The URL can be used to link to this page

1995-04-19 '-' ,- iR I GIN A l "'-' QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING APRIL 19, 1995 INDEX ¡~r \/ a. r i a. nee I'~o 1 .-::, 1 r?S~ c <-;':(;;J. ,-' :~) (i ì- e:E~ Va r i a nc;e 1\10 1 '-, .. 1 9 (;~ E~ ¿~ (:~y ¡'::..- C;) \/ .3 '( 1 a. nce i"~o 1 /j 1 99 5 Ed na I;,Jr"li te 3" Doroth)-" Hocl9ki n~:; 13, John W. & Lee V. Tabner 11.1 . Area Variance No. 15-1995 I)E\\,/id ~~h.ite ¿l. Area. Variance No. 16-1995 Ivli ß,ardin 25M Area Variance No. 17-1995 Jc;'ffì"()-' Sch~"aì-tz 3::, M 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 1'1 I t\IUTE::. . ~ ~ QUEENS BURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING APRIL 19, 1995 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT FRED CARVIN, CHAIRMAN CHRIS THOMAS, SECRETARY l>JILLIAM GREEN DAVID MENTER ANTHONY MARESCO MEMBERS ABSENT ROBERT KARPELES THOMAS FORD PLANNER-SUSAN CIPPERLY STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. CARVIN-Before we get started with the applications, Mr. Dusek has requested a couple of minutes of our time to review pending litigation, I guess, with regard to an application that we voted on about a month or so ago. So, Mr. Dusek PAUL DUSEK, TOWN ATTOF<NEY MR. DUSEK-If you'll recall, last month during March, there was an application before you of Margaret Bleibtrey, which essentially challenged a Zoning Administrator decision concerning Mr. DiPalma's uses up on the lake, and at that time, my recollection is that you basically granted the Bleibtrey request and interpreted as she suggested, the Ordinance, that the use of a fishing facility was not an allowed use as part of the Bed and Breakfast. Mr. DiPalma's attorney contacted me and indicated that he disagreed with your decision and that he was planning to commence an Article 78 proceeding concerning that. However, he did also feel that it would be appropriate, before doing that, to come back before the Board and see if the matter couldn't be resolved by an attempt to obtain from you folks a Use Variance. He, of course, recognizes the fact that there's no guarantees, that he would have to entertain this application on its own merit, and you'd have to study it against the criteria of the Ordinance and determine whether or not it qualifies for a Use Variance, but his thought was it would be better to do that and then, depending upon the outcome, obviously, then none of the litigation may be necessary, or, if he doesn't get it, then he would wish to preserve his rights in connection with the previous matter as well as the other matter. I see a benefit to the Board here, in that process, in as much as that to allow him an opportunity to come in and preserve his rights on appeal on the other matter, we, one, either possibly avoid litigation, or, two, if we do have litigation, at least all the issues will be consolidated in one action, and we won't be going back up and down before the Supreme Court. So the request that is being made of you this evening is whether you would be willing to entertain a Use Variance application, filed by Mr. DiPalma by a given date, entertain that application and make a decision on that, while leaving his right to appeal your previous decision open. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does everybody remember that particular situation? This has to do with the Bed and Breakfast. The Bleibtreys had indicated that a Use Variance would be necessary because of the fishing charter business, and we supported that position, and I don't have a problem with what Mr. Dusek is suggesting. I think that this Board had recommended that a Use Variance be applied, and be sought, and all Mr. O'Connor, or the attorney, is asking for, basically, is that if that decision - 1 - should go against him, that he still does not lose, because it's a timing issue more than it is anything else, that he still has the right to file an Article 78. Under the current law he has 60 days, I believe, to do so, or is it 30 days? Thirty days. So if he were to apply for the Use Variance, he would lose the right to file the Article 78. So, if the Board has no problem with that, I think t.hat we should move along that line, that we would, at least L would feel very strongly entertaining a Use Variance, and still preserving their right to issue an Article 78. MR. THOMAS-When we voted on that, we voted in favor of Mr. DiPalm.:3. MR. CARVIN-No, actually, we voted in favor of the Bleibtreys. We voted against the Zoning Administrator. The Zoning Administrator had indicated that the Use Variance was not required, and this Board, in essence, said that a Use Variance would be required, that the fishing charter is just not part and parcel with a Bed and Breakfast. It's just not an automatically granted right. MR. THOMAS-Yes. I've got the resolution right here. I'm just going over it real quick. MR. MENTER-We supported the Appeal. We upheld the Appeal. MR. CARVIN-We upheld correct, that a Use would be necessary, part and parcel with the Appeal that the Bleibtrey position was Variance for the fishing charter business because it is just not, as I use the term, a Bed and Breakfast. MR. THOMAS-All right. Yes. I've got it now. I'm. CARVIN-O ka)i . MR. MENTER I have no problem with it. MR. MARESCO-No, I have no problem with it, either. MR. THOMAS-I'm all set. MR. CARVIN-Would you like that in the form of a motion? MR. DUSEK-Since I the Appeal tlme, resolution on the will have to introduce a stipulation extending I think it would be a good idea to have a ìN(:~c()r(j .. MR. CARVIN-Okay. O'Connor would be Would it be your understanding that in a position to file for the May meeting? 1'''lr. MR. DUSEK-I did not discuss that issue with him. could take back a suggestions or request that the have in that regard. I certainl)/ Board waule! MR. CARVIN-I don't know which way to tackle it. Should we just leave it open ended on his right the Article 78 or should we put a time frame, as far as, you know, whether it be the May meeting or June meeting? MR. DUSEK-Well, to bring the matter to a conclusion, it might a good idea to have some sort of a time frame on it. Since we didn't discuss it, I don't know how the Board feels, but maybe a two or three month time frame would be reasonable, just so that we finally do conclude this thing at some point during the course of this yea,". MR. MENTER-That's really all we need to address. Right? MR. CARVIN-We're just really extending his window of opportunity to file the Article 78. - 2 - \"..-, -/ MR. MENTER-So, give him 90 days. MR. DUSEK-If you'd like, I could word a resolution for you, and put that in there, then. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. DUSEK-I'll try this out on the Board. INTRODUCED BY: Fred Carvin WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Chr is Thomap. RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals, after due consideration, hereby determines it appropriate to approve a stipulation with Michael DiPalma's attorney, whereby, his right to challenge the Board's previous decision in connection with the Bleibtrey Appeal would continue to stay open until the time in which he would have the right to challenge an appeal, if any, from a further zoning decision concerning an application for a Use Variance; and Provided Further, however, that in order for this agreement on the part of the Board to be effective, Mr. DiPalma or his attorney must file a Use Variance by July 31st. Duly adopted this 19th day of April, 1995, by the following vote: MR. CARVIN-Okay. I'm Just thinking maybe specifying, not necessarily 90 days, but by July 31st, because we may have two meetings somewhere along the line, and that way if we have two meetings in July, he doesn't miss the one. Okay. Does everybody understand? Does that sound adequate to the Board? MR. THOMAS-It sounds reasonable. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I would like to make that as a motion. MR. THOMAS-I'll second it. AYES: Mr. Maresco, Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: I\lONE ABSENT: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford MR. CARVIN-Okay. New Business. Our first New Business is an Area Variance No. 13-1995. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 13-1995 TYPE: UNLISTED SR-IA EDNA WHITE OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE COUNTY LINE ROAD APPLICANT SEEKS TO CONVERT AN EXISTING BEAUTY PARLOR ATTACHED TO HER HOME INTO A ONE BEDROOM APARTMENT, CREATING A DUPLEX. RELIEF IS NEEDED FROM SECTION 179-19C, WHICH REQUIRES ONE (1) ACRE PER DWELLING UNIT, SINCE THE PARCEL IS 1.51 ACRES. RELIEF IS ALSO NEEDED FROM SECTION 179-71, WHICH 750 SQUARE FEET PER DWELLING UNIT IN A 2- FAMILY DWELLING, SINCE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING 532 SQUARE FEET FOR THIS UNIT. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) - 4/12/95 TAX MAP NO. 110- 2-11 LOT SIZE: 1.51 ACRES SECTION 179-71 RON BOMBARD, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; EDNA WHITE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 13-1995, Edna White, Meeting Date: April 19, 1995 "Project Location: 58 Queensbury Avenue - 3 - -....' Proposed Action: Applicant seeks to convert an existing beauty parlor attached to the rear of her home to an apartment, creating a duplex. Conformance with the Ordinance: Section 179-19C, Suburban Residential Zone, requires one acre per dwelling unit. The parcel is 1.51 acres, so relief is required. Section 179-71 requires 750 square feet per unit for a two-family dwelling. Applicant is proposing 532 square feet. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law 1. Benefit to applicant: Applicant would derive income from the rental unit. The existing beauty salon is closing. 2. Feasible alternatives: In regard to lot size, there do not appear to be alternatives. Regarding the proposed unit, it may be that the applicant could: 1. Rent the unit out to another beauty parlor 2. Enlarge the unit to conform with the Ordinance. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The relief for lot size is 25%. The relief for dwelling size is 29%. The creation of a dwelling unit almost one-third smaller than required seems to be a great deal of relief. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: There would seem to be more potential effect on the future occupant(s) than on the neighborhood. There would probably be a decrease in traffic, though it is not known how busy the beauty parlor was. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? It could be argued that this is a self-created difficulty to some degree, since there is room to add on. The lot size is less flexible, and does not appear t.o be self-created. Parcel History: According to the Assessor's records, the original house was built in 1850. The front portion of the house totals 870 square feet, the addition has 532 square feet. Staff Comments and Concerns: Building and Codes staff have reviewed the proposed plan and find t.he project generally satisfactory, but mentioned that a fire wall would be necessary between the renovated unit and the existing house. SEQR: This IS an Unl.i.~:3ted act.ion. The 'Short Fonn [('IF must be ì·evie~.,¡ec1." 1'1R. THO!V!¡6¡S·-"At. a meet.ing of the I,.Jarren County Plannin';'1 E-soard, held on the 12th day of April, 1995. the above application for an Area Variance to convert a beauty salon to a one bedroom apartment. was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact" Signed by C. Powell South, Vice Chairperson. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Mr. Bombard. MR. BOMBARD-The applicant is here also. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is there anything that you wish to add to this application? MRS. WHITE-I don't know of anything, but what's in the petition that's any different. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Are there any questions from the Board of the applicant? MR. MENTER-How long had this been a beauty salon? ¡VI f-"IRSI-{(,\ WHITE MS. WHITE-Probably 20 years. 1'1F;. CARVIH·,·HO[¡,J long has it been not. a beauty sa,lon, or is it still currently? MS. WHITE-Since the end of February. MR. CARVIN-Since February, okay. 1'1S. I,.JrHTE"·Oka)i. something. In your statement there, that he read, was It - 4 - '-- ~ MR. CARVIN-Would you come to the mic and identify yourself, please. We need to get this on tape. That's the only reason. MS. WHITE-Okay. I'm Marsha White, Edna White's daughter. In the paper that he read, there was something about taking the beauty parlor and somebody else opening it, or? MR. CARVIN-Right. That's what we call Staff Notes. In other words, these are possible feasible alternatives, and this is not something that we are necessarily requesting or requiring. MS. WHITE-Okay. No, but when I opened it, it said that the operator had to live on the premises. In other words, I had to live there in order to have, that I couldn't have other beauticians working there. It had to be just me. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but that was a number of years ago when this was opened up was it? MS. WHITE-That's right. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I suspect that some regulations may have changed in the ensuing positive on that. of these years. rules So I'm and not MS. CIPPERLY-I may be wrong on that, too. Well, I wasn't aware that it was an owner occupied, I think it probably came in under, well, 20 years ago there wasn't even zoning, but nowadays that would be considered a home occupation, or a professional office. MR. CARVIN-This is a Residential One Acre. MR. THOMAS-Yes, SR-1A. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. That would come under professional office incidental to home use. So, I guess I was incorrect, as far as being able to rent it to somebody else. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So it would still be the home use type of situation. Okay, so that that would pretty much eliminate the, I guess my question would be, what kind of economic benefit would you hope to derive from something like this, and would not boarders, or is there any other alternative that might be more feasible? Because I will be brutally honest with you, I just have a hard time with this one, to a certain extent. MR. BOMBARD-Well, I guess what they're looking for, Mrs. White's on a fixed income, and she couldn't afford to really increase the building. This building, if you've been into it, it's 38 feet long by 14 feet long, a full bathroom with a full kitchen and a big bedroom. I mean, I know that the zone goes 750 square feet. Five hundred and thirty-two square feet, in this area, there's a lot of room for a one bedroom apartment. It's not a little area. She's looking for the income, that's the main thing, so she can keep her home. She happens to have an apartment in the back. It's only big enough for one person to live in. There's a lot of driveway area to park, there's not much of an impact on the neighborhood. MR. CARVIN-No. I guess I'm just wondering here if, you know, with an installation of a kitchen, you know, by the time you add the kitchen and the bath and all of the other accoutrements. MR. BOMBARD-Well, the bath is there now. We're adding a bath tub. There's already a half bath, and there's already a sink and cupboards in there now. They were for the beauty salon, which you just take the beauty salon chair out and put a regular sink in right there where it is. There's cupboards already there. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but then there's going to be the fire wall that - 5 - '--- ' has to be installed and a lot of thlS other stuff. I'm. BOI'1BARD-- I said there's o>:tin9uisher, already talked to t.he Building Department. no problem. It's basically getting a I mean, a smoke detector in there. TI'''le'/ f i ì" e MS. CIPPERLY-The fire wall is just a matter of the fire rated :c:;heet roc k MR. BOMBARD-The sheet rock. I mean, that could be done. MR. CARVIN-Yes, but I don't know, could she take a boarder in without all of this other, the variance, is my question, and still come out to about the same spot. MS. CIPPERLY-She can, under the Home up to two boarders, but it wouldn't unit. These people would have to be this connected right now to the house? Occupation, you're allowed be an independent living coming into her house. Is MR. CARVIN-I know. Well, that's what I'm saying. isn't much of an independent living unit now. I mean, it MS. CIPPERLY-Well, it would have it's own kitchen and bath and bedroom. A boarder, I think, is more somebody who's using a bedroom in your home and sharing your kitchen and living space. MR. Cr--îRVIN-Okay. MS. CIPPERLY-Is there a connection between the house and the beaut) par .1.0ì"? MR. BOMBARD-The kitchen's right there. Her husband built these additions at two different times, and this is the samo walkway and everything's right there. You come out (lost word). MR. CARVIN-Okay. How much of an economic hardship will this pose if this is not approved? Do you have any kind of figures? MRS. WHITE-I can always put a For Sale sign out front. MR. CARVIN-Okay. alt.eì"nati\/e. Well, that's not a number. That's an MR. BOMBARD-How much rent? MR. CARVIN-Yes. I mean, how much is this going to be, you know, peì" ce nti:;\ge L-'J i se? MRS. WHITE-Well, we're asking $400 for it. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and this would represent, percentage percent, 50 percent, 80 percent? Do you have a general other words, for what t.his might represent, income wise? in other words, what kind of economic hardship is going imposed here? That.'s not nocessarily a criteria. w.lse, 20 feel, in I mean, t.o be MR. BOMBARD-If you didn't have that $400, what percentage of you income would you be able to stay in your homo? MRS. WHITE-If I got the $400, I could be able to pay my taxes better. MR. GREEN-Were you receiving any income when it was a beauty paì"loì'? MRS. WHITE-Well, my daughter parlor. She's my daughter. ¡::;·ay rent, on it. did not pay any~hing on the beauty She's all I've got. So she did not - 6 - ',,-- -/" MR. BOMBARD-She lives there with her. MRS. WHITE-She lives there with me. MR. GREEN-So it's basically an additional $400 into your income, but if it had just continued on as a beauty salon, you were actually generating no income from the beauty parlor as it was? MRS. WHITE-The dead heads (lost word) MR. GREEN-Right. So the $400 was just additional? MR. BOMBARD-Additional. MR. CARVIN-So it would have very little impact, at this point. Is that a fair assessment? MS. CIPPERLY-You're saying the $400 would have little impact? MR. BOMBARD-If she started getting $400, it would have little impact. on her? Mf~. CARVIN-Well, she's getting nQ, income now. Right? MR. BOMBARD-Well, they just got their license. ê..Qffi.Q. out there. She was doing MR. CARVIN-Yes, but Mrs. White wasn't receiving any rent or anything like that. MR. BOMBARD-Well, she's living there. I mean, food and eating and whatnot. I mean, it's all (lost word). MR. MARESCO-But was she receiving any income at all while that was a beauty salon? MR. BOMBARD-To her? MR. MARESCO-Yes. MR. BOMBARD-Well, no. Her daughter's living with her, in the house together. So the two of them together, if you assume they were getting income that way, because they're both living together. They're both paying the bills and whatnot. I mean, who's pocket it came from. MR. GREEN-So the daughter was contributing in the form of paying bills and food and things of that sort, and that's no longer the case? MR. BOMBARD-It's not coming from there. No. It's just a 38 foot addition on the back of the house that's not producing anything. It's just sitting there. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Have you moved your beauty parlor some place else, or have you given up the beauty business? MS. WHITE-No. I work full time. I work for Fay's Drugs. I don't work as a beautician. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but is that current? In February you gave this up, or have you been a February? Was that the main livelihood? other words, in beautician up to MS. WHITE-I've been a beautician. I'm still a beautician, but I gave my shop up, closed it in February, in hopes that we could put it into an apartment, because I work 40 hours, and I had just a couple of customers on Saturday morning, and it just didn't seem worth keeping it open. - 7 - MR. CARVIN-Okay. So the beauty parlor really was not a main source of revenue even for you, then, essentially. Okay. That's a no I assume. It's hard to get nods on the t.ape. Okay. MR. BOMBARD-She needs the income. If it's not acceptable, (lost word) putting a doorway through because the kitchen's right there. You couldn't use that part as their house. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, any other questions of the applicant from anybody? MR. MARESCO-I'm a little confused on wasn't generating any or very little, beaut.y salon? something. She really if any, income from the MR. BOMBARD-In recent years, I guess. I don't know how long it's been since she was operating the beauty parlor more. MS. WHITE-Well, since I went there five years ago. MR. MARESCO-By you going out to work, you're actually generating more income than you did when you were working, when you were running the beauty salon, right? 1"1S. I;.JHITE-·Yes. MR. MARESCO-So this $400 would be in extra. MS. WHITE-But we also, at that time, had my dad's income, his retirement, and he passed away. MS. CIPPERLY-One thing that should probably be pointed out here is this is not a Use Variance, because that is an allowed use with Site Plan Review. It's a matter of the unit being too :,:;mall. MR. CARVIN-Yes, but we really have to take into consideration the benefit to the applicant as weighed against the detriment to community, which is. MS. CIPPERLY-I just wanted to make sure that was clear. MR. CARVIN-Because I think we're looking at a pretty, again, not necessarily a minimum relief situation, and I would hate to be in a position to create a situation where we have all of these small little garage conversions into small apartments, you know, without really exploring some of these. Okay. Does anybody have any other questions? Okay. I would like to open up the public heal- i n9. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. BOMBARD-I would just like to make a statement that I feel that, your statement about converting a garage, I know what you're saying, but if you were there, if you'd been in the place, you can see it's not just a little square garage. It's a regular, it looks like a residence. There's cabinets and bathrooms. That's like a little apartment. It's not small in any way. I mean, 38 feet is not a small building. I mean, 14 feet wide, so it's very usable for a residence for one person. I just know these rules and I wonder how much of a detrimental impact can it be to the community to making a residence out of thE;, t? MR. CAF<VIN-Well, we have a standard of 750 square feet, and you're proposing 532 square feet, which is quite a difference. I mean, it's not even up to. Well, you're looking at about 60%. So you're about 30, well, I guess, what, the actual figure is about 26%. Relief for the dwelling size IS 29%, about 30%. It's almost one-third smaller than what seems to be required. - 8 - '---' -../ MR. BOMBARD-Where did the figure come from? square feet come from? Where does the 750 MR. CARVIN-That comes out of our Zoning Ordinance. MR. THOMAS-Section 179-71 requires 750 square feet per unit for a two family dwelling. That's right out of the Ordinance. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Anything else? Okay. Any correspondence? MR. THOMAS-No correspondence. MR. CARVIN-All right. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-All right. Gentlemen, any questions? MR. GREEN-I have one question. Being new at this, is 30 percent, on this type of variance, a large amount? MR. CARVIN-Well, I think a bigger question is 532 square feet a lot of living area. I don't have an answer for you there. I think that, you know, wiser heads than mine have come up with a figure of at least 750 square feet being an adequate living space, and I use the term "adequate" living space. So I guess 0l'L feeling is that this could be construed as a substantial amount of relief. MR. GREEN-I, personally, consider that, as I said, I don't know how it's been judged in the past. MR. MENTER-That's a tough question. It depends on the situation. In some cases, that may be substantial. In some cases, it may not. It's all got to be weighed. MS. CIPPERLY-The numbers in this were probably based on, I don't know specifically in this case, but probably based on the State Building Code. One additional piece of information that for a multiple residential, for, you know, like an apartment building, the required floor area is 600 square feet. So even for an apartment building, 600 is considered the minimum. So even from that, you're still small. MR. CARVIN-I also think that the, you know, the alternatives, are there really alternatives to having a separate apartment? I guess I would feel one way if this was, you know, if this represented a pretty high portion of their living income, but from what I've been able to determine, I don't know if that's the case, and I'm not positive whether a boarder or a boarding situation might be more realistic with this type of space, as opposed to setting up a whole entirely separate living unit. I don't know if they've even explored that possibility. Now we have, you know, the criteria for an Area Variance, and I will read this, for everyone here, the Area Variance, The Zoning Board of Appeals shall have the power upon an appeal from the decision or determination of the administrative official to grant an Area Variance as defined herein. In making its determination, the Zoning Board of Appeals shall take into consideration the benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted as weighed against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community by such grant. In making such determination, the Board shall also consider, One, whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the Area Variance, Two, or the benefits sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an Area Variance. Three, whether the requested Area Variance is substantial. Four, whether the proposed variance will have an adverse affect or - 9 - -- '"-'" impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district, and, Five, whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which considerations shall be relevant to the decision of the Board of Appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the Area Variance." So that what that basically means is that the applicant does not have to necessarily prove all of these particular situations in order for us to grant a variance. I do have some difficulties, as I said. I don't think an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood. I'm just not convinced that the benefit gained by the applicant as compared to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood, or even a tenant living in such a place this small, may be a problem. Also, whether the Area Variance is substantial, and again, I guess I would fall to the side of perhaps the 30 percent or the 29 percent might be construed as substantial, and whether this is a self-created s;ituation. I kind of fall to the side that UÜs basically is a self-created situation. I guess that's it. So, again, I don't know what anybody else feels about it, but I guess that's where L:L\l comi ng from. MR. THOMAS-The only comment, I'd like to make a couple, on this, is the, I think the applicant has really proved their point on this one. What else could they do with that building? I mean, they can't rent it out. They can't use it as part of the living space in the house because they don't need it. An impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood, with less traffic, that's an improvement. So that's not a detriment. Was it self-created? That one's fifty-fifty. The benefit to the applicant as weighed against the detriment to the neighborhood, I mean, the applicant makes out and the neighborhood makes out, in both cases. Substantial? That one I'll give you. I'll give you that 30 percent is substantial, but I think we've done a lot, we've given out variances for a lot more than 30 percent, in other cases, and I think the applicant has proved their case, and I think we should give it to them. MR. CARVIN-I don't know about on the living area we've given that kind of relief. MR. THOMAS-Well, if a, an apartment building is required of only 600 square feet and this is 532. so that's only 68 square feet les;;",; . MR. CARVIN-Where is an apartment 600? MS. CIPPERLY-That's in the Code. too, 179-71. MR. THOMAS-That this is 68 square feet, or 58, this is 68 square feet less than an apartment's required, like Roberts Gardens or any of those other places. So I think it's, especially if it's only one bedroom. If it was more than one bedroom, then I'd have a problem with it, but with the one bedroom, I have no problem with it whatsoever, and there's no opposition from the neighborhood. It's in a country setting. It's not packed into a subdivision or anything like that. So, it stands on its own. MR. MARESCO-I think I'll agree with Chris. There are some other questions I did have, though. What about the septic? Would that be any consideration? Would they need a, being this is more bedrooms now, because that's how a septic system is based on. MS. CIPPERLY-I believe this unit is on its own septic. I don't have my map in front of me, and actually an apartment would be easier on a septic system than a beauty parlor would. In previous discussions I've had with the Building Department, the chemicals used in beauty salon work can actually negate the bacterial action in a septic system. So residential use would probably be better for the system. - 10 - '-- ~ MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does the applicant know about the septic? Is that a separate unit, or is it tied into the regular household septic? MR. BOMBARD-There's actually two septic systems for that area. The beauty parlor went to another, its own drywell and septic system. There were three people living in this house for 30 some odd years. So now there's just two, then there'll be three again. So it's always had three people living there. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does it have a toilet facility? thing you'd be adding, really, would be a shower? So the only MR. BOMBARD-A tub, yes, that's all. It's got toilet facilities, and a sink. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Okay. So the sink and toilet have always been used. MR. MARESCO-I was out to visit this site, and I did see it, and I don't see how it's going to make any major difference on the community, as far as that'~ concerned. I did have a little problem with the financial aspect of it, though. I'm kind of up in the air about that. MR. CARVIN-Well, I think, to put your mind at ease on that, it's not necessarily the financial aspect, but whether the benefit derived from the applicant is offset by a detriment to the community. So, if you don't think the community is going to be adversely affected, and the benefit is going to be good to the applicant, then you don't necessarily have to have a dollar amount on it. MR. MARESCO-I'm going to have to, I think we should give it to them. I'm inclined to agree with Chris. MR. MENTER-Yes. I think you have to be pragmatic about these things. I mean, technically speaking, there may not be any pressing, immediate financial hardship because of the current work situation, but aside from weighing the benefit to them versus the negative impact on the community, which I think weighs positively, what do you do with the thing, which I think is the next major concern, because that is an impact on the community, and I think, barring a better answer than this, that it probably is the best solution to the situation, to go ahead and let them do it. MR. GREEN-I tend to agree. I work with seniors all day long, and I know an additional $400 would probably really help a lot, and as we've all said, I don't see a lot of detriment to the neighborhood or anything, other than the living space, I don't see a big problem, but that's where I'm kind of not really sure, you know, how it should be looked at yet. Thirty percent I would consider substantial, but I know of people that live in a lot smaller areas, too. I would probably agree to it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. If there's no other questions of the applicant, I would ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 13-1995 EDNA WHITE, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Maresco: Grant relief from Section 179-19C, that requires one acre per dwelling unit. I would also ask that we grant a variance from Section 179-71, which requires 750 square feet, and that the applicant can use a 532 square foot for a one bedroom apartment. The amount of relief on the lot size would be 25%. The relief for the dwelling size would be 29%. There was no neighborhood opposition. Even though the situation was probably self-created, - 11 - that a variance of this nature would conform more to the neighborhood than anything else that could be put in there. Duly adopted this 19th day of April, 1995, by the following vote: MR. CARVIN-I would ask that, when we make a motion, I think we really want to address some of the issues. In other words, I think we get a little bit lackadaisical in some of our motions, and I think it's going to lead to some troubles at some point. So I would, in the future, ask, if a motion is made, that you address it to the issues that we have to address. MR. THOMAS-Do you want to try it again, or do you want to leave t.rlat. one? MR. MENTER-You could just include a couple of items. 1'''iF:. CARVIN-·\'e2';. MR. MENTER-Relating to, maybe, benefit to the applicant versus the neighborhood, substantiality of the relief. MR. THOMAS-That was already in there, the percentages. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I think we should stress the fact, the benefit to the applicant. I think that they have either explored or not explored some of the feasible alternatives. Is there ,going to be an affect on the neighborhood or community. I think you sort of alluded to that. MS. CIPPERLY-You also need to put in that you've reviewed the Short Form EAF, because it's an Unlisted Action. MR. THOMAS-Yes. That would come under a separate. All right. Withdraw that one. Let me try it again. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA Introduced by Chris Thomas by David Menter: VARIANCE NO. \¡,Jho rno\/ed for 13-1995 EDNA WHITE, its adoption, seconded That we grant relief from Section 179-19C, that more than one dwelling unit on this parcel of 1.51 acres. I would also ask for a variance from the 750 square foot per unit dwelling, and that the applicant is proposing 532 square feet. The relief from the lot size would be 25 percent. The relief from the dwelling size would be 29 percent. There would be no undesirable change in the neighborhood and there t--JOuld be no detriment to the nearb,¡' properties. There would be a decrease in traffic, since there would only be one occupant to the building. There does not seem to be a feasible alternative to the applicant, other than granting this variance. Even though this variance is substantial to the law, I believe it should be granted because there is nothing else that that building could be used for. I do not see any adverse affect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood, and even though this condition was self-created by the applicant, there is no feasible alternative since the building already existed. That the beauty parlor or beauty salon shall cease to be used, and that the fire wall as recommended by the Building Department will be installed, and any other recommendations by the Building Department of the Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted this 19th day of April, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Maresco, Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Thomas t"1OES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Carvin - 12 - '-- -.../ ABSENT: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford MR. THOMAS-One more thing. MOTION TO ACCEPT THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM THAT'S ATTACHED TO THE APPLICATION AND THERE IS NO NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: Duly adopted this 19th day of April, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Maresco, Mr. Green, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford OLD BUSINJ;::SS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 12-1995 WR-IA DOROTHY HODGKINS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE MASON ROAD, CLEVERDALE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A RESIDENCE TO REPLACE A NONCONFORMING, PRE-EXISTING HOUSE. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT THE NEW HOUSE UTILIZING AND EXPANDING ON THE FOOTPRINT OF THE ORIGINAL HOUSE, SO SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SEVENTY-FIVE (75) FOOT SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIRED BY SECTION 179-60, NEW STRUCTURE WILL NOT BE ANY CLOSER TO THE SHORELINE THAN THE HOUSE BEING REPLACED. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 3/8/95 TAX MAP NO. 13-1-10 LOT SIZE: 0.44 ACRES SECTION 179-60 MS. CIPPERLY-Fred, I don't know if you want to the Hodgkins application until the May meetings. tabled in March for 60 days, I believe. officially table I think it was MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, we're still within the 60 days if they apply for May, right? MS. CIPPERLY-That was March 22nd. They're still within the 60 days. It's up to you whether you want to. MR. CARVIN-Yes. We can table it until May. DOROTHY HODGKINS MRS. HODGKINS-I'm doing that on your recommendation, and you have a letter, I believe. MR. CARVIN-Yes. MRS. HODGKINS-I just don't want to be caught in anything that I'm losi.ng. MR. CARVIN-No. It won't happen. MRS. HODGKINS-I need that in ~"'1- i ti. ng. MR. CARVIN-Well, we have it tabled for 60 days, right? So, I mean. MRS. HODGKINS-Yes, but if something should happen, that you had to postpone the meeting again, because there were not enough people, I want to make sure. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 12-1995 DOROTHY HODGKINS, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: - 13 - ..........' ~' Through May 31st, based upon a letter from Mrs. Hodgkins, dated April 14th, pending confirmation of a date in May from Mr. Rehm. Duly adopted this 19th day of April, 1995, by the following vote: MR. THOMAS-A letter dated April 14, 1995, addressed to Mr. James M. Martin "Dear Jim: Thank you for the call to my son, John, from Sue Cipperly regarding the fact that only 4 members of the Zoning Board of Appeals will be present April 19, 1995 and that Mr. Fred Carvin has suggested under the circumstances it might be better to postpone my meeting before this Board. We graciously accept Mr. Carvin's offer. I have engaged Mr. Walter Rehm to represent me and his name should be added as agent in addition to John L. Hodgkins, III. Mr. Rehm will be in touch with your office and I will leave it up to him to determine if we should have a special meeting as Ms. Cipperly suggested or if we should wait until the regular May meeting. I would appreciate confirmation of this letter. Thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours, Dorothy B. Hodgkins" MRS. HODGKINS-May I ask one more question? Is there any reason why Mr. Green cannot be brought up to date and be able to? MR. CARVIN-Yes. For tonight it was almost impossible for him to have all the information. MRS. HODGKINS-I know. to. For the next meeting, he should be able i'1R. CARVIH-Yes. MRS. HODGKIHS-If he would like to come up, just let me know. MR. GREEN-I was up there this week already. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I just didn't think it was very him in to that on his very first meeting, not pertinent information. fair to throlrJ havin9 all t.he AYES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Maresco, Mr. Green, t-1r. Caì-vi n NOE::; : !\IONE ABSENT: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 14-1995 TYPE II WR-IA APA CEA JOHN W. & LEE V. TABNER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE MASON ROAD, CLEVERDALE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO THE REAR OF AN EXISTING RESIDENCE, AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SECTION 179-16C, REQUIREMENTS FOR WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL ZONE. THE HOUSE IS SITUATED ON PARCEL 13-1-5, APPLICANT ALSO OWNS ADJACENT PROPERTIES 13-1-4 AND 13-1-3. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 4/12/95 TAX MAP NO. 13-1-5 LOT SIZE: 0.15 ACRES SECTION 179-16C JOHN TABNER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 14-1995, John W. & Lee V. Tabner, Meeting Date: April 19, 1995 "Project Location: Mason Road, Cleverdale Proposed Action: Applicant proposes to construct a 7 x 20 kitchen addition to the rear of an existing home. Conformance with the Ordinance: Section 179-16C requires side setbacks of 20 feet minimum, and a total of 50. The existing house is 5 feet from the south property line, so 15 feet of relief is needed. It is 36 feet to the northerly line from the house, so the existing total is 41 feet, with 9 feet relief - 14 - ~ ---- needed. Section 179-79, General Exceptions, allows adjacent lots in the Adirondack Park to be 'treated together as one for zoning purposes', therefore the northern setback can be measured to the northern line of the adjacent parcel, making it 36 feet. Section 179-16C requires 65% permeability. When the entire ownership and all structures, driveways, etc., are considered, the permeable area is 66% for the existing situation. The addition will change that to 65%, which is still conforming. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law 1. Benefit to applicant: The applicants will have increased space in their kitchen, which currently does not have enough eating area. 2. Feasible alternatives: There does not seem to be an alternative way to accomplish the applicants' goal, since it is determined by the interior layout. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The 15-foot relief sought is 75% of the requirement. The 9-foot relief needed from the total of 50 represents 18%. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: There has been no public comment to date. It does not appear there would be any effect on the neighborhood. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty seems to be related to the location of the existing house, rather than an excessive proposal by the applicant. Parcel History: The applicant owns 3 parcels -- one with the house on it, one with a 2-bedroom, one- bath cottage, and one which is primarily open space. Staff Comments and Concerns: No further comment. SEQR: Type II, no further action required. (This is a Type I for Planning Board purposes" )" i'1R. THOi"1AS-"At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 12th day of April 1995, the above application for an Area Variance to add 140 sq. ft. (20' x 7') addition to kitchen and eating area at rear of house. was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Return Comments: Removed from Agenda per Town's letter dated April 6, 1995, stating that the map was not satisfactory." Signed C. Powell South, Vice Chairperson, and, to the ZBA members from Sue Cipperly, April 19t.h meeting,t.he first sentence says "The Hodgkins application is off the agenda, per the enclosed løtte,-." Pertaining to this application, "The Tabne,- application ~..,¡as removed incorrectly f"om the Warren County agenda last week. The public hearing can be held, and the vote taken in May. This application also requires Site Plan review/SEQR by the Planning Board, so they will be starting that 30-day comment pøriod next week and making their final decision in l'1a)/, also." MR. CAR\,I It\-O kay . aspects of this? Now, my understanding is we can hear all the MS. CIPPERLY-Yes, and you can close the public hearing, and just do the vote in May. MR. CARVIN-In May. here? Okay. Are you aware of our predicament, MR. TABNER-Yes, I am. We went to the Warren County Planning Board the other night. So I was aware of it and I had discussed it with Ms. Cipperly, also. MS. CIPPERLY-They've been very gracious, considering. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So we'll, hopefully, get all the nuts and bolts in a line here, and then, unfortunately, we just won't be able to vote on it until the May meeting. MR. TABNER-I understand. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Anything you care to add to the application? MR. TABNER-Well, just that, think you've been up there, I think to answer the question. I you probably have, if not, I do have - 15 - - a photograph, if you would like it for the record. I'm. C(iRVIN-Sur e .. MR. TABNER-It just shows the area where the addition would be. It would project out into this area right here, in other words, go across the back there. The property falls off there, and those of you that have been up there, you know it's down a little bit. It would come right out toward you from the structure that's shown there. It would project out seven feet and be across that back portion. MR. MENTER-It's going to be on the first floor level, so you're going to be excavating straight out? MR. TABNER-That's correct. MR. MENTER-And the roof will be a similar shed roof, but it will. it'll tie into where that roof ties into, two story building? MR. TABNER-It will have to be a little higher, because, of course, it drops down too much, but it will project out on the same general level that it is at the present time, and come off just above the first floor in the same fashion it is right now. Mr. Horning, our contractor, is here, if t.here's any questions about the detalls of the building itself. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I want to make sure I understand single story. It's not going to have a loft or a storage area or anything like tha,t.? MR. TABNER-No. The structure, story, but we're not enlarging just doing the first story. the main st.ructure itself the second story at all. is t.lrJO We'1"e MR. CARVIN-Okay. So just to make sure that we're all on the same page, all you're going to be doing is extending this roof out? MR. TABNER-That's correct. MF~. CAR\! I N"'O kay' . MR. THOMAS-Yes. I was up there. There wasn't snow on the ground when 1 was up there. MR. TABNER-That was from last year. MR. THOMAS-You're going to put the, over the addition, you're not going to extend the roof line that's there now. You're going to have to tie back into the existing roof, back farther up to get some height on that. MR. TABNER-Yes. I don't know, Lee, how much further? I_EE HORNH-!G MR. HORNING-We have to raise that roof up. MR. MENTER-That's all going to come right off there. MR. THOMAS-Are you going to start right there where that second star y staì" ts? MR. HORNING-Under side of those windows. MR. THOMAS-Right under the windows and then go out from there? MR. HORNING-There will be a shed roof. MR. THOMAS-Is it gOlng to have the same pitch, or less of a - 16 - '- -' pit.ch? MR. HORNING-Probably less of a pitch. MR. THOMAS-Are you going t.o do any excavating on that back part, where that stone wall is? MR. TABI\IER-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Are you going to take the stone wall out? MR. TABI',IER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay, about how far back from that stone wall would that go, approximately? MR. TABNER-It falls right on the stone wall, right where the stone wall is. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is that seven feet, really? MR. TABNER-That's what ~ taped it off, it was seven feet to the st.one wa 11 . MR. CARVIN-Okay. For some reason it didn't look that wide, but maybe. MR. TABNER-I taped it, and that's what it seemed. MR. THOMAS-Are you going to put some kind of wall back in t.here, is it going back into stone, or are you going to put some other kind of retaining wall in there? MR. TABNER-There will be a concrete retaining wall, and the grade will go right up against the concrete retaining wall. The retaining wall is also the foundation for the building. One of the things that's going to benefit the building is the fact this is quite an old building. We purchased it in 1978, and we've done quite a bit of work since then, this back part, I think at one time probably was a court or something of that nature, and underneath there's not a foundation. There's a full foundation under the rest of the house, and this will wind up with a foundation. We won't have a cellar under it, but we will have it down below the frost line, so that I think we have a better structure in that portion of the house as well. MR. CARVIN-The space that you have there now, are there flagst.one, or is that just open ground? MR. TABNER-It's open ground in there, between the back of the house and that stone wall. We tried to grow flowers in there, not too successfully. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I just didn't know if that was semi-impermeable (,Hea right now? MR. TABNER-No, no. That's all, as far as I know, soil all the way down. "1F~. CARVII'\j-Okay. MS. CIPPERLY-]ust so everything's clear, are you going to be taking that first floor sect.ion off, or are you just working wit.h a nell-J roof. MR. TABNER-No. I think, Lee, what you're going to do is you're going to remove the rear wall, aren't. you, the rear wall and the roof. That's it. MS. CIPPERLY-Okay. Just had some situations lately. - 17 - ~ MR. CARVIN-Well, no, I just want to make sure that the, what's t.he ap¡:Ho~dmate heiaht of that roof~?' t..Jould ')"'ou have an idea where it's going to start? MR. TABNER-Where it meets the buildina? i'1R. Cr::'iRVIN--Yes. MR. TABNER-About 10 feet, 9 or 10 feet. MR. MENTER-Well, that really can't change. roof, where it ties into the two story windows. Is that where you're talkina about? The existina shed build, below those i'1R. CJ;RVIN-Yes, that's where L:m......tal ki ng about. \ MR. MENTER-How can that change? It's going to still be below the windows. You have a couple of inches, maybe. It'll be less of a pitch, but you're still going to be tying in down here. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I auess, maybe you could show us exactly. I mean, is it going to be flush to the bottom of the window, or is it goina to tie in right at the same spot, riaht here? Okay. So you're roof is going to tie in at the same spot, and just come a little bit less of a? MR. TABNER-Yes, approximately. It will be a couple of inches higher than (lost word). Right now, it's a level ceiling, and this will be a cathedral ceiling when we're done. MR. CARVIN-Yes. Okay, and I guess what I'm saying is, do you have an approximate distance, I;-Jhat this is? MR. TABNER-It's about nine or ten feet. MR. CARVIN-That's all? Really? Okay. MR. MENTER-Are you going to have to do much excavatina up here in order to get visibility from those windows? I mean, how much elevation do you lose as you cut back the bank? MR. TABNER-You'll see approximately what you see right here. MR. MENTER-I'm trying to remember if the next 10 or so feet lS pitched severely or fairly level, so you're not going to have? MR. TABNER-It's depressed, actually, the wall, and then it's depress:ed. MR. CARVIN-I don't think it'll have a major impact, I wouldn't think. MR. MENTER-You're just talking about this wall and this, these walls you're going to add on to, side walls and build them up? MR. TABNER-Right. because this wall That's what's there Actually, also acts now. it will almost look like as a retainina wall right t'''lis, here. MR. CARVIN-Yes. There's a gap of probably three or four feet. now to the actual retaining wall, and what you're sayina is you're going to come out to probably just the other side of where the wall is now, and that's where your foundation and wall will be. MR. TABNER-Right. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Can everybody see what we're talking about here? In other words, it's not going to be a second story. It's going to be one story. He's just going to bring it out. - 18 - '- -..../ ' MR. MARESCO-Right. going to come out. This is all coming off there. It's just MR. CARVIN-It's just going to come out, probably flatten out that pitch a little bit. MR. MARESCO-Right. MR. CARVIN-Chris, are you comfortable with it? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions of the applicant? Okay. I would then open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Okay. Gentlemen, any other questions? MR. THOMAS-Yes. I had one more I just thought of. the application there was three parcels? It said in MR. TABNER-Yes. MR. THOMAS-One house sits on. the third one? One the cottage sits on. Where's MR. TABNER-The third one is, well, if you face it from the lake, the cottage is to the right. The main house is to the right. The third parcel is to the left (lost word). Alger Mason owned this at one time, and he had (lost word) and there was a water tower on that parcel, resembling a small water system in Cleverdale. Actually, I believe we rented there, not there, but in another part of Cleverdale. That's been discontinued, and I know you go down to my dock and you look out and you can see some of the big pipes. So when we acquired it, it was the three parcels that there are there. The guest cottage sits on that one parcel, which the boundary's about three inches away from the foundation itself, but it's all one parcel. You probably know Cleverdale was laid out in the 1870's, and then re-Iaid out in the 1880's, but Mr. Mason, for some reason or another, had it broken down into the three parcels, but I think it was because of the water company. The guest cottage, I don't know. At one time, in the deed, it's described as a hardware shop. When it was a hardware shop, I don't know, but some of the older residents tell me at one time it was a barber shop. When we bought it, initially, it had a kitchen, a bathroom and a living room in it and a bedroom, two small bedrooms, and it had an entrance out on the street and an entrance in the driveway. We took the entrance on the street out and we took out the kitchen and turned it around and re-built the whole thing, and so now we have two bedrooms and a bath in there, because that's all we need it for, and that's why it's in three parcels, it sounds as though it's a big parcel of land, but that's not quite true. We did have two kitchens at one time. My wife says that everybody uses one kitchen. She cooks. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I just have a procedural question, here. I guess we're looking to get relief from three different sections. Is that correct, Sue, 179-16C, 179, I guess the permeability's okay. That's all right. MS. CIPPERLY-The permeability was all right. So it's really just 179-16C, the side setbacks. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and are we going with, so the existing total is - 19 - 41 feet. So we're only really seeking nine feet of relief. Is tha,t correct? MS. CIPPERLY-Nine feet of relief from the total, and fifteen feet of relief on the south side. MR. CARVIN-All right. Now that's taking into consideration all three lots then, is that coyrect? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. I mentioned in my notes the section of the law that applies to lots in the Adirondack Park, where you have adjacent lots, it says, for zoning purposes, you can combine them. MR. CARVIN-All right. Now you've got, under Number Three there, Is this relief substantial to the Ordinance, the fifteen foot relief is 75 percent of the requirement? MR. TABNER-That's on the one side. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. There's a minimum of 20 feet required, and 15 feet. MR. CARVIN-All right. Any other comments, Gentlemen? Okay. I really don't have a pì"oblem ~.¡ith t.his. I'm looking at it. and I think that the lot size and what t.hey're really proposing to do, they ì"eally don't have man}" altenìatives. The}' don't ha\ie an'>, alt.ernatives if you want to expand a kitchen. We're not going to vote, but I think I'm going to just get this into the minutes while it's still fresh, then we can always move on that. I don't know if anybody has any thoughts on it. I mean, I think they can meet most if not all of the criteria for the granting of the variance. All right. Any last comments, gentlemen? Anybody want to put anything on the record? Okay. Do you have anything you'd like to add as a final? MR. TABNER-I just appreciate your courtesies, and I hope we get our variance to expand the kitchen and have an opportunity to be able to eat inside when the bulk of our people are there. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Then I guess we just have to table this. MS. CIPPERLY-F<ight, until, wouldn't you say the 17th? MR. CARVIN-The 17th? All right, and this is because we submit it to Warren County is it? ha\/e .1- ." LC) MS. CIPPERLY-Warren County will hear it vote on it any time after that, and meeting. on the 10th, and you can the 17th is our first MR. CARVIN-All right. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 14-1995 JOHN W. & LEE V. TASNER, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Maresco: Until the May meeting, after May the 10th, in County to render a decision with regard to this public hearing on this is closed. So that we first opportunity to make a motion on application, after May the 10th. order for Warren application. The will meet at. the this paì"t,i,cular Duly adopted this 19th day of April, 1995, by the following vote: AY[S: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Maresco, Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mì". Carvin NOES: ¡\IONE - 20 - -- --../ ABSENT: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford AREA VARIANCE NO. 15-1995 TYPE II HC-IA DAVID WHITE OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF RTE 9 AND 149 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING RESTAURANT, TO PROVIDE A HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE RESTROOM. RELIEF IS SOUGHT FROM SECTION 179-23, WHICH REQUIRES SIDE SETBACKS OF TWENTY (20) FEET, AS THE PROPOSED SETBACK IS THIRTEEN (13) FEET. SECTION 179-23 ALSO REQUIRES PERMEABILITY OF THIRTY (30) PERCENT. EXISTING PERMEABILITY IS 13.5 PERCENT, THE PROPOSED WILL BE 13.2 PERCENT. CROSS REF. SPR 17-95 (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 4/12/95 TAX MAP NO. 36-1-34.2 LOT SIZE: 1.25 ACRES SECTION 179-23 TONY GRECCO, REPF<ESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 15-1995, David White, Meeting Date: April 19, 1995 "PROJECT LOCATION: Applicant proposes to construct an addition to an existing restaurant, to provide a handicapped accessible restroom. CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE: Section 179-23 requires side setbacks of twenty (20) feet, the proposed setback is thirteen (13) feet. Section 179-23 requires permeability of thirty (30) percent. Existing permeability is 13.5 percent, the proposed will be 13.2 percent. CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERING AN AREA VARIANCE, ACCORDING TO CHAPTER 267, TOWN LAW. 1. BENEFIT TO APPLICANT: Applicant will be able to provide handicapped accessible restroom facilities. 2. FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES: The interior layout and the size needed for this facility appear to preclude incorporating it into the existing interior space. 3. IS THIS RELIEF SUBSTANTIAL RELATIVE TO THE ORDINANCE? Applicant is proposing relief of seven (7) feet out of the twenty (20) feet required, or thirty-five (35) percent. 4. EFFECTS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR COMMUNITY: It does not appear that there would be adverse effects from this project. It would not protrude any further than the existing bulkhead doors or split rail fence, and would not affect the existing access. 5. IS THIS DIFFICULTY SELF-CREATED?: Handicapped accessibility is required by Federal law. Applicant is faced with retrofitting an existing building to meet these requirements. PARCEL HISTORY: This parcel was originally part of a larger parcel containing the Log Jam Outlet stores, and was split from it, the last transfer of property being January 1987. There is an agreement between the two properties to share parking areas. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: No further comment. SEQR: Type II, no further action required. " MR. THOMAS-"At a meeting of held on the 12th day of April Area Variance to construct facility. was reviewed and Recommendation to: No County Vice Chairman. the Warren County Planning 1995, the above application a 8' x 17'6" handicapped the following action was Impact" Signed by C. Powell Board, for an toilet taken. South, MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. GRECCO-My name is Tony Grecco for David White. I guess the only thing I really would want to add would be, with the increase of foot traffic in the area, our bathrooms are not only used by customers but by the shoppers in the area. They're always coming in and we let them use the facilities, and the closest building to that side of where we're going to propose the addition of the bathroom, the clo~sest. bui leLi ng on that side, on the north side of the building is about 50 feet away, which is the back side of one building and the side of another building, and there's a fence on our property and a fence on the property next to us, and there's still going to be 18 feet between those two fences. MR. CARVIN-I'm trying to visualize the inside of the Log Jam, and it seems to me there was a lobster tank, all right. Is that the - 21 - '- general area where this will be? MR. GRECCO-It's right next to that. MR. CARVIN-All right. Now it seems to me that that's a corridor. What is directly, I mean, if I'm going through that corridor? MR. GRECCO-Okay. If you're going through it, the lobster tank lS to the left of the corridor. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and what's on the right? MR. GRECCO-The right is just a wall. The other side of the wall has part of the kitchen. It's actually a service area where there's (lost word) cooking area. MR. CARVIN-And you've, I'm certain, possibilities of putting this internally? e~o;:pl01'ed all the MR. GRECCO-We have. There isn't any dead space between any of the walls. There's no fake walls. At this time, everything is being used. ~1R. C(.¡F;VIN·'(J ka,¡, . MR. THOMAS-There's no other place you can put that, in t.hat building, off any other exterior wall, on the south slde there, where the atrium is, anywhere else on the propert,¡,? MR. GRECCO-Well, if you go off the into, it's all, it's a garden area. and plants. On that side where we're There's nothing there on that side. The other two buildings kind of block that side it I¡.Jould be a ¡:yrotrusion. south side, we'd be going There's grass and flowers going it's just gravel. It's not seen by anybody. the view. If we put it on MR. THOMAS-Even off the back side, on the east? MR. GRECCO-On the back side, we go into parking area, then. MR. CARVIN-I'm assuming, again, if memory serves correct, is this where the salad bar area is, right here? MR. GRECCO-No. The salad bar is in the front part. The back room is just the dining area. MR. CARVIN-Well, no, what I'm saying IS, do you have a map of right here? In other words, I'm looking at this little, now, again, all ~ight, this is where the lobster tank is, and I guess, what is this area? MR. GRECCO-Oka,¡,. Right here IS a door out from the kitchen. MR. CARVIN-All right, but what would be the problem squaring it off back in here? MR. GRECCO-Okay, because there's no access to get at this area. This is all kitchen. The kitchen, the dining room starts, IS over here. There's a corridor there, and the dining room is the back part here. Part of this area is the kitchen where the waiters go from the kitchen into the dining room. MR. CARVIN-Well, it seems to me that there was a corridor in here, and again, I'm coming from memory. That's why I didn't know if you had a floor plan, but there's no way that, you can't put a hole here or even here, where the corridor, because I don't know what your kitchen looks like, but it would seem to me that ,¡,ou 'd be better served if t¡·"lere was, nOIrJ agai n, is this t.he bar area? - 22 - '~ -../ MR. GRECCO-No. This is the greenhouse. This is the dining area. The bar area is somewhere over here. MR. THOMAS-Where I was looking at was off the back side right in here. MR. CARVIN-Yes, over in here. because I know that this is windows, as I remember. Yes. See a dining I was area, looking in here, and there's no MR. GRECCO-There's two windows on that side of the building. Off of here is our parking lot. MR. CARVIN-I just have to eat there more often. That's all. MR. GRECCO-Off here, there is a, what we have here, actually, there is an area, like right here, before the parking lot, that's where the dumpster is. There's a dumpster, that's blocked off. If you look out the window of that room, there's a red fence that comes up, and there's a dumpster contained in that area, of the compact dumpster. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I guess I still am not so concerned, you know, a dumpster has got wheels, right? I mean, so, that could be moved over there. I mean, that, the dumpster is. MR. GRECCO-Right. That's what's there right now, this little area, right there, and the other thing, you see right here it's a corridor. There's nothing there. If we did put something on this side, we would have to lose tables, probably at least two or three tables that are part of dining. That's one thing. I mean, that's one thing that we didn't want to do, lose seats in the restaurant. This is the dining area. So there's tables coming out, we'd probably, there's like three tables that we wouldn't be able to use. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does everybody see where we're looking, here, over in here maybe? Okay. This is a dining area. There's a couple of windows, and this is, apparently, the kitchen area, right in the center here. MR. MENTER-Tony, what's the immediacy of doing this? necessary to do now? IrH"JY is it MR. GRECCO-Well, we were trying to get it done before the summer season. When we get a lot of foot traffic that just comes in and wants to use the bathroom, and in the summer, quite honestly, we're (lost word). I mean, we only have one, on that side of the restaurant there's one men's stall and one urinal, and there's two womens' stalls, and there's no room for baby changing or anything, and the business itself has grown. MR. MENTER-But you're not required to do it right now? MR. GRECCO-We are not required, by law, to do it right now, but we don't have federally. MR. MENTER-I understand what you're saying. of a convenience that you're doing it at this all the traffic you're getting through there. Okay. So it's kind point, because of MR. GRECCO-Right. In the past, lines outside, from our customers mostly, but from people coming in to use them. We don't just say, you can't use our bathrooms, but there is open space on that side. The only reason why we didn't, we picked this area, was because we wouldn't lose any seats in the restaurant. MR. THOMAS-It says here in the application, it says a requi,"ement, and then you're saying th.at it's not a requi )"ement? federal federal - 23 - '- MR. GRECCO-No, because the building was already there. The f ral requirement came in after the building was built. ~1R. THOMAS-Þlre the feds saying that you have to put this in? MR. GRECCO-No, no they're not. MS. CIPPERLY-If it were a new building, it would be required. I guess you don't necessarily have to. Mt."> " . GRECCO-Because the building's already there. MR. CARVIN-I was going to say, if the building is sold, would it have to be brought up to Code by a new owner? MR. MENTER-I don't think so, not if it's operated the same. Right? I don't believe so. MR. THOMAS-Is this an addition to the bathrooms you've got now? MR. GRECCO-What we're doing is making the men's and, there's a small ladies' and a small men's room, making that one big ladies' room and that's going to be by the federal code for handicapped, and then the new bathroom will be just a men's room. MR. CARVIN-Okay. existing? So you're going to be combining the two MR. GRECCO-Combining t.he two existing ones for one ladies' room. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions, gentlemen? I will open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CiEORGE STARK MR. STARK-My name is George Stark. I own a business up the street from the Log Jam. I'd like to speak in behalf of the issuance of this variance, in favor of it. There's already bulkhead doors sticking out seven feet on the north side of the building. With the additional square footage over there, it's not going to stick out any further. The two split rail fences are still going to have the same distance between them, open. Everybody here has been in the Log Jam. They see the mens room and ladies room are totally inadequate, as it is right now. Here's a chance to rectify and to make them both handicapped accessible, which probably will be mandated in the future. As far as the permeability goes, from 13.5 to 13.2, I don't think that is that big of a problem. I mean, you're only talking three tenths of a percent, less permeability, and place this landscape ven" nicely. It's not like some businesses. H',at's all. Thank you. MR. CARVIN-Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Gentlemen? ~1F¡. MENTEr..;^W I'd bU~3 i ness OV,.flf:H \Ioting on this" jtlst like to on Route 9. make a comment. I, also, am a Therefore, I'm going to abstain from MR. MARESCO-I'm in favor of it. There's not much I really have to say. MR. GREEN-I don't see any real ,inherent problem. I've been down that little alley a number of times. That's how I go in there for dinner, and as he said, the doors are out there. There's a - 24 - "-- '-/ couple of fences. I'm just curious, it's just that an interior floor plan might have helped a little bit, but, generally, I don't have a problem with it. MR. THOMA5-I think we've drilled MT. Grecco pretty good trying to find an alternative place for this restroom facility, and you come up with a viable answer every time. I don't see a problem out there. I agree with the other members that, with those bilco doors sticking out like that, that this addition wouldn't make too much of a difference, an as far as the permeability, like Mr. 5tark said, what's three tenths of one percent when you're talking that big. Plus, laying out there now is a bunch of stones anyway, along that side of the building. 50 it's really impermeable now. 50, I would be in favor of granting this variance. MR. CARVIN-I'm just concerned about the lobster tank. I'm assuming you're not going to discontinue lobsters. No. I don't really have a problem with this. I mean, I suppose we could argue semantics of location and all that sort of stuff, but I know that seating capacity means a business, and I don't think that this, I think that the benefit to the applicant by locating it there is not going to create a detriment to the community or safety, health and welfare, any of that. All right. Having said that, I would ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 15-1995 DAVID WHITE, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by f'::Jnt.hony Maresco: The applicant is proposing to construct an additional handicapped accessible restroom to an exist.ing restaurant. In order for t.he applicant to construct this restroom, he needs relief from Section 179-23, which requires side yard setbacks of 20 feet, and the applicant is proposing a setback of 13 feet. Therefore, the applicant is seeking relief of seven feet from Section 179-23. Section 179-23 also requires permeability of 30%, whereby the existing permeability is only 13.5%, and by granting of t.his relief, the permeability will be altered or changed to 13.2%. The benefit to the applicant by granting of this Area Variance is that the applicant will be able to provide handicapped accessible restroom facilities for both men and women, and bring his current building into compliance with Federal regulations. There does not appear to be any int.erior layout or other feasible alternative that would incorporate this restroom into the existing interior space. This relief does not appear t.o be substantial because of the fact that there already are existing basement stairs and other protrusions that. by the construction of this restroom would be no closeT than the steps. By granting of this variance, there would be no adverse effect on the neighborhood or community. This difficulty is not necessarily self-created, although it is not required by Federal law. It is entirely possible that at some point in the future the applicant may be faced with retrofitting his existing building to meet. those requirements. There's no public opposition to this particular application. Duly adopted this 19th day of April, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Maresco, Mr. Green, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Menter ABSENT: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford AREA VARIANCE NO. 16-1995 TYPE: UNLISTED SR-IA MIKE BARDIN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE CLEARVIEW LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 900 SQUARE FOOT SECOND GARAGE AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM -' 25 - ',-" SECTION 179-7, ACCESSORY USE, WHICH ALLOWS A SINGULAR USE ON A PROPERTY FOR EACH TYPE LISTED. SECTION 179-19, SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL ALLOWS GARAGE AS AN ACCESSORY USE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 4/12/95 TAX MAP NO. 54-5-6.1 LOT SIZE: 1.24 ACRES SECTION 179-7 MIKE BARDIN, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 16-1995, Mike Bardin, Meeting Date: ¡;pr ill (:1, 1995 "Project Location: Clean,;' iew La ne Proposed Action: Applicant proposes to construct a 900 square foot second garage for storage of an antique boat, lawn tractor, summer equipment, etc. Conformance with the Ordinance: Section 179-7 defines Accessory Use as a singular use on a property for each type listed. Section 179-19, Suburban Residential, allows garage as an accessory use. It also allows private boat storage and storage shed. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law 1. Benefit to applicant: Applicant would be able to store equipment and belongings inside rather than outside. 2. Feasible alternatives: A smaller structure, not intended for storage of automobiles, could accomplish much of the applicant's goal and be in compliance with the ordinance. Increasing the size of the attached garage (currently planned at 440 s.f.) to accommodate some of the items needing storage is a possibility. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The applicant plans to build a 20 x 22 (440 s.f.) attached garage. The proposed second garage would mean that the allowed garage size is exceeded by 440 square feet. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: No public comment has been received to date. This is a rural setting, where a storage building may fit in better than in more densely settled areas. The eventual construction of a residence on the adjoining lot should be taken into consideration in this situation. 5. Is this difficulty self-created?: The desire for a second garage is self-created than anything having to do with the ordinance. Staff Comments and Concerns: If this variance is approved, the height of the structure should be limited, so as not to impact the view of the neighbors, both existing and future. SEQR: Unlisted. Short form EAF must be reviewed." ~1P. THO'1I~S^W"At a meetin9 of tr"le I;Jarr,sn County Planning BoarcJ, held on the 12th day of April 1995, the above application for an Area Variance to construct a 900 sq. ft. two car garage. was reviewed, and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact" Signed by C. Powell South, Vice Chairperson MR. CARVIN-Okay. Mr. Bardin. MR. BARDIN-The only thing I might add to my application is that, I recently received a permit to build a home on this property. If I'm going to invest a great deal of money in it, the last thing I would wish to do is to anything that would deter from the value of my property or my neighbors. I think this building, as my application states, will allow, is in keeping with the design of the home I propose to build. It will not detract from the neighbors or the neighbors property, and I have a plan of the garage here if anyone would like to look at it. MR. MENTER-The house is board and batten also? MR. BARDIN-No, cedar clapboards. I may channel rustic, but it'll be a wood sided color, in keeping. well change this to structure, the same MR. CARVIN-Is this going to be a second floor, is it? MR. BARDIN-A storage area, storage loft. - 26 - "- -./ MR. CARVIN-Okay. How big of a storage area, storage loft? MR. BARDIN-It's a, there's a knee wall in here. So it's some seven feet tall by eight or ten feet wide. This bay is slightly longer than this to accommodate my boat on a trailer at some 35 feet long, thirty-three feet with a trailer. This area is for a lawn tractor, that type of thing. MR. RODRIGUEZ-Is this like the size of a regular garage, two car gar age? MR. BARDIN-Well, yes, basically. It's two bays. This bay protrudes a little more than this across the building. MR. MENTER-Yes, actually 900 is a bit larger than a typical two car. MS. CIPPERLY-Two car is about 750. MR. BARDIN-I don't view it as another garage, because the garage, the house that I am building is underneath (lost word) the house. It's not as if it was a separate. MR. MENTER-But you're going to use that one under the, is it a raised ranch type of house, a colonial? MR. BARDIN-No. It's a two story, but it's, there's bedrooms over the top of the garage. MR. MENTER-And that's going to be for your automobiles? MR. BARDIN-Yes. The other garage is part of the house footprint, on U",e side. JUANITA RODRIGUEZ MRS. RODRIGUEZ-It would be connected to the home, the other garage? MR. BAF<DIN-The other garage is, there's bedrooms over it, and it's actually part of the footprint of the house. MR. RODRIGUEZ-How far is this from this here? MR. CARVIN-These are different views. MR. BARDIN-The architect only put siding on the front view. The roofing is a dark brown. MR. MARESCO-How far is it from the house? MR. BARDIN-Probably about 100 feet. I'm also a little confused with the variance numbers there. As I understand it, maybe if I called this a storage barn and left out the word garage, I wouldn't need to be here. MR. CARVIN-Except that then you'd have another can of worms. MRS. RODRIGUEZ-Well, we have restrictions in here. MR. CARVIN-Okay. These are deed restrictions? MRS. RODRIGUEZ-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Is this an approved subdivision? MRS. RODRIGUEZ-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, that throws a whole other curve. Do you ha\,le )"estrictive covenants in 'ì'our deed? - 27 - '- MRS. RODRIGUEZ-This garage, will it be visible from the outside? Will it be like an eyesore? MR. BARDIN-No. I don't view it that way, nor anything to detract from my property or detracting from mine. do I vJÜ::h to ,!"ours, ~",hich eJ() 1 ~:; MR. RODRIGUEZ-This is going to be on the side of the house, right, or toward the back? MR. BARDIN-It's toward the back. This is the road, and I propose to build the garage back down here. There's a big pine tree right behind where I cleared, and to keep it down here, back out of t.he v¡ay. MR. RODRIGUEZ-Would you have a separate driveway right there? MR. BARDIN-Well, here is going to turnaround right another building feet. I ~",oulcl e)(tend it. V<'3)")' ~'31.i.ghtl',/. Thi~'3 c!ì"ivCHi3)' come in to the home this way, and with the here, regardless of whether I build a garage, or not, so I would extend it some 25 feet, 30 MS. CIPPERLY-The side yard shall equal 30 feet or more with a 10 foot minimum, but the deed restrictions require 20. MR. MENTER-Well, he's got 20, right? He's got 20 on the side. MR. BARDIN-Yes, I've got 20. ~1R. THOI'1(:1S-·Yes;. MR. MENTER-What do you have there, Mr. Carvin? MR. CARVIN-Well, it just says that, I guess the key one is, okay, no structure, other than a single family dwelling house, not more t.han two and one half st.ories high, with a garage, for use in connection therewith, shall be constructed or maintained on said premises, except that a tool shed, not exceeding 200 square feet in size, shall be permitted. Are you familiar with these deed restrictions or these covenants? MR. BARDIN-Yes. I sent these proposals in to the realtor when I bought the property, and she didn't find any problem with it. MR. CARVIN-These are covenants to the subdivision. MR. BARDIN-Right. Well, she's from the same. She owns it. r-1P. C¡6¡F<VH~··It just sa)/s no stnJcture otheLthan. MR. BARDIN-Another Hay to view this is I could easily call the garage to my home a family room and have this building. MR. CARVIN-Yes, you could connect it to the house. MR. BARDIN-Because the house to the garage that I propose to build is underneath the house. MP. MENTER-You certainly could. One of the things that we've <sort of, ''/ou can ~3ee t.hat the)"e's some clifficult interpreti.3.tie,n involved here, based on what we have to work with, and one of the things t.hat we've looked at, or considered, is the things li whether or not there's garage doors on there, I mean, you could say it's a family room that you park your car in. MR. BARDIN-I don't mean to deceive anybody. MR. MENTER-No. I understand what you're, and there is a certain amount of, I don't want to say semantics, but judgement that's - 28 - --- -..-/ involved. So, yes, you're right. You could do that. MR. BAF<DIN-No, I only meant exactly the same home, designed slightly different. MR. MENTER-Right. MR. BARDIN-It can still be within the deed restrictions by building a garage. MR. CARVIN-I have also, I think it says, no trailers, tents, boats, recreational vehicles or commercially licensed vehicles or any unlicensed vehicles are to be stored or left outside of the garage at any time, except for temporary, two weeks maximum, transient purposes. MR. BARDIN-That's why I don't leave my boat outside, if I can help it. MR. CARVIN-It says stored, too. MS. CIPPERlY-Stored outside. MR. CARVIN-Or left out, stored or. MR. BARDIN-Well, nobody can tell you what you can put in your 9¿H a<;:Je . MR. MARESCO-They are telling you that, though. MR. CARVIN-These are covenants that you've apparently agreed to. r mean, that's what all of these folks do. MR. MARESCO-That's exactly what they're telling you. MR. BARDIN-I think there might be another way to interpret that. MR. CARVIN-Unfortunately, it's not our position to interpret that. These are restrictive covenants that you signed. MR. BARDIN-Does it say stored, period, or stored inside? MR. CARVIN-It says, stored. I mean, i nte,"p,"etation, QL left outside. No recreational vehicles or commercially unlicensed vehicles are to be stored or you know, again, it's an trailers, tents, boats, licensed vehicles or any left outside. MR. MENTER-They can't be stored outside or left outside, is how ¡ would interpret it. MR. GREEN-Stored or left outside. I think that's what they're saying is they want to make sure that those types of things are inside, not outside around the area. MR. CARVIN-Except purposes. for temporary, for other than transient MR. BARDIN-Bottom line, I don't want a picnic table stood up against pine trees and lawn furniture stacked against pine trees and I'm endeavoring to spend a lot of money to improve the value of my property, and hence my neighbors', keep a neat looking appearance. r could build a lot cheaper building, but I don't wish to. MR. CARVIN-Well, it says enforcement of these covenants shall be by proceedings in law or in equity by an owner or owners of said lots against any person or persons violating or attempting to violate any covenant, and maybe to restrain the violation or to recover damages. I think that's a pretty powerful one right there. I mean, you could have some of the other folks, I think, - 29 - probably take legal action against you. MR. MENTER-I"Jell, IrJe can't really address that, other than '" <c ç~. ...... ;3cl\/ ic:e .. ~1R. C(iRVH~-!"'Jell, I know. Tha,t 's l'Jhat Lrrr sa'y'i ng . I mea n, (",;e ca. n grant all the varlances in the world, and you still could be sued, that's the problem with restrictive covenants. MR. GREEN-You mentioned that you had spoken to someone about the separate building? MR. BARDIN-Yes, Mary Sue Raynor put the subdivision in, sold me the lot, reviewed my plans, and interpreted that, as long as I didn't have two separate garages, now this is her interpretation, she's the one that wrote the restrictions. Bill Nikas further reviewed them, before I bought the land, and it was Mary Sue's interpretation that, as long as I didn't have two separate garages, two buildings, that was her intent. MR. GREEN-But isn't that exactly what you're doing? ~1R. BARDIN""I"~o. It's not two separate buildings, two separate D(3.rage~:,; " ~1R. GREEt-',1-"0 kaì' . }l " 1 I - - t C'(3., ln9 :, "as JUs.. So you're not calling strictly storage? this a garage? You 'rc~ ~m. B(iF<DIN-Yes. /VIr?" GREEN--O k,ay . MR. THOMAS-Yes, but it says there in that restriction, no storage of more than 200 square feet. MR. CARVIN-No storage shed beyond 200 square feet. MR. THOMAS-And you can't call it a garage. MS. CIPPERLY-Have you considered increasing the size of the garage on your house? MR. MARESCO-That means redesigning the whole house then, right? MR. BARDIN-I could do that, but it would really detract from the overall appearance of the property. I mean, it would (lost word). I could accomplish what I want to do, but it would not benefit the overall appearance of the property. I guess maybe I ought to take some legal action on my own, but as far as what's before the Board here, t.his should not concern the Board. MR. C0if?'v'IN"'Well .it has to concern the BoaHL MR. BARDIN-How can it? I mean, I'm only asking, aren't they two separate and distinct issues? MR. CARVIN-Yes. I guess we could move on the variance, but I think the bigger issue, I mean, I think Dave was starting to allude to, what we've always looked at this, I just have some problems, over and above the covenants. MR. MENTER-Yes. I think you're right, Mike, in that they are two different issues, the covenants versus our variance. All we can do is, we looked at it and said, well, this could be interpreted to give you some big problems, even if we approve it. So that's a separate issue. MR. BARDIN-It might be good advice for me to seek an amendment, somehow, there. I don't know. - 30 - ~ ----,' MR. THOMAS-I wonder what Paul Dusek would say about this? MR. CARVIN-I've talked to Paul about this, and I don't remember, I know that this gets to be a real sticky wicket with covenants. MR. MENTER-Relative to OUì" proceedin9s;? MR. CARVIN-Well, it could involve the Town. MR. THOMAS-I would be in favor of tabling it until we got a decision from Paul Dusek, before we went any farther, because we could get ourselves into a hummer on this one. MR. CARVIN-Yes, because we've got an awful lot of other thin9s here. MR. MENTER-I would think that, there's other issues here, yes, but I would think that that could be taken care of with a simple statement to the effect that, relating to that in the motion, whatever the motion was. In other words, if we went through this, and if we approved something, if we just made reference to the covenants, sayin9 that the Town approves this, but it doesn't. MR. CARVIN-Well, I think you run into a legal complication in that if, you know, who takes precedent? Do covenants take precedent or does Town Ordinance take precedent? MR. MENTER-You may be right, because I don't know the answer. MR. CARVIN-I mean, it's pretty specific in here that this covenant almost precludes this particular project, as it's outlined to us. So even if we grant the okay on this, I mean, they could still sue him, and us, because this, especially if we were aware of this. If we weren't aware of it, that's something else.. MS. CIPPERLY-I remember speaking with Paul Dusek about this before, and I'm not clear exactly on, it was with the other garage on Country Club, and I wouldn't want to quote him, because I probably wouldn't do it correctly, but if you want to table it and get a. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I think I would be more apt to table this and get a much clearer idea of what we're dealing with here with these restrictive covenants, and especially I know what our positi.on, or at least what fll.L. position has been on these types of structures, in the past. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. His statement had something to do with the effect that we have, it's assumed that an application before us is legally correct. MR. CARVIN-Yes. MR. RODRIGUEZ-I guess Sue Raynor told him that that was okay, the lady who drew up these covenants, and we're the only one, so far, well, these people over here, whoever owns the house in front of here. The people across the way there, there's a house there. MRS. RODRIGUEZ-Which house? The house that Mr. Bardin is in. MR. BARDIN-I live there now. MR. CARVIN-I mean, they could void this, any variance, I mean, ri9ht there, material misrepresentation, any permit or approved, granted under this Chapter which is based upon or granted in reliance upon any material misrepresentation or failure to make material fact or circumstances known, by on behalf the applicant shall be void. So, I mean, even if we moved on this, and they - 31 - came in three weeks later and said, we've got covenants, I think it would void this whole aspect. ~m. ~1Ei"HER~Yes. t. ha t. . I think for your own benefit we'd have to do MR. BAF<DIN-50 then you're protected. If you move on independent of any of this, you still are protected. So we resolve this. U"¡is, C()U 1 c: MR. MENTER-No, no, no. I'm saying that I don't think we can, and this specifically states that any variance that we may grant may be voided out.. MR. CARVIN-If there is material misrepresentation or the fact were not made known, or circumst.ances made known. So lets say we didn't know about this. All right, and we went ahead and granted this particular variance. These folks came in and showed us this, it would 1 believe, make any variance we granted null and void, and I want to make sure that that interpretation is sound before I would really want t.o move ahead. MR. BARDIN-I see your point. MR. CARVIN-Don't. you think, Chris? MR. THOMAS-Definitely. I wouldn't do anything with this until I talked to Paul Dusek, and had something in writing from him. MR. CAR\/H-,j- I thi n k what I would like to do is get a copy of the~~e restrictive covenants, if possible. Are these, indeed, the same rest.rictive covenants? I mean, I'm assuming that. they all are all the same. Is there any way that we can get a copy of this fOì" the record? MS. CIPPERLY-Well, what I can do is, if I could have that, and copy it and get it back to you. MR. THOMAS-Aren't they in the site plan, when the Planning Board did site plan? Aren't they in there? MRS. RODRIGUEZ-I trust her. I know her. MR. CARVIN-Yes, so I can show the Town Attorney. MS. CIPPERLY-This doesn't go up to site plan. MR. THOMAS-No, I mean, when the subdivision was granted, in Wasn't there, wouldn't t.hat be in the folder? 1 Q()') ;/ ;¡~ ~ MS. CIPPERLY-That's true. We would have a copy of them. MR. CARVIN-Yes, but if responsibility to make sure you were willing she gets it back, I t.o take mi,3an. on the MS. CIPPERLY-Okay. MRS. RODRIGUEZ-May I say something? MR. CARVIN-Yes. Would you just identify yourself for the record. I haven't opened the public hearing, but now's a good time. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JUANITA RODRIGUEZ MRS. RODRIGUEZ-I am Juanita Rodriguez. We own the lot that lS close to Mr. Bardin, and the only really issue that I'm very, very much concerned, lS lets say we know that you will be building a lovely home and that will not affect our home, when we - 32 - ""'-' ---" built ours. As it was mentioned, you mentioned to us that Mary Sue Raynor said or agreed with your plans that you presented to her at that point, but my main concern is, lets say we agree, also, with you, that you will go ahead and do something like this and it will be kind of like an adjustment. I don't know how the adjustment will be made, because of the covenants, but lets say another person buys one of the lots that are still open for sale and comes and wants to do something that will really change completely our neighborhood, that you and I know that it will be a very good area to live in, and we will have a lot of money invested in our homes. Lets say someone else will come and would like to do something a little bit differently, but another building, because each lot is one acre or some of them are more than an acre, because v~e ha\le more. That's really IllL. mai n concern, what is our protection, your protection and my protection. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Let me just kind of address that. I mean, your restrictive covenants are your protection, because we bought a lot with this understanding that anybody who buys in this particular subdivision will live by these rules. Once you change these rules, you change it for everyone in that subdivision, and there is a mechanism that that can be accomplished. In other words, if you get all the folks, and I'm sure that this gentleman will pursue that, and again, I don't know how many lots or people there are in there, but you, as the homeowners or homeowners association or what have you, have the right to amend these, but once they're amended, they're amended for everyone that comes in afterwards, and that's why you have restrictive covenants in your deeds, because you want to live in a certain type of community, and you want to have a certain type of look. So, in essence, what you are doing is self-zoning your particular community. Now your covenants may be more strict or stricter than what the Town Ordinances are, or the)' may be less strict, and again, that's where we get a little bit muddy, because we require 30 feet, a 30 foot setback?' MR. MENTER-Twenty. MR. CARVIN-Twenty?, All right. Well, then they agree there, but there may be instances where your setbacks are more restrictive than ours. So, I really don't have an answer for you which one take~~ p~-iority. MR. RODRIGUEZ-In other words, if he builds it, then everybody else can do the same. "'1f~. CAF<\IIt~-W·,d I, that's IrJhat J' m saying. I mea n, IrJhat I'm saying is that where the Town gets into a pickle is that we probably could move on this and grant an application and he could build it, but you would probably be pretty much in your rights to sue him and force him to tear it down, and I don't have an answer for you on that. In an extreme case, I think that could be entirely possible. So I think what ~ would like to do is get a copy of these restrictive covenants and bring this whole issue before our Town Attorney, at least to find out what our position might or might not be in this particular situation before we move ahead. MR. GREEN-Would some sort of statement to the realtor, from the realtor, amending this, is that possible? MR. CARVIN-No. It has to be by the homeowners association. MR. GREEN-Well, okay, whoever is in Is that a feasible alternative?' I tend to disagree IrJlth that. charge of those covenants. mean, these two people here MR. CARVIN-I'm Just saying that I think there's enough headaches here that I would really want to proceed slow. - 33 - -- '-- MR. MENTER-Yes. I agree with that. MR. CARVIN-Because I think this whole garage lssue, because we have a situation where we really allow only 900 square feet in a garage, and if you build a house, at least the Board's position in the past is that we have not supported or condoned these types of situations. These are totally self-created situations. MR. BARDIN-I guess I'll be getting a family room and attached garage instead, then. MR. CARVIN-In all fairness to you, because real challenges just looking at this. compounds it. I mean, that's Ol.'i. position on I k nOIrJ, I I mean, . .... 1 '- . have this som,s just. MR. BARDIN-Yes. I understand everyone's point of view. There's other ways I can do this. MR. CARVIN-I guess we stand at the crossroads. You can either withdraw your application and go back to Square One. We can table it for further information, until probably some time in May or June, depending on scheduling, until we can get some additional information. If you wanted to come back, that would give you some time to maybe revise. Any other alternatives you can t.hink of'? ~1R . n· 0 ~1 ¡t.,s ·,,1'-1 0 . pnx;eedi ng wi th Hf) it. can withdraw it, table it. That's out of the question. It's no u:::;e ~1R . C{iRVIN·-I"'10. I don't t.hink proceeding with it 1· <" ~, .. MR. THOMAS-No. Those are the two right there, who are my choIce. MS. CIPPERLY-Tabling it maintains both of those options. He can always withdraw it. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I think tabling it probably would be, and then if you want.ed to pursue other venues or come up with other suggestions or ideas, you might want to sit down and find out what you can and can't do with these covenants, because I think th'2)~',;;e are pretty clear, a~> faT as I'm conc·srned. I think it':,": your ice, I mean, if you want to go out on it, but you would be well served to make sure you have a pretty legal. MR. BARDIN-Am I to understand that 900 square feet is the allowable garage size'? MR. CARVIN-That's correct. MR. BARDIN-Okay. Well, there's another way I can do this, then, I think. So I'll take your advice and table this, and work through the Planning Board on a design d"lange. MR. MENTER-And if you do want to do that, you don't need a variance. You can just withdraw it, at that point, if it doesn't work out. If he tables it right now, he always has t.he option of coming in and we can finish up on this proposal and here it, once we find out about the covenant, and if he wants to withdraw it, he can withdraw it. That gives you the option. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I would move that we table Area Variance No. 16 1995, Mike Bardin. M01JON TO TABLE Introduced by Fred Chr i~> Thomas: AREA VARIANCE NO. Carvin who moved for 16-1995 MIKE BARDIN, its adoption, seconded by To allow the applicant an opportunity to pursue other alt.ernatives, and for this Board to seek legal counsel with regard to restrictive covenants in relation to this particular - 34 - --- -...-/ subdivision. Duly adopted this 19th day of April, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Maresco, Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Car\.li n !\IOES: !\lONE ABSENT: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford MR. CARVIN-I probably should have told you. We have a 60 tabling limit. So you have 60 days to get back to Otherwise, the application is automatically removed from agenda. Okay. So if you have any question on the timing, contact the Planning staff office and they'll be more than to work with you on that. Okay. Good. Thank you. cta)/ us. t.he just, glad AREA VARIANCE NO. 17-1995 TYPE II HC-1A JEFFREY SCHWARTZ OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ROUTE 9, (LAMIRAGE HAIR DESIGN) ACROSS FROM GLEN DRIVE-IN THEATER APPLICANT SEEKS TO CONSTRUCT AN 1,144 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO THE SOUTH SIDE OF AN EXISTING BUILDING, AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM SECTION 179-28, TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE, WHICH REQUIRES A 75 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE EDGE OF THE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 4/12/95 TAX MAP NO. 69- 1-20 LOT SIZE: 37,400 SQ. FT. SECTION 179-28 JEFFREY SCHWARTZ, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 17-1995, Jeffrey Schwartz, Meeting Date: April 19, 1995 "Project location: Route 9 Proposed action: Applicant seeks to construct a 1,144 square foot addition to the south side of an existing building. Conformance with the Ordinance: Section 179-28, Travel Corridor Overlay Zone, requires a 75-foot setback from the edge of the road right-of-way. The existing building is shown to be 50 feet from the edge of the right-of-way, and the applicant would like to line the addition up with the existing building. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law 1. Benefit to applicant: The applicant states that there would be financial savings and it would fit t.he site better if the addition were constructed as proposed. 2. Feasible alternatives: The amount of relief required could be decreased by decreasing the size of the addition, moving the front wall back a few feet. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance? The relief sought is 33% of the requirement. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: It does not appear that there would be an adverse effect on the community. Existing one-way traffic flow through the site appears to work well, and should be maintained. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The 50-foot setback of the original building was established by a previous zoning ordinance. Staff Comments and Concerns: No further comment. This project will undergo Site Plan review by the Planning Board if the variance is approved. SEQR: Type II, no further action required." MR. THOMAS-"At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 12th day of April 1995, the above application for an Area Variance to construct a 1144 sq. ft. addition to hair salon business which will include suntanning, hot wax hair removal and body building. was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact" Signed by C. Powell South, Vice Chairperson. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Mr. Schwartz, is there anything that you'd care to add? - 35 - MR. SCHWARTZ-I think it's pretty much all been said, unless you want to see a plan with the building. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any questions, gentlemen? MR. MENTER-Are you going to be expanding the services that you provide here? Because I noticed a couple of things. MR. SCHWARTZ-Yes. They're going to have the suntanning booths, the rooms for hot wax hair removal, and they're going to have a basement with body building. MR. MENTER-Basement? MR. SCHWARTZ-Yes. MR. MENTER-Okay. Does the existing? MR. SCHWARTZ-No. MR. MENTER-So there's going to be a full basement in the new 2~ection? MR. SCHWARTZ-Yes. MR. MENTER-Yes. I would like to see the plans. MR. SCHWARTZ-These three rooms and these two rooms are going to be suntannIng. These are the hot wax hair removal. MR. MARESCO-This is upstairs, now? MR. SCHWARTZ-Yes, main floor, and then downstairs is going to be, it's all open. The next page you'll see it's just an open room, and there's going to be just body building down there. r"IR THO¡V!f'iS'-Wha t , t.he a)"ea )" ight. in here? " ~~; I'm . SCf,I,.JARTZ -0 ka y . That '8 going t.o be 'retail area, MR. MENTER-This'll be the new entrance? MR. SCHWARTZ-Yes. There's an entrance right, actually, this is all coming out. This is where the three windows and t.he entrance, there's t.he door, and I guess the retail, right here there is, hair drying is going to move down to here, and there was retail here before. It's going to move over to this way, and here's the existing bathrooms right there. MR. MENTER-This is the basement? MR. SCHWARTZ-Yes. It's all open, finished basement. It's going to be carpeted. MR. CARVIN-Is this a 50 percent expansion, by any chance? What's the percentage on this? MR. SCHWARTZ-Yes. 2288. Now we're at The main floor's, 1144. the original building :L::ò MR. THOMAS-2288, 1144. Exactly 50 percent. MS. CIPPERLY-Does that include the basement? MR. MENTER-No, that's first floor only. Right? MR. SCHWARTZ-That's just the structure, doesn't include the basement. MR. MENTER-So actually it will be increasing by 100%. - 36 - '--'" '-./ MR. MARESCO-Close to it. MR. SCHWARTZ-Is the basement considered? MR. CARVIN-That's a bone of contention. MR. MENTER-I think it goes to use, you know. MR. THOMAS-Do you want to ask Mr. Godnick? MR. CARVIt\·~Yes. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, I think it relates to gross floor area. MR. SCHWARTZ-It's going to look the same, the three windows there and the door. MR. CARVIN-Well, what do you think, Sue? MS. CIPPERLY-Well, I'm looking up to see whether you can have the weightlifting thing in a Highway Commercial zone, because it's the first I've heard of using the. MR. MENTER-Are you looking for weightlifting as a use? MR. CARVIN-I don't think you'll find it. MR. MENTER-As an allowed use, body building. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, I'm looking for any kind of a. I'm. MENTEF~·-IrJhat zone Üs it in? MS. CIPPERLY-It's in Highway Commercial. MR. CARVIN-They've got it on the application, body building. MR. MENTER-No, but what zone is body building in? in theì"e. I doubt it's MR. CARVn~"Yes. Yes, I don't think it is either. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but something close to right along in there, because there athletic club. There is a definition. Commercial, 179-23. it, like athletic club, is one in there for an That's athletic. Highway MS. CIPPERLY-It also includes all the Plaza Commercial, but it's listed Commercial includes everything that's lists sports equipment store. uses in 179-22, which is as including, Highway in Plaza Commercial. It MR. CARVIN-I think we're going to be splitting, if you pardon the pun, hairs on this one. MR. MENTER-Yes. I agree. I think it's kind of a stretch. mean, you can't list everything. I would interpret that as falling into, maybe we have to define what we interpret it falling into. I ""'.:.... .:;:J....:> MS. CIPPERLY-That's what I was trying to figure out. MR. CARVIN-Well, he's going and there's going to be a ~3toì"e . to ha\le spar t.s store. So it's equipment a sports in there, equipment MR. MENTER-Well, barber/beauty shop. beauty shop, personally. I think it falls under MR. THOMAS-Well, in 123, over there in Section, Type I, or Type - 37 - --- II B7, Recreation Facility operated for profit. faCl11t'l. Health relat MS. CIPPERLY-Where is that? MR. THOMAS-179, under Type II. Page 17979. MR. CARVIN-Recreational facility. MR. THOMAS-Hospital, nursing home and health related facility. MS. CIPPERLY-Okay. Recreation facility operated for profit. MR. CARVIN-That's definitely health related. i'1R. THOI'1AS·,Yes. MS. CIPPERLY-I'm satisfied with that Recreation facility. MR. THOMAS-How about a social club or fraternal organization? MR. CARVIN-I don't t.hink so. MR. THOMAS-Yes. I t.hink he fits in there for the Planning Board. MS. CIPPERLY-Have you spoken to the Building Department about '¡lOU)" plans? MR. SCHWARTZ-Yes. They've looked at them. MS. CIPPERLY-And the downstairs is okay with them, you have exits ,'.::¡nd all, trwt? MR. SCHWARTZ-Yes. They said it ~as fine. Mf?. MEt'-lTERIt 's just the one e::d,t. MR. CARVIN-Okay. expansion? I mean, Do IrJe it's have a problem with t.he all an approved use. ':>0 percent MR. SCHWARTZ-Okay. Yes. In fact, I talked to him about that. MR. CARVIN-I'd be more concerned about the 50 percent than the actual u~:;e. MR. SCHWARTZ-I guess, in the Code, there was something long as it's open area to get to the. that, -) ,~'., ':J. ,;.:~, MR. MENTER-Here there's not. There's only one exit. MR. SCHWARTZ-Yes. That's what it was referring to the basement. Because we discussed that with Dave Hatin. As long as there was no, it went right up, I don't know exactly what was said, but the idea was that it went up and went out the door, and it was ~:3t)" a i 9ht awa-..,"'. MR. THOMAS-179-78. i'1R. Cf~RVIN··t"'10nconforming, right? This lS a conforming, t halL;:) i'¡ , )' ,i;¡ht? MS. CIPPERLY-No, it actually isn't because it's 50 feet from the ì'~ ()E~C! " MR. THOMAS-Yes. That's because of conformance with the old Ordinance not conformin9 now. the old Ordinance. It was in when it was built, but it's MS. CIPPERLY-But that 50 percent appears to apply to residential. - 38 - --..' ---...;j MR. CARVIN-I just they've expanded percent, but I'm nonconforming use b>/ Meads. know we've had some doctors in here before, and their business, and we've bumped into that 50 wondering if that was a nonconforming, in a zone. Remember the chiropractor's there, over MS. CIPPERLY-Yes, Bell. MR. CARVIN-I think that was an apartment or something, too, that they were expanding or something. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. They wanted to have an apartment in there and the doctor's office. 1'1R. CARVH~-Yes. MS. CIPPERLY-I think the expansion of the commercial under the site plan review, any expansion of a business requires site plan review. is covered commercial MR. MENTER-Yes, I'm pretty sure that's true. MS. CIPPERLY-It looks llke the 50 percent applies to the residential. MR. TI'-iOMr1S--Yes. MR. CARVIN-The expansion of any more of the threshold, yes, that it would require site plan review. existing use by 50 percent or becomes site plan. Okay. Then MR. MENTER-Yes, I think it automatically does, just being an expansion in commercial. MS. CIPPERLY-'Yes, any e::<pansion. MR. CARVIN-Okay. All right. this? Any other questions, anybody, on MR. THOMAS-What kind of body building equipment are you going to have? Is it nautilus machinery or free weights? MR. SCHWARTZ-I'm not sure because I'm not operating it. free weights, I think. I'm not, I don't think it's like or anything. I think it's free weights. His son, he operates right now next to Roxy Cleaners, in back there. I think nautilus actua II '/ MS. CIPPERLY-So you're leasing the space? MR. SCHWARTZ-Yes. I own the La Mirage. His son is t.he basement.. the building. Terry Collins operates going to be doing the body building in MR. MARESCO-How many businesses will you have there? MR. SCHWARTZ-Well, just one. I'm leasing it t.o one person. MR. MARESCO-That's considered one business? MR. CARVIN-It's going to be a department, I guess. It's going to still be La Mirage. MR. SCHWARTZ-Yes. MR. CARVIN-And I'm sure it's going to probably just maybe change their name, health and beauty facilities. MR. MARESCO-With weight lifting. MR. CARVIN-The parking has all been addressed. I mean, I don't - 39 - -" really see anything here. MR. THOMAS-No. I don't see any problem with this whatsoever. MR. CARVIN-I'll open up the public hearing, if there's no further questions. I'll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Gentlemen, anything else? MR. THOMAS-No. I'm all set. MR. CARVIN-All right. Hearing no additional comments 0)' questions, I would ask for a motion. MS. CIPPERLY-Could I ask a question? floor to date? Has it been used basement right now? Have you used this for business, or lS Im·HH it a MR. SCHWARTZ-It's a new building. MR. CARVIN-To be constructed. 1'1:,. CIPpa~L..Y"-I\lo. F:ight? You're expanding onto your existing building. MR. MENTER-It's a one story building right now. MR. SCHWARTZ-Okay. There's no basement right now. MS. CIPPERLY-Okay. MR. SCHWARTZ-There'll be a basement in the addition. MS. CIPPERLY-No, I was just wondering about the parking, the parking is based on square footage. MRM MENTER-Well, I noticed on the drawing that we got, it said rear parking, estimated 150 spaces. Are you talking about the g," ass ¿,'n- ea bac k? Î'1R. SCH~·Jf;RTZ"·Y'es. I guess if there wa,s an overflo~'J, I think there would be. but if there was, somebody could the dirt back there. don't pal" 1< (in MR. CARVIN-So they certainly have room for expansion if they need it. MS. CIPPERL..Y-Yes. That's something that the Planning Board will look at, if he can show that he has an overflow area. I was just trying to figure out what kind of square footage you were looking at. MR. CARVIN-I would doubt real seriously, you'd see a more lntense W3e ì-ight here. MR. MENTER-Regardless, it's going to be a site plan. MR. CARVIN-Yes, issue. MR. MENTER-I'll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 17-1995 Introduced by David Menter who moved for its by William G,-eon: JEFFREY SCHWARTZ, adoption, seconded - 40 - "-, ~ Applicant, Jeffrey Schwartz, who seeks to construct an 1144 square foot addition to the south side of an existing building on Route 9. Section 179-28 Travel Corridor Overlay Zone, requires a 75 foot setback from the right-of-way. Existing building is shown as a 50 foot, to have a 50 foot setback, and the applicant would like to line the addition up with the existing building at that 50 foot setback. It would appear that this is the best alternative to the applicant in order to expand the size of the business. It would appear that there would be no adverse effects on the neighborhood or community, as it is a Highway Commercial zone, and this use would fit in well with the surrounding area. The lot is situated such that it would not adversely affect the use of the lot, and it doesn't appear to be self-created, as the 50 foot setback of the original building was established in a previous Zoning Ordinance. At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board of April 12th, it was found that there was no County impact from this project, and I would move that this Board grant this relief. Duly adopted this 19th day of April, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Maresco, Mr. Green, Mr. C.'-J.r v in NOES: t\IONE ABSENT: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford MR. CARVIN-Okay. A couple of items before we adjourn, gentlemen. Number One, I would like, Sue, if you would make sure that Mr. Green gets all the pertinent information regarding the Hodgkins. I would strongly suggest or recommend, also, the minutes from the original application back in March, and any and all subsequent minutes with regard to the Hodgkins. Now, Bill, we will be probably hearing this particular application next month. As a new member, I'm going to leave it up to your discretion. You have the right, or the potential of reading and familiarizing yourself with the particular application. What I will do is I will ask you, next month, if you feel that you are familiar enough with that particular application, after reading all the minutes, to render an effective vote. If you feel that you are not familiar with it, at that point, I would ask you to abstain. If you feel comfortable that you are brought up to speed, then I have no problem with you, obviously, voting on that. They will provide you with all the background information, and certainly if you have any questions, you know, call me or any of the other Board members, and I'm sure we will try to answer any questions that you may have. MR. MENTER-Excuse me. Was the Cushing application, we heard that on the same night? That could be a different set of minutes, because he should probably have that, too. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I was going to say, and I would also include the Cushing, because they will, the garage situation there. So I would include those, and I hope you don't have anything for the next month or so, you know, to struggle through. It's going to be interesting. MR. GREEN-Actually, I was a little disappointed when I found out that it wasn't going to be on tonight's meeting. I was kind of looking forward to a little bit of excitement. MR. CARVIN-Don't worry. You'll get your chance. That's what I'm saYlng. Read all the material first. MR. GREEN-I read last month's minutes, and got a pretty good idea of it, and I had gone out and looked at the hole, the foundation that was there, but I still was a little bit lost. - 41 - MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, again, I think if you start right at t beginning and kind of work your way through, it might give you a little bit better feel. Also, Item Number Two, I am going to go into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing current developments with the Mooring Post lawsuit. So. therefore, I would move that we go into Executive Session. MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSING CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS WITH THE MOORING POST LAWSUIT, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: Duly adopted this 19th day of April, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Maresco, Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Car\/in ['WE'::;: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford MOTION TO COME OUT Carvin who moved for OF EXECUTIVE SESSION, Introduced by its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: FìNE:C:! Duly adopted this 19th day of April, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Maresco, Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Ca'(\/in j"'·10ES: 1"'~Ot"1E ABSENT: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Fred Carvin, Chairman - 42 -