Loading...
1994-07-27 ~ O::'GINAL QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING JULY 27TH. 1994 INDEX Notice of Appeal No. 1-94 Woodmen of the World 1 . Use Variance No. 106-1993 John C. & Christine Bergeron 5. Notice of Appeal No. 3-94 Troy Savings Bank 7. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIAllY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS Will APPEAR ON THE FOllOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND Will STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. \ ,--". '-' QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING ,JULY 27TH. 1994 7:3IJ P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN CHRIS THOMAS, SECRETARY FRED CARVIN ROBERT KARPELES DAVID MENTER MEMBERS ABSENT ANTHONY MARESCO EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN PLANNER-SUSAN CIPPERLY STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 1-94 LC-42A WOODMEN OF THE WORLD OWNER: FLORENCE MURPHY WEST SIDE OF ROUTE 9L. RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT SEEKS AN APPEAL FROM THE DECISION BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR THAT. BASED ON HIS INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 13D(3)(b)[5] AND RELATED DEFINITIONS IN SECTION 179-7. A USE VARIANCE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO UNDERTAKE A PROPOSED USE ON LAND CURRENTLY OWNED BY FLORENCE MURPHY. ACCORDINGLY, AN INTERPRETATION IS REQUESTED FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. TAX MAP NO. 22-1-4.1 LOT SIZE: 14.67 ACRES SECTION: 13D(3)(b)[5] MICHAEL MULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TURNER-The only thing that's before the Board tonight, there's no more publ ic hearing on it. The publ ic hearing is closed. There'll be no further comment taken from the publ ic, and the floor is open for discussion on the merits of the case. MR. MULLER-Mr. Chairman, at the last meeting, Mr. Carvin was reading about the, the record should reflect that Mr. Carvin was reading from some information that he had received from, I believe it was the Department of Insurance, as to the statistics. the financial health of the organization, and I had submitted to the Board, at the very first time I made the presentation, no one could seem to find those particulars, and I want this record to be complete. So I am submitting, this evening, the financial statement of the Woodmen of the World, so that there can be no issue about it, but I want you to, again, I would just insist, that I'm in a quandary. I just don't understand why some of the Board members think that what's going to be operated there is a business, or that this business could not possibly operate a Group Camp there and do their fraternal activities there. So part of the submissions are that I'm going to submit, just to make my appl ication complete, in addition to their Annual Report, a sample magazine of what the fraternal organization does. There's also brochures explaining that they do sel I insurance, but they also have a fraternal organization, a sample of one of the booklets that was mentioned as being distributed to Scouts and other organizations that are interested in citizenship, and I've got to tell you that I just want to show you, you're welcome to look at it, but I can't give it to you, because I have to return it, but it is the Woodmen Ranger's Handbook. It is one of the organizations that wi II meet in that faci I ity. It is, the only thing that I can make it akin to is the Boy Scout Troop, and it is cal led the Woodmen Rangers. - 1 - RAY GILLIS MR. GILLIS-We're 91 years old. We're older than the Boy Scouts. MR. MULLER-And it's basically their handbook. and that's the activities you're going to have in there. They're not sel ling insurance from that location. and want you to take a look at that before you make your decision. PAUL DUSEK. TOWN ATTORNEY MR. DUSEK-Mike. with the exception of the book. you're saying al I the other documents may be retained by the Town as part of the record? MR. MULLER-Yes. and I do. I want them to be part of the record. and they can retain the handbook. MR. DUSEK-So everything. then. they can keep as part of the record? MR. TURNER-Everything? MR. MULLER-Everything. Mr. Gi II is just told me you can keep the handbook. Mr. Gi II is also informed me. I brought Mr. Ray Gi II is here. and he informed me that they have the not for profit number. in terms of the Internal Revenue Service. They are recognized as a not for profit organization. The only thing that I'm also concerned about is. we had always promised that the neighbors would get notice of this. Did they get notice of this. because nobody's here. MR. DUSEK-I don't know. MS. CIPPERLY-I don't. either. MR. DUSEK-Were they noticed of the last meeting? MR. MULLER-Wel I. they were. but we left saying that the decision would be in 6Ø days. and then I got notice that it could be sooner. and I took it. and I didn't wanted to do anything that appeared to be underhanded. I wanted them to be here. MR. DUSEK-Right. checked. I don't know. The Planning Office would have MR. TURNER-I think we said that we would notify them. MR. MULLER-I just want to make sure that they were. MR. TURNER-Yes. think we did. MR. MULLER-I didn't undertake to do that. and the last time I did. and I said I would let them know. MS. CIPPERLY-You did say that in the resolution. MR. TURNER-Yes. It's in the resolution. I bel ieve. MR. MULLER-And most of the people that constitute this Chapter are not here tonight because they're playing a benefit softbal I game. the funds of which wi II be for scholarships. and that's why I've been trying to impress upon this Board. in terms of their activities. They are not a group that meets on a monthly basis to sell insurance. MS. CIPPERLY-It doesn't look I ike that was done. Ted. MR. TURNER-it wasn't done? How many gentlemen do you have here tonight. that are associated with the organization? - 2 - I ',-, ,--"f MR. MULLER-Three people. MR. TURNER-How did thev get notified? MR. MULLER-I ,told them. ,MR. TURNER-You didn't tel I anybody else? MR. MULLER-No. It's not my job. MR. TURNER-I know. but. mean. if they notified you. MR. MULLER-I buy hay from Matt Coffin. I thought I was going to do that. I could have told him. if MR. CARVIN-It would appear that the information contained in this Annual Report does coincide fairly cl.osely with the information that was acquired from the State of New York. MR. MULLER-I would hope that it's right on point. MR. CARVIN-Yes. It sti I I would indicate that there's total assets of about 3.3 bi I I ion. and according to this report. other fraternal benefits. civic and community. welfare and fraternal expenses abo~t 12 mi I I ion. and I think I had given you credit for about 42 million. So 30 million here. 30million there. It's ¡'ike the government. MR. MULLER-But of that 12 million. I'm trying to impress upon this Board. t.hat is that at the location proposed. that's what they wish to do. and certainly I'm not trying to represent that the whole 12 mi II ion comes out of that location. but what comes out of that location is that they have the Woodmen Rangers. They have their monthly meetings. They do. basically. their fundraising. and they do their fraternal activities. MR. CARVIN-Okay. It's never been a bone that they don't have a fraternal side. of ~ problems with this particular sta.tement. I don't know if anybody s t a 1: em en t. t hat I' ,d I i k e tor e a din to So I don't know hoW you're going to do of content i on on .~ part So that's never been one organization. I have a else has got a prepared the record at some point. this. MR.. TURNER-Well. first of all. I think we ought to decide whether we're even going to entertain it tonight. since nobody's been notified. MR. KARPELES- don't see how you can. MR. THOMAS-How does that effect our 60 days? MR. TURNER-We're st i I I on target. MR. THOMAS-We've st i I I got another 30 to go? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARV I N-We I I. correct me if I'm wrong. notify. in the event of a public hearing. hearing has bee.1:'I technically closed. but do because we have to the public MR. DUSEK-Wel.l. I think you're. the problem is is that under the law. you wouldn't have had to notify the members of the public or anybody in partic~lar of tonight's meeting. except the ordinary press notices which go out to make sure you're,complying with the Open Meetings Law. So you don't have to write a particular person. normally. However. since you've put it in your resolution. that concerns me. because you've. in essence. made a rule for yourself. I guess. That's what I'm being told anyway. it was in your last resolution. - 3 - MR. TURNER-Right. MR. DUSEK-If that's the case. you essentially made a rule that you're not fol lowing. and I think you could be open to criticism by the people who are not here. if they wanted to be here. M:i. thought would be that it would be probably the better thing to do. if you wanted. to ca I I even a spec i a I meet i ng. as opposed to marching ahead without these people having had the opportunity to be here and watch you do your work. MR. TURNER-Yes. MS. CIPPERLY-Did you actually do a resolution. or was that? MR. TURNER-I think we just tabled it for a determination. MS. CIPPERLY-I think it was just tabled. I'm not s~re that that part of it was actually in the resolution. MR. TURNER-It was just tabled. Yes. We stand adjourned until. they wi II be notified when the decision is made. so they can be present to hear the reading of it. So. being as it may. I would move to table the appl ication. MOTION TO TABLE NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 1-94 WOODMEN Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for seconded by Fred Carvin: OF THE WORLD. its adoption. We' I I notify the publ ic when the hearing is so that they can be here. Duly adopted this 27th day of July. 1994. by the following vote: MR. CARVIN-Unti I what time? MR. TURNER-Well. I think we'll have to determine when we can get the hall. and we'll notify them at the time. and if we have to schedule a special meeting. we'll schedule it. and they'll be notified as to when it is. so that they can be here. So I think. basically. Mike. it hinges on getting this room. and schedul ing at a time. maybe a special meeting. if that's what it's going to take. and we'll notify you when that wi II be coming about. and all the parties will be notified. MR. MULLER-Ted. could we work toward the possibi I ity of either having this meeting. try for the first half of August. in other words. avoid the last half of August. that's what I want to do. MR. TURNER-Yes. Right. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. loan see what the schedule is for this. We can try for the first or second Wednesday of August. MR. MULLER-Yes. that would be fine. MS. CIPPERLY-We can't do it for next week. because that's probably not enough time for notification. but the second week of August might work. MR. DUSEK-Next week is August 3rd. 10th. The week after is August MR. MULLER-I that some of problems after of town on the don't have a problem with August 1Øth. Ted. I know the members of the Chapter are going to have the 2Øth of August. and I know I'm going to be out 14th. MR. D USE K - We I I. the t h i r d We d n e s day 0 f the m 0 nth i s Au gust 1 7 t h . That's not good? - 4 - --I ~ MR. MULLER-I'm out of town. M~. TURNER-Whe~e do we stand. as far as our agenda goes for next month? How many appl ications do we have in? MS. CIPPERLY-Not so bad. MR.. TURNER-Not bad. have in front of us. Okay. Well. let us look and see what we and then we' I I get back to you on it. MR. MULLER-Thank you. MR. DUSEK-Maybe wh i I e we have everybody here. though. Mr. Chairman. if I may suggest that if. for some reason. there's a problem. and the meeting cannot be scheduled unti lone of their regular meetings. would you rather have it postponed into the nex.t month? Would you agree to that. I guess. because they're going to be beyond,their 6Ø days. MR. MULLER-Okay. I'm sticking my neck out a I ittle bit. because. actua,lly. my advocacy as my cl ient. is Mrs. Murphy. who of course is the owner. is very anx i ous for a dec i s i on. and I hate to do that to her. the answer would be. yes. I know that I wi II not be, able to be here between. say. August 14th and the end of August. -- -; MR. DUSEK-So would your organization be avai lable during the regular Board meetings of September? MR. MULLER-Yes. MR. DUSEK-So that's not a problem? MR. MULLER-That's not a problem. MR. DUSEK-Okay. The only reason I wanted that on the record. Mr. Chairman. is because you're over your tIme threshold. You have the appl icant's attorney agreeing that he's not going to hold that against you. MR. MULLER-I'm !lQ1. going to hold it agains1; you. MR: TURNER-Thank yqu. AYES: Mr. Menter. Mr. Karpeles. Mr. Carvin. Mr. Thomas. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Maresco MOTION IN RESPECT TO NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 3-94 BANK. I ntroduced by Theodore Turner who moved for seconded by David Menter: TROY SAVINGS its adoption. That as a matter of record. that the Town has instituted a position in respect to the Ordinance by classifying bank and banking faci I ities as office bui Idings. and I would agree with Mr. Lapper and the appl icant in respect to those comments. This particular banking faci I ity would be an allowable as a permitted ~se under Office Bui Iding Type I I. That this appl ies only to t his app I i cant. Duly adopteQ this 27th daY of July. 1994. by the fol lowing vote: AYES: Mr. Menter. Mr. Karpeles. Mr. Carvin. Mr. Thomas. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Maresco - 5 - MR. TURNER-The next order of business is Use Variance No. 106- 1993 JOHN C. AND CHRISTINE BERGERON. Would you please read the letter from the attorney in respect to that appl ication. Mr. Secretary? MR. THOMAS-A letter from Kenneally and Tarantino. to the Town of Queensbury. Attention: Theodore Turner. Chairman. Regarding the application of John C. and Christine Bergeron. "Dear Mr. Turner: Our office appreciates the Extensions granted to the Appl icant in the above matter through July 27. 1994. At this time. the Bergerons are not in a position to complete their Appl ication and wi II therefore withdraw same at this point in time. In the event that the Bergerons have incurred any advertising expenses. please advise this offioe immediately. The Bergerons wi I I continue to actively market the premises as a Commercial Premise subject to the granting of a Use Variance. The Bergerons anticipate resubmitting their Appl ication for the Use Variance with a Commercial Contract of Sale conditioned upon the granting of said Use Variance. Obviously. if they are able to market the property as a Residential Use. that wi II be accompl ished as well and no further Appl ication wi I I be fi led with the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Bergerons are ooncerned that certain statements have been made by certain Town Officials concerning their Application. It is our specific understanding that the Bergerons are free to market the premises as Commercial Premises subject to the granting of a Use Variance and furthermore. that the Zoning Board of Appeals has made no determination as to the merits of their Use Varlanoe Appl ioation. Please consider this correspondence as our formal request to withdraw the pending Use Variance Appl ication on behalf of John C. and Christine Bergeron. Very truly yours. KENNEALLY & TARANTINO Dennis J. Tarantino" And the letter is dated JulY 27th. 1994. MR. TURNER-Okay. They have a violation from the '76 site plan. them that. right? letter in respect to their Is that rfg~t? You have sent MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. That was sent on June 1st. MR. TURNER-Okay. When we asked ~hem to advert.se it. we asked ~hem to advertise it as residential as well 'as commercial. They're only marketing It as commerciat~ thén. Is thät the drift of the letter1 Isn't there a CommerciII sig~ up the~e? MS. CIPPERLY-Can I defer to the Town Attorney. MR. DUSEK-I don't know what the letter -says or what th~sign is. MS. CIPPERLY-The letter that they refer to in there was written by Jim Martin just informing the realtor that it was not technically a Commercial property. He didn't say stop doing this. or. MR. TURNER-Yes. but. see. Paul. when this thing was put off. we told them to market it both ways. and they're only marketing it commercial. and i~'s reverted baok to the zone it's in. So it's Waterfront Residential. MR. DUSEK-Well. you know. my first reaotion would be that if. in fact. they se II to somebody. and if that somebody or if thev decide that they want to use it. they're going to have to oomply with whatever our Ordinances are. and criteria. and a buyer would have to take notice of what our Ordinances are. So. as a result. I t h ink t h at . and c e r t a i n I y the s e I I e r k now s w h at t hey are . So he's got an obi igation to convey that to the buyer. I don't think we have a problem brewing or anything. because I think it's up to them to decide. you know. we can't tel I them. for instance. that you have to do X. Y. Z. in terms of how you sell your property. AI I we care about is that the Ordinance is compl led with. So. whoever it is. onoe they start something on the - 6 - ---I .-/ prope~ty~ whatever that may be. whether it's a house. a business. or whatever. that use has to be in complianc.e with what our rules are. and if it's not. then the enforcing part of the Town wi II take action to have that halted. If it ~ then there won't be a problem. So. I don't think there's anything to be concerned about. in terms of the advertisement. because that's their responsibi I ity. MR. TURNER-Wel I. of course. they're going to have to come in here and say. yes. we can't market it as residential. MR. DUSEK-Granted. from the point of view of trying to out. in terms of saying. hey guys. if you're coming in Variance. this is the type of information you ought to agree wit h you 1 øø percent. Ted. but here aga in. if want to do it. help for show they them a Use us. I don't MR. MENTER-Well. I think they did make somethina of an effort. I did see a residential sale piece in one of the flyers. I know th~y did some I imited marketing of it. MR. TURNER-Mark was a I ways hand ling t.h i s7 Mark Levack was a I ways hand I i ngt.h i s7 MS. CIPPERLY-Levack/Burke is the new. realtor before. It was under a different MR. TURNER-Well, I think he ought to be aware that he has to also try to market it as residential. Maybe he's not aware of that. MR. DUSEK-I think I would leave that up to the appl icant. though. Ted. Because if they come back to your Board and they say. MR. TURNER-And they hav~ no proof. then they can't sustain their argument. Okay. So lets go to the next item of business. NEW BUSINESS: NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 3-94 TROY SAVINGS BANK OWNER: COOL INSURING AGENCY QUAKER ROAD AND COUNTRY CLUB ROAD APPEAL BY TROY SAV(~GS BANK FROM A DECISION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR STATING THAT SECTION 179-98. HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL ZONE OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE IN THE MATTER OF TROY &AVINGS BANK SHALL REQUIRE A USE VARIANCE IN ORDER TO LOCATE A BANKING FACiliTY IN A HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL ZONE. B~NKING FACiliTIES ARE CURRENTLY .AlLOWED IN COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL ZONES. AS A SITE PLAN REVIEW USE. PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT QUAKER ROAD AND COUNTRY CLUB ROAD DESIGNATED ON THE TAX ASSESSMENT MAP AS SECTION 62-1-1.1. JON LAPPER. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes fromSt.ff. Appeal #3-94. Troy Savings Bank. Meeting Date: July 2.7. 1994 "APPLICANT: Troy Savings Bank PRO.JECT LOCATION: Quaker Road and Country Club Road INTERPRETATION: A review of former Zoning Ordinance and previous bank sitings showed the fol lowing: 1. Some of the banks in the Quaker Road area were subject to the 1967 Zoning Ordinance. which specifically allowed banks as a use in all the Commerci.al zones. This includes State Bank of Albany (now Fleet). Chase Bank. and First National Bank of . G I ens Fa I Is. 2. Th~ 1982 Zon i ng Ord i nance did not list bank s in any zone. No new banks were constructed in the Quaker Road area in this time period. 3. Other banks were subject to the 1988 Zon i ng Ord i nance. wh i ch does not spec i fica I I Y list Bank Faci I ities in Highway Commercial or Plaza Commercial zones. but doe s lis tit a s a use i n Res ide n t i a I C, om mer cia I . D u r i n g discussion of this matter with John Goralski. a Planner for the Town at that time. It was indicated that the Zoning Administrator during that period allowed banks to be considered office - 7 - buildings. which are listed. Apparently. this is how Key Bank and Trustco came to be located in a Highway Commercial zone without a Use Variance. despite the fact that "banking faci I ity" was not a I isted use. Jim Martin. the current Zoning Administrator. made the determination that. because "banking facility" was included in the Commercial Residential Zone. Section 179-24 of the code. the intent was to omit it from the Highway Commercial and Plaza Commercial zones. whèrè it is not I isted. Under the circumstances. à Use Variance would be required to site a bank on the parcel in question. The Zoning Administrator is not stating that a bank would be an inappropriate use in a Highway Commercial or Plaza Commercial zone. only that the current Zoning Ordinance does not I ist banks as a permitted use. In part. the difference between a banking facility and an office building would be th'ekind of traffic generated. and the fact that most modern banks have drive-up facilities. while offices do not." MR. LAPPER-Good evening. With me tonight is Gary Evaltoff. Vice President and Director of Planning for the Bank. and he could answer any specific questions about the Bank's intended use for the property. I guess this comes down to two issues. as far as I see it. One is fundamental fairness. to be treated the same as all the other banks have. historically. been treated. and the other is the definition of Office Bui Iding under the Town Zoning Ordinance. which I bel ieve is broad enough to encompass a bank. I bel ieve that's why a bank has always been permitted as an Office Building. I'd call your attention to the definition. Office Building is a bui Iding comprised of more than 50 percent of the gross floor area used for office space. Now. the bui Iding in question is going to continue to be rented. in part. actually more than half. at this point. to Cool. and the remaining offices. or most of the remaining square footage. is going to be used. also. as office space by the Bank. because that's going to be primarily loan (lost word). So it would be a standard office use. which doesn't have to be a retai I bank ing faci I ity. At the same time. there wi I I be some retai I banking functions. They do plan on instal I ing just a drive up ATM. I wouldn't want to restrict this decision. though. just to say that this is different. that this is more of office building than the other banks in the area. because I don't think that's fair. If Trustco went in on Bay Road and that's also an office bui Iding. and the Key Bank across the street and Trustco across the street. one of which is in a Plaza Commercial zone. I think it's clear that the Town has taken the position. since the '88 Ordinance. our Ordinance was in place. that a bank is an office bui Iding. If you look at a II of the banks in Town. it's interest i ng to see that al I except one are located in either the Highway Commercial zone or the Plaza Commercial zone and primari Iy right there on Quaker Road. or Albany Savings and Glens Falls National are on Upper Glen. but that's the Plaza Commercial. So that if you look at the commercial sector of Town. that's where al I the banks are. and as a matter of fairness. also. this bank would want to be where the other banks are. in terms of competition. but also the same interpretation should apply. Under Section 179-12. there's a provision in the general interpretation and appl ication of regulations section. the Schedule of Regulations. it says the identification of particular uses al lowed as permitted uses. accessory uses. or site plan review uses. is for illustrative purposes and that (lost word) 1991. and I think that position was intended to. and does give. the Town Zoning Administrator and the Zon I ng Board I eeway to say. even I f Off ice Bu I I ding wasn't included. that this is the type of use that is a compatible use in the zone. We don't have to stick to just the letter of the words that are listed. but I a I so be I i eve that a bank il an Office Building. (lost word) office building use. but I think that that section gives you some further statutory authorization. I want to come to Town Law 262. wh i ch says t hat a I I zon i ng regulations shall be uniform for each class or kind of buildings throughout the district. I can argue that we should be treated - 8 - '-J '-..--' the same as t~e other bui Idings in the district. and also to general construction of zoning laws and case law. that the Zoning Ordinance is strictly construed in favor of the property owner. as it has been in the past. Finally. I just want to point out. because the deter~ination tonight wi I I have an effect on a use that is already there. that if there is a determination that a bank is no~ permitted in a Highway Commercial zone. under the Ordinance. I bel iev~ that ~.t's incumbent upon the Town to revoke the CO's of the three banks 1hat are in the district. That would be only fair. to treat al I of the banks the same. but I don't think it should have to come to that. I bel ieve that we're correct. that a bank is an office bui Iding and should be considered an offic~ bui Iding. M~. TURN,ER-Banks weren't intentionally left out. You can see the time frame wh~n State Bank of Albany. Chase Bank. First National Bank. went in there. in the '67. there was no activity. from that po i nt. even unt i I Key Bank and Trustco Bank. went in on Quaker Road. Everything was in I imbo. and it's true. I know the Zoning Administrator. Pat Crayford. did al,low them to go in there as an office building. ,nd that is true. but the reason they were left out. because there was no activity and no point in putting them in there. because there was none headed in that direction. okay. So I think the Committee. at the time. felt that the best way to deal with it is to deal with it as it came along. wait and see ,what happened. So she dec i ded that the bank was an Off ice Bui Iding and. therefore. let them in there. and I don't have a problem with the.ru being in Highway Commercial. I think they do belong in Highway Commercial. and I. think you're right. that we did set a precedent by letting them in there as Office Bui Iding. MR. .MENTER-I agree with you. I think that Residential Commercial zones being the only zones where Banks are a permissible use is not a good use in zoning. and it's probably not the intended use of the zone. MR. TURNER-We I I. You know~ and the other side of the coin is that banking has changed since that period of time. Now we've got drive-ins. We've got ATM machines. and most of it's done outside of the structure. not internally. So. you knoW. it's a different activity. It's still banking. but it's a different way of doing it. MR. LAPPER-But th,at could be regulated by Site Plan Review. MR. TURNER-Absolutely. Anyone else? MR. THQMAS-No. I just agree with what Ted ,nd Dave said. that I think a bank should be permJtted in that zone. and there's a bank right aCross the street. banks .in the area. It's zoned Highway Commercial right down through there. except for PI.aza Commercial. and I think a bank belongs i.n Highway Commercial. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. THOMAS-So I have no problems with a bank going in the Cool Insurin~ bui Iding there. MR. TURNER-You can go down the street and banks. and I remember going in them. and ine waiting t9 get up to the teller. Now and walk right up there. There's hardly Everybody goes to the drive-in bank. go in any of the big you'd be standing in you can walk right in anybody in the bank. MR. THOMAS-Another thing. too. is Cool Insuring. I don't see why they couJdl)'t put a drive-in window like McPhi II ips. What's the .difference between that and a bank. drive-in teller. MR. TURNER-Yes. hearing. So. with that said. I'll open the public - 9 - '- PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-A motion's in order. if there's no further discussion. MOTION IN RESPECT TO NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 3-94 TROY SAVINGS BANK. Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption. seconded by David Menter: That as a matter of record. that the Town has instituted a position in respect to the Ordinance by classifying bank and banking facilities as offioe buildings. and I would agree with Mr. Lapper and the appl ioant in respeot to those oomments. This partloular banking faci I ity would be an allowable as a permitted use under Offioe BUilding Type II. That this applies only to this appl ioant. Duly adopted this 27th day of July. 1994. by the fol lowing vote: MR. DUSEK-Mr. Chairman. just as a point of olarification. you're saying. essentially. you're seeing a bank as an office bui Iding. Is that the idea? MR. TURNER-The banking facility as desoribed. yes. as an offioe bui Iding. MR. DUSEK-This partioular one? MR. TURNER-Right. this particular one. You're going to have an ATM maohine. How muoh of the bui Iding are you going to use? MR. LAPPER-I guess. at present. probably pretty olose to half. but that oould change over time. MR. TURNER-So you have an option to? MR. LAPPER-Right now we've got the lease with the insurance company. and that could be extended for a period of time. or forever. but at the same time. we're not locked into that. and we think the bank (lost word) space to expand at some point in the future. MR. DUSEK-So you're not saying ~ bank. MR. TURNER-No. MR. DUSEK-You're just saying this particular bank. MR. TURNER-This partioular bank. MR. DUSEK-Okay. I just wanted to make sure that was. for al I the Board. as wel I as my own benefit. to understand that. then. MR. LAPPER-Are you restricting us to a oertain peroentage? MR. TURNER-No. This partioular location. This particular bank. Do you think that needs any further clarifioation? MR. DUSEK-I think the only other thing I would mention is that I understand the Board's oonoern about. you mentioned a preoedent. or the faot that the Zoning Administrator has made certain determinations. That's not binding on you. in terms of what they've done. MR. TURNER-No. I know. MR. DUSEK-I think what you have to do fs look at the appl ioation - 1Ø - '-../ ~' and say, is it an office building? Do we feel comfortable with that? I don't think the Board should feel it has to make a decision based upon what the Zoning Administrator, in the past, mayor may not have done. MR. CARVIN- don't think that's the case. MR. DUSEK-Okay. MR. CARVIN- think that we agreé wit~ the Zo~¡ng Administrator's interpretation. At least that's!'!!'y' feeling. MR. DUSEK-Right,.!!..Q1! you do. Right. Okay. I just wanted to make that clear in thé record, because I think it's important to consider that you do, I think you do have the authority to decide something fresh yourself. I don't think you're, just because a Town Official makes a decision, I don't think you're 'locked into that. MR. TURNER-No. MR. DUSEK-But what you're saying is you agree that it office bui Iding, especially this type of one that's described to you. is an been MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. DUSEK-I think that if the Board just indicates it's agreement with the discussion we just had, that' I I certainly clear any issues with regard to the motion, if that's what you're concerned about. MR. TURNER-Yes. Let me further reference that thisappl jes only to this appl ¡cant. I think thatCo~ers it. AYES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Maresco MR. TURNER-We're not done yet. We're going to discuss that deal about 179-76B, General Exceptions, Article 10. We're gOing to discuss it. I want to discuss Article 10, General Exceptions, 179-76B. The other night we had two applications on setbacks for sheds, Accessory Structures. MR. DUSEK-Yes. Actually, Sue Cipperly wrote ~ a memo, July 21st, to Ted Turner, I respond, it says, from a review of your memo, it's my underst~nding that the question is whether the exemption for lot area, size, dimensions and setbacks, set forth in 179-76, appl ies to only the principal structure, or whether it also appl ies to Accessory Bui Idings. Upon review of that Section, it is ~ opinion that if the exemption is avai lable from setback requirements under this Section, the same would apply to all bui Idings and accessory bui Idings al ike. The basis for this op inion is that th is Sect i on of the Code refers genera I I y to setbacks. It does not distinguish between principal bui Idings and accessory buildings. Further, I note that thè setback is defined in the Zoning Ordinance às being the establ ished line beyond which no part of a bui Iding may extend. I note that the def in it i on of Bu i Id i ng i nc I udes she Iter, hous i ng, or enc losure of persons, animals, or chattels. Therefore, it would appear that an accessory use, such as the shed, would also be a bui Iding. Therefore, I think that the definitions also support the proposition that the exemption from setback was meant to apply to principal bui Idings, as well as accessory bui Idings. In addition to the forgo i ng, I note the concern ra i sèd about the fa i rriess for properties in subdivisions as opposed to outside of subdivisions. - 11 - It is my reco I I ect i on that some of the cons i derat ions that gave rise to the exemptions within subdivisions and not outside of subdivisions was that al lowing setbacks in effect at the time the subdivision was approved would al low continuation of bui Id out of the subdivision as originally planned. I bel ieve it was felt that this would not be offensive. since the subdivision would already be bui It in accordance with the way everybody might suspect. In areas outside the subdivision. however. it was thought that due regulations should apply. unless there was good reason for them not to. which. of course. could be addressed by Zoning Board actiön. Another consider which I bel ieve ~ have been discussed. and I wasn't absolutely sure. but I said. is that setbacks consistent with the Ordinance at the time the subdivision was approved would be less I ikely to cause a problem as the s u bd i vis ion i s us u a I I Y b u i I t a s an en t ire un it. wit h density. effects on drainage. being considered at the time the same was developed. This would seem to avoid some potential problems in that regard. So. that's my thoughts. MR. TURNER-Wel I. 2Ø.ØØØ. 3Ø.ØØØ obtrusive thing some magnitude. you know. again. many subdivisions are 15.ØØØ. square feet or more. and probably the most ona piece of land could very well be a shed of and with a five foot setback. MR. DUSEK-The only concern I have. though. Ted. is that that Section just doesn't make any distinction. MR. TURNER-No. I know. but. MR. DUSEK-I doesn't say. it may be a reason to re-write that Section. MR. TURNER-No. but what I'm saying is. I think the intent of the Town Board. at the time when they changed this. was to only consider the principal dwell ing in that subdivision. because every time a subdivision. I ike Ridge Knolls. right. they had to come here for a variance. for setbacks. because they're in Land Conservation 42 Acre. MR. DUSEK-We I I. another one that came in was Herald Square. MR. TURNER-Right. MR. DUSEK-But to conversation at al I and storage sheds. be honest with you. I distinguishing between don't recall any principal bui Idings MR. TURNER-No. raised. I know. but I mean. maybe the issue was never MR. DUSEK-We I I. right. and if it wasn't. and it's not addressed in the Statute. then I think that you've got to say that you've got to say that it al I applies. I'm not saying that you don't make a good po i nt. but I th i nk it's got to be addressed in the legislation. MR. TURNER-We'll take Grants Acres. right? I think those are three acre lots. Somebody outside of a subdivision could have a very sma I I lot. and come here seek i ng re lief. and st i II somebody else could have ten acres. could have five acres. could have two acres. seeking relief. and I think it's a double standard. I think. to make an approved subdivision meet the old setbacks. and the new guys meet the new setbacks. that's a double standard. I think the requirement. I think they meant to only get rid of the issue of the nonconforming lot not meeting the setbacks for the principal dwelling. period. MR. DUSEK-Certainly. I ike I say. that might be the thing the to do. - 12 - ,....,/ --..' MR. TURNER-Because we had so many appl ications from Ridge Knol Is and the various subdivisions, that were all. MR. DUSEK-I remember that. MR. CARVIN-So what you're saying, Paul, is that we have to carry the'two sets. MR. TURNER-Yes, that's his opinion. MR. DUSEK-Yes, I don't see, unless they change the law and re- write it. I think your points are wet I taken, but the law says what í t says. lean' t te II you to go oppos i te and draw, I mean, because if y6u're going to draw a distínction between accessory buildings and principa.l struct~res, you've got to (lost word). MR. TURNER-I know, but you're taiking from 1967 to 1996. one hell of a span. That's MR. CARVIN-What about, because I know one of the two cases here, one was the new Ordinance is substantially, 2Ø and 2Ø, and I t h ink i t was 3Ø, and the 0 the r 0 new as g rea t e r . MR. TURNER-The other one was 3Ø from the rear and 5 from the side. MR. CARVIN-So that the current. MR. THOMAS-In the case of, I ike, Gary DeAngelo, he's more than 3Ø from the rear, but he wants to put a one, but if he sl id that thing 4 foot in, he could put a 2ØØ square foot shed right there and not even have to come see us. MR. TURNER-If it was 3Ø feet from the rear. MR. THOMAS-Well, it's ~ than 3Ø feet from the rear. MR. CARVIN-So, don't follow the logic there. MR. DUSEK-Well, what am I missing, then? different, then. I'm hearing something MR. CARVIN-What I'm saying is that, wel I, we're not saying that they can't bui Id. They have a right to bui Id, and that is part of their argument, that they can't meet today's standards. In other words, if they can't, if they don't have 3Ø feet because their lot is only 3Ø feet, for example, then they can't meet today's standard, even though that that was an approved situation back teny~ars ago, or fifteen years ago. MR. DUSEK-But they don't have to come in for a variance. MR. CARVIN-If they can't meet todav's standards. MR. DUSEK-If you're in an approved subdivision. MR. TURNER-No. That's what he's saying. MR. MENTER-Yes. That's what Section B says. MR. DUSEK-The I aw says, if you're in an approved' subd ¡vi s i on, you comply with the standards that then existed. MR. TURNER-He's sa.ying that Orban could have put the shed 3Ø feet from the rear and 5 feet from the side I ine and they'd have been in comp Ii ance. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Yes. What you're saying is that the sheds go along with thè principal, in other words, that the sheds can't be held to a different standard. - 13 - ',-, MR. DUSEK-Setbacks are setbacks. MR. TURNER-Yes, setbacks are setbacks. MR. CARVIN-So, in other words, if the house is legal, then the shed should be legal, according to the same Ordinance. MR. MARTIN-That's the way we structures, whether accessory or same setback. It cuts both ways. treat it, right now. principal, are subject All to the MR. TURNER-I know, but it's a double standard. This is 1994, not 1967, and I think things have changed, and densities are, you're getting more population. You're getting more bui Idings in the Town, and I think you've got to take and take those sheds and get them away from the lot I ines, especially those enormous sheds that come in 24Ø, 34Ø. MR. MENTER-I'm kind of just getting this, because I wasn't here last week when this issue came up. MR. MARTIN-Yes, but the other thing is I think by, if you, say you were to strike that from the Ordinance, and you ~ going to have accessory structures come in, even in Planning Board approved subdivisions, that can't meet today's standards. They have a natural argument for an Area Variance. So, in other words, I think you're just going to be fi II ing up your agenda with a bunch of things that are going to be, I mean, what basis would there be to deny it? What's the detriment to the neighborhood? MR. MENTER-Ted, you're saying that you would separate the two, separate the accessories from primary bui Idings? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. DUSEK-You're saying the accessory uses would have to comply with the current standards? MR. TURNER-Yes. Lets take Mr. DeAngelo's case, for right. Here he is, he's right up next to his house. was the setback 3Ø feet from the front? instance, He's, what MS. CIPPERLY-The setback, in 1967, was five feet from the line. MR. the TURNER-Right, five feet from rear. the side and thirty feet from MS. CIPPERLY-Currently, it's twenty. MR. TURNER-Right. MR. DUSEK-From the side? MR. TURNER-From the rear and the side, both. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. He just needed side rei ief. MR. TURNER-Anything over the permitted square footage is twenty and twenty. MS. CIPPERLY-The part about the allowable square footage sti I I would apply to him. He couldn't put a shed over 2ØØ square feet on there because that other Section still would apply. That's not a setback issue. MR. DUSEK-So then you have a safety belt in the Ordinance, in terms of large structures that you bui Id, that you're going to have to sti II comply. - 14 - '.-' ~' MR. TURNER-Yes. See. he could have bui It 2ØØ square feet there. I think. MR. THOMAS-Yes. He could bui Id five foot off his property line. thirty foot from the rear. 2ØØ square feet. without seeing us. according to the 1967 standards. MR. TURNER-As far as the setbacks. MR. THOMAS-A~ far as the setbacks are concerned. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. DUSEK-But in theory. if he's in that old of a subdivision. is there other bui Idings already there that are I ike that. I mean. or is it changing the character of the subdivision in the zone? MR. TURNER-No. He's changing it. That puts it right up beside his house. right next to his garage. MR. DUSEK-So you're saying that this is something bad. that the legislation has allowed in there. MR. TURNER-That's right. MR. CARVIN-It could be bad. MR. THOMAS-It could be bad~ but. see. in this case. got. he's more th~n 3Ø feet from the rear lot line. I think he's MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. THOMAS-But he's sti I I within the parameters of the 1967 Ordinance. MR. TURNER-I know he is. MR. THOMAS-And there's nothing we can do about it. that I can see. MR. DUSEK-Wel I. according to ~ opinion. MR. THOMAS-According to ~ opinion. according to what the law ~ read has written. MR. MENTER-What's the precedent that makes you see an accessory thè same' way. in terms of setbacks. as a primary bui Iding? I mean. is that an establ ished precedent that is just the way things are done? MR. DUSEK-Wel I. what happened is is that when they wrote that Section of the law. and I was involved in the writing of that Section of the law. so I'd remember it. nobody thought about it. and so as a result. when you look at the language. is a general reference to setbacks. saying the setbacks apply as they were when the subdivision was bui It. So. you have to assume that those regulations apply to everything. to houses. to sheds. everything. MR. MARTIN-Yes. That's Ordinance exemptions. ordinary. standard exemption language for Zoning I mean. that's nothing out of the MR. DUSEK-Well. it is. There's a difference here. I've got to tell you this. That's part of why you're seeing this happening. and this problem. is because. under State law~ and under a lot of Zoning Ordinance. they only give you three years for an approved subdivision. Thereafter. they make everything go back in before the Zoning Board of Appeals. In fact. our Ordinance used to be that way. - 15 - '--..- MR. TURNER-That's right. MR. DUSEK-And then it was changed. to go and give everybody the exemption. MR. MARTIN-Yes. but it did it on älL lots. and that's very unusual. even non Planning Board subdivision apprOved lots. lots that have been. The three year window was on all lots. MR. DUSEK-Originally. MR. MARTIN-Yes. and that was verv unusual. MR. DUSEK-Wel I. that part of it was. but what we have now is a I ittle different from the norm. too. in terms of forever exempting everybody. you know. in subdivisions. and I think the question is. I think that if the Board wanted to make a recommendation to the Town Board to doctor it uP. you're certainly within your powers to tell them that. you know. by way of. I would make a statement and have everybody vote on it. make sure you get a consensus from the Board. and pass it on to the Town Board and te I I th i s is the change you recommend. if you think. you know. if you see something. as a Board member sitting here. that yoù see a potential problem. and I think the law. right now. locks you in. I don't see how you can say to somebody. MR. MARTIN-The only point I'd like to raise. though. is I caution you. take any hypothetical situation where you have an accessory structure that's coming in. that can't meet a current side yard setback. because the lot was an old. met the requirements of an old Ord i nance. What is go i ng to be any reason to deny that? Think of the Area Variance tests that you have to go through. MR. TURNER-Okay. but lets try the other scenario. They come in to your Department and they say. I want to bui Id a shed. and you ask them where they're located. what zone they're in and everything. you go look it up on the tax map. Here's a tax map in front of you. with a piece of property. description right on it. and they've got a real small lot. and they're coming in. They want to bui Id a 35Ø square foot shed. I think it's up to you to tell them. look it. the lot is .§..Q. small. you can't accommodate that shed on there. with the other amenities you've got on that piece of land. and the Zoning Board won't grant you a variance. but you can have a shed on there five foot from the rear. and five from the side. at one hundred square feet. without anything. That's a difference. MR. DUSEK-I think I see what Ted is saying. in terms of that. the thinking that was in place in the old days. We're already seeing that. Maybe it wasn't. you know. in I ight of what we now know. it was not appropriate. In other words. that they. before. where they used to al low a 35Ø foot shed to go on a property. now. based on everything we've learned today. on drainage and everything else. that. and septics and congestion. that maybe that's not the thing to do. and what I think vou're saying. Ted. is we can stop that by a change in the Ordinance. MR. TURNER-Absolutely. MR. DUSEK-If that's a problem. I don't know. MR. TURNER-We I I. can see it com i ng. can see it com i ng. because. you know. you take. for instance. the guy on the Country Club Road that came for the garage. just because he's got a bunch of toys. MR. CARVIN-Boats and trai lers. MR. TURNER-He's got a two car garage attached to the house. and - 16 - '-' -' he wants to put a 958 square foot garage in the back because he's got a great big lot. MR. CARVIN-As far as on that. I can tel I. he did. I think the condition MR. TURNER-Was that he had to close Ii vabl e. in the. make the other part MR. CARVIN-But I drove by there the other day. and it certainly didn't look I ike I iving area. to me. It sure looked I ike a two car garage. MR. THOMAS-He had a garage sale going. MR. CARVIN-l.!!. the garage. in the I iving area. MR. MARTIN-Yes. but I think there's bigger flaws in the Ordinance than this. I think a very big flaw in the Ordinance is you permi~ boat storage as a separate accessory use. I'm in an eitrèmely poor positron. as Zoning Administrator. when an application comes in that says boat storage on it. What am I supposed to say? He needs a car sized garage door to fit a boat in. That creates an enforcement problem. just I ike that. because if yo~ really Want to enforce the law. you've got to go by there al I the time and make sure you don't see boats in that structure. MS. CIPPERLY-Getting back to the setback thing. though. one way of look i ng at . it. as far as the P lann i ng Board approved subdivÎsions. they're usually smaller lots than the current zoning. I~w'ntfrom maybe. say they're third acre lots. and tOday's zoning is one acre. which is what most of our residential is. Everybody that's in those third acre lots. when they were bui It. they put a bui Iding envelope to work within. and said. this is what we'll do. and a lot of the houses are sited based on those setbacks. Today. those setbacks are based on having an acre. and for. if you have an acre. those are reasonable setbacks. If you have a third of an acre. it's not. and we had some. MR. MARTIN-That's why I say. I caution you. You're going to fi II up the agenda with a rot of things that a~e. you know. they're going to have very strong arguments for those variances. MS. CIPPERLY~We had some that were done in 1955. réasons for granting it done. the lots were so setbacks of today. this winter that were in subdivisions Cottage Hi II area. and one of your was. well. when that subdivision was small that you can't possibly meet the MR. TURNER-That's true. places itdóesn't apply. It app lies in some places. and other MS.CIPPERLY-Bu~ they had to come in and get a variance. and they're reason wàs. their lot was too småli. MR. TURNER~Absolutely. and I would agree with you there. right. You're MS. CIPPERLY-So. you want to put al I the people in Planriing Board approved subdivisions through some more hoops. and what they're reason is al I going to be is my lot is too smal I to accommodate today's setbacks. MR. TURNER-What I'm saying to you with the permitted sized sheds. garage sized sheds. is. now they're coming in. not They're coming in with one car MS. C I PPERL Y- Yes. and SFR is rea I I Y the on I y one t hat I i m its the size of sheds. I bel ieve. to 2ØØ square feet. - 17 - '--... MR. TURNER-We've had three in the last two meetings. Jesse on Heresford. MR. DUSEK-But they're coming in to you. though. already. right? MR. TURNER-Yes. but they're coming in with one car garages. and ca II i ng them sheds. MR. DUSEK-But how are you getting jurisdiction over it? this Board getting jurisdiction over those? How is MR. TURNER-They're oversized. MR. MARTIN-It's SFR. It's I imited to 2ØØ square feet. MS. CIPPERLY-Wel I. Jesse came in because he wanted to be five feet from the I ine. and I think he was a. you know. they're sti I I asking for rei ief. even from those Planning Board approved. MR. DUSEK-But you're getting them already. See. the only reason I can think of making a change to the Ordinance. is if you felt you weren't getting (lost word). MR. MARTIN-I could see. if you want to. and Ordinances where they vary the setback with accessory structure. You could do that. I've seen the size it in of the MR. TURNER-Wel I. we've already done that. We've said anything that's over 1ØØ square feet has to meet the setbaok of 2Ø and 2Ø. MR. DUSEK-But where you haven't done it. though. is when they get into this exception clause. MR. TURNER-Right. MR. DUSEK-Maybe that. there's a way. MR. TURNER-That's what I'm say i ng. They're say i ng. exception clause. that anybody outside has to meet the setbacks. Everybody inside the pre-approved subdivisions have to meet. they have to meet the old setbacks. in the current doesn't MR. DUSEK-I see what you're saying. You're saying that because of the way the Ordinance used to be written. these. now I get the double standard. Because we're making al I the new subdivisions. we're saying. depending upon what you're shed size is. you can either be here or here. in terms of setbacks. MR. TURNER-Right. Absolutely. MR. DUSEK-But. if you I ive in an older subdivision. no matter what size it is. you can be only five feet away. and what I think Ted is saying is you ought to have some restrictions that. yes. a I ittle small shed I ike everybody else has in the neighborhood. fine. MR. TURNER-Well. you know. we tell them. you can have a 1ØØ square foot shed 5 feet from your rear and 5 feet from your side. MR. DUSEK-But if a guy comes in with a big one. maybe it's not appropriate for the neighborhood. Maybe it doesn't fit with the character. but if the Ordinance allowed it in. under the old way. then what's happening is you're creating a monster in there that you didn't want. MR. THOMAS-Take ~ case. for example. I I ive in a subdivision that was in 1983. Pinewood Hol low. okay; It's a Woodbury Subdivision. Acøording to the regulations back then. I could put a 2ØØ square foot shed. 5 foot off the property line. 3Ø foot from the rear property I ine. Nobody else in the subdivision has - 18 - c..-' .~ that. because nobody else knows. in that subdivision. they can have that. or maybe nobody else wants it. but maybe I want one because I could sl ide my car in there during the winter. a 1Ø by 2Ø shed. and I don't know if I could. have a garage door on it or not. but I could surely make the end of 'swing open. I mean. there's no big deal in that. MR. TURNER-Once you put a garage door on it. it's a garage. MR. THOMAS-Yes. can't swing the L can't come to subdivision. and it's a garage. but there's nothing side of the bui Iding out. So what's Jim for a 2ØØ square foot storage he can't deny me that right. that says I to say that shed in my MR. TURNER-You can. the way it is now. MR. THOMAS-As long as it meets the 5 foot side line. 3Ø foot rear. MR. DUSEK-Whereas. ~omebody in a new subdivision. approved since the new Ordinance. MR. THOMAS-That's right. MR. MARTIN-Then that .cenario would have to meet the setback of a principal structure. ~R. THOMAS-With the Heresford there. that we just. now since 1988. All right. They have to meet the 2Ø and 2Ø. went over 1ØØ square foot. they're if they MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. DUSEK-I understand what you're saying. The way the Ordinance is written. that loophole is there. The only way to close the door on that is to make a legislative amendment. MR. TURNE.R-Yes. I know. MR. .DUSEK-Because right now. the way it's written. I .don't think you have any choice. but the Town Board could legislate that change. That's an innocuous enough change that it could be done easy enough. if the Town Board and the Planning Staff are behind that kind of a change. I don't know. MR. MARTIN-I'm al I for a change. It's just a ma~~er of getting. MS. CIPPERLY-The time to do it. MR. TURNER-But I just feel it's an unfair standard. MR. DUSEK-I see what you're saying. MR. THOMAS-It is unfair. but that's the way the law's written. MR. TURNER-I know. MR. THOMAS-What are you going to do? MR. TURNER-We can't do anything unti I they do something with it. MR. CARVIN-So. as far as these two that are tabled. then. one of them really doesn'.t have to be here. MR. TURNER-I think one of them is going to comply. Right? MS. CIPPERLY-DeAngelo is putting. he's bui.lding a conforming 1ØØ foot shed. five feet from the line. ten feet from his house. So he's not going to be back. I'm waiting for a letter from them. Orban is the one who wanted to be zero setback. By the 0 I d - 19 - '- subdivision reg~lations. he could th i rty feetf·rom the back. By twen.ty. E it her way. he" s ask i ng mean. 1 øø percent re lief. . be ten feet f~om the side and t he new ORes.' it's twenty and for 1ØØ foot re~ief on the. I MR. TURNER-We I I. you know. w~at's happening today is. there's a lot more toys out t~here. right. that everybody's buying. and they've got no place to put them.' sot hey fill the garage up w í t h them. and then al I of a sudden the garage isn't big enough to put the cars in. So now they need a great big shed out back to put all the toys in. So. that's what's happening. MS. CIPPERLY-As a practical matter. trying to keep track of al I this. as a Staff person it's difficult. MR. MARTIN- hate approving that boat storage there on Country Club Road. Doc Evans Is another one. He's got this very elaborate structure on this lot up in Cleverdale that's boat storage. MR. DUSEK-No. it is tough. That's what's happening. though. MR. MARTIN-And if he cal Is that boat storage. my hands are tied. I mean. he's got a three bay. MR. TURNER-We I I. why don't you ask for an interpretation from the Zoning Board. what ~ think about it. We can clear the air. Well. you know. some people think they need the biggest bui Iding on the block. and by the time they get everything in it. they've got so much room left. you know. You'd be surprised what you can put in a 1ØØ square foot shed. if you do it right. You put up peg boards and stuff. you can put a lot of stuff in a 1ØØ square foot shed. and they just don't real ize it. They think they've got to have the biggest one in the neighborhood. Because the guy next door's got one that's 2ØØ square feet. So they've got to have one 4ØØ square feet. MR. MARTIN-We're in agreement as to how it reads right now. but. MR. TURNER-Reluctantly. MR. CARVIN-Should a change be instituted. question. think. is the MR. TURNER-Yes. think it should. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. TURNER-I think it's up to this Board to ask the Town Board to change~he loophole in the law. MR. CARVIN-Do we need a motion to do that? MR. TURNER-Yes. I think so. MR. DUSEK-To have any kind of impact. MR. TURNER-Right. To have any kind of impact. you've got to have a motion. MOTION THAT THE TOWN BOARD LOOK AT ARTICLE 1Ø GENERAL EXCEPTIONS SECTION 179-76 IN REFERENCE TO PARAGRAPH A. PARAGRAPH B. AND PARAGRAPH C. AS IT RELATES TO THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AS DICTATED IN THE ORDINANCE. ESP'ECIALLY THOSE THAT PRE-DATE THE EXISTING ORDINANCE. WHICH IS PARAGRAPH A. PARAGRAPH B. AS IT RELATES TO THE PLANNING BOARD APPROVED SUBDIVISIONS. WITH THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE SETBACKS OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURES APPLYING AT THE TIME THE SUBDIVISION WAS APPROVED ARE MET. AND PARAGRAPH C. WHICH RELATES TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF ANY NONCONFORMING LOT OF RECORD EXISTING OUTSIDE OF SUBDIVISIONS. WHICH HAVE TO COMPLY - 2Ø - ''"-'' ! -- WITH THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THIS CHAPTER UNLESS THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS GRANTS A VARIANCE. IT IS THE OPINION OF THIS BOARD THAT THERE APPEARS TO BE A DOUBLE STANDARD AS IT RELATES TO THOSE WHO LIVE IN SUBDIVISIONS. AND AS TO THOSE WHO LIVE OUTSIDE OF SUBDIVISIONS. THEREFORE. A CHANGE IN THE LANGUAGE MERITS CONSIDERATION BY THE TOWN BOAR,D AS IT RELATES ,TO THESE SECTIONS DESCRtBED. AND THAT WOULD RELATE. BASICALLY. TO ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. THAT THE EXEMPTIONS SET FORTH SHALL NOT APPLY TO ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN SUBDIVISIONS.. Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption. seconded by Fred Carvin: Duly adopted this 27th day of July. 1994. by the fol lowing vote: MR. KARPELES-Wel I. how does that apply to ~ lot that nobody has b u i I ton i n a s u bd i vis ion. a pre e xis tin 9 lot? MR. TURNER-It sti I I appl ies the way it's written now. meet the setbacks that were establ ished at the anything. for the principal dwel I ing and the accessory That's what it says now. that they t i ,m e . for bu i I dings. MR. KARPELES-Okay. The way you want it to read now. it means that. if you're bui Iding,a principal bui Iding. you would have to comply with the current zoning? MR. TURNER-The current zoning. the setbacks of the current zoning. MR. KARPELES-I just wanted to be clear on that. MR. TURNER-Mainly. it has to do with the setbacks of accessory bui Idings. because. MR. ~ENTER-You're not so much talking about the principal dwe I ling. MR. TURNER-No. because if it's in a subdivision. it's in a pre- approved subdivision. the principal buj Iding should have to meet the setbacks of that subdivision. MR. MENTER-Right. There would be a strong argument. like Jim was saying. to just conform to the other bui Idings. which was the original setbacks. and not make them adhere to the new ones. MR. TURNER-They're saying that if these subdivisions were approved previous to 1982. then it goes back to 1967 Zoning Ordinance. which says. the accessory bui Idings are five feet off the side I ine and 30 feet from the rear. MR. MENTER-So it may be more des~rable just to. specifically. app I y any change to accessory bu i I dings. MR. TURNER-Yes. s u bd i vis ion. has double standard. Where the guy. now. to meet the setback of I think. that's outside of the 20 and 20. That's a MR. KARPELES-So we're just ta I king accessory bu i I dings. that's all. MR. DUSEK-To make sure 1. understand it. too. because I'll pro,b~blv ,be involve.,d.., Basically. wh.at I'm hearing is that R~ob~bkV. ,the qnsw~r to your concern is by s~mply saying at the er;¡d.of tt)at sect Lon th~t grants the exemptiGn. just .$laY. except th~t~ccessory uses shall comply witb the cur~ent zoning. MR. TURN~R-That'sall. , , , , MR. THOMAS-Wquld you say that would. .,a.l.teviate a lot of ,~nneOe$s,ry variances? - 21 - ~-- MR. TURNER-For shed s 7 MR. THOMAS-No. for houses. MR. TURNER-No. How about Ridge Knol Is. up there7 MR. THOMAS-It says a subdivision before 1988. if it meets the setbacks. I don't know what the setback requirements were. MR. MENTER-You're saying that they didn't require a variance. and they came for one7 MR. THOMAS-Yes. did not require a variance. according to that section. I don't know what the setback standards were. MR. TURNER-That's why they changed that. because they were always coming in f~r a variance for setback rei ief. because they're in a Land Conservation 42 Acre zone. and when they used to be in. MR. THOMAS-Yes. It was an RR-3. MR. TURNER-RR-3. yes. They were different. MR. THOMAS-Because we didn't deny any in Ridge Knol Is. I've been here two years. and I think we've given four or five in there. They rea I I Y d i dn' t have to come here because they cou I d have cited that section. MR. TURNER-We I I. they didn't change this 'ti I amended 3/5/90. once. 7/29/91. 11/23/92. around a few times. '91. By Loca I Law. So they've kicked MR. THOMAS-That subdivision was approved back in the 70's. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. THOMAS-And I don't know what the setbacks were for an RR-3 zone. as compared to an LC-42. MR. TURNER-They were probably 50. 50. and 5Ø. or 50. 30. and 30. or something I ike that. MR. THOMAS-It seems to me we've given a few variances that we really didn't need to give. MR. TURNER-Wel I. we gave them unti I they cleared that uP. and then they didn't come in any more. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. TURNER-That's what happened to it. They took it away from them. We said to the Town Board. look it. you've got to do something with this. because here these guys have already got a subdivision. and they've got lots. and they've got to come for a variance every time to do whatever they want to do on it. and that's fine. and mY point is that probably the ugl iest bui Iding on the lot could be an accessory bui Iding. and I think that could be the biggest bone of contention in the whole neighborhood. MR. THOMAS-It could be. MR. TURNER-Because the house is already establ ished. The accessory bui Iding is probably the last thing to come. MR. THOMAS-We I I. doesn't the Beautification Committee have something to say about that7 It's I ike a bui Iding. Lake George has an Architectural Review Board that you have to pass before you can go on. MR. TURNER-Yes. They don't. here. - 22 - ~ ~ MR. THOMAS-Maybe they should. to stop something like that from bui Iding across our bui Idings. MR. TURNER-But that's !!!.y.. point. I think if the guy outside has to comply with the setbacks. so does the guy inside. WhY is he locked in just because he bought a. suppose the lot was there and he just bought it. He fall.s back to the time of inception. and that's not fair. because this is not 1967. This is 1994. and you're going to have more density out there. You're going to have more bui Idings. You're going to have more residences. and this old Town. you can see it. it's bui Iding right Qut. Here comes the time bomb. It's just waiting to explode. You could see i.t the other night with DeAngelo. the neighbors across the street did not want that shed in that front yard. and that's about what it amounted to. MR. THOMAS-There's something in there that we don't know about. though. MR. TURNER-Yes. no doubt there is. MR. THOMAS-There's probably some personal confl ict in that. too. but there always wi II be. You can't zone that out. MR. TURNER-Yes. No. yoU can't zone that out. MR. KARPELES-Which one was DeAngelo. the on~ that already had the concrete poured? MR. CARVIN-Yes. he poured the concrete. MR. TURNER-But. I mean. you've just got to strike that out of your thoughts and say. tak~ them as a true comment. and let it go at that. MR. THOMAS-In your mind. you know. MR. TURNER-This was for lots in Critical Environmental Areas. basically. That's what this was all about. What were your thoughts. again, as to the five words You just stated? Change the? MR. MENTER-Just to give them a recommendation. so they know where you're really coming from. MR. DUSEK-Something like except that. the exception to the. MR. TURNER-Except that the exceptions set forth shal I not apply. right. to accessory structures? in this section MR. DUSEK-What you want is accessory uses to al I comply. now. with the current zoning standards. MR. TURNER-Right. Yes. MR. DUS~K-Whereas. you're wi I I ing to accept the fact that principal structures should get the old exemption because they're not going to be offensive. MR. TURNER-No. they're not going to be offensive. because they're all the same. MR. DUSEK-Right. and also. when you think about it. they can only put so big of a house on a quarter lot anyway. MR. TURNER-That's right. MR. DUSEK-I think I certainly understand what you're driving at. I f the Town Board gives me the green light. 1'1 I go ahead and draft it along the I ¡nes that I think you're doing it. and. - 23 - ----- obviously, wi I I provide you with a courtesy copy. MR. TURNER-Okay. So just add that the exemption set forth shal I not apply to accessory structures in subdivisions. That says it enough. MR. CARVIN- would say. AYES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Turner NOES: Mr. Thomas ABSENT: Mr. Maresco MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. DUSEK-There' I I have to be a publ ic hearing and everything else on all this anyway. So if the Board gives the go ahead, if they do, I'll send you a courtesy copy of the leg i s I at ion. MR. TURNER-Yes. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Theodore Turner, Chairman - d.--L{_