Loading...
1991-09-18 .,- ~EENSIIIRY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS tEETING FIRST REGULAR JEETING SEPTEMBER 18TH, 1991 INDEX Area Variance No. 66-1991 Dr. Al Kristensen 1. Area Variance No. 63-1991 Robert & Elizabeth Dalaba 2. Area Variance No. 57-1991 Richard R. Senese 2. Sign Variance No. 69-1991 Adicommco, Inc. 7. Area Variance No. 70-1991 Haanen Packard Machinery 7. Area Variance No. 71-1991 Nathan E. Bertolet 9. Use Variance No. 72-1991 Chairmaine Silipigno 16. Use Variance No. 73-1991 Robert L. & Shirley C. Hauser 30. Area Variance No. 74-1991 Robert L. & Shirley C. Hauser 38. Area Variance No. 75-1991 Joyce & Art Buckley 38. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. '---- ~EENSIIIRY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 18TH, 1991 7:30 P.M. JEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN SUSAN GOETZ, SECRETARY BRUCE CARR JOYCE EGGLESTON MICHAEL SHEA CHARLES SICARD ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-PAT CRAYFORD TOWN ATTORNEY-PAUL DUSEK SENIOR PLANNER- LEE YORK STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD IIISINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 66-1991 TYPE II lIR-lA DR. AL KRISTENSEN OIlIER: SAME AS ABOVE FITZGERALD ROAD FOR AN ADDITION OF A Z8 FT. BY Z8 FT. STRUCTURE WHICH DOES NOT MEET THE 75 FT. SHORELINE SETBACKS, THE SIDE YARD SETBACKS AND IS AN EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING USE. (WARREN coom PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 41-1-25 LOT SIZE: 0.31 ACRES SECTION 179-16 SECTION 179-79 SECTION 179-60 DANIEL BARBER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. GOETZ-The Queensbury Pl anning Board made a motion to the Zoning Board regarding Site Pl an No. 46-91 "Passing along our SEQRA Review with the stipulation that the three lots be joined as one lot, thereby el iminating the need for the side yard variance." And I bel ieve the Queensbury Pl anning Board had a negative declaration as to any negative impact. MR. TURNER-Okay. With that, we'll have a motion to accept the resolution of the Queensbury Planning Board, as to the SEQRA Review of the property. MOTION TO ACCEPT THE RESOLUTION OF THE QUEENSIIIRY PLANNING BOARD AS TO THE SEQRA REVIEW OF THE PROPERTY, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Susan Goetz: Duly adopted this 18th day of September, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shea, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE MR. TURNER-All right. Now we need a motion to approve the variance request by the applicant. MR. CARR-Didn't we want some proof of ownership or whatever? MR. TURNER-We did. MR. CARR-Did we get it? MR. TURNER-We haven't yet. Dan, could you address that. I think we left it, at the time of permit. MR. CARR-At the time of permit? Okay. MR. BARBER-At the time of permit, yes. MR. CARR-All right. MR. TURNER-Okay. Yes. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 66-1991 DR. AL KRISTENSEN, Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: And grant the applicant a variance of 46 feet from the required 75 foet shoreline setback, conditioned on the happening of two events. The first event would be the transfer of the property located to the east owned by Mary Ellen Kristensen to the applicant, and the second condition would be the transfer 1 of the 25 foot strip currently owned by Mr. Price immediately to the west of the property to the applicant. The granting of this variance is not detrimental to the purposes of the Ordinance nor will it create a structure that is substantially different than those in the area. That's also granting the applicant relief for a more than 50 percent expansion of a nonconforming residential structure. This variance will have no detrimental effect on public facilities or services and it is the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the difficulty indicated by the applicant's agent. Duly adopted this 18th day of September, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Carr, Mr. Shea, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE AREA VARIANCE NO. 63-1991 TYPE II SFR-lA ROBERT & ELIZABETH DALABA OWNER: SAtE AS ABOVE CORNER OF AVIATION ROAD AND CROIIMJOD LANE FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A 24 FT. ROOND, 4 FT. DEEP ABOVE GROONO SWIIlUNG POOL IN WHAT IS CONSIDERED TO BE A FRONT YARD. THIS IS NOT A PERMITTED USE IN AN SFR DE. TAX IMP NO. 82-2-3.1 LOT SIZE: 1.3 ACRES SECTION 179-67 B MR. TURNER-Did she just phone in, or, we have the letter? MRS. YORK-Yes. I sent the Board a letter regarding this. I talked to Mrs. Dalaba when she did not come in to see me right away, and she indicated she would need until October to get in the information requested by the Board. MR. TURNER-All right. tÐTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 63-1991 ROBERT & ELIZABETH DALABA, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: Tabled by the applicant until October. Duly adopted this 18th day of September, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Shea, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE MRS. YORK-Mr. Chairman, you'll want the public hearing left open on this. MR. TURNER-We'll leave it open. MRS. YORK-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 57-1991 TYPE II lIR-lA RICHARD R. SENESE OWNER: SAtE AS ABOVE GLEN LAKE ROAD TO JAY ROAD RE~EST TO IIIILD A 7 FT. BY 32 FT. DECK ONTO EXISTING CONCRETE APRON. TIE DECK OLD BE WITHIN 17.5 FT. OF GLEN LAKE. (WARREN COONTY PLANNING) TAX IV NO. 43-1-21 LOT SIZE: 11,000 SQ. FT. SECTION 7.012, SHORELINE SETBACK (179-60) RICHARD R. SENESE MRS. GOETZ-This was tabled until the first September meeting of the ZBA and we were requiring that "the applicant supply the Planning Department with a stamped survey map no later than September 10th, and by this motion, we would be extending the date by which the applicant, Richard R. Senese, must have his application completed." Did we receive this information? MR. TURNER-No, not that I'm aware of. MRS. YORK-The information was not received by my office on the date specified. MR. TURNER-Has he forwarded even since then? MRS. YORK-No. I have not received any information from the applicant. MR. TURNER-Mr. Senese, you're here. Would you care to answer to any of these? MR. SENESE-Only that I brought in this map to Mrs. York, well, shortly after the August meeting, or July meeting, the same survey map that I got with the deed to my property, and that I had put an addition on back in '82 with, and everything sufficed at that time. It's a surveyed map, and I investigated into a couple of more surveys, Bill O'Rourke as one and Steves, I think Mr. Turner suggested, and he wanted $8, $900 and he didn't feel as though it was necessary because the pipes and so on were always there in the first place and it was unnecessary. I went out and re-measured the distances that were in dispute back in July and I submitted them to Lee York, and that's all I've done since then. I wasn't on the agenda for last month. 2 -'" MR. TURNER-He's submitted another form, there, with the different measurements on it. Was it in the fi1 e? MR. SENESE-I think it was 17 and a half feet from the iake and 8 feet from the side property. MRS. GOETZ-Because before it was 24 feet from the iake. MR. TURNER-Yes. There it is right there. Eight feet from the side iine on one side? MR. SENESE-Yes. MR. TURNER-Seventeen six from the iake? MR. SENESE-Yes. MR. TURNER-Twenty one feet on the other side? MR. SENESE-Yes. Again, I contacted another surveyor, and he didn't feei as though it was necessary for this purpose anyway to re-survey the iand. I mean, I received this map with the property when I bought it back in '81, and in '82 I put an addition on with the same map. In fact, it shouid be on record down at the Town Board somewhere, or Municipai Buiiding, as far as the distances. MR. TURNER-Ail right. MR. SENESE-If there was any question in my mind as to the property Îines and so forth, naturaliy, I wouid have the thing surveyed. I mean, I certainiy have far more invested in the property than this deck that's in question for the iast two or three months. MR. CARR-Mr. Senese, couid I see the map? MR. SENESE-Yes. This is the map that I received with the deed. In fact, I even ran the word description of where the pipes were iocated and I submitted that to Lee York. MR. CARR-Okay. Is this your iot? MR. SENESE-Yes. MR. CARR-Number Three? MR. SENESE-Yes. Right here, and there's a 10 foot cut out that goes down 80 foot. That was bought off of Acardi, before I moved there. MR. CARR-Okay. MR. SENESE-That's included in the deed and so on. In fact, this map is an oid map, but it's a stamped map. Again, we're not discussing a iot of acreage, here. You're at, maybe, 60 foot of iake frontage by a coupie of hundred feet deep there. MR. CARR-Yes. MR. TURNER-Do you feei comfortabie addressing what he's got there? MR. CARR-I'm trying to recaii, now the issue was the? MRS. EGGLESTON-The neighbor disagreed with the lines. MR. CARR-The lot lines, right? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. SENESE-Weli, he had in question, I think, the distance from his iine over, and he was correct in what he said, two months ago when he was here, and I re-measured the distance, and I think I had 15 feet from the side line and it turned out to be eight feet, but in any event, I went out and made sure that those distances were correct. MR. CARR-So what is it now, eight foot instead of sixteen? MR. SENESE-From the side, yes, and 17 and a haif foot from the road. MR. CARR-Is that the Miiier's side? MR. SENESE-Yes. That's right. 3 ----- '--' MR. CARR-That map, it's a survey to Char1ie. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. SENESE-It is. Well, a11 of that 1and was owned by him back in 1950, '55. MR. TURNER-Char1ie owned it at one time. MR. CARR-I don't have a prob1em with that map as a survey. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. SENESE-That was when I think Char1ie subdivided, in fact, I even ran a copy for him that he had 10st a10ng the way, but, 1ike I say, back in '82, I submitted the same exact map when we took the roof off and put the addition on, at far more expense than this, and there was no prob1em with the thing. MR. TURNER-Is that the same one you've got right here? MR. SENESE-Yes. The one that I drew the house on is just a blown up version of this lot right here. MR. TURNER-Number Three, right. MR. SENESE-42-3-or whatever. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. SENESE-But that's Sicard's property way back. The pipes and so forth, indicating the boundaries, have been there since we moved there 10 years ago. MR. TURNER-Maria, do you have the copy of the minutes of Ju1y? I 1eft that pubHc hearing open, I'm a1most positive. MS. GAGLIARDI-No. MRS. CRAYFORD-I've got Ju1y's minutes buried here somewhere. MR. TURNER-Okay. We're going to accept what he presented. I'n open the pub1ic hearing once again. Do you have any further questions before we start the public hearing? MRS. GOETZ-I do. Joyce and I went back to 100k at it again, and it seemed that there was some new framing up that didn't seem to be there at the time of the 1ast site inspection. Has anyone from the Town gone out? MRS. CRAYFORD-I went out before the 1ast meeting. MRS. GOETZ-Before Ju1y? MRS. CRAYFORD-Before the August meeting. MRS. GOETZ-Before August? MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-Was the framing up then? MRS. CRAYFORD-It's on a11 together. It's not tota11y nai1ed together. MRS. GOETZ-No. I know the boards on the top aren't nai1ed down, but there's, Hke, this framing an the way around that I didn't see before. MRS. EGGLESTON-When we were there, they just 1aid on the ground. MRS. GOETZ-When it a11 started, they had some framing going from the house down the bank, and now these boards are 1aying on that framing. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. SENESE-Unailed. MRS. GOETZ-Is the framing a vi01ation? I know the boards, because they're not nailed down, technica11y. MR. SENESE-We11, that's when we stopped, after the second stop order. 4 '-- MRS. CRAYFORD-Right. I wou1dn't say the framing is in vi01ation. No. That's just 1ittle side boards. There's no rea1 structure there yet. MRS. EGGLESTON-It supports the wh01e deck. MRS. CRAYFORD-I know that, but it's not yet a structure. Right now it is just. MRS. EGGLESTON-But they were nai1ed together. The framing is nai1ed together. MRS. CRAYFORD-But they're not yet a structure, a fu11 structure. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MRS. CRAYFORD-That's just my opinion, too. MR. TURNER-Any other questions? MR. SHEA-So, you think the deck is ha1f comp1eted, then, at this point, it 100ks that way? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, other than nai1ing down the f100r boards. MR. TURNER-That's what they're saying. Any amenities 1aying on the deck, 1ike chairs, a gas gri11? MR. SENESE-Yes. There's a table out there, a summer tab1e, that's a11. Not the grill, no. That's a11 on the concrete portion. There's just a tab1e, a summer tab1e. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. SENESE-Some f10wers my wife put out there so people wou1dn't fan off the sides, because there's no rai1ing or anything. MR. TURNER-Right. Any further questions? If not, I'll open the pub1ic hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COJlENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Any further questions of Mr. Senese? MR. CARR-We've determined this is not a rep1acement deck, right? MR. TURNER-It's not. We went through that the 1ast time, because I asked him what he had there before, and he said he had boards 1aying on the grass, a11 right. That's not a structure of any kind. Okay. MR. SHEA-This was a meeting that I was absent from, but is the major issue the setback from the 1ake? MR. TURNER-The setback from the 1ake, 75 feet. It used to be 50. Now, it's 75. MR. SHEA-And there was no preexisting deck? MR. TURNER-No. MRS. CRAYFORD-Mr. Chairman, I'd 1ike to ask Mr. Senese, have the footings been poured? MR. SENESE-No, they haven't. The temporary's to h01d the show in the ground, there. No, that's where I he1d off, when I submitted the footing drawings to Dave Hatin. No, nothing's been done since then. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. CARR-I guess my fee1ing is I don't 1ike anything going c10ser to the 1ake. It's just, the who1e Town has made a commitment that that's a very environmentany critica1 area and that's why they put the setback at 75. Now, there's a 10t of things that we can't do, we can't change, because G1en Lake is overcrowded and it's very c10se to the lake, but my own persona1 feelings, I just don't like to see things go c10ser to the 1ake. I mean, we've had peop1e come in with variances, but it seems that they've either gone a little further back or stayed the same, and I guess my feeJing wou1d be I'd, persona11y, Jike to stick with that position about not encroaching further on that 1ake with any structure. MR. TURNER-Anyone else? 5 MRS. EGGLESTON-Ted, are you satisfied with the side 1ine, you know what the protest, the neighbors said the last time. I mean, granted, he brought a map this week, but he never did bring us an actual survey that shows the pin markings and that his, the deck and the house in proportion to the side line and we're going from what he put down to begin with of 16 feet. Now, this week he tens us eight, and I know the neighbor didn't come again tonight, but are you satisfied with the side line being correct, from just that map? MR. SENESE-~ stairs, as you know, Mrs. Eggleston, run right down the property line. They were there, existing, when we bought the property, and I'm in eight feet from that. The stairs divided the property. Now, when the previous owner put the stairs there, I don't know what the Ordinances were back then, but, as you walk down those stairs, as you did the two times you were there, that is a dividing 1ine, and I came in purposely set back from that eight feet, and there's shrubbery and trees as you've seen when you were over there. MRS. EGGLESTON-I think it just doesn't paint a good picture when you give us sixteen feet to begin with, and then say eight. You should get them right to begin with. MR. SENESE-Well, like I said, it was an error on my part. That's all I can say about that. MRS. YORK-If I may address the Board, the Miller's did call me and ask about this particular application and I indicated to them that nothing had been submitted by the Town, and, therefore, I didn't anticipate that there would be any action taken tonight, because they did have concerns about this particular app1ication. MRS. EGGLESTON-I feel it really should be submitted to the Town, first, so that you have a chance to look at it, too, and give your thoughts, if you wanted to give us more notes tonight, and you weren't given that opportunity. MRS. GOETZ-Plus, the measurements still don't add up. MRS. CRAYFORD-I was just going to say, is that the same as we've been working with all along? MRS. EGGLESTON-That's all I have. MRS. GOETZ-Yes. It looks like it's 57 across. MRS. CRAYFORD-Lee's notes reflect this. So, she really doesn't have anything new to work with anyway. MR. TURNER-No. MRS. CRAYFORD-Is the motion from the last meeting on the table, that you could read it? MR. TURNER-Yes, we read it. MRS. GOETZ-What it was was just requiring a stamped survey map, no later than September 10th. MRS. CRAYFORD-Right. MRS. GOETZ-I don't think it's fair to the concerned neighbors, if we address it, especially if they've been told that it wasn't going to be addressed, and the measurements don't seem to add up. MRS. CRAYFORD-That's right. MR. SENESE-I think it's about 65 is the lake frontage. Of course, it's at a diagonal there, too. MRS. GOETZ-But we can't have "about", as we discussed before. MR. SENESE-Well, 64.5, whatever the survey, it says right here, it's 53.2 plus 10.64, which is 63.85. When I say "about 64" that's 63.85. That's taken from this map right here. MR. TURNER-Okay, right here. MR. SENESE-The confusing part, probably, is that little 10.64 foot jog out. MR. TURNER-It's the straight line instead of a, that divides that segment from that segment, that throws you off. MR. SENESE-If you were to go over and put a tape measure, I mean, you're not talking a lot of distance, there. You would see that that's what it is. 17 feet 6 inches back from the shoreline and, again, it runs at a diagonal, and then 8 feet back from the side line. 6 MR. TURNER-All right. I would move to table, until the neighbors have their input. MR. CARR-Mr. Turner, may I take a poll of the Board, because if the motion of the Board is to deny, there's no sense in tabling and bringing Mr. Senese back. MR. TURNER-All right. MR. CARR-I don't know. If people want to discuss this further, that's fine, then we should table it and open a public hearing, but just to, I would like to make a motion to deny and see where it goes. MR. TURNER-All right. Go ahead. tÐTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 57-1991 RICHARD R. SENESE, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: The request for the construction of the deck and patio at a distance of 17 and a half feet from Glen Lake would be detrimental to the purposes of the Ordinance. The drafters of the new Ordinance have determined this to be an environmentally critical area and therefore placed a 75 foot setback restriction on any new construction. For those reasons, I would move that this application be denied. Duly adopted this 18th day of September, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Shea, Mr. Sicard NEIl IIISINESS: SIGN VARIANCE NO. 69-1991 TYPE: UNLISTED lIC-lA ADICOJII:O, INC. (litER: MARTIN A. SEELEY 235 ~AIŒR ROAD FOR RE-CONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING SIGN, RETAINING THE SAlE SIZE AND HEIGHT AS THE CURRENTLY EXISTING SIGN. THE SIGN WILL BE 40 FT. IN LENGTH, 8 FT. IN WIDTH MO 10 FT. IN HEIGHT. (WARREN COONTY PLANNING) TAX MP NO. 110-5-2 LOT SIZE: N/A SECTION: SIGN ORDINANCE MR. TURNER-Under New Business, Sign Variance No. 69-1991 has been tabled by the applicant. We'll read the request. MRS. GOETZ-This is from Philip Cortese, representing Adicommco, Inc. "Due to a conflict in my schedule, I respectfully request a postponement of the ZBA hearing scheduled in the above matter tonight until your October meeting. Please notify me of the date in October. Would you also confirm in writing that the action taken by the Planning Board at their September 11th, 1991 meeting was a No County Impact decision. tÐTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 69-1991 ADICOJII:O, INC., Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: Tabled by the applicant for reasons stated in the letter. Duly adopted this 18th day of September, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Shea, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE AREA VARIANCE NO. 70-1991 TYPE II LI-lA HAANEN PACKARD MCHINERY MER: DONNA HAANEN 253 BAY STREET FOR A 3,200 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO THE EXISTING III ILOI NG. ADDITION WILL BE USED FOR MCHINE FABRICATION MO ASSEMBLY. FORMER VARIANCE LAPSED. (WARREN coom PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 107-2-1, 2, 3 LOT SIZE: 0.97 ACRES SECTION 176-26, SETBACK RE~IREtENTS MR. HAANEN, PRESENT MRS. GOETZ-I'm supposed to use the same notes from 1990? MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. YORK-If the Board chooses to do that. If you choose just to look at your motion from the past, that's fine with me. I just didn't feel that there were any changes in that area. MRS. GOETZ-Right. Okay. Do you want me to read this motion, then, from 1990? MR. TURNER-Well, I think you ought to read, no. I think maybe we ought to. 7 -/ MRS. GOETZ-Read this from 1990? MR. TURNER-No. I think we can just refer to it, but I think you ought to read the notes, here, just so if there's anybody here that wants to be heard. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. These notes are from the Staff, and they're dated June 27th, 1990, and concerning this Area Variance. STAFF NOTES Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Area Variance No. 49-1990, Haanen Packard Machinery, June 27, 1990, Meeting Date: June 27, 1990 "The request is to reduce the minimum yard setbacks in the Light Industrial 1 Acre zone. The setbacks are 50 foot front, and 30 foot side and rear in the Light Industrial zone. The plan presented shows a 21 foot setback on the front and 24 feet at the rear. After review of the plan it would appear that the building could be turned on the lot so that a variance was not necessary. There is room on the lot to relocate the parking and the building to be in conformance with the Ordinance. The application states that the special conditions on the lot are the fact that the preexisting buildings do not meet setbacks. Since there is room on the property to place the proposed building this is irrelevant. The applicant currently has reasonable use of the property. The statement in the application is that "to maintain function use and to be cost effective the addition must be of the size and location shown". This does not address the reasonable use test. Neither does it address what the applicants practical difficulty is." MR. TURNER-Okay. Mr. Haanen? MR. HAANEN-I might say that this is the third time that we've applied for the variance. In '87 or '88, we applied for a similar building. I can't remember, it was a little bit different, and it was approved and my partner, Packard, died about a month or two later, and we lost heart, and last year we applied again, and we just missed the date, by mistake. We designed the building and got the energy thing all straightened out and laid on a desk and we brought it down. We were about five days late, something like that. I forget. It was about a week late. So, that we hope that we could reinstate the, we haven't changed anything at all from last year when it was approved. MR. TURNER-Okay. Maybe now would be the time to read that, just fill in the information, some of the people. MRS. GOETZ-This motion was made by Jeff Kelley and seconded by Ted Turner, "The applicant does have a practical difficulty in two areas. One is the triangular shaped property. Because of the shape and required setbacks, it gives him limited area to build in. This small area is a handicap. The other is practical difficulty and that is the manner in which his business functions, the material fabrication business, and requires a particular flow of materials. The flow would be disrupted by adhering to the Zoning Ordinance. It wouldn't allow him to conduct business efficiently. The applicant has purchased adjoining property to provide parking and green area. To the rear of the property, it is presently a railroad. Should this property become available, the applicant would try to purchase some of this. This is not an unreasonable request. It fits in with the purpose of the Light Industrial zone. The specific request is for 21 foot setback on the front which would be a relief of 29 feet. Also, a 24 foot setback on the rear, a relief of 6 feet. This appears to be the minimum relief for the relief of the practical difficulty. Public services and facilities will not be adversely effected. Both of these setbacks are more in conformance than preexisting buildings." And the motion was approved unanimously. MR. TURNER-All right. Any other questions of Mr. Haanen? MRS. EGGLESTON-Ted, are we allowed to just make a motion to extend that for a year, that motion? MR. TURNER-Well, we can incorporate the setbacks in a new motion and still pass it by the Board. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. TURNER-Okay. I'll open a public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COtlENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE MRS. GOETZ-We have a note from Merritt Scoville, 51 Garrison Road, "I have no objection to Haanen addition as all of property east of Bay Road has been industrial for many years." This letter's from Michael 8 --- Muller of Carusone and Muller, "Myse1f and my partners, John S. Carusone and Robert J. Muller, as owners of 250 Bay Road, just north of and across the street from Haanen Packard Machinery wish to express to the ZBA that we are in favor of the granting of a variance to Haanen Packard Machinery for a 3200 square foot addition to their existing buiJding. We understand that the addition wiJl be utiJ ized for machine fabrication and assembly and we further understand that a former variance was granted some time ago, but lapsed. We think that Haanen Packard Machinery is a good neighbor in the area and their buiJding is well maintained and fits within the mixed professional, 1 ight industrial, and residential uses along our area of Bay Road. We encourage each and everyone of the Board members to vote for an approval of the requested variance." MR. TURNER-Okay. Motion's in order. MR. CARR-Can we make that motion? MRS. EGGLESTON-Can we do that same one? MR. TURNER-Yes. tÐTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 70-1991 HAAIIEN PACKARD MACHINERY, Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: The applicant does have a practical difficulty in two areas. One is the triangular shaped property. Because of the shape and required setbacks, it gives him limited area to buiJd in. This small area is a handicap. The other is practical difficulty and that is the manner in which his business functions, the material fabrication business, and requires a particular flow of materials. The flow would be disrupted by adhering to the Zoning Ordinance. It wouldn't anow him to conduct business efficiently. The appl icant has purchased adjoining property to provide parking and green area. To the rear of the property, it is presently a railroad. Should this property become avaiJable, the applicant would try to purchase some of this. This is not an unreasonable request. It fits in with the purpose of the Light Industrial zone. The specific request is for 21 foot setback on the front which would be a relief of 29 feet. Also, a 24 foot setback on the rear, a relief of 6 feet. This appears to be the minimum relief for the relief of the practical difficulty. Public services and facilities will not be adversely effected. Both of these setbacks are more in conformance than preexisting buiJdings, and there is no neighborhood opposition. Duly adopted this 18th day of September, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shea, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE MR. HAANEN-Thank you very much. MR. TURNER-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 71-1991 TYPE II lIR-lA NATHAN E. BERTOLET OWNER: SAlE AS ABOVE BRAYTON LANE, ASSEMBLY POINT FOR AN ADDITION OF A GARAGE WHICH WILL NOT JEET SHORELINE AID SIDE YARD SETBACKS AND IS AN EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. (WARREN COONTY PLANNING) TAX IMP NO. 6-3-12 LOT SIZE: 0.13 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-60, 179-79 NATHAN BERTOLET, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Area Variance No. 71-1991, Nathan Bertolet, September, 17, 1991, Meeti ng Date: September 18, 1991 "The appl icant requests to buil d a garage on a .13 acre lot on Brayton Lane on Assembly Point. The lot received a previous variance under the name of Sandsmark (Var. 1374) on June 15, 1988. The resolution is attached. Sometime after that a large deck was added, it would appear without any review. This brought the structure closer to the lake shore and further violated the sideyard setback. The applicant purchased the property in July of 1991. The applicant intends to remove a portion of the deck to create a garage. The garage would be ± 14 feet from the lake in a critical environmental area. This application was reviewed with regard to the criteria for an area variance: 1. Describe the practical difficulty which does not allow placement of a structure which meets the zoning requirements. The lot is substandard. There is no location to place a garage without violating the setbacks. The property is bordered on one side by Brayton Lane and the other by Lake George. The property was purchased about 3 months ago by the appl i cant and thi s coul d be considered a self created hardship. 2. Is this the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the specific practical difficulty or is there any other option available which would require no variance? A one car garage might take up less room. The applicant might be able to purchase land on the other side of Brayton Lane for construction of a garage. There is also the possibility of renting a garage for the winter months. 3. Would this variance be detrimental to the other properties in the district or neighborhood or conflict with the objectives of any plan or policy of the Town? Yes. The Comprehensive Land Use 9 --- Plan discourages expansions along the lake shore because of storm water runoff and associated lake quality reduction. This is a Critical Environmental Area. 4. What are the effects of the variance on public facilities and services? None. 5. Is this request the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty? This is a question for the Board and applicant to review." MRS. GOETZ-Was the deck there when you bought the house? MR. BERTOLET-Yes. You're talking that little shed? MRS. GOETZ-No, the deck. MR. BERTOLET-The deck? Yes. MR. CARR-Warren County disapproved. MR. TURNER-Yes. That means we need a majority plus one to approve it. That camp is on pilings isn't it, Mr. Bertolet? MR. BERTOLET-So they tell me. MR. TURNER-Well, it looks it, you know, after looking at it, now. You've got a small area in the back, here, that you're parking the car on now that's graveled? MR. BERTOLET-That's on the front. MR. TURNER-On the front. MR. BERTOLET-Here's a picture of the. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. BERTOLET-The deck will have to be taken away to build the garage. MR. TURNER-To accommodate, yes. MRS. GOETZ-The whole deck is going to be removed? MR. TURNER-If he gets the. MRS. GOETZ-But I mean isn't it a violation, even if he doesn't get the garage? MRS. EGGLESTON-It was there when he bought it. MRS. GOETZ-It was there when he bought it, but I mean. MRS. CRAYFORD-I don't know when it was put there. MRS. GOETZ-I know, but it seems that it's a violation. MR. TURNER-How long have you owned the place, Mr. Bertolet? MR. BERTOLET-Since the first of July. MR. TURNER-Since the first of July? MR. SHEA-You use the premises for the summer months only, Mr. Bertolet? It's a seasonal residence? MR. BERTOLET-That's right. MR. SHEA-Where do you live the rest of the time? MR. BERTOLET-Florida. MR. SHEA-You don't use that car in Florida? That car stays up here? MR. BERTOLET-No. That stays here. MRS. EGGLESTON-I don't think I understood. Are you taking off the whole deck if you get the garage? Will you remove the whole deck? MR. TURNER-He'll have to. 10 -- MR. BERTOLET-Wen, it probab1y wou1d be. I'm not sure. We haven't gone into that yet. It wn1 be ruined so I imagine it wou1d a11 be taken away. MR. TURNER-It seems to me that at the time the other peop1e app1ied for the variance there was some question as to the soil structure and the ground underneath it at the time. I remember we ta1ked about it. MR. SICARD-When was that, Teddy? MR. TURNER-That was back in. MRS. GOETZ-'88. MR. TURNER-'88, yes. MRS. GOETZ-June 15th. MR. TURNER-I remember the guy coming for the variance, yes. MRS. GOETZ-I do, too. There was a 10t of neighborhood opposition then. MR. TURNER-Yes. The deck that's there, does it just 1ay on top of the ground, or is there some piers there that are poured in with concrete and then the deck is nai1ed? MR. BERTOLET-Well, it 100ks to me as though there are some piers. I'm not sure. MR. TURNER-Yes. It 100ks 1ike it, here, in the front. MRS. GOETZ-The proposa1 is a one car garage? MR. BERTOLET-Yes. MR. TURNER-Yes, 400 square feet, 16 by 25. MRS. GOETZ-In the Staff Input she said something about, it cou1d be reduced to a one car garage. thought it a1ready was. MR. TURNER-It is. MRS. YORK-I think it's a litt1e 1arger than your typica1 one car garage. MR. TURNER-A one car garage is about, what, 14 feet or something, 14 by 20, that's pretty c1ose. Okay. Does anyone have any further questions of the app1icant? None? Okay. Let me open the pub1ic hearing, Mr. Bertolet. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED TOM NESBITT MR. NESBITT-My name is Tom Nesbitt. I'm part owner of the 1and to the east of Mr. Berto1et's. It's a strip of 1and, right-of-way. The prior owner, Sandsmark, purchased the property from my father's estate. As I mentioned at the prior hearing, that property is a11 fi11, and in 1985 or '84, we rep1aced a too1 shed and in the process of digging the ho1es for the concrete pi1ings, there's a perched water tab 1 e on that property. I n other words, there's a 1ayer of son and then a 1 ayer of water and then more son. It's not real1y very sound, and I would, not being an engineer, of course, but I wouldn't think that it wou1d be very substantia1 for having a garage, the weight of a11 of that structure. A1so, the addition of a garage wou1d provide a significant amount of additiona1 impervious materia1 for runoff that wou1d have no p1ace to go except into the 1ake, and during the spring time, when the rain runs off of Brayton Lane across this right-of-way, usuany there ends up being a trench from the runoff, because it's an sand. It's just beach sand that has grass growing on it, and I know that when my grandmother 1ived there, up untn 1984, she didn't choose to drink the water out of the lake, a1though it was tested severa1 times and it was not found to be bad, but she just chose not to drink it, and I think with the addition of another structure or portion of a structure that wou1d provide a harder surface for the rain to runoff direct1y into the lake, that it's not going to improve the quality of the water, and I do know that many of the peop1e in the area do stn1 use the lake for drinking water. I also be1ieve that when the approval for the variance was granted the 1ast time, that a survey was supposed to have been done to show the re1 ationship of the original bun ding, before it was demo1ished, and how the new bunding was going to re1ate to that position, so that there wou1d be no greater vio1ation of a nonconforming use, and since that was not done and I don't know if the present structure has been identified on a survey map to show where it is in re1ationship to the side line setbacks, I wou1d not be in favor of seeing the addition of a garage, bringing it that much c10ser to our common boundary, and one last thing, my grandmother 1ived there, during the summer, from 1937 to 1984, and always parked 11 '-- ~ her car outside, but she did have another place to park it in the winter time, but that driveway where the cars are parked right now has always been a driveway and it's probably the hardest soil in the area, other than the road bed. That's all I have to say. MRS. GOETZ-I'd like to ask you a question. The deck that went in, do you know when that went in? MR. NESBITT-When the house was built. In other words, that was all part of the construction of his house. MR. SHEA-And that was built in '88? MR. NESBITT-Yes. That particular area was all filled in by my grandfather. It's mostly tree stumps and dirt, beach sand to fill in the holes in the spring time, that kind of thing. MR. SHEA-How close is your home or residence, on your property, to the eastern boundary? MR. NESBITT-All we have is just a strip of land that's a right-of-way. MR. SHEA-There's no residence there? MR. NESBITT-There's no structure on that. I think the nearest structure is on the west side, Bob Walden's property. MR. TURNER-Okay. Yes, the old dwelling, the dwelling that they applied for back in '88 appears to be 33 by 26. So, the deck wasn't included. MR. NESBITT-No, and I'd also like to remind you, as I pointed out at that time, that the engineer who prepared all those drawings was not a surveyor and not legally entitled to show those setbacks as accurately as he did. MRS. GOETZ-Didn't it strike you as odd that a deck was built? MR. NESBITT-We had no idea what the plans were, that the Zoning Board finally approved. MRS. GOETZ-But, were you hear at the public hearings? MR. NESBITT-I was here at the hearings, and all that we saw were the drawings, the renderings of the facades. MRS. GOETZ-But that's all that we as a Zoning Board ever see, also. MR. NESBITT-There was no floor plan, at the time, shown. So, I honestly don't know what. MRS. GOETZ-Just for future reference, if this type of thing happens again, it's good to bring it to the attention, that what is built was not what was approved. MR. NESBITT-Well, that's, obviously, water over the dam, at this point. MRS. GOETZ-I know, but I mean, you may run into situations like this again. MR. TURNER-I know we didn't approve a deck. MRS. CRAYFORD-Mr. Chairman, if the deck was not approved as part of that variance, then that deck would be in violation. MRS. GOETZ-Right. That's what I'm. MR. NESBITT-I don't imagine that the present owner would be liable for that, would he? MRS. CRAYFORD-I would think he would have to either. MR. TURNER-He'd have to honor the variance that was given before. MRS. GOETZ-The variance goes with the land. MR. SHEA-He would have to come into compliance, at some point, in some fashion. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. SHEA-Either getting a variance or dismantling it, one or the other, and on that basis, I don't know how we can rule on an additional structure on something that is not in compliance. MRS. EGGLESTON-It's in violation, now. 12 -- MR. TURNER-I think it's apparent that, I guess what you intend to do, Mr. Bertolet, is if you get the variance, you intend to take down the deck that's there. Is that correct? MR. BERTOLET-That's right. MR. TURNER-So, the deck will be removed anyway. MR. BERTOLET-Yes. MR. TURNER-But if you don't get the variance, you're going to be in violation anyway. MR. BERTOLET-Well, that's what I bought. MR. TURNER-All right, okay, just so we understand. Anyone else wish to be heard? BOB WALDEN MR. WALDEN-ft\y name is Bob Walden. I live on Brayton Lane, right next to Mr. Bertolet's property. I've been there 25 years, and I'll confi rm that that deck was buil t as he was buil di ng the house. After he had finished the house, he put the deck on. It was not the only violation that he had. He had another violation which I complained about and it was taken off. He had an outbuilding practically on our line, not within the code, and it was removed by the Town of Queensbury. Just a very quick history, the 1988 zoning review, I was here. I talked against the allowing of a variance because I knew that Mr. Sandsmark, despite the fact that his attorney said that he was going to live there and his family was going to live there, I knew that he was a contractor, and he claimed that that's not what he was doing. He claimed that it was going to be for his family. He built the house, and the day afterwards, he put it up on the market. This is not a personal attack on Bert. He's a new neighbor and we want to get along with him, but we see no justification, when I say "we", you have four letters of neighbors who are directly around this piece of property. All do not want a garage built there. The four letters are in your possession right now. I'm representing myself and the Sharkeys. I don't know if the Sharkeys got a notification, but they live on Assembly Point Road, right, almost directly near Brayton Lane and they are opposed and I'm opposed to the garage being built there, and the reason is that I see no justification whatsoever to take up that entire piece of property with another outbuilding, which sometime in the future would be very easy to make into living space and that worries me a great deal. Not that Bert would do that, but it is possible that someday that will go into somebody else's hands, and then it will be put into making a room or something of that kind. I don't see how the Board can properly, if we have rules in the Town of Queensbury, I don't see how the, or what justification there is, to have another variance on that property, and I would like the Board to turn it down, and so would all the neighbors. Thank you. MR. SHEA-I have a question for you. Are you a year round? MR. WALDEN-I am not. I go back, I stay here about five months out of the year, and I go back to Arizona, where I live, and, as far as I know, Bert does not stay here all year round either, and as I say, this is not personal. This is a matter of principle. Thank you. MR. TURNER-Okay. Anyone else wish to be heard in opposition to this application? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE MRS. GOETZ-There's a letter from Mrs. S. VanValkenberg, Holly Lane. "I object to having a garage built on said property of Nathan Bertolet on Brayton Lane." Gertrude A. Young, "As a neighbor of Mr. Bertolet, I wish to comment his variance application. Referring to the Queensbury description, 'Home of Natural Beauty...A good place to live', this property can provide a beautiful view, right up the lake, but the present nonconforming structure already blocks a large portion of this view, and the addition of a garage would add to the problem. This former wetland property would add to the problem. This former wetland property is small, about one tenth of an acre, and it is already overcrowded with the present structure. The garage should not be added and, hopefully, no approval will be given." Didi Connor, "Thank you for your call today, attached is my response. I am a long time resident of Assembly Point and am concerned with the changes in the quality of the lake itself. It is my hope that through communi ty awareness, we can preserve what we have. I am worki ng to promote a low salt area around the lake on roads with obvious runoff. It is a system used in many residential areas, including the Massachusetts Turnpike. If you have the opportunity to consider this, please give it some positive thoughts." 13 -- Florence Connor, "I wish to speak against granting the variance. The property is of 1 imited space and has very little area left for absorption of runoff from the existing structures. With an addition, there will be less percentage of the existing property available for absorption. This property is located on a causeway type road which separates the wetlands from the lake with a connecting stream running between the property in question and it's neighbor. With less land for absorption, there will be more runoff entering these wet areas and, ultimately, the lake. A variance to an existing law should only be granted in the case of hardship that will not result in destruction of the surrounding environment. This appeal does not meet that criteria. The property in question is newly acquired, and the lack of a garage was obvious to the owner at the time of purchase. Furthermore, additional development will stress that piece of land and adversely effect surrounding property and wetlands." Susan O'Hanlon, "Recently I received a notice from the Queensbury Zoning Board concerning the Bertolet property. The building of a garage onto an already noncomplying structure is not justified and should not be permitted. One person should not be allowed to build a garage at another person's expense, as there are similar situations in Queensbury and in the nearby neighborhood, such as Joseph Sharkey, forcing the resident to garage their vehicles elsewhere in the winter months. Mr. Bertolet is a seasonal resident who resides in a warmer climate part of the year. Many year round residents are deprived of a garage for noncompliance to this setback Ordinance, not just seasonal people. These Ordinances are made for a reason, and if not properly énforced, why were they passed to begin with? The very reasons they were passed shoul d be cause enough to throw out Mr. Bertol et' s appeal. Otherwi se, it is a waste of the taxpayers money to pass the Ordinance in the first place." This is from D.E. Gaugler, and L.S. Gaugler, "The variance request for Nathan E. Bertolet for an addition of a garage is, in our opinion, a continuation of a nonconforming building which somehow did not meet or fulfill most of the original variance stipulations to begin with. We object to any further variances of any type on this particular piece of property, simply because it was nonconforming from the beginning and presently appears to be a violation of building ordinances as it now exists. Just an ordinary, casual, visual observation of this property, without any application of building or zoning ordinances would indicate to the average Queensbury resident that the property has been used beyond its ability to fit into a neighborly situation. The Zoning Board certainly has more than enough valid reasons to refuse this variance request." Fred Young, "The Young family doesn't see any justification for the building of a garage in the Variance 71-1991, in reference to Bertolet." MRS. GOETZ-The Warren County Planning Board, in regards to this application, disapproved it, "With a garage added to this piece of property, approximately 1/3 of the ground would be covered and there would be run off problems." MR. TURNER-Okay. Any discussion? MRS. GOETZ-Well, I think that the deck should be removed, aside from even talking about whether or not we're going to grant this variance. I think that's a basic problem. MRS. CRAYFORD-Well, I have to give him the choice of applying for a variance for it, or asking him to remove it, either one. MRS. GOETZ-But, something isn't right, because the prior variance application went with the land, not the owner. MRS. CRAYFORD-That's correct. MRS. GOETZ-And now, all of a sudden, he's allowed to apply for a variance? It would seem to me that you'd have to take the deck away. MRS. CRAYFORD-I can send him an order tell ing him to remove the deck by a certain date. I'm pretty sure if he wants to apply for a variance, we have to allow him to apply for a variance. MR. SHEA-He would have the right to apply for a variance. MRS. EGGLESTON-I think that would be fair. MR. SHEA-That's part of my motion, if you want it. MRS. GOETZ-Do you have your motion? Okay. MR. TURNER-Okay. We'll have it. tÐTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 71-1991 NATHAN E. BERTOLET, Introduced by Michael Shea who moved for its adoption, seconded by 14 -- ~- Due to the fact that the present property is in vi01ation of Town Zoning Ordinance, with respect to the existing deck and its setbacks. Before any consideration of variance approva1 can be given, the present property owner should app1y for variance of existing nonconforming deck or remove said deck. MR. WALDEN-I'm sorry to say it, but I think that's a very mis1eading statement. If you're turning down the app1ication for the garage, then that's what you shou1d do, and not say that it's turned down because of a deck, and I think why I'm 100king into the future, somebody wou1d get that, 100k at it, and say, we11 , they never turned down the garage. A11 they did was they turned down the garage because there was a deck there. You're turning down the garage because a garage shou1 dn' t be buiH there, and I think the wording of that shou1d be very c1ear, and not tie it into that deck. Thank you. MR. CARR-Mike, I think I agree. I'd 1ike to tie it in more to the garage structure itseH, if it's a denial. MR. SHEA-What I'm saying is that I don't think that we can address, fully, the issue of the garage and its merits, at this point, if it has any, or the problems that will arise from it. We know some of them, but I don't think, as a point of order, as a logical course, I don't think we can do that, at all, at this point, because there is an obvious violation in front of us, and so we can't do that. So what I'm saying is, even before, I mean, he can have the option of going back and removing the deck, and then coming back and re-applying for a variance to build a garage at that point. We should judge it at that point. MR. CARR-But what if he comes back and applies for a variance to keep the deck and then next month comes back and just applies for a variance to put a garage instead of a deck? MR. SHEA-That's his prerogative. It is. It is his right to do that. He certainly can do that. There's nothing to say that he can't apply for a variance for the deck and, if it were granted, then at some future date come back and apply for a variance for a garage, nothing is to say that we're going to give it to him. MR. CARR-But I think he is applying, I mean, the deck, right now, is a nonconforming structure, and it's an illegal structure. I mean, just because he wasn't the one who buiH it, that doesn't make it a legal structure, at this point. Once it's an illega1 structure, it never becomes a legal structure until it's been approved by the proper Board or the proper Department. So, I mean, that's one issue. I think there's two issues, here. Now, I think the issue is just the garage. I mean, I think we've got to look at it as if the deck's not there. MR. TURNER-Yes, you do. MR. CARR-Because, the deck shouldn't be there, but what the plans are saying is that if the garage is granted, the deck won't be there anyway. 1'm satisfied that I have enough information to make a decision on the garage issue, and I agree with Mr. Walden, in that, that we should separate the issues and talk about the garage, and then let the Building Department handle the deck issue. That's the way I kind of look at this. I see what you're saying, though, because you're talking about that Saratoga Ordinance that we had talked about, in that, if there's a violation in place, not to even discuss any application. MR. SHEA-Correct. MR. CARR-But I think that's, if I read the note from one of the Staff people, from Lee, that was more in line with when people have been told not to do it until they get the variance, and then they go ahead and do it anyway, which we have a couple of those coming in front of us. So, I agree with Mr. Walden's position, and that's to address the garage. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, I agree with that. In my opinion, we should deny the garage. I think the overwhelming neighborhood opposition, and it's really a seH imposed hardship. He knew what it was when he bought it. It's a Critical Environmental Area, and it could have runoff problems and whatever, and a real tiny lot. We have all of the criteria to deny the garage. Then let the Town deal with the deck. So, it'll be handled both ways. Both issues will be taken care of. MR. TURNER-Yes. Right. MR. SHEA-Okay. Let me re-word it this time. tÐTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 71-1991 NATHAN E. BERTOLET, Introduced by Michael Shea who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: Due to the fact that the lot is of substandard size, being .13 acres, and that the lot is in a critically environmental area and due to the fact that there is substantial neighborhood opposition that it would not be in the best interest to approve this area variance, and this would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of the Ordinance. 15 --- Duly adopted this 18th day of September, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Shea, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE USE VARIANCE NO. 72-1991 TYPE: UNLISTED SFR-lA CHAIRJIUNE SILIPIGNO (illER: FLOYD SHOVAH 637 GLEN STREET TO CONVERT A RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT INTO A BEAUTY SHOP. (BEAUTIFICATION COIIUTTEE) (WARREN COONTY PLANNING) TAX MP NO. 106-1-9, 10 LOT SIZE: J¡¡¡ ACRE SECTION 179-20 JAMES SHOVAH, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Use Variance No. 72-1991, Chairmaine Silipigno, September 10, 1991, Meeting Date: September 18, 1991 "The application is for a use variance to convert a residential unit to a beauty shop. The lot is ~ acre on the corner of Windsor and Glen in an SFR-1A zone. The applicant indicates that the property cannot be used as zoned because of the encroachment of commercial uses and the associated noise and traffic. The owner recently submitted an application for a change of zone. The Planning Board passed a resolution that the attached information be submitted with any variance request. Staff has also attached a letter which was received by the Warren County Planning and Community Development Dept. which the Board may want to consider. The applicant, Ms. Silipigno, has indicated that no exterior modifications will take place exclusive of a parking area being created and has gone to great lengths to provide the Staff and Board with the information requested. The assessment records indicate that the present owner, Mr. Shovah, purchased the property on October 2, 1989. The Town had instituted a new zoning code and plan a year prior which indicates that the owner knew what the circumstances of the property were when it was purchased. The application was reviewed with regard to the criteria for a use variance: Is there a reasonable return if the land is used as zoned? The applicant states that the property has been listed for 3 years as a residence and has not sold. The economy is currently in a downturn and many properties have been on the market for extended periods. The Board may want to question whether the house has been used for residential purposes and whether the applicant intends to reside on the premises and conduct the commercial use on the bottom floor. Are the circumstances of this lot unique and not due to the unreasonableness of the Ordinance? The house is on a heavily traveled street which has changed in character over the past decade. The owner, however, was aware of the circumstances when the unit was purchased. A modification to the property such as a fence to separate the yard from the traffic impacts might make the property more attractive for residential purposes. Is there an adverse effect on the neighborhood character? There woul d not be an adverse effect on the character of Gl en Street by the vari ance requested. A beauty shop could not be considered an intense use for a commercial district. The lot does abut Windsor Drive and Glenwood which are residential. The only unique feature of this unit is that it fronts on Glen Street rather than on Windsor. Since traffic would be entering from Windsor Drive the impacts of a commercial use would be felt primarily in the residential neighborhood." MRS. GOETZ-The property owner is listed as Floyd Shovah. MR. SHOVAH-I actually purchased the property in December of 1987. MRS. GOETZ-You're James Shovah, aren't you? MR. SHOVAH-Yes. MR. TURNER-Right. MRS. GOETZ-And then it was sold to Floyd Shovah? MR. SHOVAH-Well, it was not in my name. It was in my attorney's name. MRS. GOETZ-Matusik, right. MR. SHOVAH-And due to personal circumstances, I didn't have it put in my name until the problem was resolved, but I've been living there since December 7th of 1987. MR. TURNER-Do you occupy the total structure? MR. SHOVAH-Yes, I do. MR. TURNER-Both floors? MR. SHOVAH-Yes. MR. CARR-Well, you bought the property as a residence, correct? MR. SHOVAH-Correct, yes. 16 --- --/ MR. CARR-And you have had it 1isted for three years? MR. SHOVAH-Yes, I have, with three different brokers. MR. CARR-Can I ask what the asking price is? MR. SHOVAH-It's $135,000. MR. CARR-Have you had any offers on it? MR. SHOVAH-None. MR. SHEA-Have any of the rea1tors recommended any other uses for the property? MR. SHOVAH-Just commercial. It's obvious, you know, it's a great commercia1 1ocation. MR. SHEA-So, they've a11 said that you have to have it re-zoned or a variance, in order to se11 it? MR. SHOVAH-Right. If it was re-zoned commercial, it wou1d have been so1d the next day, but I understand, in part, why it shouldn't be re-zoned, because it is a sensitive residential neighborhood, but things have changed since I've lived there, with the widening of Glen Street, the traffic patterns have changed, you know, G1enwood and Quaker Road, that's effected the who1e neighborhood, 1et a10ne my residence. MR. SHEA-As far as the proposed parking on the, I seem to reca11, was there anything, where you have indicated proposed parking on the northern side of the house, wasn't there something there at the present time, or is that a11, that's a11 1awn right now? MR. SHOVAH-It's a lawn. I had a sate11ite dish there, but I took that out, and I stipu1ated to the Beautification Conmittee that I would p1ant trees along that north border, in consideration of Bi11y Gates, my neighbor there, and a1so to direct traffic to take a right and head back towards Glen Street, instead of going around on Windsor, so it wou1dn't effect the neighbors on Windsor Drive. MR. SHEA-If you were granted a variance and a110wed to operate the beauty shop there, you wou1d sti11 use the rest of the structure for a residence, or it wou1d a11 be turned into? MR. SHOVAH-We11, she's the, this variance is contingent, you know, the whole rea1 estate dea1 is contingent on the variance, and she's the one who would be the purchaser. So, you'd have to ask her that. MR. SHEA-Okay. MR. CARR-So, it is a sa1e? It's not a rental situation? MR. SHOVAH-No. It's a sa1e. MR. CARR-Are you going to live there? MS. SILIPIGNO-No, I'm not going to live there. Chairmaine Si1ipigno. MRS. EGGLESTON-Then what are you going to do with that huge, big house? MS. SILIPIGNO-Put the business in it. MRS. EGGLESTON-The second story as well, the beauty shop on the second f100r as well? MS. SILIPIGNO-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-And how many chairs wi11 you have in there? MS. SILlPIGNO-Four or five chairs on the first f10or. The second f100r is nail work, private room, my office, that type of thing. MRS. EGGLESTON-So, do you anticipate it wou1d take that wh01e green area for parking? It wou1d eliminate the whole yard? MS. SILlPIGNO-The who1e green area? No, I don't be1ieve, in the papers, that we've e1iminated the whole yard. MRS. EGGLESTON-Thank you. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further questions? None? Okay. I'll open the pub1ic hearing. 17 ---- ~ PUBLIC HEARING OPENED WI LUAM VOGLER MR. VOGLER-Yes, Mr. Chairman and members of the Board, my name is William Vogler, 22 Glenwood Avenue. That's a beautiful home on Glen. Glen Street is, when you look at the length and breadth of it, from that house all the way to the center of Town, if that house is worth $130,000, then we're talking about million dollar homes that are on Glen Street. As far as widening Glen, making this less of an asset to the Town as a residential home, I can't see that. This residence is sandwiched between Glenwood and Windsor. Windsor's a very, very narrow street. If you traverse it, go through there, and you will find that it's a severe corner coming from the easterly direction to Glen. This is going to create a traffic problem, but be that as it may with the traffic problem, the problem is that there is so much commercial property in this town. To turn around and take a beautiful home, and it is beautiful, and turn it into commercial property because there's a gas station in the area, I just can't see that. There's no need of it. It's an absolute shame to think that the people that are living on Glenwood are going to have their backyard as a parking lot. I don't live there. I live up the street, but I can just imagine if I did. It's an absolute shame. There's no reason in the world why there isn't other available structures in this town, and this town God knows has enough commercial property. We're running out of residential property. Everywhere you look they're building. We're talking the last meeting, the Town Board meeting was the beautification of the area, with the pond, etc. Now we're going just in the opposite direction and we're going to continue to make a Coney Island out of Queensbury. There's no reason to extend main street Lake George all the way through Queensbury to Glens Falls. I can't see it. There's absolutely no reason whatsoever to change that beautiful home into a commercial structure. Thank you. MR. CARR-Do you feel that $135,000 is a fair price for that home? MR. VOGLER-$l35,oOO, well, that's a commercial price, I would say. If $130,000, my house is worth a half a million. Lets be realistic. MR. CARR-Yes, but I don't know your house. Is it worth a half a million? MR. VOGLER-No, it isn't. No, it isn't. ~ house is worth $130,000, and I just spent $27,000 renovating my kitchen, so I know the value of property in that area. I have a three bedroom, six room home with two complete baths and a half bath. I would be glad to sell mine at $130,000, and that far and away exceeds the value of that place, far and away. So, I can't see any reason why we should turn a beautiful area into commercial. We've got enough commercial. How much commercial do you need? We have Quaker Road. My God, that, from one end to the other, all you have to do is put up a building. For $130,000 you can build a beautiful beauty shop. Why not? MR. SICARD-Jim, do I understand that, that brokers have had that, now, for a number of years? MR. SHOVAH-Yes. That was appraised. That was a professional appraised price. MR. TURNER-As a commercial, though. That's a commercial price? MR. SHOVAH-No, it was a residential. MR. SICARD-I'm sitting here wondering what happens to a person that owns a piece of property like this that just can't sell it, regardless? I'm sure that they negotiated down. MR. SHOVAH-Well, the street did change. MRS. GOETZ-How did it change? MR. SHOVAH-Well, they changed the red light at the fire road, and that changed the patterns around, where it used to be two lanes going all the way down, now everything is back, there's days at four o'clock that the traffic from the red light at the fire road is stopped in front of my house, okay, because everything is designed differently. A lot of people cut over on Garrison Road, now. That's a highly traveled road. It's just, somehow they've slowed the traffic in that area. Instead of thru traffic, you have a stop and go traffic. Since, I've lived there, I've seen a dozen accidents, on Glenwood and Glen Street, where people pullout, people coming out of Cole Muffler, so on and so forth. MRS. GOETZ-Do you have the date that they changed the light at the fire road? MR. SHOVAH-It was in 1988, because when I lived there, on Windsor Drive, they had a huge "Men Working" sign right in my door yard, and I remember that vividly, because I cleaned the backyard out this year, and they forgot to take the "Men Working" sign away. So, it was after I'd lived there, that they changed the street around, and Glenwood Quaker Road, with the pond going in, the commercial traffic is only going to get worse. It's not going to get better. 18 MRS. GOETZ-But that's even more reason to preserve the neighborhood qua1 ity of what's there now, and I remember Mr. Matusik, does he sti11 have his office on G1en Street. 1ike he did when he bought this house with you? MR. SHOVAH-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-I remember him saying that he didn't know what it was going to be 1ike to be in that house, and I found that hard to be1ieve, since he'd been on G1en Street for so 10ng, but thank you for your comments about the 1ight. MRS. EGGLESTON-I'd 1ike to ask Mr. Shovah, when you had the appraisa1 done on the house, was it when you first bought it, 1ike in 1988, when the real estate was rea11y considerab1y higher than it is today? MR. SHOVAH-I had it appraised this year, okay. I've had it appraised in 1988. I've had it appraised twice. MRS. EGGLESTON-Were they both the same? MR. SHOVAH-Actua11y, the first appraising was $140,000. So, it's gone down. MRS. EGGLESTON-To? MR. SHOVAH-We11, it's 1isted with a broker, now, for $135,000. MR. CARR-And what's your second appraisa1? What was that price? MR. SHOVAH-$135,OOO. MR. CARR-Okay. MR. SHOVAH-That's with a broker's fee involved. So, you're ta1king around $129,000, $128,000. MRS. EGGLESTON-Did you bring any statements or anything from your brokers, that this has been on the market since a11 that period of time and it hasn't been able to se11 and no offers and, the appraisa1s or anything? MR. SHOVAH-No, I didn't. I had it listed with Levack/Burke first. Then I had it 1isted with ReaHy USA, Mary Sue Rainor, when she was there, and now it's 1isted with Rea1ty USA, Beverly Marte11. MRS. EGGLESTON-Did you buy it to re-se11 it, with that in mind? MR. SHOVAH-No. I bought it because I needed the house. MRS. EGGLESTON-But you bought it in '88 and it's been for sa1e for three years. MR. SHOVAH-I bought it in '87. MRS. EGGLESTON-'87, and it's been for sa1e for three years now? MR. SHOVAH-Right. When the spring came and the windows are open, you rea11y get a sense of what the house is a11 about, as far as noise, you know, no privacy, and so on and so forth. MR. SHEA-I would agree that the nature of the traffic patterns have, over the 1ast four or five years, changed on G1en, there, and a1so with respect to G1enwood. I mean, without question, with Quaker P1aza on the other end of G1enwood, and Hovey Pond going in there, that that has changed and wi11 probab1y dramatica11y change in the next six months, and that homes a10ng there, that front onto G1en and onto G1, enwood the nature of that neighborhood is going to change. Those back on Windsor Drive are obvious1y protected, and it is, it's a rea1 neighborhood, but without question, it's noisier now than it ever was before and there's more traffic, and that can be substantiated. I wou1d have to agree that at 1east it has changed, and it doesn't maintain the fu11 neighborhood flavor and character that it probab1y once did, and what it is present1y zoned for. MR. TURNER-Okay. JOHN BEEBE MR. BEEBE-My name is John Beebe. I 1ive at 2 Fort Amherst Road. Two Fort Amherst Road is 10cated just toward G1ens Fa11s from the, and back one house from Glen Street from the house we're talking about. We're, essentia11y, two houses away from this house we're ta1king about, and what we're trying to avoid, when we bought our house, was we wanted a house that we cou1d 1ive in for 50 years or 60 years and we expect that we're going to be doing that or, in the meantime, we'11 probab1y be se11ing it, if we don't 1ive another 50 years, and we 1ike to protect our investment. We had a hearing a few 19 '- ~ years ago regarding Mr. Matusik, when he wanted to put a law office in this same house, the application for variance was denied, the reasons were because of traffic and parking, one of the neighbors, in fact, several neighbors said they moved into a neighborhood. They want a house next door with neighbors in it. If it becomes commercial, we don't have a neighbor. We have people that come to work at eight o'clock and leave at five and the house remains vacant during the evening. Our children don't have a playmate, a possible playmate. That's true with us. We lived in a house right off of Glen Street. Our neighbor was Dr. Ferry and his children grew up with our children. We had neighbors as a couple. Our children had friends that lived next door and we had a neighborhood. If that house that we're talking about turns into a commercial establishment, then the next house, next door, eventually, someone says, well, it's conmercial. Maybe we can put some doctors offices, law offices, beauty parlor, something like that next door. So, everything starts to domino down the street. Everybody's got a commercial property next door. Lets turn ours into commercial and move some place else, and it just, it becomes a domino effect. One person lives next to a commercial establishment, it goes on and on. The next thing you know, our Dr. Ferry, something happens to him, he moves away or dies or something happens, and the house, eventually, reverts into a commercial property. So, we have the same problem. We have a house with doctors offices, law offices, a beautician, or something next to us, because everybody creates a variance down the street. The next thing you know, we're living next to a parking lot with a bunch of cars that come during the day and they go home at night and the place remains vacant. We have no neighbor. So, here we go. We talked about, the discussion was on traffic, patterns changing radically, recently. That's no reason to change the nature of the people that live on the street. Move them away. People who've lived in Glens Falls for a number of years remember the days when there was no Northway. Route 9 was a lot more heavily trafficked than it is today. Today it's a picnic. In those days, tractor trailers, every truck that had to go to Canada and to the north, everything from Canada going south to New York, every bus, everything had to go down Route 9, right past that same house, right down Glen Street, and the traffic in the summer was backed up and nothing moved. Everybody sat and waited for lights all the way up the street. So, the pattern of traffic is not a justifiable argument. It's just, we're going to have some traffic, but there's no reason to turn the whole place into a commercial zone just because there's cars going by. People that live near by, you know, they accept that. So, we've gone through this business before, about this house, and we had it denied, and whoever bought the house, when he bought it, he paid a price, the man who bought the house. He paid a price and I don't know what he paid for it and I don't think I'm going to ask him what he paid for it, but I know you can sell a house. You can sell a house. It might sell at what the appraised price is because it might be something that's not marketable, and especially today's market, the market is not good for real estate, but you can sell chicken manure if you sell it at the right price. You can sell anything at the right price. You might have to suffer a loss, but you can turn it over, get what you can out of it, and then get out of the whole deal, not try to turn it into a beauty parlor or a commercial residence, and recently we've seen what the problem is in Glens Falls and Queensbury. The 1 ast time I stood here and tal ked about thi s same house I had these same ideas, but a new idea's come about. We have a new, I've thought about how we have no architectural review in the Town of Queensbury, and this is brought on by what we see at this new mall, I call it the mess of a mall, down there at the end of Glenwood and Quaker. That thing looks like a commercial dessert, some kind of an ice cream thing. It looks like someone ought to pour a little chocolate sauce on it. It's the worst looking thing, and I know everybody's read about it and heard about it and written letters to the editor about it and it's a disgusting mess, and what's to say, supposing this turns into a beauty parlor. Then, for some unforeseen reason, they have a fire. The place burns to the ground. So, we have a lot. It was a beauty parlor. Somebody comes along with the same imagination that built this mall and says, well, we're going to put another beauty parlor in. I've got an architect from New York. He designed that mall down there on the end of Glenwood Avenue. He can build me a beauty parlor. So we end up with a little commercial dessert sitting there. We go out an pour some chocolate sauce on that. Are we going to put up with that? We don't need it. So, lets turn this darn thing down and keep it a residence and sell it, take your licks, and get out of the house, if you don't want it, or live there, but don't try to turn it into a beauty parlor. Thank you. MR. TURNER-Okay. Anyone else? DOUG ARMSTRONG MR. ARMSTRONG-My name is Doug Armstrong. I live at 7 Windsor Drive. I was really surprised when I found out that the address was actually Gl en Street, because I don't think that Mr. Shovah ever uses the Glen Street entrance. I would imagine that that's probably sealed up because, as far as I was concerned, that was a Windsor Drive house, and I happen to live, I have the closest address address, or neighbor who lives on Windsor Drive, to this place and I just want to tell Mr. Shovah that there's nothing personal here, but I agree with what's been said. I have some kind of reference with Mr. Shovah, in that I think Mr. Shovah said that he purchased his house December of 1987? MRS. EGGLESTON-'87. MR. ARMSTRONG-I bought mine a month before that. So, my house is not as nice as that house, I don't believe. However, I do believe that the size of my property is probably larger and has a little bit better location. I paid $70,000 for my house and I would be happy to sell my house for $135, but as a former real estate agent, I would say that the house is overpriced and that's the most important reason why it's not being sold. I don't think the location has anything to do with that. The price 20 is too high. I would like to see the community remain as it is. I would hope that people would start taking a look at an empty shopping mall that we've got down the road and starting to fill that instead of starting to fill homes that real1y should remain residential. Mr. Shovah has put in a two car driveway on Windsor Drive. So, people would be parking on Windsor Drive, and I think you've all been down Windsor Drive, and you know how narrow that street is, and someone mentioned that there is a corner on that street. When Mr. Shovah or any of his guests park on that street, on the street, that creates a hazard, because now we've got one lane, as we enter, try to enter Glen Street, and if anybody turns the corner, we have a problem, not onlY, that is, because of that corner. Sometimes if the car is parked too close to the corner, there's a danger of people hitting that car because I know when I turn that corner, I try to get over as far as I can to the side because it is a narrow road, and I know Mr. Shovah mentioned that he would direct his clients, or the clients that would come there, to take another route, but you can't tell people how to drive in and out of a place, and Windsor Drive would be their main way of getting there, and I would imagine Windsor Drive would be the entrance to this beauty parlor. I don't think Glen Street would be used at al1, in fact. So, I would hope that you would turn this down, deny this application for this variance, and I agree with what my neighbor said, that Mr. Shovah probably ought to take the loss and get out of there if he doesn't like the place and it's too noisy for him. Thank you. MR. VOGLER-Mr. Turner, I'd like to re-direct. There's a house on Glenwood Avenue, I should have mentioned this, when you turn the corner going north on Glen, go up Gl, enwood it's the third house on the right, it's a gray house. That house has been just been completely renovated. It's gorgeous. It just sold for $50,000. It's a two story home. So, I would say that that house is on a par with the house that this gentleman is talking about. MR. TURNER-Okay. Is there anyone else who wishes to be heard? BILL ROGERS MR. ROGERS-My name is Bil1 Rogers. I reside at 10 Windsor Drive, I have for the past 25 years, and the reason I bought this house was because of the location, where it was, and the residential area which it was in, and I hope to see it remain this way. It's nothing personal against Mr. Shovah. I've never had any problems with him since he's been my neighbor. I was here once before for another meeting. If you people remember, Mr. Rudnick wanted to put a veterinary's office across the street, in Judge Bascom's old residence on the opposite corner of Windsor Drive and Glen. I bel ieve with a business there, this is going to create some more traffic problems. It's tough enough now, I don't know where you have three streets coming at a shorter distance than you do Garrison Road, Windsor Drive, and Glenwood Avenue. I don't know where he has it planned for exiting his parking, but I certainly hope it's not in between those three streets, because it's al1 you can do to get out of there now, because you have Windsor Drive exiting, Garrison Road exiting, and Glenwood Avenue exiting, within, I would say, a two hundred foot distance. MR. TURNER-This proposal JJL to exit on Windsor Drive. MR. ROGERS-To exit onto Windsor Drive? MRS. GOETZ-Did you see the parking, proposed parking? MR. ROGERS-No, I didn't see a parking plan. MR. SHOVAH-This is the house. Do you know where the existing driveway is? MR. ROGERS-Yes. MR. SHOVAH-There's parking over here. MR. ROGERS-But it's just too tough to get out of there, and, like I say, I bought it 25 years ago as a residence and because it was that, and I would like to see it remain that, and I also have a letter from a neighbor who couldn't make it. He asked me if I would please present it to the Board. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. I'll read it. Just for the information of the audience, there's six proposed parking spots. Maybe, if anyone wants to see it, because it's in the side yard. MR. TURNER-Can you put that up, Jim. MR. ROGERS-Like I say, I don't think it's so much the parking as the traffic it would create. It's tough enough to get out of our street now, without having more traffic coming out of Windsor Drive. I'm not concerned about the parking because I'm sure he's got that taken care of. The parking would not be in the street, but this will create more traffic and consequently sometimes, like I say, it's unbelievable how long you will sit at that corner of Windsor Drive and Glen Street and try to get out. MR. TURNER-Well, the shortest route out of there is down Windsor Drive and take the light at Glenwood or else come out onto Glenwood and come back to Glen Street and take a right and go up Glen Street, if that's the way you're headed. That would be the shortest way out. 21 - MR. ROGERS-There's no easy way out of there, believe me. Actually, it wou1dn't be the shortest way out, in regards to work that I go to. MR. TURNER-No. I'm not ta1king about you. I'm ta1king about the people that are parked here in this 10t. If they're going to see traffic coming down Glen Street and they feel uncomfortable sitting there for a few minutes, they're going to take Windsor Drive first. MR. ROGERS-Windsor Drive north, you say? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. SHEA-He's confirming, saying there is going to be a 10t more traffic created in your neighborhood as a resu1t of this. That's what he's saying. MR. TURNER-There is going to be a 10t of traffic on Windsor Drive. MR. ROGERS-Yes. So, instead of going out, it wi11 be passing in front of my house. MRS. GOETZ-Right. MR. TURNER-Right. They're going to come in that way and they're going to come out that way. MRS. GOETZ-One thing, if my memory serves me correct1y, after this house was the subject of conversation before, I saw the house advertised as commercia1 property, which surprised me quite a bit, since I knew it wasn't. Is that part of your prob1em, with the asking price? MR. SHOVAH-No. I had nothing to do with it. MR. TURNER-It was advertised commercial. I'll back her up on that. MRS. GOETZ-Yes. MR. TURNER-It was right on the 1awn, commercial property. MR. SHOVAH-As far as, everybody seems to like to contro1 my financia1 destiny, as to what I should sell this house for. At that price, I'm cutting my 10ses, really. I've done a 10t of improvements on the inside. It's kind of a white e1ephant, where it's 10cated. MRS. GOETZ-But the point is, it was a self created hardship. You knew what it was when you bought it and, 1ike, we don't have anything to say about what you ask for it. MR. SHOVAH-Yes, I don't disagree with that. I don't disagree with that, but it's a1so, it's gotten worse, I mean, you know, it hasn't gotten, it hasn't stayed status quo, as far as the noise and traffic. It's gotten worse. I mean, I knew it was a high1y visib1e area when I bought it. I knew that, and, you know, I'm not going to sit here and say I didn't know that, but I realistically have been trying to sell it, and I've had no takers. I mean, as far as, the gent1eman said about his kids growing up in a neighborhood, if I had young kids, I wou1dn't want them to 1ive there. MRS. GOETZ-You do have young kids, and they don't 1ive there. We11, they're not so young anymore. MR. SHOVAH-One's graduating from high scho01, and they did 1ive there. MRS. GOETZ-They lived with you? MR. SHOVAH-Yes, and my daughter had to move out because she's asthmatic, from the dust and everything 1ike that. So, whatever, that's not an excuse, but it's not conducive to ad01escent kids growing up in the neighborhood. I don't think I'm being unreasonab1e. It's just not a. MRS. EGGLESTON-We11, I think you're the first to admit that the traffic is bad there. What you propose is only going to add to the traffic problems. There's just no way you can, there's no way it's not going to add to the traffic prob1ems. MR. SHOVAH-Okay. As far as, I don't know the 1ega1 ramifications of zoning and everything, but I, everyday in the warm weather, hear air wrenches. Firestone has a new tool, now. It sounds 1 ike a giant vibrator, and it's just, you know, I'm imposed by a11 this noise as we11, and that's one of the reasons, I 10ve the house. MRS. EGGLESTON-But that was all there, it was there when you purchased the property, though. MR. SHOVAH-Right. I know it's buyer beware. I rea1ize that. 22 "-- MRS. EGGLESTON-And now you want to put that burden more onto your neighbors, closer to their homes, and put more of a burden, traffic wise, and it just doesn't seem a little bit fair. I sympathize with your position, but I don't think you've proven that you can't get a reasonable return from the house. You've brought no documents to show that you've had this for sale. You have no brokers statements. MR. SHOVAH-Do you think I'm lying to you? MRS. EGGLESTON-No, but as part of our criteria, the applicant has the obligation to prove that he can't make a reasonable return on the property. Anybody can get up here and say, I can't sell it. I've tried. I can't. What we really need is proof that you have tried and you have been unsuccessful, and that your price is reasonable. MR. CARR-In other situations like this, we've had applicants who have come in with the affidavits of their brokers or brought the brokers in, who've indicated to us how many times they've tried to show it, how many calls, how many times they've advertised it. We've had people bring in the appraisal and we'd have to know how much you purchased the property for, because if you purchased it for $50,000 and are asking for $135,000 in four years, that's not reasonable. MR. SHOVAH-I paid $129,000 for it. MR. CARR-Well, okay, but you see that's the type of information that we need, because the whole criteria of a use variance is whether a reasonable return, financial return, can be had on the property by the applicant. So, that's why we need, I mean, for us to properly review this, and for also just your own protection and as weight of evidence, you have to have all these things present. MR. SHOVAH-Well, you know, I can understand that, but I wouldn't sUbject myself to a lie, either. I mean, I wouldn't say that it hasn't been listed, knowing that it hasn't been listed. It's listed right now. MR. CARR-See, but, right now, we've got you saying, we don't doubt that it's been three years, and we have your word that $135,000 is reasonable, but we have other people's words that they don't feel $135,000 is reasonable. MR. SHOVAH-Are they appraisers, though? MR. CARR-Well, are you? I mean, that's just it, we don't know. That's why we have to see written proof from other people who are qualified, so we can say, this guy's a qualified appraiser. He says the house is worth this much. It's been listed, this realtor says they've listed it for three years, and they've only had two calls on the property as residential, but they've had people call in and say, is it commercial. I mean, that's the type of evidence you need for a use variance to go through MR. SHOVAH- The thing about the price. Price is price, you know, but to get somebody even to look at the house, I mean, it could be a dump on the inside, but on the outside. MRS. EGGLESTON-But don't you think that's the economy today. I mean, nothing is selling. MR. SHOVAH-Well, in '88, the economy was booming. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. Could I just review the sequence of who purchased the house when. Matusik bought it? MR. SHOVAH-Dona 1 d Matus i k and myself purchase it, December of 1987. He had hi s name on the t i tl e, because, to clear the air, I was going through a divorce, okay. MRS. GOETZ-And he bought it for? MR. SHOVAH-He bought it for me, and held it. MRS. GOETZ-But, when he bought it, was it purchased at $129,OOO? MR. SHOVAH-No. We paid $110,000, okay, then I had to buy his interest out, and he sold it, the real estate transaction was for $129,000. MRS. GOETZ-Sold to Floyd Shovah? MR. SHOVAH-Right. MRS. GOETZ-And Floyd still owns it? MR. SHOVAH-Right. MRS. GOETZ-You don't own it? 23 -- --- MR. SHOVAH-Yes, I do, well, not on paper, but I do own it. MRS. GOETZ-Well, you either own it or you don't own it. MR. SHOVAH-Well, I own it. MRS. GOETZ-You do? But it lists the owner as Floyd. MRS. EGGLESTON-Do you have a deed to it? MR. SHOVAH-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-Then why wasn't your name on this application, I wonder? MR. SHOVAH-Because I just got divorced in July. MR. CARR-You have a deed. You haven't filed it yet. MR. SHOVAH-Right, and maybe Chairmaine could enlighten you on the type of business and questions about traffic, for what it's worth. MR. CARR-Well, my recommendation is, if you want to proceed with this application, we may table this motion, so you £!!!. get the proper back up, because I don't think we have enough information to act positively on this. Right now, my feeling is, if we had to go with the information that's before us right now, it would not be a positive result, all right, because we don't have the required evidence necessary to grant a use variance. You may want to tal k to Don about that. I'm sure he I s aware of what burden it is, or whatever counsel you have, I mean, not that you have to bring counsel here with you, but you may want some pointers. MR. SHOVAH-So, what you're asking for is affidavits from the brokers? MR. CARR-Affidavits from the brokers saying what they had done to market the property and what response they had, the latest appraisal, as to what the value of the property is. MR. SHOVAH-And the recorded thing that you have to have when you buy real estate, whatever that thing is to show what the purchase price was? MR. CARR-It's a matter of public document. I would take your word that you, it was $129,000, or whatever, at the time. I mean, that's not as important, that it has to be substantiated, but I think those other things have to be put to this Board for consideration before we can act positively or negatively on this application. MRS. EGGLESTON-I've really got to be honest, I don't think, in lieu of the neighborhood opposition, and taking away all the green area, even if he proved the practical difficulty, I'd be in favor of the variance. I don't want to mislead the man. MR. TURNER-No. The thing that bothers me most about this application is that it's definitely going to alter the character of the neighborhood. MRS. EGGLESTON-It certainly is, and a terrible impact on traffic. MR. TURNER-Once you get the wedge drove into the log, you know, it's just a matter of hacking off pieces. MRS. GOETZ-And that neighborhood has taken a beating as it is. MR. TURNER-And, you know, when you stated that you hear the air wrenches, you hear all the other tools, all the other people hear the other tools. Mr. Gates is right across the street from the Sunoco station. He's got to hear it. MRS. EGGLESTON-By letting this go commercial, it just would be coming a little bit closer to the residential neighborhoods. I mean, I sympathize with your cause, but it seems like there has to be another answer, here. MR. SHOVAH-Well, that's the variance. It's not commercial. MRS. EGGLESTON-But for a commercial use. MR. TURNER-It's a use that's not permitted in the zone. That's what it's for. MS. SILIPIGNO-Pardon? 24 MR. TURNER-It's a use that's not permitted in the zone. The zone is Single Family Residential. MS. SILlPIGNO-But what 1'm saying is, if the use variance was granted and then I no longer conducted business there, does it not go back to residential? MR. TURNER-No. The use goes with the property, not with you. MS. SILlPIGNO-But don't they have to re-apply for a variance for what next business they want to put there? MR. TURNER-If it's a permitted use that goes there, all right. MR. CARR-No. Ted, what she's asking is, unless it's a beauty parlor going in there, they would have to return. MS. SILIPIGNO-That's what I'm saying. MRS. EGGLESTON-The objection, really, is to the beauty parlor. MR. TURNER-Unless it's a beauty parlor, yes. It's the same use, but still, it still has a negative impact on the neighborhood, whether it's a beauty parlor. MS. SILIPIGNO-Well, probably every single customer that comes in my salon is driving up and down Glen Street already. MR. TURNER-They probably are, but, you know. MS. SILIPIGNO-I don't believe that I'm going to create that much more traffic. MR. TURNER-It's not the traffic I'm concerned with. It's the fact. MRS. EGGLESTON-How would you like to be in the house going up, right on the corner of Glenwood, right next to the one you're in, and these cars are going to pull in and park, and their headlights, and you're going to be open when it's dark. There are times in the winter it gets dark early. You're going to be open 6, 7 o'clock, most beauty parlors are, some later than that. MS. SILIPIGNO-Right. MRS. EGGLESTON-The headlights going into this parking area are going to go right into the back of this house, this residential house which borders this property. MR. SHOVAH-That'swhat the tree stipulations are all about. MRS. EGGLESTON-There are no trees there. MR. SHOVAH-I stipulated. MRS. EGGLESTON-But it would take a long time for trees to, unless you're going to bring in. MR. SHOVAH-Six footers. MS. SILlPIGNO-He said four to six foot trees. I don't think car headlights go that high, but, yes, I have lived in areas that were next to a parking lot or a business, or whatever. MR. CARR-But I guess the question would be, did the businesses come in, or were the businesses there when you moved in? MS. SILIPIGNO-Both. There were some there, and more. MR. CARR-Okay, because I think the neighbor's point is that they moved into a residential zone, and now a business is coming in which is a little different situation. MS. SILlPIGNO-I don't know. I've driven around there a couple of times, obviously, and with the way the house is situated, with it facing Glen and with, as you go around Windsor, and with the vacant area going around Glenwood, there's a bit of distance before you start with the rest of the residential. It's almost like you're down Glenwood and down Windsor before you get into the more intense residential. MR. TURNER-But I think you have a neighbor, who is to the south of you. MS. SILIPIGNO-Across the street from Windsor. MR. TURNER-Right across the street. 25 MS. SILIPIGNO-There is one. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. SHOVAH-What's it, Herby Wetherby you mean? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. SHOVAH-Yes. MR. TURNER-The thing that bothers me is the neighbors that are associated near this piece of property have as much investment, or more, than is in this piece of property, and I think it's in our best interest to protect their investment by not letting this go commercial, because it's definite1y going to alter the character of the neighborhood. MRS. EGGLESTON-That was my opinion exact1y, and I don't want to mis1ead this man, because I don't think that, even if he comes back and has proof that he couldn't sel1 it, that I would be in favor, because I think it's going to have a terrib1e impact on the neighborhood. MR. VOGLER-Mr. Turner, I have a question for Mr. Carr, and my question is this, sir. If you buy, we'11 make it an investment, and you lose money, is that someone e1se's fau1t? If I buy a piece of property and I'm foo1ish enough to overpay for the property and I have to sel1 it at a 1esser price, is that the Town's decision to make, that I erred and someone else can forgive me? Not at al1. I p1ay the stockmarket. I win and 10se. I don't tel1 the tax people, when I just paid my scho01 tax in round numbers a thousand dol1ars, I can't tel1 them I 10st money in the stockmarket. Not at al1. So, if this gent1eman sold his house, or is attempting to sel1 it, and can't, he overpaid for it. That's not my fault. That's his. MR. CARR-Excuse me, sir. Al1 I was talking about was the rules of zoning indicate that with use variances, a man is entitled to a reasonab1e return, and if circumstances have changed, then the zoning has to be f1exible enough to change with it. I'm not saying that it has in this situation. I'm just saying that that's what we're looking for in the way of evidence, because then I think it's in his best interest to p1ace the evidence in case he doesn't agree with the decision of the Board and decides to appea1 it to a higher authority. That has to be on the record, for his own protection, for everybody's protection, so that we know that we had as much information as possible and the correct information, while we're making our decision. MR. VOGLER-But, sir, because he overpaid or underpaid is of no consequence and no fau1t of mine. When we bought the house in 1965, at 22 Glenwood Avenue, paid $19,500 for it. That house is worth a 10t of money today. A 10t of money has been spent on it, but that was a good investment. If I paid $130,000 in 1965, I can't come to you people and say, I'm sorry. I want to turn it commercia1 so that I can recoup my money or my loses. Not at a11. MR. CARR-That wasn't what I was indicating by asking. MR. VOGLER-But I get that fee1ing, sir. This is the feeling I get. MR. TURNER-A11 right. Mr. Armstrong. MR. ARMSTRONG-I guess I'm up here for a1most the same reason, because Mr. Carr kind of got me thinking a litt1e bit, when he was suggesting that we tab1e this who1e affair, here, so we can get some evidence. I was wondering, 1ike him, what the price of the house had to do with anything, here. It seems 1ike Mr. Shovah made a bad business deal four years ago or so, when he purchased the house, because he bought it for $40,000 more than what I paid for mine, the next house over. His house has another story. Mine doesn't, but mine's a three bedroom home. It has seven or eight rooms in it, and my property, the size of my lot is a much better 10t than what Mr. Shovah has, and I agree. I think he just, you know, he specu1ated and he 10st this one, and I don't think you have to be bai1ing him out, okay, but you meant something e1se, obvious1y, but that's how it came across to me, that you wanted to put this off and let him get some more evidence to show us what he paid and what the appraisers say. Appraisers, al1 they do, basical1y, is they 100k around at what properties have been sold in the area and then take a look at it, and that's basica11y what they do. I worked with them for years. It's not an exact science, and they made a mistake if they're saying it's $135,000 residential property. That's my concern. MR. CARR-Can I just clarify what I meant by purchase price? Al1 I meant by purchase price was just to see if he was requesting a reasonab1e return. It's just one indicator in the whole scheme of al1 the evidence, as to what we're supposed to 100k at. I mean, it's not saying that if he paid $150,000, we have to guarantee him $150,000. A11 I'm saying is if he paid $25 and is asking for $135, now, that would be an indicator that he's not being reasonab1e, in four years, to 100k for that type of return. That's all I meant. MR. TURNER-Mrs. Beebe. 26 MARY ARTHUR BEEBE MRS. BEEBE-I'm Mary Arthur Beebe. I also live at 2 Fort Amherst Road. There's just one thing I'd like to add, because I remember quite wel1 the discussion a few years ago. I think it's entirely possible that when this house was purchased for $110,000 a few years ago, that it was a gamble that was taken by the purchaser, that he could convert it easily to commercial property and that probably sel1 it at a much bigger advantage to himself, because we al1 know that commercial property on Glen Street and Quaker Road sel1s for a lot of money, and that there really wasn't ever a real intent, at that time, for this property to be kept residential, and that that was what the gamble was, and at the time, there was discussion that they'd lived in the house for just a very short period of time and had to move out after a month because of the noise. The property right down the street, that Mr. Matusik owned, is only, really, virtual1y within a block of this. He had to know exactly what the conditions were for working in a similar building, much less living in it. You know what the every day traffic is, actually, more when you're there nine to five than you do at any other time, and I really think that protecting the neighborhood's very important here, and that you're on the right track when you talk about that, because we, at that time, years ago, talked about the fact that Glen Street was the buffer zone between the commercial properties and the residential properties on the other side of the street, and once we got across that buffer zone and started violating the buffer by having commercial properties on the east side of Glen Street, we were real1y going to be making a significant impact on the neighborhoods, and those neighborhoods have been around Glens Falls for many, many years. You also might be interested to know that about the late 1980's, the property values in the interior of those blocks peaked, and those values have also been going down in the last few years, not just on Glen Street, and the houses on the interior blocks have been taking a long time to sell, too, because the market is depressed. The other question that I have is that, if you ever do go forward with other plans for commercial property, I really question very much that six parking places is enough for a business that's going to have five chairs and employees to operate at those chairs. It takes several hours to get your hair colored and permed, and people will be there for a while, and you have to have some operators to do that, as well, and it's not enough for the customers and employees, for six places in that size of a building. So, you might want to consider that. Thank you. MRS. CRAYFORD-Mr. Chairman, there are more parking spaces required, but I feel he has the room to put them on the property. MR. TURNER-Anyone else? Okay. The public hearing's closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE MRS. GOETZ-These were Staff Notes from June, "The petition is to change the zoning on a property on the corner of Windsor Drive and Glen Street (Route 9) from SFR-1A to PC-1A. The lot in question contains a residence and is ±~ acre. The application states that to the south is a residential and Plaza Commercial zone. This is incorrect. The Town of Queensbury line is on Fort Amherst Road and the zoning is SFR right up until the line with the city. There is a Plaza Commercial zone which starts on the west side of Glenwood Avenue with the Sunoco station. This lot is not contiguous to any Plaza Commercial zone, although Plaza Commercial zoning is in effect across Route 9. The applicant was previously advised that to single out one lot for a re-zoning is not appropriate, and that a variance request might be a better alternative. The request was reviewed with regard to the Pl anning Board's re-zoning review sheet. 1. What need is being met by the proposed change in zone or new zone? There does not appear to be any community need that would be met by this re-zoning. 2. What existing zones, if any, can meet the stated need? The application states that the resident cannot live peacefully at that location. A re-zoning should address a town need not a personal one. 3. How is the proposed zone compatible with adjacent zones? The proposed zone would not be compatible with an SFR zone which is the most restrictive residential zone there is. It would cause an erosion of the residential neighborhood with commercial uses. 4. What physical characteristics of the site are suitable to the proposed zone? The site is less than the required acreage for the zone. A review of the Type II uses for the PC-1A zone reveals that a majority, if not all, would require modification of the site to be accommodated. 5. How will the proposed zone affect public facilities? Traffic in this area is already a problem. Placing any additional commercial facilities which generated a lot of in and out traffic would need to be studied. 6. Why is the current zoning classification not appropriate for the property in question? The current zoning of SFR protects an old established residential neighborhood in the Town. The current classification for this neighborhood is appropriate. The property in question is used for residential purposes. Zoning is a tool for designating appropriate uses for large areas. Relief from zoning requirements can be sought through the variance procedure, where site specific circumstances are more readily addressed. 7. What are the environmental impacts of the proposed change? The environmental impacts of the change would be specific to the type of use which was placed on the lot. 8. How is the proposal compatible with the relevant portions of the Comprehensive Land Use Master Plan? The Comprehensive Land Use Master Plan does not address a change of zone in this area. 9. How are the wider interests of the Community being served by this proposal? The wider interests of the community would not be served by this re-zoning." MRS. GOETZ-Was this a re-zoning before the Town Board? 27 MRS. YORK-Yes. I bel ieve Mr. Shovah requested a re-zoning of this lot to Plaza Commercial One Acre, and the Planning Board, these are the Staff Notes for the Planning Board recommendation at the time. They stated in their motion that if this came back as a variance request, that these notes should be attached. MRS. GOETZ-Okay, and then there's a letter to Mayor O'Keefe, from the Warren County Planning Board. This was dated July 17, 1991. "The Warren County Planning Board, at it's July meeting, reviewed two projects on Glen Street involving professional office uses." But this isn't to do with this, but should I read this whole letter? MR. TURNER-Is it relevant to the application? MR. CARR-No. MR. TURNER-No. MRS. GOETZ-I read it, and it was just about, honestly, I don't think it is. I mean, it's on file if somebody wants to see it. Okay. We've received these letters. One is from Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Spring, 8 Windsor Drive, "The addition of a business at that corner could only increase the amount of traffic on Windsor. The increase in use that has been generated by the new plaza on Quaker Road puts this narrower than normal street into a degree of use that it cannot handle. At this time, a car exiting Windsor Drive onto Route 9 any time between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. is going to encounter a seemingly impossible task. Now with the increase of traffic turning into the street, it can be a tight squeeze which could easily become the scene of future accidents. In conclusion, my feelings are that a business here would be an unnecessary addition to the exiting problem." This is from William Gates, Glenwood, "live lived at 1 Glenwood, next door to 637 Glen Street, for 14 years. I've watched the amount of traffic on both Glen and Glenwood increase significantly. I've witnessed dozens of auto accidents and watched the Sunoco station, Firestone Tire, Cole Muffler, and the Inside Edge grow in prosperity as well as noise. Also, my neighbor at 3 Glenwood, to the north, is an illegal two family which provides plenty of challenges, both to the eyes and ears. My only pleasant view and quiet comes from 637 Glen Street. I very much would like 637 Glen to remain residential. 637 Glen's neighbors south are not currently available." It says the corner of Garrison. "But Herb Wetherby has said that he feels that that either be all residential or all be commercial, so as not to devalue any adjoining properties, at least that was their viewpoint when I talked with Herb last spring. I much prefer 637 Glen's nice green lawn next door, rather than a busy parking lot for a beauty parlor. Thank you." This is from Elizabeth Bright at 11 Windsor Drive, "I have received the Use Variance application for the property at 637 Glen Street and urge you to deny this application due to the following facts: One, this use would be the first step in allowing a business to operate in a very definite residential block and could very well have a domino effect. Two, although the address is 637 Glen, no one has ever used the door facing Glen Street as an entrance, rather the entrance has been on Windsor. The house has been used exclusively as a residence in the eight years I have lived on Windsor. Three, the parking lot referred to in the application is very small, approximately two cars, and is located at a blind corner of Windsor which, even in normal residential traffic use, is a dangerous curve. As is mentioned, traffic going to this proposed business place will most decidedly increase and provide additional hazards for the residents, including young children who live there. Although I sympathize with the owner, if he is trying to sell his property, two years is not an unrealistic time to wait, in these difficult times. I understand he purchased it in '89, and the house has been occupied steadily, presumably by himself or renters. If he planted an evergreen hedge, as his neighbor to the south has, the noise and the traffic would undoubtedly be less objectionable." This is from Dorothy and Robert LaRose, 25 Glenwood, "We the undersigned will not be in town on Wednesday to attend the above re-zoning meeting. We wish to express our disapproval to the proposal on the grounds that we do not need more commercial property or any further increase in the traffic problem in our neighborhood." MR. TURNER-All right. MRS. GOETZ-The Warren County Planning Board approved, "Commercial uses seem more in character with this neighborhood." And the Queensbury Beautification Committee approved, "Floyd Shovah, the property owner, representing applicant, offered the Committee only a verbal explanation as to plantings proposed for the location. It is this Committee's understanding that a hedge row (possibly cedar) would be planted along northern fence at property line. It was suggested, a privacy row be planted at the east side of proposed parking area. Dumpster will be located behind garage and fully screened. COlTØlíittee was concerned about the added traffic onto Windsor and Glenwood Avenue should customers turn left off property. Committee strongly recommends to Mr. Shovah that a right turn off property onto Glen St. would reduce the impact on this sensitive residential area. Mr. Shovah agreed. There was no indication that the applicant would reside at 637 Glen St. Therefore, Committee is recommending applicant provide us with a detailed plot plan should approval be given for variance and that a CO not be issued until 28 ---' recommendations of this Committee be met, including right turn off property to Glen St. exit." And that's from Susan Whiting, the Chair. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further discussion? MR. SHEA-I'd just like to add one thing. While I think that the nature of the property is certainly, by way of noise and the area it's located in, is becoming less and less of the quiet resolve that the residential area would like it to be, and I truly believe that that's happening. That property is changing, and in that respect, there at least should be given some consideration for a possible variance. I also believe that it is our responsibility, here, to maintain the property rights and investments and the nature of the neighborhood as wen, and we reany have to weigh those two things, but I would offer to the Board probably something that may tip the scales for you, and it does for me, and that is the issue of the traffic safety. I think that that's the thing that does it for me the most, in that people are not going to turn right. Once they find out how difficult it is to exit from there, they will undoubtedly turn left and being so close to that tight corner it what probably troubles me most about any of this. So, I would just offer that for your consideration. (END OF FIRST DISK) 29 MR. TURNER-Okay. Anyone ei se? Okay. Jim? Does the Board feel that there's enough strength, here, for him to come back with the necessary documentation as to the appraisai and the price? I think we've heard aii the evidence. I think it's just going to be a repeat? How do you feei? MR. SHEA-I agree. MR. CARR-I think it's the appiicant's choice. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further discussion? Anything you want to comment on? MRS. EGGLESTON-No. I think I've expressed my opinions. I don't think the criteria of the saie or how much he bought it for and aii that's going to change my mind. I just think it's not in the best interest of the neighborhood. MR. TURNER-Yes. That's my gut feeiing, because I think it's going to destroy the integrity of the neighborhood that surrounds that piece of property. I mean, just iike I said, once you start cutting into it, it's just a matter of time. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. TURNER-Okay. A motion's in order, then. MOTION TO DENY USE VARIANCE NO. 72-1991 CHAIRMINE SILIPIGNO, Introduced by Joyce Eggieston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Susan Goetz: I beiieve this wouid have an adverse effect on the character of the neighborhood and it most certainiy wouid have a severe impact on traffic. It wouid aiso take away the majority of the green area on this residentiai iot. The appiicant has not proven his contention that it cannot yieid a reasonabie return as it is zoned. There is much neighborhood oppos i tion and I bei i eve it woui d be detrimentai to the purpose of the Ordinance. Duiy adopted this 18th day of September, 1991, by the foiiowing vote: AYES: Mr. Shea, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggieston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE USE VARIANCE NO. 73-1991 TYPE II LC-42A ROBERT L. & SHIRLEY C. HAUSLER (litER: SAlE AS ABOVE RIDGE ROAD. 1,000 FT. PAST ROO AND GUN CWB FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 30 FT. BY 45 FT. STORAGE IIIILOING WHICH IS AN ACCESSORY USE. NO PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE OR USE EXISTS ON THE LOT. (WARREN coom PLANNING) TAX MP NO. 22-1-1.1 LOT SIZE: 2.66 ACRES SECTION 179-13 SHIRLEY HAUSLER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Pianner, Use Variance No. 73-1991, Robert & Shiriey Hausier, September 17, 1991, Meeting Date: September 18, 1991 "The appi icant is requesting a use variance to construct an accessory structure on vacant iand. No principai structure exists. The building is a storage buiiding 30 ft. by 45 ft. (1350 sq. ft.) in an LC-42 acre zone on Ridge Road. This is aiso a designated Criticai Environmentai area. The Zoning Administrator's determination is attached. Staff has contacted the appiicant and they have indicated that this structure wili be a permanent building. Testimony given at the Warren County Pianning meeting was that this structure was to house two boats. The Warren County Pianning Board conditioned their approvai of this to personai boat storage. A storage building is not iisted as an accessory use in LC-42. The Zoning Administrator has indicated she is reviewing this as a storage shed which is iisted as an accessory use. The definition of storage shed appears to verbaiiy iimit the size but there are no exact square footages assigned. The Board may wish to ciarify this for future reference. Aiso, if this structure is not an accessory use, then is site pian review necessary? The concern is that this is a designated CEA. This appiication was iisted as a Type II SEQRA review as piacement of an accessory structure. If the Board determines that this is not such, than the review of this appiication becomes a Type I action. This wouid invoive the notification of the APA, DEC and possibiy the LGPC and Pianning Board with a request for iead agency status. If a permit is required by one of these other agencies, I wouid advise the Board to consider having another agency take the iead for the environmentai review. This appiication was reviewed with regard to the criteria for a use variance. 1. Is a reasonabie return possibie if the iand is used as zoned? Yes. The iot is residentialiy zoned. The appiicant has stated intentions of constructing a residential unit at this iocation in the future. 2. Are the circumstances of the iot unique and not due to the unreasonabieness of the Ordinance? The iot is 2.65 acres and is substandard with regard to the LC-42 designation. The iot does not appear to be dissimiiar to other lots in the neighborhood or to have exceptionai circumstances which prohibit the lot from being deveioped as zoned. 3. Is there an adverse effect on the neighborhood character? The structure wouid be weii hidden from view and if used for personai boat storage wouid probabiy not be a neighborhood impact. The structure wouid be unique in a residential neighborhood 30 and once constructed, cou1d be considered more akin to commercial/1ight industria1 uses than as a residentia1 accessory use. This cou1d possib1y provide criteria for a use variance in the future. The Board has to do a 10ng form SEQRA evaluation of this project as that is the paperwork that accompanied the app1ication. If the Board determines this is a Type I action review of this form shou1d be he1d unti1 the other invo1ved agencies can be noticed." MR. TURNER-A11 right. Who's representing the application? MRS. HAUSLER-Shirley Hausler. MR. TURNER-Okay. The issue is 179-13, and the issue, according to the app1ication, is to erect a storage bui1ding prior to the construction of a single fami1y dwelling which wou1d be an accessory to the principal dwelling, and it's Paragraph Four on Page 17953, if you care to 100k at it. Wi11 this be a storage bui1ding? MRS. HAUSLER-Just for two boats. MR. TURNER-A11 right. What's the height? MRS. HAUSLER-I don't know what the height, I know the dimensions were 30 by 45. The height of it wou1d be, it's going to have, I think, it has a 10 by 10 door, and a 12 by 14 door. So, I'm not sure. It's a Morton bui1ding. MR. TURNER-So, will there be a loft, then? MRS. HAUSLER-No. It's going to be, well, I can show you. It's one of these, they call them a p01e bui1ding, is what they ca11 them. MR. TURNER-A pole barn? MRS. HAUSLER-It's similar to that. It has two doors on it. It's a Morton building, is what it is. MR. TURNER-Yes. Is it going to be, what, this one here? MRS. HAUSLER-It's going to 100k like this, is actua11y what the. MR. TURNER-Which one? What model? MRS. HAUSLER-Well, it'll be this type with the two doors, instead of one, and this, it'll have like star1ights on top. MR. TURNER-Okay. It's the one with the truck parked in front of it? MRS. HAUSLER-It's going to be in brown co1or. MR. TURNER-Yes, earth tone. MRS. GOETZ-If you were to put the principa1 building in there 1ater, wou1d you be bui1ding a regu1ar garage with that? MRS. HAUSLER-I'd be bui1ding a house. MRS. GOETZ-With no garage? MRS. HAUSLER-I'm not sure what we wou1d do, in that case, because what we wanted this for is we have a boat that's about 30 feet 10ng with a trai1er, and we're interested in having that and the wooden boat put in it for now, and then next year or the year after, we're hoping to bui1d a house. MRS. EGGLESTON-Sue, this one. MR. TURNER-It's that one there. MRS. HAUSLER-Well, it's similar, yes. It has the two doors. MR. TURNER-Simi1ar to that with two doors, one 10 by 10. MRS. EGGLESTON-This one? MRS. HAUSLER-Yes, it wou1d be 10 by 10. MRS. EGGLESTON-Which one? 31 MRS. HAUSLER-Well, actually it would have two doors here and it would have a door on the side. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MRS. HAUSLER-This would be the layout of it. MR. TURNER-My question is, if you read Paragraph Four, there, I think it states that, in the general sense, they can appeal that, which they are right now, that the principal dwelling has to be there first. MR. CARR-Where are you? MRS. EGGLESTON-Number Four, on Page 17953. MR. TURNER-179-13, Number Four, Paragraph Four, and if you look at the definition of accessory structure and accessory use, it's incidental and subordinate to the permitted principal use. MR. CARR-But, if you look at it, I mean, I did look at the accessory use, and this is getting really technical here, but the use customarily incidental or subordinate to the character of the permitted principal use or principal building, and permitted principal use, that to me tell you to go to the Ordinance, not to the property, and if it's of a character that is normal for the permitted use, which is a single family residence, then it's an accessory use, and the building doesn't, to me, the building doesn't have to be there first. MR. TURNER-No. That's what I'm saying. MR. CARR-So, you're saying she ~ get a variance? MR. TURNER-No. She can appeal that sentence, that's what she's doing now. Page 17953, that particular paragraph. MR. CARR-You're interpreting that to mean that the building has to be there first? MR. TURNER-The principal dwelling has to be there first. MR. CARR-Okay. I don't agree with that. MRS. GOETZ-Are the key words, to you, Bruce, "to the character"? MR. CARR-No. "Permitted principal use", because that tells me to go find out what is the permitted principal use, not go look at the property to find out what's there. See, to me, that adjective, if you will, those three words, are telling you where to go to find out how to categorize the accessory use, if it's normally incidental to the permitted principal use. So, you have to go into the LC-42 and find out what the permitted principal uses are and find out whether or not this building is normally an accessory to those types of buildings. MRS. CRAYFORD-But what about in the definition of Accessory Use, where it says, "And is located on the same lot width"? MR. CARR-They're talking about the accessory use. MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes. That's what this building is. MR. CARR-It doesn't say, on the same lot with. It says, on the same lot. I mean, "with" implies it's with something. Without with it implies that it's not necessary that that be there. MRS. CRAYFORD-All right. I give that to you. I'm understanding that you feel you can put an accessory use building on a parcel without a principal building being there? MR. CARR-Yes. MRS. CRAYFORD-I don't. MR. TURNER-I don't. A permitted use is any use requlrlng no special action by the Board of Appeals or Site Plan Review by the Planning Board before a building permit is granted by the Zoning Administrator, subject to all the applicable provisions of this Chapter of the Ordinance. MRS. EGGLESTON-Would you read that again? MRS. GOETZ-The definition of Permitted Use. MRS. EGGLESTON-Permitted Use. 32 '- MRS. CRAYFORD-I still say this sentence under Accessory Use, "and is located on the same lot and within the same zoning district, with such permitted principal use or principal building." And I feel that states that you have to have a principal building before you can have an accessory use structure. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-I think so, too. MR. TURNER-Absolutely. MR. CARR-So, you can't build your garage first? MRS. CRAYFORD-No. MR. TURNER-I think we've had other cases, here, similar to that, and I think the one that I'm thinking about is the one right up on Ridge Road, where the lady wanted to come and put a boat storage. I can't remember the name right off hand, but it was right up by, it was right across from the old church, in that area somewhere. MRS. CRAYFORD-I mean, that's why Mrs. Hausler's here, to request a variance to allow this, because the Ordinance won't allow it unless there's a principal structure. MRS. EGGLESTON-I think you're right. MRS. GOETZ-So, are we saying that it would not need site plan review, because this is residential? MRS. CRAYFORD-That's right. MR. TURNER-Yes, right, but how can you prove, because she can't realize a reasonable return on the property, or any of the criteria for a use variance. MRS. GOETZ-You can't. MR. TURNER-If you're going to put a house on it, but you want to put the big storage building on it first. MR. CARR-Okay, well, why would this be a use variance anyway? MRS. CRAYFORD-Because it's an accessory use. MR. TURNER-It's an accessory use that's not permitted. MRS. CRAYFORD-It's not an area. MR. CARR-And it's not considered a storage shed or a private garage? MRS. CRAYFORD-It's a storage shed. A storage shed is defined as an accessory building. MR. CARR-Okay, but I mean, if the primary residence was there, there wouldn't be a use variance then? MRS. CRAYFORD-No. MR. TURNER-It would be an area variance. MRS. CRAYFORD-It would be an area variance, yes, but not a use variance. It's unusual, Bruce. MR. TURNER-It's an unusual case. She's putting the cart ahead of the horse. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MRS. CRAYFORD-I think I told Mrs. Hausler that when she came in to talk to me, that this was a little unusual. MR. CARR-So, what do we do? MRS. CRAYFORD-So, you consider her use variance request. MR. TURNER-You consider her use, what she wants to put there, and that's it. All right. Any further questions of Mrs. Hausler? MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, I guess the obvious one. Why are you building the garage first? 33 - MRS. HAUSLER-Wel1, because we pay quite a bit of money for storage and we figure if we cou1d build our own storage shed and have it for our boat, you know, I mean, we have the two. We have a wooden one, it's about 30 foot with the trai1er and everything. That's why we have to have it, what's it, 45, or whatever he put down, and so that's why we're building that first and then, eventual1y, we're going to move up here. We want to sel1 our house in Clifton Park and we'd like to re10cate up here. We have our driveway to go around where we're going to put the house and so forth and we have it al1 p1otted, but, as I say, we're doing this first, and then we're going to, you know, bui1d the house, and then we'd have p1aces to put our stuff when we move. MR. TURNER-I can understand that, but you have to 100k at the other side of the coin. If for some reason, if we granted it and you bui1t it and for some reason something happened and you cou1dn't build a house there and you decided to sell it, you know, now we're stuck with a great big storage bui1ding. MRS. HAUSLER-Yes, but it's not a commercia1, I'm not doing it for commercial1y. I'm doing it for my house. Do you know what I mean? MR. TURNER-Yes, but they could come in. It is an al10wed use in that zone, commercia1 boat storage. MRS. CRAYFORD-With site p1an review. MR. TURNER-With site p1an review. MRS. HAUSLER-In other words, you're saying, I can't have it? I don't understand what you're trying to tel1 me. MR. TURNER-You can store boats there commercia11y, with site plan review. MRS. HAUSLER-We11, I'm not doing it for commercia1 use. MRS. EGGLESTON-I think he's 100king at it, though, from the other side of the coin, in that, if your p1ans did not go through, then it's stuck with the Land Conservation zone 42 acres, or whatever it is. MR. TURNER-Yes, if for some reason. MRS. HAUSLER-I see what you mean. MR. TURNER-Okay. Are you sti11 looking, Bruce? MR. CARR-No. Just out of curiosity, where can you have a private boat storage? Where is it a11owed? Where is private boat storage al1owed? This is not for tonight. We can find it some other time. MRS. CRAYFORD-I didn't hear your question. MR. CARR-Where is private boat storage a11owed? MRS. YORK-Private boat storage is a110wed in Waterfront Residentia1 One Acre and Waterfront Residentia1 Three Acres, for one p1ace. Do you want me to go through the Ordinance? MR. CARR-No. That's fine. I just was interested. MR. TURNER-Any further questions of the app1icant? If not, I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO CO_NT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE MRS. GOETZ-The Warren County P1anning Board approved for persona1 boat storage on1y. I guess I already read that. We have a 1 etter from Dunham's Bay Fi sh and Game C1 ub, "We woul d 1 i ke to take thi s opportunity to address the Board on our concerns for the Dunham's Bay Fish and Game C1ub on the recent request for a variance by a property owner just north of our property. Dunham's Bay Fish and Game Club is an active shooting organization interested in promoting the safe and responsible use of guns and hunting and sport shooting. We current1y h01d national and regiona1 events for rifle and pistol shooting, in addition to training courses for hunter safety for firearm and bow hunters and the Four H Shooting Sports program. We a1so make our range avai1ab1e the the 10ca1 nationa1 guard and Nava1 Seebee's for their qualification firing and training. In the past, this has created some concern with our neighbors on the noise invo1ved in these activitie$. We current1y enjoy a good rapport with our neighbors and attempt to keep them appraised of any major activity. We wou1d, therefore, like to request that the Zoning Board take this into consideration on any activity adjacent to our facilities." 34 --' MRS. EGGLESTON-Is this property right across from Ridge Terrace, right in that, Tike, it's hard to tell where we were looking, realTy. MRS. HAUSLER-Yes. It's more toward this way. MRS. EGGLESTON-Back toward GTens FaTls? MRS. HAUSLER-Yes. MR. TURNER-Do you know where that Tong driveway goes in, where they haven't got the trees cut away, but it just shoots right straight down, it's right on that TittTe bend. MRS. HAUSLER-I've heard them shoot over there. On weekends, that's aTT you hear. MRS. EGGLESTON-Ted, how does this differ, you know, Eric Hyem, right around the corner, we made him get the boats out of his? Do you remember that, a month or so ago, because he was doing commerciaT in a? MRS. HAUSLER-WeTl, he was doing it for commercial. MR. TURNER-Yes, he had commercial, right. MRS. HAUSLER-He's over on 149 now. MR. TURNER-Okay. Motion's in order. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. I'll make a motion to Deny Use Variance No. 73-1991. MR. CARR-You're making a motion to what? MRS. GOETZ-Deny. MR. CARR-Okay. tÐTION TO DENY USE VARIANCE NO. 73-1991 ROBERT L. & SHIRLEY C. HAUSLER, Introduced by Susan Goetz who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael Shea: A reasonable return is possible if the land is used as zoned. This is Land Conservation 42 Acres. I has been stated that this applicant would be bui1ding a single family residence on the property at a later date. The circumstances of the lot are not unique and not due to the unreasonableness of the Ordinance. It would be possible to develop the lot for residential use. There could be a future adverse effect on the neighborhood character, in that, if circumstances developed where the principal building, the single family residence, could not be built, commercial boat storage would be a possibility there. I'd like to refer to Section 179-12c, Number Four, which outlines Accessory Use or Accessory Structure, and states that an Accessory Use or Accessory Structure shaH be permitted if the use to which it is accessory is a lawful use pursuant to the terms of this Chapter and for which a permit has been issued, if required, pursuant to the terms of Article 14 hereof, so long as said Accessory Use or Structure does not result in or increase any violation of the provisions of Article IV and 179-67. MRS. EGGLESTON-Can we taT k for a minute, Ted. I'm just trying to understand your reasoning. I want to be fair, here, but I'm not sure I understand your reasoning, other than your fear of they'H not complete their plans and they'll leave it as? MR. TURNER-That is one fear, but I think the other side of the coin is that she's applying for an accessory use without the permitted principal structure, and that's what she's applied for the use variance for. MR. CARR-Right, but it's only a technicality because. MR. TURNER-It might be a technicality, but I think, if you let, you know, if you let this go, this gets a favorable vote, we'll say to approve, all right, then you've got some other issues, maybe, down the road that you're going to be faced with, you know, related to this. MR. CARR-Such as? MR. TURNER-Such as some more of that same thing. MR. SHEA-What about people on undeveloped lots putting storage sheds. They own the lot. They want to store their lawn equipment or their snowmobiles, whatever the case may be, and they want to build an accessory structure, but under this proviso, it says that there must be, pursuant to the terms for which a permit has been issued. There's no permit issued for any structure there, as yet, for a main structure. 35 ~. MR. CARR-Okay. I'm understanding. So, if somebody buys, I mean, unfortunateiy, it wouid be setting a precedent that if somebody buys a iot in Tyneswood or Hidden Hiiis, they couid go and put their garden shed up before they put their buiiding up, and they couid, technicaiiy, ieave it there. MR. TURNER-Yes, or put a garage up, whatever. MR. CARR-I can see where it wouid be a bad precedent. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. HAUSLER-But I'm not in the city. I'm in the country where there's nothing around. Where we were putting this buiiding was in the back corner where no one couid even see it from the main road. It wouid be different if it was something that, and it's not a shed that looks iike garbage. I mean, it's a nice iooking shed. I mean, it's not that I'm trying to put up just an oid, wooden oid junk. MR. CARR-No, and that's not it, and we're not saying that about your appiication. MR. TURNER-We're not saying that. We're just saying, the iong term ramifications of this couid very weii cause some real probiems. MRS. HAUSLER-But, now, aii right. Now, what if I turn around and I want to seii this property and someone wants to buiid on there. They can't buiid on that, can they, because it's not so many acres. MR. CARR-Yes, because it's a preexisting nonconforming iot. MR. TURNER-Yes. It's a preexisting nonconforming iot. MRS. HAUSLER-But it is. Aii right. So, in other words, if I soid it tomorrow, somebody eise couid buii d on it? MR. CARR-It is a buiiding iot. MR. TURNER-It is a buiiding iot, yes. You bought it in '89, 2.66 acres, right? MRS. HAUSLER-I was, weli, okay. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MRS. YORK-I have a question. I'm confused about this, because if we're iooking at this as a storage shed, that's an accessory buiiding used to store materiais or smaii equipment, not inciuding vehicies which support the principai use of the site. MR. CARR-Weii, we aren't iooking at it as that. MRS. GOETZ-I don't iook at it as a shed. MRS. YORK-So, you are saying that this is not a storage shed? MRS. EGGLESTON-A storage buiiding. MR. TURNER-No. This is not a. MRS. YORK-Then you're saying this is not a permitted accessory use in this zone? My concern is that I advertised this, and I may have advertised it incorrectiy, and I just want to ciarify this for the future. MR. CARR-Weii, a private boat storage is not a permitted accessory use. MRS. YORK-So, you are saying that this is not a storage shed? MR. CARR-No. I wouidn't think so. It fits the definition of a private boat storage. MRS. YORK-Okay. MRS. CRAYFORD-Weii, then it's not a permitted use in this district. MR. CARR-Right. MR. TURNER-That's right. MR. SHEA-Which is reason to deny it. 36 MRS. CRAYFORD-So, then she's requesting a use variance for a use not permitted in the district, and not for an accessory building to be constructed prior to the principa1 bui1ding. MR. TURNER-We11, that's the way it was advertised, wasn't it? MRS. YORK-Right. You see, what I'm saying to you is that now it becomes a Type I action. There are other invo1ved agencies here that have not been noticed and it was not pub1ic1y advertised correct1y. MR. CARR-So, we have to define what she's doing first. MRS. YORK-That's what I'm asking you to do. MRS. EGGLESTON-I don't think you cou1d ca11 this a shed. MR. SHEA-It's private boat storage, c1ear1y. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. CARR-Then it's a Type I action and it's a who1e variance that has nothing to do with accessory uses. MRS. CRAYFORD-That's what Lee's getting at in this. MRS. YORK-Right. MRS. CRAYFORD-Lee's trying to get the definition of a storage shed out of here. So, it's private boat storage. MRS. YORK-They're saying it's private boat storage. MRS. CRAYFORD-So, I think you need to advise Mrs. Haus1er that she, we wou1d have to, what, re-advertise it with that use in mind and then review it again with that use in mind, Mrs. Haus1er. MR. CARR-But this wou1d have to go to the P1anning Board. MRS. YORK-It's going to have to go to everybody. MRS. GOETZ-And the APA, the DEC. It's not a good idea. MRS. CRAYFORD-Or you may want to withdraw the two app1ications. MRS. HAUSLER-I'11 just pay for storage at the marina, and I don't know. I think I'll just forget it. I just don't know which way to go. I mean, we want to bui1d something nice there. We would 1ike to bui1d a house, but we're going to go through so much action, to bui1d just a boat storage for our own boats, what's it going to be 1ike if I want to bui1d a house. MRS. YORK-Mrs. Hausler, you can just go get a bui1ding permit for the house, if you meet a11 the setback requirements, which, on that size 1ot, you cou1d meet them. MRS. HAUSLER-See, we a1ready c1eared, we didn't rea1ize you had to have 100 feet, now, because that's been changed, too. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. HAUSLER-So, we had the man come in, take a11 the stumps out. We cut down trees. We worked there for a year on c1eaning it out so we cou1d put this up, and now we can't do that either. So, I, you know, it's just. I know it's not your fauH, but I was given this paper in '89, and it said that it was 50 foot setbacks on each side and now it's no good anymore, and I mean, we're not notifi ed thi s, so we went ahead, it cost us maybe $2,000 for it. MRS. YORK-Mrs. Haus1er, I have your p1an in front of me, okay. You have, it appears, about 305 feet in width for your 10t and about 583 feet in 1ength. You cou1d, possib1y, fit a house, depending on the size of your house, on that 10t without any variances. You might need area variances to fit a house. However, the tests for area variances are far and away not as strict as the tests for use variance, because a use variance, is changing the character, the use, of an area, by what you're doing, okay, and that is the concern of the Board. The concern of the Board is not p1acement of a residentia1 structure, here. This is a residentia1 zone. MRS. HAUSLER-So, in other words, if I wanted to bui1d, say I went ahead, then, and bui1t my house. Now, am I going to be ab1e to put a boat storage, if I wanted to, on there, or not? 37 '-- MR. CARR-Possibly, but the problem is, with the way the Ordinance is written, you would still have to go through all those agencies that were just listed, the APA, the DEC would all take a look at it. MRS. HAUSLER-Well, could I put it in my yard? Am I able to put it in my yard without a building, or will that be a problem? MR. TURNER-The boats? MRS. HAUSLER-Yes. MR. SICARD-You can put them anywhere you want. MR. CARR-Well, private boat storage is storage on the property of three or less, right? MRS. CRAYFORD-But private boat storage only allows for vessels under 18 feet. MRS. HAUSLER-So, in other words, I can't even put my boat in mY yard? MR. SHEA-Legally, no, you can't. MRS. HAUSLER-I think I'll just forget about this. I mean, it's to a point where, no matter what I do, I'm doing wrong. So, I don't know where to start, I don't know where to go from here. It's very upsetting, believe me, especially after we paid so much money to clear it all out, thinking that we could put it in there. We didn't realize you had to build a house first. That was our biggest mistake, and then clearing it for the 50 feet which we thought we were doing right, which isn't right anymore because you've changed this, and nobody notifies, so how would we know, you know, about? MR. CARR-It has to be notified in the paper, it's publicly noticed. MRS. HAUSLER-Yes, well, I live in Clifton Park. I don't get the Post Star. MRS. EGGLESTON-When did you buy the property? MR. TURNER- '89. MRS. EGGLESTON-'89? MRS. HAUSLER-'89, '88, something like that, yes. MR. SHEA-Well, don't get so discouraged to think that you can't do it, because it can be done. You will have to go through certain agencies and you'll have to follow the same rules and reg's that everyone else does. So, please don't go away discouraged. MRS. HAUSLER-I realize that. I don't feel that it's, you know, it's just that it's everything you cross, you know, it's discouraging. I don't care. It is. MR. TURNER-Yes, but it's for your protection as well as everybody else's. MRS. HAUSLER-I understand. MR. TURNER-Can we have that motion. MR. CARR-Well, wait. Did you withdraw your application? MR. TURNER-Did you withdraw it, or do you want us to vote on it? MR. CARR-I would suggest you withdraw them, because if we vote on it, and deny it, you can't come back for a year. If you withdraw it, then it just. MRS. HAUSLER-I'll just withdraw it, I guess. AREA VARIANCE NO. 74-1991 TYPE II LC-42A ROBERT L. & SHIRLEY C. HAUSLER (litER: SAtE AS ABOVE RIDGE ROAD, 1,000 FT. PAST ROD AND GUN CWB FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 30 FT. BY 45 FT. STORAGE IIIILOING PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OF SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. THE IIIILOING CANNOT JEET THE RE~IRED REAR AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS. (WARREN COONTY PLANNING) TAX MP NO. 22-1-1.1 LOT SIZE: 2.66 ACRES SECTION 179-13 THIS WAS WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT. AREA VARIANCE NO. 75-1991 TYPE II lIR-lA JOYCE & ART IIICKLEY OWNER: SAtE AS ABOVE HILUM ROAD, CLEVERDALE FOR THE ADDITION OF A 12 FT. BY 12 FT. DECK (OPEN) IN THE FRONT YARD. (WARREN COONTY PLANNING) TAX IMP NO. 11-1-34 & 1.2 LOT SIZE: 10,000 SQ. FT. SECTION 179-16, 179-60 ART BUCKLEY, PRESENT 38 STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Area Variance No. 75-1991, Joyce & Art Buckley, September 17, 1991, Meeting Date: September 18, 1991 "The request is to construct a deck within 46 feet of Lake George rather than the required 75 feet. A side yard variance will also be required for 6 feet of relief on the north side of the lot which will be 14 feet instead of the required 20 feet. The property is on Hillman Road on Cleverdale. The lot size is about a quarter of an acre. This property received a variance June 26, 1985, (Var. # 1009) "to remove an existing sunmer camp and build a new dwelling at the same front yard setback but four feet less than the requirement on the side." This application was reviewed with respect to the area variance criteria: 1. Describe the practical difficulty which does not allow placement of a structure which meets the zoning requirements. The property is uniquely shaped with 58 feet on the lake and 105 feet at the road. There is no place on the front of the house a deck could be placed without violating the setbacks. 2. Is this the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the specific practical difficulty or is there any other option available which would require no variance? There are no options which would not require a variance. 3. Would this variance be detrimental to the other properties in the district or neighborhood or conflict with the objectives of any plan or policy of the Town? Expansion along shorelines is not encouraged in sensitive areas. Lake George is a critical environmental area. A deck, however, will not create more impermeable surface and storm water conditions should not be increased. 4. What are the effects of the variance on public facilities and services? None. 5. Is this request the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty? The applicant currently has some old stairs placed against the structure to gain access. A safe accessway has to be provided to the front of the house. This could be accomplished with less than a 12 x 12 foot deck." MRS. GOETZ-The Warren County Planning Board approved and comments, "Remain as an open deck." MR. BUCKLEY-My name's Art Buckley, and my wife and I, when we built this whole, back in '55, '58, the setback, in that day, was 50 feet. It's been since revised to 75 feet. Under present conditions, we couldn't even build a house on the property. However, we have, except for one corner of the house, we did maintain side yard setback, except for the southwest corner of the house, and right now the house sits back 63 feet from low water. I think there's a mismeasurement on your. MR. TURNER-Yes. It shows 58 feet. MR. BUCKLEY-Right, and now, with the deck out there, it will be 12 feet from, that will be 51 feet. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. BUCKLEY-So, by that, we could still maintain the previous setback, as when, you know, according to the regulations when we built the home, and it certainly would add to the value of the property, and it certainly would improve it's looks. At the moment, we only have just the three step staircase going into the parlor. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARR-What's the deck going to be, what construction? MR. BUCKLEY-It's going to be of pressure treated wood, and it will sit on concrete posts in the ground, four feet, and it will not be covered. That is one thing you can be sure of. It will be an open deck, period. MR. CARR-And which side would the stairs go off the deck? MR. BUCKLEY-Off the side, off the south side of the deck. MR. CARR-Off the south side. MR. BUCKLEY-They will not encroach into the front yard. MR. CARR-Why did you choose a 12 by 12 deck, as opposed to a 10 by 10? MR. BUCKLEY-Well, it will utilize, we'll try to utilize as much space as we can, and still maintain a 50 foot setback, and, hopefully, that's what we can get, if you'll approve. MR. TURNER-If you looked at it, there were two stakes up there, right where the deck was going to start, Bruce, and where it was going to end. He had it laid right out. MR. BUCKLEY-I had it all laid out, but it's just one of those things, you know. I moved the stakes to cut the grass, and, you know. MR. TURNER-Yes, and didn't put them back. Any other questions? 39 "-- MRS. EGGLESTON-I don't have a prob1em with it. We went and 100ked at it. MR. TURNER-He's got a rea1 sma11 10t on it. Like he says, he can't do anything without a variance. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, nice1y kept. He's made an effort to keep it. MR. SHEA-Bruce, by going to 12 feet, 1umber comes in 12 foot 1engths. They won't have to cut anything off. MR. TURNER-Okay. I'll open the pub1ic hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JEFF SMITH MR. SMITH-Good evening. My name is Jeff Smith. I am a spokesperson for Caro1ine Smith, the owner of the property to the north of the Buck1 ey property, and I'd 1i ke to address two questi ons, fi rst the setback. Our new home is within 50 feet of the property. So, the construction of this deck certain1y conforms with the area. Second1y, those of you who have visited the property wou1d probab1y agree that we on the north wou1 d be impacted the most by the constructi on of the proposed deck, and we favor and support it. MR. TURNER-Okay. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Any further questions of the app1icant? Any discussion? None? Motion's in order. tÐTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 75-1991 JOYCE I ART IIICKLEY, Introduced by Susan Goetz who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: The practica1 difficu1ty on this property is that it's a preexisting, nonconforming lot. They're asking for 24 feet relief on the shoreline setback, and they're requesting a side yard variance with 6 feet re1ief on the north side. This wou1d p1ace the deck at 14 feet from the norther1y property 1ine. The practica1 difficulty is that the property is unique1y shaped. It's triangu1ar with 58 feet on the 1ake side and 105 feet at the width of the property at the road side. The steps are necessary to gain safe access from a back s1iding g1ass door. This is minimum re1ief. The variance would not be detrimenta1 to other properties in the district. There's no adverse effect on pub1ic faci1ities and services and no neighborhood opposition. Du1y adopted this 18th day of September, 1991, by the fo110wing vote: AYES: Mr. Shea, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Egg1eston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE MR. TURNER-Okay. We have one other item of bus i ness, and there was a 1 etter that was sent to me regarding this particu1ar circumstance. MR. CARR-Is this Theresa Richardson? MRS. GOETZ-This is David Richardson. MR. TURNER-Richardson. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. "I am writing to you upon the advice of Steven Borgos and Pau1 Dusek. We own property on Eagan Road in the Town. This property has quite invo1ved history. The property is on a dead end dirt road and is partia11y zoned recreationa1 residentia1. The remainder of our property is zoned Light Industria1 One Acre. In the spring of '91, Eagan Road was widened and paved and a Town water 1ine was put in. However, neither of these improvements reached our property. We have a1so been to1d that we are in between two water districts and need to have a new district created in order to obtain Town water. Due to other circumstances, we have been attempting to se11 this property for approximate1y two years. We have a pending contract now with the contingency that the purchasers obtain a variance to construct a modu1ar home on this four acre parcel. However, due to time constraints beyond our contro1, we need to have approva1 of this request prior to your October meeting. For these reasons, Pau1 Dusek suggested that we respectfu11y request that you ca11 a specia1 meeting to hear this variance app1ication. If possib1e, we wou1d hope that such a meeting, if ca11ed, cou1d be he1d before the end of September. We appreciate any he1p that you would be able to give us, reso1ving this prob1em. Please fee1 free to contact my daughter, Theresa Richardson. She is a para1ega1 with the firm of Bart1ett, Pontiff, eta1. David Richardson" MRS. CRAYFORD-That entire parce1 is zoned Light Industria1. 40 -- MR. TURNER-Yes, and even if you did it, you cou1dn't get it in in September because of the advertising. MR. CARR-No. I ta1ked to her today, though, and the circumstances are, it is Light Industrial. They have horses on the property, but she says the on1y access to her house is this road. They stopped paving 500 feet from her, so there's no, you know, water or, obvious1y, no septic or anything. There's no services to it. So, as a Light Industria1, it's not reany that usefu1, but, in regard to that, the reason that they're a1so under time is, one, this is the first offer they've had and, they have to sen their parce1 to buy a parce1 and take their horses down into Washington County and they have to c10se their house to c10se on that house before winter or e1se they'11 10se the house in Washington County, because the peop1e won't wait. MRS. EGGLESTON-And I might add, the Town has been up there exhaust pipe, to say the least, about getting the horses out of the neighborhood because there's so many comp1aints, but they've had the horses long before. MRS. CRAYFORD-I haven't been asking them to get rid of their horses. I have been asking them to, they enlarged the use there, of the horses. They en1arged a nonconforming use. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, but they've a1ways had the horses. MRS. CRAYFORD-I agree, but they added horses. They have more horses than are a110wed per the Ordinance. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, they probab1y do. MRS. CRAYFORD-And they've added them since. MR. CARR-We11, this might be a way to clear up a big prob1em in the Town, and I said, when do you need it, and she said, ear1y October wou1d also be he1pful, because they know they have to have a 10 day notice period. MR. TURNER-Right. MR. CARR-I mean, my fee1ing is that there's a lot of, we could he1p some peop1e, c1ear up a Town prob1em, if we would be wi11ing to meet in ear1y October. MR. TURNER-I don't have a prob1em with a special meeting, if everybody e1se can meet, once we get the date estab1ished. MR. SHEA-I don't have a prob1em. MRS. EGGLESTON-It's fine with me. MR. TURNER-What wou1d be the ear1iest, Lee? MRS. YORK-Let me just get a calendar. MR. DUSEK-I should ten you, she understands that she mayor may not get the variance. I told her, when she called me, she said, what can I do, and I said, we11, you know, the next Board meeting's in October. She said, wen, that presents a real prob1em. First of an, you don't have a guarantee on the variance. The on1y other thing I cou1d think of you cou1d possib1y do is write the Board and see if the Board would entertain it, if they can, and I exp1ained to her she may not get that either, just so the Board knows. MRS. EGGLESTON-I know they've had a coup1e of sales fa11 through. MR. TURNER-She made a statement, she's 10cked between two water districts. MR. DUSEK-She's in a very difficult situation down there. It's Light Industria1, but she can't reany se11 it for Light Industria1 because she doesn't have the water. MR. TURNER-But if she did sen it for Light Industria1, I'm sure the Town, I mean, how far wou1d the Town have to run it, that's the other thing? MR. SICARD-Eagan Road. MR. TURNER-Eagan Road. MR. SICARD-That's the end of Eagan Road. MR. TURNER-Yes, that's the end of it. MR. CARR-But you'd have to pave it and then you'd have to run the water. 41 '- MRS. YORK-The Town Regulations state that if you're within 1,000 feet of a water district, you have to make application to be incorporated. I don't know if this property is within 1,000 feet. MR. DUSEK-I'm not sure. MR. TURNER-I'm not sure either. MR. SICARD-There's a little property squabble going on there, other than what you've heard. MR. TURNER-Other than what we're hearing. MR. SICARD-That's right. That's why they stopped, because there is a determination that has to be made, who owns the property just beyond where they stopped. He just went out and said, you better stop because I own that land, and they did, and that's where it is. I know that to be true, because Joe Maille owns the land. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. SICARD-He's got the house right there, and he really wants the water. There's a little squabble going on between he and the Town. MR. TURNER-What would be the earliest date, Lee? MRS. YORK-It looks like probably the 3rd. MR. TURNER-October the 3rd? MRS. YORK-Right. MR. TURNER-Okay. Can everybody meet the 3rd? MR. SHEA-What day is that? MRS. YORK-That's a Thursday. MRS. EGGLESTON-That's a Thursday. MRS. CRAYFORD-I was just saying to Lee, now, she has to hope the Planning Board cooperates for this. MRS. YORK-They will have to have an application in to me by the 25th, for the Planning Board, okay. The Planning Board meets on the 15th, which there's a weeks difference. I really don't think the Planning Board is going to have a special meeting when there's a meeting coming up within a week. I mean, they just handed in the application for the Zoning Board. MR. TURNER-Yes, well, lets leave it at that until we hear from you. MRS. YORK-From me? MR. TURNER-Yes, you've got to, you know, you're telling us the earliest they can have it is the 3rd. MRS. YORK-Right. MR. TURNER-Okay. So, I can check with you between now and then. MRS. YORK-Do you want to have the meeting? MR. TURNER-Yes, I do. MRS. YORK-All right. You want me to advertise it, that's what you're saying? MR. CARR-Yes. MR. TURNER-If it's possible, for the 3rd. MRS. YORK-Okay, and do you want me to get your room here and see if we can have the room. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. YORK-We might have to move to another location. MR. TURNER-Okay. 42 '---- MR. CARR-Would that be at 7:30? MRS. YORK-It's up to you guys. MR. CARR-I mean, I've got something going late in the afternoon on Thursday. It might go into the evening. MR. TURNER-Do you want it at 7:30? MR. CARR-That would be good. MR. TURNER-Okay. I don't have a problem with that. MR. SHEA-Fine. MRS. YORK-Okay, 7:30. MR. TURNER-Okay. Paul wants to talk to us on the matter of the sign variance that's going to be before us, Adicommco. MR. DUSEK-I hadn't planned to address that one. MR. TURNER-You hadn't? MR. DUSEK-No. MRS. GOETZ-What are you going to discuss? MR. DUSEK-Parillo. MRS. YORK-All right. Do you want to be in executive session or what? MR. DUSEK-Well, before that, could I just touch base, do you want to talk about counsel at all? MR. TURNER-Yes, I think we ought to discuss that. MR. DUSEK-Okay, before we go into Executive Session. I don't think, just the general topic of counsel for the Board, I don't think doesn't qualify for Executive Session. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. DUSEK-Basically, I think everybody knows, at this point, or, hopefully you know, or if you don't, you will now, that Karla has left the Town. She is going on to England to study for her Masters Degree, I guess, something to do with International Law of some nature. So, she left as of Monday, and that's why I'm here. I thank you for letting me work over there. I have a court hearing tomorrow morning, so that worked out kind of nice tonight. At this point, the Town has a lot of decisions, of course, before it, and we have to, obviously, we're looking to do a couple of things, provide the proper legal services, the legal services that are required and requested, and then also, though, to save money. The Town Board is evaluating the situation, and I would like to just ask this Board what your thoughts are on the matter, in terms of outside counsel. I don't think we really want to go with another Deputy Town Attorney, at least not right now, because everything seems to be slowing, but the thought is is that, even with just one Board meeting each month, with each Board, there's still going to be a drain on the services, depending upon how much service is required. I guess there's two questions. One is, is that, does this Board want an attorney sitting at every Board meeting, or would this Board, would it be acceptable to the Board to have an attorney just available, and if there was an attorney available, the next question would become whether the Board would want to stay with the Town Attorney's office or have outside, independent counsel, or have a combination of both, when there's a, you know, for instance, my office, when and if I could, would service the Board. On the other hand, if there was a case that was a potential conflict or something like that, that outside counsel would be readily available. The catch is, I guess, that if the Board wants full service all the time, at all meetings, I think we'd be leaning more towards outside counsel to satisfy those needs. If the Board thought that they would like to, like have something like what the arrangement was we had tonight, then that may be something that we could handle without the use of outside counsel, because I certainly don't mind splitting myself up, if it's working for you, but if it's not, then we should discuss it, I guess. MRS. GOETZ-I don't think we need full time here, honestly, because I've always been one to think that the Zoning Board shouldn't be working with the threat of the attorneys making all the decisions. I think everybody on the Board has enough sense to be able to really work most of the problems through, and it would just be a total waste of money to have outside counsel come in and sit here every meeting. It seems to have worked well in the past, when you were in your office, and even if you couldn't be there sometimes, that doesn't seem to be a big problem. We can always get an answer later. 43 .......- MR. SHEA-We could always table the issue, if it were a sensitive enough issue that we thought that we needed direction and counsel, we certainly would table it and hold it over. MR. TURNER-Yes. We haven't really had a problem where we really need Paul many times. MRS. EGGLESTON-We haven't. MR. TURNER-Like I said to him tonight, there are occasions where we're going to need him, and he can be here then, and we can get his input, but I think also if there is a conflict of interest on his part, that we've got to give ourselves the leeway to have a separate counsel. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-That doesn't happen very often, though, does it? MR. TURNER-No, but I think if it does happen, we've got to. MRS. GOETZ-It's in the budget, now, is it, for Zoning Board? MR. DUSEK-This year's budget, there would have been, well, the way, there was nothing formal set up in this year's budget. There is, in the Town Attorney's budget line, a contractual account. MRS. YORK-I have a budget line for legal services. MR. DUSEK-Not for this year, do you? MRS. YORK-Yes, I do. MR. DUSEK-For '91? MRS. YORK-Yes. MR. DUSEK-I never knew about that. MRS. GOETZ-But I mean that doesn't happen that often. MR. CARR-No. MR. TURNER-There are going to be cases where he's going to have to be here. MRS. GOETZ-But you kind of know that in advance. MR. TURNER-On really some sensitive applications. MRS. GOETZ-But don't we usually know that? MR. TURNER-We know that well ahead of time, and I think we can address that when the time comes. MR. DUSEK-I certainly don't, you know, just so you know what my position is. Probably my biggest concern is that I just don't think I could be at every single meeting, every time for everybody, because I did it before Karla came and, as you know with your Board, even back then, we had the arrangement, I'd sit over in my office and work and then you guys would call me if you needed me. That helped considerably, but it was still a strain, with the Planning Board and Zoning Board and Town Boards, and what I was finding was I was spending so much time in meetings, I had very little time left to do the work, because you stay out until 12, 1 o'clock, well, you know how it is. You're not totally at your peak, you can't be. So, at this point, since Karla's gone, I've just been trying to take a look at the services. I think it's important to talk to the Boards to see what they want, and then take all of this back to the Town Board. MR. CARR-What's the Planning Board's feelings? MR. DUSEK-The Planning Board felt that they wanted an attorney full time at every meeting. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, the way they do things, I'm not surprised. MRS. GOETZ-And then when an attorney's here, they feel they have to but in. No, seriously, I just think it causes a lot of unnecessary trouble, and we don't want to burden you. MRS. YORK-Well, in defense of the Planning Board, their criteria is a lot less strict than yours is, and a lot of it is subjective. 44 ......- MRS. EGGLESTON-But, Ted, if we got into a prob1em, didn't you say once, we have 30 days to render our decision or do something? MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-So, we could always. MR. TURNER-Yes, I think we can handle it, just the way we've been. We haven't been a burden on him, as of 1ate, very much, at a11. MR. DUSEK-So, would it be safe, then to take back the message to the Town Board that this Board wou1d be happy with a situation, that there was not a fun time counsel sitting, here, but that my office wou1d act as back up, and where I had a prob1em, we'd have a readi1y named attorney, so that, you know, obviously satisfactory to everybody, but that there was another attorney in the wings, so that if we did have a potentia1 conflict, it could be steered to the other attorney, and then I think that. MRS. EGGLESTON-I wou1d agree with that. MR. TURNER-Yes, I agree. Do you guys agree with that? MR. SHEA-That's fine. MR. SICARD-Yes. MR. TURNER-Okay. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. What's your next subject? MR. DUSEK-The next one, we need to go into Executive Session. MR. TURNER-Before we do that, I thought you were going to ta1k to me about Adicommco? MR. DUSEK-The only thing I was thinking of, Ted, and maybe the, my on1y thought was, originany, I was going to come in and tal k, and be here for Adicommco because it was on the agenda, but then it got adjourned. MR. TURNER-No, previous to that. You told me you wanted to ta1k to me about. MR. DUSEK-I can't remember that, now. MRS. GOETZ-I think Lee t01d me. Did it come back because, at first, it was interpretation? MRS. EGGLESTON-You see, because it was denied once, and they appealed it, and they lost. MR. TURNER-No. We offered them a deal. MR. DUSEK-Right. MR. TURNER-And they took the dea1. MR. DUSEK-And they accepted and they're bringing back their variance request. MR. TURNER-They're bringing back their variance request. MR. DUSEK-Right. To be honest with you, Ted, I can't remember, now, what it was that we could have wanted to ta1k about. MR. TURNER-Okay. MRS. EGGLESTON-Wait a minute. I've 10st something, here. They did go to court on that sign. MR. DUSEK-And we won. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, I just said that, and you said no. MR. TURNER-But they said they were going to appea1 it, I think. MRS. EGGLESTON-And they did, and they lost. MR. DUSEK-No. They didn't appeal it. MR. TURNER-No, they didn't appeal it. 45 "- MR. CARR-They didn't appeal their loss at court. -- MR. SHEA-They appealed the zoning determination. They didn't appeal the court. MR. TURNER-What they said, they wouldn't take it to appeal, if, you know, they offered us a deal. MRS. GOETZ-And they offered us a deal? MR. TURNER-Yes, and we accepted it. MR. DUSEK-Well, it wasn't really, I guess, if we're on the record, maybe we should be careful. It's not really a "deal", but rather a, it's more along the lines that we won in court before Judge Dier, okay, there's no question about that. The records are clear. We won the case. We won, and then they filed a Notice of Appeal at the Appellate Division, okay. Now, they do have a right to gp to the Appellate Division and my position was, you know, they said, well, we can get it overturned on the Appellate Division. Of course, I said, no, you can't, but we all know how that goes. Sometimes you win. Sometimes you lose. So, that was that position, and then, after talking about it for a while, the idea came up, well, what if, rather than trying to put up this whole new sign, we simply brought back an application to, basically, rebuild the old sign. Actually, it's going to be a new sign, still, but it's going to be the exact same thing that was already there, and they would still need a variance because of the, you know, if you read the Sign Ordinance, it doesn't really allow any rebuilding, and this Board seemed to be receptive to the idea of, willing to listen to a variance that would provide for a sign that was no bigger, no higher. I remember the height being one of the things that the Board was really concerned about, and so I expressed this to the applicant, and the applicant said, yes, I'd be willing to come back for a variance, as opposed to going for an appeal, and if I get granted the variance, which will be different than what he originally wanted to do. He wanted to put up a great big huge sign. So, in other words, he's basically conceding the point that he's not going to get, but, maybe, with a variance, he'll get something less that may be acceptable to him and to this Board and also, obviously, therefore, alleviate any potential for further litigation. So, that's what's coming back to the Board is an application for a variance, which the Board does not have to grant unless you feel comfortable with it. If you feel comfortable with it, obviously, it's going to remove the problem, and there's not going to be anymore litigation. If it's not granted, then he has to decide whether or not he wants to appeal, you know, but it's a total open ballgame for you to listen to and decide whether or not you like it. I think the preliminary feelings I got from the Board, and I can't remember who was here at the time, but was that you thought it sounded like something that was worthwhile exploring. MR. TURNER-Yes, we did. All right. Now, we've got to go into Executive Session. tÐTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS LITIGATION, Introduced by Susan Goetz who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: Duly adopted this 18th day of September, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shea, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE tÐTION TO CLOSE EXECUTIVE SESSION, Introduced by Susan Goetz who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: Duly adopted this 18th day of September, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Shea, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE A Discussion was held and a motion made on the Frank J. Parillo application. tÐTION TO REVIEW AT A REHEARING HELD UPON NOTICE OF THE ORDER OF THIS BOARD MDE ....LY OF 1989 REGARDING APPLICATION MDE BY FRANK J. PARILLO (AP 189). THE REHEARING SHALL BE ON NOVEMBER 13, 1991. , Introduced by Susan Goetz who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: Duly adopted this 18th day of September, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shea, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Carr, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Theodore Turner, Chairman 46