1994-09-21
("
f'
....../
ORIGINAL
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 21ST, 1994
INDEX
Notice of Appeal No. 1-94 Woodmen of the World 1.
Area Variance No. 35-1994 Paula A. Peyton Fitz 3.
Area Variance No. 45-1994 Douglas & Joanne Irish 11.
Area Variance No. 52-1994 D01"othy Zemanek 13.
Area Variance No. 50-1994 Randy Ball 21.
Sign Variances K-Mart Corporation 24.
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
FIRST REGULAR MEETIN~
SEPTEMBER 21ST, 1994
7:30 P.M.
OF APPEALS
MEMBERS PRESENT
THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN
CHRIS THOMAS, SECRETARY
FRED CARVIN
ANTHONY MARESCO
DAVID MENTER
ROBERT KARPELES
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN
PLANNER-SUSAN CIPPERLY
TOWN ATTORNEY-PAUL DUSEK
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 179-13D(3)(b)[5]
MICHAEL MULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. TURNER-The public hearing's closed, but the floor's open for
discussion, amongst the Board members, relative to any of your
thoughts. I think the main issue here is two definitions, Group
Camp and Camp.
MR. CARVIN-Well, I have a statement, I guess, for lack of a
better term, that I'd like to read into the record.
MR. TURNER-Before you do that, does anyone want to talk, in
respect to the two definitions? Chris, do you have any thoughts?
MR. THOMAS-Not at this time.
MR. TURNER-Okay. Do you want to read that statement, there, or
do you want to hold it for a minute?
MR. CARVIN-I can hold it for a minute.
MR. TURNER-Well, here's !!JY thoughts. A G,'oup Camp identifies the
organizations that can camp there, such as Boy Scouts, Girl
Scouts, College Universities, and so forth, and you have to refer
back to Camp, the definition of Camp, and Camp says, "any land,
including any building thereon, used for any assembly of persons
for which is commonly known as Camp purposes, whether or not
conducted for profit, and whether or not occupied by adults or by
children, either as individuals, families, or groups, and I think
that's no separation, that's two issues, but it identifies what a
Camp is and Group Camp identifies typical organizations that can
have a camp there. Fraternal Organization is identified in the
Zoning Ordinance in Highway Commercial, Commercial Residential,
and Recreational Commercial. The Ordinance does not exclude
Fraternal Organizations from any Section of the Ordinance
whatsoever. That's ~ thoughts. Anyone else? Okay, Fred.
- 1 -
''--'
MR. CARVIN-Well, I pretty much agree with your comments, Mr.
Chairman. I have an opinion, I guess, that ¡ have formed.
THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR HAS DETERMINED A USE
VARIANCE WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR THE WOODSMEN OF THE WORLD
INSURANCE SOCIETY TO UTILIZE PROPERTY IN AN LC-42A ZONE. THE
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR HAS BASED HIS DECISION ON THE PREMISE THAT
THE INDICATED USE BY THE SOCIETY DO NOT COMPLY WITH ANY OF THE
CURRENTLY APPROVED USES FOR LAND IN THAT ZONE. THE APPLICANT IS
ARGUING. UNDER A TYPE II CLASSIFICATION OF APPROVED USES, THAT
THEY ARE A GROUP CAMP AS OUTLINED BY THE ORDINANCE. THIS IS
BASED ON THE TERMINOLOGY THAT FRATERNAL LODGES ARE MENTIONED IN
THE TOWN DEFINITION OF GROUP CAMPS. IT IS THE OPINION OF THIS
BOARD MEMBER THAT THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR IS CORRECT IN HIS
INTERPRETATION OF THE ORDINANCE. AND A USE VARIANCE WOULD BE
REQUIRED BEFORE THE WOODSMEN OF THE WORLD INSURANCE SOCIETY COULD
ESTABLISH ' A USE IN THIS ZONE. THE BASIS OF TH¡SINTERPRETATION
RESTS NOT IN THE TERMINOLOGY OF FRATERNAL'LODGE. BUT RATHER IN
WHAT THE INTENDED USES OF A GROUP CAMP IN THIS ZONE WAS MEANT TO
BE. THE ORDINANCE MAY, GIVE US A CLUE AS TO WHAT TYPE OR TYPES OF
ORGANIZATIONS MAY BE ENCOURAGED TO ESTABLI~H ,GROUP CAMPS IN THIS
ZONE. BUT THE ULTIMATE DESCRIPTION OF.HOW,THE LAND IS TO BE USED
IS DEFINED UNDER NCAMP" AND IS UNDERSTOOD TO INCLUDE USES FOR
WHAT IS COMMONLY KNOWN AS CAMP PURPOSES. THE APPLICANT HAS
INDICATED. IN TESTIMONY. THAT THERE MIGHT BE SOME ACTIVITIES
WHICH MAY BE ,COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS CAMP PURPOSES. HOWEVER. THE
APPLICANT HAS ALSO INDICATED, THE POTENTIAL DOES EXIST FOR
ADDITIONAL USES FAR,REMOVEDFROM WHAT WOULD BE KNOWN. COMMONLY.
AS CAMP PURPOSES. THESE USES COULD INCLUDE. BUT ARE NOT LIMITED
TO. WEDDING RECEPTIONS. AWARDS CEREMONIES. BUSINESS MEETINGS, AND
COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES NOT ASSOCIATED WITH USES NORMALLY ALLOWED
IN THIS ZONE. THE APPLICANT ARGUES. BECAUSE FRATERNAL LODGES ARE
MENTIONED UNDER THE GROUP CAMP DEFINITION. AND SINCE THEY ARE
REFERRED TO AS A FRATERNAL SOCIETY AND THEY CONDUCT MEETINGS OUT
OF LODGES. THEY HAVE. BY INFERENCE. AN APPROVED USE IN THIS ZONE.
THE APPLICANT FURTHER ARGUES. BECAUSE THEY ARE A LODGE. IF LODGE
BUSINESS INCLUDES SOME OF THESE ACTIVITIES WHICH ARE NOT NORMALLY
ASSOCIATED WITH CAMP PURPOSES THE TOWN HAS NO RIGHT TO PRECLUDE
THEIR USE OF THE PROPERTY. THIS BOARD MEMBER FEELS THIS
INTERPRETATION IS INCORRECT AND STRAYS TOO FAR FROM THE USE OF
THE LAND ISSUE. THIS MEANS THE IMPROVED ORDER OF REDMEN. OR
GAMMA DELTA IOTA. WHICH ARE FRATERNAL ORGANIZATIONS AND
SOCIETIES. WHO COULD CONDUCT MEETINGS FROM LODGES. MAY OR MAY NOT
B~ PREVENTED FROM ESTABLISHING A GROUP CAMP IN THIS ZONE. BECAUSE
OF THE PREDOMINANT USE OF TH~ LAND ISSUE. BUT JUST BECAUSE THAT
THEY HAVE A FRATERNAL DESIGNATION DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY HAVE AN
AUTOMATIC RIGHT TO THE USE OF THE LAND. IT IS THE ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR AND THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RESPONSIBILITY TO
EXAMINE WHAT THE PREDOMINANT USE OF THE PROPERTY IS GOING TO BE
AND COMPARE THAT WITH THE ALLOWABLE USES. IN THIS SITUATION. THE
OVERWHELMING INDICATION IS THAT THE PREDOMINANT USE OF THE
PROPERTY WILL NOT BE RELATED TO THE USES NORMALLY AND COMMONLY
ASSOCIATED WITH GROUP CAMPS. IT IS FELT THE USES. AS PROPOSED BY
THE APPLICANT. MAY BE BETTER SITUATED IN A HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL
ZO~E. OR THAT THEY APPLY FOR A USE VARIANCE FOR THE LC-42A ZONE.
I WOULD. THEREFORE. MOVE THIS INTERPRETATION OF THE ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION BE SECONDED AND ACCEPTED BY THE BOARD,
Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Robert Karpeles:
Duly adopted this 21st day of September, 1994, by the following
vote:
AYES: Mr. Maresco, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin,
Mr. Turner
NOES: Mr. Thomas
MR. TURNER-The Appeal is denied. The Zoning Administrator's
interpretation is upheld. The next order of business, under Old
- 2 -
',--,
~
Business, is Sign Variances for the K-Mart Corporation. We have
some information there from them, as to their Sign package.
JOHN MINEAUX
, ,
MR. MINEAUX-I woUld'resþêctful1y suggest that, perhaps to move
along your agendä, from our perspective'; ,we're probably' more
aÞÞropriately placed under "New Business", as to "Old Business",
since we view thi~ 'as' a new' application. '
MR. TURNER-OkàY'. We'll put you last. We'll dd the other ones,
and get you :last~· because':[ think there's 'going to be qUite a bit
of :contr6versy bh this. Okay. We~ll put ~hat one aside for now.
W~'ll t~We the next on. under "Old Business"~
'AREA VARIANCE NO. 35-1994 TYPE II WR~lA PAU~A' A. PEYTON FITZ
'OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE BIRDSALL ROAD APPLICANT SEEKS TO UTILIZE
A PRE-EXìSTING, NONCONFÖRMING LOT AS A BUILDŒNG SITE. SECTION
179-70 REQUIRES FRONTAGE ON A TOWN ROAD; APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF
FROM THIS 'SECTION. SECTION 179-60 REQUIRES A SEVENTY-rIVE (75)
FOOT SHORELINE SETBACK. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 'SETBACK OF TWENTY
(20) FEET. SËCTION 179~16C REQUIRES A SIDE SETBACK OF FIFTY (50)
FEET TOTAL~ WITH A MINIMUM OF TWENTY (20) FEET O~' ONE SIDE.
: APPLICANT PROPOSES SIDE SETBACKS OF TEN (10) FEET ON EACH SIDE,
FOR A TOTAL OF TWENTY (20). SECTION 179-16C ALSO REQUIRES AN
AVERAGE'LOT WIDTH OF ONE HUNDRED FIFTY (150) FEET., APPLICANT
SEEKS RELIEF OF AN AVERAGE OF FIFTY (50) FEET FROM TH1s SECTION.
(WAAREN COUNTY PLANNING) 7/13/94 TAX MAP NO. 40~1~19.4 LOT
SIZE: 0.66 ACRES SECTION 179-70
DAN DOHERTY" REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. TURNER-Read that lettêr he presented. We'll read 'the letter
that you, seTit' 'to us· in respect to· the Var iance ,first. So if
. ,there"s any questions ,that arise out of that letter, we'll answer
them now.
MR. DOHERTY-Okay. Ce~tainly.
MR. THOMAS-A letter dated August 31st~ :1994, Zoning' Board of
Appeals, Theodore Turner, Chairman, reg~rding 'Varian¢e No. 35-
1994' . "Dear Mr. Chairman: Please let this letter serve as my
. client's supplement t6the applicatioTi' for an area variance for
8i rdsall Road, ,Queensbury, New Yor k. OTi July 20, 1994, the
variance was tabled, pending the submission of formaldtawings
showing 'the style~ look ~nd elevation of the proposed home as
,well as an outline of the' home on the: lot, along with setbacks
and exact lo¢ation ~nd laydUt of the septic system. Enclosed
herewith, a)·e formal : drawings in full comÞliance with the
aforementioned requirements. Also find ehclosed, a copy of a
letter dated 8/26/94 from Mr. Keith toe, the previous, owner of
this lot, concerning his 'prior variance applicatioris,whichwere
heard before this Board; As is eviderit from thié letter~ Mr. Coe
did not submit, not was he required to submit, formal drawings
showing the style, look and elevation of the proposed home as
well as an outline of the home on thè lot, along with setbacks
and exact lo¢ation and layout of the sêptic system. [Annexed
hereto as Exhibit "A" is the Coe letter dated 8/26/94; Annexed
hereto as Exhibit "B" is the 7/9/87 sketch submitted by Mr. Cae;
Annexed hereto as Exhibit "B" is the 7/9/87 sketch submitted by
Mr. Coe; Annexed hereto as Exhibit "C" is the Coe sketch
submitted with variance #1455J. To reiterate, the only sketches
which the prior owner submitted to the Board, are attached as
Exhibits "B" and "C". During the hearing of 7/20/94, I
questioned the necessity of having to put my client through the
same time and expense of preparing formal drawings and was
advised by yourself, that there was 'precedent' where the board
previously demanded the same. However, in reviewing the minutes
of previous variance applications for this lot, it clearly
appears that the Board's actions are quite inconsistent in
- 3 -
--
nature. Nevertheless, my client has submitted the required
drawings in an effort to accommodate the Board in all respects.
Regarding the comments expressed during the public hearing on
7/20/94, all concerns were generalized objections without
relevance to the statutory criteria utilized in evaluation
variance applications. The neighbors criticisms were akin to the
'not in my backyard' philosophy and were not substantive in
nature. The fact that the neighbors have not welcomed my client
to the community is of no relevance to these proceedings.
Nevertheless, in an effort to accommodate both the Board and the
neighbors, my client has revised her plans for the home, and has
chosen a two-story residence, rather than a one story ranch; so
during the hearing, it is not so much the style of the home which
necessitates the variance, but rather the pie-shaped nature of
the lot, which severely limits the buildable space, in light of
the existing setbacks, septic location and roadway. The concerns
raised in the "staff notes II distributed at the 7/20/94 hearing
also fail to adequately address other factors to be considered in
evaluating the variance application. While the substantial
nature of the relief requested was a concern, the relief is not
substantial when viewed in light of the surrounding neighborhood.
The mathematics alone may paint one picture, but a visual
examination of the lake properties and what is proposed with this
lot, shows a home which will blend in with the community, rather
than stand out by being closer to the roadway. Although another
concern was the view of the lake, this factor bears no relevance
to the variance, and in fact, no view exists upon the property
due to the over-grown brush. [Annexed hereto as Exhibit liD II is a
photograph depicting the front view of the subject property] .
While the location of the septic system was also a consideration,
it is evident from the enclosed drawings that the variance is, in
fact, necessary in order to comply with the stringent septic
requirements. These requirements will ensure that this home's
septic is environmentally safe, unlike many other homes which
were built without regard to the location and proximity of the
lake. The final concern raised by the Board, involved a right of
way which was addressed at a prior variance hearing (#1235) with
Mr. Keith Coe. I note that no claim of such right-of-way was
made by anyone in attendance at the 7/20/94 hearing. At issue,
is an alleged 'turn-around' right of way, for property to be
conveyed to the Town of Queensbury. It appears that such was
made in contemplation of conveying the "private roadway" to the
Town, as a dedicated Town road. The turn-around was originally
described in a map prepared in 1966 and to date, the same has
never been used, nor has the roadway been conveyed to the Town of
Queensbury. Such non-use is evident due to the roadway being of
a higher grade than the lot and the over-grown brush, which
prevents any alleged use of the turn around. Consequently, it is
my position, that under the New York law, the right-of-way has
been extinguished and any further attempts by other landowners to
revive the same, are unenforceable. In reviewing the minutes and
exhibits to variance application number 1235, it appears that the
objecting neighbor was simply attempting to raise this alleged
right-of-way to prevent Mr. Cae from obtaining his variance.
Accordingly, this alleged right-of-way presents no enforceable
obstacle to the approval of my client's variance application. In
summary, my client's application is before this Board due to the
fact that the subject property is not an approved building lot,
under existing Town regulations. My client requests that the
proposed variance be granted in order to make productive use of
the property by constructing a one-family year-round residence.
The requested relief will not have an adverse impact upon the
surrounding community or act as a detriment to nearby properties.
There remains no other feasible alternative for my client to
utilize the property as a building lot, without the approval of
the proposed variance, which I respectfully request be granted in
its entirety. I thank you in advance for your anticipated
courtesy and coope~ation in this matter. In the event additional
information is requested, feel free to call upon me. Very truly
yours, Daniel L. Doherty"
- 4 -
'--'
--~
MR. TURNER-Okay. Mr. Doherty, in reference to your remarks that
we were inconsistent, we did not make Mr. Coe present us a plan,
but we did make another applicant, on the other side of the lake,
present us with a drawing of what it's going to.
MR. DOHERTY-My review was limited just to this lot.
MR. TURNER-I know, but we
discretion to also do that.
did require that, and it's
We have the right to do that.
our
MR. THOMAS-A letter dated August 26th, 1994, from Keith W. Coe,
to Attorney Fitz, "Please let this letter serve as my response to
your request for information regarding my variance applications,
for when I owned your property located on Birdsall Road, in the
Town of Queensbury. The only 'drawings' which I submitted to the
Zoning Board of Appeals for this property, are the sketches
attached to variance applications numbered 1235 and 1455. I have
reviewed the copies which you supplied, and they are the only
sketches I used for the variance. I understand that the Zoning
Board of Appeals requires that you submit formal drawings showing
the style, look and elevations of the home you will build, as
well as an outline of the home on the lot, along with your
setbacks and exact loc~tion and layout of the septic system. At
no time during my dealings with the Town, did the Zoning Board of
Appeals require any such drawings from me. I was granted an area
variance to build on this lot and all I submitted, was the two
sketches. If I can be of additional assistance to you, please do
not hesitate to call upon me. Sincerely, Keith W. Coe"
MR. TURNER-Okay. Anything further, Mr. Doherty?
MR. DOHERTY-Mr. Chairman, the drawings have been submitted, and
in respect to the applicant's original map, which was submitted
back in July, I would like to amend the requested relief, from
the shoreline, a front setback, to now be 30 feet, a 10 foot side
line setback shall remain against each lot, and a 20 foot side
line setback will remain against, adjacent to the Valenti home.
MR. TURNER-I guess, if you reviewed the map that Mr. Cae
submitted, showing the outline of the building on the lot, he
showed a 50 foot setback, to the f1'ont of the building.
MR. DOHERTY-Correct, Mr. Coe did, but I believe, in reading your
notes, the Board never addressed any setback requirements with
Mr. Coe, whether they be front or side lot.
MR. TURNER-Does anyone have any questions? The outline on the
drawing is the roof outline of the house? Is that correct?
MR. DOHERTY-Excuse me, Mr. Chairman?
MR. TURNER-The outline on the drawing, the footprint, is that the
roof line, also?
MR. DOHERTY-No, it's the foundation. I believe the roof line
could vary, but was estimated at a foot.
MR. TURNER-So, that'll reduce the 10 foot side to 9 foot?
MR. DOHERTY-No. There's enough play in there that it will remain
at 10 feet.
MR. MENTER-It looks like that was taken into account, on this
drawing here.
MR. TURNER-Okay. All right. I see it.
MR. CARVIN-Do you have the measurements on the deck, by any
chance, this portion?
- 5 -
"'--
MR. DOHERTY-Yes, I do, from the, as you're looking at the center,
facing the water, as you walk out, that's six feet. From each of
the sliding doors on each side is 12 feet.
MR. TURNER-Any other questions? Does anyone have any
questions as to the dimensions of the building? Okay.
have anything further to add, Mr. Doherty?
further
Do you
MR. DOHERTY-No, I do not.
MR. TURNER-All right.
what people have to say.
Let me open the public hearing and see
I'll now open the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TURNER-Was anyone notified, up there, that came the last
time? Were they notified?
MS. CIPPERLY-No. That's not normally done.
MR. TURNER-I know, but somebody was going to carry the ball for
the people up there when we re-scheduled it.
MR. DOHERTY-It was ~ understanding that the hearing was closed
as of July, at the last hearing.
MR. TURNER-The public hearing was closed, but I can open it up
again, because this is a different application.
MR. DOHERTY-Correct, but doesn't that go to the notice question?
MR. TURNER-It might, but it was m.J::. unde,"standi ng that somebody
wanted to be notified up there.
MS. CIPPERLY-I think what he's saying is we didn't advertise a
public hearing.
MR. TURNER-I know what he's saying. Yes.
MR. CARVIN-I don't know if it's been our policy, on a tabled
application, to close the public hearing, Ted. I'd find that
very difficult to believe that we'd close the public hearing on
this application.
MR. MARTIN-It's noted on the agenda as being closed.
MR. CARVIN-It just seems to run counter to what the Board has
always done in the past, on tabled applications.
MR. TURNER-I think we closed that part of it, yes, but
for a submission showing the outline of the house,
changes are dramatic, from what he had.
we asked
and these
MR. DOHERTY-In light of the Board's criticisms and comments,
that's what precipitated the change in design. It was originally
a one family ranch, and it was suggested that we go up two
stor ies .
MR. TURNER-Yes. I understand what
make sure we cover all the bases.
you're saying, but I want to
What's the Board's pleasure?
MR. MENTER-I'd like to take a moment and get
history, myself. I wasn't here on the 20th,
purchase this property?
a little parcel
but when did you
PAULA PETYON-FITZ
- 6 -
\
,-.-/
MS. PEYTON-FITZ-1991.
MR. MENTER-I take it you bought it from Mr. Coe?
MS. PEYTON-FITZ-Yes. It was represented as having a variance
that ran with the land, and (lost word) building lot.
MR. TURNER-Okay.
MR. CARVIN-I just have a question. Is this a new application, or
is this just a tabled, can we alter the?
MR. TURNER-This is under "Old Business".
MR. CARVIN-Under "Old Business".
complied to the Board's wishes.
I think the applicant has
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MR. CARVIN-I think they've made an honest effort to reduce the
amount of setback. I don't think there's any question that the
applicant has a right to build on the lot, and that without some
variances, the lot, for all intents and purposes, would be
worthless. So, she does have a legitimate grievance to come for
a variance.
MS. CIPPERLY-There was a concern, at the last meeting, as to
whether they could actually build on that one piece of property
that had a right-of-way on it.
MR. CARVIN-Yes. That still is somewhat puzzling to me. I guess
I'd like a little bit more explanation on the right-of-way. I
know, in your supplemental letter, you kind of indicated that you
feel that that is no longer a valid situation.
MR. DOHERTY-Correct.
MR. CARVIN-And, not being a lawyer, is this based on a legal
precept, is it?
MR. DOHERTY-Yes, it is. Basically, that's my conclusion, that
when it was originally to be conveyed to the Town, there was
going to be a turn around for snow plows, back in the 60's.
Well, a snow plow couldn't turn around on it now, anyway, because
of the short distance, but it was going to be conveyed over, and
used as a turn around right-of-way easement. It was never
conveyed to the Town. It's never been used as a turn around.
It's been abandoned by all, and terminated. That's my
conclusion.
MR. CARVIN-Well, I guess the only question that L have, now I was
out there, and that was back in July, when it was crowded, and
it's kind of a unique situation, getting in and out of there,
but, just for ~ own i nfo)-mation, is this the right-of-way that
we're talking about, to this other lot over here?
MR. TURNER-Right here, this existing gravel driveway.
MR. DOHERTY-Excuse me. You mean the gravel roadway?
MR. TURNER-The gravel driveway.
MR. CARVIN-Because, as I remember it, there is a road that comes
across the back side, and there are houses and lots over in here.
MR. DOHERTY-Right. That is shown right here. That's the
existing gravel driveway.
MR. TURNER-There's the one he's t,al ki ng about.
- 7 -
~
...-/
MR. CARVIN-This here is the right-of-way?
MR. DOHERTY-Well, see, what it was designed to do was be a turn
around.
MR. CARVIN-I see, this came in this way?
MR. DOHERTY-Right.
MR. CARVIN-Okay.
MR. DOHERTY-It was going to be this roadway, you turn around your
snow plow, or however else you go back on your way.
MR. CARVIN-I see.
MR. DOHERTY-So even though this entire area was slated, it would
only be the actual use area, anyway, which would be in the
center.
MR. CARVIN-Okay. So this is not the right-of-way. This what I
was wondering.
MR. DOHERTY-That's the gravel road.
MR. CARVIN-Okay, but I guess my question, ultimately, is leading
to the fact that, if this right-of-way ceases to exist, how's the
entrance over to these lots to be achieved?
MR. DOHERTY-No. The right-of-way won't cease to exist.
will always remain here.
This
MR. TURNER-There's covenant in the deed that leaves that road
open for use?
MR. DOHERTY-Yes. So this roadway here, and it actually extends
down here, and then stops. What I was under the understanding
that this was going to be developed back here, at one point in
time, when this turn around easement came into be, and it was
going to go through here and connect that way.
MR. TURNER-Yes, you're correct.
MR. DOHERTY-Okay, which was never continued through.
MR. TURNER-Yes, you're con-ect, because I think that came up at
the hearing with Keith, the same thing. Okay. No further
questions? A motion's in order.
MR. CARVIN-Are we clear on the public hearing aspect of this?
MR. TURNER-I'm not sure. I just don't want them coming here next
meeting and saying, you didn't notify us.
MR. MENTER-You don't have the minutes?
MR. TURNER-I don't have them with me. I think he's got them.
MR. CARVIN-It was closed.
it was ever closed again.
It was re-opened.
There it is.
I don't see where
MR. TURNER-It was closed on that particular application, but this
is a new submittal. They did what we asked them to do. They re-
arranged the house. It's a 20 foot side line setback.
MR. DOHERTY-Correct.
MR. TURNER-And it's actually a little bit more than that, at the
deck, at the corner of the deck, because the dotted line sets off
the corner of the deck. It's an open deck, right?
- 8 -
'---'
-../'
MR. DOHERTY-Yes. I see where you're at. So it's about 21 and a
half feet, really, by the time you go from that corner over.
MR. CARVIN-He's okay on one side. He just needs the 10 feet on
the other, right?
MR. TURNER-Yes. He needs 10 feet on the other.
MR. THOMAS-I'd say it's 21. I wouldn't say it's 21 and a half.
MR. TURNER-All right. We'll go with 21.
MR. THOMAS-Make it nice, even numbers.
MS. CIPPERLY-The side that has that 10 foot setback is also where
that vacant beach lot, beach access lot is.
MR. DUSEK-Mr. Chairman, there seems to be a question in the Town
Officials minds, over here on this side of the table anyway, as
to where exactly Birdsall Road ends. There's a concern as to
whether part of this property is, in fact, Town road. Now I
heard, I think, earlier, you indicated that you believe it is
not.
MR. DOHERTY-It is not.
MR. DUSEK-But the Officials from the Town have some concern
because they feel that there was some sort of an issue, as far as
maintenance, and Town records, and things of that nature, which I
can't answer, sitting here right now. It may be that you're
right. It may be that there is no problem. On the other hand,
it may be that there is, but I had to voice that concern, because
I'm getting signals here from our Town Officials that they have
some concern about this road.
MR. DOHERTY-I don't believe so. The only reference to the Town
is property to be conveyed to the Town of Queensbury, which never
ever occurred, and which never will occur.
MR. DUSEK-The thought that comes to ~ mind,
meets again next Wednesday. Would that be
situation, if the Board were just to consider,
week to see if we can resolve this issue?
I know the Board
a terrible time
perhaps, waiting a
MR. DOHERTY-Yes, it would.
MR. DUSEK-I mean, the Board, of course, has the legal authority,
in any event.
MR. DOHERTY-That's correct. I would just like to resolve this at
this point in time. That issue, although I recognize your
concern, it's not owned by the Town, never has been owned by the
Town. It's not carried on any Town records or the Assessment
rolls.
MR. DUSEK-Did you check any of the Town Board's resolutions,
concerning the acceptance of roads by use in the Town?
MR. DOHERTY-Concerning this parcel?
MR. DUSEK-Yes.
MR. DOHERTY-No, they've never been offered.
MR. DUSEK-There's a 1963 resolution that was adopted, '63 or '66,
'63, I believe, that was adopted by the Town Board which
basically designated, or identified, all roads which are
considered roads by use in the Town of Queensbury. That
designation of a road by use, of course, would indicate that, if
it was on that list, and there's measurements given, it would not
- 9 -
"-'
be necessary for a deed to be filed, because it would be
considered a road by use by the Town. So that's why I'm a little
concerned. You might not necessa,-ily find a deed, but it could
be a road by use.
MR. DOHERTY-Right, but what significance would that play with
this application, assuming that it is a road by use. It's not a
question of usage, or the applicant cutting off others right to
use.
MR. DUSEK-I guess, is there any questions concerning setbacks or
anything else, if it was a Town road?
MR. MARTIN-Well, I think it was the frontage on the Town road.
Then the need for that type of variance would go away.
MR. DUSEK-So it would serve to benefit the applicant, as opposed
to harming the applicant.
MR. DOHERTY-But either way, we're seeking relief on that anyway.
MR. DUSEK-Okay. So, Mr. Martin, then, it's your recommendation
that if it was a Town road, that the setbacks, everything else
could still be met, and it wouldn't be a problem?
MR. MARTIN-Well, we'd still have, the setbacks are an issue, but
the frontage on a Town road, that aspect of the variance would no
longer.
MR. DUSEK-No, but I'm ,saying, if it's a T~wn road in the area
wher~ we have a quest~on.
MS. CIPPERLY-Setbacks aren't an issue.
MR. MARTIN-No, setbacks aren't an issue there.
MR. DUSEK-So, then, whichever way we go on the issue, then it
really won't matter for the applicant, except to the extent that
it may alleviate the need for a variance?
MR. MARTIN-Right.
MR. DUSEK-So then, in light of that remark, it would seem that
it's not an .issue.
MR. TURNER-It would be a moot issue, if it was.
MR. DUSEK-But I think we should check that tomorrow, to make
su r e .
MR. TURNER-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE .NO. 35-1994 PAULA
FITZ, Introduced by Theodore Tu,-ner who moved for its
seconded by Fred Carvin:
A. PEYTON
adoption,
Location of property: Birdsall Road. The applicant seeks relief
from Section 179-70, which requires frontage on a Town road.
This property received an Area Variance in 1988, to Mr. Keith
Cae, and the same situation existed then. I would grant the
applicant relief, in that respect. I would grant the applicant
10 feet of relief on the northwest side of the property. I would
grant him 50 feet of relief from the lot width, since this is a
preexisting nonconforming lot of record, which cannot meet the
average lot width of 150 feet. I would also grant the applicant
shoreline setback relief of 45 feet from the required 75 feet.
The pie shaped nature of the lot causes a precedented hardship on
the applicant in positioning the house without seeking relief of
some sort. The sloping nature of the lot could present
stormwater runoff problems for the lake, both during construction
- 10 -
-- -----'
and afterwards, so I would move that this application undergo
Site Plan Review by the Planning Board.
Duly adopted this 21st day of September, 1994, by the following
vote:
AYES: Mr. Maresco, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin,
Mr. Thomas, Mr. Turner
NOES: NONE
MR. DOHERTY-Mr. Turner, can I just ask one question. The side
line setbacks as proposed, are they acceptable to the Chairman?
MR. TURNER-As what we proposed. That's what we went with.
MR. DOHERTY-Okay.
MR. MARTIN-Your site plan review submission to the Planning Board
should reflect the relief that you were given tonight.
MR. DOHERTY-Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. TURNER-Thank you.
t-IEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-1994 TYPE: UNLISTED SFR-1A DOUGLAS &
JOANNE IRISH OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE BUENA VISTA, 5TH HOUSE ON
THE LEFT APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWELVE (12) FOOT BY TWENTY-FOUR
(24) FOOT ADDITION TO AN EXISTING ONE-CAR GARAGE. SECTION 179-20
REQUIRES SIDE SETBACKS OF TWENTY (20) FEET, APPLICANT IS
PROPOSING A SIDE SETBACK OF THIRTEEN (13) FEET. TAX MAP NO. 79-
1-13 LOT SIZE: 15,000 SQ. FT. SECTION 179-20C
DOUGLAS IRISH, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 45-1994, Douglas and Joanne
Irish, Meeting Date: September 21, 1994 "APPLICANT: Douglas
and Joanne Irish PROJECT LOCATION: 8 Buena Vista PROPOSED
ACTION: Applicant proposes to construct a 12 ft. by 24 ft.
addition to an existing one-car garage. CONFORMANCE WITH THE
ORDINANCE: Relief is needed from Section 179-20C, which requires
a side setback of 20 feet. A setback of 13 feet is proposed.
REASON FOR VARIANCE REQUEST, AND BENEFIT TO APPLICANT: Applicant
would be able to get his vehicles out of sight and improve the
appearance of his property. FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES: There do not
appear to be alternatives that would not require a variance. IS
THIS RELIEF SUBSTANTIAL RELATIVE TO THE ORDINANCE?: It
represents a 35% difference from the required setback. EFFECTS
ioN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ÓR COMMUNITY: Rel~tive to the com~unity,
this appears to be a reasonable request. Two-car garages are
common in the neighborhood, and thirteen feet of setback would
not appear to have an adverse effect. The applicant mentioned
talking to the southern neighbor, who did not have a problem with
the setback. IS THIS DIFFICULTY SELF-CREATED?: This difficulty
is more a result of the lot sizes in this subdivision compared to
the current one-acre zoning. PARCEL HISTORY: This parcel is
part of Section 4 of the Westland subdivision which pre-dates
Planning Board review. The house was built in 1962. STAFF
COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: No further comment. SEQR: Type II, no
further action required"
MR. TURNER-Okay. Mr. Irish, anything to add? Nothing? Okay.
Any questions of the applicant? How big is the current garage?
MR. IRISH-It's a single car.
- 1.1 -
--,
MR. TURNER-What size is it?
MR. IRISH-It's 12 by 24 presently.
MR. TURNER-Five hundred and seventy-six square f~et.
MR. MENTER-You said you recently spoke to your neighbor?
MR. IRISH-Yes, about a week and a half ago. She's in Lake Placid
for the month. So she couldn't be here tonight, but I mentioned
that I was putting on the addition, and she had no problem with
it.
MR. TURNER-Does anyone else have a question?
MR. THOMAS-Yes. May I ask, how many vehicles do you own?
MR. IRISH-I've got a company car. My wife has a car, a truck, a
motorcycle, a riding mower.
MR. THOMAS-What about that stock car that was in the garage, is
that part of it, too?
MR. IRISH-I own it.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. Is that going to stay there?
MR. IRISH-It's going to stay on the property.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. So you've got, what, four road worthy vehicles,
I would say.
MR. IRISH-The stock car is not, by definition, a road worthy
vehicle.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, road worthy.
MR. IRISH-If you went by the property, (lost word) on the block,
and I'd like to try to take care of that.
MR. MARESCO-Was the stock car going in the garage, or were you
going to?
MR. IRISH-WeII, when I~m racing it, I bring it home, and that's
where it stays. It's .easier to keep it there than to run all
over town, back and forth.
MR. MARESCO-So you have thr.ee cars, then, basically.
MR. IRISH-Yes.
MR. TURNER-Okay. Let me Qpen· the public hearing and see if
anybody else wants to speak. I'll open the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLI~ HEARING CLOSED
MR. TURNER-Okay. What's the Board's pleasure?
MR. KARPELES-I don't have any problem with it.
MR. CARVIN-The size is under the 900 square feet allowable, 576.
Nobody's got a one car garage, hardly~ anymore.
MR. TURNER-No.
MR. CARVIN-He's attaching it to an existing garage. So he's not
- 12 -
,--,. ...J
building a freestanding. So I don't see a real change.
MR. TURNER-Okay. Motion's in order.
MOTION TO APPROVE· AREA VARIANCE
IRISH, Introduced by Fred Carvin
seconded by Anthony Maresco:
NO. 45-1994 DOUGLAS & JOANNE
who moved for its adoption,
The applicant is proposing to construct a 12 by 24 addition to an
existing one car garage, and is seeking relief f)"om Section 179-
20C, which requires a side yard setback of 20 feet. That we
grant the applicant seven feet of relief from Section 179-20C.
Due to the concurrent configuration of the applicant's house and
garage, the siting of the new proposed addition mandates that a
variance be requested and granted. By the granting of this
variance, there would be no adverse effect on the neighborhood of
community, and this difficulty is more the result of the lot
sizes in this subdivision as compared to the current one acre
zoning.
Duly adopted this 21st day of September, 1994, by the following
vote:
AYES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Thomas,
Mr. Maresco, Mr. Turner
NOES: NONE
AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-1994 TYPE: UNLISTED WR-1A DOROTHY
ZEMANEK OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE GLEN LAKE ROAD APPLICANT
PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A SIX HUNDRED (600) SQUARE FOOT ATTACHED
GARAGE WHICH WOULD BE IN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING THREE HUNDRED
FORTY-FIVE (345) SQUARE FOOT DETACHED GARAGE. RELIEF IS SOUGHT
FROM SECTION 179-16D, WHICH ALLOWS ONE GARAGE, AND FROM SECTION
179-7, WHICH LIMITS GARAGE SIZE TO NINE HUNDRED (900) SQUARE
FEET. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 9/14/94 TAX MAP NO. 38-2-25
LOT SIZE: 0.37 ACRES SECTION 179-16D
LARRY ZEMANEK, PRESENT; DOROTHY ZEMANEK, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 52-1994, Dorothy Zemanek,
Meeting Date: September 21, 1994 "APPLICANT: Dorothy Zemanek
PROJECT LOCATION: Glen Lake Road PROPOSED ACTION: Applicant
proposes to build a 24 ft. by 25 ft. addition to an existing
house, which would include a 20 ft. by 20 ft. garage on the lower
level. CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE: In other cases, Section
179-16D has been interpreted by the Zoning Board to allow one
garage. The applicant is proposing a second garage. The total
square footage is below the 900 square feet of garage allowed by
Section 179-7. REASON FOR REQUEST, AND BENEFIT TO APPLICANT: A
second garage would enable the applicant to garage their own car
while providing a garage for a health care worker. FEASIBLE
ALTERNATIVES: In theory, an additional bay could be added to the
existing garage. This would not serve the house occupants well,
would be more intrusive visually, and would require a setback
variance. IS THIS RELIEF SUBSTANTIAL RELATIVE TO THE ORDINANCE?:
It does not appear to be. EFFECTS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR
COMMUNITY: It does not seem that this attached garage, that will
be part of the principal structure, would have an impact on the
neighborhood. IS THIS DIFFICULTY SELF-CREATED?: The difficulty
is the need to have an attached garage for the house occupants in
view of the fact that there is an existing detached garage which
is also needed. PARCEL HISTORY: The existing house was built in
1946. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: No further comment. SEQR:
Unlisted. Short form EAF should be reviewed."
MR. TURNER-Okay. Mrs. Zemanek, is there any comment?
- 13 -
'-,
,-"'
MRS. ZEMANEK-Well, we've never, used to ask for a variance (lost
word). I just feel for our health reasons, we have to. Our
health is deteriorating, and very soon we're going to have to
have live-in help or day care help, and the garage that is
existing, has been there since the beginning, '46, and it has,
it's 15 by 23, and it's got a flat roof. It's built into the
ground on two sides. It has a hedge around three sides of it.
You can hardly see it, if you look at the house, over the top of
it, it is not attached to the house. The other, the one we're
planning on building under the new house, would be 400 feet, and
it would face away from the road, and the neighbors next door
would not object in any way, and we have health problems that are
progressively getting worse, and some time in the foreseeable
future we will have to have help to move in, or come in, and
certainly having some place to park their car would be an
incentive to go out into the country.
MR. MENTER-So, essentially, this consists of a 24 by 25 foot
addition, with a garage underneath.
MR. TURNER-Underneath it. Yes.
MRS. ZEMANEK-And we're making everything so we can have a
stairway to move a wheel chair up the stairs, from the garage.
MR. ZEMANEK-The whole addition is designed for
accessibility, and we plan on looking into, possibly,
lift from the garage. We'd like to be able to drive
under the house, that's the purpose of the garage.
handicapped
an elevator
a vehicle
MR. TURNER-I guess you heard the Staff Notes, that we've always
considered the Ordinance to read one garage.
MRS. ZEMANEK-Well, it's the only other building on the lot.
There is no other (lost word).
MR. MENTER-That would be a two car garage?
MRS. ZEMANEK-No. It's a single car.
MR. MENTER-Just a single.
MR. TURNER-Okay. Anyone else? Do you want to think a minute?
Okay. Let me open the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
CORRESPONDENCE
MR. THOMAS-A form letter, to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board
of Appeals, Subject is addition of home of Stephen and Dorothy
Zemanek, "We the undersigned have been informed by Stephen and
Dorothy Zemanek that they plan to construct a 24 by 25 foot
addition to the west side of their current home. We understand
that they have also plans to have a garage under the addition,
which will be served by a driveway to Glen Lake Road. Zemanek
family has informed us that by having a garage under the new
addition as well as the existing garage requires a Use Variance
by the Town. As a neighbor to Stephen and Dorothy Zemanek, we
have no objections to the fact that they will have a garage under
their new addition, as well as keeping their previously existing
garage." One letter is signed by Kathleen E. Willigan, another
one by Dan Baldwin, by Judith West, Laurie L. Dickinson, Jeff
Godnick and Larry Dickinson. We also have correspondence from
the County, dated September 14th, 1994. "At a meeting of the
Warren County Planning Board held on the 14th day of September,
- 14 -
~
~
1994, the above an application for an area variance to construct
a 24 by 25 foot addition to the existing home was reviewed and
the following action was taken, recommendation to, No County
Impact" Signed by Thomas Haley, Chairperson.
MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further comments?
MR. CARVIN-Well, we're back to the same situation we seem to be
confronted with at almost every meeting.
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MR. CARVIN-Is there any way that you could configure the proposed
addition, in other words, incorporating the two garages into one?
MRS. ZEMANEK-No. They're separated by, probably, 15 feet.
MR. ZEMANEK-And the land slopes away.
MR. TURNER-Yes. It's on a hill, a little bit.
MR. MENTER-Where the drive enters the proposed garage, that's a
25 foot wide side there. Half of it is going to be storage, or
additional living space?
MRS. ZEMANEK-The other part of it
there, and the other, a stairway
stairway three foot wide.
is going
in the
to be a room under
back. (lost word)
MR. TURNER-That would be on the north side, right?
MRS. ZEMANEK-Yes.
MR. CARVIN-Our problem is that we have consistently adhered to
the principal of a certain amount of square footage on a single
garage. It has been the opinion of this Board, up to this point,
to try to eliminate having multiple garage buildings on
properties, especially where, in this particular situation. I
guess, I understand your situation, but if there was any feasible
alternative to incorporating, or making the garage larger, I
certainly would feel better about.
MRS. ZEMANEK-Yes. It's so far away from the house, is the point.
Even now, we can't go (lost word).
MR. ZEMANEK-It would require walking up a hill, in the winter.
MR. KARPELES-You wouldn't conside)" making that a two car garage,
underneath the addition, and doing away with the existing garage?
MRS. ZEMANEK-Well, if it comes down to having to, of course,
that's what I'll do.
MR. ZEMANEK-We also anticipate a lift in the garage may take up
enough space that it won't allow two cars.
MR. TURNER-Okay. What is it, a stair lift?
MR. ZEMANEK-Yes.
MR. TURNER-How wide's the stair, three foot?
MR. ZEMANEK-I would imagine a three foot, yes.
MR. TURNER-Then the chair lift is a single rail, with a chair on
it?
MR. ZEMANEK-Well, we're just looking into that.
MR. TURNER-¡ know, but I've seen them.
- 15 -
'--'
---'
MR. ZEMANEK-Inside they are.
apparatus in the basement.
I don't know if it's the same
MRS. ZEMANEK-Actually, we plan to try to take care of ourselves.
MR. ZEMANEK-And I think the idea of a bigger
would look, this won't even be noticeable
Whereas, adding on to the existing garage, it
worse, as far as the community goes.
existing garage
from the road.
would look even
MRS. ZEMANEK-You can't see the new garage from the road.
MR. MENTER-I agree with you on that.
MR. ZEMANEK-I have a photograph of the building.
MR. MENTER-Well, I was over there today looking at it. You're
right. With the existing garage there you really would almost
not see that. The problem we have is with the two garage issue,
the precedents.
MRS. ZEMANEK-I understand your problem. I'm not trying to get
away with something. I'm really trying to do the right thing,
and still be able to keep the garage, the other garage.
MR. TURNER-Okay. Lets move the application. Do we or don't we?
And, again, we've got to go back to the same thing. We've been
consistent.
MR. CARVIN-Very consistent.
MR. ZEMANEK-Now the Zoning Code says that the accessory
structure, you're allowed one accessory structure, which could be
a garage.
MR. TURNER-It says private garage, period. That's all it says.
MR. ZEMANEK-But the garage, the other garage
building. It's not an accessory structure.
conflicting with the Code?
is part of the
So is that
MR. TURNER-No. It's still a garage, classified a garage, whether
you put it underneath it.
MR. ZEMANEK-Is the purpose of limiting the buildings or, what is
the purpose of that? I can see where it would be a problem with
lots having different buildings, but are you trying to prevent
storage?
MR. TURNER-No. The thought was that a two car garage wasn't
necessarily big enough in these times. So we went to a 900
square foot garage, which would allow three cars, which we
thought was more than adequate, which I think it is.
MS. CIPPERLY-Did you realize that this is only a one car?
MR. TURNER-Yes. That's fine, but the principal is that we've
denied them consistently.
MRS. ZEMANEK-But if you put the two of them together, it would
still be less than the 900.
MR. CARVIN-Yes.
merge the two.
to his garage.
I mean, that's what I'm saying, if you could
I mean, like the previous applicant was adding on
So he still has, technically, one garage.
MR. MARTIN-The only thing I want to emphasize, as you consider
your decision, is the test is the benefit to the applicant
against the detriment to the neighborhood. That is the test.
- 16 -
'--------
-../
MR. TURNER-That's the test, but we've been consistent in.
MR. CARVIN-Every applicant that has come in could derive a
benefit from having workshops, to storage sheds.
MR. MARTIN-I understand that, every application, the applicant
has a derived benefit, but weighing it against the detriment to
the neighborhood.
MR. CARVIN-Then it becomes a cumulative thing.
MRS. ZEMANEK-But what the neighborhood cares, everybody in the
neighborhood is agreeable with it.
MR. CARVIN-Yes, YOU)- neighborhood, but what about the next
neighborhood over, when somebody comes in?
MRS. ZEMANEK-Well, then I could see, if anybody anywhere said
don't do it, in the neighborhood, I wouldn't even bother coming.
MR. CARVIN-Well, that's what I'm saying. It has a cumulative
effect. So, these are the hardest ones to really address.
MRS. ZEMANEK~So what do you say we have to do with the buildings?
MR. TURNER-I think you've got to consolidate your garage to have
one gar age.
MR. MENTER-Well, you're only talking about one parking space
inside anyway, right, ultimately?
MRS. ZEMANEK-Are you saying that I can't use the garage?
MR. MENTER-No, no,
Your proposal would
ultimately, anyway,
that type of thing,
no. I'm just asking a question right now.
have been to have one garage/parking space,
the other one being used for lawn storage and
right?
MRS. ZEMANEK-Yes.
MR. MENTER-Yes. My perspective would just be that, it might be
worthwhile to look, a 24 by 25 is pretty substantial space.
MRS. ZEMANEK-It's only 20 by 20, the garage, the other would be
walled off, for storage.
MR. TURNER-Yes. That's 400 square feet.
MR. CARVIN-I think what Dave is leading to is make your storage
area, I'd feel more comfortable converting the old garage into
the storage shed, for your lawn mower and stuff.
MRS. ZEMANEK-But, here again, if we have someone come in to take
care of us, day care or coming in and help, they would need a
place to put their car.
MR. CARVIN-Well, again, I guess you're a pretty gracious
individual to allow them to have a private parking garage.
MRS. ZEMANEK-Well, it isn't that. It's just an incentive for
somebody to come out in the country, is all I'm saying. It's
hard to get people to come away from the city, and I think you
really should think of us trying to help ourselves out. Nobody's
even going to realize I have another garage. I mean, if it was
in any way unsightly, or being seen.
MR. TURNER-Yes, but, again, we'd be setting a precedent if we did
it, because we've been real consistent in not allowing it, two
garages on one piece of property. You could take the garage you
have in the front, like you said, you're going to convert it to
- 17 -
-
-...-'
storage. Take the garage doors off of it and make it a storage
bui ldi ng.
MRS. ZEMANEK-Well, what does it make a difference?
MR. TURNER-That's a difference.
MR. MENTER-It seems silly, but it does.
MR. MARESCO-If you make that a storage area, then there'd be no
problem with having, you'd have a one car garage.
MRS. ZEMANEK-If I close this off with doors.
MR. TURNER-The minute you put a garage door on it, it becomes a
garage. The minute you take the garage door off, then it's
stor age.
MRS. ZEMANEK-Could I put doors just in front of the garage door?
MR. TURNER-No. It's got to go.
-So, if she had an in-home worker, they'd have to park out in the
bad weather, instead of using an existing garage? What are we
accomplishing here? Are we trying to keep, is it more sightly to
have vehicles parked in your driveway, or have, perhaps, two
gar ages?
MR. MARESCO-But if we said to yes to you, for
everybody else could come by and say, well I'd
garage, too, and what would we say to them?
two garages,
like another
MR. TURNER-A proliferation of garages, when you're only allowed
one.
-What if I have a five acre lot? You're going to say I can only
have one garage?
MR. TURNER-That's what the Ordinance says, 900 square feet, the
garage, whether you've got 100 acres.
-Well, what is the Board trying to do here? Is this a visual
thing, or are you trying to limit buildings on your property, or
what are we accomplishing here? I don't quite see where we're
going with this, especially in a hardship case like this. I find
it difficult to see what the purpose of interpreting the Code
like this.
MR. MARESCO-But what we're doing is really trying to meet her
hardship by saying, yes, you can have the garage underneath, but
you have to call your existing garage, use that for storage. So
we're certainly meeting, trying to meet t:l.ê.L needs. Now trying to
meet the needs of somebody coming and having the courtesy, or,
you know, having another garage, that's something else.
-But by 900 feet, you could almost have a three car garage, but
you can't have a garage in front of your house and a garage
separate.
MR. CARVIN-Using that same logic, you could have five, 900 square
feet garages. I mean, this is the Ordinance that we're
confronted with, is that the definition of a garage is 900 square
feet. All right. Now lets just, for argument's sake, say that
your garage out in front is 900 square feet. What is to prevent,
using your same logic, that somebody has a hardship, to coming in
and building another 900 square feet garage? Do you see where
I'm leading here? I mean, we have an Ordinance that the Town has
presented us with, with a 900 square foot, this is the definition
of what an allowable garage is, anything over that has to come
for a variance, and they've written it in such a fashion that it
- 18 -
'-
-.../
states "a single garage".
that's fine.
If they had written a combination,
MR. ZEMANEK-Well, the Code says one accessory structure whose
purpose can be a garage. It doesn't say a single garage.
MR. TURNER-It says private garage, period. It doesn't say
garages. It says garage. One garage, 900 square feet.
MR. ZEMANEK-It seems to me that the detriment to
be, in certain cases, somebody may have, say, an
You're not going to be able to park it in the
going to be on their lot, and it's going to look
the Town would
RV or something.
garage. So it's
ten· ible .
MR. CARVIN-Well, the problem is, we have many folks coming in
with RV's and motorcycles and trailers and boats and what not,
and they want garages for all of that stuff, and some of the
garages are larger than the houses, and then what happens is that
these folks move away, and then you have these very large spaces,
and all of a sudden somebody is using these massive spaces for
either commercial use or being used in fashions that the original
neighbors had no idea that they were going to be converted, and
that's been the other side of this. I mean, we've had situations
where these garages were allowed in the past, and all of a
sudden, somebody is converting these big garages into apartments,
and, again, that's. That's why they have said 900 hundred square
feet. I think that that, and, again, I didn't write the
Ordinance. I'm just sitting here trying to do my best to give
all the folks that come here a break.
MR. ZEMANEK-I would think that the Town would want, would prefer
to, if people do buy a motorhome, they'd prefer it housed.
MR. MARESCO-But you can't house everything.
MR. CARVIN-But, you see, it wasn't the Ordinance that said to the
person, go buy the motorhome. It's not the Town's problem if
they own a motorhome.
MR. MENTER-I think there's a long term problem there, too, which
is what Fred just alluded to. I mean, that works nice while the
person is there, but if you have properties in residential areas
with a lot of buildings, and from then on those buildings are a
problem.
MR. CARVIN-Those buildings are there for 50 to 100 years.
SON-IN-LAW-Shouldn't that be relative to lot size, also?
MR. CARVIN-There's a lot of things that go into this, and your
argument is well taken, and it has been presented before. I
mean, we've had people come in with, quite literally, 10 and 20
acre lots, and they've been turned down. I mean, we are an
interpretative body. In other words, we are given a set of
instructions, and, under certain circumstances, as long as
certain criteria are met, we are allowed to grant a variance, but
in this case, it hasn't been met, as far as I'm concerned. In
other words, the interpretation of the Ordinance is that a single
garage, and that's why I'm saying, if the previous application,
which is a situation, he is expanding an existing garage, but
he's not creating a new garage, and that's what, I think, the
Board is asking you, is it possible for you to create a two car
garage in the new addition, and convert, I mean, we're trying to
help you, here, convert the existing garage into your storage
area.
MR. TURNER-That's all we're saying to you.
MR. ZEMANEK-See, the reason why the storage area is there because
there's plumbing pipes over the top of it. We have a problem
- 19 -
-
with another family member who has their plumbing pipes under a
garage area, and it froze up. So we put the storage area there,
because all the plumbing pipes will be in a heated area. That's
why the storage part of it was there, just to stop the problem
down the 1·oad.
MR. MENTER-That's an issue that is, can be easily remedied by
proper building. I mean, you don't need to have a warm room on
the first floor to have plumbing. If you have a utility area,
you can plumb up, but it does seem like a simple solution would
be, if I'm right. I mean, your goal is to have a one car garage
in the new building, and not use the garage down below for a
vehicle. Is that right? Okay. So where we are is we have a
technicality that we need to deal with, because it's going to
come back to us and haunt us, and it seems we have a pretty
simple solution, just talk about changing the garage door on the
garage, which is not going to be used in any case.
MR. ZEMANEK-What (lost) the garage door?
MR. TURNER-That identifies it as a garage. You can use it as a
garage, if you've got nothing in it. Is that correct?
SON-IN-LAW-If I put a barn door on it, then I have a barn, right?
MR. TURNER-You have a storage shed.
SON-IN-LAW-Okay. So I can take that door out, the overhead door
out, and put a double barn door on there with no problem?
MR. TURNER-Yes, but don't store a vehicle ¡n it.
MR. CARVIN~As long as there's no cars in it.
MR. ZEMANEK-They can store their tractor in it.
MR. TURNER-They can store their tractor, but not an automobile.
MR. ZEMANEK-He has a small fishing boat. He can store that in
there.
MR. TURNER-That's a storage shed. Yes.
MRS~ ZEMANEK-That's what we'll have to do, then.
nice to have the other one. We need it under
than any place. That'~ where ItJe have to have it.
It would be
the house worse
MR. TURNER-Well, that's what we're saying, put the garage under
the house, the one that you need, and make this one a storage
building.
MRS. ZEMANEK-I suppose we'll have to do it.
MR. MARESCO-Well, all you're giving up is having the courtesy of
having the home-aide attendant have a pa~k~~g g~rage.
MRS. ZEMANEK-Yes~ I understand that.
MR. MARESCO-It's more important for you to come in,
into your garage and go right uP. into the house.
importa nt .
drive right
That's what's
MR. TURNER-Okay. So do you want to withdraw your application, or
do you want us to rule on it?
MRS. ZEMANEK-If you're turning it down.
MR. TURNER-No. I'm not turning you down.
just as if it was never submitted.
You can withdraw it,
- 20 -
'--'
J
MR. ZEMANEK-We've pursued it this far, lets see how the Board
would vote on it.
MR. TURNER-All right. Okay.
MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE
Introduced by Theodore Turner
seconded by Fred Carvin:
NO. 52-1994 DOROTHY ZEMANEK,
who moved for its adoption,
In other cases, Section 179-16D has been interpreted by the
Zoning Board of Appeals to allow one garage. The applicant is
proposing a second garage. The Zoning Board has been consistent
in not allowing a freestanding, second garage on a piece of
property. The difficulty is self-created, since the applicant
has one existing garage which fronts the Glen Lake Road, which is
15 by 23, and proposes to use a 20 by 20 space in the proposed
addition for the second garage. The applicant has an
alternative. They could put the garage under the proposed
addition and use the existing garage as a storage shed. There is
an alternative to this solution.
Duly adopted this 21st day of September, 1994, by the following
vote:
AYES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Maresco,
Mr. Turner
NOES: Mr. Thomas
AREA VARIANCE NO. 50-1994 TYPE II LI-1A RANDY BALL OWNER:
SAME AS ABOVE CORNER OF CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO
CONSTRUCT A TWO HUNDRED (200) SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO AN EXISTING
FIVE HUNDRED SEVENTY-FIVE (575) SQUARE FOOT GARAGE. RELIEF IS
SOUGHT FROM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-26, LIGHT
INDUSTRIAL ZONE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 9/14/94 TAX MAP NO.
147-1-16.1 LOT SIZE: 0.59 ACRES SECTION 179-26
RANDY BALL, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 50-1994, Randy Ball, Meeting
Date: September 21, 1994 "APPLICANT: Randy Ball PROJECT
LOCATION: corner of Corinth and Stevens Road PROPOSED ACTION:
Applicant proposes to construct a 200 square foot addition to an
existing 575 square foot garage. CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE:
The subject parcel is located on a corner lot in a Light
Industrial zone. Section 179-26 requires a 50 foot setback.
Applicant proposes a 30 foot setback. REASON FOR VARIANCE
REQUEST, AND BENEFIT TO APPLICANT: This addition would allow
indoor storage of a second car. FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES: There
would be no way to add the existing garage without a variance.
IS THIS RELIEF SUBSTANTIAL RELATIVE TO THE ORDINANCE?: The
relief sought is 40% of the required setback. EFFECTS ON THE
NEIGHBORHOOD OR COMMUNITY: It does not appear that this addition
would have any effect on the neighborhood. No public comment has
been received as of this writing. IS THIS DIFFICULTY SELF-
CREATED?: The difficulty stems from having a residential use in
a Light Industrial zone, which requires greater setbacks. This
is also a corner lot, so it is subject to two front yard
setbacks. PARCEL HISTORY: According to the Assessor's records,
the existing house was built in 1951, and lot size is 0.59 acres.
STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: No further comment. SEQR: Type
II, no further action required. II
MR. TURNER-Your proposal is to come in from Stevens Road, Randy?
MR. BALL-Yes.
MR. TURNER-Which way does the roof run on the existing garage?
- 21 -
'-
MR. BALL-Along Stevens Road, and then it's going to kind of jet
off from Stevens Road.
MR. TURNER-Is this an out building that's attached to the
existing garage? Is this a shed?
MR. BALL-Yes. It's a shed that (lost word).
MR. CARVIN-There's no way you can slide that back and take that
shed out, in other words, square that up?
MR. BALL-It's just sitting on a slab there. It's just a shed
that just sits there.
MR. TURNER-What is the elevation of the slab, compared to the
elevation in the existing garage, the same height?
MR. BALL-Exact.
MR. TURNER-So you could incorporate it into the floor. You could
incorporate that slab in the floor.
MR. BALL-The one behind it, you mean?
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MR. BALL-No. That's much lower than the other. The
down the hill like this. Actually, it's higher.
didn't move it back that far.
land comes
That's why I
MR. TURNER-Where's the access to the shed, that's attached to the
garage? Where's it from?
MR. BALL-On the door that goes all the way through, and it,'s like
changing your (lost word).
MR. CARVIN-What is the existing 25 by 23? Is that a two car
garage right now?
MR. BALL-No. It's a one car garage door with storage on the
side. I have motorcycles, a lawn mower.
MR. CARVIN-Is there any way you could configure the garage the
long way, in other words, coming out the back like so, as opposed
to jutting out this way?
MR. BALL-I have a pool right behind the back there, and I
wouldn't be able to do it with the pool there.
MR. CARVIN-Now will
that a walk through?
between the two.
this sit flush
You've kind
to the other
of indicated
garage, or is
a gap, here,
MR. BALL-Yes. There's just
garbage barrels and stuff.
going to be a space so I can put my
It's just going to be empty space.
MR. CARVIN-Okay, but is it going to be attached?
MR. BALL-No. The one garage that I'm building, that I want to
put on, is going to be attached to my other one, but not in
between that little shed and here. No.
MR. KARPELES-I think I know what you're saying, but I'm not sure.
This is attached, right?
MR. BALL-Yes. This is all attached. This roof, right now, goes
right, just like this. Then I've got the peak going this way.
MR. KARPELES-But this is not attached?
- 22 -
'--
-../
MR. BALL-There's nothing in here.
MR. KARPELES-How do you get into this? I wasn't clear on that.
MR. BALL-There's a door right
in with the lawn mower and go
swimming pool.
here in the middle, where I drive
in, plus I go in there from the
MR. KARPELES-But can you get from there to here?
MR. BALL-Yes. I have a door going right through.
MR. CARVIN-It'll be attached here, in some fashion, but this is
not attached, or is there a door here?
MR. BALL-Yes. There's a door here.
MR. TURNER-There's a door here and there's a door here. Is that
correct?
MR. BALL-Yes.
MR. CARVIN-Is this a shed, or is this part of the garage, because
it's attached?
MR. BALL-Well, when they did the square footage for me, they
included that in the footage.
MR. KARPELES-Yes. How big is that, do you know?
MR. BALL-It's 12 by 8.
MR. TURNER-Ninety-six square feet. You're going to attach this
,- ight hen~?
MR. BALL-Yes. This roof, I'm going to extend this roof all the
way across.
MR. TURNER-Okay. You're going to leave this space, you said, for
your garbage?
MR. BALL-Yes.
MR. TURNER-Okay. Lets see if anybody from the public wishes to
speak. I'll now open this up to public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
PAUL H. NAYLOR
MR. NAYLOR-Paul H. Naylor. I live on the corner of Division and
Corinth Road, and I own both properties.
MR. TURNER-Okay. What's your position?
MR. NAYLOR-Well, Highway Superintendent for the
Queensbury, just plain old neighbor tonight.
Town of
MR. BALL-I could have gotten letters from my neighbors, but I
didn't really want to bother them. They all said they had no
problem with it.
MR. NAYLOR-He's a good kid.
MR. TURNER-Okay. Thank you.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
CORRESPONDENCE
- 23 -
"-
-"
MR. THOMAS-We have one letter from the Warren County Planning
Board. "At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held
on the 14th day of September 1994 the above application for an
area variance to construct an addition to the rear of existing
garage to park a second car for winter was reviewed and the
following action was taken, Recommendation to: No County Impact"
Signed by Thomas Haley, Chairperson.
MR. TURNER-I think what happened here was, if I remember, I think
the Town Board rezoned that about three years ago, and changed it
to Light Industrial. So that's what puts him in the situation
for the variance request. The change of zone is what really
creates the hardship. He would have been all right before. He
could have put it at 30 feet. All right.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 50-1994
Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for
seconded by Fred Carvin:
RANDY BALL,
its adoption,
The applicant proposes to construct a 200 square foot addition to
an existing 575 square foot garage. The subject parcel's located
on a corner lot in a Light Industrial zone, and Section 179-26
requires a 50 foot setback. The applicant proposes a 30 foot
setback. The problem with this application is that the Town
Board changed this zone to Light Industrial. Thereby creating a
hardship on the Residential zone that existed there and exists
there to this day. So it's not self-created. The existing house
was built in 1951, and the lot size is .59 acres. The feasible
alternative, there would be no way to add an existing garage
without a variance, although the relief is 40 percent of the
required setback. It does not appear that this addition would
have any affect on the neighborhood, and no public comment has
been received, as of tonight, except for one statement from Mr.
Nay lor.
Duly adopted this 21st day of September, 1994, by the following
vote:
AYES: Mr. Maresco, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin,
Mr. Thomas, Mr. Turner
NOES: NONE
SIGN VARIANCES TYPE: UNLISTED PC-1A K-MART CORPORATION
OWNER: QUEENSBURY RETAIL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP QUAKER ROAD AND
DIX AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO EXCEED THE NUMBER AND SQUARE
FOOTAGE OF WALL SIGNS ALLOWED BY SECTION 140-6B. APPLICANT
PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A NINETY-SEVEN (97) SQUARE FOOT
FREESTANDING SIGN, AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM SECTION 140-6B,
DESCRIBING ALLOWABLE SIZE OF SIGNS. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MUST DETERMINE WHETHER THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS
VARIANCE APPLICATIONS (SIGN VARIANCE FILE NUMBERS 7-1994 AND 8
1994 RESPECTIVELY) BEFORE SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING. TAX MAP NO.
110-1-2.1
JOHN MINEAUX, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. TURNER-It's a consideration to re-hear the application that's
being presented tonight by the applicant.
MR. MINEAUX-If I might. It seems as though you're looking a lot
at that chart.
MR. CARVIN-I'm looking at your original proposal, back in,
whenever it was.
MR. MINEAUX-Okay. Because the comparative chart is correct as to
what we're proposing to do, and, apparently, the map which was
submitted along with the chart is erroneous, and one of the staff
members had marked it up according to the map. I just wanted you
- 24 -
'---'
J
to be clear that it is these numbers on the chart which we're
proposing.
MR. KARPELES-Which chart are we talking about?
MR. TURNER-This chart here?
BARBARA VARNHAGEN
MS. VARNHAGEN-The one, comparative chart, yes.
MR. TURNER-The comparative chart?
MS. VARNHAGEN-Yes.
'MR. TURNER-Your typed numbers 'are the' ones that are the correct
numbe,·s?
MR. MINEAUX-The typed numbers are the correct ones.
MR. KARPELES-How can 50.8 times 9 equal 297.5 before it equals
486?
MS. VARNHAGEN-It was going to be boxed in, originally. When it
was being boxed in, it had white (lost word). I'm Barbara
Varnhagen. I'm from Roemer and Featherstonhaugh, P.C. I'm here
on behalf of K-Mart.
MR. MINEAUX-I'm John Mineaux.
MR. KARPELES-Maybe you ought to explain the chart to us.
MR. MARTIN-Okay.
how you arrive
individual area
up?
Could you explain, for my clarification, then,
at the 297.5 then? Are you calculating the
of the individual letters and then adding them
MS. VARNHAGEN-Yes.
MR. MARTIN-Well, that's not the way.
MR. TURNER-We don't do it that way.
MR. MÄRTIN-We don't do it that w!3Y. I 'understa1îd
trying to show, but that's not how It's beeri done as
course, with 'this as well as any otHer application.
" ,
what you're
a matter of
MR. MENTER-Maybe yoGcan show us an e~ample of how that~waS done.
MR. MINËAUX-From the tabulation sheets 'thatK....Mart provided, that
calculationiuns d~~ what they call four line unit. .
MR. MARTIN-ine way,' and I should say the 'Town, I guess, in this
casÎ::!, or mysel f', calculates the area of a sign is we draw a line
around the perimeter of the sign, and that's how it's done. It's
not on the individual letter basis, and I don't see where we
could deviate in this instance. All right, and is that true of
all your calculations here, for each sign, "24 Hours", "Fresh
Food", it was all the individual lettering?
MR. MINEAUX-I think, other than that sign.
MR. MARTIN-Did you just draw the border, then, around the other
ones, or just the perimeter border?
MR. MINEAUX-I think all of the other signs are within a box.
MR. MARTIN-Yes. I think that's the way
it, and I think, prior to ~ being Zoning
the way it was done, too.
I've always approached
Administrator, that's
- 25 -
'-
--"
MR. TURNER-Yes, that's correct.
MR. MARTIN-Like in the case of the Super K.
box from the capital "S", all the way across to
would widen out for the "K", and then come back
in Center, and then draw the line based on the
out to the "R". That's how it's usually done.
We would draw the
the II K ", and we
down for the "C"
"C", all the way
MR. MINEAUX-I think we submitted a graphic with the application.
Is that what somebody worked from?
MS. CIPPERLY-What l worked from was this, but we can figure out.
MR. MARTIN-You did your calculations off of these, right? This
here. So I guess what I'm saying is, in the case of the Super K
sign, the 456.75 that Sue had come up with would be the correct.
MS. CIPPERLY-No, because that included nine. It's somewhere in
between the two.
MR. MINEAUX-You wouldn't run off the "K" and use that for the
entire thing. You boxed the (lost word) in the Center.
MR. MARTIN-Right. So I see a dimension here of four feet, what
is it, six inches, on the US" and the "C". I've got it here.
MS. CIPPERLY-Yes, four six.
MS. VARNHAGEN-Yes, that's correct.
MR. MARTIN-Okay.
MR. CARVIN-It looks like a total of 1,065 square feet.
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MR. CARVIN-And it looks like after all, this is Round Number
Three. We've got it down to, I count, 989?
MR. TURNER-Yes, 989.
MR. CARVIN-So that's a grand total of about 76 square feet.
MR. TURNER-Yes, and that's what they came, the second time, and
we told them, no. The only difference between the second time
and this time is 72 versus 76.
MR. MINEAUX-One thing, though, that I don't believe the 989 is
con"ect.
MS. CIPPERLY-You have to subtract a little from that.
MR. TURNER-Well, you know, we have to deal with the figures you
give us, and that's what they come up with.
MS. CIPPERLY-I misunderstood, too, because I was working off of
the elevations map, here, which does show two "24 Hour" signs on
it, and it shows two "Automotive" signs, and what they're saying
is their chart is correct as far as the number of signs. They're
not requesting two "24 Hour" signs.
MR. MINEAUX-The map that you have is what was submitted with the
other applicant's application, and what I brought with me this
evening are some photographs from a store which is identical to
the one which will be built in Queensbury. So you can see,
again, the contrast. That map has two "24 Hour" signs. The
photographs which I'll be happy to share with you, only have one
(lost word). So we wanted to show you with pictures, as well as
graphics, the distinction, as well as the chart. I think, as we
get into the discussion, you'll see (lost word), there is a
- 26 -
',,-,
~
significant reduction from what the other applicant was looking
for.
MR. TURNER-Okay. So I'll take the comparative chart here, and
lets kind of go down and see what, starting with, "Super K-Mart
Center". Do you agree?
MR. MARTIN-I should point, before you get started, Ted, it's not
just a matter of, customarily, how it's been done. It's a matter
of, that's how it's dictated in the Code, that's how it's done.
MR. TURNER-Yes, I know, but I just want to make sure they've got
their numbers right.
MR. MARTIN-All right.
MR. TURNER-456.75, is that correct?
MR. MINEAUX-I don't believe that's correct, no.
MS. CIPPERLY-Okay. Jim says, on that sign, he comes up with 270,
actually.
MR. MARTIN-Well, no, but I didn't add in the distance between the
"Super" and the "K" and the distance between the "K" and the "C"
in Center, which is approximately.
MR. MINEAUX-I think they did, and that's how they got the 297.
MR. MARTIN-Yes. I'd go with the 297 figure.
MR. TURNER-All right. How about the "24 Hour"?
MR. MINEAUX-There will only be one, for 57.
MR. TURNER-57. "Fresh Food"?
MR. MINEAUX-We'll go with 54, but we calculated it at 55.75.
MR. TURNER-"Pharmacy"?
MR. CARVIN-Well, which one are we going with, here, Ted?
MR. TURNER-The Comparative Chart, the new K-Mart application
ver sus .
MR. CARVIN-55.75, then?
MR. TURNER-No, 54.06, they're going to go with. "Pharmacy"?
MR. MINEAUX-I guess if you're Staff calculates it as less than
we'd asked for, we'll be glad to go with that.
MR. TURNER-It's certainly in your favor. "Garden Shop"?
MR. CARVIN-62.3, then?
MR. TURNER-Yes, 62.3. "Garden Shop", 90 versus 62.56?
MR. MINEAUX-Yes.
MR. CARVIN-So, we go with 62.56?
MR. TURNER-Yes. "Auto Service", two of them?
MR. MINEAUX-Just one.
MR. TURNER-One, 62.3, is that correct?
MR. MINEAUX-Yes.
We calculated it at 70, but if Staff has
- 27 -
.....;
calculated it at 62.3.
MR. TURNER-"Restaurant", 124?
MR. MINEAUX-No. I think that was a calculation of two "Auto
Service" signs.
MR. TURNER-Okay, 55?
MR. MINEAUX-Yes.
MR. CARVIN-What do we have for "Restaurant, 55 or 53.6?
MR. TURNER-No, that went up to "Auto Service", when they had two.
They're only going one.
MR. MINEAUX-The 53.6 was Staff's calculation of "Restaurant".
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MR. CARVIN-The 53.6 is the "Restaurant".
MR. TURNER-No, no, not where the arrow goes.
MR. KARPELES-What's the "Restaurant", is that 53.6 or 55?
MR. MARESCO-It looks like 55 was the "Restaurant".
MS. CIPPERLY-The "Restaurant" was 53.625.
MR. CARVIN-53.6.
MR. MARTIN-Just as a point of clarification how, in
like, "Garden Shop", calculating 22.9 times 22.9
sixteenths, did you come up with a figure of 90?
the case of,
and thirteen
MR. MINEAUX-I think we rounded up.
MR. MARTIN-Rounded up about 30 feet?
MS. VARNHAGEN-What had happened was, when we were doing our
application, we were working off sheets provided by K-Mart, which
we, at the time, didn't verify the multiplication, which was our
error. When I was doing the chart, I wanted to be consistent
with the application, even though I became aware that there were
errors, since they (lost word), and we had rounded up. I
thought, at that point, (lost word), I would keep the numbers the
same, but they didn't match the application.
MR. MARTIN-All right, then we should be making these same
corrections down this side of the column, too, then.
MR. TURNER-All right. The "Restaurant" would be 56.84.
MR. CARVIN-You no longer are going to have the freestanding sign,
is that correct?
MR. MINEAUX-Yes. We still are asking for a freestanding sign.
Originally, the other applicant asked for 286 square feet. We
would ask for 97.
MR. CARVIN-So they're coming in, pretty much, on.
MR. TURNER-No. They're only allowed 64 square feet, with a 25
foot setback, and 50 square feet with a 15 foot setback.
MR. CARVIN-Okay.
MR. TURNER-They're not a business complex.
business.
They're just a
- 28 -
"---
~
MR. CARVIN-I mean, that was brought out in the notes some place
there, right? Are we looking at multiple businesses, here?
MR. TURNER-No.
MR. CARVIN-So that's all been addressed.
MR. TURNER-Business complex.
MR. MINEAUX-Speaking of the "Optical", the total we come up with,
based on the two calculations, is 641.96, where formerly it said
695. 50 we're now down to 642 square feet.
MR. CARVIN-Of· course, I come out with roughly 650.
going to split hairs over eight square feet.
So I'm not
MR. KARPELES-Yes. I came up with 649.32.
MS. MINEAUX-With respect to the "Optical", Mr. Turner, there were
seven signs showing up here, and there was an additional
application for Lens Crafters, which would have made eight signs,
total, only seven being in the application for variance.
However, I can tell you that we're withdrawing the application
for the Lens Crafters sign, which I'll confirm in writing
tomorrow. There won't be a Lens Crafters sign. There will only
be seven signs that we're asking, and the freestanding sign.
MR. CARVIN-I came up with a total of 649.32.
MR. TURNER-Okay. We're going with 297.5, 57, 54.06, 62.3, 62.56,
62.3.
MR. CARVIN-And 53.6.
MR. MARTIN-Just to be consistent, also, though, from what 1 see,
if we carry the numbers through consistently, the original
application, and I'll go down the old Zaremba application,
because the calculations are, the total numbers per individual
sign are wrong. We should make them consistent with the other
column.
MR. DUSEK-Before you do that, though, I think the more important
question for the Board is, is not so much as to what the
calculations are now that they've been transcribed, but what it
was that the Board previously considered them to be, because it's
the old application that you had before you, whatever those
numbers were, and the new application, with whatever the numbers
are, that's what you're trying to determine whether or not it's a
new application.
MR. MARTIN-All right.
MR. DUSEK-In other words, if the old application, and you were
under the belief, as a Board, was 486, even if it wasn't, but if
that was your belief, and that's what you saw the application as,
to me, that's what you're doing the difference from, what you saw
it as, and what it's being presented as now.
MR. MARTIN-All right.
described, we had an
1,065 square feet.
So then, under that scenario, as Paul just
original application, total signage, of
MR. DUSEK-And now you've got a new application in front of you,
with less signs, and, what, some less 300 square feet.
MR. MARTIN-641.96, is
MR. MINEAUX-649.
MR. CARVIN-650.
that what we were saying as a total?
- 29 -
MR. DUSEK-~ understanding, that the only issue before this Board
tonight, that could possibly be considered by you is whether it
is, in fact, a new application, or whether it's not, and if you
consider it a new application, it would be necessary to for it to
be set down for a hearing.
MR. TURNER-Yes, that's correct, but I
numbers straightened out, so everybody
actually are.
just want to get the
knows what the numbers
MR. MARTIN-So then we've got 1,065 minus 649.
difference of 416 square feet, and three less signs.
doing away with the Optical completely?
That's a
You are
MR. MINEAUX-Yes, a reduction of.
MR. KARPELES-One "24 Hour" and one "Auto Service", right?
MR. MARESCO-Yes.
MR. MINEAUX-189 feet on the pylon sign.
MR. MARTIN-What's the pylon now at?
MS. VARNHAGEN-97.
MR. TURNER-97.
MR. MINEAUX-Formerly, the original applicant was looking for a
sign 45 feet high. We're looking for 25 feet.
MR. TURNER-Yes. Has everybody got the numbers straightened out
in their head? All right. The only consideration in front of
us, is this viable enough to propose to re-hear it.
MR. MENTER-Yes. That was !:!JX. impression, although it sounded a
little different than what Paul just stated, the question at hand
is, whether this is, varies enough from the original application.
MR. TURNER-To consider as a new application.
MR. MENTER-To reconsider it. That's the yes, no question before
us, that's ~ understanding.
MR. DUSEK-There's three possible, or there's two possible things
you could consider this application as. One is as a brand new
application, and you go through the procedures like you always
would, and if you consider it a brand new application, then
that's what you do, and if considered it exactly the same as the
old application, such that res judicata would apply, then you
wouldn't do anything with it. There's a third alternative, I
mis-spoke. I said two. The third alternative is that you could
say, well, it is like the old application, but we'll grant it a
rehearing and that, I think what it is, you've got to look at the
application and see if there's big enough difference, and if you
think there is, then it's a new application, and you treat it as
such.
MR. TURNER-Okay. What's your pleasure?
MS. CIPPERLY-I believe this also was submitted as two different
applications, one for the freestanding sign and one for the wall
sign.
MR. CARVIN-! think there's significant enough change, here, to
look at this as a new, I like to let sleeping dogs lie. I think
that the previous application has been turned down and left to
rest, but I think that there's a significant enough change to
consider this as a whole new application, because they've reduced
the number of signage, square footage. They've reduced the
- 30 -
-'
number of signs, and I think they've made significant changes
from the original application.
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MR. CARVIN-That's ~ feeling on it. So I guess ~ would be more
inclined to take it as a new application.
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. MENTER-Yes.
MR. KARPELES-Yes.
MR. TURNER-It's a
MR. MARESCO-Yes.
MR. TURNER-Okay.
I'll go along with that.
There's certainly significant change.
It looks like a significant change to me.
dramatic drop from where they started from.
Do you want to make that a motion?
MR. DUSEK-Actually, what I'd recommend you do is, whatever you
decide, is to also state what your hearing date will be for the
new application.
MR. TURNER-Okay.
MR. MINEAUX-If I might have a moment to address that. We would
greatly appreciate the Board's indulgence. We have a practical
problem, in that the store is scheduled to open on November 15th,
and it takes about 60 days to fabricate the signs, which is why
we had anticipated being before you tonight as a new application,
so that we could have a hearing on this and be able to have a
decision. I've looked at the Code, and I've discussed this with
the Counsel. It seems feasible for us to be on next Wednesday's
meeting, if the notice is published by Friday.
MR. TURNER-Yes, that's possible.
MR. MINEAUX-If that's something that.
MR. DUSEK-The only thing I have to say is that I'd caution
Counsel is that the newspaper is such that, one day's notice,
it's very likely we might not get that. Usually, they require a
couple of days to get it into the paper. That's my only concern,
that, certainly, I mean, there's nothing wrong with calling up
the paper and saying, will you publish it, but, if they won't,
then you're going to have a problem.
MR. TURNER-But the other side of the coin is that, I think
there's going to be 'enough discussion and enough controversy here
to hold a Special meeting, and treat this as one application, by
and of itself, because I don't want to take up the whole night
dealing with this, when we've got a whole bunch of other
applications in front of us. So I'd rather set a Special
meeting, depending on the advertising that gets in the paper, and
you'll be notified when that Special meeting is, and we'll
entertain it as one.
MR. DUSEK-Mr. Chairman, I presume, then, by what
you would entertain a Special meeting before your
meeting in October, whenever you can fit it
advertising for the newspaper?
you're saying,
next scheduled
in with the
MR. TURNER-Yes.
everybody.
I think that would work out better for
MR. MINEAUX-Thank you very much.
MR. MARESCO-Before you go,
photographs you said you had?
one thing, could I
I'd like to see that.
see
those
- 31 -
.,./
'--"
,-"