Loading...
1993-05-19 l -- ORIGINAL QUEBRSBURY ZORING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST RBGULAR KEETING MAY 19TH. 1993 INDBX ~ Area Variance No. 20-1993 Use Variance No. 14-1993 Marcia L. Dekalb 1. Lemilt's Getty/Petroleum Corp. 3. Area Variance No. 31-1993 Glenn & Marilyn Gregory 8. Use Variance No. 35-1993 Ted Bigelow, Howard Denison. 14. Tom Jarrett c/o Embassador Assoc. Use Variance No. 38-1993 David & Suzanne Barnes 45. Area Variance No. 40-1993 FLR Partnership c/o Fred H. Alexy 53. Area Variance No. 42-1993 Mark Plaza 60. Area Variance No. 43-1993 Andrea Gray 64. 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 MAY 19TH. 1993 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN JOYCE EGGLESTON, SECRETARY THOMAS PHILO FRED CARVIN ROBERT KARPELES CHRIS THOMAS LINDA HAUSER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-1993 TYPE II SR-1A MARCIA L. DEKALB OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOT 39, INSPIRATION PARK SUBDIVISION MOCKINGBIRD LANE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A TWO (2) CAR. ATTACHED GARAGE TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME. APPLICANT IS PROPOSING SEVEN AND THREE TENTHS (7.3) FEET FOR THE WEST SIDE YARD SETBACK AND NINETEEN AND THREE TENTHS (19.3) FEET FOR THE EAST SIDE YARD SETBACK AND IS SEEKING TWO AND SEVEN TENTHS (2.7) FEET RELIEF AND SEVEN TENTHS (.7) FEET RELIEF RESPECTIVELY. FROM SECTION 179-19C, WHICH REQUIRES THE SUM OF THE SIDE YARD SETBACK TO BE THIRTY (30) FEET WITH A TEN (10) FOOT MINIMUM ON ONE SIDE. TAX MAP NUMBER: 148-2-39 LOT SIZE: 10.359 SQ. FT. SECTION 179-19C TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. EGGLESTON-It was tabled from April 27th for further information, for the applicant to submit an actual layout of the homes within the whole Inspiration Park. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-Joyce, I added a comment on the memo to Ted regarding this. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. "Mr. Nace has submitted information regarding the side yard setbacks of the homes at Inspiration Park. Lot 25 shows less than 10 feet at the left side yard setback, but has a sum of more than 30 feet, but does not have a garage built yet. Lot 42 has less than 10 feet on the left side yard setback, but has a sum of more than 30 feet, and the garage is already built." MR. TURNER-Tom, do you have anything? MR. NACE-The two that Staff noted were ones where the actual construction of the existing house was slightly outside of the envelope, and we had no control over that. That was a contractor mistake. The garage itself on those two lots, one is already constructed, and is wi thin the setback of the garage, and the second one, if the garage comes in, the garage itself would not exceed the variance, or exceed the setbacks. It's just the existing house already exceeds the setbacks. MRS. EGGLESTON-I think what we were trying to determine was how many, in that whole development, in order to put on a garage, were going to need variances, so we would know what we were up against. MR. NACE-Okay. That is this information packet, information. The only one that will need a variance proper is the one before you tonight. Every other the setback requirement. the packet of for the garage one will meet MRS. EGGLESTON-A two car garage? It will meet a two car garage? - 1 - MR. NACE-Yes, a two car garage. Now some of the garages will have to be 22 feet wide, instead of 24, which was originally anticipated. I've done some research, and 22 feet is more standard for a garage, a double garage, than 24. Twenty four is an extra wide. MRS. EGGLESTON-Thank you. MR. PHILO-These are the existing lots? MR. NACE-These Those are the surveyor. are every lot actual survey in the subdivision, all 42 lots. plats as prepared by the pro j ect MR. PHILO-Thank you. MR. TURNER-So you're going to go with the 22 foot garage rather than the 24? MR. NACE-Yes. They will go with either 22 or 23, depending on the requirements, and the homeowners have been informed that that's what they will have to abide by. MR. TURNER-I think you missed my question. with a 22 on this one, or a 24? Are you going to go MR. NACE-On this one? No. On this particular instance, the applicant already has plans drawn up for a 24 foot garage, already has a contract with a contractor to build a 24 foot garage, and that's what the application is submitted for. MR. TURNER-Any further questions of the applicant? I'll open the public hearing now. All right. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-I think some of these here. they're angling them down. I don't know if that's going to make a difference, Ted. In other words, on a curve here. They're taking the measurement on an angle, but this is actually closer. I think that would be closer. MR. NACE-Fred, to answer, I think, your concern, the one's on a curve, if it gets close to the line, those can be moved back. The fronts of house and the garage don't have to line up, okay. We can shove the garage back a couple of feet. MR. CARVIN-I see. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further discussion on the application? Okay. Lets move it. Motion's in order. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-1993 MARCIA L. DEKALB, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: That we grant 2.7 feet of relief from the west side yard setback and seven tenths feet relief from the east side yard setback from Section 179-19C, which requires that the sum of 30 feet of the side yard setbacks, with a minimum of 10 feet on one side. The difficulty for this applicant lies in the fact that the lot is of an unusual size and shape, which was a direct result of an error by the surveyors and engineers, and for the addition of a garage it becomes necessary to grant this variance. It would appear that this is the minimum relief requested to alleviate the specified practical difficulty. It does not appear that by granting this variance that it would be detrimental to any of the other - 2 - properties in the district or neighborhood, and it would appear that there would be no effect on public facilities or services. Duly adopted this 19th day of May, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Philo, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Thomas. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Miss Hauser USE VARIANCE NO. 14-1993 TYPE: UNLISTED NC-10 LEEMILT'S GETTY/PETROLEUM CORP. LOCATION: INTERSECTION OF DIXON AND AVIATION ROADS 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) DATE: MARCH 10. 1993 TAX MAP NUMBER: 9-1-1 LOT SIZE: 0.21 ACRES SECTION 179-25 D(3)(b) RON FORTUNE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT MRS. EGGLESTON-This was tabled from March 17th for a more detailed income report showing lessers payments and outgoing money. Also, the applicant was to bring confirming info that the spot is what he needs, money wise, will meet his needs. MR. TURNER-Okay. Mr. Fortune? MR. FORTUNE-My name is Ron Fortune, for the record. I'm representing Getty from this location, and as requested, I presented a letter from the operator stating the cost of comparables per square foot and then also his cost to possibly change location or to renovate. Also, I have a letter submitted showing. as represented, representing our previous, basically reconstructed to reflect a stabilized annual outgo, and utilize average annual sales and average rental recovery. Also we did a little chart showing basically, the area, the rent per year, rent per month, rent per square foot, comparable, and square footage again. I believe this is the dimension that was requested. I believe that it was requested that we also go through the paperwork with the Zoning Administrator to make sure that that's an agreeable form for the Board. MR. TURNER-Did the other gentleman come with you? MR. FORTUNE-Jim? No, he did not. MRS. EGGLESTON-What do we do without him? MR. TURNER-Okay. Does anybody have any questions for Mr. Fortune, in reference to what he's submitted? MR. THOMAS-The only thing I've got, I thought we were supposed to give the variance to the gentleman that owned the retail carpet sales? He specified he was supposed to obtain the variance, not the Getty Station. That was my understanding. MR. TURNER-That's what we did specify. Yes. You're right. MR. CARVIN-I think we had the discussion, didn't we determine that the owner of the property, normally the owner would come for a variance before renting. MR. TURNER-Yes. It should be kind of like a two fold thing, I think, in a sense. The owner should come, and. MR. CARVIN-Yes, the normal transition, but in this case, you've got the business already established. - 3 - MR. TURNER-The business is in there illegally, really. MR. CARVIN-Yes. It really is, technically. MR. PHILO-Mr. Thomas is right on that. MRS. EGGLESTON-Here's the minutes from where we talked, last time. MR. FORTUNE-As to who is going to fill it out, it's my understanding that the March submittal had the owner, who was then discussed at that meeting as to who should actually make the application, and it was determined at that time to keep the owner as the applicant. MR. CARVIN-Yes. That's the way I remember it, because one of the criteria, I think, is that there are acceptable businesses that could go in there, and that this one did not fall in the criteria, so that basically he was looking for a variance to allow the carpet store to move in, even though it's already there. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. FORTUNE-It was also understood and approved that should this tenant leave that we would still have to come back to the Board the next time. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I think we were headed down that path, in other words, to make it a conditional, a variance. I don't think we got that far in the discussion, though. MR. PHILO-What does it say, Ted? MR. TURNER-Jim said to me. Ted, the application still has to be signed by the owner, and I said to him, 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. Then when that's gone, it's gone. MRS. EGGLESTON-Do you agree with that, Arlyne? We said he had to come. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-Yes. MR. TURNER-We can condition it that way, but then they don't get the right to have the use further down the road. MR. CARVIN-So we can move on this, can we? MRS. EGGLESTON-No. We said he's got to be here. MR. TURNER-What's the date of that? MRS. EGGLESTON-March 17th, and that's the last time we were here. MR. CARVIN-Well, I think we could still grant, move on this variance. I'm not opposed to the conditioning, I'm just saying that, instead of having the occupant come back and file another application, I think we could move it right now, with the conditions. MR. TURNER-Anything else, Mr. Fortune? MR. FORTUNE-No. MR. TURNER-All right. I closed the public hearing the last time. but since this thing has been running for some time, I think I'll reopen it, in case anybody wi she s to speak. So, I'll open the public hearing now. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED - 4 - RICHARD REYNOLDS MR. REYNOLDS-My name is Richard Reynolds. I appeared here on March 17th, also, in front of the Board in opposition to this variance. The thing the neighborhood, I spoke to a lot of the neighbors, their concern is Leemilt's themselves, why they are so insistent on getting the use variance. If they would allow Mr. Benedetti to go for the use variance, I think the neighborhood would be in full the support. The main reason is the fear of the people that if Leemilt's gets the use variance, another business comes in, they have a use variance. I know you're talking about stipulations and everything, but I think this whole thing could be resolved, if Leemilt's would just allow Mr. Benedetti to come in and get the use variance. He'd be supported, and if he left, a new use variance would have to be sought. MR. TURNER-That was my contention anyway, that if we allow it to go there, it would be conditional, and then it would be gone, a new application. MR. REYNOLDS-The thing is, now, that Leemilt's doesn't allow the use variance, that if a new business gets put in there after, or if when the carpet store or print shop leaves, that the new business comes in there without getting a use variance. that it be shut down immediately. This store has been in there for 18 months without a use variance at all. MR. TURNER-Yes, quite a while. MR. REYNOLDS-It shouldn't be allowed, and now Leemilt's knows that they're in violation. MR. CARVIN-Again, I think we're going to try to address your concern. In other words, we can condition this variance to the carpet store or the business itself, so that if the business should go out of business, then the variance dies at that point, but if they decided, if Leemilt's decided to come back and put a drugstore or a barber shop in there, that would be perfectly within their rights. In other words, that is an allowable business in that particular site. So, I think we will address your concerns, as far as the carpet, in other words, they won't be able to put in a bookstore, for example. MR. FORTUNE-Mr. Turner, on the last minutes, we did say that a service station could not be allowed, is that correct, as far as doing automotive repair and stuff? MR. TURNER-There's no automotive repair allowed. that. They wanted that at one time. They came for MR. REYNOLDS-Right. That's what started this whole thing. MRS. EGGLESTON-I think maybe by allowing Lee Getty the variance, are we not saying that, say Mr. Benedetti decides not to have the carpet store anymore, Leemilt's could still have other people come in and run the carpet store. MR. CARVIN-They could the carpet store, yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-And they may not be as good to the neighborhood, maybe, as Mr. Benedetti would be, whom you seem to be comfortable with. MR. REYNOLDS-I have not had much to do with Mr. Benedetti, but the question is, is Leemilt's running the carpet store, or is Mr. Benedetti running the carpet store? In other words, if the carpet store leaves, it was brought there by Mr. Benedetti, not Leemilt's, and it should leave. That's all I'm asking. MRS. EGGLESTON-See, and I'm saying that's not so. If the variance - 5 - goes to Leemilt, they could still, and Mr. Benedetti leaves, they still could have a carpet store, with someone else running it. MR. REYNOLDS-That's one reason why we would ask Mr. Benedetti to come and get the use variance. I could get into a lot of stuff here, but one thing is the hardship. They're showing a $72,000 and a $55,000 loss, then they bring this April 7th paper in and say they've got a $5,200 loss. That's quite a substantial difference. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. REYNOLDS-If they're doing that, then they'll turn a profit of about $50.000 here ln the next 10 months. MRS. EGGLESTON-How would you answer that, the big difference in the? MR. FORTUNE-Yes. I believe that it was answered in the letter from Getty Petroleum, and that last statement that I had read. What they were doing is not, this particular station. What they were doing is taking total operating profit and loss for the Company. They have had a bad year, fiscal ' 91, and this, in turn, shows what's happening at the present. What it is is that for fiscal '91 and '92, as per the documentation that I had submitted previously, that the losses were heavy for that time period, and what has happened is that, with this rental in here, the changes, and as the letter is read in its entirety, shows that we've just singled out this property as this Board had asked, rather than looking at the total Company. So, that's the distinguishable loss right there, from the one figure to this particular site. The environmental issues, upgrading and everything is just a huge expense to the Company, as a whole, rather than this individual site, and that's the way the profit and loss figures were presented originally, which is really part of the actual loss. MR. CARVIN-Well, it's been a long time since I've been an accountant, and we could look at 15 different sets of numbers, and not one of them are every going to agree. I think the fact of the matter is, if you take a look at the history of that building and the number of businesses that have gone in and out of there, that I think that's more re f lecti ve of that site. I think that they would probably have a pretty good argument in probably showing a loss because of the turnover. I mean, I have to take a look at, you know, the other businesses in the area, I don't see where that's of a major concern, because you've got Sokol's. You've got that whole shopping strip there, and we could get bogged down in numbers all day long. I still come back, I'd like to move on the motion, with the conditions that the neighborhood has expressed, that they'd like to keep it to a carpet store, at this point. I think you're going to bump into the same problem, I mean, if Mr. Benedetti comes before and we grant the variance there, he still can sell the carpet business to somebody else, and that variance still would go with the carpet store. It goes with the business and not necessarily the company. So I think we're coming out to the same spot with the variance, is my feeling. MR. REYNOLDS-The only thing I feel is if Mr. Benedetti is willing to come for the use variance, he may show he that he is being responsible for the use variance. In other words. he's not just going to come in for the use variance, and in three months time be gone. A lot of stores are in there and out of there in three months, two months time. I'm just saying that if a person is willing to come in for a use variance, that shows that they've got some initiative to go after it, to stay with it. That's the only thing I feel. MR. CARVIN-Well, I think he's been in there a year and a half. so hopefully his staying power is a little bit longer, and I realize that this is kind of a cart before the horse situation, but I still think looking at it, it's going to come out to the same spot. In - 6 - '~ other words, I think we can address and move this thing down the line. have an argument that they would property. I mean, I just can't see out. I mean, that bay is just dead the concerns of the neighbors I think Leemilt probably does like to fully utilize that us keep knocking these things space. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE MRS EGGLESTON-A letter from George & Connie Ray, "We do not oppose the use variance application from the Getty Petroleum Corporation, located at the intersection of Dixon and Aviation Road, if it is being used only for the carpet store. However, we do oppose the Getty Petroleum Corporation later using the variance for vehicle maintenance and repair for themselves, or a future buyer of their station. P lease refer to my August 12th, 199 2 letter for the reasons why we are opposed to vehicle maintenance and repair." And a letter from Phil Jackson, 76 Helen Drive, "Concerning the Getty property on the corner of Dixon and Aviation Roads, I have no objection to your granting a variance that would allow for the way the property is currently being used. I would object to a variance that would allow Getty or a future owner to set up an automotive repair facility or some other type of repair or heavy equipment facility. I have no objection to a retail or office type use of that property." And a letter from James J. Benedetti, to Ron Fortune, "I have searched for a building to move to for some time. There are no buildings large enough or that will meet the rent that I can feasibly afford in this area. Rent on a building the size that I need in this area will cost between $12 and $22 a square foot. Moving a business after it has been established for a year and a half at its location can be detrimental. At this time, I cannot afford to move and renovate a building in Queensbury to meet my needs. To make the changes and renovations which I have made to this location costs nearly $5,000." MR. TURNER-Where does Mr. Benedetti live? Where did he live before he came to Queensbury? MR. FORTUNE-I believe he lives in that apartment, upstairs. MR. TURNER-How long has he lived there? MR. FORTUNE-He's been there since last July. MR. TURNER-So he came from where? MR. FORTUNE-I'm not that familiar. MR. TURNER-I'm just saying, to connect the scenario of where he came from and how he got there. Okay. Lets move it. I think what I'd like to see is to grant the use variance, not to Leemilt's, but to Mr. Benedetti. Although Leemilt's g~ven him permission, given him the right to operate out of that building, as the owner. MR. CARVIN-I think we can word it in such a fashion that it's granted to Leemilt, with the condition that it only applies to Mr. Benedetti, or the carpet store. MR. TURNER-Okay, and when he's gone, it's gone. MRS. EGGLESTON-While they're making their motion, I'd like to ask Mr. Fortune, whose been here many times in the past, and will probably be here many times in the future, and we ask for financial records, will you be sure that we get the right ones the first time, instead of all of the stores thrown in together, and an average? Would you do that the first time? MR. FORTUNE-I can only submit the documentation that's given me, but yes. - 7 - MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, tell them that's not going to fly, and you're just going to get sent away, unless you come with one like you brought tonight. Okay? MR. FORTUNE-Thanks. MRS. EGGLESTON-You're welcome. MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 14-1993 LEEMILT'S GETTY/PETROLEUM CORP., Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: That we grant relief from Section 179-25D(3)(b). The applicant is seeking an additional permitted use with the following conditions: Number One, that this variance is granted to Leemilt allowing the establishment of a carpet store/print shop, where the ownership is James J. Benedetti, Inc. Number Two, that if at any time Mr. Benedetti, Inc. or his carpet store goes out of business or changes location, this variance will cease. I feel that the applicant has provided significant information indicating that a reasonable return of the land cannot be expected without the use of all the space in the existing structure. This 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 ne~ghborhood, and would not cause an adverse effect on the character of the neighborhood. I would like to further emphasize, because of the neighborhood opposition, that this variance be only granted to the carpet store/print shop, and no one else. Duly adopted this 19th day of May, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Philo, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Miss Hauser AREA VARIANCE NO. 31-1993 TYPE: UNLISTED SR-1A GLENN & MARILYN GREGORY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE SANDERS ROAD APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO PLACE TWO (2) MOBILE HOMES ON A SINGLE VACANT LOT AND IS SEEKING RELIEF FROM SECTION 179-12C(5). WHICH STATES THAT IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES. NO MORE THAN ONE (1) PRINCIPAL BUILDING SHALL BE ALLOWED ON ANY SINGLE LOT LESS THAN TWO (2) ACRES IN SIZE. TAX MAP NUMBER: 126-1-55 LOT SIZE: 1.07 ACRES SECTION 179-7 GLENN GREGORY, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 31-1993, Glenn & Marilyn Gregory, Meeting Date: May 19th, 1993 "SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to place two (2) mobile homes on a single vacant lot. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: 1. Applicant is seeking relief from Section 179-12C (5), which states that in residential zones, no more than one (1) principal building shall be allowed on any single lot less than two (2) acres in size. 2. Applicant is proposing a one and seven hundredths (1.07) acre parcel for the placement of two (2) mobile homes and is seeking ninety-three hundredths (.93) acre relief from Section 179-19A, which permits one (1) principal building for every acre within the SR-1A zone. 3. Appl icant is seeking rel ie f from Section 179-7, Mobile Home Court, which defines a mobile home court as a parcel of land planned and improved for the placement of two (2) or more dependent or other mobile homes for continuous occupancy; to conform to Town Ordinances. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. DESCRIBE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW PLACEMENT OF A STRUCTURE WHICH MEETS THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS. Property being proposed for the placement of two (2) mobile homes is less than two (2) acres in size and applicant believes that constructing a single family - 8 - dwelling on the property would not be financially feasible for him. 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 relief requested is the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the specific practical difficulty and no other option is available which would require no variance as the acre of the parcel is undersized for the proposed project. 3. WOULD THIS VARIANCE BE DETRIMENTAL TO OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD? It would appear that the variance would not be detrimental to other properties in the district or neighborhood, as applicant's neighbors have signed a statement supporting the project and neighborhood is a mix of single family homes on conforming and nonconforming lot areas. 4. WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF THE VARIANCE ON PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES? It would appear that the variance would not effect public facilities and services. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: At the time of the writing of these notes the applicant is in the process of seeking a revocable permit from the Town for the placement of a mobile home outside of a mobile home court or a mobile home overlay district. Applicant believes that the only way he can achieve a reasonable return for the property in question is with the proposed project and believes that utilizing the property as zoned is not financially feasible for him. (See attached letter from the applicant addressing this issue. )" MRS. EGGLESTON-And the Queensbury Town Board approved the revocable permit. MR. TURNER-Glenn, would you care to add anything? MR. GREGORY-The only thing I can add is that the neighborhood is all in favor of it, and I want to put two homes on the land. Setback, Town Ordinances. It's all underground electrical wiring. The septic tank, or drywell. will be more than what the Town desires. The homes I'm going to put there are all U-Haul approved, U-Haul and HUD approved. They will meet the standards of the Town of Queensbury. The land I purchased last year. At that time, it was assessed at about $17,000. This year, it was assessed at $23,000, and I feel that with one home, I've got retirement income. One home will take care of my mortgage and my taxes, insurance, maintenance. The other home. hopefully, will take care of me. For reasons, control, physical reasons, I'm forced to retire before my time has come. I retire in two years, but do to physical problems, I have to retire before that. MR. CARVIN-Are you going to be living in one of the trailers, Mr. Gregory? MR. GREGORY-No, sir. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Now, you indicated in your letter that the trailers are in a court at this point. Are you going to move those trailers, or sell them? MR. GREGORY-I'm going to move one of them. The one I plan on moving is a 1979 Shultz, 14 by 70. It's in excellent condition. I have another one in the park that is. that home, by the way, is vacant. One reason it's vacant, every time there's an application in the park for a tenant, for some reason or another, the landlord of the park, the park owner will turn it down. Just as an example. you have a credit application, and if you have a credit application and you have a bad record from 15 years ago, you don't move in. He's blackballing the people that are trying to make a living out of the park. The other homê I'm going to put over there I have yet to purchase. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Do you have any other lots that you own, or is this the only lot? You have other lots? - 9 - MR. GREGORY-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. How many others, if I might ask? MR. GREGORY-I have three. MR. CARVIN-Okay, including this one, or is this Number Four? MR. GREGORY-This is Number Four. MR. CARVIN-This will be Number Four. lots, in addition to your own home? So you actually have four MR. GREGORY-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. GREGORY-The other three are in a mobile home overlay area down in the States Avenue area of the Town. MR. CARVIN-And you're claiming a financial difficulty at this point? MR. GREGORY-Yes. MR. THOMAS-This garage that you're going to put up, this 13 and a half by 24 garage, is that for the storage of a motor vehicle? MR. GREGORY-Yes. That garage is existing on the land right now. MR. THOMAS-It does exist? MR. GREGORY-And I'm going to move that from where it is over to the home that is pictured on the blue print I have there. MR. THOMAS-What was on that lot before? Was there a house there before? MR. GREGORY-No sir. If you look at that mobile home on the hand side of the picture, that garage, there, and the side of garage was a cellar that people lived in at one time. It's vacant for several years. The cellar has been caved in. garage is moved over to that location. left that been The MR. CARVIN-Well, I've got to ask some of these questions, Gregory, so I hope you don't take offense here. You have trailers in a court now that are rented, is that correct? Mr. two MR. GREGORY-I have two that are rented. I have one that is vacant. MR. CARVIN-Okay. and then you have three other lots, at this point. I'm assuming there are houses on those? MR. GREGORY-There are mobile homes on them. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and they are also rented? MR. GREGORY-One is not. MR. CARVIN-Okay. See, one of the things, I'd like to see some numbers proving the hardship on this. In other words, where you're losing money in the trailer park, in other words, or how you're losing money, because I have a real hard time with putting two trailers here, because we've had other folks come in, in the past, asking to do the same thing. and I'd like to see some hard numbers. I really would, in other words, showing me exactly where the hardship is. MR. GREGORY-The hardship is the lot rent in the mobile home park is $255 a month right now, and in January it's going to go to $300 a - 10 - -,0 month, and I'm trying to run a home and make a buck off it, and pay $300 a month. MR. CARVIN-But you're able to buy a lot. So, I mean, you're expanding, and you're going to buy another mobile home. I guess my problem is, why can't you put a big house here and charge more, in other words, why can't you comply to the zoning, with a single house, and charge more? MR. GREGORY-Okay. To answer that question, Number One, through the First National bank, I've been able to purchase this land. The mortgage that I have on my own home right now, it's a lot of mortgage. When I say I'm going to buy another mobile home, I can buy late model '88, with repos, fire wrecks, and I can buy them for $2, or $3, or $4,000, put in $3, or $4.000 and I have a home that meets all the standards of the Town. To build a house, I'm looking at $50, $60, $70,000, and there's no way. MR. CARVIN-Well, even a single double wide is better than the two mobile homes. I mean, that's my point. The area over there has been trying to clean up, and it just seems like we're perpetuating a situation that's been going on there for a number of years. MR. GREGORY-A new double wide costs, approximately, $30,000 on up, and you're still not going to get more than $500 a month for it, and out of the $30,000 I've got to pay mortgage. I've got to pay mortgage on the mobile home, maintenance, taxes. It just doesn't add up, and that's what I'm trying to do, is make a living. MR. CARVIN-Well, again, I think if you can, my feeling, I don't know what the rest of the Board is thinking, but we ask Leemilt here just a few minutes ago to come back and provide us with a lot of numbers, and I guess I would ask the same, because as I said, my basic feeling is that I don't want to perpetuate something out of that particular section of Town, where we have turned down, just recently, within the last few months, right on the corner, right around the corner, right on the corner of Corinth and Luzerne. The guy wanted to put another trailer in there, or mobile home. MRS. EGGLESTON-Take it out of the park. MR. CARVIN-Take it right out of the park, and we turned it down, and I can't say to that guy, because he was going to do the same thing. He was going to try to derive extra income, and I think both of those were rentals, and we turned that down. So I have a hard time stepping up to the plate on this one, when you're telling me you've got three other lots. You bought a lot. You're going to buy a mobile home, and I can appreciate the hardship aspect, because I know times are tough, but I have a hard time going to bat on this. I really do. MR. TURNER-Can you substantiate some figures to show us? MR. GREGORY-What kind of figures do you want? Do you want proof of my lot rent? Is that what you're looking for? Income? MRS. EGGLESTON-Mr. Gregory, you're still in business? MR. GREGORY-It's fading out very fast. I'm going out of it. MRS. EGGLESTON-I'll be very honest with you. I think one of my concerns, and I am concerned the same as Fred, is I know where you live, and I was there today, maybe you saw me with my brown car. There's such a mess there, and for you to want another place nearby. I mean, you've got one mobile home that's dismantled in half with the debris spread allover the place. There is just such a mess there. I couldn't conceive of letting this happen on another lot, and I'm wondering how you're going to keep that up, with. - 11 - MR. GREGORY-To answer your question on that, I saw a car, but I didn't know who it was. At one time, I had four of them there for storage, repo, whatever, and one of them has been destroyed and gone, one is in the process of being destroyed and gone, and this past week I made six trips to the junk yard with my trailer getting rid of the debris. I'm cleaning it up. In fact. all the debris is going. As I said, I've been working on it for the past three weeks. I've been to the junkyard several times, and I'm going to assume, within a month, that whole area will be cleaned up. MRS. EGGLESTON-How far back does your land go along the pole line? Does it go way back and meet Sanders Road? MR. GREGORY-No. It goes back to Bob Saunders place. MRS. EGGLESTON-I do agree with Fred, and I will substantiate his reports, and there's been more than the one gentleman who came in from the Van Dusen Road. We have had other requests. They all have the same thing. They'd like to get out of the mobile home parks, but that's why the Town of Queensbury set the districts for the placement of mobile homes, because that's where they wanted them. Not to say maybe your circumstance isn't different, and we look at each case individually, but in order for us to look at that fairly, and compare you to another person that asks, Mr. Carvin is very right, that we need a lot of facts and figures. We need to see, you're claiming hardship. We need to see your income. what each one of your lots brings in. what the out go is, what the taxes, we have to have that proof. MR. GREGORY-There have been variances in that same area within the past three years. MRS. EGGLESTON-Not for two mobile homes. MR. GREGORY-I'm not saying two mobile homes, one mobile home. MR. TURNER-No, no, one for Clark. and one for another party on the same road. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, but not for two mobile homes. MR. TURNER-On a single lot, though. MRS. EGGLESTON-And you can have one mobile home. The Town has said you can have one. Is that not right, without a variance? MR. TURNER-Arlyne, we don't have that information, do we? Do you have that information? MRS. RUTHSCHILD-Yes, I gave you a copy of the, that's the resolution. MR. TURNER-That's all it says, they granted it. conditions, weren't there? There were some MRS. RUTHSCHILD-No. MR. TURNER-Nothing? Okay. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-I gave you a copy of the resolution from the Town. MR. TURNER-Yes, I've got it. MRS. EGGLESTON-~ mobile home it says. A single, one. MR. GREGORY-Where it says II a mobile home ", on this paper right here, that was an error on my part. The map does show. MR. TURNER-Yes, but you went to the meeting, did you correct that at the meeting? - 12 - MR. GREGORY-Yes. MR. TURNER-But that's not the resolution. The resolution indicates one. MRS. EGGLESTON-Their resolution reads. MR. TURNER-One. a mobile home. That's official now. MRS. EGGLESTON-How much time, Glenn, do you think it'll take you to clean up? How much more time do you think it'll take to get rid of the mess that I spoke about? MR. GREGORY-It depends on the weather, probably another month. I've been working on it. MR. TURNER-They did a double take on this one. They put two mobile homes in one place, and a mobile home in the resolution. MR. PHILO-Lets bring this up to public hearing, Ted. MR. CARVIN-Well, what's the Town Board done? MR. TURNER-They said he could locate there, but he has to get a variance for that. MR. CARVIN-Well, again, if he can bring us back the figures, we'll take a look at it. I think it has to be comprehensive, in other words, what the cost of a house, and what the projected rent would be to comply with the zone. What a double wide, and what the two would do. It's going to require some homework. MR. TURNER-Can you do that, give us that information? MR. GREGORY-I know what the cost of a double wide is. prohibitive. It's MR. TURNER-I know, but we've got to have some information to back up your application. Without it, we're not going to act on it. MRS. EGGLESTON-What year was the mobile home you said you were moving out of the park onto there? MR. GREGORY-1979. MRS. EGGLESTON-'79. I don't think you can, can you place that year in the parks now? What is the year? MR. GREGORY-It varies. depending on the park ownership. MRS. EGGLESTON-That particular park, what is that particular? MR. GREGORY-I think from '87, '88. MRS. EGGLESTON-Anything older than that? MR. GREGORY-They won't allow it. MR. TURNER-All right. Do you want to move to table it? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. Did he ask us to table it? MR. CARVIN-I think as long as he understands, then, I would have, if you can get some realtor substantiations as to what rents might be, and things like that, where you can document it, certainly we'll be able to look at it in a more favorable light, in other words, if you can show us the hardship, the financial hardship. MR. PHILO-Is there anybody here for it or against it? I'd like to hear what the neighbors say, before we do anything. There may not - 13 - even be a need to go any further. MR. TURHER-If we're going to table it. we've got to do it when we hear the application. MRS. EGGLESTON-When they bring everything back. we'll hear it. MR. TURNER-There's no sense in hearing it now. MRS. EGGLESTOH-They'll come back and say the same again. MR. CARVIN-Yes. His application is. basically. incomplete. and if we table it. it is a 60 day. we have a 60 day table. MRS. EGGLESTOH-Sixty days to do it. MR. PHILO-What I'm saying is. you turned some people down. down the road. Now you're saying. send this guy back. MRS. EGGLESTON-We may very well. in the end. turn him down. Tom. but in fairness to him. we need to see the facts and figures. We're not saying. because he comes back with those figures. he's automatically gOing to get it. because that's not true. He's going to have to prove his case very well. MR. TURNER-Do you understand what he wants. double wide. single. residential? MR. GREGORY-I can get the cost for you. MR. TURNER-Okay. MRS. EGGLESTOH-And a financial report of your income. from all of your properties. the out go on each property. profit for the year. etc. MR. TURNER-Okay. Do you want to make a motion. Fred? MO.,IOI .,O.,ABLB DBA VARIAIICB 10. 31-1993 GLB.. & HARILYI GRBGORY. Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption. seconded by Theodore Turner. Duly adopted this 19th day of May. 1993. by the following vote. HR. GREGORY-When will that hearing be? MR. TURNER-You'll have to get the information in. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-It should be the 16th or the 23rd of June. You have to get it in by the 26th. which is next week. MR. TURNER-The last Wednesday of the month. before two o'clock in the afternoon. The sooner the better. Glenn. AYES. Mr. Carvin. Hrs. Eggleston. Hiss Hauser. Mr. Thomas. Mr. Philo. Mr. Karpeles. Mr. Turner NOES. NONE USB VARIAIICB .0. 35-1993 "YPB. U.LIS.,BD SI'R-1A .,BD BIGBLOW HOWARD DBIISOI .,OM JARRB.,., C/O BMBASSADOR ASSOCIA.,BS OWIBR. I'LOYD SHOVAH 637 GLB. S.,RBB., APPLICAII., IS PROP08IIG .,0 USB A SIIGLB I'AHILY RBSIDBICB AS PROI'BSSIOIAL OI'I'ICBS AID IS SBBXIRG RBLIBI' I'ROM SBC.,IOI 179- 280. PBRKI.,.,BD U88S. ( WARRBI COUI.,y PLAlIIIG). KAY 12. 1993 .,AX HAP IUMBBR. 186-1-9. 18 LO., 8IZB. 12.371 SQ. 1'''. SBC.,IOI 179-280 TED BIGELOW~ HOWARD DENISON~ TOM JARRETT~ PRESENT MRS. EGGLESTON-And the Warren County Planning Board approved. "With - lt - the condition that the Town of Queensbury is asked to look at re- zoning that entire area." STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 35-1993, Ted Bigelow, Meeting Date: May 19, 1993 "SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to use a single family dwelling as professional offices. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: 1. Applicant is seeking relief from Section 179-2ØD, Permitted Uses in the SFR-1A zone. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. IS REASONABLE RETURN POSSIBLE IF LAND IS USED AS ZONED? Applicant believes that reasonable return is not possible if land is used as zoned, as applicant states that they have unsuccessfully marketed said parcel for years as a single family home and believes that it is not marketable as such because of the dwellings' proximity to Glen Street and surrounding commercial acti vi ty. (see attached statement.) 2. ARE THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS LOT UNIQUE AND NOT DUE TO THE UNREASONABLENESS OF THE ORDINANCE? Applicant believes that the property is unique because of it's proximity to Route 9 and attendant commercial activity impacting the possibility of marketing the property as zoned. 3. IS THERE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER? Although the applicant is seeking to use a residential structure for a professional activity, applicant believes that the proposed project will enhance the property as they are planning to remove a garage which is in poor condition and add landscaping to the parcel. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: In June 1991, the owner of the property in question petitioned the Town for a zone change, P3-91, and was denied because of the inherent conflict of purposes in the established larger residential neighborhood and the intent of a Plaza Commercial Zone (see attached Planning Board resolution). In September 1991, the property in question was denied a Use Variance 72-1991, for the conversion of a residential unit to a beauty parlor (see attached resolution). The reasons being that there was ample neighborhood opposition, an unsubstantiated claim of a lack of reasonable return of the land and a concern of increased traffic due to the introduction of a commercial activity. The applicant's current strategy for receiving reasonable return of the land is to convert the use of the residential structure to professional offices, and from a site visit, staff agrees that the property would be difficult to market as a single family home. Staff's concern is the increase in parking spaces, to accommodate the proposed use would affect the look of the immediate residential neighborhood, although, according to the applicant, projected traffic generated by the professional offices would be minimal and not effect the neighborhood with excessive noise and delays." MR. TURNER-Mr. Bigelow MR. BIGELOW-Thank you. Just for the record, I should mention that the applicant is myself, and my business partner Howard Denison. We are Embassador Associates Real Estate firm, and Thomas Jarrett is a professional engineer, and also with us tonight is the owner of the property, Mr. Shovah. According to the definitions and the rules that you have to follow, I believe there are three tests that we have to meet. One is economic hardship. One is the uniqueness of the property and the situation, and one is that we're not going to be changing the character of the neighborhood, and before I get into the written part of it that we gave to you, I just want to, I don't know if the Board can see this real well or if the public can see it, but we'll pass it around if they want to see it. This is the proposed site plan, but before I get to that, I'll just talk about what's there now. This is the house, and the proposed site plan, not colored in. These photographs that you see around there are what you would see if you're looking out. away from the site, at various points, standing here in front of the house, this is the view looking up Glen Street. which is a very busy road. You'll see in our arguments. We checked with DOT, prior to submitting our application to you, car count on that road is 32,400 cars a day. - 15 - That's not residential in character. This is another street scene which shows the Firestone Dealership, Firestone Dealership here, then this shows the Firestone and Cole Muffler. Directly across from the building is Cole Muffler. I'm sure most of you are familiar with it. These two pictures are of Inside Edge, which is diagonally across from us, and then this is looking down Glen Street, right in from the building. If you've been down through there, you'll notice that, depending on whether you want to call it an acceleration lane or deceleration lane, depending on which direction you're going, from two to four lanes, or four to two lanes. It's four lanes in front of our building, and they're high speed lanes. This shot, here. is looking directly across the street from the garage that is on the site now, which we are proposing to take down, and that's Mr. Radloff's house, which he purchased, I believe, last year. This view right here is looking down Windsor, from Glen Street. You'll see all these bushes along here, and then this is Mr. Radloff's empty lot, behind his house. Coming around this site, this is looking down Windsor. There's a barn here which is on Mr. Radloff's lot. On this side of the road right here, as you're looking out, this is a barn/storage shed/garage, what have you, that belongs to Mr. Gates, and that runs parallel with our property along here. This is looking from the center of our property out. You'll see bushes, and you'll see the back of the garage here. This is Mr. Gates barn, from Windsor. The first two lots going down Windsor past ours, the property is accessed from Glenwood, not Windsor. They have access to their lots. It runs all the way through, but their primary access is through the front of their lots off Glenwood. The next lot over, there's another little barn there, shed, which is in ill repair. As you're standing out, up here on our site, you see the SUNOCO Station, looking down Glenwood. Then behind the SUNOCO station is the Pine Plank, another commercial use. Then as you stand, just about anywhere on our site here, this is Mr. Gates' property, where he lives, which would be right in this area right here. and just to give you, I'll leave that up so you can see it, you to give you a little different perspective, these are pictures that you'll see when you're looking into the site, just to give you a feel for what we're dealing with. This, here, again, we wanted to show Mr. Gates' house again. This is standing out on Glen Street, looking across Mr. Shovah's yard to the side view of his house, which faces onto Glenwood. This is the garage, which is right here, which faces Windsor. which we're proposing to take down. This is standing back here on Windsor Drive, looking onto Mr. Shovah's lot. You can see it's all bushes. You can just see the chimney of his house right there. This is standing on the corner of Windsor. You see the bushes again, and the house. This is standing, looking right out onto Glen Street, right down Windsor. That's Mr. Radloff's house. That's the Inside Edge. That's Cole Muffler, and that's Mr. Shovah's house, behind the bushes there. This view is actually standing on the other side of Glen Street, looking at the southeast corner of Garrison and Glen. It's an empty lot, and then this is a side view of Mr. Radloff's house. It sits quite far back of f the road. it fronts onto Garrison, and then it has thi s vegetative buffer here that's out next to the road, and then this, again, is Glen, standing down near the City/Town boundary, looking back up Glen, and that is Mr. Shovah's house there, and then this is Mr. Shovah's house, standing from across the road. This is the view, and this is probably one of the most important pictures, because I think it highlights the uniqueness of our situation, is this is what you see when you're standing on the edge of the road. That's not taken with any telephoto lens or anything like that. When you stand there and take a picture, that's what you see. This property is only six feet off the right-of-way, six and a half feet according to the survey, which is highlighted on here, which was done by a licensed surveyor, and that is part of the problem. When they widened this road to accommodate all the additional traffic, they took a lot of this area in here, and the house is very, very close to the road and the right-of-way. It's very, very noisy, and there's a lot of traffic, and despite what anybody says about a residential character, you can see by the uses that are here, and - 16 - all the way down around it, it's clearly commercial. What we're proposing is an impact that's certainly something less than commercial, professional office spaces. This is the site plan that we put together, and as we stand here tonight, and reviewed it this afternoon, we have a couple of modifications that we'll request, but we think they're for the betterment of the project. This is the house. This is the garage, and what we're proposing to do is take down the garage, and build, it shows here a nine space, because that's what's required under your zoning for professional office spaces, for every 150 square feet of gross rentable area, you require one space. So we need nine spaces for the size of this building. We would like to build six, because we know that's all we'll need. and then hold three in reserve, in case we need them at some point, or the Town says we need them. We think that even lessens the impact. Them what we're proposing to do is, I don't know if you can see it very well on here, but this is the existing asphalt pavement, where two cars can be parked right now, but then you have an area here that's also asphalt, next to the garage, and then there's asphalt in front of the garage, and that is probably, I didn't measure that, but that's not more than seven or eight feet from the edge of the road. We're taking down the garage. We want to put a vegetative buffer around the Windsor side of the parking lot, to block it from the road. We think that enhances the area, because that garage is coming down. Parking is going to be pulled back away from the edge of the road, and then to install an evergreen buffer between our parking lot and Mr. Gates' property. Now, back in here, it's not shown on the survey, but back in here, Mr. Gates has this old shed that runs all the way down through here, and his house sits up in here. When we, we walked the site several times, and we feel that the biggest problem with safety in that area, and traffic, is probably all these bushes that exist, because of the overgrowth, and traffic, you can't see what's coming around this way. and you can't see what's going around that way. So, what we're proposing is to take that down, take that hedge right down, so that you can see what's coming across, when you come around the corner, and to plant vegetative screening back here, pull it back. so you've got proper snow removal off the road, and plant bushes back in here also, and then, if need be, if the Town requires, we don't think it's necessary because it sits so far back off the road, is to plant some evergreens here. When we went around, we did go around and speak to each of the neighbors. We tried to speak to all our commercial neighbors, and the residential neighbors, and to explain to them what we were attempting to do. Obviously, we met with some resistance. Some didn't have a problem with it, but we think that with the use that we're proposing, it presents the least amount of impact, or change, for the neighborhood. We think it's for the betterment of the neighborhood, and I'll just get into some of those written articles that we wrote. MR. PHILO-Where do you substantiate the six cars versus nine? MR. BIGELOW-We ll, right now, we're proposing that Mr. Jarrett, who's a professional engineer, just himself. He started his own business. and then ourselves, my partner and I, we have a small real estate company. There's three cars, we have a part time secretary. We have, maybe, four. You don't have very many clients or customers that come to your place, where they park there all day. We're willing to live with the nine spaces, but we don't think they're needed. If you'd like to do six, that's even less of an impact. Now, as far as the traffic that's generated, we sat down, and we surveyed our trips for a long time. We calculated that we were going to have probably two trips per hour, for all the cars that come and go at our business. That's, if you like averages, that's one car every half hour, and I don't see where that's any impact at all. In fact, if you read some studies for residential use, professional studies, they'll tell you that you can have an impact anywhere from three to twenty three trips in a day, the average being 10. That's hardly, a little less than what we're going to have, as far as an impact. As far as the uniqueness - 17 - of it goes, before I get into the economic hardship of it, I think I'll just read this verbatim, and then we can discuss it a little further. The question was whether or not the property is unique, and I'll just read it. "As described in Number 13 above, the property is unique in that it is surrounded on three sides by commercial uses and commercial zoning. It's PC-1A. The two residential properties which adjoin the subject property front, and that's Mr. Gate's property on Glenwood, and it faces Glenwood, and Garrison Avenues, and that's Mr. Radloff's property. The requested variance will not adversely effect their utility or their value. Furthermore, it will not effect ingress or egress to their properties." In fact, Mr. Gates, as I said, ingresses and egresses from Glenwood, and Mr. Radloff, until recently, entered and exited from Windsor, and he just built a driveway from Garrison and indicated to us, because of the traffic on Glen, that his primary ingress and egress was going to be from the driveway off of Garrison, and that the garage doors that front Windsor, he would block one off, keep the other one there, and then have garage doors installed on the Garrison Avenue side, and he's here to substantiate that. "The subject property is unique in that it is situated only 6.5 feet from the right-of-way of Route 9, which is a major four lane highway. It is prohibitively onerous to move the building back away from the highway. It's utility as a single family home is nil. The subject property's unique problem does not apply to the neighborhood in general." And the reason I highlight that is both Mr. Gates' property. which sits on Glenwood, sits very far back from, much farther than ours does from Route 9, and so does Mr. Radloff's. The only other property in the City that faces Route 9 is approximately one block away, and is accessed from Fort Amherst Road. It is situated approximately 70 feet from Route 9, and is not currently on the market, as far as we know, and that's on the northeast intersection of Fort Amherst, and Glen, and the reason I mention that property is that is zoned the same as our property, but there again. it sits much farther back than our property, and it has that empty wooded lot which helps to buffer it from the north of it. "The subject property is situated on a corner lot. Ingress and egress shall not be a problem, and there is access from Glenwood or Windsor. Additionally, the proposed use, which is engineering/real estate office, shall generate very little traffic." Thomas Jarrett, who is our partner in this venture, we are contract vendees for the property, estimated that the proposed use will generate one car per hour from office staff, and one car per hour from clients, for a total of two per hour. "The traffic impact is, therefore, negligible. This is compared to what's already there. The office use will generate no noise. There are no proposed changes to the exterior of this structure, currentl y proposed. However, we are proposing to demo 1 i sh the existing garage to facilitate the addition of parking. The garage is situated very close to Windsor Drive, and is an eyesore. It's removal, and the addition of evergreen landscaping around the proposed parking will aesthetically enhance the site, and will visually buffer the adjoining properties. For the reasons cited ab9ve, we believe that all the required specific tasks, included in Town Law 267, have been met in order for the Zoning Board to grant a variance as requested. Furthermore, we firmly believe that it would be to the benefit of the neighborhood and community." Now, the thing we'd like to stress here is the commercial nature of that neighborhood. It is not residential. That area is zoned Single Family Residential One Acre, and I want to read to you the purpose of that zone. This comes from your own Zoning Ordinance. It says, Single Family Residential Zones are established residential neighborhoods where the character is strictly single family detached residences on standardized lots. This property does not even come close to meeting that test, and as you all know, you all Ii ve here in this Town. You know what the traffic and the commercial nature of that neighborhood is. Just up the street, you've got, well, it's the heart of the commercial district in Queensbury, and as you know, going into the City of Glens Falls, they have zoned a good part of Glen Street Cultural Professional, which allows offices. which ends about Horicon Avenue, and then - 18 - from Horicon Avenue to the Town line, it's zoned R-1A, which is Single Family Residential, which allows professional offices, and I think, one of the reasons they requested you look at zoning in that area is that the number of variances requests that you're getting from the City, they want that whole area looked at. because frankly it's not single family residential anymore. It hasn't been for a long time. I will argue very strongly that as you go down Fort Amherst and Garrison, that it is very, that's where it is, it's Single Family Residential. It's not, right now, on Glen Street, and we won't be changing that. As to the question of economic hardship. The Question Number 13, Is a reasonable return possible if the land is used as zoned, and the answer is no. The subject property has been on the market for several years, and during that time, Mr. Shovah, the owner, has been represented by several different agencies, five, including ourselves. As a matter of record, the MLS Office has an exclusive listing with the five agencies, which is Hometown, Dyer/Blake, Mary Sue Raynor, Levack/Burke. and now ourselves. We currently have the house on the market for $110,000. During the entire time the property has been on the market, there has been only one offer, which was contingent upon the granting of a use variance for a beauty parlor, and that came before this Board, and that was denied. That was for a commercial use, and maybe it should have been denied, rightfully so. It was a commercial use, because it was not the least impact that they could have put onto that property, and that contract I believe, and Mr. Shovah will substantiate it if I'm wrong, that contract was for $125.000, but it was contingent upon getting that variance. Mr. Shovah, for the record, bought the property for $109,000 in 1987. That variance was denied, and the transaction, hence, did not close. Because the building is situated so close to New York State's Route 9, right-of-way, which is only 6.5 feet away, it has no appeal as a Single Family home, due to the noise and the traffic. New York State DOT traffic count is 32,400 cars a day. The property is located at the point where Route 9 changes from a two lane highway to a four lane highway, leading into and out of Queensbury and Glens Falls, with the large retail complexes currently seeking approvals on Route 9 and Quaker Roads, i.e. Wal- Mart, K-Mart, Red Lobster, etc., and redevelopment in the Queensbury Plaza seemingly eminent, traffic and noise will further increase and make the subject property even less marketable as a Single Family home. We discussed, briefly, the currently land uses in the immediate area. To the north of us, I believe you have a little picture in your application, to the north is Warren Tire. They recently bought C & 0 Auto Dealership. They've got three bays, which is on Route 9. That's automotive retail, and then we have Mr. Gates, to the northeast on the Glenwood side, and that's a single family home. Warren Tire is zoned PC-1A. Mr. Gates is zoned SFR-1A. Directly across the road is Cole Muffler and Inside Edge and Merrill Automotive. Cole Muffler, I may get my numbers wrong here. Between Cole Muffler and the Firestone Dealership, one has seven bays and the other has six bays, and it's all automotive related. I didn't count how many Merrill Automotive had, but I believe they're around the side of the building. To the southeast of us, and the east of us is Mr. Radloff's property, which faces onto Garrison, and that's a single family residence, and he is zoned SFR-1A. While the subject property's structure is very close to Route 9, and the two other homes listed above, meaning Mr. Gates' property and Mr. Radloff's property, face Glenwood and Garrison Avenue, respectively, as Mr. Shovah' s real tor, we have shown the property several times. The overwhelming response is that while perspective buyers feel the home is attractive, they have no further interest, due to its location on busy Route 9, and we showed this property several times, and all of the other realtors that had this property over time, have shown it several times. You can't sell the home as a Single Family home. There's just too much traffic, and it's too commercial. We brought a tape with us tonight. I don't know if we'll get around to using it. but it was taken in May of last year, I believe when Mr. Shovah came for, maybe, a variance last time, and it's taken at night time, when the car businesses that surround us are not open. It's just - 19 - the traffic, and during the day, when you've got 16 bays that are open, with air guns going off, the traffic during the day, and that noise is loud at night, is practically unbearable. To illustrate the problem of the economics of the site, it's worthy to note that the properties that are currently on the market in the vicinity, and the effect that the zoning has on their ability to garner a fair return, these I'm going to read to you are taken right from the MLS book. 637 Glen Street, the asking price is $110,000, for the subject property. It's zoned SFR-1A. Now the rest of these are also on Glen Street, 464 Glen Street, the asking price is $174.900. It's zoned Cultural Professional. It's a doctor's office right now. 510 Glen Street. The asking price is $198,000. It's zoned Cultural Professional, and there's a two family, that's included in the building. 480 Glen Street, the asking price is $129,900. It's zoned Cultural Professional. It's a home and of fice. 451 Glen Street, asking price $150,000. It's zoned Cultural Professional, and it's a boarding house on Glen Street. 488 Glen Street, asking price is $199,000. It's zoned Cultural Professional. All of those are zoned Cultural Professional, while the subject is zoned SFR-1A. The average asking price of the other listed properties is $170.360. The asking price of the subject property is $110,000, or 65 percent of the average asking price of the other similar properties, and we can't even get an offer on it. The biggest reason for this huge discrepancy is the utility of the property due to the zoning. If Mr. Shovah is granted a use variance, it will make his home and his property marketable, and as I said, we are contract vendees for the property, if we can get the variance to put our business there. It is not marketable as a single family home. Mr. Shovah's son who lives in the home with him now, but has indicated that he is going to vacate the property due to the traffic and the noise, and I believe as of right now, the son no longer lives with Mr. Shovah~ Additionally, the amount that Mr. Shovah could lease the house for as a single family home and not even carry the expenses for the property. Furthermore, if a use variance was granted for use of professional offices, not commercial, but professional offices, the character of the neighborhood would not be changed, because there are other similar uses in the immediate area, and the spirit of the Ordinance would be preserved. That's those written arguments. This afternoon, I Just quickly, again, opened the MLS book, and I made four or five copies, so I can give you a copy of it. I just pulled some of the properties that were on the market on Fort Amherst and Garrison Road that sold recently, within the last year. 41 Fort Amherst, not very far. It was listed at $175,000. It sold at $170,000 for a one story home. 85 Fort Amherst. That had been listed at $159,900. It sold for $142,500. and that was in November of '92. Then 11 Garrison Road, I don't have a picture of that one. By the way, the one at 85 Fort Amherst was also a ranch. The one at 11 Garrison Road, I didn't get a chance to ride by there tonight, and there wasn't a picture in the book. So I don't know what it is, but 11 Garrison Road, $157,500, and it sold for $145,000. There's no doubt that Garrison Road and Fort Amherst are very lovely streets, and they're strictly residential in character, and we wouldn't want to do anything to change that. In fact, if I lived on one of those streets, and there was a proposed use on Amherst or Garrison, I would fight it vehemently. Our circumstances are completely different. I think we've shown a hardship. You can look at the tape if you want, but I think we'll probably just answer any questions. MRS. EGGLESTON-What is the assessment on the property, Mr. Shovah? MR. BIGELOW-Well, he just got his new assessment on it. They just did the update on the reeval, and he was just assessed, and this is using the Town Appraiser and their subcontractor, they assessed at $88,600. I'm a full time real estate professional, and I'd say, between Glens Falls and Queensbury, the assessement that I've come up with the reevals has been. MRS. EGGLESTON-How many employees would be in this building? - 20 - MR. BIGELOW-As of right now, there's Mr. Jarrett, Howard Denison, and myself. We'd have a part time secretary. and we'd have two part time agents that spend very little time there currently. MRS. EGGLESTON-Are you saying you already occupy the building? MR. BIGELOW-No. How many will be in it? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. BIGELOW-Right now, we have our offices at 171 Bay Street, which was the former law offices of Daniel Talon. He retired, and we rent space from him, and then Mr. Jarrett operates out of his home right now. It has become too small. Our space has become too small for us. We have a reception area. Howard and I share an office, and we have a conference room. It's just gotten too small, and Mr. Jarrett works out of his home. MR. CARVIN-Ted, I have a, maybe it's a procedural que stion, but looking at the Warren County approval here. it is conditioned that the Town of Queensbury is asked to look into rezoning this entire area. Do you know if that's going to be, are we going to be able to do anything. or? MR. TURNER-Yes. We can address this application. I don't agree with their comment. This is the only piece of property that really has a problem. The rest of it is already commercial. MR. CARVIN-If we grant the variance, and I'm not saying that we will or we won't, does that mean that it has to go back to Warren County? MR. TURNER-No. MR. BIGELOW-I asked that question, specifically, to the County, and the reason that they put that in there is they've been talking to the Town, now, for a while about looking at, the Town and the City, because as I said, the number of variances that they're getting, especially to the City on Glen Street, to that area that's zoned R- lA, which allows for professional offices, but it has to go to the County, because it's on a State highway, that they want the whole area like that. It transverses municipal boundaries there, the City and the Town. MR. TURNER-Yes, but this is really the only piece of property, in the Town, that really bothers in that area. MR. BIGELOW-This property is unique because it's right on the road. You can see from the picture that I showed you. That's what you see when you're standing on the end of the road, the front porch. MR. TURNER-I know. I'm very familiar with it. MR. BIGELOW-There isn't another piece of property like that, on Glen Street. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So we won't have a problem with the County then? MR. TURNER-No. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. TURNER-Any other questions? MR. THOMAS-Yes. occupied? I've got a few. Is the home being presently MR. BIGELOW-It is occupied by Mr. Shovah, but as I said in the written statement. he plans on vacating it. - 21 - MR. THOMAS-You said he bought that house in 1989? MR. BIGELOW-1987. MR. THOMAS-198? MR. BIGELOW-For $109,000. MR. THOMAS-Was it occupied when you bought it? JIM SHOVAH MR. SHOVAH-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay, and then you just moved in? MR. SHOVAH-Well, it was vacant for a while. MR. THOMAS-And you still live there now? MR. SHOVAH-Yes. MR. THOMAS-And you plan on vacating? MR. SHOVAH-Yes. MR. THOMAS-All the times that it was listed by these five brokers, on the market, what was the asking price? Did it change with every broker? MR. BIGELOW-I believe it came down with every broker. I asked Mr. Shovah before the meeting. MR. SHOVAH-Originally, it was $139,000. Then it was $129,000, then $119,000, I don't know what it is now. MR. BIGELOW-It's $110,000. MR. THOMAS-Did anyone look at the house or make an offer on it, in any of those five real estate dealers? MR. BIGELOW-There was the one, that I mentioned, the beauty parlor. MR. THOMAS-The beauty parlor, but nobody made you an offer on it as a residence? MR. DENISON-There's been people who have looked at it. MR. SHOVAH-There's been plenty of people who've looked at it. MR. DENISON-But nobody wants to live there. MR. TURNER-What property owners did you look at? MR. BIGELOW-We spent one weekend afternoon and we invited everyone over to Mr. Radloff's house, and no one showed up but the Radloff's, and we spoke to them, and then the three of us went around to the neighborhood, and we went all the way up Glen, where it intersects Windsor, and then we came down Windsor, because that was our immediate neighborhood, and then I spoke with the business owners around us. So, we spoke to everyone in the immediate area. MR. DENISON-That were home. and 14, or 8, 10, 12. We spoke with, I think with 10, 12, MR. BIGELOW-Yes, everyone that was home. MR. DENISON-Ten, twelve, and fourteen. My name"s Howard Denison, one of the applicants. We spoke with the people at 10, 12, and 14 Glenwood, which were homes. We knocked on every door between that. - 22 - People were not home. Those particular people agreed with us, and one of the comments was that we feel that it's the only property use for the building. Most of the comments on Glenwood were positive. Around on Windsor, we spoke with three people. One of them, I believe, is here tonight, and they seem to not really want it, didn't want any more traffic on their block. There were two other people that were home that we spoke to. One thought it was a good idea, wouldn't worry about traffic, and another person was really uncommitted, one way or the other, really didn't have too much to say, whether she thought it was good, indifferent, didn't really care what went on on that end of the block, and we knocked on every door. We made phone calls, previously, to people, we didn't catch them home, and we got probably a fifty-fifty mixture. MR. JARRETT-We also spoke with two owners on Garrison and one on Fort Amherst. The one on Fort Amherst was against it because. MR. PHILO-Who did you talk to? MR. JARRETT-Mary Arthur Beebe on Fort Amherst. She does not like the idea of the variance, and I'll let her speak for herself. She's here tonight, but I believe she doesn't like it because she does not want to see the core, the interior of the Garrison/Fort Amherst neighborhood with variances, she does not want to see that encroached upon. Another owner on Garrison, and I can't recall his last name, to be honest with you, did not like the idea because he knew that Mr. Radloff was against it. He felt that, he would side with Mr. Radloff. MR. TURNER-You talked with Mr. Thompson? MR. JARRETT-Where is he at? MR. TURNER-I don't know. was against it. He called me last night and he said he HR. JARRETT-The third owner, another owner on Garrison, Tupper Limbert, is for it, and she would support the variance because she feels that it's an excellent buffer between a commercial and a residential zone. She mentioned similar type buffers, the Carusone's on Bay, which she feels is an excellent buffer between two uses. She feels that this would be better than who knows what use this property could be used for in the future, rental or whatever. She's fearful of what it could be used for in the future. MR. BIGELOW-I did speak to Tom Jacobs, owner of the Inside Edge. I spoke to him personally. I met with him personally. He supported the idea. We did not speak with the people at Merrill Automotive, because they do not own the property there, and then we attempted to reach Donald Cole, who owns Cole Muffler, but could not reach him. MR. TURNER-On your proposal, the buffer there that you propose for the plantings, along the easterly boundary, northeasterly boundary maybe, right there. MR. BIGELOW-Right here? MR. TURNER-Yes. What do you propose to plant? MR. BIGELOW-Well, I'm going to leave that to my landscape expert. MR. JARRETT-I don't propose to be a landscaper either, but we feel that evergreens would be appropriate to supply year round buffer. MR. TURNER-What size would you start out with? MR. JARRETT-Probably four foot, I guess. Four foot is what we had in mind. - 23 - MR. TURNER-Would you plant a Cedar hedge, or what? MR. BIGELOW-Well, we're open to suggestions on that, if it makes a difference to the neighborhood, what they'd like to see. I mean, we're certainly open to suggestions. MR. TURNER-Well, my concern is to isolate, if this happens to go through, my concern would be to isolate that from the residential area, period. MR. BIGELOW-That was our goal in showing it. We're certainly open to suggestions as to how to best do that. MR. PHILO-Did you talk to Wynn's property over there, or Dr. Ferry? MRS. EGGLESTON-I have a letter from him. Tom. MR. PHILO-Dr. Ferry? MRS. EGGLESTON-From Wynn, Ray Wynn, Mrs. Wynn, that I'll read into the record after. MR. BIGELOW-I just might mention that the space that we're proposing to take up, as additional non green space, I think, is all minimal, because this is all garage right now, and we're proposing to take that down, and this is all asphalt in here right now. In fact, we're cutting back on all this here. We're bringing back the grass, and moving the driveway down a little bit. What we're proposing for the parking spaces, so that you know. they're 10 by 26 spaces. We think those are too big. Queensbury has certainly set precedent for smaller spacing, and we would ask that we go with the 9 by 18, if we're granted, that's all that's needed. Then we had a 20 foot area right here, this area here, to accommodate, this lot space backing up. As far as the dumpster goes, we're not going to have one. We're a small operation. We'll have, maybe you've seen those big garbage cans on wheels that they use. That would be in here. This sidewalk is already here. We're not proposing any changes, right now, for sidewalks around here. Right now, there is a sidewalk that comes out of the house. This area I might say up in here, this is actually a State right-of-way right here. Thi s whole area right up here is all asphalt. We stopped at the green here, but State or County, I don't know which one, paved this allover up in here. I mean, this is all grass, and we're proposing to keep it that way. MR. TURNER-When you would exit that parking lot, which way would you go, down Windsor and out onto Glenwood, or out onto Glen, depending on the time of the day and the traffic, right? MR. BIGELOW-It really depends on the time of day. You can come out onto Glen, turn right, even during bad traffic. Turning left on Glen, certain times of the day, is a problem. I mean, I do it, when I'm going to the gym, or wherever I'm going, when I'm coming off Glenwood. Even during busy traffic times, you can do it. It's harder, at Windsor, for a couple of reasons. You do have Garrison that comes out, another curb cut, which is very close. The only distance between this curb cut here and Fort Amherst down here is Mr. Radloff's lot. He has a, I believe it's Cedar. I could be wrong, but it's an evergreen hedge that comes out almost to the right-of-way, and then back down around, that acts as a vegetative buffer for his side yard. You have to pull way out so that you can see down Glen, and that's not the tough part, because you can scoot out there, even in tough traffic. The problem is you can't really see what car's sitting here on Fort Amherst that's going to turn right, and you're getting ready to turn left, and that's really what would happen during the high traffic times. MR. TURNER-Garrison Road you're talking about? MR. BIGELOW-Yes, Garrison Road, I'm sorry. - 24 - MR. TURNER-How much will that corner get opened up on the back end right there? MR. BIGELOW-Well. there's lilacs and honeysuckles, I believe. It's deciduous, whatever it is, and ride down through there now. You can see from the pictures. These were just taken last week, how it overgrows, and when you're coming down, that actually grows out into the right-of-way, and a car has to swing out around that turn, and the same as here, when you're coming this way, you can't see what's coming the other way, and that's a hazard. We feel by taking that down, which, we weren't going to do originally. We were going to say, well, that's a good buffer. Well, we want to take that down, so you can see, and put back in here a buffer, and for better snow removal here, and you can see what's coming around the turn, and we think that's safer, and one of the reasons we came up with that idea is Mr. Radloff had expressed to us a concern about these children, as I would, too. You've got cars that are swinging wide. You can't see. We think that makes that a safer situation. MR. TURNER-Mr. Radloff's house, he just bought that, when? MR. BIGELOW-He just, well, last year, didn't you? MR. TURNER-Okay, because the other gentleman had a variance to take that garage and turn it around to head it towards Garrison Road. MR. BIGELOW-Yes, well, Mr. Radloff indicated to us, and he's here. If I'm wrong, he can correct me, that his garage, which sits right here on the sweep of the turn, it sits right here. There's two garage doors that faces Windsor, and you drive right into them. It you go straight, you don't make the turn, that he just spent, according to his figure, it was almost $8,000 to put a concrete driveway in down to Garrison, and he was going to put garage doors in on the Garrison Avenue side, and that was going to be his primary ingress and egress, because of the traffic. MR. TURNER-The other gentleman was going to take it right out of there entirely. turn it around, and head it towards Garrison Road. MR. BIGELOW-It is a bad situation there, but I don't think we're going to add to that. I think we're going to make it better. We're not adding hardly any traffic to that situation. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any other questions? MR. KARPELES-Parking. It would seem to me you're underestimating the number of parking places needed. If I understand right, you've got a real estate office with two full time people, and. MR. BIGELOW-Howard and I are full time. MR. KARPELES-And three part time people, I would think just the employee parking would take up almost all the spaces you have there. MR. BIGELOW-Well, when I say part time. they have our license with us, but they have no set office hours with us. They spend very little time at our office. The secretary that we employ right now is part time. She comes in at nine o'clock in the morning. She's gone at noon. I'm hoping, frankly, that some day we get big enough that we can have a secretary that's there all day. That's one ot the reasons that we decided to join forces, so that we could share a secretary. Now, by your requirements, we need nine spaces. We'll put in nine spaces if that's a condition to the variance. As I said, I don't think we need that many, but if that's what the 'Town wants. MR. KARPELES-Yes, but a real estate makes their money, that's their bread and butter is people coming and going. I would think that, - 25 - with the people that you've got full time. MR. BIGELOW-Real estate people make their money selling houses away from the site, and with the telephone. MR. PHILO-Yes, but you have a client met you at the office, he doesn't come in a rickshaw. MR. BIGELOW-That's true, about the only time a client actually comes to an office, is to sign a contract. and often times, that's right at the site. I'm not saying that you don't have clients that come to the office. because you will. Mr. Jarrett will have clients that come to his office, that's why we're willing to put in the nine required spaces that the Town says. MR. PHILO-I think you'd better stick with the nine spaces, if you get it. MR. BIGELOW-If that's a condition of the approval, we'd be happy to put it in. but that would be up to the Town. MR. DENISON-We didn't really propose eliminating the three additional spaces anyway. We would reserve that are for parking in the development, if necessary, but we just felt there would be less impact. MR. BIGELOW-We would like to request that, with this parking, we went to 9 by 18 spaces. We'd still have the 20 feet in between, but we could cut off four feet this way, and we could cut off 10 feet this way. So that, in itself, would pull it back 10 feet, which is that much. MR. CARVIN-What would be the problem of right angling it? words, having it come behind the house. in other words, the extreme right hand side? In other take off MR. BIGELOW-Well, one of the reasons we laid out parking like this is the existing situation is, you've got parking right here that goes from the asphalt directly out in the street. The only way that Mr. Shovah gets in and out of his lot is he backs out onto Windsor either this way, or this way. The reason for having this parking lot is so when you back out, you can come out onto Windsor front on, so you can see. MR. CARVIN-I'm just thinking, to get the parking away from the other property lines, in other words, the residential area, in other words, to have it up the left side, there's no problem there, with your, but just put a. MR. BIGELOW-Coming around here? MR. CARVIN-Yes. Where's your septic on this? MR. BIGELOW-This is public sewer. Mr. Shovah, when he submitted his site plan for the beauty parlor, he had the parking around the side, and that was rejected, and I don't remember, I don't recall if there was a visual buffer there between that and Glen, but we thought that was going to be uglier. Frankly, we thought that putting it back here and putting a visual buffer, that it was less impact, and we weren't tearing up so much ground, because now you've got to run a driveway all the way back here, too. It takes up more green space. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further questions? Lets open the public hearing. I'll open the public hearing now. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED WILLIAM GATES - 26 - MR. GATES-William Gates. I live at One Glenwood Avenue, and I am the neighbor that lives along this entire 200 foot line. A lot of information has just been presented to you, and presented quite well, but I have to get right to the crux of the matter and tell you that residential neighbor wise there's great opposition. First of all, I won't remind you that twice before a change has been proposed here, and it was denied. A change was proposed a few years ago, for Mark Radloff's place, by Dr. Rogge. It was denied. Last year, a neighbor on the other side of me proposed a second two family house on the property. There was an illegal two family house there. It was denied. This piece of land here. It says it's listed to a Floyd Shovah. Are you Floyd? MR. SHOVAH-No. I'm his son. MR. GA'l'ES-AlI right. There's the first little deception here. He's not the owner. It's in his father's name, and last year he said that he was trying to keep himself from divorce, financial problems. This is not Mr. Shovah that owns the house. MR. BIGELOW-And he has power of attorney for his father. MR. GATES-So then Floyd Shovah is not the owner of the house? MR. SHOVAH-Yes. He is. MR. GATES-You were pointing to him as the owner of the house. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. He did say it was Mr. Shovah. MR. GATES-I've made my point. Second of all, as far as traffic goes, Windsor Drive is narrow. It's totally residential. I'm going to let Mark Radloff speak for himself, regarding the property that he owns, adjacent to it here. There's a great deal of difficulty as it is now, coming out Glenwood Avenue. There's a light on Quaker, but there isn't one on the Glen Street end. In the afternoon, there are five, six, seven cars lined up there. I have to wait to get out my driveway. Sometimes I have to go the other way, down Glenwood, to get out, because it is additional cars coming out here, getting onto Glenwood Avenue, and coming out. It's going to create major problems. There's no way they're ever going to be able to put a street out in front. They know that. Here, residents on this side and this side, they are not in a unique situation. My house faces the SUNOCO Station also. On the front, it is noisy, and on the back it's quiet. You're all welcome to go to my yard at any time. I know your names. I see your faces. You walk out there, you look. It's quiet. I can look down towards Mark's yard and barn, and I see country. They said that there's a proposed zoning change there. The zoning was changed a couple of years ago. Mark's lot was changed from four to two. The change that they wanted was less toward crowding and less toward development there. The argument at the time was, where does the development end and where does the residential begin? All right. Lets say this becomes commercial. What does that do to !!lY property? It devalues it. All right. So I go to commercial, too. What happens to the next one? It devalues it. So where does it end? Where do you stop giving these variances? If you can give him one, you can give me one. You can give Mark one, and I don't think Garrison Road's going to want Mark to have it, and I know Windsor Drive doesn't want me to have it, and they don't want it, and they don't want him to have it. They said they tried to sell the property. I live right here, looking at it. This past spring, there was a sign out there for about six weeks. I don't recall ever seeing a sign there before. If you're trying to sell a piece of property on Glen Street, I'd put a sign out there. I don't know it that was a, or if it was just a final try. Only they know that, but I do know, because I sold real estate, and I take care of my home, if you look at it, you'll see I do. I mow my lawn. 'fhis lawn hasn't been mowed yet. If I'm trying to sell a house, I mow it. Last year, it got mowed twice. I haven't seen any effort - 27 - toward mowing it. Another fact. At the time this property was purchased for $109,000 or $119,000 or whatever, it was only worth about $75,000. It was overpaid for, with the hope, or maybe the promise from the person he bought it from, I don't know, that it could be turned commercial easily, so it was overpaid for. He was told the last time he applied that, buyer beware. If you overpay, too bad. If I put my house next door, which is assessed at $70,000, on the market for $110,000, it wouldn't sell either. It wouldn't sell in five years. It wouldn't probably sell in ten. It's stayed pretty consistent in its value over a period of time. r could understand their wanting to do something with the property. If they really wanted to sell it, they should put it for what it's worth, about $85.000. $88,000 was it, and it would probably sell. As far as community concern, the last time Jim was denied. he blocked the street with his car. The police had to come and give him a ticket. I don't know how many tickets. I know his daughter almost had a car accident because of the car blocked out of here. Jim hasn't spoken to me since, and I told him, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to devalue my property for you, and I wanted to still be neighbors, and I haven't heard one word from him since. That's 1991, June, was it? As far as, everybody's in favor of it? If you asked commercial properties across the street, who cares, they don't care. They're making their money. If you go down and ask the residential people, and they're all here, some of them are here tonight in body and in letter. I guess the bottom line is, I'm opposed to it. I don't want a parking lot here. I don't want the additional traffic on the street. We have people down the street that are elderly at the other end. They can't be here tonight. There are young kids on the street. I'm 100 percent opposed to it. MR. TURNER-Okay. Thank you. This gentleman right here. BILL VOGLER MR. VOGLER-My name is Bill Vogler. I live at 22 Glenwood, and I have a couple of points that I'd like to mention here. This $88,000 assessment. The last time I attended this group. when it was proposed to bring in the beauty parlor, and there was a hardship stated about the finances, and I said at that time, when it was brought to our attention the amount of money that he paid for that, if I make a bad stock investment, you people aren't going to reduce my taxes, or you're not going to reduce something to give me a higher price. Eighty eight thousand, and this gentleman is absolutely correct, that that is about what that house is worth, if that. I have a home at 22 Glenwood. I just spent $42,000 renovating it. You have it assessed at $103,000. I'll sell it to these real estate people right now for $95,000. I'd be glad to do it. So the real estate value is shot to tail. There is none. You know it. This is why you're looking for a cheap place. The cars, Windsor Drive is so narrow, when you enter Glen. here, that when Mr. Shovah was parking his truck in the street. I have a motor home. I couldn't make it out of that street. It's an impossibility. So that from curb to curb, it is very narrow. So I don't know where all this traffic's going to go, but it's a concern of mine, and we have an awful lot of kids riding through that area on bicycles. The closeness to the road. Why is that house as close to the road as it is? That's the way they built that. You can remember that from your youth. This is, they put them close to the road so that they didn't have to shovel snow. That's why it's so close to the road. It's as simple as that. Glens Falls, Glen Street, of course, they turned it into commercial. Why? For the simple reason that there is no land in Glens Falls. We have lots of land here that's very, there's a house right here with these people's names on it that's vacant. Why can't they put their real estate office in there? The traffic situation is the main thing that I'm concerned about. I know that there are a lot of people that have more concerns than I do, but my house is assessed at $103,000. If I got $95,000, it would be a miracle, and these people want one hundred and what, for that place? It's worth about $75,000. If he puts a sign on it for that - 28 - amount, he'll sell it. He made a loss, that's his problem. MR. TURNER-Okay. Thanks. Mr. Armstrong. DOUG ARMSTRONG MR. ARMSTRONG-My name is Doug Armstrong. I live at 7 Windsor Drive. I am probably the closest neighbor to the property with a Windsor Drive address. I never saw these guys at all, and I've been around. My wife's been around. MR. BIGELOW-Which house are you in on Windsor? MR. ARMSTRONG-I'm the first house around the corner. MR. BIGELOW-That faces Windsor? MR. ARMSTRONG-That's right, a Windsor address, never saw them. I'm sure they would get positive answers to the questions from all of the commercial properties. That makes sense to me, but I don't think that they got, I'm not sure. If it was that important, it seems to me they would have taken names. and said who they talked to, what the answer was. Windsor Drive, as has been explained, is a very narrow street. In September of '91, Mr. Shovah was turned down for a variance to have a beauty parlor in there. After that, he decided to park his truck on the street, and it's interesting, because one of the arguments here that was brought forth was that it's just too narrow. There's too many people parking, you just can't get by. He proceeded to park his truck there. MR. BIGELOW-I didn't make that argument, sir. MR. ARMSTRONG-Well, I'm talking about when they were here last time. The argument was that it's just too narrow. People parking on the street would block it, and create a dangerous situation. Right after that meeting, Mr. Shovah got his truck and parked it there and left it there for at least two weeks. During that period of time, my daughter was riding her bike. She was 16 at the time, had to go down the middle of the road because there was no room. A car came around the corner, and there was almost a head on collision. She dropped her bike and was dumped on the side of the road. I went up to Mr. Shovah, who was in his garage at the time, and I asked him if he would please move his truck because my daughter almost got killed. He said to me, too bad. Okay. Now, I'm thinking, here's a guy who lives on the street, and that's the kind of cooperation we get. I'm wondering what kind of cooperation we're going to get from people who don't live there, and how are we going to say to them, you've got to park in the parking lot. They can park anywhere they want to on the street. They can put 10 parking spaces there. That doesn't mean they're going to be used, okay. It doesn't mean they're going to be used, and I'm very concerned about that. She's a little bit older now. She drives a car. Maybe she'll get hit in a head on collision because of this, or maybe, there's some young on that street, very young streets. They come along. They play on that street. We don't need more traffic. We don't know which way they're going to go. We can't control that. That's why I can't imagine us having a parking lot that enters and exits on Windsor Drive. It just doesn't make sense to me. The other thing is, and it's been said here before, about the price of $109,000 that they purchased the house. We have asking prices, and they don't mean a whole lot, but I've got something more important. Mr. Shovah bought his house, and closed the deal on December the 23rd, 1987, for $109,000. My house, which is assessed at around the same value as his, right now, was purchased a month earlier for $70,000. I paid about $40,000 less, and so the argument that was made by this gentleman that he just made a bad deal has got to hold some water here. We've got some real prices. Let me just tell you that my house has been assessed higher than their house, okay. If they say theirs has been assessed at $88,000, my assessment is higher. - 29 - MR. TURNER-Traffic, you're opposed to traffic? MR. ARMSTRONG-I am absolutely opposed to this. You can count me as being opposed to this. MR. TURNER-All right. MARK RADLOFF MR. RADLOFF-My name is Mark Radloff. I reside at 4 Garrison Road. These gentleman did call and speak to my wife several weeks ago. about arranging to talk about this. Some points that I'd like to rehash, just basically a little bit of h1story. Back in 1957, Windsor Drive was a driveway. The owner at that time, Mr. Bascom, moved away to Europe, and they put in Windsor Drive. I have photographic proof of this dated as well. Then in 1967, we created the problem with Mr. Shovah's house, his front door. The problem with Mr. Shovah's front door presently I have with my back door, only the back corner of the house, the corner of my garage, and the front of my barn are all on Windsor Drive. There is no place for Windsor Drive to go. The situation happened this past winter with the excessive amount of snow fall. Where they're proposing to put a parking lot, had a car been there, it wouldn't have been a car, because the snow came off my roof, and went into Mr. Shovah' s dri veway, and I'm talking ice about six feet long. It took my bushes from six feet down to three feet. We all read the article in the paper about the car that got totalled. This could have happened to several cars if they were there on Windsor Drive this past winter. Also, they were talking about prices. I bought my house. I have approximately three lots, one which is supposedly a building lot, which I have access to either Garrison or Windsor Road. I purchased a four bedroom center, Colonial, with a separate two car garage, and a 55 foot barn, approximately 20 feet wide, with an in-ground well, and a sprinkler system, for $138,000, last December 13th. In reviewing the purchase of Mr. Shovah's property, Mr. Shovah didn't purchase the property in 1987. A Mr. Matusik purchased the property. according to the records, in the Town office. MR. TURNER-Yes, that's correct. MR. RADLOFF-For the purchase price of $109,000, on October 2nd. Matusik then transferred the property to Mr. Shovah, Floyd Shovah that is, for 0 amount of dollars, saving, in the records. In coming up with this past history of the property, also, Mr. Bascom owned this house, and at his death in 1982, it was willed to, by Betsy Raspusin. Prior to that, this house has always been a rental piece of property. At that time, I think Betsy was renting from Mr. Bascom. So if you go back 20 years, the only purchase price record of this piece of property is of the one in 1987 by Mr. Matusik, which has been brought up to be, quite simply, paid too much at that time. The other thing I have a question about is square footage of the building. According to the parking lots, the parking lots are based on square footage of the building, and looking at 150 square feet of building space, times nine spaces, we're coming up with a little over 1300 square feet, correct? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. RADLOFF-Well, according to records, that's a 1900 square foot house. We're lacking 600 square feet. The traffic, why did I put my driveway there? Because it's a bear to get out of Windsor onto Glen, and that's why I spent approximately $8,000 this past fall, to put in this driveway. because I'm more apt to go down Garrison to go pick up my kids from the baby-sitter than I am to go anywhere else. The biggest concern that I have now, just to try to cut this a little bit short, because we are running late, is Number One, what's this going to do down the road when these gentlemen leave? What's going to be allowed to go in there? What's it going to do to the value of my property? One of the people that sent a letter - 30 - in tonight stated why Garrison Road/Fort Amherst is paying big bucks in taxes, and what Mr. Shovah pays and what I pay is no comparison. When I look out my kitchen, I look at his garage. It's not an eyesore. It's just a garage. The road is so narrow. The speed limit, you know, it's posted 30 miles an hour. I dare anybody to come ott of Glenwood and try to go 30 miles an hour. You're going to hit the stone wall by my garage. You're not going to make that curve, and I dare you right now to try to put two cars around that corner. Two cars coming around that corner right now, the road isn't wide enough to accommodate two cars. When I put in my driveway, I asked the gentleman that came out to review my permit, I said, what are you going to do about this, and he said, it's 20 foot. That's where it's going to stay. MR. PHILO-Who said that? MR. RADLOFF-Bill. The gentleman said, that road's 20 foot wide. It's going to stay the way it is, okay, and I have been on that road. I mean, my kids use that road kind of like a dead end road because there's,very little traffic on it. What they propose, in reality, would increase the traffic on that road, upwards to 50 to 100 percent, two cars an hour. There's roughly five houses on that street that access that road. I get up in the morning about six o'clock, and I count the cars that go by. There's about five or six cars. During the daytime, you get some, there are only, during the course of the day, you might see 10 cars that you'll never see again because they got lost. I've seen cars come in on Glenwood, look at the stone wall, and do a U-turn in front of my garage doors, because they figure it's a dead end road. To access that road to more traffic just is not suitable for the area. Several weeks ago, I was at a Planning Board meeting, and Mary Sue Raynor was there talking about deed restrictions. What good is my deed restriction if you're going to allow a variance for a piece of commercial property? You can only have a domino effect in the future. If you allow Mr. Shovah to go. then at some point, you've got to allow me to go, and you've got to allow Mr. Gates to go, and lastly, in a statement that was made at the last hearing on this, a re-zoning should address a Town need. not a personal one, and in my opinion right here, with all the available commercial space, i.e. right next door, Ambassadors Associates has got a house that was, Adirondack Explosives was shown that. What is the need for a professional office on Glenwood? All of the commercial that they have talked about is across the street. There's nothing commercial on my side. They are surrounded, strictly, by residential. If you want commercial, you've got to go across that street. You've got to go across the four lane road, which is a problem. If you ever get out there, try going out of Firestone, making a right, and trying to get into Garrison. You've got people coming down there. They're not decelerating into a one line. They're accelerating into a one lane, and when they're coming out of the City, they're jockeying for position to get into that double lane. Eventually, someday, somebody's going to get hurt because of the traffic problems, and to increase, more traffic there, I think would be a detriment to somebody, because somebody's going to get hit. That's all I have to say. Thank you. MR. TURNER-Okay. Anyone else. opposed? MR. VOGLER-There's just one other thing I'd like to mention about the traffic and noise, Bill Vogler. The traffic and noise. I remember when I was in Warrensburg, on a Sunday, when you couldn't drive from Warrensburg through Lake George into Glens Falls, and you'd have to go from Warrensburg, through Athol, Corinth, to get to get to Glens Falls, this is before the Northway came up. Every truck that ran from New York City to Montreal, Canada ran right past that very house that Mr. Shovah owns, and there was certainly a lot more noise then than there is now. So noise doesn't sell to me the idea that somebody's not going to live there. It's quieter today than it was when the people were living there. - 31 - MR. TURNER-Mrs. Beebe. MARY ARTHUR BEEBE MRS. BEEBE-Thank you tor letting me have an opportunity to talk tonight. I very much appreciate coming to defend the character of our neighborhood. I think that, for me, that's one of the primary issues that I'm coming here to talk about, but I would also like to point out that I understand fully that there are four parts to this test, and I don't believe that the four parts have been met, and I believe that all four of them must be met before a variance. As far as I understand it, State Law has been amended to say that you have to show that there's no economic use, not a reasonable return, but no use for this property, and I don't think that's been proven tonight. As you mentioned that the price of the house has not changed since 1987, and we all know that, difficulty, particularly with real estate industry. So I don't think they've shown that at all, and there have not been attempts to rent the house. I also don't think that this property has particularly unique. It's an old area of Glens Falls that was basically developed a long time ago, and the lots were not designed in perfect squares in those days. Glen Street, in those days, was a dirt road. I have old slides. Because it's an unusually shaped lot, it makes it even more impossible to adapt it to commercial use. As you can see, it's, that parking lot in there. The road is very narrow. It goes right to the doorstep of the Radloff house. There is no area at all. So you're talking a place that is very difficult for a whole lot of cars to access. In the past, when were here, the character of the neighborhood was a big issue, and it still is today. Those three lots, Windsor, Garrison, and Fort Amherst, down to Webster, are really still intact as residential areas. When you start to slice off one piece of that pie, every house next door is going to have some difficulties maintaining its residential character. I happen to be one house in from Glen Street. The house, faces Glen. Are they going to be here in a few months to ask for a variance too because they front on Glen Street? And am I going to have a parking lot in my yard for a commercial business, because that's what's going to happen. A whole chain of events is going to take place. They tried it a few months ago down at the other end, on Bay and Webster, where there are a couple of houses, and that was turned down for that very same reason. They do not want to break into that residential block. It's been there for a long, long time. We pay high taxes to maintain that residential area. I've come from areas up north, in Chestertown, where they didn't have any zoning to protect the character of the neighborhood, and one of the main reasons we moved to this part of the Town was because we had good Zoning Boards and strict rules for the zoning. In the past, the street was considered by the Zoning Board as the buffer. Glen Street, on one side, was Highway Commercial, and north of Glenwood is commercial, and those streets were considered the buffer areas, to protect the character of the neighborhood. I urge you not to cross that street, because once you cross, there is no natural buffer. I can't understand what this hardship is that requires this place to become a commercial building. I know it's not the most perfect residence, but it's been a residence for a long, long time, and it's been used that way consistently. It's still being used that way. In addition to that, one of the primary reasons that people want to switch it over to commercial it is expensi ve. There are plenty of places that are for rent as commercial offices, that are empty at this time. that could be used instead. I think the hardship by the present owner is self-created and has not shown oth~rwise, and I encourage you not to change this into commercial area. I guess I've covered pretty much everything. I ask you to remember that all four of those tests have to be met. MR. PHILO-Mrs. Beebe, do you live behind Dr. Ferry? MRS. BEEBE-Yes, I do. MR. PHILO-Okay. - 32 - '-- MR. TURNER-Okay. Thank you. WILLIAM ROGERS MR. ROGERS-I'm William Rogers. I reside at 10 Windsor Drive. I know you people have heard from my neighbors. My sentiments are the same. I won't be repetitious. I bought this here. In fact, I think I'm one of the oldest ones in the area. I've been residing there since 1966. The reason my family and I did buy it was because it was a nice quiet residential area to bring up kids and to enjoy life, and I'd like to see it stay that way. Thank you. MR. TURNER-Thank you. Okay. Jim. JIM SHOVAH MR. SHOVAH-Good evening. My name is Jim Shovah. The title of the property is in my father's name, Floyd, but I have the Power of Attorney, without getting too personal, but what I would like to talk about is that we. my associates, or whatever, the people that are under contract to buy this place, have presented facts to you tonight. As I look around, all I've heard is innuendos, okay. For example, Mr. Gates has made statements to me and Mr. Bigelow, and Mr. Denison, he would only approve of what they're trying to do if he could have the same. He had made a statement in front of you stating that he said he was sorry, that it wasn't anything personal, but Bill Gates has never spoken to me, and that's a fact. As far as parking on Windsor, most of the neighbors on Windsor Drive park their vehicles on the street. I have no objections to that, but to single me out because I park a pick-up truck on Windsor Drive, when it doesn't say No Parking, that's an innuendo, okay. There's an unregistered pick-up truck that's behind my house. Mr. Armstrong has stated that the value of his house is equi valent to my house. We presented the facts. He didn't. That's an innuendo, and anybody that has a discerning eye will tell you that that house is not as valuable as my house, yet he insinuated that it was. Mrs. Beebe made a statement stating that I have never tried to rent the house. That's not true. I have tried to rent the house, and have been unsuccessful. The only leads I've had is from the Department of Social Services, because of the four bedroom, and so on and so forth. That was an innuendo, that I have never tried to rent the house. She also stated that there was an amendment to certain laws, real estate laws. That's an innuendo. We don't see the facts here. We just hear innuendos. I've been trying to sell this house. We've got it listed for $110,000. I would have taken $75,000, $80,000, but nobody's interested in it, because of its location. I'm just trying to get out from underneath something. This gentleman here, he's got a Greyhound bus in his driveway, okay. Now that's a violation of the Code enforcement, I'm sure, a motor home. I'm sure there's a Code against that. I mean. and you said that your house is, you know, I mean, lets take the facts into consideration. You're backed up to a swamp, call it what you want, but it's still a swamp. A use variance, I don't know if the neighbors understand it, it goes with the property. It's something, if they get a commercial application, it's only for a real estate engineer office. It's for nothing else. The last time I was in front of you, I just shot from the hip. This time I thought we were prepared. We came with facts. I understand the neighbor's concerns, but I also am effected by their kids, their cars, the way they drive up and down Windsor Drive. I'm the most effected because they come around that corner, and I don't use that as an excuse. I mean, there's traf f ic. Like Mr. Radloff said, there's people that just go up Windsor Drive because they think it's Garrison Road. As far as an adverse effect, I can't see what type of business that they're going to put in there that's going to adversely effect the neighborhood. It's just, I mean, you can't have your windows open in the summer time because all you hear is air wrenches, bells when they go into the gas station, bicycle up and down the street, there's a short cut to the bicycle path, cross country skiers. and - 33 - so on and so forth. It's just, it's changed, and it's not a residential neighborhood anymore. That house is not residential, because they've widened Glen Street. They've changed the traffic pattern, and granted. I may have overpaid, but I'm trying to get out from underneath this thing now, and nobody in their right mind is going to buy that house for a family. Thank you. MRS. EGGLESTON-Mr. Shovah, do you own this property or does you father own the property? MR. SHOVAH-My father owns it, but, without getting too personal. I was going through a divorce, and because of the equitable distribution laws, I had to protect my interests, because it was after the separation. I put it in my father's name, but I actually have Power of Attorney. I have a signed deed in my name that's not recorded yet. Recently, I've been divorced. So now I can transfer it back to me. MRS. EGGLESTON-So when you speak, you're. MR. SHOVAH-I' m speaking, basically, legally, the title's in my father's name, but my father is an old timer that, everything I'm doing is perfectly legal because I have Power of Attorney. So everything is legal. Even his own personal estate, I have Power of Attorney. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So you, in essence, purchased the house in, roughly, 1987, January of '88? MR. SHOVAH-In '87. I was partners with Donald Matusik. I moved in Christmas day of 1987. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and when did you first list the house? How long were you in the house before you listed it? MR. SHOVAH-Well, I got ill in the interim, and had to move out, and Mr. Matusik applied for a variance, because he wanted to put a law office in there. MR. CARVIN-Okay, approximately when was that? MR. SHOVAH-I think it was when I was in Florida. January '88, or February, that winter. So it was in MR. CARVIN-Okay. So you moved in in December of '87. MR. SHOVAH-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Moved out in January. MR. SHOVAH-I got sick. MR. CARVIN-So you weren't in the house? MR. SHOVAH-I was in the hospital. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Obviously, Mr. Matusik tried to convert it to a law office in 1988? MR. TURNER-He came here for a variance. MR. SHOVAH-He came here, but I still resided there. My furniture and my belongings were still in that house. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and when did you move back in? MR. SHOVAH-I never moved out. I rented it in 1989. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and when was it listed? - 34 - MR. SHOVAH-It's been listed since the day we bought it. Some of the people are correct. When we bought the house, I really was not aware of the fact that it wasn't commercially zoned, and that was like, it was in the boom of the real estate business, and that was a good buy if that was commercially zoned, and it really was. The exposure was great, and come to find out. subsequently, that he had to get a variance to put a law office. That was my own ignorance. MR. TURNER-Yes, but you basically bought it for an investment, right, for a turnover? MR. SHOVAH-Right. MR. TURNER-Without checking to see if it was zoned? MR. SHOVAH-Right. MRS. EGGLESTON-How did it come from Matusik to Shovah? I'm talking about the title. MR. SHOVAH-I bought half ownership of it, but the full title was in Mr. Matusik's name, and then in 1989 or '90, I bought his half off in title, and the title is in my father's name, Floyd, but I had always lived there, except for two months, plus the time. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and it's been listed with one of these four or five real estate agencies, almost from the day you bought it? MR. SHOVAH-Yes. but it's always been the same. We'd have open houses and nobody would show up. even in the boom. MR. CARVIN-How was it advertised, though? residential or commercial? Was it advertised MR. SHOVAH-Residential. MRS. EGGLESTON-How do you explain no For Sale signs in your yard? MR. SHOVAH-Well, I can explain that, because what happened is the few people that were interested tried to circumvent the real estate broker and come knocking on my door, because it was exposed. They thought they were going to get a better deal. MR. CARVIN-What was the first price? originally listed at? Do you know what it was . HR. SHOVAH-$129,000, I think. MR. CARVIN-And you paid $109,000, right? MR. SHOVAH-$109,000. MRS. EGGLESTON-But what greater exposure than having a For Sale sign on Glen Street, with the amount of cars going up and down it? I mean, that's cutting your nose off to spite your face. MR. SHOVAH-I agree with what you're saying, but for three years I've had a real estate sign out in front of my house, and eventually, the brokerage business, the MLS, that house has been in the MLS book since 1987. So as far as, if anybody was interested, they would have driven by it by now. I mean, not everybody, but 95 percent of the people know that that house was for sale, and I just, I don't know. After awhile, you get sick of, and then when the listing would run out, and the broke r would leave the sign right out there. I've got three signs in my drive from brokers. So finally when they listed it, I told them I didn't want a sign there, because, lets face it. HR. TURNER-Jim, I've got a question. You've lived there quite a while. Why didn't you ever check to see what that was zoned for? - 35 - ~" Why did you buy a pig in a poke? MR. SHOVAH-You really want to know the truth? Because on November 29th, I got thrown out of my house by Judge Dyer, and I needed a place to live because there was a custody battle going on, and I grabbed the first place I saw, and that was December 1st, 1987. is when the first recording of Donald Matusik was, and that's why it was a pig in a poke. It was one of those weak points in my life when the wheels just came off, not to get to personal, but that's really what happened. MR. PHILO-Ted, I kind of agree with, I was going to ask a question there. I've lived in that area since 1935. There's been Parson's Ford, Buick. There's something in the law that says, are you exempt for ignorance? MR. SHOVAH-No. I'm not. Ignorance is no excuse when it comes to the law. MR. PHILO-Okay, and I figure when you purchased this property, you can't have a hardship on these people because of your mistake. MR. SHOVAH-Right. MR. PHILO-I don't think these people should suffer for somebody's flash in the pan, and I remember when that street went in there, Windsor Street. It should have never gone in there in the first place. MR. SHOVAH-Well, that's another innuendo. That's a 40 foot strip up through there. I've heard 20 feet. It's 40 foot. That's the facts. We've got to deal with the facts. MR. PHILO-Two 10 foot paths is what they're saying. MR. SHOVAH-I've got a survey. What's the survey say? MR. PHILO-They're not saying what the right-of-way is. MR. SHOVAH-Say if my father built that house, the neighborhood has changed. Even if the person who built the house lived there, they couldn't sell it as residence, because, if you listen to the radio, you've got to blare it, because of the traffic, and then when it gets, there's no traffic for five seconds or twenty seconds, it's loud. MR. PHILO-They've had people living in that house ever since I was a kid. There was more traffic on that Route 9 than there is now. MR. SHOVAH-I doubt that. MR. PHILO-There was Maslin's trucks running up there, and I went over and picked two wrecks up for Sperry's Garage that were parked right in that front yard. So, you talk about tractor trailers running up there, and dust, in fact, it's cleaned up a lot. MR. TURNER-Well, the basic difference, Tommy, was that that was a two lane road versus a four lane now. MR. SHOVAH-Plus they've changed the pattern of the traffic. MR. TURNER-And then they've widened the road. They've widened it since that time. MR. PHILO-Ted, it was the same width as it is today. MR. TURNER-I agree with you, but there was a single traffic, one right behind the other, in the summer time. with you there. line of I agree - 36 - MR. PHILO-And it's the same width. It hasn't changed. Parson's Ford is the same offset, and the Buick, and on this other side, where that house is, is the same offset. They have the same right- of-way. It hasn't changed since the Ford. MR. SHOVAH-I heard a statement tonight that when this gentleman looks out his side yard, he sees country. When I look out my side window, I see his house, and I see the reflection of Cole Muffler off his windows. Now, it's quite the opposite of country. I don't mind losing a fair battle, but I don't think this is being fought fair, with innuendos. MRS. BGGLESTON-Mr. Shovah, what is the square footage of the house? MR. SHOVAH-It's off the square feet. feet. I think it's 1900 square MR. JARRETT-Just to clarify that point first. The square footage of the house is approximately 1960, I believe. We measured from the survey, was performed in 1991. We also calculated the gross leasable area, from Town Code, and that is 1240 square feet, which equates to, at 150 square feet per parking space, that would be 8.3 spaces, I believe, and we rounded up to nine. MR. PHILO-You know, out of this whole thing, I'm looking. I'd like to ask you a question right now. If this guy is playing ignorance to buying this place, why are you so enthused about buying this piece of property. with that handicap that? MR. JARRETT-We think it's an excellent use for professional offices, frankly. Would you like me to read the definition of gross leasable area? The total floor area designed for tenant occupancy and exclusive use, including keyosks, expressed in square feet, and measured from the center line of joint partitions from the inside faces of exterior wall, provided, however, that "gross leasable area" shall not include common wall area, exit corridors, service corridors, storage/maintenance areas, elevators, escalators or other common or public places. MR. BIGELOW-We use that definition when we pulled out the hallways. Ted Bigelow. I'm one of the contract vendees for the property and the applicant. Mr. Gates spoke of the various variances that have been requested and have been denied. I don't pretend to know of them. Apparently, they didn't state their case well, or they didn't have good cause for a variance. I don't know. This Board made those decisions. So you're probably aware of them. I teel we have a good case. We're on a corner lot. I think we've presented our case well. The argument, he makes an argument that if this property is re-zoned, both he and Mrs. Beebe made that statement. We're not looking for a re-zoning. We're looking tor a variance, but either way, if it gets changed to professional office use, he made the statement that it was going to devalue his property, and that's a nice broad flowing statement, but there wasn't anything behind it to back it up. I would argue just the opposite. that we can't devalue his property, and I will tell you furthermore, when we met with Mr. Gates at the fence along his backyard. when we were talking with him about what we wanted to do, he made the statement to myself and Tom Jarrett, and Howard Denison that he'd love to see the whole area re-zoned. but he doesn't think it's going to happen. So I'm against it. Did you say that? MR. GATES-No, I did not. MR. BIGELOW-Well, maybe you've got to take it with a grain of salt, but there's two other people here that also heard it. MR. TURNER-Okay, but lets not argue back and forth. You just make your statement. MR. BIGELOW-As to whether or not he paid, what was paid for the - 37 - property in 1987, I don't know. I have to assume that that was current market value at the time. As you know, property values were going through the roof, houses of that, and the prices that I mentioned to you. on the interior of the residential neighborhoods, $110,000, if you put that house on Garrison Road, you'd probably be able to get $150.000 for it. I don't dispute that. I don't think Mrs. Beebe would dispute it. I don't think any of these people here would dispute that. If you put that house on Fort Amherst or Garrison Road, you'd get a much higher amount for it, and rightly so. It's a nice residential area, in those neighborhoods. This is not a residential neighborhood. I mean, look at the pictures. Look at the neighborhood. A car count ot 32,400 a day. That's not residential, so we're not changing the character. I will also say that in the law, it says you have to be able to expect a reasonable return, and not have any economic benefit. I will tell you that the price that we're paying for that house, with the variance, if we get it, is much less than the asking price, and I will divulge that if Mr. Shovah wants me to, but it's a matter of public record as soon as it gets recorded. The next gentleman that spoke, I didn't get his name, but he's at 22 Glenwood, said his property was assessed for $103,000. I didn't check the Assessor's. I don't know the value of his house, compared to Mr. Shovah. I would say that he's farther down, and more residential character. As far as the comparison between the buildings themselves, I can't answer that, but he made the statement that he'd love to be able to sell his house for $103,000, for $95,000. That's the crux of the problem. That neighborhood has changed. To get residential values, such as you do on the interior of Garrison and Fort Amherst, you just cannot do it, and that is part of the crux of our problem. The house is built very close to the road. This gentleman made a statement that the right-of-way has not changed. I don't know if it has. I'm assuming it hasn't, but the width has changed. It's gone from two lanes to four lanes. So, maybe the right-of-way hasn't changed, but you have a tremendous amount of traffic in that area, and as far as changing the character, Mrs. Beebe alluded to crossing the neighborhood. Well, I've got to tell you, all the way up Glen is Cultural Professional. It's office use all the way up, and when you get to Queensbury Town line, it switches to very intense commercial use. So, I have problems with the broad flowing statement that this is a residential neighborhood. It is not. It's commercial, and I think everybody would have to agree with that. and as far as the traffic situation goes, no one brought any facts up as to any accidents that were caused because of Windsor in the high traffic, or commercial, or the nature of the traffic in that neighborhood, but just last year, or the year before. you go down, I don't know if it was the corner of Garrison and Amherst, and North Road, someone was killed right in the middle of the residential neighborhood. Accidents can happen anywhere, and the changes that we're proposing for t.hat site, we think, make it safer than what it is right now. I won't argue that I don't think that's a real safe situation. I agree wi th the neighbors. It's not, but what we want to do there is going to make it safer. As far as the people getting up saying, well, I didn't talk to you, and I didn't talk to you. We did go down and spent one afternoon on a weekend. We knocked on every door. Every door. The people that were not home, we didn't go back and contact them. It wasn't our job to. We're trying to be good neighbors and do it right. It's the Town's responsibility, and that's why they have notices, and that's why they're here tonight, to put their two cents in. So I don't feel that we did anything wrong because a few people got up and said, well, you didn't talk to me. We tried. Even if the Town wanted to go to the point of putting No Parking signs up on the side of Windsor that our building would be on, I would be very happy with that. We don't have any intention of parking on the street. We'd even pay tor the signs, because the road is too narrow to park on, and it's a dangerous situation with the parking the way it is, at both Mr. Radloff's and Shovah's house now. Because Mr. Shovah has to pull out directly onto the street, and he can't park in front of his garage, because there's not enough width, and if he did park a - 38 - -- motorcycle or something in there, he'd have to back out, the bushes. you couldn't see. The same situation on Mr. Radloff's side of the road. His back door is almost up to the right-of-way. It's very difficult to park there. I would take issue with Mr. Radloff's contention that snow would come off his roof and hit cars parked in the parking lot on the other side of the road. That's a stretch. MR. RADLOFF-The snow went right up to Mr. Shovah's garage door, okay, totally across, and you think the Town would come and clear it? No. Mr. Radloff had to get in his pick-up truck and push the snow down the road, not once, but twice this past winter. MR. BIGELOW-Well, Mr. Radloff, I can only say that if the Town came off your roof, it is a To~n problem because it's a Town right-of- way. We are close to the property lines here. There's no doubt about it. Mr. Radloff indicated to us, when he bought his house, I couldn't remember the number that he quoted us, but he did tell us a number. I thought it was 150. He said $130,000. You did indicate to us that you felt you got a good deal, and that's why you jumped on it, but you have put a lot of money into your house, and are continuing to, and I think that's great. As far as the deed restrictions that he brings up, about people in their deed requiring that it be residential. That's in their deeds. That's not in this deed. They bought their property with that deed restriction in there. Mr. Shovah doesn't have that. If they bought a piece of property with a deed restriction in their deed that says that theirs is going to stay residential, that's fine. If they didn't want somebody else's property to be changed, then they should have lived in a subdivision where you have restrictive covenants for the entire neighborhood. That's not the case there. MR. PHILO-With all these negative things I'm hearing about this property and everything, there's got to be something that's enticing you to buy this piece of property. MR. BIGELOW-Yes. MR. PHILO-I'd like to know what you're paying for this piece of property. I've heard $109,000. I've heard all different things. MR. BIGELOW-No. You didn't hear that we're paying $109,000. You heard that's what was paid for the property in 1987. MR. PHILO-This is what I'm saying. prices. I've heard all different MR. BIGELOW-We're paying $95,000 for the property, sir, which is almost $20,000 less than what he paid for it five years ago. MR. TURNER-Yes, but hasn't the market values depreciated quite a bit? The real estate market is about $30,000. $40,000 off, in many respects. It depends on what the property is and where it is. MR. BIGELOW-No. They've stagnated. It's a flat market. I won't debate that. MR. PHILO-Ask Gary Bowen what they're getting up at Hiland right now. MR. BIGELOW-The point is that he's not making a fair return, even selling it as potential office use. There is no economic use of that property. He can't sell it as a single family home. He might be able to rent it out to a Social Service's family, because they give such a high rent for a four bedroom house, but he wouldn't be able to do that on the open market. He tried and rented it for two months, and they skipped on him. MRS. EGGLESTON-Mr. Bigelow, how long have you been the realtor on this piece of property? - 39 - -..-/ MR. BIGELOW-S ince about September of 1992, and then be forehand, those other four brokers that were listed in the, which were supplied to us by Mr. Shovah, and all five those, I should mention, I don't know the issues with the sign before, but it's been in MLS. Every broker in the MLS System, of which there are over 100, has had access to that property. HRS. EGGLES'rON-I think my point was going to be, you have an interest in buying the property. MR. BIGELOW-Yes, and that gets back to the point that he was making. The reason that we like that property is because of its exposure. It's a great location for a professional office use such as ours. That's why we're interested in it. MR. JARRETT-Are you driving at, that they have no selling it as residential because they're trying commercial? interest to buy in it MRS. EGGLESTON-Conflict of interest, is what I'm looking at. MR. BIGELOW-Well, forget that we're real estate brokers. I mean, if someone else was trying to buy this property. MR. DENISON-Don't forget that, because that's very important. We work by a Code of Ethics. MRS. EGGLESTON-I know. MR. DENISON-And I would be more than glad to stand on that, because I am a broker, licensed in New York State. MRS. EGGLESTON-And your facts could be slanted, because you have an interest in buying the premises, because you have an interest in buying it, you could very well be presenting a bleak picture. MR. JARRETT-Let me add one thing that may clarify it. I'm not going to speak for these two gentlemen, but frankly I don't believe they were looking at this property to occupy it themselves until I came into the picture, which was approximately two months ago. Then it became financially feasible for the three of us to join forces and purchase the property and occupy it ourselves. They told me that they were not looking at it themselves until we came up with the idea for the threesome. I'll let them answer to that, but that's the way I understand it, and so the perception that there could be a conflict, I believe, is just a perception. MR. CARVIN-I'd like to ask kind of a, maybe it's a pointed, loaded question, but lets assume that everything goes through and you gentleman buy it for $95,000 and next week, three doctors come to you and say, gee, this is a great place. We'd like to locate an office here. Just out of curiosity, as real tors, what kind of price tag would you hang on the house. if that was the situation? MR. BIGELOW-$120,000 to $130.000. MR. CARVIN-If we grant the variance, I would say that Mr. Shovah is giving the house away, if you're getting a commercial piece of property for $95,000. MR. DENISON-Well, we're getting it office/professional. MR. BIGELOW-Because we're going to the time and expense of trying to get the variance, too. MR. DENISON-Mr. Shovah knows exactly what the. MR. CARVIN-I'm sure he does. MR. DENISON-We told him point blank exactly the same question you - 40 - asked, and that has been brought up in front of this Board. and in front of this public here, the question of how we're doing this and why we're doing this, and whether we've got any conflict of interest here, and I want to address that point blank, that there is no conflict of interest. Everything has been put on the Board. We have tried to go to the neighbors and explain to them the situation. As far as marketing the property, we have marketed it aggressively. We have put a price tag on it of $110,000 which we felt that we would get somewhere close to that. Ten percent off of that price would be $100,000. We haven't had anybody that wants to live in that house. If that was, as you say, a variance was provided for that property, office/professional. we've had people that have wanted to buy it, do not want to go through the aggravation of sitting here and, knowing the past history of that property, feel that there is no way that there is going to be a variance granted on that property, because of the things that have been stated here before. We brought to you a case that has gone through all of the three steps. We feel that we've proven those three steps to you. MR. CARVIN-Has the house ever been offered as a residential, at $95,000? MR. DENISON-On the open market, asking price of $95.000? No. MR. CARVIN-No. MR. DENISON-It has been offered at $110,000, in September of 1992. MR. CARVIN-Your honest feeling, if it was put on the market at $95,000 as a residential, would it sell? MR. DENISON-No. It would not sell as a residential because of the location where it is. It's six and a half feet, front door, off of Glen Street. You can sit in. and we'd be glad to show you the tape, sit in the second room, that is the t.V. room, and you can hear the guns going, in the summer time, of the Cole Muffler, the auto repair shop, right there on the same side of Glen Street as his house is. So all the commercial is not on the other side of Glen Street. There's now Warren Tire, which used to be C & 0 Auto, right there, the busy traffic. It's not a desirable location for a residence. I want to put it on the record, if I may, sir, that it's a professional real estate, and with the other real estates that are a member of MLS Service, some of the best realtors in this County have marketed that property aggressively, and have not had any residential bites. They've had many commercial interests there, and the people do not want to go through the ordeal of going for a variance, and that's why there haven't been but just a few otfers, and all of those otfers have been for a hair dresser, other uses, except residence. MRS. EGGLESTON-To your knowledge, has any real estate ever listed it as residential for less than $100,000? MR. DENISON-No. MR. CARVIN-Okay. If I might interject here, I think that this thing has, right from the get go, right from 1988, that the whole idea here was to change that to a commercial zone. So I think that, I have to seriously question whether a serious attempt, and I emphasize serious attempt, was ever made at selling the place as a residence. MR. DENISON-It was bought as a residential property. It was listed as a residential property. It was sold as a residential property. MR. CARVIN-It was bought .in 1988. Okay, but what was the first thing that happened, in less than three months. MR. DENISON-What happened after it was bought is irrelevant to the - 41 - case that it wa~ bought as a residential use. MR. CARVIN-Well, I think that this is the fourth time that this has come before the Board. MR. BIGELOW-It was listed all those times, with all those realtors, residentially. MR. CARVIN-At what price, though? MR. BIGELOW-The various prices that Mr. Shovah indicated. MR. CARVIN-Well, I think, maybe, could it have been that you overpriced? MR. DENISON-We're the professionals here. realtor. I'm a professional MR. TURNER-You can talk about it all night, but he bought the property for $109,000, he bought a pig in a poke. He thought it was commercial. He didn't check. That's residential, period. He bought the hardship because he didn't check. MR. CARVIN-Self-imposed. MR. TURNER-That's nobody's fault but his fault, and he bought it, he bought it with the idea that he was going to use it commercially. He said that right here tonight, and never checked to see what it was zoned for. MR. DENISON-He bought it because he got kicked out of his house, and needed a place to live. MR. TURNER-That has nothing to do with it. He bought a piece of property. The first thing you do is you go and check and see what it's zoned for. MR. DENISON-He bought it to live in. MR. TURNER-But he said he bought it as an investment. MR. DENISON-He thought that, because of the location, it would be easy to get it. MR. TURNER-Every piece of property is an investment. I agree with that. MR. SHOVAH-Let me just clarify. I bought that house, assuming that it was commercial, but to live in it as a residence, and if it was commercial, it would be more valuable. MR. TURNER-Now, I'm going to ask Mr. Gates a question. In my mind, there is a hardship with that property, as far as residential. Do you agree with that? MR. GATES-Yes. MR. TURNER-Okay. What is he supposed to do with it? MR. GATES-He should have bought it for what it was worth in the beginning. MR. TURNER-Yes, but would that transcend anything after that? MR. GATES-What he should do with it is lower the price to whatever it's going to take to sell it. I don't think it's worth any more than $75,000. My house is appraised at $70,000, next door. That's a little bigger house, but it's on Glen. He's got a one car garage, but I've got a three car. His house is worth $70,000, $75,000. He should try to sell it tor that. - 42 - MR. TURNER-If the Town re-zones it. They re-zone it to whatever they want. what they're asking for right here. forget the County, what they're asking for. MR. PHILO-Gives them a variance, is that what you're saying? MRS. EGGLESTON-No, no, re-zone. MR. 'rURNER-They re-zone. Then you're stuck with it. MR. GATES-I'm stuck with whatever they're putting in. MR. TURNER-With whatever they say that zone is. MR. GATES-Are you talking about the whole neighborhood? MR. TURNER-No. I'm just talking about that one piece of property. If they cut that off. MRS. EGGLESTON-Say the Town Board says, yes, re-zone. MR. TURNER-Re-zone, okay, then what they zone that for is what they end up with. or something else, because there's other permitted uses when they change the zone. So, would you rather see, let me honestly say, would you rather see a professional office there. a limited professional office there, than something else, that would have a stronger impact on your piece of property? MR. GATES-I would not want to see something else. MR. TURNER-What can he do with that little piece of property? MR. GATES-It I'm being asked to make two choices? MR. TURNER-No. I'm just asking you, hypothetically, what can he do with that piece of property? MR. GATES-Something else. I don't want the professional office. If I had to pick one of two, I would pick the professional office, certainl y, but there's a third choice, what it's zoned at now, residential, and what I'm trying to say here tonight is that's the way I would want it to stay. I made a statement to these gentlemen that the only way they'll ever get that changed is if the whole neighborhood went, and it isn't going to happen. Now, they're telling you that I said something else. MR. TURNER-Okay. residence? Would you buy it? Would you buy it as a MR. GATES-As a residence? MR. TURNER-Yes, would you buy it? Hypothetically, would you buy it? MR. GATES-Yes. MR. TURNER-You would buy it, and live there, it you didn't own the lot behind you? MR. GATES-Sure. For $65,000 that's a good deal. I'll buy it. $65,000, I'll expand my lawn, and rent the house out, and it'll stay residential, and I'll buy it, for $65,000. It has a price as a residential. He bought a pig in a poke. MR. PHILO-I agree with you. MR. TURNER-And I agree, that it has depreciated. No doubt about it. MR. GATES-Not at $110,000. I wouldn't buy it at $95,000. - 43 - MR. SHOVAH-In other words, real estate, you're supposed to buy it to lose money. Is that the deal? MR. TURNER-Sometimes you do, Jim. Okay. MR. JARRETT-Two of the major concerns that have been raised here, that I've heard, are Number One, that this would encroach into the residential neighborhood of Garrison and Fort Amherst, and they are trying to preserve the character of the neighborhood. Well, frankly I feel that Glen Street is not a residential neighborhood right now. Glen Street is basically professional in Glens Falls and Commercial in Queensbury. I do not believe that we would be inviting a new encroachment into a residential neighborhood. I do not believe that we would be effecting the character of the neighborhood of Garrison and Fort Amherst. Frankly, any further variances or future variances into Fort Amherst or Garrison would be at the discretion of this Board. We have no control over that. The other issue that has been raised a number of times is traffic on Windsor. If this house stays residential, a four bedroom house, the likelihood is there would be more occupants in this house than what has been in the last five years. Jim has occupied this house, I believe, by himself. So frankly the traffic has been low in the last five years. A four bedroom, if occupied fully, could generate a lot more traffic than it is right now. We feel that with professional offices, that we would probably generate slightly more than the average residential property, maybe, I'm guessing, we could toss numbers around all night, but I'm guessing that we might generate the same, roughly the same traffic as this house fully occupied. Now, I don't believe there's any major traffic impact at stake here. MR. PHILO-I don't agree with that. You're going to have a business. and you're going to have two or three kids, and a wife and a house, and you're going to have the same traffic? MR. JARRETT-A four bedroom house could generate quite a bit of traffic. I mean. the studies that I've read, the averages can range from four to twenty-three cars a day, trips per day, for the median average of about ten. We're estimating that we'll be generating about sixteen. So, frankly, we are slightly more than the public general averages that I've seen. MR. TURNER-Okay. The public hearing's closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. We have several letters. One is from Joyce & David Thompson. They live at 12 Garrison Road. "My husband and I are unable to attend the 7:30 p.m. meeting tonight, but we wanted to voice our opposition to any changes in the Single Family zoning in our neighborhood. Considering the high tax rate we bear in this area of Queensbury, any change in the zoning which would depreciate our property values would be inappropriate." And this is from Fred and Patricia Giardinello, 3 Garrison Road, "Although we are unable to attend the public hearing concerning a variance for 637 Glen Street, we wish to register our opposition. When the property was last sold, the buyer knew of the zoning, and should not be able to seek relief from Section 179-20D, or Section 140-7." And a letter from Mary Brown, 10 Garrison Road, "Since I am unable to attend the meeting mentioned above, I would like to express my strong opposition to re-zoning 637 Glen Street from an SFR-1 acre zone." And from Anna J. Bennett, "I am the owner of a house and lot located on Windsor Drive. Although I will be unable to attend the hearing scheduled for tonight. I would like to register my absolute and total opposition to the proposed or any other commercial use of the above named property. I beg you to enforce the zoning laws. They were enacted to protect Queensbury's citizens who deserve no less. If the Sign Variance 36-1993 is not automatically rejected - 44 - by the Use Variance, 35-1993, please consider this my vociferous objection to that as well." Thomas and Ginger Spring, and they're at 8 Windsor Drive, "This letter is in reference to Variance No.'s 35-1993, and 36-1993. The variances should be denied because of the negative impact on this predominantly residential area. Windsor Drive is a narrower than normal and relatively short street. Since the addition of the traffic light and mini-mall on the corner of Quaker and Glenwood, there has been a noticeable increase in traffic. The location of this proposed business in relation to Windsor Drive will only add to the problem. If there were shortages of available locations for this type of business. an argument could be presented, but this is not the case, and it will probably never be. As property owners and residents of Windsor Dri ve, we are happy with the status quo. and see no reason to change it." Ethyl and Ray Wynn, and they're at One Garrison Road, "We will not be able to attend the public hearing on May 19th at 7:30 p.m. for a Sign and Use Variance at 637 Glen Street, but we wish to oppose these changes in order to protect other residences, including our own, that are near." And that's it. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further discussion? Motion's in order. MOTION TO DENY USE VARIANCE NO. 35-1993 TED BIGELOW TOM JARRETT HOWARD DENISON, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: The applicant is seeking relief of Section 179-200. The applicant is seeking to change the use from a residential to a professional office use, and I feel that if we were to grant this application. that the applicant has not sufficiently met all the criteria which are outlined in the Town Law Section 267-C, which reads, No such use variance shall be granted by a Board of Appeals without a showing by the appl icant that appl icable zoning regulations and restrictions have caused unnecessary hardship, and in order to prove such unnecessary hardship, the applicant shall demonstrate to the Board of Appeals that, One, under applicable zoning regulations, the applicant is deprived of all economic use or benefit from the property in question, which deprivation must be established by competent financial evidence, Two, that the alleged hardship relating to the property in question is unique and does not apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood. Three, that the requested Use Variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, and that, Four, the alleged hardship has not been self-created. I feel the applicant probably has demonstrated the first two sections. However, I do feel that if we were to grant this variance, that the essential character of the neighborhood would be changed. and that this alleged hardship has been self-created. Duly adopted this 19th day of May, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Philo, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Miss Hauser, Mr. Thomas MR. TURNER-Before you go, do you wish to table the Sign Variance? MR. BIGELOW-Withdraw the Sign Variance. MR. TURNER-For the record, Sign Variance No. 36-1993. that of Ted Bigelow. Howard Denison. Tom Jarrett, the applicant requests the application be withdrawn. USE VARIANCE MO. 38-1993 TYPE: UNLISTED MR-5 DAVID & SUZANNE BARNES OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE INDIANA AVENUE & LUZERNE ROAD APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO EXPAND A PREEXISTING NONCONFORMING USE STRUCTURE (AUTO BODY REPAIR SHOP). WITH A THIRTEEN HUMDRED AND - 45 - TWENTY ( 1. 320 ) SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO THE WEST SIDE OF THE EXISTING BUILDING AND IS SEEKING RELIEF FROM SECTION 179-18D. TAX MAP NUMBER: 127-4-1. 2, 3. 17 LOT SIZE: 48.000 SQ. FT. SECTION 179-18D DAVID & SUZANNE BARNES, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 38-1993, David and Suzanne Barnes, Meeting Date: May 19, 1993 "SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to expand a preexisting nonconforming use structure (auto body repair shop) with a thirteen hundred and twenty square foot addition to the west side of the existing structure. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: 1. Applicant is seeking relief from Section 179-180, Permitted Uses, in the MR- 5A zone. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. IS REASONABLE RETURN POSSIBLE IF THE LAND IS USED AS ZONED? Applicant believes that reasonable return of the land is not possible if used as zoned as property has had a history of nonconforming use and conformance with current permi tted uses would not be financially feasible. 2. ARE THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS LOT UNIQUE AND NOT DUE TO THE UNREASONABLENESS OF THE ORDINANCE? Applicant believes that the proposed project site is unique as it has a history of being used as a commercial and residential site since 1975 (according to the Assessor's Office, the residence was built in 1958), and that the circumstances of the lot is not due to the unreasonableness of the Ordinance. 3. IS THERE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER? It would appear that there would not be an adverse effect on the neighborhood character as the neighborhood is a mix of commercial residential uses. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: Applicant has received four (4) previous use variances for the existing commercial structure, in 1976, 1978, 1980. and 1985. All the aforementioned variances were for the expansion of the preexisting nonconforming use structure. The current expansion of said structure will be placed on two (2) contiguous lots, #127-4-1 and 127-4-17. In the future, applicant plans to merge the four (4) lots that constitute the site of their business and also intends to demolish the existing single family dwelling (see attached letter from the applicant). On a recent site visit, staff observed that there appeared to be no permeable area on the site. Applicant will need to address this issue in an Area Variance and required Site Plan Review." MRS. EGGLESTON-And a letter attached. "We would like to construct an addition to our existing auto body repair shop. The existing building is on the corner of Indiana Ave. & Luzerne Rd. The proposed addition would house a new spray booth. Our existing booth is still useable, but in need of upgrading. The new booth will be in more compliance with the future environmental laws. The air from the filtering system will be as safe, if not safer, to breath as any air around. The addition will be on the west side of the existing bUilding. The entrances to all the work bays are on the east side of the building, making it more convenient for a west side addition. There is a small rental house on the west side of the body shop. The distance between the shop and the house is 45' now. The proposed distance will be 18'. In the near future, we would like to merge the 4 lots #1, 2, 3, & 17 into one lot. In the future. the rental house will be demolished. The area then would be used for parking and green area." MR. KARPELES-I had trouble figuring out, on the plot plan, where the addition, is that dotted line the addition? HR. 'fURNER-Yes. MR. KARPELES-It' s got a dotted line pointing to septic, and I thought that that was the septic. addition right in there? it that says, That is the - 46 - ~ MRS. BARNES-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Can you give us a little bit clearer definition of what in the near future and the future means, for the house, demolishin~ of the house, and the merging of the lots? MR. BARNES-A house like that, you can't rent for a lot of money anyway, and we're renting it for, like, $200 a month. That doesn't really even pay the taxes on it. What we'd like to do is just knock it down and probably put some green area. MRS. EGGLESTON-Were you going to do that at your last variance? Did you say you were going to tear the house down, or merge the lots? MR. BARNES-No. MR. CARVIN-How long has the current tenant been in there? MR. BARNES-Probably three and a half years. people move in and out. Before that, we had MRS. EGGLESTON-Are you saying that if you didn't get this variance, that your present operation does not make money? MR. BARNES-No, it does, but the thing is, we're going to get to a point where the environmental and things, we're going to be just shutting down because of that painting booth, and it's happening in California, and they're going to enforce the law here. So we've got to upgrade it, and it's going to be helping me, too. MR. TURNER-Are you going to access that addition with the door on the end or something? MR. BARNES-Yes, there'll be a drive in. MR. TURNER-Where it says the 19 foot is? Luzerne Road side? It would be on the MR. BARNES-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-If the four lots were merged, would they need the variance? MR. TURNER-Yes. It's expansion of a preexisting nonconforming use. MRS. EGGLESTON-So no matter what, even if they had enough land, it will still not be? MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-I mean. it seems like every two years or so you're needing a variance. MR. BARNES-Yes. Well. it's been a long time. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, we just have the dates here. MR. BARNES-It's been quite a while. MRS. EGGLESTON-'85, I think, was you're last one, but before that they were pretty frequent. MR. BARNES-Yes. Well, we did it as we had the money. In fact, we couldn't go up and finance a big sum of money, so we did it as we could afford it. MR. TURNER-If you get this, Dave, is this going to pretty much do you for a foreseeable future, as far as expanding? - 47 - MR. BARNES-I would say so. MR. TURNER-What does that do to the rest of the bUilding? How much extra space are you going to pick up? Where do you paint now, on the end of the Luzerne side, when you paint in the bays? MR. DAVE-It's 40 feet down. it's about 40 feet down, you're looking at it from Indiana Avenue. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. In order to grant a use variance. I'm going to tell you, here, what the criteria is. I think you just heard it, with the gentleman that was just here, and it says, Number One, under applicable zoning regulations, the applicant is deprived of all economic use or benefit from the property in question, which deprivation must be established by competent financial evidence. Can we get by that hurdle? You have to meet certain criteria in order for us to grant a use variance. There are four criteria. The very first one says that the applicant is deprived of all economic use or benefit from the property in question, which deprivation must be established by competent financial evidence, by that they would mean, physical records, income tax records, whatever, showing that you have an economic loss here. MRS. BARNES-If we don't receive, put in a new spray booth, then we don't have a business. MR. BARNES-See. if they decide to come up and enforce this law, they could shut me up and five employees, and we'd be out of business. MR. TURNER-Yes, but that's not a fact yet. MRS. BARNES-It is a fact. MR. TURNER-It is a fact? I thought you said it was in California? MR. BARNES-Well, it's coming down the road. MRS. EGGLESTON-Then it's not in law here. MR. BARNES-But it could happen. I don't want to wait until the point where they come and close me up. MR. TURNER-Can I ask you a question? Can you incorporate the booth within the present building, and still come up with enough room to work? MR. BARNES-You're going to spend as much money as you would putting this new one in. MR. TURNER-In what way? MR. BARNES-Well, you'd have to spend $55,000 for this, and take up two of your working bays, do you know what I mean? So, I mean, you spend the same amount of money, and the working bays. MR. CARVIN-What's the square footage on this addition? MRS. EGGLESTON-It's right on the application, 1320. MR. CARVIN-And that's all going to be paint booth? MR. BARNES-No. It's going to be, you drive up to the paint booth, and before you take it in the paint booth, you clean the car down first, and then you put it in the paint booth. MRS. EGGLESTON-What is different between that and the paint room you now have? MR. BARNES-Well, the one I have now, you would try to spend the - 48 - - same amount of money, which would take two of your bays. to make the air clean coming out. The air coming out now is halfway clean, but it's not what they're going to allow. They're going to make you be able to breath that air that you're breathing here, and go up on the roof and be able to breath the same air. MR. KARPELES-How do you know that they're going to make you do this? MR. BARNES-I know this for a fact. You can read that from DEC and ENCON. MR. KARPELES-It is already a law, and so it's a question of compliance? You're out of compliance now. are you? MR. BARNES-Well, enforce it, like out of business, doing. yes, really, I am. I mean, if they want to we had a gas station, and they enforced us right almost, and they can do anything they feel like MR. PHILO-It's in the BUilding Code right now. Because we did a block job down there in Clifton Park, and they said. either have it the same environmental, the air. and they've got to keep all the dust from one cycle to the other. In other words, when they prepare this car to clean it, it's got to be sealed in this unit. That's why it's got to be that long. They can't take it from one area to another. MR. TURNER-This booth has to be isolated from the working area, right'( MR. BARNES-Right. MR. TURNER-So, if you go inside, you've got to put up another wall. MR. BARNES-Right, and then you lose two of your working spaces. There you're going to lose one man. Without the space, you don't need the other man. MR. CARVIN-This is going to be true of all body shops, is it? MR. BARNES-Yes. MR. CARVIN-In other words, this is going to be a standard. So could we expect to see a lot of these guys coming in? MR. BARNES-Well, some people may have them now. but if they don't have them, they're either going to be out of business. or they're going to have to have them. MRS. EGGLESTON-Do you have any documentation to show that this is State Law? MR. BARNES-I don't think I brought any with me, but I could show you some of the literature, of what this machine will do, because at this point, most of your places right now are polluting the air. That's what a good share of them are doing. MR. PHILO-They're making them put scrubbers on them, Joyce, and everything. MR. BARNES-Yes. and this particular one doesn't have it. MR. CARVIN-I assume you have a paint bay already, do you? MR. BARNES-Yes, but it was good in 1980. MR. CARVIN-Okay. What are you going to do with that space? Is that going to be converted into garage space, or lifts, or things like that? - 49 - --./ MR. BARNES-That will probably stay the same. We don't really need to do anything with it, because you can still park a vehicle in it and work. MRS. EGGLESTON-I'd like to see you take the unsightly house down, before you do this. MR. BARNES-You're looking at the wrong house. MRS. EGGLESTON-Right to the back of this? MR. BARNES-No. That's not my house. You're looking at another house. My little white house looks pretty good. MRS. EGGLESTON-Where is it? MR. BARNES-It's right in back of the shop. There's one in back of the shop that's not my house. That's Bozo Girard's. MRS. EGGLESTON-No, no. I looked at the one right in back of your. MR. BARNES-That little white one doesn't look that bad. MRS. EGGLESTON-With dogs tied in the front yard and no grass or anything on it? MR. BARNES-That has nothing to do with the house. MRS. EGGLESTON-But the outside has to do with the house, and if I'm not mistaken, there was a boarded. MR. BARNES-I'm just renting right now. I'm not going to throw people out. The economy's been bad. MISS HAUSER-Wouldn't that be dangerous, during the construction, to have somebody 18 feet away from? MR. CARVIN-Well, I think it's going to be closer than that. I mean. what's the distance here? MRS. EGGLESTON-That's 18 feet. MISS HAUSER-I think it's going to be dangerous to the people living in that house when you're constructing this addition. MR. BARNES-No, no. burn. It wouldn't be, because this thing could not MRS. EGGLESTON-She meant during the construction process. MR. BARNES-No. That's what I'm saying. It's got a stockade fence right in back of it. You can't get in that yard. The stockade fence goes right around that. MR. TURNER-Yes. You only indicate the fence on one side. MR. BARNES-Yes. There's a stockade fence right in back of my garage, right to that house. MR. TURNER-You don't show it on here. All right. Let me open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-How many cars do you normally have on site, under normal circumstances? - 50 - MR. BARNES-Probably, it's hard to really say, 25, 30, sometimes more. MR. CARVIN-Are they all under repair, or do you use some of them tor parts? MR. BARNES-No. See, we have a towing service, and a lot of them come in there, they'll be sitting there until they take them, whatever they do, sometimes, take them to the junkyard. We have to keep them so many days before we can even give them away. MR. CARVIN-Because I know sometimes I go by there and there's a ton of cars there, and other times there's just a handful. MR. BARNES-Yes. See, like Monday, you'll see a bunch of them, and then by Friday they're usually gone, but our building looks good. MRS. EGGLESTON-I agree with you on that. You do keep it nice. I can't find fault with that. It's just that so many variances, and I don't know, it just seems like it just keeps going, and going, and going. Do you know what I mean? It's like, sometimes you have to be satisfied with what you have. MR. BARNES-Yes, but see that land is no good for anything else. for us. I've been there since I was 19 years old. I'm 48 now. MR. CARVIN-Who runs the shop right across from you? Is that part of yours? There's another one. a body shop that kind of sits kitty corner. I can't think of the name of it. I don't know if it's yours or not, on Luzerne Road. It's just up the street. They had a camaro they were working on forever. MR. TURNER-Where Mandigo's used to be. MR. BARNES-Northway Towing. Yes. MR. CARVIN-Mandigo's, yes. Does he have a paint booth? MR. BARNES-No. They don't do body work. They're just a junk yard. MR. PHILO-Well, I think it's going to help the area. in my book, if they put this in. It's helping air quality, and there's a lot of benefits. It's going to meet the OSHA standards. MR. BARNES-Yes. MR. TURNER-Another thing you've got to consider is that, if he has to comply with the law, which we don't have, right, is that this is mandated, he's got to have room to put it in, reasonable return, yes. He's making a living up there. That's for sure. All right, and it's an expansion, but it's an expansion because it's something that's required. MRS. EGGLESTON-What did you say it would cost if you were to alter the premise~ you now have, do you figure the cost would be? MR. BARNES-Well, it would probably cost me basically the same amount of money, but I would also lose one of our working bays, at that point, because this takes up two working bays. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. TURNER-Well, you show an entrance on the Luzerne Road side, 20 feet, 19 feet to be exact, on the print here, and you show an extension of that 60 feet long, but why couldn't you take and put it in that one bay on the end. and take it up, instead of getting behind that house? MR. BARNES-Yes, we could, but we've got a trame machine in there. - 51 - MR. TURNER-All right. That's all I wanted to know. All right. So the layout of the building is the frame machine on this end, and the paint booth is 40 feet down. You've got a repair bay between the frame machine and the spray booth. MR. BARNES-There's a 40 foot, right in front, where the office is, there's a frame machine there, and then down one bay, you'll find a paint booth, and then there's two more bays right there, as listed, and then we have part of a frame machine, way to the very end. So we really would lose our room to get them ready. MR. TURNER-Okay. Motion's in order. MR. CARVIN-Could I, did we really address the. I hate to bring up conversation at this point, but the permeability? MR. TURNER-That's another application. MR. CARVIN-That's going to go to the Site, so that has no part of this? MR. TURNER-Yes, but they've got to have a variance from it. They've got to have another application. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, because they didn't ask for it in this one. MR. CARVIN-So they go to site plan, and then they come back here? MRS. BARNES-That's right. MR. CARVIN-So we'll see this whole thing again, will we? MR. BARNES-When do we have to do that? MR. TURNER-You're not going to tear the house down? MR. BARNES-Not right now. MR. TURNER-That's why you've got to have that. The problem I'm going to run into, I'm not going to try to lie to you people. Where am I going to get the grassy area? I'm not going to come up here and lie to you and tell you I've got the grassy area. MR. TURNER-It's not necessarily grassy area. MRS. BARNES-Right now it's about 20 percent. MR. TURNER-Twenty percent. MR. CARVIN-Well, I didn't want to bring up a sore thumb here, but. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, we're not addressing that issue now, is that right? MRS. RUTHSCHILD-That's right. MRS. EGGLESTON-Because it wasn't advertised. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-This was just observed recently, and I spoke with him about it. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-And they'll have to come in and fill out an application. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. TURNER-Wait a minute. now. until that's addressed anyway. He can't get a building permit - 52 - MRS. RUTHSCHILD-That's correct. MR. TURNER-Okay. So why not just table this thing, and lets get them both together and do them all at once. MRS. EGGLESTON-That would be the fastest. MR. KARPELES-Well, isn't a dirt road considered permeable? It isn't'? MRS. ~GGLESTON-No. It still has to be addressed. MR. TURNER-There's no sense in going through this and then going through the other one. You can't get a bUilding permit until the other one's done anyway. Do you agree to table it until you get the other application? MR. BARNES-Yes. MR. TURNER-Okay. The applicant's agreed to table. MOTION TO TABLE USE VARIANCE NO. 38-1993 DAVID & SUZANNE BARNES, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: Requested by the applicant, until they submit the application for the area variance. Duly adopted this 19th day of May, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Philo, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston. Miss Hauser, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE AREA VARIANCE NO. 40-1993 TYPE: UNLISTED LI-1A FLR PARTNERSHIP C/O FRED H. ALEXY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 53 LUZERNE ROAD APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A TWO (2) LOT SUBDIVISION OF AN EXISTING DEVELOPED LOT. APPLICANT IS PROPOSING ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY-ONE (171) FEET AS THE LOT WIDTH FOR THE NORTHERN LOT AND IS SEEKING RELIEF OF TWENTY-NINE (29) FEET FROM SECTION 179-29C. WHICH REQUIRES TWO HUNDRED (200) FEET FOR THE LOT WIDTH IN THE LI-1A ZONE. APPLICANT IS ALSO SEEKING RELIEF FOR THE NORTHERN LOT FROM SECTION 179-70. FRONTAGE ON A TOWN ROAD. WHICH REQUIRES ANY LOT OF RECORD TO HAVE FORTY (40) FEET ON A TOWN ROAD. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) DATE: MAY 12. 1993 TAX MAP NUMBER: 118-1-5 LOT SIZE: 2.61 +/- ACRES SECTION 179-29C SECTION 179-70 MICHAEL CUSACK. REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. EGGLESTON-The Warren County Planning Board approved, comments, "With the condition that there is no hazardous waste or any waste on the site that could be detrimental to the area. Staff Note: The lot to be created should not contain any hazardous material." MRS. RUTHSCHILD-Joyce, I sent a letter to Warren County, and sent a copy of the letter from DEC that stated that the contaminated site was contained, and that the rest of it did not. MRS. EGGLESTON-All right. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Area Variance No. 40-1993, FLR Partnership c/o Fred H. Alexy, Meeting Date: May 19, 1993 "SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing a two (2) lot subdivision of an eXisting developed lot. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: 1. Applicant is proposing one hundred and seventy-one (171) feet for the lot width of the proposed northern lot and is seeking twenty- nine (29) feet relief from Section 179-29C, which requires two - 53 - -- hundred (200) feet as the minimum lot width in the Light Industrial 1 Acre zone. 2. Applicant is seeking relief from Section 179-70, Frontage on a Town Road, which requires any lot of record to have forty (40) feet on a town road. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. DESCRIBE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW PLACEMENT OF A STRUCTURE WHICH MEETS ZONING REQUIREMENTS. Applicant states that the need to isolate a known remediated hazardous waste site on an existing developed lot. through the subdivision process, results in the proposed northern lot not conforming with the zones' required lot width and required road frontage (see attached document that describes a proposed easement for the northern lot). 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 to alleviate the specific practical difficulty as proposed dimension of the northern lot duplicates the dimension of the site remediated by DEC (see attached letter from DEC). 3. WOULD 'fHIS VARIANCE BE DETRIMENTAL TO OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD? It would appear that the variance would not be detrimental to the neighborhood or district as the proposed subdivision will not result in any development of the northern lot other than continuing the existing use of equipment storage and parking area. 4. WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF THE VARIANCE ON PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES? It would appear that the variance would have no effects on public facilities and services. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: The proposed subdivision is located on one (1) tax map #118-1-5), of two (2) contiguous lots owned by the applicant. Applicant's business is located on both parcels. Due to financial needs, the applicant is required to isolate the northern portion of lot #118-1-5, which is a known and remediated hazardous waste site. Subsequent to the subdivision, applicant intends to merge southern portion of the subdivision with the contiguous western lot, #118-1- 4. II MR. CUSACK-Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, I'm Mike Cusack. With me is Fred Alexy. He is the "F" in FLR Partnership. "L" is Neil Monahan. "R" is Robert Jay. The reason that I'm before this Board this evening, and before the Planning Board tomorrow evening, is simply to create a financable lot. For this property to be sold or otherwise refinanced, you'd have to do away with any reference to contamination on the property itself, and as the property sits right now, there's an area that DEC did some work on in 1979, 1980, that's included, it's an area in the back, that's included in the property in question. If we were to go out, today, and give a mortgage, or have it surveyed so that a mortgage could be given on the property in question, excluding that area, you would get notice of it, as a municipality, and then we would get a letter from you saying we made an illegal subdivision of the land. So that is simply why we're here at this point in time. There's probably a lot of questions on the Board's mind. I don't know how you want to proceed at this point. We could just jump right into questions, or I can go through the elements, the environmental review. How do you want to proceed? MR. TURNER-Go ahead with your part of it. MR. THOMAS-Before you start, I've got a couple of questions I've got to ask. According to the DEC letter, it's PCB contaminated. MR. CUSACK-The back 300 foot portion is known to have PCB contamination on it. MR. THOMAS-Do you know where that came from? MR. CUSACK-I'm shooting off the top of my head. here. The only know producer of PCB in this region of the Country is General Electric. MR. THOMAS-Do you think they dumped on it? - 54 - --~ MR. CUSACK-I don't think they dumped on it directly, no. MR. THOMAS-What I'm driving at is, I work for Niagara Mohawk. Their line is in there. If part of their land was contaminated too, if Niagara Mohawk had dumped on there, PCB's and transformers, things like that, I'd have to back out. MR. CUSACK-Okay. I don't. at this point, happen to have any knowledge as to the exact parties that are responsible for the PCB contamination. I would say, at this point, that DEC, in 1979, identitied this site, and undertook action, on their own behalf, to clean it up, and construct this cell immediately to the left. So what they did was take the contamination and put it into a cellon the land immediately to the east, still in front of your Niagara Mohawk plant. No stones were thrown, in terms of who is responsible. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. CUSACK-It's just a clean up effort by the State. When they got the cell filled up, they put a cap on the area in question. It was recapped again a year or so later, and since then, it's not been disturbed. There's no proposal to disturb that. It's going to remain the way it is. That's the best they can do, from everybody's perspective, environmentally, which is not disturb any of the remediation that's been done. and any other questions? MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, I think, AMG is moving, if we are to believe the Post Star. Is that right? MR. CUSACK-AMG Industry, it's in a state of flux. First thing first. FLR Partnership, Mr. Alexy. owns the land. Mr. Alexy and his partners sold AMG Industries, the business, to Barber, several years ago. So the business is not technically owned by applicant before you this evening. That is in a state of flux at this time. There is nothing engraved in stone. MR. TURNER-So they could basically stay there, right? MR. CUSACK-He could basically stay there if we could create a financable lot. MRS. EGGLESTON-But if they move, then you'll have two lots. MR. CUSACK-Right now, we have two, we have two lots already right now, lots 55 and 53 on Luzerne Road. For obvious reasons, they're not combined. They're two separate lots, because of this problem. MRS. EGGLESTON-But AMG encompasses both? MR. CUSACK-AMG's located their facility on 55. It's connected by a walkway to their facility on 53. They occupy both lots, yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-All right. So if that business goes, as the property now stands, these gentlemen still own the land with the buildings on them. MR. CUSACK-That aren't removed. MRS. EGGLESTON-That aren't removed. MR. CUSACK-You still have the same problem. MRS. EGGLESTON-So, explain it to me. MR. CUSACK-Well, if I could explain it to you from a bank's perspective, to sell land, a person has to be able to have the land examined for environmental conditions, tor financing purposes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. - 55 - -- MR. CUSACK-And. again, if we say, we'll sell you the land, minus this portion, we've created an illegal subdivision, from which a letter would follow from your Building and Codes Department, saying you did something wrong here, and we have to go back and we'd have to come back to this Board with the same problem as what's essentially here. Here you have an established business that employs a lot of people in town. It's been in the paper, the owner of the business has been to two other counties besides this County to look around for a site. MRS. EGGLESTON-But the fact, according to the paper this week, they are moving? MR. TURNER-Is that a misprint? MR. CUSACK-No. I'd say we have no specific knowledge that they're moving, at this point, and I'd say, Number One, we have no specific knowledge that such is the case, and, Number Two, it's not really relevant to the question that's before the Board here, which is really the dimensional relief that we're seeking from the Board. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, I'll submit, you brought up the issue, when you keep mentioning it in your papers. FRED ALEXY MR. ALEXY-At the time that was prepared. that was a possibility. and we're not trying to avoid answering the questions, that we're not certain ourselves. We don't know when that is. It seems likely they will. MR. CUSACK-The disclosure was made at the bottom of the page, I believe you're referring to the bottom of the second page of the application. That was put there, I just did that for the Board's purposes, to be very honest with you. MRS. EGGLESTON-But you opened the issue, so I asked the question. So for you to say it's not relevant, to me, it is relevant, because you opened the question. MR. CUSACK-Right. It's a factor behind our motivation for coming before you. MRS. EGGLESTON-Then it is relevant, if it goes back to your motivation for coming here. MR. CUSACK-All right. I see what you're saying now. Okay. For SEQRA Review purposes, the action. and I spoke with Scott this morning, the action is classified as unlisted, and we would agree with the unlisted classification. for the reason that I checked with the potentially concerned agencies here. It's not a Critically designated Environmental Area, and it's not on any other agency's Type I list, that I'm aware of, and I specifically checked the Department of Health Regional Office, and the Regional Office for the Department of Environmental Conservation. Why did I check with them? Because they're the ones that have jurisdiction over questions of that nature, and so there's no reason, I was told by Mr. Wild up at DEC, there's no reason. in and of itself, when you're making a change on paper, like what's proposed here, to really classify it as Type I. It can go as unlisted, and if a use is proposed, later, for that, then you make it Type I, but for right now, we're just going to make a paper change. So I would say we agree with the unlisted classification. Moving on to the elements for the area variance itself, I would point out that the variance pertaining to the 40 foot road frontage requirement is a per building requirement, and we do not have a building proposed in this instance. and what I'm saying is that hopefully that I s a factor that can be taken into account by the Board, that we are, in fact, stipulating that if there is a building proposed for this back lot being created, we will be back in for further review, if - 56 - ~-- you require it. It's up to you. It's your option, but at this point in time, I'd just like to make that point. With respect to the elements of an area variance, as currently in effect in the Town Law. and I'll try to match these up with the questions that are asked in the application itself. The first element is whether an undesirable change will be produced to the character of the neighborhood, or a detriment to nearby properties will be created. I would submit to you that this is not the case. We're making, again, a change on paper. We're trying to create a legal lot, by usage of boundary lines which are discussed in the papers. The second element is whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. In this case, we can't really do what we're proposing to do here without getting an area variance from you, understanding that the width of this lot is 171 feet. That is the width of the lot, as it's on the tax rolls, and as it's described in the deed. So we're not making any area any narrower than it already is. We're dealing with what is actually there. I'll just make that point, and with respect to the third element, whether the requested area variance is substantial, I could say, no, it is not a substantial lot. Again, we're dealing with the width of the lot, and with respect to the other question, I believe I've addressed them. The Board can ask questions later. Number Four, whether the proposed variance would have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? No. because we're making a change, again, I'm emphasizing this, on paper. The use will remain the same. It's presently used as a parking facility. They put their equipment there. as allowed by the previous approval, and the last, whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the Board of Appeals, but not necessarily excluding the granting of the area variance. This is not a self-created hardship here. This is a contamination problem which pre-dates the acquisition of this land by the applicant before you. He acquired the land in 1976. We did not come before you with something that is our own doing, and in fact, it's the result of other party's actions. That's the best way I can sum it up. I don't have anything else to say with respect to the elements of the area variance itself. I'd just like to touch on. if there's anything anybody would like to ask of me, feel free, at this time. MR. TURNER-I've got a question for you. I think you made mention of the buildings that would remain. What are you speaking about, the manufacturing part? Are they going to take some of them with them if they move? What did you mean by that remark? MR. CUSACK-I'm going to have to ask Fred, what did you sell? Did you sell the business, AMG Industries? MR. ALEXY-The buildings stay. MR. CUSACK-The buildings stay. I withdraw that. That's a matter of contract between AMG and FLR Partnership. I'm not privy to what happened. MRS. EGGLESTON-So, to put it simply, so I'll be sure I understand this, that when, if you get what you want, when you will be finished. there will be Lot 53. Lot 55 Luzerne Road, and a separate lot in the back, and what you're trying to do is disassociate that contaminated area from the other two areas, so they will become salable. Is that it in a nutshell? MR. CUSACK-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-I just wanted to be sure I understand it. Our question now is the easement. MR. CARVIN-Yes. The easement, is that going to be the 20 feet right up along the, I guess that would be the east side? - 57 - -.- ..-- MR. CUSACK-The east side. It's the existing service road, and when we go to subdivision approval tomorrow night, for the preliminary, we will be discussing the survey requirements. This whole thing will be, the easement will be. surveyed out, and it will be incorporated into the proposed easement, and I have in the application packet, where it says, insert survey description, that's where that will go. MR. CARVIN-Would it ever be possible that somebody would want to build on that contaminated area? Is that a relevant question? MR. PHILO-I don't think they can. MR. CARVIN-You can't build on it? MR. ALEXY-Because it's still Class II. MR. TURNER-They won't let them. MR. CARVIN-So, I mean, basically. that essentially becomes just a dead lot. MR. ALEXY-That's all it can be. MR. TURNER-Any further questions? None? I'll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Any further questions? Okay. Motion's in order. MR. CUSACK-And one other thing. tomorrow when I go be fore the Planning Board. how would this work, to handle the SEQRA? Would you act as lead agency, or would they? MR. TURNER-No. They'll be lead agency. MR. CARVIN-I just have one question, before we move, Ted. If AMG should move out, are there. could this building be expanded? I guess, I suppose it could. I mean, how's that going to play in if you wanted to expand this building? Lets say you found another tenant. I mean. is that going to be a major factor for you, because you're going to have a parking lot. and as it stands right now, I don't see any real problem. but lets say you wanted to add to it, or would you sell the whole thing? MR. ALEXY-I have a sketch indicating some of the enlargements, that we've expanded. approximately doubled the present size, an addition of about 30,000 square feet in the back. and that would come within about 30, 40 feet of the southern most boundary of proposed back lot, and that would still provide access to the back of the building. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Would you make your expansion on Lot 53, or would you go on 55'( MR. ALEXY-I'm thinking of both. when I make that statement, both Lot 53, and 55. MR. CARVIN-So you technically could almost double the size of this and still be in compliance, even with that lot being? MR. ALEXY-There's room. MR. CARVIN-Yes. So it wouldn't mandate that you come back and now all of a sudden have to seek a side line setback, or something like - 58 - that'( MR. ALEXY-No. The only kind of setback possibly might be using as much available land space. MR. CARVIN-l was going to say, I don't know about a permeability situation, because now you've cut that lot, basically, in half. MR. ALEXY-Well, we still have a very substantial lot remaining on 55. MR. CARVIN-Yes. That's why I'm saying, I think you'd have to take them both individually, in other words, as far as this permeability. MR. CUSACK-That's why they're considering says the applicant will merge 55 with mandatory. We're considering doing that. road. it, in the Staff Notes it 53. It's not actually It's a question down the MR. CARVIN-Okay. That was my only question, Ted. MR. TURNER-Do you have the minutes of the Warren County Planning Board? MR. CUSACK-I requested them, in writing, and I haven't received them. MR. TURNER-Okay, because they've got down here, approved, and then they've got a comment, With the condition that there's no hazardous waste or any other waste on the site that would be detrimental to the area. MR. CUSACK-Right. MR. TURNER-There is hazardous waste on the site. MR. CUSACK-They know there's hazardous waste in the back corner. We're, the lot we're creating, the financable lot, the remaining portion, there were discussions about its condition and things like that, and they've read. they have the DEC letter. MR. TURNER-Also it says, Staff Note: The lot to be created shall not contain any hazardous material. MR. CUSACK-Right. MRS. EGGLESTON-So that means the new lot that has the hazardous waste. MR. CUSACK-Which new lot? MR. ALEXY-Which lot do they mean? MR. CARVIN-Yes. See. you can interpret it as this lot. MR. TURNER-Well, they mark it approved, and then they write down the conditions, and it sounds like it should have been disapproved. MR. ALEXY-Obviously, it couldn't mean this back lot, because it is contaminated. MR. CUSACK-I was a little bit thrown by that myself, knowing what was discussed. MR. TURNER-It says, with the condition that there's no hazardous waste or any waste on the site. MR. CUSACK-Lets put it this way, we don't have any knowledge of any waste or hazardous waste on the site, beyond what DEC did, and - 59 - ~-- whatever they did is in their court, and they went and did what they did on that back 300 feet, and immediately to the east, where they put the cell, and as far as further contamination by the people that are before you now, there's nothing that's been done by anybody here. So, it's essentially out of our hands. MRS. EGGLESTON-Actually, that reads pretty clear. though, what they have said. See, it effects our vote. MR. CARVIN-Are we talking the Staff Note, or are we talking the other one? MRS. EGGLESTON-Either one. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-I didn't speak to Warren County. I sent them a copy of that DEC letter, because I interpreted it that the new lot would have nothing on it, no contaminated site. is what the DEC letter says. MRS. EGGLESTON-They're creating a new in the back. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-Right. MRS. EGGLESTON-And that does have hazardous waste on it. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-No. The new lot being. other than the contaminated site. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-You're making two lots, basically. MR. CUSACK-We interpret it to mean other than what's been disclosed, and I don't have a problem with that. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-Yes. MR. TURNER-I don't have a problem, but they should be clearer. Okay. Motion's in order. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 40-1993 FLR PARTNERSHIP, Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Philo: And grant the applicant relief of 29 feet from Section 179-29C. which requires 200 feet as the minimum lot width in the Light Industry One Acre zone. I would also grant applicant relief from Section 179-70, frontage on a Town road, which requires any lot of record to have 40 feet on a Town road. Applicant has demonstrated that because of the contaminated portion of the existing lot, prohibits financing, therefore, the sale of the property, a hardship. There is no neighborhood opposition to this minimum request, and there would be no adverse effect on facilities or services. Duly adopted this 19th day of May, 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Philo, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston, Miss Hauser, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE MR. TURNER-We can make a motion to the effect that the Planning Board will be the lead agency in this application. MOTION TO MAKE THE PLANNING BOARD LEAD AGENCY IN THE SEORA REVIEW FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 40-1993 FLR PARTNERSHIP, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Philo: - 60 - Owner: 53 Luzerne Road. Duly adopted this 19th day of May, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles. Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston, Miss Hauser, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Philo, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE AREA VARIANCE NO. 42-1993 TYPE II PC-1A MARK PLAZA OWNER: O.A. BOYCHUK QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO EXPAND A PREEXISTING NONCONFORMING COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE WITH THE ADDITION OF A TWO THOUSAND (2.000) SQUARE FOOT ATTACHED STORAGE STRUCTURE TO THE NORTH SIDE OF THE EXISTING BUILDING. APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A THIRTY (30) FOOT BUFFER AT THE REAR AND NORTH SIDE OF THE LOT AND IS SEEKING TWENTY (20) FEET RELIEF FROM SECTION 179-72. BUFFER ZONES. WHICH REQUIRES A FIFTY (50) FOOT BUFFER BETWEEN COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL ZONES. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) MAY 12. 1993 TAX MAP NUMBER: 63-1-1.3 LOT SIZE: 3.12 ACRES SECTION 179-72A O.A. BOYCHUK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. EGGLESTON-And the Warren County Planning Board returned, "No County Impact." STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 42-1993, Mark Plaza, Meeting Date: May 19, 1993 "SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to expand a preexisting nonconforming commercial structure with the addition of a two thousand (2,000) square foot storage structure to the north side of the existing building. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: 1. Applicant is proposing a thirty (30) foot buffer at the rear and north side of the lot and is seeking twenty (20) feet relief from Section 179-72, Buffer Zones. which requires a fifty (50) foot buffer between commercial and residential zones. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. DESCRIBE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW PLACEMENT OF A STRUCTURE WHICH MEETS THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS. The practical difficulty which does not allow the placement of a structure which meets the zoning requirements is that the only practical place to site the storage structure intrudes into the required fifty (50) foot buffer at the north side of the lot. 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 relief requested is the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the specific practical difficulty and there appears not to be any other option which would require no variance. 3. WOULD THIS VARIANCE BE DETRIMENTAL TO OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD? Al though the applicant is proposing to further reduce the buffer zone between a commercial and residential zone which already has a deeper but narrower intrusion into the buffer zone on the west side of the existing structure, the facing property is a cemetery and the impact of the reduced buffer will not be a severe as it would be if the facing property were residential 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 and services. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: Staff has no further comments regarding this project." MR. TURNER-What are you going to store in it, Mr. Boychuk? MR. BOYCHUK-Maintenance equipment. MR. TURNER-Where is the access going to be, at the rear, at the east end, or at the rear? MR. BOYCHUK-At the rear, and the east end. - 61 - ---.------~ ".- --:.-- ---.rr-~-P MR. TURNER-Both ends. MR. PHILO-Is it going to be closed in? MR. BOYCHUK-Closed in, yes. MR. TURNER-Okay. The Ordinance also requires a 50 foot buffer from the cemetery. anyway. MRS. EGGLESTON-He's already cut into the buffer once, though, hasn't he? MR. TURNER-These lots aren't big enough to be classified as Single Family Residential, do you know what I'm saying? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Mr. Boychuk, the one drawing shows the 1,000 square foot addition, and the one on the application shows 2,000 square feet. MR. BOYCHUK-The 1,000 was constructed in 1987. MR. THOMAS-This thing we got today? MRS. RUTHSCHILD-Yes. That application is to show the dimensions of the property. So they gave us this. MR. KARPELES-Is this the right one? MR. BOYCHUK-I dropped off today, I received a phone call, and you needed the dimensions of the property itself and the dimensions of the building. That is a description of the property as it stands now. That is the addition right there. MR. TURNER-No, no. Right here, take a look. Here's your first application. It shows the storage building behind, this way. See what you've got here. MR. BOYCHUK-Right. That was before. That's the existing building. This was constructed back in 1987. MRS. EGGLESTON-Why doesn't that show up there? MR. BOYCHUK-Because this was brought over today, with these dimensions. I was asked to give the dimensions of the property in the re-zoning. MR. TURNER-Right, but this is going right there? MR. BOYCHUK-That's correct. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. BOYCHUK-That's where the proposal would be. MR. TURNER-Okay, right where he shows it on his plan. MR. THOMAS-Yes. That's where I got confused. MR. BOYCHUK-The second one there was strictly for the dimensions of the property. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. I still have a problem, why wasn't that building shown on there, that addition, this one here? It is not on there. MR. TURNER-Yes, but it lines up with the wing that's on the west, right there. It's right in line with it. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. - 62 - MR. CARVIN-I think I just had the questions you asked. I said cars and truck traffic. Are there going to be any trucks or loadi.ng docks in the back there? MR. BOYCHUK-No loading docks. That's going to be about six inches above the ground, six to eight inches above the ground. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So there won't be any additional traffic along that back side? All right. MR. KARPELES-What is that stream that runs through there? Is that Halfway Brook? MR. BOYCHUK-That's Halfway Brook. MR. TURNER-No, that's not Halfway Brook. That's a brook that comes out ot the cemetery. MR. BOYCHUK-Out of the cemetery. MR. TURNER-That goes into the Halfway Brook. MR. BOYCHUK-It goes into Halfway Brook. MR. TURNER-This goes into culverts under the road, on Quaker Road. MR. KARPELES-That's not a problem though? MR. TURNER-That's not a problem. MR. CARVIN-Once again, what's the storage going to be? MR. BOYCHUK-Maintenance equipment, recyclable cushion paddings, and storage, basically, of damaged merchandise. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Are any of the stores in the plaza going to have access to it. in other words, for storage of, like warehousing? MR. BOYCHUK-Just the furniture store and the floor covering store. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Do you own those? MR. BOYCHUK-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Will customers be back there to look at damaged? MR. BOYCHUK-Just adjusters, an adjuster, freight adjuster. if he wants to see damaged merchandise. MR. CARVIN-But nobody else will have access to it? Okay. MR. TURNER-Okay. Is that all the questions? Okay. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Okay. Motion's in order. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 42-1993 MARK PLAZA, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: The applicant is proposing a 30 foot buffer at the rear and north side ot the lot, and is seeking 20 feet of relief from Section 179- 72. Buffer Zones, which requires a 50 toot buffer between commercial and residential zones. The practical difficulty which - 63 - -_....__._~._--_.._.__._._-'------------..,-~.--,----..- does not allow placement of the structure which meets the zoning requirements is the position of the bUilding on the lot which was preexisting and builtin 1974. This is the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the specific practical difficulty. It would not be detrimental to other properties in the district or neighborhood. and does not have an effect on public facilities and services. Duly adopted this 19th day of May, 1993, by the fOllowing vote: AYES: Mr. Philo, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston, Miss Hauser, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE AREA VARIANCE NO. 43-1993 TYPE II LC-42A CEA ANDREA GRAY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 1436 UPPER BAY ROAD APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A TWENTY-SIX BY FORTY-EIGHT (26 BY 48) FOOT BARN ON HIS PROPERTY. APPLICANT IS PROPOSING SIXTY (60) FEET FOR THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AND IS SEEKING RELIEF OF FORTY (40) FEET FROM SECTION 179-13C. WHICH REQUIRES ONE HUNDRED (100) FEET FOR THE FRONT YARD SETBACK IN THE LC-42A ZONE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) MAY 12. 1993 TAX MAP NUMBER: 22-1-20.1 LOT SIZE: 2.48 ACRES SECTION 179-13C MRS. EGGLESTON-And the Warren County Planning Board, "No County Impact" . S'fAI'F INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 43-1993, Andrea Gray, Meeting Date: May 19, 1993 "SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to construct a twenty-six by forty-eight (26 x 48) foot barn on his property. COMPLIANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: 1. Applicant is proposing sixty (60) feet for the front yard setback and is seeking relief of forty (40) feet from Section 179-13C, which requires one hundred feet for the front yard setback in the LC-42A zone. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. DESCRIBE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW PLACEMENT OF A STRUCTURE WHICH MEETS THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS. The practical difficulty which does not permit the placement of a structure which meets the zoning requirements is that the most practical place to site the barn limits complying with the setback requirements because of the steepness of the terrain. 2. IS THIS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NECESSARY TO ALLEVIATE THE SPECIFIC 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 specific difficulty and as applicant believes that the proposed placement of the barn is the most practical site on his property, no other option is available which 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 detrimental to the other properties in the district or neighborhood. 4. WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF THE VARIANCE ON PUBLIC FACILITIES OR SERVICES? It would appear that the variance would not effect public facilities or services. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: Staff has no other comments regarding this project." MR. GRAY-Mr. Turner, I've given this, a Long Form, Environmental Form to fill out. I just received it tonight. MR. TURNER-Critical Environmental Area? MRS. RUTHSCHILD-That' s for the Site Plan. That's not for this. They sent him a letter requesting that he come in and fill out an EAF, and he didn't respond to it. MR. TURNER-This has got to go to the Planning Board? MRS. RUTHSCHILD-Yes. - 64 - -~_.._- _._..._--~_. MR. TURNER-So, we've got to make a motion to send it to there, the same as the last onel MRS. RUTHSCHILD-That's not what Pam said. give this to Mr. Gray. Pam just asked me to MR. TURNER-It says Type II on the application. So we don't really need it. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-That' s right. but it's a Type I Action for the Planning Board. MR. GRAY-All I want to do is build a barn. I don't understand why the Form is needed. The land I'm on is not wetland, not to be argumentative, but it's going to arise. because I was given the Short Form to start with, and I did fill it out, and made 20 copies. and I haven't received anything by mail, or any phone calls that I should change to the Long Form. The previous owners of the property have all of the wetlands taken from them by the State, leaving the remaining two and a half acres. MR. TURNER-Well, just take that with you to the Planning Board, because it's a Type II listing, as far as we go. We don't have to review that part of it. It must be Critical Environmental Area. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-Right. He's in LC-42, and it's in the Park. So it requires a site plan, because it's in LC-42. MR. GRAY-I guess I'm confused. tonight. That's not what we're here for MR. TURNER-No. You're here for the setback. Planning Board. That goes to the MRS. RUTHSCHILD-Right. That's why we asked you to call, but you never got the message. So, if you could call or stop in tomorrow, they can explain it to you. MR. TURNER-Do you have anything to add, as far as your application goes? MR. GRAY-No. MR. TURNER-You're going to have horses there, right? Have you got horses there in the yard? Didn't I see one there? MR. GRAY-No. MR. TURNER-I know I went to the right house. MR. GRAY-Yes, you did, but that's not a horse trailer. cargo trailer. That's a MR. TURNER-No. There was another trailer that was sitting there. MR. GRAY-There's no horse trailers. trailer. There was a white cargo MR. TURNER-No. I saw that. I saw something, a black trailer. MR. GRAY-A black trailer. That was my printing truck. That's not a horse trailer. MR. TURNER-Okay. It looked like one. MR. CARVIN-What do you propose to use the barn for, if I might ask? MR. GRAY-Well, I have a sleigh. a buggy, a plow, garden equipment, and I don't have a building for it. I plan to use it for what the laws say I can use it for. - 65 - -- ~-'-'-- - -_.~ MR. CARVIN-Okay. You don't anticipate do you sell any commercial venture out there? In other words, do you have a fruit stand or anything like that in the summer or the fall? MR. GRAY-No. have one. If I ever did, I would apply for one, but I don't MRS. EGGLESTON-Do you do any business at all from your home? MR. GRAY-Well, I'm disabled, and I work, I have an office in my basement. MRS. ~GGLESTON-What do you do? MR. GRAY-Well, I do consulting for a print company. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well. what is the cargo truck you said was? MR. GRAY-It's my brother's. It's a white cargo trailer. MRS. EGGLESTON-And the black one that has to do with the printing? MR. GRAY-Well, I took it out of the print shop, and put it next door here. It's an empty trailer. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. Mk. PHILO-You used to use that to haul the stuff to the dump, right? MR. GRAY-Yes. MR. TURNER-Is that barn going to be, what, 26 by? MRS. EGGLESTON-Forty-eight. MR. GRAY-Twenty-six by forty-eight. MR. CARVIN-How big is your garden? MR. GRAY-Well, I have two and a half acres. I've got about an acre of strawberries down in the back, and up in the front, smaller for fruits. MR. CARVIN-Do they require a lot of heavy equipment or things like that', MR. GRAY-No. MRS. EGGLESTON-How do you dispose of them? What do you do with an acre of strawberries? MR. GRAY-We eat them. George Ryan buys some. People will buy them from, I can't eat all of them. MRS. EGGLESTON-So. we're back to Fred's question. Do you have a fruit stand? MR. GRAY-No. I don't have a business on the property. There's no commercial business. MR. CARVIN-Well, I guess, it's the terminology, "barn". MR. TURNER-It's not a cow barn. MR. CARVIN-No. I mean, it's just storage. right? It's actually going to be just storage, private garage, storage shed, private greenhouse, swimming pool, and it goes on. agricultural and farm, all classes and use including barns and stables. - 66 - "-'---~~'---'~:':<t,:.":.~----~"'--"::::-""!I::'~ "- '~ MRS. RUTHSCHILD-It's under Type II Permitted Uses. MR. CARVIN-Yes, Number 10, right? MRS. RUTHSCHILD-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Yes, Agriculture. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-Right. MR. CARVIN-But he's not a farm. MR. GRAY-Class D Farm, I am, anyone under five acres that raises fruit. MR. CARVIN-That's what I'm asking. In other words, and I'm assuming that the barn, it says, Agricultural use and farms, all classes, includes barns and stables and accessory uses, and then you go to Class 0, which is hobby. Any parcel of land less than five acres used for the raising of agricultural products or the keeping of large or small mammals, poultry, foul, domestic animals for personal use or pleasure, being incidental to residential use, but you don't have cows or chickens or anything. Do you? MR. GRAY-I'm going to have some chickens, yes, but I don't right now. MR. CARVIN-So it's not going to be a commercial venture. as far as you know? MR. GRAY-No. MRS. EGGLESTON-Do you have a garage for your vehicles? MR. GRAY-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-And is that a two car garage? MR. GRAY-One and a half. MRS. EGGLESTON-One and a half. MR. TURNER-Any other questions? MR. GRAY-Linda Hauser did stop. She did call, and I appreciate that. Someone called me and told me what you were dOing. MRS. EGGLESTON-We all were there. We may not have talked to you, but we were there. MR. GRAY-I saw your car today. I know you were there. MR. TURNER-We go look at them. Okay. No further questions? I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Motion's in order. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 43-1993 ANDREA GRAY, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: The applicant is proposing to construct a 26 by 48 foot barn on his property. The setback from the front is 60 feet in lieu of 100 teet. Granting him 40 feet of relief from Section 179-13C. The practical difficulty demonstrated by the applicant is the fact, to - 67 - _...-.:~~_..... '" -- locate the barn with the 100 foot setback is not feasible, due to the steep slope at the rear of the property. This is the minimum variance to alleviate the specific practical difficulty. The variance would not be detrimental to other properties in the neighborhood or district, and there are no effects on public facilities and services. Duly adopted this 19th day of May, 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Philo, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston, Miss Hauser, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE MR. PHILO-What are you going to do on that Shay thing? MR. TURNER-Well, we can either deal with it now, or wait until we get the correct information. Why don't we do that? We've got to do the resolutions allover again anyway. MR. PHILO-Sure. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-They did submit a new site plan. The site plan's right there. MR. TURNER-That's the new site plan in reference to the deck? MRS. RUTHSCHILD-In reference to the deck. and in reference to. MR. PHILO-Where they going to change it around to the opposite side? MRS. RUTHSCHILD-Right. They changed it to the other side. They also reduced the size of the house, so it doesn't go into the side yard setback, by 19 inches. MR. TURNER-Nineteen inches. MR. CARVIN-But they said they were going to bring it into compliance? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. They were going to bring that into compliance. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-That's what that is. That's what that site plan is. MR. CARVIN-They moved the deck, right? MR. TURNER-They put the deck over here on the other side. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-They put the deck on the other side. MR. TURNER-We had 19 inches of relief right here that we had to grant, and they just, they brought it in. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-That's right. MR. CARVIN-I don't think we even have to make mention of it. MRS. EGGLESTON-No. They said they would do away with that little. MR. TURNER-Yes, so they wouldn't violate the setback. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. TURNER-Let me get the information, then we'll deal with it. CORRECTION OF MINUTES January 20th. 1993: Page 32, halfway down the middle, Mrs. - 68 - ~_....---- ~ - ~', "-.--..., " '" '- Eggleston, you know mean though, sib you know what I mean though~ Page 59, the motion where we nominated Fred Carvin for Vice- Chairman. sIb abstained - Mr. Carvin. not absent. and motion to nominate Joyce Eggleston for Secretary sib abstained Mrs. Eggleston, not absent; Page 6, top of page, public hearing opened, sib Joan Robertson. not Roberts MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 20TH. 1993 AS CORRECTED, Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: Duly adopted this 19th day of May, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Philo, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston, Miss Hauser, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE January 27th. 1993: Page 13, Mrs. Eggleston, sounds pretty good, just make our meetings longer, sIb make our meetings shorter MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 27TH. 1993 AS CORRECTED, Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: Duly adopted this 19th day of May, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston, Miss Hauser. Mr. Thomas, Mr. Philo, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE February 17th, 1993: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 17TH. 1993. Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Philo: Duly adopted this 19th day of May, 1993, by the fOllowing vote: I AYES: Mr. Philo, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mrs. Eggleston, Miss Hauser On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Theodore Turner, Chairman - 69 -