Loading...
1991-07-17 ~ ~EENSIIIRY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR JEETING JULY 17TH, 1991 7:30 P.M. JEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN SUSAN GOETZ, SECRETARY JOYCE EGGLESTON JEFFREY KELLEY BRUCE CARR CHARLES SICARD MEMBERS ABSENT MICHAEL SHEA DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY-KARLA CORPUS SENIOR PLANNER-LEE YORK STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI NEW IIISINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 49-1991 TYPE II WR-lA THOMS J. MAYER OWNER: SAlE AS ABOVE HALL ROAD, GLEN LAKE FOR COIISTRUCTION OF A 10 FT. 6 IN. BY 12 FT. ADDITION TO A RESIDENCE WITH A DECK ABOVE ADDITION. (WARREN COONTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 45-2-4 LOT SIZE: 30,000 SQ. FT. SECTION 7.012-3, SHORELINE SETBACK (179-60) SECTION 9.010, CONTINUATION (179-79) DICK MCCLOUD, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Area Variance No. 49-1991, Thomas J. Mayer, July 16, 1991, Meeting Date: July 17, 1991 "The request is to vary the 75 foot setbacks required adjacent to water bodies. The applicant did not submit a plan with the application. Staff took the site plan off the application for the Planning Board. After contacting the agent for the applicant we did receive elevations of the proposed construction. The Board should be aware, also, that the application does request a property location map and description of how to get to the property. The application states on the EAF that the appl icant wants to add a 10 foot 6 inch x 12 foot addition which will have a deck over it. The lot size is 30,000 square feet. It appears that the addition will take place on the side away from the lake. The addition will mean lessening the permeable area in a designated Critical Environmental Area. The assumption made by Staff is that this addition will allow the applicant to place a deck at the second floor level. This application was reviewed with 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? This property is similar in nature to others in the neighborhood. 2) Would strict application of the provisions of this Ordinance deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land or buildings? No.3) Would the strict application of the dimensional requirements result in a specified practical difficulty? The structure is nonconforming to begin with. Any addition to the structure would violate the shoreline setback requirements. 4) Would this variance be materially detrimental to the purposes of this Ordinance, or to property in the district? This variance in and of itself would probably not be detrimental, however, the continued expansion and encroachment along water bodies by development was a great concern which initiated the shoreline setback requirements. This was so that the zoning tool, over time. would cause a change in what was happening along the lakes and ultimately improve water quality. 5) Is this request the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty? The applicant has stated that there is no practical difficulty and also has not supplied accurate measurements so the Board can determine the extent of the variance required." MRS. GOETZ-The Warren County Pl anning Board returned saying, "No County Impact". MR. TURNER-Would you care to make any further comment? MR. MCCLOUD-No. MR. TURNER-Can we have your name, for the record? MR. MCCLOUD-Dick McCloud. MR. TURNER-Any questions of Mr. McCloud? He's got a jog out there, right now, and he wants to bring it back farther. 1 MR. KELLEY-Fill that in? MR. TURNER-Yes. That's what he wants, right there. The comment that I got from some of the neighbors I spoke to up there was that they were getting awful tired of everybody adding on and making it more congested than it is right now. A lot of those camps are one right on top of the other. MR. KELLEY-This one's got a lot of room. MR. TURNER-That one's got a lot of room, but that one doesn't really have a big problem. In fact, he's not going outside of the footprint of the house. He's keeping it in line with what he's already got there. It's not a big deal, really. MR. CARR-Do we know how far the relief is, or what the relief is? MR. TURNER-Eleven feet. He's got 46 from the lake and 18 right there on that little jog. MR. MCCLOUD-We're going further away from the lake, and there's an existing structure in front of me already. So, I'm adding on to the back of the house, if you look there. MR. SICARD-Teddy, these people that you talked to, did they come? MR. TURNER-They're not here. That was the comment I got from them when I went up there. Like I said, Charlie. if he was going to build, maybe, way outside or something and put an enormous addition on. I might have some problems with it, but I don't have any problem with this one. MR. SICARD-I don't, either. MRS. GOETZ-I'd like to ask, how does the application get to us without the measurements on the diagram? MR. MCCLOUD-I thought they were. MRS. YORK-Well, Mrs. Goetz, the way the application gets to you, you do have a Checklist that has been designed by Staff, but you've never approved the Checklist. MRS. GOETZ-We didn't? MRS. YORK-No. So, I have no authority to say to someone, you're off the agenda or you have to supply this information according to what the Zoning Board of Appeals criteria for what an appropriate application is. MR. TURNER-I think we'll take care of that. Good point. MRS. YORK-So, if you want that. MRS. GOETZ-Yes. I would. I honestly don't even remember getting it. I must have it. but that's something that we should take care of. MR. TURNER-We did get a copy. Does anyone have any comments or questions of Mr. McCloud? None at all? All right. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Any further correspondence? Any further questions? MR. KELLEY-I really don't know what I'm looking at, I guess. It says, there's 10 foot 6 inches by 12. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KELLEY-I don't see anything that's 10 foot 6 inches by 12. So, the drawing doesn't go with. MR. TURNER-No, not on mine, not on this one. MR. KELLEY-All right. Mr. McCloud, do you want to come up here a minute and I'll ask you some questions. because I don't understand what you're doing. The application says that it's a 10 foot 6 inch by 12 foot addition. Show me what that is. MR. MCCLOUD-Okay. The distance this way equals 10 foot 6. and you have your little plot map? 2 MR. KELLEY-Yes. MR. MCCLOUD-Okay. This, from here to here, is 10 foot 6. From here to here is 12 feet. MR. KELLEY-Okay. So if you come over here to this floor plan. This says 12 feet. It doesn't say 10 foot 6, and this says, I've got 12 feet from here to here. MR. MCCLOUD-This is supposed to be 10 feet 6 here. This is 12 feet this way. MR. KELLEY-Is this existing? MR. MCCLOUD-That's existing. MR. KELLEY-So, you're addition, then, is from here to. MR. MCCLOUD-This is the addition, here. This is the back porch. This is existing, right here. MR. KELLEY-Okay. So, you're adding this room? MR. MCCLOUD-That's correct. MR. KELLEY-And what's this, here? MR. MCCLOUD-That's just a roof going over the back. This is the roof line, here. This is the existing, right here. MR. KELLEY-Okay. Well, then, you're going to have a deck below it. There's going to be a deck in there? MR. MCCLOUD-No. There's nothing in there. MR. KELLEY-Okay, because what's this railing? MR. MCCLOUD-This is just the walkway that's going under this. MR. KELLEY-It's a long. underneath that roof? MR. MCCLOUD-Right here. MR. TURNER-In that three foot wide? MR. MCCLOUD-Yes. There's a little walkway going in here, into that room. MR. KELLEY-Okay. MR. MCCLOUD-This is the existing house. Here's the lake down here. MR. KELLEY-What threw me off was when saw 12. MR. TURNER-I see 12 there, yes. MR. MCCLOUD-We're going to stay within the footprint of the existing home. MR. TURNER-Yes. That's the way it shows on that little plot sketch. MR. KELLEY-Okay. I guess I've got it now. MR. MCCLOUD-That shows the deck above the structure. MR. KELLEY-There's a deck over the whole thing, and this is a whole deck. It's not a three foot walkway. MR. MCCLOUD-No. The deck goes over the whole top. MR. KELLEY-What you're telling me isn't what's drawn here. There's this deck that runs all across the top. I've got that, and this is the little part of the addition that you're enclosing. MR. MCCLOUD-That is correct. MR. KELLEY-But this shows a deck all the way out here. you're. It doesn't have thi s three foot roof that 3 MR. MCCLOUD-Well, it's going to be there. This is this little catwalk, three foot around there to get into the room. MR. KELLEY-Okay. So this doesn't have a roof over it, then? MR. MCCLOUD-Yes. It will have. I plan on putting one over it. It wasn't drawn on there. MR. KELLEY-Okay. The roof would be like that, and it's going to run over here. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. MCCLOUD-That is correct, sir. That's where it goes. MR. KELLEY-All right. MRS. GOETZ-Lee, where it lists the Section that they're seeking variance from, Section 7.012-3. MR. TURNER-Yes. shoreline setback, 75 feet. MRS. GOETZ-Is that the right one? MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-Well, where, see, 7.012-3, or is it another part? MS. CORPUS-New numbers. MR. CARR-New numbers? MRS. GOETZ-Okay. MRS. EGGLESTON-What was that Section, Sue? MRS. GOETZ-It's the 75 foot. MR. TURNER-Page 76. MRS. GOETZ-Page 76. MR. TURNER-In the old book. MRS. GOETZ-In the big book. MR. TURNER-In the big book. In the old book. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further questions of Mr. McCloud? We're going to give him what's on the application, and that's all he can build. MR. KELLEY-So, actually, he's doing some addition work that's 46 feet from the lake? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KELLEY-Okay. So that's our variance. MR. TURNER-Forty six and ten. Isn't it ten, or eighteen, when it straightens up? MR. KELLEY-Yes, but, Ted, that doesn't count because he's got his new deck running all the way to the front. MR. TURNER-Okay. Then he's got to have 46 from 75. MR. MCCLOUD-That's correct. MR. TURNER-Thirty nine feet he needs, thirty nine feet of relief. MR. KELLEY-Because he's going. MR. TURNER-Yes, he's going right out to the front, yes. You're right. MR. MCCLOUD-That is correct. 4 MRS. GOETZ-Is it 39 or 29? MR. TURNER-I don't know. did it quick. I'm sorry, 29. MR. MCCLOUD-It's 46 feet to the corner of the house. right now. MRS. GOETZ-Are you wrapping a deck around the front of the house? MR. MCCLOUD-No. MR. TURNER-No. MR. MCCLOUD-On the side. MR. TURNER-No. It goes down the side. It goes right down that side to the front. MRS. EGGLESTON-See, look at Jeff's drawing down there. MR. MCCLOUD-It's going to be on the side of the house. MR. KELLEY-This deck comes all the way to the front, and this is 46 feet from the lake right there. MR. TURNER-Right to there, yes. MR. KELLEY-So, he's doing all of this deck up in here and down below he's doing this little room, and there's, this is kind of confusing, but it's like three feet of deck that goes in and then it turns and it comes out thi sway, and he's going to buil d a 1 i ttl e roof out over thi s littl e deck, here. This whole thing on the bottom is not a deck. The way it was drawn, it looks like one, but it isn't. MRS. GOETZ-That deck doesn't face the lake? MR. MCCLOUD-No. It does not. MRS. GOETZ-Right. Okay. MR. KELLEY-No. Just this end would. If you were on the lake, you'd look at that end. MR. KELLEY-I'll ask you some questions, now that I know what you're doing. The room that you're adding on is going to be used for what purpose? MR. MCCLOUD-He's going to use it as a study or just a place to, he's a school teacher and he has no place to, no office or any place to do any work. He's doing it in his bedroom, now, and that's, basically, what it's going to be. There's no plumbing in it or anything like that. MR. KELLEY-Okay, and does he have a reason why he wants to put that deck up in the whole second floor area. there? MR. MCCLOUD-He just wants it. MR. KELLEY-Does he have any decks on the lake side of the building? MR. MCCLOUD-No, just the top of the bomb shelter, but that's earth, that you saw. MRS. GOETZ-Well, it's a drop off. MR. MCCLOUD-You step down to, like a, the bomb shelter's below that front of the house. MRS. GOETZ-That seemed kind of dangerous, that drop off. MR. MCCLOUD-It's a good two or three feet from, there's steps there, but there's nothing going on the front of the house. You'd have to build it over an existing bomb shelter that was built there years ago. So, they're not putting anything on the front of the house. and he wanted to have something they could enter from the upstairs. MR. KELLEY-And those are bedrooms up there? MR. MCCLOUD-Yes. MR. KELLEY-I don't know that I've got anymore questions. MR. TURNER-I looked at it and it's not really that bad. He's got a good sized lot. He's probably got one of the bigger lots up there. 5 MR. KELLEY-I guess it makes sense. This is the appropriate place for this addition. MR. TURNER-Right. Okay. Motion's in order. MOTIOI TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE 10. 49-1991 THOMAS J. MYER, Introduced by Jeffrey Kelley who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: The applicant is Thomas Mayer and he is represented by Mr. McCloud. The applicant is asking for a variance from shoreline setback from Glen Lake. This particular 10 ft. 6 in. by 12 ft. addition is on the side of the existing home and it will also have a deck with access from the second floor of the home. The closest part of this addition will be 46 feet from the lake shore for a relief of 29 feet from the 75 foot requirement. The practical difficulty is that the room that is to be added needs to be where it is due to the design of the rest of the house. This appears to be the minimum variance in that all of this addition will not extend in any direction beyond the outline of the existing house. Strict application of the Ordinance would not allow an addition to be built that would be of a design that woul d be usabl e by the applicant. It does not appear to be detrimental to the purpose of the Ordinance and this is the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty. Duly adopted this 17th day of July, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sicard, Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea MRS. YORK-Mr. McCloud, would you come in and see me, because before you go to the Planning Board, you're going to have to do some improvement on the application and the drawing and you're going to have to fill out a Long Environmental Assessment Form. MR. MCCLOUD-Okay. MRS. YORK-So, would you come in and talk to me about that? MR. MCCLOUD-Yes. I will. Thank you. MR. KELLEY-Lee, get a map on how to get there from him. MRS. YORK-Yes. MR. KELLEY-Because I went over there and looked all around. I couldn't find it. MRS. YORK-It took me an hour. MR. TURNER-They've got to have better directions than just that. MRS. YORK-Well, that's why I made the comment that is on the Checklist. You guys have to say, this is the Zoning Board approved Checklist and if all these things are not on it, then the application does not come before us. MR. TURNER-You get it before now and the next meeting, we'll take care of it. MRS. YORK-Okay. MRS. GOETZ-Could we do it tonight? Do you have it, the list? MRS. YORK-Just make it up. MRS. GOETZ-But yours is always so complete. You said you sent us a list. MRS. YORK-A Checklist? MRS. GOETZ-A Checklist. MRS. YORK-It's attached to all the applications. Pull an application out of the box, Mrs. Goetz. MR. TURNER-We can do that afterwards. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. 6 SIGN VARIANCE NO. 50-1991 TYPE II PC-lA OLSON SIGN CO., INC. RICHARD OLSON OIItER: 73 ~IŒR ROAD ASSOCIATES 73 ~KER ROAD PROPOSAL: TO ADD TWO NONCONFORMING SIGNS ON TO IIJILDING. TAX MAP NO. 104-1-4.31 SECTION 6.103-4 RICH OLSON, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Sign Variance No. 50-1991, Olson Sign Co.. Inc., July 16, 1991, Meeting Date: July 17, 1991 "The request is to add two nonconforming signs on the Trustco Bank which is part of the Quaker Plaza development. If this request is approved the Trustco Bank will have three signs described as blue channel letters with neon illumination. Last month the Board approved a sign vari ance all owing Blockbuster Video to have a second nonconforming si gn. Thi s additional si gnage was allowed in Quaker Plaza also. In the past the Board has spoken to the Plaza Developers and allowed a certain number of nonconforming signs for the entire Plaza rather than dealing with each individual leasee. The Board may want to consider this alternative since the sign ordinance addresses plaza signage as a part of a coordinated effort. This appl ication was reviewed with regard to the criteria for sign variances. 1) Are there special circumstances or conditions applying to the land or sign(s) which do not apply generally to land or signs in the neighborhood? The bank facility is free standing and is visible from all sides. The front is on Quaker Road and a sign is allowed on the front. Vi sibil ity from other locations does not necessarily mean that signage has to be allowed. The bank knew of its location for some time and was aware of the Town of Queensbury signage requirements. The bank chose the plaza location because of the benefits gained by that location and visibility. 2) Is reasonable use of the land or sign possible if the Ordinance is complied with? Yes. The Plaza is highly visible and has access on to a major highway. The Plaza itself will have an identifying sign and can list the individual tenants as part of that. 3) Is there an adverse effect on the neighborhood character or public facilities? The request is to place additional signage toward Glenwood Avenue and Hovey Pond. Glenwood Avenue is primarily residential, although not at this intersection. Hovey Pond is being developed as a passive recreation area. The Board may want to consider the appropriateness of neon signs facing into these areas. 4) Are there any feasible alternatives? No alternatives have been presented. 5) Is the degree of change substantial relative to the Ordinance? Yes. A plaza is treated as a unit under the sign ordinance. The degree of the request is substantial for a plaza situation." MRS. GOETZ-The Queensbury Committee for Community Beautification disapproved. "The Queensbury Committee for Community Beautification wishes to go on record as opposing this variance request, as it is contrary to the ordinance which allows one sign per business in a shopping plaza." MR. TURNER-Are you representing? MR. OLSON-Good evening. I'm Rich Olson, Olson Sign Company, representing Trustco Bank. MR. TURNER-Quite a while ago, when the Plaza first came for the establishment of the Plaza, they were asked a question about signs and they deferred not to even talk about them at that point in time. So, who initiated this action? Trustco Bank initiated this action? MR. OLSON-Yes. It did. I don't know, to be honest with you, that Trustco was aware that they were only going to be allowed one sign. Kind of since I got into the picture, they treated it as if they were going to be allowed more than one sign. MR. TURNER-Well, I don't know if that was the bank that was here, but somebody was here representing some bank that was supposed to go in there, and I think we pointed out to them that the signage was going to be a problem. MR. OLSON-Okay. MRS. GOETZ-The burden's on the applicant to know what the rul es are when they go in and I really have a problem believing that Trustco Bank doesn't know that they need to look into the Ordinance. So that's what I would have to say on that. On the Staff Coments, Lee, I just had a question. The second sentence in the second paragraph, "This additional signage was allowed in Quaker Plaza also"? MRS. YORK-Okay. I meant the Blockbuster signage. I was just pointing out that that Plaza has already received variances. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. MR. OLSON-And that's part of what's creating a major problem for Trustco Bank right now. If you're familiar with the Blockbuster chain at all, they represent all their stores with blue awnings, such as every other tenant in this place has, and probably the sign you were allowed through the variance is the sign located right on the corner, directly adjacent to the Bank and, in fact, while under construction. people have gone to the Bank trying to return movies, thinking that the Bank is Blockbuster Video. 7 MR. TURNER-There's two wall signs right there that tell them right where Blockbuster Video is. MR. CARR-And wouldn't that be a problem with Trustco and the landlord? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARR-I don't think that's a Town created problem. MR. TURNER-No. MR. CARR-That's sounds to me a mall created problem. MR. OLSON-The only other thing, too, that I heard, there was a concern about neon letters facing Hovey Pond? MRS. GOETZ-Yes. MR. OLSON-That particular set of letters was non-illuminated, that faces. MRS. GOETZ-Well, thank you for pointing that out. MR. OLSON-Okay. MRS. GOETZ-Maybe, in hindsight, this Board should never have allowed the sign variances that we did, for Blockbuster, like allow them to have the Blockbuster on the free standing sign, but that's done and over with now, and here you are. MR. OLSON-Yes, well, that's not the issue here tonight, I guess, yes. MRS. GOETZ-So, unfortunately, you're in the middle of it now. MR. OLSON-Yes. I don't know if anyone's had the opportunity to view this location or not? MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-Yes, I think we have. MR. OLSON-I've taken photographs of it, if anyone would like to look at them. MRS. GOETZ-I think the visit, to say that it's visible is like a super understatement, because the public comment is unbelievable against the looks of this Plaza. MR. OLSON-Yes. Again, though, I guess that's not Trustco's fault. They're not the creator of the Plaza. They're just a tenant in it. MRS. GOETZ-Well, I imagine they knew what they were getting into. Again, I can't bel ieve that they wouldn't know what it was going to look like. MR. OLSON-Yes. Stuff on paper, too, looks different than it does completed, unfortunately. MR. CARR-But aesthetics aside, I mean, because that's really not the issue. MRS. GOETZ-Well, it is, as far as visibility goes. MR. CARR-No. The issue just has to be how many signs are allowed. I mean, you can't dictate what colors they are. MRS. GOETZ-Absolutely. Yes. Right. MR. KELLEY-Well. in Lee's Staff Comments, it says the Plaza itself will have an identifying sign and can list the individual tenants as part of that. Is there a plan to have that, that you know of? MR. OLSON-I haven't heard anything about the Plaza sign. The Bank hasn't mentioned it to me. I just have to plead ignorant on that one. I really don't know. MR. TURNER-They're allowed the free standing signs and the wall signs and that's all they're allowed. MR. OLSON-They're not allowed a free standing sign because it's a plaza location. MR. TURNER-No, not the Bank, the Plaza. 8 MR. CARR-But on the free standing sign for the Plaza, isn't it just to identify the Plaza and not the individual businesses within the Plaza? MRS. GOETZ-Right. MR. TURNER-Yes. That's the Plaza name. MR. OLSON-The other hardship I'd, maybe, like to point out, here, is that the existing set of letters we have installed are on Quaker Road, and the actual entrance to the Bank is through the back side facing the parking lot. That's the non-illuminated set of letters, merely identifying the business. I think, if nothing else, I'd forego the set facing Glenwood Avenue and encourage you to try to approve the one set at least identifying the Bank from the Bank back side, because there is nothing telling you, if you approach Glenwood Avenue and pull in off of Glenwood into that parking lot, you have no way of knowing that's Trustco Bank. MR. CARR-Mr. Olson, I don't agree with approving any of these signs, at this point, until perhaps Trustco has talked to the owners and it comes with a one set of plans, here, so that we can see what everybody wants and what we mayor may not be will ing to vary the variance from, or the Ordinance from. If each individual comes here and says, well, I want an individual sign here, too, I mean, we're going to have the whole place covered with signs. MR. OLSON-Well, the only thing, I would think most of the other stores are typical strip stores. MR. CARR-Right, but they're just going to see what you get and say, we want it too and they'll find a place to put it. I think what you've got to do, or Trustco has got to do, is talk to their landlord and say, what's going on, you know, Blockbuster Video's making a real mess of it, here, and decide whether or not the landlord has a problem and let him try to resolve it, in line with our Ordinance. and if he can't, then put together the whole package of what they want, and come back and talk to us. I can't see giving individual owners within this mall, you know, each one at a time coming to ask for their particular variance. MR. OLSON-Yes, well, again, see, the scope of the whole mall is beyond me. MR. CARR-Yes, but I would think somebody, there must be a project manager at Trustco overseeing this building or this construction who is probably in touch, I guess, who is it, Pinchuk's or something, and they coul d see what's going on and see what can be done about making the whol e mall look better and perhaps moving that free standing sign to another location, if that's what the variance allowed. I don't know if we allowed only that location or not. I can't recall, exactly. MR. OLSON-Yes. Whatever's done, though, still isn't going to do anything for the back entrance. MR. CARR-Right, but the whole plan has to be looked at and not just one item at a time. MR. TURNER-Well, I think the other problem, too, is that we're assuming that we're going to have a problem right off the bat. There's no experience factor showing, here, that this is not going to work, yet. That's the problem I have with it. People are going to become educated as to where to go, as far as the entrance, the ingress and egress is to that Plaza, and they're going to become aware of where everything is in that Plaza because that Pl aza is not that bi g, and the Bank is ri ght on the main drag. It's right on Quaker Road. MR. CARR-In fact, that's a variance, isn't it, from setback? MRS. GOETZ-Yes. They had setback variances in the beginning, and lets take the example of Shop and Save. They, originally, had wanted some bigger signage, and I don't see that they're losing any business because they don't have various signs, and they have a worse visibility problem, if you want to take it that way. MR. SICARD-We have the same identical thing on Chase Bank at Glen Square. We did have a sign on the back of Chase Bank at one time, where you come in all those other entrances, and they had to take it down. We made them take it down. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. SICARD-But that was exactly the same situation where you come into the back of the Bank from another entrance, and there was an identification sign, but they lost it. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KELLEY-The Blockbuster that's out on the street. MR. TURNER-That's the one we gave them. 9 MRS. GOETZ-That was a variance for the free standing. MR. TURNER-They had the two free standi ng signs. They wanted to change the one to Blockbuster Vi deo, and we didn't increase the size on Blockbuster Video on the building. They were allowed up to 100 square feet. We gave them two 50 square foot signs. The free standing sign was allowed, but the copy was di fferent. MR. KELLEY-Is each place in that Plaza allowed a free standing sign? MR. TURNER-No. MR. KELLEY-Well, how come they've got one. MRS. GOETZ-It's by variance. MR. TURNER-They're allowed two. They got it by variance. MRS. GOETZ-Instead of saying the Plaza name, it was allowed to say Blockbuster, by variance. MR. OLSON-So. there will be no sign with the Plaza name, then? MRS. GOETZ-They're allowed another one, aren't they, if they want to, another free standing sign, with the Plaza? MR. TURNER-No. They've got it. They've got two. MRS. GOETZ-Where is it? MR. TURNER-Right in front of the Bank. MRS. GOETZ-That says the Plaza on it? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. OLSON-No. All there is is a Blockbuster Video sign. MRS. GOETZ-Okay, at the moment? MR. TURNER-At the moment. MRS. GOETZ-The Sign Ordinance says, under Shopping Center, "One (1) freestanding sign denoting the name of the shopping center shall be permitted for each entrance fronting a different street or highway. Each occupant of the shopping center shall be permitted one (1) wall sign on the portion of the exterior wall", and then there's been a change in what I have, here. The colors used to have to coordinate, but they don't anymore, but you can go in and out of that mall from Quaker Road, right, and Glenwood? MR. OLSON-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-So, as I read it, they would be allowed a second free standing sign with the Plaza name only. You see, the fact that Blockbuster is on that other free standing sign was by a variance. which was granted, which I wish I never voted for, because I think it set a precedent, and now we have a can of worms, here. MR. TURNER-Yes, they're allowed, each entrance fronting a different street or highway. MRS. GOETZ-Yes. MRS. YORK-Excuse me. Mr. Goralski has just enlightened me that when you granted Blockbuster the variance for their second sign, that was in place of one of the free standing signs for the Plaza. MRS. GOETZ-Right. but I believe they'd be allowed one more free standing sign, that would have the Plaza name on it. MRS. YORK-Right. MR. TURNER-One Plaza sign and one with the Blockbuster. MR. CARR-I think Trustco has a problem with their landlord. MRS. GOETZ-I do, too. 10 MR. OLSON-I think Blockbuster's a little better at negotiating leases than Trustco Bank is, perhaps. MR. CARR-Well, Trustco's going to learn, though. MR. TURNER-I woul d have thought that if I was going to be a tenant in there. that I woul d have gone to the owners and found out what I coul d have there, before I even signed the 1 ease. I don't think I'd wait until the horse got out of the barn and locked the door. MR. OLSON-Well, unfortunately, all the preliminary drawings from the shopping center indicated signage all over the place. Now, the Bank, it's their fault for not following up on it, but unfortunately, all the original designs and everything, they've got spots for signage allover the drawings which just aren't allowed. MRS. GOETZ-That's misleading to the people that are going in there. MR. OLSON-Yes, exactly. MRS. GOETZ-There again, I think that the client should always go to the Town and find out what the regulations are, and don't depend on the person trying to rent you the space. MRS. EGGLESTON-Sue, what about di recti onal si gns? Isn't there something for, li ke, entrances in the rear, or, that would accomplish? I must admit, when we drove in that parking lot, if you didn't know that was Trustco, if you came in Glenwood Avenue and somebody said, go in that Plaza, you wouldn't know that was Trustco Bank. I think he does have a problem. I don't know what the answer is, but what about directionals or? MR. TURNER-Article III Number 7. On premise directional? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. TURNER-All right. Article III Number 7. "Or instructional signs for the convenience of the general public identifying parking areas, loading zones, entrances and exits, self service areas and similar signs internally illuminated or non-illuminated, not to exceed four square feet." MR. CARR-Well, they could put a small sign. MRS. EGGLESTON-So, you could put a sign saying , entrance to Trustco Bank. MRS. GOETZ-Right. The business name is allowed on them. You'll see it at McDonald's sometimes. MR. TURNER-You know where that also occurs, right at Shop and Save on Bay Street. They put a directional sign right there. right in the driveway, right in the median of the driveway. MRS. EGGLESTON-I mean, we can re-hash that maybe we made a mistake with some of the signs that are there. but the facts are that people are there. They're not going to tear it all down. MR. CARR-So, we're going to compound it? MRS. EGGLESTON-No. We're not going to compound it, but. MRS. GOETZ-Well, if the situation gets bad enough, the person owning the Plaza may have to make some adjustments in order to please everyone. It might have to be a compromise. MR. OLSON-I'm having a problem seeing what that could be, though. MRS. GOETZ-I know. It is hard to see what it could be. MRS. EGGLESTON-I mean. certainly, Blockbuster's not going to take theirs down. MR. OLSON-Well. the Bank, I'm sure the lease is all a done and signed deal, at this stage. The Bank's got to live, probably, with the conditions that they have in the lease. MR. CARR-Yes, but a lot of leases have signage provisions in them. MR. OLSON-Yes. I don't know what that was. I'm sure that probably has a clause in it, pending approval by Town of Queensbury. I really plead to you. I think there's going to be a problem with anybody entering in from the back side, not knowing that that's Trustco Bank. MR. CARR-Well, I think you've got the answer in a directional sign that you could put for your entrance and, also, before I would approve anything, I'd want to hear what the landlord has to say about this and how come he sent you pictures from a man from Ontario with signage all over the place and never bothered to look into the Ordinance. 11 MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further questions of Mr. Olson? None. Okay. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COII£NT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Letter from Beaty Agency, 47 Glenwood Avenue, to Mrs. Lee A. York, dated July 12, 1991, "Dear Mrs. York: We received notice of the public hearing for two nonconforming signs to be located at 73 Quaker Road in the new plaza now under construction. We cannot attend the meeting but wish to express our thoughts. We are definitely against any nonconforming signs in the plaza. which, in our opinion, is a "cheap" looking plaza to begin with. Our feelings, and others in the Town, is why build new plazas in the Town when others are half empty and looking for stores to fill them. This is a poor advertisement for the Town to see empty stores in Town that is supposed to be a nice place to live. It seems so called progress has gone in reverse and the environment is suffering for it. Sincerely, Nancy Beaty" MR. TURNER-Okay. Motion's in order. MR. CARR-Before we deny it, though, should we offer the applicant the option to table this and let him talk to landlord and see what their position is on it, and to see if they have any alternatives. MR. TURNER-The only problem that I have, he is allowed a directional sign on the other entrance, right? MR. CARR-Sure. MR. TURNER-I think that will take care of the whole situation. MR. CARR-I think it would. too. MRS. GOETZ-I think we should deny it, and then if they want to come in, you know, go back and talk to everybody and come in with another proposal that might be different. MR. TURNER-Like Jeff said, and I agree, I mentioned that before, there's no history, here, to show anything. They're not even open yet. MR. OLSON-Do you want to table it for a month? MR. TURNER-I'd rather deny it. MRS. GOETZ-I would rather deny it. MR. CARR-I think the problem is that, even in a month, you're not going to have a history of a problem. MR. OLSON-Well, if people are continually walking in returning movies, though, we'll know that. MR. KELLEY-Well, if you look at a building that's covered with yellow Blockbuster, and then you tell me that they can't read it? MR. TURNER-That's what I said. MR. KELLEY-I don't even want to hear that. MRS. GOETZ-And it's going to have a drive in. I just can't believe that people aren't going to know that that's a bank, with probably an ATM machine and everything else. MR. OLSON-I don't think there's anything facing the back, you know, the main entrance. MR. CARR-Well. I think that problem's going to take care of itself very shortly, I would imagine. MR. TURNER-Yes. I believe so. As soon as that's open and the traffic starts negotiating the Plaza, they're going to find out where everything is in a hurry. All right. MOTION TO DENY SIGN VARIANCE 110. 50-1991 OLSON SIGN CO., INC., Introduced by Susan Goetz who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: There don't seem to be any special circumstances or conditions applying to the land. and in this case the sign, which do not apply generally to other signs in the neighborhood. The bank building seems to be very visible and this property has already had more than one setback variance granted to the 12 land. Strict appl ication of the Sign Ordinance would not deprive the applicant of reasonable use of the sign or land. The variance is not in general harmony with sign restrictions establ ished for the area. The variance is not minimum relief and the sign variance would be injurious to the neighborhood. There are feasible alternatives for adequately directing Trustco customers to the bank. We would refer to the Queensbury Sign Ordinance, Article III, Section 3.100 7, which allows for directional signs for the convenience of the general public. Duly adopted this 17th day of July, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE AREA VARIANCE NO. 51-1991 TYPE II SFR-lA ANNA M. SARDARO OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 48 OAKTREE CIRCLE FOR PLACEMENT OF A 24 FT. (4 FT. DEEP) ABOVE GROOND POOL IN SIDE YARD. PROPERTY IS CONSIDERED A CORNER LOT, BOTH SIDES FACING THE STREET ARE CONSIDERED FRONT AND THEREFORE IT WOULD NOT BE IN COMPLIANCE TO PLACE A POOL ON THE SIDE OF THE BACKYARD FACING THE STREET. TAX IMP NO. 93-5-133 LOT SIZE: 1/3 ACRE SECTION 7.074 (179-67) ANNA SARDARO, PRESENT MRS. SARDARO-My name is Anna Sardaro. MR. TURNER-All right. I have a question. You show on your plot plan. here. that you have a septic and two pit tanks, is that correct? MRS. SARDARO-Yes. MR. TURNER-And since this is not to scale, how far is it from where the back of the pool is to that pit tank right there? Do you know? MRS. SARDARO-It's going to be about 20 feet, I would say. MR. TURNER-Twenty feet, and you're going to have an above ground pool? MRS. SARDARO-Yes. MR. TURNER-The Ordinance requires that the pool be 20 feet from the rear property line. I was thinking I'd rather grant her relief on the back yard setback and let her move the pool back away from the road on that side, there. She could move it 10 feet. Ten and twenty, she'd have her thirty foot setback. MRS. GOETZ-What would the neighbors think about that, though? MR. TURNER-Well, there's nobody here. MRS. GOETZ-I know, but they think it's going to be 20 feet, because that was the application. MR. CARR-Yes, the neighbors to the side really aren't here to be represented, as to coming closer. MRS. GOETZ-Yes. MRS. SARDARO-You mean 20 feet from the back? MR. TURNER-There's supposed to be 20 feet from the rear yard to the back of the pool, and what I'm saying is, take it back 10 feet from the rear yard and move it over so you can get the 30 feet front yard setback from the road, Oaktree Circle. MRS. SARDARO-I don't know if it would fit there. Are you talking about, like, between the fence and the? MR. CARR-Right here. MR. TURNER-Right in here. Just move it right in here. but, instead of right here. You've got it right here. You're almost going to have to 1 ay it out. It's hard to tell without a scale on it. MRS. SARDARO-That's what I was afraid of, too, that it would be too close to that. MR. TURNER-That's a pit tank. That's not a leachfield. MRS. SARDARO-It's okay to put it over that? MR. TURNER-Yes. It's above the ground. It's not going to migrate into the pool. You've got a liner in the pool, anyway. 13 MR. CARR-I mean, could we do something like that without the neighbors? MR. TURNER-Well, we could table this, if you want to table it. MRS. GOETZ-And then what do we do, re-advertise the neighbors? MR. TURNER-Well. she hasn't presented a feasible alternative. Have you talked to your neighbor in the back? MRS. SARDARO-I told them I wanted to put a pool in there, yes. I didn't specify the number of feet away from anything. MR. CARR-What was their reaction? MRS. SARDARO-They were fine with it. MR. CARR-Who are your neighbors? MRS. SARDARO-I don't remember all their names, but I have, across the street from me is the Marcinos. MR. TURNER-But the neighbor in the back? MRS. SARDARO-The neighbor in the back? I don't remember their names. MR. TURNER-The one that's going to be most concerned is this one right here. MRS. EGGLESTON-Is that Lashway? MRS. SARDARO- Those were actually the ones I was most concerned about, too, because I have about four small children. so. MR. TURNER-You haven't got much of a back yard. Well, where you've got fenced in, you've only got 56 feet. MRS. SARDARO-Yes. That's why I didn't think it would fit there, because with 56 feet, and the deck is 14 feet, if I need 20 feet in there, it's not going to fit. MR. TURNER-No, but if you move it back on an angle, you're not going to change it that much from that deck, right there. That's just a concrete patio, isn't it, right there? MRS. SARDARO-It's a wood deck. MR. TURNER-A wood deck? MRS. SARDARO-Yes. MR. TURNER-Because I couldn't see it very good with the fence up. MR. CARR-Ted, that's not going to fit. It's a 24 foot pool, right, in diameter? MR. TURNER-Yes, but she's five feet from there. MR. CARR-Yes, but if you look at the deck at 14 plus the 24 is 38, and if it's only 56. MR. TURNER-Right. MR. CARR-All you need is 10. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARR-So, you could put it back there. MR. TURNER-Even with the figures, you know, you can't really tell where it's going to be positioned. unless you went out there and laid it right out. That's what I'm saying. MR. CARR-But is this such a bad plan, as it is now? I mean, the fence is there, right? MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. The fence is there. 14 MR. TURNER-But she's got to get a variance for that. That's what the other application is for. MR. CARR-Right, but how can we deny it when we gave Judy Provost the same variance? Didn't we give Judy Provost the same variance? MR. TURNER-No. We didn't give her a variance for the fence. MR. CARR-I thought we did. MR. TURNER-No, we did not. We didn't give her the variance for the fence. MR. CARR-I thought we allowed her to have a six? MR. TURNER-No. It wasn't advertised. Remember, we raised the question whether we were going to consider it that night, and it's got to be advertised. It"wasn't advertised, but it's up anyway. MRS. GOETZ-But you have to have it up. in a way. MR. CARR-Well, what do you mean it's up? Was it up at the time. MR. TURNER-A six foot fence is up, all the way around the pool. MR. CARR-Was it up at the time of the? MRS. EGGLESTON-Not when we went and inspected it wasn't. MR. TURNER-No. MR. CARR-So, she knew about the problem? MR. TURNER-She knew that she had to file for a variance. I told her so, right here that night, and then she put the fence up anyway. MRS. SARDARO-I didn't know. MRS. GOETZ-Not you. MR. TURNER-We weren't talking about you. Somebody else. MR. CARR-Lee, would you make sure that Pat? MR. TURNER-She knows it. I told her. MRS. YORK-I believe the Chairman has discussed this already. MR. TURNER-I told her it was up. MRS. GOETZ-So, you'll be following that up, right? MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. MR. KELLEY-So you're saying if we change the location of this pool than we've got to rehear it? MR. TURNER-I would think you would, because she's got the required distance from the back yard to the edge of the pool, right now. MR. KELLEY-I guess, I went up there and looked at it. The thing is, I don't remember, now, exactly where the house was in the back. MR. TURNER-It's up on a little rise. MR. KELLEY-Well, I know, and it's coming down and around. MR. TURNER-Yes. It's a ways from her line. MR. CARR-Ted, I think this end of the table is going to have a problem, really, with the plan as it is. I mean, because even though it's within that 30 feet from that front road, I mean, it's cut off by a fence. MRS. EGGLESTON-You move it back, you're going to have noise closer to the people in the back. 15 MR. CARR-Yes. Whether it's a four or six foot fence, I mean. if there's going to be a fence there. MR. TURNER-Well, four kids are going to make a lot of noise, anyway, whether it's a 10 foot fence. MR. CARR-Right. I'm not concerned about the noise. I'm just saying that, the aesthetics of it, it's not going to look like it's 20 feet from the road, because no one's going to see it, because it's going to be behind a fence. MRS. EGGLESTON-What do you guys think? Jeff? MR. KELLEY-I don't know. That's what I was kind of wondering. Is it better to give a side yard variance, or I should say a front yard variance, where, as Bruce says, are you really going to know and keep it away from the neighbors more, but I don't know that 10 feet, in terms of the noise, is really going to amount to anything. MR. TURNER-No. MR. KELLEY-I mean, you'd think that it would, but it doesn't, really. MR. CARR-Well. I guess then my question would be, why preserve the integrity of a front setback on a corner lot, as opposed to a rear setback, which imposes on neighbors? I mean, where's the benefit or which one is more important to keep free, and then look at this situation where it's just a fence there. It seems to me that the rear neighbor woul d have more importance than a street, woul d be my feeling. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-I think it's fine where it's proposed. MR. TURNER-All I'm saying is that there's been no alternative presented that shows the pool can't go back there. We just can't go by those measurements because those measurements are not to scal e. If we had them to scale, you could tell, quick. You can multiply and divide and add and subtract, but that doesn't mean much to me. I'd rather see it right on paper. MR. CARR-Well, you're right. There's no alternatives, but I mean, there shouldn't have to be an alternative. MR. TURNER-There is an alternative, Bruce. MR. CARR-I know, but she shouldn't have to show it to us, because that's another violation of a setback. MR. TURNER-No, but I'm saying, if she could move it back that way, she could get away from this street line, here. Yes, she's going to be 10 feet closer to the neighbor's line, but that neighbor's house is, like, 20 or 30 feet away from that fence. MR. KELLEY-I'll tell you where it's really wrong. There's no accurate dimension that says where the septic is. MR. TURNER-That's right. That's what kills it. You don't know where anything is. MR. KELLEY-If you knew exactly where it is, you might say, we can be 30 feet from the street and still conform, but if you don't know where the septic is, you can't make a judgement. MR. TURNER-That's right. MR. CARR-Well, no, because I don't think, it's right at the 20 foot from the rear setback. So you can't go any further back. So all you can do is just move it straight back from Oaktree Circle and then you're going run into the deck. MR. TURNER-You can go back 10 feet, by variance, the same as you can go, you know. MR. CARR-Right, I'm saying, right, yes, that's a possibility, but I don't think it's up to the applicant to have to show us how many ways they can violate the Ordinance. MR. KELLEY-No. but it's up to the applicant to give us accurate locations of existing things. MR. TURNER-They're only going to violate it one way, anyway. MR. CARR-Right, but, I mean, what is she supposed to do, draw five different pools on here and show us which. MR. TURNER-No, but I'm just saying, give us some dimensions that we can work with. 16 MR. KELLEY-Give us accurate dimensions of where the septic is. MR. CARR-But I don't think the septic's the problem with this. As Ted said, you can put it over the pit, right? MR. TURNER-You can put it near the pit. MR. CARR-Near the pit, so I don't think that's the problem. The problem is the deck, and the dimensions are there for the deck. It's 56 feet from the house to the end 1 ine. You've got a 14 foot deck. You've got a 24 foot pool, and you've got a 20 foot setback and if you add those all up, you've got 58 feet. So you're eight feet short. So, now the whole thing comes down to, do we violate the rear setback, or do we violate the front yard setback, because it's a corner lot? MR. SICARD-It's an above ground pool, anyway, Bruce, and it has no bearing on the septic system. It just sits on top of the ground. MR. CARR-Right. That's why I say the septic system, I don't care where it is, then. MR. SICARD-Yes. MR. CARR-Because it has no bearing, or very little bearing. MR. TURNER-Well, they've got to be able to get the cover on the pit tank to pump it out. MR. CARR-Right, but it has little bearing if you look at the plot plan and the measurements we have. MR. SICARD-How far would it be from the deck? MRS. GOETZ-Ten feet? It says 10 feet. MR. TURNER-It's five feet right on the corner, where it is now, right? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MRS. SARDARO-The shortest part would be five feet. MRS. GOETZ-Ten down to five. MR. TURNER-So if you moved it back 10, you'd be 15, maybe, but you'd be crowding the pool, on a diagonal. That's what I'm saying, there's not enough information there to really make a decision whether she could move it back or whether she could. MR. CARR-Well. I think there is. MR. TURNER-Not really, not for me. MR. CARR-Well, why not, though? I mean, what information do you want? MR. TURNER-I want to see that pool back away from corner. MR. CARR-You want to see it violate the rear setback then? MR. TURNER-I'd rather grant her the 10 feet on the back, then give it to her on that corner. MR. CARR-Okay, but then the thing isn't there's not enough information. It's just you don't agree with where it's placed. MR. TURNER-No. There's not enough information because we don't really know whether that pool can go where I said it could or whether it can't go where I said it could. That's what I'm saying. MRS. GOETZ-What information would we need to determine? MR. TURNER-I'd want to know where that pit tank is and I'd want to know if she could be able to move that pool back. MRS. GOETZ-Well, it would seem we should table it for more information. MR. TURNER-There's no dimensions. Nothing's to scale. MRS. GOETZ-Is that what you're suggesting? MR. TURNER-Yes. 17 MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, what is the difference between this and Mr. Mayer who had inaccurate, incomplete drawings and we accepted it and gave a variance? I'm confused, here. MRS. GOETZ-We knew the footprint there, didn't we? MR. TURNER-We knew what the footprint was. We knew what we were dealing with, and we knew what size the addition was and nothing violated anything else except the setback. MRS. GOETZ-The front setback. MR. TURNER-I mean Mayer. MRS. GOETZ-Right. MR. KELLEY-Yes. We knew his shoreline setback was 46 feet. MR. TURNER-Right, but this one here is not to scale and what I'm saying is, she can lay that pool out in a different location, move it back five or ten feet. MR. CARR-All right. Lets assume the test pit is what she testified to. It's 20 feet away. So, now there is room to move the pool back and violate the rear setback, by 10 feet. So lets take the testimony and then lets just debate whether we want it a rear setback or a front setback. I mean, she has testified that it is at least 20 feet away. So, we know we've got room to move the pool if we feel it's necessary. I just don't feel it's necessary to move the pool. If you've got to violate the rear setback or the front setback, in this case. I would choose the front setback, would be my feeling. MRS. GOETZ-One thing that was helpful was that this fence was already up and you could really visualize what it was going to be like from the road. MR. KELLEY-Are you saying that's helpful, to have a fence that's in violation? MRS. GOETZ-No. It's not helpful to have it in violation, but at least you could tell what it would be like, and what it would look like from the road, but honestly, I don't have a real problem with where it's proposed right now. I don't, because I think that if I were the neighbor, I'd rather have it further away from my sideline. MR. TURNER-I don't think 10 feet's going to make a heck of a lot of difference, 10 feet one way or the other. MR. CARR-You can say that about every setback. though. Ten feet's not going to make a difference in the big scheme of things anyway. MR. TURNER-It's not going to make a difference as far as the neighbor is concerned. MR. SICARD-Well, I think if the neighbor was interested, he'd be here. MR. TURNER-He'd be here. MRS. GOETZ-Right. So, that's why I tend to go with, to approve what has been proposed. If somebody was here and they were really upset about it, it would be another thing, but that's a very built up development, and no one is here. MR. CARR-I mean, that's my feeling is, it just comes down to a question between the rear and the front and with the fence where it is, I just think we should preserve the integrity of the rear setback and let the front setback go, in this case. MR. TURNER-Okay. No further questions of the app1 icant? Has anyone got any further cOßIITent? Okay. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO CO_NT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE MRS. GOETZ-I'm sorry. I forgot to read the Staff Input. So, I'll read it now. STAFF INPUT 18 Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Area Variance No. 51-1991, Anna Sardaro, July 16, 1991, Meeting Date: July 17, 1991 "The request is to place an above ground pool in the side yard. The location is the curve of Oak Tree Circle in the Hidden Hills Subdivision. The Zoning Administrator's referral sheet indicated that this was a variance from Section 179-67 (formerly 7.074). It appears that the appl ication is for rel ief from the setbacks from the public right of way which in this zone would be 30 feet. The plan indicates 20 feet from the R.O.W. or relief of 10 feet. This application was reviewed with 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, this property is a corner lot which requires a 30 foot setback for accessory use. In a standard lot the side yard setback is 10 feet. 2) Would strict application of the provisions of this Ordinance deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land or buildings? The zone is SFR and the applicant currently has a residential use on the property. 3) Would the strict appl ication of the dimensional requirements result in a specified practical difficulty? The application states that the septic system is in the other portion of the lot. The plan shows the septic area and also a vacant area between the deck and septic system where the pool could potentially go. If this is possible then it would eliminate the necessity for thi s vari ance. The Board may wi sh to di scuss thi s with the appl i cant. 4) Would this variance be materially detrimental to the purposes of this Ordinance, or to property in the district? No.5) Is this request the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty? This discussion has to be between the Board and the applicant." MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further comment? MRS. GOETZ-Do you think we ought to table? MR. TURNER-I think we ought to, in fairness to her, because, just like Jeff said, we can't determine where these pit tanks are. If we knew exactly where they were, you might have a basis to move that thing over and not cause any problems for anybody. MR. KELLEY-We're supposed to find the minimum variance. MR. CARR-Right, but the only way we could do that is if the septic is not anywhere near where it's put on this map. MR. TURNER-Yes. but that's what I'm saying. We don't know where it is. MR. CARR-It's put on the map, here. MR. TURNER-That doesn't mean anything. There's nothing to scale. MR. CARR-Where did you get that septic drawing, may I ask? MRS. SARDARO-From the builder. Those were the approved plans that I got. MR. CARR-Because the builder put it there. MR. TURNER-Yes, but there's no measurements. There's no measurements on the leach arms. MRS. GOETZ-But isn't that in the Town, somewhere, about where people's septic systems are? MR. KELLEY-It's supposed to show on your plot plan for your building permit. MR. TURNER-Right. MRS. GOETZ-Like, once I couldn't find mine and I came up here, and there was a plan. MR. TURNER-That's right. MRS. GOETZ-Is that possible? Would the Town have a record of where her septic system is? MR. TURNER-She must have one, unless the bank's got it. MR. KELLEY-It should be on your plot plan, right, when you get a building permit? MRS. YORK-It should be, right. MRS. SARDARO-On the blueprints, you mean? MR. TURNER-It wouldn't be on the blueprints. It would be on the plot plan. MRS. SARDARO-That is the plot plan. 19 MR. TURNER-Yes, but there's no measurements, so we don't know where anything is. That's what we're sayi ng. What we're sayi ng is, if we knew where these were, if we knew exactly where these were in reference to what you have here, maybe there's a case you could move that back there and you'd meet this setback and you'd meet this setback. You've got 18 feet left. So, you could move it back here. We don't know where these are, that's what we're saying. MRS. GOETZ-It might be better for you if you could move it over because I would think you'd want to be away from the road and you'd have more privacy that way. MRS. SARDARO-Not really, because the closer it is to the fence, the less you're going to be able to see that pool. The further it is from the fence, the easier you're going to be able to see it from the road. MR. TURNER-Yes, but you're going to have to build a deck to get access to it. You're not just going to climb over the sides and get in it, are you? MRS. SARDARO-From a ladder. MR. TURNER-A ladder. okay, but a lot of them you don't build a deck. MRS. SARDARO-If you're passing through Oaktree Circle from Sherman Avenue, you can see my back yard right from there, and with the fence up, if that pool is close to the fence, you won't see the pool at all. The further away you bring that back from the fence, you will be able to see it. MRS. EGGLESTON-But, actually, it's a long ways from Sherman Avenue. MRS. SARDARO-No, it's not. You can see it. MR. CARR-Mrs. Sardaro, do you know where your septic is? MRS. SARDARO-Actual dimensions, no. All I know is what's on that plot plan right there. MR. SICARD-If it's drawn to scale, you can measure it from the lot line. MRS. SARDARO-I was looking at it from the standpoint of an attractive nuisance, too. I work for an insurance company. so I'm very safety conscious, and I thought, the less you can see that pool, the better, and I just think it's going to be a lot more visible. the more you bring it back. MR. TURNER-Well, I'd like to table it until we can get some better information. MRS. SARDARO-When were you planning to install the pool? MRS. SARDARO-As soon as I got the variance. MR. TURNER-I just don't feel that there's enough information that we can make an honest decision. I want to see some measurements and there's no measurements there. There's nothing to scale. MR. CARR-But what measurement do you want to see? MR. TURNER-I want to see where the septic is. MR. CARR-You want to know exactly where the septic system is? MR. TURNER-Right. I want to know where that is. MR. CARR-I think that's ridiculous. I think we've got enough information on this plan to vote on it. MR. KELLEY-I think it's ridiculous not to have it. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 51-1991 ANNA M. SARDARO, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jeffrey Kelley: Tabled for better information on measurements as to where the septic tanks are, the pit tanks, and the measurement of the septic tank from the house out, accurate dimensions showing where the facilities are in the back yard. It should be on the plot plan. Duly adopted this 17th day of July, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sicard, Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Turner NOES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr ABSENT: Mr. Shea 20 MR. TURNER-You've got to provide us with that information when you get a copy of your plot plan and make out another application, or revised plot plan showing us those dimensions. MR. KELLEY-Well, it should be showing the dimensions, but also drawn to scale. MR. TURNER-Right. and drawn to scale, because we've got to be able to read what you've got. MRS. SARDARO-I did the best I could. MR. TURNER-I know you did. MRS. SARDARO-I'm not an artist. MR. TURNER-No, but they're supposed to come here scaled out so that we can understand what's there. AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-1991 TYPE II SFR-lA ANNA M. SARDARO OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 48 OAKTREE CIRCLE TO KEEP AN EXISTING 6 FT. STOCKADE FENCE AROOND THE BACKYARD INCWDING THE SIDE FACING THE STREET OF OAKTREE CIRCLE ON THE SOUTH SIDE. TAX MAP NO. 93-5-133 LOT SIZE: 1/3 ACRE SECTIOII 7.091 (179-74) ANNA SARDARO, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Area Variance No. 52-1991, Anna Sardaro, July 16, 1991, Meeting Date: July 17, 1991 "The Zoning Administrator has determined that section 7.091 (179-74B 2) does not permit a 6 foot fence in a front yard. This lot is considered to have two front yards as it is situated on a curve on Oak Tree Circle. The applicant has constructed a fence around the rear and side portions of the existing lot. The Board may wish to also ask whether the applicant requires a variance from section 179-74(3) which states - "No fences over (3) feet in height shall be erected or maintained within twenty (20) feet of the front property line..." The plan indicates that the fence is 10 feet from the property line. 1) Are there special conditions applying to this property or building, and not applying generally to other properties or buildings in the neighborhood? Yes. this is a corner lot which fronts on two rights of way. 2) Would the strict application of the provisions of this Ordinance deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land or buildings? The location does limit privacy, but the applicant did choose the location. 3) Would the strict application of the dimensional requirements result in a specified practical difficulty? If the fence were moved back to a 20 foot setback then the proposed pool would not be able to keep setbacks and not be over the septi c system. The pool is pl anned at 24 ft. by 24 ft. in hei ght. The 6 ft. fence is requested for privacy and safety reasons. 4) Would this variance be materially detrimental to the purposes of this Ordinance, or to property in the district? No.5) Is this request the minimum rel ief necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty? The fence is in existence. The Board will have to decide if removal of it or modification constitutes a practical difficulty and what standard to judge minimum re li ef by." MRS. YORK-If I could just address the Board for a minute. In my review, I came across a potential need for another variance. I did write a memo to Mrs. Crayford. I was unaware, until last night, that she was out of town or I would have requested a zoning determination on this and not brought it before this body. What happened was, I came across what I thought would be a need for another variance. MR. KELLEY-Which was? MRS. YORK-Which was from Section 179-74B, which states that you can't have a fence over three feet in height erected or maintained within 20 feet of the front property line, and her fence is within 10 feet, so, thinking that the applicant could potentially need another variance. I gave a memo to Mrs. Crayford. I was unaware, until last evening, that she was out of town and could not make a determination on this. That's why I mentioned it in my notes. MR. CARR-So, you're saying we should table this one until she gets back? MR. TURNER-No. I don't think you have to. MRS. YORK-Well, I don't know if this Board feels comfortable granting a variance from both Sections, if they feel it's necessary. MS. CORPUS-Mr. Chairman, if the Board feels comfortable. it can certainly grant the variance. If the Board determines that these Sections are similar enough so that the public would have been made aware of the type of variance to be granted. Reviewing them, they seem to be almost duplicate type of Sections, but that is a determination to be made by the Board. MR. CARR-So that means we wouldn't have to re-notify. Is that what you're saying? 21 MS. CORPUS-If you determine that they are substantially similar, which they appear to be, I wouldn't believe that that would be necessary. Because they are essentially the same type of variance. MR. TURNER-She needs a variance for the setback. She needs a variance for the height. MR. KELLEY-I think we've got to table it, because if we find that the pool can be moved, you can get the fence back to 20 feet. You don't need that variance, then. MR. TURNER-That's right. MR. KELLEY-One hinges on the other. MR. TURNER-Right. One hinges on the other. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-1991 ANNA M. SARDARO, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: Tabled until we get all the necessary information pertaining to the other variance. Duly adopted this 17th day of July, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Carr, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea AREA VARIANCE NO. 53-1991 TYPE II LI-lA LIVINGSTON QUALITY MANOR OWNER: WILLSTON REALTY CORP. SOUTHWEST CORNER OF DIX AVENUE AND QUAKER ROAD, 53 DIX AVENUE TO CONSTRUCT A 4,800 SQ. FT. WAREHOUSE ADDITION. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MP NO. 110-1-21 LOT SIZE: 55,000 SQ. FT. SECTION 179-26-A, 179-26-D JOHN GORALSKI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Area Variance No. 53-1991, Livingston Qual ity Manor, July 15, 1991. Meeting Date: July 17, 1991 "The request is to construct a warehouse addition of 4,800 square feet to an existing 18,000 sq. ft. furniture store. The location is the corner of Dix and Quaker in a LI-IA zone. The lot size is 1.36 acres (assessment records). The applicant is before the Board because the structure will exceed the maximum square footage for the zone. The primary use on this lot is a furniture store which is nonconforming according to the ordinance as furniture stores are an allowable use in Plaza Commercial and Highway Commercial. The warehouse structure requested will be an allowable accessory use which is incidental to the primary use. A problem which might occur is if the addition were to become a part of the retail space, which would require a use variance and a change in parking consideration. The Board may want to make it clear to the applicant that the variance appl ied for is only good for a warehouse. This appl ication was reviewed with regard to the criteria for an area variance. 1) Are there special circumstances or conditions applying to this property or building, and not applying generally to other properties or buildings in the neighborhood? There do not appear to be any special conditions applying to the property as compared to other properties in the neighborhood. The business in the building is nonconforming for the zone. 2) Would strict application of the provisions of this Ordinance deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land or buildings? The applicant has a reasonable use of the building. This retail establishment has been in existence for some time at this location. 3) Would the strict application of the dimensional requirements result in a specified practical difficulty? The dimensional requirements in an LI-IA zone are designed for Light Industrial uses. This is a cOßlßercial/retail use with a warehouse addition. 4) Would this variance be materially detrimental to the purposes of this Ordinance, or to property in the district? No.5) Is this request the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty? The application speaks to a practical difficulty which has arisen because of a nonconforming use, not created by the ordinance." MRS. GOETZ-The Warren County Planning Board returned, "No County Impact". MR. GORALSKI-Good evening. My name is John Goralski from Richard Jones Associates, representing Livingston Quality Manor, and this is Robert Whipple, the Manager of the store, if you have any questions for him. The unique circumstance regarding this property and this building is that this is a furniture store that's been there for over 30 years. Furniture stores, as you know from other applications. require a great deal of floor area for display. Because they devote a lot of floor area to display, they, typically, don't have a lot of traffic, a lot of people coming in. As a matter of fact, Mr. Whipple has told me that, on an average day, 20 people come into the store in a 12 hour period. Therefore, there's not as much parking, most of the land on the site is dedicated to building, and less to parking. However, we do meet the permeable area requirements. We're set back significantly from the road. So, 22 ~ there shouldn't be any impact on the neighborhood. We're also proposing to build a warehouse which is consistent with the zoning as it exists today. As far as reasonable use of the building and property, I've been informed that furniture manufacturers no longer stock inventory. In other words, if Livingston Furniture needs a couch or something like that, they call the factory. The factory will put an order through to build that couch and then send it out. That takes 10 to 12 weeks. It's very difficult to remain competitive if you can't have your stock on hand for your customers. So, that's basically the need for the warehouse space. By having warehouse space, Livingston Quality Manor can remain competitive. Therefore, continue to have reasonable use of the property that they have been at for over 30 years. MRS. GOETZ-John, who owns the property all around it? I mean, Claude Charlebois, is his over here? MR. GORALSKI-Claude Charlebois. All three sides are owned by Claude Charlebois. MR. CARR-Has there been any attempt to purchase additional land from him? MR. GORALSKI-Actually, Mr. Charlebois has attempted to purchase this property. MRS. GOETZ-I'm just trying to think long range, if it should ever change in use. I know it would have to come back in for different parking requirements. MR. GORALSKI-If there was a change in use, it would have to get a site plan review and if it was anything except for a warehouse or a furniture store, they would require variances for any of that stuff. MRS. GOETZ-Right. Because in Light Industrial, you could conceivably use a big building like that, as proposed. MR. GORALSKI-Right, but if it was Light Industrial, it would meet all the parking requirements. Any Light Industrial would meet the parking requirements. MRS. GOETZ-It seems like a plus that the land is not developed around it, at this point, because you wouldn't want to make a huge, big building that might turn into something else with not the possibility of any other additional land available for parking, down the line, if it ever changed. because didn't we just have, like, when we talked about the Wood Carte, you know, when they were going to go up on Quaker? MR. GORALSKI-Right. MRS. GOETZ-We were trying to think of, what if it, at some point, became something other than a furniture store, like the Community Workshop did? MR. GORALSKI-Right, and that's what I'm saying. This is zoned Light Industrial and there would be enough parking for a Light Industrial use. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. MR. CARR-What is that based on, square footage of the building? MR. GORALSKI-Right. MRS. GOETZ-What about the lean-to in the back, that's kind of added on, there, in the back? MR. GORALSKI-That's going to come down, and that addition will go where that loading dock is. MR. TURNER-Anyone else? MR. SICARD-Was there something in the notes that said that this warehouse would be for storage only, or no retail sales? MR. TURNER-Right. Otherwise, they go for retail, they'd have to have a use variance and if we granted the variance, it'll be for that use only. MR. GORALSKI-This is going to be a steel building on grade and there's going to be a garage in it. so that they can put their delivery truck in. So that it couldn't be turned into a warehouse. MR. SICARD-It wouldn't be retail sales? MR. GORALSKI-No. It's going to be, basically, a steel building. It's a garage type of thing. The inside won't be finished at all. MR. SICARD-It could be. MR. GORALSKI-I guess in the future it could be, yes. 23 MRS. EGGLESTON-This septic system, is that a big pit? MR. GORALSKI-I believe that's a pit, yes. It's not a leachfield. MR. TURNER-Any further questions of John? None? Okay. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE MR. TURNER-Any further Correspondence? Any further comment? MR. CARR-This is only going to be used just as warehouse space, no showroom space, right? MR. GORALSKI-No. This will be completely warehouse. Well, part of it is garage, also, for the delivery truck, but it's just warehouse space. It's just a steel building on a concrete slab. MR. CARR-Does this go before the Planning Board? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, it does. MR. TURNER-Are you going to have an elevated loading dock or are you going to have a pit? MR. GORALSKI-It's going to be an elevated loading dock. MR. TURNER-In the new structure? MR. GORALSKI-In the new structure, and then right next to the loading dock, there's going to be a garage. MR. TURNER-The existing one that's there? MR. GORALSKI-It's going to be closed off. MR. TURNER-I think I figured he's short of 7800 square feet. MR. KELLEY-I took 18 and 48 and came up with 228 and it says there's an acre for 12,000 square feet. So I took the 12 from the 228. MR. TURNER-Okay. You did it that way. MR. KELLEY-And it says for every 150 feet, you've got to have 500 square feet of land. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KELLEY-So that's 72 times 500 is 36 and he's got about a quarter of an acre more. So, it's about a half an acre off. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KELLEY-That was one. What was. A and D? D was, I would have said because the furniture store is not listed in a Light Industrial zone? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KELLEY-Is that the other variance that you need? MR. TURNER-No. That's preexisting, nonconforming. MR. GORALSKI-No. It's warehouse, which is allowed in a Light Industrial zone. We're adding a warehouse. MR. KELLEY-So do you need one variance or two? MR. GORALSKI-Just one for the floor area ratio. MR. TURNER-Just one for the floor area. MR. KELLEY-Because on this thing, it says two. 24 MR. GORALSKI-I don't think so. MR. KELLEY-But that may be an error. MRS. GOETZ-On the agenda? MR. TURNER-What's yours say? MR. KELLEY-It says, 179-26-A and 179-26-D. MR. TURNER-Yes, you're right. MR. GORALSKI-I think that's just the way it's numbered. I don't know how the new codification is set up, but I think it's just the way it's numbered, she put down, the Zoning Administrator said to put down both, but the only violation is the floor area ratio. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. YORK-By the way, Mr. Goralski, it was a very nice drawing. MR. KELLEY-They were talking about D, which is all this stuff, and I was trying to figure out what variance they're looking for? MR. GORALSKI-I don't know. She told me A and D. MR. KELLEY-A makes sense. because that's your gross floor area. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. KELLEY-I got that figured out. MR. GORALSKI-I don't know. As far as I know, the only variance I needed was for the floor area ratio because the warehouse is permitted in a Light Industrial zone. MR. CARR-But it's attached to a nonconforming structure, does that make a difference? MRS. YORK-I'm not the Zoning Administrator. MR. GORALSKI-I think you could consider this an accessory use, which is allowable in the Light Industrial zone, therefore, no variance is required. MR. TURNER-It accessory to a principle. MR. KELLEY-I guess I'd ask you a question, John, and that is, of the 18,000 square feet of the existing building, how many square feet of that building are allotted to showroom and how many square feet are allotted to warehouse? MR. GORALSKI-There's approximately 3,000 allotted to warehouse and 15,000 is showroom. MR. KELLEY-Okay. So, basically, you're going to go a little more than double the warehouse space? BOB WHIPPLE MR. WHIPPLE-My name is Bob Whipple. MR. KELLEY-Is it because of the idea, you say the manufacturers don't stock anything? MR. WHIPPLE-They don't even stock raw material anymore. Years ago, I've been in the business about 22 years, they used to carry frames all made up for sofas, so that when you called they would put the cover on that you wanted. You could reasonably expect to get it in three to five weeks. Now, they don't even make the frames. They may have the wood. It might be kiln dried. It might not even have that done yet. So, consequently, things that used to take three to five weeks are now taking anywhere from five to twelve weeks, and in some cases, sixteen and eighteen weeks, and people just don't want to wait. In an economy such as it is, where money's tight, when people get motivated and they decide that they're going to spend their money, they want instant gratification. They want to come in. They want to be able to get it. I need to be able to show it and have something out back. because if I keep giving them what's on the floor, then I end up with empty space and I can't show it to the next person. So, basically, you need about 50 percent of what your showroom is, or as close to that as you can get. 25 MR. KELLEY-Is it also that, I mean, I don't know your business, but do you tend to buy things in bigger quantities today. Rather than have them deliver one couch. you might buy 20 couches? MR. WHIPPLE-Basically, we have to buy in bigger quantity just to keep stock on hand, and that's where we're running into the problem. We are currently renting warehouse space because we don't have enough space. MR. KELLEY-And that's, obviously. off the property some place. MR. WHIPPLE-Right, and we'd like to bring it under one building where we can keep a better control of it. MR. TURNER-Okay. Anything down here? Any comments? Motion's in order. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 53-1991 LIVINGSTON QUALITY MNOR, Introduced by Jeffrey Kell ey who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: This is an area variance and in the Ordinance under 179-26A, the Ordinance states that a principle building of 12,000 square feet should have at least one acre of land. With the proposed addition for a 4800 square foot warehouse facility, the total square footage which would be on this property would be 22,800 square feet of building. Based on what the Ordinance states, this applicant would be required to have approximately 25,000 square feet of additional land. They've given testimony that no additional land is available for purchase and they have stated the practical difficulty is trying to run a business in a changing cl imate that dictates they have more storage space. By granting this variance, this additional warehouse space will enable them to remain competitive and bring all of their storage needs onto one property. It was stated they currently rent or lease warehouse space off the premises. This does not appear to be detrimental to the purposes of the Ordinance. It doesn't appear to have a detrimental effect on public facilities, and this is the minimum rel ief necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty. It should be noted or pointed out to the appl icant that this is a warehouse variance and that should the property be sold or come under a different use, site plan review and possible other variances could be necessary. In particular, I think the concern here would be parking potential. Duly adopted this 17th day of July, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sicard, Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Carr, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea MR. TURNER-We've got one more item to take care of before we go. There's a Checklist, in the applications. for the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, and I guess in order to enact it, you want a resolution. Is that correct, Lee, adopting the aforementioned articles under the Checklist, or adopt the Checklist? MRS. YORK-I think, possibly, the way you want to state it is that you want an applicant to this Board to address all of the items on the Checkl ist. They may address them in the form of not applicable because, and explain something, you know, if it isn't applicable to their position. but you may want to phrase it so that the applicant addresses all the items on that Checklist, before an application gets to this Board. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. CARR-Well, I've got a question. Under H., the second sentence, it just says, location of existing sewage and water systems on adjoining lots. Is that something that people have ready access to? MR. TURNER-Only because of wells. MRS. YORK-Yes. MR. TURNER-Because they might have a septic system, but also there might be a well involved. MR. CARR-Where would they find that information? MRS. YORK-A lot of times, they just ask the neighbors. They just walk over to the neighbors yard and say, can you tell me about where your, and then you put approximate location. MR. CARR-Okay. MRS. YORK-Applicant's do it all the time at the Planning Board. MR. CARR-But we never accept that. Are we making the motion? MR. TURNER-Yes. 26 ------ -- MOTION THAT THE APPLICANT ADDRESS ALL THE ITEMS ON THE CHECKLIST AS REQUESTED BY THE (JIEENSIIJRY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CHECKLIST SO INDICATED ON THE APPLICATION. A MAP DRAWN TO REASONABLE SCALE, SITE DIRECTION, AND LOCATION MAP. Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Susan Goetz: Duly adopted this 17th day of July, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sicard, Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston. Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea MR. KELLEY-I'd like to add an item to the list of things that are needed, site directions. MRS. YORK-It's on the application. You want to add it to the Checklist, also? MR. KELLEY-Sure. MRS. YORK-Okay. We do have, on the application, a request that they give written directions to the site and also a site map, a location map, and we have an example of a location map, but you want to make sure that it gets done. MR. KELLEY-Yes, because if the guy comes in and he doesn't have, like this guy tonight. You couldn't find it. You can say, here's the Checkl i st that was adopted, and you don't have it here. You coul d have ended him right there. MRS. YORK-I'm going to add your motion to the top of the Checkl ist. just so you know that all items have to be addressed for people to come before this Board. MR. TURNER-Okay. MRS. YORK-It's really going to cut down on your work, folks. MRS. GOETZ-It will. MR. KELLEY-Anything that they don't do, can we possibly send them back? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARR-Well, if they don't do it, Lee, it should never get here. MRS. YORK-Yes. When the Planning Board instituted their Checklist and requirements. there were a lot of people who were quite unhappy for a while, and it took about two to three months and all of a sudden, every application came in perfect. There were no questions that had to be asked. We didn't have to, like, the first applicant, I had to chase him allover town, and his agent, and finally he brought in elevations, which were still no good for your use. I sent him away to address the Checklist a second time and he still didn't come back with the appropriate information. So, I think if people are put off for a month because they don't have the appropriate information, their neighbors hear about it. and ultimately, everyone does address it. MR. TURNER-Do you want to include that site location and location map on the Checklist? MR. KELLEY-I would think it ought to be there. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. KELLEY-The other thing I wonder about is a one inch equals forty foot scale. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KELLEY-I mean, you could get a guy with an acre of land and his, no, one inch equals forty foot i sn' t. MRS. YORK-Would you rather have it just a map to scale, rather than, why don't we do that. I think you've had that problem a number of times with plans, where they have not been accurate measurements and there have been, it's been questionable whether further variances were needed because of that. MR. CARR-What about, reasonable scale? That way it gives you a little leeway, that if they bring in, I mean, if you just say to scale. they can bring in the little picture and say, it's to scale, but if it's reasonable, they know that you've got to make it so you can read it. 27 -- '- MRS. YORK-Okay. MR. TURNER-Reasonable scale. MR. KELLEY-Yes, because most construction things, well most. houses, in general are all quarter inch, but if you get a guy with a hundred acre piece of property, that's going to be, obviously, a different scale. MR. CARR-Well, like that plan John brought in, was one to thirty, that was good. It was big enough. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARR-Then you can look at the map, and if it's obvious you can't read it because it's too small, you could say, this is not reasonable. MR. TURNER-Well, the scale is going to have to address the size of the property. That's what it's got to do. That's all you need. Okay. So, we're going to add, drawn to scale. preferably one inch equals forty feet, but we're going to change that to reasonable scale, and then we're going to add site direction and location map. Lee, have you got that letter in reference to Rappaport? Maybe, as a Board. we ought to discuss whether we think that's it or not. MRS. YORK-Okay. Well, if it's possible for me, at this point in time, to change the advertising, I would like to do it. MR. TURNER-Do you want to read that? That's in reference to the Rappaport variance for the next meeting. MRS. GOETZ-Do you want me to read it? MR. TURNER-Yes. I want everybody to understand what we're talking about when we get there. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. This is the variance request to Area Variance No. 55-1991, Rappaport, at Assembly Point, this is to Pat Crayford from Lee York. "As you told me, Mr. Rappaport had previous variances on this property. On June 20th, 1984, the Rappaports were granted an area variance for an expansion to their camp. The camp was plus or minus 30 feet by 28 feet, for a total of 840 square feet. The bedrooms which were added were 12 by 20, or 240 square feet, and 14 by 25, 350 square feet, respectively totaling 590 square feet of addition. On December 18th, 1985, the Rappaports received a variance for a library addition of 13 feet by 13, 169 square feet. Mr. Rappaports original structure was 840 square feet. At his first variance, he added 590 square feet. At his second, 169 square feet was added. This makes a total of 759 square feet added to his original structure. Mr. Rappaport is now requesting to add another bedroom whi ch woul d be 10 feet by 20, or 240 square feet. Mr. Rappaport has completed an application which reflects your referral sheet and requests a shorel ine setback variance. However, in the Ordinance, Section 179-79A 2, it states, no enlargement or rebuilding shall exceed an aggregate of 50 percent of the gross floor area of such single family dwell ing or mobile home immediately prior to commencement of the first enlargement or rebuilding. Do you think that Mr. Rappaport also needs a variance for an expansion over 50 percent of his original structure? I need your immediate attention in this matter as the advertising has gone out, and this will change the complexity of his environmental revi eWe " MR. KELLEY-It sounds like it, doesn't it? MR. TURNER-That's what I said. MR. CARR-Well. I agree, but I've got a question for Karla, going way back, that we made a new Ordinance in '88. Does that mean all the others are by the wayside, so we take the buildings as of '88? MS. CORPUS-I believe this Board, and I'm not really sure, has previously calculated 50 percent quotations as relating to previous variances, if they could find them, if they were of record and findable. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, I seem to recall that. The other observation I would make for the Board is that if Mr. Rappaport does need another variance, there are a couple of choices. The first would be to proceed with the appl i cation on that one particul ar vari ance, as is, as it was adverti sed, as the Zoning Administrator has not had a chance to respond, or give the applicant and the Board the opportunity to table it for re-advertisement of the additional variance, but at this time, since the Zoning Administrator has not made a determination, the question of the necessity of the variance is still in issue. MR. CARR-Well, if it's the Board's position, though, that if we find old variances and it adds up to more than 50 percent, if that's our position, I don't think we have to wait for Mrs. Crayford, do we? MRS. YORK-Well, I'll tell you my reasoning for bringing it up to the Chairman this evening. I was hopeful that I could add, if it was felt to be necessary, I could add this variance in the public advertising and get them on their way and have the applicant do the necessary Long Environmental Assessment Form, because if it becomes necessary for them to have the 50 percent expansion, then it is a Type I action and then we start this process between you and the Planning Board. which can be lengthy in and of itself. So, if I could expedite this matter, I thought I would. ?R ',- MS. CORPUS-Did the Zoning Administrator do a Checklist on this? MRS. YORK-She doesn't do Checklists for the ZBA. MS. CORPUS-Well, there is. There is a general Checklist she does everything for, not the Planning Board Checklist, but the. MRS. YORK-Karla, excuse me. Attached to that memo, I believe I. MS. CORPUS-I don't have a copy. MRS. YORK-I know that. Is there a referral sheet attached? MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. YORK-What is her determination, please? MR. TURNER-The reason for review Section 7.012 Shoreline setback, and Section 9.010 Nonconforming structure. MS. CORPUS-That's not the expansion section, 9.010? MRS. YORK-No. That's for site plan review. MR. TURNER-That's the section under the enlargement, 50 percent. 9.010. MS. CORPUS-So then she made the determination that it was necessary? MR. TURNER-Is that right, continuation, 9.011. MRS. YORK-It was continuation of a nonconforming use, which requires site plan review. It isn't the 50 percent. MR. TURNER-That's the continuation. 9.011 is the 50 percent. MS. CORPUS-She said 9.010? MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-But the part about the 50 percent is 9.011. MS. CORPUS-Okay. If the Board determines that, from that referral sheet, it can make a determination that the Zoning Administrator has reviewed the Ordinance and has not found that that variance would be necessary and the Board disagrees with that interpretation, the Board can make a decision. MRS. GOETZ-Then it seems like we do need to address Section 9.011, and we should be trying to help the applicants expedite and. MS. CORPUS-Because the Board has only appellate power, in this instance, if you find that by making out the referral form, the Zoning Administraior has, in fact, made a determination and that determination is singular in stating the variances that were necessary, and that you find that there was one lacking, with your appellate power, you can reverse her decision. She would have said a variance wasn't necessary on this, inferring from the referral form, if the Board chooses to make a different determination can do so. MRS. GOETZ-When is the advertising going to be done? MRS. YORK-It's already at the paper. We have to send it in 10 days in advance, but I can rush down there tomorrow. MRS. GOETZ-When is she coming back? MRS. YORK-She will be back tomorrow, but I know she has meetings all morning. I don't know what her schedule is in the afternoon. I don't know when she will have time to address this. MR. CARR-Well, it seems to me that it would be better just to advertise it and have the applicant do the Long Form, even if we don't need it, because there's a real question. and I think the Board's probably think that we do need it. MS. CORPUS-There's nothing, legally, to prevent that. If the Board determines, or the Zoning Administrator, if someone determines it's not necessary, then that would be a lesser variance then the one advertised for and there isn't a problem, with regard to the public hearing, on that. 29 - -- MRS. GOETZ-I can't imagine that Pat wouldn't want to do the right thing by the applicant. MR. CARR-I can't imagine the applicant wouldn't want to do it, just to be. MRS. GOETZ-Right. So. I feel that we should determine that we do need variance from S ction 9.011, in addition to those others mentioned on the referral. MR. TURNER-That's the way I felt when Lee first gave it to me. I told her right off t at we needed a. MRS. GOETZ-And that it should be advertised as such. MR. TURNER-As such. right. MRS. GOETZ-And that's a motion. MOTION THAT WE SIDILD DETERMINE THAT WE 00 NEED A VARIANCE FROM SECTIOII 9.011, IN ADDITION TO THE OTHERS MENTIONED ON THE REFERRAL AND THAT IT SHOULD BE ADVERTISED AS SUCH, Introduced by Susan G etz who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bruce Carr: Duly adopted this 17th day of July, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sicard, Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Carr, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea MRS. EGGLESTON-I have a question, with the new Checklist, does that guarantee that we'll t get anymore applications that don't have the dimensions, like on the septic tank and whatnot? Becau e I must say, I've seen men stand out here, now I'm not saying just because it was a women, but I kn w on a lot of occasions. we've had a man stand up here and somebody will say, Joe, how far away i your septic? God. Ted, that's 20 feet away, and we take it, and tonight, we refused to believe th s woman. You see, I think we should stay consistent, and that Mr. Mayer tonight, we had to redo hi whole thing. It's not fair. MRS. YORK-You have now given the Staff the ability to say to people, we're very sorry, but your plan is not complete. Unless, would you pass a motion telling Staff to determine, using he Checklist, whether an application is complete, okay, before it gets to you? MR. TURNER-Yes, we can do that. MRS. YORK-That's a motion. MR. TURNER-That's a motion. MOTION TO TELL THE STAFF TO DETERMINE, USING THE CHECKLIST, WHETHER AN APPLICATI Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Susan Goetz: IS COWLETE, Duly adopted this 17th day of July, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Carr, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea MRS. YORK-And then we're all covered. Thank you, Mrs. Eggleston. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Theodore Turner, Chairman 30