Loading...
1993-10-27 QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 27TH, 1993 7:30 P.M. Area Variance No. 71-1993 Lucas S. Wilson 1. Area Variance No. 89-1993 John J. & Elaine E. Stark 14. Area Variance No. 98-1993 Thomas R. Bolen 24. Area Variance No. 95-1993 Michael & Kay Lopez 28. Area Variance No. 92-1993 Stewart's Ice Cream, Co. . Inc. 37. Use Variance No. 96-1993 Sonny Spahn 46. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. ~' QUEENSBURY ZONIHG BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETIHG OCTOBER 27TH. 1993 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN JOYCE EGGLESTON. SECRETARY FRED CARVIN ROBERT KARPELES CHRIS THOMAS LINDA HAUSER PLANNER-SUSAN CIPPERLY STEHOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE HO. 71-1993 MR-5 TYPE: UHLISTED LUCAS S. WILSON OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE END OF WALKER LANE APPLICANT IS SEEKING TO :~:~~C~T F~:RSE~:~H¿'HOIN~ :8:~i:~H{10:~I~~¡~iH¡\EtIEV¡J.\¥>Tt lt~fl$}t 179-70B. WHICH REQUIRES THAT THE MINIMUM FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC ROAD FOR SUCH USE SHALL BE THE WIDTH OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR A PUBLIC COLLECTOR STREET. WHICH IS FIFTY (50) FEET. APPLICAHT IS ALSO SEEKING RELIEF FROM SECTIOH NO. 179-62B. WHICH REQUIRES THAT ALL NONPUBLIC ROADS USED FOR VEHICULAR CIRCULATION IH ALL MULTIFAMILY PROJECTS SHALL BE DESIGNED IH WIDTH. CURVATURE. ETC., TO ACCOMMODATE SERVICE AND EMERGENCY VEHICLES AND SHALL MEET ALL TOWN STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC ROADS. TAX MAP HUMBER: 60-7-14.1 LOT SIZE: 1.467 ACRES SECTIOH 179-70B. 179-62B BRUCE CARR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. EGGLESTON-This originally came before the Board on August 25th, 1993 and it was tabled for clarification of right-of-way width and the submission of additional variances in conjunction with the application. It came back again September 15th, 1993. It was tabled with the request that the drawings be reviewed by Tom Yarmowich and his findings be forwarded to this Board. So, do we have those? Did you get those? MRS. CIPPERLY-If they're not in the file there. MR. TURNER-Then he didn't review it? MRS. EGGLESTON-No. MR. TURNER-He didn't review it. MRS. CIPPERLY-I know that he has looked at the plans, but I'm not certain that he. MR. TURNER-The drawinq be reviewed, and his findings forwarded to the Board. MICHAEL O'CONNOR MR. O'CONNOR-I'd like to make comments on that motion. MR. CARR-Mr. Turner, that was presented at the last meeting and Mr. O'Connor didn't attend. I don't think we should open up the public hearing for comments at this late date, on that particular issue. MR. TURNER-What's the Board's pleasure? Do you want to open the public hearing up and let him comment on this or not? MR. THOMAS-No. - 1 - MRS. EGGLESTON-I'd say yes. because he's asked several times for the information and has been told by the Town that it wasn't submitted. MR. O'CONNOR-Was it an agenda item that night? MR. CARR-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-For purposes of discussing Mr. Carvin's motion, or for receiving that report. MR. TURNER-Just to receive this report. It was for this report, and for what information it furnishes, that's all. in respect to his motion. MRS. EGGLESTON-My opinion is yes, for what that's worth. It's up to the rest. MR. TURNER-Bob, do you care if he addresses? MR. KARPELES-No. MR. TURNER-Fred, do you have any problem with it? MR. CARVIN-Only for the submission of new information. want to go over the same stuff. I don't MR. TURNER-No. We're not going to go over the same stuff. MR. CARVIN-I don't know if you can open up a public hearing without allowing everyone to speak. I mean, we've gone through the arguments. So, I guess if I had to say yes or no, I'd say no. MR. TURNER-Okay. I'll say, no. Linda, no or yes? MISS HAUSER-Yes. if it's new information. MR. TURNER-We've got two out of four, carried. you say no, Bob? No comment. Did MR. KARPELES-I said, fine. go ahead, let him speak. MR. TURNER-All right, three to three. It's a denial anyway. MR. O'CONNOR-You're not going to open the public hearing, one of your Board members has not even seen the report himself. MR. TURNER-He looked at it just briefly now. I know that. MR. O'CONNOR-It was not a document that was available, according to Mr. Martin, as of last Wednesday, and I understood this was going to be considered, Mr. Carvin, at the workshop, was going to present his version of a motion. MR. TURNER-Well, evidently, Jim made a mistake, because we got them the 14th. MRS. CIPPERLY-I really don't know why Jim would have said that, because he was fully aware that this was, unless he misunderstood what you were referring to. MR. O'CONNOR-He finished the conversation, said he was going to call Tom Yarmowich and see why it hadn't been there yet, according to my conversation, because I asked him. I also would like to address two other comments, new information which this Board does not have, with regard to this application. MR. TURNER-Okay. Briefly, Mr. O'Connor, you have five minutes. O'CONNOR-Okay. If I could have that report, there, I'm not sure - 2 - what roadway or proposed roadway Mr. Yarmowich was looking at. As I look at the plans as shown. the road goes along. it's an extension of Walker Lane and then curves immediately to the right. This indicates minimum roadway curvature radius of 300 feet. This says no curves proposed. I don't know what he's speaking of. The driveway. as it goes into the site. has no curves. but if you get to the site. you're on a major curve. You're on a right angle curve. which is a lot less than a 300 degree angle curve. The same thing, Paragraph Five. Paragraph Six. talks about a 50 foot tangent required. and again he says. no curves proposed. I'm not sure he understood the plan as it was before him. Other than that. this report itself requires a good number of variances from Town road specifications. and I'm not sure if I understand the proposed resolution of Mr. Carvin. Is Mr. Carvin's resolution saying that the road will be built ~ Town standards. without variances? And if that is so. then I think going forward at this point is a nulli ty. unless there's an amended plan. Secondly, I have a question which was raised with Mr. Martin. and he said that I would raise it before the Board. You're basing part of your decision upon a deed which was recorded in 1993. I believe that deed. in and of itself. is an illegal subdivision. The owner of that deed owns the back parcel immediately adjacent to this property. He subdivided that roadway, or that 35 feet from that, which created a nonconforming lot. by that deed. I don't think this Board can act upon an illegal subdivision. or accept a deed out of an illegal subdivision as a basis for granting a variance. The other question I have. and I'm not sure, in the proposed resolution of Mr. Carvin. he says that you're granting relief of 15 feet from the required 50 feet. There is a survey of this property that shows that the right-of-way. at the most. is 20 feet. and that the property does not connect onto the Town road. The Town road. at its end, or terminus. is 35 feet, but then there is a no man's land between that end of the Town road. and the beginning of an extension southerly of a line to this particular parcel. There's a Rist- Frost survey that was done for the prior owner, and I'll make that part of your record. and it shows that the roadway that we keep talking about at the best, as it is going to the property to the south of this parcel is 20 feet. This contradicts that deed that you also have seen, that supposedly is of 35 feet. It's a quick claim deed. so I propose the other 15 feet doesn't more than the other 20 feet. I think there's a serious question on how you're approving the use of that road. if it was an illegal subdivision. There's a question whether or not you're approving it with variances. from the Town road standards or without variances from the Town road standards. because that was the issue on safety and health and welfare, and you've got a contradictory statement that came with the prior owners of this particular parcel, as to the width of that road. I think that this speaks. as it does. for 20 foot. That's back into ownership issues that was argued before. We disagreed. The Town Attorney has ruled that that's a private matter to be decided in the courts, not necessarily by this Board. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-But I think the issue of subdivision is right in front of you, in front of that blue book. How did they create that road? How did they deed that piece of property. They created nonconforming lots by doing it, and you're approving that by allowing them to use that as a basis for this application, and maybe I misread Tom Yarmowich's report. but it seems like in a number of areas they do not meet the specifications on the plan as shown. and we've always said that we will submit on the plan what we're supposed to do. MR. TURNER-Okay. Mr. Carr. MR. CARR-With the map in front of you. just to address that first. the 20 feet is only from our property line over to an existing picket fence that by no means has ever been presented to this Board as the southern boundary line of the right-of-way. The map in. the - 3 - tax map is 33 feet in width. I think I made that clear at the meeting that was held that evening. and we feel that we own the property to the south of that, some sort of fencing that's shown on the map. There's no indication on that map that shows any right- of-way at all, and I don't believe that the Board should accept that as the gospel as to how wide the right-of-way was at the time that we acquired title. The second issue that Mr. 0' Connor addressed, as to the curvature issue, and that issue, at the meeting on that Thursday evening was specifically addressed, and it was presented to Mr. Carvin. that he would prefer to see the road come straight up. but then go straight into our site, in the event that the road ever becomes a Town road, which is hoped to occur in the future, you don't want a curvature going into our property. We want it to go straight up so that it can continue on to the parcel in back of us. As to the subdivision issue, the subdivision, I don't believe occurred, if it occurred at all, during our quick claim deed, but it occurred in the time that Valente Builders acquired title. when this land was not deeded to Valente Builders, and this land was just left in limbo, with no tax map or no taxing authori ty with a record owner. So I don't believe that we subdivided the land, and I'm not sure what the Statute of Limitations on that would be for the Town, but I think you've got to deal with the fact, now, that you've got, you had a landlocked parcel of land that you requested that we attempt to do all we could to get road frontage. We complied with that request, as best we are able to do. and we feel that we have a viable project in a zone for which this type of project is recommended. That's all I have to say. MR. O'CONNOR-What I'm speaking of. doesn't Mr. DorIon own this vacant four acre parcel of land? MR. CARR-He may. He may not. I don't know. MR. O'CONNOR-The tax map seems to indicate he does. MR. TURNER-Yes. Okay. Comments are over. What do you want to do? MR. CARVIN-Well, I still think the issue is the frontage. I think the right-of-way is. another words, when I make my motion, which has not been made yet, it will address just the granting of relief as far as the road frontage. but it will conditioned upon meeting certain criteria which has to do with the roadway. My feeling is that, certainly, there's probably plenty of legal arguments for the right-of-way, which will have to be contested in a court of law, and not necessarily decided by this Board. If the court of law decides that the right-of-way is other than what the conditions are, then the whole motion, as far as the road frontage, becomes null and void. I think that the arguments presented by everybody here is very (lost words) right-of-way, but my interpretation of this variance is just the road frontage, and again, I'm just addressing this issue here, and contingent upon certain aspects be complied with in here, which primarily have to do with the construction of the road, and I said, if the court of law decides that, if your argument that this is an illegal subdivision, or if this land is found to be other than what it appears to be, then the whole thing becomes null and void. MR. O'CONNOR-I agree with what you're saying. to some part, there. (Lost words) even look at that map to take what they are taking as being the 35 feet, you have to have a jog southerly of probably 10 feet from the existing land. Walker Lane comes to a point. It's marked right on your map, approximate end of public highway, and as it goes over, they're saying that this 35 feet. well. see on this map it wasn't marked 35 feet, and this is an earlier version of that map. They're saying it's 35 feet from this point right here to this point down here. You're saying it's 35 feet from this point down here down to this point. MR. CARR-Yes. - 4 - -- MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. This is Walker Lane southerly boundary. So you're going to go out. You're going to jog down, eight. ten feet. then you're going to go along. MR. CARR-The pavement is just going to come. follow this line right up. and it's going to follow this line. and then that is. I guess. the right-of-way that you have to have on the southern side. MR. O'CONNOR-Walker Lane. as it comes in this portion of the town. is a road by prescription. It's a road not by deed or by subdivision map. it's created by use. It's probably to the pavement. or whatever the Town has been using for the last seven years. and this is the Town road. So now you're talking about frontage on the Town road again. from this piece to that piece. That's the frontage on the Town road. That's less than 35 feet. which was my point. as you're. I'm not trying to. you're going to grant what you're going to grant. but the relief that you're granting. you're saying you're granting a relief of 35 feet on a Town road. Well. this. as it adjoins it, if they own it. by this Quick Claim deed. doesn't adjoin a Town road. MR. CARR-I think. you aren't taking into account DorIon Drive. which is 50 foot, which is a deeded Town road. MR. O'CONNOR-DorIon Drive's not a Town road. MR. CARR-It's not a Town road? MR. O'CONNOR-No. MR. CARR-I always thought it was sent over to the Town. MR. O'CONNOR-I don't think so. Is anybody here from the Homeowners Association? I guess not. I'm not part of that subdivision. but that's not a Town road. It's not shown by any of the tax maps. MR. CARR-Sure it is. in the new ones. MRS. CIPPERLY-I believe. in the folder. Joyce, there may be a letter where the Town accepted Walker Lane up to the corner. MR. O'CONNOR-Here's a tax map that I got when we started this thing this summer. This is Bay Road. and we're going west. okay. It doesn't show that section. Okay. I apologize. but I've seen the map. and it's not a Town road. MR. TURNER-Yes, thirty-one hundredths of a mile. We read that into the record, up to Walker Lane. They're talking about this right here. MR. O'CONNOR-I'm just saying that. I'd point out to Mr. Carvin. maybe. that the motion even. I disagree with the motion. I don't think there's basis for the motion. but I think the motion's. and the dimension's that he's submitting is even erroneous. I told you I won't belabor the point. We've argued it many times. I have a letter from the surveyor asking how far. see. this is all short of this. MR. TURNER-Thirty-one hundredths of a mile. the Town. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. which is back in here someplace. MR. TURNER-Down there. There's the start of the road right there. It ends right there. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. See. if you plot to you. you're going to come from a to go 35 feet down there. up here. there. There's the Town road. out the deed that he submitted point over here. you're going You're going to come 35 feet - 5 - MR. CARR-I mean. if it's a private road. the Town's not going to plow it. and at some point. it just seems to me that we have to be a little practical. I mean. we're going to match up to Walker Lane as it exists. and that's all we're trying to do is just get into our sites as best we can. and if it entails a two foot jog. I mean. that's what it's going to be, but it's not going to change the project. or change what we're asking. I think that's the important thing to keep in mind. We've submitted a map of what we would like to do. Mr. Carvin's resolution is saying, well. you can build the road you want to. if you want to get on your site. the original site. but as you come into our site. we'd like you to meet Town standards. At our last meeting. on that Thursday evening. I said that would be fine with the applicant. I mean, this Board has changed plans on the night of granting variances before. and we've consented to that change. MR. O'CONNOR-For the purpose of the record. though. Mr. Carvin. you're not saying build what you want on your site. You've got to comply with the requirements of the Town. Are you not saying that? MR. CARVIN-That's correct. as far as the 50 foot right-of-way. MR. CARR-Wait a minute. Mr. Carvin. can I just point out. we can build according to what we've said. MR. CARVIN-The motion makes no reference to that at all. MR. CARR-Yes. but can we build it to the standards that we've set forth there? You would hope that this would be Town standard. and this would be per map specifications. MR. O'CONNOR-In multi family. roadways within the development must fill. and it's specifically right in the Ordinance. be built according to the Town standards. MR. CARR-I'm asking for a variance from it. MR. O'CONNOR-I haven't seen any application for that variance. I haven't seen any advertisement for that application. MR. CARR-Yes, we did. Section 162 that you brought up at the August meeting. I amended our application. MR. TURNER-That was a second application. MR. O'CONNOR-I haven't heard that read. I haven't seen it. The second application was not for that. The second application was for another Section. and are you intending to grant that? That's the health and safety issue. because then you potentially have in there 40 to 50 units. based upon the density. MR. CARR-179-62. Multi family dwelling access. MR. 0' CONNOR-You haven't specified how you're varying it. You haven't done that yet. There's no specificity. and this is why is was referred to Tom Yarmowich. and he was supposed to give us back a report as to how it complied or didn't comply. am I correct? MRS. EGGLESTON-Just for the record. I would like to say, I was here for the August meeting. I was not here for the September meeting. However. I've read all of the minutes. So I fee I that I can participate in this discussion tonight. I would like to say that the project itself. in my mind. is an enormous project on a right- of-way. and it's being completely. in my opinion. clouded with the argument about the right-of-way. I know what can happen on right- of-ways. I live on one mysel f. with easements. with only two people. and it can be a nightmare. I can't. in my wildest dreams. imagine what it would be like with an apartment building of this size. and with the potential of having to go through this development to get to maybe another project on the other side of - 6 - it. all by using the right-of-way, which, are you putting a burden on the fire deparment. emergency crews. whatever, in that because this is a private road. maintained privately. what happens if you have a fire in this project in the back. and this road hasn't been maintained. this private road. then what's going to happen is the Town is going to be sued. and we're supposed to be looking out for the Town. We're supposed to be looking out for the health. welfare. and safety of the people in the community. and I just think that this project. built on a right-of-way, is too much. That's my opinion. MR. CARR-Can I address that? It's not built on a right-of-way. We have the deeded right to that property. MRS. EGGLESTON-It's not going to be maintained by the Town. MR. CARR-It doesn't have to be. into our project. It's our entryway. our property MRS. EGGLESTON-But it could very well go to another project. Do you agree with that? MR. CARR-No. not necessarily. because the parcel behind is owned by Ruth DorIon. and she also owns the parcel that's on Country Club. So she has access to her own property through that. They're both owned by the same person. MR. TURNER-Yes. they are. MRS. EGGLESTON-Where would it come out. on Country Club? MR. TURNER-Almost across from Orchard Drive. MR. CARR-I looked it up in the tax records to find out who owned it. and she owns both of them. and it comes out just south of the Country Club. the south. MRS. EGGLESTON-And we all know a Quick Claim deed. MR. O'CONNOR-Is subject to the right-of-way of others. MRS. EGGLESTON-And it only says. if I have an interest. MR. O'CONNOR-DorIon Drive. I thought it was the same DorIon as the conveyor of the roadway. They have a right-of-way by deed. the same as all the other people along there had right-of-ways before the Town came up and took part of that by prescription. She has. that four acres that is vacant behind there does not have to go to Country Club Road. MRS. EGGLESTON-She could conceivably use this? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. CARR-Are you holding our application to what could happen in the future? MRS. EGGLESTON-Well. I think it applies. Bruce. I think it applies to your application as well. MR. CARR-Then lets just go for the right-of-way. Joyce. you've got 20 applications over the past five years before this Board. denied one variance for road frontage. and that was not based on the requirement of road frontage. That was based on the subdivision. MRS. EGGLESTON-You're mixing apples and oranges. None of them were for large complexes. They were single family dwellings. There's a little bit of a difference there. Bruce. MR. CARR-No. Not all of them were for single family dwellings. if - 7 - you look at it. Some of them were in the zone that we are zoned for, and that's the point, too. This property was zoned for what we're proposing, and now you're saying you can't use the property. MRS. EGGLESTON-I understand that. I agree with you 100 percent, it was zoned for that, but sometimes, if the roads aren't there, you can't build. Even though it says you can build a bridge over a river, if the river's not there, you're not going to build it. MR. CARR-But the right to get to the property is there, and now you're saying you just don't like right-of-ways, so you aren't going to let. MRS. EGGLESTON-I just think right-of-ways create a lot of problems. I'm sorry, but that's my own personal opinion. I'm only one vote out of all of these, but I wanted to express that. MR. CARR-Okay. I wish you had expressed that two weeks ago. MRS. EGGLESTON-I hadn't studied the stuff, and the minutes come out for the Town for the September 15th meeting, and got those this past week, at our last meeting, the 21st. couldn't have done that. At that point, I had not read all minutes. hadn't I just So I of the MR. O'CONNOR-Without looking at the DorIon addition parcel, which is four acres, you've got to consider that the parcel itself, by density, could support 40 to 50 units, which is what Mrs. Eggleston is looking. MR. CARR-Our parcel? MR. O'CONNOR-I'll take that back. acres do you have? I added in DorIon. How many MR. CARR-We can only support 12 units on the whole thing. MR. O'CONNOR-And Dorlon is from 40 to 50. MRS. EGGLESTON-I think, too, we'd be setting a precedent. I don't believe there are any complex buildings in the Town built on right- of-ways or private roads, if you will, just for what it's worth. MR. KARPELES-I agree with her, and I'm not eager to see us have a substandard road builtin there that the Township might end up taking over, and as far as I can see, it would be substandard. MR. CARVIN-I think the motion, if I propose it. would be that the road that's built must comply with Town standards. MR. KARPELES-Yes, but I don't see how it can do it. MRS. EGGLESTON-If we're giving them relief, it's not going to meet it, right? MR. CARVIN-I'm only granting them relief of the, on Walker Lane here. MRS. EGGLESTON-It's a crucial part, though. MR. THOMAS-The only thing that I've got to say is that by denying this variance, you're denying access for Mr. Wilson to his property, and he has a right to build on his property as zoned. The only thing he lacks is just entrance to his property. If he wants to build 12 units there, he can build 12 units there. It's zoned MR-5. The only thing he needs is access to his property, and if we deny this variance, we're denying him access to his property. He has no way to get into that property. MRS. EGGLESTON-Actually, we're not denying him access to the - 8 - property. if we deny the variance. because he still can use the property. but maybe not for quite so much density. MR. THOMAS-But he can't use it as zoned. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. he could build duplexes. which would have made the neighborhood happy. They said they would have been happy to see duplexes. MR. THOMAS-In this zone. for the amount of acreage that he has. he can build twelve units. because he has one. almost an acre and a half. So he can build twelve units if he wants. That's his prerogative. but he can't build those units unless he gets a variance from the Town. So in reality. we're denying him access to his land. and what it can be used for. MRS. EGGLESTON-We might be denying access for this project. but he still can use his land. MR. THOMAS-But not as zoned. not as zoned. MR. KARPELES-He just bought that property in February. MRS. EGGLESTON-That's another thing. self-created hardship. MR. THOMAS-The property was there. It was an MR-5 when he bought it. MR. KARPELES-He should have known that it was a landlocked piece of property. MRS. EGGLESTON-Do you not think maybe that's why the cost of the property was so cheap. because the people knew that there was going to be this difficulty. MR. THOMAS-If he paid a dollar for it. you know, he's going to the expense and the difficulty of trying to get a variance. Any of us could have bought that piece of property. and we'd have to go through the same thing. It's just that Mr. Wilson bought it. Now he's going through it. Somebody was going to do it anyway. because this is a viable piece of property. for 12 units, it's in an MR-5 zone. The only thing it lacks is fifteen feet for access. and that's the only thing it lacks. MRS. EGGLESTON-That's a big lack. MISS HAUSER-I agree with what he says. unless this was created. as Mr. O'Connor says. and it's a nonconforming lot. in which case. if he bought that lot. and it was nonconforming. then he created his own hardship. MR. TURNER-Yes. MISS HAUSER-So I'm not concerned so much with the right-of-way as with how the lot was created. MR. TURNER-Yes. That's my concern. Do you have a problem with that. Fred? I'm concerned as to the legality of the subdivision. if. in fact. he did create himself a hardship. MR. CARVIN-Well. how does one determine that? MR. THOMAS-The courts decide that. MR. TURNER-Well. I guess. from my point. I'd be uncomfortable voting on it if it was. MR. CARVIN-So what are you suggesting? MR. TURNER-I'd move to table it until it gets cleared up. I'm - 9 - uncomfortable with the fact that if they did create themselves a hardship. illegal subdivision. by splitting that property. MR. THOMAS-How would they create themselves a hardship? What. by that Quick Claim deed? MISS HAUSER-No. He's not saying by the right-of-way. by cutting off that lot from that other parcel. MR. TURNER-Cutting off that lot. MR. THOMAS-When was that lot created? MISS HAUSER-In '93. MR. CARR-Which lot are we talking about? MRS. CIPPERLY-The large lot. MR. CARR-The large one? MRS. CIPPERLY-Mr. Wilson's property. MR. CARR-That's been there for years. MR. THOMAS-The 1.467 acres. when was that created? MR. CARR-That's. we've got an abstract back to the 60's. that was. I'm talking about. you asked me to get that little 35. 33 that little strip. to see if we could get title to it. because then we would just have to have a right-of-way, and I went and got a Quick Claim deed to it, thinking this is the person who owns it. MISS HAUSER-Okay. I thought you were talking about the entire lot. MR. THOMAS-No. The entire lot's been there. MR. CARR-That's been existing for years. MR. CARVIN-But if he can't meet the rest of the specifications, then the motion falls, but I agree with Chris 100 percent. I mean, how else is the guy. I don't care who buys it. It's a landlocked piece of property. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Just because the property is zoned for a particular use, though, doesn't mean you have a right to use it. If you don't meet the qualifications for that zone, as spelled out within the Ordinance, you're subject to this Board's discretion. concerning what is good for the health, welfare, and safety. MR. CARVIN-Which would you prefer? I mean. he has a right-of-way. Is there any argument about the easement or the right-of-way? MR. O'CONNOR-As I understand it, he does have a right-of-way. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Now, he has a right-of-way. We're agreed. All right. even if that right-of-way is one inch, right, he still could build 12 apartments out there. He has a right-of-way. He has a right to build those properties. MR. O'CONNOR-No. You cannot build in the Town of Queensbury based on the right-of-way. You have to have a certain amount of frontage in order to build in the Town of Queensbury. For a single family home. you have to have a minimum of 40 feet. For a multi family, you have to be able to meet the standards of a Town road. the minimum is 50 feet. MR. CARVIN-And I don't want to carry this to the extreme, but - 10 - suppose there were Suppose there was apartments on that. horses there. no road? I I mean. we're talking cars. mean. he still could build 12 MR. O'CONNOR-Not according to the Ordinance. MRS. EGGLESTON-Not without a variance. MR. O'CONNOR-You can't get a building permit. MR. CARVIN-If he's not going to build a road. he doesn't need it. MR. O'CONNOR-He can't get a bUilding permit. Today he can't get a building permit on that site. MR. CARVIN-But he's not building a road. I understand what you're saying. MR. O'CONNOR-And the reaction. probably, would be a lot different from the adjoining owners if there were less density proposed. MR. CARR-Less density than the four out of twelve? anymore. we'd have to come back. If we do MR. O'CONNOR-I don't make any stipulation as to total number at all. I just hear that they want to be able to create this as an existing lot and get whatever they can get for building. MR. CARVIN-The applicant is seeking to build a four unit apartment building. So it specifies four apartments. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, but unless you limit your approval to that. he will not have to come back to this Board to build the second or third one. because he will have established access. MR. CARR-But as I understand the rules. we would have to come back for any new bui ldings on there to the Planning Board. who then could revisit all these issues again. MR. TURNER-Yes. they could. MRS. EGGLESTON-They wouldn't deny it, the Planning Board. They'd just make sure the septic and everything. MR. TURNER-Yes. They're more interested in the traffic flow and the septic and utilities. MRS. CIPPERLY-Excuse me. but whether he builds duplexes or apartments. he would still need 50 feet. So the density question. the question before the Zoning Board. though. is the question of frontage. MR. TURNER-Okay. Are you comfortable with the motion? We could beat this to death all night. and we won't get any place. MR. CARVIN-I'm comfortable with parts of it. I'm not sure that I'm totally comfortable with it. I hate to say that. but I'm looking at what they're. according to our minutes here, he's requesting 100 percent relief, and we're granting a specific relief. I think that there is a valid argument here. I know what we talked about at the other meeting was just this road here. in other words. bringing it up to specifications. I don't know if I'd have to rework it to include the. MRS. EGGLESTON-The road across the back. this part up here. MR. CARVIN-I mean, you could interpret it that the whole thing has to be built to Town specifications. MR. CARR-Is that your intention, Mr. Carvin, was that your - 11 - intention to have it all built? MR. CARVIN-No. My intention. basically, was just this section here, but without the measurements, and I'd have to re-work this whole thing, because he's asking for 100 percent relief. I'm assuming that that would have to be addressed in the motion. As the motion as I've got it written right now does not make any reference to the 100 percent relief. MR. CARR-Well, I think. Mr. Carvin, all you would have to say is. once we enter onto that boundary line that is on the map. then it's built to plan specifications. Those specifications are on the plan for that. MR. O'CONNOR-Is it your intention to grant him a variance, if he's required to build the internal road to Town specifications? Is it your intention to give him a variance from that requirement? MR. CARVIN-That's correct. conditioned on the fact that this road here be built to Town standards and specifications. MR. O'CONNOR-What if he's got 200 feet of width there? basis of granting an area variance on road construction development? What's the hardship? What's the difficulty? What's the within the practical MR. CARVIN-Because the issues that were raised by the neighbors address the health and safety aspect. and the only health and safety aspect, basically. is the traffic consideration. and if the road is built to Town specifications. MR. O'CONNOR-Fire vehicles that go in. you vehicles side by side in there. if you have down. you could pull another pump beside you. foot radius. want to park two a pump that breaks How about the 150 MR. CARVIN-I mean. the Fire Marshal said that he was comfortable with? MRS. EGGLESTON-No. It was only a verbal call from Kip Grant. I read that in the minutes today. Jim did not get anything in wri ting. It was a conversation. and he hadn't seen the actual layout. It was just a phone conversation. MR. O'CONNOR-There's a specific Section in the Ordinance. I can pull it out for you. that says on multi family. internal roads have to be built to Town standards. MR. TURNER-Yes. I know. No. You don't have to pull it out. It's right there. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. I read that myself today. MR. CARVIN-If you're asking if I'm comfortable with my motion as written. the answer there is no. If you're not comfortable with this aspect. then I suspect we should go ahead and table it. MR. TURNER-Yes. I would table it. I want to give everybody a fair shake. if you want to move to table it. MR. THOMAS-How long are we going to keep tabling this thing? We've done it three times so far. MR. TURNER-I know. but this is the last time. MR. THOMAS-How many times are we going to keep this guy. how long are we going to keep this poor guy hanging? MISS HAUSER-What parts are you uncomfortable with? - 12 - MR. CARVIN-Well, I'm uncomfortable with the 100 percent. MR. TURNER-The 100 percent relief. MRS. CIPPERLY-The advertisement for 100 percent was before they purchased, or got the Quick Claim deed. So I believe now you're actually asking for less than 100 percent relief. One hundred percent relief would have been the whole 50 feet of frontage. MR. CARR-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Is the proposed motion, as reviewed, applicable in this situation? MR. TURNER-I think it is. MR. CARVIN-If it is, then I'll go ahead and move it. MISS HAUSER-We were making this motion based upon the information they provided us. and if that information isn't correct, then they have to go to court, and it's not for us to decide. MR. TURNER-It's not for us to decide. MR. CARVIN-Well, I can move it. Ted. MR. TURNER-All right. Go ahead. Lets move it. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 71-1993 LUCAS S. WILSON. Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption. seconded by Chris Thomas: I move that we grant relief of 17 feet from Section 179-70B which requires the minimum frontage on a public road to be the width of the right-of-way for a public collector road. which is 50 feet. However. this variance is based on the following conditions: 1. The non-public access road. which will be constructed in the right- of-way must meet all current town standards for public roads, (e.g. 12 foot lanes. 2 foot paved swales. materials. construction. etc.) 2. It must be designed to meet current town standards with regards to curvatures. etc. to accommodate service and emergency vehicles. 3. Wherever possible. the right-of-way is to be expanded to the town minimum of 50 feet. as outlined in the submitted plot plan. 4. Should the right-of-way be determined as other than 33 feet, a new variance will be required. By granting of this relief, this project will be subject to Site Plan Review by the Planning Board. The practical difficulty with this project rests with the fact that the land does not front on a town road and the applicant can only establish a 35 foot deeded right-of-way onto Walker Lane. Thereby, essentially making this parcel land-locked without the variance. By making the applicant comply with current Town standards for road construction. it would alleviate several health and safety hazards that might be created by future expansion of use on the parcel or adjoining parcels, should they be developed according to the approved zone classifications. It would also be hoped that this non-public road at some point become an approved town road. By the granting of this variance, it would be the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty. It does not appear the variance would be detrimental to other properties in the district or neighborhood. By conditioning the variance. the concerns raised by the public opposition with regards to any safety or traffic hazards along with any future proposed development of adjacent parcels are addressed. Also, site plan review and the Planning Board will address concerns raised regarding leach field. maximum densi ty. along with quality of structures and parking on the proposed development. There appears to be no effect on public facilities or services. This would be my motion and I would ask for a second. Duly adopted this 27th day of October. 1993. by the following vote: - 13 - AYES: Mr. Carvin. Miss Hauser, Mr. Thomas. Mr. Turner NOES: Mr. Karpeles. Mrs. Eggleston ABSENT: Mr. Philo MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Turner. does that mean the internal road would have to be in compliance with. the only variance you granted was the relief. MR. CARVIN-All we granted was relief of 17 feet. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 89-1993 TYPE II RR-3A JOHN J. & ELAINE E. STARK OWNER: RICHARD KILMARTIN DREAM LAKE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CREATE A BUILDING LOT OFF OF DREAM LAKE ROAD. AND IS SEEKING RELIEF FROM SECTION 179-70A. WHICH REQUIRES FORTY (40) FEET FRONTAGE OH A TOWN ROAD (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) DATE: 10/13/93 TAX MAP NUMBER: 51-1-35.1 LOT SIZE: 17.91 ACRES SECTION 179-70A JOHN STARK. PRESENT MRS. EGGLESTON-And the Warren County Planning Board returned. "No County Impact." STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Area Variance No. 89-1993, John J. & Elaine E. Stark. Meeting Date: October 27th. 1993 "ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: Large parcel fronts on Bay Road and Dream Lake Road. The proposed parcel is on the east side of this large parcel. SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant proposes to subdivide a three and twenty-one hundredths (3.21) acre lot from a seventeen and ninety-one hundredths (17.91) acre lot. The large lot has frontage on Bay and Dream Lake Roads. the proposed lot has no frontage on a Town road. The parcel is in an RR-3A zone. CONFORMANCE WITH USEIAREA REGULATIONS: Section 179-70A requires forty (40) feet frontage on a Town road. Applicant states that he has a right-of-way to Dream Lake Road. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. DESCRIBE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WHICH DOES HOT ALLOW PLACEMENT OF A STRUCTURE WHICH MEETS THE ZONING CODE. There is no Town road frontage for the proposed lot. There is an existing unpaved road which is used by one existing house. 2. IS THIS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NECESSARY TO ALLEVIATE THE SPECIFIC PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY. OR IS THERE ANY OTHER OPTION AVAILABLE WHICH WOULD REQUIRE HO VARIAHCE? To access this proposed lot from the direction desired. this is the minimum variance possible. In terms of access via the larger parcel. there may be other options. 3. WOULD THIS VARIANCE BE DETRIMEHTAL TO THE OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD? This variance in itself would not appear to be detrimental to the neighborhood or district. The use of the dirt driveway as a means to access further development could be problematic. 4. WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF THE VARIANCE OH PUBLIC FACILITIES AHD SERVICES? A discussion of land ownership is included under Staff Comments. It appears there could be a problem with emergency vehicle access if existing ownership conditions are adhered to. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: The Queensbury tax map shows an access strip up to the southern boundary of this proposed parcel. While there does appear to be some access. it is not as wide as the tax map implies. Based on a survey map of the adjoining lands of Ellsworth. it appears that where the lands of Kilmartin abut the land of Ellsworth. the right- of-way narrows to twelve (12) feet. The existing dirt access drive is not within this twelve (12) foot wide strip. and it does not appear that any right-of-way exists over the lands of Ellsworth. The pertinent tax map and survey map portions are attached to these notes. It should be noted that because this would be the second residence using this access. the required frontage is actually fifty (50) feet as required under Section 179-62B. which requires that all nonpublic roads used for vehicular circulation in all - 14 - multi family projects shall be designed in width. curvature, etc., to accommodate service and emergency vehicles and shall meet all Town standards for public roads. The applicant has proposed a fifty-two (52) foot wide access strip in front of the proposed parcel, but the situation described above effects the area between the Town-owned Dream Lake Road and the proposed parcel." MR. TURNER-Mr. Stark, could you answer the comment that the staff raised as to the right-of-way over that property, the twelve foot, narrows to twelve feet. MR. STARK-Yes. There is 12 feet on Dream Lake, and it widens to two other properties, and when it reaches the property we propose, right now it's existing, it's close to 32 feet. MR. TURNER-Yes. but it also states no right-of-way exists over the lands of Ellsworth. Can you answer that one? MR. STARK-As far as I know, there is a right-of-way. MR. TURNER-You don't have any paperwork to show anything? MR. STARK-No. DICK KILMARTIN MR. KILMARTIN-I have a deed that shows there is a right-of-way. MR. TURNER-Over Ellsworth? MR. KILMARTIN-No. It doesn't go over Ellsworth. It's on my own property. Now, this is a Dream Lake Road. This is a survey. I don't know what the date on here is. MR. TURNER-1990, it looks like. MR. THOMAS-September 27th, 1990. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KILMARTIN-All right, and here is the survey, but this is my property. MR. KARPELES-Where is that dirt road? Is that the dirt road going in there? MR. TURNER-That's the dirt road. MR. KILMARTIN-This is the dirt road, right here. MRS. EGGLESTON-That's the same as this right here. So you come in Dream Lake Road and turn this way? Is this the road you're showing? MR. TURNER-Yes. That's Bay Road. MRS. EGGLESTON-That goes through, by Ellsworth's property? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KILMARTIN-That's right. MR. TURNER-That's Bay Road there. You come into Dream Lake there. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. KILMARTIN-See what that says, Ellsworth's boundary shown incorrectly, but this is the boundary right here. ROBERT ELLSWORTH - 15 - MR. ELLSWORTH-Also. take note. this is not a 50 foot road. This is only a 25 foot road, even though it shows a 50 foot road. You can't make the corner. from 25 feet into 12 feet. MR. THOMAS-How big is the proposed lot going to be? MR. STARK-Three acres. MR. THOMAS-A three acre lot. MR. KARPELES-Where's the other house? MRS. EGGLESTON-It's right across from it. MR. TURNER-It's right across the road. MRS. EGGLESTON-There's one already there. right across the road. MR. TURNER-How does your neighbor across the road get into his house? MR. STARK-This right-of-way. MRS. EGGLESTON-Does he have a legal deeded right-of-way across all, have you talked to him? MR. STARK-I have talked to them. MRS. EGGLESTON-They ~ the right-of-way? MR. STARK-They have a right-of-way. MRS. EGGLESTON-They have a right-of-way. MR. TURNER-Dick. did you sell this lot to him? MR. KILMARTIN-To who? MR. TURNER-The guy that's across the road from him? MR. KILMARTIN-No, I did not. Carl Lewis sold that lot to him. MR. TURNER-Carl Lewis? MR. KILMARTIN-Yes. SETTY DUFFY MRS. DUFFY-That lot was part of an original, 75 acres or so. and that lot was sold to the son of the original owner. and that right- of-way was established for him to get into his property. It's been existing for a long time. MR. TURNER-Okay. Let me open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CAROLYN CLARY MRS. CLARY-I don't live there, but I know these people. and I don't think Mr. Stark told he is with the Fire Company. He plows his own road. So that might help him. Carolyn Clary. DICK KILMARTIN MR. KILMARTIN-Well, I've been down there pretty near 35 years. I've owned the property for nearly 35 years, and I've driven tractors and farming equipment up and down that road, and never had a bit of problems. I had a little bit of a problem with a neighbor one day, but that's all solved. and there's been no problem since. - 16 - but other than that. I don't see any reason why. the Kobza are in favor of it. They told him that. They're in favor of having him down there. They want some neighbors down there. MR. TURNER-Okay. application that application? Thanks. wishes to Anyone else. in be heard? Okay. support of Opposed to the the ROBERT ELLSWORTH MR. ELLSWORTH-I oppose it on the grounds that it would be unsafe. They can't make the 25 foot turn, it's a square corner. You're coming off a 25 foot road into 12 foot right-of-way. Itís supposed to be a 50 foot road. the Town has never widened it out to 50 feet. Also. the people seem to be not using the 12 foot right-of-way. They're running over on the lands of Robert Ellsworth. and they seem to feel that they own that corner. That's going to have to be settled in a court of law. I don't have any objections to Mr. Stark building. but I think Mr. Kilmartin should provide him a right-of-way off of 149. He has plenty of land. If he's going to subdivide and develop his property, he should do it right. MISS HAUSER-I have a question. Now. on this map we were given. is this supposed to be showing that he. Mr. Ellsworth. owns this land they're claiming is their right-of-way? MR. ELLSWORTH-That's in estate right now. MRS. EGGLESTON-So, does Mr. Ellsworth own to this line right here? MR. TURNER-Yes. from here to here. He owns abutting this. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MRS. DUFFY-This is the original survey. This is going back to 1954. These are lands of Robert Ellsworth here. going down here. This is the right-of-way that we're talking about. 12 foot right- of-way. and as I mentioned earlier. this was established to give access to one of the Lewis' who was the son of the person who original owned all of that land. That's why that was there initially. MRS. EGGLESTON-So it's actually a 12 foot right-of-way. MR. ELLSWORTH-Off of our property. make the corner. It's too narrow. You can't MRS. EGGLESTON-Well. how's this guy doing that. that lives in there already? MR. ELLSWORTH-What he's doing is coming in. and he's running around the corner like this and then back out. He's running on our property. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, couldn't you put something up there to stop that? MR. ELLSWORTH-Sure can. MRS. DUFFY-We've put things up many times. and they have been taken down many times. If you go up there. the road. what's being used is not the right-of-way. It's on the Ellsworth property. I would just like to say one other thing. This is not a lot that's landlocked in any way. There is access. Mr. Kilmartin's property, from both Bay Road and 149. In my opinion. there's no reason to grant access through the 12 foot right-of-way for this particular lot. MRS. EGGLESTON-Mr. Kilmartin. do you intend to subdivide the rest your property? - 17 - know they're not going to have speeding and whatever going down those roads. I have been subjected to enough of that already. I don't want it anymore. MR. TURNER-Okay. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. EGGLESTON-Ted, where does this narrow to 12? The whole road is 12? MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-But what were they talking about the part that narrows down? MR. TURNER-Right here, at the end. What they're saying is when they come off Dream Lake Road, they've got to pull around the corner like this, and go over in Mr. Ellsworth's property and then swing back in to straighten up and get on the right of way. MRS. EGGLESTON-Right. MR. TURNER-Dick, can I ask you a question? You said you weren't going to subdivide the RR-5 acre? MR. KILMARTIN-No. I'm not. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. KILMARTIN-There's two parcels back in there that I own, and I'm not going to subdivide either one of them. MR. KARPELES-How did Kobza build in there? Did he have a variance? MR. KILMARTIN-No. he bought that. MRS. DUFFY-Betty Duffy. That was, property was owned by Lewis, it had to be, I don't know, 75 acres. 100 acres. something like that, and they gave that piece of property to their son. who built the house. There was a fire there. I don't know if it was completely destroyed and then they rebuilt and the current owner bought from them. but it's been a residence there for many, many years. MR. ELLSWORTH-This was primarily supposed to be just a driveway for that one residence. MR. TURNER-Yes. MISS HAUSER-Is that land that's zoned five acres, is that on the market now? MR. TURNER-The land that's zoned RR-5 acres up there on the top, is that on the market. right here? MR. KILMARTIN-Yes, it is. Originally, there was a Town road in there, originally. It went out to the Baker lot. It was out in the back. There was a cellar hole out there across the brook, it comes down from Bear Pond. There was a cellar hole there when I bought the place. I've filled the cellar hole in since, but originally there was the Baker farmhouse there, beyond this Lewis lot, and there was a Town road that went right out through to the Baker Road, and it came out right across from Walkup Cutoff. The road used to come right out and come right across, where Walkup Cutoff is, and it came right up between where Moons live and Williams live right now. There was a road that came right up through there. I walked that road a good many times when I was a kid. MRS. EGGLESTON-Mr. Kilmartin, if someone came to you and said I'd - 19 - like to buy the lot. the other side of the Stark's, would you sell it. another lot on the right-of-way? MR. KILMARTIN-No. I couldn't. MRS. EGGLESTON-And why is that? MR. KILMARTIN-Why is that? Because the stream runs down through there. it zig zags all the way down through that lot behind where Stark's place is. is going to be. and there's no possible way I could sell three acres in there and have a place for a building lot in there. There's no possible way. the way the stream wanders down through there. MRS. EGGLESTON-And you're not willing to give a right-of-way. I take it. across from 149 or Dream Lake. to this piece of property? MR. KILMARTIN-There's no. it would cost me thousands of dollars to build a road in from there. and I literally means thousands. MRS. EGGLESTON-Thank you. MR. KILMARTIN-You're welcome. MR. TURNER-Anyone else have a question? MRS. EGGLESTON-I guess I could ask Mr. Ellsworth. does he have any intentions of selling any of his that borders on that? MR. ELLSWORTH-No. I don't. MRS. EGGLESTON-And what about your lot. your second lot? MRS. REARDON-I can't. I'd have to get a variance. It's less than three acres. because you can only sell three acres. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. but at the moment. you don't have any plans of selling it? MRS. REARDON-I have no plans of selling it. MR. ELLSWORTH-There is access in from the other way. There is an old bridge. an old culvert across the brook. MR. KARPELES-From where? MR. ELLSWORTH-From 149. MR. KILMARTIN-I'd like to see that. MR. TURNER-Yes. Can you show it to us on the map here? MR. ELLSWORTH-It's not on the map. MR. TURNER-No. no. I'm just saying. you said it crosses the Brook. Where does it cross the Brook on this map? MR. ELLSWORTH-It continues right on out through. and past. (lost word) and crosses the Brook right there. MRS. EGGLESTON-And it swings back around to 149? MR. ELLSWORTH-It continues out to that field there bordering 149. That's the access to that field. the back way. MR. STARK-I think there might be some problems in developing that land. anyhow. because of the proximity of that Brook. it's a low lot. MR. TURNER-Wetlands. - 20 - MR. STARK-Yes. MR. TURNER-What do you want to do? MRS. EGGLESTON-Mr. Stark. how do you propose maintaining this road, taking into consideration the sharp turn that Mr. Ellsworth has spoken of? Where are you going to put the snow? How are you going to maintain that corner without going on to someone else's property? Could you come up here and address that? MR. STARK-I've been snowplowing since 1972. The best I could do wi th this, to bring the snow and put it off that right-of-way. That right-of-way opens up to 32 feet. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, that's what I asked previously, and everybody said it's only 12 feet. MR. STARK-The tapers wider. narrowest point on the road is 12 feet, then it Where my property is, it opens to 32 feet. MRS. EGGLESTON-How far is your house in on that road, would you say? MR. STARK-About 400 feet. MRS. EGGLESTON-So you're going to push the snow 400 feet, in order to get it off the road back in where it widens? How far would you have to go? MRS. DUFFY-It looks like 300 feet before it widens. MRS. EGGLESTON-Is it 300? MR. TURNER-Yes. The first lot's 50, it looks like 50 on the corner, and the next lot's 250. MRS. EGGLESTON-It was just surveyed? MR. STARK-Yes, by Leon Steves of Van Dusen and Steves. MRS. EGGLESTON-And this does widen approximately how far out, in front of Lot 32? MR. TURNER-Thirty-one. MRS. EGGLESTON-Thirty-one. (Neighbors were talking with one another in the audience.) MR. KILMARTIN-It says 12 foot right-of-way. It doesn't say who owns the property on the right-of-way. The property I own. I have a map to it. I've got the deed to it. MR. TURNER-The only problem I have with it, you get emergency vehicles in here. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. around that corner. MR. TURNER-God forbid anything ever happens. MR. CARVIN-Well, the road is in terrible shape. Bob commented, and I think we all were out there and saw the potholes. MR. KARPELES-I don't know how you'd even plow it right now. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MRS. REARDON-And to the left of this road is a line of Cedar trees which I've been told by a surveyor are on the line. - 21 - -' MR. CARVIN-I had all I could do just to turn around in there. I had to turn around in the driveway. MRS. EGGLESTON-If you two were to stake your corners, Mr. Ellsworth and you. I don't know how a fire truck could make that turn to get in there. unless they went way up around the hill and turned around and came back down in straight, which could create more time in case of an emergency. MR. ELLSWORTH-You still can't go straight through there. MRS. EGGLESTON-You can't go straight through there? It's not wide enough? MR. ELLSWORTH-No. not the way the corner is. MRS. EGGLESTON-How wide's a fire truck? MR. ELLSWORTH-A fire truck. you've got to have room enough. 12 feet doesn't line up straight with the other road is what I'm saying. MRS. EGGLESTON-I see. Even if you came down from up off the hill, it doesn't hit it straight. I see what you're saying. MR. CARVIN-My feeling is that this is slowly becoming a development, an area, and it's just being done piecemeal. My feeling is that it probably should go to a plotted out little road. and if he's going to develop it. develop it. and if not. selling it piecemeal is. you know. if somebody comes in and buys this whole thing, they're going to be putting roads in. MR. TURNER-Well, Mr. Ellsworth doesn't want to sell any land. is that correct? MRS. EGGLESTON-No. no, Mr. Kilmartin's property. MR. CARVIN-Kilmartin, I'm saying. MRS. EGGLESTON-Because Mr. Kilmartin's the one who wants to sell it. MR. TURNER-As far as getting in from this way. he can forget it. MR. CARVIN-Well. that's what I'm saying. I mean, fire departments and whatnot, we're still dealing with a 12 foot road there. I mean. and if he puts lots all the way up through here, I mean, technically they could just extend it all the way up. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. without the benefit of. MR. CARVIN-Yes. without a road. MRS. EGGLESTON-And all the amenities that go with it. MR. THOMAS-I can see that going into a development real quick, unless the economy turns around. especially since all the property's for sale. Some big developer's going to come in there and snatch that all up. he's going to whack that right up. Is that a wetlands in there? MR. TURNER-Part of it is. MR. THOMAS-Classified wetlands? MR. TURNER-I would think it is. MRS. EGGLESTON-Is there, Mr. Kilmartin? MR. KILMARTIN-Yes. there is wetlands in the back. - 22 - MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. TURNER-Okay. Motion's in order. MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. STARK, Introduced by Fred Carvin seconded by Joyce Eggleston: 89-1993 JOHN J. & ELAINE E. who moved for its adoption, The applicant is seeking relief from Section 179-70A, which requires 40 feet frontage on a town road. I feel that if we were to grant this variance. that it would be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or the community, because we are actually only dealing with a 12 foot right-of-way, which could be insufficient for fire and safety vehicles. If we granted this motion, we would be creating a situation that, over time, would be extremely detrimental to the neighborhood. Duly adopted this 27th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston, Miss Hauser, Mr. Thomas. Mr. Karpeles. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Philo AREA VARIANCE NO. 98-1993 TYPE: UNLISTED LC-42A CEA THOMAS R' BOLEN OWNER: ROBERT J. BOLEN ROUTE 9L. RIDGE ROAD. 4.5 MILES HORTH OF ROUTE 149 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO BUILD A SECOND PRINCIPLE BUILDING ON A PREEXISTING. NOHCONFORMING NINE AND EIGHTY-NINE HUNDREDTHS (9.89) ACRE LOT. UTILIZING AN EXISTING BARN FOUNDATION. (ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY) (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) DATE: 10/13/93 TAX MAP NUMBER: 20-1-1.1 LOT SIZE: 9.89 ACRES SECTION 179-13A THOMAS BOLEN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. EGGLESTON-And the Warren County Planning Board returned, with the comment, "No action could be taken because a majority vote could not be achieved." STAFF IHPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 98-1993, Thomas R. Bolen, Meeting Date: October 27, 1993 "ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: Route 9L. Ridge Road, 4.5 mile north of Route 149 SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant proposes to build a second principal building on a preexisting. nonconforming nine and eighty-nine (9.89) acre parcel, utilizing an existing barn foundation. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: Applicant seeks relief from Section 179-13A which allows one principal building for every forty-two (42) acres. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. DESCRIBE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW PLACEMENT OF A STRUCTURE WHICH MEETS THE ZOHING CODE. The existing farmhouse on the property will be restored as a residence for the applicant's parents. Applicant proposes to create a second residence on the property on the location of one of the existing barns but does not want to propose subdividing the lot further. 2. IS THIS THE MINIMUM VARIAHCE NECESSARY TO ALLEVIATE THE SPECIFIC PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY. OR IS THERE ANY OTHER OPTION AVAILABLE WHICH WOULD REQUIRE NO VARIAHCE? This appears to be the minimum variance necessary. 3. WOULD THIS VARIANCE BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD? It does not appear that this variance would have an adverse effect on other properties. 4. WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF THE VARIANCE ON PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES? There would be no effect on public facilities and services. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: Utilizing the existing barn location would provide a building site without disturbance of additional land. In order to utilize the stone foundation, an Enginee r' s plans and approval would have to be submitted as part of the building permit." - 23 - MR. TURNER-Would you care to make a further comment? MR. BOLEN-No. Other than this is the first time that I've applied for a variance. and in doing so the Planning Staff was very helpful in taking time to answer all the questions. and I had a lot of them. MR. TURNER-The question of building on the old foundation. that isn't going to fly. The question on the old foundation. MR. BOLEN-Yes. We intend to build where the old barn is. but. and I think on the map I submitted. MR. TURNER-Yes. You showed it. MR. BOLEN-Following the instructions. I indicated the existing building. and then the proposed building. back another 17 feet. MRS. EGGLESTON-So. how are we on advertising the hearing. since our advertisement said utilizing an existing barn foundation. and actually your foundation will be bigger than the barn? MR. BOLEN-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-The footprint would be bigger. So how are we here. legal wise? MRS. CIPPERLY-The expansion to the rear. the existing building. your concern there would be the setback from the road. and using the existing structure. MRS. EGGLESTON-But we're talking about the legality of the. just be sure our hide's covered. MR. TURNER-Yes. but my thought is that if somebody had a problem wi th that. and it wasn't advertised right. and we're going to increase it 17 feet more. MRS. EGGLESTON-How does everyone else on this Board feel? MR. CARVIN-I've got a couple of questions. I need to know who the players are here. You're Thomas. are you? MR. BOLEN-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and Robert the third is a brother? MR. BOLEN-He's my brother. and Robert. Jr. is my father. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Now who's. just Robert J. Bolen. I don't see any designation numerically. MR. BOLEN-That's my father. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Your father owns the property? MR. BOLEN-Right. MR. CARVIN-You're the applicant. You're Thomas? MR. BOLEN-Yes. MR. KARPELES-Is anyone living there now? MR. BOLEN-No. MR. KARPELES-You're going to build it on that barn that's falling down right now. that foundation? MR. CARVIN-He can't speak. - 24 - MR. KARPELES-He can't speak? MR. TURNER-No, he's not the agent. MR. CARVIN-Because the agent's Robert, not Thomas. MR. TURNER-That's right. MR. KARPELES-Okay. MR. CARVIN-Robert the father. MRS. EGGLESTON-Gave it to Robert J., hereby designates Robert Bolen, III, as his agent. MR. CARVIN-That's why I was confused as to who the agent and the applicant was. So Robert is the one that's designated hitter. MRS. CIPPERLY-I guess it was Robert that came in first. MR. BOLEN-No, I. If it helps any, I believe I signed as the agent. MR. TURNER-Applicant's signature you signed, but agent's name is Robert. MRS. EGGLESTON-But we haven't clarified, yet, are we legal in our advertisement, Mr. Chairman? MR. TURNER-No. MRS. EGGLESTON-Mr. Chairman thinks no. What about the rest of the Board? MR. CARVIN-I have a lot of problem with this application. I mean, if it's not legal, then lets send it back. MR. TURNER-If it's not legal, lets send it back and get it done right. He can't speak anyway. MR. CARVIN-I was going to say, if we've got a wrong agent here, lets get the players all lined up in a row. MR. TURNER-Yes, lets get all the ducks in a row. MR. THOMAS-Why can't the applicant speak? MR. TURNER-Because he can't. MRS. EGGLESTON-He's not the owner of the property. MR. CARVIN-He's not the owner of the property. MR. BOLEN-Does it have any bearing that I signed as agent? MR. KARPELES-No, you didn't. MR. BOLEN-I mean, I know it indicates my brother's the agent. I signed as agent. MR. TURNER-You signed as the applicant. MR. THOMAS-It also says, reverse. MR. KARPELES-Yes. MR. BOLEN-At Warren County, I addressed that question, and they didn't seem to indicate that there was any problem. MR. TURNER-Well, they don't look at them as thoroughly, lots of times, as we do. - 25 - MR. CARVIN-All I have is just the authorization to act as ag~nt. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-That's all I've got. Robert is the agent. This is Tom. though. So, you can reverse it. Robert is the agent. So that's correct. It should have been reversed. Robert should have signed as agent. and Thomas should have signed as the applicant. So they got that right. MRS. EGGLESTON-But this is what we have to look at. MR. CARVIN-But this is what we have to look at. and they're still saying that Robert is the agent. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. So we have a couple of hurdles here before we go any further. MR. TURNER-We should re-advertise. It's not advertised right. MRS. EGGLESTON-Right. MR. TURNER-It might effect some people in the neighborhood that would otherwise not even consider it. based on what they looked at in the paper. MR. BOLEN-As far as in the advertisement. in the application. it's not indicated that we will be utilizing the existing foundation. So. I'm wondering. MRS. EGGLESTON-How we got that? MR. BOLEN-Yes. MR. TURNER-Yes. The whole thing is a mess. The whole thing is a mish mash. MRS. CIPPERLY-Well. you did indicate at least the existing barn location. MR. BOLEN-Right. that was the understanding. replacing the existing building. MR. TURNER-If we don't do it legally, it's going to come back to haunt us. I don't like send them away. but. I mean. we've done that on a lot less than this. MRS. CIPPERLY-Do you have your house design right now? MR. BOLEN-It's in the project. MRS. CIPPERLY-As far as what the actual dimensions of the footprint would be, because I think that was unclear at the time. exactly how many feet back, you said you'd be expanding a little bit back from the. but it wasn't a definite figure at the time. MR. BOLEN-It's not written in stone right now. but in addressing that, I thought I was meeting that requirement by what was done on the map. indicating the existing building. and the proposed structure. MRS. CIPPERLY-I believe the issue here is really the second principal building on the lot. and the fact that he's using the existing barn foundation doesn't put it any closer to the. that existing barn doesn't meet the 100 foot setback. It's. what. 60 or 80 feet from the. but if he's utilizing that. he would not need a setback. because it's existing. and whether he expands it to the back or not. doesn't require any kind of variance, because there's plenty of room to the rear. - 26 - -- MR. TURNER-I'd just refer you to the one where we made the guy go down and get his mother's signature. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. I think also I heard the gentleman say he doesn't have an actual plot plan of the house you're going to build. You don't have an actual layout on the property yet. and all of that? MR. BOLEN-Well. we don't have the actual blueprints for the home yet. MR. CARVIN-The current house there is not occupied. correct? Is that MR. BOLEN-No. it's not. MR. KARPELES-I thought you said he couldn't talk? MR. CARVIN-You're right. Thank you. MR. TURNER-All right. I'll move to table it. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 98-1993 THOMAS R' BOLEN. Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption. seconded by Fred Carvin: Until it's properly advertised. and the signatures of the proper agents are on the forms are in order. Duly adopted this 27th day of October. 1993. by the following vote: MRS. CIPPERLY-Your father could actually designate both of you as agents if he would like to. MR. TURNER-That's right. MRS. EGGLESTON-Also. Mr. Chairman. we should see an actual plot layout of the house on the map. exactly where it's going to go. the footage. how many feet from the road, and so on and so forth. MR. TURNER-Right. MR. BOLEN-I guess I misunderstood you. That's what we have here. MRS. EGGLESTON-On our map? MR. BOLEN-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Is there a layout? MR. TURNER-Yes. it shows it. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. All right. AYES: Mrs. Eggleston. Miss Hauser. Mr. Karpeles. Mr. Carvin. Mr. Turner NOES: Mr. Thomas ABSENT: Mr. Philo AREA VARIANCE HO. 95-1993 MR-5 TYPE: UNLISTED MR-5 MICHAEL & KAY LOPEZ OWHER: SAME AS ABOVE CORHER OF CENTRAL & MICHIGAN AVEHUES APPLICAHT IS PROPOSING TO CONVERT AH EXISTING GARAGE INTO A BEAUTY PARLOR. AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM SECTION 179-12C(5). WHICH STATES THERE SHALL BE HO MORE THAH ONE (1) PRIHCIPLE BUILDING IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONE ON ANY SINGLE LOT LESS THAN TWO (2) ACRES IN SIZE. TAX MAP NUMBER: 127-2-9 LOT SIZE: 90 FT. BY 100 FT. SECTIOH 179-12C(5) - 27 - - MICHAEL & KAY LOPEZ. PRESENT MRS. EGGLESTON-And the Committee for Community Beautification gave approval preliminary. with the comments. "Renovation of garage to make into a hair salon. Lot size - 9.000 sq. ft. Applicant lives in house on this property and owns other property in the area. Driveway has blacktop and will add more parking spaces with crushed stone - eventually will blacktop. Need 4 parking spaces. one in front near entrance for the handicap and 3 on side. Two large trees in area to remain. Existing stockade fence running north to south on west side of property to remain and add stockade fence running east to west from this fence in back of salon and extended to front of building on Central Avenue - screens Beauty salon from neighbor. Discussed window box beneath picture window for flowers and mobile barrel planters in front. Lawn to remain around building. Triangular enclosure for trash container in northwest corner. Committee would like to see rhododendrons. burning bush or some type of hedge on west side and cut down on blacktop. Since applicant had no plan to submit. Committee gave preliminary approval and applicant agreed to return in spring with definite plans. Owner will do maintenance. In addition to the above Landscaping. Screening and Planting Provisions, the Committee wishes to go on record that it does not approve: 1. Non- conforming signs, and 2. Plastic or artificial trees, shrubs or flowers. In approving the above (or attached plans), the Committee has the expressed or implied agreement of the applicant to replace immediately dead trees, shrubs or plants. and to give proper maintenance to all plantings. All rubbish containers or dumpsters shall be screened, all plantings shall be mulched and trees shall be retained or planted. as agreed." STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Area Variance No. 95-1993. Michael & Kay Lopez. Meeting Date: October 27. 1993 "ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: corner of Central and Michigan Avenue SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to convert an existing garage into a beauty parlor. The residence on the property is rented. Applicant also owns the adjoining vacant parcel to the west. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: Section Number 179-12C(S) does not allow more than one principal building on less than two (2) acres. The residence and the beauty parlor would each be considered a principal building. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. DESCRIBE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW PLACEMENT OF A STRUCTURE WHICH MEETS THE ZONING CODE. The applicant does not own two (2) acres. 2. IS THIS THE MIHIMUM VARIANCE NECESSARY TO ALLEVIATE THE SPECIFIC PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY. OR IS THERE AHY OTHER OPTION AVAILABLE WHICH WOULD REQUIRE NO VARIANCE? Even if the adjoining ninety by one hundred (90 x 100) foot lot were included as the lot area. the two (2) acres could not be met. There do not appear to be any other options on this site. 3. WOULD THIS VARIANCE BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD? Concerns have been expressed by neighbors regarding traffic. parking. and the business nature of this project versus the residential nature of the area. 4. WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF THE VARIAHCE ON PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES? The proposed project would require Town water. which is available. and would utilize the existing septic system. Building Department staff state that this is acceptable. although the system may require more frequent pumping than usual due to the nature of the discharge. STAFF COMMENTS AHD COHCERHS: Based on the square footage of the garage, three (3) parking spaces are needed, including one handicapped space. Applicant has submitted a revised parking plan after staff review." MR. TURNER-Mike, any comment you want to make before you get started here? MR. LOPEZ-I'll answer any questions the best way I can. MRS. EGGLESTON-Does anybody have any questions? - 28 - MR. THOMAS-I have one or two. have in there? How many chairs do you propose to MRS. LOPEZ-In there. there will be two. MR. THOMAS-There'll be two. How may employees will there be? MRS. LOPEZ-One. MR. THOMAS-Just one employee. you? MRS. LOPEZ-The reason for the two chairs is so that. if I am giving a perm and I have a client that needs a hair cut, I don't have to put a perm client in my waiting area. I have two chairs to utilize. Kay Lopez. MR. THOMAS-Do you know how much water you'll be using? MRS. LOPEZ-Gallon wise? MR. THOMAS-Guess? MRS. LOPEZ-A day? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MRS. LOPEZ-Maybe 200 gallons. I don't know. I have no idea. MR. LOPEZ-I would say for each hair, probably less than half a gallon. So she's doing the most. in an eight hour day. two hair cuts a half hour would be 16 gallons for the whole day. if she doesn't take a lunch. MR. THOMAS-I go through more than a half a gallon just in the shower in the morning. MR. LOPEZ-You're just talking about. in general. MR. THOMAS-Do you have restroom facilities in there? MR. LOPEZ-We will be putting them in. handicap accessible. MR. THOMAS-So there's more water use right there. MR. LOPEZ-Yes. I was hoping maybe to. if I have to. put the water from the hair being washed. could that go into a separate drywell. as the bathroom went into a regular septic tank. because actually it's just water and soap that would be going. MR. THOMAS-I'm not a sanitary engineer. MRS. EGGLESTON-I see you people yourselves lives on Stevens Road. So who lives in the house on this premises? MR. LOPEZ-We have it rented right now. MRS. EGGLESTON-It's a rental property? MRS. LOPEZ-A rental property. MR. TURNER-So there'd be a rental property and a business property. Do you know what size septic system there is for the house. Mike? MR. LOPEZ-There's a thousand gallon tank in there now. I just had it pumped out by Del Congdon. and I had him check it out for this reason. ahead of time, so I could say. the capacity. MR. TURNER-But initially you're putting soapy water into that tank also. along with your sewer waste from the house? - 29 - MR. LOPEZ-Right now that goes right to the house. and it's only a two bedroom house. MR. TURNER-Okay. but I mean. everything goes into one tank? MR. LOPEZ-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Well. this map here, is this 1952? MRS. CIPPERLY-This property was transferred, I believe. during this summer, from Noble Counter. and I believe that's the map. MRS. EGGLESTON-You purchased the property this summer? MR. LOPEZ-Yes. this summer. I have the original map. I don't have it right now with me. These are the three vacant lots that join it right here. MR. CARVIN-There's still 30 foot frontage? MR. LOPEZ-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-You own all of these? MR. LOPEZ-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-You own, altogether then, how many lots? MR. LOPEZ-I own six lots. but that's back when they set those lots UP. way back. MRS. CIPPERLY-According to the Assessor's Office, they're taxed on two lots, the one that has the house and garage on it. and then there's a vacant lot. MR. CARVIN-Okay. so that these lots. these six lots, have been actually combined? MR. LOPEZ-No. There's two separate deeds. MRS. CIPPERLY-They're two separate deeds. MR. LOPEZ-They're shown on the tax map. MRS. CIPPERLY-There should be a solid line down the middle. MRS. EGGLESTON-No. there isn't. MRS. CIPPERLY-On the tax map there is. MRS. EGGLESTON-And how much land is this whole part that you own? MR. LOPEZ-Ninety by one hundred. MRS. EGGLESTON-No. your whole piece of property. MR. LOPEZ-I own six lots. MRS. EGGLESTON-What's the size of that combined? MR. LOPEZ-Probably two hundred by one hundred. two hundred by ninety. MR. KARPELES-Two hundred by ninety. yes. MR. TURNER-Eighteen thousand square feet. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. TURNER-These three lots are separate lots of record? - 30 - MR. LOPEZ-Yes. This is a vacant. This is a vacant. MR. TURNER-That's a vacant there. MR. LOPEZ-That's where the house is. MRS. EGGLESTON-Mr. Lopez, what are your plans for these three lots? MR. LOPEZ-At this moment, nothing, because of financial wise, but I mean. eventually. I guess it is zoned for multiple home use down there. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR-S.000 square feet. MR. LOPEZ-If my finances got better I would like to put a duplex there. eventually, down the road, but not saying, today I plan on just holding it. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. Thank you. MR. TURNER-That's an allowed use there, except he doesn't have the two acres. MRS. EGGLESTON-In the MR-5, a beauty shop is? MR. TURNER-Yes. It's an allowed use. He just doesn't have the two acres. MR. THOMAS-It doesn't say beauty shop. Beautician. It says Licensed MR. TURNER-Right. Licensed. MR. THOMAS-Are you a licensed beautician? MRS. LOPEZ-Yes, I am. MR. THOMAS-Okay, just to make it legal. MR. TURNER-Okay. The only thing before us is the question of the two acres. Any questions? Okay. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE MRS. EGGLESTON-A letter from Raymond and Sharron Deyette. 197 Michigan Avenue. "We are corresponding to state our objection to the proposal by Michael and Kay Lopez to establish a beauty parlor in the building presently utilized as a garage. The present character of our neighborhood is residential in nature and the number of children has recently increased due to the erection of nearby duplexes and the expansion of already established families. A business of any sort would necessarily increase traffic in the adjacent areas and thereby increase the risk of personal injury to any child playing nearby or walking back and forth on the roads. With the layout of the area in question, if any more than two or three cars were present at a time. the excess cars would be forced to park in the road. This would cause congestion along the edge of the road thereby creating yet another hazard this time to vehicular as well as pedestrian traffic. We are submitting this letter in lieu of being present at the meetings because we both work second shift and the meetings are occurring during our working hours. We appreciate the fact that the Lopez's are attempting to recover their investment in this rental property as rapidly as possible¡ but we must reiterate that there will be too much danger - 31 - from increased vehicular traffic and the character of the neighborhood will be altered to too great a degree. Our neighborhood is zoned for only one principal building on two acres so it will remain residential in nature - please do not circumvent this. Thank you. Raymond Deyette Sharron Deyette" And another one from Marion Pincheon. "I would object to the proposal to convert an existing garage into a Beauty Parlor, on the corner of Central & Michigan because there is no place to park. They would be parking along the road and it is dangerous when you are backing out of my driveway which is directly across from their garage. Sincerely. Marion Pincheon" MR. TURNER-Do you work for someone now as a beautician? MRS. LOPEZ-Yes. I do. I work in the Aviation Mall right now. MR. TURNER-Okay. MRS. EGGLESTON-They'd need variances on the se. wouldn't they, trying to build on them. because of the 30 foot? MR. TURNER-Yes. probably lot width. MR-5? Yes. He might not meet the lot width. Eighty feet. Yes. You'd need a variance on it. Lot width. You wouldn't meet the lot width. MRS. EGGLESTON-Where are you getting that it's a permitted use? MISS HAUSER-Because it says Professional Office. then you look up Professional Office. MRS. EGGLESTON-He just did. Professional Office is not. how are you considering that's a permitted use in an MR-S zone? MR. CARVIN-If you look under Beauticians. it says. Service Business. not Professional Business. MRS. CIPPERLY-If you look under Professional Office. however. if you look under Professional Occupation. it does. if you look under Professional Office, it says. MR. CARVIN-An office. MRS. CIPPERLY-For a Professional Occupation. and a licensed beautician is listed under Professional Occupation. MRS. HAUSER-Page 17937. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-A beauty shop is listed as a Service Business. a Professional Business. MRS. CIPPERLY-Right. MISS HAUSER-A Professional Occupation. though. MR. KARPELES-Yes, but a Professional Occupation. they've got licensed beautician or barber in there. A Professional Office is an office used to conduct a Professional Occupation. MR. TURNER-Yes. It's an allowed use there. MRS. EGGLESTON-My question was. if he were to develop these other three lots. he would need a variance. since they're only, so we're talking about variances here and in the future more variances on the other part. I know they're preexisting lots, nonconforming. preexisting. MR. LOPEZ-Down the road, I might end up just selling them, just looking at the future possibilities. - 32 - -.-/ MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. THOMAS-The only thing they haven't got is the two acres. That's it. MR. TURNER-Yes. Right. MR. LOPEZ-And I would say that, for the traffic rise, that the most my wife can do is two persons in an hour. a half hour a time to do a hair cut. so that would be basically one coming and one leaving in an hour. So. you're not talking a real influx of traffic. MRS. LOPEZ-And I also feel that my hours will be so minimal that I don't think it'll effect the traffic. MRS. CIPPERLY-Single family is actually a nonconforming use. now. in Multi family residential. MR. LOPEZ-Type II. the Town of Queensbury Code on Page 179-19. go down. Type II. Professional Office is a home use. MR. TURNER-Yes. but I think that the definition was so that. I think back to that. is that they're licensed. They're a licensed beautician. MR. CARVIN-So she can have an office there, but not a shop. There is a difference between an office and a shop. You don't go to the doctor's shop. MISS HAUSER-No. but you go to a doctor to receive services. MR. THOMAS-Do you take your car to a body office? MR. CARVIN-But that's different. A body shop is a body shop. It's a shop. It's a service. MR. THOMAS-So is a beautician. MR. CARVIN-Okay. but. I still say. according to this. a beauty shop is a service. if you take a look at the definition of beauty shop. MR. LOPEZ-But my wife's a professional licensed beautician. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I'm not arguing the fact that you can have an office there. I just say that you can't have a shop there. MR. KARPELES-I think it's pretty clear. as far as I'm concerned. an office used to conduct a professional occupation. A professional includes a licensed beautician or barber. MR. TURNER-A professional occupation is listed as a licensed beautician. and on the next page. a professional office is office used to conduct a professional occupation. MR. CARVIN-If you take a look at Professional Office incidental to home use. is home use the same as home occupation? MR. TURNER-No. MR. CARVIN-There is no definition of home use. but I guess what we're saying is that a Professional Office could be used in conjunction. if you want. instead of a beauty parlor, and we've turned them down repeatedly. MR. KARPELES-Is that an MR-S zone? MR. TURNER-That's an MR-5 zone. That's the difference. MR. CARVIN-What I'm reading is. this is an SR-1A. - 33 - MR. THOMAS-This is an MR-5 zone. MRS. EGGLESTON-I know, but we're saying. they're permitted, then, if you're going to interpret a Professional Office as a beauty shop. then it would also fall under a Single Family Residence. MR. THOMAS-That's what I said for the variance up on Reardon Road. nobody agreed with me. Now you're agreeing with me? MRS. EGGLESTON-No. I don't agree with you. We're still disagreeing. that's our contention. We don't agree in this case. MR. THOMAS-I read it as, in an MR-5 zone, they can have. MR. CARVIN-I think there's a definite contradiction there. MR. TURNER-What it says under the purpose of the MR-5 zone, it says. Professional Office bUildings in areas located near commercial services, subject to intense development pressure. MR. KARPELES-It says they're designated to provide for anticipated increasing demand for high density. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KARPELES-Multi family housing and professional office buildings. MRS. EGGLESTON-Office buildings. MR. KARPELES-Office buildings. and we already defined what an office. MR. TURNER-Yes. but the only criteria that's in front of us is whether they can have it here, because if they can't have it, because of the two acre limit, and that's what they're here for. MRS. EGGLESTON-What's the amount of relief that they're seeking? I don't even see that in the, on the Staff Notes. What's the amount of relief they're seeking? MRS. CIPPERLY-The size of their lot. MRS. EGGLESTON-Is this maximum relief, or what is it? MR. LOPEZ-It's two acres. MRS. EGGLESTON-We can only look at the lot the garage is on, not all these other lots, right? Just this one here, in deciding what amount of relief we're granting. MR. TURNER-The garage is on two lots and the house is on two lots. MR. CARVIN-But it's being taxed as one lot. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-So it's being taxed as a 90 by 100. MR. TURNER-Yes, so it's 9,000 square feet. MRS. EGGLESTON-And what is two acre, how many square feet? MR. TURNER-Forty two thousand. MR. CARVIN-Thirty-two thousand is an acre. or something like that. MR. TURNER-No. 40 some thousand. MR. CARVIN-Is an acre? - 34 - MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-So two acres is 84.000? So we're going to grant relief of a lot. MR. TURNER-An acre is 42.560. MRS. EGGLESTON-So that's approximately 96.000. and they've only got 9,000. MR. TURNER-That's all they've got. MRS. EGGLESTON-Isn't this a maximum relief request? MR. TURNER-Yes. That's what it's about. The Ordinance says he can only have one principal building on a residential lot. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-All those lots are so small in there. that it would really make sense that. MR. LOPEZ-That's one of the problems. Back when these were surveyed out. they never thought the Ordinance and stuff would be going the way they are. So that you're, I mean. going to be penalized. either way. to develop a piece of property. On the other end. if we develop that vacant property. we're going to be taxed for not using it. If we go develop it, we're going to be penalized because of the way the structure of the Ordinance. and how big the lots are now. MRS. EGGLESTON-But you just purchased this land. MR. LOPEZ-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-You knew that when you purchased it. right? MR. LOPEZ-Yes, but (lost words) ran kind of thin down there. too. MISS HAUSER-When did you purchase it? MR. LOPEZ-April. MR. TURNER-April of '93. This has been in effect since 1988. So it hasn't really been done recently. MR. LOPEZ-Right. because I believe this. down the road. if you look on the regular survey map, on the tax here. it's Torrington Steel. which is zoned commercial. MR. TURNER-If they're preexisting nonconforming, there's nothing our Ordinance can do. MR. LOPEZ-No. I'm just saying how close to a commercial zone it is right there. MR. TURNER-And I've got to tell you that a lot of people up there have been, become very concerned over the commercial development in that area. just because of what they've got there. They've updated their homes. and they want to keep them looking nice, and they don't want a commercial use established in there. MR. LOPEZ-I just thought that this would be a good place for us to serve the community here. with a need that. there is a lot of elderly people there. MR. TURNER-You know, the criteria for the variance, that you're asking for maximum relief. That's the problem right there. MR. LOPEZ-We would end up with the same problem if we did it at - 35 - " - home on Stevens Road, because we don't have the parking. MRS. EGGLESTON-This is a lot for that little, I mean, you've got a rental property. MR. LOPEZ-If I was to build another building on the vacant lot, could it be approved then, because I'm being burdened, not being allowed use of the property, to develop it. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, I would say that since you just purchased the property, you had an obligation to know what you could do with the property before you purchased it. You had an obligation to know that. MR. LOPEZ-I checked with the Town at the time, Professional Office use, and it said, in the Professional Office use, that it could be used as a beauty salon. MRS. EGGLESTON-If you had two acres. MR. TURNER-They didn't tell you the other side of the coin, you had to have two acres. MRS. EGGLESTON-You don't have two acres. MR. LOPEZ-No, they did not. MRS. CIPPERLY-Excuse me. At the time that 1 came in on this, we did inform the Lopez's that, on your other property, they were informed that if they wanted to build a duplex there, and have half of it be a professional office, and half rented out residential, that would be permissible, because of the way this is defined. So it's really not whether this is a permissible use at all. It's the number of uses on that amount of land. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, which is really a maximum relief. MRS. CIPPERLY-My figures, if he uses the one lot, that the application covers, it would be 1.79 acres difference from the two. MRS. EGGLESTON-That he lacks, yes. MR. LOPEZ-I mean, which you don't need two acres for a beauty salon. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, they figure you need two acres in a, you may find, very well, that she wishes she had more, if her business grows and she has two stations. I mean, and you may in the future say, well, gee, lets hire another person, and you'd have more people, and there's not enough parking spaces, and people are going to be parking on the road. MR. LOPEZ-Well, this is why the vacant lot is being left, just in case we do have that. MRS. EGGLESTON-But there's no guarantee of that? MR. LOPEZ-That's right. MRS. EGGLESTON-I mean, you could sell that or build on that at any time, and do whatever, there's no guarantee of that. MR. LOPEZ-No, this is why we're saying, why we left it vacant, so we could expand over to that vacant property. MR. TURNER-Okay. Motion's in order. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIAHCE HO. 95-1993 MICHAEL & KAY LOPEZ, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Linda Hauser: - 36 - ~ Grant the applicant 1.79 acres of relief from Section 179-12C(5), which states that there shall be no more than one principal building in a residential zone on any single lot less than two acres in size. The applicant has shown that because of the size of the existing lot, that the problem does exist, and that it can only be alleviated by a variance. This may not be the minimum variance necessary, but it is the only variance that can be given to alleviate the situation. I don't believe there would be any detriment to the properties in the area, and I don't see any effects of the variance on public facilities or services in the area. Duly adopted this 27th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Miss Hauser, Mr. Thomas NOES: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner ABSENT: Mr. Philo MR. TURNER-It's denied. AREA VARIANCE HO. 92-1993 TYPE II NC-10 STEWART'S ICE CREAM. CO.. INC. OWNER: DAKE BROS.. INC. STEWART'S ICE CREAM CO., INC. 123-125 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY PARKING LOT AND IS SEEKIHG RELIEF OF TWENTY-SIX (26) FEET FROM SECTION 179-72. WHICH REQUIRES A FIFTY ( 50) FOOT BUFFER BETWEEH COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL ZONES. TAX MAP HUMBER: 78-1-8.62 LOT SIZE: 1.04 ACRES SECTION 179-72. 179-66 MARY ANNE MACICA, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF IHPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 92-1993, Stewart's Ice Cream Co., Inc., Meeting Date: October 27, 1993 "ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: Aviation Road SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant proposes to modify parking area to create safer traffic flow and attempt to minimize the amount of greenspace eliminated. COHFORMAHCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: Section 179-72 requires a fifty (50) foot buffer between commercial and residential use which, in this case is the property to the north. Applicant is seeking relief of twenty-six (26) feet from Section 179-72. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. DESCRIBE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW PLACEMENT OF A STRUCTURE WHICH MEETS THE ZOHIHG CODE. In order to provide the thirty-seven (37) parking spaces required based on floor area, the buffer zone will need to be decreased. 2. IS THIS THE MINIMUM VARIAHCE NECESSARY TO ALLEVIATE THE SPECIFIC PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY. OR IS THERE ANY OTHER OPTION AVAILABLE WHICH WOULD REQUIRE NO VARIANCE? This is the minimum variance necessary, and no other options appear possible. 3. WOULD THIS VARIANCE BE DETRIMEHTAL TO OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD? It does not appear that this variance would be detrimental to other properties. 4. WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF THE VARIAHCE ON PUBLIC FACILITIES AHD SERVICES? There would be no effect on public facilities and services. STAFF COMMENTS AHD CONCERHS: In the course of review of this application, it was found that the proposed parking spaces are eighteen (18) feet in length rather than the twenty (20) required in Section 179-7. It is likely that this situation can be remedied during the site plan review process." MRS. EGGLESTON-And from the Town of Queensbury Beautification Committee, Mrs. Marylee Gosline and Mrs. Margaret Seney, and they gave preliminary approval with this statement, "Request is for increased parking and landscaping, 50' zoning variance in rear of property. No change in building. Traffic island in front to be moved closer to the road so cars can't park in front of it, and add 2 Dwarf Crimson King Maples. Storm management - catch basin in back added and curb on side toward Jones property with 16 Lilac - 37 - Bushes proposed and 11 White Pine in back. Established 12 Pine tree line toward church to remain. Number of parking spaces - 38 - has been addressed. No change to dumpster (screened) in back. Curb cut onto Aviation Road to be more defined. free standing metal storage shed near back of building to remain. Preliminary approval of plan outlined by Mary Anne Macica as Mrs. Gosline was excused from voting and then did not have a quorum. Will review in November. Applicant reminded original plantings approved in Nov. 1986 were never completed. In addition to the above Landscaping. Screening and Planting Provisions, the Committee wishes to go on record that it does not approve: 1. Non-conforming signs. and 2. Plastic or artificial trees. shrubs or flowers. In approving the above (or attached plans). the Committee has the expressed or implied agreement of the applicant to replace immediately dead trees, shrubs, or plants, and to give proper maintenance to all plantings. All rubbish containers or dumpsters shall be screened, all plantings shall be mulched and trees shall be retained or planted. as agreed." MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further comment? MRS. MACICA-Mary Anne Macica. Originally. we did apply for two variances. one was for parking and the other was a buffer. We were able to fit in a number of required parking spaces. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any questions? MR. CARVIN-I have one question. When the Stewart's was originally put in there. and I would guess that that's been in there for. MRS. MACICA-Eight years. MR. CARVIN-About eight years. I was going to say eight. That was before the Ordinance? Yes, it would have been about '86. I was just wondering. that was approved for 22 parking spots at that point? MRS. MACICA-I believe it was. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Who brought up the 35 or 36? MRS. MACICA-It was a long story. We brought in. in fact. the Church approached us regarding buying 60 feet of their land. at which time we looked at increasing and adding two additional rental units onto our store. At that point in time. in doing an as built and submitting it to the Planning Department, it was noted that there was quite a few deficiencies regarding the original proposed si te plan. At that point in time, we were at the Planning Department to correct what should have been. MR. CARVIN-Up to the 36, even though it was approved back on the old Ordinances at 22? MRS. MACICA-Yes. MR. CARVIN-And you're not making any structural changes to the store at all? MRS. MACICA-No. MR. CARVIN-Do you need the 36 spaces? MRS. MACICA-Every Monday afternoon. we need about 30 of them. Monday afternoon we have a District meeting in the back. for our northern district, for Stewarts. MR. CARVIN-You're asking. I mean. again, that's why I wanted to get the train here. I mean. to me it looks like we're losing a lot of green area. We're going through a lot of rigamarol. for spaces that are going to be used Monday afternoons, once a week. I mean. - 38 - the expense of going through this. you could buy a conference room right at the Sheridan right up the street. MR. THOMAS-You ought to go by there at noon time every other day. They're parked up and down the road. You get run over there at noon time. MR. CARVIN-They're not parking. MR. THOMAS-Yes, they are. They're in there for lunch. MR. CARVIN-I've gone through there. three or four times, and it's never been a problem. MR. TURNER-I was there Sunday. and there was a lot of parking spaces. MR. THOMAS-Yes, during the week, Monday through Friday, right at noon time. MRS. MACICA-The majority of people are in there 10, 15 minutes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. it is a short. MR. CARVIN-How many chairs. I mean. how many sit downs do you have in there? MRS. MACICA-Three booths. MR. CARVIN-I just have a hard time with this. MRS. CIPPERLY-There are also two commercial. MRS. MACICA-There is a rental unit. which is a dry cleaners. again, a ten minute in and out, normally, and the other is an office space. which is one district manager and one employee. MR. CARVIN-What I found is that the people were reluctant to park up in these upper portions. I mean. everybody wants to park in front. They're all lazy, lets face it. MRS. MACICA-If reality comes into play. people will park double. two deep in the front. before they park back here. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I mean, and all you're doing is creating more space. MR. TURNER-Just too far to the front door. MRS. MACICA-It' s the same thing with handicapped parking. It doesn't matter. they will park in front of the door. We would like not to disturb as much of the green space as we have. We've cut down. we are 34.9 percent green space, but one thing Stewart's does not particularly care to do is make it blacktop ever. MR. CARVIN-Yes, well, again, I don't have mathematics on this, but it just comparing the two here. it looks like you're losing about, probably a good 25 percent of the green space anyway. That's just a rough guess on my part. MRS. EGGLESTON-Were permeability studies done on that? MR. CARVIN-Yes. I would guess that more than 80 percent of this is going to be covered. So I would think that they're going to have to have a permeability study. MRS. MACICA-Yes, we're at 34.9 percent. We have to have a minimum of 25 percent. and we're at 34.9 percent. MR. CARVIN-Yes, but I'm just looking at. if you lop off this chunk - 39 - here, which is, about 25 percent of the green space that they've got. MRS. EGGLESTON-So actually any relief that we gave would not help the every day traffic. It's only going to help the Monday afternoon meeting. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. THOMAS-I don't go anywhere near the place. because you can't get in there. With that company truck parked. people look twice. MRS. CIPPERLY-One thing that I really didn't address in my notes, that the applicant. I believe, mentioned, was that this could provide for better traffic circulation around the building. because right now you can't go around the building. Maybe that would let people get out of the front. MR. CARVIN-I don't think, you're not expanding the entrance. In other words. you're still dealing with the same space. In fact. I would have a question. and again. I don't know what Crimson King Maples look like. MRS. MACICA-They're just red Maple trees. MR. CARVIN-But I know that. I would have a question on the visibility. in other words. coming up. because that is a very. very active road. and to put trees way in the line of sight. I'm wondering if that's such a good idea. I wouldn't think so off hand. visibly, a flat area there, and if you could put an island there. but I mean, I'm just thinking of. you're plopping two trees. and if you come out either side, you're looking up and down the road. I just don't know if that's going to cause a visibility problem. but as far as your actual frontage, that's going to remain the same. essentially the same. MR. KARPELES-Well. one of the parking problems that is there. that you're so close to this green space that you can't really back uP. because there's probably somebody in back of you. So. from that point of view, it might help you. going around this side of the building, it's going to open up that side. but are you serious when you say you want all these spaces just for Monday afternoon? MRS. MACICA-No. I'm serious that I was told I had to meet the zoning requirements for parking. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. KARPELES-Okay. MR. CARVIN-They wanted to expand the building. but then they couldn't because of the parking regulations. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KARPELES-But it would appear to me that you have a parking problem there right now. MRS. MACICA-One day a week. yes. we do. MR. KARPELES-I think more than one day a week. I think you're underselling the need for this thing. to tell you the truth. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, as, she said, Bob. they don't utilize. that day I was there. people do not park over here. They all park right in here. in front of you, behind you. beside you. up and down. MRS. MACICA-The parking spaces, 1 through 17. are currently there. MR. KARPELES-Yes. but the door is way over here, on the right hand - 40 - side. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. that's what I mean. MR. CARVIN-Everybody wants to park here. The door's going to be in the same spot. MR. KARPELES-Yes. but these are closer to the door than these are. MR. TURNER-But there's eight parking spaces on that west side. They don't even park in. There wasn't a soul in. MISS HAUSER-I never park here because you've got people parking along here, and you can't back out. to get out, but if they opened it up here. then people, I think. would park here. and you wouldn't have the people parking on the side of the bUilding. That's not because I was lazy. It's just too hard to get out of that spot. MR. CARVIN-I just think that most of the folks in there. it's more of a transient parking, I mean. under five or ten minutes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. they figure they're going to be in and out. so they park at the handiest spot. So they just park their car. half of them don't even turn it off. MR. TURNER-All right. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPEHED NO COMMEHT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPOHDEHCE MRS. EGGLESTON-A letter from Richard E. Jones Associates, 119 Aviation Road. "We have had the opportunity to review the plan revisions as proposed by Stewarts for 123-125 Aviation Road. We have a very strong objection to the reduction of the required buffer zone from 50 feet to 26 feet. This reduction along with the intention of placing a dumpster in the buffer diminishes the value of residential property we own at the rear of the Stewarts property. There is no reason that the dumpster and proposed truck turn-around could not be placed along the eastern side of the property. This would require shifting of the new parking along the east property line toward Aviation Road. Stewarts would still be able to maintain the requirement of 30% for green space. Additionally, in reviewing the plan as proposed. Stewarts will be required to request a variance for undersized parking spaces and driving lanes of less than 20' along the west property line. There is currently 44.08' from the corner of the building to the property line. With as' buffer from the property line to the edge of paving. a 20' long parking space, a 20' driveway and a 3' wide sidewalk at the building, 48' will be needed. Also. they show paving and parking over the septic system which is in violation of the Town Sewage Disposal Ordinance. Please do not construe our absence from this meeting to mean that we do not feel strongly about these issues. We have a prior commitment and are unable to attend. We appreciate the consideration of our position regarding denial of this variance. Sincerely, Richard E. Jones, AIA" They're architects. MRS. MACICA-Could I address the fact that we are already deeper in the buffer zone than we're showing here. We are encroaching almost a double lane all the way back to the property line, a reduction into the buffer zone. The paving over the septic system was done eight years ago, with an approval from the Department of Health. I did call Brian Fear for a letter from the Department of Health regarding the fact that it was preexisting. - 41 - MR. KARPELES-Looking at these rationalizing their complaint. The same place, at least on the plans. closer. two plans, I have trouble dumpster appears to be in the You're saying it actually is MRS. MACICA-Yes, only about four or five feet. MR. KARPELES-And there are more tree s in the ~ plan, which I would think would give them more of a buffer than that have now. Have they seen these plans? MRS. MACICA-I believe so. Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. It says, after reviewing the plan as proposed. MRS. MACICA-We originally also moved a fence in between our property and what would be the westerly line to the adjacent land, and put in a fence. They had originally that instead of a fence, it would be a good idea shrubberies be planted, and we were putting 16 Lilac Shrubs there. MRS. CIPPERLY-This issue, though, came up that if they end up making their parking spaces 20 feet long, there won't be room for those Lilac bushes, and I believe someone is going to go to the Planning Board meeting and discuss that feature, alternatives as far as possibly putting them on the Jones property or what. Another sort of site plan issue was that, with this many parking spaces, she will need two handicapped spaces, and I discussed this over the phone with the applicant, and we figured that by taking spaces 24, 25, and 26, she could get the two handicappeds plus the access zone. MRS. MACICA-The letter from Rist-Frost also, though, states that they don't want it set up as we did, with 11 foot handicapped parking spots, with six feet in between. Rist-Frost indicates that they want eight foot handicappeds with an eight foot in between. MRS. CIPPERLY-You need the access. When we had talked on the phone, we had said, eight feet for the spaces, and a five foot access lane, so that eight foot would actually, but that's really kind of a site plan issue. MR. TURNER-Yes, but are they referring to the ANSI Code, which requires it? MRS. CIPPERLY-Yes. That's where the eight foot spaces, plus at least a five foot access. MRS. MACICA-We have a six foot access, with eleven foot spaces. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further questions of the applicant? Motion's in order. Okay. MRS. EGGLESTON-For myself, I think the buffer's very important between the commercial section of Aviation Road and that residential section in the back, that starts with the school and comes this way. MR. TURNER-I don't see any better traffic flow around the building. MRS. EGGLESTON-I don't think anything is going to help it, because it's not effecting the front of the property, which is people coming in while other people are trying to get out. They all park in front. No matter what you do, they're going to still park right here. They park their car, leave it in idle, run in the store. They park in back of you, beside you, on top of you, if they could, all right in this front part. So, I don't see how losing the green space in the back, and destroying the buffer solves a darn thing. MR. KARPELES-I'm confused. Which buffer are you talking about? - 42 - The one on the west side, between the Church and the Stewarts? MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. MACICA-There isn't one between the residential and the commercial. That was an incorrect error on the original site plan. MRS. CIPPERLY-We're only addressing, on the rear of the building. there should be a fifty foot wide buffer. MR. KARPELES-What are you going to lose in the back? MRS. EGGLESTON-Well. they're going to cut the buffer from fifty feet to twenty-four. MR. TURNER-Twenty-four feet. MRS. MACICA-Which is still improving the buffer as it is now. MRS. EGGLESTON-What is there now? MRS. MACICA-Almost a double lane, where the dumpster is. you're looking at almost 10 feet wide. It goes all the way back to the tree line, inclusive of the tree line. and that tree line isn't there right now. MRS. EGGLESTON-Did you have a variance for that to begin with? MRS. MACICA-No. Over the course of eight years. it's been driven over, and there was not ~ roadway put in. MRS. KARPELES-That's what's got me confused. As I look at these two plans. it looks like more of a buffer now than it does. coming up than there is now. MRS. MACICA-It is. MRS. CIPPERLY-The actual green space that's being lost is on the side toward the Church. MR. CARVIN-Yes. but you're losing some into the buffer area. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. except for one little spot in the middle. MR. CARVIN-Better than a third of the buffer in the back is all green space, at this point. So it's not inclusive. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, so I don't know as it's an improvement. MR. CARVIN-If you bring that road around, you actually are invading the buffer, considerably. MRS. MACICA-Lengthwise. it's not closer to the residential area. It's actually bringing it closer from the residential area. but invading it more at the 50 foot line. MOTION TO DEHY AREA VARIANCE NO. 92-1993 STEWART'S ICE CREAM CO.. IHC., Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption. seconded by Joyce Eggleston: The applicant is seeking relief from Section 179-72. which requires a 50 foot buffer between commercial uses and residential uses. The reason that the applicant is requesting this variance is to provide a total of 37 parking spaces, which would be required based upon the current floor area. The applicant has not demonstrated a need for these 37 total parking spaces, by that it would increase business, or be more beneficial to the operation of the business, and from all indications has managed with the current 22 parking spaces. So by restructuring just the parking into the buffer zone doesn't appear to be a real practical difficulty. I think also by - 43 - granting this variance it would be detrimental to the neighborhood and other properties in the area. and I think just for the simple sake of having more parking spaces is really no justification for this variance. Duly adopted this 27th day of October. 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carvin. Mrs. Eggleston, Miss Hauser. Mr. Turner NOES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Karpeles ABSENT: Mr. Philo MRS. MACICA-I was told I needed to get more parking spaces. What do I do? I mean. the planners told me to get more parking in there. MR. CARVIN-Which planners? MRS. MACICA-Jim Martin. MR. CARVIN-I think we're saying that it's not necessary. MR. TURNER-Not necessary. MR. CARVIN-That we've given you a variance, in essence. See. this was preexisting. MRS. MACICA-Exactly. MR. CARVIN-Yes. So, I mean. you must have complied to the 22 spaces when this was built back in 1985. '86. The only reason I think that, and again. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I think the only reason he brought up the 36 or 37 parking spaces. is because you were intending on expanding the business. Is that correct? MRS. MACICA-No. I sat down with he and Scott. numerous times. He told me I had to bring it up to the 37 parking spaces. MRS. EGGLESTON-But what generated the whole thing? MRS. MACICA-Well, originally when we were putting on an addition. and they said, by the way, you need 37, for what you have existing. you need to change your current site plan. MR. CARVIN-When was the addition put on? MRS. MACICA-It wasn't. We never got approval for that. We stopped the whole idea. MR. CARVIN-So. therefore. you don't need the 37. MRS. MACICA-There was 46 needed for that. All right. We scrapped the addition, and Scott and Jim sat down and said, what you need to bring it to 37 for what you have existing right now. So you're going to need to go for a variance for parking to get your parking. MR. TURNER-Well. I guess what Mr. Carvin says. they didn't agree with Jim and Scott. MRS. EGGLESTON-So we've saved you money. MRS. MACICA-Basically, as I see it now, what we need to do is go before the Planning Board. move the dumpster inside and not increase the parking area. MR. TURNER-It looks like it. MRS. EGGLESTON-They don't have to go any further. do they? It's - 44 - denied. MR. TURNER-Not really. They don't have to if they don't want to. You're site is your site now. MRS. EGGLESTON-As it is. MR. TURNER-As it is. MRS. MACICA-Thank you. USE VARIANCE NO. 96-1993 TYPE: UNLISTED RR-3A SONNY SPAHH OWHER: SAME AS ABOVE 51 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DIVIDE BUILDIHG CURRENTLY HOLDING A USE VARIANCE FOR A BEAUTY SALON IHTO THREE (3) PROFESSIONAL OFFICES IH A RURAL RESIDENTIAL 3 ACRE ZOHE. (WARREN COUHTY PLANHIHG) DATE: 10/13/93 TAX MAP HUMBER: 73-1-17 LOT SIZE: 117 FT. BY 124 FT. MICHAEL MULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. EGGLESTON-And the Warren County Planning Board disapproved with the following comment, "Based on the problems of the future widening of the road, the problem of egress and the increased use of the property from one business to three professional offices." STAFF IHPUT Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 96-1993, Sonny Spahn. Meeting Date: October 27, 1993 "ADDRESS OF PROPERTY. Aviation Road, just west of Exit 19. SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Variance Number 1288 was approved June 15, 1988. This allowed the operation of a beauty parlor at this location. The beauty parlor tenant closed in October 1992, and the owner has been trying since then to find another beauty parlor tenant, without success. Since a beauty parlor can be considered a professional office use, the applicant was advised by staff that he could utilize the building for professional office space. Sensing that the rent required for the entire building may be too high for one tenant, the applicant is proposing to divide the building into three (3) professional office spaces. CONFORMANCE WITH USEIAREA REGULATIONS: Section 179-15, Rural Residential 3A does not allow professional office as a principal use. Deed restrictions affecting the parcel prohibit rezoning it, even though the surrounding land use and zoning patterns are no longer residential. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. IS A REASONABLE RETURN POSSIBLE IF THE LAND IS USED AS ZOHED? Applicant states that he has been attempting to find a tenant for the building for a year now. Residential use is not a possibility. 2. ARE THE CIRCUMSTAHCES OF THIS LOT UHIQUE AND NOT DUE TO THE UHREASONABLEHESS OF THE ORDINAHCE? The circumstances of this lot are due to the construction of the Northway through what used to be the adjoining residential area. This is the only house in the area. Other uses include schools, churches, and commercial. 3. IS THERE AN ADVERSE EFFECT OH THE HEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER? There would not be an adverse effect on the neighborhood character. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: Staff has no further comment." MR. MULLER-For the record, my name is Michael Muller, and I represent Mr. Spahn. The application started out, Mr. Spahn filled it out himself, hoping that he could get a variance to use the building for three professional office spaces, and it has not been favorably received by the County Planning Board. He certainly wants to use the building, and every possible thing that he could use this building for seems to require a variance. I've provided for you, to review with me, the background information, because it's incumbent upon this applicant to demonstrate a hardship if a variance, a use variance. is going to be approved. Some of the people on the Board when Elaina Bissell came before this Board in 1988 to obtain her variance for the use of this property as a beauty parlor and sort of like exercise facility. She did exercise in there, didn't she? - 45 - SONNY SPAHN MR. SPAHN-Yes. MR. MULLER-Yes. This piece of property, if you go back in history, it's part of the subdivision that's actually on the easterly side of the Adirondack Northway. It was the only house that was built on the wrong side of the Northway. It was those restrictive covenants that are in those streets like Greenway North and things like that. It took a judicial petition from the Supreme Court to unwind the restrictive covenants so that it would no longer be prohibited for the typical uses you might expect there. In other words, it was restricted to residential use. Then the piece of property was acquired by Elaina Bissell. and quite frankly, I don't know what she paid for it, but she was not successful in her business at that location as a beauty parlor. Mr. Spahn acquired the property at a foreclosure sale. Glens Falls National Bank foreclosed, and at that foreclosure sale. it was a sale which he paid $167,150 and was responsible for paying the back taxes, and to protect the building from, basically. acting like a shower. He had to put a roof on that. So his basis in the property is $198.000. Now there is a photocopy of a photo in the little package I gave you. and unfortunately the photo didn't come out all that well. So. I'm going to pass around this photo. MRS. EGGLESTON-We already got it. This one? MR. MULLER-Yes. Okay. That's good. The property that we're looking at, I think that when Mr. Spahn. when he was helped in filling out this application at the Planning Office. They have the lot size at 117 by 124. Well, that's true, if we're talking about the useful portion of the property. but that property is larger than that, and it's demonstrated as one. When you look at that one, that's much larger than 117 by 124, but it's got the highway right-of-way, it's favored by Aviation Road in there. What Elaina Bissell managed to do when she also owned it as a beauty parlor was that she acquired this portion of the property from DeSantis Enterprises. but by deeds, for reasons known only to her. restricted this property so it cannot be used for anything that is involved with food or beverage sales. So that's out, even if it were permitted within the zone. If for some reason we all thought that would be a good use for this property, that's not even available to it. and it would not be a piece of property, for other reasons, likely to be a restaurant, a fastfood. It's within close proximity to the school, close proximity to the Church. It could never get a liquor license. It would not be a liquor store. So. if you take a look at our expenses on this particular piece of property. it's assessed. recently, at about $148.000. which I tried unsuccessfully, by the way, to get a reduction on, and I showed to the Grievance Board that the house at the time of foreclosure sale. right after it, was completely cleaned out, that is Elaina took everything that was in there. I'm talking about the sinks, the toilets, the bathtub, the lights, everything. So, it was gutted on the inside, and it remains so at this point. So it's just not habitable if you were going to put a requirement on Mr. Spahn to make it back into a house. That's assuming that it's a house in, the right spot for anything. When we look at this piece of property, it's annual taxes are $4.000. Mortgage interest on this particular piece of property , annually. $19.500. Hi s annual insurance is $900. We put a provision for repairs in there of $1500 a year. To cover that, he's got to collect rent in excess of $2.000 per month, to make a reasonable return on this investment, and there's just no takers. It's been for sale. if you drove by it even before this application was generated. I'm sure you noticed that there was a sign there for before electioneering started. Now there's about 20 signs there. but the key sign is the one that it was for sale. or for rent, or for lease or for trade. It was anything. What Mr. Spahn would like to do is just be the owner/operator of this thing. and it's in this proposal here. that is he proposes that if, professional uses are just not going to fit - 46 - in here. The people are concerned about the traffic impact, that's just covering too much of the building with too many multiple uses. He and I sat down and discussed what would be the least intensive use of the premises, and you'll see on this proposal that I submitted to you that it says that he would like to open up a retail store that's service oriented. The best description I could gi ve to you of what he proposes is that it be office personal stationary supply. It would provide photocopying, computer printing. In other words, you go in there and they'll print something for you on their computer, package wrapping, and once a day UPS will come and pick up packages, like a drop spot, something like Ship Shape. You'll see a sentence here that says, in addition to the primary use that he be allowed to have a barber shop or a beauty shop. He proposed it. I didn't like it. I did have a chance to talk him out of it, and he withdraws that at this time. He doesn't want it. I think that we have what is proposed as a reasonable use. One use, owner occupied. He's in there. His son's in there. He thinks that he can generate enough income from an owner operated business, this business that he proposing here, to cover the reasonable expenses of that property. How he plans to utilize the property is that he's going to maintain that parking plan as has already been approved by this Board, back in 1988. I made that a part of this package. If you recall, or if you don't recall, let the record now reflect that that parking plan has two handicapped spaces in the front, many parking spaces in the back, 10 or 11, and those are 10 by 20 spaces. They're to the rear of the property. It's already gravelled, and that's what you can see from the photograph. That was parking deemed sufficient for four beauticians, and whatever else seemed to be going on there. I never really understood what Elaina Bissell did, but she did something else where she wrapped bodies. I'm not an expert in that area. I've taken a look at this Zoning Ordinance. It's RR-3, and I think if you're honest about it, you know that this does not belong in RR-3. What in God's name is RR-3 doing up there? And you would like to think that, well, that's what it was 40 years ago, but you know it's not. That was re-done in 1989, right? MR. TURNER-'88. MR. MULLER-But it's not RR-3, because look at the uses in the RR-3 zone, and after you get through a residence, which this could never be. every headlight that comes off of Exit 19, at that ramp there, has managed to shine it's lights allover this thing, and there's no one interested in it as a residence. Other principal uses were timbering harvesting, or hunting and fishing camp. Anybody want to suggest that that's a good use? So we're down into site plan review uses, Type I, and that, again, involves timber harvesting, commercial greenhouse, and bed and breakfast in an APA Rural Use area. There's no possibility of a Type I use there. The site plan review uses Type II, I suggest to you are not realistic either. Group camp, sand and gravel extraction, dog kennel or riding stables, veterinary hospital, professional office incidental to a residential use. That is a possibility. If there were ever a professional came along and wanted to make that their residence, as well as put the professional use there, I admit, but we had it on the market and didn't have a taker, and certainly would have encouraged anybody who had that use in mind. by all means. A golf course, school, church, planned unit development, farm, commercial greenhouse, produce stand, bed and breakfast. I don't really think it's a good location for a bed and breakfast either. So, I hope that I've persuaded you that no amount of marketing, no amount of fancy dancing around this particular piece of property is going to make it compatible with the use that you can find in the RR-3 schedule. So now we come to grips with what would be a good use, that would not be taking advantage of the rest of the neighborhood, assuming that there is a neighborhood. It would probably be something that is not high traffic impact at that location. Mr. Spahn tells me. and I was not at the County meeting, but he feels he's satisfied that the County Planning Board missed the boat completely when they gave it a no vote, because they had no idea - 47 - that there was a traffic control light at that intersection. There is one. It's four way, and as he explained to me as we were seated here tonight, he said that when you get the green light coming out of this location. his location, it's like the parting of the Red Sea. that is that the whole row is open for you. because you're the only car in that lot coming out. He's got some other things here. I had sent him to John Goralski at Richard Jones Associates to try to plan, what could we do with this particular piece of property, and both John and I came to the conclusion that it would be foolish to make a major investment to improve this piece of property. do something dramatic with it. other than take the building off the lot, because the State of New York has a three to five year plan to widen the bridge, make it a four laner. okay. So, it might very well take that particular house with it. and if they do. they'll compensate them. but in the meantime, it's unfair to ask Mr. Spahn to support a $148.000 assessed piece of property. He paid $4.000 in taxes. and basically have this thing sitting there not really usable. not realistically usable. I think that he's proposed a moderate use for what you, as zoning judges. are being asked to decide and give him some variances. I do not foresee any dramatic changes in the building right off. other than it's going to be spruced up, cleaned up, look like a business, and I think most businesses take good care of their facades. He says Stage II, if it's successful. and if there are no movements on the part of the State, would be basically what were the other things you were talking about? MR. SPAHN-In the event the State does not take my property. and I'll never get what I paid for it, because I did overpaid. because the reason, I didn't know I was going to end up with the property. I came to help Elaina out. She was going to lose not only the business, but Glens Falls bank had, the mortgage was on her home as well. So she would have lost the business and the home, and I just came there to help her bid up the price, so she could get out of a hole, and lo and behold, the Bank said, you've got it, and that's how I ended up with this. I know I overpaid. MR. MULLER-How were you going to fix up the building in the second stage? MR. SPAHN-Let the buyer beware. I'm sorry. I wasn't aware. The second stage, if Phase II, if the State does not take it, I plan to beautify the front of the building, to make it appear like it fit into the Adirondack sense of decoration. and I intend to improve the business, invest a lot more money. because I know that this will be a business for my son who has a degree, and I've been a businessman all my life. I'm retired now. and I just want to work with him, to get him started, and hopefully you'll grant the variance, and if the State does take my property in the next several years, and I lose it, it's like granting a dying man his last wish, for four years I'll have something to do, pay the taxes. because believe me, I've advertised. As Mike mentioned, I've tried to promoted. I've contacted oil companies. I've sent thousands of letters out. Nobody wants it. I did get inquires for an International Pancake House, as I explained, I can't have food. I explained to the purchaser it would be impossible because of the deed restrictions. MR. MULLER-And the thing is I think you need your approval because it would help improve that parcel. It looks like a missing tooth in front of a nice smile when you come into Queensbury. MR. TURNER-Yes. You're right. It's terrible. MR. MULLER-And we need a majority plus one. MR. TURNER-Does anyone have any questions? MRS. EGGLESTON-It ranks right up there, Mike, with the Cement Plant at Exit 18, which is the first visibility you see when you come - 48 - into the Town of Queensbury. MR. MULLER-Well. Mrs. Eggleston. there was a time, if you remember, when the first thing you saw when you came into Queensbury was the Adirondack Northway. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, but now we see a trash plant, which you're well aware of. MR. KARPELES-Are you still looking to divide this into three professional offices? MR. MULLER-No. One unit. owner occupied, himself and one employee. MR. KARPELES-That's what I thought you said. So, this isn't right, what we've got here. MR. MULLER-Well, it isn't. It's where it started. and it was not right. MR. CARVIN-When did you purchase this? MR. SPAHN-It was over, about a year and a half ago. MR. CARVIN-'91? MR. SPAHN-It was 1991. No, I believe it was 1992. MR. CARVIN-Yes, 1992. So a little more than a year or so. MRS. CIPPERLY-Elaina rented this from you, Sonny, you said? MR. SPAHN-Yes. Elaina rented to me. I tried to help her out. because she was going through bankruptcy, personal bankruptcy as well. and she had all these merchandise there. and she was paying $1.000 for several months. MRS. CIPPERLY-And the applicant brought in a rent receipt which shows that the last month that it was rented to Elaina. or the last month she paid rent for was September '92. MR. MULLER-That was just about the time after the foreclosing. MR. SPAHN-That was the last month she paid, September 1992. MR. MULLER-As a zoner and as planners, you look at this, and Elaina managed to. she had her first piece of property. which is now an Econo Lodge. You remember that, where she wanted zero setbacks. They abandoned that application and got this one. This one went around. and it's sort of like, wherever she was. she left that legacy on the piece of property that is, catastrophically. you've got to do something. MR. TURNER-She picked them out of a hat. for some reason. Yes. MRS. CIPPERLY-Could I ask a question? You, in the course of all this, have been discussing modifying the front of the house. and in your discussion just now. it seemed like you were saying you wouldn't modify the front until you find out whether the State. MR. MULLER-To modify it would be the facade, you know. like a different color. or different siding. We're not making it bigger. MRS. CIPPERLY-Okay, because he had talked about evening up the front of the house with the front of the garage. MR. SPAHN-I would do that in what I would call Stage II, only if the State didn't take it away. MRS. CIPPERLY-Okay. So. right now you're not proposing to? - 49 - '- MR. SPAHN-No, because the State told me, if you improve it, you're not going to get any more money for improvements. MR. MULLER-And he would need setback relief, would he not? MR. SPAHN-No, because the garage part of it is back further than the house. What I had intended in Phase II is bring the garage part even with the front of the main house. MR. MULLER-We would follow Mr. Martin's advice, whatever he wanted. MRS. CIPPERLY-Yes. I just wondered whether that was an immediate project. MR. SPAHN-No. What I've done is because of the everything, not knowing whether the State is going take my property, I decided to call that Stage II. be a Stage II. expense and to virtually There may not MRS. CIPPERLY-Okay. It's been an evolving application. MR. MULLER-Yes, it has. I think this is the best idea of everything that could be proposed, and maybe if I had had a chance to speak with the planners at Warren County, and if they had realized that there was a traffic light. they would have agreed. MR. SPAHN-I mentioned it to them after they voted, and they didn't even realize it. MR. TURNER-They didn't even realize what they did. Well, you know, as far as the Use Variance goes, I mean, the use has been established with the previous variance, and the hardship that applies to the property still applies to the property, for the reasons that Mike stated. MRS. CIPPERLY-The difference between this and the previous variance, though, is that the previous variance would be a beauty parlor/professional office. and what he's seeking to do would be a commercial. So that's really what we're. MR. TURNER-Yes, but again, by the same token, it's pretty much commercial. You've got a gas station. You've got a church, and another church, and you've got the school, and it's an isolated piece of property that, really, you can't do anything with. I mean, it's just in a poor, poor place, and like Mr. Spahn said, buyer beware. MRS. CIPPERLY-I have an additional question for Ted. is if we've advertised this as what we've advertised it as. can we go ahead and consider this, or should it be tabled and re-advertised? MRS. EGGLESTON-The applicant proposes to divide building currently holding a use variance for a beauty salon into three professional offices in a Rural Residential Three Acre zone. MR. TURNER-Yes. That's the problem right there. advertised right. It's not MRS. CIPPERLY-If we changed what we're considering, it will go to Warren County again. MR. CARVIN-On the other hand we could condition it that only one business be allowed in there. We can move on that, because we're not expanding the advertising. We're actually limiting it. We're not granting him the full variance. MR. TURNER-The intensity is less. that's for sure. MR. CARVIN-Well, no, what I'm saying is, if a motion is made, I think we can live with the advertising, because we're advertising - 50 - - three. and we're only going to allow one. MRS. EGGLESTON-If we were given five. that would be a problem, but this is going in the other direction. MRS. CIPPERLY-I was wondering, because of the change of use. MR. TURNER-Yes. Well. again. in respect to that piece of property, I don't care what you do there. You've got to do somet"hing different than what was there. That never took off. and this might not take off. We don't know. You'll never see anything else there. It's a unique piece of property. It's stuck out there all by its lonesome, in an RR-3 acre zone. It's just got cut right. out of the. MR. MULLER-At one time Charlie Wood, of the Great Escape, had his sign on there. It was the last off premises sign ever permitted. It was a little sign that lit up. MR. TURNER-Okay. Let me open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED HO COMMEHT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDEHCE MRS. EGGLESTON-There is a phone conversation between the Queensbury Hospitality, they're within the 500 feet radius, to Pam Whiting. They received notification of the meeting and want to go on record as being opposed to the variance. They don't feel a variance should be granted. They don't want professional offices next to their residential property. Their property loses appeal for residential. MR. CARVIN-Where exactly is that property? MRS. EGGLESTON-I have no idea. Does anyone know? MRS. CIPPERLY-I believe that's the parcel to the east. MRS. EGGLESTON-It's the parcel to the north. MRS. CIPPERLY-Yes. There's the driveway that goes in between those two parcels. MR. MULLER-Right. Mr. Cumnati would like to build a Holiday Inn there. MRS. EGGLESTON-Where is it. again? MR. MULLER-Behind the property. It would be right here. MRS. CIPPERLY-This is his property. This is an access road, well, it's not a road. it's 50 foot wide piece that's right there, and then there's this other parcel. MR. CARVIN-I thought this was all part of the same parcel? MRS. CIPPERLY-No. MR. MULLER-There are two parcels. It shows all of his ownership. but there are two parcels. We can't use the easterly portion of this. MRS. CIPPERLY-The Cumanti's. MR. SPAHN-Right. - 51 - MR. CARVIN-This is actual ownership. So that there's two parcels. MRS. CIPPERLY-Right. MR. TURNER-Okay. Motion's in order. MR. CARVIN-I have a problem with it. This is probably the hardest application to really look at, because it is such a terrible lot, but I know I almost got clipped coming out of there, when I looked at the property. I drove in, drove behind here, was coming out, and the guy coming off the Northway could have given a rat's petute whether I had the right-of-way or not. I mean, he came right through there, and this is a very high intense area. Now, I feel that this is a self-created hardship on a very dangerous corner, and I think that any use there is just asking for trouble. We have a situation not a half a mile down the road, right across from the Aviation Mall where Greenway Road, or whatever. comes up out of there, and you can have lights, flashing lights, and police and whatnot, and I'm not saying that this is of the same magnitude, but it's of the same style, and with the expansion coming through, I mean, I don't think there's much question that that bridge is not going to be expanded at some point. I just have real hard time of putting almost anything in there. I realize the applicant has got a real tough nut there. MR. MULLER-Mr. Carvin, what I would response to you, and I'd like you to consider this, is that, and I agree with you. This is a very tough piece of property. So we tried to propose the least intensified use of that site. To say no, part of your no should be thinking about, what would you like to see there, and I think what you'd like to see there is no use of the property, and that's basically a taking of this piece of property. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but he bought it in a foreclosure sale. MR. MULLER-I won't even argue about that and that he paid too much for it. I would argue the $148,000 assessment of the property, that's what Mrs. Otte says the piece of property is worth, because it is situated where it is and has the possible uses that it does. I mean, I got confronted with that when I made that presentation. They think it's a $150,000 piece of property. So if you say no, we're stuck with a·$150,000 piece of property we can do nothing with. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. MULLER-Please tell me what you think we could do. We're open to suggestions. MR. CARVIN-As I said, this is the hardest application to weigh. I just come back to, and I know that that's a dangerous situation there. I realize that it's probably the least amount of intensity, but I just have a real hard time with it. That's my position. MRS. EGGLESTON-I don't have a problem with it. I think it's unsightly. It could be years before the State decides to do anything with it. It's a real eyesore, and I think if there's any way that it can be improved and still preserve the rights of the person that now owns it, that I don't have a problem with it. MR. TURNER-I don't have a problem with it. MR. THOMAS-No. MR. TURNER-I think he has the right to use the property, even though he bought it at a tax sale, and our concern, the last time around, with Mrs. Bissell, was traffic, with ingress and egress. Remember, Mike? I think we conditioned only a right hand turn out of there. - 52 - ',-, -, MR. MULLER-That was before the light. MR. TURNER-Right, and that was before the light. light there. There was no MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, there was a condition on that, only a right- hand turn. MR. MULLER-We have no problem, again, if you want to do that. I'm just telling you that we're desperate to have permission to use it for something. MRS. EGGLESTON-Are we ready for a motion? MR. TURNER-Yes. MOTIOH TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE HO. 96-1993 SOHHY SPAHN, Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: Grant relief from Section 179-15, the Rural Residential 3A Zone, which does not allow professional offices as a principal use. This would be a commercial business, for an office and personal stationary supply store, that would provide photocopying. computer printing, package wrapping, and United Parcel Service pick-up. The applicant, through competent financial evidence, has demonstrated that he is deprived of all economic use or benefit from the property, and that the hardship relating to the property in question is unique, this being that because the property is in an RR-3 acre zone, there is no way this property could be used for any listing in the schedule under that zone. It is surrounded by Adirondack Northway, Aviation Road, and Queensbury High School. I believe this to be the minimum request by the applicant in order to preserve his rights to use the property and obtain a reasonable financial return. I don't believe it'll alter the character of the neighborhood. As a matter of fact. it should improve the unsightly conditions of the property that now exist at Exit 19 of the Adirondack Northway. I condition this approval on the applicant putting up signs that limit egress to a right hand turn only. There is little opposition to this request, and I feel this is the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the hardship. Duly adopted this 27th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Eggleston. Miss Hauser, Mr. Thomas. Mr. Turner NOES: Mr. Carvin ABSENT: Mr. Philo On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Theodore Turner, Chairman - 53 -