The URL can be used to link to this page

1991-12-18 -- - ~ ~EENSBURY ZONING BOARD JEETING FIRST REGULAR JEETING DECEMBER 18TH. 1991 INDEX Area Variance No. 88-1991 Arthur J. Tyll 1. Use Variance No. 89-1991 Woodbury's/Moore's 1. Area Variance No. 90-1991 John J. Taylor 2. Area Variance No. 91-1991 Harry Reith 3. Sign Variance No. 92-1991 Lake George Plaza Factory Stores 4. Area Variance No. 93-1991 A. Robert & Jessie W. Stewart 11. Area Variance No. 94-1991 H. Russell Harris/Azure Subdiv. 14. 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. ~ - ~EENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR JEETING DECEMBER 18TH, 1991 7:30 P.M JEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN SUSAN GOETZ, SECRETARY JOYCE EGGLESTON BRUCE CARR MICHAEL SHEA CHARLES SICARD SENIOR PLANNER-LEE YORK ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-PAT CRAYFORD NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 88-1991 TYPE II lIR-lA ARTHUR J. TYLL OWNER: SAtE AS ABOVE PILOT KNOB ROAD, ONTO HANNEFORD ROAD 10TH HOOSE ON LEFT. FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A FREESTANDING SIGN (25 FT. BY 25 FT.) DECK IN THE REAR YEAR IIIICH DOES NOT JEET THE SIDE YARD SETBACKS OF A ZO FOOT MINItIIM WITH 50 FOOT TOTAL. THE APPLICANT RE~EST A 8 FT. 6 IN. SETBACK AND A ZERO SETBACK. (WARREN cœm PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 19-1-9 LOT SIZE: 12,490 SQ. FT. SECTION 179-16 JAMES MURPHY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Area Variance No. 88-1991, Arthur J. Tyll, December 17, 1991, Meeting Date: December 18, 1991 "The applicant is requesting a variance for a deck which would be at 8 ft. 6 in. on one side from the property line and has no setback on the other side. The Board should be aware that the applicant did not meet all the criteria for placement on an agenda. The staff was requested by the Zoning Office to allow the applicant to go the Board as the deck is in existence and was built without a permit. 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 very narrow with ±60 feet along the shoreline. The house is angled with existing concrete walkways. It would be difficult to place a deck without variances. 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? No. The applicant appears to have developed to the maximum deck size allowed on the property. 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? The request is to be on a property line and a situation like this would be detrimental to the adjoining neighbor. 4. What are the effect of the variance on public facilities and services? None. 5. Is this request the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty? No." The Warren County Planning Board disapproved with the conment, "No setback at all." There was a letter from Dave Hatin, to the Zoning Board of Appeals, RE: Arthur Tyll Variance for a Deck, "Dear Board members: This letter is in reference to the deck for which Mr. Arthur Tyll is seeking a Variance. This deck was built without any building permit being issued and is currently occupying the space shown on the site plan, which on the southeast corner is actually over the property line. I physically verified the measurements taken and shown on the site plan and believe that they are as accurate as possible according to the site plan submitted. I trust this will answer any of your concerns, if not please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Dave Hatin, Director of Building and Code Enforcement" MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 88-1991 ARTHUR J. TYLL, Introduced by Susan Goetz who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: Due to the fact that no practical difficulty has been shown. It would adversely effect the neighbor to the south. Stipulation that the applicant will be given until the March Zoning Board of Appeals meeting to provide lesser plans. ... Duly adopted this 18th day of December, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shea, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE USE VARIANCE NO. 89-1991 TYPE II PC-lA IIJODBURY'S/tIJORE'S OWNER: OIAJOtO POINT WMBER GlENDALL DRIVE AT THE END FOR A PARKING LOT FOR EtFLOYEE'S ONLY. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX IMP NO. 104-1-21 LOT SIZE: 42,000 SQ. FT. SECTION 179-72, 179-79 0 1 ~' GARY HUFFMAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Use Variance No. 89-1991, Woodbury's/Moore's, 12-17-91, Meeting Date: December 18, 1991 "The applicant is requesting that they be allowed to expand a nonconforming light industrial use in a PC zone. The Woodbury Lumber Company wishes to locate their employee parking to behind Flowerland. The applicant would need a variance from Section 179-72, which requires a buffer between an industrial use and a residential zone. The SFR-1A zone runs along Hovey Pond. The Warren County Planning Board approved with access only from Lafayette Street. The Board's discussion regarded existing traffic problems on Glen Street by Price Chopper and the desire not to add to the problem. Staff can appreci ate the appl icant' s desi re to 1 imi t access to the 1 umber storage area and all eviate truck stacking on Lafayette Street, however, the plan presented would increase traffic on Glendale Road and Glen Street. The Zoning Administrator has determined that the site plan review is not necessary. The issues involved with this development are 1) parking area development next to a stream/pond and potential recreation area, 2) neighborhood issues related to the buffer zone and traffic, 3) traffic on Lafayette, Glendale and Route 9, and 4) how utilization of the roadways by the fire company on Lafayette will be impacted by this plan. Most of these types of considerations are discussed and mitigation measures identified at site plan review. With this in mind, if the Board feels that this application meets the criteria for approval, you might want to consider asking for a recommendation from the Planning Board. Expansion of a nonconforming use: 1) Is a reasonable return possible if the land is used as zoned? The property is zoned PC-1A. The use is light industrial and thus nonconforming. The location of the property is in a prominent location and could certainly yield a reasonable return if there were allowable uses there. 2) Are the circumstances of this lot unique and not due to the unreasonableness of the Ordinance? The use on the lot has been in existence for a long period of time and it is unique from the perspective that it is nonconforming. The Ordinance defines conformance. The lot size or shape do not limit a reasonable return. 3) Is there an adverse effect on the neighborhood character? The previously mentioned traffic concerns and stream/pond could potentially effect the neighborhood character. Buffer zone: 1) Is a reasonable return possible if the land is used as zoned? The applicant currently has a reasonable return. 2) Are the circumstances of this lot unique and not due to the unreasonableness of the Ordinance? The lot is adjacent to a stream/pond and an SFR zone, but this is not unique in this area. 3) Is there an adverse effect on the neighborhood character? The buffer zone is to protect the adjoining properties. The property is next door to the Fire Company. It would not appear that this would be a concern, however, visibility from the Hovey Pond and Glenwood Avenue area might be." Warren County Planning approved with the comment, "Access only from Lafayette Street." tÐTION TO APPROVE WITH tÐDIFICATION USE VARIANCE NO. 89-1991 II)()()BURY" SftI)ORE" S, Introduced by Susan Goetz who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: There seems to be an unnecessary hardship because there's a Light Industrial use in a Plaza Commercial zone. Any expansion requires a variance. Also, a variance from Section 179-72 which requires a buffer zone. This variance would not be materially detrimental to the Zoning Ordinance or property in the district. We feel that part of the hardship is that the property has existed in this location for many years before zoning was in effect in the Town. The expansion will allow lumber to be stored in the part of the property where the applicant originally wanted to have parking. Parking will occur on the west side of the property with ingress and egress from LaFayette Street only. There will be no access to this property from Glendale Drive. The applicants have agreed to plant 6 foot furs along the northeast property line (Parcel 3) and an additional line of furs 140 feet along the southeast property line of Parcel 3. The applicants have agreed to submit a revised site plan to the Zoning Administrator's office. These stipulations should help to mitigate any negative aspects of the neighborhood character, especially the recreational and residential properties surrounding the property. Duly adopted this 18th day of December, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Shea, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE AREA VARIANCE NO. 90-1991 TYPE: UNLISTED UR-I0 JOHN J. TAYLOR mitER: JOHfI J. & RENE TAYLOR LOT 13 N. LYNN AVENUE TAKE RIGHT ONTO N. LYNN FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOlE WIllDJT THE RE~IRED FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC STREET. (WARREN COONTY PLANNING) TAX IMP NO. 111-1-13 LOT SIZE: 50 FT. BY ISO FT. SECTION 179.70 JOHN TAYLOR, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Area Variance No. 90-1991, 12-17-91, Meeting Date: December 18, 1991 "This request is for a variance to construct a home which lacks 40 feet on a Town Road. The road stops immediately before the lot on Lynn Avenue. This application has been reviewed before under the name of Rita Wolfe. The area variance has expired. Staff attached the motion passed by 2 "- -" the Board. Circumstances on this lot have not changed in the past year." Warren County Planning Board returned, "No County Impact" A previous motion was attached, "Motion to Approve Area Variance No. 66-1990 RITA WOLFE, Introduced by Jeffrey Kelley who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: I feel the applicant does have a special circumstance, here, and that is that the lot is a preexisting lot as shown on Subdivision Map. However, it does not front on a Town road and to deny this applicant would deprive owner of reasonable use of property. This variance would not be detrimental to the purpose of the Ordinance and public facilities and services would not be adversely effected. This is the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty. Short EAF shows not negative impact. Duly adopted this 19th day of September, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carr, Mr. Shea, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Goetz tÐTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 90-1991 JOHN J. TAYLOR, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: I feel the applicant does not have a special circumstance, here, and that is that the lot is a preexisting lot as shown on Subdivision Map. However, it does not front on a Town road and to deny this applicant would deprive owner of reasonable use of property. This variance would not be detrimental to the purpose of the Ordinance and public facilities and services would not be adversely effected. This is the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty. Short EAF shows no negative impact. Duly adopted this 18th day of December, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Shea, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE AREA VARIANCE NO. 91-1991 TYPE II WR-lA HARRY REITH mitER: SAtE AS ABOVE ROUTE 9L, FOURTH CAMP ON LEFT FROM DUNHAM'S BAY BOAT CO. FOR EXPANSION OF 6 FEET (TOWARDS THE LAKE) OF THE SITTING PORCH. THE PROPOSED EXPANSION IDJLO BE 48 FEET FROM THE LAKE AND 6 FEET AND 10 FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINES. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX IMP NO. 4-1-18 TAX IMP NO. 4-1-18 LOT SIZE: 50 FT. BY 157 FT. SECTION 179-16C, AND 179-60 HARRY REITH, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Area Variance No. 91-1991, Harry Reith, 12-17-91, Meeting Date: December 18, 1991 "The applicant is requesting to expand toward Lake George without the 75 foot setback required by the ordinance. The structure is currently 63 feet from the Lake and will be 48 feet from the Lake. The lot is ±50 feet wide and ±163 feet long. The applicant plans to extend the porch by 6 feet and add a 14 x 32 deck. The deck wi 11 be 6 feet on the north from the property 1 ine and ten feet on the south. The setbacks in the WR-1A zone are a minimum of 20 feet with a sum of 50 feet. The applicant reduced the plan so the staff is unable to measure permeability which is required to be 65%. 1) Describe the practical difficulty which does not allow placement of a structure which meets the zoning requirements. The width of the lot does prohibit construction without a variance. The shoreline setback, however, does not appear to have a practical difficulty. The applicant has a sitting porch and a patio already. 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? The applicant has not really described the practical difficulty. 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? No, unfortunately all the lots are thin and overdeveloped. 4) What are the effects of the variance on public facilities and services? The Board is aware of the concerns about expansions along the lake shore. 5) Is this request the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty? The applicant has not described the practical difficulty." The Warren County Planning Board returned "No County Impact" MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 91-1991 HARRY REITH, Introduced by Susan Goetz who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: In order to give the applicant time to come up with permeability figures for the Board. Duly adopted this 18th day of December, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Shea, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE MRS. YORK-Mr. Reith, if you want to come back with your information, you need to get your information in by December 26th. MR. REITH-Right. MRS. YORK-Okay, to the Planning Office, just for your information. 3 -- - MR. REITH-Okay. Yes. MRS. YORK-So, talk to Pat as soon as you can. MR. REITH-Okay. Fine. Thank you. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 92-1991 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-lA LAIŒ GEORGE PLAZA FACTORY STORES O"ER: GREENRIDGE MANAGEJENT CORP. EAST SIDE OF ROUTE 9 NEAR INTERSECTION OF ROUTES 9 AND 149 TO REtl»VE EXISTING PYLON SIGN AND REPLACE IllTII NEW 50 SQ. FT. PYLON LOCATED NEAR FIRST DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE. TIlE NEW SIGN RE~IRES A 3 FT. SETBACK RELIEF FROM CODE AND PERMISSION TO HAVE TENANT ID PLA~ES. (WARREN COONTY PLANNING) TAX IMP NO. 36-1-27.2 LOT SIZE: 3.33 ACRES SECTION: SIGN ORDINANCE JIM DYER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (9:11 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Sign Variance No. 92-1991, Lake George Plaza Factory Stores, 12-17-91, Meeting Date: December 18, 1991 "The applicant is requesting to have a sign 12 feet from the property line which identifies all the inside tenants. Last month Polo/Ralph Lauren, a tenant in the mall received a sign variance. 1) Are there special circumstances applying to the land or signs which do not apply generally to the neighborhood? This roadway is heavily developed with plazas. Many of the tenants of these plazas do not have signage on the road. The plaza is the entity which attracts the consumer, to a great extent. That is why retailers prefer to be in that situation. Also, traffic is a problem in that area. Encouraging individual tenant signage further clutters the roadways and can add to traffic concerns. 2) Is reasonable use of the land or sign possible if the ordinance is complied with? Yes. The existing signage is visible and identifiable from the roadway. 3) Is there an adverse effect on neighborhood character or public facilities? Adding additional signage could set a precedent which might have an adverse impact. 4) Are there any feasible alternatives? Yes. The existing signage identifies the plaza. The no action alternative is feasible. 5) Is the degree of change substantial relative to the ordinance? This is a discussion for the Board." MRS. GOETZ-The Warren County Planning Board disapproved, "Cluttering of area, do not want to set a precedent, hazardous, there is adequate signage and would not enhance community appearance." MR. TURNER-Okay. Mr. Dyer. MR. DYER-Yes, hello. Basically, I think a couple of things that I would like to address, in regards to the Staff Review, and only two, I would be concerned that, were they sure we were adding a sign, or just removing a sign and putting a new sign in to replace it? Some of the text in the comments would indicate that there was, I'm not sure if that was a point, so. As far as the concept, what we have to maintain is a mind set, when we look at these Factory Outlet Plazas, is that the actual Factory Outlet Store itself is the drawing card. It's not the Plaza, although the plaza identification and advertising is a great asset. The actual drawing card would be a tenant within the plaza itself. I don't think that anybody would dispute that. I think that's part of the reason why the area's taken off. I mean, we have certain brand name stores in our plaza that we represent here that are very interested in having people visit them and, in fact, people are looking for these outlets. They're looking for a Van Husen or a Bass Outlet. I think that many of the stores in this particular plaza, because of its particular U-Shape, are absolutely invisible to the road. That is to say, by the time you've read the sign, you're either directly in front or even past some of the entrances to enter into the Plaza, and that would be looking over your shoulder to see some of them. What we're asking for for identification out at the road is not excessive. The individual tenant name panels would be six inches high, copy approximately three inches to four inches high. It's simple. The letter styles would be dictated as being simple block. We're not looking for a cavalcade of art and graphics, so that it becomes a big visual eyesore. We're asking to very simply list the tenants in such a way that somebody proceeding at about 30, which I think is the speed anybody is going to drive out there, or if it's busy, could read it at about 200 to 250 feet, and say, there's where Bass is. I've got to signal and turn left here. I think safety's important. Although, I agree that to add a sign to this Plaza would be definitely an increase of visual clutter. I think the unified, six foot wide, it's very small, compact. We're set far enough back from the road that anybody pulling out can see either way. This sign concept, in and of itself, gets this information out at the road, cleanly. I think it gets it out there in such a way that it's consistent with the lettering and the styles of the letters within the Plaza. As I say, we're in a six by forty eight inch long strip for each tenant. That's not a big panel. We're not asking for, like this. We're talking about that high, with just enough copy on it to say Bass, Van Husen, etc., and I think that the whole design is designed to be ground lit, not internally lit, as is the sign now, which means it's not an internally illuminated sign, which might be unfavorable in this particular area, and I think that that type of design is in keeping with what's up in place in the other stores in the area, and, again, the end of any of the main buildings within this Plaza, there's no suitable place to menu your tenants within the Plaza. There's no one spot on any building, you know, either end of the U-shape of this building, that would do it, and to do it all the way inside the end of the U that sets back in would really not work, and as far as the area each tenant panel would take up, it is less than, it's approximately two square feet, which is less than your informational 4 - - requirements for any informational sign, in terms of directional signs, etc. So, I think the effort was to make it as concise and clearly designed as possible. MR. SHEA-If you get this approved, you'll be removing the existing sign? MR. DYER- Yes. MR. SHEA-If this is an improvement in signage, why wouldn't you put it right where the existing sign is? MR. DYER-Because we are located about 35 feet from the southern driveway. A large chunk of the traffic passing through, we determined, by looking at the site, the visibility of the property from the north bound access approach was poor, simply because you're coming off the either the Northway, or traveling north out of Glens Falls, you catch the end of the building, if you can visualize it on the side, you really can't see anything, that if somebody's going to make a safe turn, it certainly should try to get them to hit that first driveway, which is right after the Mobil station, and so we moved the sign southward, there. That, we felt, would improve the visibility of the Plaza for the northbound traveler, which makes up a good 50 percent, you know, it's 50/50, I would assume, the north south travel there. The south bound approach, the sign is still close enough to the north entrance to be visible and readable prior to a north entrance turn, but at the same time, the Plaza itself presents itself somewhat better to the south bound traveler than it does the north bound traveler, in terms of getting people to pull in there and see the Outlet Stores, which are the drawing cards. MRS. YORK-Excuse me, would you just identify yourself? MR. DYER-I'm Jim Dyer from Signs of Progress. MRS. YORK-Thank you. MR. SHEA-Jim, they don't consider Polo to be the anchor tenant in this Plaza, the owners, the Management Company? MR. DYER-I don't think Polo's in this Plaza. MRS. GOETZ-That's what they said last month. MR. TURNER-Yes, they are. They better be. MR. DYER-Well, Polo is, but Polo has an agreement, at this point in time, that they will do whatever they do on their own. At this point in time, Anne Klein is what we classify as the anchor tenant, who is, by corporate and contractual agreement, given that designation in any pylon sign out at the road. MR. CARR-Well, I think we'd have to see that, since Polo, last month, told us they were the anchor tenant. MR. DYER-Well, how many anchor tenants are there in the mall? MRS. GOETZ-It's whoever's coming in for the variance, they suddenly become the anchor tenant. MR. DYER-Well, this application's presented by the landlord, okay, which we are saying that Lauren wi 11 not appear as an anchor tenant on thi s sign, and there's a mi nor di stinction between the Anne Klein panel, which is somewhere in the vicinity of eight or nine inches high, and forty eight inches long, and the rest of them which are six inches high and forty eight inches long. It's just a minor. MR. SHEA-The reason we ask is that the owners, the management company, are asking us to treat one of the tenants as a separate entity, when we did treat them, I mean, we ruled last month and gave them a variance based on, they appealed to us on the basis that they needed help because of being part of that Plaza, and now they're not even appearing on the sign, here, because they were here last time and we gave them what they needed. MR. CARR-That's right, and their argument, last month, was that their name was on the front of the building because they were the draw card for the Plaza. MR. SHEA-And they wanted that because they weren't on the sign. MR. DYER-Well, I think every retailer in there will tell you that they're the drawing card for the Plaza. MR. CARR-That's fine, but they were here with the, I think, owner's permission, or whatever, and now the owner's telling us, well, they aren't really the draw card, Anne Klein is. 5 - MR. DYER-Well, I'm not saying that they're not. I think every store and every plaza on that half mile of roadway is, in and of itself, a drawing card. They all offer a service or a product line that is unique, but at this point in time, we're not presenting them as a part of our ground sign, simply because they had the end of the building. We recognize that the stores on the ends of these buildings don't need this. You do recognize that there's some 15 spaces in this Plaza that have really no direct visual frontage to Route 9, and these are the stores we're trying to assist. MR. SHEA-They knew that when they signed the leases, getting back in there. MR. SICARD-That's right. What's changed? MR. CARR-And, also, this is the whole reason for only having one sign on a plaza that identifies the plaza, is because every tenant thinks they're going to be important and should have signage, and then we're going to get everybody with signs out there. MR. DYER-I agree with you, in the point that you're saying, well, gee, now you've got a quarter of your sign's for the Plaza and a quarter's for this tenant, a quarter's for this tenant, then we'll split the rest up, but I think what we've done here is we've tried to come in with a presentation that, Number One, shows that there's an intent of design. We're not in here with just logos on the signs. We're trying to keep this as informationally based as possible. This sign is to be a functional sign. If we're looking at trying to get the subliminal advertising message out with this sign, this sign's not going to do it. If you're looking for the store, you'll find it, but you're not going to drop by every day, and after 10 days going by, realize that there's a Nautica store in there, because that's not how this sign works. This is, in essence, an extension of any kind of directional sign you might offer, you know, you have to admit, if you look at the sketch of the sign, that the actual panels themselves are not really aggressive. They're informational in nature. We designed the sign entirely with the idea of keeping those panels controlled. The landlord has dictated the letter style that's going to go on them, and the sizes. MR. CARR-But I guess my concern is that I don't think this is the proper forum for us to piecemeal this request, because once you make the request, or, you know, the next plaza's going to make a request, and the next plaza. Perhaps, I think the best forum for this whole argument is before the Town Board and before the Sign Variance. MR. SICARD-I agree. MR. DYER-I've, personally, been through this process before, and I think Charlie and Mr. Turner and Mrs. Goetz will remember that we've gone through identifying plazas, and some tenants within a plaza, with justification, before. We've done it with the Glen Square Plaza. We did it with the Zayre, what was then the Zayre Plaza, simply because we had a visibility problem with the tenant, who was nested inside of a plaza, who, for whatever reason, felt that they need some, this is not giving anybody an advantage. It's, basically, just giving them some identification, in this case, that would be adequate, and I think that the Board has found, before, that there was adequate reason before, previously, with sequestered and nested tenants in a plaza, to. MR. CARR-Right, but those plazas were sequestered or nested not of, really, their own doing, but by their neighbors. This was a design of the owners. I mean, he was, the owner built the plaza that way so it's almost a self created hardship. MR. DYER-Well, the owners built all the other plazas the same way, too. MR. CARR-No, no, but the one that strikes my mind is the Route 9, right down the street from you. They've got the individual tenants, the yellow sign. MRS. GOETZ-Las Vegas? MR. CARR-No, the one, about two years ago, we gave him, because he was 300 feet back, and it wasn't. MR. DYER-Well, how far back would you estimate the back of this plaza is here? MR. CARR-No, but his problem wasn't that they couldn't see his. It was somebody built next to him and built their plaza right up next to it. It's right next to Dunham's, right next to the Log Jam. MRS. GOETZ-Big, Tall Men? MR. CARR-Yes. So, I mean, that wasn't a hardship of his own doing, really. I mean, it was the circumstance. MR. DYER-Except that if you didn't own the lot next door, you would assume there's going to be a building built there someday. You can't deny that. MR. CARR-No, but I'm saying that you can't tell me that now, because you guys, or because this Management Company, or Lake George Factory Stores built their Plaza in a U shape, that they've created a hardship, that now all the stores in the back can't be seen, so now we deserve signs out front. I mean, then everybody on the inside of a mall should have a sign, and that's not the intent of the Ordinance. /\ - --' MR. DYER-Well, I understand that, but I think, also, that there's room within the Ordinance and the process to allow for sensible approaches towards solving the problems. We have a problem. Our problem is that we have tenants in our Plaza, Timberlane, Bali/Hanes, London Fog, Crazy Horse, Bass, who, by virtue of whatever, who are advertising their product and their name, they're advertising themselves in various places either by flier, by handbill, but what we're having is people who are missing these stores because they, even though, I mean, there are a lot of plaza and retail centers on this road within a half mile. We all know that. There's got to be a half dozen of them, and we're trying to help the traveler, to help the passerby who's going to come in and inject some money into this community, for both tax dollars and sales dollars which, granted, is a help. We're trying to ~ them find this store. It's a store that, or any store within here, I mean, if I was in here asking for 10 or 15 square feet for three or four tenants, I would agree with you ardently, 100 percent, simply because you're saying you're giving them an unfair advantage, or you're doing something that's not in keeping with the character, but I think we've come in with an application that keeps character in mind. We've tried to keep that idea in mind. It's smaller, actually, in visual presentation, then the sign that's in place now. The Plaza identification information is somewhat smaller than it is now, easily visible with the speed that the people are traveling by on that road, without having to strain your eyes, yet without having the sign be visible at the light at 149. MR. TURNER-Jim, how far back is the, you show 88 feet from the property line to the front of the building, and then how far back is it from there to the front of the U? MR. DYER-I checked, I looked at the plans when I did this reduced plot, because I needed something that was a full draftsman size. I couldn't give you an accurate, precise, to the foot measurement, but it's got to be, there are at least eight store fronts going down through there, and they are at least 15 to 20 feet wide each. That's got to be 160 to 175 feet. MR. SHEA- Yes. MR. DYER-You're talking about 260, or 70 feet from the property line. This is not driving lanes. You're talking property line to the back businesses in the Plaza, and they're the only ones with frontage vi si bil ity. MR. CARR-But I think your problem, I mean, I know it may be a problem, but it's not unique just to this Center, and I think that's where I'm having a problem. MR. SHEA-The plaza across the road, behind Montcalm, will want the same thing. Mr. Kenny will want the same thing, he's here. MR. CARR-There's the plaza across the road, there's the Log Jam that's on an angle. I mean, and that's why I just don't think that this Board is the one to determine, on a case by case basis, that the Sign Ordinance should be changed. If it should be changed for everybody, it should be changed at the level at which it was created. MR. DYER-Well, I think that, to put some merit in my point, I would say that we're trying to offer what is a really structured approach. I'm not out there so that I'm coming in, dealing for everybody, Number One. The only sign for the Plaza, and everybody that's going to go on it, there's a presentation here to suit the need, right here, it's all done. What my point would be is that we're trying to come in and answer the what if this guy, next guy, next guy in our Plaza says, well, what about me, what about me. We've dealt with that. We've come in with an application that I think is proportionally very well balanced, and I think that if anybody else went to the same trouble to come in to you, I don't think that, I'm not asking for anything on this sign, for anybody who's in the end of this Plaza, which has direct street frontage. MR. SHEA-What about Dansk? MR. DYER-If Dansk is on the end, they wouldn't be up here, okay. MR. SHEA-They're on the end, and they're up there. MR. DYER-You can stipulate, in your decision, that if they've got frontage on Route 9, on their store front, they're not in there. I have no problem with that. We just took names, we just took them down off the list and put them on the sign for purposes of elevation. MR. SICARD-You mentioned Glen Square. Glen Square is a lot farther back then Route 9. MR. DYER-I agree. The closest part of the building's about 400 feet, and the farthest is about 675. MR. SICARD-That's right. MR. DYER-Okay. Well, I understand, but yet the sign's a lot bigger, too, and the presentation of the people's names is bigger also. 7 '- - MR. SICARD-The south entrance on Glen Square is just going to, opening. There's no sign on, if you want to look at that. MR. DYER-Yes. MR. SICARD-And you can talk about the south entrance on yours, it woul d be, actually, the same thi ng. The south entrance, next to the Empire Video, there's no names of any companies on that entryway at all. MR. DYER-No. I understand that. MR. SICARD-And that's tough. That's 400 feet from that sign is those stores. MR. DYER-And, actually, from that vantage point, you can read the store signs at all. MR. SICARD-That's right, that's not facing the south. MR. DYER-But that particular situation being what it is, is the signs were place where the owner wanted to see them placed. Actually could have been reversed, it probably would have done them more good, but that's not the variance we're talking about. MR. SICARD-They came in for a variance to put a sign on the south side of CHP, that was turned down. Basically, you've got the same thing on the shopping center across the road, with the rear stores, the stores that are down in. MR. SHEA-Behind Montcalm. MR. SICARD-Yes. MR. TURNER-Jim, I've got to tell you, I drove up there, and I drive up and down the road a lot of times, many times. You can see every store in that Plaza from the highway, if you want to look, every store, right from the front to the back. If you want to look, and you're going at the speed, many times, like, in the summer time, you're just sitting there, you can't move anyway, and you look in there, you can identify every store that's in there, and if you're going there to shop, you're going to shop there anyway. You're going to hit them all. MR. DYER-Well, that's not the view that the owner of the property and the tenants have given me to work with. MR. TURNER-That might be, but the owner of the property bought that piece of property and put the building up, and they came here knowing what they were doing when they put it up. They've created the hardship themselves, not only on themselves, but maybe a little bit on the tenant, but I don't agree with that, because you can see every store in there from that highway, coming north or coming south. MR. DYER-Well, to some extent, I agree. To some extent, we've had the U shape to accommodate more parking spaces, which is what the Planning Board was looking for. In any event, I would hope that you would try to consider this based on the fact that we've come in with a fairly clean display, I think, and it's not oversized in any way at all. MR. SICARD-When you said 48 inches, that sign here, is five feet? MR. DYER-The width between the poles is five, but the actual advertising panel is 48. We're charging out the whole area. We're not charging out the ad panels. MR. SICARD-Well, that's part of the sign. MR. DYER-But it doesn't add any visual impact to it. It's painted beige to blend with the background. MR. SICARD-No, I understand, but it does, size wise. MR. DYER-Yes, but we're still 50 square feet. We've tried to keep the design in square footage, also. The three foot setback we'd asked for is just for the setback relief, is in an area where there's at least four or five feet from the property line to the curbing. This would be allowed, the rear post of the sign would be moved up right adjacent to the curbing, so that it would be entirely in the median area, as opposed to dog legging back into a parking space and forcing us to plan around it. If that's a big objection, it think that's something we probably could live with. MRS. GOETZ-Well, I don't like to see it go any closer to the road then it has to. MR. DYER-Well, I understand that. MRS. GOETZ-I mean, I just don't. 8 - -- MR. DYER-Well, you'd be weighing the loss of a parking space, versus placement of the sign, and we didn't want to get mired up in that particular discussion in this here either. We presented for it simply because that's where we'd like to put it, but if that became a serious issue, I think that's something we would forego very easily. MR. SHEA-Jim, I concur with your assessment of the location of the sign, that, from a marketing standpoint, you're better off, the owners are better off having it where you have the proposed sign location, because the property is much more visible, coming from the north, but I do not agree with the fact that we're being faced with a variance of listing all of the tenants on here, when we have so many retail stores up there, they'll all be in here for the same thing. If you wanted to move the location of the sign, it would probably be an improvement and a benefit, and it would grab a few more of the tourists before they get down to Mr. Kenny's location, but to put all the names on there, I'm not in favor of it. MR. TURNER-Any further questions of Mr. Dyer? None? Okay. Let me open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ED MOORE MR. MOORE-My name is Ed Moore. I'm the owner of French Mountain Commons. I would love to have something like this, too, but I think our concern up there, at least.!!!l concern is, I can only speak for myself, is the aesthetics up there, and I kind of like what's been done so far. If this goes through, I'm going to want it. Is Dave Kenny going to want it? We're all entitled to it. MR. TURNER-You tried it once, didn't you? MR. MOORE-At one time, I had four on there, but that was under the Ordinance. You could have four, but after four, you couldn't have any more. It makes sense. MR. TURNER- Yes. MR. MOORE-Big and Tall, up the street, has three. It's within the guidelines, if that continues to be the guidelines. I don't want to put anything, you know, people want to do business and so on and so forth, but, as far as I'm concerned, it would detract. Even if you locate it up further, put it up further, three feet in, it's in a good spot. It has a nice design to the sign. It's attractive. I agree with you people. You see the stores when you go up there. MR. TURNER-With what's up there, with all the Factory Outlet Stores that are up there, people are going to shop there, probably all day, a lot of them, if they come from any distance. They're going to hit every store in the place. Identification's really no problem, not now. MR. MOORE-I mean, this is what the stores want. Every store wants this. MR. TURNER- Yes, I know. MR. MOORE-They tell us all the time, get our name on the street. Yes, and it's good for business, but is it what we want to really create up there? MR. TURNER-No. don't think we want to detract from what you've got there now. MR. MOORE-I would like to see more trees up there and things up there to make it look nice. It's a nice place to shop and be, but, you know, like this here, I don't know if it's the right thing. I would like to see, from my own point of view, some kind of a directory, maybe each plaza could have it inside some place, right close to the road, you know, a small, 30 square feet sign, where, then someone could be in Lake George Plaza and want to see what's in French Mountain Commons, or the Log Jam, or vice versa, be in the Log Jam and want to see what's down here, you know, something small where they pulled in, then that would satisfy this. They could see where everybody is, if they stopped in. MR. SHEA-They have them in the malls. MR. MOORE-They have them in the malls. We could put something like that in each plaza, something 30 square inches or something like that, with a little map to it, but once this goes out to one, we're all going to want it, and where do you stop, and then it creates that thing, well, we can't give it all of them, but is it fair that he gave it to them. An extra sign on the building like he gave to Polo, I think that's fine. I mean, you know, maybe you can't see it from a certain angle. You want to see it from another angle. When you pull it close to the road, I think you're congested and it could create accidents and so on and so forth. MRS. GOETZ-The business owners in your area are forming a group? MR. MOORE- Yes. 9 -- -. MRS. GOETZ-You have formed it? MR. MOORE- Yes. MRS. GOETZ-And you have a whole overall plan, as I understand it, of, you know, possibilities, of certain lamps. MR. MOORE-Well, we want to do that. I know Dave is on the group. MRS. GOETZ-So, what you're saying is, you have a concept for the area, and this doesn't fit into it. MR. MOORE-Well, I wouldn't go that far. I would be putting, Dave can speak on that, what they're trying to do. I'm not on that committee. MRS. GOETZ-It sounds like you didn't think that would be conducive to what you're trying to do there, though. MR. MOORE-From.!!!.l point of view, from what 1 think. Now what they think is something else. That's my personal point of view. If I was to sit on that committee and I were part of that committee, it's not something I would approve. Do you know what I mean. I'm just saying, I want it to be, aesthetically, nice. I mean, my own Center got the Beautification Award this year. I mean, we like to keep it nice, and I know Dave is doing the same thing, and I think that'll sell itself as much as Anne Klein, Dansk, or anything else out in the front of that. MR. TURNER-That's going to clutter it, in your opinion. MR. MOORE-That's my opinion. MR. TURNER-Yes. Anyone else? DAVID KENNY MR. KENNY-David Kenny, Adirondack Outlet Mall. I guess I concur with a lot of what Ed said, and one of the things we, possibly, will be coming to the Board for, in the near future, to go with what we want, is what we're hearing is we want to encourage more walking traffic, and not have cars pulling in and out of plazas. So, we want to put, poss i b ly, di rectory signs on each property, we don't know the size, or whatever, at some point in time, welcoming people, like a map of, so if somebody's in my plaza, they can see what's in the Log Jam Plaza, what's in Lake George Plaza, what's across the street, where those stores are, like an internal, and have one of them at each plaza, therefore, people will see where the sidewalks are, eventually, when this whole planning gets done, and be able to walk from Center to Center, rather than get in their car, driving, and not knowing what's down the road. Hopefully, that will do away with the need for something like this, because, wherever you are, you'll be able to see what stores are on the whole road, and each plaza will identify the other plazas, what's in the other plazas. Something like that will encourage more walking traffic, and I kind of agree with Ed. We really, we've got a theme up there. We're going to try to improve upon it, and I would hate to see all four plazas or five plazas, or six plazas, because you've really got Dexter's coming in to do their Plaza. You've got four up there now. Eventually, something's going to go in at the Route 9 Mall, and have them all want identification signs out on the road for every store and every plaza. It would, at that point, come to clutter, and if one has it, right on the road, they're all going to want it on the road, and I think we should be encouraging the walking traffic, and that's what we've talked about, from Day One, we were really trying to push that point. MR. TURNER-Yes. Okay. Anyone else? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Any discussion? Motion's in order. tÐTION TO DENY SIGN VARIANCE NO. 92-1991 LAKE GEORGE PLAZA FACTORY STORE, Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: This property is no different than other properties in the neighborhood. To allow this variance would encourage other plazas to request the same, and I believe it would have an adverse effect on neighborhood character, and on public facilities, by adding to the existing traffic problems. Applicant has not shown an economic hardship if he were not granted the variance. I believe there is adequate signage and this variance would not enhance the area's appearance. Duly adopted this 18th day of December, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Shea, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE (9:45 p.m.) 10 -- - AREA VARIANCE NO. 93-1991 TYPE: UNLISTED lIR-lA A. ROBERT & JESSIE W. STEWART OIltER: SAtE AS ABOVE ROUTE 9L, EAST SHORE DRIVE PROPERTY IS PRESENTLY 111) SINGLE FAMILY DŒLLINSS ON 4.1Z ACRES. THE APPLICANT WISHES TO SUBDIVIDE WITHOOT THE RE~IREO WATER FRONTAGE OR THE RE~IRED LOT WIDTH ON AN ARTERIAL ROAD. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 10-1-1.5 LOT SIZE: 4.1Z ACRES SECTION 179-60, 179-30 SCOTT NEWELL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (9:45 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Area Variance No. 93-1991, A. Robert & Jessie W. Stewart, 12-17- 91, Meeting Date: December 18, 1991 "The applicant is requesting to subdivide their property without the requested width on an arterial road or lake shore. All development is present. The zoning is WR-1A. which requires one hundred fifty feet of shoreline. Route 9L is an arterial road which requires 300 feet of lot width for lots fronting on it. The lot with house number 2 averages about 306 feet of lot width. The lot with house number 1 measures average lot width of ±115. The County Planning Board recommended that the shoreline be spl it equally. If that is done then both lots will need a variance from the average lot width. This application was reviewed with the area variance criteria in mind~l) Describe the practical difficulty which does not allow placement of a structure which meets t zoning requirements. All units are currently in existence and the lot shape is pentagonal with exis °ng wetlands. 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? Since the buildings are there, there are limitations on how the property can be divided. There are no options that 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? No, everything is in existence. 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 discussion for the Board and the applicant." MRS. GOETZ-And the Warren County Planning Board returned approving, mentioning, "Each parcel must have 100' of lake frontage." MR. TURNER-Mr. Newell? MR. NEWELL-I'm Scott Newell, agent for Robert and Jessie Stewart. We'd like to address just two issues. One is that there's also an economic hardship, in that we did try to offer the property for sale as one parcel, with two houses on it, for about nine months, and just, it's such a rare buyer that would want two complete houses on one parcel of property, that it just wasn't economically feasible, and they must sell one of these properties, for financial reasons. So, we decided, we had to split it one way or the other. Lake George lake front, I'd like to apologize for not being at the Warren County meeting. I got the notice. It came to my house on 9th. It was the 11th, and I was in Buffalo until the 12th. So, I got back and found out about it afterwards. So, I coul dn' t even present the case to them. I think they went strictly on the map. I'm sure that when you took the time to go out there, that you noticed that, if we say 100 feet and start from one side, you end up with 100 feet of wetlands, which is 100 feet of nothing. They don't really, they want access to the lake. A purchaser would want access to the lake without going over the wetlands. You can't walk through it. You can't build a path. You can't do anything and really be. It just wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to do it that way, for value. By doing it 50 feet and 150 feet, you have the same amount of frontage with, really, the same amount of usage, but you're allowing people, there's about 25 feet there. I put a stake there. If you saw it and where they would actually have access, they could actually go down and get in the water without walking through the wetlands themselves, and that's basically what we have to offer. MRS. GOETZ-This is a question. If we should approve it, do we have to go with what the Warren County Planning Board said, with that 100 feet? MR. TURNER-No. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. MR. SICARD-You would have to have a full Board, though, wouldn't you? MRS. YORK-Yes, a majority plus one. MR. TURNER-No. It's not a denial. It's just a comment. MRS. GOETZ-Right. MRS. CRAYFORD-It's not a denial. MR. NEWELL-That's what they told me when I called. They said it was a suggestion. MR. TURNER-Yes, that's right. 11 -- -- MRS. GOETZ-Okay, and then on one of the homes there's an addition being done. Now, as they mentioned, the family that's selling the house closest to the road, moving in with. MR. NEWELL-Right, that's the parents, and it's their daughter that lives in the other house, and they're older and they're going to move in. There's enough bedrooms there. There's enough baths, and it's just, they're going to put in an addition to have a separate living room so that they don't. MRS. GOETZ-I didn't see a building permit posted. Do you know if they have one? MR. NEWELL-They applied for one. MRS. CRAYFORD-Not that I'm aware of. MRS. GOETZ-They've started an addition. MRS. EGGLESTON-They've got the hole in the ground. MRS. CRAYFORD-We'll look into it. MRS. GOETZ-Good. MR. NEWELL-Right. That really isn't the thing that I'm involved with. MRS. GOETZ-I know. I was asking the Staff more about that. MR. NEWELL-But Mr. Stewart said, we've got the permits. I mean, he did say that. MRS. GOETZ-He did? MRS. CRAYFORD-He may have it and I just don't recall. MR. NEWELL-So, yes. I mean, I'm just going by what he said to me. I didn't see them or anything. I can't imagine John Mason building without it. MRS. CRAYFORD-No. I can't either. MR. SICARD-I'm sure it's in the Park Agency, the land is situated in the Park Agency. MRS. GOETZ-They wrote something, here. Do you want me to tell you what they wrote? MR. SICARD- Yes. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. "This double variance in moderate intensity use is also subject to our review, as it involves shoreline outside of Hamlet. There appears to be wetlands on or near the site, and although there is apparently no construction involved, lots to be conveyed involving wetlands require an Agency Permit, but first, please send the ZBA record as it is available." MR. SICARD-That's years in the future. That's a very difficult place to get a permit. MR. NEWELL-You've got to start somewhere. MR. SICARD-You've got to start somewhere. MRS. EGGLESTON-I was wondering about the dwelling where the other people are going to move into becoming two family dwelling, since you say it's going to have separate quarters, separate living room, separate. MR. NEWELL-It's going to have the same bedroom, the same bath. The only different quarters will be a separate entertainment/living room, so the older couple can do what they want to do and the younger couple can do what they want to do. MRS. EGGLESTON-Separate entrances to the? MR. NEWELL-They would be connected by their own door, but they would be using the same kitchen, the same bath, the same, okay. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. TURNER-Okay. Anyone else? All right. Let me open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMIENT 12 -- PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE MRS. GOETZ-There was a phone call from Sally Kerry, neighbor within 500 feet, no objection. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further discussion on this? MR. SICARD-I'm just looking at the wetlands there. I think maybe our lawyer down there, can you use wetlands as a determination of a setback, say, from 75 feet? Can you use that as part of the setback, even though you can't build on it. You can walk over it, can't you, wetlands? What I'm saying is, if you wanted to build 75 feet back, could you use the wetlands as the 75 feet? MR. CARR-I think the wetlands become part of the highwater mark, don't they? MR. TURNER- Yes. MR. CARR-So, you've got to be 75 feet back from the wetlands. MR. TURNER-They've got to be 75 feet back from the wetlands. MRS. CRAYFORD-The wetlands is in the Shoreline Setback definition. MR. CARR-That's right. MR. SICARD-It is? MR. TURNER- Yes. MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes. It's also in the Town Code. It has to be 100 feet for Town Code. MR. SICARD-What's the determination of a wetland? How wet is wet? MRS. CRAYFORD-DEC determines that. It's more vegetation, I think than. MR. NEWELL-Mr. Sicard, is your concern that something else will be built down there, or, other than what's already there? MR. SICARD-No. MR. NEWELL-Because I was going to explain that both parties had agreed that they were going to put in the deed that no further construction would be down by the lake to obstruct either one's view. MR. SICARD-The track record of anybody going through the Park Agency is pretty nil. It's pretty nil. MR. NEWELL-We're hoping that, since the house is already there, we're just asking to sell one of them. MR. SICARD-I would hope so, too, but. MR. TURNER-Motion's in order. tÐTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 93-1991 A. ROBERT & JESSIE W. STEWART, Introduced by Susan Goetz who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: The strict application of the dimensional requirements would result in a specified practical difficulty. Both homes are currently in existence and the lot shape is unusual and surrounded by existing wetlands on one side. This variance would grant relief from Section 179-60 requiring minimum water frontage on 150 feet. So, it shows that House Number One is going to need a variance of 100 feet. Section 179-30, regarding frontage on an arterial road, will involve relief for House Number One of ±185 feet. This would be the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty. The variance would not be detrimental to surrounding properties. There is no adverse effect on public facilities. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purposes of the Ordinance, and the request is minimum relief. The Short EAF shows no negative impact. House Number Two is on 2.5 acres, and House Number One is on 1.6 acres. Duly adopted this 18th day of December, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Shea, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE (10:04 p.m.) 13 "-- -- AREA VARIANCE NO. 94-1991 H. RUSSELL HARRIS/AZURE SUBDIV. DlItER: SAtE AS ABOVE JENKINSVILLE, AZURE DRIVE/FROM ~IŒR ROAD GO NORTH ON RIDGE ROAD TO JENKINSVILLE ROAD, SOUTH TO RAINBOW TRAIL, LEFT TO FAR END OF RAINBOW TRAIL RE~EST TO SUBDIVIDE 16 LOTS, 15 OF IIUCH WILL NOT HAVE THE RE~IREO LOT SIZE. TAX MAP NO. 52-1-11 LOT SIZE: 18.54 ACRES SECTION 179-79 LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; H. RUSSELL HARRIS, PRESENT (10:04 p.m.) STAFF NOTES Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Area Variance No. 94-1991, H. Russell Harris/Azure Subdivision, December 17, 1991, Meeting Date: December 18, 1991 "The applicant wants to create a subdivision without the required lot size. The location is between Rainbow Trail and Azure Drive. The zoning is SR-1A. The applicant is requesting to have 15 lots which will be ±~ acre. The subdivision will have one lot which will be almost 9 acres. The property contains an aggregate amount of land for the number of lots and could potentially be called a cluster design with Planning Board approval, however, the applicant does not want to provide common open space. Common open space is the benefit allotted to cluster development which compensates for smaller lot sizes. In 1988, the zoning in this area went from SR-30 to SR-1A. The proposed lot si ze for 15 of the lots does not meet the pre 1988 area requirement. This application is an unlisted action under SEQRA. The Chairman of the Planning Board has requested that this application be treated as a coordinated review for environmental issues, if the Board feels that this application is approvable. The 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. There are no special topographic or lot limitations which are not general to other properties. There do not appear to be any special conditions which prohibit development of one acre lots. 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? No. This is a new subdivision and development to the recommended density is the anticipated reasonable use of the property. 4. What are the effects of the variance on public facilities and services? The sizes of lots on Azure Drive range in size from ±1/3 to one acre. On Rainbow Trail the lots are ±15,OOO square feet. The zone to the north is LC-10 acres. 5. Is this request the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty? The Ordinance has not created a practical difficulty for the applicant." MRS. GOETZ-The Warren County Planning Board disapproved, commenting that "Practical difficulty not proven. " MR. TURNER-Mr. Steves. MR. STEVES-Good evening. My name is Leon Steves. I must confess that I am a little confused by the Ordinance and the intent of it. We're talking about practical difficulty, but before we get to that, we should look at the Ordinance itself and what's the purpose of this one acre lots, and one thing it says is to provi de for future res i dent i a 1 deve 1 opment. How, may I as k, can that be done if we use up all our land? Now, Mr. Harris has the density for 16 lots. What we have proposed to do is keep it in the character of the neighborhood, because of the lots sizes there, that are existing, range in 100 by 150, to half acre size lots, we were in keeping with that character of the neighborhood, in a low to moderate income housing development. The area map, as you can see, depicts the size of the lots, in the area both to the south and north, and I fail to find an acre size lot in there, except to the east of us, where there is a 4.73 acre parcel of undivided land, but no lot along Azure Drive or Mud Pond Road approaches one acre in size, or would be listed as such on the Tax Map, none is shown. As an author of the Tax Map, I can tell you that any lot that had an area mass of one acre or more was identified that way, all of the lots had dimensional requirements on it, and you can see there's no one acre lot in there. Secondly, the Code does provide us, if we wish to make an application to the cluster provision, we could do so, and have the exact same thing as we have presented to you tonight, with the exception of, we would have to provide common open land. MR. CARR-Why should we circumvent what's already in the Code? MR. STEVES-No, that I s true, but one of the problems wi th common open 1 and is that it's a burden to create, financially, and a burden to maintain and sell. It hasn't been proven, in this area, to be a desirable entity at all. You probably know that as well as I do, that a lot of the areas around here that have attempted to go that way in common areas have had problems doing that, in disposing of the land. So, I think that's a practical difficulty, in asking the developer to go to the expense of a homeowners association and common open land, where we are saying, we can provide the same thing on one lot, with no further subdividing permitted, and in the deed form, and part of the stipulation of approval on the subdivision. MR. CARR-What's the use of the nine acre parcel? MR. STEVES-Right now? MR. CARR-No, after, what's the intended use? MR. STEVES-It would be a single family residence. 14 -- '-' MR. CARR-Who's? MR. STEVES-Whoever wants to buy it. MR. CARR-Okay. It's just going to be one lot? MR. STEVES-Yes, it is. That's correct. MR. CARR-What would entice somebody to buy a one 9 acre lot, when he's surrounded by half acre lots? MR. STEVES-I don't know, not being in real estate, but I would say that in the Town of Queensbury, I think that you are permitted to have a mini farm there, on a 10 acre parcel. MR. CARR-Okay, but I guess, my point is, what's the purpose of having that lot? It would probably be a difficult lot to sell. I mean, there's got to be a purpose that you want us to make every other lot substandard, except for this one huge lot. MR. STEVES-Well, the terrain itself doesn't lend itself to a good subdivision. We would have to provide mound systems because of high groundwater, as we get down to the lower areas. Itls not a really desirable area at all. We could engineer it, but that's in their expense. What we have done here is gone through and tested each of these lots, for both groundwater and percolation, and have had satisfactory results from both. We've had the Department of Health out here reviewing it. MR. CARR-Now, where's the area that's ~satisfactory? MR. STEVES-That would be this lower terrained area, here, on the larger lot, what we call Lot 16. MR. CARR-Taking out that terrain that's not available, how many acres is that? MR. STEVES-That portion of it? MR. CARR- Yes. MR. STEVES-I have not figured that out. MR. CARR-Okay, well, how many lots, my next question was going to be, how many lots, conforming to the Ordinance, could have been created from the terrain that i!. usable? How many one acre lots could be? MR. STEVES-I don't know. That's a good question, but, for instance, if you're talking one acre, strictly, then you're talking one lot right here, because of it's only 1.8 acres in size. Now, their road exists, and you can't change that, and so you are denying the use of the property, other than the strict usage of the Code, application of the Code, to one lot. The dimensions between roads are only about 300 feet, which, of course, if you have 150 wide lot, you'd have to go from road to road to create a one acre lot. Again, you're fronting on two roads, which is not a good design plan, at all, either. So, we've got a bad plan, if you will, if we go from road to road. Now, I must say that both roads were built at a time when the Code permitted smaller lots. MRS. EGGLESTON-Who owns the surrounding property, this section? Does Mr. Harris own any of the surrounding properties? MR. STEVES-I'd have to give you the area map, which this refers to. The cross hatched is the area that we're talking about subdividing, and these are the existing lots of Rainbow Trails, and these are apartments. I believe the names of the owners are here. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. STEVES-So, if your question is, does he own other lands adjacent, this is basically all he owns, right here. Unless he owns a lot down in here somewhere. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. STEVES-Russell, do you own another lot going through Rainbow Trail? MR. HARRIS-There's one lot way down in the corner. MR. STEVES-Way down in the corner. Okay. MR. CARR-Pat, have you had much experience with cluster development in this area? MRS. CRAYFORD-No I haven't. 15 -- -- MR. CARR-Lee? MRS. YORK-Have 1, in this particular area of Town? MR. CARR-No, this area, meaning, this Town. MRS. YORK-We have had a few cluster developments. They're not, at this point in time, very popular, because I think that we have had a reservoir of land that allowed people to develop at whatever density, single family residential, which is basically the American Dream. At this point in time, there's more and more leaning toward cluster developments because of the benefit of the open space, but have we had a lot of experience in clustering? MR. CARR-I mean, well, Mr. Steves, here, has said that that is probably not a good planning technique, at this point, or that it is not workable in this area, because of the open space, and the homeowners association and things of that type, and I just wanted to get your opinion on that. MRS. YORK-Well, I feel very strongly that in clustering you are given a benefit, and the trade off is the open space that is usable by all those residents. If you are creating smaller lots, and not giving those people who are not getting the true benefits created by the Zoning Ordinance, then you are doing them a disservice. The zoning in that area was changed in 1988, based on the carrying capacity of the land. If, in every instance, what we did was say, lets go back to pre 1988 zoning, so we can be fair to this applicant, or do the subdivision just like the last one, we would have no changes in zoning. We would still be at square one. I am not sure whether clustering, in this particular area of Town, is advisable or not, but it would appear that since there is a large portion of land that Mr. Steves has identified as undevelopable, possibly the zoning that was created there is correct, since it is based on the ability to place one residence in an acre, and find a location for it and a septic system. MR. STEVES-But you don't feel that it's a poor plan to go from road to road? I fail to see how a lot could be developed, here, in an acre size, that is of any decent, and good planning. As I pointed out, you would have to go, and 150 feet is the minimum lot width, incidentally. MRS. YORK-Right. Well, Mr. Steves, what you are talking about, are planning issues. We're not talking about planning issues, here. MR. STEVES-We're talking zoning. MRS. YORK-Zoning issues. MR. STEVES-Okay. MRS. YORK-We're speaking to the issue of practical difficulty. MR. STEVES-Which I'm trying to address. MRS. YORK-Yes, realize that. MR. STEVES-In that, I fail to see that if the applicant is permitted to make a cluster provision application, and ask for that, he has to provide a common area. Now, you're asking him to spend money in a foolish application, just to satisfy something that is not practical in the Code. Now, the Code, in the practical sense, has to have a purpose. I mean, that's what practical says in the dictionary, and I don't see where, just to stick to the letter of the Code that has been created, is beneficial to anybody. We're not asking to create more lots than the Code permits, or lots that wouldn't be permitted under a cluster provision, but you've already told me that we wouldn't be able to get a waiver from that provision of common land, which is only in the Subdivision. I don't find it in the Zoning. MRS. YORK-If you look in the Zoning Regulations, the Definition. You can't get a waiver from a Definition. MR. STEVES-Thank you. MRS. YORK-Now, just let me step back here, for a minute. I did have a thought, for a moment, there, regarding the one acre zoning, you can request to cluster a development, to the Planning Board. You can come in with that plan. That does not necessarily mean that that will be the plan you are approved, okay. MR. STEVES-Correct. MRS. YORK-So, you are using the argument that this is allowable under the Code. It may be allowable. It might be something the Town, or the Planning Board would approve. It may also not be appropriate in that area, and I can't speak for that Board. 16 -- - MRS. GOETZ-Lee, when you say they can't get a waiver from the Definition, is it Open Space Recreation Use definition? MRS. YORK-No. Look at the definition of Clustering. MRS. GOETZ-Of Clustering. Okay. MRS. YORK-Because, if you waive a Definition, you have nullified the Definition. MR. TURNER-Right. MRS. YORK-You can waive the processes or the provisions, but, to say that we're going to allow a cluster development without open space, is saying it is not a cluster development. MR. TURNER- Yes. MR. SICARD-When they say open space, do they mean non buildable space? MRS. YORK-What they mean is a common green area that all the residents have common access to. MR. SICARD-Like a miniature playground or something. MRS. YORK-Right, like a playground, just forest area, trails. MR. TURNER-It's the same thing with the, it's like the affordable housing, Charlie, up on Corinth Road. MRS. YORK-The affordable housing project had common open space. MR. SICARD-But it could be non buildable, like a small cliff or something? MRS. YORK-Absolutely. Sure. It can contain unbuildable property. It can contain a lake. MRS. EGGLESTON-Leon, is your main objection to not wanting to leave it as one acre lots, economical, in that? MR. STEVES-The area, now, is low to moderate housing, and if you put in a one acre size lot, I think you're asking for a larger price tag on that one acre lot, and you're mixing up, then, the character of the neighborhood. I don't believe you can get the same type of home, you shouldn't, anyway, on that. I think it would probably be an economic problem selling lots of a one acre size, and to do that, we're going to have to put in more roads anyway. We would have to put in roads to make 16 lots. There's no way we can get 16 lots, on all the road frontage we now have, there's no way we can get 16 lots. MR. CARR-At one one acre. MR. STEVES-Of one acre, yes, because it's a minimum lot width of 150 feet, and to do a one acre, we'd have to go from road to road. MR. CARR-I guess 1'm just not convinced that the provision that is included in the Ordinance, now, is not the proper form to begin with. I think we're really circumventing what the intent of the makers of that Ordinance wanted, by doing it this way, and I'm not sure, I hate to say it, but, again, I think we've been placed, this Board is placed in a position of second guessing what has already been created. MR. STEVES-I would hope not, really, and I would hope that this is not contrary to the intent of the Code. As I started out, I said the purpose in a Suburban Residential Code, area, is to enhance and protect the character of Queensbury suburban neighborhoods and to provide future residential development opportunities. Looking down the road, 50 or 100 years from now, when we are so packed with people, you won't believe, where are you going to put them? MR. CARR-In that open area. MR. STEVES- You can't. You can't. You've tied it up wi th 16 other owners. You can't do it. Whereas, under the plan we have provided, it's only owned by one individual and can't be subdivided again until such time as the Town permits. MR. CARR-But wasn't that the determination of the drafters of the Ordinance, to make sure that there is open space available, even in a crowded town. I don't think they want every square inch built on. MR. STEVES-I hear you. I hear that, too, but we have a town park, right across the road, on Jenkinsville Road, for that purpose, as well, and I'm not trying to circumvent the Code. I think it's a good Code, and I would like to work with it, and in so doing, I'm saying that this is an open, one ownership. 17 - - MR. CARR-No, but I think we're circumventing the mechanisms that have been set up in the Code. Maybe where we're complying with the intent of the Code, but that intent has been codified in a certain mechanism called a cluster development, and now you're asking us to redefine that, or, basically say, forget cluster development. Just let us do a cluster development without having to provide the open space, and I'm not comfortable doing that, honestly. MR. TURNER-Leon, the people that were involved in making the Zoning Ordinance went through the whole Town with some information and requested it be sent back, as to what the people wanted, and their response was, bigger lots, and that was zoned up there, for a lot of reasons. I think one reason was the water, water table. We were concerned, maybe, with the landfill migrating to that area, and the Town having to provide, maybe, water service, in the process of that migration, and you don't have any practical difficulty when you come here and say, you know, you have an alternative. You can go to the cluster development, without even coming to us. You're saying to us, well, let us build what's already there, but you've got a lot on the corner, here, that's 41,652 square feet, almost an acre. MR. STEVES- Yes. MR. TURNER-Where's your argument, there, that you can't make the rest of them an acre? MR. STEVES-The only practical difficulty I have is that, like I said, you'd have to go from road to road with a plan of one acre lots. MR. CARR-But they're 150 feet deep. I mean, that's a lot. MR. STEVES-No, it isn't. You only have a half acre per lot, as shown. We have shown on our plan, basically, a half acre lot. MR. CARR-Right, but I've got lot depths of 157 and 161. MR. STEVES-Right. MR. CARR-152 and 150 right behind it. So, why can't you just make them wide lots, and 150 feet is a good lot. MR. STEVES-You mean, have it 350 feet of road frontage? MR. CARR-Maybe, yes. MR. TURNER-Have the road frontage versus the depth. MR. STEVES-Okay, yes. You mean, eliminate every other lot line? Okay. That would be one way. MR. SHEA-So, the lots don't have to go street to street. MR. STEVES-Right. That would be one way, yes. MR. CARR-Yes. I mean, that's a good deep lot, 150 feet. I think you can put, I mean, my lot is only 100 feet deep now. MR. STEVES-Russell, did you have something you want to say? MR. HARRIS-In 1958, which is more than 30 years ago, I started this development, Rainbow Ridge, and the lots that were laid out then, I think 25 were 150 by 100, and people built nice little houses, in fact, I coul d have sold two lots or three lots combined and had a bi g house, but I never woul d do it, because I've been a working man all my life, and we're fixing things in the Town, here, so that it's almost impossible for a, I'll call him a poor man, a working man to buy the land to put up the kind of a house that should be put upon that land. Then, later, in the same development, I ran the one along the Mud Pond Road, and they were slightly larger, but they still built very neat, nice little houses and I defy anybody to find a cleaner, nicer kept area than they have right up there, those small houses, and they've taken good care of their lawns, and I suppose the children now go across the way, because I did own the land where the park is, too, and when the Town built the park, and now what I'd like to do is to finish off the property that I have there, and I don't want to get to great big lots and great big houses. I want to stay, pretty much, in the same classification that we have now, larger than 1500 square feet, but we don't really need an acre, and, in fact, most people can't take care of an acre of land and do justice to keeping it clean and nice. They can't afford to do it, and for that reason, I've talked with Mr. Steves in trying to lay these out, and the reason for the big lot, it is in a lower area, but at one time, I sold approximately that same size lot in that same area, to a man and wife who had three or four ponies, and they went around to the people that were living there and got a petition and found out that there was no one, no one single person, that objected to having a little pony farm, we'll call it, and then I think it was due to some of the Town Ordinances, and so on, they sort of got disgusted and gave it up. So, I still think that someone would like to have a place where they could build a barn, they might want to raise dogs or something else. I don't 18 - - know, but I feel that there's a need for things like that in the area, and I certainly would hope that you could get this thing approved so we could get it going, and they talk about low cost housing, and you almost defeat the low cost housing in the move by having expensive land to put the house on. I've bui 1t houses. I've rebui 1t houses. I bui 1 t my own house. One burned and I bui 1t another one, and I know what it takes to build a house, and many of these first houses that were put up were built by the owner. They bought the 1 and and they buil t the house, 1 i ke they used to do in the old days, and they built nice houses, small but comfortable. So, I would just hope that you would be able to approve this development, and I'm sure we'll turn it into one that's a credit to the Town. I think every building that we have there now is a credit to the Town, and I think they would continue to do that. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further questions of Mr. Steves, before I open the public hearing? MR. SHEA-Are they selling just the land, or are they selling the land and building the house? MR. TURNER-Are you just going to sell the land to whomever? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. TURNER-A developer, if he wants to build a house for somebody, or whatever, a contractor, rather. MR. HARRIS-I sort of look the people over, when they come to buy the land, but it is sold to the people, and I could get into the building, but I don't want to do that. I'm getting a little bit too old for that. MR. SHEA-I don't think that by staying within the Ordinance, and going with one acre lots, I don't think that's going to precipitate larger houses in this neighborhood. I think that people are going to build the size and scope of house that presently exists in the neighborhood, and I think Bruce's idea of situating the lots so that they front on the road, instead of going from road to road, I don't see many of those, and I don't think they would be terribly appealing, but by having a lot that's 150 feet deep and 300 feet wide, would certainly work in this area. MR. CARR-What about the cluster issue? MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, he's not willing to give. The cluster has to be give on both sides. MR. TURNER-Yes, but, like you said, he could cut every other lot line and put one acre lots on there, because you've got one at 41,000 already. You've got another one at 32,000. You've got some at 25, 26,000. MR. SHEA-Well, and the other thing, too, is they could possibly come around here and get another two lots over here, on the, which would be the east side of Rainbow Trails. MR. TURNER-Right. MR. STEVES-I've roughly laid it out, on my sketch, here, using Bruce's suggestion of a, roughly, 300 foot. The best we could do is probably 10 lots. MR. SICARD-What's the total acreage, 30 acres? MR. STEVES-I've written it down here, somewhere. It's 20 acres. MR. TURNER-That's a pretty good size. MR. SHEA-So, he'd be giving up four lots. MR. TURNER-Four lots, but he's going to make up the difference in the size of the lot. MR. SICARD-He's probably giving up, what, four lots, roughly, he says. MR. STEVES-Well, south of the road, you only have one lot. MR. SHEA-I'm sorry, I didn't count those. MR. STEVES-Right, there's only one lot there. MR. SHEA-Okay. You'd be giving up six lots? MR. STEVES-That's correct. MR. SICARD-You can't pick up anything in here? MR. SHEA-Yes, you can't pick up anything here? 19 - - MR. STEVES-No. Well, we've got the one, here, but we wouldn't be able to pick up two. We'd pick up the one. and then this lot has to come down in here, and then this one has to come down so far that we wouldn't have, and then you only have one lot here. We're using the road that's presently there. I don't see how we can get more than 10. We might be able to squeeze 11. I don't know. MRS. GOETZ-I feel that, by adhering to the regulations as they are, that you will be enhancing and protecting the character of the homes that are already there, because, I agree, they are extremely pleasant, and neat and by doing what is required, you would only be enhancing those that are presently there, and that's way I feel about it. MR. STEVES-Is the Town, though, in reverse, going to assess the individual lot, here, of one acre, equally to that of a 1/3 acre across the street from it? Regardless of a sale price, are they going to assess it that way? MRS. GOETZ-I don't know anything about that part of it. MR. STEVES-It's a rhetorical question, but the problem there, I'm trying to point out, is that, if it's an acre in size, meaning three times the size of the lots across the street from it, it's going to have to be of value three times as much, and you're not going to get the same people in that area, building, and you can't. You can't get people living in a trailer to spend $20,000 on a lot. You can't have an acre lot and expect it to sell for $20,000. It's going to have to be $30,000. You're going to have to get more for the lot, the bigger you make it. They aren't making any more land, so the price just goes up per lot size, and we're trying to stay within the code of the density. Certainly, and one of my arguments with Lee was that in the Land Conservation area, up on French Mountain, for instance, it's 42 acre sized lots. You get up there and you tell me that, I've got 420 acres, I can cut it up into 10 lots, then you're going to make me develop 10 lots of 42 acres each? I'd have to rape the land to do it. It would be more sensible to cluster. To bring it down into one area, and use the rest of the land as open land. MRS. GOETZ-Well, why doesn't he want to do that, then? MR. STEVES-We'd be more than willing to do that, we just don't want to go into a homeowners It's just part of the Code that says you've got to do it, well, why? Why can't the Code with just open land, owned by one individual? Why does it have to be commonly owned? park right across the street. It isn't practical. association. be satisfied They ha ve a MR. TURNER-Well, you know, just to say that you don't want to do it, that's not reason enough to establish practical difficulty. You've got an option. You haven't even explored the alternative, yet. MR. STEVES-I thought we had, in that, we are cutting down to economics, now, that we can only have 10 lots, if we go back to your direction, or we have to go to the Planning Board and ask for a waiver to the cluster provision. MR. SHEA-Well, you've indicated that you can't get as much money for 10 lots, or that you might have difficulty in selling them because they're going to be more expensive, but you haven't really proven to us any economic hardship. We don't know the cost basis of the land. MR. STEVES-I hear that, but I am not supposed to, in an area variance, only give you practical difficulties, and I'm trying to give you practical difficulties as I see them, and that is, it isn't practical just to say you have to have common land just to satisfy the Code. MR. SHEA-But that's not our call. That's the way it's written. MR. CARR-Can I ask a question? Clustering goes before Planning Board, right? What about we make a motion to send this application to the Planning Board for a recommendation, that way they'd be able to look at it under the criteria, maybe, of clustering. MR. TURNER-That would be a better start, right there. MR. CARR-And tell us, I mean, we've got to send it there for environmental anyway, right? MR. TURNER-No. They want a coordinated review if we approve it. If we don't approve it, then it's dead in the water. MRS. YORK-Yes. You may just want to do exactly as you said, because I could not possibly do the advertising for a SEQRA hearing tomorrow night. I have left it on the Planning Board agenda, just pending the outcome of this hearing tonight. MR. STEVES-That's fair. You couldn't possibly have it advertised for tomorrow night. MR. CARR-And my feeling is, lets send it to them and let them go through what they would go through in a cluster, and give us some recommendations, and see if they say, no, this should be, this definitely, 20 -- ........" in our op1mon, should still go through the cluster process, because I, honestly, have not had enough experience with clustering, the rationale behind it, and the need for it, but I think the Planning Board has. I'd like to get their opinion on it, that way we don't have to sit here and argue about it. MR. TURNER-You have one are up on the Luzerne Road that's clustered, and that's Mr. Diehl's property, that they're, what, four 4 plexes. MRS. YORK-Yes. They're looking at a cluster design now. MR. STEVES-Clusters work, and they don't work, it depends on how you cluster it. They really, Dixon Heights is a cluster development, if you will, okay, with common land, and it works there, but you're talking a different range house, if you will, a different type of house. It works there. Across the street, it doesn't work. MR. SHEA-Across the street, where, Leon? MR. STEVES-Cedar Court. MR. SHEA-Right here? MR. STEVES-Yes, it hasn't worked there. MRS. YORK-There's only two units there. MR. STEVES-They've got the model right here in the corner, and I haven't sold anything there, right? There's a duplex there, and they haven't sold anything. MR. SHEA-Well, lets say the jury's out there. MR. CARR-Is that a function of the times, or is that a function of the clustering? MR. STEVES-It could be both. MR. CARR-Okay, because, I mean, a lot of people haven't sold a lot of land, recently. MR. STEVES-Last ni ght on the news, they were saying that, across the nati on, houses are selling in moderate income housing. MR. TURNER-California, that's one of them. MR. STEVES-They've got a big market in there for that. MR. TURNER-Yes, but you don't know what you get out there. You don't know if they're insulating the house for air conditioning or anything else. MR. STEVES-Two by twos, and. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. STEVES-Yes, right. Exactly. MR. TURNER-And they're selling for $86, $90,000, those houses, that's what they said last night. What would be the price of a house on one of these lots? Are you going to stick with what's there? MR. HARRIS-The last three houses that were built this past year, the other side, were under $65,000. MR. TURNER-To build them? MR. HARRIS-That was complete. MR. TURNER-Complete. MR. HARRIS-The lot, the house, and this land has already been approved for the Farm Loan. It has been for the last four or five years, I guess, all of the land there. So that there's no problem in what I call the common people getting the money to build the house, if they stayed down in that class, $50, $60,000. MR. TURNER- Yes. MR. SICARD-Did that include the lot, Russell? MR. HARRIS-Yes. 21 ~ --- MR. SICARD-That's cheap. MR. HARRIS-You've got to keep the price of the lot down. If you don't, you can't expect somebody to pay, there's one just north of where I live on the Ridge Road. They want $35,000 for the lot. MR. TURNER-So, you're probably talking, what, $8 or $9,000 for these lots, right? MR. HARRIS-We haven't gotten over $8,000 for any lot, so far. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. SICARD-How much is that, an acre? MR. SHEA-No, a third of an acre. MR. HARRIS-$6500.to $8000, depending on which lot they buy. MR. SICARD-It's the same way in Bedford Close, about, roughly. MRS. EGGLESTON-I think sometimes, though, you can't just forsake the Ordinance to get more money out of property, and I think that area's been very good to Mr. Harris and he's been good in return, in that he already has sold many, many lots and got them the way he wants them. So, maybe it's a time to not want as much out of. MR. STEVES-He doesn't, and I don't think Mr. Harris would object to giving the land on that large lot to the Town, but if he did that, he wouldn't have the density to build. He couldn't do it. Do you see what I'm saying? He's got to have the density of 16 acres to satisfy the Code. MR. STEVES-Maybe you can give them four acres, if they'd want it, but they wouldn't want it. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. So, what are we at, here, are we going to be referring this to the Planning Board? MR. TURNER-We could refer it to the Planning Board for recommendation from them and then bring it back and see what they have to say. We've got to have the public hearing first. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED RICHARD SAGE MR. SAGE-I'm not really opposed, sort of in the middle. My name is Richard Sage. I'm secretary of the Queensbury Advisory Citizens Committee on Environmental Matters. We review, regularly, the agenda and the items that come up before the Zoning Board Appeals, and the Planning Board, and in some cases, we find areas where we think we might want to make some comments. As you know, we have no clout. We have no status. We can't act on anything. We can only make recommendations and people can do as they wish with them. In this particular case, the concern that we had was similar to what Mr. Turner expressed earlier. We have an area which is located in the vicinity of the Queensbury Landfill, and I'm sure you read in the papers that the Presidents there think the Plume of Leachee is moving into their area and their water's being contaminated and the Town Supervisor said the wells show up with no indication of that. Probably they both think they're right, but the real fact of the matter is, I don't think any of us know, because we don't have a pattern of the aquifer that exists under that whole chunk of land, and what we would like to do is to raise, at this time, at question as to whether or not additional development, in an area such as that, is wise, in as much as we really don't know what is going on, and there is a definite possibility that some future contamination, or present contamination, of groundwater does exist. We're not saying it does, because we don't know, but we don't think anybody else does either. I must say, I kind of hate to stand up here and talk about this because this gentleman is a neighbor, and I very much respect him, but I do think, in the interest of environmental management of the community, we need to consider this possibility. Thank you. MR. SICARD-The only thing is, I think that eventually, and that eventually is going to be within the next few years, probably Queensbury water will be in that area. I think they're look toward it now, getting water over in that end of the Town. So, certainly, Queensbury is going to have water in every bit of the Town in the next three to five years. MR. TURNER-I don't think so, Charlie. MR. SICARD-They have made a lot of progress. MR. HARRIS-I'm sure that if the land that we have there and the houses that are on there, if the Town destroys the water system, they have no choice . 22 .- -...? MR. TURNER-They don't have any choice. You're right. MR. HARRIS-Except to bring the Town water over there. MR. TURNER-They'll have to bring it there. MR. HARRIS-So, I don't think that that there's any hazard, from that point of view. Apparently, it hasn't shown any contamination, so far, but if it does, the Town, I'm sure, I'd be the first one to want to sue the Town if they didn't bring it over. MR. TURNER-Thank you. CORRESPONDENCE MRS. GOETZ-There's a letter from James Suma, "I'm writing to voice opposition to the variance applied for by H. Russell Harris, to subdivide 16 lots in the location of Azure Drive. This area is already becoming rapidly developed, and if developed further, it should not be subjected to the type of subdivision that is being planned. Over crowding, heavier traffic, and a loss of aesthetic beauty would result. The request to subdivide lots which will not have the required lot size, by law, is unreasonable, destructive and motivated by plan greed. The Planning Department has an obligation to protect my rights as a taxpayer and property owner and ensure the value of my property is not endangered by such a request. If the Planning Department does not opposed the application for a variance of H. Russell Harris, Azure Subdivision, it will reveal that the Department is motivated by the same values as Mr. Harris. If a lot cannot be subdivided to the required size by law, then it should not be. The issue is that simple. Otherwise, there's no point in having any zoning laws or restrictions." MR. TURNER-Okay. That's it. I guess if we're going to send this to the Planning Board, I'd also like to see, when you come back the next time, bring a sketch with those laid out in one acre lots. MR. STEVES-Okay. MR. TURNER-I'd like to see that. MRS. YORK-The Planning Board might also like to see that, if you could just do a quick overlay. Just take a sheet of mylar and a magic marker. MR. TURNER-Do you want to make a motion? MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 94-1991 H. RUSSELL HARRIS/AZURE SUBDn., Introduced by Susan Goetz who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bruce Carr: Tabled to send it to the Queensbury Planning Board for a recommendation as to the plan as presented, and a sketch will be made available by the applicant to show one acre lots, at the time of the Planning Board meeting. Duly adopted this 18th day of December, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Shea, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE MR. STEVES-Could I ask you a question? If this is looked upon favorably, tomorrow night, by the Planning Board, and I do come back to the Zoning Board, is that goi ng to be next month, and the questi on there is that, because of the action taken by the County Board, I have to have a majority plus one. MR. TURNER- Yes. MR. STEVES-And are we going to be short one member next month? MR. TURNER-We probably will be. MRS. GOETZ-Actually, the Board is short two people. MR. TURNER-We'll be short two, then. MRS. GOETZ-Would be short two. MR. TURNER-We'll be down to five instead of seven. MR. STEVES-But then we'd only have to get four. 23 ~ --' MR. CARR-No. The Board's still seven. So, you're still going to need the five. In fact, I was going to ask Sue, as one of her duties as Town Board member, is that they would make that decision, just because of that issue, because as long as we're a seven member Board with five members, any time to overturn, we need all five to agree, and that might be a bit difficult at times. MR. TURNER- Yes. MRS. GOETZ-I've made copies of the legislation that Paul gave us, to give to the incoming Town Board members. Betty Monahan already has it. BETTY MONAHAN MRS. MONAHAN-Maybe. The other thing I have from Paul did not have that in it. MRS. GOETZ-It didn't? I gave you one, but I'll have another one, but I believe that we should appoint two more members, so we have a full seven Board, but I want, you know, the other people that are incoming on the Town Board, I don't believe, at this point, have seen that legislation yet, but it's a top priority to get that filled, because it's going to effect the applicants. MRS. YORK-The Planning Board is having difficulty, too. MRS. GOETZ-They are? MRS. YORK- Yes. MRS. MONAHAN-Lee, if I could interject. According to our Town Attorney, he has to research the new legislation, whether or not the Planning Board can still be seven members, or if it has to go to five. MRS. YORK-The Zoning Board, she means. MRS. GOETZ-The Zoning Board. MR. TURNER-Betty, it can by resolution. You guys have to make a resolution. MRS. MONAHAN-Well, that's what they did years ago, at the behest of the League of Women Votes, if you'll remember, because they never had the kind of majorities that they needed, or the quorum that they needed, and if it's going to go to five, then your majority is three. MR. TURNER-You don't have the depth with five members that you have with seven. You get a better cross section of the Town with seven members than you do with five. MRS. MONAHAN-I will push for seven if it's legally possible, believe me. MRS. GOETZ-Paul's had that legislation for quite a while. So, we need to get a decision on that. MR. STEVES-Thank you. CORRECTION OF MINUTES November 20th, 1991: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE ABOVE MINUTES, Introduced by Charles Sicard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael Shea: Duly adopted this 18th day of December, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shea, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE MR. TURNER- Thi s other matter we've got to talk over is you guys as ked for some research done on the Parillo thing, and Paul did it, and here's his letter in response. MRS. GOETZ-I have to read this whole thing. "In accordance with the Zoning Board, I have researched the possible options available to the Board with regard to its unanimous vote concerning the rehearing of the Parillo appeal from the Zoning Administrator's decision and its subsequent adjournment of the date of rehearing. First, please note that my opinion is based on my understanding and recollection that the Board adopted a resolution by unanimous vote to rehear the Parillo application and to set a date for such said rehearing. It is my recollection that the Board later was in agreement to adjourn the hearing date without a new date being set, pending the decision of the Court of Appeals in this matter, but that this may not be reflected, or at least not clearly reflected, in the minutes. It was another prior motion concerning the rehearing, but I believe everyone agreed, at the last meeting, 24 -- ---- that that was rescinded and, therefore, it would not seem to effect this case. Secondly, in view of the foregoing, it is my opinion that the Board would appear to have essentially four options available to it. It may rescind the motion at this time, or at any time in the future, whether or not the move on or any other member of the Board is available. Two, it may maintain the status quo by doing nothing, although it may be better to clarify the action the Board is taking at this time, as recommended herein. Three, the Board may desire to rescind everything, at this point, and reconsider this matter at a future date. I would recommend against this particular option, as this sets the Board on a definitive course of action, at this time, prior to receiving any word as to what the Court of Appeals decision is. Four, it would seem that the Board also has the option, of course, of immediately setting a hearing date, which, however, from our last conversations, would not seem the Board desires to do this. Please note, with reference to my opinion, I did not find any specific statutory or case law dealing with this particular question. In view of this, I think the Board is open to handling this in a reasonable fashion. It would seem that since, legally, the rules of evidence procedure before the Board are generally relaxed, any reasonable approach to handling this particular question would be proper. With this as the guideline, I then explored Roberts Rules of Order, as I felt it could be argued that those rules, in some fashion, even if relaxed, are used by the Zoning Board and perhaps apply to the Zoning Board. Upon review of Roberts Rules, it was my opinion that the Zoning Board may rescind a motion adopted by proper vote, at any time, regardless of the amount of time that has lapsed. It would, therefore, follow that the persons who made and seconded the original motion need not be the same persons to move and second a rescinding of that motion. It would also appear that anyone on the Board may move and second a motion to rescind, and that the absence of the original move on is not critical. After review of Roberts Rules of Order, the only thing that I could find that could possibly be argued, is that the person moving to rescind the motion should be someone who voted in favor of the motion to begin with. Since the vote in this particular case was taken by a unanimous vote, this would not seem to cause a problem. With regard to the current status of the matter before the Board, it is my opinion that the action of the Board to date has basically caused the original motion to rehear to be reconsidered, with the effect that the hearing date has been changed to be set in the future. After review of Roberts Rules and general rules of law as noted above, it is my opinion that the Board could allow this matter to continue in its current state, and simply set the hearing date at a later time. I do not feel, at that time, it Would be necessary for the Board to, again, unanimously vote to rehear the matter. It would not seem that a unanimous vote is necessary to set the rehearing date, although this may be better, if the Board can agree to the same. At this point, if the Board would like to maintain the status quo, my only recommendation would be to indicate in this evening meeting's minutes that the Board considers the rehearing to have been approved by unanimous vote, and that the original and currently outstanding motion to rehear the motion on a specific date has been or is considered modified to leave the date of the hearing open, until such time after the Court of Appeals makes its decision. If this is the position that the Board is so inclined to take, I would recommend that this be voted upon formally, this evening, to clear up any inconsistencies that may exist in the record. I trust that the foregoing provides the opinion desired by the Board. If you should have any questions or wish to discuss this matter further, please don't hesitate to contact me. Paul Dusek" MR. TURNER-We didn't indicate that part, right there. MRS. GOETZ-We didn't indicate what? MR. TURNER-This part, "and that the original and currently outstanding motion to rehear the motion on a specific date has been or is considered modified to leave the date of the hearing open until such time after the Court of Appeals". We didn't put that in the minutes, in the motion. MRS. GOETZ-Right, and we need to do that tonight? MR. TURNER-We need to do that. MRS. GOETZ-So, it's just to make a motion to do that. MR. TURNER-To make a motion to do this. tÐTION THAT THE BOARD CONSIDERS THE REHEARING TO HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY UNANUDJS VOTE AND THAT THE ORIGINAL AND CURREltTLY OOTSTANOING MOTION TO REHEAR THE MTTER ON A SPECIFIC DAIE HAS BEEN OR IS CONSIDERED DIFIEO TO LEAVE THE DATE OF THE HEARING OPEN UNTIL SUCH TIME AFTER THE COURT OF APPEALS MAKES ITS DECISION, Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its adoption, seconded by Susan Goetz: Duly adopted this 18th day of December, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Shea, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE MR. TURNER-Okay. Well, Susan, it was good working with you. You're going to a higher plateau. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Thedore Turner, Chairman 25