The URL can be used to link to this page

1993-06-02 n /' ORIGiNAL QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING (OF MAY) JUNE 2ND. 1993 INDEX Area Variance No. 30-1993 Francis J. Dillon, Jr. 1. Area Variance No. 32-1993 Bayberry Corners, Rest. , Inc. 3. Area Variance No. 39-1993 James Girard 6. Sign Variance No. 41-1993 James Anthis 10. Batters Up Sports Center Area Variance No. 33-1993 Charles A. Diehl 19. 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 SECOND REGULAR MEETING (OF MAY) JUNE 2ND. 1993 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN JOYCE EGGLESTON, SECRETARY FRED CARVIN CHRIS THOMAS LINDA HAUSER BOB KARPELES MEMBERS ABSENT THOMAS PHILO PLANNER-ARLYNE RUTHSCHILD EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 30-1993 TYPE II WR-1A CEA FRANCIS J. DILLON. JR. OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE SHORE COLONY. ASSEMBLY POINT APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO EXPAND AN EXISTING PORCH ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF A PREEXISTING NONCONFORMING DWELLING AND IS SUBJECT TO SECTION 179- 30. 1 . LOTS BOUNDED BY TWO ROAD. AND IS SEEKING TEN (10) FEET RELIEF FOR THE SOUTH SIDE FRONT YARD SETBACK. FROM SECTION 179-16C WHICH REQUIRES THIRTY ( 30 ) FEET FOR THE FRONT YARD SETBACK. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) DATE: MAY 12. 1993 ADIRONDACK PARK TAX MAP NUMBER: 8-5-20 LOT SIZE: 0.35 ACRES SECTION 179-16C NANCY RENALDI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. EGGLESTON-The Warren County Planning Board returned "No County Impact" . STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 30-1993, Francis J. Dillon, Jr., Meeting Date: June 2nd, 1993 "SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to expand an existing porch on the south side of a preexisting nonconforming dwelling. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/ AREA REGULATIONS: 1. Applicant is subject to Section 179-30.1, Lots Bounded bv Two Roads, which states that where a lot is bounded by two (2) roads, any front yard or setback requirements shall be met on both abutting roads. 2. Applicant is proposing twenty (20) feet for the south front yard setback and is seeking ten (10) feet relief from Section 179-16C. which requires thirty (30) feet for the front yard setback in the WR-1A 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 allow the placement of a structure which meets the zoning requirements is that the existing porch intrudes into the south front yard setback and expansion of said porch extends to the setback nonconformity for eight (8) feet. 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 to be no other practical place to expand the porch which would not require a variance. 3. WOULD THIS VARIANCE BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE 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 project is consistent with the - 1 - --- character of the 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 further comments regarding this project." MR. TURNER-Okay. You're representing the application? MRS. RENALDI-I'm Nancy Renaldi. I'm Frank Dillon's daughter. He's recovering from bypass surgery in California right now. Did everybody look at the property? As I remember it, isn't there a walkway into the house right now, where this porch is going? MRS. RENALDI-Yes. There is. The porch will go past the walkway. MR. TURNER-Right. Does anyone have any questions? I don't have any further questions, so I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-I just have one question. It looks like there's a tree. or a very làrge tree. I'm assuming you're going to remove that tree? MRS. RENALDI-I believe that we will have to. MR. TURNER,Any other questions? MR. CARVIN-No. I just wanted to find out the status of that tree. MR. TURNER-All right. Correspondence? CORRESPONDENCE MRS. EGGLESTON-There's a letter from Nancy Renaldi. "Enclosed is our original. which you had requested." It gives her the authority to act as agent for her father. and then we have one from Aileen Brown. Benjamin Brown "As owners of the property directly across Sunset Lane from the proposed porch widening variance. we strongly object to its being granted for the following reasons: One. the present dwelling is already nonconforming. in relation to both Honeysuckle and Sunset Lanes. 2. Any additional width to the porch will place it practically on the shoulder of road. 3. This extra width will further obstruct the view for traffic turning left. east from Honeysuckle Lane onto Sunset Lane. creating a more dangerous intersection. 4. The porch will also block the view from the dwelling on the northwest corner of this intersection. We would like to bring your attention to the fact that Sunset Lane. from Honeysuckle east. to Assembly Point Road. is dedicated as a 50 foot road. whereas all other shore streets are 35 feet wide, including the section of Sunset Lane from Honeysuckle Lane, westerly. This can all be verified if you would look at an accurate map of the Shore Colony and a certified plot plan of the property in question." MR. TURNER-All right. Any further comment. in reference to that remark? MR. CARVIN-I was going to say. would the applicant care to address that? JAMES DUGAN MR. DUGAN-If I may. my name is James Dugan. I'm a resident of Shore Colony. As a matter of fact, my house is exactly kitty corner to the gentleman's residence. and we've been residents - 2 - there, both of us. for at least, Mr. Dillon has been a residence since ' 57, and I've been a resident since 1960. The reason I didn't mention anything before. or Mr. Bodenhorner as well, who is a resident of the Colony, is because we had no idea that anybody could possibly object to this variance. Shore Colony. almost every house in Shore Colony has a 20 foot setback. because most of the houses in Shore Colony were built well in advance of the regulations. I know of at least three relatively recent applications for variances. for similar reasons. that have been granted. I don't understand the Brown's letter. I believe that the statements contained therein are really. well. I don't want to say that they're lying. but I don't know what kind of traffic they're talking about. This is on the side of the house which is away from the corner that's being proposed, and from what I heard read by Mrs. Eggleston, I don't believe that anybody raised that objection. So. for that reason, I really feel that it's a false type of opposition, and I urge the Board to reject it in its entirety. Thank you. MR. TURNER-Thank you. Okay. Anyone else? MR. CARVIN-I don't see the merit of the letter. as far as the traffic is concerned. MR. TURNER-No. I don't either. MR. CARVIN-This shouldn't have any impact on the traffic. MR. TURNER-It has no impact. Okay. Motion's in order. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 30-1993 FRANCIS J. DILLON. JR.. Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption. seconded by Joyce Eggleston: Grant relief from Section 179-30.1. which deals with lots bounded by two roads. which states that where a lot is bounded by two roads, any front yard or setback requirements shall be met on both abutting roads. and I would also grant 10 feet of relief from Section 179-16C. which requires 30 feet front yard setback in a WR- 1A zone. The practical difficulty is that the nature of the structure would indicate that expansion of a porch can only be placed on the south side, which would be nonconforming by approximately eight feet. It would appear that this relief is the minimum being requested to alleviate this practical difficulty. By granting this variance. it does not appear to be detrimental to any other properties in the district or neighborhood. and it appears that by granting this variance. there would not be any effect on public facilities or services. Duly adopted this 2nd day of June. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles. Mr. Carvin. Mrs. Eggleston. Miss Hauser. Mr. Thomas. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Philo AREA VARIANCE NO. 32-1993 HC-1A TYPE II BAYBERRY CORNERS REST.. INC. OWNER: DEVEREAUX PRIEST CORNER OF BAY ROAD AND ROUTE 149 APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO EXPAND A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE BY THE EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING DECK ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF HIS RESTAURANT AND IS SUBJECT TO SECTION 179-30.1. LOTS BOUNDED BY TWO ROADS. APPLICANT IS PROPOSING THIRTY-SEVEN (37) FEET FOR THE SECOND FRONT YARD SETBACK (BAY ROAD) AND IS SEEKING THIRTEEN (13) FEET RELIEF FROM SECTION 179-23C. WHICH REQUIRES FIFTY (50) FEET FOR THE FRONT YARD SETBACK. APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TWELVE (12) FEET FOR THE SOUTH. REAR YARD SETBACK AND IS SEEKING THIRTEEN (13) FEET RELIEF FROM SECTION 179-23C. WHICH REQUIRES TWENTY-FIVE (25) FEET FOR THE REAR YARD SETBACK IN THE HC-1A ZONE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) - 3 - " DATE: SIZE: MAY 12. 1993 1.6+/- ACRES ADIRONDACK PARK TAX MAP NUMBER: 51-1-41 SECTION 179-23C SECTION 179-30.1 LOT DEVEREAUX PRIEST, PRESENT MRS. EGGLESTON-And the Warren County Planning Board returned, "No County Impact". STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Area Variance No. 32-1993. Bayberry Corners Rest.. Inc.. Meeting Date: June 2nd, 1993 "SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to expand a nonconforming structure by the expansion of an existing deck on the south side of his restaurant. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: 1. Applicant's project is subject to Section 179-30.1. Lots Bounded bv Two Roads, which states that where a lot is bounded by two (2) roads. any front yard or setback requirement set forth in the chapter. shall be met on both abutting roads. 2. Applicant is proposing thirty-seven (37) feet for the front yard setback facing Bay Road. and is seeking thirteen (13) feet relief from Section 179-23C, which requires fifty (50) feet for the front yard setback in the HC-1A zone. 3. Applicant is proposing twelve (12) feet for the south, rear yard setback and is seeking thirteen (13) feet relief from Section 179- 23C, which requires twenty-five (25) feet for the rear yard setback in the HC-1A zone. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. DESCRIBE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW THE PLACEMENT OF A STRUCTURE WHICH MEETS THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS. The practical difficulty which does not allow the placement of a structure wh~ch meets the zoning requirements is that the expansion of the existing deck as proposed. intrudes into the required front and rear yard setbacks. 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 is no other option available to expand the existing deck without requiring a variance. 3. WOULD THIS VARIANCE BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE 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 the project is consistent with the commercial zone wi thin which it is located. 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 OR CONCERNS: Staff has no further comments regarding this project." MR. TURNER-Mr. Priest. the ramp you have there. the old deck and the ramp, is that going to stay. or are you going to incorporate that into your new deck? MR. PRIEST-I'm going to incorporate that into the deck. MR. TURNER-How long has that been there? MR. PRIEST-Probably three years. MRS. EGGLESTON-How long have you owned the property? MR. PRIEST-About two and a half years. MR. CARVIN-Now. at this point. you have no outside dining, is that correct? MR. PRIEST-No. MR. CARVIN-Again. when I looked at the property. are you going to run into any interference with any of the trees that bound? So, in other words. you should be able to expand without upsetting those? - 4 - - MR. PRIEST-Yes. MR. CARVIN-And then I also noticed the well head. MR. PRIEST-That will be in front. That was in front of the deck. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So that will not be underneath it. so that will still all be clear? Okay. The only thing is, septic on here. It's not going to interfere with any septic or anything like that? MR. TURNER-No. It's way over here. MR. CARVIN-It's all on the other end. MR. TURNER-It's on the east side of the property. MR. PRIEST-Yes. MR. TURNER-Does anyone else have any questions? Okay. I'll open the public hearing. I'll now open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE MRS. EGGLESTON-We have Correspondence from James M. Weller. "As a commercial neighbor of Mr. Priest. I would like to go on the record as being in favor of the proposal to expand the restaurant. The restaurant has been a good neighbor in the communi ty for many years, and the current owners have continued its fine traditions. In these economic times. some leniency needs to be shown to help ensure that our businesses can continue to thrive and be prosperous. I respectfully ask that you grant the variance to the property owner without restriction. Thank you for the opportunity to be heard." MR. TURNER-Any questions? Okay. All right. Motion's in order. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 32-1993 BAYBERRY CORNERS, Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption. seconded by Fred Carvin: This would grant the applicant relief from Section 179-30.1, which deals with lots bounded by two roads. where the front yard setback requirements are more restrictive. This would grant relief of 13 feet from Section 179-23C, from the front yard setback, where 50 feet is required in the Highway Commercial One Acre zone. It would also grant relief of 13 feet from the rear yard setback, and this deals with Section 179-23C. which requires 25 feet rear yard setback in that zone. The practical difficulty is the placement of the restaurant on the property and the fact that it abuts two roads. There's no neighborhood opposition to this. and I don't believe it would be detrimental to the neighborhood, as it is consistent with other commercial properties in the area. There would be no effect on public facilities or services. and it is not contrary to the zoning desires of the Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted this 2nd day of June. 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carvin. Mrs. Eggleston. Miss Hauser, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Karpeles. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Philo - 5 - MR. TURNER-The next order of business is Area Variance No. 33-1993 Charles A. Diehl. MR. MARTIN-Ted. we don't have anybody here from the applicant yet. He called today. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-He said he'd be here around 8:15. MR. TURNER-All right. We'll go to the next one then. The next one is Bill Fosbrook. and you can read the letter that I wrote. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. This is regarding Area Variance No. 37-1993 Bill Fosbrook, and our Chairman, Mr. Ted Turner. wrote the following letter. May 26.1993. to Mr. Fosbrook, "The Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals has determined that the Area Variance application you submitted is incomplete. and as such. will not be heard at the second regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals on June 2. 1993. The above stated determination was based on the fact that on several occasions staff of the Planning Department contacted yourself and your agent. Mr. Daniel Barber. regarding this issue, and received no response. If. at some time in the future. you wish to submit this project to the Zoning Board of Appeals for review. you will need to meet with the staff of the Planning Department to review Staff's concerns regarding the completion of your application. If you have any questions regarding the aforementioned issue, please contact the Town of Queensbury Planning Department at (518) 745-4440. and staff will assist you in any manner they are able." MR. TURNER-Okay. Did you get any feedback from him? MRS. RUTHSCHILD-No. MR. TURNER-Okay. It's tabled until he submits the information that's required. not tabled. but it's off the agenda until he submits the information. MR. MARTIN-So. Ted. that's an Inactive application. or they have to file a new application? MR. TURNER-It's inactive. Yes. they have to file a new one. MRS. EGGLESTON-Do we have to vote or anything. Ted? MR. TURNER-No. MR. CARVIN-That's not a tabled. then? MR. TURNER-It's not a tabled. MRS. EGGLESTON-It's closed. MR. TURNER-It's closed. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. TURNER-Okay. We can go on to the next one. Jim Girard. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. AREA VARIANCE NO. 39-1993 TYPE II SFR-1A JAMES GIRARD OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE SOUTH SIDE OF CRONIN ROAD 1.100 FT. EAST OF BAY ROAD APPLICANT IS PROPOSING FOUR (4) LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS WHICH RESULTS IN THE WESTERN LOT BEING SUBJECT TO SECTION 179-30C. WHICH REQUIRES DOUBLE THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH FOR LOTS ABUTTING COLLECTOR ROADS. DOUBLE THE LOT WIDTH IN THE SFR-1A ZONE IS THREE HUNDRED (300) FEET. APPLICANT IS PROPOSING ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY-NINE AND FIFTY-SEVEN HUNDREDTHS (159.57) FEET FOR THE LOT WIDTH OF THE WESTERN LOT AND IS SEEKING RELIEF OF ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY AND FORTY-THREE HUNDREDTHS (140.43) FEET. TAX MAP NUMBER: 59-1-5.1. - 6 - 5.8 LOT SIZE: 5.81 ACRES SECTION 179-30C JAMES GIRARD. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 39-1993. James Girard, Meeting Date: June 2. 1993 "SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing a four (4) lot subdivision effecting two (2) contiguous lots. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: Applicant is proposing one hundred and fifty-nine and fifty-seven hundredths (159.57) feet for the lot width of the proposed western lot and is seeking one hundred and forty and forty-three hundredths (140.43) feet relief from Section 179-30C. which requires double the minimum lot width for lots abutting collector roads. Double the lot width in the SFR-IA zone is three hundred (300) feet. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. DESCRIBE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW PLACEMENT OF A STRUCTURE WHICH MEETS THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS. Proposed four (4) lot subdivision. of two existing lots. results in the western lot not meeting the double the minimum lot width requirement for lots abutting collector roads. 2. IS THIS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NECESSARY TO ALLEVIATE THE SPECIFIC PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY OR IS THERE ANY OTHER OPTION WHICH WOULD REQUIRE NO VARIANCE? It would appear that the minimum variance is necessary to alleviate the specific practical difficulty. as proposed subdivision is designed to alter the boundaries of an existing lot whose road frontage is not continuous (see attached site plan). and other than the proposed design of said subdivision. no other option appears to be 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 other properties in the district or neighborhood as the design of the proposed subdivision would create more conventionally configured lots. 4. WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF THE VARIANCE ON PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES? It would appear that the variance would not effect public facilities or services. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: Applicant is proposing a four (4) lot subdivision of two contiguous lots. Tax Map Numbers: 59-1-5.1 and 59-1-5.8. Lot 59- 1-5.8 is proposed to be divided into two (2) lots with a common driveway. Each lot will meet the minimum lot width of the zone (150 ft.). Lot 59-1-5.1 whose road frontage is not continuous. is proposed to be divided into two (2) lots. one of which is the western lot which is the subject of the variance. The land remaining from the subdivision of lot 59-1-5.1 is proposed to be joined to the southern boundaries of the two (2) lot subdivision of lot 59-1-5.8 and a neighboring lot 59-1-5.6. In a letter from the applicant's surveyor's. reasons for the proposed subdivision are detailed, in addition to the eastern proposed lot being essentially undevelopable because of a designed wetland on the parcel (see attached letter from Coulter & McCormack)." MR. TURNER-Jimmy. Lot One, is that flagged? flagged by DEC? They are, aren't they? Are the wetlands MR. GIRARD-Yes. I met with them. MR. TURNER-All right. Has Mr. Rozell consented to the division of land that you've got indicated here on the map, the piece that you're going to convey to him? MR. GIRARD-Yes. I spoke with him almost a year ago about it. MR. TURNER-He told me he didn't, he doesn't want it. MR. GIRARD-He doesn't want it now. because of the circumstances. MR. TURNER-I know about that, but at the time I talked to him. he said he didn't want it. He didn't want any more land. MR. GIRARD-That land behind Rozell's property. it belonged to Lot - 7 - - One. Part of that is wetlands. MR. TURNER-Yes. I see it on the map. Okay. Everybody's aware that across the road. the Golf Course. they're going to put in a development there. Where does that driveway come. in reference to his proposed lot? MR. MARTIN-It's got to be right in, I don't know exactly. but it's got to be almost exactly across the road. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Is that correct. Jim, across the road? MR. GIRARD-I have no idea. MR. MARTIN-Because the new development's going on what used to be the old back nine of the Golf Course. MR. TURNER-Yes. It's going right across on the driving range. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. TURNER-The last time he came, we didn't do anything. MRS. EGGLESTON-No. because the Town was going to fix this problem with the double the lot width. MR. TURNER-Well. he kind of fixed his own. in a sense, because if I remember right. I think the last time you were. the two driveways were going to converge on the lot which is to the left. and the old Cronin property. is that correct? MR. GIRARD-No. I believe the last time that we came before you. the idea was that we owned property to be divided. It's just that the way that the lot was configured. in order to meet 300 feet for the driveway. we owned the land all the way to the Brook. and we would allow a variance for that. What we've done now is gotten rid of one driveway and made one driveway between the two lots, to get our driveways approximately 300 feet apart. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-See. Ted, Mr. McCormack came in to see me about this. and there is a way around this requirement. If you notice there on Lot One. to the Bay Road side. the rear of it could extend all the way around Lot Two and Three. and that way he would get around the double the lot width requirement. The width of the lot would meet, but you've got that crazy shaped lot. then. that goes all the way back, behind Lot Two and Three, and continues on over to the Brook. and it was thought if you came in and requested the variance. then you could have more conventionally shaped lots. and not have that funny shaped lot. MR. TURNER-Yes. Well. you know. the lot that's towards the Brook is wet anyway. right next to Rozell's house. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. TURNER-It's totally wet. I don't know how the heck he'd ever build a house in there. MR. MARTIN-I think at one time they were even thinking about offering that to the Town. right, for the recreation? MR. GIRARD-Yes. After I got with the fellow from DEC. and I flagged the wetlands with him. he pretty much told me that there's nothing you can do with that land. So. my intent is to see if the Town wants this land, because it's almost adjacent to a larger plot that they own over here on the other side of the Brook. and it - 8 - would be possible, if they wanted to use it as green space, but it's of no use to me. MR. TURNER-Well. if the development across the road does come. there's going to be a lot of traffic on Cronin Road. if it ever develops. MR. GIRARD-How does that development across the street? MR. TURNER-Well. it impacts the roadway. That's only probably, at the most, 20 feet wide. that road. the pavement. and there's no shoulders. MRS. EGGLESTON-Even so. I guess we have to consider his rights, as well. even with the development across the road. MR. TURNER-We have to consider his. but I'm just saying, to make everybody aware of it, that's what's going to happen across the street. They've already got approval for it. MRS. EGGLESTON-They have? MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-How big of a development is it? MR. TURNER-Ninety-four units. MRS. EGGLESTON-Actually, I think I can appreciate Staff's points, that this makes the lot in back not quite as crazy as it would if you had to conform. This would be the simplest way. and probably the neatest way. Would you say? MR. TURNER-Yes. I would. I would agree with that. MR. CARVIN-This road's coming out, right? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-So there's only going to be just really two driveways? MR. TURNER-There's going to be two driveway cuts. and the third one's already there. Rozell's house is already there. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. TURNER-Any comment? MR. MARTIN-The only thing I would mention, Jim. I don't know if you're aware. there's a special tax rate for wetland areas you might want to look into, I don't know if you're aware of that, in terms of your assessment. MR. TURNER-Okay. I don't have any comments right now. Let me open the public hearing. Jim. I'll open the public hearing, now, on this application. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Any discussion on this? MRS. EGGLESTON-No. I think I've expressed my thoughts on it. MR. CARVIN-No. I don't see how else he, it appears to be a minimum request. - 9 - MR. TURNER-Yes. There's not much he can do. Okay. Motion's in order. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 39-1993 JAMES GIRARD, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: Grant 140.43 feet of relief from Section 179-30C, which requires double the minimum lot width for lots abutting collector roads, and that double the lot width in an SFR-1A zone is 300 feet. The practical difficulty is that the proposed four lot subdivision is designed to alter the boundaries of an existing lot whose road frontage is not continuous and results in the western lot not meeting the double the minimum lot width requirements, and other than the proposed design of this proposed subdivision. no other option appears to be available which would require no variance. It would appear by granting this variance it would not be detrimental to other properties in the district or neighborhood, and that this is the minimum relief requested to eliminate the practical difficulty, and that by granting this variance. there would be no effect on public facilities or services. Under the current proposed four lot subdivision. lots two and three will be serviced by a common driveway. and by design. this would minimize the number of curb cuts on this collector road. Duly adopted this 2nd day of June. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Eggleston, Miss Hauser, Mr. Thomas. Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Philo SIGN VARIANCE NO. 41-1993 TYPE: UNLISTED PC-1A JAMES ANTHIS BATTERS UP SPORTS CENTER OWNER: 73 QUAKER ROAD ASSOCIATES 25 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO PLACE A SIGN ON THE WALL OF THE BUILDING THAT HOUSES HIS BUSINESS AND IS SEEKING A MODIFICATION OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SIGN VARIANCE NO. 81-1990 FOR THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. SAID VARIANCE REQUESTED RELIEF FROM SECTION 140- GB ( 3) ( d) . SIGNS FOR WHICH PERMITS ARE REQUIRED; NUMBER; REGULATIONS. APPROVED VARIANCE ALLOWED FIVE (5) BUSINESS NAMES ON THE FREESTANDING SIGN IN LIEU OF NO WALL SIGN. MODIFICATION OF RESOLUTION. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) DATE: MAY 12. 1993 TAX MAP NUMBER: 104-1-4.32 LOT SIZE: N/A SECTION 140-6B(3){d) JIM ANTHIS, PRESENT MRS. EGGLESTON-The Warren County Planning Board returned "No County Impact". STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Sign Variance No. 41-1993, James Anthis, Batters Up Sports Center, Meeting Date: June 2, 1993 "SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to place a business sign on the wall of the building that houses his business, which is located in a shopping center. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: 1. Applicant is seeking a modification of a previously approved sign variance for said lot - Number 81-1990, which allowed five (5) business names on a freestanding sign, but with the condition of no wall signs. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. ARE THERE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS APPLYING TO THE LAND OR SIGN WHICH DO NOT GENERALLY APPLY TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD? The special circumstances applying to this sign is that a previous sign variance conditioned the approval for five (5) business names on a freestanding sign. by excluding the use of the wall signs on the building. 2. IS REASONABLE USE OF THE LAND OR SIGN POSSIBLE IF THE ORDINANCE IS COMPLIED WITH? Although the applicant does not believe that reasonable use of the sign is not possible, because his business is in the rear of the building, - 10 - applicant did not consider placing a directional sign on the property or on the freestanding sign. 3. IS THERE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER OR PUBLIC FACILITIES? Although the immediate neighborhood facing the proposed site of the wall sign. (Lafayette Street) is commercial. the intent of the conditioning of the previous variance was to exclude any wall signs in order to permit five (5) business names on the freestanding sign. 4. ARE THERE ANY FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES? One alternative would be to place a directional sign on the property and or the freestanding sign; (see Section 140-3G. Signs Allowed Without Permit), which allows business names on directional signs. 5. IS THE DEGREE OF CHANGE SUBSTANTIAL RELATIVE TO THE ORDINANCE? In this case. the degree of change requested is in conflict with the condition of the previous variance and therefore would be considered substantial. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: Attached is a copy of the minutes of the October 1990 ZBA meeting regarding the Sign Variance referred to in these notes. I draw your attention to the section on page 4, where Mrs. Fairclough, the then property manager. states that she agrees and understands that if the applicant was granted the use of five (5) names on the freestanding sign, that no wall signs would be permitted. Staff requested the applicant attach a letter from both the owner and the property manager. stating that they support the applicant's proposed project. The applicant stated that the letter would be remitted. but at the time of the writing of these notes. the letter has not been received." MRS. EGGLESTON-And we do have one of the letters. from 73 Quaker Road Associates. Tiernan. Bernstein, and P inchuk. "The above limi ted partnership is the owner of the property located at 25 Quaker Road, Queensbury, New York, and is aware of an application recently submitted by Batters Up Sports Center. Inc., a tenant in the building. for an adjustment of a prior variance granted for signs located on the property." The motion that was made in 1990 read as follows: "I believe, since the present zoning is Plaza Commercial One Acre, and that the present use is more of a professional office use, excluding the present Mallincrodkt use, further, since the applicant is willing to forgo any signage on the building. I move to approve the sign variance as proposed. Further, that this granting is conditional, and allowable only to present ownership. and limited to five business names. Further. that the granting of this variance is not detrimental to the Ordinance." That was for your information. MR. TURNER-Okay. Why not a directional sign? MR. ANTHIS-My name is Jim Anthis. First of all, a directional sign in front of the building wouldn't really do the job. This is the first retail business that's going to be in that building. and I'm sure all of you have been down to the building to see where it is. To find the entrance in the building would really take a little bit of searching. As far as this type of business goes, it's not a very good way to start a business out. I think a directional sign really wouldn't be as attractive as putting a sign up on the wall anyway, and I've got pictures that I wanted to show you. This is the existing sign, and there's really no room anyway to put anything else on there. That's why I wanted to make that sign a little bit larger, and the rest of these are pictures of Mark Plaza. showing how they display their signs, and there is a picture in there of the side of the building where my entrance will be, and the sign will be, and I'm going to paint that side. Yes. I'll make it look real attractive, but as far as the business goes. I really need a sign down by where the entrance goes. to draw the people. MISS HAUSER-I've got a question. His proposed sizes for his signs are larger than what now are permitted. and I'm wondering, is that Section of the Zoning Ordinance going to be considered, next week. when you're talking about the revisions? MR. MARTIN-What size is the wall sign? What are you coming up - 11 - with? He's allowed 25 percent of the wall of what it's on. MISS HAUSER-What about a freestanding sign? Doesn't that say 50 square feet? MRS. RUTHSCHILD-It depends on how far back it's set back. MR. MARTIN-It graduates up as the setback. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-Right. for up to 64 feet. if it's set back 25 feet. MR. MARTIN-If they're at a 25 foot setback, it's 64 square feet. MRS. EGGLESTON-If that woman hadn't bargained for that, he would have been allowed a wall sign. MR. TURNER-Yes. MISS HAUSER-Sixty-four feet for the freestanding sign? MR. TURNER-He can have a wall sign, but the resolution from before doesn't permit him to have it, because they agreed that they wouldn't have a wall sign. MR. ANTHIS-Yes, there's no retail in there. MR. TURNER-I know, but it's still a shopping center. MR. MARTIN-The freestanding sign. even the whole thing is only. MR. TURNER-He can have one at 15 feet, one is allowed 15 feet from the property line. 50 square feet, 64 at 25. MR. KARPELES-Why did they agree to that contingency, the five signs, and not having any wall signs? MR. TURNER-Well. there wasn't any retail business in there at the time. MR. ANTHIS-Yes. It was strictly offices. MR. TURNER-Offices, that's all it was. MR. ANTHIS-So they had no reason for the wall sign. MR. TURNER-So, theoretically, he can have a wall sign. The only thing that's stopping him. Bob, from having a wall sign is that resolution. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. Normally he'd be entitled to it. MR. TURNER-He'd be entitled to it. MR. CARVIN-Well. as I remember your original application, there's going to be, what, a restaurant, and? MR. ANTHIS-Yes. There'll be batting cages, miniature golf, a golf driving range. golf simulators, arcade games. There'll be two party rooms for kiddie birthday parties. There'll be a small. 1500 square foot snack area/restaurant. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Are these all going to go under Batters Up Sports Center? MR. ANTHIS-Batters Up Sport Center. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So, in other words, they're not going to be franchised out to Joe Blow's. whatever. Restaurant? MR. ANTHIS-No. - 12 - MR. TURNER-What would you detail on the wall sign, Batters Up, and then? MR. ANTHIS-Yes. There'll be a logo on there with the name. It'll be simple. We were thinking about listing a couple of things that I just mentioned, but I think we're just going to go with the logo and the. MR. CARVIN-And you're going to be occupying the whole bUilding. is that correct? MR. ANTHIS-No. just the back. the warehouse portion, the 27.000 square feet where Mallincrodkt was. MR. CARVIN-Just the back. MR. ANTHIS-We'll take that. There'll still be office space up front. It's K-Bee 100. VanGuard is still there. Brantwood Construction has an office in there. So all that will stay the same, and like the picture I showed you on that front sign, they're out of room. MR. CARVIN-Well. how many businesses will be in the building? MR. ANTHIS-Four. MR. CARVIN-There's four. MR. ANTHIS-Including my business. there's four. MR. CARVIN-Including yourself. could put a sign out in front. they have. So, I mean. technically, they all I don't think they have. Maybe MR. TURNER-Well, they do. They're on this sign right here. They're on that sign right there. Who manages the property now? MR. ANTHIS-Charlie Sicard. MR. TURNER-Charlie? MR. ANTHIS-Yes. MR. TURNER-Okay. We're familiar with him. MR. MARTIN-Ted, I think Linda is right. They're going to need relief on the size as well. if you allow the freestanding, because the size exceeds the, he's 18 feet away. So, he's got to be 50 square feet. MR. TURNER-Yes, but he's proposing a wall sign. MR. MARTIN-And an expansion of the freestanding. MR. ANTHIS-Yes. I was proposing an 18 inch addition onto the freestanding sign also. The wall sign is the. MR. MARTIN-I think the wall sign is sized okay. but the size of the freestanding sign will violate the minimum, or the maximum allowed. MR. ANTHIS-The only reason I wanted a little bit increased size on that freestanding sign is. from the picture, there's really not much room on there. to put another name on there, downscale everybody else's. you're really not going to see it anyway. MRS. EGGLESTON-What would it be. like, hanging off the bottom of the freestanding? MR. ANTHIS-No. I was going to put it on the top. MRS. EGGLESTON-On the top. - 13 - MR. KARPELES-Is that really the size of the letters? Are they that big, in relationship to the rest of the sign? MR. ANTHIS-Yes. actually. yes. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I think the total sign. Ted, would be 67 square feet. and he's allowed 50. MR. TURNER-All right. Does anybody have a problem with the freestanding sign on the front, first? MR. THOMAS-Yes, Wouldn't there be two of them. because it's V- Shaped? MR. ANTHIS-Yes. It would have to be uniform. MR. THOMAS-So, you'd want two of them 22 and a half square feet? MR. TURNER-Right. MR. THOMAS-Not just one 22 and a half square feet. MR. ANTHIS-Well, yes. Well. if you raise one, it would look kind of ridiculous. MR. THOMAS-Well. I mean, because the sign is V-shaped, going east you'd see it. Going west you'd see it. MR. ANTHIS-Right. MR. TURNER-Okay. So you're going to increase the signage by 45 square feet? That's what it is. 22 and a half square feet for one, so it's 45 square feet for two. all right, and there's 75 square feet there now. So you end up with 120 square feet total signage for the Plaza. and the setback's 18 feet. MR. ANTHIS-Right. When he wrote this, he only put one half of the V. MR. KARPELES-Staff requested the letter from both the owner and the property manager. stating that they support the applicant's proposed project. Does this letter serve your purpose? MRS. RUTHSCHILD-No. I spoke to the applicant about that. MR. KARPELES-I mean. it really doesn't support anything. It just says he's aware of the fact. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-Right. MR. KARPELES-So you'd still need that, right? MRS. RUTHSCHILD-Well, this letter came in today. MR. ANTHIS-Ye s. I talked to the owners about it. and they said they sent her a letter concerning this. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-I've received nothing. MR. ANTHIS-And she hasn't received it. So they faxed me down that. I'm going to have to call them up. I talked to Charlie Sicard, who is the premises manager. He said he was going to come down and talk with whoever he had to. He never came down either. and I guess I found out today that he was on the Board when this 1990. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. ANTHIS-I have no idea why he didn't come down. To this day. I thought he came down. because I hadn't received a phone call or anything. I thought he was here. I'm going to have to call him - 14 - too. There's no problem with the owners. They know exactly what I'm doing. So they might not have expressed it in their letter. but that's no problem. MR. KARPELES-Well. they said they knew what you were doing. but they didn't say they approved it. MR. ANTHIS-They definitely approve it. from them tomorrow. I'll get another letter MRS. EGGLESTON-Is there still room for more tenants to go in there? Is there any more vacant space in there? MR. TURNER-No. It's all used up. MRS. EGGLESTON-It's all filled? MR. MARTIN-As I recall, this'll take it all up. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. We were just wondering. if he has that big on top, what's the rest of these people going to. I mean. you've got to be concerned with their. MR. ANTHIS-Well, see, what the main problem that came up with that preexisting sign, is when I signed the lease for the building, I'm entitled to 55 percent of the sign. That's why I told Neil and Drew, the owners, that when I came here for the wall sign. I'd try and get it raised a little bit, because if I take 55 percent of that sign. VanGuard's going to be a little bit upset about that, and so is K-Bee 100. So. what I told them. if I get the sign raised 18 inches. I'll just put my name on the 18 inch, on the top. and I'll leave the rest of the sign alone. So that's why they agreed to that. MR. TURNER-They negotiated a deal with you in conflict with the Ordinance. MR. ANTHIS-I found that out recently. whole thing. I had no idea about this MR. TURNER-They're no strangers in Town. MR. ANTHIS-Yes. I know. MR. TURNER-The problem I have with a sign on the front. you're going 105 square feet over what you're allowed. the whole sign. everything, with theirs and yours. MR. CARVIN-If I might make a comment, just as an observation, I think that's a terrible sign. MR. ANTHIS-It is. You're right. MR. CARVIN-I think they ought to get together and re-design that. To be very honest with you. I thought that was a For Sale sign. Every time I've gone by it. I always though Van Guard was a real estate concern. and that they were trying to sell the darn place. MR. ANTHIS-You're right. The sign isn't the best in the world. If you want, I could put another sign up. MR. CARVIN-But again, I think it would be a good idea for the four tenants to get together and probably develop a sign that fits the Ordinance, at least in the front here. It doesn't address the issue of whether the wall goes uP. but I think that front sign is in desperate need of repair. MR. ANTHIS-I agree with you. MR. MARTIN-Just as a point of information, who actually owns the - 15 - sign? MR. ANTHIS-The existing sign? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. ANTHIS-I would imagine 73 Quaker Road. Nobody's ever told me any different. MR. MARTIN-That's what I was afraid of. MR. TURNER-Okay. What do you want to do? MRS. EGGLESTON-I appreciate he has a little bit of a hardship. MR. TURNER-All right. Jimmy, let me see if anybody wants to make a comment, and then we'll get back to you. I'll now open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MARTIN-Ted, just as a point of information, also, it was not advertised in terms of the variance needed for the size of the sign, just so you do know that. MRS. EGGLESTON-I was wondering about that. MR. TURNER-Yes. correctly. Then we'll table it until it's advertised MRS. EGGLESTON-I would think so, and in the meantime, maybe he could talk to these people about a sign that would be in conformance. MR. TURNER-Jim. I think we're going to move to table the application because it wasn't advertised correctly. Can you get in contact with the owners and get a better letter than just that piece of paper that says? MR. ANTHIS-Yes, I could do that. MR. TURNER-All right. MR. ANTHIS-So, what does that mean? MR. TURNER-We'll table it until, what's the agenda look like, we're not complete yet. are we? MR. EGGLESTON-Are you open yet? MR. ANTHIS-No. MRS. EGGLESTON-When are you going to open? MR. ANTHIS-I'm going to try and open next month. MR. TURNER-How many have you got for June? MR. MARTIN-We could get it on one of the June meetings. MR. TURNER-Can we? MRS. RUTHSCHILD-As long as I know what size the actual sign's going to be. MR. TURNER-All right. Can you get her the information, and then - 16 - she'll put you back on the agenda. after you provide her with that information. We'll get you on in June. MR. KARPELES-I think Fred had a darn good suggestion there. Why doesn't all the owners get together and come up with a decent looking sign. That one is a crummy looking thing. MR. ANTHIS-Okay. What about the wall sign? that, and forget about the preexisting sign? get. if I'm going to open. You couldn't approve I'd really like to MR. TURNER-When are you going to open? MR. ANTHIS-I'm going to try and open early July. I'd like to be open for the Fourth of July weekend, and if I had to wait on a sign another month. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, you can get a 30 day temp, can't you, you know, banner flag up there, like we see, Breakfast 50 cents. up along the Northway. strung up and down on aerials. MR. ANTHIS-To open a business. first impression means a lot, and you don't want to open. MRS. EGGLESTON-No, but it would help. MR. ANTHIS-Yes. I know. MRS. EGGLESTON-Actually, I really think he's going to need a sign on that side building, because I drove out LaFayette tonight. you would never know it's in there, and a lot of them could be coming in from Glen. MR. ANTHIS-Yes. and if we can. MR. TURNER-Yes. I don't have a problem with granting him a wall sign, but I'm not going to act on the other part of it. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. ANTHIS-I could take care of that other at a later date. MR. TURNER-Maybe this wall sign will solve all your problems. MR. ANTHIS-As long as I can get a wall sign up now, it wi II definitely help. MR. TURNER-How do you feel. Chris? MR. THOMAS-I think I'd go along with a wall sign. because it is a retail business. not professional office, like is in there now, and it is a big building. It does sit off the road far enough, off Quaker Road anyway. You wouldn't be able to see it. So, I'd go along with the sign. MR. TURNER-Okay. All right. MR. CARVIN-Ted, I obviously wasn't at the 1990 meeting. but could it have been the intent of the owners to try to keep this on a professional basis. and that's why they really wanted to go for the signage out front, and not. you know, from a professional standpoint? MR. TURNER-At that point in time, I think that's where they were with the buildings. and I don't think they looked down the road to go retail. MR. CARVIN-I'd really like the owners to address that, in other words, that they understand that you're putting a wall sign. - 17 - MR. ANTHIS-They will, absolutely. If they sent that letter, I guess they thought that it would clear everything up. Obviously it didn't, but I'll contact them tomorrow morning. and have them send down another letter clearing everything up. MR. MARTIN-I think he's also got a pretty unique situation here, in that this is not your typical retail business and there's few buildings in the area that could physically accommodate everything he's doing here. I mean, he's using the high ceilings for his batting cages, and. MR. TURNER-Well, this iß a.. uniquiel tvpei of business anyway. different than your tYP1cal reta b~s ness. It's MR. MARTIN-Right. That's what I'm saying. MR. TURNER-Okay. I don't have a problem with that. Lets have a motion, and approve the wall sign, if that's the way you feel. Let me see what that wall sign looks like. MR. CARVIN-What is the square footage on the wall sign, again? MR. ANTHIS-Slightly less than 100 square feet. It says 100 square feet on the drawing that you have. but it's actually 99. something. MR. CARVIN-Just out of curiosity, what color is the sign going to be? MR. ANTHIS-There'll be blue, actually. the colors aren't really official yet. I have two sign places working on it right now. There probably will be some blue. MR. KARPELES-It's going to be lighted too, right? MR. ANTHIS-Yes. It will be lighted. MR. TURNER-Internally lit. MR. CARVIN-Suppose the owners come back and say they don't like the idea of the wall sign? MR. KARPELES-Why don't we make it contingent upon getting a letter that the owners approve it. MR. TURNER-That would be a better way to do it. MR. CARVIN-That's what I'm saying. I'm not doubting they're. MR. ANTHIS-That's fine. MR. TURNER-Lets take Bob's suggestion and make it contingent upon getting the owner's approval that they can have a wall sign, as per the Queensbury Sign Ordinance, as it relates to Plaza Commercial shopping center. I'll make that a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 41-1993 JAMES ANTHIS BATTERS UP SPORTS CENTER, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Karpeles: The variance will allow the applicant a wall sign which is permitted by the Queensbury Sign Ordinance, for a shopping center, on the approval basis from the owner that that sign, indeed, can be placed on that wall, in that location. This will modify Variance No. 81-1990. for 73 Quaker Road Associates, on the 24th day of October, 1990. which at that time stated that the applicant was willing to forgo signage on the building. The granting was condi tional and allowable only to the present ownership, and limited to five business names. What makes this different from the time before is that the complex at that time was professional offices. This proposal now is for a retail business which is an - 18 - allowed use in a Plaza Commercial zone. The signage that's proposed by the applicant for the freestanding sign which fronts on Quaker Road is not part of this approval. Duly adopted this 2nd day of June, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carvin, Miss Hauser, Mr. Thomas. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Philo MR. TURNER-You get that other letter. and get it in to her, and then we can act on that. Okay. Thanks, Jim. MR. CARVIN-This is a done deal. right? So, in other words, if he comes back for the front sign, he has to make a reapplication. or is there part of this that we have to table yet? MR. TURNER-We better table the part of the freestanding sign. MOTION TO TABLE THE PART OF THE APPLICATION FOR SIGN VARIANCE NO. 41-1993 JAMES ANTHIS BATTERS UP SPORTS CENTER WHICH REFERENCES THE FREESTANDING SIGN ON THE FRONT. Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption. seconded by Joyce Eggleston: Tabled until we get response from the owners, the letter requested. Duly adopted this 2nd day of June. 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carvin. Mrs. Eggleston. Miss Hauser, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Philo AREA VARIANCE NO. 33-1993 TYPE: UNLISTED SR-1A CHARLES A. DIEHL OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE NORTH OF RALPH ROAD (OFF EISENHOWER) AND WEST OF HOWARD STREET APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A FIFTEEN (15) LOT SUBDIVISION OF THE TENTH (10TH) LOT OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TEN ( 10) LOT SUBDIVISION. APPLICANT IS PROPOSING LOT AREAS FROM FIFTEEN THOUSAND AND FIFTY (15.050) SQUARE FEET TO SIXTEEN THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED AND THIRTEEN THOUSAND (16.813) SQUARE FEET. AND IS SEEKING RELIEF FROM TWENTY-EIGHT THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND TEN (28.510) SQUARE FEET TO TWENTY SIX THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED AND FORTY-SEVEN (26.474) SQUARE FEET RESPECTIVELY FROM SECTION 179-19C, WHICH REQUIRES ONE (1) ACRE AS THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE IN THE SR-1A ZONE. APPLICANT IS ALSO PROPOSING LOT WIDTHS FROM NINETY-SIX (9G) FEET AVERAGE. TO ONE HUNDRED AND FIVE AND SIXTY-THREE HUNDREDTHS (105.63) SQUARE FEET AVERAGE, AND IS SEEKING RELIEF OF FIFTY-FOUR (54) SQUARE FEET TO FORTY-FOUR AND THIRTY-SEVEN HUNDREDTHS (44.37) SQUARE FEET AVERAGE RESPECTIVELY. FROM SECTION 179-19C. WHICH REQUIRES A MINIMUM OF ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY (150) FEET FOR THE LOT WIDTH IN THE SR-IA ZONE. CROSS REF. SUBDIVISION NO. 7-1992 TAX MAP NUMBER: 120-1-1.1 LOT SIZE: 1 ACRE SECTION 179-19C WILSON MATHIAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TURNER-Read the letter from the Chairman of the Planning Board. Timmy Brewer, in reference to this application, and then I'll ask Mr. Mathias to respond to it. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. The letter states, It In regards to Area Variance #33-1993, the original proposal before the Planning Board (Subdivision No. 7-1992 Geneva Estates) was for a 10 lot subdivision with lot #10 containing 6+ acres of open space with a restriction of no further subdivision or construction. (see attached) Final approval was "For a 10 lot subdivision, 9 of such - 19 - lots will be approximately 15,000 square feet, with the 10th lot containing six acres, with a final deadline to file the mylar being January 1993." Our intent was to allow Mr. Diehl to use the cluster provision with this subdivision with the understanding that the 10th lot would remain open space. We feel that the variance would be in direct conflict with the intent of our resolution allowing Mr. Diehl to use the clustering provision. In light of this we believe that the appropriate procedure would be for Mr. Diehl to come back before the Planning Board for a new subdivision or reapply for a mobile home park. Thank you. Timothy Brewer, Chairman, Planning Board" MR. TURNER-Mr. Brewer, anything further to add to the letter? TIMOTHY BREWER MR. BREWER-Just to note that that is from the Planning Board. MR. TURNER-Right. Okay. Mr. Mathias, would you care to respond to that? MR. MATHIAS-Yes. Without being too argumentative, I would hope that the Planning Board, in the future, when it communicates with one of the other administrative bodies, copies in the applicant, so that they can be apprised of what their position is. When I write a letter to somebody, as a business, it seems to me that's just a common business courtesy. MRS. EGGLESTON-You're saying this is the first you've heard of this tonight? MR. MATHIAS-Absolutely. MRS. EGGLESTON-So it's kind of hard to. MR. TURNER-All right. That part of it's fine, but how do you respond to the point about the 10 lot subdivision, nine of such lots? MR. MATHIAS-We're not trying to fool anybody. or. we went in front of the Planning Board and got 10 lots approved. That was the density for this Mobile Home Overlay Zone. It's one acre zoning, even though you're permitted to put mobile homes. in fact, the whole point of the Overlay Zone is to allow mobile homes within that, but they've got to be on one acre lots, or you could use the provision of the Cluster Ordinance, so that, you put them close together. but you can't increase the density. So you have 10 acres. 10 mobile homes. If you have 100 acres, you could have 100 homes. The point for it was to have individually owned mobile homes. That was the point of the subdivision. If we wanted to put in a mobile home park, there wouldn't have been a point in applying for a subdivision, because we can go through a regular procedure, I think simply in front of the Planning Board. because the Zoning Ordinance, or the Town Board, has created a mobile home park provision for how you do. I can't even remember who you go in front of. I think it may be still the Town Board that ultimately grants the approval. The other thing. in terms of actually responding to the comments, is that, if we brought this plan in to the Planning Board, as it sits right now, and say, gee, folks, we'd really like to further subdivide the 10th lot. and create additional lots, they would tell us, you can't do that because, without a variance. You can't do it because you're creating, you know. you don't have the density to increase the number of lots, and that's really why we're here. Does that make sense? MR. TURNER-There were no conditions put on your subdivision, that you couldn't, that that lot was committed to green space? MR. MATHIAS-No more than any other lot that. you get subdivision, you get 49 lots, you can't make 62. You've got 49. We got 10. - 20 - MR. TURNER-What was the intent of leaving this open space? MR. MATHIAS-The intent was to utilize the Cluster Ordinance, so we wouldn't have to put extra road frontage in there, but we could have put 10 one lot. well. it would be tough to cut up the property to do that, but we could do it. The reason we provided for open space was to do exactly what the Cluster Ordinance says, which is to decrease infrastructure cost. You don't have to put as much roadway in. It's really as simple as that. MR. TURNER-All right. I have a letter here from you. to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board. Geneva Estates. which says, the developer proposes to convey to the owner of Lot 10, the six plus acres of open space with the restriction of no further subdivision or construction. MR. MATHIAS-Yes. and so everybody's got that. He hasn't sold it. He hasn't sold the 10th lot. So we're now coming in and saying. we'd like to subdivide it further. If you guys say no. it's no, but if the Town changes the Zoning Ordinance. which is one of the things that's under consideration. and allows for an increase of densi ty in Mobile Home Overlay Zones, which, if I can make a comment, makes a lot of sense. Whose going to build mobile homes if you've got to use one acre for them. You're going to use a conventional home for something like that. You could even charge more money for the lots, but if the Town Board does that, my letter, and the Planning Board's comments. don't restrict us forever from coming back in and asking for additional lots. One of the reasons we considered this, actually. was based on the comments of the then Planning Board Chairman, who said. gee, for mobile homes, one acre lots, not a great idea. CHARLIE DIEHL MR. DIEHL-I think affordable housing was the thing that was really the thought of the Planning Board. subject to my Sherman Pines development over there. and I became very much aware of what they wanted, as far as affordable housing is concerned. When you have one acre that you're putting a mobile home on it really restricts it from being an affordable housing situation. As a mobile home park, which would then have rental space. I do believe that the square footage for each lot, and maybe Jim will give me a little help with what the Code says, there's about 6,000 square feet. MR. MARTIN-That's correct. MR. TURNER-That's right. MR. DIEHL-And that would bring in maybe, I don't know how many mobile home lots. of that size. I'm trying to keep the lots looking decent by only allowing double wides in there, rather than the single wides, which should dress up the area, and they are over one third of an acre. The original intent was, when the clustered those up on the one end, is we offered it to the Recreation Department, and asked them if they wanted to put a ballpark over there, and we received written notice from them that they had no intent of putting a ballpark there. and we were sitting with that. I am now. Sherman Pines, I believe, is about $80 to $85,000 ceiling price. according to the median income of covenants and restrictions that were submitted to me to follow, and these buildings now that we have, double wides offering in there. we have a third of an acre. We're offering them in the paper for less than $55,000. That's really affordable housing that we'd be bringing in there, but I need some help from the Town to be able to bring those in there. I'm not trying to ask for something that is not going to be beneficial to the Town. I understand what we asked for in the beginning, but the whole intent changed as this long, drawn out Sherman Pines situation came about, and I was restricted through the bringing lower income housing. You can't argue with the price of $55.000. The mortgage on a place like that, lot and house, will - 21 - be under $400 a month. This is less than people are renting comparable housing in the area. These are things that I think should be considered. If you bring in 6.000 square feet, and put single wides in there. I don't know if you want that. I'd rather stay away from that. I could still go to that park arrangement and rent. People don't want to rent space anymore. with the rentals on just lots. Over there in Danny Drellos, I understand it's running, like, $230. Other places, it's running $255 dollars a month rent to the property only. MR. TURNER-Lot rent. MR. DIEHL-Yes. Now you add your mortgage on top of that. where does it become affordable housing? Everybody would love to get out of that and own their own property. and have pride of ownership. I'm trying to offer that. MR. MATHIAS-I think the other thing that's important to note is that, as you know, there's been a change in New York State Law, in terms of what you look at in an Area Variance. If we were under the old rules. I wouldn't be up here. I'd be wasting your time. because there's no question, if there's a hardship here, it's clearly self-created. We knew what we were dOing when we cut up the lot, and as Charlie said. we did offer that property for the Town. We met with the Town Board. We met with the Recr.eation Commission. and they just determined that it wasn't going to fit into their plans. That's the way it goes. What we are offering here is a housing type that isn't, that it's in short supply in the Town, and what I think we're asking you to do is the weighing test that you have to do, under the new rules, and try to make a decision. I think that, it's really as simple as that. MR. TURNER-Well, you just made a reference to the new rules required in an Area Variance. but, and it still goes back. it's self-created. MR. MATHIAS-Absolutely. but the law now says that that doesn't knock you out of the box, Ted. MR. TURNER-Not all of it. but that's a good share of it. MR. MATHIAS-One of the things in the weighing is that if the Town Board amends the Zoning Ordinance. and maybe Mr. Martin can address that some, and that's a political act, and who knows whether they will or they won't, and one of the reasons we're here before you is because we know that it takes a lot longer to get a zoning amendment done than it does to put a variance application through. but if the Board adopts the legislation that at least is being considered by the Planning Department. it would authorize lots of approximately 10,000 square feet, within this area, and we're proposing something that's larger, but if we wait, we may be able to get more units. and that's something that we think may be something that the Board would consider. I think. obviously. the third of an acre size lots fits more in the character of the neighborhood. MR. TURNER-Before we go any further. lets get one thing settled. Do you want to hear the application as presented, or do you feel that information from the Planning Board, supplied by the Planning Board? MR. CARVIN-Again, I'll take the front here, I am not comfortable with this at all. MR. KARPELES-I agree. MR. TURNER-I do. too. MR. THOMAS-The only thing that Mr. Mathias keeps going back to this thing that the Planning Board is considering a zoning change, the - 22 - Town Board is. Do you know anything about that, Tim? MR. MARTIN-It's my feeling, and he refers to the Chairman of the Planning Board from the past, that was me. It doesn't appear to make much sense to me that we have a Mobile Home Overlay District language, and all it does is simply refer to a geographic area on a map, and it makes no allowance for special considerations in those areas, in terms of the lot size or density or anything like that, and it's going to be something I want to work on, is drafting an amendment that would put some teeth into that, cite a lot size and a density requirement that is more reflective of what a Mobile Home Overlay District is. We have very few of these in the Town. There's only five of them, and they're very small in size, and I think the applicant's right. To an extent, there is a need for this type of housing in this Town. and it just doesn't make any sense that we have one acre zoning for mobile homes. It just doesn't, and I'm going to attempt to draft an amendment and put it before the Board, the Town Board. Where it goes from there, I don't know, but in my view as a Planner in this Town, it just doesn't make much sense to have one acre lots for mobile homes. MRS. EGGLESTON-But as of this moment, there's nothing? MR. MARTIN-There is nothing on paper, no. MRS. EGGLESTON-Just talk, actually, of. MR. MARTIN-No. It's more, I'm. before the fall comes, going to draft an amendment to that effect, of the Planning Department will, and where it goes with the Town Board is. MRS. EGGLESTON-Why can't you do it sooner than that? I mean, if that's you intent. and I agree with you. I don't know why you'd need an acre for a mobile home, when you can build a house on less than that. I don't understand that. but still, it's a good idea of yours. so why can't you get at that sooner? MR. MARTIN-I'd like to. If I can. I will. I'm just not, I don't want to set an expectation that I can't meet. either. MR. TURNER-Yes. He might draw this up, and it might fall through the bottom of the basket, too. MR. MARTIN-They were in to see me about this. This was their first cut at this, is they were thinking, well, what's the status of a change like that. and we'll wait, and I said, well, it's, quite frankly, when I can get to it, and I don't mean to sound like I'm putting them off, but you've been in our offices. A lot of our work and time is spent serving people coming right through the door, and long lead time. things like this take a while sometimes. So I explained that to them. and they opted for a variance. MR. TURNER-Let me ask you a question, since you were the Chairman when this was presented, what's your feeling about no further subdivision or construction on Lot 6? MR. MARTIN-That's a pretty strong statement. MR. TURNER-Yes, it is. MR. MARTIN-But it's not to say he can't change his mind, and that's why he's entitled to file for a variance. Some people ask me, well, why are you. as a Planning Department, even allowing this to come in. I have no say over that. You do, as a Board. MR. TURNER-No. but I'm saying to you. this is right from Mr. Mathias and right from Mr. Diehl. and they've already agreed that there'll be no further construction or subdivision. Right. and that's why it was eligible for clustering, and I think at that time, their intent was to offer it to the Town for recreation land. - 23 - MR. DIEHL-I'd just like to offer this. I realize what is presented here appears to be, on my part, looking for something more than I originally. we had no plan whatsoever coming in on this. When we originally came in, we wanted to donate this to the Town, to have a ball field there or what have you. Now we come in at this late a date. after I've said, well. I'm only going to put 10 in there. but again, as this thing progresses, you see greater benefits for the Town. I look at th, affordable housing as really necessary in the Town. and it was brought to bear so greatly by the Sherman Pines subdivision that I had there. Here is an opportunity. I'm not making that much money on this thing that I'm selling these lots for a lot of money. I'm bringing before the public the offering to come in, as I explained. no rental on land. houses, where you're paying $400 a month. This gives that blue collar worker in this area a chance to own a place. That's really what we're looking at. That's the way I'm looking at it. That's what I'm trying to offer. Look at it in that light, at what the people will gain, rather than me changing my mind, which I agree, I've done. but over the period of time, and watching this going on over the last two years, I see these changes and what the Town has. I only got into this thing, in subdividing property. on that first piece which was Sherman Pines over there. I just wanted to add that comment. I know that I'm changing my mind here. It isn't the intent that I want to, but something offering better to the Town. MR. TURNER-All right. The way you've got this designed. and the way, you can show it here on the map. Really the bottom line, this makes this more marketable. Isn't that correct? MR. DIEHL-Yes. MR. TURNER-That's the bottom line. It's not a question of affordability. It's a more marketability piece of property, and that's what we have to look at. We look at the use of the land. MR. DIEHL-It's a matter of how you look at. and what I'm offering, or saying that the acreage sitting there, if I go to a Park, and put in 6,000 square feet lots, I don't even like to do that, but it is something that is offered to me through the Code. MR. MATHIAS-Yes. It's probably more marketable as a trailer home. MR. TURNER-Yes. because you're going to provide the lot, with the unit on it, for $55.000. Is that correct? MR. DIEHL-Yes, double wide. double wides in there. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. DIEHL-And those are one quarter acre. 6.000 square feet, it cuts it down. Now, if the area is MR. TURNER-I know. MR. DIEHL-I don't think it'll look as nice. MR. TURNER-Well. lets get back to the bottom line question. What's the Board's feeling? Do you want to hear it, or don't you want to hear it? Do you think he's locked in to the agreement that he made? MR. CARVIN-I don't think he's necessarily locked in. I mean, it's not a written contract. per se. MR. TURNER-No. MR. CARVIN-I mean. it wasn't part of the motion. MR. TURNER-No. - 24 - MR. CARVIN-So. I mean, certainly everybody has the right to change their mind. So, from that aspect, I suppose we could hear it. I think there's probably a lot of the public here that obviously, seeing as how this is the last one, and I'm sure that they all have something that they might want to say. MR. THOMAS-I agree with Fred. that we just changed another resolution, one of our own, the last variance, so I don't see why we shouldn't hear this one. MR. TURNER-Yes. Okay. MR. KARPELES-I just don't know what the status, the Planning Board seems to feel that the appropriate procedure is for them to come back before the Planning Board, for a new subdivision. or reapply. MR. TURNER-They will anyway. They will go. MR. MARTIN-They're going to have to do that. MR. MATHIAS-Just, if I can Jump in for a minute. We will have to go back. and the other thing. at this point. if we go back. what they're going to do is say, well. we want more detail. in terms of what the lots are going to look like, what is the topography, all of that kind of stuff, and the if the bottom line is, you're not going to give us the density anyway. I mean, it seems to me. in terms of whether the concept flies or not, the buck stops with this Board. There are other options. MR. KARPELES-Yes, but wouldn't we influence the Planning Board, if we had already granted a variance? MR. CARVIN-Not necessarily. MR. TURNER-Well. we're not sure we're going to grant it yet. MRS. EGGLESTON-That's why they're here first, is to get the variance before. otherwise. if they went to the Planning Board first, they'd go through all that detail work. and then maybe in the end we wouldn't give them the variance. MR. MARTIN-You had the same issue with you. before you tonight with Jim Girard. MRS. EGGLESTON-I was just going to say that. MR. MARTIN-That's the exact same scenario. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. He came back, and we reheard. MR. MARTIN-He'll now have to go to the Planning Board to create those lots. MR. TURNER-Timmy, as Chairman of the present Planning Board. do you have any further comment? MR. BREWER-Well. I guess my only thought was. when we looked at this back in '90 or '91, whatever it was. and you have the motion in front of you. that he was going to provide open space for the Cluster provision, and he did that exactly, and now he's changed his mind. and the thought of you considering this because it's affordable housing, to me. is, not as a member of the Planning Board, as a citizen. affordable housing is. I don't know. He's got affordable housing up the road, that has 100 units, and I don't know if he's sold any. MR. DIEHL-Eighty-three. MR. BREWER-Eighty-three. I don't see the need for more affordable housing, just to get more density. I don't think that's the issue. - 25 - I think that, he came in and he wanted to do something, and he got the approval to do it, and now he's changing. and as a Board, we felt that he wasn't doing what he originally told us he was going to do. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well. can I comment to that? I think that. Timmy. that's the decision of this Board, not of the Planning Board. MR. BREWER-Right. MRS. EGGLESTON-I don't think that would be your consideration. If we gave the approvals on, you take those facts and you use them. is that right? MR. BREWER-Well. no. The approval that we gave him was for the clustering provisions. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay, but we agree a person has the right to change his mind. We went through that tonight already. So, what is the difference. here? MR. BREWER-It's just in conflict to what the approval, maybe if he wasn't going to use the clustering provision it was going to be a different type of a subdivision. That's all. MRS. EGGLESTON-But that is what these Boards are for. is to say or no, and then to come back to you. So I'm a little puzzled at the concern of the Planning Board. I mean, they have a right to change their mind. They have a right to come back. We've already established that. MR. BREWER-It just appeared that they were trying to get twice as much as what they. MRS. EGGLESTON-But what difference does that make to you? That doesn't deprive them of the right to try. They can try that, right? MR. BREWER-Right. MRS. EGGLESTON-And we can say no, or whatever. MR. BREWER-Right. I have no problem with that, but I guess the thing that I look at. as planning. if you want to leave open space in places in the Town, and that's what our objective is, then lets leave it. and lets not go back, two years later, and eat up the land again. That could happen with Bay Meadows. Bay Meadows is going through something now that they're going to put 100 units on there. and leave the Golf Course open as green space. Ten years from now, if they come back and say. we want to develop the Golf Course, where's the open space going to end up? It's going to be gone, and I guess that's where we're coming from. MR. TURNER-Again, I know what you're saying. but I think maybe the weakness is in the motion. is in the resolution. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. TURNER-You didn't come out against it there. MR. BREWER-Live and learn. The next time it probably won't happen. MR. TURNER-Yes. Okay. We'll hear it. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Area Variance No. 33-1993, Charles A. Diehl, Meeting Date: June 2nd, 1993 "SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing a fifteen (15) lot subdivision of the tenth (10th) lot of a previously approved ten (10) lot subdivision (#7-1992). - 26 - CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: 1. Applicant is proposing lot areas from fifteen thousand and fifty (15.050) square feet to sixteen thousand and eight hundred and thirteen (16,813) square feet, and is seeking relief of twenty-eight thousand five hundred and ten (28.510) square feet to twenty-six thousand seven hundred and forty seven (26.747) square feet, respectively, from Section 179-19C, which requires one (1) acre as the minimum lot area in the SR-1A zone. 2. Applicant is also proposing lot widths from ninety-six (96) feet average to one hundred and five and sixty- three hundredths (105.63) feet average, and is seeking relief of fifty-four (54) feet to forty-four and thirty-seven hundredths (44.37) feet average respecti vel y, from Section 1 79-19C, which requires a minimum of one hundred and fifty (150) feet for the lot width in the SR-1A zone. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. DESCRIBE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW PLACEMENT OF A STRUCTURE WHICH MEETS THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS. Al though the previous subdivision was approved under the clustering provision which provided the tenth lot as the intended open space, applicant is proposing to subdivide the tenth (10) lot into fifteen lots, each with less than the required minimum lot area and lot width. 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? In seeking subdivision of the tenth lot of the previously approved subdivision, applicant is seeking the maximum relief from the Ordinance as the intention of the clustering provision in this case was to provide affordable housing, conditioned by an area of open space which would maintain the required density for the zone. Although the applicant believes the only option is a zoning amendment change. the Planning Board recommended the applicant consider creating a Mobile Home Court (see attached letter from the Planning Board regarding applicant's proposed subdivision), as an option to the proposed subdivision. 3. WOULD THIS VARIANCE BE DETRIMENTAL TO OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD? In seeking to develop the intended green space of the earlier clustered subdivision. applicant's proposal would be detrimental to the neighborhood, because the intent of the clustering provision is to maintain the required density of the zone while providing an area of affordable housing. 4. WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF THE VARIANCE ON PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES? The effects of the variance on public facilities and services would be to the degree the increased density would place on all required services e.g. water, solid waste removal, schools, traffic, etc. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: Applicant mentions that the Town of Queensbury Planning Department is in the process of drafting an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding standardization of the dimensional requirements for Mobile Home Overlay Zones, but at the time of this writing, staff is unaware of any such formal proposal." MR. TURNER-Okay. Wilson. MR. MATHIAS-Just really one comment to address. and I understand where the Planning Board is coming from, even though I'm upset that they didn't send me a copy of the letter, but if somebody in Bedford Close said. gee, we've got some green space left out there, and lets put a house there. and they came back to you and were looking for a variance, I could see the Board taking a dim view of it. I think what the stink with this application is that we don't think that one acre for mobile homes is fair or reasonable, but that's what the rules are, and we're seeking a variance from those rules. MR. TURNER-Okay. I've got a question. Right on this sheet you've got, all mobile homes shall be double wides, 28 by 40, or single widest 14 by 80. So you're going to combine them. right? You're going to flip flop one way or the other? MR. MATHIAS-When I brought the application, I put in a provision for double wide or single wide. If the client says they're going to be double wides, then that's what he says. You can condition - 27 - your approvals. MR. TURNER-I know. but I'm just asking you. playing? What game are we MR. MATHIAS-I'm trying to make it as flexible as possible, right. MR. TURNER-All right, because you show two layouts, one for single, one for double wide. MR. MATHIAS-Absolutely. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any other questions? MR. THOMAS-I've got one. In your addendum to the application, you state, the draft being considered or proposed is minimum lot of 10,000 square feet having 80 feet lot width. 30 foot setbacks and 10 feet rear and side yard setbacks. Where did you get these numbers from? MR. MATHIAS-My meeting with Mr. Martin. MR. MARTIN-What was that? MR. THOMAS-The 10.000 square feet, 80 foot lot width, 30' foot setback, 10 foot rear and side, in his addendum to the application. MR. MATHIAS-My understanding was that the consideration was to adopt an MR-10 setbacks, and that's what those figures are. MR. MARTIN-Those were some figures we were kicking around for a new zoning district that would accommodate the Mobile Home Overlay Zone. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. TURNER-Yes. but we're not really relating to the figures. We're relating to the lots that are proposed on the map, not those figures you've got in there, right? MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. MATHIAS-Wait a minute. is? I don't understand what your comment MR. TURNER-My comment is, in reference to his comment. this is what you've got proposed. This is what you're asking for, 15,000 in front, okay. MR. MATHIAS-Right. Absolutely. Yes. We're asking for something more than what is under consideration. MR. THOMAS-Yes. but what I asked. MR. TURNER-I know what Chris asked. I know exactly what he asked. MR. MATHIAS-I mean. we didn't just make up the numbers. what's coming from the Planning Department. That's MR. MARTIN-Right. Those were some of the numbers we were kicking around for what would be the requirement for lot sizes in a Mobile Home Overlay Zone. or District. MR. THOMAS-And you say your applicant has an 83 lot subdivision on Sherman Avenue? MR. MATHIAS-Of stick built houses. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Is there anything started in that subdivision? - 28 - MR. MATHIAS-As far as I know. they haven't finished the roads. They just got the approval. We filed the maps in January. You're talking about $4 or $500.000 in installing the infrastructure. MR. THOMAS-So nothing's been started on that one? MR. MATHIAS-Well, I think they're starting on the roads. yes. The roads are underway. The utilities are being put in. They've got to get the roads dedicated before they can sell lots. MR. THOMAS-Is this on Sherman Avenue? MR. MATHIAS-This is not. MR. TURNER-No. This is off Luzerne Road. MR. THOMAS-No. I know where this one is, but I mean this 83 lot is on Sherman Avenue? MR. MATHIAS-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Just above. MR. TURNER-Yes. It used to be, it was zoned, it still is, SR-IA. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MRS. EGGLESTON-This proposed one, though, is off Sherman Avenue? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. MATHIAS-This proposal that you see is off Sherman Avenue. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. I was there. We were there. I'd like to make a comment, and I don't mean how I'm reflecting on this particular thing. and I hope Jim will consider it, if he's looking for changing the mobile home criteria, is that people are looking to get out of the parks. They want to buy a piece of land and put their own trailer there. I don't know as they're particularly interested in a project of this type, when you say people. we need mobile home lots in the Town of Queensbury. We need lots where, just land where people can buy and put a mobile home. and fix it like their own, where they don't have to pay lot rent, but not necessarily what somebody else has built. MR. MARTIN-Right. MRS. EGGLESTON-So I hope you will. MR. MARTIN-Right. I think what's got to be done to it, what's not maybe done in some districts in this Town. is they've got to be drafted with a concept of reality, too, is what's saleable and developable and will work. MR. TURNER-That depends on the economy. That's where you are right now. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, unfortunately, for a lot of people in this world, that's affordable housing to them, a single mother with a child, or. MR. MARTIN-I think it was a mistake to do away with the 30.000 square foot lot. MRS. EGGLESTON-But not neces~arily developments, more developments, where you're building the projects. I'd like to see more open land where a person can go and buy a lot. You hear it every day, because they are at the mercy of the park owners, and one of these mobile home lots is going to 300 the first of the year. then you've got to pay for the mobile home on top of that. You have another - 29 - dog. that's five dollars. dollars. You have a cat, that's another five MR. MARTIN-You've got a gentleman who was in. Mr. Gregory. whose moved two mobile homes on his lot. now. to get them out of the park. He can't afford the rent anymore. MRS. EGGLESTON-Not yet he hasn't. MR. MARTIN-Well. he's got an application in for that. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. MATHIAS-Yes, but just a comment to that, for just a second. The concept of the Mobile Home Overlay Zone was to somehow weigh areas where you could place mobile homes, as opposed to the old Ordinance, which basically. gave the Town. the Town Board, if you came in and said, I want to put a mobile home on Gurney Lane. and it's for my elderly mother. and she can't find any other place. and please let us put it in, and the Town Board said. you know, it's nuts having these things allover the place. Lets locate areas in the Town. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I think the hard decision's already been made. The Mobile Home Overlay Zones have been located. Now it's a matter of dealing with the property wi thin those zones in a rational manner. MR. TURNER-Okay. I'll now open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MIKE ELMORE MR. ELMORE-I'm Mike Elmore. My mother and father sold the land, and I sold the land to Mr. Diehl, as Executor of their estate. I had a question here. Most all of our lots in here that have mobile homes on to them. are a lot larger than what's being proposed, and what's even been approved over there. My question being, and somebody ought to think about this. If you buy up a lot and you put a mobile home onto it. and down the road you want to go to a framed home. your neighbors are going to be mobile homes, which is going to depreciate the framed home, and then everybody's going to have to go for a bunch of variances for this guy to build a framed home on a smaller lot. I'll read you my statement, and then I have a petition here. In concern with the proposed variance request by Mr. Diehl, it is upsetting to learn that he would like to increase the number of sites from the original approvals. Let alone the fact that he wants to connect Eisenhower to Howard Street, in conversing with Mr. Diehl in the past, I believe he informed me that he wanted nothing to do with Howard Street. I believe he also told me that he was to offer six acres to the Town as park or playground. for which I believe he did. As I seem to recall. the Town Parks and Recreation Department said. we do not need any more parks. but the Town did except your recreation fee in lieu of a place for children to play. and I was under the impression that the remaining acreage would be left undeveloped. Wrong. Although the land was sold by my parents to Mr. Diehl, with a right-of-way at both ends, it was not with my blessing. but rather their instructions. As I said, my hopes brightened when Mr. Diehl said he was not interested in a road connection, and further when the park was proposed. He seemed to think that he could make a return on his investment with more than 10 acres. with Town approval for 10 sites. Then unknown to me, the plan was revised to nine sites on four acres, with a tenth on the other six acres. A plan in the making. With this many approved sites, when the requirements are one acre zoning. I think the Town has gone far enough in granting a variance on this subdivision. The ground alone needs no more pollution from a septic variance of this kind and quantity. There are still a number of homes in the area with private wells for - 30 - drinking water, and they should not be forced to go to Town water, because I don't believe it's all that great, and what about the green I remember being discussed the first time around? Isn't it important anymore? I originally went to bat for this development wi th the aforementioned hopes in mind. I can no longer support this plan. For the number of homes and children in the area, we sure don't need more. Furthermore, connecting these streets will increase an already crowded traffic pattern on the internal street. let alone the crowded pattern on Sherman Avenue. Howard Street, as you may know, is a dead end. with many children. adults, animals, such as cats. who have no restrictions on them using the streets to play or traverse to a neighbor's home. We have one little girl who is physically handicapped and somehow manages to get in the road to play or go to someone else's house like the other children do. Most people know about her and slow down so she can get out of the way. Connect these streets, and with the increased traffic, she will either be hit or have to be locked in, as well as the rest of these kids. We also have a pretty good crime deterent because of the dead end. When people know it's a dead end street and they have to go back out the way they just came in, they tend to think. Open this up, you're asking for an increase in crime. What we need is a place for children to play, not more children, cars. or homes. The people in my area are not wealthy. Most homes are both parents work and they can't afford day care. and your playgrounds are too far away. Therefore, children play in the street often. Are we to drive them into their homes? If Queensbury cannot see additional parks, I cannot see making a bad situation worse by expanding an already crowded area. People move to the suburbs to get away from the crowded city. Lets not bring the city out here. Most everyone claims to be concerned about our future. Yet it seems everyone passes the buck with, well, we'll get it on the next subdivision. For once, let the buck stop here. I do not believe your refusal to grant this variance to Mr. Diehl will cause him to go broke, possibly just some expense, but if he'd consulted with his neighbors first. he may have saved that. The neighborhood suggests that the Town give Mr. Diehl back his playground fee, and reach some sort of a settlement to acquire the property for the original playground area. The neighborhood has also made it clear they want no further development of any kind in this subdivision. Now, on the petition I've got everybody on, this is Howard Street, Leo Street, Eisenhower. and Dawn Road, except one house. I've got a representative from each home, 92 people total, and those 92 people. we have 140 automobiles on these streets, with 109 children. Like I said. this is. not necessarily everybody who signed it is husband and wife, but who was home at the time, but that does represent 92 people. If I could, I would like to get the initials of the minutes keeper on a copy of this petition, and the reason I did this is in the past we offered a playground over there when Queensbury Better Homes Volunteers was in control, and when they made up the Parks and Recreation Master Map. everything was thrown away, or lost. MR. TURNER-Thank you. Who wishes to be heard next? RICHARD RAWSON MR. LAWSON-My name is Richard Rawson. I'm currently a homeowner in Queen Victoria's Grant Homeowners Association. I'm also President of the Association. On May 7th. 1992. we received a letter of intent from the proposed applicant's lawyer. At that time, the Board of Directors did not want to oppose the 10 acres. We felt that it would not effect our development in any way economically or environmentally, as well as the 6.38 acres of open space. There's an adequate buffer where it wouldn't effect our development. In the letter, and I quote "further development is prohibited by deed covenants and restrictions and proposed recreation and conservation easement". What this statement. it's a pretty strong statement. We felt that this land would not ever be developed. With this land now being developed as opposed to. well, maybe I can just walk up to the map. It would be easier. Some of our concerns, this is the - 31 - Queen Victoria's Grant Homeowners Association, pretty much right on our border line. This is the back end of all of our Queen Anne homes. This entire area is our septic leachfield. We've got six 2,000 gallon septic tanks with each having five drywells in the leachfie ld. One of our maj or concerns, environmentally, is. if they proposed septic tanks. this is going to completely saturate the area. I don't know if anyone's aware of the water table in the area. but it's, at any given point, only nine feet. I'm currently working on our septic to try to change what we have now, because we find saturation problems just in our development. So any further development, in this quantity, given only five days to prepare, we couldn't even find any engineers that would come down in that amount of time. This is one of our major concerns. Most of the homeowners that I contacted who could not be here tonight. One of their concerns was the mobile homes as opposed to frame houses, evaluating the Queen Anne homes here. Less than 500 feet, I think at anyone time, since this is not very detai led, I'm not sure exactly where it is going to be in our, in relationship to the homes here, but it's apparent that it's going to be visual. So it's going to have a tremendous economic impact on the whole entire development. Devaluating one section of ours will devaluate the whole 200. My concern is that we were lead to believe, last fall. that this particular six acres would be left green, either as a proposed park, which was refused. Also, slash conservation easement, which would mean to me that's an open green area. In our development, we have quite a bit of open green areas which will never developed, and we feel that should be pretty much a concern of everyone else, not to develop every inch and foot of our land. MR. TURNER-All right. property? You related a septic failure on your MR. LAWSON-We haven't had any failure yet. MR. TURNER-What are you alluding to then? MR. LAWSON-One of our concerns we're having trouble with, the proposed septics in our development were supposed to be pumped out every five years. but because of the high water table. I'm not sure when they did their pits, did testing on the water levels, but we have to pump out every year, because we're having backups in saturation. just to keep the contaminants from going out to the leachfields. Right now, we're hiring two extra engineers, and in the context of the Town here at the present time is to help us try to rectify a situation which probably should have never been approved. I can see that that's definitely going to be an area which he would have to put a septic, his development is outlined, like I said before, it's not too graphic or in detail, but I can see that it would be where his septic area is going to have to go. Like I said, within five days we really couldn't contact any engineers, really, to expand on whether or not. MR. TURNER-So what you're saying to us, all your septic that comes from your houses comes to this one area? MR. LAWSON-No, just the Queen Anne area. MR. TURNER-That's what I'm saying. Your development. MR. LAWSON-Right. EDWARD LAWSON MR. LAWSON-My name is Edward Lawson. also a resident of Queen Victoria's Grant. I think what you're alluding to. or asking rather, is that there's three different distinct sections in our development. There's Queen Anne Court. There's Margaret Drive, and there's a third section over on the other side of, right off of Peggy Ann Road. So there's three distinct, each section has their own layout on the septics. I'm sure everything was all proposed - 32 - and was accepted before it was built. As a resident there. one of the areas that drew us to it was the surrounding area, and like our neighbors, it's quiet. The kids play in our streets. Also. we do have that common ground area all the way around. and in the middle part of our thing. So, that's one of the things about the area we liked, and a lot of people like it. It brings the value up. It's quiet for the kids, and safe for the kids. and like our neighbors on the other side of Sherman there, we'd like to keep it that way, and basically, like. we're making an effort in the Association. and my brother has been President. but as a member of that Association. all participating 200 and some odd residents to make a conscious effort to clean the common ground. also to keep our septics within. so we don't have any problems. We're doing that among ourselves. This is all an effort to keep the area and the value of all our houses in safety for everybody. MR. TURNER-Okay, but I guess you didn't answer my question. Does the septic from your houses go to these tanks? MR. EDWARD LAWSON-Not every house, just the block of Queen Anne Court. MR. TURNER-Just that block. Okay. All right. MRS. EGGLESTON-Do you feel that these lots would abut the back of the lots in Queen Anne section? MR. RICHARD LAWSON-Yes. they are. Absolutely. MRS. EGGLESTON-Right, no buffer whatsoever, just back to back? MR. RICHARD LAWSON-Right. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. TURNER-Okay. opposed? Thank you. Anyone else wish to be heard, BILL ANDREWS MR. ANDREWS-Hi. My name is Bill Andrews. I live at 31 Queen Mary Drive. I'm at the opposite end of the development from Queen Anne Court, but basically there are two things that bother me, from what I've heard so far. The first is that it seems to be kind of a smoke screen, I guess, that we're bringing in the point of affordable housing. I am one of the people who live there. My wife and I both work. We struggle to make our mortgage payment. and to come in and say that he's going to be like a knight in shining armor and provide affordable housing, what he's really doing is saying, this is what I propose. now let me stick more lots in there to make it more affordable, so I can get a better return on my investment. Looking at it from a practical standpoint, I agree with the point that a one acre lot for mobile homes seems kind of excessive and might be out of the range of some people to afford, but again. it just seem like he's got a proposal in. He's going to do this. He's going to allow us a buffer zone so that our properties don't abut, and thereby not decrease the values of our properties and again, even though it's only on one end, it's going to effect everybody in our development. and they always come in and say, well, please let me stick more lots in that six acre zone. because I think I can get more people in a lot if you do that. The bottom line, I think that's the direction he's going with it. The other point that I'd like to make is that it seems kind of a conflict of interest like two bodies here are at odds. The Planning Board is saying, in good faith, we need to preserve green area. and being somewhat of an environmentalist. it just stands to reason that if you take away all the green, pretty soon all the oxygen goes away. and, poof, big problem, and now basically they're saying, well, you can't really say that, it's like up to us to say yes or no, whether you can do that, and I think it really should be - 33 - a combination of both bodies to come to that decision, not one coming and getting approval for something and the other one saying. well, no. wait a minute. we have authority over you. You can't, you know. MRS. EGGLESTON-I don't think that was my point. as to what I said. My point was that, as a resident of the Town of Queensbury, the person has the right to come back. to change his mind and come back through the process again. MR. ANDREWS-Absolutely. but it's just the way it came across. It just seemed like. MRS. EGGLESTON-No, I didn't mean it that. what I was trying to say was that was the function of this Board. MR. ANDREWS-Right. I understand that. MRS. EGGLESTON-It is the function of this Board. MR. ANDREWS-And that's why we're here presenting both sides of the issue for you. MRS. EGGLESTON-But at the same time preserving the rights of the citizens. MR. ANDREWS-I guess, bottom line, what I was saying is. don't kind of be mislead by the smoke screen of affordable housing. Affordable housing is great. I'm all for it, but where I live. I pay more than the proposed price of that, and, to me, that was affordable. That was something that I felt I could afford, and also maintain somewhat of the property value, not that it's anything that would compare with Hidden Hills or Bedford Close, but by the same token, something that could turn around and be resold at a later point, with the idea being that it would progress. MRS. EGGLESTON-I might say one other thing that you might think about, and I'm not saying I'm in favor of this one way or the other, this is a planned double wides, which would, I think if somebody pays $55,000 for them. or whatever, I think they're going to keep them relatively nice. On the other hand, if they change the mobile home rules. and they change so that it doesn't require an acre, then that property could be sold. and you could see somebody put an individual trailer with no restrictions. I mean. really, sometimes they don't keep them as well. You could have a worse, I'm just giving you a scenario of what could happen. It might not, but you've got to think of both issues. MR. ANDREWS-I can see both sides of the argument, but I guess what I'm saying is, when they brought up the point. and I was unaware of it at the time. that they kind of had two proposals here. Here's one proposal for a double wide. Here's one proposal for single wides. MR. TURNER-That's why I raised the question. MR. ANDREWS-It seems like they're trying to get approval, and that once they've got approval, they'll say. okay, now. we've got this variance. Now we're waiting for this other proposed in the air. in the works change to happen. Now we can slide in. divide it in half, and make twice the money. MISS HAUSER-Does anyone know whether that six acre lot, when it was created, a consideration was made for the septic situation in that area? Was that a consideration when they made that. by the Planning Board? MR. ANDREWS-I don't believe so. I mean. I think it's just part of the clustering. There wasn't any provisions for common septic on that lot. really just open space. - 34 - RENEE QUINN MRS. QUINN-Hi. I'm Renee Quinn, and I live at 29 Margaret Drive. I'm so angry now I can hardly see straight. My husband's in the Navy, and we moved here one year ago tomorrow. We bought our first home. We make $21,000 a year. That is low for this area. We afford a house payment. We afford two cars. I go to school. My husband goes to school. I could have bought a house for $40,000 in Glens Falls. I chose this house because of what it looks like. We walk out in our front yard and we see green. We have bunny rabbits that walk down our street. We don't have to listen to cat fights and screaming and hOllering. We don't have the problem of traffic. All our neighbors own their homes. We all work together to keep our property up. It's very important to my husband and I to have roots and be happy where we live. He works in West Milton. It's a long drive for him. That was another consideration. This was a big decision. and to have some man. who obviously is in it just for money, to take my house and my dreams away. just doesn't seem fair. Is he willing to write me a $10,000 for what my property is going to take a hit when he moves double wides in? And who is going to pay $55,000 for a double wide mobile home that's off the ground, in the winter here, when you can get a house for $40,000 with a bigger lot, and not live amongst mobile homes. Mobile homes are not a home by choice. If you have the choice between a house or a mobile home. nine times out of ten people are going to get a house. A mobile home is made so you can pick it up and drag it away. I don't want to live in that kind of environment. He's proposing close enough that when I walk out to my car every day. I can look kitty corner into somebody's mobile home. If he wants to put a 10 foot stockade fence up and write me a $10,000 check. I'll help him put in the electric. but I don't think he's going to do that for 200 houses. and every day I go out there and I see what a pretty place it is. and I'm actually happy to live here. Those are the considerations besides money. It's people's lifestyles, and I pay taxes just as everybody else. Obviously. I don't pay as much as them, but my voice should be heard just as much as his. and it's my home. It's not my business. MRS. EGGLESTON-What street did you say you lived on? MRS. QUINN-Margaret. MRS. EGGLESTON-That's in Queen Victoria's Grant? MRS. QUINN-That's, I'm like three houses the back of this area. I can look right over in there, the trees and stuff, and we've cleared a lot of the underbrush and the dead wood and that on our property, to make it look nice and clean and pretty, and then with whatever he's proposed, we're going to be looking in somebody's backyard, the under side of trailer skirts, whatever's stacked up behind them. all that kind of stuff. We have extremely strict rules of what you can put on your property. You can't, you're supposed to park a car in the garage before you park it on your driveway. We can't park on the street. We have rules on things from air conditioners to when you put anything in your yard you have to get written permission from this person and this person. We worked very hard to keep our property values up high, and in this economy, it's extremely hard, and I pay one of the lowest home mortgages in the area. I happened to lock on and get a house that somebody was trying to get rid of, but if he goes ahead and puts this in, we've lost $10,000. That's half of my husband's income in one year. We're not rich people. We're blue collar people, two people in school. We can't afford to lose $10,000. and that's why most of us are here. because we can't afford to lose that kind of money, because this man has now decided to change his mind because he wants more money. He's not looking for affordable housing for people because the people who need $55,000 homes can find them in this area. It's not that hard to find. If you want to live in a mobile home park, you go and you live in a mobile home park, and people live in mobile home parks can't afford $55,000 homes. So, - 35 - if you're going to set that kind of price for mobile homes, how many people are going to throw their money away? I know certainly I wouldn't. and I looked at modular homes. We looked at everything, and everything pointed to moving here, over any place else we looked, because it's green, quiet, and peaceful. It feels safe, and that's the bottom line. is money and safety. There's not too many more places. especially in Queensbury, left that you can feel that way. It's all being eaten up. and look down in Glens Falls. If you're not careful, we're going to end up and be Glens Falls. and you go to the other side, Saratoga Road area, I certainly wouldn't want to live there. That's why I'm not. NINA KAYE MRS. KAYE-I'd like to address a couple of issues. Nina Kaye. I live at 15 Queen Anne Court. I can see where the development is going to go from my house, through a few trees. about 50 feet apart. If you're talking about affordable housing, Queen Victoria's Grant, at the end of the development. there are houses going for $60.000. They can own a beautiful house in a beautiful development for near the same money you're talking about. I am also the past President of the Queen Victoria's Grant Homeowners Association. Everybody that moves into Queen Victoria's Grant finds a contract to belong to the Homeowners Association. It's a mandatory restriction. They pay dues every year, upwards of $150, $180 or so, depending upon the budgeting. Their money goes to keep the grounds. They each own a piece of the common land and pay to maintain it, through the Homeowners Association. The fact that we signed this contract, we knew that the grounds would stay green. There are trails through the woods, stone trails for nature walks with exercise stations at each spot. The common grounds have been improved. The entranceways have been developed. Signs have been put up. Greenery has been put up. and we have an eyeball view, on Queen Anne Court. We will have an eyeball view. of this trailer court. which is going to seriously depreciate the value of our home. The homes with the garages on them average between $70 and $90,000. We certainly wouldn't have paid that kind of money if we were going to have a trailer in our backyard, or a mobile home, as you refer to it. It's still the same thing. whether it's a double wide or a single wide. As far as somebody wanting to pay $55,000, for $60,000 they can get a beautiful piece of parcel right in Queen Victoria's Grant, with all the grounds that go with it, without a garage. The other thing is that the depreciation of the property in there, which I'm concerned with. I work very hard, put a lot of money into my house. My value is probably appreciated by $10.000 at this point. It'll go right down the tubes. Again, if you have seen the property that he's talking about. if you go in, not Howard, but the next road up, I believe it's Leo. You go down to Eisenhower. On that block. you can count four rusted. abandoned trailers that look like they have been condemned. They appear broken windowed and condemned looking. If this is there now, without this development which has to be sold, I'm envisioning them sitting unoccupied also. and the market is not conducive. right now, to selling these at this price. There are plenty around, in fact, in our development alone, we probably have five or ten houses for sale. They're not moving. at $60,000. People have lowered their price from $84,000 to $60,000, which is giving their homes away. There have been homes that they have walked out of in our development that have been put up for HUD sales. So, if you've driven down the street and seen the tenement looking type trailers that are there, the few. I think you can visualize what could be there, let alone taking away the greenery. MR. TURNER-I have a question for you. established? When was that development MRS. KAYE-'86. They started with Margaret Drive. MR. TURNER-They started construction in 1986, is that correct? - 36 - MRS. KAYE-Yes. MR. MARTIN-I think that's right. MR. TURNER-So, we're only talking a period of seven years. MRS. KAYE-Yes. and then they put in another section of 60 more homes, and then another little circle at the end, and they did it in sections. and at the end, in the back loop, where they tried to make less pricey homes. they eliminated the garages and lowered the prices even more to get rid of the last. Apparently, the builder did want to leave town. We also have serious drainage problems in there, which the Town has been rectifying, because the roads were dedicated and they're kind of stuck with them at this point. So they have to. at great expense, redo what the builder, they took on as an obligation at this point, drainage, swale lines, this and that. So you're looking for more headaches in there. if you go down to there, you see a sandpit, and probably there are drainage problems at that end also. Again, we have septic and drainage problems now. MR. TURNER-Any other questions? comment, that hasn't spoken? Anyone else wish to make a ELAINE LAWSON MRS. LAWSON-My name is Elaine Lawson. I live at 36 Queen Anne Court. My question is, how many blue collar workers are there in this area, because my husband's a blue collar worker, and I know quite a few, and most of them own their own homes. My question is, did anybody do any statistics on that? Because if these trailers are just going to be left empty. MR. TURNER-I think that question will be asked a little later on. MRS. LAWSON-Okay. MR. TURNER-Anyone else wish to be heard that hasn't been heard? Okay, Mr. Elmore? MR. ELMORE-Mike Elmore. As I might have stated earlier. my parents started selling property over there in the 60' s. Most of those lots over there were 100 by 200. a couple quarter acre or smaller, some of them are bigger. At that time, the only way you could get in in that area was to have a hardship, this was by the Town of Queensbury. To me, if you place one mobi le home on a street, you've got a mobile home. I don't care what you put around it, but Queensbury, for at least 10 to 15 years. still required a hardship to put a mobile home over there. which just kind of decreased what they could do. They're talking about the Town coming out with smaller lots. Now the Town can create larger lots or smaller lots. They can control this all the way around over there. and there's no reason that we've got to come down to a smaller lot. At one time, I looked into doing something with this property. I was told we couldn't have a mobile home park over there. It wasn't zoned for that. Maybe that's changed. I haven't kept up with it in the last few years, but if you go to a mobile home park. or you go to a small lot, you've still got a mobile home park. I don't care what you do with it. and we don't want that. She was talking about a couple of trailers there looking like dumps. This is a problem of the Town. When my parents sold property over there, long before the Town came out with Ordinances on these things. my parents put in the contracts that the places were to be kept up clean, and we did the best we could. The Town adopted a lot of Ordinances. as to junkyards. as to dumps. as to neatness, and it was not enforced. You can't blame somebody, because people are just going to tend to try to get away with what they can get away with. A $55,000 home or an $80,000, they can all look like a dump if people aren't made to keep them up, or just don't want to keep them up. Again. I'm going to suggest that maybe Queen Victoria's Grant Association - 37 - purchase that land or the Town purchase that land and create the park. We do need a park in that area. We've got children, I stated in the petition how many children we've got over there. Mr. Neil did offer it to the Town. I went to. I believe it was Mr. Hanson was in charge of Parks and Recreation. MR. MARTIN-He still is. MR. ELMORE-And very shortly told, no. We don't want it, and at the time our former Supervisor was in much agreement with him. The neighborhood doesn't tend to get together and either possibly form an association. or if we have to petition everything down the road again, to try to convince the Town to go to Mr. Diefil and buy this land for a park. We just do not want this thing. There's no hard feelings towards Mr. Diehl. We want no more over there. MR. TURNER-Okay. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Mr. Mathias. we have some questions I think. Did you do a market survey. as to how salable these lots are? MR. MATHIAS-No. MR. TURNER-No. MR. MATHIAS-And the reason for that's pretty simple. A Market Survey's a fairly expensive proposition. If this isn't going to fly, you know, and I guess if I said they were going to sell like hotcakes, would everybody in this room be happy? I don't think so. MRS. QUINN-You'd be lying. MR. MATHIAS-Just another thing. If there are individual homes within Queen Victoria's Grant that abut the northern property line of this pro j ect, then our survey was incorrect and the Town of Queensbury Tax Map. What they indicate is the Homeowners Association is the landowner of the property that directly adjoins our northern boundary. MRS. QUINN-And we own that property. We own our property. MR. MATHIAS-Right. but the impression was they were individual homes that abut it, and at least it's not shown on the Tax Map. MRS.KAYE-Plus the mandatory Association. We all own the common land. and we individually own each parcel. MR. MATHIAS-I don't see it, it's not a big deal. The other thing, simply, is these, the impression was given that these are going to be somehow left to be abandoned. That's not the case. They're going to get built on. They're going to have foundations. There's not going to be skirts, and if you've seen double wide. modular, in this area, you'll see what they look like. They're not for rental. They're for ownership. and we wouldn't anticipate a homeowner purchasing and making that type of outlay and then abandoning the property. any more than any other homeowner would. MR. TURNER-Any other questions of Mr. Mathias? MRS. EGGLESTON-Well. I'd like to clarify. I asked these people if these lots would abut their backyard. and they told me yes. Are we now saying there's an open common space between your backyard and the backyard of this? MRS. LAWSON-The 200 homeowners individually own their own parcel of land. Each of them is approximately 90 by 120 feet. In the backs of each home. - 38 - MRS. EGGLESTON-Between this project and your back yards? MRS. LAWSON-Correct. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay, between that. MRS. LAWSON-Between this and our back yards. namely the Lawson's back yard in particular, because this is a direct abutment to this development. there was approximately 150 feet or so behind which there were motorcycle trails that kids were going on, on Wintergreen and the surrounding areas there. Lupine, Wintergreen, that back area there. Since then, the Homeowners, there has been a development in that section. so the bikes are not there any longer. They have moved over to this next development. There's still approximately, I would say 50 feet to 100 feet of what we call common area which the 200 homeowners own together. It is our land. MRS. EGGLESTON-That's wooded. MRS. LAWSON-Correct, trails and wooded. with leachfields in it, and there's a sand catchbasin for water at the back area. and the Association owns it commonly. and then 100 feet of it we own individually. MRS. EGGLESTON-Thank you. MR. TURNER-I closed the public hearing. MRS. EGGLESTON-Who wants to speak? MR. TURNER-All right. I'll open the public hearing just for a couple of more comments. Mike? PUBLIC HEARING REOPENED MIKE ELMORE MR. ELMORE-Just quickly on this. On several of these lots over there, I believe they're talking between somewhat like a 30 foot setback from the back of the lot. at that point, you are going to be able to see these homes. being a former partial owner, they're going to look up there and see these mobile homes. or double wides or whatever they are. MR. TURNER-Yes. CAROL ELMORE MRS. ELMORE-I'm Carol Elmore. I live on Howard Street. You keep talking about. that these homes are going to be bought. They're not going to be rented. and as a homeowner, I like the idea that on my land I can put a garage, put a shed up, or extend my building say if I want an extra bedroom or whatever. If you allow this to go in under an acre of land, and these people are homeowners, where are they going to put their additions? And if they have a mobile home, or they have a modular, there's very likely they'll want to put a garage in, or they'll want to put another bedroom on if they had a baby. or whatever. So where is the allowance going to be. if you let them go in under an acre of land? MR. TURNER-Yes. We had one similar situation, one on the Corinth Road, Inspiration Park. Those lots are 100 by 100. and due to an error by the engineers. one of them had to come and get a variance for a garage, but that's the only one, but still 100 by 100 lot is mighty small. Not everybody can afford a 100 by 100 lot. Not everybody can afford a $55.000 double wide with a lot. MRS. ELMORE-Double wides run about $24,000 to $29,000. - 39 - '- MR. TURNER-Is that with furniture. or unfurnished? MRS. ELMORE-The one that I looked at was $24,000 furnished. MR. TURNER-Furnished. Okay. Any further comments? Last time. Okay. Public hearing's closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. KARPELES-I've got a question. When did this original proposal go before the Planning Board? It's dated 1992, a 10 acre subdivision. Do you know when in 1992? MR. MATHIAS-I would say in May of '92. MR. KARPELES-So about a year ago. from when you changed your mind, to this year. MR. MATHIAS-My client changed his mind. MR. TURNER-Well, this letter was delivered in April, April 29th, 1992. So he's right. It's about May, and here's the resolution that was approved. MRS. EGGLESTON-July of '92. MR. TURNER-July of '92. MRS. EGGLESTON-It received Planning Board approval in July of '92. according to Wilson. MR. TURNER-Any questions? Any discussion? CORRESPONDENCE MRS. EGGLESTON-This is from John and Francis McGinnis. "We are owners of a home in Queensbury which we rent out. I would like to express my vote to you at this time. We disapprove of this addi tional variance for Charles A. Diehl. as we think it is overdeveloping and will devaluate the surrounding properties." And a letter from Marie C. Huba. 12 Queen Anne Court. "Please be advised that I will be working and cannot attend the Mr. Charles Diehl public hearing on June 2nd, 1993. Thank you for informing me of this event. When I purchased my home in 1990, I was informed that no new construction would take place in back of my property. Needless to say. this was reassuring to me, as the privacy of the woods in the backyard was a strong selling point on my choice to purchase my home. I wish I was able to attend the hearing. to learn the reason why Mr. Diehl has chosen to alter his plans and build in the Queen Victoria's Grant development. Our properties on the street are so close together, I cannot imagine construction in the back of my home." And that's it. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any discussion? MR. CARVIN-I feel very strongly with the folks that are opposed to this particular application. I guess the whole area of mobile homes, trailers. modular homes, homes of that caliber is a very sensitive one. I guess, I made a couple of notes here. One lady indicated that mobile homes are not purchased by choice, and I kind of agree with that. I think mobile homes, if a person had a choice between a mobile home and a stick built. or, most of them would go with the stick built. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-I also have a real problem with the mobile home overlays. In the West Glens Falls. or West Queensbury. I'm not throwing stones at any folks that live in that area. because I live in that area. - 40 - - MRS. EGGLESTON-So do I. MR. CARVIN-But it always seems that. out of the five areas that we have, I know three of them are in that area. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. CARVIN-So, I am pretty adamant about easing restrictions on mobile homes. I'll go on the record right there. I feel that we have a situation that affordable housing was probably kicked around 20, 25 years ago in the West Glens Falls area. and we are dealing with those situations, it seems like every month. where we've got little lots where people want to expand, and I think by granting a variance like this, that we're just creating a landmine. that will probably explode in 10 or 15 years, where the modular homes all of a sudden are now no longer desirable. We have maybe more affluent people moving in, and now you have them looking for larger and larger houses. and have an economic commitment to a very small plot of land. I'm just not sure that I want to see a whole lot more of affordable housing in this particular area. We have the Inspiration Point which is "affordable housing". The Town Board is currently dealing with, I guess. Hudson Point, which I believe is affordable housing. MRS. EGGLESTON-No. no. MR. TURNER-A Planned Unit Development, PUD. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Mr. Diehl has his affordable housing, but it just seems that, I'm not quite sure, you know, affordable housing, another person out there indicated that a lot of the blue collar folks. and again, not a derogatory term, already have homes. So what does that mean? That means that if you've got "affordable housing", you're going to be importing folks from other areas, and I'm not quite sure that those are sometimes the folks that you want moving into an area, because it does have a direct impact on crime and so forth. So. as I said. I have a real hard time with this particular application. MISS HAUSER-I'm just concerned about the septic situation there, and also. as Mrs. Elmore pointed out, if they do want to add garages or sheds wherever. there's not going to be any place on those small lots to put them. MR. TURNER-They're going to have to build them, associated with the double wide, or right up close to them, and if they're an independent garage. they've got to be 10 feet from the residence anyway. MR. KARPELES-I guess I just have trouble finding any reason why we should approve this. MRS. EGGLESTON-I think probably that's it, in a nutshell. MR. TURNER-Well, I agree Mr. Diehl has the right to change his mind. but I think Mr. Diehl went in there and went through the subdivisions and knew that the six plus acres could not be subdivided, although it's not in the motion, and it's not hypothetical. it's written right out. that he couldn't subdivide it and not have any further construction on it. So I think, again, this is self-imposed. and I'm against it. So, I'll call for a motion. MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 33-1993 CHARLES A. DIEHL, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption. seconded by Joyce Eggleston: That by granting this variance, there would be an undesirable change in the neighborhood, and that the practical difficulty is self-created. Also. by granting this variance, it would appear to - 41 - be in direct conflict with the intent of the Planning Board's resolution allowing Mr. Diehl to utilize the Town's clustering provisions, and their understanding that this lot would remain open space. There would also be an adverse effect on public facilities. to the degree that the increased density would place on all services, i.e. water, solid waste removal, traffic. etc.. and at this point the applicant has not shown a sufficient need for additional affordable housing in this area. and with the overwhelming public opposition to this variance. it would not be in the best interest to grant it. I. therefore, move for its denial. Duly adopted this 2nd day of June, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carvin. Mrs. Eggleston, Miss Hauser. Mr. Thomas, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Philo MOTION TO REMOVE FROM THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES. BECAUSE THE G0 DAY TIME LIMIT HAS EXPIRED FOR FURTHER ACTION, Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: They are: Area Variance No. 26-1992, Michael DiPalma; Area Variance No. 59-1992, James Girard; Area Variance No. 12-1992, DEBARON Associates; Area Variance No. 48-1992. Karen Johns; Area Variance No. 99-1992, Philip Vachula. Duly adopted this 2nd day of June. 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles. Mr. Carvin. Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Miss Hauser ABSENT: Mr. Philo On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Theodore Turner, Chairman - 42 -