Loading...
1993-08-25 -~ aUEENSBURV ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 0 R I G I N A l FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 25, 1993 INDEX Determination request by Planning Board on Section 179-&3A 1- Area Variance No. &9-1993 Charles Graves, Jr. 11- Area Variance No. 70-1993 Robert L. Harris 12. Area Variance No. 71-1993 Lucas S. Wilson 17. Sign Variance No. 72-1993 Howard Carr 33. Area Variance No. 73-1993 Gordon & Ida Robertson 50. Area Variance No. 74-1993 Curtis Lumber Co. , Inc. 52. Area Variance No. 75-1993 James R. Doyle &2. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEARJ ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SU~H APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. OUEENSBURV ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FI RST REGlLAR MEETING AUGUST 25, 1993 7:30 P. M. MEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN JOYCE EGGLESTON, SECRETARY CHRIS THOMAS FRED CARVIN ROBERT KARPELES LINDA HAUSER MEMBERS ABSENT THOMAS PHILO EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN PLANNER~N CIPPERLY STENDBRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TURNER-The first order of business that we have to contend with right now is approval of some minutes. CORRECTION OF MINUTES April 28th, 1993: Page 2, two sentences up, the second Mr. Rourke up from the bottom, I had the drafts.an hook that up, sIb look that up; Page 4, middle of the page, Mr. Carvin, I was going to say, would roof sIb eaves help that situation; Page 6, very first paragraph, fourth line up from the bottom, he proposes is in conformance and fits in sIb keeping, with the character of the neighborhood; Page 37, second Mr. Philo paragraph from the bottom, well, they should have "set", instead of the word "sent", the whole thing back 50 feet from that deck; Page 28, Mr. Shaunnessy says, well, the where you're looking at it, it sIb the way; Page 53, Mr. Steves, in the middle of the page, sIb I guess I hedged a little bit, instead of I guess a hedge a little bit; Page 59, middle of the page, Mrs. Eggleston, if it was sIb passed the way it is, not past; Page 36, up from the bottom, Mr. Carvin, the sentence is, well, when I went down there, it was quite late, and there ~ people out, not was; Page 38, Mr. Carvin, from the top, I don't know how I would have voted if it had come as a, sIb pure, not pier play; Page 47, O'toole's, during the motion it says, arrant automobiles, sIb errant automobiles; sIb would be as soon as possible MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES Œ APRIL 28TH.. 1993 Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for seconded by Fred Carvin: AS CORRECTED, its adopt ion, Duly adopted this 25th day of August, vot e: 1993, by the following AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Miss Hauser ABSENT: Mr. Philo May 19th, 1993: Page 4, top, it says, Mr. Turner, the business is in there illegally, really, Mr. Carvin, yes, it really is, technically, Mr. Philo, Mr. Thomas is right on that. I think it sIb Mr. Turner; Page 9, the long state.ent by Mr. Gregory in the - 1 - Middle of the page, he has, but, in the very last sentence, due to physical probleMs, the typing is do sIb due; Page 5, from the bottom, Mr. Carvin, the sentence, as it stands, is they could, the carpet store yes, the words "have a" sIb inserted there; Page 40, from the bottom, second Mr. Denison, Mr. Shovah knows ewactly what the, and there is nothing there; Page 52, about the middle, it says, Mr. Barnes, not right now, and then it has Mr. Turner, and then Mr. Turner again. I don't know who, there's something else there, sIb Mr. Barnes; MOTION TO APPROVE TIE MINUTES OF TI£ flEETING MAV CORRECTED, Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: 19TH, 1993 moved for AS its Duly adopted this 25th day of August, vot e: 1993, by the following AVES: Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston, Miss Hauser, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Philo June 2nd, 1993: Page 23, the Mrs. Eggleston in page, why can't you do it sooner than that, I sIb you're intent, instead of you intent; Eggleston, middle of the page, but that is what it is to say, insert the word, "yes" or no; the middle of the lIean, if that's, Page 26, Mrs. these Boards for, MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF Introduced by Joyce Eggleston, seconded by Fred Carvin: .YUlE 2ND. 1993 who moved for AS CORRECTED, its adoption, Duly adopted this 25th day of August, vot e: 1993, by the following AVES: Miss Hauser, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Philo June 16th, 1993: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF .YUlE Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who seconded by Fred Carvin: 16TH, 1993 moved for AS SUBMITTED, its adopt ion, Duly adopted this 25th day of August, vot e: 1993, by the following AVES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston, Miss Hauser, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Philo MR. TURNER-We're going to change the agenda just a little bit. We're going to take the last item, where it says any further business that may cOile before the Board, and that's an Interpretation regarding the classification of Farm Use in Section 179-63A(3) Class C. TIE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR FOR Tt£ TOWN OF QUEENSBURV IS REQUESTING A DETERMINATION BV THE TOWN OF OlEENSBURV ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGARDING SECTION 179-63A FARM CLASSIFICATIONS - SUBSECTION (3), CLASS C CAGRIClL TURAL) . - 2 - MRS. EGGLESTON-The Town Planning Board, at their July 20th, 1993 meeting, made a motion to request the Zoning Board of Appeals to make a determination pertaining to Section Number 179-63A, Farm Classifications, Subsection (3), Class (Agriculture>. The Planning Board specifically wants to know if said section's required five plus acres allows a single family home, and if any of the permitted types of agricultural production require a specific minimum area for said production. MR. TURNER-Timmy, do you have anything to say? This is in reference to Site Plan No. 35-93, Type: Unlisted, George & Catherine Ryan, Tax Map No. 27-1-28.1, Lot Size: 5.06 acre. GEORGE RYAN MR. RYAN-The acreage is wrong already. Right across the street I lease 25 acres. Down the road I've got another 17. MRS. EGGLESTON-Jim, this enlighten us some, because to a particular case. letter was from you. we weren't given that this Could you pertained MR. MARTIN-Yes. It's not meant to pertain to a particular case, necessarily. It came up as a result of a site plan review of Mr. Ryan, here, but it's meant to supply me, as Zoning Administrator, with guidance in future interpretations of this particular section of the Code, and it came down to a discussion among the Planning Board members, and, Tim, feel free to jump in, say, for example, in the case of a five acre lot, there's mixed uses present, maybe an acre or so or a half acre is taken up with a retail use or a parking lot, and you have a residential use also present, or something like that, is it just the three acres that are used for the farming, and there's two acres maybe taken up with a co.mercial activity, or is it the entire five acres, given that that is the size of the parcel. So, is it just that acreage that is, in fact, used for the farming, like in maybe a case where you have five acres and three acres is used for the actual tilling of the ground and that type of thing, or is it the whole entire parcel, when retail is also present on the site, a retail activity, if you have impermeable area with a parking lot and so on. Is that pretty much? TIMOTHY BREWER MR. BREWER-Pretty much. I guess, like you said, the number of activities on the land, in other words, if you had a commercial business here, and you wanted a farm classification over here to do something that is by the Ordinance okay to farm, but does he, the classification that he has, I think a C Class is more than fi ve acres but less than 10, or somethi ng to that effect. I guess we're confused with that. Does he have to have five acres to farm? The house, necessari 1 y, is not a probl em. It's the co.mercial activity. The commercial activity is what was in question. If he has five acres, and he's classified as a farm, can he have a commercial business, or does he need that whole five acres to farm, I guess is the question. MR. TURNER-Yes, but what came first, the chicken or the egg? The commercial business came first, right? MR. RYAN-The taxes are commercial. taxes. They don't have any farm MR. TURNER-George, you're out of order. MR. BREWER-I guess it doesn't make any difference, Ted. I guess it doesn't make any difference, Ted. I guess what we're saying is, if the land is being used for a farm, can he then come in and use that land for a commercial business, or if he has a commercial business, can he come in and use that classification - 3 for a farm? Because the different classifications allow him to use the land differently. That's where the confusion came into play. MR. sizes thell class MARTIN-And the Regulation of the property, and in into one class of farm of farm or another. is really, it cites thresholds of most cases it's five acres trips or another, or a person into one MR. RYAN-Can I say one thing? The problem is I've got a suburban residential pig farm. MR. TURNER-George, would you wait a minute, please? I'll let you speak, in due time. Class C Agriculture, any class of land in excess of five acres, used for the production of agricultural products, and especially fresh fruits and vegetables, as distinguished from grain and other staples for commercial purposes. All right. The way I read it, that he has to have the five acres for the farm, and the farm, the Definition of Farm is any parcel of land used for agricultural or silverculture use, including any structure, building, or residence which is incidental to the permitted use. The commercial aspect came first, the farm came second. You have to subtract the commercial use from the farll, from the acreage for the farm. You've got two di fferent uses. MR. KARPELES-Can you go over that again, I'm not with you. MR. TURNER-Well, he came for a site plan back in '88, referenced Class E Farms. and it MR. RYAN-It's a pig farm. greenhouse 25 by 72. It's a building, 40 by 50, a MR. TURNER-George, would you please wait a minute so we can get this discussion ended, and then we'll go over that. MR. RYAN-We've got to separate the grapes from the peaches. MR. TURNER-We've got to separate the commercial from the farm. MR. KARPELES-Well, it says as far as farm animals. another section on farm animals. So there's MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KARPELES-It says, farm animals such as cattle raised in feed lots are only allowed on farms in excess of 25 acres. MR. TURNER-Yes, but what he's got, he's just got a little over five acres. Now, out of the five acres, he's got a piece cut out for his commercial business. What I'm saying is, if he's got a commercial establishment there first, or whatever, that comes out of the acreage for the farm. You've got to have five acres for a farm. MRS. EGGLESTQN-Isn't there sOllewhat of a gap here, like what happens to up to, this is in excess of five acres. What happens under the five acres? MR. BREWER-I think then it becomes a different classification, but the classification we're talking about is, I think, a C. MR. TURNER-We're talking about C Classification. George, you're selling propane there. You're selling peaches there. MR. RYAN-I'm selling apples, Snapple. MR. TURNER-All ri ght. Wai tam i nut e. importing all the products, correct? All right, you're - 4 - MR. RYAN-Not all of them, but a lot of them. MR. TURNER-Well, the biggest majority of them, okay? MR. RYAN-Yes. MR. TURNER-Agricultural use says you have to grow them on the land, on the site. MR. RYAN-Well, I got a site plan review in 1988. MR. TURNER-We're not talking about that right now. We're just talking about some definitions. The definition of agricultural use says you have to grow them on site. MR. RYAN-1988, Suttons was selling produce, too, and they told me, they said, George, you go home and you do what you're doing. The people no longer work for the Town, and nobody really respects what they said. Now it's a new time and era. That shouldn't take away what they gave me permission for. I've got, right here, certificates of compliances. MR. TURNER-We're not taking anything away from you at this point. We're just trying to correct some definitions, okay, as it applies to your piece of land. That's it. MR. RYAN-Well, the only problem I see over there, okay, is that there's not enough land for the pigs. I'll put a silo in, so I've got a feed lot. Then I'll come down and get a permit to put a silo in. Then we don't have to worry about putting the animals out anywhere, because I can feed them right out of the silo. I'll go to 30 by 60. I'll put it up tomorrow if I have to. I mean, I've been going through hell with this stuff here. MR. THOMAS-Is this agriculture, or is this? MR. TURNER-It's an SR zone. He lives in an SR zone. business. It's not a MR. RYAN-Before this lady came here, our new Assessor, we had a guy named Howard LaRose. He said to me, you've got, there's no such thing as farm in this Town, and you're going to pay Highway Commercial taHes, and I've paid them ever since. My family gets bigger, my taHes go up, and I've got to get bigger, or I'm going to go down, right? It's a simple thing. That's my livelihood. MR. THOMAS-Is this a Class B or a Class C? Is it animal or is it agriculture? MR. RYAN-Yes. I've got a couple of animals. MR. MARTIN-I want to keep the focus on, what we were trying to determine was the amount of the acreage needed. Do you need five acres of actual farm land to be a five acre farm, or is it, if he has a five acre lot, with three acres of that tilled, does that make him a Class C farm? MR. RYAN-That's actually what I have, right over the road, I lease 25 acres. more. but across Down Bay the street, Road I have MR. TURNER-You lease them, but you don't own them. MR. RYAN-I don't own them. MR. TURNER-You own this one, right? MR. RYAN-Yes. MR. TURNER-That's the difference. - 5 MR. RYAN-I lease a lot of others. MR. MARTIN-I don't want to get this off on a tangent. The question was, does that amount of acreage, as a whole parcel, have to be tilled to classify as a, you know, meet the threshold for that farm? MRS. EGGLESTON-Ted, is he classified a farm or not? MR. TURNER-Are you classified as a farm on your ta~es? MR. RYAN-No. Farm and Garden Center. MR. MARTIN-The Planning Board did classify him as a Farm, in the 1988 Site Plan Review he got. Class C & D MR. RYAN-But then the Assessor came, I went to him. get a break, because the ta~es kept going up. Grievance Day. I wanted to I went to MR. MARTIN-You're classified now as a Garden Center, your ta~es? MR. RYAN-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Garden Center. MR. RYAN-If you ask me, in black and white, what I have legally, it's a suburban residential pig farm. The law states, somebody has to look at it, and you can't say it's a smelly pig place, because it's a farm. MR. TURNER-Look acre, whatever, a Class C Farm. it. You've got fi ve acres. You take out that leaves you with four. He doesn't qualify an as MR. CARVIN-Okay, but if thi s is a commercial use, e~panding? What was it originally? is it MR. TURNER-Commercial. It started out as a commercial use. MRS. EGGLESTON-It was originally a residence. residence. It started as a MR. MARTIN-Well, the other thing I want you to try and bear in mind, too, is this should not necessarily be linked to an individual case. It's meant to be an interpretation of the Ordinance, to be universally applied. MR. CARVIN-You see, my feeling on this is that they're trying to tell us what a Farm Classification is. In other words, and that they've given us four different categories. MR. MARTIN-That's why the amount of acreage is critical. Is it that area that's noncommercial that is classified as the farm, or is it the entire lot? MR. CARVIN-Well, again, I'm going to come back, is he running a business, or is he running a farm? I mean, I think there is a distinction there. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. RYAN-My name is George Ryan. I came to the Town and I put the greenhouse up. The first year I get the greenhouse up, it was e~pensive to heat. I came down to the Town to talk with the Town Planner and told her I'd like to sell propane, and she said, I'm going to check into it and get back to you. Over a two week period, she got back to me, and they gave me permission to sell the propane. So now the propane is cheaper for my greenhouse, because instead of buying 2,000 gallons a year, I buy 8,000 - 6 - gallons a year. I've got a permit for it. legal. The Fire Marshal came and inspected it, don't see anything I'm doing wrong over there. that zone. I've done it all the wh ole bit. I I shouldn't be in MR. TURNER-George, your income is derived from the business that encompasses the greenhouse and the propane, and the sale of agricultural products. MR. RYAN-Yes. MR. TURNER-How much did you carve out of the five acres for the greenhouse and the business? MR. RYAN-Well, I call the house as my farm. MR. TURNER-Forget the house. How much did you carve out for the greenhouse and the other amenities to support your business? MR. RYAN-Four acres, at least. pumpk ins. I even planted, next to my house, MR. MARTIN-No, George. I think he's asking how much of the lot consists of your business? MR. TURNER-How much of the lot is utilized for your business, your commercial business? MR. RYAN-Well, my garage is filled with fertilizer now, want to go look at it. I can't get my car fit my car I've got some bird feed I sell. I've got birdfeeders. put a building up. I can't use my garage. if you in it. I can't MR. TURNER-All right, but I'm getting back have a commercial business in an SR zone. that. to the point. You You weren't allowed MR. RYAN-Here I am, pal. MR. TURNER-I know, there you are, weren't allowed that, really. but I'm just saying, you MR. RYAN-I know it, but what do you want me to do? MR. TURNER-All I'm saying is, we've got to subtract something from something here. You can't have your cake and eat it too. MR. RYAN-You're 100 percent right. When you guys find a classification for me, I'm going to be relieved. It's going to put me in the right direction. Right now, I don't know if I'd go up or down. MR. TURNER-Well, all right. Let us see what we can resolve. What I'm saying is, if you have a farm, you need five acres of land to have a farm, for that Classification. MRS. EGGLESTON-Because this says, any parcel of land in excess of five. That's where you're coming up with the five? MR. TURNER-Yes, because I'm taking away for the business he already has there by site plan review. He's got a commercial business there, a retail business. So you've got to subtract that from the farm, the acreage. MR. RYAN-I feel that farming is commercial, the kind of farming I do is commercial. I sell a ton of tomatoes a week, at least. MR. TURNER-What are you taxed for on the tax roll? You said this was? - 7 - MR. RYAN-A Farm and Garden Center. MR. TURNER-No, no. How much acreage? MR. RYAN-Five point six. If I didn't have over five acres, I would have never been able to get this truck farm in. I made it by the six tenths that I have. It wasn't an easy thing. The neighbors opposed me. The people at the time on the Planning Board, it was a different time and era. They sat down with me, and they actually went over with. They didn't restrict me on anything. They didn't tell me I couldn't buy vegetables or sell the vegetables or do this. They wished me good luck. MR. CARVIN-I don't see where mean, it's a definition of specific case. we have to subtract anything. a Farm, Ted. I mean, th is is I a MR. TURNER-Yes, but he has a commercial retail business there. You have to take that from the farm. MR. CARVIN-I'm assuming that's approved. commercial? That's an approved MR. TURNER-No. MR. CARVIN-Well, then that's where the problem is. MR. TURNER-I know that's where the problem is. MR. CARVIN-Well, then the definition of a farm is the definition of a farm. If he's running it commercial, then he's running it in violation. So it should come for a variance, is my feeling. MR. TURNER-What I'm saying is, if you go there first, and you say, I'm going to take two acres out of five acres, and I'm going to put in. MR. MARTIN-Here's 149, right here, and he's got basically a rectangular shaped lot. His house sits over here, and the driveway comes in, and then here he's got a parking lot, a retail stand. MR. CARVIN-Which is continuing to grow, is that correct? In other words, that's not the same stand as it was a year ago or two ago? MRS. EGGLESTON-It keeps getting bigger and bigger, and larger and larger. MR. MARTIN-Anyhow, it's there, and that's what he sells out of. MR. KARPELES-This whole thing is 5.& acres. MR. MARTIN-And his greenhouse is coming off the side, and the Planning Board thought, well, if this area, like, you could say it's his commercial area, is then the rest just for farm? That's what they were trying to, or is the whole thing a farm? MR. CARVIN-Well, I don't think we can, my feeling is we can't tackle that in the definition of a farm. MR. TURNER-I can, because that's a commercial retail operation. acreage for the farm. a commercial operation. That's That has to come out of the MR. CARVIN-But that's not an approved. MR. TURNER-Yes, but the question is, that has to be subtracted from this. He's got 5.& acres, right? If he's got an acre here, that has to be subtracted from that. - 8 - ~ MR. CARVIN-I would agree with you, that was an approved situation. rest of it as a farm. if that was the issue of, if Then he couldn't classify the MR. TURNER-That's what they're asking. MR. CARVIN-Yes, but what I'm saying is that it's not an approved sit uat i on. In other words, I don't th ink we have. MR. TURNER-Well, he's there by site plan review now. MR. MARTIN-He got approved as a Class C and D Farm. MR. TURNER-He got approved as a Class C and D Farm, in '88. MR. MARTIN-But he's on the record as saying, in '88, no animals. MR. TURNER-No animals. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. So the answer to this question, then, cut and dried, Fred, would be, if they had a commercial venture, it would have to come out of that five acres first. Take this case out of the thi ng. Just think of it of anybody. Does th is sentence mean that? MR. CARVIN-Okay, but let me kind of approach it from this aspect. Suppose I had five acres of land that I raised corn on, okay. E~actly five acres. Okay. Now I built a stand, to sell my corn, and that stand was an acre. MR. TURNER-All right, wait a minute now. If the stand is in a residential zone, you could have a stand up to 100 square feet, period. MR. CARVIN-Okay, anymore? but does that mean that I don't have a farm MR. TURNER-No. That means you have a farm, but what I'm saying is, this operation is totally different because he sells propane and he sells other stuff. MR. CARVIN-I agree. In other words, what we went through with the Martinda~es was that they had to raise it there, right? What I'm saying is, once he doesn't raise it, I mean, if I raise my corn on the property and sell it out of my little shack, I agree, but now if I start importing tomatoes, now I've become a commercial venture. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. I agree with that. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Now, does that mean that all of a sudden, because I've started importing the tomatoes, that my shop now knocks my farm classification out? MR. TURNER-Yes, That's what I'm there. because say i ng. you have a commercial business then. He has a commercial retail business MR. CARVIN-Okay, and what I'm saying is, then the commercial business has to come back for approval. Well, again, the definition is, if it was for commercial, for commercial purposes, in other words, if he's raising pigs and he's raising corn for commercial purposes there, then he needs five acres. I'm just saying, that's the definition, but he's in violation of that definition, as far as I'm concerned. MR. TURNER-I'm saying you've got to have five acres for the farm, period. MRS. EGGLESTON-According to this. - 9 --- MR. CARVIN-Yes, but I think what you're doing is, and I agree with you. If he came back and lopped out the commercial, said, okay, I want one acre of commercial, then that would knock down the five acre business. MRS. EGGLESTON-So the answer to this is, in order to qualify for a Class C Agriculture, and come under this number, you would have to have five acres, dedicated to the use of the production of agricultural products. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-That's the answer to their question. That were grown on the premises. That's the answer to their question. MR. CARVIN-And if it's not grown on it, venture, and that could be, and it falls cat egory. then it's a commercial over into a different MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. I think we're in agreement of that. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. TURNER-Okay, George. Let me open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MIKE O'CONNOR MR. O'CONNOR-I'd like to comment. I'm Mike O'Connor, for the purpose of your record. I'm here often, and I think the question before you is more generic, and I think they have a problem with the Ordinance. If you look at the actual zone, Suburban Residential zone, under site plan review, a permitted use is farm all classes. The minimum lot size for that zone is one acre. I think you would have to read that that all farm, all classes, are permitted, even on the minimum lot size. I don't think you can insert something by looking at the supplement regulations, which in fact classify as farms. I think, getting into the question of construction of statutes, and where you have a conflict, you have to take the least restrictive construction, and you definitely have a conflict there, because under Suburban Residential, minimum lot size is one acre. I don't know how you interpret it di fferent I y. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, was it would go back tonight. I said that. to the zone. That was my initial thought That was my first comment MR. O'CONNOR-The question I think of Mr. Martin was, what is the minimum lot size for a farm in this particular zone, and I don't think that you can have a minimum lot size for the particular uses different than the minimum lot sizes for the zones. I also would think, and maybe I'm speaking more specifically of the application before you, it would be very hard for you to e~clude any part of that five acre parcel, if you actually look at the definition of agricultural, because he sells produce, or animals that he has, husbandry, on that parcel, and that sale is not e~clusive. Incidental sales of products grown on the site is not e~cluded from farms, neither is the residence, but that's a separate issue. I think you've got to look at the actual zone, what are the minimum lot sizes, and your question, that was put to you by the Planning Board, was, is there a minimum lot size for each particular use, and I don't think you can insert one. MR. TURNER-Anyone else wish to make a comment? PUBL IC HEARING CLOSED - 10 - MR. TURNER-All right. What do you want to do? Lets do what you said, Joyce. MRS. EGGLESTON-Does he change our minds any? MR. TURNER-No. He didn't change my mind. the supplementary reg's, and the reg's acres, and he can have. We've got to i nt erpret at ion. When it says look in say that he has five make a motion on the MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. TURNER-Okay. We have a motion on the interpretation. MOTION THAT WE INTERPRET SECTION 179-63A NUMBER 3 CLASS C AGRICLL TURE TO MEAN THAT AN APPLICANT MUST HAVE IN EXCESS OF FIVE ACRES USED FOR Tt£ PRODUCTION OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS. AND ESPECIALLY FRESH FRUITS AND VEGETABLES. AS DISTINGUISt£D FROM GRAIN AND OTt£R STAPLES. FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES. IN ORDER TO MEET Tt£ DEFINITION OF CLASS C AGR I CLL TURAL USE FARM CLASSIFICATION. Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: Duly adopted this 25th day of August, 1993, by the following vot e: AYES: Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston, Miss Hauser, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Philo NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 69-1993 TYPE I WR-1A CHARLES GRAVES, JR. OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING ONE (1) STORY, SIX HUNDRED AND FORTY-FOUR (644) SQUARE FOOT SEASONAL DWELLING AND CONSTRUCT A TWO (2) STORY, FIFTEEN H.JNDRED AND SIXTY-FOUR U,564) SQUARE FOOT YEAR ROUND SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND IS SEEKING RELIEF OF FIVE HUNDRED AND NINETY- EIGHT (598) SQUARE FEET FROM SECTION 179-79A (2), NONCONFORMING USES AND STRUCTURES, WHICH STATES THAT NO ENLARGEMENT OR REBUILDING SHALL EXCEED AN AGGREGATE OF FIFTY (58) PERCENT OF THE GROSS FLOOR AREA OF SUCH SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. APPLICANT IS PROPOSING FOURTEEN HUNDREDTHS (.14) ACRE FOR Tt£ LOT AREA AND IS SEEKING EIGHTY-SIX HUNDREDTHS (.86) ACRE RELIEF FROM SECTION 179- 16C, WHICH REQUIRES ONE (1) ACRE AS THE MINIMUM LOT AREA IN THE WATERFRONT 1 ACRE ZONE (WR-1A). APPLICANT IS PROPOSING FORTY-ONE (41) FEET AVERAGE FOR THE LOT WIDTH AND IS SEEKING RELIEF OF ONE HUNDRED AND NINE (04) FEET AVERAGE FROM SECTION 179-16C WHICH REaUIRES ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY (58) FEET FOR THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH IN THE WR-1A ZONE. APPLICANT IS PROPOSING THIRTY-FIVE (35) FEET FOR Tt£ SHORELINE SETBACK AND IS SEEK ING FORTY (40) FEET RELIEF FROM SECTION 179-60B(1) (c), WHICH STATES THAT THE MINIMUM SETBACK FROM THE MEAN HIGH-WATER MARK OF ALL PRINCIPAL BUILDINGS AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES SHALL BE SEVENTY-FIVE (75) FEET. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) DATE: 8/18/93 TAX MAP NUMBER: 43-2-5 LOT SIZE: .14 ACRES SECTIONS 179-79A(2), 179-16C, 179-60B(1) (c) SEaRA REVIEW BY PLANNING BOARD FOR SEPTEMBER 1993 MOTION TO SEND AREA VARIANCE NO. 69-1993 THE PLANNING BOARD AND MAKE THEM LEAD REVIEW, Introduced by Theodore Turner who seconded by Chris Thomas: CHARLES GRAVES, JR. TO AGENCY FOR THE SEaRA moved for its adoption, Duly adopted this 25th day of August, 1993, by the followinghv ot e : AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston, Miss Hauser, - 11 - Mr. Thomas, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Philo AREA VARIANCE NO. 70-1993 TYPE II WR-IA ROBERT L. HARRIS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE SULLIVAN PLACE, GLEN LAKE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO REDUCE THE WEST SIDE OF AN EXISTING DECK AND REPLACE WITH A HOT TUB, EXPAND THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE EXISTING DECK BY APPROXIMATELY TWENTY-TWO (22) SQUARE FEET, AND EXPAND THE EAST SIDE OF THE EXISTING DECK WITH AN APPROXIMATELY TWO HUNDRED AND SEVENTY-FIVE (275) SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO SAID DECK. APPLICANT IS PROPOSING THREE AND ONE HALF (3.5) FEET FOR THE REAR YARD SETBACK AND IS SEEKING SIXTEEN AND ONE HALF (16.5) FEET RELIEF FRDM SECTION 179-16C WHICH REQUIRES TWENTY (20) FEET FOR THE REAR YARD SETBACK IN A WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL 1 ACRE ZONE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) DATE: S/IS/93 TAX MAP NUMBER: 3S-2-7 LOT SIZE: IS,000 SQUARE FEET SECTION 179-16C ROBERT HARRIS, PRESENT MRS. EGGLESTON-And the Warren County Planning Board returned "No County Impact". STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 70-1993, Robert L. Harris, Meeting Date: August 25, 1993 "ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: Sullivan Place, Glen Lake SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to reduce the west side of an existing deck and replace it with a hot tub, expand the south side of the existing deck by approximately twenty-two (22) square feet, and expand the east side of the existing deck with an approximately two hundred and seventy-five (275) square foot addition. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: 1. Applicant is proposing three and five tenths (3.5) feet as the rear yard setback and is seeking sixteen and five tenths (16.5) feet relief from Section 179-16C, which requires twenty (20) feet for the rear yard setback. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. DESCRIBE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW THE PLACEMENT OF A STRUCTURE WHICH MEETS ZONING REQUIREMENTS. The practical difficulty arises from the fact that the existing deck is only five and five tenths (5.5) feet from the rear yard and the proposed project, as designed, will intrude into the rear yard setback two (2) more feet. 2. 15 THIS THE MINIMUM YARIANCE NECESSARY TO ALLEVIATE THE SPECIFIED PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY DR IS THERE ANY OTHER OPTION WHICH WOULD REQUIRE NO YARIANCE? It would appear that the relief requested is the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the specific difficulty, (which according to the applicant is in part due to the requirements of installation of the hot tub), but applicant does not provide details of that requirement. 3. WOULD VARIANCE BE DETRIMENTAL TO OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE DISTRICT DR NEIGHBORHOOD? It would appear that the variance would not be detrimental to the neighborhood or district as the distance from the proposed deck, (not including the hot tub), will be approximately sixteen (16) feet from the west corner property line, which is seven and five tenths (7.5) feet further away than the existing setback of the deck from said corner and similarly that much further from the existing garage to the west and south of the applicant's property. Additionally, applicant is proposing shrubbery to be placed around the hot tub for privacy, which will screen the hot tub from the neighbor to the west and south. 4. WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF THE VARIANCE ON PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES? It would appear that the variance would not effect public facilities and services. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: Staff went on a site visit to the proposed project and believes that because the proposed expansion will be at the rear of the existing dwelling, which is placed in the southwest corner of the property and hidden from view of the road, that the impact to the neighborhood - 12 of the proposed project will not be apparent." MR. TURNER-Does anyone have any questions, at this point? There isn't much else he could do, really. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, he owns all the way to the corner, though. I was looking at that MR. TURNER-Yes, but look at that, it's way in the back. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, it is way in the back. The only was there was a garage right here, off this corner. I think that's a garage. MR. TURNER-Yes, it's right here. MRS. EGGLESTON-No, no. That's his garage. MR. TURNER-Yes, that's his garage, here. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, right over here was the other people's garage. MR. TURNER-Yes, right there. MRS. EGGLESTON-Is that little building right over your line from the hot tub, is that used just for a garage of your neighbors? There's a building right. MR. HARRIS-It's a garage and a workshop. MRS. EGGLESTON-A workshop? MR. TURNER-Tom's garage, is that what you're talking about? MR. HARRIS-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-The people on the right, just over this line right here. MR. TURNER-Yes, right there. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. TURNER-Any questions? Anything else? Okay. Let me open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-How wide is that hot tub going to be? MR. HARRIS-Approximately & feet 4 by 7 feet, if I remember right. MR. CARV IN-Okay. I guess I' m wonderi ng, you have an eight foot width deck now, and you'll be shortening that deck up by six, seven feet, and then you're going to be expanding it towards the house, why you couldn't keep that shorter section at the eight foot width, in other words, and still stay within the boundaries that you've got right now? Do you follow what I'm saying? If you'll come up here, I can show you. In other words, from all indications, it looks like you're going to have an overhang here of, I don't know, a foot, maybe 18 inches, rough 1 y, because I don't know what the dimensions are. I could not find anywhere what these dimensions are, but what I'm saying is, you have an eight foot deck here now, okay, and essentially you're going to be shortening it up by this much. So, in other words, if you ran - 13 this eight foot, and then started, you know, you could make your turn even more gradual, and you'd, this is where your big area is. You could actually maybe angle this in and pick up that extra space. In other words, you'd still be within compliance because you'd still within compliance because you've got a five and half foot setback now. In other words, you wouldn't have to have the extra setback. Now, if you wanted a little bit of a larger looking, you could angle your railing just out a little bit, in other words, put a slight degree on it, and it makes looks bigger and it's really not. MR. HARRIS-What this two foot extension does is allow for a panel, a control panel down at this end, the long end, and there's an entranceway here. MR. MARTIN-The other thing, Fred, is the setback is from the cantilevered section of the structure. So even if it is just the railing sticking out, that is. MR. CARVIN-Okay, well, even at a two foot. here, you say? So there's a panel in MR. HARRIS-There's operating controls for getting in. turned this way. a control panel all across here, and there's on this end. So this side is more suitable In fact, it's designed that way. If it was MR. CARVIN-Well, I'm not turning anything. In other words, I'm just saying, do it right here, just run your deck, in other words, because you're going to have an overhang, here, anyway, of a foot and a half. In other words, keep your, I'm not saying do anything with the hot tub. The hot tub stays the same. I'm just saying, you've got an eight foot deck now, all right. You're going to lop this off, right, because this is going out for the hot tub. So just leave this portion, and then you can pick up your extra space. I don't know. How far is this? This can't be more than, if you've got, I don't know what th is is. Is it 20 feet, is it? MR. HARRIS-Twenty by two feet and a half. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So you're going to lop off probably seven or eight feet. So you're going to take off about half, so what I'm saying is that this way you still maintain that five and a half foot length along this front edge, and as I said, I don't have a problem with this, because this is where your space is going to be, and you could angle it back, or even bring it up like so, in other words, pick up extra footage in here, and I don't see where you're giving up anything by keeping it at the eight foot length, the width here. MR. HARRIS-It's to make this more usable, and it's to allow a set in point to finish off the deck around here, if desired, or put shrubbery around it. MR. CARVIN-Well, again, the shrubbery still can go around there with no problem, see, because you're setting this back. In other words, if you take a look at your pictures, you've got an overhang here, as best I can determine. I don't know what it is, because there's no measurements. I'm reading this upside down. MR. HARRIS-There's a foot and a half left there. If I left the eight foot, just the eight foot deck, it would bring the control panel right out next to the edge of the deck, with no way to protect it. MR. TURNER-Does the control panel stand by itself? MR. HARRIS-It's part of. - 14 - MR. TURNER-It's part of the hot tub. MR. HARRIS-There's for drainage and so operating controls. a wooden door where you get to, underneath, on, and on top, on that end, are the actual MR. TURNER-Okay. So how much room does that actually take up there? How deep is it? MR. HARRIS-No. It's all flush with the. MR. TURNER-It's flush with the tub then? MR. HARRIS-Yes. MR. CARVIN-See, in other words, this is what I'm saying is this space right here. I mean, how wide is this? I mean, this has nothing to do with the functioning of the tub. In other words, what would happen if you brought it in flush to the tub, here? MR. HARRIS-It's a matter of aesthetics. I just wanted to finish off around here, make it look better, by having this room to work with, rather than to have it flush with an eight foot. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I'm just saying, but that's what you've got now. In other words, you've given up half of it for the hot tub, and you're going to be picking up your big space in here. MR. HARRIS-You'd have this space more usable. You'd be able to utilize this better. MR. CARVIN-Well, how much, I mean, this is going to be, what, maybe 10 feet? MR. HARRIS-About 10 feet. MRS. EGGLESTON-Are you going to be comfortable in a hot tub so close to this garage? Because that really is going to be, that garage is right on the line almost, I think, isn't it, this guy's garage? MR. HARRIS-He's, this is eight and a half foot, and this is six feet, from my corner post. What I'm do i ng is creat i ng more distance, but, he wrote a letter, by the way. MRS. EGGLESTON-There's none in the file. file. There's no letters in here. I just went through the MR. HARRIS-I have a copy of it. He has no objections. can submit it. We 11 , I MRS. EGGLESTON-If you want to submit it, we'll read it into the record. MR. HARRIS-It's a matter of utilizing the space just a little better, along with this, and also being able to finish this off. MR. CARVIN-Again, the finishing off here, as I said, it's just, you've cut it down. I mean, five and a half feet is pretty close ri ght there. MR. TURNER-How much room do you need from the edge of the hot tub to the house here? MR. HARRIS-About a foot and a half, stand up, six inch wide. MR. TURNER-There's a six inch flange on it, right, on top of the tub? So you're a foot and a half away from the house now, with the tub? - 15 - MR. HARRIS-It would be, if I had the room to work with it. MR. TURNER-All right. Motion's in order. Lets move it. Are you guys ready? MR. THOMAS-I have a question for your notes, you say that the hot for therapeutic reasons, and improvement. Do you plan on any going to be outside year round? Mr. Harris. In Number Two under tub is being purchased primarily not just for pleasure/home time to enclose this, or is it MR. HARRIS-Outside year round. MR. THOMAS-You don't plan on enclosing it, so it can be used year round? MR. HARRIS-I plan on using it year round. MR. THOMAS-Twenty below? MR. HARRIS-No, close to it. There would be about a two period in February, January, probably when it's not comfortable, but I do plan on using it year round. week too MR. TURNER-Okay. it, or what? What's the pleasure here? Do you want to move MR. CARVIN-I haven't heard a viable reason why it couldn't be eight foot. Would you agree to go to the eight foot on the deck? MR. HARRIS-If I have to. As I said, my neighbor has no objection to that area back there being used further. There's no real impact on visibility from either road. I would prefer to have the 10 feet, to do with it what I think is most desirable, just allows more room, and allow access to the control panel and so forth. MR. CARVIN-Well, I don't know how the Board feels about, whether granting it, it becomes an issue of ma~imum or minimum relief I think. He's awful close to the line now, and to go another two foot. MR. THOMAS-I don't have any problem going back to three and a half feet, if there's no objection from the neighbor. There's nothing back there now. I don't think there will be anything back there in the future. MR. TURNER-All right, make the motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE Introduced by Joyce Eggleston seconded by Robert Karpeles: NO. who 78-1993 moved ROBERT L. HARRIS, for its adoption, This will allow the applicant to e~pand his deck and add a hot tub. It will grant relief from Section 179-16C, and in specific, 16.5 feet from the rear yard setback. For the sake of privacy, it seems to be the only place to put the hot tub is in back of the house, and there appears to be no other place that would be acceptable to the applicant. This appears to be a minimum request to alleviate the difficulty. There's no neighborhood opposition, and I don't believe it would be detrimental to the neighborhood, or other properties in the neighborhood. Duly adopted this 25th day of August, v ot e : 1993, by the following AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Eggleston, Miss Hauser, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Turner NOES: Mr. Carvin - 16 - ~ PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ESTHER DANSKY MRS. DANSKY-Good evening. My name is Esther Dansky, and I'm a member of the Homeowners Association for the Baybridge Town homes. We have a couple of concerns. Perhaps some of you could help clear this up for me. You said this gentleman has a deeded right-of-way. Who signed that deeded right-of-way? Can anybody answer that for us? MRS. EGGLESTON-Would you like to look at my copy? MR. TURNER-William Walker and Mary Walker. MRS. DANSKY-Then, may I continue and ask you, how far does e~tended right-of-way e~tend? Does it go down to Walker where the blacktop now is? this Lane MR. TURNER-20.90 feet to the place of beginning, containing 21.4 acres of land, with a right-of-way to Bay Road through the properties of the first part, through what is commonly called Walker's Lane is now established, and over said Lane to Bay Road. MRS. EGGLESTON-So it would be through the whole section, really. MR. TURNER-It's through the whole section. MRS. EGGLESTON-Do you read down on the bottom of that, it gives the footage of what. MRS. DANSKY-1,420? MR. TURNER-Yes, .90 feet. MRS. DANSKY-So you interpret that it would come right down to where it would meet Walker Lane? MRS. EGGLESTON-See, this was done in 1954, and I don't even believe the macadam was there in 1954. MR. TURNER-No. MRS. EGGLESTON-So, it couldn't have applied just to the macadam. Am I right, it was not there in '54? MRS. DANSKY-I wasn't there in '54. MRS. EGGLESTON-That's a new road, relatively. MR. MARTIN-Yes. It wasn't paved then. My understanding from the Highway Department, in terms of the length of the public right- of-way, it goes to the edge of the macadam. That is the public right-of-way. That's what yields the need for the variance. There is no public right-of-way on. MRS. EGGLESTON-Who determined this? MR. TURNER-The Highway Department. MR. MARTIN-The Town Highway Department. I think the number was .31 miles was the length of the macadam, and that's what the Town records have in terms of the length of the road, and that's what gave the need for the variance. As you can see, this parcel has no frontage on the paved area of Walker Lane. MR. TURNER-Yes. Okay. Anything further? MR. MARTIN-My question is, Bruce, if you have deeded rights, and correct me if I'm wrong. The ownership of this 50 foot strip is - 18 - ABSENT: Mr. Philo AREA VARIANCE NO. 71-1993 TVPE: UNLISTED MR-5 LUCAS S. WILSON OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE END OF WALKER LAIIE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A FOUR (4) UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX ON A VACANT PARCEL AND IS SEEKING RELIEF FROM SECTION 179-70A, WHICH STATES THAT EVERV PRINCIPAL BUILDING SHALL BE BUILT UPON A LOT WITH FORTV (40) FEET OF FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC STREET IMPROVED TO MEET THE STANDARDS OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURV. TAX MAP NUMBER: 60-7-14.1 LOT SIZE: 1.467 ACRES SECTION 179-70A BRUCE CARR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 71-1993, Lucas S. Wilson, Meeting Date: August 25, 1993 "ADDRESS OF PROPERTV: end of Walker Lane SUMMARV OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to construct a four (4) unit apartment complex on a vacant parcel. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: 1. Applicant is seeking relief from Section 179-70A, which requires every principal building to be built on a lot which has forty (40) feet of frontage on a Town road. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. DESCRIBE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICUL TV WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW THE PLACEMENT OF A STRUCTURE WHICH MEETS THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS. The pract ical difficulty rests with the problem that the land does not front on a Town road, although proposed parcel has a deeded right-of-way from the end of Walker Lane, it is essentially land locked. 2. IS THIS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NECESSARV TO ALLEVIATE THE SPECIFIC PRACTICAL DIFFICULTV DR IS THERE ANV OTHER OPTION AVAILABLE WHICH WOULD REQUIRE NO VARIANCE? It would appear that the relief requested is the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the specific difficulty and no other option is available which would require no variance, for the reasons stated in Question 1. 3. WOULD THIS VARIANCE BE DETRIMENTAL TO OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE DISTRICT DR NEIGHBORHOOD? It would appear that the variance would not be detrimental to other properties in the district or neighborhood as the proposed project is consistent with the character of the district or neighborhood. 4. WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF THE VARIANCE ON PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES? It would appear that the variance would not effect public facilities and services. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: Staff has no other comments regarding this project." MR. TURNER-Mr. Carr. MR. CARR-Good evening, Mr. Turner, Members of the Board, my name is Bruce Carr from Morris, Baker and Firth, representing Lucas Wilson. What I've handed you tonight is the abstract from the property for Mr. Wilson, going back to the time when Mr. Walker owned the property. As you'll see in Mr. Walker's deed, there is the language written there that the owners of the subject property have a right-of-way to Bay Road through property of the parties of the first part, Mr. Walker, to what is commonly called Walker's Lane, over to said Bay Road. As this Board is aware, there have been other land locked parcels in the Town. The requested relief is commonly given, and we'd just ask the Board to grant our variance application. MR. TURNER-Any questions for Mr. Carr? MR. MARTIN-I have one. What's the proposed method of securing rights over the land to Walker Lane? Is it an easement? MR. CARR-Deeded rights. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. TURNER-Okay. I guess we don't have any questions right now. 1'11 now open the public hearing. - 17 undetermined at this time, this 50 foot wide strip coming from? MR. CARR-Through conversations with yourself and Paul Dusek and looking tax map, you will notice on the tax map, Walker Lane actually extends to a parcel beyond our parcel, and to within a few hundred feet of Country Club Road. The macadam doesn't extend that far, but the tax map goes that far. So, it's my understanding, from Paul Dusek, that no one's been paying taxes on that for the past 30 or 40 years either. MR. MARTIN-My question is, though, how can you have deeded rights across a piece of property that has no ownership then? MR. CARR-Because the original owner, Mr. Walker, who owned the whole parcel, gave the right to whoever owned the parcel that we subsequently own, he gave them rights to cross over his land, in perpetuity, and we got the right to get all the way down to Bay Road. If Wal ker Lane was st i 11 just a farm road, if you wi 11, we'd have rights to get all the way to Bay Road. Here we only need about 40 feet, because the Town has taken over Walker Lane, to the extent of the macadam. MRS. DANSKY-Then does any other property owner, on the surrounding pieces of property, have that right? In other words, I'm looking at a plot plan from Mr. Wilson's property, and I see a 15 foot wide stretch that says, line of future Town right-of- way, and then parallel with it, I see a new 20 foot wide driveway paved see note 11. So my question is, does anybody else, any other property owners surrounding this have access to it, or would this be, it's sort of confusing to me, line of future right-of-way. Would the Town, at any time, be taking this over, or would it stay an individual roadway into Mr. Wilson's property? Do you see where I'm referring to? MR. TURNER-Yes. Well, obviously, that's a road, and it's a development. Whether the Town takes it over or not, I couldn't tell you, but I think it's the option of the owner either to retain it or to get the Town to take it, if they want to take it. The Town might not want to take it. MRS. DANSKY-All right, then that leads me into my next question. How wide does a Town road have to be, somewhere 50 feet. MR. TURNER-Fifty feet. MRS. DANSKY-Fifty feet. From where I'm looking at this, I wouldn't say that Mr. Wilson would have 50 feet. MR. TURNER-No. He's got 20. It looks like 20, a new 20 foot dri veway. It's a dri veway. It's not a road. Ri ght there. MRS. DANSKY-So it wouldn't be something that the Town could take over in the future? MR. TURNER-The Town wouldn't take it. No. MRS. DANSKY-Okay. Lets go back to what he's seeking his variance from, and according to our figuring, any building is supposed to have 40 foot frontage on a road, this is what he wants the variance from. Am I correct? MR. TURNER-That's correct. MRS. DANSKY-Okay. Now, according to what I read from the Town Codes, the reason for that is for the steady flow, or an easy flow, of emergency vehicles, such as fire trucks and ambulances. Is my interpretation correct on that? MR. TURNER-Yes. - 19 - MRS. DANSKY-It is. Okay. Right now, I can see, okay, perhaps Mr. Wilson proposes four units in this building. However, at the earlier Town Planning Board meeting, a Mr. Gary Hughes presented a drawing that showed possibly three buildings of this nature on this property. So if you looked at three buildings which would be at least 12 apartments, I think we would be safe in saying you would probably have, what, 20 to 24 cars there, plus visitors. Would this not cause a safety hazard, as far as any kind of emergency vehicles getting in and out? I think you can see from the number of our Association that are present tonight, that we are very concerned about this area, and particularly when we think of the safety hazards. MR. TURNER-Jim, wasn't this reviewed at the site plan, emergency vehicles entering the site? as to MR. MARTIN-Yes. about this, and to accommodate private drive. We talked with Kip Grant, the Fire Marshal, he thought that 20 feet would be plenty of width emergency vehicle access. It's the same as a MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-He didn't see that as a problem, from an emergency vehicle standpoint. I don't have anything to document that. I did speak with him about that, though. MR. TURNER-Okay. It seems to me, you know, I was aware of the fact that, just as she just stated, that there were three buildings going in there, initially. I remember seeing the plans for three buildings. What happened to that? MR. CARR-Mr. Turner, I believe the issue of three buildings came up with the thought that the property, under current zoning requirements, has sufficient area to support three buildings on that property. Mr. Wilson's intent at this point is to only build one building, and I believe he's intending to live there, and that is the only application that is and has ever been before the Planning Board, is an application for one building on this parcel. If any new buildings are constructed, which we do have the right to do because we do have the proper area there, in this zone, which is a multifamily residential zone, that would, again, have to go back before site plan. So any concerns that additional traffic, if there is substantial additional traffic, or any additional safety concerns, would have to be readdressed at that point, and I think Mr. Martin had a good point in that the safety concerns were addressed with this particular application, and approved by the Fire Marshal. MR. TURNER-Okay. Thank you. MR. KARPELES-Can I ask you a question? Would you need a variance if you just e~tended that road so that it met the standards of the Town of Queensbury? MR. CARR-We don't own the property. It's not clear who owns the property. We had talked, at great length, with Mr. Martin and Mr. Dusek about it, who owns that property. Mr. Dusek was in the process of trying to free up some of his time to research the issue. The most he could come up with was that it only went to the macadam. He agreed that a variance may be necessary, may be the way to at least solve this particular aspect of the application, site plan application. MR. KARPELES-Well, somebody's got to put something in there. There's nothing there now, right? MR. CARR-Right now it's just vacant land, and as I said, no one has claimed title to it or paid ta~es on it, since I believe around mid 1960. It shows Walker Lane going a few hundred feet -20 beyond where it actually ends. MR. KARPELES-Well, I guess what's bothering me is, if you have the capability of putting a driveway in there, why don't you have the capability of putting a road that would meet the standards? MR. CARR-We have the capability. that. We don't have the right to do MR. KARPELES-But do you have the right to put a driveway in there? MR. CARR-We have the right to access our property via a driveway. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARR-I believe that the issue here is that there is no possibility for us to obtain road frontage, without a purchase of property, and we don't know exactly who owns the property, because according to the Town of Queensbury, nobody owns the property. MR. TURNER-Okay. MRS. EGGLESTON-I've got a question, Bruce. What price range will these units be? What kind of unit rents will be charged in this apartment complex? Is it going to be medium income, high income? MR. CARR-I would assume medium income, but I don't have the answer to that. I would say whatever the market bears. MRS. DANSKY-According to Mr. Hughes' comment at a previous, I think Mr. Martin was present at that, at a previous Planning Board meeting, he said approximately $550 a month, which another concern that we might think about, being so close to ACC. It would be a wonderful spot for four students to share a unit, consequently, more traffic, more cars, not in keeping with our homes and neighbors. I think we have to look at all of these. MR. CARVIN-Well, Mrs. Dansky, is you primary concern that it's only a 20 foot wide driveway? MRS. DANSKY-Well, it seems rather, in talking with members of our Board and community, it seems rather strange that with 20 feet, with four units there, it's understandable, but 20 feet for emergency vehicles, if they were coming in there, and we had the parking lot filled, which he has spaces for eight cars at this time, if you had fire trucks, emergency, sheriff's patrol, wouldn't you see a problem on a 20 foot? MR. CARVIN-Well, I guess, would you be more comfortable with a 30 foot or a 40 foot road, or a 50 foot? MRS. DANSKY-I would think definitely. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MRS. DANSKY-I mean, if the Town of Queensbury requires 50 feet for a road, how can we just overlook this and say, well, 20 will be all right? MR. MARTIN-Well, I would say, the fine right-of-way, with 28 feet of paving, foot paved swales is the breakdown of wide road, with four feet of that being point, it's a 50 foot wide well, 12 foot lanes, and 2 that. So it's a 28 foot swales. MR. CARVIN-I guess some of this would boil down to a technical point that would probably have to be addressed by Paul Dusek. Assuming that they put a 50 foot road up through there, obviously Mr. Carr's applicant has a right-of-way. I don't know if it's - 21 - spelled out that it's only a 20 foot right-of-way. It could be a 50 foot right-of-way. It could be a 20 foot and the Town take over the other 30 feet as abandon property. Again, I don't know what the technical aspects might be. I think if the Homeowners Association is more comfortable with a wider road, then I think we should look into the aspect of putting a wider road down through there. MRS. DANSKY-I think are some concerns that I've presented, and I'm sure there are others here who have more to add to it. So, I will thank you for the time you have allowed me. DAN VALENTE MR. VALENTE-My name is Dan Valente from Valente Builders. We own two pieces of property, one on the northerly side and one on the southerly side, of this individual's property, and the first thing we'll do is, we own the property. Now that solves that problem. Nobody knows who owns the property. Valente Builders owns the property. He has a right-of-way on that property. So you can solve that problem. You can solve the problem about the road, because if he needs 50 feet, he's going to have to cross Pinchuk's property. I have the deed here that explains the right-of-way. Okay. Number One, the maximum use of this property is 12 units. That's what the developer is trying to obtai n, obv i ous I y. Number Two, last year he approached me to build a road through my other subdivision to get to this property, and I denied that. It was for a single family residential unit. So I feel, from the plan that I saw, with one fourplex there, that it's not going to end up being in the character of the neighborhood, because at eight units per acre, Baybridge was approved at 3.5 units per acre. So I don't believe it's going to be consistent with the neighborhood that's there. MR. TURNER-Let me ask you a question before you go any farther. Was Baybridge approved before the new zoning went into effect? MR. VALENTE-Baybridge was approved in 1985, and we gave Walker Lane, we donated, or turned that Walker Lane over to the Town and donated 17 feet to make it a 50 foot road, when that subdivision was approved in 1985. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. VALENTE-So my deed reads that we own to the northerly section of Walker Lane, but give a right-of-way, 20 feet, to the southern part of Walker Lane. So, it may not show any place in the townhouse, but my deed, and that's how it explains it and I have a copy here if you'd like to see it. The right-of-way description is in inches and degrees, so that's how we came up with, I didn't do the 20 feet. I got that from the surveyor's office, but in essence, it says that we own to the northerly side, and the right-of-way is to the southerly side, when you rad the description. So he has a right to use this. Mrs. DorIan has a right to use this. All the people at Baybridge have a right to use this. This property owner has a right to use this. MR. CARR-This is 50 feet. As you can see, this is what the confusion is. This is our parcel that shows Walker Lane going by, 50 feet wide going by our parcel. MR. VALENTE-No. It's drawn that way, but here's the termination. MR. CARR-Right, but that's why all the confusion. MR. VALENTE-Well, the reason that was because when we bought Baybridge, the property, the Town road was down here, and when we conveyed this to the Town, the Town road, it was broken off, obviously, at Baybridge Drive, okay. Now you'd have to go to McCormack to get that deed, if you wanted it, or you'd have to go - 22 to the Town directly just to see where it exactly ends, but it ends right here, for all intents and purposes. MR. TURNER-This was just a farm lane when you bought it? MR. VALENTE-Right. Well, it was, ironically, this was a Town road, and then after that, the Town plowed through it, so this guy could have access to his house, and he didn't have water at that time, and they had a temporary line, and then they ended up bringing a hydrant in, and then when we got involved and the water main went up, and then all the power and the gas and everything else went up. This is Country Club Road. If you go back to, way back in the deeds, you'll see the original owner intended this to be a right-of-way all the way to Bay Road, but then the Dorion's purchased this and built upon, right, the Country Club Road, but it got terminated. MR. TURNER-Mr. Dorion bought that property right there. MR. VALENTE-That's right. MR. CARR-Mr. Dorion's in both of our chains of title. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. VALENTE-Right. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. VALENTE-There's only one other thing I really want to address here, and one is, I don't oppose anybody having a right to develop his property. That's Number One. I'm in the business. I don't want to give anybody a hardship, but I also have to take into consideration the Baybridge who's been here since 1985, and there are a lot of things that happened in Baybridge that nobody's aware of, on a lot of these Boards, because things have changed. The main thing that really disturbs me is when I look at that site plan, that was presented to me just the other night, first of all, there's no topo with that property, all right, that's shown on that drawing. It looks like it's dead flat. That's not the case. Number Two, the soils in that area are not sand. They're a silty loam at best. They're showing a septic system in the existing soils. The septic systems at Baybridge, the way that is proposed, is only 50 feet away from 20,000 square feet of leaching for a major subdivision in this Town. The reason those septics were approved, were that someday we were supposed to have sewers and hook up, but in the meantime we built leaching systems with four to five feet of fill, clean fill, stone, and then a leaching bed. This system shows it in existing soil. At best, I would say that it would not survive five years, in the present state, not in those soils. The second thing that really concerns me, it's going to put impact on our septic systems if those beds aren't elevated, which I know isn't the Zoning Board's concern, just whether to approve it or disapprove it. The thing that really upsets me is that, to me, in my opinion, I've been in this business for 27 years, those are not a professional set of drawings to bring to a Planning Board, and it's not enough information on here to make a determination. Thank you very much. MR. TURNER-Okay. Thank you. Who wishes to be heard next? MICHAEL O'CONNOR MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, for the purpose of your record, I'm Michael O'Connor from the law firm of Little & O'Connor, and I'm here representing Steven Pinchuk and Joan Bovee. Mr. Pinchuk is on my right, and with us is Leon Steves from Van Dusen & Steves. For point of reference, Walker Lane appears to be a very odd animal. The first portion of it, the best that we can tell, is - 23 50 feet in width, but as you get further to the west, before you get to this site, it turns out to be 33 feet in width, particularly where it passes in front of the Pinchuk property, which is immediately to the east of this property. So, at best, the dead end of Walker Lane, at least according to what we have, is a 33 foot width road, or area for road. That portion of Walker Lane is, in fact, a road by prescription, and is, as Mr. Martin indicated, to the limits, as far as the Town of Queensbury is concerned, the limits of the existing pavement. It's not a road that has been deeded to the Town. We've got a survey that was done in 1985 for the Town, of Walker Lane, and I could submit that to you for your records. My main point, though, is that Mr. Pinchuk has, on the adjacent property, a single family home. He understands that when he bought the property, the surrounding properties were in a multifamily residential area, but he also understood that there were certain rules and regulations before a party could develop that property under that zoning. I don't think you can look at this property as being multifamily, per se, because it doesn't fit the requirements of the Ordinance for multifamily, or else the fellow wouldn't be here looking for a variance. You've got to look at the total project and its impact upon the neighborhood, given the existing facts for this particular property. You also have to look very carefully at the precedent that you are setting, the precedent not only for this particular property, but for the Township in general. You are talking about allowing an apartment complex, a multifamily residence, on a private driveway. I don't think that's happened. I think you have allowed single family homes on private driveways, or on less than the required road frontage. There are a couple of sections of the Ordinance which I think you've got to look at, in addition to the simple one that says that you have to have 40 feet frontage. Section 169-62, which is Page 18030, talks about multifamily dwellings, and I don't think there's any question here that this is a multifamily dwelling, and there, when they talk about access, they talk about all non public roads used for vehicle circulation, and all multifamily projects shall be designed in width, curvature, etc., to accommodate service, emergency vehicle, and shall meet all Town standards for public roads. I don't think the applicant has even applied for a variance of that particular section, but I think that that is something that you should consider, in addition to the blanket paragraph, which simply says, you need 40 feet on a Town highway. I've got copies of that for you, if you would like to have it. Also, I would like to have you take a look, specifically, in Section 179-708, which goes beyond where they're talking about one principal building shall be 40 feet, or road frontage for one principal building shall be 40 feet. In Section B it says, where private roads are proposed, or where multiple, or, so even if this was a private driveway and not a private road, where multiple principal buildings are proposed for one lot, such as garden apartments, exactly what you have here, the minimum frontage on a public road for such use shall be the width of the right-of-way for a public collector street. I couldn't find the width for a public collector street, but I know that the Town has never accepted a roadway less than 50 feet. There's a lot of curvatures, and a lot of definitions of curvatures for public collector roads, but I think what you're really talking about is the minimum width, here, of at least 50 feet. I went through a project before this Board, in 1989, on West Mountain Road, where we talked about three single family lots. We came to about five or six different meetings. At that time, the Board then had the input from the Water Department, from the Highway Department, and from the emergency services of the Town. I don't think you have that information before you. I brought a copy of the letter of Paul Naylor, from the Town Highway Department, talking about what we propose, the three single family homes, as a roadway. I would like the road to meet the Town specifications at that time, and he's talking about the Town specifications for a Town road. You've got a lot of questions here as to what effect it might have if this were permitted, and I think Mr. Valente made a valid - 24 point. The sketch that you have, I really don't think depicts what you're being asked to approve. You are talking on the sketch of only one building, but you, in the conversations with the attorney for the applicant, he's indicated that if they were going to put in additional buildings, they would go for site plan approval at that time of the additional building. He's indicated what I'm afraid of, is that this would never come back to this Board again, as far as the question of putting more people on what is this private road as shown. If you take a look at what they proposed, at one time, they had a division into three parcels there, and they were talking one building of four apartments on each. You're talking 12 apartments. If you look beyond that property, there is a parcel that is identical to it, as far as circumstance goes, that's owned by Mrs. Dorion. That parcel is 4.2 acres. If you use your eight units per acre, you could talk 30 to 40 units. So, and I wonder how you would distinguish, as far as the precedent, between that property and this property, if the only access to that property is along this right-of-way. I don't think anybody disputes that they have a right-of-way, but are you approving use of a 15, a 20 foot right- of-way for potentially 42 and 52 units? I don't think this is something that we have done in the past, and I think if you look at the powers that you have under the police protection of the Ordinance, you get into the effect that it might have upon the neighborhood, upon the Town. You certainly have the right to deny the request as it is presented to you. If you take a look at even some of the practical considerations, where are they going to plow what they plow now, at the end of Walker Lane, if they put this driveway in? As I understand it, they plow up into this area. If you take a ride down there, I wonder where the hydrant is, as opposed to where it's shown on this particular plan. It looks like the hydrant is directly in the middle of what would be this patch. When you talk about this site, and the applicant submits to you a deed with a deeded right-of-way, where is the right to install utilities for the buildings that you ultimately are approving or allowing to be built? What hardship are you then going to bring in, and what application for further variances are you going to have before you? It looks like the applicant, in this particular instance, and I will mention this simply for the record, it's a self-created hardship. These people recently bought it. They bought it since the present zoning was in effect. It's not something that was put upon them by the Town changing an Ordinance. If you take a look at the total effect of this, they are asking for maximum, maximum use. In their zone, duplexes are also permitted. I think that there might be a completely different atmosphere here, if they came in and said they wished to build a duplex on that, and they wished to have a driveway to run to the duplex. I think that's a lot different than sitting back here saying, you're setting the basis for a legitimate request for 30 to 40, maybe more, units, to use this particular entranceway or accessway. If you go back to what we did on West Mountain Road, we spent three months trying to find out what the cost of expanding a Town road would be. I have heard noth i ng of that. I have heard noth i ng as to whether or not that's a possibility. The burden is upon the applicant to show this Board that he has no alternatives, and I don't think that that burden has been met. l' ve got all kinds of maps. I don't know if they would confuse you as much as they confuse me. Leon has gone through it. The tax map probably is the worst of all of the maps that we've got, as far as showing anything, except for the fact that it shows, beyond this particular property, there's another piece, Lot Number 14.2, and I think you've got to consider the precedent that you've set, for the balance of this property, which they've indicated they have some intention of maybe developing, and you also have to look at the potential for the precedent that you're setting for 4.2. MR. MARTIN-Mike, what double the width of Number? was that second a collector road? reference you made to What was that Section -25- MR. O'CONNOR-179-70B is where they talk about public collector street s. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-179-62 is where they simply talk about road design access. We've got the survey, and I agree with Mr. Valente. I believe that he probably owns the road that, if you look at the earlier deeds. I don't know if we have the same deed reference that he has. If you look at the applicant's own maps, you can see where he indicates the Town road ends, by survey map. He indicates there's a gate across there. He indicates there's simply a road or a farm path going up to the particular property. The survey was made for the Queensbury Water Department in October of 1983. I'll submit that. That may be, in fact, before Mr. Valente's mentioned deed of parcel, of property. He didn't get involved with the property until 1985. MR. TURNER-Yes, 1985. MR. O'CONNOR-So, at best you've got a potential right-of-way, undefined in width, for access, and you're setting a precedent for a real good number of units. Somebody has handed us some totals, I guess with the intention to show you, and this is, I was confused, when I looked at the hydrant and the gate that's there, too. Thi s, I thi nk, veri fi es the fact that maybe the surveys that you have, and maybe the mapping that you have is not e~actly correct. The Staff comments that were made back when I made an application for the three single family homes on some 58 acres was how substantial the variance is in relationship to the requirement. The variance is 100 percent relief. This is actually 100 plus percent. They have. no frontage on a Town road. There we had 51 foot frontage. We were trying to use it, and we ended up using it for two lots. The potential effect of increased density on public facilities and services, and there they said that the increased density, because there wasn't proper frontage, would be in conflict with the health and safety basis for the Zoning Ordinance. Emergency vehicles would be unable to access the back property without some difficulty, and if you look at that map, even the map as it's set up, you're not into site plan reviews, but I'm confused as to why you would travel the whole 170 feet of frontage, before you get to the roadway. Why you wouldn't have the roadway on the other side of the property, closest to the Town road, because you're actually then having the emergency vehicle travel some 200 feet on private maintained roads. What is the guarantee of the snowplowing clearance and everything else that comes along with that type of access? Whether the difficulty can be feasibly mitigated by some other method. Yes, the difficulty can be mitigated with construction of a Town road. Would the variance be materially detrimental to the purposes of the Ordinance? Yes. The requirement of safe ingress and egress to allow emergency vehicles is the central theme of zoning, and I really don't think that those findings are a lot different than the findings that I would hope and urge that you would adopt tonight, that what is proposed here is contrary to the purpose of our Zoning Ordinance. There are other potential uses for that site that would have much less impact, would require much less of a variance. They haven't been e~plored to any degree at all. Leon asked a question, and I guess I don't know the answer either. He said, what is the width of the right-of-way? It hasn't been demonstrated in any manner. You get into a lot of theoretical type questions. If you have a right-of-way, and it's undefined, you're probably entitled to use the right-of-way as you have been using it, and if you haven't been using it for anything in width in e~cess of maybe one vehicle, probably eight feet, it's hard to figure out how you would have rights to e~pand it into a semi road, or semi public road for potential use of maybe 12 units. That's arguable, but I think it follows what is the law of right-of-way. - 26 - MR. TURNER-All right. Mr. property, after 1988? When? Pinchuk, when did you buy your STEVEN PINCHUK MR. PINCHUK-I believe it was '88. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Pinchuk doesn't come with empty hands, and I'll say that just for the purpose of the record. He bought the property in a deed dated September 14, 1989. I think light development was proposed on the east side of his property, and there they had proper Town road frontage, and what not, and what he did was buy that property. He's not trying to put an unreasonable burden on anybody. He does like his privacy. You're talking about a 10 foot setback, next to his property. He doesn't even show the location of the other three buildings. Any other questions of us? MR. TURNER-Yes. How far does that put your house apartment complex, approximately, the first one, shown here on the drawing? away from that the one that's MR. PINCHUK-Approximate1y 300 feet. MR. TURNER-Three hundred feet. MR. MARTIN-Well, Ted, I think, first of all, we have a procedural issue here, in that I would have to agree, as Zoning Administrator, that they would also need relief from Section 179- 62B(1), and 179-70B, as well, and therefore you're getting into an advertising issue of the public hearing and all that. So that, right off the bat, is one issue. MR. O'CONNOR-I agree with you, Mr. Martin, except the basic variance, that kind of puts everything to rest, and you wouldn't necessarily all have to come back here for another meeting. MR. TURNER-Who wishes to be heard next? PATRICIA DECKER MRS. DECKER-My name is Patricia Decker. I am a homeowner in Baybridge townhouses, and I just want to say that most of us here this evening, and in fact I would say all of us in this room, feel that these townhouses would not be in character with our neighborhood, that this probably would certainly decrease the value of the rest of the homes in the neighborhood, the added traffic, and this isn't just a legal issue, but I'm one of the youngest people that live in Baybridge Townhouses. Most of my neighbors are older than I am. They use walkers. They have to get to the mailboxes. The possibility of 24 cars using that road, where there is no sidewalk, would definitely be difficult for them, and if you wanted all of those that feel this to stand up, I'm sure we all would. We just feel that it really would change the character of our neighborhood, and I thank you for listening to me. MR. TURNER-Anyone else? MRS. EGGLESTON-I'd like to ask Bruce a question. Wilson purchase this property, Bruce? When did Mr. MR. CARR-I think, I've got the deed. packet. It's the last deed in the MRS. EGGLESTON-In the back of here? MR. CARR-Yes. I think it was '93. MRS. EGGLESTON-This year? - 27 - - MR. CARR-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. Fifth day of March, 1993. JOHN WILLIAMS MR. WILLIAMS-I might point out that I'm inclined to agree with Mr. Steves, when he indicates that the width of a right-of-way is sort of an undefined sort of thing, whether you walk on it or whether you ride on it or whether you drive a pair of horses on it or whatever, but I would say that that particular right-of- way, last year, had been used by myself, maybe in trespassing, in just walking up to take a picture, four times, once each season, of a beautiful maple tree. I think that's the only thing that right-of-way has been used for since I've been there, a year and a half. Thank you. MR. TURNER-Thank you. Okay. Anyone else? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARR-I understand all the concerns of everyone who's spoken here tonight, but I think the real issue is we're talking about the project that's before you, and that's a four unit apartment comple~ that has no access to road frontage. The variance we're asking for tonight is a variance from the road frontage, Section 170. If other variances are necessary, we will have to come back, but otherwise, we will be required to meet those variances, and I don't think we should get confused with the issue of the right-of-way. The right-of-way has been established. No one disputes that we have a right-of-way to the property. There's been a statement made that it's a 20 foot right-of-way. If you see on our deed's and the deeds of Mr. Val ent e, there are no widths of that right-of-way on any of those deeds. You have the Town ta~ map before you, which was relied on when this property was purchased. There's been the issue of self-created hardship. This lot has been in e~istence prior to zoning. So therefore it has been landlocked prior to zoning, but I don't see how you could blame this applicant for a self-created hardship when the parcel, which is the subject of a variance, has been in e~istence for many years. I'd agree that many of the concerns here are legitimate and they have to be addressed in the proper forum, which is the Planning Board, and the Planning Board is meeting on the site plan issue. I just want to reiterate that the issue before this Board is the practical difficulty for this lot, can we get 40 feet of road frontage on a Town road, and I submit that we cannot. I f we can, I'm sure Mr. Wi I son would be very interested in doing so, but to date, there's been no indication that that would be possible, and that the only way that this can be a useful parcel is by the granting of this variance, and I don't think you can be scared into thinking that this is going to be high rise apartments down there because Mr. O'Connor is saying there's a parcel behind us. What the intention of the person owning that parcel, we cannot control, nor should we be burdened with. Our parcel has established a practical difficulty in that we cannot meet that Section of the Town Code, and I think because of that practical difficulty, we are entitled to a variance. Thank you. MR. TURNER-Thank you. Okay. All right. What's your pleasure? MR. STEVES-Mr. Chairman, I have a comment that I would like to make. On the ta~ map, every ta~ map sheet in the County, there's a word in the legend that states this map complied from deed data which does not represent a real survey, intended for assessment purposes only. Mr. Carr knows better than to rely upon the ta~ map for the purposes of purchasing, or of ascertaining the area. MR. CARVIN-Well, I think the issue of the right-of-way is very important in determining whether we grant or deny this variance. - 28 - I would be reluctant to grant a variance, based on a nebulous thing. Our criteria in granting an area variance is whether, One, whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting of the area variance. I think this is the is the important one, whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than the area variance, and I think that, I'm not positive that that's been totally exhausted. MR. CARR-Mr. Carvin, could you give me an example of how that? MR. CARVIN-Well, again, I think the example that I would give you is, because the right-of-way is so nebulous, if it's 20 feet, I would have a hard time with the safety issue. If it's 50 feet, you wouldn't need it, because then you'd have your frontage. So I think it's very important to determine whether we have a 20 foot issue or a 50 foot issue. MR. CARR-But you have the statement from your Zoning Administrator said the Fire Marshal said 20 feet frontage. MR. CARVIN-Well, he doesn't have a written statement. MR. CARR-But he's your officer. MR. CARVIN-I know that, but I'm telling you where I'm coming from, is that I have a problem with the 20 foot issue or a 50 foot issue, and as I said, I mean, I think that this addresses it, whether the benefit to the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than the area variance, and I guess what I'm trying to say is, is there a way that you can get the 50 feet? I mean, if it's something that has to go to court. MR. CARR-If we get the 50 feet, then we'd still need the variance. MR. CARVIN-Well, then it might become a Town road, and then you wouldn't need the variance, because then you'd have your 40 foot frontage, is my point. If it's 20 feet, I would have a hard time voting for this at 20 feet, whether it's a four apartment unit or whether it's 40 apartment unit, because of the safety issue, and that's my feeling at this point. So I think that the issue of the right-of-way is very important, and I don't know where we'd take it from here. MR. TURNER-Vote on it, if you want to. Table it for further information, re-advertisement, but this isn't going to go away. They can't change the plan, that's the plan. Where do we go with it? MR. THOMAS-They can't change the plan? MR. TURNER-If they can't pick up the additional footage, where do we go? MR. THOMAS-Yes. What else could they do with the property? There's nothing else they can do with it. They've got to have access. It doesn't matter if it's an apartment house or a church back in there. MR. CARVIN-Well, if it comes definitive that the right-of-way is defined as 20 feet, then we know what we're dealing with, and then each Board member can make the determination whether that is adequate enough for fire and ambulance services and so forth, but at this point, I just don't feel we know what the right-of-way really is. MR. TURNER-All right. Do you want to table it and let Paul look - 29 at it, until we get a determination? MR. CARR-Can I address that issue, because I think that question has been answered. There's been a lot of question as to how wide the right-of-way is. The minimum width is 20 feet, and that has been confirmed, according to Mr. Valente. That's his understanding, that's a 20 foot right-of-way. I'm not saying that I agree with it. It may be wider, but it's not confirmed that it's, no one has mentioned it's less than the 20 feet. So the question then becomes, with the statement from your officer that 20 feet is sufficient from the Fire Marshal, and with no other options, are we entitled to a variance? It's not set, I do not agree with Leon that it's going to be 18 inches wide. I think Mr. Valente, whom Mr. O'Connor has acknowledged as the proper owner, although we may have a question as to that, has acknowledge that, if he is the owner, it's a 20 foot right-of-way at the minimum. MR. TURNER-One comment, Mr. O'Connor, and that's the end of it. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, my main question, I think, is whether or not this is the minimum relief requested. I think you're talking about relief which would allow him to build, but it doesn't necessarily have to be relief to build the full ma~imum density as permitted by zoning. You can condition the density, if you were going to approve it. You could say, you haven't talked about whether or not you'd get a reasonable return without practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship by building a duple~ on that parcel. That hasn't even been spoken of this evening, and that's a possibility. You run into also weighing, in addition to the other considerations for variance, is this more of a variance than is required, and it's our position that it is, and if they built a duple~ there, they'd probably get a reasonable return on the property without great difficulty, without great hardship, and everybody would go away. I really think you have a problem, also which has to be addressed, that if you approve it for this owner, and with the intention that he may build up to 12, what are you going to do for the ne~t owner that comes along on the same property, the same road, that has only the same way in. Those are two tough pieces of property. You've got to allow them to do something, but you don't have to allow them to do the ma~imum. You can condition your approval. MRS. EGGLESTON-I think, if he hadn't just bought it, I might be more sympathetic to the cause, if he'd had it in his family or something, or had owned it for a number of years, and I really, I look at this from a personal knowledge, since I have the unfortunate instance of living on a right-of-way with easements and whatnot, and it's not a pretty picture. I mean, we've only got two houses in where I live, and there's traffic, for the two. We get along well. I mean, we have enough, I can't conceive of so much traffic going across an easement and a right-of-way. It hasn't been established who would maintain it, who would be the person to plow, and where all of that debris would go, and the upkeep of the road, and that type of thing, that's what I, maybe you're not supposed to look that way, but I know from living on one that it's a difficult situation, and where you would have so many people using the right-of-way. MISS HAUSER-Don't you get those same questions, even if there's a single family? Who maintains it if no one owns it? MRS. EGGLESTON-But a lot less traffic, a lot less traffic, a lot less haggling. You'd be surprised at the arguments that you can get into over easements and rights of way, what people think they can do with them because it's a right-of-way, when another person owns it. MR. TURNER-Okay. What do you want to do with it? - 30 - MR. CARVIN-I'd like to see them come back with the other variances, if there's other variances, and really give us, I mean, if we're going to have to vote, I mean, if comes to a vote, and it's only the 20 feet, then that's one thing, but I'd like to see a tabling. MRS. EGGLESTON-If we're going to have to give all the variances like the, where they have multiple family dwellings, there's different criteria for private roads and right-of-ways. So shouldn't we do them all at once, so we have the whole picture in front of us, instead of piecemeal? MR. TURNER-All right. My concern is, the other development that's going to go in there. If you're going to be restricted to a 20 foot driveway to get out of there, and you've got 12 units in there, brother, you've got a horse race, and where do you put the snow? Who's going to take care of that? I think we've got to do the whole thing. MR. KARPELES-Well, if you take this 179-69B, even if it's a 20 foot wide right-of-way, it isn't big enough. It has to be, the minimum frontage on a public road for such use shall be the width of the right-of-way for a public collector street. MRS. EGGLESTON-That's what Jim is saying, so they have to re- advert i see MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Because all of the variances aren't in the packet here. MR. KARPELES-So, even if it is 20 foot wide, which it's very nebulous whether it is 20 feet wide or not, I just don't see how you can grant the variance. MR. TURNER-I would move to table it and make them bring all the variances back, re-advertise it, get all the ducks in a row. MR. CARVIN-As I said, I'd like to get a lot more clarification on the right-of-way issue and we've got these other issues that have to be addressed. MR. TURNER-All right. Motion's in order. MR. MARTIN-I would like to have an agreed upon number, then, for 179-70B, the minimum frontage on a public road for such use shall be the width of the right-of-way for a public collector street. I believe that to be 50 feet. MR. CARR-Based on what, Jim? MR. MARTIN-That's the Town standard for a right-of-way for a collector road. MR. O'CONNOR-I don't think that's spelled out in the Subdivision Regulations. Maybe on the typical cross section of road it is, but if you look at the dimensional requirements for a collector street in the Subdivision Regulations, they deal more with curvature, radius. Now, maybe Leon can translate that into how wide it's supposed to be, but I know, also, that you won't accept a road less than 50 feet on any road. So, whatever, that's got to be the minimum size road that you can have. MR. STEVES-State law prohibits the Town from accepting any road less than 50 feet in width. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 71-1993 LUCAS Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, Joyce Eggleston: S. WILSON, seconded by - 31 - For clarification of right-of-way width, and the submission of additional variances in conjunction with this application. Duly adopted this 25th day of August, vote: 1993, by the following AYES: Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston, Miss Hauser, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Philo MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, are you asking the applicant to submit in writing how wide he thinks his right-of-way is, and written proof of that? MR. CARVIN-Yes, clarification. MR. TURNER-Clarification. MR. CARR-You're talking about, because the deeds don't specify. Is that what you're asking for? MR. CARVIN-Yes. We're asking for clarification as to whether we're talking a 20 foot, a 22 foot, or a 50 foot. In other words, we need a clarification as to the width of the right-of- way. MR. O'CONNOR-Does that mean that this will not be on the Planning Board agenda for ne~t Monday? MR. MARTIN-That's correct. It needs to have these variances acted upon or approved to go to site plan. MRS. DECKER-Will the homeowners be notified? MR. MARTIN-You'll be notified again, when it's resubmitted. It's new advertising. Yes. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. TURNER-It's always, the first meeting's the third Wednesday of the month. The second meeting is the ne~t Wednesday. MR. MARTIN-It's impossible for the applicant to be on the September meetings. The earliest he could be on is the October meetings. The Board always meets the third and fourth Wednesday of the month. So it would be the third or fourth Wednesday of October, at the earliest, and you will be notified. MR. CARR-Mr. Turner, is the deadline today? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. CARR-May I ask for a special dispensation for hours to get the application in? Everybody who's this project is here tonight, and I really think, financing on the line, and Mr. Wilson, I think, opportunity to be heard as soon as possible to issue, if it can be clarified. 24 hours or 48 interested in and we've got deserves the clarify this MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. CARR-I don't think notification to any new members is to change anything that's been said here tonight, and I just appreciate, the Board has the opportunity to give hours to get the new application in for one area variance. going would us 48 - 32 - '-- MR. TURNER-I have no problem with that. MR. MARTIN-Okay. We 11, what that means is, if he get s the application in by Friday at 2 o'clock, he will be on for the Sept ember meet i ng5. You wi 11 be not i fi ed of that. That'll be the third or four Wednesday of September. I believe it's a funny month. That's the 15th and the 22nd. MR. CARR-Thank you. MR. VALENTE-Regardless of what's going to be determined, the utilities that have to feed this property, where are the utilities going to go? How are they going to get the water? How are they going to get the gas? How are they going to get the power to this property without going on my right-of-way, that I own? I'm not too sure about the law, but I don't think those utilities, unless they get my permission to go on my right-of- way, I'm not going to allow it. I'll save everybody a lot of trouble. I think that ought to get clarified right now. MR. TURNER-They show the gas line. MR. MARTIN-Yes. The gas is outside of the 20 feet. It's already shown on the plan, Dan, and it's outside of the 20 feet. MR. VALENTE-It's shown on all the land that I dedicated to the Town of Queensbury, when Walker Lane was extended to Baybridge Drive. It terminates there, and then the right-of-way starts. MR. CARR-That may have to be looked at, depending on where the issue goes with how wide the right-of-way is. MR. VALENTE-You're incorrectly drawing on my property. MR. O'CONNOR-I would ask this Board to maybe ask Town Council what they would be doing, as far as the next property is concerned, if they grant this particular variance. How would you distinguish the next property, which is under the same identical circumstance. I know everybody says each variance stands on its own, but you've got another four acres with the potential of eight units per acre, and if you allow multifamily in there, based upon the 20 foot right-of-way, which is probably what it is. MR. CARVIN-Well, we haven't allowed anything. for clarification. We're just asking MR. O'CONNOR-Because if I were representing the people that owned the property next to it, identical to this piece of property, as far as being landlocked except for this right-of-way, I don't know how you would be able to distinguish, in a court, any treatment different than what you might afford this property. MR. CARVIN-Well, again, I guess we can address that issue when it comes up. MR. TURNER-Okay. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 72-1993 TYPE: UNLISTED PC-1A HOWARD CARR OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE CORNER OF ROUTE 9 AND ROUTE 254 (AVIATION ROAD) APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO PLACE FOUR (4) WALL SIGNS ON A PROPOSED COMMERCIAL BUILDING IN AN EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER, AND IS SEEKING RELIEF FOR THREE (3) WALL SIGNS FROM SECTION 140- 6B(3)(d), WHICH STATES THAT A SHOPPING CENTER SHALL BE PERMITTED ONE (1) FREESTANDING SIGN DENOTING THE NAME OF THE CENTER, AND EACH OCCUPANT SHALL BE PERMITTED ONE (1) WALL SIGN. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) DATE: 8/18/93 LOT SIZE: N/A SECTION 140- 6B(3) (d) MIKE BAIRD, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT - 33 - MRS. EGGLESTON-And the Warren County Planning Board disapproved, with the following comment, "The Board feels that signs 1 & 4 are adequate, anything more would be excessive. The Board suggests to the Town of Queensbury look into a pylon sign on Route 254 with the names of all businesses in the plaza." STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 72-1993, Howard Carr, Meeting Date: August 25, 1993 "ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: corner of Route 9 and Route 254 (Aviation Road) SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to place four (4) wall signs on a proposed commercial building and is seeking relief for three (3) signs from Section 140-6B(3) (d), which states that a shopping center is permitted one (1) freestanding sign, denoting the name of the shopping center and each occupant of the shopping center shall be permitted one (1) wall sign. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. ARE THERE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS APPLYING TO THE LAND OR SIGNS WHICH DO NOT APPLY GENERALLY TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD? Applicant believes that the proposed placement of proposed commercial structure in a section of an existing shopping center which is below grade, limits visibility to potential customers and requires signage on three sides of the structure. 2. IS REASONABLE USE OF THE LAND OR SIGN POSSIBLE IF THE ORDINANCE IS COMPLIED WITH? Applicant believes that a reasonable use of a sign is not possible if the Ordinance is complied with as the one (1) permitted sign would be placed over the front entrance to the building, which is not adequately visible to potential customers as entrance is below grade. 3. IS THERE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER OR PUBLIC FACILITIES? It would appear that the variance would not effect the neighborhood character or public facilities, as the proposed project is located in a shopping center and because of the configuration of the land where project is proposed to be sited, signage would not effect the neighborhood character or facilities. 4. ARE THERE ANY FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES? As the project is proposed and with the limitations of the proposed site, there are no other feasible alternatives other than reducing the number of proposed signs. 5. IS THE DEGREE OF CHANGE SUBSTANTIAL RELATIVE TO THE ORDINANCE? As the request for relief is for three signs, it would appear that the degree is substantial as the permitted number of wall signs is one (1). STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: Applicant has an unusual situation as regards the number of signs he believes will be adequate to advertise the proposed commercial building which will be located in a below grade corner of an existing shopping center. As other tenants in the shopping center face a main arterial and are readily seen from the road, the applicant believes that the additional signage is necessary to be seen by potential customers driving by the shopping center." MR. BAIRD-Ted, my name is Mike Baird, representing General Mills, and I have one comment. I don't know if anybody on this Board was at the Warren County Board, but I'd like to point out, it's going to be important that we go over the comment here. I was at the meeting, and the meeting went, right at the last paragraph, somebody said, well, we disapprove it, but someone from the Town of Queensbury said you might be able to do something with the pylon sign on Route 254, and I was like, what are you talking about? I said, you're never going to get a separate pylon sign. You already have pylon sign. You're only allowed one in a plaza situation, totally threw a wrench at me, and then they're already closing their books and everything, and then I received this today, and read this very carefully, here. It says, the Board, meaning the Warren County Board, suggests to the Town of Queensbury look into a pylon sign on Route 254. Make note, the only pylon sign that is there right now today is on Route 9, out in front of the mall, facing the front of the mall. There is not, and there will never be, a second pylon sign on Route 254. The Code doesn't permit for it, and it would be far fetched for - 34 - any variance to be passed for a pylon sign on that side of the mall. Supposedly, they based their whole disapproval on that concept, and then they already had their books closed, and I was kind of shuffled out of the room, and I do realize this Board has a lot of weight coming from it, Town Board, as far as approvals and disapprovals. I do realize that. It's imperative that you know the reason behind this statement. I don't know where they got it from. I don't know if anybody on this Board understands actually what that's supposed to mean. There's no way that you're ever going to have two pylon signs, one on the back side of the plaza and one in the front. I mean, we would like to discuss and show you pictures of the signs that are proposed for the building, the colors, the whole scheme of things and everything. We feel that you're going to base a lot of your opinion on the disapproval that we've already received from Warren County. MR. TURNER-My question is, you identified initial visibility. Aren't the Kentucky Fried Chicken and the old liquor store coming down? MR. BAIRD-Yes, they are. elevations, here, a map. from the front? As a matter of fact, we do Obviously, you know where it all have, sits, MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. BAIRD-And the B Elevation, where the parking lot is going to be, that is the front of the new proposed restaurant, okay. The sign in question is Elevation C. That will border 254. That's actually the sign in question. So basically, the whole idea is the front of this restaurant faces the deepest part of the pit, as we call it, which is the remaining sign, which in fact, which was already read in the statement, does not have an access, an entrance. The entrance, I'm sure that you're all familiar with the mall. The entrance is so far away from the restaurant itself, that you can't even put it on this paper. MR. TURNER-What was the concept of putting the entrance where it is now, where it's proposed? Why put it there, versus putting it towards Route 9? MR. BAIRD-The entrance, there is not going to be a new entrance made, as far as that goes. MR. TURNER-No, that sign right there. main entrance, right, Elevation B? You're saying that's the MR. BAIRD-You're asking why put the main sign there? MR. TURNER-Yes. You show two doors there. right there, at Elevation B. You show an entrance MR. BAIRD-That's correct. JOE BACH MR. BACH-My name is Joe Bach. I'm here to represent General Mills Restaurants and Olive Garden Restaurants. My address location is 5900 Lake Elmore Drive, in Orlando, and I think we've jumped a little ahead by Mike saying what he said. It's changed part of my presentation. If I can, I'd like to back track a little bit. I've only had an opportunity to come to your community today. I've driven the roads, took a better look at the property and the buildings. If anyone was in the area, you've seen that the other building is presently being demolished. My first opportunity to get to the site, coming from Interstate 87, and coming on Quaker Road, coming down to the intersection, and I was not really familiar with where the building was at because I couldn't see it until I came up to the - 35 top of the intersection of the road, and for anyone to see the building, coming from that direction, they would obviously have to pass the building and make a u-turn to come on back down the road, and find the site that way. So all I was basically trying to say is I've driven the road. I've looked at the site, and hopefully the building location, from different directions. We are aware that we've gone through Warren County approval, and they did have some objections to what we were doing. Part of our presentation tonight is to withdraw the awning sign of the bui lding, because it really doesn't serve a use, because it really can't be seen. So, our presentation tonight will ask for three signs instead of four. Now, we would still retain the awning with the building architectural face of the structure, but there will be no verbiage of the term restaurant on the awning itself. That will be withdrawn. MR. TURNER-No signage? MR. BACH-No signage. MR. KARPELES-That's Elevation B you're talking about now? MR. BAIRD-That would be Elevation B. underneath the wall sign. It was a proposed awning MR. BACH-Yes. The red awning will remain, but the Italian Restaurant word will come off of it. It simply cannot be seen from the road unless you get into the intersection. Now, our primary signs for buildings are put at the front entrance to our building, and that's where we would like the larger of the signs that we're tonight. What we would like to propose, in lieu of the awning signs, is this picture, illustration here, which will take the place of the words "Italian Restaurant", with the signage, and the square footage of that sign would be less than the awning sign, and the front elevation building sign added together. So this is about five or six square feet less than the total square footage. MRS. EGGLESTON-Are you going to have a sign on 187, denoting your restaurant, so that you're looking for people coming in off the Northway? MR. BACH-Well, we would simply ask typically used in the area, at off opportunity to see that, and we'd be permitted by the State. for a three way sign which is ramps in the area. I had an like to use that, if it would MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. BACH-For the short time I have been here, it's amazing that there are people already aware that we are coming to the community, and we compliment your community to make us welcome in this situation. In addition, we will offer some permanent employment to the local residents, and this is a long term employment. We get i nt 0 long term 1 eases, inmost cases, a minimum of 20 years, if we can. So we're here for the duration. We're not here to come in and make the best of things for a temporary situation. We're here for the long term. We feel we have an unusual ability, at this intersection, because the faces of the walls are parallel with, are not really parallel with each of the roads in the area, and because of the hardship of the topography in the area, we ask that you consider, in this case, a third building sign. We would like to have one on the front elevation facing, from the entrance of the building, that's identified as Sign B, with the picture that you have in front of you. MRS. EGGLESTON-Will that be neon, or what will that be? MR. BACH-It will be a neon lighted sign, just like the picture. - 36 - It will be a green neon lighted sign at night. The letters appear to be white, but when it is a lighted sign, it will become green at night. MR. TURNER-What would be the height of the sign, from the ground elevation? MR. BACH-This is the exhibit, which will also give you this four foot area on the bottom. MR. MARTIN-Would you have an extra copy of that for Staff? MR. BACH-I certainly do. MR. MARTIN-Thank you. MR. BACH-Was your question the height of the building, in elevation? how high MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. BAIRD-I don't want to make up footage or anything, from the ground, how far it is from the building? as far as MR. TURNER-Yes, that has to do with visibility. MR. BACH-If you look at Elevation A, in the green drawing, the lowest elevation of the parapet wall, which is this line right here, is typically 18 to 19 feet. That would be roughly the center of the sign for a five foot seven sign. That is the working height we need to get the air conditioning equipment, and also screening. MR. KARPELES-That's facing Route 9, right? MR. TURNER-No. That's would be facing 254. MR. BACH-In my personal opinion, why would need to have Sign Elevation A with this approval tonight, primarily comes from traffic coming from 87 northeast, on Quaker. If you pass the building, and go in an easterly direction, and if you have to come back at night, and are looking for a building, you may go back to 87 and go around in circles a couple of times before you really come back and find that building. It's hard enough to find any building at that intersection with the traffic being what it is, and the turns in the road being what it is, and when I drove here today, I was just careful just to fo 11 ow the curve of the road, without having much opportunity to, heavy traffic. I could see midnight, or dark driving traffic, having more of a difficult problem seeing the building. MR. TURNER-Just to touch on one thing. You know, when they came, Mr. Carr came for the variance for the 6,000 square foot building added to Boardman's old building, there was a question asked of him as to the driveway in the rear, was that going to be utilized, and the answer was, no. Now I see you're going to utilize it. MR. MARTIN-No, they're not. MR. TURNER-Yes, they are. MR. BACH-No. buildings. The driveway is strictly a service area for those MR. TURNER-The people coming off there? Is that what you're telling 254 aren't me? going to turn in MR. MARTIN-No. barrier that The site plan approval calls for a fiberglass is a matter of Certificate of Occupancy of the 37 - building. MR. TURNER-Where? MR. MARTIN-At that entrance, 254. MR. BAIRD-There's only one entrance there right now, one where you drive in. Ted. The MR. MARTIN-Somebody could still drive the full distance of the rear of the Plaza. They can't turn out onto Route 254. MR. TURNER-Okay, because the plans here, if you look at what he's got here, it shows it's go i ng ri ght out ont 0 254. MR. MARTIN-No. It's in the site plan, with their building permit, and that'll be a matter of that being in place before the CO is issued. MR. BAIRD-It's already been a stipulation for that part of the approval. MR. TURNER-Well, you know, it just didn't indicate it here, and I have no information to tell me otherwise. MR. BAIRD-Right. I had no idea myself. One of the gentleman up here had a question, as far as which road. It gets a little confusing. This is the already started project, as Joe mentioned today, right here. This is Route 9, right here. As you know, the entrance right across from the Grand Union enters somewhere way up in here, where all the faces of the stores in the e~isting Plaza are right along this area. Now, this is the proposed Olive Garden. This is the front wall sign, right here, that faces what we call the pinnacle, which is the different natured situation here. Now the sign that's in question is going to be on Elevation C. It's not actually in back of the Plaza. This is 254, as it rounds the strange corner into the main intersection of 9 and 254, which is actually out here. I have some visual shots that were taken for a survey that show as the dipping. If you've all been there, the site dips down in towards the proposed parking lot, where the cars are parked there. This proposed sign in question, there was a question at Warren County, they had it figured on going on the back of the wall, at the back of the parcel, as far as being on the back of the Plaza, and in fact it's not. MR. TURNER-It's on the northwest corner. MR. BAIRD-The northwest corner, e~actly. situation. I do have a shot number si~, that show that. It is kind of a strange here. I have some shot s MR. CARVIN-That is going to be a new wall, is that correct? In other words, all of this area is new construction? MR. TURNER-Yes, it's going to be new construction. MR. BACH-The front facade will be new construction. Yes, sir. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but the angle where Sign C is going to be hanging on, that's a new wall also, in other words, this angle wall here? MR. MARTIN-Yes. That's a new wall. MR. CARVIN-That is a new wall. MR. TURNER-So the parapet wall follows it all the way around, from facing 9 around the corner? - 38 - MR. BAIRD-Well, the back entrance that you speak of, that you had a question, as far as an entrance being used or not, right from where you enter there, where they're going to have they're parking lot, right out in front of Elevation B, that whole thing does circle around. I have some really good shots that show some of that, and you drive by it a lot. It might help to look at some of these pictures. MR. CARVIN-Is this essentially the floor plan of the Olive Garden? I'm just saying, I didn't know if the restaurant was actually going to be more square. MR. BAIRD-This invisible line right here, they haven't drawn the rest of the plaza. It goes way back here. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I realize that. That's what I'm saying. is the floor plan of the Olive Garden. This MR. TURNER-That's the Olive Garden. MR. MARTIN-The area towards the front, Fred, if I recall correctly, towards Route 9, that'll be the primary dining area. I think there'll be like a bar in the center approximately, and then the kitchen is in that rear area of the old Boardman building, and that's actually the layout. MR. CARVIN-Are they actually building? going into the old Boardman MR. MARTIN-Somewhat, yes. MR. BAIRD-Here's a good shot here, in Number 19. This is looking down 254. This is part of the old Kentucky Fried building, which will be demolished, okay. The new proposed building is set down in. You see the grass drop down in. The sign in question is kind of on an angle sign as it's drawn here. I'm trying to give you the contours to go along with the picture there. I've got some shots. MR. CARVIN-I'm mystified why they didn't put the entrance here. MR. TURNER-Yes. That's the question I had. MR. KARPELES-Is this whole building coming out? MR. BAIRD-Yes, sir. MR. CARVIN-Yes. This all comes out. MR. BAIRD-That's all your parking lot. See this square right here? That's where the building is right now. MR. KARPELES-They're taking that down now, right? MR. BAIRD-Yes. They wi 11 be. MR. KARPELES-I tried to drive in there today and I couldn't get in. There was a big truck blocking the only entrance. MR. BAIRD-They've got it all blocked off. MR. CARVIN-There used to be a supermarket in there, and I think a lot of the loading docks and what not, right there. MR. BAIRD-Yes. They were actually quite a ways back. This is the old Boardman's, and the supermarket was quite a ways down from it. MR. BACH-I show you, also have a picture here of the two smaller signs, to color wise, what they do look like. I also have one - 39 - more exhibit here. This is an example situation of another restaurant. This one was built in Madison, Wisconsin, to give you some idea of what the size of that sign will look like, on a full sized building. MR. TURNER-Is that the basic same elevation? MR. BACH-No. This is the freestanding building. MR. TURNER-Yes, that's much larger, it looks it. higher? Is it larger, MR. BACH-May I take a look at that one moment, please? I would say it would be very close to the same size, because, typically, our lower parapet wall is the 19 foot elevation. So, it is very close in size. MR. TURNER-What are you going to finish up for ceiling height, 10 feet, inside, 11 feet, or 12 feet? MR. BACH-To be honest with you, extends, at least. I don't know. I think it MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-They're going to have elevated dining areas, as I recall. Some of the floors are going to be elevated. MR. TURNER-Some of the tables are going to be elevated. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. TURNER-Okay. Anything else you'd care to address? MR. BACH-No. If you have any questions, I'd like to try to answer them for you. MR. TURNER-I guess I have a real problem with the idea that you can't see, you won't be able to see your building off of 254, when you come down from the Northway. You might not see it, as you get in the hollow where the traffic light is, but I think you will, but you're certainly going to pick it up when you come down 254, off of 187. I remember when those buildings weren't there, and you could see that whole thing, very plain, when this road was redone. You could see that side of the building very plain, very visible. MR. BACH-You're talking about going west on Quaker? MR. TURNER-Going east or west. You're at a decided height coming down the hill. You can see it. MR. BACH-You can see the building very plainly, but if you don't have a sign on the northeast elevation, you'll pass the building and go west to 87. You're already through the intersection. We're just trying to, what we feel, make it safer for the public to not have to make U-turns consistently, and get to a business. I had one example today. I was directed to go to one building three miles north of that intersection today. I was told to go through five traffic lights and I would be in that immediate area. After I went through the fifth traffic light and asked the person in that same area about the business, they tell me it was three miles further north, and it was a block away. So, I mean, people are given distances, as a person in the area, and it can be difficult for people to find the businesses. MR. TURNER-Let me just ask you thi s, then. In for the new business, what did you come up people were going to patronize this, as far they're coming from, who they're going to be? your market study with, as to what as distance, where - 40 - '---- MR. BACH-I'm not familiar with market studies. We have a Marketing Department that does that. Part of what we counted on, when we came to the commun it y, is we asked quest ions of the Zoning and Planning people, and we were told that we were permitted two building signs, and we were told we were permitted one 50 square foot pylon signs. Those were the signs we were counting on, with our planned development for the area. We did find out, it was given to us in error, and that's why we're back ton i ght, to try to work out some agreement, if we could. MR. TURNER-Does anyone else want to jump in? MR. THOMAS-The only thing I can see Elevation A and B sign, but the basically on the back, on the 254 nobody else has a sign back there, there when that place was packed? is, I can go along with the Elevation C sign, that's side of the building, and or was there ever a sign back MR. BAIRD-I can help you out with that, as far as comparing plaza for plaza. Take the Aviation Mall, for instance. Back when the Sign Ordinance was originally designed, I believe that it was designed in respect to the facades of stores. Most plazas, in general, have just stores among stores, with only a front facade. In the Aviation Mall, for example, without variances being obtained, you have stores such as Sears, with a sign on the front and the rear. MR. TURNER-Michael, not to jump in, but there was a special sign package developed just for that, in respect to the Aviation Mall, and that's what the agreement came up with, because there was nothing in the Ordinance that addressed it, and that's what happened to that. MRS. EGGLESTON-We just did it for Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart deal we just had. That was part of the MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. BAIRD-I guess the only thing I can say, he mentioned same way the Warren County Board did, the sign in the back, the back, or is it a strange third side to the restaurant. see the last straight line, right after Elevation C, that fact a straight shot. it the is it You is in MR. THOMAS-But don't you think, as people come around on Quaker Road, that they will see the front sign, even if that Elevation C sign wasn't there? I mean, once they see it there, they're going to travel X number of feet, they're going to see their front sign anyway. MR. BACH-They can't see it coming, direction. They're already into the to go west. though, from an easterly intersection and committed MR. TURNER-They'll see Elevation intersection. Then they'll have to intersection. B, before they get to the make a left hand turn at the MR. THOMAS-They've got to make a left hand turn anyway. the only entrance into the place. That's MR. TURNER-That's the only entrance there. MR. BAIRD-I guess the best argument I've heard of is that you just have, you do get out in front of the already permitted Elevation B sign. If you didn't have Elevation C, you're already studying the traffic light, and you're not as apt to look over to the left. MR. TURNER-Yes, but, initially, you've got to identify where you - 41 - are, but after the initial identification, after everybody finds out where you are, they're not going to forget where the Olive Garden Restaurant is, and you're not going to rely on the business off the Northway. MR. BAIRD-You're absolutely right, and I had an opinion like that, too, until Joe brought up a good point. What about the tourists and the people who aren't from around here? MR. TURNER-They'll find you. that about every business. They won't miss you. You could say MR. BACH-That's part of the reason we're making the investment here. MR. TURNER-That's fine. We're glad you're here, but I'm just saying, I think you're asking a bit much. We haven't done it for other people. I don't see a problem with that identification here. MR. BACH-Would you be willing to do it for a short term? MR. TURNER-No, not me. I don't know about the rest of you. I say, once you tear those buildings down, once those are out of there, your identification problem is long gone. MR. CARVIN-I think there was going to be some grading on that bank, wasn't there, a little bit? Are they going to grade that bank a little bit? MR. MARTIN-Well, actually, I think the elevation in the parking lot, like in front of the old Moynihan's Liquor Store, where you used to walk into that, I think that's going to drop. I heard maybe three or four feet. MR. TURNER-They're going to drop it because of the water runoff, right? MR. MARTIN-Right. It's too steep if you leave it at the grade it is now, because they've got, the building, if you saw, the trench that's going through, like, the center of the old parking lot, in that area, that's the footing for the front of the building. So it's going to stick out pretty far. MR. TURNER-Yes, but the base for the building is still at the same elevation as the Boardman's building. MR. MARTIN-Yes, that's true. MR. TURNER-It's just going to come straight out. going to change anything. So that isn't MR. MARTIN-I thought he meant the elevation like, underneath the existing Kentucky Fried Chicken and Moynihan's building, that's going to drop. MR. TURNER-Yes. I would think so anyway, because there was a lot of water. That water used to come down off of there like crazy. MR. KARPELES-Well, you're coming west right, 254? it would look to me like you problem is on 254. You're not going to see any when sign, MR. BAIRD-That is what he's talking about. MR. KARPELES-Yes. I don't see how you can see any sign there, coming west on that road. MR. BACH-No. It's 15 foot difference between the highest elevation into the road and the floor elevation of the building, - 42 - and you're on the west side of the intersection, you're three to four feet minimum lower than that. MR. TURNER-Yes, but the sign elevation feet. So you're picking up another elevation off the road. is going to be four or five 18 or 19 feet in MR. BACH-No. It's 18 or 19 feet to the center of the sign. MR. TURNER-Yes. sign? So you're probably, what's the height of the MR. CARVIN-I counted about 24 feet to the top of the roof there. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-So your sign is probably, you're probably talking, probably 20 feet anyway, between 18 to 20 feet. MR. TURNER-Sure. So he's still five or six feet above the road. MR. BACH-I agree with you 100 percent, that the local people will become fairly familiar with our restaurant location, and hopefully will frequent the restaurant. Part of what I saw as a problem to myself, in driving through the area, is realizing that's one of the busiest intersections in the community. I would venture to say that there would be no less than 50 road signs within 200 feet of that intersection, when you're coming to Route 9 from 57. There are stacks of different route number and signs everywhere, and for a driving person, new in the area, to be able to see that sign, I find it hard that they can see it, until they actually get into the intersection. No one is going to be in a position to turn right at that intersection, unless they know that building is there. MR. TURNER-Yes. I'd agree with know, you're a stranger in Town. going to get lost. you in that respect, but you You've got to expect you're MR. BACH-Well, I think strangers should go home safely, too. MR. TURNER-I know they would, but I'm just saying, you know, there's plenty of safety features at that corner, the light's all ways. You're going to stand right there and you're going to be looking right at the Olive Garden Restaurant, when you come down the hill. You come down 254, you're going to hit the intersection at 9, and you're going to be looking right across the road, and there's the Olive Garden Restaurant. You're going to be looking right at it, I'm telling you. MR. BACH-I agree with you. You will eventually see the restaurant as you get into the intersection, but I'd venture to say that there may be people who have to make a U-turn. We don't like to see that. MR. CARVIN-Well, I think you're also going to have a problem for the east bound traffic. I mean, if somebody comes down the hill off the Northway, and doesn't realize he's got to make a right hand turn, all of a sudden he's stuck at the red light. Now he's headed for Hudson Falls, and it's, the signs aren't going to necessarily alleviate the traffic congestion, and it's an unusual location, and my feeling is that the two signs are going to be more than adequate. I don't think there's going to be a real problem with just the two signs. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any other questions? MR. KARPELES-Yes. I don't agree with everybody else here. I think that there's a good chance that any tourist in the area could go right by that place and never see it, going up Quaker - 43 Road. I don't know what the road number is. MR. TURNER-Two fifty-four. Going east or west? MR. KARPELES-Two fifty-four, going west on two fifty-four, and, gee, that whole area in there, that mall, has been such a problem that anything you can do to get people to go in there, I think is a good move. MR. TURNER-Yes, well, I don't think you'll have a problem, people going in there, because once they find it, they're going to be like bees after honey. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, we're opening, you would be opening up for all the other tenants that go in there, Bob. They're going to have the same problem on the back side. There's no, so are you going to allow signs all down the back side, is the question, because you would be opening a can of worms, so to speak. They'd all have that same argument. MR. KARPELES-Maybe that's what's wrong with that area over there. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. the boost. I agree it needs something. I'd 1i ke to see MR. TURNER-The only thing wrong with that particular plaza, Bob, was the peopl e that owned it at the time. They're the ones that held it up. Nobody else. MR. CARVIN-Remember we just turned down, what, Chase Bank, there, right across the street, and Steinbach, a couple of months before that. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. KARPELES-Yes, but we also granted Wal-Mart a whole bunch of sign s. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. TURNER-You need some signs, but you don't need one on every corner of the building, just because that's a company policy. MRS. EGGLESTON-I will say, to answer his question, he could get a temporary sign, couldn't he, until people get used to it? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-You can get, without coming through us, you can get a temporary sign. MR. TURNER-No. He can't get a temporary sign. He can get an advertising, a Grand Opening, or something like that. It might be called a temporary sign, but he can't leave it there and keep renewing it, renewing it, renewing it. MRS. EGGLESTON-No. That's true. MR. MARTIN-Show me where it says. MR. TURNER-If you want to go that far. MR. BAIRD-Well, we must warn the applicant that that's being operated on right now. It will come up very shortly. MR. MARTIN-There's nothing renewing temporary signs. temporary signs, right now. in the current law that restricts There's no limit on renewal of MR. TURNER-Not right now. - 44 - MRS. EGGLESTON-So you do another 30, you renew it, it for 30 days, then if you need it for until the Town Board changes that. MR. MARTIN-We have some temporary signs that are wearing out in this Town. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, you're right. MR. BACH-One thing that Mr. Baird has said to me. If we are granted two signs, as the Warren County Commission has requested, we'd like the consideration that the Italian Restaurant be a part of this approval, which is on this that I've given you here tonight, which is to delete the awning sign. MRS. EGGLESTON-That you're allowed to have the Italian Restaurant up on the top as part of the Olive Garden sign? MR. BACH-That's correct. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. TURNER-How much does that increase the square footage? MRS. EGGLESTON-I don't know. MR. CARVIN-Down here, area of the sign, 84. MR. TURNER-84.375 square foot. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. BAIRD-And now, minus the third sign, in weighing the allowable square footage, the applicant desires, you could go to 150 square foot per sign. MR. BACH-Part of our other consideration is we feel well under the 300. We didn't feel that a large sign would really benefit us. We felt that the sign we're proposing is adequate for our use. If anyone has had an opportunity to come to our restaurant before, you won't find any window signs in our business, and we're not going to propose any, even though it has, I think, taken away from. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, I think that's a fair exchange, to let them have this type, but two, instead of the three signs. MR. TURNER-How did you come up with feet? Where are you taking it from, the main entrance is from 254. the three Route 9? hundred square You're claiming MR. BAIRD-No. all. We're not claiming the main entrance from there at MR. TURNER-It's facing that way. entrance. You said that's the main MR. BAIRD-The entrance of the restaurant, entrance driving into the plaza. but not the main MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, the door to the restaurant, Ted, the main entrance is down by the light, across from Paper Cutter, and where that light is, right, to the plaza? MR. BAIRD-Right. MRS. EGGLESTON-He's just saying the main entrance, the door. MR. TURNER-No. B. The main entrance to the restaurant, is Elevation - ~5 - MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. TURNER-Is that not right? MR. BAIRD-Yes, sir. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. CARVIN-Is there going to be a door over, or underneath the sign with Elevation C? MR. BACH-All, require emergency exits MR. MARTIN-Off of Route 9. MR. CARVIN-At this point, there's no plans for a door? MR. BACH-No, not at all. It wi 11 never be an entrance. MR. CARVIN-Okay, because I know your pictures here show doors and windows. In other words, Elevation A, Elevation B, and Elevation C shows a door, and I just wanted to make sure. MR. BACH-Yes. Those doors would be in the Elevation. MR. CARVIN-So there will be a door there? MR. BACH-Those will be emergency exits only. MR. TURNER-Okay. Lets see what the public has to say. open the public hearing. Let me PUBLIC HEARING OPENED PAULA JOHNSON MRS. JOHNSON-Yes. My name is Paula Johnson, and this is the first I've heard anything about the Olive Garden coming in, but I've lived in the area part time. I'm a summer resident, for the last eight years, and I have to say that I didn't know that Moynihan's Liquor Store was there until after I had come in from the main entrance, and then discovered it along with the Supermarket and everything else that was there. I also found that in the, I be 1 i eve it's the Northway PI aza, further east, I didn't know the Post Office was there, and it seems to me that that Post Office is just about situated in exactly the same spot as this Olive Garden will be situated, in the far corner of the shopping center. In fact, I couldn't tell you right now what any of those stores that run along Route 9 are. I know the ones that I can see the signs, like clothes all for 10 dollars, for the teenagers, and there's a little restaurant there, but the stores that run along Route 9, I don't know what they are, and as I sa i d, I just discovered the Post Off ice. So, I real 1 y fee 1 that, it's just my opinion, I would let them have that sign on the st ore. MR. KARPELES-I agree. MRS. JOHNSON-I can only benefit the area. MR. TURNER-I know, but I'm just saying, their own choice. it's been an eyesore of MR. KARPELES-Well, yes, but I don't know that. here knows that. Nobody that lives MR. TURNER-Okay. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED - 1t6 - CORRESPONDENCE MRS. EGGLESTON-We've got one letter comment, from Robert L. Eddy, "My suggestion would be to deny this variance for four wall signs. To approve this variance only opens up a request from other developers and tenants and shopping centers to make such a request based upon the precedent set by this case. Incidentally, isn't the location in the legal ad incorrect? I believe the location should be shown as Quaker Road." MR. MARTIN-I disagree flatly, simply, succinctly. MRS. EGGLESTON-What is your address? legal address is? You don't know what your MR. BACH-No. I don't have that with me. MR. MARTIN-Tax map numbers are also now incorporated in the legal descriptions, I don't think that comment has any bearing. MR. TURNER-Okay. What do you want to do with it? Do you want to discuss it right now? Have you got anything else to add, Fred? MR. CARVIN-Well, unfortunately, there's good points and bad points here. I guess I still would have, having seen a parade of these sign request s come through here, in that area, and the Board, at least up until this point, has always been fairly strict on the Ordinance, I guess I kind of feel that these two signs should be adequate. MRS. EGGLESTON-I guess my feeling would be that if I thought for a minute, or was really sure that that sign would bring people into that plaza, it would be worth it, and we could use that as a justification. That doesn't mean maybe we'd have to tell every other store that maybe wanted a sign on the back, no, but it could be a drawing card to get people into there. I agree that it needs every boost it can get, and as we know, as has been testified before here, that it wasn't of the public's making, but of the people who owned the building, that it's in the deplorable condition that it's in. It has nothing to do with our area. It's the people who wanted it that way for greedy purposes, or whatever. That's all been resolved now, so they're trying to rebuild it back again. So, that would be my thoughts. MR. KARPELES-I think you know how I feel. I feel that they ought to be granted the three signs. I think that anything you can do to get people into that shopping center is going to be a plus, and I really believe that a lot of people are going to drive down Quaker Road, or 254, and miss that entirely. A lot of tourists in the area will probably go by it and never even know it's there. MRS. EGGLESTON-Especially with the Balloon Festival, they'll come from up off Ridge, and that area. MR. TURNER-I don't think they'll get lost that bad. MR. KARPELES-And I think this area depends very much on tourist trade, and anything we can do to encourage tourist trade, make it easier for them, and alleviate traffic problems, has got to be a plus. MR. TURNER-Well, I'm with Fred. Two signs is plenty. I don't see any particular circumstance here that warrants a third sign, because I think once those buildings are gone, they're going to have plenty of visibility from all directions. Okay. Motion's in order. MRS. EGGLESTON-We've got to have a vote, haven't we? - 47 - MR. TURNER-Four plus one. MRS. down. EGGLESTON-Four plus one, because Warren County So it's got to be a vote of four to one. turned it MR. TURNER-Yes, a majority vote, four to one. MISS HAUSER-I agree with Bob. MR. CARVIN-Well, if the motion is to deny, is it still four votes to deny, or just? MR. TURNER-Four votes to deny. MR. CARVIN-Or do you need four? MRS. EGGLESTON-A majority plus one, isn't it? MR. TURNER-A majority plus one. MR. MARTIN-You need five votes to overturn. MR. TURNER-Five votes to overturn it, not four. MR. CARVIN-On a denial, though? MR. MARTIN-No. If you're in agreement with the Warren County Board, if you deny, then it's just a majori t y. MRS. we've EGGLESTON-Just a majority, but if we want to overturn them, got to have five votes here. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KARPELES-I don't think you're going to get five votes. MR. MARTIN-Well, what I would suggest is you could do a motion on two, and then a second motion on the third one. MR. TURNER-No. vote them all. I think that's a total package. You've got to They did. They didn't separate them. MR. MARTIN-All right. MR. CARVIN-All right. Well, I think it's easier to go deny, in other words, because they're request ing four. going to drop that to three. for a We're MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. wi thdrawn one. We're dropping it to three. He's already MR. TURNER-You're going to give them the two on the building? MR. CARVIN-Well, they're allowed the two on the bui lding. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-As far as, I don't think we'd have to specify what the sign is, right? In other words, that it can include Ital ian Restaurant. MR. TURNER-Just as long as it feet. Yes. We don't have the It's gone, either way. doesn't go over the votes, I'll tell you 300 square ri ght now. MR. CARVIN-If it came to a vote, I'd probably vote no, three signs. on the - 48 - MR. TURNER-Yes. They don't need the third sign. going to catch 254. That sign is MR. CARVIN-Because we made Wal-Mart, with a parade of them. They wanted, walked out of here with four. I mean, they what, seven came in here or eight, and MR. TURNER-Yes. There's no special circumstance. If they weren't going to take those buildings down, they were going to utilize those buildings that are there now, then they might have a case, but I don't know. They don't have a case. Those buildings are gone. So that's going to open that whole corridor right up. MR. CARVIN-I just don't think the signs are going to eliminate the traffic. MR. TURNER-No. They're not going to take care of traffic. The traffic is going to be there. MR. CARVIN-I think you're going to have confusion at that corner, whether you've got two signs, or twenty-two signs. MR. TURNER-That's right. MRS. EGGLESTON-Then go for your motion. MR. CARVIN-That's what I'm trying. approval for two, right? I think you can do an MR. THOMAS-You can do an approval for two, but you can't do a denial. MR. CARVIN-You can't do a denial. work. I don't think so. It doesn't MR. TURNER-When you went to the Warren County Board, one and four, was the sign facing Route 9, and the other sign facing 254, at the entrance? MR. BAIRD-The two they didn't want was the one on 254 and the one on Route 9. MR. TURNER-And the awning sign? MR. BAIRD-Right, which leaves the two that you have tonight. MR. TURNER-They denied the whole package. MR. BAIRD-That isn't what they said at the meeting. the comment. As you not e, MR. TURNER-It just says comments, but the first thing they did was they denied it. They said, disapproved. The application for a sign variance to place four wall signs on proposed commercial building in an existing shopping plaza, disapproved. Comment, they disapproved it, then they made a comment. So it's disapproved. The four signs are gone. MR. BAIRD-The comment was just made about. MR. TURNER-That was just after the fact, they were reacting on it. That was after the fact. MRS. EGGLESTON-Bob's going to make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 72-1993 Introduced by Robert Karpeles who moved for seconded by Joyce Eggleston: HOWARD CARR, its adoption, - lt9 - For three signs, rather than the four signs that are requested, and the three signs would be, Sign Number One, as per sketch to read the Olive Garden Italian Restaurant; Sign Number Three, to read the Olive Garden, and Sign Number Four, to read the Olive Garden, and the awning sign is out, and I feel that this is justified by the traffic patterns in that area, by the tourist traffic that we're going to have. It's a difficult area. The whole shopping mall has been a problem area, and anything we can do to encourage people to go in that mall has got to be a plus. Duly adopted this 25th day of August, vot e: 1993, by the following AYES: Mrs. Eggleston, Miss Hauser, Mr. Karpeles NOES: Mr. Carvin, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Turner ABSENT: Mr. Philo MR. TURNER-It's denied. MR. CARVIN-Mr. Chairman, can we amend that to allow them two wall signs, or do they have to resubmit? MR. THOMAS-I would say you can make another motion, since the first one has been denied. MR. KARPELES-Yes. That motion's been denied, right? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. THOMAS-The first one was denied. couldn't make a second motion. I don't see why you MR. CARVIN-Okay. MOTION TO GRANT AN AMENDED CARR, Introduced by Fred seconded by Chris Thomas: SIGN VARIANCE NO. 72-1993 HOWARD Carvin who moved for its adoption, Grant relief from Section 140-&B(3) (d), which states that the applicant is allowed one freestanding sign and one wall sign to allow them a ma~imum of two wall signs of the design as submitted by the applicant indicating the Olive Garden Italian Restaurant, not to e~ceed the total allowable square footage as outlined by the Town Ordinance. Duly adopted this 25th day of August, v ot e : 1993, by the following AYES: Mrs. Eggleston, Miss Hauser, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Philo MR. TURNER-The only reason I voted for it was because I think they do have a problem with 254, and I think that one sign will take care of it. AREA VARIANCE NO. 73-1993 TYPE: UNLISTED RR-3A GORDON & IDA ROBERTSON OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOT 28, BOULDERWOOD DR., GRANT ACRES APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO DEVELOP A VACANT LOT AND IS PROPOSING ONE AND NINETY-EIGHT HUNDREDTHS (1.98) ACRES FOR THE LOT AREA AND IS SEEKING RELIEF OF ONE AND TWO HUNDREDTHS (1.02) ACRES FROM SECTION 179-15C, WHICH REQUIRES THREE (3) ACRES AS THE MINIMUM LOT AREA IN THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL 3 ACRE ZONE. (ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY) (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) DATE: 8/18/93 TAX MAP NUMBER: 27-4-28 LOT SIZE: 1.98 ACRES SECTION -50 179-15C JEFF ROBERTSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. EGGLESTON-And the Warren County Planning Board returned, "No Count y Impact." STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 73-1993, Gordon and Ida Robertson, Meeting Date: August 25, 1993 "ADDRESS OF PROJECT: Lot 28, Boulderwood Drive, Grant Acres SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to develop a vacant parcel. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: 1. Applicant is proposing one and ninety-eight hundredths (1.98) acre for the lot area and is seeking relief of one and two hundredths (1.02) acre from Section 179-15C, which requires three (3) acres as the minimum lot area in the Rural Resident ial 3 Acre zone. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. DESCRIBE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW PLACEMENT OF A STRUCTURE WHICH MEETS THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS. Applicant's proposed project is located in a Planning Board approved subdivision (Grant Acres), but is also located in the Adirondack Park, and therefore cannot be "grandfathered" as per Section 179- 7&E General E~ceptions to Minimum Lot Requirements. 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 as noted in Question 1, and no other option is available which would require no variance. 3. WOULD THIS VARIANCE BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD? It would appear that the variance would not be detrimental to the district or neighborhood as project is located in an approved subdivision and therefore consistent in character with the neighboring parcels. 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: Staff has no further comments regarding this project." MR. TURNER-How long have they owned the property? MR. ROBERTSON-My name is Jeff Robert son. I' m their son. MR. TURNER-How long have they owned the property? MR. ROBERTSON-I'm not e~actly sure. It was shortly after, the bought it from Mr. Grant, who subdivided the lots, at that time. MR. TURNER-So then it's some time ago. MR. ROBERTSON-I assume they must have changed the zoning since then. MR. TURNER-Yes, we did, but it's some time ago, then. MR. ROBERTSON-Yes. MR. TURNER-It's not recent. MR. ROBERTSON-Not recently. MR. TURNER-Okay. This is typical of the lots up there. That's only reason they're here, otherwise they'd be grandfathered. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. TURNER-I don't have any other questions. Does anybody else have any? MR. CARVIN-I will say, Ted, according to this, it's dated June - 51 - 15th, 1988. That's when the survey map was done. So I would assume that they probably owned it. MR. TURNER-Okay. I didn't even look at it. MR. ROBERTSON-The survey was done, and they were planning to build a house at that time, but they changed their mind. They're selling that lot now. MR. TURNER-They're going to sell? Okay. All right. Let me open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Motion's in order. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 73-1993 ROBERTSON, Introduced by Theodore Turner who adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: GORDON & moved for IDA its This is a lot of record in a preexisting subdivision. The applicant is seeking relief of 1.02 acres from Section 179-15C, which requires three acres as the minimum lot area in the Rural Residential Three Acre zone. Again, the practical difficulty is it's a preexisting subdivision. It would have been grandfathered, except for the fact it's in the Adirondack Park. This is the minimum relief to correct the specified practical difficulty. Duly adopted this 25th day of August, v ot e: 1993, by the following AYES: Miss Hauser, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Philo AREA VARIANCE NO. 74-1993 TYPE II LI-IA CURTIS LUMBER CO., INC. OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE HOLDEN AVENUE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO PLACE A SIX (6) FOOT INDUSTRIAL FENCE ON THE NORTH, WEST, AND SOUTH SIDE OF AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL SITE AND IS SEEKING FIFTY (50) FEET RELIEF FROM SECTION 179-72B, WHICH REQUIRES A FIFTY (50) FOOT BUFFER WHERE ANY INDUSTRIAL USE ABUTS ANY RESIDENTIAL ZONE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) DATE: 8/18/93 (BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE) TAX MAP NUMBER: 117-9-13, 14, 21 LOT SIZE: 13,700 SQUARE FEET SECTION 179-72B JIM DAVIES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. EGGLESTON-The Warren County Planning Board approved with the comment, "Wi th the cond i t i on that the recommendat ions by the Queensbury Beautification Committee concerning the green vine plantings be adhered to to screen the residential neighborhood." STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 74-1993, Curtis Lumber Co., Inc., Meeting Date: August 25, 1993 "ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: Holden Avenue SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to place a six (&) foot industrial fence on the north, west, and south side of an existing commercial site. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: 1. Applicant is proposing to place a six (&) foot fence on his property line and is seeking relief of fifty (50) feet from Section 179-72B, which requires a fifty (50) - 52 - foot buffer where any industrial use abuts any residential zone. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. DESCRIBE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW PLACEMENT OF A STRUCTURE WHICH MEETS ZONING REQUIREMENTS. Applicant stated need to utilize the entire property for storage interferes with the required fifty (50) foot buffer zone between applicant's property and adjacent residential zone. 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? Although the applicant states that the relief requested is the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the specific practical difficulty, fifty (50) feet is the required buffer and therefore the relief requested would require the maximum variance. Additionally, the applicant does not substantiate their request for maximum relief from the required buffer other than stating a need to utilize the entire property for the recently rezoned part of their property as the buffer requirement was a known factor when the applicant petitioned and was granted a zone change for said parcel. 3. WOULD THIS VARIANCE BE MATERIALLY DETRIMENTAL TO THE OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD? Applicant is proposing to place a six (6) foot chain link fence with three (3) strands of barbed wire on the north and south side of a recently rezoned portion of their light industrial property and which is adjacent to two (2) residential properties. The reason for the required fifty (50) foot buffer is to protect residential properties from possible adverse impact on land/water quality and possible conflicts of use between two (2) or more areas, and therefore it would appear that the variance would be detrimental to the district and neighborhood as defined in Section 179-7 Buffer Zone. 4. WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF THE VARIANCE ON PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES? It would appear that the variance would not effect public facilities and services. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: The major concern regarding the proposed project is related to the impact of the lack of a buffer between a proposed expanded light industrial use and the neighborhood and in particular the two (2) adjacent residential properties. Not only does the elimination of a buffer zone between these two diverse uses subject the adjacent residential property owners to a complete loss of hitherto sheltering vegetation, including a number of mature trees, but the proposed fence will subject the adjacent residential property owners to what might be considered an inappropriate fence design for said residential zone." MR. CARVIN-Before we start, Mr. Chairman, I'd like a clarification on the fence. According to the description, it says, northwest and south side, and I want to verify the south side. Is that correct? MR. DAVIES-My name is Jim Davies. I represent Curtis Lumber Company. That is correct. That is an apparent error. The fence is proposed to be on the northeast and west side of the property, as shown on the map. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Yes. minutes to note correct? I was going to say. Okay. Then I'd that. The south side is to remain open, like the is that MR. DAVIES-The south side is to remain open. The south side, as it's presently the current location of the remainder of the Curtis Lumber Company property. This property was purchased for the purpose of expanding the storage area for Curtis Lumber. Their business at that location has become, I would say, unexpectedly successful, and knowing as we did, that it was a residential zone, and that portion of it was rezoned, and that we would require having this variance, we nonetheless knew that it was necessary because of the needs of the business of Curtis Lumber to buy that property and to do what we could do to try to 53 expand the area where the I umber is st ored. I would say, in that respect, that the industrial use to which this property is going to be put is probably minor in nature, as far as industrial uses are concerned. It will involved merely the storage of lumber and lumber products. I would say that, as far as the business of Curtis Lumber at that location is concerned, right now, the additional space would probably increase the safety of the storage that is required for the business, at its present level. MR. TURNER-All right. Can I ask you a question? When you had it rezoned, you knew that the buffer requirement was a known factor. How do you answer that? MR. DAVIES-Well, I believe I just did. We didn't know that that was a required, that we would have to get a variance, after the change in zoning. We were aware of that. MR. TURNER-All right. The storage area, is it going to be outside storage? Is it going to be a building along the fence line, or what? MR. DAVIES-It's going to structures anticipated. Outdoor storage, with a security. be all outside storage. There are no There will be no structures built. chainlink fence surrounding it, for MR. CARVIN-Okay. Will there be vehicle traffic through there? MR. DAVIES-There will be no traffic through there. MR. CARVIN-There won't be any cars or trucks or unloading or loading type of things? MR. DAVIES-No. There may be a forklift, unloading materials, for storage, not by the public. MR. TURNER-Yes, but the public goes into that yard to pick up their supplies, don't they? MR. GRIFFEN MR. GRIFFEN-Yes. That's why we're staying out where the roadway is. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. DAVIES-In a sense, I suppose you could say it's a self- imposed problem. On the other hand, it's difficult to characterize a need for a variance brought about by perhaps the unexpected success of a business, and the need to expand to create more storage area as being a hardship roll, or a self- imposed hardship. MR. TURNER-Yes, well, you know, when you first came, there was a position imposed upon you that you couldn't sell retail there, right, and then that got relaxed, and now the retail is really taking right off. So now, you know, you're really stretching yourself right out to the limit. So I don't think it's right to impose a hardship on the neighbors who live right next door, just because you're doing a great deal of business. MR. DAVIES-Well, if I may, that's correct, but at that time, this entire area was zoned residential. We obtained a variance in a residential zone to let the store in. MR. TURNER-Right. MR. DAVIES-So, therefore, those conditions were made. MR. TURNER-That's fine, but we knew what was going to happen - 54 - there, because it was already a business there, before you guys got there. Mr. Batease had a woodworking business there. Do you remember that? MR. GRIFFEN-Not on that side of the road, sir. MR. TURNER-Not on that side of the road, but on the other side of the road, okay. So that's what happened first, was that side of the road. MR. DAVIES-But that whole area was subsequently rezoned LI-1A, which obviated the need for those conditions. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Even though that happens, though, and it gets rezoned light industry, it doesn't mean that it's at the complete disregard for the ne i ghbors, if you wi 11. I mean, some of those people have lived there all their lives. They like their ne i ghborhood. They don't want to be dri ven out. You put a fence, as close to the house as this fence is proposed to, and a barbed wire fence at that, I think you're really. It says barbed wire. It's still barbed wire, with close to a residential home. I think you're asking, really, a lot. When was this purchased, by the way? MR. DAVIES-About a year ago. MRS. EGGLESTON-Don't you have a specific date, Mr. Davies? MR. DAVIES-It's probably on the survey map, August &, '92. The house that's shown on the portion of the property that was rezoned, and that's tax map lot number 14, in the upper left of the map, that's the only that was rezoned to light industrial. The other two parcels that were purchased at this time were already LI-1A, but the house that's shown at lot 14 is a small, about 20 by 20, house, which I understand has been vacant for a long time, very bad condition. MRS. EGGLESTON-Are you talking about the one you're going to demolish? MR. DAVIES-Yes. It does not even have indoor plumbing. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, that's not the one I'm referring to. MR. DAVIES-I know that. residential zone. You're referring to the house in the MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, I am. MR. DAV I ES-But what I' m say i ng is, I' m not so sure that what' s adjoining this property right now is so desirable, . because, obviously, if we can't use this property for what!!!.. intend to use it for, we probably will not go forward and demolish that house. Demolishing that property will probably be a benefit to the area. As far as the rest of the northern side is concerned, just to the north of the Curtis Lumber property, is a property owned by Mr. Hermance, who I believe is here tonight, and he has a commercial use with that property, at the present time. It has not retained its residential character. Not taking that away from anybody or trying to denigrate this property, but the fact is, that whole area is becoming a commercial/industrial use. MR. KARPELES-Have you explored all the possibilities of going up in storage, rather than going out in storage? MR. DAVIES-Well, I'm sure Curtis has, and if I may speak to that, the fact that, I believe that going up probably would be worse than spreading out, as far as visual effect. - 55 - MR. TURNER-What are you going to store over there? MR. GRIFFEN-Lumber. MR. TURNER-I know. What kind of lumber? MR. GRIFFEN-Dry dimension, or treated lumber. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. KARPELES-You can't have racks? would? You can't build racks that MR. GRIFFEN-Racks, we'd have to come back again for a variance to get anywhere close to it. There would be a permanent building. MR. KARPELES-I thought it was going to be outside? MR. GRIFFEN-It is outside. You can't put racks, per se, outside without a roof over it, whatever. It would be a permanent type building. MR. KARPELES-I don't know that. outside without a roof on it. I think you can build racks MR. GRIFFEN-Yes. You can build them outside without a rack. MR. KARPELES-Without a roof. MR. GRIFFEN-Yes, you can, without a roof. You can go up in the air, but it's not feasible on the property that's there, with the elevations that's there. If you drove on the property, you'd realize that you can't put a lumber storage rack going up a hill. We utilized the land to the best that we can, with the barn in back, buffer that back there, also. MR. TURNER-Yes, but I guess, you know, you're assuming that, you bought the property, and it's light industrial, and then, well, we're going to go for a variance. Well, you know, I think that' s unfair to the neighbors to impose on them a business, right on their property line. MR. DAVIES-The rezoning was just with respect to one third of the property. MR. TURNER-I know, but expect the neighbors to line, very unfair. I'm saying, I think that's unfair to have a business right on their property MR. DAVIES-This Board give us the variance on the other property. MR. TURNER-That's fi ne, but I mean, yourself. You've got to look elsewhere. sometimes you outgrow MRS. EGGLESTON-You can only push so far. I mean, you're just creeping, creeping, creeping in that neighborhood, and really, the light industry is meant to have a buffer around it. MR. GRIFFEN-I don't think we've done anything but enhance that ne i ghborhood. I don' t th i nk we have run it down. I th i nk that we have enhanced the neighborhood. We haven't deteriorated it. MRS. EGGLESTON-But that doesn't mean you can just keep. MR. TURNER-Just keep walking. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. Somewhere it has to stop. MR. GRIFFEN-Then what you're saying is you don't want businesses to grow. - 56 - MRS. EGGLESTON-I'm not saying that. MR. TURNER-That's not the point. MR. GRIFFEN-The point is, if we grow. MR. TURNER-My point is, when you went there, you knew that you were going to grow just so far. You can't keep pushing the guy out next door, just because you're there. MRS. EGGLESTON-Where do you live, sir? MR. GRIFFEN-I'm a Regional Manager. I live in Warrensburg. MRS. EGGLESTON-Do you know what it's like to have your home in peace and tranquility? MR. GRIFFEN-Yes. We had no zoning, until about two years ago, in Warrensburg. So I do know what it is like. We had none whatsoever, ma'am. You could do anything you wanted to. We had pig farm, which they had horses in my back yard. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. GRIFFEN-I know what zoning is. MRS. EGGLESTON-So, I mean, you have to real ize these people's desires, and they have wishes too. MR. GRIFFEN-Are you speaking for the people, or? MRS. EGGLESTON-I'm speaking as of this Board. The Town has said, our rules say we have to look at minimum relief, not maximum relief. You're asking for maximum relief. You want the whole ball of wax. There isn't any give whatsoever. You want your fence right on the border line. That's maximum relief, with complete utter disregard for your neighbors. You have to get along with those people, too. MR. DAVIES-We don't have complete disregard for our neighbors. We are willing to do whatever is reasonably necessary in keeping with what ~ need, in terms of storage space to accommodate this usage. We went before the Beautification Committee, which suggested that the fence be set off the property line, which we agreed to do. They suggested that instead of having, the fence, that we grow some type of greenery on the fence, like vines, which we agreed to do, and we are amenable to a further compromise, a further agreement. Curtis Lumber very badly needs all of the relief that we're requesting, or if we can't have that, we certainly would be amenable to something else. MR. TURNER-Anyone else? MISS HAUSER-I don't think vines on the fence are going to do anything to shield the property in the winter, in the snow. MR. TURNER-No. MRS. EGGLESTON-Nothing. MR. THOMAS-I would say, instead of putting a chainlink fence next to the home owned by Tammy Fergus and Edward Hermance is to put a basket weave fence or something like that in there, rather than, you know, a chainlink fence with a barbed wire on top. I mean, it would look like you're down at Warren County Jail. MRS. EGGLESTON-But even with that, Chris, there's no buffer whatsoever, between this commercial and light industry, or, they still are going to be able to hear the noise, and whatever, on the other side of the fence. - 57 - MR. THOMAS-No, there's no buffer, but it would be hidden. MRS. EGGLESTON-Hidden or not, I mean, it's there. MR. TURNER-You know, the Board looks at every case, and I think we'd be setting an awful precedent if we let you go right on the border line. I understand your situation, but I think you have to understand that when you go in there and you're doing business like you are, that you're going to expand. You're going to outgrow yourself, and you've got to accept that yourself, and I think you can't impose that on your neighbors. MR. DAVIES-As it's been described to me, though, this particular location has grow far faster and greater than. MR. TURNER-Yes, it has. There's no doubt about it, saying, there's just a certain distance you can go, out of room. Then you've got to look elsewhere. to compromise on it. but I'm just then you run I'm not going MR. CARVIN-I don't see how you can dimensions of the lot, they'd end in the center. compromise on it, because the up with a little square right MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further questions of Mr. Davies or Mr. Griffen? Let me open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED TAMMY HERMANCE MRS. HERMANCE-Hi. My name is Tammy Hermance. I'm here to oppose it. First of all, I'd like to address a few issues. Right now, they're approximately 50 feet away from us, until this property is demolished, and I'd also like to say that that did have plumbing in the house, until they took it out. An elderly lady lived there for years, and recently died, and it was used. They did have plumbing inside, but anyway, I would like to say that is very noisy over there. It's very dusty over there. My house, my pool, my car and everything get dust allover. It's not easy to clean, and if there is not a buffer of trees there, this is going to make it worse, when they're on top of my property. I would also like to say, I'd like to know how high the trees would be, also, when they do put these in. Is there going to be enough privacy, because I don't want them looking in my back yard, basically, and it's quite busy in that back yard. They may not seem to think so, but it's very noisy every morning. Just the men alone, work i ng, are obnox i ous. I mean, I can't even th ink of some of the things that come out of their mouths. So, I mean, I don't need to hear this, or look at it, or have them looking into my back yard. They're close enough as it is. MR. TURNER-How close is your swimming pool to where the proposed fence is going to go? MRS. HERMANCE-I would say no more than 15 feet. The fence, where they're going to put it, is approximately 11 feet 3 inches from my bedroom window. Very close, and I brought an issue up before about blacktopping that area also because it's dusty. The dirt over there is unbe Ii evabl e. I mean, it's not that great of an area, but we do still live there. MR. TURNER-That's right. Thank you. Any questions of Mrs. Hermance? Okay. MRS. HERMANCE-Thank you. MR. TURNER-Anyone else wish to be heard? SARAH HERMANCE - 58 - MRS. SARAH HERMANCE-My name is Sarah Hermance, and I Holden Avenue, next to Curtis Lumber, and I just want to stones in the road are really terrible, and we have tried the area clean, and I'd like to know what entrance supposed to use. live on say the to keep they're MRS. EGGLESTON-The gentleman showed me Holden Avenue. MR. TURNER-No. I would imagine that all the trucks that service that yard, to bring the lumber that goes into that yard goes in Holden Avenue, and the other ones probably don't go through Western Avenue. They come in the back gate, off of Holden, and service the front yard, is that correct? MR. GRIFFEN-Correct. MR. TURNER-And when you go from one side of the road to the other, the windows and stuff are over on the other side of the road, so you have to go from Western Avenue, across, up the hill. MRS. SARAH HERMANCE-I can show you pictures, loads of stones. MR. TURNER-I know. I've been in there. MRS. SARAH HERMANCE-This is right across the road, stones? and see the MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. SARAH HERMANCE-Our vehicles get pitted from the stones and all that. It seems like they could pave the parking lot there and put in their own drainage system maybe to keep the dust off. I think that would help. MR. TURNER-Thank you. MRS. SARAH HERMANCE-Mainly, I'd just like to say that I live on one side of the street, and we do have an apartment house on the other s ide of the street. So, act uall y, if they don't 1 eave a buffer of trees up, we're just going to be looking at lumber, from my house and the apartment house. MR. TURNER-Anyone else? MRS. TAMMY HERMANCE-Just one question I'd ask about how high the trees are required to be. MR. TURNER-No. There's no requirement. MRS. TAMMY HERMANCE-I mean, do you know what that is? MR. TURNER-There's no requirement. size, but there's no requirement. They have to be a certain MRS. TAMMY HERMANCE-Do you know what the size is? MR. TURNER-What is it, caliper? Jim, quick, six inch caliper or four inch MR. MARTIN-There's only references to three sizes, that I'm aware of, in the parking areas, and Section 17g-66, new plantings shall conform to the following minimum sizes: major trees, three and one half inches in caliper; evergreen trees, four to six feet in height; shrubs two to three feet in height; and minor or flowering trees two and one half inches in caliper. That's tree planting around a parking lot. MRS. TAMMY HERMANCE-So that would be the plantings? - 59 - MR. TURNER-Not necessarily. That's parking lot. MR. MARTIN-That's the only thing I can see. MR. TURNER-No. That's the only thing he can find right now. MR. MARTIN-The Board could certainly set a. MR. TURNER-We could dictate. We could condition it. MRS. TAMMY HERMANCE-Are they going to be able to plant any size they want? That's what I was saying. I mean, they could just go in and plant shrubs, and what's that going to do? MR. TURNER-Noth i ng. No. If it goes that far, if the vari ance is approved, we could condition a variance as to what they to put there. Mr. Griffen, I'm going to ask you a question. Is there any other part of the property that will serve the purpose that you're looking for, to help you out on your storage issue? MR. GRIFFEN-There is no other part of the property, sir, no. The other part of the property is being used to the max. MR. DAVIES-I've discussed this with Mr. Griffen, and both of us having heard the concerns of the Board and of the neighbors, Curtis would be amenable to a 20 foot setback of this fence from all essential property lines. That's on the east and the west, on the north and also on the west side of Mr. Hermance's property, on the north side of what you see there is lot 21, a 20 foot setback all the way around, on the property lines, reasonable buffering, in terms of trees and greenery that you might wish to impose as a condition. MR. TURNER-Okay. You don't store any of your lumber any place else, like in Town? No off site storage? What do you bring from Warrensburg down to here, anything? MR. GRIFFEN-Small trucks. MR. TURNER-A small truck. tractor trailer load? So your pressure treated comes in on a MR. GRIFFEN-That's right. have to buy it that way. If you want to stay competitive, you MR. TURNER-Yes. Does anyone else have any questions? MRS. EGGLESTON-Could we ask the neighbors what they think of the 20 foot? MR. TURNER-Yes, we can ask them. you want to respond to that? Sure. Let them respond. Do MRS. EGGLESTON-Instead of the fence being on your property line, it would be 20 feet away from your property line. It would leave 20 feet. They couldn't use the 20 feet. MR. CARVIN-So instead of being 11 feet from your bedroom window, they'll be 31. MRS. TAMMY HERMANCE-And they'd still have relief from the trees? MRS. EGGLESTON-They're going to put the trees and the ivy and whatnot. MR. TURNER-That that's required. gives them 30 feet of relief, You still want the 50 foot? from the 50 foot MRS. TAMMY HERMANCE-Yes. I want the 50 foot. - 60 - MR. TURNER-All right. Okay. MRS. SARAH HERMANCE-I think it should be the 50 foot. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Okay. Motion's in order. MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 74-1993 CURTIS LUMBER, CO., INC., Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: Wherein applicant was proposing to place a six foot fence on the northwest and south side of an existing commercial site. The proposal would leave absolutely no buffer between the existing commercial site and the adjoining residential dwellings. This request is maximum relief. The hardship is a self-imposed hardship, in that the applicant was aware that a 50 foot buffer would be required there when the property was purchased. I think it would be detrimental to other properties in the district or neighborhood, were we to grant this variance, as it would set a precedent in future matters. Duly adopted this 25th day of August, 1993, by the following v ot e : AYES: Miss Hauser, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Philo AREA VARIANCE NO. 75-1993 TYPE I SEQAR REQUIRED WR-IA JAMES R. DOYLE OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE GLEN LAKE ROAD APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A FIVE (5) LOT SUBDIVISION OF AN EXISTING PARCEL, AND IS PROPOSING TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY-TWO AND SEVEN TENTHS (25,372.7) SQUARE FEET (.6 ACRE) FOR THE LOT AREA OF THE WESTERN PARCEL AND IS SEEKING RELIEF OF EIGHTEEN THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY-SEVEN AND THREE TENTHS (18,187.3) SQUARE FEET (.4 ACRE); AND IS PROPOSING ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY- SEVEN (127) FEET AVERAGE FOR THE LOT WIDTH OF THE WESTERN PARCEL AND IS SEEKING RELIEF OF TWENTY-THREE (23) FEET AVERAGE; AND IS PROPOSING TWO THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED AND SIXTY-FIVE AND NINE TENTHS (2,365.9) SQUARE FEET (.055 ACRE) AS THE LOT AREA FOR THE PROPOSED PARCEL REFERRED TO AS PARCEL SA ON THE SITE PLAN AND IS SEEKING RELIEF OF FORTY-ONE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED AND NINETY-FOUR AND ONE TENTH (41,194.1) SQUARE FEET «.95 ACRE); AND IS PROPOSING THIRTY-SEVEN AND NINETY-SEVEN HUNDREDTHS (37.97) FEET FOR THE LOT WIDTH OF THE PARCEL 5A AND IS SEEKING RELIEF OF ONE HUNDRED AND TWELVE AND THREE HUNDREDTHS (112.03) FEET; AND IS PROPOSING ONE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED AND THIRTEEN AND FIVE TENTHS (1,613.5) SQUARE FEET (.037 ACRE) AS THE LOT AREA OF THE PROPOSED PARCEL REFERRED TO AS PARCEL 6A ON THE SITE PLAN AND IS SEEKING RELIEF OF FORTY-ONE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED AND FORTY-SIX AND FIVE TENTHS (41,946.5) SQUARE FEET ().96) ACRE; AND IS PROPOSING TWENTY-SEVEN AND FORTY-NINE HUNDREDTHS (27.49) FEET FOR THE LOT WIDTH OF PARCEL 6A AND IS SEEKING RELIEF OF ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-TWO AND FIFTY-ONE HUNDREDTHS (122.51) FEET; AND IS PROPOSING TWO THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-THREE (2,123) SQUARE FEET AS THE LOT AREA OF THE PROPOSED LOT REFERRED TO AS PARCEL 7-8A ON THE SITE PLAN AND IS SEEKING RELIEF OF FORTY-ONE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED AND THIRTY-SEVEN (4,137) SQUARE FEET; AND IS PROPOSING FORTY-FIVE AND THIRTY-FOUR HUNDREDTHS (45.34) FEET FOR THE LOT WIDTH OF PARCEL 7-8A AND IS SEEKING RELIEF OF ONE HUNDRED AND FOUR AND SIXTY-SIX HUNDREDTHS (104.66) FEET; AND IS PROPOSING ONE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED AND NINETY-FOUR AND NINE TENTHS (1,194.9) SQUARE FEET FOR THE LOT AREA FOR THE PROPOSED PARCEL REFERRED TO AS PARCEL 9-10A IN THE SITE PLAN, AND IS SEEKING RELIEF FORTY-TWO THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED AND SIXTY-FIVE - 61 - "-..-' AND ONE TENTH (42,365.1) SQUARE FEET; AND IS PROPOSING TWENTY- NINE AND THIRTY-TWO HUNDREDTHS (29.32) FEET FOR THE LOT WIDTH OF PROPOSED PARCEL 9-10A, AND IS SEEKING ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY AND SIXTY-EIGHT HUNDREDTHS (120.68) FEET RELIEF; ALL FROM SECTION 179-16C WHICH REQUIRES ONE (1) ACRE FOR THE MINIMUM LOT AREA AND ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY (150) FEET FOR THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH IN THE WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL 1 ACRE ZONE. APPLICANT IS PROPOSING THIRTY-FIVE AND EIGHTY-EIGHT HUNDREDTHS (35.88) FEET FOR THE ROAD FRONTAGE OF PARCEL 5A, AND IS SEEKING RELIEF OF TWO AND THREE HUNDREDTHS (2.03) FEET; AND IS PROPOSING NINETEEN AND NINETY- EIGHT HUNDREDTHS (19.98) FEET FOR THE ROAD FRONTAGE OF PARCEL 6A AND IS SEEKING RELIEF OF TWENTY AND TWO HUNDREDTHS (20.02) FEET; AND IS PROPOSING THIRTY-FIVE AND SIXTY-EIGHT HUNDREDTHS (35.68) FEET FOR THE ROAD FRONTAGE OF PROPOSED PARCEL 7-BA AND IS SEEKING RELIEF OF FOUR AND THIRTY-TWO HUNDREDTHS (4.32) FEET: ALL FROM SECTION 179-70A, WHICH STATES THAT THE REQUIRED FRONTAGE FOR ONE (1) PRINCIPAL BUILDING SHALL BE FORTY (40) FEET, AND SUCH FRONTAGE SHALL PROVIDE ACTUAL ACCESS TO AND FROM THE LOT TO BE BUILT UPON. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) DATE: 8/18/93 TAX MAP NUMBER: 38-4-10 LOT SIZE: 0.75 SECTION 179-70A, 179-16C JAMES DOYLE, PRESENT MRS. EGGLESTON-And the Warren County Planning Board returned, they approved, wi th the c::omment, "Wi th the c::ond it i on that all lots c::onveyed to adjoining owners result in an expansion of the lakeshore lots and will not be buildable lots independent of the shore front lots." STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Varianc::e No. 75-1993, James R. Doyle, Meeting Date: August 25, 1993 "ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: Glen Lake Road SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applic::ant is proposing a five (5) lot subdivision for the purpose of c::onveying four (4) parc::els to adjoining property owners in order to provide road frontage for said owners. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: The following relief is being sought from Sec::tion 179-16C whic::h requires one (1) ac::re (43,560 square feet) for the minimum lot area and one hundred and fifty (150) feet for the minimum lot width in the Waterfront Residential 1 Ac::re zone. 1. Applic::ant is proposing twenty-five thousand three hundred and seventy-two and seven tenths (25,372.7) square feet (.6 ac::re) for the lot area of the western parc::el and is seeking relief of eighteen thousand one hundred and eighty-seven and three tenths (18,187.3) square feet (.4 ac::re). 2. Applic::ant is proposing one hundred and twenty-seven (127) feet for the lot width of the western parc::el and is seeking relief of twenty-three (23) feet. 3. Applic::ant is proposing two thousand three hundred and sixty-five and nine tenths (2,365.9) square feet (.055 ac::re) as the lot area for the proposed parc::el referred to as 5A on the site plan and is seeking relief of forty-one thousand one hundred and ninety-four and one tenth (41,194.1) square feet «.95 ac::re). 4. Applic::ant is proposing thirty-seven and ninety-seven hundredths (37.97) feet for the lot width of parc::el 5A and is seeking relief of one hundred and twelve and three hundredths (112.03) feet. 5. Applic::ant is proposing one thousand six hundred and thirteen and five tenths (1,613.5) square feet (.037 ac::re) as the lot area of the proposed parc::el referred to as parc::el 6A on the site plan and is seeking relief of forty-one thousand nine hundred and forty- six and five tenths (41,946.5) square feet ().96 ac::re). 6. Applic::ant is proposing twenty-seven and forty-nine hundredths (27.49) feet for the lot width of parc::el 6A and is seeking relief of one hundred and twenty-two and fifty-one hundredths (122.51) feet. 7. Applic::ant is proposing two thousand one hundred and twenty-three (2,123) square feet (.049 ac::re) as the lot area of the proposed lot referred to as parc::el 7-8A on the site plan and is seeking relief of forty-one thousand four hundred and thirty- seven (41,437) square feet (.951 ac::re). 8. Applic::ant is proposing forty-five and thirty-four hundredths (45.34) feet for - 62 - the lot width of parcel 7-8A and is seeking relief of one hundred and four and sixty-six hundredths (104.&&) feet. 9. Applicant is proposing one thousand one hundred and ninety-four and nine tenths (1,194.9) square feet for the lot area of the proposed lot referred to as parcel 9-10A in the site plan, and is seeking relief of forty-two thousand three hundred and sixty-five and one tenth (42,3&5.1) square feet. 10. Applicant is proposing twenty-nine and thirty-two hundredths (29.32) feet for the lot width of parcel 9-10A and is seeking relief of one hundred and twenty and sixty-eight hundredths (120.&8) feet. The following relief is being sought from Section 179-70A, which states that the required frontage for one (1) principal building shall be forty (40) feet, and such frontage shall provide actual access to and from the lot to be built upon. 11. Applicant is proposing thirty-five and eighty-eight hundredths (35.88) feet for the road frontage for parcel 5A and is seeking relief of two and three hundredths (2.03) feet. 12. Applicant is proposing nineteen and ninety-eight hundredths (19.98) feet for the road frontage of parcel óA and is seeking relief of twenty and two hundredths (20.02) feet. 13. Applicant is proposing thirty-five and sixty- eight hundredths (35.&8) feet for the road frontage for parcel 7- 8A and is seeking relief of four and thirty-two hundredths (4.32) feet. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. DESCRIBE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW PLACEMENT OF A STRUCTURE WHICH MEETS THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS. Applicant is proposing the division of his property into five (5) lots with the express purpose of conveying four (4) of the five proposed lots (parcels 5A, &A, 7-8A and 9- 10A) to adjacent property owners in order to provide said property owner with road frontage for their property. The subdividing of said parcel results in five (5) undersized parcels, four (4) of which will be vacant and not built upon leaving the fifth (5th) and western parcel with a preexisting commercial structure. 2. IS THIS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NECESSARY TO ALLEVIATE THE SPECIFIC PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY OR IS THERE ANY OTHER OPTION AVAILABLE WHICH WOULD REOUIRE NO VARIANCE? It would appear that the relief requested is the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the specific practical difficulty as described in Question 1, and no other option is available which would require no variance. 3. WOULD THIS VARIANCE BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD? It would appear that the variance would not be detrimental to the district or neighborhood and would provide road frontage for four (4) of the five (5) proposed 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 and services. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: Staff has no further comments regarding this property. II MR. TURNER-Did you read the Comments? MRS. EGGLESTON-I read the Warren County Planning Board approved wi th comment. Yes, I read it, because I don't understand it. Does that make sense? MR. TURNER-There will not be buildable lots independent of the shorefront lots. You can't build on the lots he's conveying. That's what he's saying. That's what they're saying. They're going to transfer those little pieces. All right. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. Okay. MR. TURNER-All right. Part of this falls in the Critical Environmental Area. I don't see any environmental issue here. It's a Type I Action. I would move that we negate the SEQRA Review because it doesn't involve anything that has anything to do with the environment. There's no exception. It's just a conveyance of lots. I guess my only comment is, evidentally Bulgers, and Johnsons, and Kaylak, and whoever, never had any road frontage, right? - 63 - MR. MARTIN-Apparently not. MRS. EGGLESTON-We just did all that on, Bulger built that? MR. TURNER-They came in here for variances and got them, and never indicated that they didn't own any road frontage. MR. KARPELES-Well, how did they build the driveways? easements? Are they MR. DOYLE-Right-of-ways. MR. TURNER-Yes. They didn't own them. owned everything there. He owned them. Mr. Doyle MR. KARPELES-This Sullivan lot here is, it looks like it doesn't, there's still some property in question there, or? MR. DOYLE-Yes, and we don't know who the owner is. have to be conveyed to Kaylak. So that would MR. TURNER-Are two wrongs going to make a right here, or what? MR. MARTIN-Well, area variance. in terms of, like, Bulger just came in for an MR. TURNER-Johnson came for a variance, too, ago, four years ago. about three years MR. MARTIN-Yes. I think that would be viewed as situation, and it really has no impact on the That's a nonconforming structure. That's why variance. It wasn't for a building permit to put house on there. It was an e~pansion, right? a pree~isting area variance. it needed the the whole new MR. TURNER-Bulger? A brand new camp. MR. MARTIN-But the use was there already present. vacant lot. It wasn't a MR. TURNER-Yes. new one. They took down the old camp and built a brand MR. MARTIN-If it was a vacant lot, yes, then you'd have to also have the variance on the frontage, but since the use was already there, it was a replacement of the e~isting use. MR. TURNER-Yes, but I mean, they indicated to us that they owned the property. The survey showed them going right up the road. MRS. EGGLESTON-Remember that trailer we had up at Dream Lake? MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-They were replacing, 40 foot. they had to come in for the MR. MARTIN-Who was the surveyor? MR. CARVIN-On Bulger's? It was just a draft, wasn't it? MR. TURNER-Yes. It was just a draft by the applicant's son, and I know Johnson's came for something. I can't tell you what it was, but I remember them coming for something. MR. MARTIN-Anything in there is going to require an area variance. MR. TURNER-I know. Okay. All right. Mr. Doyle, would you care to make any further comment, or you've said it all right there? 64 - MR. DOYLE-I've said it all right there. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-My question is, are Bulger, Sullivan aware of this conveyance? Johnson, Kaylak, and MR. DOYLE-The Sullivan is not aware, Sullivan's property. but it doesn't touch MR. MARTIN-Well, it says here, Sullivan. parcel 9-10A to be conveyed to MR. DOYLE-Right. I would have to convey them to Kaylak, because it's unknown property there. We don't know who's it is, between mine and Sullivan's, so the corner that comes off the Kaylak property. MR. MARTIN-Okay. So 9-10A will go with 7-BA. MR. DOYLE-Right. MR. TURNER-All right. So that leaves, have they got 40 foot to get at that road frontage, Sullivan's? It doesn't look it. MR. DOYLE-She would still have the right-of-way. MR. TURNER-Are you going to give her the easement? If you're going to transfer 9-10A to 7-BA, that's going to take their access away from Glen Lake Road. They've got to have 40 feet. MR. MARTIN-Is the deed for 9-10A going to include an easement for that driveway? MR. DOYLE-We put that right on the deed. MR. TURNER-Yes, but you're going to convey that to Kaylak, so Kaylak's going to have to grant, you'll have to grant it to Kaylak. Kaylak's going to have to grant it to Sullivan. Is that correct? MR. DOYLE-Would I put it in the deed before I convey it to them? MR. TURNER-I don't know, legally, legal or not. how that works, whether that's MRS. EGGLESTON-Can you clarify what you're trying to say? MR. MARTIN-Lot 9-10A, he's going to convey with lot 7-BA to Kay lak. MRS. EGGLESTON-Why can't you do it to Sullivan? MR. DOYLE-Because it's not configured with their property. MRS. EGGLESTON-It goes across? MR. DOYLE-There's a triangle in between there that's unknown. MR. MARTIN-Does that go with lot 11, that triangle in between? It looks like it does. MR. DOYLE-My surveyor said he couldn't find out who it was. MR. CARVIN-They don't basically landlocked. know who There's, owns this, apparent I y, so that Sullivan an easement. is MR. TURNER-That's what I'm saying. That would be landlocked. MRS. EGGLESTON-And are they aware of this, the Sullivan's? Which - 65 - Sullivan is that? MR. DOYLE-Helen. HELEN SULLIVAN MRS. SULLIVAN-Helen Sullivan, and we were not aware of this, until the other day. We weren't informed. MR. DOYLE-See, we didn't inform you, because it doesn't abut your property. MRS. SULLIVAN-Well, family. it's just all new to me, and to my whole MR. that does. CARVIN-Ted, Bob has brought up a good point. Why couldn't section be conveyed to Sullivan's, even though it's not, it MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. contiguous or not? What difference does it make, whether They'd at least have that much. it's MR. CARVIN-It comes off a common point. MR. TURNER-Yes. They'd have their driveway. MR. CARVIN-Well, I guess then it would be a matter of the owner telling them they can't drive across that little triangle. It would be a way of bringing them to the surface. MRS. EGGLESTON-You don't know what this guy is going to do. He might not turn it over to them. That wouldn't be very smart. MR. TURNER-No. MR. CARVIN-I don't think he'd have a problem conveying it to Sullivan. MRS. EGGLESTON-I wouldn't think so, either. MR. DOYLE-Could the easements be put conveyed? in that, before it' s MR. TURNER-Why don't you give it to Sullivan? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. Why can't you? MR. DOYLE-Because it's not contiguous with their property. MR. CARVIN-It doesn't matter? What difference does it make. MR. DOYLE-Okay. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. I don't see the difference. MR. TURNER-You don't know who owns that little pie that's right in there? MR. DOYLE-No. MR. CARVIN-I don't think it's going to be big enough for Sullivans to build on. So, I mean, I don't think we have a fear for that. MR. TURNER-The other thing, too, just take that right out of your subdivision, until you find out, clarify who owns that piece of property, and then do that after. MR. MARTIN-I don't know that they can do that, because they're going to, essentially, parcel that off anyhow. - && MR. TURNER-Take it right out of there. MR. MARTIN-Yes, but they're going to have a lot there anyhow. I mean, if they, as soon as they create lot 7-8A, then you've got to create lot 9-10A. Once they draw the boundaries for lot 7-8A, that creates 9-10A like in limbo. MR. TURNER-We 11, it limbo. leaves a piece of land there that's, yes, in MR. MARTIN-But it's still another lot. MR. TURNER-But the other piece, yes, but the other piece, we don't know who owns. So, then how is Sullivan going to get from their property out to the road? MR. MARTIN-Well, right now, they must. MR. TURNER-They're getting out there right now, there's no doubt about that. but I'm saying, MR. MARTIN-Is there any language in the deed for any of these driveway cuts along any of these areas of the road? MR. TURNER-Yes. Do they have easements now? MR. SULLIVAN-I would have a question on this road abandonment by the Town of Queensbury to Nelson Griggs, because the road was redone back in the 50's, and they took property from Nelson Griggs, and apparently, they just took it, until 1984, when the Town decided, by their good graces, to give it back. So, wouldn't it stand to reason that that is also Town property right there, that triangle behind us? The Town did that. That whole section in there was the result of the Town working on the roads, that curve of the road right there, back in the 50's. So what records did the Town go through to deed this property back to Nelson Griggs in '84? MR. MARTIN-So what you're saying is, through lots 5A, &A, 7-8A? the road swung down in MR. SULLIVAN-Correct. MR. MARTIN-And 9-10A, and when they redid the road. MR. SULLIVAN-Back in the 50's, they took property Grigg's on the other side and smoothed that whole which created these lots. That's why we always property belonged to the Town. It wasn't until this we found out it wasn't the Town. from Nelson corner out, thought that came up that MR. MARTIN-And then the Town conveyed that back. MR. SULLIVAN-The Town smoothed all that property off and basically made access to a driveway. MR. MARTIN-To Nelson Griggs, Gri ggs. and then it went to you, from MR. SULLIVAN-Actually, it was conveyed back after I built on it. MRS. EGGLESTON-Is Griggs Number 11? Where is Grigg's property? MR. TURNER-Grigg's is Doyle's now. This right here. MR. MARTIN-So the deed that you have for this property, does it show any easements for driveways? MR. DOYLE-No. - 67 - MR. SULLIVAN-We always knew where our property line-was back there, that we did not go to the road, but always assumed, because of the road work, that that was Town property back there. MR. MARTIN-Well, then this could clean up the situation. MR. DOYLE-That's the idea. MRS. EGGLESTON-That's what I said. Why not do it, as they have it laid out, and then it's the Sullivan's problem how they clear the rest of it. MR. MARTIN-So the only little bone of contention is that little small piece of the Sullivan driveway that goes through that unknown triangle. MR. TURNER-Let me open the public hearing, and maybe we'll get some input into this. I'll now open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED PAULA THOMPSON MRS. THOMPSON-Paula Thompson. I property two lots to the east of us about this in June, what they fully support it. and my husband Martin own the the Doyle's, and they did tell were proposing to do, and we MR. TURNER-Okay. HELEN DOYLE MRS. DOYLE-My name is Helen Doyle, and the Bovees tonight, but they called to say they were in favor. MR. TURNER-We'd like a letter from them, stating so. MIKE O'CONNOR MR. O'CONNOR-I'm Mike O'Connor. I live on the Lake. I don't live on that side of the Lake. I have problem with what's being proposed here, not that I oppose what the end result is, but I think they could do it by boundary line adjustments, and not by a subdivision that might create parcels that might not get to those adjoining owners. You're talking 1700 square foot for one parcel, and they're real small parcels. What happens if those adjoining owners haven't agreed to take them on terms that they're willing to accept them, and then they become separate ta~ parcels, and then somebody comes along and buys them in a ta~ sale, and then they want to use some of the access to the lake. You're creating, or allowing the creation, of individual parcels in a subdivision form that supposedly is for the purpose of creating building lots. This isn't a wetland that's not going to be used for other reasons and other restrictions and other laws as a building lot. There's a lot of these roads up there, and I think you've got to go back and you've really got to research the history, and I think that might even resolve some of the problem. I think Glen Lake Road is a road by prescription. It's not a deeded road, and when they shifted that road, when Griggs changed his parking lot many years ago, they created this void on this side. I think the Town then abandoned that, and I think it may have well abandoned it to the adjoining owners. If you have a road by prescription, maintained use by the Town for a period of seven years, if they abandon the use of that they can be charged with abandonment of that also. I'm thinking over on Fitzgerald Road. If you take a ride on Fitzgerald Road, you will see our fence. It's a triangular piece, the same as this. It runs behind the houses of LaVoy and somebody else right now. They've created a supposedly no man's land. When they built Fitzgerald Road, they didn't build it in the alignment in which they were &8 - supposed to build it. They were supposed to build it off of the rear line of everybody's lots, and they didn't do it that way. Those roads were laid out by eyes. They weren't laid out by survey, and you've got some voids. If you're saying that you have a legitimate lot on the other side of the public highways, I think you're creating a real dangerous precedent. I'm not saying I'm against the proposition of the property lines to give them over to people, but I think that they ought to, even if they're going to do it in this form, they ought to come in here with a grievance, to say that they've done that, with restrictive covenants that can be enforced that says that the people will add them to their existing holdings and not subdivide them, because potentially, what you're doing here on the table is creating four individual lots. You are also creating a substandard lot on the north side of the road, too, but nobody has really talked about that. That's part of that. So, are you saying now that we have a road that dissects a piece of property, we can divide off the lower part? I have real concerns about that, that some of these lots wouldn't get to where you'd think they were going to get. I think that the application is, maybe it's the way to go, but I would still go by boundary line agreement. If the idea here is to abandon that property to those people, and get it over to them, you could simply do it that way. There's a provision in our Ordinance that gives you exceptions for subdivision requirements for boundary line adjustments. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-This is creating individual lots, and you don't have the assurance in front of you that says that somehow or another they won't get into building lots, camping lots, something that somebody wants to park on or whatever. You create a lot of problems there, could have some potential problems in the future, and I don't think that's intended by the applicant. I saw the description in the newspaper, and I probably should have told him. I couldn't figure out what you were doing with 1700 square foot lots, and we've got an island on the lake that's a problem by itself, probably 900 square feet. We don't need more little tiny parcels that potentially could be individually owned with some rights of ownership. MR. KARPELES-I'm having trouble figuring out what proposing that they should do instead of this. you're MR. CARVIN-In other words, just have them deeded. MR. O'CONNOR-Not have a subdivision. you've got a legal lot. By having a subdivision, MR. MARTIN-What he's say i ng, Bob, is, for exampl e, Bu I ger' slot, like lot 5, the lot line closest to the road, you simply push that up so it encompasses all of lot 5A, and you've expanded lot 5. It's a lot line adjustment. MRS. deed? EGGLESTON-You just do that with, your attorney writes a new How do you do that? That's our question. MR. MARTIN-Yes. You'd file that with the County. require subdivision approval. It doesn't MR. O'CONNOR-You could do a joint boundary line agreement. A joint boundary line agreement with all five parties to say that they all agree that the common boundary which is in question is agreed as follows. Then it's not subdivision. MR. MARTIN-Because right now you're going to be faced with, also, this is going to, I believe, qualify for recreation fees and all that, $500 a lot. MR. O'CONNOR-Some of those lot s, they've always been - 69 questionable, squares, 50 foot right-of-way in St. Mary's Bay, and 50 foot right-of-way next to the Docksider, deed to the Town, is supposed to take care of those rights. I apologize to Mr. Doyle for speaking in a public hearing, but there's another way of doing that, not having the dangers that you have. MR. MARTIN-I think that's what the County was trying to get at in their comment, in a left handed way. MR. TURNER-What's your position, Mr. Doyle? that way? Do you care to go MR. DOYLE-The County put a restriction on it, the lots can't be built on, and as far as I know, I mean, the township did it to me. Anybody has contiguous lots, the township puts them together on the tax maps. I mean, I have three lot s. I have three 50 foot lot s. I used to get three tax bi 11 s. Now I get one. MR. MARTIN-Do you have separate deed descriptions of all these small lot s that you're, al ready then, if you were gett i ng separate tax bills? MR. DOYLE-No. I'm talking about, I have two across the street, and I have three, I have fi ve lot s, and now I have two. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Well, if your intention truly is just to convey this property to these individual lot holders along the lake, you could do it by a boundary line adjustment. MR. DOYLE-I could get a permit for that, yes. MR. MARTIN-You'd need somebody to write the descriptions for you. MR. DOYLE-I came to this township for advice, and this is the way they told me I had to go about it, and now you're telling me I didn't have to go through all of this. MR. O'CONNOR-You'd still need those descriptions in order to be able to do the documentation. MRS. EGGLESTON-He wouldn't need a variance. MR. TURNER-No. be all done. He'd just do a boundary line adjustment, it would MRS. DOYLE-The property that the sole purpose of adding existing building. we propose to give is on to their driveways, conveyed for not for any MR. MARTIN-When's the first time you came into the Town? I have yet to meet you. This is the first time I've met you. MR. DOYLE-I came in a year ago and asked about it, what we were going to do, and we left for the winter, didn't have a chance to do it, and I came back. MR. MARTIN-I started here in October. MR. DOYLE-But this all transpired since March, since June. MR. MARTIN-Yes, but you came in a year ago and got this advice about creating all these new lots? MR. DOYLE-That's when I came in and asked about them. MR. TURNER-I'm not happy with doing this, because, like Mike says, they can adjust those boundary lines, and it's allover and done with, and nobody's in trouble. It gets him out of the woods, because this becomes a subdivision, and it's subject to recreation fees and everything. Do you want to table this and - 70 - - research that? MR. MARTIN-Yes. If you table, you leave your options open. MR. DOYLE-Okay. MR. TURNER-Okay. We'll table the application. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. Introduced by Theodore Turner who seconded by Chris Thomas: 75-1993 moved JAMES for its R. DOYLE, adopt ion, At the request of the owner, Mr. Doyle. 90 days. Tabled for a period of Duly adopted this 25th day of August, vote: 1993, by the following AYES: Mrs. Eggleston, Miss Hauser, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Philo On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Theodore Turner, Chairman - 71 -