Loading...
1992-10-21 o Ii I (_~ N A L QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 21ST. 1992 INDEX Notice of Appeal No. 3-92 James Mehalick Victor Thomas 1. Area Variance No. 78-1991 Sandra Eggleston '7 . Area Variance No. 95-1992 William T. Vosburgh 9. Use Variance No. 98-1992 John Hughes 9. Area Variance No. 99-1992 Phillip Vachula 11. Area Variance No. 100-1992 Sally Creedon Green 13. Area Variance No. 101-1992 Harold and Mary Warner 14. Area Variance No. 102-1992 Andrew and Dawn Pliscofsky 21. Use Variance No. 112-1992 Grossman's Property Development 27. Area Variance No. 113-1992 Grossman's Property Development 31. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 21ST. 1992 7:32 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER. CHAIRMAN JOYCE EGGLESTON. SECRETARY MARIE PALING CHRIS THOMAS THOMAS PHILO CHARLES SICARD FRED CARVIN PLANNER - ARLYNE RUTHSCHILD STENOGRAPHER - MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 3-92 JAMES MEHALICK VICTOR THOMAS APPEAL CONCERNS THE PROPERTY OWNED BY: INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING. CORP. D/B/A THE GREAT ESCAPE LOCATION: NORTH SIDE OF ROUND POND ROAD ON ROUTE 9 SECTIONS(S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE WHICH APPLICANT IS SEEKING AN INTERPRETATION: SECTION 179-7 (B) "ACCESSORY USE". SECTION 179-21 (D). "PERMITTED USES IN A RC ZONE". SECTION 179-21; AND SECTION 179-67(B). WHETHER PROPOSED CHILDREN'S "WET AREA" CONSISTING OF FOUR (4) POURED CONCRETE SWIMMING/WADING POOLS. WATERSLIDE PLATFORM. THREE (3) WATERSLIDES (INCLUDING "PRO-SLIDE") AND BOAT/PLATFORM IS AN "ACCESSORY USE" WHICH MAY BE CONSTRUCTED AS OF RIGHT BY PROPERTY OWNER. JOHN HAKO. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT (7:32 p.m.) MRS. EGGLESTON-At our meeting on August 19th. we tabled for two months until our Board has a quorum. So. here we are tonight. and I'd like to make you aware of how the agenda will be handled. We're going to open the public hearing. and as you know. we've received all material from all of the attorneys involved. So. I'm going to ask one attorney for each side to briefly outline. in general. their case. and I respectfully request that you try to keep it to five minutes. stretch it to 10 at the most. but we have a very heavy agenda tonight. and what we don't want to happen is for you to reargue the whole case again. We have a lot of material that we've read. and unless you have something new to offer. new witnesses. whatever. So. once you have done that. we will then let the public speak. if anyone has anything to do with that. I will then close the public hearing. Once again. we're going to reserve our decision. I think. as you know. that this is a somewhat complicated. but an important decision. It's going to effect future happenings in the Town of Queensbury. and we as a Board want to give the right decision. and I recognize that one of the points that Attorney Mancini has raised is the question of new is the question of new members voting. and his consensus is they can. as long as they make an informed decision based upon his or her review of the records. So. what we're going to do is table. They're going to digest it all. We're going to have a meeting with Paul Dusek. and we will do it speedily. It won't linger on much longer. We will do it as speedily as we can sit with him. He has told me. if necessary. we could do it and give our decision. maybe. within a week. I'm not setting that as a goal. but certainly we're going to try to do our best to end this thing once and for all. So. with that in mind. I'll open the public hearing. Who would care to speak first? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN HAKO 1 MR. HAKO-Madame Chairman. my name is John Hako from the law office of Generoff. Randolph. Mancini. and Roth in Guilderland. New York. We. in essence. just want to summarize our position tonight. We have no further testimony to present. I have a couple of things that I'd like to hand to the Board for their digestion also. We have given the front page of this particular document. but you didn't get a full copy of that. So. we wanted to do that. just to clear that up. To summarize our position on the appeal. there are four basic points that we covered as to the permit given to the Great Escape to construct the Noah's Sprayground attraction. The permit was issued on May 5. 1992 by Patricia Crayford who was then the Town Zoning Administrator. Our first point with Mrs. Crayford was that she exceeded her authority and that she unlawfully interpreted the Zoning Ordinance. Now. it has been the position of this Board and the prior acting Chairman of the Board that any Zoning Administrator has the power to interpret. but QY£ position is that she usurped the fact finding powers ot this Board as a Board of Appeal. as a quasi judicial Board. that does issue a finding of fact and findings of law. based upon counsel's opinions. which are based upon a review of the facts as they see them. as they weigh them. and as they determine by seven members getting together as opposed to one person making a fact finding determination on one day receiving a permit application and on the next day giving a permit. She determined that this was an accessory use and we stand on our statements as to the accessory use and as to her ability to interpret the law. or the Zoning Ordinance. in order to issue a permit as speedily as she did. I would like to present to the Board. at this time. a copy of the swimming pool permit application. which she suggested that Mr. Wages. on behalf of the Great Escape. submit. Now. based upon this swimming pool application. a building permit was issued allowing the construction of a 4200 square foot pool. Certainly the comments we've made are legion on the actual size. Mr. Mancini will bring them up. As you will see. the back of the swimming pool application form contains the Section of the Zoning Ordinance which deals with accessory structures and uses. and more particularly. as to private swimming pools. and I'll just read the first paragraph. for the record. "Private Swimming Pools. Private Swimming pools. permanent and portable. which shall be accessory to a principal noncommercial dwelling use. shall be regulated as follows. except that these regulations shall not apply to portable swimming pools which shall not be more than 3 feet in height. nor more than 15 feet in length." Now. we had several opportunities to discuss. here on record and outside of this meeting. with Mr. Parisi. who was the acting Zoning Administrator and has since left that position. that it was certainly troubling to us that. based upon a swimming pool permit. which on the back speaks only to pools that are subordinate and appurtenant to single family dwellings. or at least that are private swimming pools and used for noncommercial purposes. that this major amusement attraction could be constructed when this language was plainly contained on the application form. So. we believe there was a substantial exceeding of the authority to use the form to interpret the Ordinance and to issue the permit without any kind of Town. appellate review. or review from above. We have stated. on many occasions. that the Zoning Ordinance speaks to the ~ that are permitted. or uses that are permitted by site plan review. and as to the particular Section which it pertains to. the Recreation Commercial zone. there is a list of permitted uses. a list of accessory uses. and a list of site plan review uses. Under the site plan review uses. the Type II. are Amusement Centers. The Great Escape's counsel indicates that we had an amusement center for 40 years. and this is subordinate and appurtenant to that. but it is our position that it does not mean an entire Amusement Center is what needs to be afforded a Planning Board. or for purposes of site plan review. but it's an Amusement Center ~ which is exactly what this is. and Amusement Center uses. in the past at the Great Escape. have had to come to in front of the Planning Board. with the Bavarian Palace in 1987. the Tahitian Tempest in 1988 and 89. and the roller coaster. which is a still pending application at this time. One could say that those 2 are much bigger scale jobs and that this is smaller. but our position is that there has been a substantial amount of advertising for this project. and I will get into those accessory use issues later. but it appears to me that it doesn't matter what the size of the project is if you read the terms of the Zoning Ordinance. It says. site plan review uses. and that means Amusement Center uses. not an entire theme park. It means a use that goes in a theme park. As to the accessory uses. they're defined in the Zoning Ordinance as customarily subordinate and incidental to the principal permitted use. or the character of the principal permitted use. Now. Mr. Wages indicated. in August. that the use is subordinate, that a theme park has to continue to grow or it dies. and obviously something like this is appurtenant to and subordinate to a theme park. but we've indicated that it's not customarily incidental. and we have submitted much case law on that sub j ect, because it's located on land that was not part of the original park. It was separately owned. It was taxed separately. and from 10 days after the permit was issued for the construction of the pool amusement complex. it's segregated from the mechanical rides in the park. It's located near the picnic pavilions. It is. in essence. a part of the campsite parcel that was approved in 1982. and it is away from the bulk of the actual part of the fun park. In order to use this particular attraction. you've got to go to a separate building. change clothes. and the facility for the changing of clothes was never before Mrs. Crayford. because a zoning permit. or building permit was never issued until after she departed on July 15. the day the public hearing was opened here. So. we certainly have problems that this is part and parcel of this attraction. but was never before Mrs. Crayford at the first instance. Certainly. as again. it is not a minor use, and that is inherent in the de fini tion of an accessory use. It has to be minor. and certainly the advertising that the project has been given. the size of the project. 4200 square feet was approved, but as we've shown you by extrapolating the scale. the size is somewhere closer to 20 to 30.000 square feet. and I think it's most important to rely on precedent. and the precedent was set by David Hatin who was the Zoning Administrator in 1989 when the issues with the Condor Ferris Wheel rides. and the then pending Tahitian Tempest Water Park was in the works. Mr. Hatin said. an expansion ot the Great Escape for a water park on the edge of the park requires site plan review. Well. this isn't 11 slides. but this is a water park. and this requires the Planning Board to at least look at it. and that's what we're asking to happen. because this is exactly what Mr. Hatin said it was. Our final point was that. and when we presented originally in July, we showed the original map of the Great Escape Campground that was approved in 1982. and we showed that. on the western edge of the campsite that was approved. the tennis courts were moved. The pool, which was to remain standing. is now part of this complex. and the Johnny Appleseed which also sits on the former campground site. has been modified in order to become a changing facility and locker-room. This effects the modification to a prior approved site plan. They were here for that. They should be before the Planning Board for this. and I believe. unless the Board has any questions. that that is the essence of our presentation. Anything that the ~ members of the Board want to ask us next month. we certainly want to fully educate you all as to our feelings of what the law is. and I thank you very much. MRS. EGGLESTON-You're welcome. WAYNE JUDGE MR. JUDGE-Good evening. My name is Wayne Judge. from the firm of Judge and Duffy in Glens Falls. and we represent the Great Escape in this application. I'll try to be as brief as I can. The best argument I think that I can make is to just read the cases that were cited by the people who are asking you to reverse the decision of your Zoning Administrator. because those cases are the cases that support her actions here. but just to review some of the 3 comments that were just made and try to be as brief as I can. The allegation is made that the Zoning Administrator unlawfully interpreted the Statute. Well. you don't have to be a lawyer to figure out the answer to that question. What could she have done? She was faced with an application. presented with all of the facts. Could she then appeal to the Zoning Board and say to the Zoning Board. what should I do now? I have this application. I want you all to vote on it. Is there any provision in your Zoning Statute that allows her to do that? There isn't. She could have denied the permit. in which case there would have been an appeal to you. and then YOU would have been faced with the issue of whether or not what she had done was proper. That's how the review process would have taken place. That's what Waterslide would have liked to have had happen. That's the only way they could have gotten review. Now. they're saying she unlawfully interpreted the Statute. She could only act either in favor of it or against it. and that's the only way it would come before you. and it is before you. and it is being reviewed. So. she didn't act improperly by acting. because that's the only thing she could do. and this is just a play on words. that she unlawfully interpreted the Statute. Every time your Zoning Administrator acts downstairs in that office. they're interpreting. essentially interpreting. the Statute. They're reading the Statute and they're applying it. If they're wrong. it'll be before you on review. and that's where it is now. The idea of using the swimming pool application. Of course she used a swimming pool application. Do you have any waterslide applications in the Town of Queensbury? What other form could she use? She used a swimming pool application. and maybe because it said "Swimming Pool" on the top of it. it was an unfortunate use of words. and maybe unfortunate for the Town that they didn't develop a form for waterslide. but how often would you have a waterslide application that it would be worthwhile for the Town to go out and print up a whole bunch of forms that rather than saying at the toP. "Swimming Pool". it would say. "Waterslide". It wouldn't make any sense to have this kind of application. So. she used the next best thing. a Swimming Pool application. but the application was not an application for a swimming pool. Anybody who read it could see what it was. It was an application for a waterslide addition to an amusement park. and there's no pretense in the application that someone was going to build a swimming pool that was going to be put next to a house. So. the argument that she unlawfully used a swimming pool application is just ludicrous. and it's contrary to common sense. That's not an interpretation. She used the next best thing because there wasn't any application for a waterslide. knowing full well that if she was wrong. it would be up here on appeal anyway. The next issue. and really the basic issue in the case. was did she make a mistake. Is this waterslide area. as Story town. an accessory use or not. The last time we had a meeting. the attorneys for the opposition started reading from the Statute and said. look. the accessory use clearly just applies to your only permitted use in a Recreational Commercial zone. The only permitted use. under your Statute. and it is a little unusual. the only permitted use in a Recreational Commercial zone in the Town of Queensbury is a single family residence. So. that is unusual. but in your accessory use area. there are provisions for having bars. and provisions for having a patio near a place where alcoholic beverages are sold. Well. it's clear. then. that the framers of your Zoning Statute knew that this accessory use would not be accessory to a single family residence. You don't sell liquor in a single family residence. There's also another section in the Accessory Use Section that says. any use that's accessory to a permitted use. So. your Zoning Administrator said. this particular attraction that's going to be added to Story town. is that accessory to the amusement park. or is it not accessory to the amusement park? I think a person with common sense could say. it is accessory. because it's a recreational activity that goes along wi th amusement park. Waterslide World in Lake George is an amusement park. The Great Escape is an amusement park. Waterslides do go with amusement parks. We heard testimony. in prior meetings. from Mr. Wages. who is a member of a lot of 4 associations that have to do with amusement parks. that most of the major amusement parks have a waterslide aspect to them. today. in this day and age. So. a person with common sense could come to the conclusion that a waterslide addition is an accessory use to a waterslide world. and therefore. comply with your Statute that says. under Accessory Uses. any use that's accessory to a permitted use in this particular zone. Then you get down to. basically. two things. Is it a permitted use. Number One. and Number Two. is it not accessory. but does it somehow fall outside of the gambit or the definition of what is accessory. First of all. waterslide. or the Great Escape. was here before the Zoning Statute. The reason why the zone was created in this area of Great Escape. was to accommodate the Great Escape. The purpose of the Recreational Commercial zone. if you read in the Statute. is to encourage the development of recreation uses. So. the Great Escape preexisting the Statute is now a permitted use within the Recreational Commercial zone. What they're doing is permitted in that zone. just like the case cited in the aggrieved. where a quarry was no longer permitted in that zone, but since the quarry had already been operated there. the court said. for purposes of deciding this case. that the quarry was there before the Statute. So, the quarry is a permitted use in that zone. Now the issue is. could they use a rock crusher. and here, the issue is. can you add the waterslide aspect to it. So. the permitted use and accessory use. and under the Statute both of these things are covered. The next issue is, is this such. well, the next issue is a minor issue about who owned the property and when they owned the property. The title to the property has been in the Warren/Washington County Industrial Development Agency. You don't have to be a lawyer to know that the Warren/Washington County Industrial Development Agency did not carryon a business that was competing with the Great Escape. The Warren/Washington County Industrial Development Agency held title to that particular piece of property because at the time the IDA funding was set up in such a way that it would be tax exempt, and it was a method of funding the expansion of business. That's why the parcel is carved out, and that's why the title was in a separate name. Actually, the title had reverted several years ago to the Great Escape, but the Tax Assessor never put the Tax Map back in that name. This is a lawyer's argument. This is not a common sense argument. Everybody knows that that particular parcel was always part of the Great Escape, certainly during all of the times that we're talking about here. This attraction is not being built on a separate piece of land. but the Statute. right under the Accessory Use Section. says. if you go ahead and do something on your property that has an impact greater than the normal accessory use. and violates certain thresholds, then the Zoning Administrator doesn't have a right to grant a permit without review by the Planning Board. and here's what the thresholds are. and it's all set out in the Statute. If the parking is such and such. or if it's too close to a wetland. or if it meets and violates or exceeds certain limitations. then you've got to have site plan review. and that makes sense. The community as a whole has a right to participate in the decision, if what you're doing exceeds certain thresholds. You're actually going ~ than what's accessory. You're actually starting a whole new project, and therefore these precedents that were cited here before. so called precedents. the roller coaster. the whole new waterslide complex that involved parking over near the wetlands. there were totally different issues involved in those applications. because it was perceived by the Building Inspector, this is the kind of a project that is not accessory. This is a biq project. It's going to violate some of these thresholds. So. what I'm going to say is that, since it violates some of these thresholds. site plan review is mandated. This is NOT that kind of a project, and you can go through each one of these thresholds. The people who drew up the Statute know the difference between accessory use and a use that requires site plan review, and they built those thresholds right into your Statute. You can see what they are. Your Zoning Administrator came to the conclusion. this kind of a project is so small it doesn't violate any of those thresholds. So. site plan review is not required. 5 Therefore, this business about the Hatin precedent. First of all, Dave Hatin. the Code Enforcement Officer. doesn't create precedent for you. the Zoning Board, and what he was quoted as saying in some newspaper article certainly doesn't bind the Zoning Board to decide one way or the other on anything. That's really even ludicrous for a lawyer to say. Dave Hatin' s statement to the newspaper might have even been misquoted. What's precedent is what YOU decide, not what Dave Hatin the Code Enforcement Officer says he thinks is correct. and finally the modification of a site plan review. whether or not the project was accurately presented. to the Building Administrator at the time she made her decision. whether or not what is actually built there complies with the permit that was applied for. these are all issues that your Zoning Office can cope with themselves. outside of the purview of the Zoning Law. If something was built there that didn't comply with that permit. you don't have to decide anything tonight. because the Code Enforcement Officer can go over there tomorrow and pull our ticket. if we didn't comply with the building permit. If some house was given a building permit and shouldn't have it. then pull it. but the process that was followed here was the proper process. If somebody thought that the permit was not properly issued. fine. Bring it up here for review. That's what we're here for. That doesn't mean that she made a mistake when she did it. That means that you might decide differently than she did. That's all. It didn't say that what she did was unlawful. In summary. the project of adding this additional attraction. lets say with a Merry-Go-Round rather than a waterslide. If it was a Merry-Go-Round that was there. Waterslide World of Lake George certainly wouldn't be here tonight on review. Number One. but Number Two. nobody would deny that a Merry-Go-Round was an accessory use to an amusement park. and that the issuance of a building permit was perfectly correct. Therefore. it's not a Merry-Go-Round. So, it's a waterslide attraction instead. What's the difference? It's accessory to the operation of an existing permitted use in the area. just like in this case cited by the opponents. here. The person had a rock quarry, not permitted in the area. but preexisting the Statute. He added a rock crusher. after the Town had prohibited rock crushers in the area. The court said. a rock crusher. as everyone knows. is accessory to a quarry. You don't have to be a lawyer or a minor to understand that. and therefore we argue. in summary. that this particular attraction. given its size and everything else that was presented to the BUilding Inspector. is accessory to the amusement park and the permit was properly granted. MRS. EGGLESTON-Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience who'd like to speak on this tonight? Okay. I'm going to close the public hearing. RALPH MANCINI MR. MANCINI-Before you close the public hearing. I want to make one statement. one sentence. I just want you to remember that when lawyers don't have law to argue. and we have many pages of law. MRS. EGGLESTON-Would you put your name on the record. Mr. Mancini. MR. MANCINI-Yes. Ralph Mancini. When lawyers don't have law to argue. that's why we want you all to read our briefs. They argue something called common sense. Thank you very much. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. sir. Thank you. Okay. The public hearing is now closed PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. EGGLESTON-And we will reserve our decision until we've had a chance to meet with the Town Attorney. MR. HAKO-Thank you very much. 6 MRS. EGGLESTON-You're welcome. (8:02 p.m.) AREA VARIANCE NO. 78-1991 TYPE II LC-10A OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE FULLER ROAD. VACANT LOT AFTER LAST HOUSE ON LEFT THE APPLICANT REQUESTS RELIEF FROM THE QUEENSBURY ZONING ORDINANCE 179-13 (C) ¡ PERMEABILITY FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A HOUSE ON A LOT FOR A REHEARING ON THE PREVIOUSLY DENIED (SEPTEMBER 16. 1992 DECISION BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS) VARIANCE EXTENSION REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WHICH CANNOT MEET SETBACKS AND PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS. TAX HAP NO. 123-1-15.22 LOT SIZE: 0.38 ACRES SECTION 179-13 DONALD KRUGER. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT; SANDRA EGGLESTON. PRESENT (8:02 p.m.) MRS. EGGLESTON-This was tabled from October 1st. and the motion was made by Mr. Turner. Chairman. Due to the absence of two members. one was sick and the other one wasn't able to make our meeting that night. that we would like to reserve decision on this application until those two members are back again and we have a full Board to address the application. The pUDlic hearing was closed. So. we're only here tonight to render our decision. Is that right. Ted? MR. TURNER-Yes. 1/11 open it up for discussion by the Board members. and then we'll have a motion. MRS. EGGLESTON-I'm abstaining. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. PHILO-As far as I can see. I went through the laws pertaining to the existing owner. As far as I can see. other than the area. MR. TURNER-Tommy. there's the perc test on the septic. MR. PHILO-Okay. Thank you. If I interpreted the law right. looking at this. anybody could have bought that lot. Is that right. Mr. Turner? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. PHILO-I'll say it in front of the Board and everything. I don't think I was fair. When I looked at it before. I didn't have all the information of the legality of that piece of property. I said when I came on the Board I wanted to do the best I could for everybodY. and I think this should be voted on tonight. I do have different opinion. I looked at it further. and I want everybody in the Town of Queensbury to be treated fair. I said when I got on this Board I was going to treat them fair. That/s the only thing I've got to say on it. MR. CARVIN-I agree with Tom. I voted against this on the original premise because I really didn't have all the facts. I know that there is a lot of local opposition. but I think that we have to. in all fairness. I mean. this was a preexisting lot. and as Tom indicated. anybody could have bought it. I don / t think it's detrimental to that particular area of Town. The only question that I have is. what makes this siqnificantly different than the first one that we voted on. In other words. that we turned down. I guess, or was that a tie vote? MR. TURNER-No. That was a tie vote. that was to deny. no decision. MR. CARVIN-That was to deny. That was no decision. So. would this require a new motion? MR. TURNER-Yes. This has to do with the permeability also. HR. CARVIN-Okay. Again. after reviewing this and taking into consideration the public opposition. I still don/t think it's going 7 to be detrimental to that area. MRS. PALING-I didn't quite understand. either. when we first went through it. that it was a preexisting lot. and that does change. however we feel about it. that's the way it is. and so I have to go along with changing my vote. also. MR. THOMAS-I have no comment. MR. SICARD-No change. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. PHILO-Mr. Turner. on that. I'd like them to set it back as far as they could. that house. MR. TURNER-Tom. you weren't here. but take a look at that map. That's the latest right there. MR. PHILO-I went over and looked at the perc test myself. and being in the business. I'm not a virgin to that. and I looked at it. The percolation looked very good. and I wasn't surprised with the reports that they had. The only thing. on the setback. and I see that they ~ going to put it 50 feet. Is that right? MR. TURNER-Yes. That's correct. MR. PHILO-The existing houses are awfully 50 feet. the house to the left. MR. TURNER-I think St. Andrews is probably farther back than that. I'm not sure. It appears to be farther back. MR. PHILO-I measured that one day. Don. What did you come up with? MR. KRUGER-Fifty feet. MR. PHILO-What was it offset from the front line? MR. KRUGER-About 50 feet to the front of the structure. MR. PHILO-As long as it's in the same line. so they can't have any. when I looked at it before. and I'll be honest with you. I looked at the small lot. compared to what the neighbors were. I was going more of what the neighbors were saying. I wasn't looking at the law. and I read the law. and I came up with a different decision. As far as I'm concerned. they're trying to do everything. and I can't. I want to do things right for the Town of Queensbury. every person. and I can't see this being restricted. There's no way they could use this property. and they're paying taxes on it. and I don't want to put a hardship on anybody. MR. CARVIN-Yes. Ted. I'd also like to make one comment regarding some comments made by Mr. Brandt. and I am reading from the minutes of the meeting of September 16th. and I quote. "This Government belongs to all the people of Queensbury. I don't belong to a click. and it looks to me like it's run like a click. It looks like there are special privileges for the click. If you're a republican committeeman. you're the daughter of a republican committeeman. things slide through pretty fast." I take a great deal of exception to those comments made by Mr. Brandt. I. personally. looked at this for a very long time. I also. like Mr. Brandt. am not a member of any clicks. and I do feel that everybody deserves equal treatment here. I'd like that to be put into the minutes. MR. TURNER-Okay. It's in there. MRS. PALING-Yes. I would like it to go into the minutes that I would agree with Mr. Carvin. I take exception to the comments that 8 were made by Mr. Brandt that evening. I think they were unfair and inappropriate. MR. TURNER-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 78-1991 SANDRA EGGLESTON, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: This is to grant relief to the applicant from the front, side, and rear yard setbacks. The property requires 100 foot setbacks on all sides of any proposed structure. The relief granted would be 50 feet relief from the front yard setback. I would grant relief of 81.84 feet on the easterly side yard setback, 80 feet on the westerly side yard setback, and 15 feet from the rear yard setback. The lot is a preexisting, nonconforming building lot, and although it is substandard from the current zoning regulations, the applicant has an absolute right to build on this lot, and the relief would allow the applicant reasonable use of the property, while granting the minimum relief necessary from the setbacks. It is not detrimental to the entire purpose of the Town Ordinance. It will not adversely effect public facilities, and the relief from the 95 percent permeability requirement is also granted. The extension would be for a period of two years. Duly adopted this 21st day of October, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Philo, Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Paling, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mrs. Eggleston (8:17 p.m.) NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 95-1992 WR-1A. TYPE I WILLIAM T. VOSBURGH OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE GUNN LANE. OFF CLEVERDALE ROAD REMODEL EXISTING 2 BEDROOM. 2 BATH HOME SO IT REMAINS 2 BEDROOMS. AND 2 BATHS. HOWEVER. IT WILL HAVE LARGER ROOMS. (50 PERCENT EXPANSION). ZONING BOARD WILL ADDRESS SEQRA AND REFER TO QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 12-3-4. 5 LOT SIZE: 1 ACRE SECTION 179-16. 179-79. MR. TURNER-This has got to go for SEQRA Review. MOTION TO HAVE THE PLANNING BOARD BE THE LEAD AGENCY IN THE SEORA REVIEW FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 95-1992 WILLIAM T. VOSBURGH, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: Duly adopted this 21st day of October, 1992, by the fOllowing vote: MR. TURNER-And after that review, they will refer it back to us, and we'll address the variance. AYES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Paling, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Philo, Mr. Carvin. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE (8:18 p.m.) USE VARIANCE NO. 98-1992 TYPE II SR-15 MOBILE HOME OVERLAY DISTRICT JOHN HUGHES OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE OFF OF ROUTE 149 FOR MODIFICATION OF THE RV RECREATION AREA. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 30-1-22.1 LOT SIZE: 55.87 ACRES SECTION 179-19 D-2 JOHN HUGHES, PRESENT (8:18 p.m.) HRS. EGGLESTON-And the Warren County Planning Board returned, "No County Impact." 9 ........- STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Use Variance No. 98-1992. John Hughes. Meeting Date: October 21. 1992 It The applicant is seeking an unlisted accessory use variance (179-20 D[2]) to construct a 28 ft. by 48 ft. (1.344 sq. ft.) pavilion in the southeastern section of his R. V. Park. 1. The applicant's argument regarding reasonable return is acceptable as the pavilion is a necessary improvement to be competitive with other R.V. Parks. 2. The condition of the lot is unique as it is a preexisting nonconforming use of the property. 3. As the park has existed since 1985. there will be no adverse effect on the neighborhood by the action." Mk. TURNER-John. do you have any further comment? MR. HUGHES-My name is John Hughes and I own the park. The reason for the pavilion is that we do have groups that come in now that have rallies. and they do like to have picnics and gatherings. and if we don't have a pavilion for them. if we get a rainstorm or something. we're going to have trouble. and so the pavilion does enhance the business to attract more of these type of rallies and groups coming in. and most R. V. Parks do offer this kind of a facility. MR. TURNER-I think when you first went in there that was Recreation Commercial. MR. HUGHES-Yes. it was. MR. TURNER-And you got caught up in the change. MR. HUGHES-Right. MR. TURNER-Okay. Does everybody realize that? That's why he's here. Although the issue doesn't exactly address whether a pavilion can be provided for or not. It doesn't address it in the Ordinance. MR. CARVIN-I have just one question. Ted. Is this going to be an enclosed pavilion or is it going to be open? MR. HUGHES-No. open. MR. CARVIN-Open. and just picnic tables underneath? MR. HUGHES-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Kind of cement floor? MR. HUGHES-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I was out there and I looked at it. you got. shuffle board? What have MR. HUGHES-We have shuffle board courts. as well as bocci ball. MR. CARVIN-It's going to be right next to that. is it? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Yes. that's no problem. MR. TURNER-Also. isn't it a fact that Mr. King has a pavilion? MR. HUGHES-Yes. MR. TURNER-Okay. 10 MR. PHILO-I'd like to say one thing to John Hughes. I went out and looked at that site, and I was impressed with the whole operation. I think John's done a nice job on it, and anything he does is going to be a benefit to that site. It really looked nice, John. MR. HUGHES-Thank you, Tom. MR. TURNER-Okay. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Any further discussion? No? Okay. Motion's in order. This is a use variance. I really don't think the use variance criteria applies. I think the biggest detriment to this property is the change in zone, and the fact that a pavilion was not included in the Recreation Commercial, for this type of activity. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. It changed from what to what, Ted? MR. TURNER-Recreation Commercial to SR-15. MRS. EGGLESTON-To SR-15, and the SR-15 didn't include the pavilion. MR. TURNER-No. MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 98-1992 JOHN HUGHES, Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Marie Paling: And grant the applicant the right to construct a 28 foot by 48 foot 1344 square foot pavilion. The hardship to the applicant is that the zone classification changed during the time he zoned the property from Recreation to SR-15, and the SR-15 doesn't include uses of recreation. The park has existed since 1985, and therefore there would not be any substantial change to the character of the neighborhood or the health and welfare of anyone in the neighborhood, and there'd be no adverse effect on facilities or utilities. The use variance is necessary, or a reasonable request by the applicant in order to stay competitive with other R.V. Parks in the Town. Duly adopted this 21st day of October, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sicard, Mr. Philo, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Paling, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE (8:27 p.m.) AREA VARIANCE NO. 99-1992 TYPE II CR-15 PHILLIP VACHULA OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 127 LOWER DIX AVENUE PROPOSAL IS FOR MOTORCYCLE ACCESSORY SALES. PROPOSED DECK WILL BE SETBACK 40 FEET IN LIEU OF THE REQUIRED 75 FEET. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 111-7-1 LOT SIZE: 2,475 SQ. FT. SECTION 179-24 BILL HOLL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (8:27 p.m.) MRS. EGGLESTON-And the Warren County Planning Board approved, with the comment, concur with local conditions. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 99-1992, Phillip Vachula, Heeting Date: October 21, 1992 "Applicant is seeking an Area Variance from the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, Section 179-24C which requires a 75 ft. front yard setback. Applicant is proposing to add a 10 ft. by 20 ft. open deck to the front of his 11 residence/business which will be the entrance to the showroom of his business. The parcel is preexisting and nonconforming with a current 50 ft. front yard setback. The deck would reduce the setback to 40 ft. in a small part of the front yard. The practical difficulty rests with the fact that the only place to construct the deck/entrance is in front of the showroom which faces the front yard. The variance would not be detrimental to the neighborhood as this is an established commercial/residential district. The variance will have no effect on public facilities or services and minimum relief is necessary for placement of the deck. Subsequent to a site visit. staff is recommending that a condition of approval be that the ingress and egress be changed from Dix Avenue to New Pine Street to promote a steady flow of traffic on Dix Avenue. This stipulation was also a condition of approval by the Warren County Planning Board at their Wednesday. October 15. 1992 meeting." MRS. EGGLESTON-Well. what do they do. Ted? They meet after this is put out? Like. if they had a condition. why isn't it in here? MR. TURNER-It should have been right on there. MRS. EGGLESTON-It should have been in here. and I don't see it. I'm sorry. There is a corrected Warren County Planning Board which does say approved with the condition that the ingress and egress be from New Pine Street and the parking be identified to the western most corner of the property. MR. PHILO-The western side. that would be off? MRS. EGGLESTON-New Pine Street. HR. HOLL-My name's Bill Holl. I'm representing Bill Vachula. He was in an accident today. so he couldn't make it to the meeting. MRS. EGGLESTON-Do we have his signature on the thing. Ted? MR. TURNER-Do you have a slip indicating you're his agent? MR. HOLL-No. I'll be his business partner. MR. TURNER-Are you listed on this application? MR. HOLL-No. I'm not. MRS. EGGLESTON-There was nothing signed. MR. CARVIN-How bad of an accident was it? I mean. is he in the hospital? Is he going to be laid up for a while? MR. HOLL-He should be out by now. hopefully. MR. CARVIN-Are you right across from. what is it. suburban water or something like that? MR. HOLL-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. because I have just one question. I don't care if you answer it or not. On this map. you have parking. There's no parking there now. is there? MR. HOLL-No. there isn't. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I just wanted to make sure I was looking at the right house. MRS. EGGLESTON-So. we're going to wait. Ted? Adjourn it until next week':' MR. TURNER-Yes. 12 MR. PHILO-You said a 10 foot deck. Is that 10 foot deck going all the way around that corner? MR. HOLL-No. It's coming out just at the front door. and going to the right. MRS. EGGLESTON-Ted. I'll only say that I think if we. without his signature. tried to do things and put stipulations on them. and then he didn't agree to them. MR. HOLL-I can call. and. set this back. MR. TURNER-If you want to call and see if he's out of the hospital. we'll adjourn it to the end of the meeting. MR. HOLL-I'll do that. MRS. EGGLESTON-If he could come before the end. We've got a lot to go yet. MR. TURNER-We've got a few to go. All right. So. we'll table it until we hear from you. Do you want to call him and see if he'll come and come back and let us know? MR. HOLL-Okay. Thank you. (8:35 p.m.) AREA VARIANCE NO. 100-1992 TYPE II SFR-1A SALLY CREEDON GREEN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 20 WINTERGREEN ROAD FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A ONE CAR GARAGE (12 FT. BY 28 FT.). SIDE SETBACK WILL BE 10 FT. IN LIEU OF THE REQUIRED 20 FT. TAX MAP NO. 119-4-17 LOT SIZE: 0.28 ACRES SECTION 179-20 ROBERT SWEET. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT (8:35 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Area Variance No. 100-1992. Sally Creedon Green. Meeting Date: October 21. 1992 "Applicant is proposing to build a 12 ft. by 28 ft. one car garage in the side yard of their property which is a preexisting nonconforming lot. Applicant is seeking relief from the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance Section 179-20C which requires a 20 ft. side yard setback. The placement of the garage will reduce the setback to 10 ft. 1. The practical difficulty which does not permit the placement of the garage to comply with the setback regulations is that any other place on the lot would make the structure inaccessible and or on top of the property leach field. 2. This is the minimum variance necessary as there is no other practical place to build the garage on their property. 3. The variance would not affect other properties in the neighborhood. or have any impact on public facilities and services and is the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the specific practical difficulty." MR. TURNER-Do you care to make any further comment. Bob? MR. SWEET-No. I don't think so. I'm Robert Sweet. HR. TURNER-Okay. I don't have any questions because this has popped up on this particular street and those streets in that area quite often. and this is because of. as you can see the size of the lot. MR. THOHAS-Were the other ones that were granted. were they the same setback. side and rear yard? HR. TURNER-Pretty much. Yes. They were the same setbacks. If there's no further questions. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 13 NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Does anybody want to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 100-1992 SALLY CREEDON GREEN, Introduced by Charles Sicard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: To construct a one car garage, 12 by 28 feet. Seeking relief from the Ordinance Section 179, which has a 20 foot setback. The lot is rather unique, and there doesn't seem to be any other practical place to build this structure. This is the minimum relief to alleviate the specified practical difficulty. This grants 10 feet of relief on the north side. Duly adopted this 21st day of October, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Paling, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Philo, Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE (8:42 p.m.) AREA VARIANCE NO. 101-1992 TYPE II SR-1A HAROLD AND MARY WARNER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LUZERNE ROAD. WEST OF NIMO PROPERTY TO SUBDIVIDE PROPERTY INTO 2 LOTS. NORTH LOT WILL NOT HAVE ROAD FRONTAGE. DRIVEWAY WILL BECOME A MINOR STREET. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 121-3-5 LOT SIZE: 2.50 ACRES SECTION 119-30(3)(C). 179-19C. 179-70 HAROLD WARNER, PRESENT (8:42 p.m.) HRS. EGGLESTON-And the Warren County Planning Board returned, approved, concur with local conditions. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 101-1992, Harold and Mary Warner, Meeting Date: October 21, 1992 "Applicant is proposing to subdivide his property, which is a preexisting nonconforming lot, into two lots and build a driveway on the east side of the front lot to give access to the rear lot. The parcel to be subdivided is located on Luzerne Road which is a collector road. Applicant is seeking relief from the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance Section 179-30(3)C which requires all residential lots fronting on collector or arterial roads to have two (2) times the lot width required for the zone. Double the lot requirement (150 ft.) would bring the minimum lot size width permitted to 300 ft. Applicant's lot, after the subdivision, would be 165 ft. wide and the minor road, which would be the back lots road frontage, would be 40 ft. wide. Applicant will be deeding the minor road to the back lot and secure legal easement for the front lot, which is his residence. Applicant is seeking variances for both of the proposed subdivisions from Section 179-30(3)C. Both proposed subdivisions meet the minimum area requirement of one (1) acre. 1. Applicant believes the minimum variance is necessary to accomplish his goal of sUbdividing his property in order to develop the back lot, and the physical difficulty is that there is no other way to divide this parcel because his residence is on the front part of the lot. 2. The variance would not be a detriment to other properties or the neighborhood as smaller lots are prevalent in the area. 3. The variance would not affect public facilities or services and the minimum relief is necessary to alleviate the specific practical difficulty." MR. WARNER-Harold Warner. MR. SICARD-Does that road, Harold, run along the NIMO property that goes to the rear lot? 14 MR. WARNER-Yes. it does. Selling that back lot would help keep the people from dumping onto that lot. There's trails that run through that back lot. They go out to the pole line. and they're constantly dumping. It's not from the property owners adjacent to me. These trails come down from other places, even as high as Birch Road, way up there. They're four wheel vehicle trails and they drag this stuff down and dump on my lot down by the pole lines. The lot is a problem. in that sense, and I think this would solve it. MRS. EGGLESTON-What do you propose to do with the lot? MR. WARNER-Allow somebody to build back there. MRS. EGGLESTON-I mean, are you going to sell it? MR. WARNER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Sell the lot. Okay. MR. SICARD-Harold, how wide is that proposed road going to be? MR. WARNER-They told me it had to be a minimum of 40 feet. MR. SICARD-Who told you? MR. WARNER-The people I spoke with at the Town. MR. SICARD-I was under the impression the Town had 50 foot lot widths. MR. TURNER-The Ordinance requires a minimum of 40 feet. MR. SICARD-A minimum of 40 feet, acceptable. 40 feet? MR. TURNER-Yes. He can deed whatever he wants after that. HR. SICARD-Do you plan on deeding this to the Town? MR. TURNER-No. He can't. MR. WARNER-Any way I can do it. MR. SICARD-Of course. if you keep it yourself. you'd have to keep it up. if you had a tenant back there. HR. WARNER-I understand there was three ways I could do it. I would just as soon the fellow had that for his driveway, because I have plenty of room between there and my house, and it's practically all driveway anyway. MR. SICARD-Is it paved? MR. WARNER-No, it's not paved, I mean my own. There's no problem getting to my body shop. I have plenty of room. I just have to move a fence a little bit. MR. SICARD-I understand that. What I'm talking about is that 600 foot driveway now. just so we get back to what I was thinking about. MR. WARNER-Well, I'd just as soon the people that bought that control that. MR. SICARD-The back lot? MR. WARNER-Yes, the people that bought the back lot control that drive. MR. SICARD-So. they'll maintain it, keep it plowed and so forth? 15 MR. WARNER-Yes. They don't mind it either way how we do it. That's the way they would like to do it. MR. SICARD-By approving this. we don't want to throw you into a problem where you'd have to maintain the road and keep it plowed and so forth and so on. MR. WARNER-There's no problem there. I would just as soon it went with the people that bought the property. JAMES MARTIN. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MR. MARTIN-I think the Planning Staff's understanding of this was that the 40 foot access was to be deeded to the rear lot. under private ownership. and for the purposes of establishing a driveway and access to that rear lot. MR. SICARD-They'd have to maintain it. MR. HARTIN-Right. This isn't exactly the most ideal situation. and the Town doesn't like to create these flag shaped lots. but the gentleman is up against a hardship. here. due to the configuration there. That seems to be his only. MR. SICARD-The deed to the road would go with the lot? MR. MARTIN-Right. because any lot created in the Town is required to have a minimum of 40 foot access on a public right-of-way. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-So. he's just fUlfilling that minimum requirement. Al though we fully admit that it's a long driveway for a public drive. MR. SICARD-Yes. MR. MARTIN-There are ones as long or longer in the Town. though. MR. SICARD-It's fortunate that it's near NiMo's right-of-way there. There's no trees and so forth. MR. MARTIN-I just wanted to clear that up for the Board. MR. SICARD-Yes. Thank you. MR. CARVIN-Mr. Warner. you have no intention of developing the lot. Is that correct? MR. WARNER-No. MR. CARVIN-In other words. you're not going to build a house on speculation'? MR. WARNER-No. I have three different parties that are interested in being back there. to build a home. MR. CARVIN-Okay. and the basic reason that you're looking to sell it is just because it's hard to maintain? MR. WARNER-It's hard to maintain. and it's hard. I have set some stuff back there. but 90 percent of the stuff back there is from people bringing in. through these other trails. through other properties. I'm not blaming the property owners adjacent to me. because these same trails run through their property. and probably some of them would have a problem. but not as bad as myself and the Niagara Mohawk. 16 HR. CARVIN-Do you know. down on your map here. who owns this portion of the land. in other words. immediately behind? MR. WARNER-A contractor. I believe he owns 40 acres back there. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does that run all the way to Sherman. does it? MR. WARNER-It runs all the way to Sherman Avenue. and I understand the only access he has to that is about 60 feet on Sherman Avenue. MR. CARVIN-Okay. but I guess what my question is leading to. that has not been subdivided. that is one lot? MR. WARNER-Yes. that's one lot. MH. CARVIN-All contiguous. Okay. MR. 'fHOMAS-Is there such a thing something that you come up with? street is. as a minor street? Is that I'd like to know what a minor MR. WARNER-Yes. I don't know where that came from. MR. MARTIN-I think that's one of the things that's maybe causing some confusion. and I don't know that it's a minor street. It's merely to provide the minimum 40 foot right-of-way for access to the lot. I think the use of the word "minor street". it's not correct. MR. TURNER-See. Chris. it's not a minor street. It's a driveway. MR. MARTIN-There is no such thing in the Town. MR. THOMAS-Yes. That's what I wanted to know. street. because it's not in the terms in here. Is there a minor MR. TURNER-No. There's no definition. MR. HARTIN-That's Just a poor selection of words. HR. TURNER-What's happened here is that he also needs double the lot width. which means you've got to have 300 feet on the road. So. it's been the policy of this Board. the Town Board addressed this issue. and I think they addressed it in this way. that if the applicant had the road frontage. double the lot width. they could create this situation and have one curb cut. MRS. EGGLESTON-That was the new ruling. MR. TURNER-That's the new. but nothing's been changed. in reference to this. We've turned everyone of them down. just because of that. MR. PHILO-Because of the frontage? MR. TURNER-Yes. If they had the 300 feet on Luzerne Road. he wouldn't be here. MRS. EGGLESTON-They could put it in two lots. and use a common dr'i veway. HR. TURNER-He wouldn't be here. MR. PHILO-What I was going to say is. what are they going to do wi th this front lot? They won't be able to build anything on either of them. It's 140 foot here in the back. HR. TURNER-Yes. You've got a total of two and a half acres there. Tom. but this Board has always supported the case that if the 30Ø feet was not there. then the variance was not granted. and the Town 17 -, Board tried to deal with it by stating the fact that if they had double the lot width. that they could subdivide it and have one driveway. but that's as far as it went. MR. WARNER-Is there a way we could take that one area from 40 feet back to whatever it is. 290. I forgot. I don't have it in front of me. and deed that off as a third parcel and he and I go partners on that. so we can both maintain it? MRS. EGGLESTON-See. what their intent was was not to have so many road cuts on collector streets. MR. WARNER-That would give me my frontage. and give him a way to get back to his property. MR. TURNER-All right. Could you come up here? MR. WARNER-Are you saying I don't have enough frontage here? MR. TURNER-No. You have to have 300 feet here. MR. WARNER-Three hundred feet. MR. TURNER-Yes. and what I said to you is that the Town Board has tried to alleviate some of these problems by saying that if you had the 300 feet. you could subdivide and have one driveway that would service this lot and this lot. That's as far as they've gone. and we've turned all of them down that's. MRS. EGGLESTON-A lot in your neighborhood we've turned down. HR. WARNER-We'll I' ve put up with people dumping on my back property. I've called the police. I catch the people in the act. and nothing's being done. Who pays for that? HR. TURNER-That's a civil matter. and I understand what you're saying. but. MR. WARNER-So. there's nothing you can do for me? MR. TURNER-No. because we've turned other people down with the same thing. MR. PHILO-Could he make Just one lot out of this? MRS. EGGLESTON-It is one lot. MR. TURNER-It is one lot now. see. make two lots. He wants to subdivide it and MR. WARNER-All right. but there's no way in heck I can take this strip here and go on partners with this guy here on it? I'll have the same frontage that I've got. There's no way I can get more out of what I've got. That's what I've got. MR. TURNER-I know. I understand. MR. WARNER-But if we go partners on this. 1'11 have my same frontage. and he'll have his. HR. TURNER-But you're still going to subdivide. right? going to cut this lot out? You're MR. WARNER-Yes. MR. TURNER-Okay. You're still going to subdivide. MR. WARNER-So. what have I got to do. wait until they turn this into a road. and I think they're doing that. because from Peggy Ann down to Sherman Avenue. there's underground power lines. I see the 18 little red flags that a few have left there, and that indicates to me that it flows somewhere along the line. I wouldn't be a bit surprised to find gas down there. MR. TURNER-I wouldn't either. That was a comment that was made a long time ago when we addressed the new Zoning Ordinance, that there should be a road cut from Luzerne to Sherman Avenue. MR. WARNER-Well, I've seen it happen, down in other places, between Route 5 and 5S, down near a place I used to live, but this is a problem. Everything gets dumped on the pole line, gets dragged down my property back in here. MR. TURNER-I know. MR. WARNER-I can't afford to keep it, and there's nothing you can do for me? I have to continue to put up with the dumping? MR. TURNER-I don't say that there's nothing we can do for you. I'm just telling you what we've done in the past, and this is no different than anyone else's, the same problem. MR. WARNER-This property is, you could put surrounding properties around here into this almost four times. MR. TURNER-I understand. MR. WARNER-Or even this property here is much smaller than, and even the two properties up the street. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. WARNER-Back when I wanted to do something, a good friend of mine, Torn Murphy. said don't do it. He said, wait until later. You'll be better off. I wish I'd never listened to him. MR. TURNER-Okay. Thank you for your comments. Any further questions of the applicant from the Board? If not, I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COHHEN't PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED HR. TURNER-Any further comment'? Do you know what I'm saying? We've already set a precedent not to divvy up and make these, and the reason behind that was to eliminate those curb cuts. They've dealt with it somewhat, but that's as far as it's gone. MRS. PALING-Well, why would he have to have another curb cut if this? MR. TURNER-He's going to subdivide. He's going to cut this out and sell it. MRS. PALING-Yes. I understand. MRS. EGGLESTON-He's going to have two driveways instead of one on the property. MR. TURNER-He's going to have two. MRS. EGGLESTON-His and the new one. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-That's what they tried to avoid on what they call collector streets that are those real busy streets. 19 MR. CARVIN-Ted, do you think there's going to be any chance of the Town changing that Ordinance or redefining that? MR. TURNER-I don't think, right now. MR. CARVIN-Because I know in the past what we've done, we've tabled a couple of others, and that way he wouldn't have to go. MR. TURNER-Yes. They've dealt with part of it. They did. MRS. EGGLESTON-I don't think you'll see that right away. MR. CARVIN-Do you think it would be advantageous for us to table this until some point when they might address it, or is that just going to gum up the works? MR. TURNER-No. time. I don't think it's going to get done for a long MR. PHILO-Can I say one thing on that, Mr. Turner? On this here he said a contractor owned in back. Could he sell that to the contractor in back, that owns the property behind him. and then it wouldn't be landlocked. MR. TURNER-Yes. certainly. MR. WARNER-I called the people that were in charge of selling it for the contractor, and the way ~ understood it, he's having a little bit of difficulty, and wasn't interested in buying the piece of property. MR. TURNER-It's tough times. MR. WARNER-I thought it would be a good deal for a through way, a road all the way through. The firehouse would sure like to see one there. MR. TURNER-Doesn't Bill Threw own that? MR. WARNER-Behind me? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. WARNER-I don't know. I think Woodburys used to. I understand the property back there is up for sale. MR. PHILO-I think you're right, Ted. MR. TURNER-Motion's in order. MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 101-1992 HAR0LD AND MARY WARNER, Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: Based on the fact that we've already set a precedent on many previous occasions over the past year, for circumstances of the same kind. and were we to grant this relief, it would be contrary and inconsistent with our decisions in the past. Duly adopted this 21st day of October, 1992, by the following vote: MR. WARNER-Can I bring up one thing? I don't think there's a neighbor in the area that would disagree with what I'm trying to do. I get along good with my neighbors. AYES: Mr. Sicard. Mr. Carvin, Mr. Philo, Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Paling, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE 20 MR. SICARD-Teddy, just a point. Can the owner build on this property himself, say he wanted to build a house and abandon the existing property, his existing house. Could he build himself a house? MR. TURNER-If he abandons the existing house, yes. MR. SICARD-If he had one house on the property, one principal dwelling'? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, one house. MR. TURNER-Right. ( 9 : 04 p. m. ) AREA VARIANCE NO. 102-1992 TYPE II RR-3A PART IN HC-1A ANDREW AND DAWN PLISCOFSKY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE CORNER OF ROUTE 149 AND THE WEST SIDE OF BAY ROAD FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION (400 SQ. FT.) ONTO THE LIVING ROOM OF THE HOUSE. THE PROPOSED ADDITION WILL BE SET BACK 56 FT. FROM THE ROUTE 149 (FRONT PROPERTY LINE) IN LIEU OF THE REQUIRED 75 FT. SETBACK. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 28-1-35 LOT SIZE: 4.62 ACRES SECTION 179-28(C) AND (87) ANDREW PLISCOFSKY, PRESENT (9:04 p.m.) MRS. EGGLESTON-And the Warren County Planning Board returned, "No County Impact". STAi'F INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 102-1992, Andrew and Dawn Pliscotsky. Meeting Date: October 21, 1992 "Applicant is proposing to build an addition (expansion of a living room) to their existing residence. Applicant is seeking relief from the Queensbury Ordinance, Section 179-28C that states that all buildings located within the Travel Corridor Overlay District shall be set back 75 ft. from the edge of the road right-of-way. The proposed structure will reduce the required 75 ft. setback to 56 ft. The applicant's property, which is located on Route 149 and Bay Road, is a designated arterial within the Travel Corridor Overlay District. 1. The practical difficulty which does not permit placement of structure within code requirements is that the only way to expand the living room reduces the setback requirement to 56 it. 2. This is the minimum variance necessary to offset the practical difficulty which doesn't allow any option for placement of the expansion. 3. The variance will not have any effect on public services and facilities and this is the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty." MR. TURNER-Is the applicant in the room? Okay. Does anyone have any questions of the applicant? No? Everybody's looked at it? There's not much you can do. MRS. PALING-No. MR. TURNER-He's got a pretty good case. Okay. I looked at it, and there's no other way he can do what he wants to do. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. TURNER-How long have you owned the house? MR. PLISCOFSKY-We've had the house for four years. MR. THOMAS-How old is that house? MR. PLISCOFSKY-About 45 years. MR. THOMAS-All right. So, it's been sitting there a while. 21 MRS. EGGLESTON-Is it the bedroom that's on the back facing, right in back of where you have the living room, so you that you couldn't build off the back? Is that your reason? MR. PLISCOFSKY-Right. MRS. EGGLESTON-That's the bedroom back there? MR. PLISCOFSKY-Part of the problem is there's a bedroom adjacent to the living room, but we also wanted to increase our basement space, and we only have a partial basement which is underneath the living room and half of the kitchen. It would be impossible to use the increase the basement space any place in the house. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. TURNER-Okay. No further questions? MRS. EGGLESTON-No. MR. TURNER-Okay. Thank you. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Motion's in order. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. PLISCOFSKY, Introduced by Charles adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: 102-1992 Sicard who ANDREW AND DAWN moved for its For the construction of an addition of 400 square feet onto the living room of the house. The proposed addition in this area calls for a 75 foot setback, and by adding the addition it will reduce it to 56 linear feet from the road, which exists now, which grants them 19 feet of relief. The addition is 400 square feet in area, and this request seems to be the minimum relief to alleviate the specified practical difficulty. There seems to be no effects of the variance on any pUblic facilities or services. There seems to be no other place to put this addition. Duly adopted this 21st day of October, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sicard, Mr. Philo, Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Paling, Mr. Thomas. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE (9:13 p.m.) MR. TURNER-All right. We're going to go back to the AREA VARIANCE NO. 99-1992 PHILLIP VACHULA. MRS. EGGLESTON-We've read everything, Ted. questions. We were up to MR. TURNER-Questions, yes. Questions, Ladies and Gentlemen. MR. SICARD-On this deck, do you propose to have this for display? Are you going to operate any vehicles out there, run any motors or anything'? MR. VACHULA-No. It's Just going to be for leather and chrome, and to adapt stuff on. MR. SICARD-Just for display, really, only. MR. VACHULA-Right. 22 MR. SICARD-Do you anticipate putting up a sign or something later on? MR. HOLL-At a later date, yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Wouldn't there be enough room in the back? There was a large lot in back of there where you could use for parking and eliminate this parking in the front, along Dix Avenue? MR. VACHULA-Yes, we're going to do that. MRS. EGGLESTON-You ~ going to do that? Yes. I know the Warren County requested it. You are going to do that. MR. VACHULA-Whatever they want. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. PHILO-How many motorcycles are going to be there at one time? MR. TURNER-Only the people that are buying the product. MR. VACHULA-There might be a couple of cars in there. MR. HOLL-This isn't just for motorcycles. MR. VACHULA-It's not just for motorcycles. MR. HOLL-It's a leather and chrome accessory shop for motorcycles. MR. VACHULA-You can buy leather jackets, chaps, or you could buy leather gloves, leather boots. MR. CARVIN-Okay. then? You're not going to be selling any motorcycles MR. VACHULA-No. MR. CARVIN-No. Okay. MR. PHILO-There's a couple of people that notified me and they were concerned about the noise from motorcycles. That's why I'm asking. MR. VACHULA-Well, if somebody pulls up. MR. HOLL-It's just normal. MR. VACHULA-Use. MRS. EGGLESTON-Is it just a retail outlet. MR. VACHULA-Yes, it's a retail outlet. MRS. EGGLESTON-You're not going to sell motorcycles? You'll sell accessories to motorcycles and leather goods? MR. VACHULA-That's right, and leather goods. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. SICARD-What will be your opening hours, day and night, or, Saturday, Sunday, whatever. You're going to draw some traffic in there, motorcycle traffic. That's what I'm a little concerned about. If you're going to be open all day Sunday, there's going to be some motorcycles. MR. HOLL-We're going to be closed Sunday and Monday, and have the opening hours somewhere around noon to approximately 7 p.m. MR. SICARD-Seven o'clock. It's just a case where you are going to 23 get some visitors. and they travel in pairs. MR. CARVIN-Is anybody living in the house right now? MR. VACHULA-Yes. MR. CARVIN-And will people continue to be living in the house. do you know? MR. HOLL-We're looking. like I say. at 12 o'clock to 7 p.m. MR. SICARD-There will be no repairs? MR. HOLL-No. There will be accessory application. MR. PHILO-In other words. if they buy something. you're going to put it on their bike? MR. HOLL-Yes. MR. PHILO-So. there is going to be maintenance there? MR. HOLL-No. not maintenance. There's a lot of stuff that you can just bolt on. MR. VACHULA-Like a license plate bracket or something like that. MR. HOLL-A chrome wheel cover. MR. VACHULA-There's nothing where we're going to take the engine and break it down and service it. MRS. EGGLESTON-You said there's going to be living quarters as well. Is one end going to be living quarters. and one end the retail business? How is that going to work? MR. HOLL-Do you see the living room that's in there now? That will be the showroom. It's going to be all closed off. MR. VACHULA-From the living quarters. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well. there was a big cleaning van parked there when I was down there. Was there was a garage door right in front ot that. on that end of the building? MR. HOLL-Yes. There's a garage door on the end of that. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well. why couldn't your entrance be through there instead of building this deck for an entrance. and encroaching closer to Dix Avenue? MR. HOLL-We'd lose our space for our accessory application. It's only a one car garage as it is now. MRS. EGGLESTON-And there's no way for an entrance. like. the back of the property. Like. you're going to move the parking to the back of the property. So. is there no way you could have an entrance from? MR. VACHULA-We're not going to move the parking to the back of the property. We're going to move it to the side. MR. PHILO-Who took these dimensions? MR. VACHULA-They're right off the map. MR. PHILO-Who put these dimensions down 40 feet from. over to New Pine Street. and the dimension 50 foot from Dix Avenue? MR. VACHULA-We had a map drawn up for us. 24 MR. PHILO-I went over there. and with that porch you're putting on. 10 foot porch. I see a water cock. and that's on Town property. and there isn't 25 feet to your deck. HR. VACHULA-I thought it was 50 feet away. dimensions. If you go by the MRS. EGGLESTON-Are you just going 50 feet right from the edge of the road? MR. HOLL-Yes. MR. VACHULA-That's where it would be. but if we put the deck on. it would bring it to 40. MR. PHILO-Well. Town property goes quite a bit in from that road. There isn't room to park a car there. MR. TURNER-Your measurements have got to come from your property line. not from the road. MR. PHILO-That's a good 14. 15 feet. maybe 20 feet. from the edge of the road to that water cock. MR. VACHULA-It is? MR. PHILO-Yes. I walked it off. and on the other side. where that gas thing is. and the right-of-way. you've got parking area in there. That utility line that's under the ground. that's on Town property. You won't have 20 feet left after you put that deck on. MR. 'rURNER-No. MRS. EGGLESTON-I guess you haven't answered my question. Why couldn't you make an entrance from the back? I'm thinking about coming closer to Dix Avenue. I mean. they might widen that road someday. MR. VACHULA-The thing is. if you would let me do something like this. I'd put a whole other building on from the back. and I would just keep my house the way it is. MR. TURNER-Don't you have the cleaning business in the house now? MR. VACHULA-It's just an office. I just run a phone I'm willing to put another building behind the house. guys allow that. instead of the way I'm doing it now? best way that you would allow me to do it? I Just want out of it. Would you What's the to do this. MRS. EGGLESTON-I'm not saying that. I'm just concerned with. they may widen Dix Avenue. and then this deck is going to be sitting right on the. because it's only going to leave you 20 feet. You're going to be mighty close to Dix Avenue. MR. VACHULA-Is that the thing that's? MR. TURNER-The proximity of the deck to Dix Avenue. I think. is one ot the big issues. because as Mr. Philo just pointed out. and you Just said that your measurements are from the road. That's not the true measurement. You've got to establish where your property lines are. to give us a correct measurement. MR. VACHULA-You say I'm only 15 to 20 feet away. I'm not. I'm not saying MR. PHILO-Well. that's after you get your deck. MR. VACHULA-This is the first time I've ever done anything like this. I'm just trying to make it. 25 -- MR. TURNER-Yes. Do you know where your markers are. your property? Have you got pins on the corner? MR. HOLL-We have the side and the rear markers. weren't familiar with. That's sort of my fault. The front we MR. SICARD-Mr. Chairman. when I think of these side setbacks and everything. without some kind of a map. even a tax map. we have no way of determining where this thing is sitting. right out in the middle of the field. as far as I'm concerned. I think we ought to have a survey, or not even a survey. or a tax map, or something that's fairly accurate. in order to determine where these things are going to go. Now he wants to build a building in the back and he doesn't know where the back setbacks are. MR. PHILO-Because that one I pointed out to the person who was with me, when I went over to see the site. and I looked and I could see the water silt cock, and where you've got the arrow coming off of that driveway. it's right, there isn't room for a car, a ~ and that deck, because if you put 10 foot on for that deck, then you put 20 foot on for a van, you have nothing left, and you're saying you've got 40 feet to the driveway. MR. SICARD-See, that's why we need some kind of a map, a survey map or a tax map or something. MR. TURNER-I think you made a good point. MRS. EGGLESTON-I want to make it clear, though. I'm not opposed to your having business. It's just that we have to be sure of the dimensions and do the job properly. MR. HOLL-We went and asked people about what we should do and stuff like that, and this is what they told us to do, and that's why we're here. MR. TURNER-Well, you're almost there. You just didn't get the right lines. That's all. So. just go back and get the information that we need to have. get the correct distance of the house from the property line in front. to the front of the house. MR. PHILO-Let me ask you, were you boys intended on selling stuff off that deck? MR. HOLL-No. That's just a showroom. MR. VACHULA-We're going to make it a handicapped. MR. PHILO-Could you put the deck on the other side of the house? MR. VACHULA-We're trying to keep the business out in front. MRS. EGGLESTON-For visibility. Yes. MRS. RUTH~CHILD-Mr. Chairman, the Planning Department would like to invite these gentlemen down so that we can assist them in designing their business so that it complies with the regulations. I have spoken to Mr. Vachula before. MRS. EGGLESTON-But dimensions. the Planning Board will need specific MRS. RUTHSCHILD-Yes. MR. TURNER-Yes. It's got to be specific. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-Right, and we have the tax map there, and we have everything we'll need. JIM HARTIN 26 -- MR. MARTIN-What I think might be appropriate is to look at this from a clean slate. I mean, if you're talking about the possibility of a building in the back or something like that. I mean, come in and explain what your needs are and we can see what best fits here. MRS. EGGLESTON-That's the Planning Board's expertise. help you do that to the most effective way. They can MR. MARTIN-We don't want to see you go out and get into an expensive design or something like that if you can come in and talk to us. MR. VACHULA-Yes. We'd be more than happy to. MR. PHILO-I think Mr. Martin's got the best idea. MR. TURNER-What I'd like to do is table the application. We can't get you on this month at all. We're filled right up. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 99-1992 PHILLIP VACHULA, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: And the information that is requested is the proper dimensions from the front, the side, and the rear property lines of the existing structures and proposed structures, and the parking, i.e. how many parking spots, what type of material, etc. Duly adopted this 21st day of October, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Paling, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Philo, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE (9:27 p.m.) USE VARIANCE NO. 112-1992 TYPE: UNLISTED MODIFICATION OF USE VAR. NO. 88-1992 HC-1A GROSSMAN'S PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT OWNER: HOSP. MORT. GROUP, INC. AND TRAHSCO REALTY TRUST C/O BAYSHORE ASSOCIATES SOUTH SIDE OF QUAKER ROAD, APPROX. 1,300 FT. WEST OF QUAKER ROAD AND BAY ROAD INTERSECTION PROPOSAL TO RELOCATE AN EXISTING FIVE (5) BAY STORAGE SHED AND CONSTRUCT A CANOPY }'OR COVERED STORAGE OF LUMBER. GROSSMAN'S IS A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE IN A HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL ZONE. BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 105-1-3 LOT SIZE: 2.238+/- ACRES S.I!:C'l'ION 179-23 JOHN RICHARDS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (9:27 p.m.) MRS. EGGLESTON-And the Warren County Planning Board approved. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 112-1992, Grossman's Property Development, October 21, 1992 "The applicant is proposing to reconfigure their parcel by constructing a roof shingle storage shed, a four bay storage shed and a covered lumber storage rack. A use variance is needed for this expansion because it is a light industrial use in a Highway Commercial zone. The property is +2.23 acres located on Quaker Road. The record reveals that the si te received a variance in 1968 to construct a three sided storage building, a variance in 1987 to maintain an existing freestanding sign, and an Area Variance in 1988 for a building addition to the rear and a three sided shed addition. This is an unlisted action and the Board has to do a short form SEQRA prior to a final resolution. This application was reviewed with regard to the criteria for a use variance: 1. Is a reasonable return possible if the land is used as zoned? This is a preexisting nonconforming use. The request is to maximize the potential of the lot while 27 -- affording greater protection for the product sold. It is debatable whether a reasonable return can be made on this site if used as zoned. The bUildings and layout were designed for a functioning lumber yard/building supply center. 2. Are the circumstances of this lot unique and not due to the unreasonableness of the Ordinance? Yes. This use has been in existence for twenty-five years. All the existing structures currently infringe on the setbacks. The lot is triangular in shape and there are developmental limitations because of that. 3. Is there an adverse effect on the neighborhood character? No. The applicant's operation has been at this site for a number of years and this construction would not adversely effect the Quaker Road neighborhood." MR. TURNER-Okay. Mr. Richards. MR. RICHARDS-Good evening, Mr. Turner. My name is John Richards. and I'm the attorney for Grossman's application. Mr. Mark Junta. the Project Manager from Grossman's, is here this evening. and also Thomas Jarrett, the engineer from C.T. Male who is working on this project, is also here, if you have any questions for them. There's no sense in me repeating the application, because I think it's pretty thorough. We were already approved in August. I would only just say that the reason that we're back here is we had a discussion with the Planning Department, and certainly after the variances were received in August, if you recall, back in August, the idea was introduced that we were going to use an auto stack mechanism for the main storage building in the center of the lot there, and that auto stack could be configured in a different location. It's almost smaller than the original canopy structure that was proposed back in August. This Board approved the auto stack, and the auto stack also being set in a different location allowed us to maintain that shed, and there was really no reason to take down a perfectly good 5 bay portion of the shed, and we're asking the Board to allow us to keep that where it is. so we can continue to store materials out of the weather elements. The roof shingle shack is really a new program that the roof shingle supplier for Grossman's just put into effect right after we got the permit. we went through and it was approved by Grossman's as well. It's an open sided canopy structure, with really only a three foot base. It's very minimal as a structure goes, and it's just designed, again, to keep the shingles out of the weather pattern. It's something that the supplier really wants to see on this site. and we'd like to accommodate them of course. MR. TURNER-The last time around the sheds were gone. correct? Is that MR. RICHARDS-The last time around, we had planned to remove. MR. TURNER-Do you have the old drawing? MR. RICHARDS-The only difference is that the 10 bay shed, we're going to reduce it to 5 bay, and now we're saying, let us keep this perfectly good 5 bay portion of the existing shed, since we don't have to move it because the auto stack is in a different location. MR. PHILO-I've got a couple of questions. On this one you're putting in right here, how do you plan to get back here? MR. RICHARDS-First of all, if I could say, there would be no change in any of the traffic flow permeability that was approved in August. but I'm going to defer to Mark Junta, as far as access. MARK JUNTA MR. JUNTA-Good evening. Mr. Turner and members of the Board, my name is Mark Junta. I'm Project Manager for Grossman's at this location. The outline of those buildings that you see there are roof overhangs. The physical structures are actually significantly 28 less than that. and I believe there is a magnitude of a 12 foot overhang beyond the structure. and we've reviewed this with both the Planning and the Fire Departments to ensure that it would meet their criteria and both Building and Fire has been consulted on this. MR. PHILO-Are those slabs going on grade? MR. JUNTA-One of the majors reasons we're back here is because. to answer your question. yes. but we have. MR. PHILO-Because you've got an elevation of 320 on the new one. It looks like the building's going to be set up in the air. MR. JUNTA-I'll have to defer to Tom Jarrett on that, since he is our site engineer. TOM JARRE'l'T MR. JARRETT-The grades immediately above the bUilding. in other words. to the ~ of the building. are 322. and then slope down to 321. and our slab is going to be at 320. So. there's a minimal pitch there. It's not going to be elevated at all. MR. PHILO-This is what I was. because the way you've got the elevations there, at 320. and then. was it. you've got about a two foot rise. the way I looked at it. I was going to say. why have you got that'? MR. JUNTA-I believe we have about a nine inch difference in grade where it's located right now. MR. PHILO-Yes. from what he said. MR. JARRETT-The slab underneath the roof is. basically. at grade. There is a slight pitch to the site. and that's necessary for the fork lift access to the structure. MR. 'rURNER-Yes. MR. SICARD-It's probably on here and I don't see it. On Building Five. the water from the roof. is that directed into sort of a. I see it's called infiltration well. Is that sort of a cistern type situation, on Building Five. the new building. MR. JARRETT-Yes. This central building. the large building? MR. SICARD-Yes. MR. JARRETT-We're proposing to direct down spout drainage into two drywells. one at either end of the new structure. which will infil trate. basically. all stormwater during small storms. and during severe storms those drywells will overflow and follow the existing drainage patterns into the swale along Quaker Road. MR. SICARD-What's the capacity of one of those drywells. just off the top of your head? MR. JARRETT-A little over a thousand gallons. MR. SICARD-A thousand gallons. It won't be directed to that ditch that lies in the rear there. will it? MR. JARRETT-Back here? HR. SICARD-Yes. MR. JARRETT-Not generally. no. The only drainage that would enter that ditch is rainfall falling on the extreme rear portions of the site. Virtually all the site drains forward toward Quaker Road. 29 MR. PHILO-But that swale, you've got a three foot swale coming around that. MR. JARRETT-On the east side of the building? MR. PHILO-Yes. Well, it starts. MR. JARRETT-It starts all the way around here and goes underneath the. MR. PHILO-Yes. MR. JARRETT-That's an existing swale. MR. PHILO-I understand that. Is that going to be enough to take care of that roof area water, without having? MR. JARRETT-There's virtually no change. There won't be any change, to speak of, in drainage volume coming off the site. There's a slight extension of the roof area from this new four bay shed. It's going to extend slightly beyond where the existing pavement is, but a very small area. This new shed, this structure, is located, or will be located over what's now pavement. So, that won't create new runoff. So, virtually the runoff patterns and drainage volumes will be unchanged. MR. PHILO-I'm just looking at a water problem for the neighbors, because now everything is sloped about three or four feet or more than that, maybe five feet down on that back side. MR. JARRETT-This swale, yes. We're not going to change the volume of water in that ditch. MR. RICHARDS-The permeability is actually going to increase. MR. TURNER-Any further questions? Okay, no further questions, I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Any further discussion by the Board? not, a motion's in order. All right. If MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 112-1992 DEVELOPMENT, Introduced by Joyce Eggleston adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: GROSSMAN'S PROPERTY who moved for its And this will be a modification to our Use Variance No. 88-1992, granted on August 26, 1992, and the modification is to allow the retention of the existing northerly half of the 10 bay shed at the westerly boundary of the premises and the construction of a roof shingled rack extending southerly from the main retail sales building. This request for modification is a reasonable request and, as reviewed in our original motion, the merchandise of the applicant needs the protection from the elements for his merchandise that's stored on the property. It's a minimum relief. There would be no adverse effect on facilities or services, and it would not have an impact on the neighborhood. Duly adopted this 21st day of October, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Philo, Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Paling, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE (9:53 p.m.) 30 AREA VARIANCE NO. 113-1992 TYPE II MODIFICATION OF AREA VAR. NO. 89-1992 HC-1A GROSSMAN'S PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT OWNER: HOSP. MORT. GROUP. INC. AND TRANSCO REALTY TRUST C/O BAYSHORE ASSOCIATES SOUTH SIDE OF QUAKER ROAD. APPROX. 1.300 FT. WEST OF QUAKER ROAD AND BAY ROAD INTERSECTION PROPOSAL TO RELOCATE AN EXISTING FIVE (5) BAY STORAGE SHED AND CONSTRUCT A CANOPY FOR COVERED STORAGE OF LUMBER. SIDE CANOPY WILL BE ZERO FEET FROM THE LOT LINE. FIVE BAY SHED WILL BE 6 FEET AND 8 FEET FROM THE SIDE LINES. BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 105-1-3 LOT SIZE: 2.238+/- ACRES SECTION 179-23C JOHN RICHARDS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (9:53 p.m.) MRS. EGGLESTON-The Warren County Planning Board approved. STA:t"F INPU'r Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 113-1992, Grossman's Property Development, Meeting Date: October 21, 1992 "The applicant is proposing to locate a four bay covered storage shed on the rear of the property. The setback on this bUilding will be 13 ft. on the west side and 10 ft. on the east side. This means relief of 7 ft. on the west and 10 ft. on the east to meet the minimum. The sum will still not equal 50 feet. The applicant also proposes to locate a covered roof shingle rack on the rear of the property. This shed will abut the rear of the existing main building. The setback on this shed will be 9 ft. 7 in. on the west side. This means relief of 10 ft. 3 in. to meet the minimum. The setback on the east is not a problem. The sum of the setbacks will be well over 50 ft. Permeability would not appear to be a factor as the applicant has indicated that impermeable surfaces will be removed so that there is no net loss of permeable area. In fact, the site plan shows that permeable space will increase slightly. This is a Type II action and SEQRA need not be addressed. 1. Describe the practical difficulty which does not allow placement of a structure which meets the zoning requirements. The site is triangular and currently all structures are nonconforming. 2. Is this the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficul ty or is there any other option available which would require no variance? The location of the shingle rack and storage shed allows for efficient traffic flow through the site and a decrease in the amount of non-permeable space. Placing the structures more towards the center of the site would hinder traffic flow and might increase the amount of non-permeable space. 3. Would this variance be detrimental to other properties in the district or neighborhood or conflict with the objectives of any plan or policy of the Town? No.4. What are the effects of the variance on pUblic facilities and services? None." MR. TURNER-Mr. Richards, any further comment? MR. RICHARDS-No. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any questions of the applicant in regard to this modification? Okay. I'll open the public hearing, again. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMEN'r PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Motion's in order. MRS. EGGLESTON-Do you agree with all those setbacks, John, that the Staff had, 13 feet on the west side, 10 feet on the east side, etc., etc.? MR. RICHARDS-All the setbacks were set forth in the site plan. We'd certainly rely on those. 31 MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 113-1992 DEVELOPMENT, Introduced by Joyce Eggleston adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: GROSSMAN'S PROPERTY who moved for its And grant a modification to Area Variance No. 89-1992, granted August 26, 1992, and the modification will allow the applicant to locate a four bay covered storage shed on the rear of the property, and grants relief of 7 feet on the westerly line, and 10 feet on the easterly line. This appears to be the minimum relief needed to accommodate the needs of the applicant. This will also grant the applicant the right to locate a covered roof shingled rack on the rear of the property, abutting the rear of the existing main building. It will give relief of 10 feet 3 inches on the south side. Again, this is a minimum request, and will not have an adverse effect on facilities or services, and will help the applicant to alleviate the specified practical difficulty. As discussed in our previous motion, the site is triangular, and currently all structures are nonconforming. Duly adopted this 21st day of October, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Paling, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Philo, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE (10:03 p.m.) MR. 'l'URNER-I' 11 tell you, ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Salvadore called me today in reference to the Parillo application and he indicated to me that he was going to be out of town, out of the area when this application comes up in December, and he wants to request the Board to come up with another date. So, obvious 1 y, that's up to us to decide, but I told him that. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, Ted, when we have the hearing in December, will this be part of the minutes that we'll read, so this will be a pUblic record for the rest of the people to hear, what Mr. Salvadore has to say? MR. TURNER-It's part of the record right now, and it could be attached to that also. MRS. EGGLESTON-So that when we do it, we could just read it as part of the input? MR. TURNER-Well, it's his request to have the date changed because he's got a conflict and he wants to address the issues on the Parillo application. MRS. EGGLESTON-Can I ask a question? Are we doing something here? Are we setting something? MR. TURNER-I don't know. That's a decision that's up to the Board. MRS. EGGLESTON-So that anybody can say to us now, well, I can't make your meeting on December 1st, can I come tonight and give you my criteria. MR. TURNER-I know. I explained that to him today. MRS. EGGLESTON-And then next week are we going to have somebody else who wants to do that when they've heard we've done this. That's my question to the rest of the Board members here. Tom didn't hear it. We're having a meeting December 2nd for the Parillo application. MR. TURNER-To rehear it. MRS. EGGLESTON-And this gentleman can't make that hearing so he wants us to listen to him tonight, and I asked the Board the question. 32 -' JOHN SALVADORE MR. SALVADORE-No, that is not why I'm here. MRS. EGGLESTON-Why are you here? MR. SALVADORE-I am here to request you to reschedule the hearing. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. Can I answer to Mr. Philo first. though. My concern was. if we allow this. would we be saying to other people. if you can't make a meeting. can you come in before us. That's the question I put before us. MR. TURNER-I think the other side of the coin is. what you're going to get an argument on is. the last time. when we first heard it, there was an issue brought up, well. it's too late in the year, all the people that live there are going to be gone, and they won't be able to come to the hearing, and John, go ahead. MR. SALVADORE-I received the Lake George Association Newsletter in the mail about a week ago. I read for the first time that this particular hearing was going to be held on December 2nd. Now. I can understand that if you were hearing this sUbject at one of your regular monthly scheduled meetings, that I would have no business asking you to postpone it, but you have been requested by plaintiffs, defendants. owners, for special meeting. and I think that on that basis. others of us that are effected by the outcome of this and might like to hear the testimony. MR. TURNER-John, I guess. in reference to your remarks that it's a special meeting requested by them, it's a special meeting that was set by this Board to address that one application because of the length of time it's going to take to address the issues that are involved. and that's why it was set that way. MR. SALVADORE-Yes, but there's no question that these people have been playing cat and mouse with this Board, and this Town for over two years on this subject, okay. and you have scheduled and rescheduled. and postponed to accommodate them. I think it's very important that I, as a neighbor in this regard, I'm very. very closely associated and effected by the outcome of this decision. MR. SICARD-I think. while this is true, we still have well over a month to advertise, and maybe it's in someone's mind to do this some time during the month of November. We still have over a month before this meeting takes place. So, it probably is still in the works to be done. I don't know that, but we have a full month and more. It's probably closer to six weeks to do this advertising. So, I think our base is covered with that, as far as I'm concerned. I could be here like everybody else. MR. TURNER-When are you going to be gone, John? MR. SALVADORE-The first two weeks in December. MR. SICARD-I think the special meeting was initiated because of the length of it. It probably wouldn't fit into any of the other schedules we have, like tonight. MR. TURNER-That's the only reason we did it that way, is just because of the length of it. MR. SICARD-There was no intent to bypass anyone or anything like that, but I still believe that we have about six weeks to advertise it. MR. SALVADORE-It's my understanding that this was done in agreement with Mr. Parillo's attorney and the Plaintiff's attorney in this regard, okay. 33 MR. SICARD-Part 01 it was. but most of it came from the Chairman. The Chairman decided that the length of the meeting. and he polled us at that time. should we have a special meeting because it took so long. It would not fit in with our agenda on anything else. MR. SALVADORE-I'm not questioning that decision. MR. SICARD-Well. it wasn't done at the request of Mr. Parillo or anyone else. It was done at the request of the Chairman. He polled us as to whether we would do it or not. If it had been you or anybody else. we would have done the same thing. We weren't favoring anyone. that's what I'm trying to say. We favored oursel ves. if you want to put it that way. because the meeting could last three or four hours. MR. TURNER-Yes. It very well could. MR. SALVADORE-I understand that. but this was done at a meeting at which the public had little knowledge of. MR. SICARD-They still have no knowledge ot it. MR. SALVADORE-The time you set the meeting schedule. December 2nd. MRS. EGGLESTON-That was an advertised meeting that night. so the PUblic could have come to that. MR. PHILO-I read that in the notes. MR. TURNER-John would have received a notice if it was advertised. MR. SALVADORE-As property owners wi thin 50Ø feet. we did not receive notice of that meeting. MR. SICARD-It's still. as I say. six weeks ahead. and none of our advertisements in the paper are that far ahead. MR. SALVADORE-I'm talking about the meeting at which you set this date. We were not. as property owners within 500 feet of that subject. invited to that meeting. MR. SICARD-You still may be. because we've got six weeks to do it. MRS. EGGLESTON-But he can't come that night. is his problem. MR. SICARD-I understand that. but we're discussing that we implied that it was at the pleasure of Mr. Parillo. and it was not. MRS. EGGLESTON-No. MR. SALVADORE-Well. that's all I've heard. that it was at the pleasure of the two attorneys representing them. MR. TURNER-No. I asked them how long it would take them. and I said. is 60 days enough~ Fine. And then we scheduled it according to that. MRS. EGGLESTON-At QY£ schedule. MR. SICARD-We have seven members here that we've got to satisfy. as far as the dates are concerned. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. It was hard to get a consensus on when we all could make it. We're into the month of December and we've got two other meetings that month. and it has to be at the beginning of the month. We can't get into those last two weeks. really. MR. TURNER-And in fairness to everybody. and in fairness to you. John. I've got to say to you that the same thing applies to them. their argument the last time that they had people that couldn't 34 come and testify. MR. SALVADORE-And you postponed. MR. TURNER-No. MRS. EGGLESTON-Mr. Salvadore, you could write a letter, if you couldn't be here, and I'd be glad to read it into the record. MR. TURNER-I explained that. MR. SALVADORE-I wanted to hear the testimony. MR. TURNER-I know, because he wants to respond to it. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. I don't know what we can do. MR. SICARD-In order to reschedule it, Mr. Chairman, you'd have to find out if they're capable of coming that night. MR. TURNER-That's it. You've got to meet everybody. MR. SALVADORE-That's fine. I understand. MR. SICARD-Then you're going to have to poll us. MR. TURNER-Yes. It's up to the Board to decide whether they want to reschedule it. MR. SICARD-I understand that. MR. TURNER-How does everybody feel? MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, what's our regular meetings that month, what's the date? MRS. PALING-The third Wednesday, the 16th. MR. TURNER-The 16th. MRS. EGGLESTON-So, and the first Wednesday's the second. So, the second one would be the ninth. MRS. PALING-But you're out both of those. MR. SALVADORE-I think we return Sunday the 12th. MRS. EGGLESTON-Something like that. MR. TURNER-So, the 9th wouldn't be available. It would have to be. MRS. EGGLESTON-It would have to be the week of our other meetings. MR. SALVADORE-Let me ask, what is at issue, at this point? MR. TURNER-Well, I guess the issue is, we've already scheduled a meeting and. MRS. EGGLESTON-No. What are we going to consider. MR. SALVADORE-No, no. At the meeting, what is at issue? MR. TURNER-We're going to start right from Square One. MR. SALVADORE-That's my concern, starting from scratch. MR. TURNER-That's where we're starting from. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. After two years of pure hell. I don't know if we'll ever see the end of it. 35 MR. SICARD-I think we did schedule that. we were going to start at 7 o'clock that night. too. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. TURNER-Well. lets poll the Board. Charlie? What's your feeling. MR. SICARD-I'm available anytime. I'm glad to come in for something like this because I think this is a very special thing. This isn't an hour meeting. and anytime we have this type of a meeting. length wise. I think we should take advantage of whatever time we've got to do it. because it can be very lengthy. I hate to see it on that month because it looks like we're going to have two other meetings on that month also. MRS. ~GGLESTON-He's going to be gone from the 1st to the 12th. So. it would have to be after. MR. CARVIN-Or before. MI{. 'I'URNER-We can't. They've got until the second to get their paperwork done and get their witnesses and everything here. It they're going out and bring witnesses in that might be out of town. That's another thing. I know the first time around. Charlie. you sat in on it. and Joyce sat in on it. They made the comment that it was late in the season when the meeting was scheduled and they couldn't bring in the people that they wanted to bring in because they were gone. They were just summer residents. They were gone. and I understand his position. but I think. MRS. EGGLESTON-I guess it's. a lot of those people would have liked to have been here. too. that have gone. MR. SALVADORE-If I was present at the meeting where you made this decision. I could have said something. okay. It was held at a time. we were not invited. MR. TURNER-You weren't notified. MR. SALVADORE-If that kind of business was going on and we. as property owners within 500 feet. were not noticed. MRS. EGGLESTON-But that's no different than any other hearing that we have. Mr. Salvadore. Just like Joe Blow comes in here tonight and he's going to have a hearing on the 15th of December. it's in the paper and you get notified. We don't call up the neighbors first and say. is that a convenient night for you. So. it's no different than any other agenda that we set. MR. SALVADORE-Is the 16th of December a regularly scheduled Wednesday night meeting of this Board. monthly meeting? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. but we cannot hear this on. MR. SALVADORE-I'd have no argument if it was in your normal course of scheduling meetings for the Zoning Board of Appeals. MRS. EGGLESTON-But we can do that. It's too much criteria for one night. MR. CARVIN-What about the other folks that are on the docket? We're trying to give as much consideration to this as we can. MR. SALVADORE-I understand. I'm not saying it's easy. but this is a very. very important issue for us. MR. TURNER-Like I told you today. you can send a letter in. but obviously you can't respond. 36 MR. SALVADORE-They're going to bring the experts in. hear them. and I want to respond to them. I want to MR. PHILO-Well. I suggest you be here if the meeting is at this time. If the majority of these people say that they're going to have this meeting. fine. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well. if anybody was to talk to the attorneys and say. we've had a request from Mr. Salvadore to change our night's venue. they're not going to agree to it anyway. MR. SALVADORE-Do they have to agree to it? MRS. EGGLESTON-Well. we've all got to come to a consensus of when we're going to meet. I mean. if they can't come on a night. what are we to do? MR. CARVIN-And then what happens when somebody else up there can't make it on the 15th. We could be moving this thing allover. MR. SALVADORE-I understand that. but that's an obligation I think you have. since this is a Special Meetinq. You're calling a Special Meetinq. MR. TURNER-A Special Meeting only to deal with that because of the length of it. That's the only reason. We couldn't get it into a regular meeting. MR. SALVADORE-You could give them five minutes each at a regular meeting. the way you did the Great Escape. MRS. EGGLESTON-Mr. Salvadore. did you come to the last hearings of this? Now. be reasonable. We had eight people up here and they all said the same thing and they all took a half hour to do it. So. don't say you can give them five minutes. because no way is it going to happen. MR. SALVADORE-I listening to it. that either. understand. and I sat here cooling my heels. It was a waste of mY time. okay. I didn't like MRS. EGGLESTON-I don't know how else you can do that without stepping on people's rights. I mean. they have a right to speak. MR. TURNER-All right. What's the Board's. Tom. yes or no? Do you teel we ought to reschedule it for Mr. Salvadore or not? MR. PHILO-I agree wi th the gentleman next to me. If you go changing it for one. you're going to be changing it for everybody. MR. SICARD-I don't think that's quite true. because this is an unusually lengthy case. and I don't think we've had a special meeting in some time. Our track record is great. We haven't had any special meetings. I think we had one in the last two or three years. So. it isn't something we do all the time. We do this because of the length of this meeting. If we go back to Square One. which they plan on doing. it's going to take three or four hours. anyway. MRS. PALING-Can you change your plans? MR. SALVADORE-At great expense and inconvenience. Yes. Nothing's impossible. MRS. EGGLESTON-See. now. if we put it off a month. Charlie's going to be gone. So. we're back to. and you get after the first of the year and people are gone on vacations. and when you're down on the Board number. It's hard to say that we would. 37 MR. CARVIN-I'm against it. I think we should leave it the way we have it. MRS. EGGLESTON-I'll stay with the same thing. don't know how we can change it. I'm sorry. but I MR. TURNER-Charlie. honor the date of the meeting or not honor it? MR. SICARD-Well. I said I was available for any other date. MR. TURNER-Yes. but I don't know when that's going to be. If we put it off now. it's already scheduled. and I ike I told you. I understand where he's coming from. but we've already committed ourselves. MR. SICARD-So. if we can't do it. then we can't do it. That's all. MR. TURNER-If something happens where they can't make it. then it will be rescheduled. MR. SICARD-Let me ask you this. are you agreeable to polling their attorneys and see if they can come at a different date? MR. TURNER-Yes. We'd have to get a consensus from both attorneys. whether they want to put it off or not. MRS. EGGLESTON-And the Town Attorney. MR. TURNER-And the Town Attorney. MR. SICARD-The Town Attorney and the Board. and then that you can't do it. that it's impossible to do it. John will probably be more receptive to that answer. do it. we can't do the impossible. you'll know and I think If we can't MR. TURNER-Well. I've got to go back to what I said before. the first time around. They made the statement. our people are gone. They can't come here and testify. MRS. EGGLESTON-Ted. are we taking a vote? MR. TURNER-I'm trying to get his vote. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. He said we don't change the date. He said we don't change the date. I said. you vote. MR. SICARD-If you can't change the date. then I would vote not to change the vote. I guess. MR. THOMAS-Honor the date. MRS. PALING-Honor the date. MR. TURNER-Okay. Honor the date. GENTLEMAN IN AUDIENCE-Can I ask a question? discussed as to the Great Escape tonight? Was there anything MR. TURNER-Yes. GENTLEMAN IN AUDIENCE-I wasn't here when they came. MR. TURNER-All right. What they did was they took the testimony. and we reserved decision on it. GENTLEMAN IN AUDIENCE-I received a letter in the mail that indicated that oft time things are developed at the Great Escape without consultation. and then they're presented a~ter the fact. and this is what we were interested in. 38 MR. TURNER-Right. This was over whether site plan review was required for that pool or not. That's what that was about. GENTLEMAN IN AUDIENCE-Yes. sir. We're residents of Glen Lake and we're concerned about that. We're concerned about what happens with the environment. and some of the things. and we know from the past that oft times in the Great Escape things are done, and then they come in after the fact and present things. MR. TURNER-Well. the project's all done, the project that they're questioning. They got a building permit. but the question is. was site plan review required or not. That's the question. So. that's the decision this Board has to make. GENTLEMAN IN AUDIENCE-This is very much our concern because we're in the ar~a. It's not that we're opposed to developments. This is not the case. We came more or less out of interest, to find out if the proper procedures were carried out. because we don't want to see projects put in that might be a very serious detriment. and then be decided afterwards. This is our concern. MH.. 'l'URNER-Okay. but they've taken all the testimony. and then they're going to. there's no decision made yet. GENTLEMAN IN THE AUDIENCE-Did they get consent from the Town Board? MR. TURNER-They got a building permit from the Building Department to construct it. Thank you for your comments. MRS. EGGLESTON-Ted, can I just say for a minute. for all of you. The problem with the minutes. I went back and did a recap of our meetings. and if all the minutes had been approved. and Maria and I have still got a couple to work out. we know that May 20th. May 27th. and June 10th were not done. and April 30th. and I'm going to ask Maria to check our March 25th and March 18th. and February. because I don't show those either. Maria. Once she determines that. we could go back and do those older ones. I would say. for tonight. if everybody's prepared. we could do July and August. if you people brought your minutes. and are you remembering that once you get the minutes. you have to read them over and look for corrections or anything that's wrong. everybody? So. is everybody prepared for July 22nd, July 29th, August 19th, and August 26th? Everybody ready? CORRECTION OF MINUTES July 22nd, 1992: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 22ND. 1992. Introduced by Charles Sicard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: Duly adopted this 21st day of October, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston. Mrs. Paling, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Turner ABSTAINED: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Philo NOES: NONE July 29th, 1992: NONE MOTION TO APFROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 29TH. 1992, Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption. seconded by Theodore 'furner: Duly adopted this 21st day of October, 1992. by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Eggleston. Mrs. Paling. Mr. Carvin. Mr. Turner 39 NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Thomas. Mr. Sicard. Mr. Philo August 19th: Page 1. just above the Public Hearing Open paragraph, the sentence. We left the public hearing. sib open. MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 19th. 1992. AS CORRECTED, Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: Duly adopted this 21st day of October, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Paling, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Philo August 26th, 1992: Page 27, half way down the page, paragraph by Mrs. Eggleston, I doesn't make for a healthy neighborhood, sib it doesn't make for a healthy neighborhood; Page 28, Motion to approve Use Variance John Shaw. fourth line, and forbids the storage, sib of or, use of MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 26TH. 1992 AS CORRECTED, Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: Duly adopted this 21st day of October. 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carvin. Mrs. Eggleston. Mrs. Paling, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Philo. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE MR. TURNER-Jim, there's about three things you ought to look into. You ought to look into the application of Bulger at Glen Lake. He was supposed to come back and he never came back. MR. MARTIN-The application of who? MR. TURNER-Timothy Bulger. Walker, at Pilot Knob. and last winter we had an application from a Mr. Tyll, and the last time I knew, that was headed for court. and I don't know where it's gone or what's happened to it, and that's up on the Hanniford Road. That's a deck. MR. MARTIN-Were these use variances, area, or what? MR. TURNER-That's an area variance. Tyll's. MRS. EGGLESTON-Bulger was area. MR. TURNER-Bulger was area, and so was Walker. MR. MARTIN-All area variances. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. TURNER-Yes. Now. they're supposed to come back. Bulger. Tyll was supposed to come back in the spring. He never came back, and the last time, before Pat got done. she said they were supposed to go to court over that. and I never heard anything more about it. MR. PHILO-If we need any information at all. he says come in. This is going to be a little different than Parisi. 40 MR. MARTIN-Right. What I'd like to suggest. and I'm going to do this also for the Planning Board. due to the fact that we have so many members on each of these Boards. is that we have a special meeting in the near future. in the next month or two. just for the sole purpose of a true workshop session. going through what is the mandate of a Zoning Board of Appeals and just answering any questions ~have. because I think we're in a nice position. here. the 'rown has gone to a great expense and a great commitment to provide full time staff to the community and to these Boards. and we're here to be utilized by you. and to any extent that we can answer any of your questions or provide a perspective as to what a Zoning Board of Appeals should do. and Planning Board for the Planning Board. that's what we're here for. and I found that as a lay-person on the Planning Board. myself. previously. You just get handed an Ordinance and attend the next meeting. and that's it. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. MARTIN-And that gives you very little idea. MR. TURNER-It's definitely a learning process. MR. MARTIN-Right. Ted's been at it for so long. now. and Joyce. baptism under fire. here. over the years. they've developed a perspective on this. but for the new people. that we have the staff here available to you. it's the least we can do. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well. it's good to know. MR. PHILO-We have some photostatic copies of this Parillo case. and 1 think Mr. Thomas. and I have read. I've got about nine days in on it just trying to cover everything. and I just finished it. MR. SICARD-That's what this special meeting will do. MR. MARTIN-And the other thing I think you ought to do is update the sheets in the Ordinance that need to be updated. We got some of them. but like the new updating on the minor subdivision and things like that. MR. MARTIN-I think that's in the works through the Clerk's Office. but I think it takes a while to get a printed copy from the Codification people. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-As far as scheduling Special Meetings. the Chairman. at his discretion. can schedule Special Meetings. as long as the public is properly noticed in the paper. I did it all the time as Chairman of the Planning Board. I refused to take a large project and put them on a regular agenda. Either you deal with them early and you're unfair to the minor issues. waiting around all night. or if you put them on late. after you've done all the minor issues. by the time 10 or 11 o'clock rolls around. you'll say yes to anything. MRS. EGGLESTON-That's what I mean. Yes. MR. TURNER-Okay. while everybody's here. I'd like to just raise one point. and this is on the Parillo hearing. the one we are having the special meeting on. I'm going to adjourn it at 11 o'clock. I'm going to cut it off at 11 0' clock. We're not going until midnight. I'll announce it at the beginning of the meeting. and I'll tell the attorneys right up front. and you might want to drop them a note that they will be cut off at 11 o'clock. We're not going to hear it beyond that. I think this is an important case. and I think we hadn't ought to stretch our limits out on this. and stay here until midnight. MR. MARTIN-You set the meeting for Wednesday. December 2nd? 41 MR. TURNER-December 2nd. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Theodore Turner. Chairman 42