Loading...
1993-03-17 ORIGINAL --,' QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING MARCH 17TH. 1993 INDEX Area Variance No. 8-1993 John L. Polk, Jr. l. Area Variance No. 9-1993 Douglas Petroski 6. Sign Variance No. 12-1993 Steinbach 1l. Area Variance No. 13-1993 Douglas B. Smith 16. Use Variance No. 14-1993 Leemilt's/Getty Petroleum 3l. Corp. Area Variance No. 15-1993 Gert & Evelyn Schulze 48. 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 MARCH 17TH, 1993 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN JOYCE EGGLESTON, SECRETARY FRED CARVIN THOMAS PHILO CHRIS THOMAS ROBERT KARPELES MEMBERS ABSENT MARIE PALING EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN PLANNER-ARLYNE RUTHSCHILD STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TURNER-Before we start on with the agenda, Mr. Dusek would like to address the Board on some issues. PAUL DUSEK MR. DUSEK-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to advise you, in the matter of Ireland and Lake George Association against the Zoning Board of Appeals, the court has decided that case in your favor. The decision just came out this past Monday. So that means that your decision that you made in that case was upheld completely. If you wanted to get into a further discussion of the merits of the decision, or looking into, in more depth, the legali ties and whatnot, my advise would be an Executive Session meeting on that, at your convenience, because the case is still subject to final orders, and possible appeals. So I would recommend that you do that in Executive Session, as opposed to 'talking publicly about it, but at least so you know, your decision was upheld. MRS. EGGLESTON-That was by Judge Dier? MR. DUSEK-Judge Dier, yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Great. MR. TURNER-I think we'll take it up under Executive Session. MR. DUSEK-Okay. When you want to do that sometime, let me know. MR. TURNER-All right. We'll let you know. MR. PHILO-Thank you, Paul. MRS. EGGLESTON-Thank you, Paul. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 8-1993 TYPE I WR-1A CEA CROSS REF. SUB. NO. 5-1993 SKETCH PLAN JOHN L. POLK, JR. OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE EAST SIDE OF ASSEMBLY POINT. PROPERTY LIES JUST EAST OF ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD, ON THE EAST SIDE ON CANAL BAY AND HARRIS BAY APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A TWO (2) LOT SUBDIVISION WHICH WILL RESULT IN TWO PRINCIPAL BUILDINGS ON THE WESTERLY LOT AND UNDERSIZED ROAD FRONTAGE ON THE EASTERLY LOT. PRINCIPAL BUILDINGS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES REQUIRE NO MORE THAN ONE (1) PRINCIPAL BUILDING ON ANY SINGLE LOT LESS THAN TWO ( 2 ) ACRES. APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TWO ( 2 ) PRINCIPAL BUILDINGS (EXISTING) ON THE WESTERLY LOT. APPLICANT IS - 1 - SEEKING RELIEF FROM ONE (1) PRINCIPAL BUILDING REQUIREMENT. REQUIRED TOWN ROAD FRONTAGE IS FORTY (40) FEET. APPLICANT IS PROPOSING ROAD FRONTAGE OF SEVENTEEN AND ONE-ONE HUNDREDTHS (17.01) FEET FOR THE EASTERLY LOT. APPLICANT IS SEEKING RELIEF OF TWENTY- TWO AND NINETY-NINE HUNDREDTHS (22.99) FEET. REQUIRED SHORELINE SETBACK IS SEVENTY-FIVE (75) FEET. EXISTING SHORELINE SETBACK FOR STRUCTURE ON PARCEL ONE (1) IS THIRTY-THREE AND SEVENTY-FIVE HUNDREDTHS (33.75) FEET ON THE WESTERLY SIDE AND FIFTEEN (15) FEET ON THE EASTERLY SIDE. APPLICANT IS SEEKING RELIEF OF FORTY-ONE AND TWENTY-FIVE HUNDREDTHS (41.25) FEET AND SIXTY (60) FEET RESPECTIVELY. EXISTING SHORELINE SETBACK ON PARCEL TWO (2) IS FIFTY-ONE (51) FEET FOR THE WESTERLY STRUCTURE AND FORTY-SEVEN (47) FEET FOR THE EASTERLY STRUCTURE. APPLICANT IS SEEKING RELIEF OF TWENTY-FOUR (24) FEET AND TWENTY-EIGHT (28) FEET RESPECTIVELY. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) (ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY) TAX MAP NO. 6- 3-1 LOT SIZE: 2.14 ACRES SECTION 179-70(A). 179-12(C)(5) SECTION 179-60(B)(15)(C) MARTIN AUFFREDOU, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. EGGLESTON-The Warren County Planning Board approved. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 8-1993, John L. Polk, Jr., Meeting Date: March 17, 1993 "SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing a two (2) lot subdivision, which will result in one parcel with two (2) principal buildings and one parcel with an undersized road frontage. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: 1. Density for single family homes require that there be no more than one (1) principal building on any single lot less than two (2) acres in size as per Section 179-12B (5) . Applicant is proposing two principal buildings (existing) on a one (1) acre parcel (westerly parcel). Applicant is seeking relief of one (1) acre. 2. Required Town road frontage is forty (40) feet as per Section 179-70(A). Applicant is proposing road frontage of seventeen and one-one hundredths (17.01) feet for the easterly lot. Applicant is requesting relief of twenty-two and ninety-nine hundredths (22.99) feet. 3. Existing shoreline setback on Parcell is fifty-one (51) feet for the westerly structure and forty-seven (47) feet for the easterly structure. Applicant is seeking relief of twenty-four (24) feet and twenty-eight (28) feet respectively. 4. Existing shoreline setback for existing structure on parcel 2 is approximately nineteen (19) feet on the northwest corner of the structure and fifteen (15) feet on the northeast corner of the structure. Applicant is seeking relief of fifty-six (56) feet and sixty (60) feet respective 1 y, from Section 179- 60 (B) ( 1) (c) which requires seventy-five (75) feet shoreline setback. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. DESCRIBE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW PLACEMENT OF A STRUCTURE WHICH MEETS THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS. The practical difficulty arises in attempting to create a two (2) lot subdivision the three preexisting structures on the two (2) parcels become noncompliant with setback, density and road frontage regulations. 2. IS THIS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NECESSARY TO ALLEVIATE THE SPECIFIC PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY OR IS THERE ANY OTHER OPTION AVAILABLE WHICH WOULD REQUIRE NO VARIANCE? It would appear that the minimum variance would be necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty as structures are preexisting and as a result of the two (2) lot subdivision, become noncompliant regarding road frontage, shoreline setbacks and principal building requirements. Additionally. this situation limits any option that would require no variance. 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? It would appear that the relief for the setbacks and principal building requirement would not be detrimental to other properties in the district or neighborhood or conflict with any plan or policy of the Town and although the parcells) and structures are preexisting and nonconforming to the current zoning requirements, they are consistent in character with other seasonal dwellings in the - 2 - --- neighborhood or district. The question of the impact on the neighborhood or the district of the relief for Town road frontage will be discussed in the Section on "Staff Comments and Concerns". 4. WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF THE VARIANCE ON PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES? It would appear that there would be no effect on public facili ties and services. 5. IS THIS REQUEST THE MINIMUM RELIEF NECESSARY TO ALLEVIATE THE SPECIFIED PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY? It would appear that the relief requested would be the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: Staff requested information from the Town of Queensbury F ire Marshal. Mr. Kip Grant. regarding any concerns he might have regarding the undersized road frontage on the easterly lot as it relates to the adequate access for emergency vehicles, and a verbal message was relayed to the Town from Mr. Larry Fischer, Chief of the North Queensbury Volunteer Fire Company, that he finds no objection to the Polk subdivision as per the map furnished to him regarding the proposed road frontage. (Memorandum is included in the packet)." MRS. EGGLESTON-And then there is a message given to David Hatin from Larry Fischer, Chief of the North Queensbury Volunteer Fire Company. this date, "The North Queensbury Volunteer Fire Company finds no objections to the Polk Subdivision, as per map furnished by Town of Queensbury." MR. TURNER-Okay. This was a Type I Action. So this required the review of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and we have the resolution here showing a negative declaration, and I would move to adopt that. MOTION TO ADOPT THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FROM THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING DEPARTMENT, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: Duly adopted this 17th day of March, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Philo, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Paling MR. TURNER-All right. With that done, Mr. Auffredou. MR. AUFFREDOU-Mr. Chairman, Members. thank you very much. My name is Martin Auffredou. an associate with Barlett, Pontiff Law Firm in Glens Falls, here on behalf of the applicant. John Polk. I know almost all of you are very familiar with this application. There was a similar one before you back in the fall, a three lot subdivision. You had expressed some legitimate concerns, obvious concerns, back then. At that point you told us, why don't you take another look at this, and come back, maybe with a two lot subdivision. and we'll t~e a look at it. It's certainly something that the Board would consider in a more favorable light at that time. We've done that. We think we've addressed all the concerns that have been raised. The point that I've made a number of times before you, and I'll just make it one more time for the record, is we I re just not doing anything with this property. other than creating conforming lots. We're not building anything. We're not adding anything. We're just creating two conforming lots, and it's always been the applicant's position that we're not creating any nonconformi ties. Your Staff has indicated that we are creating problems for shoreline setbacks, a number of variances that are required. It's our position that that's fine. We don't have a problem with that. if that's their position, but we really don't feel we're creating any nonconformi ties. These structures have existed for a long time. The mere fact that we're creating a subdivision, creating conforming lots, does not necessarily mean that we now put all these buildings, nonconforming for the purpose - 3 - of the Ordinance, and require variances from the shoreline and variances from the principal building requirements. If that were the case, then we're in violation of the Ordinance right now, and I suggest to you that we're not. I suggest to you that we are in compliance with the Ordinance because we're grandfathered. So, it's our position that the only variance that is necessary is a variance from the road frontage requirement. However, if you are inclined to agree with Staff, we don't have any major objections to that, because we think that, and we agree with Staff that we've demonstrated that this is the minimum variance that is necessary to alleviate what we've stated is our hardship, and we would ask you to consider that our position, and of course we'd ask you to grant the variance. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any questions? MR. THOMAS-The leachfield and septic system that's shown on this map, does that exist now? MR. AUFFREDOU-Yes, it does. We have, I have with me tonight, certif icate s or pe rmi ts, if you wi ll, signed by Dave Hatin, for all three of the septic systems that are in existence. The two systems, there are two systems with one leachfield for the smaller cottages, have five year permits for the maximum allowed for Code. The larger cottage has a three year interim permit, which is under Lake George Park law and your regulations, essentially means that the applicant has three years to bring that system up to Code, but they are in existence, and they all fully permitted. I have the permits here, Mr. Thomas, if you'd like to take a look at them. MR. THOMAS-No. I'll take your word for it. MR. TURNER-Anyone else? MR. PHILO-Where is the septic tank for the third house, the main house? MR. AUFFREDOU-The septic tank for the, it's not shown on the map. It comes out into this area here, and then it drains into the septic leachfield. These are 1,0Ø0 gallon tanks. I would point out that there is a 2, Ø0Ø gallon tank that services the larger cottage. MR. PHILO-Yes, but doesn't that hook into the, on the other lot? MR. AUFFREDOU-No. gallon tank. This is the leachfield, here, for the 2,ØØØ MR. TURNER-It's back in here. MR. PHILO-What's going to happen when you, those camps are deteriorated quite a bit, the structure of them. You take, for example, the fire place and the chimneys are strapped together at the present time. MR. AUFFREDOU-I know you've been up there. That was a concern that you raised back in the fall. I think this is a point that the applicant is trying to make in his application. With the assessment of the property, and I can tell you, the 527 assessment doesn't exist anymore. It's gone up quite a bit. I think he's up around $800, Ø00 now. So, he's even got a further financial hardship. MR. PHILO-So, what I'm saying is, they're on stilts now, these two cabins, piers. MR. AUFFREDOU-I believe they are, and that's the way that they would be sold. He doesn't plan to make any renovations to them. MR. PHILO-So what's going to happen when the person comes in? Are - 4 - -' they going to have to stay with the existing size building? MR. AUFFREDOU-Well. if you have a conforming lot. those structures, it is conceivable that those structures could be removed, and a single family residence could be put in there. MR. PHILO-That wouldn't be a conforming lot. MR. AUFFREDOU-Yes, it would. That's an acre lot. MR. PHILO-Yes, but you have two buildings on an acre. too. MR. AUFFREDOU-An owner could remove those two structures and build a single family residence. MR. PHILO-That's what I'm saying. MR. TURNER-Yes. I think what he's talking about, he's relating to the two buildings, what happens to one of the buildings if the owner wants to rebuild? He can rebuild on the footprint, but if he wants to build any bigger than that, he has to come here. MR. AUFFREDOU-That's right, for a variance application, and I think what the Chairman's alluding to is the is the APA law, which would certainly permit the future owner to rebuild on the footprint. Any expansion would be a further nonconforming, which would require a variance. MR. TURNER-Yes. That's the protection you've got. He can rebuild on what's there. He can tear it right down and build on the existing footprint. Okay. Any further questions? Okay. Let me open the public hearing, then. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Does the Board want to discuss any of the merits of the case? MR. CARVIN-I think this plan is preferably better than the other one. The only I question I have, and I think you've addressed that, Ted, is, as these two cottages deteriorate, could somebody just rebui ld the two cottage s, I guess, in the same footprint. without combining them, but any expansion beyond that would have to come to us. I can't imagine anybody continuing to keep two small cottages. If they're going to spend that kind of money for an acre of land up there. MR. AUFFREDOU-I agree wholeheartedly. I don't think that that's a realistic expectation. MR. CARVIN-I don't think so either. problem with this, Ted. So, I really don't have a MR. TURNER-Okay. Lets move it. Motion's in order. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 8-1993 JOHN L. POLK. JR.. Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: That we grant relief of one acre from the guidelines of Section 179-12B(5). with regard to the density for single family homes. requiring that there be no more than one principal building on any single lot less than two acres. I also move that we grant relief of 22.99 feet from the required Town road frontage of 40 feet per Section 179-70A. I also move that we grant relief of 24 feet for Parcel Number One, so designated by the map, and 28 feet for the - 5 - ',- westerly structure, designated Parcel Two, from the existing shoreline setbacks. I also move that we grant relief of 56 feet for Parcel Number One, and 60 feet for Parcel Number Two, from Section 179-60B(1)(c), which requires 75 feet shoreline setback. The practical difficulty with these two parcels arises in attempting to create a two lot subdivision containing three preexisting structures. This would appear to be the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the specific practical difficulty, as the structures are preexisting, and as a result have become noncompliant regarding the road frontage, shoreline setbacks, and principal building requirements, if this variance is not granted. By granting this variance, it does not appear to be detrimental to any of the other properties in the district or neighborhood or conflict with any plans or policies of the Town. There has been no public opposition. It would also appear that it would have no effect on public facili ties or services, and again, this would appear to be the minimum relief required to alleviate the specified practical difficulty. Duly adopted this 17th day of March, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Philo, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Paling MR. AUFFREDOU-I'd like to commend the Staff. As is the usual case, they've left no stone unturned. My hat's off to them. Thank you. MR. TURNER-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-1993 TYPE II WR-1A CEA CROSS REF. SITE PLAN NO. 8-93 DOUGLAS PETROSKI OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE FITZGERALD ROAD, GLEN LAKE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO EXPAND A NONCONFORMING SEASONAL STRUCTURE BY THE ADDITION OF A SCREENED-IN PORCH TO THE EAST OF THE STRUCTURE. REQUIRED SHORELINE SETBACK IS SEVENTY-FIVE (75) FEET. APPLICANT IS PROPOSING THIRTY-ONE (31) FEET FOR THE SHORELINE SETBACK. APPLICANT IS SEEKING RELIEF OF FORTY-FOUR (44) FEET. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 41-1-17 LOT SIZE: 0.434 ACRES SECTION 179-70B(1)(c) DANIEL BARBER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. EGGLESTON-The Warren County Planning Board approved. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 9-1993, Douglas Petroski, "SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to expand a preexisting nonconforming structure by the addition of a 12 by 12 foot screened-in porch to the east side of existing seasonal residence. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: The required shoreline setback is seventy-five (75) feet. Applicant is proposing a shoreline setback of thirty-one (31) feet. Applicant is seeking forty-four (44) feet of relief. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. DESCRIBE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW PLACEMENT OF A STRUCTURE WHICH MEETS THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS. The practical difficulty is the existing seasonal structure is nonconforming in the shoreline setback, and the only practical place to expand this structure with a screened-in porch intrudes into the required shoreline setback. IS THIS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NECESSARY TO ALLEVIATE THE SPECIFIC PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY OR IS THERE ANY OTHER OPTION AVAILABLE WHICH WOULD REQUIRE NO VARIANCE? It would appear that the minimum variance is necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty of the expansion of a nonconforming structure intruding into the shoreline setback requirement, and there appears not to be any practical option for siting the expansion without a variance. 3. WOULD THIS VARIANCE BE DETRIMENTAL TO OTHER - 6 - PROPERTIES IN THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD OR CONFLICT WITH THE OBJECTIVES OF ANY PLAN OR POLICY OF THE TOWN? It would appear that the variance would not be detrimental to other properties in the district or neighborhood as the project is consistent wi th the character of other seasonal dwellings. 4. WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF THE VARIANCE ON PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES? It would appear that the variance would not effect public facilities or services." MR. TURNER-Okay. Mr. Barber. MR. BARBER-My name is Daniel Barber for Dr. Petroski. Do you want to see the map? MR. TURNER-Yes. I think that would be a good idea. MR. CARVIN-So, we'd be to the east here. MR. BARBER-Yes, there's a stairway, as the drawing shows. MRS. EGGLESTON-Is it right next to Herbie Kane's house? MR. BARBER-Yes. Herbie's over here, just two dwellings down, three dwellings over. MRS. EGGLESTON-Going out Fitzgerald Road? MR. BARBER-He's towards the west, back here. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. Okay. MR. CARVIN-Is there a dock there now? MR. BARBER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Is this an existing dock? MR. BARBER-Yes, right here. MR. KARPELES-The porch is going where, right in here, right? MR. BARBER-Yes. It's on the layout here. It's right here where the stairs are. The stairs will come down and be in line with the house. The stairs will come into it, actually, and the porch will be, which fits right in that alcove there. MR. KARPELES-It's very steep in there, right? MR. BARBER-Yes. Well, this one spot here, though, is all leveled off, 12 feet and 12 feet isn't a distance that would amount to much, as far as grade. MR. CARVIN-Is that an existing patio? MR. BARBER-Yes. This is all existing here. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So this is the existing plan? MR. BARBER-Yes. The layout is right there. MRS. EGGLESTON-Danny, what is the nearest point now from the shoreline, what is the footage? I think the patio is part of the, it has to be part of the structure. MR. BARBER-Okay, but it's not, it's something that's not used. It's something that was there way back when, but this is part of the new structure, here, which was put up in 1985, the deck. MRS. EGGLESTON-So what are the distances here? your distances. You haven't got - 7 - MR. TURNER-The porch is 31. The front porch is 31 feet. MR. BARBER-Yes. Thirty-one feet to the. MR. CARVIN-There's nothing to the water here. MRS. EGGLESTON-But we're not supposed to do that for them. They're supposed to have that on their maps, so that we're readily. MR. BARBER-I do have it from here to the porch, you see. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, but not from the existing structure. MR. BARBER-If I have a scale, we can do it. I do have it right there. It's about 16 feet. MR. TURNER-You've got 31 feet right there. MRS. EGGLESTON-From the existing structure, and there's a patio in front of that deck, too. MR. TURNER-Here? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. BARBER-But we don't consider that. MRS. EGGLESTON-Do you consider the patio part of it? MR. TURNER-Not if it's on the ground. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. BARBER-It's on the ground. There's no wood there or anything. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. TURNER-When this was done in '85, this deck? MR. BARBER-That was put on in '85, yes, that deck was. MR. PHILO-That's right on the ground though, right? MR. BARBER-Not the deck. The deck is elevated. MR. TURNER-What's the reason, then, for this one? If you've got this deck here, why this one? MR. BARBER-That's a screened-in porch. MR. TURNER-That's an open deck? MR. BARBER-That's an open deck. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. PHILO-What are you going to frame this out of? MR. BARBER-It will just be a screened-in porch, treated lumber. MR. PHILO-No windows or anything? MR. BARBER-No. Just screen. MR. TURNER-This deck here, I know they got a variance in '85. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. TURNER-I remember it. This deck came when he got the other variance, all right. Now, this is an open deck, whereas this is a - 8 - screened-in porch. MRS. EGGLESTON-I just was wondering what his current distance was from the other. MR. TURNER-I'll bet it's not more than 15 feet. MR. BARBER-It's in that area. We've got 31 here. MR. TURNER-You've got 31 here, and that's 12. ¥~. ~~1f.~EIl9T~~~ti~x1iclr~?t here, and we've got 31. So it would be MR. CARVIN-Do you know if he uses this as a rental, or as a residence? MR. BARBER-I think he uses it as rental, that's correct. MR. TURNER-It's a rental? MR. BARBER-Yes. MR. TURNER-It seems to me when he first presented the application in '85 he was going to live there. MR. BARBER-He lives in the house to the west, two buildings to the west. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. BARBER-This here was bought here just last year. So, this has been a contingency at that time. This was owned by a LaPoint, Ed LaPoint at that time. MR. TURNER-This house here? MR. BARBER-That's correct. MR. BARBER-It's a summer rental. moment, in the winter time. It's not being rented at the MR. TURNER-So this will exit out of the living room, is that correct? MR. BARBER-Yes. That's correct. MRS. EGGLESTON-Why couldn't the upper deck be screened-in, if he wants a screened-in porch? MR. BARBER-That's what he wants. then the open unit. He wants that on the side and MR. TURNER-Any further questions of Mr. Barber? Okay. the public hearing. I'll open PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE MRS. EGGLESTON-A letter from Herbert & Margaret Kane, "We acknowledge receipt of the Notice of Hearing on Variance No. 9-1993 to be he ld on February 17, 1993. We are ne ighbors of the applicant, Douglas Petroski, and are familiar with his requested expansion. We have no objections to the granting of this variance." - 9 - -' MR. TURNER-Is that it? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. That's the only one. MR. TURNER-Any further discussion? order. None? Okay. Motion's in MRS. EGGLESTON-How long as he owned this? MR. BARBER-One year. MR. TURNER-Dan, is this going to be built so that maybe later on down the road this would be, you could enclose this in and make it an addition rather than a porch? MR. BARBER-It's not intended. MR. PHILO-It's just going to be on piers anyway, right? MR. BARBER-Yes. Correct. No facilities there at all. MR. CARVIN-Do you know if the cabin is winterized by any chance? MR. BARBER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-It is winterized? MR. BARBER-Yes, totally winterized. MR. PHILO-Didn't you originally build that for Dr. LaPoint? MR. BARBER-Yes. Well, it was a burned down structure, and we did it in '85, yes, and did it over again. MRS. EGGLESTON-Danny, do you know what the rental is on this particular piece of property, the rental fee? MR. BARBER-It's seasonal rental. month, $600, I think, a week. I'm not sure what it is per MRS. EGGLESTON-$600 a week? MR. BARBER-Yes. MR. TURNER-This is going to be a seasonal rental? It's winterized? MR. BARBER-We the LaPo int, business. He rented at the winterized it. but Petroski does it in the moment. It has been rented in the past under doesn't want to be in the rental summer, as it is now. It's not being MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-1993 DOUGLAS PETROSKI, Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: And this will grant relief of 44 feet from the shoreline setback, which is a requirement of 75 feet. The proposed screened-in porch will not intrude on the shoreline any more than the existing structure. As a matter of fact, it will be less of an infringement on the shoreline. The variance would not be detrimental to other properties in the area. The practical difficulty being it is a small, preexisting and nonconforming structure with limited places for expansion. There's no neighborhood oPPosition to this request, and it would appear that there would be no effects on public facilities and services. Duly adopted this 17th day of March, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Philo, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner - 10 - NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Paling NEW BUSINESS: SIGN VARIANCE NO. 12-1993 TYPE: UNLISTED PC-1A STEINBACH OWNER: NORTHWAY PLAZA ASSOCIATES LOCATION: ROUTE 9. NORTH OF QUAKER ROAD INTERSECTION ON THE RIGHT. APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO ADD A TWO SIDED SIGN, DENOTING THE NAME OF A RETAIL STORE, TO AN EXISTING PYLON SIGN STRUCTURE IN A SHOPPING CENTER AND IS SEEKING ~¡~è~;Aøb\~ sï~RTß~'OTiA!-jRJi )di )SHol!\i\1lG BE1\,nl'f,iE ~,~ wÁf.L SIGN FOR EACH TE}¡ANT OF THE SHOPPING CENTER. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NUMBER: 72-7-4 LOT SIZE: N/A SIGN ORDINANCE SECTION 140-6-B(3)(d) MIKE GORHAM, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 12-1993, Steinbach, Meeting Date: March 17, 1993 "SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to add a two (2) sided sign, denoting the name of an existing retail store (Steinbach), to an existing pylon sign structure in a shopping center. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: Applicant is proposing to add a two sided sign denoting name of their retail store to an existing pylon sign structure in a shopping center and is seeking relief from Section 140-6-B(3)(D), which limits signs in a shopping center to one (1) freestanding sign, denoting the name of the shopping center and one (1) wall sign for each occupant of said shopping center. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. ARE THERE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS APPLYING TO THE LAND OR SIGNS WHICH DO NOT APPLY GENERALLY TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD? Applicant has not fully addressed this question, but it would appear that there are no special circumstances or conditions applying to the display of the applicant's existing wall sign in this shopping center that does not apply to other tenants in the same shopping center. 2. IS REASONABLE USE OF THE LAND OR SIGN POSSIBLE IF THE ORDINANCE IS COMPLIED WITH? It would appear that reasonable use of the existing wall sign is possible as all other tenants in the shopping center are complying with the Ordinance, and although the applicant does not believe that reasonable use of the sign is possible if the Ordinance is complied with, he does not defend his position in the application. 3. IS THERE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER OR FACILITIES? Applicant believes that there would be no adverse effect on the neighborhood character or facilities, but does not address the question as to why the applicant should be the only tenant in the shopping center with a sign attached to the shopping center's pylon. 4. ARE THERE ANY FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES? Applicant does not believe that there are any feasible alternatives, but does not explain why their existing wall sign is not adequate for their signage needs. 5. IS THE DEGREE OF CHANGE SUBSTANTIAL RELATIVE TO THE ORDINANCE? The degree of change is one hundred (100) percent as the applicant is seeking complete relief from the specified section of the Ordinance. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: Staff has no further comments regarding this project." MRS. EGGLESTON-And the Warren County Planning Board returned "No County Impact". MR. TURNER-Okay. Mr. Gorham. MR. GORHAM-Good evening, Ladies and Gentlemen. My name is Mike Gorham. I'm a Sales Manager for Sign Works in Glens Falls, and I'm here to represent Steinbach's this evening. Steinbach's is presently undergoing a face lift, an internal face lift inside, and as part of their enhancement program, to increase their business flow, they would like to put a second a directional sign underneath the pylon, to enhance their business, from the traffic flow, - 11 - primarily from Route 9 south, north. They feel as though it will not be detrimental to the neighborhood. They occupy approximately 35,000 square feet in the plaza, which pretty much establishes them as an anchor store. MR. TURNER-I don't agree with you, because the Town spent, 1976 adopted this Sign Ordinance, gave them 10 years to conform, and everybody waited until the 10 years was up, and then come marching in for variances, and obviously many of them weren't granted. and I'd have to tell you, I won't support your application in this case because you don't have any practical difficulty. This will open up an awful can of worms for every shopping center in the Town of Queensbury. and the Ordinance addresses what you can have, and I don't see any practical difficulty with this application that's any different than anybody else's. It would be in the same situation, and I don't think that the Board would entertain a positive motion to grant it for those reasons. It's well defined what the Ordinance says, and obviously Steinbachs would not start an internal renovation job if they're not making money at the site. MR. GORHAM-If I may bring to the Board's attention. here, there are a few facilities in the area which have situations similar to the one that we're requesting to be here, specifically across the street at Northgate Center. There is a sign that has been added to the bottom of Northgate Center's, stating about liquor and lotto. MR. TURNER-Well, they're in violation. MR. GORHAM-I'm just bringing to the attention of the Board what is in existence out there right now. MR. TURNER-Do you know anything about that, Jim? MR. MARTIN-No. We'll find out. MR. TURNER-Because a lot of them start cropping up right now. starting to put signs up underneath. MRS. EGGLESTON-Ted, are State facilities, though, subject to the Town? Aren't they an exception to the Town? MR. TURNER-Governmental, they're exempt. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, wouldn't that apply, then, to the lotto? That's State. MR. TURNER-No. That might be State, but it's run by different. MR. GORHAM-Also, approximately 500 yards from the existing facility, there's Blockbuster Video, which is in a plaza. MR. TURNER-That was granted a variance. MR. GORHAM-That was granted a variance. MR. TURNER-That one there. MR. GORHAM-Okay. Glen Square down the street also has the names of the stores listed under the pylon there, for identification purposes as well their letter wall signs. MR. TURNER-I can tell you why that one is, because they're way back, and they're set at such an angle to the roadway that nobody can see them from the south at all, period. MR. GORHAM-Okay. MR. PHILO-That's our hardship. MR. TURNER-That was their hardship. - 12 - MR. GORHAM-Not really. Anybody can see Steinbachs coming, if they're coming on Route 9 south, they can't see Steinbachs either. MR. TURNER-If you're coming up Route 9 going north. you can see Steinbachs. MR. GORHAM-But if you're coming south, like from Lake George. Steinbachs feel that they're losing business, for example in the summer time. They have 28 stores throughout the State. People that come to this neighborhood in the summer time, for Lake George or whatever, all they know is the Aviation Mall. MR. TURNER-There's probably, obviously, some are going to lose business, maybe because people are not aware of where they are, but I think this Town has got some pretty predicated. MR. GORHAM-There's the Mark Plaza here. MR. TURNER-That was granted a variance because of, their people are way in the back. You can't see any of them. MR. THOMAS-The Quaker Plaza doesn't have a sign for itself, does it, saying that it's Quaker Plaza? I don't remember seeing one. MR. TURNER-No, they don't. MR. GORHAM-I don't believe so. I think that's all incorporated in one item. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Blockbuster. So that's the only freestanding sign, is the MR. TURNER-That's the only one they've got. MRS. EGGLESTON-While I think of it, Arlyne or Jim, I've misplaced my Sign Ordinance. Could you get me a copy? MR. CARVIN-Make that two. MR. MARTIN-Two. Make six or seven. MR. TURNER-They're allowed one freestanding sign, and then they're allowed the wall signs. We've done that, pretty much, with all of them, except those ones that I told you that we granted variances for obvious reasons. MR. CARVIN-What's the dimensions of the sign on the building that you have? MR. GORHAM-I'm not sure. MR. TURNER-They can have up to 100 square feet, I think. MR. CARVIN-Okay, because I know that, you know, Steinbachs sits back quite a ways. I agree with Ted. I don't like the thought of putting a lot of signs out on the highway, and I'm certainly not a sign expert, but it would seem to me that, looking at that Steinbach sign, it seems to be lost in the building. Now I don't know if there's anything that can be done to highlight the sign or something that might be right on the side of the building. MR. TURNER-I drove up there the other day, just to look at it, and to see how far away I could see it. Just as you break through the light, you can see Steinbachs sign right on the wall. Obviously, I know it's there, but I still looked for it, to see how far away I could view it from, and you can see it right there from the traffic light. It would open up an awful can of worms. MRS. EGGLESTON-It would. - 13 - MR. CARVIN-Well, even if it had to do with lighting and things. I don't know. That's what I'm asking, is, even if you could back light it somehow. MR. GORHAM-The biggest portion of the sign would be pretty much okay. MR. CARVIN-But as I'm looking at the Steinbachs sign, there's no backing to it, it's just Steinbach, the word Steinbach. If you were to put a colored background to that, to make it stand out a Ii ttle more predominant. You might be able to get a little exposure. MR. GORHAM-To the existing sign? MR. CARVIN-To the existing sign, is what I'm saying. No. I'm not even going to consider the one out on the highway. MRS. EGGLESTON-No. MR. THOMAS-What about roof signs? MR. TURNER-No roof signs. MR. THOMAS-No roof signs in the Ordinance? MR. TURNER-Nothing above the roof. He can have it, like, Dunhams and Tallmans. They're on the face side of the roof, but not above the ridge of the roof. I know they came here in '82, and that was for that sphere. I've got it right here, the sphere on the building, as you're looking in from Glen Street, where the clock is. That was NPSC Corporation, W.L. Christopher, Inc., Northway Plaza. MRS. EGGLESTON-And we're also supposed to be looking at minimum relief in cases, and this is maxed right to the hilt. MR. TURNER-Right to the hilt. Do we have any more questions of Mr. Gorham? MR. THOMAS-The only thing I think, if we grant this one, why wouldn't everybody else in that plaza want one right under there, too? MR. TURNER-They'd be lined right out to the door there, and there's no need for it. MR. GORHAM-There is a pylon sign going down under that plaza. It's just standing there, and utilize that for. MR. TURNER-Is it on Quaker Road, or is it on Glen Street? MRS. RUTHSCHILD-It's facing Quaker. MR. GORHAM-It's right across the street. It's on Route 9, I think. MRS. EGGLESTON-Ted, wouldn't the owner of the Northway Plaza Associates have to look into that? MR. TURNER-Yes. Any further questions of Mr. Gorham. WES TURNER MR. WES TURNER-My name is Wes Turner, and I'm General Manager of the Northway Plaza, Inc., and the reason that that is an office, center right now, is because we lost all the retail stores because we couldn't get signs to expose them. I'm trying to help Steinbachs out by getting another one. This is why we were trying to help Steinbachs get the exposure on the sign out there, so they know they're back in there. We've got another going back in there, - 14 - '- is a post office, that nobody knows it's there. MR. TED TURNER-They'll find it. Steinbach hasn't done bad, because they've been there, how long? MR. WES TURNER-It was Fowlers. MR. TED TURNER-Fowlers, and then they went to Steinbachs. So they've been there, what, 10 years? MR. WES TURNER-That store's been in existence since 1965. You never .had the sto,res aJong Routet9. The whD.Le thing_ washexposed at one tlme. ~he blgges~ mIs~aKe hey ever ala was ~ut t ose stores along Route 9. MR. TED TURNER-That might be, but that was the owner looking for more money, right? I can't blame him for that, but I don't think the rest of the Town should have to suffer, because that guy made an opinion to invest in the property, and then they're way in the back. You can see him, and I can make the same argument that he made, that the people coming from Lake George or wherever don't know where they are, but there's a lot of people that come in here that don't know where a lot of things are, and they ask. That's why I don't buy that argument at all. MRS. EGGLESTON-Would it be fair to say that Steinbachs is making a profit? MR. GORHAM-You'd have to take that up with Steinbachs. MRS. EGGLESTON-I mean, we haven't seen any evidence that they're not having a lucrative business with this existing signs. You haven't shown that they have a hardship, or that they're suffering monetary losses because people can't find their way there. So, I guess we're to assume, then, they are doing well with the signs they now have? MR. GORHAM-To the knowledge that's supplied to me. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. TED TURNER-Any further comment, Wes? Okay. public hearing. Let me open the PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Any further discussion? MR. PHILO-Did you get the list of all these, Jim? MR. MARTIN-Yes. I think the only one there I see is Northgate Liquor and Lotto that's of a concern. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-You're going to look into that, Jim? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. TURNER-Okay. Motion's in order. MOTION TO DENY SIGN VARIANCE NO. 12-1993 STEINBACH, Introduced by Theodore Turne r who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Philo: The Ordinance, I think, is well thought out, a shopping center, one - 15 - freestanding sign and one wall sign for each business. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship, in respect to the signage that he presently has. It would be detrimental to the neighborhood, and it's maximum relief relative to what's allowed by the Sign Ordinance, and it would impact the Town's plan, relative to shopping centers. Duly adopted this 17th day of March, 1993, by the following vote: MRS. EGGLESTON-Before we vote, Mr. 'Chairman, I'd like to read one letter from Robert L. Eddy, regarding the Sign Variance for Steinbachs, "This variance should be denied. If approved, every merchant in a shopping plaza or mall will apply for such a variance, which will nullify this provision in the Sign Ordinance." AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Philo, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Paling MR. GORHAM-Thank you for your time. MR. TURNER-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 13-1993 TYPE II WR-1A CEA DOUGLAS B. SMITH OWNER: DOUGLAS & CYNTHIA SMITH LOCATION: NORTH OF BEAN ROAD APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING SHED/STORAGE STRUCTURE ON HIS PROPERTY AND REPLACE IT WITH A TWELVE HUNDRED AND NINETY-SIX (1.296) SQUARE FOOT GARAGE. APPLICANT IS SEEKING THREE- HUNDRED AND NINETY SIX (396) SQUARE FEET RELIEF FROM SECTION THAT PERMITS A MAXIMUM OF NINE HUNDRED (900) SQUARE FEET FOR A PRIVATE GARAGE. (ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY) (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 153-1-4 LOT SIZE: 1.77 ACRES SECTION 179-7 DOUGLAS SMITH, PRESENT MRS. EGGLESTON-The Warren County Planning Board approved, with the condition that the garage be used for noncommercial use only. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 13-1993, Douglas B. Smith. Meeting Date: March 17, 1993 "SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to demolish an existing eight hundred and sixty-four (864) square foot shed/storage structure and replace it with a one thousand two hundred and ninety-six (1,296) square foot garage, to be located on his residential property. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: Applicant is proposing to construct a one thousand two hundred and ninety-six (1,296) square foot garage and is seeking three hundred and ninety-six (396) square feet relief from Section 179-7, Garage-Private Parking, which states that garages shall not exceed nine hundred (90Ø) square feet in area. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. DESCRIBE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW PLACEMENT OF A STRUCTURE WHICH MEETS THE ZONING CODES. Applicant believes that the proposed size of the structure is necessary to fulfill his requirements for storage of various types of vehicles and residential equipment. 2. IS THIS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NECESSARY TO ALLEVIATE THE SPECIFIED PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY OR IS THERE ANY OTHER OPTION AVAILABLE WHICH WOULD REQUIRE NO VARIANCE? The relief requested is forty-four (44) percent greater than the allowed area for a garage and would be the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty as presented. The option the applicant has not considered is to build a garage to meet area limitations and a shed for storage. 3. WOULD THIS VARIANCE BE DETRIMENTAL TO OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD OR CONFLICT WITH ANY OBJECTIVES OF ANY PLAN OR POLICY OF THE TOWN? It would appear that al though the variance is of a substantial degree than the allowed area for a - 16 - garage, neighbors in the immediate neighborhood are supportive of the project. and do not seem to think it would be a detriment to the neighborhood. The project would appear not to be in conflict with any objectives of any plan or policy of the Town. 4. WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF THE VARIANCE ON PUBLIC FACILITIES OR SERVICES? It would appear that the variance would not effect public facilities and services. 5. IS THIS THE MINIMUM RELIEF NECESSARY TO ALLEVIATE THE SPECIFIED PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY? It would appear that the relief requested would be the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty as project is proposed. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: Applicant's property is located inf Warren and dWaShinqton CQuntv w~ th the .porItion 9f property 0 the propose pro]ec:t 1n warren county. Rpp 1cant s total property size is two and eight tenths (2.80) acres, (see map of entire property). Although the applicant is requesting a variance which would permit him to build a garage approximately forty- four (44) percent larger than the maximum permitted size, this structure would not be oversized aesthetically for the size of the property as the only other structure on the property is the applicant's residence. One option that the applicant might consider and which was mentioned in the review section of these notes, was to build an area complying garage and a shed for storage of equipment." MR. TURNER-All right. Mr. Smith. MR. SMITH-I feel that putting yet another storage shed on my property would be rather unsightly and the Board members that have seen my residence, I'm very proud of it and its appearance, and so, too, are my neighbors. I feel the shed is rather unsightly in itself, and if you just add another temporary storage shed, it would kind of make it look like a shanty town back there. I'm trying to neaten it up, and I want to offer protection for my own personal vehicles. I'm very particular. I'm concerned about the appearance of my property. as well as my neighbors around me. I feel that adding another shed really isn't going to improve the appearance of my property. MR. TURNER-What's the antique car that you have? MR. SMITH-It's a 1961 Corvette. MR. TURNER-Where do you store that now? MR. SMITH-It's in my garage that's attached to my home. Washington County. It's in MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. SMITH-I want to be able to use the garage that's attached to my home as a garage for my cars that are used on a day to day basis. MR. TURNER-That's a, what, two car garage? MR. SMITH-Yes, it is. MR. TURNER-And you only store the cars in the two car garage, along with your antique car? MR. SMITH-Yes. There's an antique car in there, an ATV, and a garden tractor. MR. TURNER-That's a pretty awesome garage, 48 feet long. MR. SMITH-It would be four stalls. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. TURNER-The boat is stored outside? - 17 - MR. SMITH-Currently. MR. CARVIN-I was just going to say, the boat is outside, you said? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. PHILO-What's the width of that? MR. TURNER-Nineteen feet, the ridge is nineteen feet above grade. MR. CARVIN-Do you restore cars? Do you do your own work, anything like that? MR. SMITH-I did restore this car. restored it in 1972. I've had it for 20 years. I MRS. EGGLESTON-What do you do for a living? MR. SMITH-I'm a Service Manager at Whiteman's Cheverolet. MR. CARVIN-So you have two personal autos, the Corvette. How big is the boat? MR. SMITH-The boat is 23 feet. I have two boats. MR. CARVIN-Two boats. MR. SMITH-That's correct. The larger is 23 feet. The other one is 13 feet. There is my antique car. There is a '74 Malibu that I'm saving for my son when he's driving age. There's a ' 79 Blazer that's my wife's, and I have a demo of my own. MR. CARVIN-Give me a count on cars here. You've lost me. MR. SMITH-Four cars. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MRS. EGGLESTON-Four cars, two boats. MR. KARPELES-The largest boat will fit inside the garage? MR. SMITH-The proposed garage it will, yes. MR. CARVIN-How many snowmobiles? MR. SMITH-Two. MR. CARVIN-What's an ATV, all terrain vehicle? MR. SMITH-Four wheel. MR. TURNER-Four wheel, all terrain vehicle. MR. CARVIN-How many of those? MR. SMITH-One. You're starting to see my problem. MR. CARVIN-Well, you've got a lot of toys. That's the problem. MR. SMITH-I work hard, and I like to play. MR. THOMAS-I see you have a set of stairs that go upstairs to a loft? MR. SMITH-That's correct. MR. THOMAS-In the print here it says a two by eight attic floor. What's that for upstairs? Is that a room of some sort? - 18 - - MR. SMITH-I'm going to have to have trusses, because of the span across that. So there will be storage space up there. There will be approximately 24 by 10 or 12 feet. MR. THOMAS-I can get 24 by 24 out of this, looking at this print. MR. SMITH-Look at the face of the plan, the drawing. MR. THOMAS-Yes. I see the two inner doors. MR. SMITH-You see the roof line? There'd be no because of the frusses ~ The only usable ,space w:ot¡ld center two sta s, wh1ch are zq, teet W1<1e. G01ng there's no head room. There's no trusses up there. usable space be acrosshthe beyond t at:, MR. PHILO-Why type of truss are they going to put on that? MR. SMITH-It's going to be a stick built truss, to minimize the expense of common wall. MR. PHILO-A stick built truss, but what is the name of the truss? It's going to have to be certified. MR. SMITH-I'm going to make it myself. I'm going to build it myself. I built my home. So I ought to be able to do that. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. People build their own trusses. MR. TURNER-Yes, they do. MR. PHILO-I know, but you don't put a 48 foot truss without being certified by an engineer, either. MR. TURNER-It's 24 feet. Right here. MR. SMITH-No. It's going to span 24 feet. MR. TURNER-It's going to be bearing wall right there. Well, I've got to tell you, the Ordinance doesn't address, it addresses the 900 square foot garage, but as far as storage for anything else, that's a personal problem, related to your own desires to have what you want, and I have a problem with a garage that big. I think the Ordinance really addresses it in a true fashion, 9ØØ square feet, and I've got to tell you, we've had others here for garages, two garages on one site, and we didn't turn him down. That's not to say that we're going to turn this one down. I don't know how the rest of the Board feels, but I have a real problem with a building this big, especially when you've got another garage already, and it's in another County, although the line splits the property. MR. SMITH-I obviously respect your position. I do understand it doesn't comply with the Town requirements, but I've given it a great deal of thought and I've talked with a number of my neighbors, as you see my letters of support. I feel that my project, I've racked my brains to see if there's anything that I could find wrong with it myself, other than it simply does not meet the requirements of the Town, and I do understand that. However, I do feel that there are many things that benefit both the neighbors, the Town, and appearance, aesthetic appearance, that out-weigh that limitation, and I think that for the Board members that have visited my property. You can see what it looks like right now. MR. TURNER-Yes. I was up there. It's nice. MR. SMITH-And I don't personally think that boats or cars are very pleasant to look at, and it isn't as though I'm renting space. I have no intention of renting space. These are my own personally owned vehicles, and as I previously mentioned, I'm fussy about what I have. Everything I buy I expect to have the rest of my life, and - 19 - I want to keep it nice, and the only way I can keep it nice is to keep it under cover. I think I've proposed something that would aesthetically look very, very nice. So do my neighbors. I do understand your concern. I just feel that there's more merit to what I'm suggesting, than just the fact that it doesn't meet the Town requirements. MR. TURNER-Yes, but the criteria for granting the variance is not predicated on an antique car, an ATV, two boats. It's predicated on the difficulty you have putting that building up there. It's not to house, those are personal items that you have to either make provisions to store some place else, or do what you're doing tonight, but what I'm saying to you, you've got a two car garage now. Now you want a four car garage. I have difficulty with that. MR. SMITH-If I took the garage doors off and made it a storage building, would that, the fact that it's denoted as a garage, is that? MR. TURNER-Well, yes, because the Ordinance addresses the issue of 900 square feet, but you already have a two car garage, which is in another County. MR. SMITH-Really that isn't a bearing here, is it, because my home, and that two stall garage is in an area that the Town has no jurisdiction over, and we're just discussing, yes, you are correct, and I don't deny that I have that, but really that isn't a factor tonight, because that's an entirely different Town in a different County. MR. TURNER-That might be, but it's just an imaginary I ine that divides that piece of property, but you own that whole piece of property. MR. SMITH-That's correct. MR. TURNER-So that garage is going to have a bearing on what you do with that property. MR. PHILO-Jim, is there any other way he could put that in, put that building in, other than under a garage? MR. MARTIN-This has always been a touchy subject, in terms of what is a storage shed and what is a garage. Typically, I think the view of the Board in the past has been anything with a garage door on it is, in fact. a garage, and anything that is beyond the storage of light lawn equipment, like a lawnmower or hand tools. that type of thing, anything beyond that is not a storage shed. That would be my interpretation. MR. TURNER-Yes, and it also has to house motor vehicles, that's the definition. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. PHILO-Mr. and Mrs. Smith, I was at your house. You have a beautiful house. It's good looking, and you and your wife have done a very nice job there. With the six garages now, boy, if we ever granted anything like this, we'd be in another bag of worms. We just fought one over on the other side of town, and they wanted a three car garage, and it wasn't granted, okay. The same as this Sign Ordinance. I love to see business people survive, and I'm here for anybody in the Town, but that's quite a size. just the parking area going into this four car garage is going to take up a lot of blacktop. MR. SMITH-No. There's not going to be any blacktop. Like I said, this is a storage facility. I have no intention of opening that garage door every day and driving a vehicle out. You're lucky if it's opened 20 times a year. It's strictly for storage. There - 20 - - - will be no macadam going back there, just grass, all the way around this area. I currently have 856 square feet in the shed right now, and so that's within 44 square feet of what's the maximum the Town allows. So I think that what I have already is basically what the Town allows, and I'm simply asking for one more stall, which is 40 percent more. Just replacing what I currently have with another building that is only 40 square feet more, is going to achieve nothing for me, and I simply wouldn't do it. I'd leave the shed there. I believe my hardship is to have that additional stall. MR. CARVIN-Let me just kind of drift in some thoughts here. Okay. Now you say Y0}ju haye a c:.o\1Q.le of autos fOrly.our kids there,t. one of them. OKay, ut lets dr1~t on down tue ~ne, when the ~1dS are grown up and gone now. You've got extra bays. I mean, do you rent those out? Do you go out and collect more cars, or do we have just a big building sitting behind your house. because I think what this does is it opens up. 1 ike Tom said, a real can of worms for us, because who's to say that you don't go out and now start charging rental? You've got two extra bays. The boats are gone. I mean, lets say you give up boating. So now you've gotten rid of the boats, and now you've got a commercial venture out there. Well, at this point you don't. but what I'm saying is. this is the thing that really kind of. MR. SMITH-I've made a statement to this Board, in the form of a letter. stating what my intentions are, and I would think that if I deviate from that, the Board could take action against me. MR. CARVIN-Okay. but you're assuming that we're going to be out there every other day checking to make sure that you're in compliance, and obviously we had a situation. not 15 minutes ago, a sign in a public, right on the main thoroughfare, has gotten by the Town, is out there. and I'm not disputing what your intentions are today, but your intentions six months from now or six years or ten years are going to be more than likely different, and there's going to be a 12 or 1300 square foot garage out there. MR. SMITH-I think my wife can attest to the fact that we've worked very. very hard to live where we do, and we've worked very hard for what we have, and we live in the home that we want to retire in. and we live in the lifestyle that we want to retire in, and I have every intention of having all the toys I've got right now when I'm 65, 75 years old, and I don't intend to touch my life any different then than I do now, and I have no intention of, I do own three other properties on that road, and I do rent those properties, and yes I have rental income. However, this is my home, and I have no intentions of doing anything other than what I've proposed to the Board members. It's strictly for storage. and I'm probably not going to get any less toys. I might get more. MRS. EGGLESTON-Jim, have you been up there? MR. MARTIN-No. I have not, personally, been to the site. No. MR. KARPELES-I've got mixed feelings on this. It does look large in proportion to the house, but on the other hand, it's a big lot. The boat is stored there anyway, and it's going to be an improvement, visually, to put the boat under cover, rather than have it stored there, and I think the one garage would be better looking than a garage and a shed. MR. TURNER-That's fine. He can have it 900 square feet. have a garage there 900 square feet. He can MR. KARPELES-Yes, but then he's sti 11 going to have the boat sticking out there. MRS. EGGLESTON-I must say, I was saying, when I was there, my impression of the property was that the house would not be minimized by the garage. It's a big home. Did you get to see - 21 - this, Fred? From your talk I can almost say you didn't. MR. CARVIN-No. MRS. EGGLESTON-If you had seen it, it might present a different picture. MR. PHILO-There's nothing but woods in the back. MRS. EGGLESTON-The proposed garage is quite a distance from the house. It's a large house, and aesthetically I believe the garage would meld in with the lot itself. As a matter of fact, we drove all around, so we could see from the angles in the back and down the side, and they're really wasn't anything really close to it. The storage facility, the way he has it now, he has the boat outside. I mean, it's a conglomeration of different things. In my mind, I felt, myself, that the garage would be an improvement, and I can agree with Ted that we have denied some in the past, but I think we have to look at each one on a basis, individually. There's much more land with this piece of property than others that we have looked at, that we have denied. Those were my thoughts. MR. TURNER-Yes. That's fine. I'd argue that point with you. He is allowed 900 square feet. MRS. EGGLESTON-I realize that. MR. TURNER-He can build a 900 square foot garage and not even come here. MRS. EGGLESTON-Other than the garages he has? Even though he has two garages, he can build another one? MR. TURNER-Yes. He can build a 900 square foot garage. MRS. EGGLESTON-He can have three? MR. CARVIN-And that's my feeling. MR. TURNER-That's my contention. MR. SMITH-Sir, if I were to do that, leave the shed right where it is, and build another 900 square foot garage, wouldn't that be rather unsightly? MRS. EGGLESTON-I think it would, from what I saw. MR. SMITH-To have a 900 square foot shed, and a 900 square foot nice looking garage. Yes, it would achieve what I want to do, but I don't think that it would enhance the appearance of my property, or the neighbors around me. MR. TURNER-No. I'm saying, I'm saying to you can build a 900 square foot garage, and not even come here. MR. SMITH-Yes, but what is this Board here for? The Board is here to make exceptions, exceptions to that rule, and I do understand that I broke that rule. MR. TURNER-That's right. here. You broke the rule. That's why you're MR. SMITH-That's why everybody else is here as well. MRS. EGGLESTON-Mr. Smith, what is the garage across the street, on the opposite side of Bean Road, the new garage in the vacant lot? MR. SMITH-That's Ron Krebs'. MRS. EGGLESTON-And is that on, that's more than 900? - 22 - MR. SMITH-No, it's not. MRS. EGGLESTON-It's not? It looked it, from, it looked like pretty good size. MR. SMITH-It's 24 by 30, that garage. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. PHILO-It's high, that's why. MR. SMITH-Yes. This is much higher than mine. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. Maybe that's what makes it look so large, the tallness of it. We looked at it. MR. SMITH-I tried to design it so that the front of it has a smaller roof line than the back of it, and I'm going to side it, something that would not be offensive to look at. MR. TURNER-Board and Batten, maybe? MR. SMITH-Possibly Board and Batten, or a color that would compliment the area. It is back in the woods quite a bit, and it would be a little bit out of the way. MR. THOMAS-Ted, what if he was to move that over into the Town of Fort Ann? MR. SMITH-I didn't want to bring that up, because I can do that. MR. TURNER-He can do that. MR. SMITH-However, it would be right next to my home. It would be right on top of it. ' MR. PHILO-Aesthetically, I think where you've got it back there, then it's not going to hurt anybody from that lake, because it's all woods behind it. Believe me, I'm very proud of you two. If I had two kids like you, I'd be real proud. That house is neat, and I'd love to have you for a neighbor. That is some, when you walk up, an old timer like myself, and see things like that, you can say, there's still a few good kids left in this area. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, we've got a lot of letter, Ted. Maybe it would help the Board if we can maybe open the meeting, and I can read these in, and they can hear what some people around them think. MR. CARVIN-I was going to say, we haven't opened a public hearing yet. MR. TURNER-Yes. Anymore questions of Mr. right. Let me see if anybody wants to against. I'll now open the public hearing. and Mrs. Smith? All speak, either for or PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE MRS. EGGLESTON-All right. We have letters from Robert A. Rourke, "I am unable to attend the hearing on March 17th, 1993 concerning the Douglas and Cynthia Smith garage project. I believe that it will improve the appearance of the property, and since their house is very well kept, the garage should enhance the whole area. I support their project 100 percent." And from Robert F. Whiteman, - 23 - ---' Star Route, Kattskill Bay, "Due to my inability to attend the Town Meeting on Wednesday March 17th, 1993, I would like my thoughts known. I have reviewed the garage plans proposed by Doug and Cindy Smith and am in 100 percent support of the project. I feel that approving their plans would greatly improve the appearance of their property and the neighborhood. Robert F. Whiteman" And this is the statement that Mr. Smith spoke about, where he affirms that, "The construction of my proposed garage is to replace an existing shed. The purpose of the current shed and proposed garage is strictly to store my personally owned vehicles and personal belongings. Douglas Smith" And a letter from Mary M. Davis, "I am a property owner residing across the street from the aforementioned property. I have reviewed the proposed plan with Mr. Smith and am aware that his proposed structure is approximately 1300 square feet in area. I further understand that it exceeds 900 square feet in area. He will be applying for a variance. Please be advised that I have no objection to this project and support his petition for variation. " From Harriet Benware, "My neighbor, Douglas Smi th, would like to replace the existing storage shed wi th a larger shed/garage. Judging from the manner in which they have improved the house and grounds, I feel that the proposal is most certainly acceptable. I will voice no objections, and hope you allow the new construction." And from Elizabeth and Ronald Krebs, "As a courtesy, Douglas and Cynthia Smith, Star Route 100, Kattskill Bay, have made us aware of their desire to erect a 1296 square foot garage in place of their existing open shed. Since 1984, we have been residing part of each year on Bean Road on property we acquired in 1982. While many property changes have occurred during that time, especially noteworthy are the tasteful improvements the Smiths have made to their home and property. It is our understanding that for the Smiths to construct the aforementioned building, a variance is required. This to inform you that in our opinion, although the new building is larger, its archi tectural elegance would enhance the area and increase property value. Aside from the structure adding to the attractiveness of the site, it would allow for neat, out of sight, storage of various items, not now possible with the present shed. Your favorable consideration of any variance request made by the Smiths to affect this transition will be greatly appreciated by us." And from Richard and Denise Christensen, Pilot Knob Road, Kattskill Bay, "In reference to the application of Mr. Doug Smith to bui ld a new garage on his property at the corner of Bean Road and Pilot Knob Road, Kattskill Bay, New York, we the undersigned, have reviewed the design and plot plan and find no objections to what is planned. We feel the new garage will enhance the property, which in turn will enhance the neighborhood." Mary Jane Kruger, Kattskill Bay, "My property is contiguous to the subject parcel on the north. Since the acquisition of their property from the Bean Estate, Mr. and Mrs. Smith have worked diligently to upgrade the land and buildings thereon. The improvements that they have made have been of exceptional quality, and their efforts have contributed greatly to the enhancement of our neighborhood. I have personal knowledge of the fact that they possess boats and other motorized vehicles and believe, because of the fastidious manner in which they maintain their premises, that it is their intention to use the proposed structure to store those items. I wholeheartedly support the Smith's application for a variance to erect the structure as rendered in the architect's sketch, and as sited on the attached map." And from George Archelean, "The garage that you propose to build looks great. In fact, everything you have done always improves the look of the property. You have our full support in what you propose to do." And from Nancy Christopher, "I am in favor of Doug and Cindy Smith building their garage they yearn. I have met with Mr. Smith on this proposal and he clearly went over the plans with me. When seeing these plans, I have absolutely no objections in erecting their new garage. In fact, I think it would be an asset to our neighborhood, as it would increase property value in our area." And from Jim Christopher and Mary Eva Christopher, "We reside at the corner of Pilot Knob and Bean Road, directly across from the Smith property. located also on Pilot Knob - 24 - Road and Bean Road. I, Jeff Christopher, own a home and property on Bean Road, and we have inspected the plans for a proposed garage to be built on the neighboring Smith property. and have no objection to the building. We feel the garage will improve the appearance of the Smith property by replacing the existing barn with this new garage. If you have any further questions, call us." And that's it. MR. SMITH-By the way, that's 100 percent of all my immediate neighbors. MR. PHILg-I went o~t there three times, and I couldn't find one person WllO was aga1nst you. MR. SMITH-I got the support of my neighbors. I did that before we even got here. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, our Chairman is right, in that we've had to be so careful with this. It's not something that we do lightly or easily, and I think each one, though, has to be taken on its own merits, and unfortunately, some of the ones that have come before us, previously, have been in areas where they expanded that big, that's on much less property. MR. CARVIN-I know what you're saying. I really do, but I think it comes down to the hardship issue. I mean, the only reason he wants a four bay garage is because of discretionary automobiles. MR. TURNER-Yes. Right. MR. CARVIN-And I like toys. I've got a '67 Camaro Convertible, for sale I might add, and I put that up for storage every year. Now that's not my main automobile, but I realize that it's a discretionary automobile, that it's not my, it's a hobby. It's a toy, and I know the area. I've been up on Bean Road, and I know your property, and I'm sure you will do a good job, but it still comes down that I think that Staff has made a recommendation that I think I would just as soon live with. In other words. I think a 900 square foot garage and a nice storage shed. Now, I am saying that if you do such a nice job on everything that you do, that I'm sure it's not going to be just a plain vanilla storage shed, and it's nice that you have all of these toys, but that's just what they are. They're toys. That's not a hardship, as far as I'm concerned. MR. SMITH-Mr. Carvin, what is within my rights to build this 900 foot garage, for those of you who have visi ted my property, just about the entire lot is wooded. The only place that is not wooded is where this shed stands, okay. So for me to put up this garage, I would have to clear cut a 30 by 30 space, and have room for trees around as well, and I'm going to have to cut down a considerable amount of trees. I don't like doing that. I don't like to cut one tree. I want to leave that area pristine, and that's why I have that area, that's why I bought it, and just for the sake of complying with the Town Ordinances, I'm going to go cut down a 50 foot swath of trees out of my property to put up a garage that, yes, it does conform, but now I have a shed right next to it. MR. CARVIN-We ll, let me ask you, and again, I apprec iate where you're coming from. I'm not trying to be difficult. I trul y am not, but what happens when your neighbor who, maybe hi s habits aren't quite as good as yours, also has a whole bunch of toys and hobbies, and he comes in and says, hey, wait a minute, the guy right across the street's got a four car garage. I mean, do you see, we have to take each one on their own merits, and what I'm saying is that the key here is the hardship. In other words, we could grant a variance and say to you, yes, we feel that, and I think the Board is split. I'm not going to try to prejudge a vote, and if the Board member feels that there is a hardship, that the positives and the negatives weigh in your favor, then you'll get - 25 - the variance, but what I'm saying to you is that the variance is written for everybody. It's trying to put everybody in on the same page, so to speak, and as far as I'm concerned, at this point, you have not proved enough of a hardship for me to say to you, that I would let you have, or grant a four car garage. Now you would be wi thin your rights, as Staff has indicated, to build a two car garage, or 900 square feet, a three car garage, and again, I guess Jim would have to be the determinant of what a "storage shed" is, but certainly snowmobiles or ATV's or some of these things could be put in storage, and I agree with Ted. I just don't think, and in essence, it is a two story garage because you will have a certain amount of space upstairs, and I think a 12 or a 1300 square foot garage is a lot of garage. Now it may be okay aesthetically and everything else on your property, but in my mind, I just don't see the hardship to move forward on it, especially when the variance, I think, is appropriate in this case. MRS. EGGLESTON-Would you be willing to table it and look at it again, and see what you could do with it? MR. SMITH-Honestly, I would not, because like I stated before, I currently have 856, which is pretty close to the requirement, and by just tearing that down and putting up a 900, doesn't fill my needs. It's just going to replace what I already have, and I'm going to spend a lot of money and achieve nothing. My other vehicle is still going to be stored outside. I am concerned about the aesthetic nature of the area. The County line, for those of you who have seen my property, I can, Washington County will let me put this identical garage right across the County line, if I just move it 50 feet, okay, but then it's right on top of my house, and it sticks right out in the center of the yard, and you want to talk about something that would be unsightly, that would be unsightly. Now just for the sake of one County's rules versus another, I think that's why we're all here tonight. MR. TURNER-They don't have any zoning. That's why you can put it there. You can do anything you want over there. They don't have any zoning. MR. SMITH-But as you can see, I wouldn't do that, and I don't feel that, for the reasons that I've said, just putting up another, leave the shed there and put up another 900 square foot garage, and cut down all these trees and clear cut it, I just don't think that that's the right thing to do. I don't think it would aesthetically look well. MR. TURNER-How many trees are you going to lose if you put this one up? MR. SMITH-None, not a one. MR. TURNER-Then how do you figure you're going to lose any trees the other way? You're still going to have a 30 foot? Where would you position it if you went with a 900 footer? MR. SMITH-I'd have to put it somewhere else on the lot. MRS. EGGLESTON-You mean, and keep the storage shed as it stands? Yes. MR. SMITH-My idea is to gain storage, not lose it. MR. KARPELES-You're not going to cut any trees down to do this? MR. SMITH-That's not my intention. MR. KARPELES-Because when I looked at it, that was my one objection. In fact, I have a note here. MR. PHILO-No. He's building it in the same spot as the house. - 26 - MR. SMITH-It basically is on the same footprint, but the rest of it. Look at the lot itself. the map right here. If you look at the dotted line, that's the existing shape of the shed. The larger outline would be the shape of the new garage. The trees, I've stationed it so that I won't have to remove any, there are a couple of saplings in the back that I might have to remove, but my idea was to get it back into the woods, where it's out of the way. MR. KARPELES-Yes. There are some beautiful trees there. MR. PHILO-Bob, you know, I looked at it on this concept. I think ~~' 5e~~~If~ t~ binrRki~~à~'{~m~Nl1ätt\î-Fies' Bð~fdaÎ~t~ð1f~cs vrl,ev~oJJ1~ ~g look at, we just can't have everything black and white. MR. TURNER-No. Nothing's black and white, Tom. MR. PHILO-Right. When I went around that neighborhood, I was impressed. When I went up and talked to you that day, I could see ins ide the house as we ll. I know you're going to do a good job with it, and I said when I came on this Board, I was going to do the best I could for the community, and that's the way I feel. I know this is bigger than what it was, but I can see his point, too. Why should I take a building down, with 40 or 50 more square feet, and take it down just to get 40 or 50 more square feet. I don't care if the guy has 900 toys, if he can afford them. fine. This is America. Let them 1 i ve the ir life the way they want it, and I admire you for it. I couldn't take care of all that stuff, now. I'd be like a rabbit with asthma out there running around. I say, there is different circumstances. MR. TURNER-That's fine, but toys don't count. The garage is for motor vehicles and not for all the other things that go along with it. If you're fortunate enough to have them. that's great. I don't have any argument with that, but I'm saying, that's excessive, and he's already got a two car garage. It might be in another County, but it's still on the same property. Now we're going to put over 1,000, 1200 square feet additional storage space, and I'm not saying that he wouldn't do a good job. I'm not saying that at all, but I think the law is very explicit, and I don't think he's proved hardship, practical difficulty. MR. PHILO-What is the total square footage he's putting on? MR. SMITH-1296. MR. TURNER-1296. MR. PHILO-So he's going from 9, so he's putting 400 and something on. MRS. EGGLESTON-396. MR. SMITH-396. MR. PHILO-396. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. PHILO-Is that really, 396, too much to ask for one person? MR. TURNER-Yes. It is for me. MR. THOMAS-I'm just looking through these revisions to the change in the variance rules, and Fred was talking about hardship, and I think hardship has been thrown right out the window in this. MR. TURNER-Practical difficulty. All they've done is change the definition of practical difficulty. Is it substantial, can it be alleviated by another method? Yes. He can build 900 square feet. - 27 - ---" MR. THOMAS-Yes, but he would have two buildings there that would be, nine and eight is seventeen. MR. TURNER-Yes, but Chris, he's already got a two car garage attachment to the house, and now he's going with 1,000. MR. THOMAS-Yes, well lets not start splitting hairs here. That's in a different County. MR. TURNER-I'm not splitting hairs. It doesn't make a difference. It's all one piece of property. When he sells that property, he'll probably sell it as one piece. MR. THOMAS-Definitely. When I was in Lake George we ran into this problem, between Lake George and Queensbury, and finally the lawyers hammered it out. and Mr. Aronson ended up with what he wanted. He got what he wanted, even though it was one piece of property in two different towns. They were in the same County, but this is two different towns in two different counties. I think if Mr. Smith pushed this, he could get it through the court system, through an Article 78, if we denied it, and like I say, with the revisions in the variance rules, now Number Five, here, it says, whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the Board of Appeals, which shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance. MR. TURNER-But it is self-created. MR. THOMAS-It is self-created, but. MR. TURNER-And it is substantial, and it can be alleviated by another method, by building a 900 square foot garage. MR. THOMAS-It's relevant to the decision, but it doesn't preclude the granting of the variance, that means the weight of that. MR. TURNER-No, that's for us. MR. PHILO-Technically, if he wanted to put an expansion on that garage, that shed or whatever it is, he's asking for 396 feet. MR. SMITH-Mr. Turner, with all due respect, the fact that I understand what I'm asking for is above and beyond. Assume everybody in this room, and everybody that comes in front of you is asking for you to make exceptions, and I am asking the same thing. My question to you is, other than that fact, what does not, what doesn't the Board feel, what conflicts or what harm or what problem does it pose for the Board, other than the fact that it doesn't meet this 900 square feet. MR. TURNER-What does it pose? Because you're asking for a garage that's in excess of 900 square feet by almost 50 percent. MR. CARVIN-Why can't you live with 900 square feet? MR. TURNER-Why can't you live with that? MR. SMITH-I have that now. MR. TURNER-You don't have a garage. You have a shed. So how high is the shed. 12 feet, maybe? MR. SMITH-No. MR. TURNER-Not that high? MR. SMITH-Probably 14. MR. TURNER-Is it that high? - 28 - MR. SMITH-I do have that within 44 feet. I have that now. I guess my question to you is, I understand it doesn't meet that requirement. Other than, what hardship does it create. MR. TURNER-All right. The Corvettes, the ATV' s, the boats, all right. A garage is not supposed to house them, in a sense. The garage is for motor vehicles. MR. SMITH-What am I supposed to do with them? MR. TURNER-Store them some place else, like many people have to do that don't have room to store them. They take toeir b,oats and store tnem at where they launch them. Tney take their antique cars and store them elsewhere. MR. SMITH-What's a home for? your personal belongings. I mean, a home is to store, house MR. CARVIN-Well, if that was true, I mean, you could build a warehouse out there, because all of a sudden now you're collecting live elephants. MR. SMITH-Yes. I understand your limitation. MR. TURNER-No, but the law is very explicit. It says, that those are personal items, and personal items are not a criteria for granting a variance, that's what it says, and you're saying to us, this is what I want to put in there, and I'm saying to you, no. The law says those are personal items. Those are not the criteria to grant you a variance for that garage. MR. SMITH-I guess you haven't really answered my question. MRS. EGGLESTON-I think, to answer your question, Mr. Smith, we're supposed to look at minimum relief, not maximum. Forty-four percent is somewhat high, actually. We're to look at minimum relief, and frankly a lot of people want a lot of things, but you can't always have them. You know yourself. We've made that statement, you can't always have what you want, and we try to be fair to everybody. That's why I asked you to compromise a little bit. Could you not go back to the drawing board and maybe come up with something to help us. MR. SMITH-I appreciate what you're trying to do, and I hope the Board appreciate's what I'm trying to do. Yes, I could, but then I'm going to have to clear cut woods. I'm going to have to put up another building, and then I really don't get rid of the unsightly shed, because I need that to fill my needs for storage. Yes, I could build a 900 square foot garage and clear cut a bunch of trees, but I really don't think that just to make my project fit the rule book in this particular case is the best thing for the environment, the neighborhood for me, the Board, or the Town of Queensbury. I honestly don't feel that just clear cutting a bunch of land to put up a building that would conform with the Town's requirements. MR. TURNER-Well, again, I've got to go back to what she just said. We're supposed to be granting minimum relief, and you're asking for 44 percent. That's more than minimum relief, and you do have an option. You can build a 900 square foot garage, and you're saying to us, no, because I need to store all these things in, and these are not, again, they're not the criteria for granting the variance, and I respect what you're saying, and I understand where you're coming from, but we don't have to look at Mr. Smith's right now, but we have to look at John Doe and John Smith, and whoever else comes. We've got to answer back to them. why did you do it for him. MR. SMITH-I think you have some pretty sound reasons why you did it for him. because of all the documentation I've presented here. If - 29 - someone was in a similar situation. which I don't think there are many of them out there with the amount of land and the neighbor's support. I don't think you'll find many people in that situation. So, I think you do have an exception. MR. TURNER-Again, I think your request is substantial. I think you can alleviate it by another method. That's the criteria for granting a variance. MR. KARPELES-He's got almost three acres. I think it is reasonable to assume that when you've got three acres, that you're going to have room enough for your toys, especially if you're not going to bother anybody else, and he's in a unique situation, where that is located, I can't see where it's going to bother anybody else by him building that garage that size. MR. TURNER-Any other thoughts? MRS. EGGLESTON-No. I've given mine, I guess. MR. THOMAS-The only thing I'd like to say is I'd rather see one building than two. MR. TURNER-That's fine, but again, I've got to say, he's got a two car garage on the house now. Now we're going to give him well over 1,000, and I say that's substantial, whether he's in another County or not, it's on the one piece of property, and when he sells it. it goes with the property, whether he's got 2.80 acres, or not. he's not going to subdivide that piece of property. MR. PHILO-Explain one thing to me. He's got a building there now, right? How many square feet is that building? MR. TURNER-Eight hundred and forty, I think I heard him say. MR. PHILO-Eight hundred and forty. MRS. EGGLESTON-Eight hundred and sixty-four, yes. MR. PHILO-Eight hundred and sixty four. So he's thirty some feet. MRS. EGGLESTON-No. He's three hundred and something from what he wants. 396 feet. MR. TURNER-Three hundred ninety-six feet square feet from what he wants. MR. PHILO-So he lacks 30 some feet from being 900 feet at the present time. So, I can't understand, he's over, if he expanded around that thing, 300 and some feet, that's all he's asking for. MR. TURNER-I know what he's asking for. MR. PHILO-I'd rather see a decent looking building, one building, like you said, than. MR. TURNER-He can have a decent looking building. He can have 900 square feet, Tom. MR. PHILO-We II, he's got it now, though, all but 30 some feet, right? MR. TURNER-Okay. Motion's in order. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 13-1993 DOUGLAS B. SMITH, Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: And grant relief of 396 square feet from Section 179-7, which requires a maximum of 900 square feet for a garage. I believe that - 30 - the size of the structure would fit in aesthetically with the rest of the property, including the applicant's residence. This is a good sized piece of property, 2.80 acres, and is well kept by the applicant. The one structure would certainly enhance the property more than building a 900 square foot garage and leaving the existing unsightly storage area. There is great neighborhood support for the project, and I believe that the request is a reasonable request, and will certainly enhance the neighborhood and increase the value of the surrounding properties. The applicant's structure would be able to be built without having to take down trees and destroying the buffer that surrounds the back of his property. from the lake ard other existinq d~ellinqs. I dpn' t De lleve 1 t would bedetr mentäl to the nêighborlioCfd, and there would be no adverse effect on services and facilities. Duly adopted this 17th day of March, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Philo, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Eggleston NOES: Mr. Carvin, Mr. Turner ABSENT: Mrs. Paling MR. SMITH-Thank you very much. USE VARIANCE NO. 14-1993 TYPE: UNLISTED NC-10 LEEMILT'S/GETTY PETROLEUM CORP. OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: INTERSECTION OF DIXON AND AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT IS SEEKING RELIEF FROM SECTION THAT LISTS PERMITTED USES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ZONE FOR TWO ( 2 ) EXISTING NONCONFORMING USES IN AN EXISTING STRUCTURE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NUMBER: 9-1-1 LOT SIZE: 0.21 ACRES SECTION 179-25 D(3)(b) RON FORTUNE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT MRS. EGGLESTON-The Warren County Planning Board returned "No County Impact". STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 14-1993, LeeMilt's/Getty Petroleum Corp., Meeting Date: March 17, 1993 II SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant has two (2) existing nonconforming uses in an existing structure. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: Applicant is seeking relief from Section 179-25 D(3)(b) which lists the permitted uses in the Ne ighborhood/Commercial Zone. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. IS A REASONABLE RETURN POSSIBLE IF THE LAND IS USED AS ZONED? Applicant believes that a reasonable return of the land cannot be expected without the use of all of the space in the existing structure. 2. ARE THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE LOT UNIQUE AND NOT DUE TO THE UNREASONABLENESS OF THE ORDINANCE? The site of one of the existing nonconforming uses was originally built in part as an auto repair bay(s) and existing zoning does not permit an auto repair shop. 3. IS THERE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER? Applicant believes that the site was originally built to accommodate several businesses and that the existing use of the site is consistent with the mix of uses in the neighborhood and would not cause an adverse effect on the character of the neighborhood. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: There are four existing uses of the structure. Two (2) of the uses are conforming (gas station and a second floor apartment). Two (2) of the uses are nonconforming (print shop and retail carpet sales store). Staff's main concern about the existing use of this structure is the possible traffic problem posed by the use of the bay doors (see site plan) for delivery of carpets. This is the same area that the gas station receives delivery of fuel to underground storage tanks and is substantially contiguous to the public gas pumps. An additional concern regards the problem of snow removal storage. During a site visit staff observed that snow was stored at the back and east side of the property, covering designated parking spaces. - 31 - Additionally, it was observed that the neighboring property (Sokol's Market) had two (2) deli very trucks parked in the same area at the back of the Leemilt's property." MR. FORTUNE-For the record, my name is Ron Fortune. I'm an authorized agent for Getty/Leemilt's Petroleum. We had submitted an application in June '92 for reopening the bays for our mechanics area, in conjunction with the gasoline sales, to induce the dealer to utilize, basically, the contract I told you about, lease arrangement, where we could gain better revenues off the property. I met with the neighborhood group, and there was quite a bit of opposition regarding the opening of the bays. Getty had purchased the property around 1986, with an understanding that the bays that hadn't been used could, in fact, be used. However. their marketing policy was not to operate the bay pursuant. In fact they, in turn. would just be selling the petroleum product. Now, with the changes in the economy now, what the dealers want and need is bargains on the repai r fac i 1 i ties. Howeve r, because of the opposition, as such, it was discontinued on or around June 10th '92. In January of this year, we came back before this Board to get an extension of the carpet business that was there as a display area for our lessee. who also has a copy business at the facility. Presently, we are coming back with a different application to tie up the total carpet area and the copy area. which totals somewhere around 1723 square feet. I showed, before, our P & L's, on the loss of the property, and I have that, again. with me. I'd prefer this information was kept to the Board only. Also, as far as the uniqueness of the lot, the property was bui 1 t this way. We purchased it this way. We didn't go out and build this building. We are, again, trying to get necessary revenues off the property. As far as the adverse effect on the neighborhood, I have some photos to show it has, in the rear of the adjoining property, the general work area for, again, there's. I believe, a compactor there and a fenced in area for storage, and I believe the activities at this site are not going to impact the vicinity, and I'd like to present these photos and this P & L again. I don't you have a copy of that. The lessee has previously requested this here. and we have some building permits for the walls signs at both the carpet place and at the copy place, which I believe shows that they've gone and let the Town know that they were actually going to be operating the facility, or using that retail area for the type of business, even though it is not a permitted use in that zone. I have those, here are the sign permits, back in March of '91, that were granted. MR. TURNER-Okay. Thank you. So the carpet place, they moved in there when? The sign is for '92. MR. FORTUNE-Well, I believe you had some specific questions for the lessee and you wanted him here. MR. TURNER-Yes. record? Is he here? Could I have your name for the JAMES GLENDENNING MR. GLENDENNING-James Glendenning. MR. TURNER-And you've been there how long, Mr. Glendenning? MR. GLENDENNING-I started the printing business in May of 1991. MR. TURNER-At that location? MR. GLENDENNING-Yes. MR. TURNER-Yes. Did you get any other permit from the Town to open your business there? MR. GLENDENNING-No. I had talked to Dave Hatin a couple of times, - 32 - and he had basically if there's no inside structural walls going up, I didn't need a permit. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Do you own both businesses, the carpet business and the printing business? MR. GLENDENNING-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Before the carpet business was there, it was a video store, wasn't it? MR. GLENDENNING-Yes. MR. THOMAS-You didn't own that, did you? MR. GLENDENNING-No. MR. TURNER-If you get the garage for the storage area, I think I saw in the print, there's a walk through door. Is there a door that accesses that garage area from inside? MR. GLENDENNING-Yes. MR. TURNER-Are you going to do your cutting there, or what? MR. GLENDENNING-If it's a big job, we do cutting there. Otherwise, it comes in pre-cut. MR. TURNER-How about displays? inside for display? Are you going to have any racks MR. GLENDENNING-The racks are in the front. The only displays that are out there is a six tier vinyl rack, which holds stock, and vinyl remnants, that's it. MR. THOMAS-The last time variance, I asked about a garage door. Will there be to unload carpet off the? we started this, during the other forklift running in and out of that a forklift running in and out of there MR. GLENDENNING-I have another truck for loading. MR. THOMAS-How are you going to move the carpet in and out of that building? It comes in big rolls, just pick it up? MR. GLENDENNING-It's carpet, it's preshaped, it falls off the truck, we put it on there, and wheel it in. MR. THOMAS-So there's no mechanical? MR. GLENDENNING-No. MR. THOMAS-It's just more or less a dolly? MR. GLENDENNING-Basically, it comes down to whether or not we have a forklift, and I just won't put a forklift there. MR. TURNER-When are your deliveries? MR. GLENDENNING-We get deliveries between 10 and 6, Monday through Friday. On the average, we get two trucks a week. It doesn't take any more than a half hour to unload a truck. and that would be a full truck. MR. CARVIN-And you've had deliveries there currently? MR. GLENDENNING-Yes. - 33 - MR. CARVIN-Okay. No conflict with any gasoline trucks or anything like that? MR. GLENDENNING-We've been getting deliveries there since we've had gasoline. and we've never had a conflict. MR. CARVIN-So you don't expect any expansion of deliveries? So it should stay about the same schedule? Any conflict with the gas trucks? MR. GLENDENNING-None at all. Gas, as far as I know, and I've owned that gas station for about four days, until I realized I can't make any money on it. Their trucks come in, basically, at night. MR. TURNER-How many people work out of that site? Two? MR. CARVIN-How about the print shop, does that get any deliveries of any significance? MR. GLENDENNING-Just UPS. MR. CARVIN-Just UPS, and there's no chemicals or anything like that stored in the buildings? MR. GLENDENNING-No, none whatsoever. All we have is a photocopier. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further questions? Okay. public hearing, then. Let me open the PUBLIC HEARING OPENED RICHARD REYNOLDS MR. REYNOLDS-Mr. Chairman, my name is Richard Reynolds, and I live at 65 Ronald Drive, on the corner of Helen and Dixon, and I have some photos, also, showing the unavailability of snow removal. There's some before the last storm, and before. MR. PHILO-What are you saying the unavailability? MR. REYNOLDS-They have nowhere to put it. MR. TURNER-They have nowhere to put it. They used to pile it right on the corner of the island, right up so high, you had to venture right out into the road. MR. REYNOLDS-Right. That was before, I believe, they opened up the back of the building. MR. GLENDENNING-We did that this year, except we've had so much snow, we've had to remove it once already, and there's no problem removing it again. MR. REYNOLDS-It hasn't been removed at all. MR. GLENDENNING-It hasn't been removed there, but that is not, Pigglys has a road that's not a road. There's no reason why we can't block that off. MR. TURNER-No, no. I'm saying, when you drive out to the point of Dixon Road, where it intersections Aviation Road, if that snow is piled very high, you can't see east at all. You've got to venture out into the road to even see down there. MR. GLENDENNING-That's the gas station. My main entrance is on the back side of the building. MR. TURNER-Yes. I know, yours. MR. GLENDENNING-We don't take people in through the gas station or - 34 - on the side. There is another side door, I mean, just for my installers to come in and out and pick up the supplies. MR. THOMAS-Who's responsible for the snow that you're complaining about? MR. REYNOLDS-I believe the owners would be. I don't know. MR. PHILO-Is it the gas station, or is it this man here? MR. REYNOLDS-You'd have to ask these people. I don't know. I don't know who's responsible for it I've seen a white Ford ~ick- up sometlmes parKed at the gas station, sometlmes -late at nlght. I come home, I work four to twelve. I get home approximately twelve thirty at night and sometimes there's up to four cars parked there at twelve thirty at night. Sometimes there's only one. MR. GLENDENNING-Does that effect him directly? I don't understand, if I have seven cars. MR. REYNOLDS-My concerns are the lot size. It's less than a quarter acre. Now it's showing four businesses for a quarter acre that, correct me if I'm wrong, but at .21 acres, we're talking 9200 square feet or less, and it's NC-10. Is that 10,000 per business? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. REYNOLDS-So, we're talking an expansion of over 67 percent they would need, to add two more businesses. Now, Leemilt's said this was purchased in ' 86 . When was it zoned? I just moved to Queensbury. MR. TURNER-In '88. MR. REYNOLDS-In '88? MR. TURNER-Yes. It was re-zoned in '88. It was always Neighborhood Commercial. In '82 it was Neighborhood Commercial. MR. REYNOLDS-Re-zoned. Okay. At that time. was Leemilt's notified that it had been re-zoned? MR. TURNER-Everybody should have been aware, because it was in the paper. It was posted in the paper. The hearings were in the paper and everything. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, it didn't change. did it? MR. TURNER-It didn't change anyway. The zone never changed. MRS. EGGLESTON-It was the same in '82, and it's been the same. MR. REYNOLDS-Okay. So, in other words. Leemilt's bought it as NC- 10? MRS. EGGLESTON-Knowing it was NC-10. MR. TURNER-They knew what they bought. MR. REYNOLDS-Okay. So they knew what they were getting into at the time? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. Right. MR. REYNOLDS-All right. Leemilt's has claimed hardship. It says here that they've lost $72.000 for the year ending 1/21/92. Could you have Mr. Fortune explain this hardship? Because this copy they sent is for the gas station. It does not show money received for rent or from the lessees. - 35 - MR. TURNER-Mr. Fortune, would you care to answer that, while he's right on the subject? MR. FORTUNE-What I have, I have a letter from the marketing rep that's basically representing that those are the numbers for the site, on a Profit and Loss Statement, and that's what was presented through the Accounting Department for this site, and it stands, the fiscal year, showing losses for the fiscal year ending 1/31/92. MRS. EGGLESTON-Are you testifying, then, that this includes the lessees rents and whatever? I'm asking Ron. He's supposed to be representing the Getty Petroleum here. MR. TURNER-Is there any, what's the rental income from, anything else other than the gas station? MR. REYNOLDS-It appears to be just something from a ledger. There's no kind of document showing anything. MR. PHILO-How long have you lived there? MR. REYNOLDS-We closed on the house August 31st, 1990. MR. TURNER-You're on which corner, now, the far corner of Helen Drive, or this, the west corner or the east corner? MR. REYNOLDS-The opposite side of the station. behind Sokol's. MR. TURNER-Yes, behind Sokol's, but are you on the lower corner, going towards the City. or? MR. REYNOLDS-Going towards the City, yes. MR. TURNER-Okay. I know. MRS. EGGLESTON-Ted, because there's more business in here now, does that change is from a plaza to a? MR. TURNER-No. It's a Neighborhood Commercial. MRS. EGGLESTON-It doesn't, but whether it's a shopping mall, or? MR. TURNER-Right, but the carpet business is not an allowed use in that zone. MRS. EGGLESTON-Because it's not listed under Neighborhood? MR. TURNER-It's not listed, no. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well. what happened to. Paul said these were only illustrative? MR. TURNER-They're not illustrative, in that sense, because you have to look the purposes of a Neighborhood Commercial zone, and that identifies, pretty much, what is there, what should be there. MRS. EGGLESTON-I remember I made the comment here, a month or so ago. and Paul said, we said, we made a vote we wouldn't use them as illustrative, the lists, and Paul said the Town Board overruled us and said they will be used as illustrative? MR. TURNER-Well, we'll decided what's illustrative. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. So then if we went that route. we would have to say, is a carpet. MR. TURNER-Here's what's permitted under Type II, under Type II you have a gasoline station or facility, professional office, laundromat, housing units in combination wi th commercial facilities, apartment or a store, day care center, restaurant with - 36 - - alcoholic beverage license, drugstore, pharmacy, stationary store, grocery or meat store, barber or beauty shop, Page 17984, and 17985, and a carpet business is not a permitted use in that zone, neither is a print shop. That's where the crux of the matter comes from. They can have a banking facility. MR. PHILO-Tell me the reasons you don't want this? MR. REYNOLDS-The reasons? The added number of people going through there. The gasoline trucks and the carpet store trucks that will be blocking people trying to exit onto Dixon Road. and with added snow that's piled up. Dn the ~oint."t that Mr¡;. Turner said that's where Ehey used to p11e 1t:, you pu a trucl\. on the other slde. coming up from Dixon and going down Dixon, you're not going to be able to exit there at all. The zoning law states. I just feel that everybody should have to go by what's written. MR. PHILO-There's such a thing as grandfathering, too, son. MR. TURNER-He's not grandfathered. MR. REYNOLDS-I'm not saying that. MR. TURNER-He's not grandfathered, Tom. MR. PHILO-That gas station's been there ever since. MR. TURNER-The gas station's permitted. He's not talking about the gas station. That's a permitted use. MR. REYNOLDS-I'm not talking about the gas station or the apartments. Those are permitted uses. I'm talking expansion of the other two stores. I'm not saying anything about that. MR. PHILO-When it first opened, that building. they were selling carpet out of MRS. EGGLESTON-What impact are businesses bring to that center? you seeing the two additional Certainly not more snow? MR. REYNOLDS-No. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. So what more impact do you see those two businesses have created on that corner? MR. REYNOLDS-A lot more traffic. You're going to get more traffic there. as businesses grow. That's a pretty busy corner. Dixon Road becomes very busy. About a year and a half ago, we had a young boy killed on a bicycle on Dixon Road. There are no shoulders. There are a lot of kids at that area. Now, from my understanding, I believe there would be more traffic there, because I spoke to one of the other neighbors, I don't know the name of the road at the point, there's a road going off Aviation Road. MRS. EGGLESTON-Farr Lane. MR. REYNOLDS-I also understand there has been approval for a subdivision, or there's plans for a subdivision up there. MR. TURNER-Senior Citizens. MR. REYNOLDS-That's also going to increase the number of traffic up that way. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, was the video store, that must have been a lot of traffic? That had to have been more than the. MR. REYNOLDS-I'll be honest with you, Mrs. Eggleston, when we were having the house built. I went in there and bought a video, we went back up, I videoed the lot as it was going up. The next thing I - 37 - knew, the store was gone. Nothing stays in there. I think there was a card shop in there at one time, also, a baseball card shop, Quincy's, I think that was. MRS. EGGLESTON-I think that's the owner's problem, is that nothing stays there, and they have been back be fore us numerous times because they claim they can't make money out of anything that goes in or out of there. It really is a problem for them as well as for the neighbors, who have to put up with the traffic. MR. REYNOLDS-But they also did purchase it under the zoning laws of Queensbury, too, and they had to understand that they may have problems. MR. TURNER-Yes, that's true, but in defense of that, too, they have the right to seek relief, if they're not realizing a reasonable return as zoned. MR. REYNOLDS-Okay. Another question I have for Mr. Fortune, does Leemilt's lease their gas pumps? MR. FORTUNE-I believe right now that the gas station itself, as James had mentioned, was under some type of a lease arrangement, and I believe they were trying to get him to, and he decided not to, and I believe, you'd have to confirm it with him as to exactly what the arrangement was with him, as to how it is now. Previously, when I was coming here for the bays, the facility was where it was a company operated facility looking for a dealer type thing, and we couldn't get one until we knew where we stood with the bays, and that was represented to you, but as far as :my understanding of the contract now, that is it leased. It's not a company operation. MR. REYNOLDS-Okay. So my question is there, if they're leasing the building, how are they getting $55,000 for 10 months time? They're leasing it out. They've got no obligation to, I don't know where they're making the ir loss. That's a lot of gasol ine. I know, on a gallon of gas, you don't make much. I'd say maybe a dime, that's a half million gallons of gas. I know. I've got friends of mine that have a gas station. They don't make a dime on gasoline. Now, Mr. Fortune also said Leemil t' s and Getty. that want their stations to open up bays. Does Leemilt's own the Getty station on the corner of Ridge Road. and 149? MR. FORTUNE-I have no idea. MRS. EGGLESTON-Could you make any sense out of this? MR. TURNER-No. MR. CARVIN-I don't even know if it's the right, because it says there's regional figures there. MR. REYNOLDS-The reason I'm asking the question about the station on 149 and Ridge Road, is there are no bays on that, and at one point. I think my wife may have it in the file, there was an article in the paper for a Getty station, to open up a service station with two locations. Those are the only two Getty stations I know of in the area, the one on 149 and Ridge, and the one up by the house. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, Mr. Reynolds, could I ask you just a question? As I said to you, it's been a difficult place to deal with, but if you were listening when our Chairman read what could go in there, I think you have to look at some things that could be much more offensive than a carpet, or a printing store. For instance, think how much would be generated from a restaurant traffic. It could go there without requests from any Board. It's a permitted use, a drug store, a pharmacy. I mean, people could be coming and going. There'd be, I think. a lot more traffic than with a carpet - 38 - business. I think if you think about what can go there, you might find this not to be so obtrusive. MR. REYNOLDS-I'm not denying that, but I'm just saying, can it go there, because of the zoning law? MRS. EGGLESTON-That's what our Board is for, is to say, when things don't fit a certain category within the rules, that's when they can come before this Board and say, well, we can't make this work with a gas station. We cannot make the money with a permitted use, can we put a rug. MR. REYNOLDS-But Mr. Fortune, here, cannot explain the hardship. MRS. EGGLESTON-I agree with you with that. but something's going to go there. You've got to realize that. MR. REYNOLDS-I understand that. MRS. EGGLESTON-And I'm just saying, I'm just warning you that, maybe if you drove this out. you might get something that would be a lot worse. I just want to be sure you're aware of that, because some of these uses could really be a laundromat. I mean, that could be open all night with people coming and going. That's a permitted use, and sometimes, even though it's a lot of traffic. MR. REYNOLDS-There's been everything, I think, on that corner. Everybody's tried everything. It's a bad corner. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, I know, but yet the property owner has a right to use the property, just like you have. under the rules of the Town of Queensbury, right, unless we give him some sort of a variance to go outside of the rules. but somehow some way there's going to be something there. I'm just trying to impress on you what could go there that would be a lot more noisy, open all night. MR. REYNOLDS-But my feeling here is, though, I think they're also trying to pull the wool over the Board's eyes by showing these hardships. These are just numbers written on a piece of paper. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. We must admit, none of us can figure this out. MR. REYNOLDS-I can't say that they're losing, they're not losing, if they're losing that is a hardship brought on by themselves, by purchasing that corner. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. In fact, it looks almost like the, and I'm not accusing them of anything, but the figures look familiar, like the one we saw back a few years ago, that said that same amount of a loss. So, I don't, I'm not saying that, but it's strange that they're all the same losses. MR. FORTUNE-In defense, though, of this, this is a document that was submitted to me to submit to this Board. I don't believe that it's anyone's position, I mean, I can't tell you, other than what was represented to me, that there is a loss of $72,180 for the fiscal year of '92, of which Getty did not want anyone to be aware of, that they were losing that much over that time. Where the actual figures are, if you want it broken down and then ask me for that. You asked me for this. I believe I've presented it. We have that loss on the books for that site. MRS. EGGLESTON-But in the same instance, you should be able to explain that report. We didn't only ask you to bring that to us and hand it to us. You should be able to explain that report. Like if we say that, if we ask you, does that include all of the rental income? Does that include that one piece of property, exclusive, what is the income, what is going out. You should be able to explain that, not give us a piece of Greek to read and think we can figure it out. - 39 - MR. FORTUNE-Well, I believe I can give you a breakdown, if this is insufficient, but we did not want to provide a complete document. MR. TURNER-Well, I think that's what we asked you for. MRS. EGGLESTON-Every have to show facts substantiate a loss, $72,000. time you have ever been here, we have said you and figures, that we can understand, that not just a sheet of paper that says we lost MR. FORTUNE-One, I can say that, as Jaime had mentioned, that sometimes the contracts, if someone does not make a margin on the facility, or for whatever reason, then the company does not charge for the lease. I mean, they have to be selling a certain number of gallons in order to generate a certain amount of income. So, from that site, plus the equipment, the capital expense there, most people don't see them because they're under ground, and that amortized is going to certainly have a certain impact on losses for that year, or any year. I mean, we have certain incurred costs, never mind the purchase part of the thing. This was not something, we went out and bought this facility. We bought the package that we had to, to get everything. MR. TURNER-Right, but what we said to you, the last time around, we said, bring us a statement showing us incomes, payouts, and everything. You're just showing a piece of paper that says, we lost X number of dollars. There's nothing there that says anything about any of the shops that are there, what you get from them. what you figure for a loss on them, nothing. MR. MARTIN-Correct me if I'm wrong, too, Mr. Chairman, they should have to show that the uses that are allowed can't go on that site, and why, economically, they can't be rented as a drugstore, or that type of thing, why that type of use can't be attracted to that spot, and can't be economically viable at that spot. MRS. EGGLESTON-See, we found with, like when we did U-Haul over on the Corinth Road, they came in with a report that looked something like this, and the bottom census was, they were taking so much out of it, that no matter who went in there, they couldn't make money, because they were, it was designed that way. Nobody could make money because the parent company wanted all the profits. MR. REYNOLDS-I think the area's really grown up since, probably, that station was originally built. MR. TURNER-That little island effect has been there a long time. What came after that island was Henry Slate's store, which is now Sokol's, all right, and then the rest of it came well after that corner. That corner was the initial business there. That was a gas station. That was Eney Hewett's gas station years ago. MR. PHILO-Years ago. That's back in the 30's. MR. TURNER-And that's a long time ago. MR. REYNOLDS-In the last meeting that Mr. Fortune attended also, he did state that he would still prefer to have them opened up as service bay areas, and that's a big concern of everybody in that area. MR. TURNER-I know it is. MR. REYNOLDS-I mean, it's overwhelming. Personally, I have no problem with a carpet store, or a print shop. They're very quiet, but I don't want to see a use variance given to Leemi 1 t' s. I'd rather see it given to this young man back here, and have him as the applicant. That way, if he leaves, the variance leaves, that Leemilt's don't have a use variance on that area, and that's how I feel. - 40 - ~. MR. TURNER-Yes. I don't want to see it on there forever, because that's a use that doesn't belong there. MR. REYNOLDS-I took a night off from working at the Correctional Facility, and I can't keep using up my time just to come here at night. Well, I've worked hard to get up where I am, and I'm very proud to live where I do. MR. TURNER-You don't want to take a loss on your property, either. MR. REYNOLDS-No. My contractor's Don Maynard. He's very good. He h~lped fill that whole corner up. He owns the apartments across tue street. MR. PHILO-Yes. I'm not too impressed with this ledger. a student, to give me a report, he'd have an F on this. If I gave He'd fail. MR. REYNOLDS-One other thing. Mr. Fortune, I believe, the office area was 1700 square feet, approximately? said that MR. FORTUNE-I believe the application is somewhere around 1700 square feet. MR. TURNER-The print shop and the carpet store? MR. FORTUNE-I believe that's just for the carpet store. MR. TURNER-Just the carpet store? MR. REYNOLDS-That's not including the bays? Because you have a diagram here showing that there's a wall running between the middle of the garage and everything, from 28 feet across. That building would have to be approximately 60 feet long to provide, I think you're trying to make the building a little bit bigger than what it really is. MR. PHILO-Why don't we table this thing until they get the proper information. MR. REYNOLDS-This has been going on since June, also, with this property. Mr. Turner, may I ask you one more thing? If the use variance was granted, myself, I'd like to see a stipulations put in, saying that if this young man gets the use variance, that if he leaves, the carpet store leaves, or the print shop leaves, the use variance goes away, and that Leemilt's would have to reapply, or whoever else wanted to come in, it's automatic. MR. TURNER-Yes. It's not automatic, but that would be a condition, I would think. MR. REYNOLDS-That's the only thing, that's why I don't want to see Leemilt's get the use variance. I want to see this young man get the use variance. Thank you for your time. MR. TURNER-Thank you. MRS. EGGLESTON-Thank you for coming. MR. TURNER-Anyone else wish to be heard in opposition to the application? Okay. None? The public hearing's closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE MRS. EGGLESTON-I've got one letter, Ted, from Robert Eddy, "There have been two or more businesses in this building for all of the 28 years I have lived in the neighborhood. My question is, why is this just coming to light? I believe there are now three businesses. If I am correct, this comes under the heading of a - 41 - shopping center. This would change the entire picture, in so far as the Sign Ordinance is concerned. The Ordinance allows one shopping center sign and a wall sign for each tenant. The applicant already has two nonconforming freestanding signs on one pylon, both of which must be replaced as a shopping center. Even if there are only two businesses, one of the nonconforming signs should be removed. This variance should only be approved on the basis of signs being brought into conformance with the Sign Ordinance. Robert Eddy" MR. REYNOLDS-I didn't understand that letter. MR. TURNER-Three businesses on a site constitute a shopping center, all right. You're only allowed one freestanding sign, and a wall sign for each business. The freestanding sign has to identify the name of the plaza. MR. MARTIN-And not an individual business within the plaza. MR. TURNER-Not an individual business. MR. FORTUNE-For the record, to add the square footage of the building. and the rental space, these are the numbers that I've got for the Board. I believe that there is plus or minus 2726 square feet for the total ground floor area. The rental area. for the apartment, is, I believe, the 1316. MR. GLENDENNING-I can answer the question that was just asked, if Ron can't. The square feet is 300 square feet, for the copier. MRS. EGGLESTON-And how much for the gas station? MR. FORTUNE-The attendant area for the gas station is 700, that includes, there's two inside restrooms. MRS. EGGLESTON-So does that mean the carpet area is 410? MR. FORTUNE-Again some of it is the restroom, and Jimmy had a question, there's a stairwell that goes up to the apartment up there, and that is included in the attendant area. So the 700 is a little less because of that. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. All right. MR. FORTUNE-Again, I apologize for the, as far as not having any information on this report. I can get it for you. I'll be glad to provide it for you, and do it in a professional manner, show you what is going on. MR. TURNER-We ought to know what's going on there, because we've got to address the issues that are before us, and without it, we can't address them. MR. GLENDENNING-Can I, as the person that is the owner, apply for a variance to do that? MR. TURNER-That's what we asked before. We asked that before, that you apply for the variance. We did ask him. You have to file for it. You've got to come in and file for it yourself. MR. GLENDENNING-That's no problem. MR. TURNER-I think I'd like to table it and let them bring the information back. MRS. EGGLESTON-Something. MR. CARVIN-If the young gentleman is going to be the applicant, why do we need all the figures? - 42 - MR. TURNER-It's a use not permitted. It's all a combination of everything, everything that's there. I mean, it still reverts back to who's, whether they're sustaining a loss, or whether they're not. MR. CARVIN-Yes, but I think the new applicant would have to prove that he couldn't find any other place, that would be his hardship, or his, I've got to refrain from using the word "hardship", but do you know what I'm saying? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-So, the gas station, they're just supporting him that, fine, we'll rent it to him. It's not a hardship to the gas station. Do you follow what I'm saving? MR. TURNER-He'd have to show that he couldn't put some of the uses in there that are permitted. MRS. EGGLESTON-Who'd have to show that? MR. TURNER-They would. MRS. EGGLESTON-Even though he made the permit, they still would have to do that? MR. TURNER-Yes. They're difference how you shake flakes. all together. the dish up. I doesn't It all comes make out any corn MR. MARTIN-I just don't understand what the economic benefit is of having a non paying tenant. MR. GLENDENNING-No, that was because, what happened in 1992 was I went in and renovated the entire building, brought it up to Code, painted the outside of the building, and improved the entire looks of the building. In which case, they credited me rent, is what happened in that case. Now they make more than enough money on my rent. MR. PHILO-They didn't lose any money on you, son. MRS. EGGLESTON-But it would have also increased the value of their building. MR. TURNER-Okay. I'm going to open the public hearing one more time. because the gentleman in the back wants to respond. I think. Mr. Reynolds? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JAMES REYNOLDS MR. REYNOLDS-Mr. Turner, I don't believe that anybody in the neighborhood would be in objection to this young man right here going for the use variance and getting a carpet store in. I spoke to many neighbors in the area. The main concern with the neighbors is that the corporation, Leemilt Corporation, not get the use variance. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. REYNOLDS-It's a fear of those in the neighborhood. They have no objections to the carpet store, and I will be the first to say, I will write a letter in favor of a carpet store and print shop, and I'm sure that other area neighbors would do the same. MR. TURNER-Okay, with no further expansion of the use. MR. REYNOLDS-No further expansion of the zoning, everything be left - 43 - the way it is, as it is right now. and I don't think there'd be any objection from the neighborhood, but with the stipulation that if the carpet store or print shop, or a combination of both, leave, that the use variance also goes with it. MR. TURNER-And he'd have to reapply. MR. REYNOLDS-Yes. MR. TURNER-I don't have a problem with that. MR. REYNOLDS-Thank you. MR. TURNER-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else wish to respond to anything else right now? If not, I'll close the public hearing. MR. CARVIN-I think it makes sense. We've played ping pong with this now for seven months, or however. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Any further discussion? What do you want to do? Do you want to move it, or what? MR. CARVIN-I would just as soon move it. I'd like to try to structure a motion where we grant a variance for the carpet place, with the stipulation that if it moves out, that it falls back, any new applicant has to go through a variance procedure. MR. FORTUNE-He's not the applicant at the moment. MR. TURNER-He's not the applicant. application. He's got to fill out an MRS. EGGLESTON-Because if went through him, he'd still have to prove that he. MR. CARVIN-Can we structure a variance with this application? MR. TURNER-No. MR. PHILO-No, a whole new thing. MR. TURNER-He's got to go through it. Fred, that was our original request, that he come with a use variance. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I remember that. MR. TURNER-Remember that, and he didn't do it. So lets send him back, and get a use variance here for him and the print shop, and then we'll deal with it. That way there, we can structure the motion accordingly. so it'll fit the applicant that's applying. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but are we going to put Leemilt through, are we going to require that he present a full financial disclosure? MR. TURNER-Yes. I want that. too. That's what we asked for. MR. CARVIN-I'm not quite sure it's a major piece to my decision. I mean, I think that what's I'm saying. MR. PHILO-It is for me. I want to see what the hardship is. MRS. EGGLESTON-What would your practical difficulty be, then, Fred? MR. TURNER-Because that's what you've got to prove, he can't realize a reasonable return if it's used as zoned. MR. CARVIN-Well, hardship really I think, just by the very nature, I is, what business does thrive there? mean, the I mean, - 44 - there's been a parade of businesses through there, and none of them have survived. So certainly that's an interesting hardship. I mean, maybe the carpet place will survive. I don't know. I mean, if it's six months from now, the carpet place is out of business, then we know it joins the list of the barber shop, which was there. MR. TURNER-All right. A barber shop was there, so that fell in. That's a permitted use. MR. CARVIN-But what I'm saying is, the permitted use didn't work, did it? So now maybe the carpet, what I'm saying is that maybe it's a hardship because of the? MRS. EGGLESTON-But Fred, we've got to go through the hearing anyway. MR. CARVIN-I'm not saying that we don't go through the hearing. MRS. EGGLESTON-If we had the correct report, it would be more of a basis to give it. MR. CARVIN-All I know is that I can go through tons and tons of financial documents, and it still is not the key piece to the decision making process. MRS. EGGLESTON-No, but it would help. MR. CARVIN-I'm not saying that it wouldn't help, but I think we've gotten bogged down on. MR. TURNER-No. I don't think w~ got bogged down. They didn't do what we asked them to do. MR. CARVIN-Well, you're correct there. MR. TURNER-That's where they got bogged down. I want to see them bring back the sheet of what they charge for rent to the tenants, what they claim is the profit and loss for the gas station, let this gentleman fill out a use variance for his business, and we'll deal with it. That way there, we've got all the information. We've got the right gentleman in front of us, and we can deal with the application accordingly, and prevent any further expansion of a use that's not permitted there by granting the use only to him. MR. PHILO-And if he doesn't bring it back correctly this time, throw the thing out period. MR. TURNER-We can't do that. They can come back as many times as they want to, as long as they bring new information. That's what I'd like to see. That way there, the handle's on the pot, right? MR. CARVIN-Well, see, the thing that's more relevant to me is that if he comes back with a realtor that says that they tried to get a pharmacy in there, to me, that's more meaningful than anything. MR. TURNER-They can show us what they charge for rent. MR. CARVIN-You can ask for it, if that's what you want. MR. TURNER-That's the criteria for a use variance. MRS. EGGLESTON-I think it would be helpful in however we go with the motion. MR. MARTIN-Ted, the application still has to be signed by the owner. MR. TURNER-That's fine, but he's the guy that's coming for it, right there, and then we can handle that variance for this gentleman right here, and then when that's gone, it's gone. We can - 45 - condition it that way. then they don't get the right to have the use further on down the road. That's what we're saying. MR. MARTIN-If the applicant wants to come in and talk to us, and structure this application. MR. TURNER-Well, Jim, we asked him for the information, right out point blank, and it's right there in the minutes, and if they didn't bring it, that's not our fault, and we told this gentleman here to come with an application for a use variance. He didn't do it. They came, and that isn't what we wanted. MR. GLENDENNING-I can't do anything. That's my landlord. I'm not going to go against him. MR. TURNER-No, but I'm saying, you can apply for a use variance for your business, whether he's the landlord or not. MR. GLENDENNING-That doesn't necessarily mean they're going to stop, right, apply for a use variance? See, my problem is. what if they don't want to fill out the use variance? MR. CARVIN-I was going to say, normally. the use applied for by the owner before the lease is signed. unusual situation here. variance is You've got an MRS. EGGLESTON-I guess I could say, Ted, what difference does it make if you leave it the way it is. rather than re-file all those papers, and if you grant it, you give it with the stipulation that it only goes to Mr. Benedetti, and when he's gone. MR. CARVIN-I don't see how you can give a use variance to anyone other than the owner. I mean, it's like me coming over and saying, I'm going to open up something in your shop and I'm going to apply for it. MR. MARTIN-That's why I say, you have to have the owner's participation in this. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. That's what I mean, leave it the way it is, but if we gave it. we could put the stipulation in. MR. MARTIN-I still don't think the information has been supplied to show the hardship. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Where is the comparison, the economic statistics that show that this is not viable as a drugstore, under the allowed uses. and on the other hand, why does this gentleman with his carpet store need to be at this specific site. He should have to show why he has to be at this particular site, why his carpet store can't work at another site in Town, and if those two economic, hard and fast information data is shown to support each of those arguments, then you have a basis for a decision. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. I think it should stay the way it is. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I think we have enough to work on this. MR. TURNER-All right. MR. MARTIN-I think the application's probably filed. you don't have enough information yet. I'm saying MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. I agree with that. MR. PHILO-Right. - 46 - MRS. EGGLESTON-Rather than change everything around, application wise. MR. TURNER-All right. That's okay with me. MOTION TO T~BLE USE VARIANCE NO. 14-1993 LEEMILT'S/GETTY PETROLEUM COR~, Introduced by Thomas Philo who moved for its adoption t seconded by Theodore Turner: Until the information requested is brought forth. Duly adopted this 17th day of March, 1993, by the following vote: MR. FORTUNE-I'm wondering if the, would be having troubles with how we would be doing that. They said, specifically, that they would only want the applicant, being James. MR. GLENDENNING-I also have hardship that I can't move. as what do you want from me, need to know. a problem, now, as to, I have to show Is this what you're asking for, as far besides an application, that's what I MR. CARVIN-Well, what other sites did you look at, in other words. what makes this particular site more desirable than some place else. MR. GLENDENNING-It's the only one in the price range, first of all, that I can afford. Second of all, I can't afford to move my business. MRS. EGGLESTON-That's the type of thing we need. So bring us that. That will be fine. That's all we need, on the record. MR. MARTIN-Yes, but some proof or evidence of that. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. TURNER-Proof or evidence. MR. MARTIN-I mean, another space in Town of 1500 square feet is going at X number of dollars that I can't afford. MRS. EGGLESTON-And you can get this at X number of dollars. MR. GLENDENNING-And document how much? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. PHILO-You come back with your information proper, so we can look at it. If you don't want anybody else to look at it, just the Board will look at it. MR. TURNER-It's a public document. If you submit it to the Town, it's public record. You've just got to file a Freedom of Information to get it. That's all. Okay. You know what we want, right? MR. GLENDENNING-Yes. MR. TURNER-Okay. AYES: Mr. Carvin, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Philo. Mr. Thomas, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Paling MR. CARVIN-Didn't we set up a policy with tabling, that it has to be brought back within 60 days? - 47 - -- MR. TURNER-Gentleman, before you go, we have a new procedure. Any tabling has to be brought back within 60 days, or you have to file for a new application. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-They know about that. I sent it to you. MR. TURNER-Okay, but I mean, just to point it out. AREA VARIANCE NO. 15-1993 TYPE II RR-5A CEA GERT & EVELYN SCHULZE OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT HAS AN EXISTING TWENTY-TWO BY EIGHT (22 FT. BY 8 FT.) FOOT PORCH ATTACHED TO THE WEST SIDE OF AN EXISTING DWELLING AND IS SEEKING RELIEF OF SEVEN (7) FEET FROM THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK OF (30) FEET. (ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY) TAX MAP NUMBER: 21-1-32 LOT SIZE: 19.000 SQ. FT. SECTION 179-15C MRS. EGGLESTON-The Warren County Planning Board returned, "No County Impact". STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 15-1993, Gert & Evelyn Schulze, Meeting Date: March 17, 1993 "SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant has an existing twenty-two by eight (22 x 8) foot deck attached to the west side of the existing residence which is nonconforming in it's side yard setback. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: The existing north side yard setback of the existing deck is thirteen (13) feet and applicant is seeking seventeen (17) feet relief from Section 179-15C which requires thirty (30) feet side yard setback. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. DESCRIBE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW PLACEMENT OF A STRUCTURE WHICH MEETS ZONING CODES. The existing structure has a nonconforming side yard setback and the existing porch continues the side yard setback nonconformance. 2. IS THIS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NECESSARY TO ALLEVIATE THE SPECIFIED PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY OR IS THERE ANY OTHER OPTION AVAILABLE WHICH WOULD REQUIRE NO VARIANCE? It would appear that the relief requested is the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty and as the deck currently exists, there is no other option available that would require no variance. 3. WOULD THIS VARIANCE BE DETRIMENTAL TO OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD? It would appear that the variance would not be a detriment to other properties in the district or neighborhood as the project is consistent with the character of the neighborhood and district. 4. WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF THE VARIANCE ON PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES? It would appear that the variance would not effect public services or facilities. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: Staff has no further comments regarding this application." MR. TURNER-You didn't get a permit, then, to build this? Is that what you're saying? MRS. SCHULZE-No. I didn't know we needed one. MR. TURNER-Okay. MRS. SCHULZE-Well, when we started, the house was really old. It's like, nobody will give you a loan for, so we got a loan for 25 percent. We said yes. There was a porch. MR. TURNER-Well, you couldn't really put much of a porch on it. You'd violate it anyway, where the house sets in~relation to the property line. You'd have to come here for a variance anyway. Does anybody have a problem with it? MR. PHILO-No. MR. TURNER-No. the appl icant? hearing. I don't either. Okay. Any further questions of If there isn't any, I'll just open the public - 48 - PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Okay. Motion's in order. MOTION TO APPROVE ~R~~_V1\B!~NçjLlmLJ.l?::::199~_._(Hat!_~..~tYJt~YN SCltUL~~. Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: And grant the applicant relief of 17 feet on the north side yard setback, for the existing deck, and this grants relief from Section 179-15C. The existing structure has a nonconforming side yard, and the existing porch will continue within the same side yard setback. This is a minimum request and the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty. In fact, because of the size of the lot, there aren't too many options. This variance would not be detrimental to other properties in the district or neighborhood. There is no neighborhood opposition, and I don't believe there would be any effect on public facilities or services. Duly adopted this 17th day of March, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Philo, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Karpeles. Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Paling MR. TURNER-This is to designate the Town Board as lead agency in the modification of the Zoning Ordinance. MR. MARTIN-Is that consent for the lead agency status? MR. TURNER-Yes. Right. MR. MARTIN-Yes. We need a resolution to that effect. It's just a vote. MRS. EGGLESTON-They gave us this to sign. It says sign it. MR. MARTIN-Well, you could authorize the Chairman to sign it. "º.'1.'IOJf'J.'H~_'1.'iHE Q!!~ENSBº,RY__ZONING BOARD OF A~J?EALS ,AUT!lORIZE. THE ~HAIRMAN Of__'1.'HE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TO SIGN THE CONSENT FORM M,A1<I.,G..'1.'HE.....!.OW~ OF QQEENSBURY TOW~ BOARD LEAD AGENT IN S~~A-ª.~VIEW :tJf'l'IU:.JfA'1.'.'1.'Eª. O_r.Ju=-~ºJltJ'J;'!ºB_.'l'.º-J:;~_T_PUBLIC HEARING AND TO DESIGNATE TJI~. .TOWJf^~ Lf,:.,Aº~GENC:X_.ªEG,AR[)¡..KÇ _.fJ~,ºJ~ºª_'D_1\";EN[)MJ:IiT _.'J.'O.J~!lE CODF.LQ'-- '1.'tl~. TO_W~. Or QUEENSBURY. CHAPTER 179 THEREOF. ENTITLED ZONING, Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Philo: Duly adopted this 17th day of March, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Philo, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin. Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Paling On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Theodore Turner - 49 -