Loading...
1992-04-22 - ~EENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOrtD REGULAR ŒETING APRIL 22ND, 1992 INDEX Use Variance No. 32-1992 Glens Falls Queen Diner 1. Peter Lanies Area Variance No. 33-1992 John F. Gray 3. Area Variance No. 34-1992 Lionel Barthold 4. Use Variance No. 35-1992 Rona 1 d L. Newell 5. Garfield P. Raymond Area Variance No. 36-1992 Timothy Barber 15. Use Variance No. 37-1992 Elizabeth Papa 25. Dolores Origlia Area Variance No. 38-1992 Albright Builders 33. Use Variance No. 39-1992 James Anthis 39. Use Variance No. 40-1992 Jerry Brown 44. 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 SECOND REGULAR MEETING APRIL 22ND, 1992 7:38 P.... Œ"BERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN JOYCE EGGLESTON, SECRETARY FRED CARVIN BRUCE CARR MARIE PALING ŒNBERS ABSENT CHARLES SICARD MICHAEL SHEA "EW BUSINESS: USE VARIANCE NO. 32-1992 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-lA GLE"S FALLS ~EE" DINER PETER LMIES (liNER: L & R GROSSMAN UPPER GLEN STREET, ROUTE 9 (AŒS PLAZA), FORJER W"'S RESTAURANT PROPOSAL FOR OUTSIDE STORAGE CONTAI"ER I" THE REAR PARKING LOT OF THE DI"ER. (WARREN COUNTY PLA....ING) TAX MAP "0. 71-1-3 LOT SIZE: 16.46 ACRES SECTION 179-23 FRANK BRENNEISEN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (7:38 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Patricia M. Crayford, Zoning Administrator, Use Variance No. 32-1992, Meeting Date: ApriJ 22, 1992 "This property is located in a Highway Commercial 1 Acre zone that does not permit storage sheds as accessory structures. This is an Unlisted action requiring SEQRA determination." MRS. EGGLESTON-The Warren County Planning Board returned "No County Impact". MR. BRENNEISEN-I'm Frank Brenneisen. I live at Box 1731 in Glen Lake, Lake George, New York. and I'm speaking on behalf of the owners of the diner who can't be here because they're working, and what we want to do is, we don't have a basement there. So, we have a hardship, here, of not being able to buy in quantities, and for a diner, you have to buy in quantities. So, you have to keep running out all the time. So, what we need is a storage container. It would be a temporary set up, which we will rent it, until we are able to assume the permits and whatever we need to do the building, in the future. MRS. EGGLESTON-My only question is, it was a diner previous to the gentlemen that now run it, Lums, and they didn't have that same problem as this? MR. BRENNEISEN-No. Well. first of all, we remodeled in there, and he took a lot of the space that was in the kitchen. We set the wall back just a little bit and we took up some of the space, and he had a different type of an operation than the diner had. I think he had the equivalent of about 40 items on his menu. We have 147, and it takes more storage and, of course, more containers, and dry goods, and storage. MRS. EGGLESTON-Thank you. MR. CARVIN-I just want a clarification. The size is 20 by 8, is it? MR. BRENNEISEN-It's 20 feet long, 8 feet wide, and 8 and a half feet wide. It's on skids, and it would be painted the same color as the existing building, and so it would blend right in with the surroundings. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Has there been any problem with drainage out in that area, because I noticed that there is kind of a contour. MR. BRENNEISEN-That's on the side. That's on the side you're referring to, between the Flower Drum Song Restaurant and the Diner. In the back, there's no problem whatsoever. MR. CARVIN-Okay. There hasn't been any drainage problem then? MR. BRENNEISEN-No. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. CARR-Will this be taking up any parking spaces? 1 MR. BRENNEISEN-Yes. We wi11 have to eat up some of the parking spaces, which we have quite a few. MR. CARR-A11 right. Do you think that wi11 cause a prob1em? MR. BRENNEISEN-No. That's why I say, it wou1dn't. and three of them are handicapped, but, no, this cooks and everybody wou1d park. So, we have made it to, wherever the Town wou1d 1ike us to move it to. We have exact1y 63 parking spaces there right now, is in the rear of the buiJding where normany the two spots on the appHcation where we cou1d move We have two p1aces avai1ab1e. MRS. EGGLESTON-And what is the seating capacity? MR. BRENNEISEN-I think it's 110, or 111. I'm not positive on that. MR. CARVIN-Wen, 1et me ask for some c1arification. On your diagram, here, you indicate that it's going to be butted up in front of those two freezers? MR. BRENNEISEN-We11, we'd 1ike to put it up there, but that was on1y pre1iminary. We'11 put it wherever we have to put it. I was informed, 1ater on, that it might have to be 10 feet away from there, which is no prob1em. We have the room. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. BRENNEISEN-But we wou1d Hke to have it there. If it can't go there, we'n put it wherever we have to put it. MR. TURNER-Any further comment from the Board? Okay. I'll open the pub1ic hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COtIENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONŒNCE MRS. EGGLESTON-One 1etter from L.J. Grossman, GibraHer Management Company, "I received your communication in connection with the proposa1 for an outside storage container at the G1ens Fa11s Queen Diner, former1y Lums Restaurant. On behaH of the owners of the property, I want you to know that we have no objection to this, provided that the container does not hinder the visibiJity either to the restaurant or the Ames P1aza. That it be suitab1y enc10sed, and that it is proper1y c1eaned and maintained. I trust that the Board, shou1d they approve this app1 ication, win provide for the above." That's it. MR. TURNER-Okay. If there's no further comment, we'11 move the app1ication. This is an instance where, he doesn't have a cenar to put anything in. So, he's got to provide himseH with some 1eeway on the outside, and I don't have a prob1em with it. I think it's going to be temporary, in fact, and I suspect if the business does we11, you're going to add on, and that'11 be taken care of. MR. BRENNEISEN-Yes. MR. TURNER-Okay. So, a motion's in order. tl)TIOrt TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 32-1992 (JIEEN DINER PETER LAINES, Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: And grant the app1icant permission to p1ace an outside storage container at the rear of the buiJding. The app1icant has demonstrated a severe economic injury is occurring to the owners of the restaurant due to the inabiJity to buy in bu1k. That this storage container win anow them to have a reasonab1e use of the restaurant property, and that this container is the minima1 reHef necessary for the utiJization of the buiJding. The size of the storage container win be that as indicated on the map and the appHcation and no more. A review of the Short Environmenta1 Assessment Form indicates that this variance win have no negative environmenta1 impact. That the container win remain untiJ an addition, which is indicated by the app1icant's representative is a possibiHty in the future, that that addition wiJ1 take the p1ace of that storage container which I have permitted to be there as of now. Du1y adopted this 22nd day of Apri1, 1992, by the f0110wing vote: AYES: Mr. Carr, Mrs. Egg1eston, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pa1ing, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Shea (7:51 p.m.) 2 AREA VARIANCE NO. 33-1992 TYPE: UNLISTED "-5 JOHN F. &RAY (liNER: SAŒ AS ABOVE MASSACHUSEmS AVEflJE FOR CONSTRUCTIOrt OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOlE ON THE PRESENT VACANT LOT. FRONTAGE ON THE PUBLIC ROAD WILL BE LESS THAN THE REQUIRED 40 FT. TAX MAP NO. 128-9-6 LOT SIZE: 100 FT. BY 115 FT. SECTION 179-70 JOHN GRAY, PRESENT (7:51 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Patricia M. Crayford, Zoning Administrator, Area Variance No. 33-1992, John F. Gray, Meeting Date: April 22, 1992 "Section 179-70 states the required frontage for one principal building shall be 40 feet upon a public street and proved to meet the standards of the Town of Queensbury. This is an unlisted action requiring SEQRA determination." MR. TURNER-Okay. Mr. Gray. MR. GRAY-John Gray. MR. CARR-Mr. Gray, can ask you, on the map it's indicated a dirt road. Who owns the dirt road? MR. GRAY-I have no idea. MR. CARR-Okay. It's not dedicated to the Town? MRS. CRAYFORD-No, it's not. MR. GRAY-It's a paper road. MRS. CRAYFORD-It's a paper road, whatever that means. Mr. Naylor has a few of those in that neighborhood. MR. CARR-And where does it go to? MR. GRAY-Corinth Road. MR. TURNER-It's a paper road all the way to Corinth Road? MR. GRAY-Yes. MRS. CRAYFORD-On the Tax Map, it doesn't indicate that. It looks like, I can't tell you how many feet further beyond this lot, but it's not too far beyond. MR. GRAY-It does go all the way to Corinth Road. MRS. CRAYFORD-I know you were discussing that with me when I was at the site. MRS. EGGLESTON-Is it in the section where the trees are, or is it before you, you wouldn't cut any of those trees? Are they a different property? MR. GRAY-As far as the road? MRS. EGGLESTON-No, to build. MR. GRAY-No. I wouldn't have to cut any trees. MRS. EGGLESTON-No. Okay. MR. CARR-Now, is this your house, John's house? MR. GRAY-Yes. MR. CARR-Okay. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, we don't have any dimensions for the house. MR. TURNER-We don't really need it. It's only because it doesn't front on a public road. MR. GRAY-It's 24 by 40. MR. CARR-Yes. I've got it on my map. MR. CARVIN-Your driveway is overlapping with the blacktop portion of the dirt road. Is that going to be an equal split, or is there any problem? I think the intent here is just for fire equipment or rescue equipment. 3 MR. GRAY-There's a fire hydrant right across from the driveway. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but wou1d they have access? I mean, there wou1dn't be a rea1 prob1em with this dirt road? MR. GRAY-No, no prob1em. The Town has p10wed it for the 1ast 11 years, that I know of. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further questions? None? Okay. I'll open the pub1ic hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COfIENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 33-1992 JOHN F. GRAY, Introduced by Joyce Egg1eston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: And grant the appJicant reJief from Section 179-70, reJief from not having 40 foot frontage on a Town road. There wou1d be no adverse effect on the neighborhood and wou1d not effect facnities. There's no neighborhood opposition, and it is a minimum request in order to enab1e the appJicant to use the property. The Short EAF form shows no negative impact. Du1y adopted this 22nd day of Apri1, 1992, by the f0110wing vote: AYES: Mrs. Egg1eston, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pa1ing, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Shea (7:58 p.m.) AREA VARIANCE NO. 34-1992 TYPE II WR-3A LIONEL BARTHOLD OIfrtER: BARTHOLD ASSOCIATES LOCKHART LOOP. OFF ROUTE 9L EXTENSION OF 180 SQ. FT. AT MSTER BEDROOM ON EAST END OF HOUSE ArtD EXTENSION OF 950 SQ. FT. FOR LIVING AT WEST END. (WARREN COUNTY PLArtNING) TAX MAP NO. 1-1-34 LOT SIZE: 2.36 ACRES SECTION 179-16C, 179-60Bl(C) LIONEL BARTHOLD, PRESENT (7:58 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Patricia M. Crayford, Zoning Administrator, Area Variance No. 34-1992, Lione1 Barth01d, Meeting Date: Aprn 22, 1992 "This app1icant is requesting a 4 foot side yard setback variance as Section 179-16 requires a minimum of 20 foot side yard setback. A1so, the appJicant is requesting a re1ief of 17 foot shoreJine setback as Section 179-60 requires 75 foot shoreJine setback. This is Type II and does not require a SEQRA determination." MRS. EGGLESTON-The Warren County P1anning Board approved. MR. BARTHOLD-I'm Lione1 Barth01d. The appJicant says most of what's been said. The house, when my first wife and I bunt it, was intended as a winterized, seasona1 house. We had another house in Schenectady where we worked. My wife died. I remarried, and I'm now a fun time resident. Because of the nature of the origina1 house, it has very 1itt1e c10set space or storage, and virtua11y no dining area, and at this point, no guest room, and that's the reason for the addition. If it's usefu1, I have an architect's mode1 of the site, and I have some photographs showing the visua1 impact on surrounding properties. This was a mode1 that was bunt for the origina1 house and shows the two additions. One here is the back bedroom, and this is the proposed addition in the front. The mode1 shows, towards the back, the bedroom addition, and, in front, the great room and additiona1 bedroom, sitting room. An of this is within the existing foundations. The conversion of this paved courtyard to a garden wn1 actua11y reduce the amount of water conection on the property. You can see from the terrain the impossibnity, or impractica1ity of bunding backwards. This is a11 heavny wooded. I have a photograph, some photographs, if I can show you. This shows the property, the map that you have. This shows the adjoining property, owned by the Boomers. This is the second 10t, on which I gave a perpetua1 easement. So, it can never be bunt on. This is the Denooyer property, and this is the Buckwa1d property, across the road. You can't see, you can't even see the barn from this house, much 1ess the house. MR. TURNER-No. MR. BARTHOLD-You can't see the house from the Denooyers. This is a picture from the Boomers, where you're very hard pressed to see the house, even though there's no foJiage out yet. The big picture 4 with the thumb print in it shows an outline of the impact, the area that you would see from the lake. The house is not very visible from the lake, both because of the color and because it's at the back end of a bay. So, it's in a concave surface. So, it's very hard to see from the lake, as anyone who's come back in a boat looking for it can tell you. MR. TURNER-Any further questions? I think we'll reserve our comments right now. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO CCllENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPOJIIEJlCE MRS. EGGLESTON-A letter from John N. Boomer, "In connection with Lionel Barthold's application for a variance to extend his master bedroom and living quarters, please be aware that our property abuts the Barthold property. Our house is closer than any other to the Barthold house. My wife and I have met with the Barthold's to discuss their building project and to review their architect's drawings. We covered such considerations as placement, size, shape, color, and building material. To limited degree, limited by my expertise in these areas, we also discussed the effect of the project on stormwater runoff and septic system capability. On the basis of our review of the project and our knowledge of Lionel Barthold's high standards in so many areas, including the environment, we have no reservation or objection whatsoever to this application for a variance. We gladly recommend approval of this appl ication." That's all the correspondence. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any discussion? MR. CARR-It doesn't seem to be over-burdening the land. It seems to be well thought out. It's not any closer to the lake than the house that already exists. MRS. EGGLESTON-Have you already started the expansion? MR. BARTHOLD-No. MRS. EGGLESTON-No? There was a canvass or something on the one side. MR. BARTHOLD-That's over the woodpile. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. It was down the side, like, the end of the house. MR. BARTHOLD-Nothing's started. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay . MR. TURNER-Okay. No further comment? A motion's in order. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 34-1992 LIONEL BARTHOLD, Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: And grant the applicant the following relief from the shoreline and side yard setbacks. From the shoreline setback, the applicant will be granted a 17 foot relief, and from the side yard setback four feet of relief. The existence of the current home in this location and the surrounding terrain make it extremely impractical and nearly impossible to extend this building in any other fashion than that which is proposed. The shoreline setback is the minimal relief necessary and the extension will be 20 feet further back from the lake than the current structure. The side yard setback will have no effect on the neighbor because the land is subject to a conservation easement and will remain forever vacant. The granting of these variances will have no adverse impact on the neighborhood, nor on public services or utilities. Duly adopted this 22nd day of April, 1992, by the following vote: MRS. PALING-I did go up and look at the property, and I felt there was no problem, so I will vote yes. AYES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Paling, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Sicard, Mr. Shea (8:16 p.m.) USE VARIAf(CE NO. 35-1992 TYPE: UNLISTED UR-lA RONALD L. NEWELL GARFIELD P. RAYMOrtD OWNER: SAŒ AS ABOVE BAY ROAD, ADJACENT TO GLENS FALLS BALLET CENTER FOR CONSTRUCTIOrt OF A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE. 5 (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 61-1-41.1 I 44 LOT SIZE: 3O± ACRES SECTION 179-17 GARFIELD RAYMOND, PRESENT (8:16 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Patricia M. Crayford, Zoning Administrator. Use Variance No. 35-1992, Ronald L. Newell, Meeting Date: April 22, 1992 "Applicant is requesting a Use Variance to allow a professional office in an Urban Residential 1 Acre zone. Section 179-17, Urban Residential 1 Acre zoning allows a professional office only incidental to a residential use. This is an Unlisted Action requiring a SEQRA determination." MRS. EGGLESTON-The Warren County Planning Board approved. MR. RAYMOND-Well, you have the application, and what we're primarily interested in, you have the map which is attached to the back of that. You'll see on that map, I've broken down two 1 ittle lots that we have Xed in there, and really what we're trying to get the Use Variance for would be. I know that you go back 1,000 feet, but we would accept 300 feet back, from the Bay Road back. is really what we want. The land that is adjacent to Bay Road is really the trouble property, and if anyone's familiar with Bay Road. I had my secretary out there today. In about 10 minute intervals, at least 156 cars went up and down the road, and my next door neighbor, Mrs. Larabee, has had her property for sale for some time, and I understand that the only people going looking at that are perspective business people. It cannot be sold as a single family residence. I don't think that that property is conducive to a single family residence, especially that adjacent to Bay Road. I think Mrs. Larabee is here tonight. I think she can attest to the things I've said. MR. CARVIN-What are the side, I'm sorry, I can't read the numbers. The map is pretty poor. MR. RAYMOND-Well, that map came out of this big map. So, we reduced it. Our tentative proposal was, after we finish here, if we're successful, we're going on to ask for a three lot subdivision, which consists of this, and it will be two one acre parcels in the front. MR. CARVIN-Okay. What's the gap, here? MR. RAYMOND-Fifty feet. MR. CARVIN-That is 50 feet? MR. RAYMOND-Right. MR. CARVIN-Okay. This is all wooded, now, is it? MR. RAYMOND-No. Well, yes, I guess. MR. TURNER-A little ways back. You're going for a subdivision, here? What type of subdivision? MR. RAYMOND-Well, no. This is it. MR. TURNER-No. You said you were going for something over here. MR. RAYMOND-No. This will be the subdivision. this all be, possibly, split into three pieces. two, and three. Right now, I own all of this, okay. We're asking that This is one of them, and this is one. It'll be one, MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So, these are just going to be one acre parcels? MR. RAYMOND-Right, and these are the ones that we want to, see, really, this is what we're after is the first 300 feet to be zoned for professional offices. MR. TURNER-No. I think you're in the wrong ball park for that. I think that goes to the Town Board. MRS. CRAYFORD-Well, he's here for a Use Variance. MR. TURNER-I know he's here for a Use Variance, but he's asking us to cut this off. MR. RAYMOND-No. I'm really not. I'm asking for a Use Variance on this particular piece of property. MR. TURNER-On the whole 30 acres. MR. RAYMOND-Well, I would believe that that's what, the application is for that. MR. TURNER-Yes. 6 MR. RAYMOND-But I'm saying, in order to appease everyone, I'm willing to take it for the first 300 feet, if that would be conducive to a passage of my request, because this is the main concern, is in the front. MRS. CRAYFORD-When Mr. Raymond came in to see me, he told me he wanted to put two office buildings, and I told him he needed a Use Variance for two office buildings. That's what he's here for tonight. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. CRAYFORD-That's what I understood he was here for. MR. RAYMOND-Yes. MR. TURNER-Yes, but that isn't what he said. MRS. CRAYFORD-I know. MR. CARVIN-If we approve this, are we subdividing this? MR. TURNER-Yes, I think you are. I think you are. He's got 30 acres. He came in with a plan for 30 acres on it, that incorporates these two buildings. MR. RAYMOND-I'm at a loss, because I don't understand how you say that's a subdivision? MR. TURNER-You're asking us to split the property, in a sense. You're asking us to say you can go back 300 feet when it's already zoned UR, the whole 30 acres, and it's on the application as 30 acres. MR. RAYMOND-There is 30 acres. MR. TURNER-Okay. MRS. CRAYFORD-I think what he wants to do is see if he can get the Use Variance to allow those office buildings, and if he can, then they'll go through subdivision. MR. RAYMOND-Right, we can't even market that property as a single family residential property. MR. TURNER-Well, I think then it would be more appropriate for you to go to the Town Board and present the evidence that it's not zoned properly and get it re-zoned, and do what you want to do with it, but I'm not in support of giving you a blank card here, tonight, and allowing you a Use Variance for 30 acres of land, and that's what it amounts to. MR. RAYMOND-Well, we're asking for a Use Variance for professional offices. in an area that already allows residential professional office buildings. MR. TURNER-Yes, incidental to the residence. MR. RAYMOND-That's right, which would create more of a hardship on that area than a regular office building. All of Bay Road consists of office buildings. MR. TURNER-I agree with you, but I still think you ought to go to the Town Board. MR. RAYMOND-Well, I was told to proceed this way and go with a Use Variance. MR. TURNER-Well, I can't support your application. I won't support it. Not the way it's laid out here. MR. CARR-Well, I guess the question is, he's asking just to have that front 300 feet, have the variance apply to that. MR. TURNER-Yes, but we're cutting it right out of 30 acres. The application says 30 acres. MR. CARR-Right, but we can limit it. Can't we condition? MR. TURNER-I still won't support it. MR. CARR-I mean, we're saying the first 300 feet back from Bay Road would be allowed to be used as a professional office. Anything behind that, the variance does not apply to. MRS. EGGLESTON-Are you going to put separate deeds on these two parcels? MR. RAYMOND-Eventually there would be, yes. 7 MRS. EGGLESTON-You're going to bui1d these offices and se11, or what is your? MR. RAYMOND-I'm not going to buiJd those offices. I'm going to seH the 10ts, so that offices can be bui1t on those. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. CARR-What you're waiting to do is get a contract for one of the offices before you subdivide, right? I mean, you don't want to do the subdivision un1ess you've got a contract to go with it. MR. RAYMOND-That's right. I don't want to go ahead and spend a11 that money un1ess I'm going to have a buyer. We can't get a buyer un1ess it's going to be aHowed that an office can be put on there, and that's why we're here. MR. CARVIN-I assume your 50 foot gap, here. is going to be eventua11y a road. MR. RAYMOND-Preserved for the back, that's correct. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARR-But right now it's mis1eading, because right now those are not two 10ts. It's just one wh01e 10t. MR. RAYMOND-It's just one wh01e 1arge 10t. MR. CARR-Pat, do you know, can we 1imit, or does it go to the wh01e 30 acres? MR. TURNER-No. his app1ication. I don't think we can. It goes to the wh01e 30 acres. The advertising is based on His app1ication's on 30 acres, and that's what we've got to do. MR. CARR-Right, but I mean, we can change it. MR. TURNER-No. I don't think we can. MR. CARR-Ted. we've modified stuff. MR. RAYMOND-Wen, I mean, here, 1isten, you've changed a number of things, and put 1imitations on granting different things. MR. TURNER-Yes, but this is a big chunk of 1and, 30 acres. MR. RAYMOND-Yes, but that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking for the first 300 feet to be re-zoned, not re-zoned, but for a Use Variance. MRS. CRAYFORD-He's asking for a bui1ding on each acre parce1. MR. TURNER-I understand that, but I'm saying. MRS. EGGLESTON-But it's not each parce1, Pat. It's a wh01e parce1. You're saying each parce1. At this point. it's not each parce1. MRS. CRAYFORD-See, he needs to know if he wou1d be a110wed a professiona1 bui1ding before he subdivides, spends the money for the engineer and goes for the subdivision. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. See, and I wou1dn't have a prob1em with that, if he came in with separate. MR. TURNER-No. I wou1dn't even go that far. If there's a prob1em with marketing the 1and, then the first approach is to go to the Town Board and have them re-zone it, not come to us and ask us to sp1it it up. MRS. CRAYFORD-He's not asking you to sp1it it up, Ted. MR. RAYMOND-I don't see where I'm asking you to sp1it that up. It's one parce1. An I'm asking you to do is grant a Use Variance for the first 300. MR. TURNER-Yes. but you're saying you on1y want to go back 300 feet and then we'11 cut a 1ine and then the rest of it is going to stay, what, UR-I0? MR. RAYMOND-No, it's UR 1 Acre. MR. TURNER-Or UR 1 Acre. 8 MR. RAYMOND-The rest of it will stay UR 1 Acre. MRS. CRAYFORD-All of it's going to stay UR 1 Acre. There would just be a variance. MR. RAYMOND-For the first 300 feet. MR. CARR-Yes. To allow for a professional building to go in there. MR. TURNER-Yes, but the professional building is allowed incidental to the residence. MR. CARR-Right, but he's just saying that he doesn't think that flies. MR. TURNER-Well, I know it won't fly, but I'm saying he should have it re-zoned. If he wants to cut a line across there and make this MR-5, then let the Town Board do that and leave this UR-I0. MRS. CRAYFORD-Is that what you want to do, Garfield? MR. RAYMOND-No. That isn't what I want to do. MRS. CRAYFORD-I didn't think so. He doesn't want to change the zoning at all. MR. RAYMOND-All I'm after is the first 300 feet to be allowed to put two professional office buildings in that area without having, while it's not permitted now, and that's all I'm asking to be able to do. By granting the variance, it is not cutting that up. All you're doing is saying, yes, for the first 300 feet, a professional office building can be put in there, and that area we're talking about will only allow two buildings to be put in there, any way I cut it up, because that's the only road frontage that I have for that. MR. CARR-I mean, I don't have a problem with an additional variance. MR. TURNER-You live in that house? MR. RAYMOND-The office. MR. TURNER-Do you live here now? MR. RAYMOND-I have lived there, yes. MR. TURNER-You don't live there now, though? MR. RAYMOND-1'm back in there. I was out and now I'm back in, yes. I have another residence also. MR. TURNER-Okay. Anyone else? Any further comments? Questions? MR. CARR-MY feeling is, we give conditional variances all the time, that you can only do this so far. We can only go so far back. I mean, what he's asking for, it looks like he's asking for a variance on 30 acres, which I think everyone would have a real problem with. Thirty acres of professional offices would need a zone change, but what he's saying is, just for the front two acres, or what's going to be parcels, on Bay Road, can I put a professional office there. Can't go any further back than 300 feet, and then it would allow him to market it as a professional office, get the contracts, which will then help pay for the subdivision. I mean, it seems to me it's a fairly reasonable plan. I mean, you want to know that you're going to be able to do what you tell the buyer he can do, before, I mean. I would have a problem if it's the whole 30 acres, but he's not asking for that, and I think we have the right to condition it. MRS. EGGLESTON-But what is the difference than anybody else who wants to subdivide their land? He wants to take 30 acres and make it into three parcels. MR. CARR-No, wait. A subdivision is a whole other issue. We are not making any representation on a subdivision. MRS. EGGLESTON-But isn't he avoiding going through the subdivision process? MR. CARR-No, because he cannot sell, I mean, he can only sell that as one lot, and it would be sUbject to. MRS. CRAYFORD-He will have to go through subdivision from this point, and believe me, the Planning Board will want to know what he's going to do with the rest of the property. MR. CARR-Yes. He's got to go through subdivision to sell off the parcels, to get to the closing, but he can market them any way he wants to, get a contract, and then say it's conditioned on me being able to do this. 9 MR. CARVIN-I guess I still have a hard time coming to grips with the concept of, if this is going to be a commercial area, how that ties in with the residential? I don't agree with that. MR. RAYMOND-Well, it's not really commercial. It's professional offices. MR. CARVIN-Well, professional offices. MR. RAYMOND-What do you mean, ties in? MR. CARVIN-I mean if, just for example, this was turned down. I mean, does that, how does that impact on this? I mean, if this was part of the subdivision and you came back later? I guess I'm trying to get the relationship between the professional buildings and the rest of the development. MR. RAYMOND-Well, we don't even know what the rest of the development's going to be. It may never be developed. I don't know. I do know that this area which is adjacent to Bay Road is not conducive to single family. I do know that we have tentative people interested in buying these lots, but they will not buy them unless there's a use variance in place, and so this is the initial step to get the use variance in place, and once that's in place, then we go to the Board and get the subdivision approval, and they will address the major. issues. All I'm asking is for the first 300 feet, and in that area only two lots will be put in. It's UR 1 Acre. MRS. CRAYFORD-I' ve already met with the one perspective buyer of the one parcel, if they can have a professional office there. MR. CARR-I mean, to me, the whole road is going professional offices. I mean, there's doctors, psychologists, psychiatrists. I mean, it's all up and down that street. So, to me, we aren't granting a subdivision. That's out of our jurisdiction, and I'm sure the Planning Board will put him through his paces on the subdivision issue. We're just saying that if he gets the subdivision, will those two proposed parcels, they aren't even parcels now, just proposed parcels, could those two be used for a professional office, and then the remaining would be subject to whatever the zoning is. MR. RAYMOND-No one in the area's in opposition to that. As a matter of fact, I think that they would support the application. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further questions from him? Okay. We'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MARK LEVACK MR. LEVACK-Good evening. My name's Mark Levack of Levack Burke Real Estate, and I'm here in support of the applicant's proposal for a Use Variance. I've had the opportunity to be involved directly with marketing this parcel over the past three years, and I can personally attest to the physical characteristics of this property, as I've had the opportunity to walk the property in it's total perimeter. I I ve also had the opportunity to work on several subdivisions and land transactions on Bay Road, and I think what you have here is you have pretty much an apples to apples comparison of the Guido Passarelli subdivision, wherein you have a frontage being cultural professional use, and a back portion being residential use, and it's my understanding that the Town has already given a Preliminary or Conceptual approval. MRS. CRAYFORD-Conceptual. MR. LEVACK-Conceptual approval to that plan, and basically it's very similar, I think, in concept. You have a cultural professional frontage and residential use in the rear, but I'm here to speak to highest and best uses of property. I'm here to speak to the marketing of the property, and the lack of interest that we have had on the property, for residential on the front. If you have any questions regarding highest and best use, marketing of property, or the concept itself, of a mixed use for that site, I think I can speak to that. MR. CARR-Mark, did you market this, as it was zoned, for residential use? MR. LEVACK-Yes, we did. MR. CARR-Did you have any interest? MR. LEVACK-Very little. MR. CARR-Did anything get close to contract? MR. LEVACK-Not at any point in time. MR. CARR-Okay. Have you had interest in it as professional offices? 10 '- MR. LEVACK-Yes, most definitely. MR. CARR-Okay, and is there current interest in it as a professional office? MR. LEVACK-I would say, yes. That is a desirable area for a cultural professional office. MR. CARR-Okay. Do you know when the last time a single family residence was sold on Bay Road. strictly as a single family residence, or as a residence/professional office? MR. TURNER-The one across the road, Moon's house. MR. CARR-Was it? MR. LEVACK-That wasn't sold as a residence. Well, it was zoned. MR. TURNER-No, but it was a residence to start with. That's always been a residence. It's still a residence. MR. LEVACK-Right, but it's been zoned Highway Commercial. MR. TURNER-It's still a residence. MR. LEVACK-My understanding is that it's occupied by the prior owner, who is currently holding some paper on that deal, and I think if that were not the case, that resident would not be living there, and that's an assumption on my part, but that's a particular situation there. MR. TURNER-How long ago was it that someone was interested in this for a residential purpose? MR. LEVACK-I don't believe I've ever had anybody interested in that frontage as a residential purpose. MR. TURNER-Because you just said, very little, and I was wondering. how much, where little and very come together. MR. CARVIN-Was it presented as a one acre lot. or was it presented as total 30 acres? MR. LEVACK-It was presented as both. MR. CARVIN-As both? MRS. EGGLESTON-Was the advertised price reasonable for a residential? MR. LEVACK-I would say, no, it was not reasonable, but I think, that goes back a couple of years, but I think, of late, the past six months, the price that we've been working off of has been a reasonable price. I mean, they're receptive to making a deal on this property. They've gone through quite a bit of research. quite a bit of discussions on it, and I think they're narrowing down to best utilization of the property, and of a proper price on the property. MR. EGGLESTON-But as you well know, if it's sold commercially, or a business or whatever, it will normally bring a better price than a residential. MR. LEVACK-It should. because it is the proper utilization of the land. MRS. EGGLESTON-So, did you ever advertise it as a residence, at a reasonable price for a residence, that size house? MR. LEVACK-No, we did not, but did we ever directly market it as such, yes we did. MRS. EGGLESTON-At a reasonable, residential price? MR. LEVACK-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Compared to other homes of that caliber? MR. LEVACK-Well, that gets into a gray area, because you're talking about different areas. When you say, of that caliber, I don't know what you mean on that. MR. CARR-Well, it's kind of hard to say, because you're talking about a residence on Bay Road, and there's very few residential lots on Bay Road. I mean, so, you can't compare it to a residential lot in Tyneswood, because that's just not comparing the same lots. 11 MRS. EGGLESTON-But my point is, and I know on Main Street, going out through West Glens Falls, there's a lot of homes through there. If you sold them as a house, you'd be lucky if you get $75,000, but they're hoping to sell it as offices for maybe $175,000, and I'm asking, is that. MR. LEVACK-I don't think the price is what the issue is, here. I think the issue is what is highest and best utilization of the land. MRS. EGGLESTON-As zoned. MR. LEVACK-Or as a use variance would allow, and I think the use variance would be a proper use variance, in this instance, and quite honestly, I think that Garfield's request of 300 foot setback is quite minimal, when in fact there are cultural professional approvals in the process that go back as 500 feet, and in actuality, the Passarelli site could have applied for a 1,000 foot setback. So, again. I think what you have here is an apples to apples comparison, on a much smaller scale, of something the Town has already given its Conceptual approval to. MRS. EGGLESTON-What is the market price of the property? MR. LEVACK-We do not have the property listed. There is no listed market price, at this point. MR. TURNER-What is the proposed price? MR. LEVACK-The proposed price for the entire parcel? MR. TURNER-For the two lots. MR. LEVACK-For the two lots. MR. RAYMOND-$55 ,000. MR. LEVACK-$55,000 an acre, which is a pretty good price for that property. I think it's very realistic. I can tell you that the proposed site will definitely be more than that. quite substantially more than that, further up the road, and if you take a look at what the Crossroads Professional Park sites had sold for, again, the price is much higher than these properties are bringing. So, again, I think it's a reasonable valuation. I think it's a reasonable request. Thank you. GEORGE WHIFFLE MR. WHIFFLE-My name is George Whiffle. I live at 68 Glenwood Avenue. I'm not opposed to this application. I'm probably out of order by speaking here, but I was notified of this request for a change because our property borders a section of this 30 acres that they're asking to have re-zoned, or whatever. Our property is in the sewer district. Is any of this property that you're talking about here tonight in the sewer district? MR. CARR-No. MR. TURNER-I think the sewer district ends right at Cronin Road. MR. WHIFFLE-Well, somebody, in their ultimate wisdom, put all of our property in the sewer district, and drew the line right across the back. This property that you're talking about developing on Bay should be in the sewer district. It's low. We've lived there for over 40 years and we know where the water table is, when it's up and down. Those people that are putting in septic tanks are going to have problems. Someday they're going to have to get the sewer district. You put more water in, the more that needs to come out. They put sewers through Glenwood Avenue and we had to hook up. We had a good septic system, and didn't really need to hook up, but we were forced to, and probably it's a good idea, but they assessed our land, and we pay about $6,000 a year on vacant land, woodchuck and deer, and now we have a coy dog up there that comes out a couple of times a day hunting woodchucks, and we enjoy this, but it's kind of expensive to pay this assessment. It's not even a tax we can write off. If these people are going to develop this land. and they obviously are. they're starting piecemeal, that whole parcel, that 30 acre parcel that they're showing you there, should be in the sewer district, and they should be paying the same assessment that we are on our property. You're acquainted with our property. The field kept mowed there so the people can enjoy it. Betty Monahan loves to come down and see open spaces here in Queensbury, and this land that they own back there is beautiful land. The deer come through, and then they come to our field for the feed, but they ought to be paying the sewer assessment that we are, and there's a lot of this land in Queensbury that's low and it should be, I know this is not within your Board of Appeals, but I can go so long, and then I've got to say something. Thanks for listening. MR. TURNER-Thank you. Anybody else wish to be heard in opposition? PUBLIC HEARIrtG CLOSED 12 MRS. EGGLESTON-I was wondering about the wetlands. Are they so designated by ENCON? MR. RAYMOND-Well, they're in their Stage II. They designated, there was a first finding, we had that properly flagged. We had them down here, and we've had extensive dealings with DEC on this, and there's the step now that the map, you can see, this is the best estimate that I can give you. I think that's giving them the latitude. I think that this is the basic area that we're talking about. It's a designated wetland area, back in there. MRS. EGGLESTON-How close is the designated boundary, to these? MR. RAYMOND-It doesn't fall with DEC jurisdiction. DEC is 100 feet of the building site. So, we're way beyond that. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay, and how long have you owned the property? MR. RAYMOND-Since 1985, maybe. This, originally, was zoned as UR-5, which meant that we could have 5,000 square feet for every building. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. RAYMOND-And it went from that to UR 1 Acre. MR. CARR-Mark, did you ever market this property as residential? MR. LEVACK-I would say, no. MR. CARR-You've never? MR. LEVACK-Advertised it as a residential. MR. CARR-No, marketed it as a residential. MR. LEVACK-We have marketed it as a residential property? MRS. EGGLESTON-What is the difference, marketing or advertising? MR. TURNER-None. MRS. EGGLESTON-That's a play on words, there is no difference. MR. LEVACK-Well , we had an exclusive on the property, at which point I believe it was, this is going back a couple of years, and I'm not coming in with fresh notes, here, but I think it was $800,000, at the time, and your question regarding reasonable asking price, no, it was not a reasonable asking price on the property. So, had we ever advertised it as as residential property, we advertised it through a multiple listing system. We advertised it through Post Star, classified advertising system, and we advertised it as it was zoned, and the zone was UR-IA. So, in the very essence, yes, we did advertise it as a residential property, as the zone designated. MR. CARR-Multiple listing lists the zoning, doesn't it? MR. LEVACK-Right. I could go back in the listing, and if that was the zone designation at the time we took the listing on, then, technically, yes, we did advertise it as a residential property. MRS. EGGLESTON-With a reasonable price? MR. LEVACK-No. I don't believe it was a reasonable price on the property. However, we did hope, and probably suggest to most perspective buyers, for possibility of UR type zone or a cultural professional type zone, and it's taken, really, this long to get down to a reasonable price, a reasonable use, and I guess I'm just here in support of the proposal. Did I answer your question? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. I think you did. MR. RAYMOND-In terms of reasonableness, I believe that the price was reasonable at the time that it was listed. It may not be reasonable now, but at that particular time, it was reasonable. So, that has some bearing, and in terms of, I just want to point one thing out. Referring to Main Street, you're saying there's a number of single family residences over there that are for sale. One of the problems we got in that area, trying to compare that, most of the property there is not eligible for a residential loan. My number of experiences I've had with closings over there is that when you go to get a residential application for a mortgage, they won't give it to you because they deem that as commercial. So, that makes it very difficult. I think that's going to happen to this area. MR. CARVIN-I have just one question. If this was approved, what type of building are you contemplating putting up on these properties? 13 MR. RAYMOND-One of them will be a legal professional office. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Multi story, one story? MR. RAYMOND-One story, I believe it is. It is not my buildings, but it will be another lawyer in the area. If it is approved, and we go through and get the subdivision approval, that's one of the parcels which will be utilized for that. MR. CARVIN-I just didn't know if we were going to end up with multi story office complex type of thing. MR. RAYMOND-No. I don't believe it is. MRS. CRAYFORD-He would have to meet density requirements for one acre. MRS. EGGLESTON-See, I can get buy everyone of these sections on use variances, I was speaking with Bruce, with the exception that I am not satisfied that you have proven your case that you couldn't sell it as zoned, and you couldn't get a reasonable financial return if used for any permissible use or site plan review. MR. RAYMOND-Can I address that? I think Mrs. Larabee is here, who has a single family residence which is adjacent to that, which is reflected on the map, and that is a single family residence, in existence. MRS. EGGLESTON-Could I ask Mrs. Larabee to come up to the microphone. ROSE LARABEE MRS. LARABEE-Rose Larabee, 318 Bay Road. MRS. EGGLESTON-And have you tried to sell your house, Rose? MRS. LARABEE-For the past two years I've tried to sell it. MRS. EGGLESTON-For two years as, just as a residence. MRS. LARABEE-Right. MRS. EGGLESTON-And what's the size of your lot? MRS. LARABEE-It's 120 by 100. MRS. EGGLESTON-120 by 100. Have you had any offers, any interest? MRS. LARABEE-Yes, I've had bites. I've had offers. MR. TURNER-For residential? MRS. LARABEE-Well, no. The person that's interest in it, now, he's a doctor. MRS. EGGLESTON-Were you asking a reasonable price, what you consider, for a residential property? MRS. LARABEE-Right. MRS. EGGLESTON-Not as a doctors office or as a commercial because it's on a busy highway and whatnot. MRS. LARABEE-No. MR. TURNER-Was that three years ago or two years ago, Mrs. Larabee? MR. LARABEE-Well, actually, it was the last year when I put it up, it was there. It was only a year. MRS. EGGLESTON-But have you had some residential interest? MRS. LARABEE-Yes. I did. MRS. EGGLESTON-You did have, and what, what was there? MRS. LARABEE-Well, that was quite a few years ago, about 14 years ago, when my husband was alive then we were putting it for sale. We did have a husband and wife that was pregnant were going to buy it, at the time, but my husband had passed away, and they called that day that we had buried him and they wanted to buy it, and I told them I wasn't going to sell it at that time. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, but in the past year, have you had any interest at all? 14 MRS. LARABEE-No, none. Just like I said, within the past, maybe a couple of years or so. MRS. EGGLESTON-Have you advertised, Rose? MRS. LARABEE-Well, through realty, yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. Thanks. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further questions? None? Any further discussion? None? Okay. Motion's in order. MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 35-1992 RONALD L. NEWELL GARFIELD P. RAYMOND, Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its adoption, seconded by Marie Paling: In part. The granting of the variance for the use of the property as professional offices would only apply to the first 300 feet back from Bay Road. This variance would not apply to the remainder of the property. The applicant has demonstrated that the character of this street has changed over the course of time, that it is becoming more commercial office space, rather than residential use. That the property has been marketed in its entirety as residential use and in portions as commercial use, with the only interest being in the commercial portion use. There has been testimony from a neighbor this evening that she has had her house listed for sale for two years and that there has been no residential interest in the property. All this leads to the fact that a reasonable return cannot be obtained for use of the property as zoned. Strict application of the Ordinance to this parcel would lead to a severe economic hardship on the applicant. The granting of this variance will not adversely effect the character of the neighborhood and will not adversely effect public services and utilities. A review of the Short Environmental Assessment Form indicates that this variance will cause no negative environmental impact. Duly adopted this 22nd day of April, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Paling, Mr. Carr NOES: Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner ABSENT: Mr. Sicard, Mr. Shea MR. TURNER-It's denied. MR. RAYMOND-Well, thank you anyway. (9:03 p.m.) AREA VARIANCE NO. 36-1992 TYPE II WR-lA TItmTHY BARBER ClߌR: CHARLES BARBER CLEVERDALE, ROCICHURST ROAD YELUII CAMP ON RIGHT TO REPLACE EXISTING DOCK WITH A U-SIIAPE DOCK THAT DŒS NOT ŒET THE RE~IRED 20 FT. SETBACK. (WARREN coom PLAMING) TAX MAP NO. 15-1-44 LOT SIZE: 3,816 SQ. FT. SECTION 179-60, 179-16 TIMOTHY BARBER, PRESENT (9:03 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Patricia M. Crayford, Zoning Administrator, Area Variance No. 36-1992, Timothy Barber, Meeting Date: April 22, 1992 "Applicant requesting to replace existing dock with U-shaped dock that does not meet the required 20 foot side yard setbacks. Section 179-60 page 18023, number 5 states that every dock shall have a minimum setback of 20 feet from the adjacent property line extended into the lake on the same access as the property line runs on shore where it meets the lake or at right angle to the mean high water mark whichever results in the greater setback. Also, you should be aware that number 6, no dock shall be constructed as to interfere with normal navigation or reasonable access to adjacent wharves. This is a Type II Action requiring no SEQRA determination." MRS. EGGLESTON-The Warren County Planning Board disapproved, with the comment "Recommend that the applicant build a straight dock in the center of the property that will conform". MR. TURNER-Mr. Barber. MR. BARBER-My name's Tim Barber. MR. TURNER-What do we have for a boat, Tim? MR. BARBER-Formula. MR. CARR-What's the size? MR. BARBER-Forty foot. 15 MR. CARVIN-How big is the property 1ine? Is it 53 feet we're ta1king about? MR. TURNER-Yes. It's rea1 narrow up there, 53 feet, I guess. MR. BARBER-Fifty two or three, yes. MR. TURNER-You cou1dn't accomp1ish the same objective with a straight dock? MR. BARBER-No. We have U-shaped dock there now. MR. TURNER-I know you do. MR. BARBER-You can't moor a boat, it's not a cruiser. It's a 10w profiJe. You can't moor that off one dock. It wou1d rip it apart. MR. TURNER-Not with an L on it? MR. BARBER-Sure it wi11. There's big waves on that 1ake. MR. TURNER-Yes, but do you get many of the northeast winds? MR. BARBER-Yes, basica11y, the roughest winds are if you get a south wind, 1ike the cruiser traffic up and down the Bay, from the two marines. There's some heavy waves. MR. CARR-You have a U-shaped dock there now? MR. BARBER-Yes. MR. CARR-What's the size on it? MR. BARBER-I'm not sure of the existing 1ength. I be1ieve it's between 36 and 38. They go out. They're about 38 inches. They're a11 concrete. They're fa11ing in right now. They go out about 38 inches, then, at the end, they have a, probab1y, a six by six p1atform. It's been there for 20 years I wou1d say, at 1east. They're s01id concrete, and over time they've c011apsed. MR. CARR-And it is U-shaped now? MR. BARBER-Yes, it is. MR. CARR-So, what you're asking for is a 1itt1e wider in width. MR. BARBER-A 1itt1e wider in width, yes. MR. CARR-The two extra feet on the end. MR. BARBER-Yes. MR. CARR-And just to center it on the property. MR. BARBER-I have a note from our north neighbor. MR. TURNER-How 10ng has Char1ie owned the property? MR. BARBER-We've owned it for a year and a ha1f. MR. TURNER-Where does he keep the boat? MR. BARBER-This is mine. It's new. MR. TURNER-It's your boat? MR. BARBER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Is this renta1 property? MR. BARBER-No, no. We own that. As you went up and 100ked, we've made drastic improvements to the wh01e property. We've remode1ed the wh01e home. MR. CARVIN-What's the current size of the dock? You're showing eight foot on one side and six foot, proposed. 16 MR. BARBER-Right, that's proposed. The existing one's. the middle slip is probably around 11. 11 and a hal f, and then they go out approximately 38 feet, and then at the ends they both head off, probably a six by six section. They're concrete piers that were put in 20 years ago. They're falling in now. They're going to fall. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but what's the width of the dock, I guess, going out. Is it eight foot? MR. BARBER-No. The width of the docks, going out right now, it's a platform. It's 38 inches of solid concrete. Then they go out to those six by six cribs. MR. CARVIN-I'm just looking at a dock, an eight foot wide dock. Is that an abnormal size? MR. BARBER-No. If you want to put a lounge chair or something on the dock, six foot, you wouldn't be able to, side ways, you wouldn't be able to get by, if you put it lake wise. If you want to utilize the dock, for lounging and all, a six foot's impractical. MR. TURNER-Yes, but you've got some constraints up there. Those lots are small, and I think you've got to realize that right off at the start, because you can't maximize everything up there. Those things are right, you reach out the window and touch the other guy's house. MR. CARVIN-If you eliminated the U-shape, you'd have a 14 foot wide dock, if you put a single dock out there. MR. BARBER-That's not what we're asking for, though. That would be above the maximum. As it is now, we have an existing U-shape. What we're proposing to do, because this one's collapsing, and I'm sure you've seen it if you went up, we want to move it to the middle, this boat has a 12 foot beam on it, so I need 15 feet, and we need to go out. or else we're going to be sticking out past the docks. MR. TURNER-Is this going to be pressure treated? MR. BARBER-Yes. Any further questions? MRS. PALING-I just had one question. You say you already own this boat? MR. BARBER-Yes. MRS. PALING-And so if this was turned down, where would you put your boat? MR. BARBER-I'd put it up there. I'd moor it. MRS. PALING-In the, okay. MR. TURNER-How much water does it draw? What's the draft? MR. BARBER-Probably three feet. MR. TURNER-Two and a half feet, maybe? MR. BARBER-Yes. MR. TURNER-Any further questions of the applicant? If not, I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED PAUL TERRY MR. TERRY-I want to see where it is, first. We live on Rockhurst. MR. TURNER-That's the sketch he gave us. MR. TERRY-Where on Rockhurst are you? MR. BARBER-I'm midway at the point. There's a brand new yellow one right across the street that's. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. TERRY-I'm Paul Terry. I live in Rockhurst, a little farther up than him, and someone just built a new U-shaped dock right across from us. MR. TURNER-Which side of the road are you on, right or left? MR. TERRY-We're on the left side going out. 17 '- MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. TERRY-This was on the right side going up, just probably two or three doors from them, a brand new U-shaped dock, with a deck on the water, and we never even heard about that being built. It 's brand new this year. MR. TURNER-You might hear about it. MRS. CRAYFORD-Where is it, Paul, in relation to you? MR. TERRY-Going south, across the road. It's the old camp that nObody lives in anymore. It's an old camp. There's a brand new U-shaped dock there that was built this year, that's why I'm wondering why he's having the problem, and they put a deck on it, too, right on the water. MR. TURNER-They might have done it illegally. We don't know. We didn't hear it. I'll tell you that. MR. TERRY-Well, if you did or not, I'm just asking you, he shouldn't have a problem if they didn't have a problem. MR. TURNER-No, but we'll look that problem up, but he does have a problem. Okay. Who else wishes to be heard? EDWARD BUNKEY MR. BUNKEY-My name is Edward Bunkey. I live on Rockhurst, directly across from the Barbers building, and I think what they want to do is quite reasonable. The concrete dock that Tim mentioned is falling apart. He's going to have to do something with it, and I think this is the most practical thing for what he wants to do. MR. TURNER-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else in support? Opposed. ELAINE PRAGEN MRS. PRAGEN-My name is Elaine Pragen, and I reside next door to Mr. Barber, and on the north is his mother-in-law, Mrs. Noonan, which I'm sure you have a letter from. We're in the planning stages of rebuilding our dock, and my major concern is if Mr. Barber's dock will interfere with the freeway to my property. During the past 30 years, we have had to come from the north to let the current take our boat into the dock. Mr. Barber owns a sailboat, motor boat, row boat, and now he wants a sea plane, which I strongly objected to at the Commission meeting yesterday, citing among other things, noise pollution and safety, and handling the fumes and receiving a burning sensation to the eyes when I returned to the water to swim. If he attempts to dock one of his vehicles on the right side, near my property, it will not only obstruct my view, but I will not be able to dock my boat, and with the two moorings he has in front of his present dock, it's going to be very difficult for us to maneuver. The law states that there has to be 20 feet from my property line to where he builds his dock. He's asking for 11 feet. However, if he adds a boat on that side of the dock, we'll only have five or six feet to get our boat into our dock. Again, we have been able to dock our boat the same way for the past 30 years, and would like to be able to do it again. MR. TURNER-Okay. Thank you. MRS. PRAGEN-I have some pictures. MR. TURNER-Yes, bring them forth. MRS. PRAGEN-Now, this our dock right here. They want to take this dock and move it over here, and this is their sailboat. This is our dock that caved in. MR. TURNER-Yes. I saw that. That's up between the two buildings, now, isn't it? MRS. PRAGEN-Yes. MR. TURNER-You're the next building south? MRS. PRAGEN-We're south. MRS. EGGLESTON-Is there supposed to be a U-shaped dock there, now, that they have? MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Where is it? MR. BARBER-Yes. It's the concrete one, there. 18 MRS. EGGLESTON-I don't think you can see a U. MR. TURNER-No. You can't see it. Is this yours? MR. BARBER-Yes. There is it. It's that dock and that dock. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, is it a U-shaped, or is it two separate docks? MR. BARBER-No. It's U-shaped. It's concrete all the way around. MR. CARR-And it's entirely on the Barber property, now? MR. BARBER-Yes. It's approximately two feet from my grandmother's line. MR. TURNER-You said you could moor it though, right? MR. BARBER-Yes. MR. CARR-For one thing, if he builds it according to this plan, okay, his 12 foot boat, as I understand the law, it would be impossible for him to moor it on this side, because it would cross your property line, and the rules of the lake, as I understand it, are that you cannot cross a, well, the dock's over here, further. Now, as long as they stay within this line. coming up from their property, they're fine, okay, and the same for you on your docks, but if he's got a 12 foot in width boat, and it's 11 feet here, there's no way he can park it on this side. I mean, that would be illegal for him to do that. for your concern on that, and then the only other thing I would just say, if he doesn't get this and he has a right, I guess, to moor it out in the lake, I mean, is that more of a detriment, or does that have any effect on your thoughts? MICHAEL BROWN MR. BROWN-My name is Michael Brown. I'm the son of Elaine. The basic problem, issue that we have with this whole thing, the Barbers, the dock is falling apart. They do need a new dock, but for the past 30, 40 years. my grandparents and my mother have been sitting on the lakefront all the time looking out, and so on. My grandfather's very ill right now, and the dock just went to pieces. Now, we have to build a new one in the same place. MR. CARR-Your dock? MR. BROWN-Our dock just fell apart. We have no dock there right now. We're planning on building one this summer, okay. When we docked our boat there at the dock, we would have to, we had an outboard, it's a 16, 17 foot Chrysler with a 200 outboard, all right, and we had to back it in at all times, just in case something happened with it, so the engine would be saved in case it ever sank. About 20 years ago we had a fire, and the boat. the engine was saved because of that reason. So. we'll always back our outboard boat back in, just for that reason. Now, this past year we didn't have a dock there, and the Barbers did move in and they built the house up, and everything was fine, and we had great relations with them. We had no problems with the Barbers, but the problem that we had was, my mother had a problem seeing, and my grandparents that came up had a problem seeing, with mooring, with the sailboat out there, with the sea plane out there, or whatever. That's a different issue, okay. If they were to build this dock, we would have no problem with it if there was not a large boat or there was not a boat docked on this side of the property line, just because it would be hard for us to see the view that we normally see, the beautiful houses across the lake and what have you. MR. BARBER-I would say that the row boat size of a fish boat, that would be docked on that side. MR. BROWN-Okay. Well, I mean, I don't see that being a problem, but I know you guys have tons of boats, and you have 500 brothers, and they have boats. and we grew up together. and every year they get another boat. I mean, it was great when we used to ride with them and fish with them. but I mean, it's going to be a problem to see, and plus to put our boat in, okay. that's going to be the problem. MR. BARBER-This boat that 1'm going to put there, either moor or put at the docks, is not a visual problem. MR. TURNER-I won't have that high profile? MR. BARBER-No. It's got one wing on it, but it stands about this tall in the water. Out of the water, it's about four and a half feet. MRS. PRAGEN-And where are you going to put the sailboat? You've got the sailboat. You've got the motor boat. MR. BARBER-That's a different issue. I don't know where you're going to put that. I don't even know if he's going to put it on Lake George. 19 MR. BROWN-This was the sailboat that was moored and attached to the dock, and here is the pontoon sailboat. MR. CARR-Okay, and this is your dock that's fallen in? MR. BROWN-That's the dock that's dead. That's gone now. MRS. EGGLESTON-Timmy, who's going to live in this house? MR. BARBER-No. It's our camp. MRS. EGGLESTON-Does anybody live in there? MR. BARBER-No. No one lives in there. MR. CARR-Year round? MR. BARBER-Year round. MRS. EGGLESTON-It's just for the whole family whenever they want to come to use it? MR. BARBER-Yes. My father works in Glens Falls frequently now. So, I'm sure he'll be residing up there for the summer time. MRS. PRAGEN-They haven't moved in yet, though, right? MR. BARBER-No. It's a summer residence. MRS. EGGLESTON-But can you see their dilemma, though, a little bit, with a sea plane and a sail plane and a large boat and a small boat, on such a limited, small spot, can you see their dilemma? MR. BARBER-Yes, but you have to taken into a sense, the dock, 1'm basically just moving the U-shaped dock over, making the inner a little wider to accommodate the big boat, and that's about it, making it two feet longer, per see MR. CARR-How much wider is the slip? MR. BARBER-The slip on the existing docks, from pier to pier, now, I'm going from the outer, it's 15 from inner to inner, from the concrete, but pier to pier, where you approach it, is probably 11 feet. You can't squeeze 12 in 11. It doesn't work. MR. TURNER-But the other side of the coin is that once the dock is built, and the dock is positioned there, and this boat doesn't prove to your satisfaction, you might end up buying a cabin cruiser that has a beam of 10 feet. MR. BARBER-I believe, though, you'd need a variance through the Park Commission to park a cabin cruiser at the dock. MR. TURNER-Well, I don't know about that, but I'm just saying, things could change over a period of time. MR. BARBER-That's true, but what we're asking for is to move the dock to the center of the property. MR. TURNER-I understand. MR. CARR-What's his rights to just rebuild? I mean, look at that. Okay. Say we don't give him this. He just wants to rebuild that dock. What's his rights as that? MR. TURNER-He won't get his boat in. MRS. EGGLESTON-You can, though, rebuild in the same footprint, can't you? MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. You can get a permit to rebuild in the same footprint. MR. CARR-No. He can get his boat in by taking off the six foot bulk head. I mean, it's a six foot wooden bulk head, isn't that what you said? MR. BARBER-Yes. 20 '- MR. CARR-So, I mean, he cou1d widen the in1et, if you wi11, to the s1ip, because he said the s1ip on the inside is 15 feet. It's just because the two wooden things come in on this side. MR. TURNER-Where does the buH head come off, on this side, or this side, the north side or the south side? MR. BARBER-They point both ways. They kind of tee off at the front. MR. CARR-You can see it on the photograph. MR. TURNER-Okay. Thank you. Does anyone e1se wish to be heard in opposition to the app1ication? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPOrtDENCE MRS. EGGLESTON-First we have a 1etter from He1en Noonan, "With reference to the app1ication for variance to center Char1es M. Barber's dock, I am the owner to the north, adjacent to Mr. Barber's property. Mr. Barber's dock is within two feet of my property 1ine and the c10se proximity of Mr. Barber's dock to my property 1ine severe1y 1imits the access to my dock. I strong1y recommend your approva1 of the requested variance to center a new dock. I cannot appear at the meeting schedu1ed in Apri1, as I am in F10rida, but if necessary, I wi11 be avai1ab1e to appear after May 6th. I have no objection to the centering of Mr. Barber's dock." And the next 1etter is from Mary Buher, and she's on Rockhurst Road, "I'm writing about the U-shaped dock that Timothy Barber, owner Char1es Barber, have app1ied for. I, Mary W. Buher, Rockhurst Road, have my p1ace for sa1e. I cou1d have s01d it if I had been given my permit to rebui1d my existing dock. Mr. White said my waterfront was not 10ng enough. It's 53 and a ha1f foot. I app1ied twice, and was refused both times. I fee1 that if they are given a permit to rebui1d, I shou1d be given one a1so. Thank you." And that's it. MRS. PRAGEN-Can I just say one more thing. Mrs. Noonan who approves of this is his mother-in-1aw. MR. TURNER-Yes. Any further discussion amongst ourse1ves? MR. CARVIN-I kind of have to go a10ng with the County. I think it's just too big for this space, and I think 1ike Ted has indicated, we cou1d end up with a major marina out there. It sounds 1ike we've got one, and if you've got mooring rights, I guess, a 40 foot boat's a pretty big boat to be docking, I guess. I'm not a boater, so don't get me wrong, but I understand what 40 feet is. MR. TURNER-What's that got in it for an engine? MR. BARBER-It's got two 454's. MR. TURNER-You don't need any he1p to make waves up there after you get that started. MRS. EGGLESTON-See, I wou1dn't have an objection, maybe, to moving it to the midd1e, but within the 40 foot, what is the a110wed? MR. CARR-Forty feet. MR. TURNER-Forty feet. MRS. EGGLESTON-See, within the a110tted use. MR. CARR-He is in the a110tted use. MRS. EGGLESTON-But he's to one side. He wou1d 1ike to move it in the midd1e. MR. CARR-He ~ centering it. MRS. EGGLESTON-That's what I'm saying, but he's a1so extending the 1ength. I do have a prob1em with that, for the reasons for which these peop1e have said. MR. CARVIN-I understand he has a right to make a U-shaped dock, because it's existing, but what I'm saying is that I think that you cou1d put the Queen Mary in there, eventua11y. MR. CARR-We11, the ru1es say he can have a 40 foot dock. So, the 40 feet has nothing to do with it. MR. CARVIN-1'm just saying the U-shaped, if he wants sing1e. I mean, the on1y reason that he wants the U-shape, as I understand it, is because he wants to put this boat. MR. BARBER-A1so, it makes a nice area to go down and sit on, an eight foot dock. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but what I'm saying is, the existing U-shape is. 21 MR. TURNER-Okay. I agree with your argument there, but you also have to realize that that's only a 53 foot wide lot, and I think you have to accommodate the people that live on each side of you, and live in that area. I think that has to work into your plan, too. MR. BARBER-But I'm also starting with a U-shaped dock. I'm making it just a little bit bigger, and putting it in the center, not putting it to one side. MR. PRAGEN-How much bigger are you making it? MR. BARBER-Two feet longer, and probably two and a half to three feet in width, wider. MRS. PRAGEN-On each U? MR. BARBER-No, overall, taking the outer dimensions of both, and I'm only going two and a half to three feet in width, maximum, and two feet longer, and the only reason that we want the width is so I can keep the boat in the middle, 12 foot beam, and I could moor that out there, but it would be swinging 80 feet. That's more of an obstruction. MR. CARR-I understand Mrs. Pragen's concerns, and they're very legitimate, the concern about the overcrowding and too many boats for them to enjoy the lake. That's legitimate, but that's something we can't do anything about. MR. TURNER-No. MR. CARR-So, now we've got an issue of, another concern is, I mean, that boat's going to be there, and now we've got another concern of, can he park the boat on the outside which would cross over their property line, which he can't do, because that's illegal. So, now his option is to rebuild the dock he's got, which is not big enough to house a boat which is going to put that boat on a mooring in the middle of the lake somewhere, which is going to be, I believe, a hazard. MRS. CRAYFORD-I don't think he can put it on a mooring, because on a mooring it can't go a fun swing and come closer than 20 feet on either side out into the lake. So, he's not going to moor it either. PUBLIC HEARIrtG RE-OPENED JERRY LEONE MR. LEONE-Jerry Leone, Midnight Drive. From what I'm hearing here, and I don't know anything about boats, the same as you. He bought a boat that's too big for the dock that he's got, and he's asking you to give him a variance so that you can accommodate the boat that he's got. Now, the lake is obviously only so big, so if you give him the variance, you're opening the door for anybody else to go out and buy another boat that's too big for their dock and too big for the lake. These lakes are only so large, and how big a boat do you really need on a lake this big. MR. BARBER-I don't think the boat's the issue. MR. LEONE-Well, yes, the boat is the entire issue, or you wouldn't need a bigger dock. MR. TURNER-Okay, but the real issue is the size of the lot. That's the real issue, and like you say, the boat is too big for the size of the lot, really. MR. CARVIN-If you ran a straight dock, just one 40 foot by 8 foot dock, you could moor that boat on that? MR. BARBER-No. I wouldn't, because it would tear back. MR. CARVIN-I'm not asking if you would or wouldn't, but could you? MR. BARBER-No. I would say you could not, because it would tear, at that point an those waves, it's a heavy boat. It's going to be rocking that dock, and it's going to pull the dock off it's crib, which could demolish the dock. MR. CARVIN-See, because a single dock center would be in compliance. We have full utilization. MR. BARBER-But also, we have a U-shape, as I said before, and I'm not starting from zero. We have something existing. We could rebuild right there, but we want to center it, just two feet from the adjacent property. We want to center the dock and make it a little bit bigger. MR. TURNER-But you're saying that your old dock is smaller than this dock in width. MR. BARBER-Yes. 22 -- MR. CARVIN-So, you couldn't put the boat, if you rebuilt it. MR. BARBER-No. So, we'd put it out in the front. MR. TURNER-No, the width of the dock, on the old dock, is narrower than the width you propose, is that correct? MR. BARBER-Exactly, at the bulk heads, and then it goes down, and it's concrete. It's a mess. They have to be filled. MR. TURNER-Okay. We could argue it all night. We'll close the hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. EGGLESTON-I feel that I don't have any objection to him centering his thing, but to make it larger and longer, I do have. MR. TURNER-I do, too. They're just too small up there. If you buy a boat of that size, I think you have to realize that you're not going to be able to dock it in an area that's so encumbered with residences as that is, that you're going to have to store it and move it some place else. MR. CARR-Joyce just made a comment that she didn't have any problems with the centering. It's the extending and the eight foot, and I'm saying, if this applicant had come in and said to us, I'm going to, I'm going to build a four foot wide dock, thirty eight feet, so it's the same length as my existing dock, okay, and then, but it's got to be two feet in from each side, or from the start, I need it to be centered. I'm just saying, if that was the case, according to what Joyce said, there'd be no problem. Then next year, there's nothing to stop him from coming in and putting on that two feet and adding the eight feet, because that's what's allowed. MR. TURNER-Yes. I know. I understand that. MR. CARR-So, I mean, I don't think we should be looking at, if he's going to use what is allowed under the Ordi nance, we can't 100 k at that as someth i ng bad, that he's not allowed to do or that we shoul d hold against him. I mean, that's allowed. I mean, that's what the Town has said. That's what the Zoning Administrator has said. So, the issue is, I mean, is the better plan to have him do it in the middle here, or is the better plan to have him rebuild it two foot on one end, and I guess that would give him the 20 foot on the other side. What's the better plan? MR. TURNER-The better plan probably is to reduce the size of the dock that he proposes, to some extent. MR. BARBER-Mr. Turner, if we were to reduce the eight foot dock to a six foot dock, have a pair of sixes, essentially I'm not adding square footage to the structure, adding it from the existing. MR. CARR-Except from the 38 to the 40, 12 square feet. MR. TURNER-If you reduce the dock to the south by two feet, and you reduce the dock to the north by four feet, that would reduce the total measurement by six feet, all right. So, that would give you 17 feet on the north, and 13 feet on the south, and you could center it up. MR. BARBER-I think I lost you. MR. TURNER-Okay. If you reduce the north wing, the width of it, to four feet, and you reduce the south wing by two foot, making that four and four, you'd pick up four feet on the north, and you'd pick up two feet on the south. MR. BARBER-You're sticking a pair of four foot docks out there. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. BARBER-That's small. MR. TURNER-I know it's small. MR. BARBER-I can't see four foot docks. It's not worth the investment. It's a lot of money to pay for those. MR. TURNER-It's a lot of money. I agree. MR. BARBER-A four foot dock. Down the road, if we were to sell it, that would be a mooring dock. It wouldn't be a lounge type dock. It would be a marina dock. What I was saying was to bring the new docks in proportion to the same area of the existing dock, the eight foot dock, knock that down to a six, you're knocking 80 square feet off that entire structure, and then we could move them over to that. It would give 13 feet on the neighbors. 23 --' MR. CARR-So, you'd be 13 feet on each side. So, that wou1d be tru1y centered. MR. CARVIN-We11, I guess it raises a question in my mind. Do you need two huge docks? MR. BARBER-Wen, what we're starting with I have. I'm not putting new. I have those docks a1ready and I'm going to rebui1d them there or in the midd1e. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but as I understand it, the existing docks are on1y about three foot wide, you said. MR. BARBER-They're about 38 inches, and then they go out and they do encompass that. They're 8 by 10, they're 8 by 6 or 6 by 6. MR. TURNER-Yes. So, that you've got a p1ace to sit. MR. CARR-Thirteen on each side, and then he can buiJd his six foot wing. So, he can build an eight foot wing, and a four foot wing, I don't care. MR. TURNER-Seven feet of re1ief on each side. MR. CARR-Yes, but then if he goes seven feet on each side, he can buiJd one wing out at eight feet width. So, you can have your 10unge chair out there, and you cou1d buiJd the other wing at four feet, just to have something to tie into, or you can go six and six. MR. TURNER-I think he just offered six and six, didn't you? MR. BARBER-Yes. MR. CARR-Right, but wou1dn't that be up to him, at that point? MR. TURNER-I know, but he's offering to mitigate it. That's what I'm saying. MR. CARR-Yes, but I guess my question is, do you have a prob1em if you went eight and four, instead of six and six? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARR-Why? MR. BARBER-Appea1ing to the properties, it wou1d 100k better if you kept them symmetrica1. MR. TURNER-Yes. It wou1d 100k better if they were both the same dimension. MR. BARBER-And that wou1d be pushing us away from the south property 1ine another two feet. MR. TURNER-How do the neighbors fee1 about that? MR. BROWN-The on1y prob1em that we have is the obstruction of our view from what is on the right, south side of his dock, whether it's six feet, four feet, ten feet, or twe1ve feet. We don't care. I mean, they shou1d have a brand new dock. That's fine. We don't care about that. We care about the obstruction of the view from the south side of the dock. MR. TURNER-You'11 have to te11 him to park the sai1boat out on the 1ake, or take it some p1ace e1se. MR. BROWN-I don't think the sai1boat's going to be, I think it's going to be up on Loon Lake. MR. TURNER-But that's something you guys are going to have to work out. MR. CARR-I mean, to further neighbor re1ations, that's something the e1der Mr. Barber wiJ1 have to discuss, because that's not something, we can't te11 him which boat he can put there. MR. BROWN-And mooring our boat, a1so. That's the on1y two issues we have. 'IlTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 36-1992 TI'IlTHY BARBER, Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Egg1eston: And, again, as amended with the consent of the app1icant here tonight. The appJicant is requesting side 1ine setbacks for the purpose of buiJding a U-shaped dock. I wou1d grant the app1icant reJief of seven feet from the north and south boundary Jines, 13 feet on each side. The app1icant current1y has a U-shaped dock of simiJar size that is 10cated within two to three feet of the north property Jine. This dock is in disrepair, but there is a right to rebuiJd it. The appJicant is requesting to rebuiJd this dock in a new 10cation in the center of the property. This appears to be the most 24 practical location for the re-construction of this dock. The size of the lot makes this variance necessary and it is the minimal variance allowed or necessary. This variance will not adversely effect public services and utilities, and it should not change the character of the neighborhood. Duly adopted this 22nd day of April, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carr, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Paling, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Sicard, Mr. Shea (9:53 p.m.) USE VARIANCE NO. 37-1992 TYPE: UNLISTED UR-I0 ELIZABETH PAPA DOLORES ORIGLIA BY JAfŒT SMRYILLf, ATTORNEY IN FACT (lINER: DOLORES ORIGLIA 104 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANTS SEEK TO UTILIZE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS A PROFESSIONAL REAL ESTATE OFFICE. (WARREN COUNTY PWNING) TAX JMP NO. 91-3-1 LOT SIZE: 14,800 SQ. FT. SECTION 179-17 SCOTT HATZ, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (9:53 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Patricia M. Crayford, Zoning Administrator, Use Variance No. 37-1992, Elizabeth Papa, Dolores Origlia, Meeting Date: April 22, 1992 "Applicant requesting to use the parcel at 104 Aviation Road as a professional real estate office. Section 179-17 Urban Residential-10 permits a professional office incidental to residential use. This applicant is aware that the parking plan as presented requires a 20 foot access drive for each parking space and asked to present a revised parking plan to the Board this evening. This is an Unlisted Action requiring a SEQRA determination." MRS. EGGLESTON-And the Warren County Planning Board approved with comments, "It is a difficult location for a residence, and a real estate business would provide a good buffer between the traffic on Aviation Road and the residential neighborhood behind it". MR. HATZ-Scott Hatz, representing the applicants. Essentially, what we're trying to do is get a use variance so that we might put a real estate office in this residence. The property's been listed for sale for a substantial period of years. There's been no offers. The corridor of Aviation Road, in this particular area, from the Highway up until at least Sokol's plaza there, has basically become a, certainly a non residential corridor, if not a commercial or professional/cultural corridor, and we have a three bedroom ranch in which the most obvious purchaser would be a couple with children or who plan to have children, and simply want nothing to do with Aviation Road. Additionally, this property directly abuts the State Police barracks, and there have been a number of inquiries as to what that building was by perspective purchasers. When told what it was, that basically ended all discussions for the sale of the property. The traffic up and down Aviation Road, as everyone knows, is becoming increasingly heavier and heavier, and it's going to get heavier, and we certainly do not believe that converting this use to a real estate office is going to have any impact on that at all. The traffic is there. It's been there. It's going to be greater. This use variance would not bring additional traffic to this area. If any traffic would be, it would be minimal in nature. So, we believe that the criteria's been met, and we'd seek a use variance. We're free to answer any questions you have, and Mrs. Papa can answer any questions regarding the use of this property and the marketing of this property. MR. TURNER-How long have they owned the house? MR. HATZ-Since 1986. MR. CARR-How long has it been on the market? MR. HATZ-I believe since shortly after that time, and my understanding was the owners purchased the property to reside in and shortly after located a property that they desired and moved and bought that property, and have had this on the market ever since. MR. TURNER-Is this rented now? MR. HATZ-It's rented. Up to this point, the most recent tenants understand, if they were able to meet their mortgage payment now. They're at a loss by about $25 a month. Their rent does not cover the mortgage and everything. MR. TURNER-So, there has been a reasonable return, are you saying? ELIZABETH PAPA MRS. PAPA-Up until three months ago. 25 MR. TURNER-Up unti1 three months ago. How 10ng has it been offered? MR. HATZ-Approximate1y 1986. MR. TURNER-You bought it in '86. MRS. PAPA-Mrs. Orig1ia bought it in '86. MR. TURNER-And you've advertised it since when? MRS. PAPA-She put it on the market for six months, after purchasing it, because she did find another home which she desired more, on June Drive, and bought that. MR. TURNER-But, in the meanwhi1e, after that, she rented the property, right? MRS. PAPA-Right. MR. TURNER-And it's been rented after they moved out. Is that correct? MRS. PAPA-Yes. MR. TURNER-And it's been rented up unti1 now. MRS. PAPA-Right up to the present. MR. TURNER-It's sti11 rented? Okay. MR. CARR-You said in the past three months, the rent hasn't covered the mortgage, and I assume escrow? Is it because of tax escrow? MRS. PAPA-Yes, taxes have gone up. MR. CARR-Is it subject to a 1ease? I mean, is the current tenant under a 1ease? MRS. PAPA-Yes, month to month. MR. CARR-Okay. Has the current tenant been approached about raising the rent? MRS. PAPA-He's on a HUD, 1ike a HUD based renta1 where he pays part of it and supp1emented, and they win not up it anymore. We're at 650 now, and that's it. So, she's now at, it's about $25 to $30 d011ar a month 10ss. It has been for three months now. MR. CARR-Has there been any attempt to market it as a renta1 unit, for the price that wou1d cover the cost? MRS. PAPA-Not as of yet. The 1ast three months, no. MR. CARR-Yes. Have they tried to find a tenant who wi11 pay $700 a month? MRS. PAPA-Not in the past three months, no. MR. TURNER-Has the same person occupied it since you've rented it? I MRS. PAPA-Yes. He's been there quite a 10ng time. MRS. EGGLESTON-Are you proposing to buy it or 1ease, and use it as a rea1 estate? MRS. PAPA-I'm proposing to buy from her and then use it as a rea1 estate office. MR. CARVIN-Have you sought other sites for a rea1 estate office? Why this particu1ar site? MRS. PAPA-This particu1ar site, we're in G1ens Fa11s, present1y. We'd 1ike to move up into the Queensbury area. I picked this one thinking, wen if, she approached me and she said, if you can get a variance, wou1d you do it, and I said, we11, sure I wou1d. It's a nice area. So, basica11y, I said, 1et me see if I can't get a usage variance and I'll be happy to purchase the property. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Have you 100ked at other sites in Queensbury, though? MRS. PAPA-I've 100ked at properties. MR. CARVIN-In residentia1 areas or in commercia1 areas? MRS. PAPA-In commercia1 areas. 26 MR. CARVIN-Mostly commercial? MRS. PAPA-Yes. MR. TURNER-And were they available, the sites that you looked at in the commercial areas? MRS. PAPA-Available, but not desirable. MR. TURNER-In what way? MRS. PAPA-They needed a ton of work. MRS. EGGLESTON-Why do you feel this is such a desirable spot? MRS. PAPA-Well, you have a good traffic pattern there. There's a lot of traffic. It is in Queensbury. Across from the school, you have good visibility. I like the size, and I like the fact that it is a newer structure, and it's not 80 years old. So, I'm basically doing something, I've just got to go in and cosmetically work with. It's a lot cheaper to go into. MRS. EGGLESTON-How many employees would you have? MRS. PAPA-I presented have 12. Five full time and the rest are part time. MRS. EGGLESTON-So, you would need a lot of parking space. How many rooms are there in that house? MRS. PAPA-Can I say something about the parking? In the real estate business, okay, that I've been in for the past, since 1976, our parking lot, right now, consists of six parking spots, which are never all being used, due to the fact that in order to make money in this business, you can't sit in an office. You have to be out of the office. We use the office for a basic pick up, phone duty, and you have maybe three people there at a time. Most of people, like I said, are part time, and they work at other jobs. They do this on a part time basis. MR. TURNER-The hours would be, what? MRS. PAPA-Well, right now we're open from eight o'clock in the morning, and we usually do, during the season, eight o'clock to about seven o'clock at night. MR. TURNER-Weekends? MRS. PAPA-Occassionally. MR. CARR-Scott, where's the nearest commercial enterprise, east and west on Aviation Road? MR. HATZ-As far as, as you're going up east and west, you have immediately to the east the State Police. MR. CARR-Yes, the barracks. MR. HATZ-On the west you have Midnight Drive, and then I believe three houses to the Evergreen office complex and the Sokol's plaza, and there's a church next to that, and the school is, the property of the school is really right across from this. If I'm correct, there's one house directly across from this and the school is all the way down the other way. MR. CARR-And behind it is all residential. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-I know at times that it's very difficult to get out of the Queensbury High School parking lot. I go there frequently. There's cars going every which way. Some trying to zip across into Midnight. Some going up, some going down. How do you feel you can handle that much more traffic right at that particular point? You don't think that would be a? MRS. PAPA-It's not that much traffic, per see MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, if you've got 12 employees going in and out, even if they're not there all the time, but they must go in and out of the building to pick up papers or calls or what not. MR. TURNER-The traffic would go down Midnight and out Dixon Road and out that way, because that's where the least traffic occurs. That's the way I'd go. MRS. EGGLESTON-It would put more into the neighborhood, are you thinking? 27 _/ MR. TURNER-Yes. The pattern would naturally exit that way, just because of Aviation Road. MRS. EGGLESTON-I just know the traffic is bad there right now. It is, and to put another burden on that particular area, it seems to me to be asking quite a little bit. MRS. PAPA-Well, the particular problem, here, and how I got involved with Mrs. Origlia, is through her daughter, who works for me. Being the property has been on the market and been on the market. I said, look, I'll be happy to buy it, but I have to get some type of a use variance, because I can't rent it, residentially, and make ends meet, any more than she can right now. It's not going to work. MR. TURNER-What's the remaining term on the mortgage, do you know? MRS. PAPA-Well, '86, for 20 years. MR. TURNER-Fourteen years left. MR. CARVIN-Do you know if other property has sold up and down Aviation Road? MRS. PAPA-Not in that immediate area. There is one on the market across the street. MR. CARVIN-The school's right across the street. MRS. PAPA-Well, the school's here and there's one house here, right out at the end of Midnight. MR. CARR-Who's it listed with? MRS. PAPA-Us. MR. CARR-In the past year, what have you done to advertise it? MRS. PAPA-In the past year? MR. CARR-Yes. Is it just multiple listing, or is it open house? MRS. PAPA-We have an open house. There's a tenant there. What we've done to advertise, basically, is newspaper, and we've looked for a buyer that way. We did show it three months ago, and in the back yard, it was pointed out, what is that over there, and the buyer, and you've got to be honest with them, that's the State Police barracks, and from that point, we didn't have anything else. We've identified the traffic problem, and we have the State Police barracks. It's a difficult, very difficult piece of property. MR. CARR-Is there a sign out in front of this house? I can't recall. MRS. PAPA-No. MR. CARR-When was the last time a sign was there? MRS. PAPA-There was a sign there in 1986, for six months. MR. CARR-I guess my problem is that you're only not getting a reasonable return for the property for three months, and there hasn't been an attempt to find a new tenant who could pay, there's nothing that says, we've advertised it for six weeks straight at $750 and nobody even wanted to look at it. I mean, there hasn't been a sign out in front. When was the last time it was advertised in the paper? Was it three months ago? I'm not sure there's been enough put forth to show that the reasonable return and use of the property as residential, to show that it's not there. I mean, you've got a tenant there who would like to live there, but he can't afford it. Well, what has been done to try to market it to someone who could rent it at that rate. MRS. PAPA-Right. At $700 a month, okay, you're going to a much quieter neighborhood for a whole home, probablY more bedrooms, without all these problems. It exists. MR. CARR-That's true. MRS. PAPA-And there's a lot of it that's empty right now. So, the chances of us coming in, we can advertise, but it's beating a dead horse. MR. CARR-Yes, but I'm looking at the one that was before us, here. I mean, they've been on the market for three years trying to market it in various techniques, and it just hasn't worked, and this one seems to be that it was on the market, although maybe not as actively as some listings, and that it's only because we can't meet the rent now that we want a use variance. MRS. PAPA-She wants a use variance because I said I'd buy it if I could get a use variance. She wants to sell it. 28 MR. CARR-Right, but I guess I'm just not convinced that it hasn't been marketed for a rental unit, as a house. l'd like to see a little more effort in that direction, and although it takes time, but that's what use variances are all about, is that over time we can't use it for a house, and so far, you're only having an economic hardship for three months, because of the use as a residential unit, and 1'm not sure if that comes up to the standard of a use variance, and the proof necessary to get one. That's just my feeling. MR. TURNER-No further questions? We might have some later. Thank you. I'll now open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DONNA HARRIS MRS. HARRIS-My name is Donna Harris. I do live in the neighborhood. I live at the end of Midnight Drive, the other end opposite of the real estate, where the real estate office is proposed. I really don't think that there's anything better that can be done with that piece of property. To rent it, the woman doesn't want to rent it anymore. She wants to sell it. She doesn't want to be liable for renting and collecting rent, these responsibilities any longer. She wants to sell the home. I don't think she could pull any more rent anyway. I know that right now I'm renting, and I've got a four bedroom with a living room, a family room, a formal dining room, two baths, and laundry hook ups and a huge two car garage, and an enormous yard for $750. I wouldn't ~ that $650 for that house up there to rent it. If you're looking to rent a three bedroom ranch, you've obviously got family. People with a family don't want to be on Aviation Road. I don't even like being on Dixon Road with my daughter, and when I get a chance to get away from the traffic that exists just on Dixon Road, I'll get away from that,· too. I know that this office has 12 employees. Only five of them are full time. The rest of them only come in once a week, okay. The rest of them that work in that office, there's only two or three, tops, in the office at a time, and like Liz says, if you want to make money in the real estate business what you need to do is be out somewhere else, meet people. You can't sit on your but in an office and expect to make money in real estate. This business should not bring any additional traffic to the office, either, in that there's not a heavy client load going to that office. Ordinarily, these agents will deal with the clients in their homes or some place else. Some place that they're more comfortable, rather than dragging them to an office. I think that, based on the revised parking plan that Liz has given you, I don't think that these people have seen that, and I think they need a chance to see the new parking plan. I think they also need to understand that Liz will take steps, I think that you said you would, to screen the neighborhood with, if you want bushes, hedges. She's flexible. She's willing to work with this neighborhood. She in no way wants to bring hardship to this community. In fact, she's looking to help it. In fact, by doing any form of screening that she may do, she's actually going to improve the property value of the property directly behind the office, because it's going to look a whole lot better, okay. Now, the yard leading from 104 Aviation into the next yard is not really that impressive an area. If there were hedges or something there, that would do a whole lot for the property value of the house right behind 104 Aviation, and if you've been past any of the real estate offices in Glens Falls, that are set up in residences, in residential light neighborhoods, there's not a whole lot of traffic. I know that in this area there was a traffic problem with Realty USA being up on Aviation Road next to Stewarts. I know the traffic was so bad in that parking lot, sometimes, I would park across the street at Sokol's and walk across the street to get a good milk shake. That doesn't exist here. It's not the same situation. Hometown has nowhere near the number of agents that Realty USA has. They're not even close. They don I t intend to be. They don't want to be, and never will be. They wish to remain a small company, and this is important to them. That is part of their service. You're not going to have the traffic problems. They just don't exist. MR. TURNER-Can I ask you a question? MRS. HARRIS-Yes. MR. TURNER-Do you work for her? MR. HARRIS- I started working for her only a week ago. I've known Liz for a month. I started working for her a week ago. MR. TURNER-It was obvious that you work for her. MRS. HARRIS-Well, these facts still exist. I still am a resident of that area and have been longer than I've known Liz. MRS. EGGLESTON-Let me ask you a question, wouldn't you take a normal piece of property and do an aggressive sales pitch on it, I don't see that aggressive sales pitch to sell this piece of property. MRS. HARRIS-The only way you could do an aggressive sales pitch on that property, and sell it, would be to take a loss on it. MR. TURNER-Could I ask you another question? Are there children living in that house now? 29 MRS. HARRIS-No. MRS. EGGLESTON-How long have you lived in the neighborhood? MRS. HARRIS-In excess of a year. I know I haven't lived there 20 years like a lot of the residents in the neighborhood, but I know that I travel up and down those streets, too, and I don't see where this business, I travel in and out of her parking lot, too. I know how many agents are there. You could get people who don't work for her to tell you how many agents are there, and how many customers come in. We go to them. MRS. PALlNG-I would like to say something. In our travels around the Country, I have bought and sold 11 homes, okay. I have never bought or sold, had any realtor transaction that I wasn't in and out of the office several times. I can't imagine. MRS. HARRIS-We are a smaller company than what I think this neighborhood remembers in Realty USA or any problems existent there. We don't handle the client load that Realty USA handled. They will come to the office, but nowhere near as often as the other office that existed there. MR. TURNER-But this is a use variance, and the variance goes with the land, and therefore if the variance is granted, that becomes a real estate office, and if that businesses increases, then I don't have to tell you anything else. That's the reality of it. ROBERT HAFNER MR. HAFNER-I've got a letter here in answer to the application. Robert Hafner. I live at 106. I've lived there for 35 years. "Dear Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals: Dolores Origlia, (the "applicant") seeks a variance in zoning for a house which she owns located at 104 Aviation Road. The property has been residential since it was originally developed and is zoned UR-lO. Nearly all of the neighbors of this home have signed the enclosed petition opposing Ms. Origlia's petition for a variance. Furthermore, the applicant has not met the required three tests for obtaining a variance. We have written this letter on behalf of ourselves and our neighbors who have also signed the petition. FIRST: Applicant alleges that she has been unable to convey the home as a home. Apparently, she has been requiring too high a price. Given current local economic conditions, real estate prices have fallen, requiring sellers to lower their prices to sell their property. Many homes are not selling. She should not be able to use the fact that she purchased the property when the market was higher to support her variance. A reasonable return given the real estate market decline would logically indicate a loss if she is to sell now. This is the situation facing all of us in the neighborhood. Compared to a couple of years ago, our homes are worth less. It is the market, not anything unique to 104 Aviation Road. In addition, the applicant incorrectly states as a fact supporting her petition that Aviation Road 'has become almost exclusively a comrrercial thoroughfare'. This is wrong. As long-standing Aviation Road residents, we have seen the volume of traffic increase vastly. Anyone who spends the time to look at all the increased housing developments and watches all the cars going by when all the persons living in all these homes go to work in the morning and return home at night would know that this traffic is not 'comrrercial' but normal residential traffic given the number of homes for which Aviation Road is the main thoroughfare. It is inaccurate to call this commercial traffic. We have seen traffic increase and do not wish it to increase further by permitting such a zoning variance. Permitting a commercial office to be operated in our neighborhood would severely increase further the existing traffic flow, and right across from our high school. II I've seen the old business. She has 13 car parking places. I mean, that should give somebody an idea of the significant increase. "SECOND: The applicant does not meet the uniqueness requirement, even assuming the petition's factual basis is true, which is not the case. 104 Aviation Road is not unique. It is no different from our home (106 Aviation Road) or any of the other homes on Aviation Road or in the neighborhood. We all have homes in the neighborhood and allowing one plot to go commercial will increase traffic and decrease the property values of all our homes. The applicant incorrectly alleges again that Aviation Road 'has developed into a commercial non-residential corridor with heavy commercial and private vehicular traffic.' As discussed above, there already is heavy traffic, but it is residential traffic not commercial, and permitting commercial use of the property will only add commercial traffic to our residential traffic. The applicant continues to use the incorrect assumption of heavy commercial traffic to support his client's request to impose increased commercial traffic upon the neighborhood. This does not make logical sense. We already have to deal with the residential traffic flow and the applicant uses this to justify the imposition of commercial traffic, punishing the rest of us. The applicant's petition does not even state how 104 Aviation Road is different from any of the neighboring properties. THIRD: The applicant argues that her requested variance will not change the character or the quality of the neighborhood. The applicant is wrong. When Henry Sleight developed the area, the plan (which was carried through) was that our area was residential and that further up Aviation Road there would be a small section for commercial purposes. The commercial section was to have all the business in the area and has been developed to its potential. That area is localized and should not be expanded into our residential neighborhood. Our neighborhood is residential. Please drive through this part of Town and see. Aviation Road in this area, Midnight Drive, Poplar Lane, Manor Drive, Cottage Hill Road, Prospect Drive and Dixon Road are all residential. It appears the applicant is not familiar with the area. Furthermore, Queensbury's schools are directly across the street. We have already had cases 30 where children have been hit by cars on Aviation Road. The last thing that we need is to introduce commercial traffic into our schools' immediate neighborhood, an area which is explicitly zoned residential. In addition, the proposed variance will impair the quality of our neighborhood. We have lived here since 1957 and have seen a very nice, very livable neighborhood grow up around us. We do not want our neighborhood to change from a residential neighborhood where our children grew up and other children are now growing up to a commercial area. There are plenty of other places in Queensbury for a real estate office without thrusting one into our neighborhood. The neighborhood's quality will also decrease because of parking problems. The lot is small for a business and people will park on the road creating problems in the neighborhood. Besides parking in the expected lot on the property, people will be parking on Midnight Drive, which will cause the problem to overflow down Midnight Drive. In the winter, there will be further problems when the plows have to plow around the business' clients' cars. We have already discussed how the applicant cannot meet anyone of the three requirements, much less all three. We request that the petition be denied since she did not and cannot meet her burden. We also have two other items to mention. First, more of our neighbors who oppose the applicant's petition would have come tonight to this meeting, but it was scheduled during school vacation, a time when many people take vacations and are out of town. If the Board does not reject the applicant's petition as we feel it should, we request that another hearing be scheduled to permit these people to attend. Second, we do not have a copy of the real estate deed to 104 Aviation Road. However, we believe that its deed should be similar to ours since Henry Sleight, when he developed this neighborhood, placed restrictive covenants upon the residential lots, expressly to make sure the neighborhood stayed residential. If so, we do not think, as a matter of real estate law, that the lot can be used for commercial purposes. Our restrictive covenants force the lot: (1) to have a home (a dwelling) on it and (2) not to be used for commercial purposes. If 104 Aviation Road is to be used as a real estate office, it will no longer be a home; and it will violate the covenant prohibiting commercial uses. When we purchased our lot, this was what we were told and what was inserted in our deed. Please require the lot to continue to be used only for its legal purposes, as a home. Very truly yours, Robert D. Hafner, Dorothy H. Hafner, Nancy J. Hafner" MR. TURNER-Do you want to submit that for the record. MR. HAFNER-I've got a whole bunch of them. MR. TURNER-Is that the end of your comments? MR. HAFNER-Yes. MR. TURNER-Does anybody else wish to be heard in opposition to the application? JERRY LEONE MR. LEONE-Again, Jerry Leone on Midnight Drive. We'd like to just state that Mr. Roach, the person who lives next door, is not able to be here, the person this most greatly effects, and we're all here in support of, we told him we'd be here to support in his absence, and he is strongly opposed to it. I'm sure you have letters there from other neighbors that could not attend this evening. MR. TURNER-We'll read them. MR. LEONE-Okay. The traffic situation in the school zone will be a problem. The young lady stated what Realty USA found to be an enormous traffic flow. Although this business is not that big now, who's to say, in two years, if they sell, they don't sell to a Realty USA, which has been traffic problems, because now it's been zoned commercial. That's our concern. Right now it might be okay, but down the road, it could be a gas station. It could be any number of commercial buildings, once it's commercially zoned. There are children living on Midnight Drive and children that walk up and down Aviation Road to school, and the traffic problem will be a real problem for kids, especially since there's a bus stop to the elementary school right across the street, and the availability of commercial real estate in the area, we talked about this portion of Aviation being residential. There's commercial available one block up. I mean, right in the Sokol's plaza there's commercial real estate that's vacant. So, if they'd like to locate, they can locate in the area one block up. Why re-zone this piece of land? I guess that's all I had to say. The fact that that young lady works for this company, too, makes it very convenient for her to walk to work. MRS. HARRIS-I'm willing to do that if it saves a parking space. BERNADETTE LEONE MRS. LEONE-I'm Bernadette Leone, also on 10 Midnight Drive. Again, I'd like to reemphasize about the traffic problem. I would also like to find out when this house was listed. I contacted another real estate agent, a while ago, and I was never advised that this house in our area, for comparison purposes, was ever offered for sale. There was never a sign on the house or the property. I am a frequent looker in the papers and classified for other properties, when they are for sale, if they do have open houses. I do specifically notify them when they are listed and they say on Aviation Road in Queensbury, near shopping area, near schools, just to find out what houses are selling for in my area. Also, again, 31 he told you there's a bus stop on Manor Lane and Aviation Road. I'm sure this is greatly effected. There are little children there waiting for the bus to go to the elementary school, and also the traffic in the six years that my husband and I have lived on Midnight Drive has increased on Midnight Drive through to the other main sections and also Dixon Road. I also want to point out, on the stationary that we received this notice on this evening, it says at the bottom that Queensbury's to be a home of natural beauty and a good place to live, and that's the way we would like to keep it. I also received, on my door, from Hometown Realty, a card from Donna Harris. MRS. HARRIS-Can I explain that. I didn't know about this until this morning, and what I was trying to do is break myself into real estate, which means meeting people, and I thought, what better place to start than in my own neighborhood, and I met Mr. Cartier, I think he was at 7 Midnight Drive, and I stopped at your home, and there was another woman there, and I thought she lived there. I make a lot of mistakes at this point. I'm learning. That had absolutely nothing to do with this. I'm just trying to learn how to do my new job. If you need to check with the Department of State, you can find out how recent to this business I am. MRS. LEONE-When they put in our deed, a question about another residence, people looking at that as another residence, with the State Troopers barracks, my back yard is that State Troopers barracks, and let me tell you, I am glad that they are there. I would not find them as a hindrance, as a neighbor. They're quiet, and there is protection if, God forbid, we ever need it. Thank you. FRANCIS CABANA MR. CABANA-Good evening. My name is Francis Cabana and I live at 8 Midnight Drive. and I have two daughters that are six and four years old, and I can reiterate what Bernadette just said. I feel pretty safe that the State Police barracks is there. They might want to use that as a selling point, not as a point to be a deterrent. To speak of the traffic, we get scared when our children are out playing in the front with the traffic. We line our cars up at the end of our driveway, just to make sure that our girls aren't going to go into the road, because there is a lot of traffic, to be hit by a car or something like that, and we wouldn't want any more to come along and make matters worse, and it also. we find that in the back yard there. behind us, where the State Police barracks is, there's a lot of room for the girls to run around and play and I believe the Town of Queensbury owns that land. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CABANA-And that makes it very convenient for us, also. So. those are my cOlllTlents, and thank you for listening. CATHY LING MRS. LING-Hi. My name is Cathy ling. I'm at 4 Midnight Drive. I bought the house two years ago, when I was in the market looking for a home. I was working, currently, for Realty USA at the time. I did not know 104 Aviation Road was on the market. In October of last year, I had an appraisal done on my house, and they did not use 104 Aviation Road as a comparison. I bought that house because my husband and I plan on having children and raising a family there. It is our first home, and we feel that if it was turned into commercial, more traffic would be there. I'm worried, as it is, because of the traffic, for our children. If it's going to be into a real estate office, and commercial variance, I'm fixing up my house, now. Why should I bother, then, if it's just going to be commercial. I want to better my home and make a good home for my children and my family. Thank you. BRIAN PHELPS MR. PHELPS-Hi. 1'm Brian Phelps, 107 Aviation Road, and I guess I feel the same thing that everybody else has said, but I live kind of kitty corner from this house, and I don't want to see a parking lot. That's not what I moved there for seven years ago. JO COLETTI MS. COLETTI-My name is Jo Coletti. I'm at 14 Midnight Drive. They said that this house has been for sale since 1986. I bought my house in 1989. I wanted it in that area. I went to several real estate agents. That house was never listed or shown to me as a house for sale, and I went from Cottage Hill up to Prospect, in that entire section, looking for the house that I finally bought, and I will say that the house that they're talking about could be a lot prettier if they would fix it up a little bit, and I think they wouldn't have any trouble selling it. MR. TURNER-Thank you. Anyone else wish to be heard? Okay. Public hearing's closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED (END OF FIRST DISK) 32 '- CORRESPONDENCE MRS. EGGLESTON-A letter from Donald and Marie Cartier, "We have received the notice of public hearing concerning 104 Aviation Road and an application for a variance. We will be unable to attend the hearing because of work obligations, but want to register our protest against a variance. 104 Aviation Road sits on the southeast side of Aviation Road, at the corner of Midnight Drive. It is a one family dwelling with average sized lot. We believe that a variance would present a congestion problem with parking. Staff and customer cars would have to be parked on Midnight Drive as well as Aviation Road, most likely, even if a parking area is made in front of the building. There are small children living on Midnight Drive as well as Aviation Road. We have seen children occasionally going into the road on Midnight Drive with tricycles and bicycles, and believe the parking would be dangerous. We have also seen teenagers playing throw and catch in the road on Midnight Drive. We realize there are commercial buildings farther west on Aviation Road, but east of Stewarts on Aviation Road there are only private dwellings. We feel you would be opening Pandora's Box if you grant a variance, as then other commercial ventures would probably try to convert other private dwellings into business properties." That's it. MR. TURNER-Any further discussion? MR. CARR-I'm not convinced it can't be used as a residence, I think, in light of the neighborhood opposition. MRS. EGGLESTON-No. MRS. PALING-I just wanted to say that when they talk about it being a commercial area, I know that there's going to be a new residence built on the corner of Aviation Road and Cottage Hill, starting in the spring. So, it's still is going to continue to be a residential area. MR. TURNER-Okay. A motion's in order. MOTION TO DENY USE VARIMCE NO. 37-1992 ELIZABETH PAPA DOLORES ORIGLIA, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: For the following reasons: The lack of reasonable return has not been demonstrated by the applicant, that the property cannot be used as zoned. It's not a unique piece of property. It is a residential piece of property, and has been used as a residential piece of property, and it is a residential piece of property in the fact that it is now rented by the applicant. It will certainly alter the character of the neighborhood, for the use as proposed, and by denying the variance the spirit of the Ordinance will be preserved. Duly adopted this 22nd day of April, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Paling, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Sicard, Mr. Shea (10:43 p.m.) AREA VARIANCE NO. 38-1992 TYPE II WR-lA ALBRIGHT BUIlDERS IIßtER: STEPHEN & UNM KIRSHON ROCICHURST ROAD, CLEVERDALE BWE HOUSE, WHITE TRIM FOR A DECK ADDITIOrt 15 FT. BY 50 FT. DECK ifILL BE LESS THAN THE REQUIRED 75 FT. SETBACK FROM THE LAKE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 15-1-35 LOT SIZE: 12,000 SQ. FT. SECTION 179-60 GENE ALBRIGHT, PRESENT (10:43 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Patricia M. Crayford, Zoning Administrator, Area Variance No. 38-1992, Albright Builders, Meeting Date: April 22, 1992 "Applicant is requesting to build a deck to the existing residence, 40 feet from the shoreline. Section 179-60 requires a 75 foot shoreline setback. therefore, applicant is requesting relief of 35 feet. This is a Type II Action requiring no SEQRA determination." MRS. EGGLESTON-And the Warren County Planning Board disapproved due to excessive visual impacts and aesthetics from the lake. MR. ALBRIGHT-My name's Gene Albright of Albright Builders. I'm here on behalf of Linda and Steve Kirshon who own the property. MR. TURNER-That's the house that was under construction up there? MR. ALBRIGHT-Yes. That's right. The purchased the property about two years ago, and they've been doing different things to improve the property. That is a second home for them. They live in the Poughkeepsie area. He's a CPA. MR. TURNER-There is a porch at the south end of the building, that exists. ':1':1 MR. ALBRIGHT-Right. They reaHy have no area that they can use to entertain, where they can putting seating and picnic tables, because it's pretty well sloped around that area and that's caused a difficulty for them, and they would like to have that porch on the south that you mentioned, eventually closed in, and to have a walk way from one area over to that south deck. MR. TURNER-The steps you show in the front toward the lake? Is that three tread and two risers, or what, down from a deck? MR. ALBRIGHT-It's about 21 inches. So, you'd need about three treads drop. MR. TURNER-Okay, but what are you going with, a 12 inch tread? MR. ALBRIGHT-Twelve inch tread. MR. TURNER-So, that puts it even closer to the lake. That's part of the structure, so that counts. MR. ALBRIGHT-Okay. I understand that. The Kirshons are amenable people and they are open to suggestions of the Board. Now, those steps could be built back into, so it doesn't encroach any further. MR. CARR-But it seems like they might be able to build a reasonable deck off the southern side of the property and not really violate the setbacks. I mean, other than the shoreline, because they're within the shoreline setback. Without getting closer to the lake, though, they could build off a southern exposure on the side of the house. MR. ALBRIGHT-Right, but that violates the setback on the side yard. MR. CARR-Well, it depends on how big the deck is. I mean, if this is, the end of the house looks to be about 25 feet, according to the scale, it's got to be a 20 foot setback, right? So, you've got five, but if you want a 10 foot deck or something, environmentally and personally, I'd rather see, I'd rather give you a side line, you know, a little leeway on the side line, if that's the case, then closer to the lake. MR. ALBRIGHT-Well, the area that they would like to use, the primary area that they would like to use to entertain is on the north side, because that is where the new kitchen and dining room area is, and that's where they have the French doors, and that's the most 10gicaHy place. The other end, that small porch that you see on the other end actuaHy goes into the master bedroom, and it's reaHy not suitable for entertaining. Plus, there's really no stairs to it, right now. MR. CARVIN-What is the slope? In other words, what's the clearance going to be at the front portion of the deck? I mean, how far is this, is it going to be, like, four feet, six feet off the ground? MR. ALBRIGHT-No. It'll be in the neighborhood of 21 inches or so. MR. CARVIN-So, it's kind of a gradual slope, then, 21 inches? MR. ALBRIGHT-Right, and they're agreeable to dropping it. So, when you come out the front door you go down one step. So, it's even less of a visual impact. The neighbor to the north side, Tony, he's presently at a 40 setback, and this would even, basically, up with the property to the north, and the property to the south has a deck which is the full one story, in the area. You can walk underneath it into the basement area, and they have a similar deck which runs the whole width of their house, and it's basically very similar to what the Kirshons are doing. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further questions? MR. ALBRIGHT-Mrs. Kirshon was very conscious of landscaping and intends to put shrubbery and other plantings and so forth around to beautify and to minimize the visual impact from the lake, either for their neighbor's sake or from the lake as well. I don't really think you notice the deck, at all, from the lake if it's done with the proper landscaping, professional landscaping. MR. TURNER-At the elevation of 21 inches, does that bring you right out and under the French doors, then? MR. ALBRIGHT-Right. It's about 18 inches at the structure and it slopes away, so the end point would be about 21 inches. MR. TURNER-And the deck, is the deck 15 foot, or what is that? MR. ALBRIGHT-The deck would have a 15 foot width. Now, that is something they are willing to compromise on. MR. TURNER-You're saying the neighbor to the north is 40 feet from the shoreline? 34 MR. ALBRIGHT-That's correct. MR. TURNER-And the position of his house in reference to the northeast corner of your proposed deck is where? MR. ALBRIGHT-In other words, the neighbor's house protrudes beyond the Kirshon's house by 15 feet. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. ALBRIGHT-And it's really not going to block anyone's, if you've visited the site and looked to the north, the property owner to the north or from the south. It really will not interfere with anyone's view. MR. TURNER-Okay. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMŒNT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Letter from Henry Nagamatsu, "As a long time cottage owner on Rockhurst Road, the deck addition of 15 foot by 50 foot by owner Stephen and Linda Kirshon should not be approved because it is less than the required 75 feet setback from the lake. I will not be able to attend the public hearing on Wednesday April 22nd, 1992, for the application of a variance by Kirshon." And a letter from the applicant, Stephen Kirshon, "We're applying for permission to construct a deck which would be accessible from the house without the need to use a staircase. My father, Sidney Kirshon, is a 100 percent disabled veteran, having lost the use of one leg and one arm in combat during World War II. He spends a good deal of time with us during the summer months, and he would use the proposed deck often. My father wears a prosthetic brace and experiences difficulty with stairs. Also, doctors tell us he may soon be confined to a wheelchair. I'm enclosing a letter from the Veterans Administration, certifying my father's service connected disability, evaluated at 100 percent. My family would be grateful if you would consider his situation during the approval process. II That's all. MR. TURNER-Do you know where Dr. Nagamatsu lives? MR. ALBRIGHT-No. don't. I've never, he's not an immediate neighbor. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. He's Number 12. MR. TURNER-And where is he, in relation to this property? MRS. TERRY MRS. TERRY-A little south, and on the opposite side walk. This is on the right side. He's on the left side. MR. TURNER-Fifteen foot. You're pressure treated lumber comes 16, comes 12, comes 14, is that correct? MR. ALBRIGHT-Right. Well, we can joyce it this way, and then. MR. TURNER-Yes. Are you going to lay your slats this way? MR. ALBRIGHT-Parallel to the building, parallel to the lake. MRS. EGGLESTON-Actually, we try to look for minimum relief. Thirty five feet's kind of a lot of relief, wouldn't you say? This will go to the APA, won't it? MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes. MR. TURNER-Yes. It'll go there. They'll look at it, and if they have a concern with it, they might shoot it down. MR. ALBRIGHT-I understand that. MR. TURNER-Could you live with a lesser deck in width? MR. ALBRIGHT-In width? They would be willing to make it smaller, but not to the point where it comes. MR. TURNER-What would 12 feet do to it? 35 MR. ALBRIGHT-Twelve feet. I think, would be acceptable, because you could still have a picnic table, and get around it and not be knocking into everything. because Steve's concerned about his father, of course. MR. CARVIN-Well, you'd have to recess the steps, too. MR. ALBRIGHT-Yes. I can back the steps in. I can put them maybe over on one end. MR. TURNER-You show a set of steps on each end, each end of the deck up by the house, is that correct? MR. ALBRIGHT-Yes. MR. TURNER-The one set is there, the one on the south? MR. ALBRIGHT-No. There's no stairs there now at all. MR. TURNER-No, but isn't there one built into what is now the porch? MR. ALBRIGHT-No. There are no stairs there at all. MR. TURNER-Okay. There had to be some there some place. MRS. EGGLESTON-Why does it show this, then? MR. TURNER-That's the exit off the deck. MR. ALBRIGHT-That's part of the proposed. MRS. EGGLESTON-All right. MR. ALBRIGHT-And we held it in so it would not violate the side yard setback to the south. MR. TURNER-There was no steps there. MR. ALBRIGHT-That porch has no stairs whatsoever. MR. TURNER-Nothing ever existed there before except the porch that's existing on the old building. right? Is that correct? MR. ALBRIGHT-No. That's right. Nothing any closer to the lake. MR. TURNER-So, he's 55 to 60 feet from the lake with the old building. MR. CARR-Ted, I'm just not comfortable going any closer to the lake. I mean, we've made people come back. We might have given in on a foot or so closer to the lake. but, I don't know, it's always been the position, I thought this Board has taken the position that 75 foot on Lake George was very important. I mean, environmentally, it's critical. Aesthetically, it's very important, and, consistently, I don't think we have let people go closer to the lake. We've let them build in the same footprint. We might have given in on a foot or two, but I can't remember giving in on ~ feet, in the past few years. MR. TURNER-There is a house up there, we did grant a relief on a deck, but I think the reason for that was it was elevated and there was a sliding door and a master bedroom and the only exit out of the bedroom was that sliding door, and I think we reduced the size of that deck, and I think it's up on the left some place. MR. CARR-And the deck, I think, was only six feet in width. I mean, it was minimum. It was minimum. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-And you already have one porch. MR. ALBRIGHT-Well, yes, there is a porch there. They do have plans to do some modification to that end of the building, which possibly could eliminate that. MR. CARR-Yes, but they bought a house that's a certain size on a certain piece of property, with certain rules in place. MR. ALBRIGHT-Right. and I guess they don't get all the rules explained to them when they buy a house, in spite of how hard they try. 36 MR. CARR-Well, I was going to say, in this Town, next to water ways, I would think that anybody in this Country would be smart to look at the rules before they buy it, because they are very stringent. MRS. EGGLESTON-When did they purchase it? MR. ALBRIGHT-They owned the house about, almost two years. It will be two years in the fall. MR. CARR-So, the Ordinance has been in effect when they bought it. I would like to see some alternate alternatives on the southerly side to give them a reasonable use of a deck, and I know the house isn't set up for it, but it doesn't mean that it can't be done in some fashion. MR. ALBRIGHT-Well, one point I'd like to make is they have considered putting something at ground level, at which case, if they do that, they have a 50 foot, there's a 50 foot barrier. setback from the lake, that really prohibits them from doing anything of that nature. They considered pouring a patio, putting in something that's impermeable, and I suggested that this would be much less of an impact, an open slatted deck, than pouring something at ground level, with the runoff and permeable surface. So, the whole idea's been to try to keep this as low impact as possible. and to do something that will enhance the neighborhood. MR. TURNER-Well, I've got to tell you that the piece of property on Cleverdale, which was Freighoffer's, which was a big piece of property, a lot bigger than this, which had a proposed deck on it, was denied by the APA, for shoreline setback, and they had a huge piece of property, and I'd back Bruce up, because I think it's incumbent upon the people that purchase the property to find out what the rules and regulations are, and if they don't, it's to them to find out, but if they don't, they're in trouble when they come looking for some relief. MR. ALBRIGHT-Sure. it. understand. Well, they didn't have formulated plans at the time they bought MR. TURNER-I know. but being what that is up there, the buildings as close as they are. MR. ALBRIGHT-Well, they have the largest lot on Rockhurst. It's 100 by 120. MRS. EGGLESTON-I will say, if I remember it, we looked at so many. we've got such a long agenda, I went down in front and looked, and I don't think this came out any further than any of the neighbors properties. Am I right? MR. ALBRIGHT-That is correct. We. basically, went over on the neighbor's property and took a measurement from the lake. Basically, we didn't want to encroach any more than anyone else was in the neighborhood, and, in fact, Tony's house is, the house to the north that is, is 42 feet, or something like that, back from the lake. but in front of that, he's got a 10 foot shuffle board court. He's really something like 30 feet from the lake. MR. CARR-That's probably been there for years. MR. ALBRIGHT-It's been there a long time. MR. CARR-Before people really started becoming concerned about. MR. ALBRIGHT-No doubt. MRS. CRAYFORD-May I ask the Terrys, The Dos household. what did they receive a variance for? Didn't they build new decks? MRS. TERRY-They came closer to us. They came north. PAUL TERRY MR. TERRY-They came north, but stayed in with the lake. MRS. CRAYFORD-They didn't come out to the lake. MR. TURNER-Is that the house I was referring to? I think it is, isn't it? MR. TERRY-Right, and at the time, you said, no one's ever going to go closer to the lake. MRS. TERRY-They didn't come closer to the lake. They came 10 feet closer on the north side. Their deck came closer to our house, but it didn't go out closer to the lake. MRS. CRAYFORD-Okay. MRS. EGGLESTON-Are you comfortable with that? I mean, did that work out fine? 37 MRS. TERRY-That was fine. We didn't have a problem with that. We were at the hearing, but they didn't go closer to the lake. MR. ALBRIGHT-They already had a deck that went 10 or 12 feet from the house. MR. TURNER-They had a partial deck. MR. CARR-I guess my point is that what's there is there, and not everyone has a right to a deck. I mean, that's not in the constitution. I guess, it's nice to have a deck. It's nice to have a lot of things at a came, but you can't have everything. and still maintain the quality of the lake. Now, I'd just like to point out that, and to the applicant as wen, as I understand it, because it was disapproved by Warren County, you need a majority plus one to overcome it, not a majority of the people here, but a majority of the Board, which means you would have to get all five of us to agree to whatever proposal. It has to be unanimous with this many people. I'm just saying that, based on my stated feelings, the applicant may want to table this until the fun Board is here, and maybe come back with a lterna tes. MR. ALBRIGHT-Well, maybe we could suggest some alternates, while these members here. MR. CARR-Well, I would like to see an alternate on the side of house, and see what can be done on that. I mean, there seems to be some room there, without going closer to the lake. MR. ALBRIGHT-Well, they need some stairs from that dining area. where the French doors are. MR. TURNER-Okay, but are you in a position to mitigate this for them, now? MR. ALBRIGHT-Well, we're family friends with Steve, and I know him very well, and I'm sure he would allow me to explore other alternatives. MR. TURNER-Would you rather, I guess I'd go back to Mr. Carr's remark and would you rather table it and come back and present us with something that's different than this, maybe something showing something on the side, or sit down and reason with them, and then come back. and not throw this out the window? MR. ALBRIGHT-Well, if you're advising, I certainly will take your advice, but I'd like to explore a little bit along the lines of what your feelings are. I mean, you mentioned going to the side. MR. CARR-Yes. If you want a deck, I guess I'd want to see a proposal for the side, within the side line setback, or maybe a few feet over it. What would be a reasonable deck on that end of the house, right off the porch, and then you say you're still going to need some steps off the front to match the door, well, that's a safety concern. So, if you go out three or four feet on steps, or a staircase down or whatever. That's not a 50 foot by 15 deck. MR. ALBRIGHT-Well, they're very much interested in having this on the north end of the house. MR. CARR-I know that. MR. ALBRIGHT-And they have a little bit more on the south side. as far as setback, but the real area of use is the northern. MR. CARR-Well, I'd like him to come back, then, with a deck on the northern, my concern is side line setbacks are pretty bad up there as they are, but I'm more concerned with the lake setback than the side line. If it's a reasonable proposal and the neighbors don't seem to mind, I may be more amenable to listening to a side yard setback. MR. TURNER-Would you consider tabling it and bringing it back? MR. ALBRIGHT-I guess. MR. CARR-I only told you that because, from my feelings right now, and with the plan before me, I would vote no, and if I vote no, it's dead, because of what Warren County did, and at least now with tabling. MR. ALBRIGHT-I see. I think that's good advice. MR. CARR-And you can also hope that two other members get here. because if you could get five of us to agree, at that point. regardless of other's votes. MR. TURNER-So, then, you would ask that it be tabled? MR. ALBRIGHT-Sure. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 38-1992 ALBRIGHT BUILDERS, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: 38 At the request of the applicant, to provide the Board with additional information as to the alternate location of the deck on the proposed site. Duly adopted this 22nd day of April, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carr, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Paling, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Sicard, Mr. Shea MR. TURNER-Tabled. You'll bring us back a new plan. Thank you. MR. ALBRIGHT-Thank you. (11:10 p.m.) USE VARIANCE NO. 39-1992 TYPE: U"LISTED PC-lA JAŒS ANTHIS (liNER: 73 ~ICER ROAD ASSOCIATES, L.P. 25 ~ICER ROAD TO COfIYERT THE WAREHOUSE SPACE TO RESTAURANT, LOOfIGE, ArtD AMUSEŒJIT FACILITY. (WARREN COUNTY PLA....I.G) TAX MAP NO. 104-1-4.32 LOT SIZE: 5.6 ACRES SECTION 179-22 JAMES ANTHIS, PRESENT (11:10 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Patricia M. Crayford, Zoning Administrator, Use Variance No. 39-1992, James Anthis, Meeting Date: April 22, 1992 "Applicant is requesting to convert warehouse space at 73 Quaker Road to a restaurant lounge and amusement facility. Zoning is Plaza Commercial 1 Acre. The restaurant lounge is a permitted use. An amusement facility is not a permitted use in the Plaza Commercial zone. This is an Unlisted Action requiring a SEQRA determination." MRS. EGGLESTON-And the Warren County Planning Board approved. MR. ANTHIS-I'm James Anthis. I'd just like to say, we're not changing anything on the outside of the building, only on the inside. MR. TURNER-What will be the hours of operation, Jim? MR. ANTHIS-Well, we'll probably open late morning, and close probably about two in the morning. MR. CARR-What kind of restaurant, Jim, are you proposing, fast food? MR. ANTHIS-Well, we toned it down a little bit because of a conflict of O'Toole's lease. So, it's just going to be hamburgers, chicken wings. MR. CARR-Stuff you get at the ball park, right? MR. ANTHIS-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-What kind of experience have you had at doing this? MR. ANTHIS-The whole thing, as a whole? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. ANTHIS-Well, we have restaurant experience in the family. I know there everything there is to know about all the sports games and everything. So, that would be no problem at all. MR. CARVIN-Are there going to be arcade games, things like that? MR. ANTHIS-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Where would they be located at? MR. ANTHIS-Right where it says miniature golf, batting cages, in that area. MR. CARVIN-Okay. How soon do you expect to have this up and going? MR. ANTHIS-Well, about two to three months. MR. TURNER-So, you're probably looking to open, maybe, in September? MR. ANTHIS-Yes, that's where we're looking. 39 MR. CARR-Jim, how many patrons in the bar? MR. ANTHIS-That's kind of hard to say, because there's not rea11y going to be a bar anymore. We took the bar out. I have a little floor plan. MRS. EGGLESTON-So, what does your proposal now encompass, you're new proposal? MR. ANTHIS-There's going to be a sma11 restaurant, okay, about 1500 square feet. There'11 be a snack bar of about 2,000 square feet. The restaurant wi11 be more or less closed off to the rest of the facility, and the snack bar will be open for the younger kids. MR. CARR-What kind of alcohol license are you going for? MR. ANTHIS-We11, I'll only be able to serve beer and wine. There's a conflict with O'Toole's lease. So, no liquor will be sold. MR. CARR-Just a beer and wine license. MRS. EGGLESTON-But you're still going to have the amusement facility? MR. ANTHIS-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Just the lounge is gone, really? MR. ANTHIS-Right. MR. CARR-You have an activity room with a stage. What's that for? MR. ANTHIS-We11, that's more or less if we wanted to bring in like a comedy night or something like that, maybe a piano guy would come in and play, people would go in and listen to him while they're eating. MR. CARVIN-You will utilize the whole building, then? MR. ANTHIS-The whole warehouse space. MR. CARVIN-But you've had no experience in putting something like this together before? MR. ANTHIS-No. This is my first shot at this. MRS. EGGLESTON-Pat, I was wondering, didn't we hear, before, that the residents on Glenwood had complained about the noise from O'Tooles? Have they had a problem with that? MRS. CRAYFORD-I'm not aware of that. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. This is really just across the water from them. MRS. CRAYFORD-I win say, the residents on Glenwood read every legal notice in the paper, and 1'm sure they would have been here. MR. CARVIN-Is there a cellar to this building? MR. ANTHIS-No. MR. CARVIN-It's on a concrete slab? MR. ANTHIS-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Well, I only have one question, I guess, storage. You've only got one little storage space in the front, here. Is that correct? I don't mean to tell anybody how to run their business, but that doesn't look like very much storage facility. MR. ANTHIS-No. This, actually, is quite large, and we'll have some storage space in here, in the back here, by the kitchen. This is storage in here. We'll have storage back in here. MARK LUNDREGEN MR. LUNDREGEN-Mark Lundregen. Actua11y, what's happened is, in order to meet the restrictions of the lease that we weren't originally aware of, we're trying to get a floor plan that will satisfy everyone. We're trying to satisfy the lease restrictions, and so some of the smaller details like storage haven't been completely worked out. There's a lot of space available for storage. In particular, one place 40 we were looking at was in here, which is an empty corner. This is simply an empty corner, allowing access into here. So, this space, without blocking the fire exit, provides storage. We also have a lot of space in here, that isn't needed for anything, but can be used for additional storage. This area in here, near the bay doors, will all remain open. MRS. EGGLESTON-Would there be dancing. MR. ANTHIS-Well, we were thinking about it, but like I said, with O'Tooles lease and everything, we probably won't go that way. MR. TURNER-The same people own this as own? MR. ANTHIS-Quaker Plaza. MR. TURNER-Quaker Plaza. MRS. EGGLESTON-How long of a lease will you have? MR. ANTHIS-Five years, five years renewable. There's an option to renew it for another five. MR. TURNER-Activity room will be what? Will it have a stage? Is that where the stage is going to be? MR. ANTHIS-Yes, just in case we want a comedy night or something like that. MR. CARR-You have a sales office. What's that for? MR. ANTHIS-Well, possible tee shirt sales, maybe sports paraphernalia, something like that, you know, batters up tee shirts. MRS. EGGLESTON-It's quite a project. MRS. LUNDREGEN-One consideration with the amount that it seems to me, and one reason, too, why this building works for us, where it might not work for others, most of our square footage is in the amusement. That is an open warehouse, which we don't really have to finish at all. That can only be done on a concrete slab with the existing steel walls. So that we don't have to finish anything in that area to put in those facilities. Where someone building offices would be looking at converting 27,000 square feet into finished space. We only have to deal with the areas in the lounge, the kitchen, and the activities room. That allows us to do more in that area, without all the construction expenses. MRS. EGGLESTON-How many people do you think might be in your establishment at one time, a max? MR. ANTHIS-Maximum? I'd say, maximum, I'd say, if you're having a really busy day, maybe 150 tops. That would be uncontrollable. If it was like that, I would be happy. MRS. EGGLESTON-This'll all go before the Planning Board, right? MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-And the parking and all that. MR. TURNER-Did you say you didn't have to renovate the interior at all? You've got to put up petition walls for the offices? MR. LUNDREGEN-We do in the lounge area, the kitchen area, and the restaurant area, but we're looking at about 18,000 square feet out to 27,000 that we don't really have to renovate. There has to be some electrical work to be put in, but no finishing of walls or floors are required. That's less than half of the space that has to be finished. So, we can do in that building at half the cost of someone who was renting for offices. MR. CARVIN-Have you got somebody lined up for the miniature golf, or is this going to be kind of a, something that you put together? MR. ANTHIS-No. I have companies 1 ined up for every piece of equipment that's going to go in there. MR. CARVIN-Because years ago I had an experience, not personally, but I have been in a similar situation where somebody took over an old factory and tried to do this, and I think they're intentions were real good, but the results were rather disastrous, and as I said, I think your concept here is excellent. I guess I just have visions of that other place. The outside of the building, and we know you're not going to touch it, and I've got no problem with that. It's quite a project. MRS. EGGLESTON-And signs, they'd all have to comply with the signs on the outside. 41 MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes. MRS. CARR-I was just tel1ing Joyce, I know somebody who's been through this 10cation, and they said, as a warehouse, how immacu1ate it is, just because of Ma11indcrodkts business. It's not 1ike a warehouse 1ike you've seen before. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further questions of the app1icant? MR. CARR-I mean, this wou1d be an a110wed use in a, what, Highway Commercia1? MRS. CRAYFORD-In Highway Commercia1 and Recreation Commercia1. MR. CARR-And this is zoned? MRS. CRAYFORD-P1aza Commercia1. MR. CARR-Okay. So, we're deaHng with whether or not they can have the actua1 amusement. It's not so much the restaurant and the 10unge. MRS. CRAYFORD-The amusement center. MR. TURNER-It's certain1y been standing there for a 10ng time with no use at a11. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. TURNER-I'11 open the pub1ic hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED PAUL LORENZ MR. LORENZ-My name is Pau1 Lorenz. I'm the owner of Meineke Discount Muff1ers, which is direct1y across the street, and I think it's a great idea, for the simp1e reason that there's no one in that bui1ding. There's not enough jobs in this town. It's a situation where it's very hard to get someone in a bui1ding 1ike that without disturbing the rest of the area, because you'd have to have some big trucking firm in there or something 1ike that to uti1ize that space, p1us I think it's reaHy good for the winter because we don't have that many winter activities up there, and this is al1 indoors. Frank1y, I'm tired of taking my kids to Skate1and. I think it's a great idea. It's in the back. I don't reaHy think it's going to make a 10t of noise or anything 1ike that. It's in a great 10cation for traffic because it's off the main road. There's a 10t of different areas you can go from to get to it. So, I have no objections at a11. MRS. CRAYFORD-I just have a question. How do you avoid this becoming a hang out? MR. ANTHIS-WeH, I'm going to have, I don't know if you want to cal1 them security peop1e, just to keep everything going smooth1y. I don't want anybody hanging out by the games. Everybody's got to keep moving. They have to do something. I don't want anybody just doing nothing, especiaHy with 1itt1e kids around. That's my main concern. I'm going to have an area in there, I know it's not marked on there, just for 1itt1e kids, Hke things for them to do with their parents type of thing, and I'd rather have peop1e keeping an eye out. MRS. EGGLESTON-It's just such a 1arge space that you can envision 2,000 teenagers in there having a whoopie party. They're not going to a1ter the outside of the bui1ding. So, they're not going to paint it that ug1y b1ue or anything. MR. ANTHIS-No. MR. TURNER-Are you going to have free access to the traffic circu1ation around that bui1ding? MR. ANTHIS-Yes, MR. TURNER-Yes, MR. ANTHIS-Yes. the parking 10t wi11 be connected. Do you mean from Quaker P1aza? are you going to be ab1e to drive from yours to B10ckbuster, to? MR. TURNER-And then out onto G1enwood Avenue? MR. ANTHIS-Yes. That's a11 going to be one big parking 10t. Actua11y, it a1ready is. MR. TURNER-It is now, but I was just wondering, maybe in the 1ease there was a stipu1ation that it be cordoned off. 42 -" MR. ANTHIS-No. BOB SEARS MR. SEARS-My name is Bob Sears. I've been marketing the property for the 1ast three years. I am inv01ved with the 1easing of Quaker P1aza, and the ug1y b1ue was not my suggestion, but it is up. There's nothing in the 1ease that says that that wn1 be sectioned off. As a matter of fact, we win probab1y put in the 1ease that it wn1 be open, and that wou1d be depending upon the Town's desires. MR. TURNER-Any other conditions in the 1ease? MR. SEARS-The on1y conditions rev01ving around the 1ease is pertaining to O'To01es Restaurant. I have ta1ked to Steve Hawkins, the franchiser for O'To01es, and he is interested in the Batters Up Sports Center being put in here for a number of reasons. He a1so has some reservations. He fee1s it might be in competition, but unti1 it's up, he doesn't know for sure how it's going to effect his business, if it cou1d he1p his business. So, what I'm trying to say is, everyone is aware of what is going on in this process. If O'To01es Restaurant had some rea1 reservations, they wou1d probably be here tonight. I don't think they're here. MR. TURNER-What companies did you offer this to for warehousing? MR. SEARS-Everybody. We put it in the G1ens Falls Business Journal. It's been advertised there. It's been advertised in the Albany Business Review. It's been advertised throughout the multiple listing systems. I've put professional mailers out. It's been sent out four times since I've had the listings, to a11 of the companies that are involved in ARCC in the area and also companies down in Albany where the largest commercial real estate in the area, according to the Albany Business Review, 40 agents up and down the Northway. I went down to meetings with all of the ARCC agents. I've gone to the Albany Board of Realtors with these packets. 11m consistently trying to market that property. MR. TURNER-Was the rent prohibitive, or what? MR. SEARS-The rent started out at $650 a square foot. I marketed it for retail use as well, for office use, and also for storage use. We dropped it down to $475 a square foot. MR. TURNER-For storage? MR. SEARS-For storage or for retailers. It's a retail because of the visibnity. Unfortunately, it is 27,000 square feet. I've had various people come up to me and say they'd like to use 1,000 square feet of it, or, the best I've had is 8,000 square feet. It's hard to split that wh01e block up. It would be a detriment to the area, probably, as well as to traffic going in and out, and it win also make it more of a dichotomy situation, because I don't think the Town Board really wants a bunding like that. MR. TURNER-Anyone else have any questions? None? Okay. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARIrt& CLOSED MR. TURNER-Any discussion? MR. CARR-I don't have a prob1em. I mean, it's so close to what should be there. MR. TURNER-Yes. It doesn't miss it by much. Okay. Motion's in order then. MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE 110. 39-1992 JAIIES ANTHIS, Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: And allow the applicant to place an amusement center in the bui1ding known as the Ma1linckrodt building, in the rear portion warehouse space. The testimony by Mr. Sears, the listing agent for this rental property, indicates that for the past years he has been unsuccessful in leasing the property for any use consistent with the zone, and this has created an economic hardship on the owner of the building. The requested activity for this property, although not permitted under the zoning, is very similar in nature to the permitted uses, and therefore would not place an undue and detrimental burden on the purposes of the Ordinance. This variance wnl not change the character of the neighborhood, and will not adversely increase public services and utilities, including the traffic impact, and there's no neighborhood opposition, and a review of the Short Environmental Assessment Form indicates that there will be no negative environmental impact. Du1y adopted this 22nd day of April, 1992, by the f01lowing vote: AYES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Paling, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Sicard, Mr. Shea (11:39 p.m.) 43 '~ -- USE VARIANCE NO. 40-1992 TYPE: UNLISTED LI-lA JERRY BR(Jfrt ODER: SAME AS ABOVE LOIŒR WARRErt STREET FOR EXPMSIOrt OF A. 120 FT. BY 60 FT. ACCESSORY BUILDING. JUNKYARD IS NOT A PERMITTED USE IN A LI lONE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNIrE) TAX MAP NO. 110-1-23 LOT SIZE: 13.92± ACRES SECTION 179-26, 179-79 0 MICHAEL KUZAK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (11:39 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Patricia M. Crayford, Zoning Administrator, Use Variance No. 40-1992, Jerry Brown, Meeting Date: Apri1 22, 1992 "AppHcant requesting to construct an accessory bui1ding which would be an expansion of a nonconforming use. Junkyards are not a conforming use in a light Industrial zone. This is an Unlisted Action requiring a SEQRA determination." MRS. EGGLESTON-And the Warren County Planning Board approved, The Warren County Planning Board concurs with the local board and it's conditions", whatever that means. MR. KUZAK-As it was explained to me, that means if there was an approval, that they would go along with that. MR. TURNER-Yes. That's the way I took it. MR. KUZAK-They thought it was a matter of local concern, and whatever local concern there was. 1'm Mike Kuzak, folks. Thanks for having us in front of you this evening. I'm representing Jerry Brown with respect to this. I'd just Hke to clarify one thing before I get started. The variance, as Pat just correctly pointed out, it is, I am dealing with 179-26D. I'm also dealing with Section 179-79D, which deals with the expansion of nonconforming, preexisting, nonconforming usage. I have one question, and it's clarification. I would like the Board to hear me out on this, just briefly, before we get started on the application itself. I do believe that we are correctly here in front of the Board at this point in time, because of the fact that this is the type of a land use that the Town has expressed it's concern over in the past, and I'm going to submit to you, for the reasons that I'm going to state next, that perhaps the use variance is not necessary. It's necessary that I request that you give me an interpretation. I would respectfully request that you give me an interpretation, and there's two reasons that I'll go into briefly and explain how I'm coming about this. When I first talked to Pat Crayford in the Zoning Office, I was told that this was a junkyard under the Ordinance, and that anything that looked like an expansion had to come before the Board for a use variance, and insofar as that is stated, I do believe that that is the correct analysis. However, within the property as zoned, there are several allowable uses, permitted uses if you will, under Section 179D(3)(b), and it starts itemizing things off, and the two that I would focus our attention on at this point in time are Number Six and Number Nine, Number Six being warehouse for enclosed storage of goods and materials, distribution plants or wholesale business, and truck repair being the other activity. What we have here is, I'm going to draw the distinction right off the bat, between a junkyard as defined under the Code, which I do believe this business is defined as a junkyard under the Code and in what Mr. Brown considers this business to be and has maintained the business to be in the past. It's something that, it's a coined phrase, but it's basically referred to as automobi1e for recycling, in the industry. Mr. Brown takes in 90 percent late model cars, two thirds of that is wholesaled out immediately, the parts, all right. So, you have some old cars coming in that are just abandoned there in the traditional junkyard sense, but nonetheless, your definition say, junkyard for the salvage of cars and this is technically somewhere within salvaging. The point I'm trying to make is that within Mr. Brown's business, the business itself is multifaceted, and one aspect of that business is very clearly the storage of the wholesale parts. In 1988, we were before this Board, or not this Board, the Planning Board, for the construction of the building, which is already existing on the premises, which is also used to store parts. I mean, that's worked very well. There wasn't a problem for a variance back then, in 1988. We came in and said, this is what we do. I have the application here, that was submitted, and it was very clearly stated the space was needed to store the parts. Now, I'm going to turn to Mr. Hatin's letter and I'm going to just point out that what he's pointing out in his letter is a problem that we can very clearly resolve by creating some additional storage space. He wants to see the "junkyards", as defined by your Code, be maintained in a better condition and keep loose parts outside of the plain view and everything else. Lets see what we can do to make these things more aesthetically appealing. I did see some previous correspondence from the Beautification Committee in the fi1e, and I see where the concerns are. I've read Chapter 102 of your Junkyard Law and the Ordinance itself, and I'll comment on a couple of points on that in a minute. The point, here, that I'm trying to make is that there is no use that will occur inside this building that is not an allowable use within the zone, as zoned and how I can say that is the business itself is multifaceted. There is everything you can imagine within your Junkyard Ordinance itself, which deals with the fact that cars are sold. They're stored. There's parts taken from them and everything else. There is a legitimate and estabHshed and ongoing wholesale business at this point in time, and there has been for several years, and the parts are just simply stored there. The building that's there now has been working excellent. We think we can help the situation more, the space is needed. We can clean the place up a little bit better, and we can certainly screen out the fenced in area that's in the back, with that building there. It would be the same type of bui1ding as already exists behind the smaller building, and it would be the same builder, 44 the advanced p1ans that Jerry has, at this point in time, are from the same bunder. We're ta1king, essentia11y, the same type of bui1ding, a 1itt1e 1arger in size, to continue the theme, something that's worked very we11, and for that reason, I think it's correct for us to come before this Board and te11 you what we're doing, so that you know what's going on, in terms of the use. We've app1ied to the P1anning Board for the site p1an review for the bunding and for the fence itse1f, as required under the Ordinance, and we wH1 be addressing the concerns that are typica11y P1anning Board concerns, with respect to site p1an review of the bui1ding and things, at that point in time. I rea11y wou1d request, I rea11y don't think that we need a variance in this instance, because there is not going to be any use inside that buHding that is not a110wab1e. Turning to the space requirement, this is a 14 acre parce1. We have p1enty of 1and to 10cate a buHding of this size on the property. With that, I'd 1ike to take questions just on that discussion to this point, if there are any questions at this point. MR. TURNER-Are you saying you don't need a variance for expansion of a nonconforming use? MR. KUZAK-I'm saying we're not expanding a nonconforming use. The junkyard operation as it exists and as it is defined under your Code is stH1 taking p1ace behind the fence, but this Jerry Brown's Used Auto Parts is an auto recyc1ing operation, and what it is is it has many facets. The facet that we're dea1ing with with this bunding happens to be an a11owab1e use in the zone, and as far as that is concerned, I'm saying to you right here right now, nothing wi11 take p1ace in that buHding that isn't an a11owab1e use under Subdivision 6, and some truck repair things of that nature, and on1y in the course of that. We have activities that are taking p1ace outside there. We know what these activities are because we know how the junkyard business operates on a day to day basis, and when it comes right down to it, it makes sense to move him indoors, because it's worked we11 with the other bui1ding. The storage is there. We're not increasing the f10w of cars into the yard. We're not taking on additiona1 inventory. There's no increase. What we're taking is activities. MR. TURNER-This is a preexisting, nonconforming use. It's in a Light Industria1 Zone. Junkyards are not a110wed in a Light Industria1 Zone. They're on1y a110wed in Heavy Industria1. MR. KUZAK-That's correct. The junkyard activities are not a11owed. I'm not speaking to a junkyard activity at this point in time. I'm speaking to an a110wab1e use activity, under a Section. MR. TURNER-You're speaking to an expansion, another bui1ding. MR. CARR-We11, what are you going to do in that bui1ding? MR. KUZAK-We can warehouse wh01esa1e, parts that are on the wh01esa1e market, is basica11y what we can do in that bui1ding. It's what's done in the bui1ding next door. The bui1ding wou1d be very usefu1 in terms of screening. We're rea11y just proposing this as a way to get around the requirement. I mean, there's a strong desire, that I've picked up on, to have this screened as much as possib1e and c1ean up the property as much as possib1e. That's what we're rea11y doing. There's parts out there in the yard that are 1aying around. There's parts out there, as things come in, we can't put them behind the fence untn tit1e is c1eared, that cou1d be moved inside or under the overhang, and the overa11 day to day operations wou1d be substantia11y enhanced, in terms of what I be1ieve the Town is 100ked for in this instance. MR. TURNER-I don't have a prob1em with what goes on there or what he proposes to do, but it is an expansion and therefore, that's why it's here. He's going to be bringing in vehic1es, new vehic1es, vehic1es that he doesn't have tit1e to. He's going to store them in that bunding. He's going to store parts in there. Is that correct? MR. KUZAK-He's not bringing any more vehic1es in that are brought in on a regu1ar f10w. The f10w of work is not going to change. There is no expansion. MR. TURNER-I know, but the faci1ity is for the use that's prescribed. MR. KUZAK-The faci1ity is for the storage of parts, correct. MR. TURNER-The storage of parts. MR. KUZAK-The overhang in the back, for examp1e, that we propose. It's an addition, it's ancn1ary to the buHding. We don't have to do it. It's not something that, if you t01d me, Mike, I don't want you to do this overhang, that's your prerogative, whatever, but what that wou1d enab1e us to do is take those cars that are whee1ed in, in a sense, that Mr. Hatin's 1etter acknow1edges the fact. It acknow1edges the fact that they can't do it there. He's just saying, if I read his 1etter right, he's saying, do something to c1ean this up, and what I'm saying is, if there's that bunding there and the one that's there a1ready, he can do some activity behind those bui1dings and keep things on a reasonab1e basis, in terms of visibnity from the road. We wou1d use that, Number One, as a screen for those activities, but we're not increasing them. It's not 1ike, great, we've got this new bunding, 1ets bring in 400 more cars a month, because you're sti11 1imited by the size of your yard as to what you can do. What we're saying here is that the bunding wou1d be used, instead of having parts that are behind the fence, in front of the fence, whatever, if they're wh01esa1e parts, we can put those wh01esa1e parts into that bui1ding. We think there's enough parts to justify that, and that's based on Mr. Brown's estimate of the parts that are out there now. I think the resuH is good. I don't think it's an expansion, in the c1assica1 sense of the word. 4&:; -- MR. TURNER-I disagree with you. MRS. CRAYFORD-Why are you opposed to going for a variance? MR. KUZAK-I'm not opposed to it. I'm ready to go forward on that. MRS. CRAYFORD-I mean, I think Dave Hatin's letter has given you a hardship. MR. KUZAK-I just didn't know if it was something that would be viewed as an expansion, in the classical sense, and I just wanted to raise that.. MR. TURNER-No. MR. KUZAK-So, the Board's ruling is that it is an expansion? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KUZAK-Okay. Just so I have that established. I'll start on the criteria, here. MR. TURNER-We all know what's there, and we all know what he does. I don't have a problem with it. I know what he does. MR. KUZAK-I'd like to apply for a use variance for the simple reason that we believe that it's the best alternative here, and we believe that the elements are met under the Code, specifically. MR. TURNER-It's an adjunct to his building to facilitate a reasonable operation of his business. That's all it is. MR. KUZAK- That's correct. MRS. CRAYFORD-Anything that's an improvement is an improvement. MR. TURNER-It's an improvement, exactly. MRS. EGGLESTON-It's an improvement, but there can be more improvement. I mean, the site is deplorable, and you're telling me he can't put some of the stuff behind the fence because he's waiting for a title, a tire laying around the yard, rims. You're not waiting for a title to those. There's a whole dug in the back yard. If anybody fell in it, God knows what that's for. MR. KUZAK- The site used to be a quarry. MRS. EGGLESTON-No, no, no, not way back there. Right off the back corner of the building. There's a hole, with everything just pitched in it. What on earth is that for? I think when people complain they have reason to complain, and putting up another building, frankly, is not going to cure that. It's a persons habits. MR. KUZAK-But it will help the situation, and we'll address that. MRS. EGGLESTON-I don't need to remind this Board of Scotty McLaughlin's place that we said, he came here and said, give me another building and I'll clean this corner up. You can't find a bare spot on that corner on Dix Avenue. That is a mess. So, actually the habits have to be changed, here. I'm not against the proposal, but I would like to say, for heavens sake, clean the yard up. Hire a kid or somebody to do it so the neighbors don't complain. I don't think that's asking too much. MR. KUZAK-Your point is well taken. We are going in front of the Planning Board for the rest of this, and the fence to help screen further. MR. TURNER-Where are you putting the fence? Are you going to shut off the front? MR. KUZAK-It would be the approximate area, we can't shut off the front completely because there has to be a passage way. MR. TURNER-No, but are you going to bring it up and gate it? MR. KUZAK-Well, except for the passage way coming through, where we're discussing that with the Planning Board. There's a septic tank on the left side. We can't really do too much there. MRS. EGGLESTON-What is the hole? You didn't answer that question. MR. KUZAK-I don't know what the hole is, I'm sorry. JERRY BROWN 46 -- ~- MR. BROWN-I'm Jerry Brown. The hole was dug some time ago. We did have an awful storm runoff problem. We since have put in drainage. There are times, this past week, two weeks in the spring of the year, when the drainage, the ground would just not take enough ground water, and the building, the existing building that was there before we added the expansion, which by the way is higher than the existing building, that whole was dug to create an additional pocket. MRS. EGGLESTON-I can appreciate that and I understand that, but there was other debris in the hole. MR. BROWN-I walk by that quite often. I believe there's a brake drum, a piece of wood. MRS. EGGLESTON-But you must admit it's unsightly. MR. BROWN-True, but that hole, I don't believe, can be seen from the road by people passing by. MRS. EGGLESTON-It just adds to the whole area. I'm just asking if it just couldn't be cleaned up, so that the complaints wouldn't keep coming, and people keep complaining, try to avoid that at all costs. MR. KUZAK-I don't have anything else, unless there's specific questions on the Code or anything you have for me. MR. TURNER-The face of the building toward the road, is that going to be solid face? MR. KUZAK- That will be substantially similar to what it is now. The overhang is in the back, and the entrance will be on the side. MR. TURNER-But the entrance will be on the back side of the building? MR. KUZAK-Yes. MR. TURNER-Okay. The fence is going to come, where? MR. KUZAK-I believe, and this is going to be subject to how it works out with the Planning Board, but the initial proposal is to bring the fence from, I'm looking at the property and the building's on the right hand side, the side of the building I drive in, we're going to start the fence there and come across. One is there now, the fence that goes up to the edge of the building from the property line, and try to cover as much of it as possible, to keep visibility to the highest extent. MR. TURNER-Are you going to chainlink the front and then enclose the back with a solid fence? MR. KUZAK-The fence in the front, if I'm understanding what you're saying correctly, the fence in the front is for screening. It's for aesthetic reasons. I don't know what you're saying, is there going to be a gate there, another gate, another gate and the second gate like the gate there is in the back. MR. TURNER-Is there going to be a double gate there between the two buildings so you have access to the junkyard in the back and access to the building on the right and the building on the left? MR. KUZAK-So, a front gate? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KUZAK-As far as I know, that's an open question. I know that's something that Jerry's thinking about in terms of the fencing, and it's going to depend on what the, and to mark the fence area on the map, I believe that the fence area is designated the general area of the fence. MR. TURNER-What's the little office building in the front, Jerry? What is that? How wide is that, about 20, 25 feet, this jut here, where it juts off the new building you built in the front? The old building is here. This is the new building you built. How wide is that right there? MR. BROWN-That's 28 feet. MR. TURNER-Twenty eight feet. Okay. MR. BROWN-It's actually a little bit more. This was existing. MR. TURNER-Yes. Right. MR. BROWN-The smaller building was existing. The setback was 50 feet. This building was setback 50 feet. Rather than, aesthetically, to leave a void between the existing building and the new building, it was just faced in. It's not, there's an area that's just blank, a void, but it was just blended in so it looks like it's all connected, with the passageway going from the existing. 47 - '- MRS. EGGLESTON-So, it's about 22 feet off the highway. MR. TURNER-Twenty two feet from the property line. MR. BROWN-The existing. MR. TURNER-Yes. Right. Okay. The public hearing is opened. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COfIENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-A motion's in order. Just one question. When did you get approval for the yard down there? MR. KUZAK-I have a card that I picked up from the secretary in the Zoning Office that has all the days on it. It'll take me a second to find it. MRS. CRAYFORD-What was the question, Ted? MR. KUZAK-When did they get approval for that yard down there? MRS. EGGLESTON-Do you mean for the junkyard? MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. CRAYFORD-Originally? MR. TURNER-Yes. 7/88, let's see 7/88, '82, referred to the Town Board. MR. KUZAK-I tried to check the history of it. MR. TURNER-Yes. I think you got approval from the Town Board, didn't you? MR. KUZAK-Yes. He had to go to the Town Board. MR. TURNER-Yes. Okay. Ready for a motion. MOTIOrt TO APPROVE USE VARIArtCE NO. 40-1992 JERRY BROWN, Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: And allow the applicant to construct a 60 by 120 foot building on his property which would be an expansion of a nonconforming use. The applicant currently maintains an automobile junk yard on the property. The Town Building Inspector has been requested by the Town Board, I believe, to contact all junk yard owners and request that they maintain their junk yards in a neat and orderly fashion. In order to comply with this request, the applicant is in need of this additional building, and it is this request which is placing the unnecessary hardship on the applicant. The relief granted is minimal and is consistent with the current usage of the property and it will not further negatively impact the character of the neighborhood, nor public services and utilities. A review of the Short Environmental Assessment Form indicates no negative environmental impact from this project. Duly adopted this 22nd day of April, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Paling, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Sicard, Mr. Shea (12:09 a.m.) On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Theodore Turner, Chairman 48