Lake or whatever. MR. HEYM- Yes. MR. TURNER-Are they all due to go in the Lake in May? MR. HEYM-Yes. They'll an be gone. Most of the boats will be in the water. quite a few of the guys want them as soon as the ice goes out. MR. TURNER-Right. MR. HEYM-Which will be shortly. the way the Lake looks right now. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. HEYM-One of the boats on there is my own boat. an old Chris-Craft of my own. and then the other ones I'll move out of there just as soon as I can move them out of there and put them on my other piece of property. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. KELLEY-Well. the application says for 1991 winter storage. We're talking 90-91. right? MR. HEYM-Well. see. I was in the boat business. and winter storage you always went from 90. maybe I worded that wrong. 90 as being last fall to 91 as being this spring. You know. it covers two years. but it doesn't mean that I want to have storage there. MR. KELLEY-Right. it ends April. May. whatever it is. It's not for next year? MR. HEYM-No. not for next year at all. and believe me. my wife gave me a harder time about putting the boats there than you can imagine. She wasn't too thrilled with me, but I didn't know what else to do at the time, but once the boats are gone out of there this time. the boats are gone. I'm buying four acres of land. A lot of the junk that you see around my house is all going to get buried over there in the other property and stuff like that. So that will clean it all up and they won't be there again. MR. CARR-Karla. do we have a problem with getting a use variance on the parcel of land? MR. TURNER-Yes. MS. CORPUS-What do you mean by "problem", Bruce? MR. CARR-Well. I mean, doesn't it just run with the land? MS. CORPUS-No. with the owner. You can make it a temporary variance for a specific time frame. It just can't run If you're going to make it for a certain period of time. that could be done. MRS. EGGLESTON-If we were to deny it. how long would he have to get the boats off his property. Pat? MR. TURNER-Probably 30 days. MRS. COLLARD-I was going to say. I would think 30 days. 2 --" MR. CARR-If we could table it for more information, then we don't have to make a decision. MR. HEYM-I'd appreciate that. MR. TURNER-The best thing to do is just. if you're going to deny it. deny it. but give him untl1 May to get the boats out of there and be gone. It's a dead issue, really. after that. MR. CARR-I mean. I don't have a problem with the vote staying there tonight. I don't think we should even formulate a positive variance on this because it could be a problem, but if we can get around it by tabling it or denying it and giving him until May 31st to remove the boats. MR. TURNER-Deny it and give him until a certain period of time. MR. HEYM-Well. by May 15th. all the boats will be gone. MRS. EGGLESTON-My problem with that is. if his land deal falls through, then next winter he's going to be hard pressed for a place to put these boats again. MR. KELLEY-Yes, but he's going to have all summer to work on it. MR. HEYM-Yes. No, it was the circumstances last year that, my father used to own the Castaway Marina on Lake George and I was hired back. after he sold it. as General Manager. I didn't anticipate this problem. Me and the new owners had a personality confHct. I left in June. or July. I didn't have enough time. you know. July 3rd I left there. by August 15th I had a piece of property I put a deposit on. It wasn't anything but just a permit process. If this deal doesn't work out, which I know it will. I will have another piece of property. I won't ever put boats on my land on that. I'll guarantee that. It was very hard. because it's all h111s. It's not like it was a big flat field that was real easy to bring the boats in and just block them. It was really a lot of work to put those boats in there and I had to really work to get them in there and I'm going to have to really work to get them out of there. So it wasn't something that was easy. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further questions? Okay. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Warren County Planning Board disapproved with the comments "Density issues regarding undersized lot and use contrary to Queensbury Master Plan." Letter from Howard and Neta Fisher, "We would like to report our objections to the above referenced variance for temporary boat storage for the 91 winter season. Our objections are the same as they were for the last appHcation Mr. Heym made for boat storage and a store at his home location on Route 9L. The spring and fall seasons bring an increase in traffic to our area and the moving of boats on and off Ridge Road will cause a hazardous situation because of the curves in the road and the area of Mr. Heym's home. The speed limit is 45 miles per hour. not always observed. and a driver coming upon a large slow moving vehicle towing a boat could cause an accident or near accident to occur. When we purchased our home over 25 years ago we purchased in this area because it was away from the Lake and the boating areas. The neighborhood was quite and rustic. We feel the boat storage facl1ity will take away from the natural beauty of the area and decrease the value of the homes surrounding it. Thank you for letting us voice our objections again. Mr. Heym has been storing boats on his property all winter. He has accomplished his goal already without ever having received the variance he is applying for now. It seems as if he has no regard for the rules and regulations of the Town." MR. TURNER-Okay. Motion's in order MRS. GOETZ-I just have a question. Pat. do you have the flexibility? Do you have to make it 30 days. or how does that work? MRS. COLLARD-I don't know. to answer your question. but Dave and I will talk about it. MR. TURNER-Well. I think common sense tells you that he can't put the boats in the Lake. He has no other place to put them. So he's not going to do any injustice by leaving them there untl1 May the 15th. MRS. COLLARD-It will be all worked out in our Department. 3 -- MOTION TO DENY USE VARIANCE NO. 12-1991 ERIC N. HEYM. Introduced by Jeffrey Kelley who moved for its adoption. seconded by Charles Sicard: I feel the land is being used as zoned. since there is a single family residence on the property. There are no unique circumstances with the lot which would cause him to need this use variance. There would be an adverse effect on the neighborhood character and I feel that boat storage would be detrimental to the purposes of the Ordinance. Duly adopted this 20th day of March. 1991. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Kelley. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea USE VARIANCE NO. 13-1991 TYPE: UNLISTED PC-lA GIUSEPPE CHIARAVALLE OWNER: JAY AND PATRICIA MAYER FOSTER AVENUE, FORMER FIRE HOUSE ON FOSTER, OFF GLEN STREET FOR USE AS A MARTIAL ARTS SCHOOL. TAX MAP NO. 102-1-12 LOT SIZE: 7,392 SQ. FT. SECTION 4.020 J JAY MAYER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski. Planner. Use Variance No. 13-1991, Giuseppe Chiaravalle. dated March 12. 1991. Meeting Date: March 20. 1991 "The applicant currently operates a Martial Arts School on the second floor of the building. The owner currently operates a delivery service from the first floor. No evidence has been presented to indicate that a reasonable return cannot be realized if the property is used for an allowable use. (See site Site Plan Review Uses in PC-IA zone.) In determining whether this variance could be detrimental to other properties in the neighborhood, the Board should consider the adequacy of parking. The Zoning Ordinance requires ample parking be provided on site for all uses. Off-street parking is required to minimize traffic congestion and maximize pèdestrian safety." MR. TURNER-Mr. Chiaravalle. I guess you told me earlier that you have tried to rent this building since. when? MR. MAYER-Approximately, well. since January of last year. MR. TURNER-Have you tried to rent it for any of the uses allowed in the zone? MR. MAYER-Yes. we have. offered it for rent as an office space which was allowable usage. looked at using it ourselves at certain times. many other factors that were allowable usage. MR. TURNER-Do you see yourself maybe using it. down the road, later on? MR. MAYER-Very possible. MR. TURNER-In your business, for your business. right? MR. MAYER-Right. MR. KELLEY-Ted. you should have your name, for the record. MR. MAYER-I'm Mr. Mayer, also. MR. KELLEY-Yes. this is Jay Mayer. This is Chiaravalle. MR. TURNER-Okay. All right. MR. KELLEY-So. now. Jay's the owner. MR. MAYER-I own the building. MR. TURNER-Yes. he owns it. MR. KELLEY-Okay. MR. TURNER-Okay. You might just as well get right up there. We're probably going to ask ~ some questions. too. Mr. Chiara valle. you've been there. what. two months? MR. CHIARAVALLE-Yes, two to three months. 4 - MR. TURNER-Okay. Maybe fill us in as to your classes. MR. CHIARAVALLE-I run two classes a day. three times a week. Monday. Wednesday. and Fridays. One class is at 11 to 12 o'clock in the morning and that's the adult class. It averages around eight students and the second class is at late at night 6:30 to 7:30 p.m. and it's the same amount, eight to ten students. no more than that. The building's not big enough for me to stick anymore in there. and I separate my classes. MR. TURNER-And the earlier class is for the children, right? MR. CHIARAVALLE-No. The earlier are for the adults. 11 to 12 are for the adults. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. CHIARAVALLE-And the evening classes are for the kids and the adults. which there's plenty of parking because his business. his cars leave and there's more. he provides over six cars for us to park for the adults and the kids are dropped off which. you know, there's no parking. MR. TURNER-Doesn't create a problem. Okay. MRS. GOETZ-Do you anticipate adding more classes or larger classes at any time? MR. CHIARAVALLE-If I get more students. I'd divide it up more so that my classes would be smaller, so I'd have more time. I would divide it up into smaller classes so the parking would be no problem. because I've got plenty of time for more classes and the school's not even big enough to have more than 10 people in a class. MR. MAYER-May I add something in here? We have provided for Mr. Chiaravalle six parking places in the front of the building for use during the time that we need access to our garage bays. He also has available to him approximately three spaces in the rear of the building which we have created an access through the property in front of us. Frank Parillo has given us the good graces to egress and access that property from his property. MRS. GOETZ-That's the property on the corner? MR. TURNER-Yes. the one that's being renovated. MR. MAYER-Right. the one that's being renovated out in the front. there. MRS. GOETZ-But will he be using parking for that when it's re-used? MR. MAYER-He's creating parking on the side between that building and between Dunkin Doughnuts area. but also that's going to have open lanes that we can still access our property to that point. We've worked out a deal with Mr. Parillo giving him right to park on our property and us parking on his property if necessary and things of that nature. as time exists. MRS. GOETZ-So you don't park on his property right now? It's just access? MR. MAYER-Right now we strictly access to our property through his property and park on our own property. MRS. GOETZ-Because what I'm thinking. when that is a building in operation. You're deal may be fine now. but would it be a problem later on? MR. MAYER-Well. as I say, it's no problem on accessing to our property at any point. Right now we have eight parking places in the rear of our building. We have approximately eight full time employees. Out of those eight full time employees, it involves four to five cars. So we still have three parking places on our own property. MR. CHIARAVALLE-That's in addition to the six in the front. MR. MAYER-Right. and night time, after six o'clock, we're genera11y gone from our building at six o'clock. The whole front of the fire house is available. once we're gone. to his students for parking. MR. KELLEY-Well. I remembered the parking spaces in the rear. that there was property out there. I wasn't sure how they got to it. specifically. I remember when it was a fire house we used to. you could drive back. MR. MAYER-We11. the fire house had a right-of-way from the people that owned the building and we had a right-of-way prior to Mr. Parillo taking over from the people that owned the building and then when Mr. Parillo took over I talked to him and. again. we worked out the same right-of-way. MR. KELLEY-So. in other words originally. legally. you did have a right-of-way to get there. 5 '- MR. MAYER-Right. MR. KELLEY-And now you still may have it. MR. MAYER-The building's changed hands and we've done the same thing with the present owner. MR. KELLEY-Okay. So it's something in writing. more than just a hand shake saying, yes, you can go across it. MR. MAYER-Right. At one time. not too many months ago. Mr. Parillo was looking to buy the properties next door to the fire house. At that point. he was going to create a parking lot in those areas and at that point he had asked us if he could use our parking area and in turn he would give us in writing use of his parking area which, again, we had no problem with and would have created more parking for us even at that point. MR. KELLEY-All right. Let IS say you got to the point where you needed more parking. Would there be an access for this gentleman to have his customers come through the back of the building and then walk through to go up the stairs and that sort of thing? MR. MAYER-I'm sure we could make it if necessary and. again. the alley way through there is an access to the front of the building where he can get into his stairway. also. MR. CARR-Is the School there? Did I hear that right? The School is there now? MR. CHIARAVALLE-The School has been there for two months. MR. CARR-Any problems. so far. with parking? MR. CHIARAVALLE-No problems. MR. CARR-Overflow or anything? GARFIELD RAYMOND MR. RAYMOND-A lot of the students are children. So they're just dropped off and then picked up. MR. TURNER-Could you identify yourself for the record. MR. RAYMOND-Garfield Raymond. 11m here on behalf of Mr. Chiaravalle. MR. MAYER-As far as my knowledge goes, I've spoken to the neighbor next door to us. I've spoken to the neighbor across the street from us. and they've got no problems with it. Mr. Parillo, of course. I'm sure has no problems with it and we did receive a letter. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further questions? MR. KELLEY-Yes. Jay. part of our questioning we have to ask, can you use this property for any of the allowable uses in a Type II Site Plan Review and in looking at the 20 so called listed uses here. I'd say there's maybe three or four that could possibly go into your particular building. So I'd ask you, I guess. if you ever considered these or? MR. MAYER-We had it listed with LevacklBurke for approximately 11 months for use as office space or. MR. TURNER-Did you have it listed as Plaza Commercial? MR. MAYER-Yes. MR. TURNER-You did? MR. MAYER-It was listed as what it was. MR. KELLEY-Because the ones that I would say. possibly. a day care center. travel agency, professional office or an office building. The rest of the things tend to be more retail stores. hardware. restaurants and things like which. for that building. I don't think are. MR. MAYER-My feeling. to some extent. is. though. if we were to put an office up there. per set with 20 employees. you've got 1500 square feet. Lets say 20 employees. You're adding a possibility of an extra 15 cars parking. With Mr. Chiaravalle's situation, we don't have that problem. even at this point. Going against an allowable use. even. We're creating less of an impact. as far as the parking end goes. which is, from what I can see, one of the major problems. 6 MR. KELLEY-Okay. MRS. GOETZ-Jeffrey. I'd like to throw out the idea that if this is to be approved. that we condition it to just this use, because if this goes out. we could have a potential problem with parking, if something else went in there. MR. CARR-Well. I think this is. the use variance is for a martial arts studio. MRS. GOETZ-Only. MR. CHIARAVALLE-That's what the request is for. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. Good, because I think that can be a problem. MR. TURNER-Okay. No further questions. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE The Warren County Planning Board approved Letter from Thomas Green. property owner at 681 Upper Glen, "Concerning the Martial Arts School looking to locate on Foster Avenue. I assume the parking situation has been addressed and therefore I give my blessings." Letter from Ray Wynn. one Garrison Road. but owns property at 688 Glen, "I think this would be a very nice operation. I agree." MR. TURNER-Okay. No further questions? Motion's in order. MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 13-1991 GIUSEPPE CHIARAVALLE, Introduced by Jeffrey Kelley who moved for its adoption. seconded by Theodore Turner: The appli cant. through testimony of the owner of the building Mr. Mayer, has shown that a reasonable financial return is very difficult on this piece of property and the reason being that the actual unobstructed land which would be used for parking is very limited. Also, this particular building currently houses a delivery service. but it does contain a large second floor area and it was felt that by the renting or leasing out of this area it would help the owner realize a reasonable return on his investment. Testimony was given that a large portion of the clients who would utilize the martial arts school would be students and. therefore. would not have an over abundance of parked cars, cars to be parked. Also. an arrangement has been made with the neighboring property owner to the east which allows for additional parking on the north side of this building. There appears to be no neighborhood opposition and this particular use does not have an adverse impact on the neighborhood and the granting of this variance would alleviate the owner's practical difficulty. That this particular use would end November 15th. 1993. The Short EAF appears that there are no negative impacts. Duly adopted this 20th day of March, 1991. by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Goetz. Mrs. Eggleston. Mr. Carr. Mr. Kelley, Mr. Sicard. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea MR. TURNER-Is that going to terminate? MR. KELLEY-Yes. when this particular tenant leaves. MR. TURNER-Did you put that in the motion, because I didn't hear it? MR. KELLEY-No. MS. CORPUS-I would recommend the Board do it on a specific time basis. because it cannot run with the owner, but the use variance can run for a specific time period. Also. that the Board mention some SEQRA findings. MR. CARR-Well. I wouldn't want to put it in time. I'd give it a use variance for a martial arts studio. If another martial arts studio wants to go in there ten years from now. I mean. I think the chances are pretty slim that another one's going to go in if this one moves on, but I don't think we should limit Mr. Chiaravalle to two years or three years because he might be there for five or six. I wouldn't recommend we go on time. I'd rather just go specific use. 7 MR. KELLEY-I think we've done that before. though. We limited something to a time frame and then in two years or three years they had to come back in and it gave the Board the opportunity to review it again to see if there were problems that had been created. MS. CORPUS-That's up to the Board. MR. KELLEY-I think one was Mr. Mosher or? MR. TURNER-It was Wayne Mechanic. Wayne Mechanic was one. MR. KELLEY-Okay. who had the car repair, whatever. MR. TURNER- Yes. MR. CARR-Well, see. I think in a car there is a difference and I think it makes sense in a car because you don't want them stockpiling cars up there. I mean. you aren't going to stock pile your students. As they said. you can only fit so many students in this space. So it's not like you're going to put 20 students in there. you know. trying to do. what is it. T1 Kwon Do or whatever. I mean. I think we're going to be limited. that it probably is going to be eight to ten students, at the most. at any one time, unlike a car repair shop where you're going to. I mean. he could have cars stacked there for two weeks. So I think that could be very congested. MR. SICARD-And it can always change for the worse. too. in that first period that they're open. So. you'd want to keep a handle on it like we did with that one in West Glens Falls. MR. CARR-I think it's just creating a bureaucracy. MR. KELLEY-I'd ask the applicant. would be a reasonable time period? two years, three years. five years? If we put a time frame on your application. what would you feel I mean. if you stay there, do you think you're going to be there MR. MAYER-Mr. Chiaravalle presently has a one year lease with a two year renewable clause on that lease. MR. TURNER-Why don't we just terminate the variance with the use as a martial arts school? MR. CARR-You can't do that. MS. CORPUS-I would recommend to the Board that it be a specific time frame. We've researched the issue and basically the option is to make it run with the land or upon termination of a specific time. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. Well. if she's researched it then, you must be basing it on some case study. right? MS. CORPUS-Right. Andersen and the usual sources in case law. MR. TURNER-One case? MS. CORPUS-No. I can go back and look at specific cases. MR. TURNER-Yes. I'd like to know because we've done it before this way. I would. I don't see any problem with it this way. MS. CORPUS-I know. I could get back to you on the specifics on it. if you'd like. MR. KELLEY-Well, I guess. my thing, if the applicant doesn't have a problem with it. what's the problem? I mean. we're not making it difficult for him. He's saying he's in agreement. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KELLEY-That it satisfied Ms. Corpus. MRS. EGGLESTON-I think I have a tendency to agree with Jeff because we don't know yet what's going in in the new building on the corner and two years from now, I mean it could be a whole set of different circumstances there and give you a chance to review, again, the area. MR. MAYER-I was involved in that, Wayne Mechanic. but we're agreeable to three years, that's the one plus the two. I don't see any problem with that. We don't see any problem with that and if you have no problem with that. then we're all agreeable. MR. CARR-I don't have a problem with it because the applicant agrees with it. That's fine. but I've got a problem with it from just bureaucracy. Who follows it up? I mean, does somebody keep a calendar? Do you keep a calendar? 8 MRS. COLLARD-Ted. Sue. and I discussed this the other evening. that I'm going to have to set up some type of file to follow up on these. MR. CARR-It just seems like we're just creating congestion and more bureaucracy. MRS. COLLARD-My question is. now you're not going to terminate the variance after three years? You're just want it to come back in for review in three years? In other words. you don't want him to go through and make up another application and so forth? MR. KELLEY-Well. no, I guess the way I interpret it or remember what I thought happened before was that. in three years. they had to come back and basically file again and ask for a new variance or an extension or whatever. MR. TURNER-Wayne Mechanic was given a conditional variance where he had to come back in one year and re-apply. MR. SICARD-Re-apply. MRS. COLLARD-So you're terminating it after three years, is what you're saying? MR. KELLEY-Right. MR. TURNER-That's what we're saying. If she's saying we've got to put a time limit on it. we've got to terminate it. MR. KELLEY-And if things are going well. there's nothing that says he wouldn't get the variance again. MRS. COLLARD-I know. MR. KELLEY-If he's taken on two more instructors and he's got 100 people there, now. we might say. you've got a parking problem and there's been citations with people parking in the street. you'd say. well. it isn't going to work. but it gives you the opportunity to monitor it. one way or the other. MRS. COLLARD-I have no problem with it. I've just never gone through this procedure before. I didn't know you could put a time limit. MR. TURNER-He's got a one year lease right now. He's got an option for two more. MRS. COLLARD-Whatever you say. I'll do. MR. TURNER-Give him the one year and let him come back. He might have some problems in a year. This might take right off. MR. KELLEY-You could do it for a year, and if things go well, he can come back and he can give him another two years. MR. TURNER-He's got an option for two more year lease. That's a tough street. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. TURNER-We've always had trouble with parking there. MR. CARR-Garfield. how much square footage is on the second floor? MR. TURNER-1500. MR. RAYMOND-Yes. There's not that much. It's about 1500 and what we're saying is that there's increase in attendance. The attendance is going to be spread out over the eight hour or 16 hour working day. You can't get any more than eight or nine people in that place at anyone given time. MR. TURNER-How many instructors. just one or two? MR. RAYMOND-Just one. There's just himself and so what he would do is make more classes during the day. So it's not that we're going to have. all of a sudden, 50 people there. You just couldn't put 50 people there and have a proper Ti Kwon Do class. You need space and what we're doing, his average class is around six to eight people, and it would stay that way. He couldn't give the personalized service anyway. I don't think. if there's going to be an influx of people. it's going to spread out over a longer period of time. It's not going to be like they're all coming. So. it won't be a bigger demand on the parking facilities or on that facility. I don't see it. MRS. EGGLESTON-Would the lease expi re. your lease would be li ke January of '93? He's been there two months already and you said two years. 9 MR. RAYMOND-The lease was made on October 12th of 1990. So you're talking November. MR. KELLEY-I guess I'd ask, then. would you have a problem coming back in a year? Well, what the option is, if it's going well. I don't think you've got a problem, that we'd say you went good for one year. MR. CARR-Except then you're causing expense to the applicant. I mean. he's got to re-file. He might have to hire Garfield again. MR. MAYER-May I also add something. Mr. Ke11ey knows the building pretty we11. Approximately. out of the 1500 square feet. I would say the main area is. what. probably 900, excluding the kitchen and the bathrooms and the hallway and what have you. MR. KELLEY-It's probably like a third of it. MR. MAYER-The kitchen is being used as an office area. Of course you have two bathrooms up there. Those aren't being used for class and class area and the stairway. The class area is just the main area. So you're talking approximately 900 square feet and to do karate in 900 square feet with much more than eight people is almost an impossibility. MR. SICARD-What would be the disadvantage of making it three years? MR. KELLEY-Just. I guess, if there were a problem with parking or whatever. I mean. there's not much you're going to do for three years. MR. SICARD-We11. we could get Paul down there to dig a hole and that'11 take care of the parking. MR. KELLEY-Paul. I'll ask a question of you. Is that street, is it posted for no parking or is it just? PAUL NAYLOR MR. NAYLOR-Yes. Somewhere there. MR. KELLEY-By the fire house it probably would be. right? MR. NAYLOR-Yes. MRS. YORK-Excuse me. Mr. Naylor, would you identify yourself. MR. NAYLOR-Paul H. Naylor, Queensbury Highway Superintendent. Yes, there's no parking there. We put it there for the fi remen. Not so much them. they coul dn 't get out wi th the 1 adder and they used to run over people. So we had to keep them out of there. MR. KELLEY-Okay. So the signs are still there. then? MR. NAYLOR-Maybe. Yes. they go up and down like yo-yo's. MR. KELLEY-Okay. MR. CARR-If it becomes a public safety issue. then the Town can put up No Parking signs. MRS. GOETZ-Do you know what's going in on the corner? MRS. COLLARD-Retail, auto part sales. MR. TURNER-Retail. auto parts. that's my understanding. MR. KELLEY-Okay. In the motion. that this particular use variance would run for a period of approximately three years. MRS. COLLARD-Approximate? MRS. GOETZ-No. we have to say definite. MR. KELLEY-I'm going to try and give you a date. The lease was from when to when? MR. MAYER-November 15th. 1993. if you're going three years. MR. KELLEY-A11 right. The variance would end November 15th. 1993. Okay. The Short Environmental Assessment Form appears that there are no negative impacts. 10 USE VARIANCE NO. 14-1991 TYPE: UNLISTED LI-lA F. T. COLLINS OWNER: F. T. I E.P. COLLINS 278 BAY ROAD TO CONVERT THE WAREHOUSE TO RETAIL SPACE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 105-1-12 LOT SIZE: 6.23 ACRES SECTION 4.020 N F.T. COLLINS PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York. Senior Planner. Use Variance No. 14-1991. F.T. Collins, dated March 20. 1991. Meeting Date: March 20. 1991 "The request is to utilize the back portion of a warehouse as a retail furniture store. The zoning of the property is LI-IA and is located off of Bay Road adjacent to Super Shop & Save. I reviewed this application with regard to the use variance criteria. 1) Is there reasonable return if the land is used as zoned. The applicant currently rents or leases a major portion of the structure for warehousing. There currently exists a reasonable return for the facility. The applicant is requesting to vary the zoning on the 6.23 acres so that ±4,800 sq. ft. out of ±37. 800 sq. ft. building can be used for retail use. 2) Are the circumstances of this lot unique and not do to the unreasonableness of the Ordinance. No. This lot is serving a light industrial function. The lots to the north and east are retail sales but that is a different zone. The property abuts the Hudson Railroad to the west and the zoning on the properties to the south is Light Industrial. This facility is not to any great extent visible from the road. There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to this property. 3) Is there an adverse effect on the neighborhood character. There is no direct access way to the proposed furniture store. Access has to be gained by driving into the warehouse gravel and dirt parking and loading area, then around the entire building. A more reasonable route is through the Super Shop and Save parking lot. Customers and deliveries will probably choose the easier route which will impact Super Shop and Save. The applicant feels that a variance would cause the property and the neighborhood to be upgraded. Retail sales is not necessarily an upgrade from light industrial. There has been no proof shown that any potential impacts on the neighborhood could be mitigated." MR. TURNER-Mr. Collins. I guess I'd ask you to address the issues raised by Staff, reasonable return. MR. COLLINS-Reasonable return. We have attempted to rent this property as a warehouse for over a year. at least a year. well. maybe 11 months since the last tenant left there, and we just haven't been able to. We've had a lot of inquiries. but they're all for. like. Bob Tyrer was interested in it and this fellow here came in and he's interested in it. MR. CARR-Did Mr. Tyrer want it for warehouses? MR. COLLINS-He wanted it. well, yes. We would have had to get a zoning variance for an auction house, but we didn't pursue that because the number of people he would have in there. we'd have to make extensive changes. where with this tenant. we're going to do nothing except upgrade the outside. We're going to clean up the outside. paint it. put in a sidewalk. put in aluminum doors and frames and just grade up the road so that he can get in there. It's not up to me. He thinks he can make a good return out of there for a furniture store and it's not goi ng to be a hi gh traffi c business. Furni ture stores do not have that many people coming in there. that much traffic impact. MR. CARR-Now. what's the rest of it? MR. COLLINS-The rest of it is warehouse. MR. CARR-And it's being used? MR. COLLINS-But our tenant doesn't need the warehouse. MR. CARR-I mean. is it empty warehouse right now, the rest of it? MR. COLLINS-It is empty. well. not the rest of it isn't empty. no. The rest of the warehouse is occupied. MR. CARR-Okay. Is this 4800, like, the only available space? MR. COLLINS-Yes. MR. TURNER-All right. access. Are you going to come around the back of the building and around the southern end of the building and back out? MR. COLLINS-He feels he can do it with signs. We pointed out all these things to him, but I'm not sure that he's a high profile. I'm not sure what his operation is, but he was most interested in just getting the exposure that he'll get from Shop and Save parking area. You have a tremendous amount of people just going by there and they'll see his store there and also the exposure he'll get from Quaker Road. MRS. EGGLESTON-Mr. Collins, do you feel with, it looks like 80 percent that is in use now, that you're not getting a reasonable return on what is already in there? 11 MR. COLLINS-We 11. not rea 11y, because I ha ve 5.000 squa re feet that I'm getti ng taxed on and we I re not getting any return from it, so that's going to have a negative effect on the rest of the property. MR. TURNER-That petition wa11 in there. is that block or a two by four wa11 or what. that separates that business from the warehouse? MR. COLLINS-That will be determined by the Building Inspector and the Fire Marshall. MR. TURNER-No. but that's not there right now. MR. COLLINS-That's not there yet. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. COLLINS-If we get these approvals. then we'11 apply for a Building Permit and they'11 determine what type of wall we have to construct there. MR. TURNER-Because I knew that it wasn't there origina11y and I saw it sketched in here and I thought you might have put it in to segregate the warehouse. MR. COLLINS-No. it was not there originally. You're right. but we don't want to go to any more expense than we have to until we get these. see if we have a go project. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. I do have some concerns from the standpoint that Light Industrial property is so valuable and we were criticized when the Master Plan was developed that we didn't have enough Light Industrial land in the Town and to take part of it for retail and we've had so many problems with the neighbors on the other side of Bard being concerned about expansion that way into Residential. and when you look at where Bard is and if they ever want to expand, your land is the perfect spot. You've got a wonderful piece of property. MR. COLLINS-We've approached Bard and they don't want it. MRS. GOETZ-Maybe not right now, which I know isn't going to help your problem now. MR. COLLINS-Yes. absolutely. That's not our problem. We've approached them and we've offered to build them warehouse space or whatever they need and they do not want it. I mean, Bard's seen fit to move to Bel Rika. So. I mean. I don't think the Town of Queensbury owes Bard anything. myself. but that is not really what we're here for. MRS. GOETZ-But it is when we're looking at it from using light industrial land for some other use. MR. COLLINS-Okay. now, the other thing is. this was originally light industrial and I could understand it when Doyles was there and they had a11 the trees, you know, we were 1 i ke back in NeverNever Land and, a11 of a sudden, Shop and Save comes and buys the place and they clear the land. Now a11 of a sudden we're sitting out there with great exposure. We have plenty of land there. We've been trying to build buildings for light industrial, but we haven't been able to. You say it's light industrial. but where is the light industry? MRS. GOETZ-What about your other buildings on that property. you know. looking long ranges. For instance. Feigenbaums is moving up to the new plaza. MR. COLLINS-Feigenbaum's is not part of that parcel. MRS. GOETZ-I forget. is it light industrial or not on that road? MR. COLLINS-Well, Feigenbaums and Upstate Tile and Cushing Floors are not part of that parcel. MRS. GOETZ-Do you own that land. though? MR. COLLINS-I own the land. but it's not part of the parcel. That parcel is empty. The 6.23 acres is empty except for those warehouses and Brennans Quick Print. which is an office building out in front. MRS. GOETZ-Right. but when you look at this whole piece of property, the potential for light industrial use on the whole piece of property is. like. so phenomenal. MR. COLLINS-It is. but we have not been able to develop it as light industrial. MRS. GOETZ-Up to this point. MR. COLLINS-Well, up to ~ point. We have a lot of people that want to buy it for Highway Commercial. We have offers for that for exactly what we're trying to get. 12 MRS. GOETZ-Then maybe what you need is to go to the Town Board and get the whole thing re-zoned to Retail/Highway Commercial, but I mean. when you look at the proximity to Bard and the whole thing. it makes sense that it should be light industrial. What does anybody else think about this? MR. TURNER-Well. I think. you know. originally our opinion that all that area should stay light industrial due to the fact that there was a large complex right next door to his and that was, before Mr. Collins bought it, that was a light industrial use. that was a steel fabricating business. Dempsy Block and Steel and I think that's where the rationale came from and that's why it's here today. MR. CARR-Mr. Collins. you say it's a 5,000 square feet that you don't get any use out of. but. I mean. you have a 38,000 square foot building which seems to me, I mean. if you only have 5,000 empty, that doesn't seem to be unreasonable. and you have a 250.000 square foot parcel and you're talking about 5.000 square feet of unused. MR. COLLINS-Yes, but I've got six and a half acres. MR. CARR-Right, that's what I'm saying. you know. I'm saying it doesn't seem unreasonable. I mean. there's a lot of buildings around that are not 100 percent occupancy. MR. COLLINS-Well. it's not unreasonable. but it shouldn't be against the law to maximize my investment either. MR. CARR-But that's not the purpose of zoning. to make everybody put whatever they would li ke on the property. MR. COLLINS-I understand that, but the thing is, is that we have tried very hard to get light industry in there and we just have not been successful because what happens with light industry. they want to tear down. you know, the problem is just the way the buildings are set up and their location on the lot. They're just not in the right spot for industry. They all have to come in. they all want to demolish the existing buildings and relocate and then they have to start from scratch and as soon as they do that, you know. it just throws. MR. CARR-Well. see, I think that you're saying that 100 percent occupancy is the only reasonable use of property and that's not the case. I mean. you've got. right here you've probably got 85 percent occupancy. I mean. I think that's pretty good. I'm not saying it's perfect, but I don't think zoning is meant to. MR. COLLINS-Eighty-five percent of what, of the existing buildings. MR. CARR-Right. MR. COLLINS-But the total land that I have. you know. it's like. I wouldn't say it's 50 percent occupied. That amount of land, six and a half acres, you can get, according to the Building Code. you can get almost 85.000 square feet on there. MR. CARR-If somebody wanted to build something there. MR. COLLINS-Okay. well. I mean. what I'm saying is that we've only got 37.000. So what we're talking is 85 percent of 35.000 which is like 35 percent of my actual, what I could actually have on there. MR. CARR-Right, but I mean that would be up to 1Q!! to build. if you wanted to maximize what it allowed there. MR. COLLINS-I will. but all the inquires that we have are for retail space. We have none for light industrial. We have been through this. We've been through it, I mean I realize the value of this land, but I've not been able to get light industry on it. That is the whole problem. You go down that list of what you have there and we just have tried everything and we can't. MR. CARR-Well, I think then you might want to try Mrs. Goetz's suggestion and go to the Town Board and get the whole parcel re-zoned. If it's not practical for light industrial. then bring it to the Town Board's attention and have them. if they think it's practical to re-zone it into Highway Commercial/Plaza Commercial or whatever. MR. COLLINS-Well, then what happens to the existing tenants I have? MR. CARR-They're preexisting. nonconforming. MR. TURNER-They're nonconforming. MR. CARR-So they'd stay. 13 "--" MR. TURNER-They stay. MR. CARR-And then you could utilize the rest of the land for whatever it's zoned for. MRS. GOETZ-If you really truly believe it. I just think that, long range. the light industrial is going to payoff. but that would be up to you. We have that certain criteria that we have to go by if we were to vary it. you know, in granting a use variance. By law. there's certain criteria that we have to prove if we were to grant the variance and I don't think I could vote for it based on the criteria. but you might be able to go to the Town Board and have them change the zone. MR. COLLINS-What's the criteria? MRS. GOETZ-Do you know the questions that you have to fill out on the application. like. is a reasonable return possible if the land is used as zoned. are the circumstances of this lot unique and not do to the unreasonableness of the Ordinance. If we grant it, we would have to say and give the reasons why we felt that they were whatever the answer is. to the particular questions. MR. COLLINS-Well. I have 5,000 square feet of a building that I'm paying taxes on that I cannot rent. MRS. EGGLESTON-But Mr. Collins, can you say that on your tax return this property is a loss to you? MR. COLLINS-This part of the property is going to be. MRS. EGGLESTON-No. The whole parcel of property. MR. COLLINS-It's not a loss. but it's not as profitable as it should be. MR. CARR-No. It's not as profitable as it could be. That's the difference with zoning is we aren't trying to maximize your profit. MRS. EGGLESTON-It says that one of the criteria that you have to pass, and we're told this test is one of the first tests that you must meet is that the property in question cannot yield a reasonable financial return if used for any permissible use or a site plan review applicable to the zoning district in which the property is located and you're saying you do get a reasonable financial return. but you're looking for more of a return. MR. COLLINS-What's reasonable? Everybody has a different opinion of what's a reasonable return. MR. CARR-But it's not a loss. MR. COLLINS-It's not a loss. So what's a reasonable return? MR. CARR-That's an interpretation. but I don't think 100 percent occupancy necessarily is the only reasonable financial return. MR. COLLINS-I mean. you could just sit there and let the property appreciate and that's a. you know, would you consider that a reasonable return? MR. CARR-No, that's not considered. MR. COLLINS-Okay. I mean. everybody has a different. It depends on who your CPA is, I guess. MRS. GOETZ-It's true. It's hard. It's like the term "Affordable Housing". Well. who are you talking to at any given moment. MR. COLLINS-Right. but remember this area. right now. is not that great looking and we're not that happy about it because we've been spending a lot of money trying to upgrade these buildings. MRS. GOETZ-And I know you've had your problems over the years with different things. when the building with Quick Print. where they are. MR. COLLINS-It's just been one thing after another. because they were really in bad shape when we got there. but now we have a chance to rent this and actually kind of clean up that back area and that's what we would like to do. We'd like the property to look a little better than it does. MR. TURNER-Let me ask you. are all the leases for the warehouses. are they long term leases or are they yearly leases or what? MR. COLLINS-Some of them are a year. Some of them are two years. MR. TURNER-What would be the longest one? 14 --- MR. COLLINS-Four years. MR. TURNER-Four years. MR. TURNER-And the lease for the office building in front. what is that. a yearly lease, two year lease. five year lease? MR. COLLINS-I think that's a three year lease. MR. TURNER-Three. MRS. GOETZ-Do you think that a portion of your property would be better served as Highway Commercial because Shop and Save went in there? MR. COLLINS-When Shop and Save came in, it just kind of blew light industrial right out of the picture. because light industrial. you know, we only had one access to that area, you know, one 50 foot lot that was way back out of sight from everybody, but now with Shop and Save in there. it just changes the whole complexion of things. However. it increases the value of the property as Highway Commercial. but it decreases it for Light Industrial because the value of the property is too high for Light Industrial because it's more valuable as Highway Commercial. MRS. GOETZ-Maybe you'd have a case to change a portion of your property to Highway Commercial by going to the Town Board and going through that aspect of it. Do you understand why it's hard for us to vote for? MR. COLLINS-No. MRS. GOETZ-You don't? I didn't think you would, but I feel that I have to go by the criteria. MR. TURNER-I think right now, with what he's got rented. here on paper, and his testimony, he'd have a tough case trying to get the Town to re-zone it to Highway Commercial. since the use is basically Light Industrial. MRS. GOETZ-Of the whole property? MR. TURNER-Of the whole property. MRS. GOETZ-But, like. Quick Print and those aren't. MR. TURNER-No. that's office. MRS. GOETZ-But still. it's part of it. It might not be part of the same parcel. but I mean he does have other retail on or adjacent to that property. I see his point about Shop and Save changing the complexion of the situation, at least at that part of that property. MR. COLLINS-Well. I'm a little upset that you, that C.R. Bard would come in to this. I really don't think that they should be really considered because we have approached them and at one time they did rent our warehouse. one section of our warehouse, and then they moved out. So. we have done everything trying to entice them. because they were. no doubt. the most logical, but even they don't want it and they're right next door and they are Light/Commercial. MR. TURNER-Who rents the bay where the proposed store is supposed to go? MR. COLLINS-In the front part of that? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. COLLINS-Sherwood Medical. from Argyle. MR. TURNER-There's no interest in the rest of it for them? MR. COLLINS-No. They had the whole thing. but then that's the problem. I think they'll be moving out in another, maybe. two years or so because they are going to expand over in Argyle. I think that's their long range plan to be moving out. and that's the problem. Our other leases are like yearly and we could be stuck with the whole darn thing and that's what our problem is. We're trying to get it. the most logical use for the property. MR. KELLEY-You have no access across Shop and Save? MR. COLLINS-No. MR. KELLEY-Okay. because it said there something about the most direct way would be. but it didn't sound like it existed. 15 - MR. COLLINS-No. This gentleman, I showed him the access and he was still. he had no problem with that. He said he'll direct them with signs. Apparently, he knows his clientele. MR. TURNER-There's no barrier there to prevent him from going over into Shop and Save. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. There has to be some reason there or Staff wouldn't have put that in there. MR. TURNER-I think that's what they're alluding to. There's no barrier to prevent him from going over into Shop and Save. If you drive around back there. if you drive onto the gravel spot and you can drive right over into their parking. MR. KELLEY-Well. of course, Shop and Save. all they've got to do is put up a fence. MR. TURNER-That's all they've got to do. Either one could put the fence up. MR. KELLEY-Yes. Knowing that Sherwood has that portion of warehouse in the front and this partition doesn't exi st yet. I would wonder why the furniture man wouldn't want to try to get to the front of that warehouse and move their stuff to the rear so he'd have a front on to where the street is there and you could see it. but maybe there's some other logistics of the building that I don't know. MR. COLLINS-That's kind of part of our deal because like I say. Sherwood will be moving out, I would say maybe a year and a half. two years at the most and this guy would expect to expand right off. he's looking for more space. Our problem is. is that right now. we don't want to end up with a whole lot of big empty warehouses right there on this property and we're trying to plan ahead, see if we couldn't prevent that. MR. TURNER-Anymore questions? Okay. Let me open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE The Warren County Planning Board approved Letter from Mark Regan. Treasurer of Doyles Gift and Home Fashions. Inc. "As a representative of Doyles Gift and Home Fashions, Inc. I will be unable to attend Wednesday night's meeting. Thus, I have outlined our concerns re: proposed use variance #14-1991. of F.T. Collins. to convert a warehouse to retail space. 1) The property was zoned and used as light industry long before and for a long period after its acquisition by F.T. Collins, it has a history of continuous industrial classification and use. What would be the purpose of diminishing the towns base of possible site for future industrial development? The area is not without the prospect of growth- citing that C.R. Bard which borders the property experienced an increase of employment of 200 people in 1991 and according to locally published account is the areas #3 employer. When you consider the excess of available retail space in the town. is it prudent to consider spot zoning an area of continuous use and contiguous location to industrial use to become another retail strip? 2) The application submitted by F.1. Collins states that a reasonable return under present zoning is not possible, the evidence being a poor response to an advertisement run since May of 1990. If it is any consolation to Mr. Collins our ads have not had the effect we would like to see either, however we recognize the difference between a bad economy and zoning imposed economic hardship. 3) I would li ke to take issue with the applicants contention that a va ri ance is needed to upgrade the property or the nei ghborhood. The property borderi ng F. 1. Colli ns warehouse is zoned LI-IA and is one of the best maintained properties in Town. 4) The major problem as we see it is of excess traffic. especially on an already congested Bay Road. Over the last year we have seen the rash of accidents at the Shop and Save entries appear to have come under control, however. with additional traffic that would be necessary to make a business of this size viable it could be the proverbial straw that breaks the back of a potentially dangerous area. The surrounding shops are generally small without the traffic that another retail shop of any size would bring. and C.R. Bard traffic is limited to one or two busy periods in a day. We do not feel it is in the best interest of the area or the community in general to grant this variance. and hope we do not appear negative. we welcome planned. safe projects such as Quaker Plaza as a stimulus for positive business growth on Quaker Road." MR. TURNER-Is that it? MRS. GOETZ-That's it. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further discussion? MR. KELLEY-I'm looking at this Highway Commercial One Acre Site Plan Type II Uses and. 16 - MR. TURNER-He's Light Industrial. MR. KELLEY-Right. In terms of. I guess. whether it would be a wise thing to look at re-zoning it or not or what to do with it. I guess it was Susan's comment about when you looked at the Master Plan that there was a need for Light Industrial Zones. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KELLEY-And we've had other people here that. I remember. it seems like there was a Mr. Hermance who was trying to get his garbage trucks in a zone and had trouble finding Light Industrial Zones and here we've got one that has a whole lot of vacant land. I think Mr. Collins mentioned that some of the people that had looked at the building didn't like the design of the building. They were more in favor of taking it down and building their own building. Well, he's still got six acres or something where he could build other businesses that they might have been looking for and I was a little confused by that one. MR. COLLINS-It's the cost, Jeff. MR. KELLEY-What's the problem of the cost if they were willing to go in and tear down a building? MR. COLLINS-Well, the problem is. if you're going to sell people the property. they have to pay for the land and the buildings. but then if they have to tear down the buildings. they're paying for. it puts the cost of the property to them. to light industrial people that are trying to buy the property. it puts the cost of the land. which is essentially what they have. They have to buy the building and then they have to demolish it. It puts the cost of the land way out, the project just goes capoohy. MR. KELLEY-That was my point. You said this particular building only occupies a small portion of the 6.3 acres or whatever it is. It seems to me like you should have been talking to them about selling them or getting them to use some of the free land that was available to build their building on. That way they aren't tearing down. MR. COLLINS-No. If you're going to talk light industrial. they want. you know. the whole. they're going to need the whole package. They're going to need the whole six acres when you get parking and loading docks and all the facilities that they're going to need. You're only going to get one business on that six acres. In light industrial, I don't think you're going to get a lot of small light industries in there. The only people that were looking at it is somebody that was interested in buying the whole parcel and demolishing the buildings because for all intents and purposes this property has been on the market for. like. seven years. MR. TURNER-You had a logging equipment company in there. MR. COLLINS-Yes. MR. TURNER-What. about four years ago? MR. COLLINS-Yes. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. COLLINS-Yes, they've gone. We've had Libby Welding in there and we've had everybody in there. but I mean. they've moved out. Timberland went back to Maine. MRS. GOETZ-Are you on the sewer? MR. COLLINS-No. MR. TURNER-Not back that far. MRS. GOETZ-But I mean on Bay Road? MR. COLLINS-We have sewers out in front. but we don't have it out in back. MRS. GOETZ-Right. but I'm just thinking that if somebody bought the whole parcel for light industrial. that would be a bind feature, wouldn't it. that they had access to the sewer? It might not be out there now, but. MR. COLLINS-If it's not out there. I would assume that they put in to develop the whole property that the Town would require them to have the sewer. yes. MR. TURNER-Yes, they'd have to tie in. 17 -- MR. KELLEY- I guess the other thing. I just read somethi ng in the paper the other day they were tal king about the Chase Bag building in South Glens Falls and that they had had that big building and I forgot wha t the percentage was, but, 1 i ke. 75 percent of it or somethi ng they had rented or 1 eased out to it sounds like light industrial uses. I know there's a fellow who has a staining business for sidings there, there was the Adirondack Scenic, you know. there's a number of businesses like that. Now that all took place within the last, what, year or two or something. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KELLEY-I mean, there's got to be people out there. Maybe. why aren't they going here rather than down there or whatever. I mean. they're just leasing space. I don't think that building had anything wonderful about it that drew all those different uses. Maybe you know the building. MR. COLLINS-Yes. I do. It's Union Camp building. MR. KELLEY-All right. Whatever it was. MR. COLLINS-And Scenic is down there and they have one tremendous amount of space and they still have, like. I think. 60.000 square feet that's not used. Now there's a lot of small people in there. but this guy may be absorbing all the small ones that could conceivably fit into this 5.000 square feet. I don't know, but they do have a lot of empty space down there and it's an excellent building. It's all sprinklered and I've been down there. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further comment? Okay. Motion's in order. MOTION TO DENY USE VARIANCE NO. 14-1991 F. T. COLLINS. Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its adoption. seconded by Susan Goetz: The testimony given tonight shows that the property is realizing a reasonable financial return in its current state. The applicant has stated that he does realize a positive cash flow from this property. This property is not unique to other properties in the area in the same zone and any hardship on the applicant is not due to an unreasonableness of the Ordinance. For those reasons. I would deny this application. Duly adopted this 20th day of March. 1991. by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Eggleston. Mr. Carr. Mr. Kelley. Mr. Sicard. Mrs. Goetz. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea AREA VARIANCE NO. 15-1991 TYPE: UNLISTED LI-IA ROBERT NORTHGARD, JR. OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE DIVISION STREET I CORINTH ROAD FOR 1.12 ACRES OF LAND TO BE SUBDIVIDED INTO TOW LOTS OF EQUAL SIZE WITH EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON EACH LOT. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 147-1-10 LOT SIZE: 1.12 ACRES SECTION 10.040 BOB NORTHGARD, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York. Senior Planner. Area Variance No. 15-1991. Robert Northgard, Jr.. dated March 18. 1991. Meeting Date: March 20. 1991 "The request is to be allowed to subdivide 1.12 acres with two existing single family residences in a LI-IA zone. The location is the corner of Division Street and Corinth Road. This area was recently re-zoned Light Industrial 1 Acre from SR-20. I reviewed this application with regard to the Area Variance criteria: 1. Are there special conditions applying to this property or building. and not applying genèrally to other properties or buildings in the neighborhood? Yes. This property contains two residences on a single parcel. 2. Would strict application of the provisions of this Ordinance deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land or buildings? The applicant is prohibited from selling the units separately unless a variance is granted. The prior zoning allowed for the required acreage was to provide two conforming lots. 3. Would the strict application of the dimensional requirements result in a specified practical difficulty? Yes. The zoning requires one acre now and the parcel is 1.12 acres. 4. Would this variance be materially detrimental to the purposes of this Ordinance. or to property in the district? No. The housing units are in existence and the character of the neighborhood would not be affected by the Area Variance. 5. Is this request the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty? Yes." MR. TURNER-Question. Use Variance, that was SR-20. wasn't it? MRS. COLLARD-It should be an Area Variance. MR. TURNER-Area Variance. if there was any at all. That was SR-20 then. 18 MRS. GOETZ-Yes, that's what it says in the Staff Input. here. MR. TURNER-And that's what it is. that's what it was. Mr. Northgard, when you got the variance in '86. did you get a variance in '86. an Area Variance? MR. NORTHGARD-I had to get a variance. yes. MR. TURNER-I remember you coming, but I don't remember you coming for the house. Was it for something else? Didn't you have a machinery business or something that you were selling? MR. NORTHGARD-Power equipment. MR. TURNER-Power equipment. that's what you got the Use Variance for. MR. NORTHGARD-No. It wasn't necessary at the time because it was a Highway Commercial zone. MR. TURNER-All right. MR. NORTHGARD-That was a couple of years prior to that. MR. TURNER-I remember you coming for that. MR. NORTHGARD-Yes. but when we built the house. the zoning at the time required that we got the. MR. TURNER-20,000 square feet. You didn't have the 20. right, was that it? MR. NORTHGARD-Not in that full zoning. because a section of it. I think about 50 feet of it. was in another zone of that property. MR. TURNER-Okay. It was a split zone. It was Highway Commercial and SR-20. MR. NORTHGARD-That was split. yes. It was Highway Commercial and UR or SR-20, I can't remember. MRS. YORK-Yes. the property was split zoned. MR. TURNER-Yes. okay. MR. CARR-Why did you build a second home? MR. NORTHGARD-Well, when I originallY bought the front house on Corinth Road that was fine, but we had children and being close to that busy road, I wasn't comfortable with it. So we built the home behind. MR. CARR-Then what did you do with the front home? MR. NORTHGARD-I rented it out. MR. CARR-Now he's unable to sell it without the variance. We changed it from Highway Commercial to Light Industrial and that's where he's stuck. I don't have a problem with it. It's all residential anyway. I don't see light industrial going there for quite a while. MR. NORTHGARD-I think it was Highway Commercial. then it was all residential for awhile before it went to LI. I could be mistaken. MR. TURNER-No. I think part of it was, 1i ke you said. part of it along that side of the road. those Highway Commercial back like. I don't know, 150 feet or something like that. MR. NORTHGARD-Yes. Okay. MR. TURNER-Then it went to SR-20. MR. NORTHGARD-Okay. MR. TURNER-And we changed it to Light Industrial the next time around. MR. NORTHGARD-Okay. Right. MR. CARR-I mean. I don't know if I really have a problem with this except. I mean, it's a self imposed hardship. I mean. he had one house on a one acre lot out there, came to ask to build a house farther back but didn't tear down the other one and now wants to make two lots. 19 MR. TURNER-You lived in the front house until when? MR. NORTHGARD-Until '86. MR. TURNER-All right. You built the new house in back in '86. right? MR. NORTHGARD-'86. MR. TURNER-It wasn't changed in '86. It didn't change until '88. It was Highway Commercial. but the house in the front was still there. The house in the back wasn't there and that was SR-20. He had a right to build the house in back without anything. That was an allowed use right there. MR. CARR-It was a split acre. but it was one zone, or one lot. right? MR. TURNER-No. It was a split zone. MRS. GOETZ-It was a split zone. MR. NORTHGARD-No. It was two different zones. sir. MR. CARR-Split zone. but one lot. MR. NORTHGARD-It was one lot with the split zoning. MR. TURNER-It was one lot. MR. CARR-So if you have a split zone with one lot, you have a right to build on two separate? MR. NORTHGARD-Not without a variance. MR. TURNER-Not without a variance. MR. CARR-Right. So what I'm saying is. you gave him a variance to do that. but you didn't ask that the first house be torn down. MR. TURNER-I don't think you can tell him to tear the house down. MR. CARR-But now we're making two really substandard lots. MR. TURNER-We're making it substandard in relation to the Light Industrial One Acre. yes. MR. CARR-In relation. even. to residentials. MR. TURNER-Yes. but. MR. NORTHGARD-I don't see where you're going to realize a use under the LI zoning under that particular. under those lots. being as you've got single family residences there and it is an entry way to Division Street which is all residential. You're not going to realize a Light Industrial usage there. MR. TURNER-You've got a little better than half an acre for each lot. They're both the same size. 24,708. or excuse me. One is just a hair bigger. 24.7Jl8. The second lot in back is a bigger lot. MRS. EGGLESTON-I don't think I really, I didn't really have a problem with it from looking at it. but after the speech we just gave Mr. Collins about preserving Light Industry within the Town of Queensbury. Now you're going to take a Light Industry and split it up into smaller lots. MR. CARR-The difference is this was never used for Light Industry. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, but it's still Light Industry and that keeps growing by leaps and bounds out there. MR. TURNER-But the difference here. now, is that that whole area is residential, has always been residential. MR. CARR-Yes. MR. TURNER-That's never changed. We just changed the zoning on him. MR. KELLEY-Why did you change it? MR. CARR-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-That's going Light Industry fast. 20 -- MR. TURNER-Not up that far. though. on that side. MRS. EGGLESTON-Pretty darn c1ose. Where the old Merritt place is. which is two streets from that. we've got somebody that wants to put something in there. That's just one street down, one area down. MR. KELLEY-Tri County's above this, right? MR. TURNER-You've got Tri County Kitchens. yes. MRS. YORK-If I could just interrupt for a moment. What happened here was. there was a re-zoning in 1990. in this particular area. A group of residents in this area came and requested a change in zone. correct Mr. Naylor? PAUL NAYLOR MR. NAYLOR-You're right. MRS. YORK-Okay. and that's what happened. the Town Board changed the zoning there. MR. CARR-To what? MR. TURNER-To Light Industrial. MRS. YORK-Yes. to Light Industrial. It was SR-20. MS. CORPUS-In 1988. when the zone changed, it was SR-20. MR. NORTHGARD-That's what I thought. So it went from Highway Commercial to SR-20 and then to LI. MRS. YORK-And so my understanding is Mr. Northgard was not aware of this change in zoning until he came in to subdivide this property and then found out that he needed a variance in order to be able to do that. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well. it certainly had enough advertisements and notoriety in the newspaper. MRS. YORK-I thought so. MR. EGGLESTON-I mean the whole west end was aware of it, I believe. There was a lot of controversy over it. as a matter of fact. MRS. GOETZ-So in the beginning. you let a house be built in Highway Commercial? That was the first variance? The Board allowed that? MR. TURNER-The variance was for the ~ house. MRS. GOETZ-The one behind. is that right? MR. TURNER-I would think so. MR. NORTHGARD-On Division Street. MR. TURNER-I think the house on Corinth Road was there. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. I don't know. When we did the site inspection. it seemed like you had a lot of property in your side yard. You're not crowded in. the two houses. MR. NORTHGARD-It's pretty squarely centered. The two houses are pretty squarely centered on approximately a half acre each. MRS. GOETZ-And each house is not crowding each other. MR. NORTHGARD-No. MR. TURNER-No. There's a lot of room. MRS. GOETZ-There seemed to be a lot of space. It just seems that that's what the situation is right now and it's not going to do any good to turn it down. I mean. what would it accomplish? MR. NORTHGARD-Well, I guess that would be my next question is what are we going to accomplish by not granting that area variance? Is it that we're seeking more Light Industrial into those types of lots which don't appear, through my eyes. to be appealing to Light Industrial? 21 --" MRS. GOETZ-Well, for Light Industrial to come in, it's not going to be that bad to take a house down. MR. NORTHGARD-Okay. MRS. GOETZ-Lets face it, if they really want the property. MR. NORTHGARD-Now we're going to take down two of them, right? MRS. GOETZ-Right. MR. NORTHGARD-Because we have to sell. right? MRS. GOETZ-But right now we've got to deal with this. I know what you're saying. Joyce, but I think the difference is that it was zoned something else and then made Light Industrial. rather having been Light Industrial the whole time and then wanting to change it to something else. I think that's the difference. MRS. EGGLESTON-I'm waiting until I hear what Mr. Naylor has to say, who lives in that neighborhood and who maybe was part of the committee who wanted it changed to Light Industry. I'm interested in his opinion. MR. TURNER-All right. Do we have any further questions of Mr. Northgard right at this point? All right. I guess not. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED PAUL NAYLOR MR. NAYLOR-Paul Naylor. property owner on Division Road on the east side, which will probably stay Light Industrial. I'm for here. for Mr. Northgard to get his variance. I was here before when he did it and I voiced my okay and I'm here this time to voice the same okay. Good neighbors. MRS. GOETZ-Could I just ask you a question? MR. NAYLOR-Yes. I was one of the dummies that didn't see it in the paper and I work here. but the paper is not that thick. It was changed three times. if I remember right and what happened is a fellow by the name of Mr. Ba i rd needed some changes so he came into ra ttl e all our cages and we di dn 't know it had been changed. MRS. GOETZ-So you weren't aware that that other change was taking place? MR. NAYLOR-The first time? No. I saw no big deal until I thought maybe I'd sell my little ranch on the corner and do whatever I could to build that other property, but I'd 11 ke to save that for my grandchildren because my kids have spent all my money. So I want to give my grandchildren something besides my name and that's who will probably end up getting it. They remember their grandfather for something besides being a good joe. MRS. EGGLESTON-That answers my question. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE The Warren County Planning Board returned saying "No County Impact" MR. TURNER-Joyce. did he answer your question? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, he did. I can't believe he didn't know it. but if he says he didn't, I guess he didn't. MR. TURNER-Any further discussion? MR. KELLEY-Apparently. according to this map. it looks like the zone goes back to the. I guess it would be the south property line of the southerly lot. or whatever. I guess the part that's disappointing is to see that the zone has changed three times. I mean it makes it hard. I would think. for anybody to have any idea of what they're doing. MR. TURNER-Yes. What's going to go on, right. MRS. EGGLESTON-Definitely. 22 - MR. KELLEY-I mean. you start out and if it's one zone and you build in it and you get a variance and then all of a sudden the zone is changed on you again. you know, what you thought you were doing right the first time, now you come back and it isn't right. So you're saying. well. but this Board granted some previous variance and it hardly seems fair to any property owner. I 1001< at it another way and I say. here we've got a one acre lot that makes it a lot that would be a conforming lot under the current zoning. So you say. boy, why would you want to break that up, but yet when I went up there and looked at it. I said. boy. it looks like two beautiful lots to me. You look at it and you say, what's wrong with what this man wants to do? So you really have to struggle within yourself, which way is right. It isn't easy. MR. TURNER-I think the imposition of the three changes has created a hardship. in a sense. even though he had to come and get an area variance and the fact of the matter is that that's all residential. For Light Industrial to go in there. you know. a Light Industrial use. they're going to buy an acre anyway. maybe more. all right. MR. KELLEY-Well, or you'll end up like with a, is it Big Bay that we just had the tree? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. KELLEY-No. Is that Light Industrial? MR. TURNER-Yes. that's Light Industrial and he's on a substandard lot. MR. KELLEY-All right. now he was on a substandard lot, but yet there was a use that was found to fit the substandard lot. MR. TURNER-Right. MR. KELLEY-Well. I suppose if you looked at it you could say that the cleaning service guy down the road. MR. TURNER-He was another one. MR. KELLEY-He would be a guy that could fit this lot and make use of it and use it as it's zoned. taking the house and converting into an office. I think that was one of the. MR. TURNER-That's what he did. MR. KELLEY-Yes. but he could do that here. MR. TURNER-He could do that there. MR. KELLEY-You could do t.v. repair there. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KELLEY-And a warehouse or storage of goods. ideas in mi nd. There's maybe two or three uses acre lot. It's not like we would be re-zoning two or three potential uses. I suppose you could elaborate on that lot with those in a Light Industrial zone that would work on a half in a sense that nothing could fit there. There are MR. TURNER-Anyone else before we move it? MR. SICARD-That's a pretty good size house. isn't it. MR. KELLEY-Yes. I don't know what the square footage is. but 30 by 36 or something. What's that, about 1080 plus another 100, 1200 square feet. right? MR. SICARD-What's this. a porch? MR. KELLEY-A porch. Well. what we're really doing then. it's just the lot size. MR. TURNER-Lot size. MR. KELLEY-That's the issue. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KELLEY-Let me ask Mr. Northgard another question, here. Let me ask what your purpose for dividing this property is? You want to sell the northerly most house? 23 MR. NORTHGARD-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Are you going to advertise it as Light Industry? MR. NORTHGARD-No. MRS. GOETZ-How's that going to be a problem? That could be a problem. MR. CARR-No. It's a preexisting, nonconforming lot. MR. TURNER-It's a preexisting. nonconforming lot. MR. KELLEY-Do you currently have it listed for sale? MR. NORTHGARD-No. MR. KELLEY-You're going to wait and see if you get this division and then. MR. NORTHGARD-Actually, it's already sold. but the sale won't go through if it isn't subdivided. MRS. EGGLESTON-Is it for a residential purpose? MR. NORTHGARD-Yes. MR. KELLEY-Well. let me ask you some more questions. When you owned this particular house and you rented it out. did you have it rented the majority of the time or did you have trouble renting it. or maybe you can give us some insight into that. MR. NORTHGARD-No. There was never a vacancy. MR. KELLEY-Okay. MR. NORTHGARD-I've found that single family homes for rent in Queensbury are of high demand. as opposed to duplexes or apartments. You know, there aren't that many of them around. MR. KELLEY-I was hoping you weren't going to say that. MR. NORTHGARD-Well, it's been quite a desi rable property for rental purposes. but the people that are renting the property leased it with an option to purchase and they've decided to exercise the option so I told them I'd get to work on trying to get it subdivided. MRS. GOETZ-But we're talking about Area Variance and doesn't the proof have to be some what less than. say. a Use Variance? MR. KELLEY-I know. but my thought was that if maybe he'd had trouble renting it. you know, it's an economic hardship for him, and if he did have that difficulty. but he had the chance to sell it. It would alleviate some of his hardship, from an economic standpoint. but that wasn't the case. It would help me to understand why we wanted to divide it in half, a little better or that he had some other reason other than just wanting to do it. MRS. COLLARD-The Town created for him. practical difficulty for him. MR. NORTHGARD-All the re-zoning has created that hardship. If I'd have made the subdivision at the time when I should have made it. when it was zoned properly for it. it wouldn't be any problem at all. MR. TURNER-I think the thing that makes this more unique than anything is because the whole area right there is all residential. It's always been residential. The houses are there. That's the unique part of it. To subdivide it isn't going to make any difference because you've got houses on the street that are the same size, the same lot sizes and everything, pretty close. MR. NORTHGARD-Yes, the neighboring property to the west is almost identical in size. MR. TURNER-Yes. I think the Town's created the economic hardship on the applicant by not letting him. by re-zoning it three times. by not letting him have the ability to subdivide and sell the piece of property. MR. CARR-But wasn't the economic hardship really placed when the second home went up at the applicant's request? If it was one home on this parcel all the time. there would be no hardship. MR. TURNER-He got an area variance. I think. because it was a split zone right there. for the second house. He didn't have enough land to go. because the zone line cut it. 24 --- -- MR. CARR-Yes. but he had one residence on one lot. MR. TURNER-Yes. but he came up with the 24.718 square foot lot and it was SR-20 then. MR. CARR-But he didn't get it subdivided at that point. MR. TURNER-No. MR. CARR-Which probably should have been done. MR. TURNER-Yes. Well. he wasn't aware it was going to change in '86. MR. CARR-Yes. MR. NORTHGARD-Hindsight's always 20 20. If we'd known everything that we should have know about the zoning at that time, then the timing would have been right to do it when it was zoned properly to do it. but that's not the case, but I don't think that the complexion of the neighborhood is changed one iota. you know, since three zoning changes. It's always been residential. There's always been neighboring houses on each side. There's always been. you know. the businesses across the street from Corinth Road. on that side. I kind of assumed, shouldn't have. but that when we were going to re-zone that area that it would be to the north side of Corinth Road because that seems to be where the commercial development is right now and leave the south side all to residential. but that wasn't the case. MR. CARR-I do have a problem because I think it is a self imposed hardship. but I don't have a problem because I think if it was done right the first time he would have been granted the subdivision, back in '86 and then we wouldn't be here tonight. MR. TURNER-Yes, right. MR. CARR-So, I think that's why. at this particular junction. I really don't have a problem with the subdivision because I mean the character of that neighborhood down there is all these types of lots and everything like that. but I just want to make sure we aren't setting a bad precedent. Somebody can't come in and say. give me an area variance and then two years later turn around and say, okay. now let me subdivide it. you know, if they didn't have the right to do it now. Do you know what I mean? MR. TURNER- Yes. MR. CARR-At the time that he did it, he probably had the right to have it subdivided. So I think that there was an abuse there. MR. KELLEY-Can you give me the order in which the zones occurred? MR. TURNER-I think it was SR-20 in the back and HC in the front and then it went to LC. MR. KELLEY-It was Highway Commercial in the front? MR. TURNER- Yes. MR. KELLEY-And SR-20 in the back? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARR-But now, wait a minute. In '88, didn't it go to all SR-20? MRS. YORK-That was in '86. MR. CARR-That was in '86? MRS. YORK-That was in '86 and in 1988 is changed to SR-20. All the property changed to SR-20. Then in 1990 the Town Board re-zoned it to LI One Acre. MR. NORTHGARD-So. it was during that SR-20 period that it would have been easier to subdivide it. MR. KELLEY-Right. but it was like in '86 when you had to split zone and you built the house? MR. NORTHGARD-Right. MR. CARR-Because he had one house existing in Highway Commercial and one house he wanted to build in the SR-20 residential zone. MR. TURNER- Yes. 25 - MR. NORTHGARD-In SR-20. MR. TURNER-Okay. Lets make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 14-1991 ROBERT IDRTHGARD, JR.. Introduced by Susan Goetz who moved for its adoption. seconded by Joyce Eggleston: I do believe there are special conditions applying to this property and bul1ding and not applying generally to other properties and buildings in the area. The practical difficulty is that there have been three zoning changes on the property. In 1986, it was split zoning. SR-20 and Highway Commercial. In 1988. it was zoned SR-20. and in 1990 the Queensbury Town Board re-zoned it to Light Industrial One Acre. Strict application of the provisions of the Ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land and buildings. The applicant wishes to subdivide the property into two building lots. One would have 24.718 square feet and the other would be 24,708 square feet. The strict application of the dimensional requirements would result in a specified practical difficulty. The parcel now is 1.12 acres and the zoning requirement is one acre per building and we don't believe this variance would be materially detrimental to the purposes of the Ordinance. The request is the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty. The Short EAF shows no negative impact. Duly adopted this 20th day of March, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carr. Mr. Kelley, Mr. Sicard. Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea AREA VARIANCE NO. 16-1991 TYPE II HC-lA ANTHONY AND LINDA RUSSO OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE EAST SIDE OF ROUTE 9, ~ MILE NORTH OF ROUTE 149 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 12,000 SQ. FT. BILLIARD AND ENTERTAINMENT CENTER. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 33-1-9 TAX MAP NO. 34-2-1.2 LOT SIZE: 3+ ACRES SECTION 4.020 K, REAR SETBACK SECTION 4.033, FRONT SETBACK HOWARD KRANTZ, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York. Senior Planner, Area Variance No. 16-1991. Anthony and Linda Russo. dated March 20. 1991. Meeting Date: March 20. 1991 "The request is to construct a 12.000 sq. ft. Billiard Parlor. The location is on Route 9. at the location of the former Mr. Chips. This is in an HC-IA zone and is on 3 acres. The applicant, cannot meet the setbacks required in the zone. These are 75 feet in the front because Route 9 is a designated arterial road and 25 feet in the rear. The applicant proposes 20 feet in the rear and 50 feet in the front. I reviewed the original variances and site plans. This project was before both Boards a couple of times. On August 15. 1989 a site plan was presented to the Planning Board which had a 12.000 square foot building. This was tabled pending application for proper variances (motion attached). The application was again reviewed by the Planning Board on December 26. 1989. The application which was approved was for a 10.500 sq. ft. building. I attached the front page of the envi ronmental assessment form and the front page of the wastewater desi gn report. I want to make the Board aware of this. We have had concerns from the public regarding the use of the facility as an "entertainment center". The concerns are about possi ble noi se from bands or uses other than billiards. I reviewed this wi"th regard to the criteria for an Area Variance: 1. Are there special conditions applying to this property or building, and not applying generally to other properties or buildings in the neighborhood? Yes. The property is long and narrow. The front of the property along Route 9 also has a steep bank. The topography and size of the lot have created a situation which limit the way the property can be developed. 2. Would the strict application of the provisions of this Ordinance deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land or buildings? Yes. Because of the odd shape of the property. which preexisted the Ordinance. the reasonable use of this land would be prohibited. 3. Would the strict application of the dimensional requirements result in a specified practical difficulty? Yes. The lot is 144.5 feet in length at the south end where the building will be. The usable area would be reduced by 100 feet allowing for a 45 foot building. The building size would then be reduced as it moved north to conform with the setback criteria. This would make for a building which mirrored the irregular lot. The parking area would also be affected. 4. Is the request the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty? Yes. given the unique circumstances." MRS. GOETZ-The Warren County Planning Board returned saying "No County Impact". MR. TURNER-Mr. Krantz. MR. KRANTZ-I believe you have the maps. MR. TURNER- Yes. 26 -- --- MR. KRANTZ-The variances requested are two area variances. a rear setback of 20 feet. as opposed to 5 feet and a front setback of 50 as opposed to 75 feet. Those are the same as requested and approved back in 1989. I would add that originally, as was pointed out in the Staff Report. I believe the application was for 10.500 square feet. MR. TURNER-Yes, that's right. MR. KRANTZ-And ultimately what was approved by the Planning Board was 12.000 square feet. Is that correct? MRS. YORK-My understanding, Mr. Krantz, is that. from what I went through tOday. was that originally it was submitted for 12.000 square feet then there was found to be a need for a septic variance. The applicant applied for a septic variance. When the application came back to the Planning Board for final approval. the plan had changed to a 10.500 square foot building. MR. KRANTZ-Is that what was approved. 10,500? MRS. YORK-Yes. that's my understanding. Let me explain to the Board that Mr. Krantz came to my office and took some of the old plans to use in his new submission and I think he just grabbed one of the many numerous former submissions rather than the final approved plan. MR. KRANTZ-Well. I stand by what Lee says. If it was 10.500 that was approved. that was the 10.500. So the building would be smaller than shown here. MR. CARR-Other than that. this is the same application? MR. KRANTZ-The same application. Another change that existed from when we were here in '89 and what happened, the sequence of events. we got the two area variances and then we went to site plan approval. We met some concerns. various concerns concerning parking and so on and so forth. We had a little unique situation with parking where the Ordinance didn't specify exactly how much you needed and that was satisfied and then we had a question of how the septic and some of the surface waste water was going to run and what Mr. and Mrs. Russo did is they acquired title to the parcel to the north which allowed them to extend the parking and handle the parking better and the surface water runoff better and when we were here in '89, my clients didn't own that contiguous parcel to the north. So that is the only change of notice that they have more land to work with. MRS. GOETZ-Are those billboards going to stay there? MR. KRANTZ-Well. for the time being. They're under a prior lease. When Mr. and Mrs. Russo acquired title to the property. a billboard company has an existing lease on the property and we had to buy title subject to the existing leases. As far as the future. I don't know. MR. TURNER-Okay. No further questions, I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. STARK MR. STARK-Ted. what's meant by "entertainment center"? That wasn't in the prior approval. MR. TURNER-"Amusement center" was in the prior one. I believe. MR. STARK-Yes, I know. It was supposed to be billiard tables, arcade games and a little snack bar. MR. TURNER-It's the same use that was approved by the Planning Board on the site plan review and it's going to be the same use that was granted on the original. MR. STARK-With the same conditions? MR. TURNER-The same conditions. Anyone else wish to be heard in support of the application? Opposed to the application? The public hearing is closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Okay. Motion's in order. Let me just check something. first. I've got the old application. right here. The old application said. Mr. Stark. restaurant and entertainment center. That's what he was granted the last time. but for zoning purposes it was addressed as an amusement center. MR. KRANTZ-Mr. Turner. can I speak to one item? MR. TURNER-Sure. 27 - MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 16-1991 ANTHONY AND LINDA RUSSO, Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption. seconded by Bruce Carr: This will grant the applicant five feet relief in the rear property and a 25 foot front setback relief from Route 9. There are special conditions applying to this property and not applying genera11y to other properties in the neighborhood because the property is long and narrow and the front of the property along Route 9 has a steep bank and the topography and size of the lot have created a limited use in the way the property can be developed. Strict application of the provisions of the Ordinance would mean there would not be reasonable use of the land because of the odd shape of the property which preexisted the Ordinance. Strict application of the dimensional requirements would result in a specified practical difficulty because the lot is 144.5 feet in length at the south end where the building will be. Therefore. the usable area would be reduced by 100 feet only allowing for a 45 foot building. The building size would then be reduced as it moved north to conform with the setback criteria and the parking area would also be effected. Because of the unique circumstances, the request is what is minimum relief necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty. Duly adopted this 20th day of March, 1991. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kelley. Mr. Sicard. Mrs. Goetz. Mrs. Eggleston. Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea USE VARIANCE NO. 17-1991 TYPE: UNLISTED REGAN AND DENNY FUNERAL SERVICES, INC. OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 26 QUAKER ROAD, LOCATED ON NORTHSIDE OF QUAKER ROAD, ItlEDIATELY WEST OF MARK PLAZA AND DIRECTLY BEHIND REGAN AND DENNY FUNERAL HOME. FOR COIISTRUCTlON OF A 1,800 SQ. FT., 5 STALL GARAGE TO BE USED FOR PROTECTION OF VEHICLES NECESSARY TO THE BUSINESS AND AS ADDITIONAL STORAGE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 63-1-1.21 LOT SIZE: 0.099 ACRES SECTION 4.02OJ, 9.014 MATTHEW LUDEMANN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner. Use Variance No. 17-1991, Regan and Denny Funeral Services. Inc.. dated March 15. 1991. Meeting Date: March 20. 1991 "The request is to vary the use standards in the PC-IA zone to allow construction of an 1.800 sq. ft. 5 stall garage. Two previous variances were granted to this business. The resolutions are attached. I reviewed this application with regard to the use variance criteria. 1. Is a reasonable return possible if the land is used as zoned? It is not reasonable to expect that this lot can be used as zoned. It is currently undeveloped. however. it is undersized and is located behind an existing funeral home and in front of a cemetery. It is difficult to imagine any permitted use utilizing this lot. 2. Are the circumstances of this lot unique and not due to the unreasonableness of the Ordinance? Yes. The location and size make this property unique. The lot was in existence prior to the Ordinance and utilization of the property would not be feasible without varying the PC-IA criteria. 3. Is there an adverse effect on the neighborhood character. No. The property is bordered by a cemetery. crematorium, funeral home. and parking lot. The addition of a garage will not cause a problem in the neighborhood." MR. LUDEMANN-Matthew Ludemann, designated agent for the applicant. On the use variance. I will only point out, since Mrs. York did include the prior resolutions for the setback, I would just say that since there doesn't appear to be any negative comments from the Staff. I'll just ask if you've got questions and then we can move on to the area variance. MR. TURNER-No. The only thing I'd point out. the only place in the Ordinance where a funeral home is located is in an SR zone. the only place. and I think that was the same rationale. or close to it. the last time around. MR. LUDEMANN-The funeral home is actually located in a Plaza Commercial zone. MR. TURNER-I know. but the only place it's allowed by zoning is in an SR zone, Suburban Residential. MR. LUDEMANN-Which is what the cemetery is which is immediately adjacent to the rear. MR. KELLEY-I remember going through this before. MR. TURNER-We've been through it. Is the old application. lets see. we've got the setbacks here. MRS. GOETZ-I understood that one of the problems was the Town Board, well, not the whole Town Board. but someone on the Town Board indicated to the applicant that they could purchase property from the Town of Queensbury. Could you explain about that? 29 - MR. LUDEMANN-The original variances were granted in 1988 and after they were granted the Town and the applicant had discussions about the applicant purchasing the crematorium. Those negotiations were pursued by the Town Supervisor. but eventually denied by a full vote of the Board and during that time the one year had elapsed since the granting of the variances and that's why we're back again. to ask for the identical relief except for one item which I'll mention under the area variance request. MR. TURNER-They just made it. too, September 28th of '88. The new Ordinance went into effect October the 1st. MR. KELLEY-So, who has the crematorium now? MR. TURNER-The Town. MR. LUDEMANN-The Town of Queensbury. MR. TURNER-The Town owns it. They used to own it. They used to have it. MR. LUDEMANN-The prior owner. when he sold the business to the current owners split off the crematorium and sold that to the Town. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. LUDEMANN-And then the new Town Supervisor had some second thoughts about that. MR. TURNER-Okay. If there's no further questions of the applicant. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE The Warren County Planning Board approved MR. TURNER-Okay. A motion's in order. MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 17-1991 REGAN AND DENNY FUNERAL SERVICES, INC.. Introduced by Jeffrey Kelley who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: I believe the main criteria for granting this use variance is the fact that this is a preexisting nonconforming use in a Plaza Commercial One Acre Zone. The construction of this five stall garage would have no adverse effect on the neighborhood character. Public facilities and services would not be adversely effected. The particular piece of property is bounded by a crematorium. a cemetery, and a mall. so I don't feel that this would be detrimental to other businesses in this zone. The particular lot that this building is to be built on. due to its location to the funeral home and other properties. does not allow it to be used for any of the listed uses and that the granting of this variance is the minimum variance necessary. The Short EAF shows no negative impact. Duly adopted this 20th day of March. 1991. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sicard. Mrs. Goetz. Mrs. Eggleston. Mr. Kelley. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Carr ABSENT: Mr. Shea 30 - AREA VARIANCE NO. 18-1991 TYPE II PC-lA REGAN AND DENNY FUNERAL SERVICES, INC. OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 26 QUAKER ROAD, LOCATED ON NORTHSIDE OF QUAKER ROAD, IÞlŒDIATELY WEST OF MARK PLAZA AND DIRECTLY BEHIND REGAN AND DENNY FUNERAL HOME. FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,800 SQ. FT., 5 STALL GARAGE TO BE USED FOR PROTECTION OF VEHICLES NECESSARY TO THE BUSINESS AND AS ADDITIONAL STORAGE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 63-1-1.21 LOT SIZE: 0.099 ACRES SECTION 4.02OJ, 7.103, 7.079 MATTHEW LUDEMANN. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York. Senior Planner. Area Variance No. 18-1991. Regan and Denny Funeral Services, Inc., dated March 18, 1991. Meeting Date: March 20, 1991 "The request is to vary the area standards in the PC-IA zone. The setbacks in the zone are 30 feet on the rear and side. The applicant proposes 15 feet in the rear and 14 feet on the side. Two previous variances were granted to this business previously. The motions are attached. The proposal is to construct a 1.800 sq. ft. 5 stall garage. The property is located behind the Regan and Denny Funeral Home and adjacent to the Pineview Cemetery. I reviewed this application with regard to the Area Variance criteria. 1. Are there special conditions applying to this property or building, and not applying generally to other properties or buildings in the neighborhood? Yes. The location of this undersized lot is unique since it is adjacent to a funeral home. crematorium. and cemetery. 2. Would the strict application of the provisions of this Ordinance deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land or buildings? Yes. The rear yard setback is 30 feet and the front yard is 50 feet which is greater than the 46 foot lot. The side yard setbacks are a total of 60 feet and the lot is ±93.5 feet. So the required setbacks actually prohibit use of the lot. 3. Would the strict application of the dimensional requirements result in a specified practical difficulty? Yes. The requirements render the lot unusable. 4. Would this variance be materially detrimental to the purposes of this Ordinance, or to property in the district? No. The property is located so that this development will not negatively impact the adjacent neighbors. 5. Is this request the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty? This question is one that the Board should address with the applicant. Is a five vehicle garage minimum re li ef . " MR. LUDEMANN-Matthew Ludemann. designated agent for the applicant. The business currently utilizes seven vehicles. The hearse itself is stored in a bay contained in the main funeral home building. The other cars are parked in the rear of the building at present. There's two limousines. There's a mini van. There's a station wagon and there's two cars that they use in the day to day operation of the business. The actual design, even though it's called a 5 stall garage, the blueprint calls it a 4 and a half car garage. I didn't know what that meant. I rounded it up. It actually has four entrance doors and the remaining small portion of the building is intended to use for storage of the casket trays and the various racks that are taken in and out of the vehicles. depending on how many bodies they transport at one time. Actually what they're doing is if they ask to store all seven vehicles, they'd actually be on the Town's property. The other thing I'd like to address, in the prior variance they specified a 20 foot rear setback. If you did that. it's the same building as the last time. you'd actually be off the property in the front. What we've asked is that it have a 15 foot setback in the rear which would match the building right next to it and would allow for a one foot setback from the front. The other thing is. you'll noti ce that the building is not centered on the property. That was to separate the crematorium from the proposed garage by 50 feet so it would conform with Section 7.074 A3 which asks for a 50 foot building separation for utility or accessory uses and what that would do is skew it slightly towards the parking lot of this strip mall. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any questions? MR. KELLEY-So this is actually in a different position than it was the last time? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. LUDEMANN-That's correct. MR. KELLEY-Okay. MRS. GOETZ-Could I just review what the reliefs would be. then? I don't know if I have it right. Seventy-four feet on the front? No. that sounds wrong. I never heard of that one. It's 15 feet relief on the back? MR. LUDEMANN-Right. The Ordinance requires a 50 foot rear setback and the parcel is only 46 feet deep. We're asking that it be reduced to 15 feet. MRS. GOETZ-Wait a minute. 50 on the rear? MR. KELLEY-No. 30. MRS. GOETZ-Thirty on the rear. 31 - MR. LUDEMANN-Fifty. It borders the cemetery and it's also a zone boundary. It requires a 50 foot setback under two separate Sections of the Ordinance. MRS. GOETZ-Wait a minute. I thought. in Plaza Commercial right? MRS. COLLARD-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-It says. a 50 foot buffer zone shall be required adjoining residential and industrial. MR. LUDEMANN-The cemetery's residential. MRS. GOETZ-The cemetery. MR. LUDEMANN-Very single family. MRS. GOETZ-It comes over from Sweet Road. then. is that Sweet. all the way that way? MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-And over to residential. Okay. MR. KELLEY-So it calls for a 50 foot rear and you've got 15 and the side it 30 and you've got 14. MR. LUDEMANN-On the shorter side. correct. MR. KELLEY-Well. right. and the other side is 19 and a half. MR. LUDEMANN-It's 19 and a half. MR. KELLEY-Okay. MRS. GOETZ-What's the front relief. then? MR. LUDEMANN-Reducing it to one foot, and I think part of the resolution we would certainly authorize that the two parcels would be joined as a tax parcel and not be subdivided. since the accessory use is really what we're asking for. MR. TURNER-I was just going to mention that. why you don't just join them. MRS. COLLARD-That's under separate ownership. right? MR. LUDEMANN-At one point they're under separate ownership. One is held by Adirondack Funeral Services. Inc. The other is held by Regan and Denny Funeral Services, Inc. Those corporations are now one in the same. They were purchased at separate times in separate transactions. MS. CORPUS-Matt. how long have they been one corporation? MR. LUDEMANN-Actually. Adirondack Funeral Services. Inc. changed its name to Regan and Denny Funeral Services. Inc. MR. TURNER-What did you get. I got 16 feet on the side and 35 in the rear? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. KELLEY-Well. yes. 35 in the rear. That's the variance. right? MR. TURNER-Yes. Sixteen feet on the side. on the 14 foot side. MR. KELLEY-You've got 16 on one side and then you've got 10 and a half on the other. MR. TURNER-Did you say 10 and a half? MR. KELLEY- Yes. So, in hi s rear. really. he has two va ri ances on the rear. MR. LUDEMANN-I need a variance from two separate sections. correct. MR. TURNER- Yes. MR. KELLEY-One from a buffer zone standpoint and one from the property line. MR. TURNER-One from the buffer and one from the setback, right. MR. KELLEY-Okay. That's what I was looking up with all those numbers. 32 -- MR. TURNER-He needs 35 feet of relief from the buffer. MR. KELLEY-Okay. MR. TURNER-Thirty five feet on the buffer and 15 on the setback. MRS. GOETZ-Okay, and then it's 16 feet relief on the side. MR. TURNER-Sixteen on the one side, ten and a half on the other side and 49 in the front, 35 in the rear from the buffer. 15 from the setback. MR. KELLEY-So we've got a front. too? MR. TURNER-You've got a foot there in the front. He's only got a setback of a foot. MR. KELLEY-Okay. That's supposed to be a what? MRS. GOETZ-Fifty. It's 50. Jeff. I was thinking 75. MRS. COLLARD-Couldn't you just say. per drawing submitted with this application. grant the variances per drawing submitted with this application? MRS. GOETZ-We usually spell it out. MR. TURNER-We could. but we usually. MRS. COLLARD-I know you do. but I just since there's so many involved here. MRS. GOETZ-I know, it would be so much easier, but I think we should do it the way we usually do it. MR. TURNER-Do you agree with me. 16 on the one side? MR. KELLEY-Yes. MR. TURNER-Ten and a half on the other side? MR. KELLEY-Yes. MR. TURNER-Forty nine on the front? MR. KELLEY-Yes. MR. TURNER-Fifteen on the rear? MR. KELLEY- Yes. MR. TURNER-And 35 from the buffer. MRS. GOETZ-The relief is 35 feet. MR. TURNER-A 35 from the buffer zone. MR. KELLEY-Right. and the rear variance is 35 feet. MR. TURNER-Right. MR. KELLEY-It's 35 and 35. MR. TURNER-Right. MR. KELLEY-That's what I got. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. KELLEY-So these properties aren't joined together. then. or they are now? MR. TURNER-They are now. They weren't. That's what he said. MR. KELLEY-Well. if they're joined together, now, do you have the front one then. MRS. EGGLESTON-That's what I was wondering. 33 - MR. TURNER-I don't think they've got the one on the front. MRS. COLLARD-No. You don't need the front variance then. MS. CORPUS-The Board could make that notation in its motion. that these parcels would be considered joined for zoning purposes. MR. KELLEY-Okay. MR. TURNER-Okay. No further questions? I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE The Warren County Planning Board approved MR. TURNER-Okay. Motion's in order. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE 11). 18-1991 REGAN AND DENNY FUNERAL SERVICES, INC.. Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption. seconded by Charles Sicard: There are special conditions applying to the property and not applying to other properties or buildings in the neighborhood and the location of the undersized lot is unique since it's adjacent to a mall. a crematorium. and a cemetery. Strict application of the Ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land andlor building. The strict application of the dimensional requirements would result in a specified practical difficulty. The requirements render the lot unusable. The relief sought is the following: side setback. 16 feet; rear setback. the relief is 15 feet. The other relief is 35 feet on the rear from the required 50 foot buffer zone from the cemetery. Ten and a half feet of relief on the side abutting the crematorium. This is the minimum variance to alleviate the practical difficulty. Duly adopted this 20th day of March. 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sicard. Mrs. Goetz. Mrs. Eggleston. Mr. Kelley, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Carr ABSENT: Mr. Shea MR. TURNER-Okay. We've got a couple of items, here. before we go, to take care of. Do you want to read the letter for a request. MRS. GOETZ-This letter is from Scott Hatz regarding Carol Caccioppi. renewal of Lake Sunnyside Estates zoning variances "As indicated to the Queensbury Zoning Administrator on Friday March 16th. 1990. this office represents Carol Caccioppi in connection with the application for zoning variances relative to the lots in Lake Sunnyside Estates. On March 22nd, 1989 the Queensbury ZBA granted Mrs. Caccioppi Area Variances for Lots 19 and 20 Lake Sunnyside Estates as well as new modified Lots 4 and 5 Lake Sunnyside Estates. On June 27th. 1989. the Queensbury Planning Board approved a modification to the existing subdivision to reflect the new modified Lots 4 and 5. Mrs. Caccioppi subsequently sold Lot Number 20. but at the present time is still marketing Lot 19 and modified Lots 4 and 5. It is our understanding. after discussing this matter with the Zoning Administrator. that the variances granted on March 22nd. 1989 will lapse after one year with respect to those lots which are not yet sold. Accordingly and pursuant to your direction, by this letter we are hereby requesting that the Queensbury ZBA consider a renewal of Mrs. Caccioppi's Area Variances for a period of one year so as to allow her to continue to list the lots and hopefully achieve the sale of the same during this time. If you have any further questions or either you or the ZBA are in need of further information, please do not hesitate to contact me." MR. TURNER-Okay. Do we have any questions for Mr. Hatz? SCOTT HATZ MR. HATZ-If I could just point out. I think you read last year's letter. MR. CARR-Yes. I was going to say, wasn't that last year's letter? 34 MRS. GOETZ-Probably. yes. MR. HATZ-The same thing applies except we're only asking for renewals for modified Lots 4 and 5. She has sold Lot 19 and 20 now. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. MR. HATZ-Other than that. everything's the same. MRS. GOETZ-Okay and is there anything in the Zoning Ordinance about how many times you can extend? MR. TURNER-No. I think the current economic situation kind of creates a hardship, in that sense, that property's not moving. as everyone knows. MR. CARR-All she has to do is transfer the property out to somebody and checkerboard it. right? MR. TURNER-Yes. She could. This was the two lots that were on the corner that was actually three at the time. MR. HATZ-It used to be three lots. Now it's two. I have a map if you'd like. MR. TURNER-Yes. No. I remember them. MR. HATZ-It was three. now it's two. MR. TURNER-Right. Yes. but I think we made that suggestion to you when you came. MR. HATZ-Right, back in. two years ago. that's what we agreed. The variance was conditioned upon that. MR. TURNER-Okay, any further questions? MOTION TO EXTEND LAKE SUNNYSIDE ESTATE VARIANCE CAROL CACCIOPPI, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bruce Carr: For a period of one year. Duly adopted this 20th day of March. 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Eggleston. Mr. Carr, Mr. Kelley. Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea MR. TURNER-All right. We've got one other item. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. This is regarding a minor clarification of Motion 10-1991 which is attached and it is the motion that we made on Use Variance KellY and Lindsay Carte. The motion was. "Motion on Use Variance No. 10-1991 Kelly and Lindsay Carte. that it is the interpretation of this Board that retail business is allowed in Highway Commercial and Plaza Commercial zone by virtue of the commercial uses of these zones". and it was unanimous. with two being absent. The Board may wish to modify the attached motion to indicate that retail business is allowed in HC and PC zones as by virtue of the commercial uses of these zones and should be added to the Type II List. I realize that all uses in these zones currently require site plan review. My concern is if the Ordinance is modified in the future, a view that could be taken is that your motion created a category under Permitted Uses. Also please ignore the last phrase on your agenda regarding C.D.K. Electric. MR. TURNER-It's not on our agenda. MRS. GOETZ-It's a Staff error? MR. CARR-Yes. what's C.D.K. Electric? MRS. YORK-There was just a question as to whether they needed a variance. It never should have gotten on an agenda. MR. CARR-Is it next week's or something? MRS. YORK-You saw it last month. 35 -- MR. TURNER-They want to add the retail uses to the list of Type II uses for site plan review reasons. I guess. Remember you made the motion. MR. CARR-Yes. I think that would be fine. MR. TURNER-Okay. Make the motion. MOTION TO ADD THE UNDERLINED WORDS AND SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE TYPE II LIST AT THE END OF THE PRIOR MOTION, Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its adoption. seconded by Charles Sicard: Duly adopted this 20th day of March. 1991. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sicard. Mrs. Goetz. Mrs. Eggleston. Mr. Carr. Mr. Kelley. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further business? The meeting's adjourned. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Theodore Turner. Chairman 36