Loading...
1996-03-20 o ORIGINAL () QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING MARCH 20, 1996 INDEX Area Variance No. 8-1996 Tax Map No. 36-1-31 David Kenny The Meeting Place Rest. 1. Use Variance No. 12-1996 Tax Map No. 109-4-2.1 Washington County, SPCA, Inc. 14. Area Variance No. 13-1996 Tax Map No. 66-1-5.1 Tuomo S. Nykanen 34. Julie N. Nykanen Area Variance No. 17-1996 Tax Map No. 16-1-32 Dr. & Mrs. Joseph G. Guerra 35. Ar ea Var i ance No. 14-1996 Tax Map No. 41-1-21.1, 21.2, 21.3, 25 Alfred E. & Mary E. Kristensen 42. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. \..-" -J (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 3/20/96) QUEENS BURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING MARCH 20, 1996 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT FRED CARVIN, CHAIRMAN CHRIS THOMAS, SECRETARY THOMAS FORD WILLIAM GREEN BONNIE LAPHAM MEMBERS ABSENT ROBERT KARPELES DAVID MENTER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN PLANNER-SUSAN CIPPERLY PLANNING BOARD ATTORNEY-MILLER, MANNIX AND PRATT, JEFF FRIEDLAND STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: READ PUBLIC HEARING LETTER FROM ROSETTI INTO RECORD REGARDING HEINEMAN VARIANCE FROM LAST MONTH. MR. THOMAS-I haven't got the letter. MR. CARVIN-George, is there something on that Old Business there from Rosetti, regarding the Heineman? MR. HILTON-It should It was read into the plan for that same Heineman variance. be in the box. There was a letter submitted. record before the Planning Board for the site item, a let t e r 0 fin t ere s t reg a r din g the MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, seeing as how that variance was tabled, we could, and I believe I left the public hearing open on that, we can take care of that at that time, when we, if we should ever see that again. MR. HILTON-Yes. It should be in that box. MR. THOMAS-It's not in there. MR. HILTON-Okay. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 8-1996 TYPE II HC-IA DAVID KENNY THE MEETING PLACE REST. OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE FRONT OF DAYS INN HOTEL, EAST SIDE OF NYS ROUTE 9, SOUTH OF ROUTE 149 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT AN 800 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO AN EXISTING RESTAURANT. THIS ADDITION REQUIRES RELIEF FROM THE DENSITY REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-23A, THE PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-23C AND THE STREET SETBACKS IN SECTION 179-23C (TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE). WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 3/13/96 TAX MAP NO. 36-1-31 LOT SIZE: 3.39 ACRES SECTION 179-23A, 179-23C MICHAEL O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT - 1 - (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 3/20/96) Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 8-1996, David Kenny The Meeting Place Rest., Meeting Date: March 20, 1996 "PROJECT LOCATION: Days Inn Hotel NYS Route 9 PROPOSED PROJECT AND CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE: The applicant is proposing to build a 800 square foot addition to an existing restaurant. This addition requires relief from the density requirements of Section 179-23A, the permeability requirements of Section 179-23C and the street setbacks in Section 179-28C (Travel Corridor Overlay Zone). The property currently has 60,000 square feet of building area on this lot. This is over the maximum allowed square footage of 56,644 for a lot of this size in the HC-IA zoning district. The proposed addition would further increase the total square footage on the property to a total of 60,800. As a result the permeability of the property which is currently at 25.6% would be decreased to 25.1%. The addition would also be located 55 feet from the Route 9 Right of Way instead of the required 75 feet. CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERING AN AREA VARIANCE, ACCORDING TO CHAPTER 267, TOWN LAW. I. BENEFIT TO THE APPLICANT: The applicant states that this would allow him to add on to an existing restaurant. 2. FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES: There does not seem to be any alternatives which could provide a lesser amount of relief from the Ordinance. 3. IS THIS RELIEF SUBSTANTIAL RELATIVE TO THE ORDINANCE?: The relief that is being sought would further increase the overall density of this lot, and decrease the permeability. The existing setback on Route 9 is 51 feet, the new addition would have a setback of 55 feet. 4. EFFECTS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR COMMUNITY?: Thi s addition would increase the density and decrease the permeability on this lot. The subject property's permeability and density already conflicts with the requirements of the HC-IA district. 5. IS THIS DIFFICULTY SELF-CREATED?: The existing nonconforming street setback was in place before the setback was changed to 75 feet in the Zoning Ordinance. Development of this property has created the permeability and density conflicts which exist today. PARCEL HISTORY: This hotel was built under Site Plan 31-87. An 800 square foot addition was approved in 1995. The most recent ZBA action for this property was the granting of setback relief for a ramp which was required by ADA regulations. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: Staff has concerns about increasing the density on this property. The density of the property at this time is well over what is allowed in the HC-IA district. The current permeability is under the 30% required by the Zoning Ordinance. Staff is concerned about reducing the permeability any further. SEQR: Type II, no further action required." MR. THOMAS-"At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, on the 13th day of March 1996, the above application for an Variance to construct an 800 sq. ft. addition to restaurant. reviewed, and the following action was taken. Recorrnnendation No County Impact" Signed by C. Powel South, Chairperson. held Area was to: MR. CARVIN-Okay. Dave, do you have a corrnnent? MR. MENTER-I'm going to abstain from voting on this issue. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. HILTON-Staff has some comment, for the record. Initially, figures that were provided indicated that the applicant would be reducing the permeability on site. After these corrnnents were prepared, the applicant's agent amended this information and in actuality, they aren't decreasing the permeability any. So the reduction of permeability isn't an issue. The density of the site, however, remains an issue. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Again, any questions of the applicant? MR. THOMAS-No. - 2 - '-- -...,/ (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 3/20/96) MR. CARVIN-Okay. I just have a question. When I was out there, it had appeared that this is green area here. Is this an accurate representation of what this lot looks like? MR. O'CONNOR-My understanding is it is an accurate reprèsentation. The pavement line, I don't know if it's clearly shown there. It's just behind where the restaurant bui Iding is, I'm told. Let me state for the record, I'm Michael O'Connor, from the firm of Little & O'Connor, and I appear here on behalf of the applicant. My understanding is that is a set aside area for potential parking area. It is not actually the paved parking area. When the site plan was done some time ago, that was shown as potential parking if necessary. MR. CARVIN-All right, because it appeared, when I was out there, that, although I don't think it was curbing, it did appear that there is no traffic flow this way. MR. O'CONNOR-It's not used. It's very seldom called upon. take a look at the parking in the back, you'll find there's in the back of the site also. If you excess MR. CARVIN-It seems to me there was a dumpster or something over in here. Are you familiar with this, George? In other words, this si te, I'm looking at this representation. When I was out on the site, this doesn't look like anything that l recognize. MR. HILTON-Well, no, I don't remember seeing a dumpster. I think that area is designed for overflow parking, that green space back there. MR. MENTER-Yes. There is a dumpster. MR. O'CONNOR-It is presently green space. MR. CARVIN-Yes. That's what I thought. It didn't look like, I mean, this kind of indicates that there is potential for traffic to flow around the building, but when I looked at it, there's no way that there's traffic that would go around it. MR. O'CONNOR-I don't believe that there is. They've done planting, probably more planting than what they had at one time, simply because they aren't using the parking, or at least there's not a demand on the business. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, I guess my question would be in regard to the permeability. Is it actually at 25 or 26, as it's currently stated, or is it actually much greater than that? MR. O'CONNOR-I can't honestly tell you, because I don't know how the figures were scaled. My recollection of my conversation with David Kenny was that all potential area of parking was included as being nonpermeable, with the idea that someday it may be actually developed as parking. I think our definition of permeable in the Ordinance includes parking areas, whether paved or not paved, as long as they're compacted, so that drainage is not as easy through them. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-I think Staff may have answered your question, though. The addition that is proposed is proposed in an area that is already paved. There was some misunderstanding in that, and it gets rather convoluted, but I can answer some of it, in the sense that in 1988, when the initial site plan was approved, there was more paving on the site then there presently is. Some time along the last few years, this area, which was at one time paved, was redesigned and became a green area. So if you look at the site - .3 - (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 3/20/96) from the site plan approval that was approved back in 1988, there's actually an increase in permeable area, and that was some initial discussion that David Kenny had with Staff, that apparently got some, I don't know everybody got off in not full understanding of what each other was saying. When 1 got involved, I asked, where is the decrease in permeability by the proposed action? The proposed action is the construction of this wing, if you will, of the restaurant, and the best 1 can tell is that there is no affect at all upon permeability. That's a paved area. If anything, I think Beautification suggested that on the outside of this, that there be a planting area of maybe two feet. So two feet the length of that proposed would be an additional increase of permeable area, and it calculates permeability. MR. CARVIN-Okay. This corridor here. What does this consist of? Is this just a long corridor to connect to the hotel, or is this? These are rooms in here? MR. O'CONNOR-These rooms are serviced from the outside. So this is fully motel. This is not a corridor. You would go outside the restaurant to get to the office area of the motel here, and if you had a room in this area, you would enter directly from the parking lot. They don't go both sides. They enter from the south side only. What you have, I think, is the 800 foot addition superimposed upon what was the 1988 mapping. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but those are all rooms then? MR. O'CONNOR-This is all rooms right through here. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions from anyone? I'll open up the public hearing. All right. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. CARVIN-Any letters, correspondence? MR. THOMAS-No. MR. CARVIN-All right. Any public conment at all? MR. O'CONNOR-I'd like to submit a letter from Mr. Kenny to the Board, just to give you a little bit of narrative idea as to exactly why he's making the request, rather than simply the numerical figure of saying it's 800 feet that he has or doesn't have. MR. CARVIN-Okay. then. Well, why don't you read that into the record, MR. THOMAS-A letter dated 3/16/96 "Dear Board Members, I am writing in reference to Area Variance No. 8-1996, required for the proposed 800 sq. ft. addition to the Meeting Place Restaurant. I am not able to be present at the March 20th meeting, as I have a prior commitment. I would like to express my reasons for this addition, and discuss the variance application. The addition is of great importance to the Days Inn Motel as well as the Meeting Place Restaurant. In addition, it will be an aesthetic improvement, giving the building a much more balanced appearance. Over the past few years the 'off the road' business in the motel has diminished greatly. In keeping with industry trends we have pursued the motor coach business, and in doing so, it has become evident to us that our seating capacity in the restaurant precludes us from being able to acconmodate certain groups. Each bus carries approximately 45 people, and occupies approximately 15 rooms in the motel. We currently can acconilllOdate 100 people in the restaurant which enables us to serve 2 busses. Tour operators have indicated to us that at 109 rooms the motel is adequate in size, but that our - 4 - -- ......, (Queens bury Zoning Board of Appeals 3/20/96) dining capacity limits the groups that they will consider bringing to our property, since it is important to these operators that groups are able to dine at one time. In addition to accommodating groups, the added seating will enable us to better serve our customers during peak periods when it's common, particularly in the morning, for motel guests to eat during the same one or two hour period. At the time the property was developed in 1988, there were no variances needed. The zoning has since changed, requiring us to apply for these variances. The proposed addition's front setback would certainly have no impact on the road or neighboring properties since it would actually be further from the road than the current building. Most buildings on this road have approximate setbacks of 50' because they preexisted the current 75' setback requirements. What makes the area unique is the difficulty that the increase in setback requirements has placed on each business owner looking to make any change to their business. With regard to permeability, the proposed project would effect only paved parking area, and would result in no change to permeability or green space. The current 30% requirement for permeability was changed from 20% after the 1988 site plan on this property. I currently have approx. 25% green space, and have increased green space by approx. 3,000 sq. ft. since the 1988 site plan was filed. The proposed density would also have a minimal impact. The code currently allows for 12,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area per acre for a single story building, or a total of 15,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area for a multi-story building in this zone. On this property a one story building of approximately 40,000 sq. ft. of land area would be allowed for general commercial use. Since a smaller percentage of property may be used for a two story bui lding, the density issue is not one of ground space use, but one of intensity of that use. The motel use is much less intense than many of the other allowed uses in this zone, as is shown by town parking requirements. As an example, approx. 165 parking spaces are required for the current motel, but for a similar size retail building (which would be subject to the same density requirements), approximately 300 spaces would be required. I truly believe that the intent of the zoning regulations adopted in 1988 was not to penalize and limit developments such as motels and other lower intensity commercial uses. Motels require only one car for 500 sq. ft. while retail requires about 2 times as much parking for the same square footage. I believe that the purpose for only allowing 15,000 total sq. ft. per acre with a two story building, is that for many allowed uses in this zone, there would not be sufficient space left on the parcel for the required parking. With the much less intense motel use, this is not an issue. There are no feasible alternatives to this proposal due to the configuration of the property, this solution would appear to have the least impact on the property and surrounding properties, as well as provide aesthetic benefits. Sincerely, David J. Kenny" MR. O'CONNOR-I would add just a couple of comments. We're talking about an 800 foot addition. It's my understanding that 270 feet of that is actually the kitchen for the existing restaurant and the balance is for seating. So that he can serve four buses, the make up of four buses, at one time, as opposed to what he presently serves, because of the change in the nature of the business, as opposed to being "off road" business, being more coach business, and trying to acconmlOdate what is apparently the direction of business. He really is probably not talking about attracting a lot more traffic or business to this site, but better servicing what is on the site, and that gets into his issue about maybe comparing him to other conm1ercial uses is not necessarily realistic here, because if he brings a bus in, you're talking about two, three spots, as opposed to the number of cars that may be this type of conm1ercial spot might have if it were retail, something of that nature. He's talking about doing the coach business, servicing the motel business that's there in the early morning, which is when people like to have, most of his off street business is done in the - 5 - (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 3/20/96) restaurant at lunch time, when much of the motel is vacant. So he is able to kind of swap the uses a little bit, and he services there a lot of people who are elsewhere occupied in that stretch of Route 9, who walk to that restaurant as being one of the few freestanding restaurants in that particular area. The impact on the community is very insignificant. All of which he has requested is created, not necessarily by his action, but by changes in the Ordinance. If he had built out to his maximum, when he built in 1988, he'd have been able to build a lot larger than this. At that time, we used a foundation measurement of the building. We didn't add to it, if there was two story. We treated two story the same as one story, and he didn't build out to the foundation limit at that time. The same thing with the permeability issue, or not the permeability issue, but the actual density of the building. He could have had a much bigger building. It's been a well run operation. I think you're going to see very minimum impact. You also have an approval by the Beautification Committee. So, aesthetically, they didn't have a problem with it. I don't know if you have any specific questions I could answer regarding this issue. MR. CARVIN-Let me close the public hearing. Is there anyone else wishing to be heard? If not, then I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Does the Board have any questions of the applicant? MR. GREEN-No. MR. FORD-We're going from two buses, potentially, to four? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. FORD-What's the projection, then, for number of people who could be served? Right now it's about 100. Are we looking at a couple of hundred, then, could be served simultaneously? MR. O'CONNOR-] believe you'd be talking 45 people per bus. MR. HILTON-If I may, I would just like to point out to the Board members that, presently, with the building area on site, they are 4,369 square feet over the maximum allowed density for the HC-1A district, that's before this application. If approved, the density would then be 5,169 square feet over the allowed, in the HC-1A zoning district. MS. CIPPERLY-I'd like to ask a question about, if you have four buses in there, where are they going to park? MR. O'CONNOR-I would presume they could park in the back parking area that's very seldom used by motel customers. The motel parking area was designed for off-road clientele. For the most part, when they have a good occupancy, it's not off-road clientele. It's motor coach clientele. One other point, maybe the Board's more familiar with this than I am. Part of this site was decreased at the request of the Town some time ago. I think about the same time the site plan review was done, Mr. Kenny deeded a strip of land along the northerly boundary of the property to a back land owner, with the idea that the Town was going to build a road back there and do something with the traffic. So he, in fact, decreased his property at the request of the then Town fathers. That never came to be. I'm not sure exactly why, because I think development of a 30 foot road to a potential subdivision back there that was not accepted, because they were then going to go through the County center, and that never materialized. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Not to interrupt you, but apparently we do not - 6 - -- ~ (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 3/20/96) have an agent form on file? MR. HILTON-We have one right here. MR . CAR V I N - You h a v eon e the r e ? Ok a y . All rig h t , I ad i e s and gentlemen, are there any other questions of the applicant. MRS. LAPHAM-To me, as long as the concern (lost words) low in density, but it's already on that property, and then we re adding to it. I'm not sure that there's any alternative. I mean his business is a major investment. MR. GREEN-Just doing some quick figuring, he's about eight percent over maximum density now. With the addition, he's going to go up to less than another additional percent to just over nine percent. I don't have a real problem with it. MR. FORD-Density is obviously the issue, or at least it is for me, and I'm just concerned that if we approve an increase to nine percent over the allowable, what is the potential for other owners in that already heavily impacted area to come in and say, but you gave this individual nine percent, in addition to what was allowed, and that's dangerous. MR. THOMAS-I don't have any problem with the addition. The green space I'm confused about. Is it 25? Is it 26? Is it 27? And other thing, since Mr. Kenny owns the parcel south of the Days Inn Motel, is there a possibility they could do a lot line adjustment to the south, to get the required square footage for their density and for their green space? MR. CAR V IN - 0 k a y , i sit tot h e sou t h , and who 0 w n s the 0 net 0 the north? MS. CIPPERLY-Isn't that owned jointly by Mr. Brock and Mr. Kenny? MR. O'CONNOR-As I understand it, the south is not the same ownership of the property, the property to the south or to the north is not the same ownership. They're separate entities, and not something that Mr. Kenny has control over. I would differ a little bit with you saying that you're approving nine percent. You're approving perhaps one percent. It already is the eight percent, and that was because of a change in Ordinance. It was not because of the action of the applicant. MR. FORD-Good point, as long as others don't feel that nine percent in addition to what is accepted. MR. o 'CONNOR-I mean, in 1988, and I don't know if there isn't some potential that maybe some day we're going to go back to 20 percent. We went back to 20 percent in shopping centers, and we did all of 30 percent throughout the Town, and they changed it back to 20 percent. MR. CARVIN-George, impact on parking? if this is approved, is that going to have any Are we going to need more parking spaces? MR. HILTON-Right now their parking with this addition would be sufficient. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and is that based on what we're looking at here, or what's actually out there? MR. HILTON-It's based on the plan that we have before us. MR. CARVIN-Here. I'm pretty confident that this plan that we have here is not what is out there. -- 7 - (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 3/20/96) MR. HILTON-The overflow parking was taken into consideration also, for that, for this request. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. FORD-Can we have Staff confirmation that when we talk about the permeability issue that apparently is a non issue in this, I just want to, I want confirmation of that, that in fact that took into consideration the green space that is currently there, or did it, was it based upon that as a paved area, anticipated this design, or what's the status? MR. HILTON-The existing conditions are such that we have building area and paved area. Green area is separate. The overflow parking is not counted as an area of green space, and presently we have a green area of 25.6% on site. MR. GREEN-So it's not pavement, it's counted as pavement, as far as your figures are concerned? MR. HILTON-As far as our figures are concerned, yes. MR. O'CONNOR-But that's a paved area that we're going to build on. MR. CARVIN-I guess that leads to me next question. When we look at the parking, does it just have to accommodate it, or does it have to actually be there? He can show here that he can have the parking, but does that mean that he has to have the parking? MS. CIPPERLY-That's a prerogative of the Planning Board, really. As long as you can show that you could provide that, if it became necessary in the future, you don't have to pave it right now. In fact, we'd rather not have it paved, if it's not needed. MR. CARVIN-I agree. MS. CIPPERLY- I would 1 ike to point out this 800 square foot addition that went on in 1995 probably should have had a variance, also, but we didn't catch that, because that also exceeded the density. MR. CARVIN-I'm glad you brought that up, because that was going to be my next question. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, what happened there was a terrace was put on. They came in and got the variance for the handicapped ramp, which had to go on the front, then built a terrace, which didn't even require site plan review, and then came in and enclosed the terrace, which did get site plan review, because it became interior s pac e, but s om e w her e i nth e pro c e s s, rea 11 y a va ria n c e for t hat other 800 square feet should have probably been sought. MR. O'CONNOR-Did they get a variance for closeness to the highway, because nobody raised the issue of density. MS. CI PPERL Y -They go t a var i ance for the hand i capped ramp, bu t nothing was ever done for this terrace. It was treated as a site plan modification. That was just last year. So you're actually talking 1600 square feet of additional, since the site plan was first approved. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So, in other words, the 60,000 square feet that you're indicating does not include the two additions, if I might? MR. HILTON-It includes one of the additions. MR. CARVIN-It includes one of the additions. Well, I don't know. What do you folks think? What do you want to do here? - 8 - '-- -- (Queensbury Zon'ng Board of Appeals 3/20/96) MR. THOMAS-To m , I think we ought to get all the figures straight here before we ake a decision. What about this 800 square foot addition that we didn't see, this permeability thing? Density? I mean, you know, Staff did this today, I guess. It's still not right. MR. CARVIN-I think I agree. What's everybody else feel? I don't know wh t I'm really looking at here. I mean, MR. HILTON-Well, we would be happy, if the applicant would provide us with some ac urate figures on density and parking, that's fine to us. We could work wi th it and present you wi th an accurate application. I MR. THOMAS-Yes'vbecause we need those figures in order to give the relief for the ariance. MR. O'CONNOR-I d n't know what the applicant has supplied the Board or the Staff th t's not accurate. I understand that there was a process of review for the 800 foot addition last year, and at that time, the appli ant was told that he could proceed by a site plan modification, a d that was all that was required. He did, I presume, get a uilding permit from the Town, and he did get an occupancy permit from the Town, and he went through the process. He went through he hoops. Why that is an issue this evening, I'm not sure. I also bring, and I'm sure the Board's aware that I think that this has to go to site plan review. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes, it does. MR. O'CONNOR-So the Planning Board is also going to look at the issue of parking, drainage and that type thing, but we can't even start that proce s, we can't even start that application, until we find out whethe or not a one percent differential here is that significant. If you could bring this to a conclusion tonight, I'd like to try and urge you to do that. MR. CARVIN-Do you still want more information? MR. THOMAS-I wa t to know if that 800 square foot from last year was added into these figures or not. I MR. HILTON-I addtd the initial addition, the one shown on the south side of the builring was added into those figures. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but there required for that extra? is a question whether a variance was mean, is that your question, too? MR. HILTON-It's y understanding that a variance was required that somehow was not ought. I MR. CARVIN-Okay, I well, again, then that kind of leads me to, do we have a legal str~cture or do we have an illegal structure? I MS. CIPPERLY-Le s put it this way, it went through site plan review. I don't know what the distance is to the road. I think it was an oversight on somebody's part. Well, it was sort of, when he came in for the handicapped ramp, he had to put it on the front because for some reason he couldn't use this side, and after the handicapped ramp got built, then the terrace went on, which didn't require review. I'm not sure that it got a building permit or not. I haven't looked at that. I don't know whether it meets the 75 feet. ' I I I MR. CARVIN-All r~ght. I think I'd like to refer this back to Staff until we get somr of these issues cleared up. I really do. - 9- ¡) '\ '~ '0 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 3/20/96) MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. addi t ion, which I that as an excuse, think you have an application. Chairman, if you're talking about the last was not part of, and I don't necessarily make but isn't that an enforcement issue? If you enforcement issue, it's not part of thi s MR. CARVIN-Well, it has a bearing on this application. MR. O'CONNOR-You're talking about an 800 square foot addition to a 60,000 square foot building. MR. CARVIN-Is it 60,000, or is it 59,200? MR. O'CONNOR-My calculation is at 58,400, and I would say it's a little less than what Staff has, and I didn't think, whether they said it was 60 or I said it was 58,400 was that substantial, initially. This is a building that has been built, managed in accordance with what they've been advised is proper. They're trying to get ready, before they get into their sunmler season, which is sometimes a problem there. You tell us what we've got to do. MR. CARVIN-Well, I guess I'd like to see a little bit more accurate figures here. MR. O'CONNOR-What is inaccurate? MR. CARVIN-Well, I don't know. I mean, if we've got permeability that's already at 30 percent, and we still can come up with parking in a different concept. I mean, how old is this? I mean I know it's a site plan thing. MR. O'CONNOR-We're not changing permeability. This addition is going where there's paving. You go up there, you look, you will see blacktop. MR. CARVIN-Well, I went up and I looked and I saw that this is all green area, too. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, where the yellow is, next to the building, where this is going. MR. CARVIN-But the point is that this is not a, as far as I'm concerned, an accurate reflection, and we don't even know if this is a legal addition. I mean, I realize it's on the other side, and I'm not saying that I'm opposed to this. MR. MENTER-Fred, wouldn't it be accurate to say that the determination was made, I guess, at the time, that there was not a variance required, therefore, it was built as applied for, and therefore it's legal? MR. CARVIN-Well, I'm not sure if that's accurate. I mean, there's the classic case of New York City. I mean, they keep saying how they built that extra five stories. It was built, and they made th~n tear it down. MR. O'CONNOR-That's overflow parking area, and that's, because you didn't see paving, you think that the calculations are incorrect. MR. CARVIN-Well, I don't know. MR. O'CONNOR-George has checked the calculations and said that he did not include that in the nonpermeable area, and that's a representation that we make to you. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, I'll leave it to the Board. Has anybody - 10 - I I I I I I (Queensbury Zon~ng Board of Appeals 3/20/96) got thoughts he:e? I mean, what are we going to do with this? Do you want to move it? If you want to move it, lets move it. If you want to table i and get more information, we'll table it. MRS. LAPHAM-All I have is that the area is aLready dense, and I'm not sure if you 'Ire applicant is adding to the problems, actually, if he is puttin the addition on area that is already paved, and the type of bu i nes s that he's engag i ng in is motor coach, as opposed to indi idual cars. There may actually be less traffic than a lot of ot er businesses along there. People will walk back and forth to the other outlets, which is where the congestion comes from. I I MR. CARVIN--Oka~. So your feeling is that this is not an unreasonable reluest? MRS. LAPHAM-Yes, I think I could say that. '-"' j -......I MR . CAR V I N -A 11 i g h t . around on this. Bill? Again, I don't want to keep going MR. GREEN-No. have to stick to my first decision here. First, I don't think we can really make the other side an issue here. It might be an en orcement issue, but if the other addition was incLuded in thel square footage, and our figures are apparently correct, accordiþg to George, I don't have a problem with it, with the figures as tlhey stand. MR. FORD-This addition from last year, I think, is an enforcement issue. Perhaps it should have been an issue before this Board at an appropriate t me, but it obviously was determined that it wasn't an issue at that time, and therefore didn't come before us. The only thing I'nl c ncerned with and continue to be concerned with is the increase in ensity. I'm trying to balance that with the good points that have been made about the current use as opposed to the potential use 0 the property, and trying to lure in additional coach lines and 0 forth. It continues to be an issue with me, but I guess I could 0 toward an approval. MR. THOMAS-Like II said before, I don't have any problem with the addition. What II do have a problem with is trying to formulate a motion to find Jut exactly what we're giving relief to or from, with the figures. So far, you know, I've heard about four different total square footages. Which one's right? I mean, we have to give relief. We should give relief on this one, but lets get the figures ight. MR. FORD-I agree with Chris on that. MS. CIPPERLY-Ano her point that we really haven't discussed is the front setback i sue. I was wondering if maybe, aside from the symmetry issue, ould this addition be pulled back a little bit and ma y b e w rap a r 0 u r d the cor n e r, ins tea d 0 f nee din g qui t e s 0 m u c h relief in the fr nt. MR. O'CONNOR-Isn't there a proposal under consideration to change that setback? This is a superimposed setback because of the nature of the highway t at passes there, and that's why you get into the request for relief, and isn't there a proposal before the land study comnlittee 0 change the setbacks in that area to 50 feet? MS. CIPPERLY-Not to my knowledge, but it could be, but we have to deal with what wþ have on the books right now. I I MR. O'CONNOR-I think there is. I mean, as far as impact. MR. CARVIN--Well, I again, I looked at that. I thought I might have a problem with i't originally until I went out and looked at it, because there is no really traffic through there, and it appears to -1 1 - (' r (Queens bury Zoning Board of Appeals 3/20/96) be blocked up in the front. I really don't see where that's going to be an issue. It looks like that there's a barrier on this side here, so that, I mean, the traffic, there is no connection from here over to the other side I as far as I can remember. So, I didn't have a problem with that. I looked at that and I thought that that was adequate. All right. Well, then I think Chris has got some valid points. I mean, what figure are we giving relief from or to? MR. GREEN-Could we possibly get George to just double check these figures tonight? MR. CARVIN-I don't know. That puts him under an awful lot of time constraint here. MR. HILTON-If I have a plan in front of me that has accurate square footages and parking counts, from the applicant, that makes my job that much easier to compute. If there's any question at all, you think you'd want to see a plan, and I would welcome a plan, actually, because then we would have a definitive answer, definitive number. If you feel that you want to see that, maybe the applicant can provide it to me, I'll be more than happy to figure it out. MR. THOMAS-Doesn't the applicant have to provide a plan for the Planning Board, for site plan? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Why can't we see the same one? MR. HILTON-You have the same one. MR. THOMAS-This is the one that they're going to use for the site plan for the Planning Board? MR. O'CONNOR-We think it's accurate, and we're wondering, why can't you just approve the 800 foot addition as shown on the plan, where located on the plan, subject to site plan approval. MR. GREEN-George, 61,021 square feet you're now? confident with the standing, current MR. HILTON-Yes, I am. MR. CARVIN-Well, make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 8-1996 DAVID KENNY THE MEETING PLACE REST., Introduced by William Green who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham: Applicant seeks to add a 720 square foot addition to the northerly side of an existing restaurant. The addition requires relief from density requirements of Section 179-23A, also Section 179-28C, Street Setback Section. The property currently has a total square footage of 61,012 square feet. The additional 720 square feet would bring that up to 61,732 square feet. The benefit to the applicant would be that it would allow him a greater restaurant business, due to the increased seating capacity of the additional restaurant space. There does not seem to be any feasible alternatives which could provide a lesser amount of relief from the Ordinance. The relief may seem substantial, since the existing building is already over the allowed maximum square footage, but this small increase of 720 feet on a 61,000 square foot building constitutes approximately one percent increase over what is there now. The front setback would be 55 feet, 20 feet off the 75 foot requirement. It does not appear that there would be any negative affect on the neighborhood - 12 - '-- - (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 3/20/96) and community. The difficulty is not self-created, due to the fact of the change in the Zoning Ordinance in 1988. It's a Type II Action, needing no further review. Duly adopted this 20th day of March, 1996, by the following vote: MR. FORD-I just have one additional question that's come to mind. MR. CAR V IN--Okay . MR. FORD-They appear symmetrical, but have different measurements. Could you address that? We're asking for approval of the 800 square feet, but on the map it refers to enclosing 720 square feet. MR. O'CONNOR-My notes in the conversation was 720 square feet, 270 square feet of ki tchen and 450 feet for seating. I don't understand, myself, the 800 feet, okay, but that's the way that everything has been framed. Part of this, I think, was that he came in thinking that he was going to complete a site plan modification, and like the environmental thing, people kept adding things that he should be requesting relief from. My understanding, my stipulation would be, and maybe this is the simplest way to do it. We are requesting to build, as shown, per scale, on the map that's submitted. I will verify, for the Board, exactly what that is. MR. FORD-So go by the map, as opposed to the application? MR. O'CONNOR-The map is part of the application. The map more clearly shows exactly what is permitted, that is symmetrical to the building. MR. FORD-But it appears synunetrical, but one side is 800. The other is 720. MR. O'CONNOR-One side wraps around the corner of the building. Is that what you're speaking of? The south side wraps around the corner of the front. MR. GREEN-The south side's a little bit longer. There's a jut off the bottom. MR. FORD-So are we being asked to approve 800 square feet, or 720 square feet? MR. O'CONNOR-720 square feet. It's enclosed 720 square feet. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Bill, do you want to amend your motion? MR. GREEN-Yes. I would amend that to 720 square foot addition, bringing the total up to 61,782 square feet. MR. FORD-I'd like to have Staff react to that, in as much as your calculations were based on 800 square feet. MR. HILTON-The applicant provided Staff with a sheet that indicates that he's increasing the total square footage by 800 square feet. I have it right here. MR. MENTER-Maybe that came as a result of just wanting to match the other side. Maybe he thought 800 square feet was what it was, but when the architect actually did this, or whoever drew this up, that side of the building is shorter. MR. O'CONNOR-It's my understanding that the request is not stated as 720 square feet. It should, by stipulation, be understood to be 720 square feet, and nothing further would be built. - 13 - (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 3/20/96) MRS. LAPHAM-Maybe you could amend the motion to "not more than 800 square feet". MR. O'CONNOR-I would stick with 720. I have no problem with that, because I can see the Board is concerned. MR. GREEN-I would amend that to 720 square feet, with a total, I don't know if my figure was correct before or not, 61,732 square feet. AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green, Mr. Ford, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Menter ABSENT: Mr. Karpeles MR. O'CONNOR-I thank you for your patience. MR. CARVIN-Okay. USE VARIANCE NO. 12-1996 TYPE: UNLISTED SR-IA LC-IOA WASHINGTON COUNTY SPCA, INC. OWNER: JOHN H. SULLIVAN COUNTY LINE ROAD, APPROX. 3 MILES NORTH OF DIX AVE. ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE. APPLICANT SEEKS A USE VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN ANIMAL SHELTER ON SUBJECT PROPERTY. THIS REQUEST REQUIRES RELIEF FROM THE USES ALLOWED IN SECTION 179-19D. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 3/13/96 TAX MAP NO. 109-4-2.1 LOT SIZE: 26.62 ACRES SECTION 179-190 RICHARD JONES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT JEAN GRANT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 12-1996, Washington County SPCA, Inc., Meeting Date: March 20, 1996 "PROJECT LOCATION: County Line Rd., approx. 3 miles north of Dix Ave. on left hand side PROJECT DESCRI PT ION AND CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORD I NANCE: Ap p Ii can t proposes to construct an animal shelter on the subject property. The property is currently zoned SR-IA and LC-I0A. Animal shelters are not listed as permitted uses in either district. USE VARIANCE REVIEW CRITERIA, BASED ON SECTION 167-b OF TOWN LAW: 1. IS A REASONABLE RETURN POSSIBLE IF THE LAND IS USED AS ZONED? This lot is located near the Warren County Airport and directly south of land zoned LI-IA. The FAA has restrictions on this property which limit the height of any buildings on this lot. Existing conditions are such that even wi th no development on the property, a large amount of the lot already conflicts with the FAA restrictions. The only portion of the lot which appears to have no restrictions is the area which is proposed to be used as an animal shelter. This area is directly adjacent to land zoned LI-IA and would be a difficult location for single family development. 2. IS TliE ALLEGED HARDSHIP RELATING TO THIS PROPERTY UNIQUE, OR DOES IT ALSO APPLY TO A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD? The hardship is unique to this property due to the fact that FAA restrictions effecting this particular piece of property are not in place on other properties to the south and east. 3. IS THERE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD? It appears that this proposal could be objectionable to the property owners to the east of the subject parcel, however no comment has been r ece i ved to date. The I and to the nor th is zoned Li gh t Industrial (LI-IA). 4. IS THIS THE MINIMUM RELIEF NECESSARY TO ADDRESS THE UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP PROVEN BY THE APPLICANT AND AT THE SAME TIME PROTECT THE CHARACTER OF THE NE I GHBORHooD AND THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY? It appears to be. SEQR: Unlisted, short form EAF review needed." - 14 - - (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 3/20/96) MR. THOMAS-nAt a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 13th day of March 1996, the above application for a Use Va ria nee for the con s t rue t ion 0 fan ani ma 1 she 1 tel' to h 0 use approximately 80 stray, unwanted animals on a daily basis was reviewed, and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Approve Comments: The WCPB concurs with the local conditions." Signed C. Powel South, Chairperson. MR. CARVIN-Are there any questions of the applicant? MR. FORD-I have some, but I'll give them a chance to answer them before 1 ask them. MR. CARVIN-Okay. applicant? Does anybody e 1 s e have any ques t ions 0 f the MR. MENTER-Not at the moment. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I guess I'll open it up to the applicant. Is there anything that you'd care to add to your application? MR. JONES-My name is Richard Jones. I'm the architect working with the SPCA, and we've been working on this project with them for about a year and a half, and we finally found a parcel of property that would sui t the faci 1 i ty for the SPCA. In looking at the parcel, if I might, the parcel itself, what we've tried to delineate on the map for you, these are the transitional surface lines that the FAA has actually put on the property itself. There are additional transitional lines coming this way on the property, which we have no shown. This is Queensbury Avenue, County Line Road, heading north. This is approximately north on the property. The Light Industrial zone is in this general area. There is an easement, right now, for clear cutting, which has been exercised, and it bisects the property in this direction. The Queensbury water tower sits over in this general area. The Animal Hospital is down in this general area. There is a single family residence in this little inset, which is about 1,000 feet from our property, or our location on this property. There are several single family residences on this side of the street as well. We have identified a spot elevation from the partial map that we have gotten from Warren County. There is a spot elevation in the road of approximately 368 feet in this general area. This transitional line running right here is at 430, and the way these work, the center line of the runway is back in this general area, and as you come off of the runway, these step up approximately 10 feet in height as you're going across the property. In this general area, we could not construct anything which exceeded the 430 foot elevation. The property elevation in this general area is around 400 feet. This is actually the only part of the property that does not have a height restriction by the FAA. Once we hit this line, which is about the back corner of where we're proposing to place the building, the transitional lines step down and actually, in looking at the map that you have there from Warren County, there are elevations which give you the top of tree elevations, and they are actually exceeding that height elevation for the transitional surfaces. By placing the building in this general area, we feel we have sufficient buffer to the residential zone to the south. We are setting approximately 100 feet off the road. So that we're àctually maintaining as much of the tree line as possible on the property. Itis very heavily treed on this end. We're providing a 50 foot buffer to the Light Industrial zone, and we feel that this is actually an adequate or very good transition from that Light Industrial to a residential area. That's basically what we're looking at. This gives you an idea of how the building would be located on the property. We're looking at parking for approximately 33 vehicles, based upon the zoning requirements for that parcel, and in working with the SPCA, we've actually come up with a schematic fLoor plan, at this time, and this, basically, is - 15 (Queens bury Zoning Board of Appeals 3/20/96) what we're looking at. It's a facility of about, I believe, 5800 square feet, which is on the application. It consists of a series of small exam rooms, meeting rooms, offices. We have a general reception area. We're looking at the kennel area, which would be on the northwest corner of the building, furthest away from the residential areas. The building itself would be residential in character. We're looking at something that has the scale of the residential neighborhood. We've put together a conceptual elevation on that as well. We're looking to try and utilize gabled roofs on the bui lding. We want it to be something that's, basically, maintenance free for the facility, so that they do not have to spend a lot of money on maintenance, because they have a bare bones budget in that regard, but it would carry through the gab 1 e roo f con c e p t s 0 f the res ide n t i a 1 f am i 1 i e sin the g en era 1 area. It would be an energy efficient structure. It has sealed heating and cooling throughout the building. We're not looking to use windows for ventilation. The facility itself would have certain filtration systems, with certain types of filtration, to minimize the potential for germs and that type of thing entering the building. So there would not be any reason for noise filtering out through open windows, that type of thing. It's basically a sealed building. As the application had indicated, any exercising of animals on the property would be supervised. They would not be left alone to run loose on the property. I'd be happy to answer any of your questions at this point. MR. CARVIN-Does anyone have any questions? MR. FORD-What is your heating/cooling source? MR . JON E S - We' rei nit i a 11 y pro b a b 1 y 1 00 kin gat LPg as for the heating, because the gas line, I believe, is a quarter of a mile, half a mile from the site. MR. FORD-Will there be any fenced in area? MR. JONES-Yes. There is a small fenced in area. If you look at the site plan that was provided to you as part of the application, in the upper right corner of the building, there's a little fenced walk area, which sits behind, there's a two car garage in that end of the building for the services to come in. This would be for the 50 foot buffer zone to the right hand side. MR. FORD-Would that area be used exclusively for walking purposes with a human in attendance, or would that be used for turning animals loose on their own? MRS. GRANT-That area would be for a volunteer or a caretaker to take a dog out, and exercise a dog, be with a dog, that would be fenced in. They could run a little bit. There would be somebody with the animal. The rest of the 26 acres, there are trails for people to walk the dogs. We want to have the dogs inside. It's temperature controlled and noise controlled as well. They won't be barking, disturbing neighbors, and also they won't have to deal with cold weather and hot weather and so on. So the animals would be inside, except for an area that they're going to be used, to take their dogs out in the fenced in area. Someone would be with the animals at all times. MR. CARVIN-We're going to need your name for the record. MRS. GRANT-I'm sorry. County SPCA. Jean Grant, Treasurer for the Washington MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. FORD-And at no time, then, would animals be in that fenced in area alone? - 16 - "'-- ........" (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 3/20/96) MRS. GRANT-No. MR. FORD-Eight or ten dogs milling around, something like that? MRS. GRANT--No. That would not be allowed. MRS. LAPHA~-You're not going to have any of the traditional kennel runs, like one dog to a run, and so many feet outside? MRS. GRANT-No. MR. JONES-The plan that we've developed actually has a kennel run in it, and it's internal space. We actually have 20, there's 10 in each row, 20 kennel runs in this general area. This is an enclosed, temperature controlled space. It does not have operable windows, that type of thing. So these are kennels, or runs that are a p pro xi ma tel y 1 4 fee t, 1 5 fee t Ion g . Sot hey' ref air I y goo d size, basically one animal per run. So they would all be indoor. MR. CARVIN-Any other questions? MR. FORD-Will there be any means for disposal of animals on the property? MRS. GRANT-No. Any animals to be euthanized would be done by a local veterinarian, at the animal hospital. We don't do that now. We have no intention of doing it in the future. MR. FORD-Okay. Noise within the neighborhood is one issue, but noise of the neighborhood is another. In other words, has due consideration been given to the potential for aircraft and their impact and that noise on the animals in your shelter? In other words, if we've got jets cooling into Warren County Airport, as we do, and jets taking off, that can cause animals a great deal of disruption. MRS. GRANT-We've discussed that. I don't have any concerns. The building is very well insulated, and they're going to hear, my dog would hear a jet going over our home on Ridge Road. My dogs don't get upset by that either. I don't think there would be a probl~n. I don't think it's going to be any problem at all. MR. FORD-But 80 animals there, and the frequency with which they fly in and out of there, that could pose a problem. In addition to that, I mean, I know that there are practice flights in and out. They practice their landings and take offs, so there are days, and into the evening, when there are a large number of flights, and I'm concerned about the difficulty that might pose for those animals. MRS. GRANT-[ don't think they're going to hear it that much. don't think it's going to be a problem. I understand where you're coming from, but we have the trains go by the shelter where we are now, the railroad is not that far away, and it doesn't cause a problem, and planes flying over, and it's not a problem. MR. CARVIN-Your kennel area, is that going to be extra insulated or soundproofed of any type? MR. JONES-Yes. It actually entails an extensive insulation system in the entire building, plus we also have continuous mechanical ventilation. So it's almost like a small medical type center, w her e you' ve got con tin u 0 usa i r vol um e run n i n g 0 n a con tin u 0 u s basis. It is running 24 hours a day, whether it's heating or cooling, because we're continually exchanging the air within the facility. - 1 7 - (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 3/20/96) MR. CARVIN-All right. hours a day, or is operation? Is this going to be manned by somebody 24 there going to just be certain hours of MRS. GRANT-We anticipate having the shelter open to the public probably between the hours of maybe 10 and 4. There would be paid caretakers there beginning at 7 a.m., last person probably around 7 at night taking care of the animals at that time. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So for a period from seven to seven, about 12 hours, they would be unattended would they? MRS. GRANT-Yes. Well, from seven in the morning to seven at night, there would be somebody there. From seven at night to seven in the morning. MR. CARVIN-Yes. So, okay, and that's currently what you do now, is it? MRS. GRANT-Right now, we have staff working until three, and then we h a v e a p pro x i ma tel y t h r e e vol un tee r s t hat t a k e t urn s go i n gin eve n i n g s tot a k e car e 0 f the ani ma Is. We' d 1 i k e toe x ten d the caretakers hours and then eliminate the need for volunteers going down at night. MR. FORD-How many would this be able to house, as compared to your present facility? MRS. GRANT-Basically the same number, maybe a few more. we have 80 animals, and the building was built for 35. a daily basis. Right now, This is on MR. FORD-And this building is built for? MRS. GRANT-Approximately the same number, about 80. The new proposed building will hold between 80 animals, 85 animals. MR. FORD-Okay. If we used the same logic, if you have 80 animals in a building designed for 35 currently, might we look at the possibility of 175 animals in your projected building? MRS. GRANT-No. It's enough to take care of 80 animals a day, and we cannot, we may go between 80 and 90. If you have a litter of kittens, that's 10 kittens in a cage that a large cat could fit into. We cannot take care of that many animals. We have to have restrictions. We could take an animal every day. There simply isn't enough room for all of them, and we can't take care of them all. We have to turn people away. There just isn't enough room, and we can't have enough room for all of them. MR. FORD-But do you see where I'm coming from? MRS. GRANT-I know where you're coming from. MR. FORD-You've got 80 that you're housing now with the potential for 35. MRS. GRANT- I under stand that. can't take care of them all. There would be limi tat ions. We MR. CARVIN-Well, that leads me to one Does Warren County, in their motion, 80. In other words, a use variance animal shelter to house approximately a daily basis. Is that a limiting? of the questions that I had. limit them to approximately for the construction of an 80 stray unwanted animals on MS. CIPPERLY-I think they were reacting to what was proposed. That's the description that the applicant gave, so they're sort of - 18 - - (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 3/20/96) self-limiting, I guess. your prerogative. If you want to limit that also, that's MR. MENTER-I don't know if they have the teeth to do that, do they, if they wanted to? MS. CIPPERLY-Warren County? MR. MENTER-Yes. MS. CIPPERLY-As I said, I think the resolution was just a reflection of the project description. MR. MENTER-Yes. MS. CIPPERLY-If it's a use variance and you want to limit the scope of it to a certain level of activity, I think the Zoning Board has that right. I also, listening to Tom talking about all the airplane:;; going over, I was thinking, that is really a very good argument for why it's not usable as a residential piece. know that wasn't your point at the time. MR. FORD-No, it wasn't. They fly over my house all the time, but I might object less to that than would to 80 animals next door. MR. MENTER-I have a question. You mentioned property. Describe that for me. What were your long did you, where were you looking? searching criteria? for How MRS. GRANT-All right. For the past two years, our commi ttee' s been looking for property, and we started in Washington County. We wanted to be in the Town of Kingsbury, because it's more centrally located to the areas served. Even though it's called Washington County SPCA, we take in animals, animals are adopted out to the Tri-County area and beyond, and we receive donations from beyond Washington County, and service the whole area. We have investigated at least, this is the 16th area we looked at. There have been sites on Vaughn Road in Kingsbury, Lake Road in Kingsbury. We even approached the IDA to purchase land from the IDA, but because we're not a Light Industrial, we weren't able to purchase from them. Different land owners thought maybe they would either donate or sell us land, but they changed their minds they didn't want to develop their parcel of land Dix Avenue for the site. We really need to be where there is water, because the shelter is sprinklered, and want to have access, or future access, to natural gas lines, because of the lower cost for utilities on so on. Nobody ever turned us down because there was going to be an animal shelter. They just didn't want to develop their land at that time. That was basically the issue. I could give you a list of names of people we spoke to, and they have land on Dix Avenue, and at one time they said yes, we'd like to develop it, lets talk, and then they said, 1 guess we don't want to get a financial investment going, and they changed their mind. (Lost words) the land and increase, the other side increase, but it was just so expensive, up to $40,000 an acre. So, we have looked very, very hard. We've spoken to people personally and written letters. We've had phone calls, spent a great deal of time at the Kingsbury Town offices finding out what land is available, and grant it, there's a lot of land in Washington County, but for us to build a shelter in the middle of Argyle or Cambridge or whatever, it would not be practical for us to do that. We're serving a larger area, and many of our animals are coming in from Queensbury and Warren County and going out to Queensbury and Warren County. So we're serving that area as well, and we do work with Warren County SPCA. MR. MENTER--So, in all this, you haven't gotten to any approval stage with anything, or anything beyond just talking1 - 19- (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 3/20/96) MRS. GRANT-No. MR. MENTER-You've just been looking, trying to find something. MRS. GRANT-We've been talking, but we nobody plans to go through with anything yet. MR. MENTER-Okay. MR. CAR V I N - 0 k a y . How ma n y 0 the r f a c i lit i e s I i k e t his, I k now we approved something for the, what was it, the Kennel Club was it, just recently. MR. THOMAS-The Glens Falls Kennel Club. MRS. LAPHAM-The GI ens Fall s Kenne 1 Club. different type of facility. That was a completely MRS. GRANT-There isn't anything in that area that would meet this design. In Scotia, there's a $1.3 shelter, and we've visited them quite a bit to get some ideas for our design of our building, to make a state of the art building. There's nothing in our area, even toward Plattsburg, that would even resemble this, or serve the public like this. There is a Warren County SPCA. They house their ani ma I sat the G I ens Fall s An i ma 1 H 0 s pit a I, but the rei s no t a facility for the Warren County SPCA. MRS. LAPHAM-I have a couple of questions, the first one being, what type system have you planned for waste disposal, and the second question is, are you confining yourself to dogs and cats, or will you take horses, or any other animals besides dogs and cats, because there's animal abuse and neglect of all species. MRS. GRANT-I'll answer the second question. There would be dogs, cats, kittens, puppies, and that would be it, no large animals. MRS. LAPHAM-And you'll be encouraging spay/neuter policies? MRS. GRANT-We do already. All of our animals, if they're six months of age or older, are already spay or neutered before they've been she 1 tered, and people have to pay us an adoption fee that includes spay or neutering, to a local veterinarian. They have to be spay or neutered, and they also have their shots. They have rabies shots, tests and so on. MR. JONES-As far as the waste disposal, what we're looking at in the kennel area itself is, basically almost the entire facility has floors that are readily easy to clean. They would almost be like a small medical type facility, so that you could wash them down with disinfectants, that type of thing. We have a trench drain system that we're looking at in the kennel area that is similar to the facility that we looked at down in Schenectady, and it's a pressure type system where it is washed into a gutter and then forced into a septic type system. We would be settling out the solids and disposing of those in a normal solid disposal type facility for waste. As far as any solid waste on site, we are looking at an on site dumpster for papers, that type of thing, which would be on the garage end of the facility, be totally screened, with a fence enclosure. As far as on site septic for the facility itself, we would have a small on site septic field which would conform to Town of Queensbury standards for septic disposal on site. MS. CIPPERLY-Another point here, this really is a split zone parcel. The rear portion is LC-I0, where a dog kennel would be an allowed use. The front part is Suburban Residential, where kennels aren't an allowed use. So part of the problem here is the split zoning on the parcel. So if somebody could, if they were able, absent the FAA regulations, they could put the kennel or the - 20 - '- - (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 3/20/96) facility on the back part of the land. They wouldn't be here. So it's kind of a physical constraint. MR. CARVIN-Anyone else? Then I'll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED SUSAN BAYER MRS. BAYER-I'm Susan Bayer, and I live at 224 Queensbury Avenue. I guess one concern I have, aside from the building, and that would be the animals, dropping off animals in the middle of the night, when no one can see them, and just wondered. That would be a big concern for me. MRS. GRANT-Animals being dropped off? MRS. BAYER-At night when there are no people there to accommodate them, particularly in the cold weather. MRS. GRANT-Animals are not dropped off as much as they used to now. I can't guarantee that they won't be dropped off, nobody can. No building in our area has 24 hour staffing. There's nothing you can do about it, other than educate the people not to do that. I can't guarantee they won't. MRS. BAYER-I just, I would like to voice that concern directly. I think have two concerns, and the other one is to the animals, and that would be, what the gentleman here mentioned, the loud'noise from the airplanes. When a volunteer or someone planning to adopt an animal takes it for a walk, and the animal bolts. I think that would be a concern. MRS. GRANT-They'd be on a leash. I live on Ridge Road, and we hear them taking off all the time, over Ridge Road, and our animals have never shown any concern, and I realize it's much close. I understand that. MRS. BAYER-We've observed when people bring their dogs to the Balloon Festival, and the noise from the propane of the balloons has just made animals go berserk, and they stand there just going nuts on that leash. MRS. GRANT-The facility IS Schenectady is right next to (lost words) it's very close, and it's a legitimate concern and question, and we would never do anything to jeopardize the welfare of the animals, obviously. MRS. BAYER-Aside from the obvious objections from the folks who live right near it, I can understand their concern (lost words), this all seems to be satisfactory. MRS. GRANT-Wherever you build a shelter, no matter where it is, there's always going to be concerns of somebody abandoning animals, and they abandon them anywhere and everywhere. So I don't, as a matter of fact, at least there are people nearby, instead of out in the middle of nowhere. It will be well lit, with the outside lighting, that could deter people from wanting to abandon animals. Again, if they're going to abandon them, they're going to abandon them anywhere. MRS. BAYER-I would prefer to have them do the right thing by an animal and bring them to a place like this where they could get good care. I just worry that on a January night when it's 27 degrees below zero, that there's no one there at that hour of the night. MRS. GRANT-But there wouldn't be anywhere. I'm just saying, this - 21 o 0 (Queens bury Zoning Board of Appeals 3/20/96) is something we have no control over. No matter where the shelter's built, and all we can do is try to educate the public. There's just nothing you can do about it. We have had very few animals abandoned during the past year or two. I don't know why. I'm just grateful there hasn't been. MRS. BAYER-I'm just concerned that if someone were to drop an animal on that street, and it were to get loose, causing a problem for traffic. MRS. GRANT-It's no different than where we are now. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Anyone else wishing to be heard either in support or in opposition? COLLEEN KIMBLE MS. KIMBLE-Hello. My name is Colleen Kimble. I am the Queensbury Animal Control Officer. I have a, kind of a personal and professional interest in the Washington County SPCA. I'd like to encourage the Board to consider approving this application for the Washington County SPCA. It's an organization that's sorely needed within the communities in Warren County and Washington County. The facility they have now is very small, and they do have 80 animals or they can squeeze them in, and the facility that they're trying to bui Id would house them more comfortably, heal thier, and be easier for the workers. It would be a better facility. I just think that the benefits outweigh any potential problems. The only problem that seems to be coming up is noise, and the dogs are going to be on an inside run, and insulated. I don't think that the dogs barking would be a problem, as far as any aircraft going over. There's going to be noise in the kennel anyway from the dogs barking and cats meowing, that they may be distracted from any outside noises, and like I said, I just wanted to urge you, prompt you, to please consider approving this application. STAN RYMKEWICZ MR. RYMKEWICZ-My name is Stan Rymkewicz. I own property directly across where this wants to be. I have a signed petition with six people's names, so far, that are against it. I was not notified by mail. I don't know how many of my neighbors were. It's exactly 1 .2 mi 1 es, not 3 mi 1 es. Everybody though tit was nor th of the airport. It's not. It's Queensbury Avenue, not County Line Road. County Line Road starts at Dix and goes north. My family owns four houses on this road, plus we own a farm with 180 acres. We pay our taxes. On 180 acres, we paid $12,000 last year, unused. That's $1,000 a month. The Washington County SrCA, I was told, has a value of about $50,000, 2.80 acres, and they absolutely pay no taxes. I was told the building was going to be different from this. I was notified by the lady that just spoke that it was going to be a flat roof. It was going to be cement block. If you know where I live, the next place from me is all cement. It's a cement dump. We've been to the Town Board with this guy before. Nothing seems to be done. A picture's worth a thousand words. There's what happens to cement. This guy gets free cement, keeps adding and adding and adding. That's to my north. This is where I live. This is a cement dump. He also has a blacktop dump down below, but that's in the other County. That's a cement dump, both sides of that building is cement. There's cement allover the place. I have to look at that to my north. It's zoned differently. Can't do anything about it, apparently. I have a raised ranch house. I'm going to be looking right down into this property, which is cement block. You got stuck next door, where my sister lives, Number 284, is going to be directly across from this also. We got stuck with a water tower, the Town of Queensbury. My mother lives a half mile down the road, bought her house, Niagara Mohawk put an electrical station there. Just had it re-appraised, we lost - 22 - '-/ -.../ (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 3/20/96) $20,000 on that house. We used to own part of the airport. That was taken away from us. I think my family has had enough. Leave us alone. This is not in the area with the rest of the houses. I don't want to look at it. There's this, this is residential, that's mine. This is my sister. This is next door, go right down the liIH~. As far as the 33 cars. Last April I was ill. I was home for a couple of days. I counted from quarter of eight to quarter after eight in the morning, one car everyone and a half minutes, going either way. They want to have a parking lot of 33 cars across the street. I don't want to look into that ei ther. Septic tanks. That means there's going to be a sewer truck in and out. Have you ever smelled a sewer truck after it left the premises, for about an hour later? Talking about dropping off animals. Monday night I came home at six o'clock, a cat ran from my back porch. Somebody dropped off a cat at night. Maybe you heard publicity of this on the radio. It's been on, I guess, all day today. We also have a vet. Dogs, cats, and kittens are dropped off at night. Maybe not so much in Fort Edward because the people have a long way to go. Now they can do it a mile off Dix Avenue. In fact, they can take a bus. We have buses going by the house now. You have tractor trailers going by the house. We have cranes going by the house. A cousin of mine visited the place in Fort Edward, there's a dumpster right out front by the road, and it's not enclosed, and if you're familiar with volunteer workers, I do auctions, volunteers, well, they can and they can't. Nobody brought up the idea about a sign. What about a sign? Do I have to look at a sign in a residential area? There's a sign in the picture. A cousin of mine visited this place. It was packed. He said it stunk so bad inside, he had to hold her breath and left without getting anything. You can't tell me that all the trees in the back, all that wouldn't come across the airport, and we're not going to get the smells. Somebody has to go in and out of that building. I took that picture the other day, and I could hear dogs barking from the front door. They had a storm door and two windows were open. I'm sure the help is not going to be without air. I was told the area was not kept up. There was dirt allover the place, dog runs, and you could see the dumpsters were half on the road. There's another truck that's going to be in and out of there. When it gets 90 degrees this sunm1er, am I going to have to smell that stuff that's in that dumpster? I think so. The other neighbors have complained about the traffic also. They can't even send their kids to the mailbox because of the traffic, and like I say, it sounds like it's going to be even worse, and that's our main objection is traffic, and I don't believe it belongs in a residential area. There's another picture of a place there on Maple Street that's for sale, for the last five years. I asked the neighbors about that. I said, how about these guys moving down here by the transfer station? They said, don't even tell them about it. Washington County doesn't want it. So, as I said, I have a six person petition. If other people want to sign, I'll give it to you at the end of the meeting. We object. I object because of the cement blocks. 1 don't want to look at a long cement block building. I've got cement to my north, as I said. There is going to be smells. There's going to be sewer smell, and as far as the airport, if you've ever heard a jet take off from that airport, and there's a dog coming in or leaving that building, it's going to be right out in my yard. Thank you. MR. CARVIN-Anyone else wishing to be heard either in support or in opposition? CHARLIE NASSIVERA MR. NASSIVERA-Charlie Nassivera, County Line Road, Queensbury Avenue, whatever. I '01 not close enough to experience any of the problems which Mr. Rymkewicz has, but I think the County Line Road, Queensbury Avenue, whatever, needs a rest. We have a water tower. We have a Niagara Mohawk substation, and we have a noisy airport, -- 23 - ,\ \ "'----- (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 3/20/96) but that's been there forever, and we have tractor trai lers, whatever, going up and down. I don't really think we need anything else. I'm not against the shelter. I just don't think the road can stand much more, and it doesn't bother me, personally, because I'm too far away. I'm probably three quarters of a mile away, but the road is busy. So cons ider it. Thank you. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Anyone else? MS. KIMBLE-I bring this to the attention of the Board. Apparently, this is the type of textured, cement block building, moss colored, that they're planning on having for the SPCA, and I would like to just address a few things Mr. Rymkewicz said. MR. CARVIN-Okay, before we get the rebuttal, lets get all the current comments In, if you don't mind. You'll have plenty of opportunity, but lets get it all out on the table first. MS. KIMBLE-I'm sorry. Certainly. MR. THOMAS-Ready? MR. CARVIN-Yes. MR. THOMAS-A letter dated February 28, 1996, from the Washington County SPCA. "Dear Member of the Zoning Board of Appeals, As a private, non-profit organization, the Washington County S.P.C.A. provides shelter to stray and unwanted animals from the tri-county area and beyond. In addition, the S.P.C.A. 's by-laws include the need to protect animals wi thin Washington County. Al though its present shelter is in Fort Edward, the by-laws do not specify the location for a shelter in which to house such animals. Since January of 1994, the Washington County S.P.C.A. has investigated at least 16 locations on which to build its new facility. The goal has been to build in Kingsbury, which would be a more central location between Washington and Warren counties. (Over 40% of the S.P.C.A's donors, admissions, and adoptions come from Warren County.) Despite repeated efforts to seek three to five acres of land either through donations or direct payment, the S.P.C.A. has been unable to obtain a site for construction. Washington County Board of Supervisors offered three acres near its transfer station in Kingsbury, but the land was not suitable for construction. Other sites were priced from $25,000 to $40,000 an acre. When the S.P.C.A. attempted to purchase land from the Warren-Washington County I .D.A., it was turned down since it was not a light industry. The S.P.C.A. 's new facility will require municipal water for its sprinkler system, as well as access to natural gas. The site on Queensbury Avenue (County Line Road) in Queensbury would provide a rural setting with space between the shelter, neighboring homes and businesses, as well as allow easy access for people in Washington and Warren Counties and beyond. This location is also accessible for area students to benefit from the shelter's humane education program. In regards to its title, the Washington County S.P.C.A. plans to change its name to one that does not specify a given location. Many people assume the S.P.C.A. receives funding from Washington County due to its name. Since this is not the case, it has been decided that a different name should be chosen after the new shelter is completed. The Washington County S.P.C.A. is seeking the approval of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals to create a variance that will allow the construction of a new ani ma 1 she 1 t e r 0 n Que ens bur y A v en u e . The S. P . C . A. 's 0 f f ice r s , board of directors and members thank you for your consideration on this matter. Sincerely, Jean S. Grant Washington County S.P.C.A." MR. CARVIN-Okay. No other correspondence? MR. THOMAS-That's the only one I've got. - 24 - ..-' (Queens bury Zoning Board of Appeals 3/20/96) MR. CARVIN-Okay. This gentleman over here, you said you had a petition. Do you want to enter that at this point, so we can read the names into the record, please. Okay. Is there anyone else wishing to be heard, either in support or in opposition? HELEN SKELLIE MRS. SKELLIE--I'm Helen Skellie, and I live in that little one residential they just pointed out. Number One, my husband feels there isn't any natural gas on the road at all. He wonders where they're getting this from. Number Two, you can't tell me that on a hot summer night that we're not going to hear 80 animals and they're not going to have at least one window open. I can't believe this, and Number Three, they told us it was three miles up the road on County Line Road. It's Queensbury Avenue, and it isn't even three miles up the road that they're going to do this, and it's right next to us, and I just don't think it's fair. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? MS. KIMBLE-I have some additional conm1ents I'd like to make, if you please. As far as traffic on the road, I don't believe that the S.P.C.A. would really be creating that much additional traffic. The traffic is already there, and as far as, he had mentioned the condition of the old building, or the present building that the S.P.C.A. is currently at. That's the reason they're trying to build a better building. What they have is small, and they have a lot of animals there. The volunteers are there often to do the best they can to clean up and care for the animals. The officers for the S.P.C.A. are there getting their hands dirty, bending over backwards to take care of them. They're not neglecting the animals at all. They do what they can to maintain a healthy environment for the animals. The new building would provide a heal thier environment for the same number of animals. They don't want to increase the number they've got. They're doing what they can to take care of what's already there, and I really feel that the dogs wouldn't be 80 dogs. It's 80 animals. Most of them are adult cats and kittens, and some puppies. I think currently they have maybe 16 dogs, which is not 80 dogs barking. Again, it's going to be inside an insulated' run. I agree if they say someone is going to go outside to the fenced in area to get acquainted with the dog they've got to keep it on a leash, even on a fenced in area, and one thing I want to say, kind of in conclusion, rather than keep repeating myself, the people who work for and volunteer for the Washington County S.P.C.A. really do care for the animals. They're doing the best they can and are trying to do better for the animals that they are accepting from three different counties, to place them in decent homes. They're not trying to be a scourge on the neighborhood. They're trying to comply. This is a nice looking building that they've got there. It's not a run down dump they've got proposed, and they just want to have a good public relationship with the neighborhood, and as I said, do the best they can. Thank you again. MR. THOMAS-What's this a picture of? MR. CARVIN-That's the type of material they're going to be using. MR. FORD-Maybe you ought to show that to Mr. Rymkewicz. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Are you all set Mr. Rymkewicz? Okay. Thank you. MR. THOMAS--A peti tion dated 3/20/96 "Peti tion against a possible Use Variance to allow an animal shelter on subject property TO: Town of Queensbury Zoning Board RE: Use Variance to allow an animal shelter LOCATION: County Line Road, Approximately 1.2 miles north of Dix Avenue WE, THE HOME RESIDENTS OF QUEENSBURY - 25 - (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 3/20/96) AVENUE, STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS VARIANCE FOR AN ANIMAL SHELTER. THIS IS ZONED RESIDENTIAL, AND WE WOULD PREFER TO KEEP IT THIS WAY TO ALLOW FOR OUR OWN PRIVACY. WE HAVE LIVED ON THIS ROAD FOR MANY YEARS, AND WOULD LI KE TO PRESERVE THE NATURAL BEAUTY OF THE LAND AS MY BROTHER, STAN RYMKEWICZ, AND MYSELF, BEV BENWAY WOULD BE THE ONES MOST AFFECTED BY THIS VARIANCE. THERE IS A LOT OF WILDLIFE IN THIS AREA, ESPECIALLY DEER AND DIFFERENT KINDS OF BIRDS, AND WE FEEL THAT PUTTING THIS ANIMAL SHELTER IN THIS AREA WOULD EVENTUALLY KEEP THE ANIMALS AWAY. PLEASE STRONGLY CONSIDER OUR REQUEST TO KEEP THIS ANIMAL SHELTER FROM BEING BUILT. ATTACHED PLEASE FIND SIGNATURES FROM OTHER HOME RESIDENTS OF QUEENSBURY AVENUE. Stan Rymkewicz, Jr. 6300, Bev Benway 6284, Keith Benway 6284, Richard Rymkewicz 6138, Barbara L. Frenyea 6248, Stan Skellie 6247, Suzanne T. Nassivera lt148, ChasM J. Nassivera, Walter Fisher lt333" And that's it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other public comment? Okay. hearing none, the public hearing is closed. Seeing none, PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Any questions? MR. FORD-I have no further questions, at least at this time. MR. MENTER-I don't have any questions. this both ways. You could probably argue MR. CARVIN-Yes. It's a tough one. Questions or thoughts? MR. GREEN-The veterinary clinic, are there any animals housed there at this time? MS. KIMBLE-Actually, the Countryside Veterinary Clinic is the shelter for the City of Glens Falls. Whenever they have stray dogs brought in, they bring them over to Countryside Veterinary Hospital. MR. GREEN-I'm curious of the neighbors if they hear those dogs? NEIGHBOR-Yes, you do. MRS. LAPHAM-They have indoor/outdoor runs, as opposed to the completely sealed kind. I don't have any questions really. I just have some thoughts. It seems to me that one of the major issues is that the person that owns the land, you know, the front part is residential, but it's not desirable for residential living because of the planes and because of the proximity to, you know, other commercial development, and the back part, which the S.P.C.A. could go without a variance they're not allowed to because of the FAA. Therefore, what does the person that owns this property supposed to do with it, and it's not a self-created hardship. So, I mean, that seems to me to be the biggest issue for us. The next thought I have is that someone had mentioned the idea of, you know, dropped animals and this sort of thing. Well, there's organizations like the S.P.C.A., that are trying to change that by taking decent care of the animals, by rescuing them, by putting them up for adoption in responsible homes and encouraging spay and neuter policies, and we're never going to see it change unless organizations like this are, you know, allowed to educate the public. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Chris? MR. THOMAS-I have one question for Mr. Rymkewicz. Why is there a picture of the Price Chopper parking lot on that strip of? MR. RYMKEWICZ-That's the mauve color building with the flat roof on it. - 26 - '-- --- (Queens bury Zoning Board of Appeals 3/20/96) MR. THOMAS-Okay. So that's comparing. MRS. GRANT-Excuse me. told you it was going to be a mauve colored textured concrete block. That there was a pitch to the roof. I did not say a flat roof. MR. RYMKEWICZ-Okay. Well, I understood you as saying it would be a front, pitch from the front to the back. So you'd see a pitch from the side. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions, Chris? MR. THOMAS-I was going through the four questions for a Use Variance, the first one being, the applicant cannot realize a reasonable return provided that the lack of return is substantial as demonstrated by any competent financial evidence. Well, we haven't seen any financial evidence. Number Two, the alleged hardship relating to the property is unique and does not apply to a substantial portion of the district. This is unique, because of the zoning and the airport. Number Three, that the requested Use Variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Well, I think it will alter the essential neighborhood character, and Number Four, the alleged hardship has not been self-created. No, it hasn't been self-created. The FAA took care of that for them. So, it looks like it's a two-two split on this, and it's going to be tough to come up with a good answer for this one. MRS. LAPHAM-What was the one In the middle again? MR. THOMAS-The requested Use Variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. MRS. LAPHAM-If you look up and down the neighborhood, do you really think it would change it that much? MR. THOMAS-To me, on that end, it would. MRS. LAPHAM-There's already the airport. MR. THOMAS-There's the airport there, but then it's all residential on that end of Queensbury Avenue. Once you go over the hill and past the airport, well that's where the industrial park is. So, to me, that end of Queensbury Avenue, starting with Mr. Rymkewicz's house, and going south, is residential. I mean, it's all houses in there, but once you go past the airport entrance, and right across the airport, that starts the industrial, or the commercial end of that part of that road. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. You have the high speed traffic all along there, though. MR. THOMAS--Well, when they put the industrial increase the traffic up in there, but that was a don't even think the industrial park is filled yet, either. So I think when it does, there's traffic on that road. park In, it did long time ago. I to its potential going to be more MR. CARVIN-I agree. MR. THOMAS-So, I'm having a tough time with Questions One through Four, especially One and Three. MR. CARVIN-Well, I don't have a problem with One, because I don't see how that this can be ever used as a residential lot. MR. GREEN-Their assessment changed there, too, because of the FAA. -- 27 - (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 3/20/96) MR. CARVIN-Yes. So I don't have a problem with the first part. I don't think a reasonable return can be a single family one acre. You might be able to lop out maybe, what, one acre there, out of the whole lot, if this is a one acre thing here, because the rest of it is all tied up. MR. THOMAS-Yes, well, it's Suburban Residential One Acre zoning in that front part. MR. FORD-Who owns it? MR. CARVIN-I don't know who the owner is. They're looking for the use. MR. MENTER-I agree, the neighborhood impact is the issue. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I think it's the neighborhood impact. Will it alter the essential character of the neighborhood, and is this the minimum variance? We have to balance the hardship proven by the applicant, at the same time to preserve, protect the character of the neighborhood and the heal th, safety and wel fare of conmJUni ty. So those are the issues. MRS. LAPHAM-Well, I don't know how it would impact the health, safety and welfare. MR. CARVIN-Well, it could. I mean, if somebody, and aga1n, it's not their fault that somebody drives by and dumps off a dog or a cat. I mean, if that dog or cat is running across the road and you're going home from work and you run over it, we're creating a possible situation there in a residential area. MR. GREEN-Wouldn't that be a characteristic of no matter where this goes, though? MR. CARVIN-Yes. MR. MENTER-It's more rural, is the thing. Essential character is the issue, I mean, the essential character, in addition to health, safety and welfare. MR. CARVIN-We have, technically, a residential area, and we're putting, essentially, and I don't want to use the term a "commercial" venture, but it's not a residential in use. On the other hand, like you say, if the FAA didn't have their fingers in the p1e, I mean, they could put it in the back of the lot and there you go. MR. GREEN-Where does a dog kennel fall? What other uses are 1n the same category as a dog kennel that would be out there? MS. CIPPERLY-LC-IO, in the LC-IO zone itself, the permitted uses are single family dwelling or hunting and fishing camp. Site Plan Review uses include game preserve, sportsmans club and firing range, campground, group camp, dog kennel and riding stable, professional office, conmercial boat storage, produce stand, Agricultural use, clear cutting of an area greater than an acre would require site plan review, conmercial greenhouse, planned unit development, private boathouse and dock, bed and breakfast, Private sand and gravel extraction. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, lets kick it around, folks. This 1S why we get paid the big bucks. MR. HILTON- I would also I ike to point out that in the Rural Residential zones, RR-3A and 5A, dog kennel and riding stable are a Type II Site Plan Review use. - 28 - - (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 3/20/96) MR. FORD-I applaud the work of the S.P.C.A. support it, but when it comes to the impact on the character of the neighborhood, I can't help but feel that it does exactly that, in this proposal. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Dave? MR. MENTER-I'm certainly leaning the same way. I think there's, just in weighing the two things, what sticks out in my mind is the residents there have no place to go. With the zoning in the area, I don't think things are going to be getting any better there for you. I'm not sure that this is the worst thing that could or will end up on that property, but I think in this case there would be an effect on the area, and although it's difficult, and I agree. I commend you. I think there's got to be other places to go. MR. CARVIN-Bill? MR. GREEN-Now I'm confused. MR. CARVIN-Well, what part are you confused about? MR. GREEN-I guess, I'm going along the same way. We have some concerns from the ci tizens, the neighbors there. If this was an existing building that wasn't built and designed as a kennel, like maybe they were going to convert, I may tend to have a little more feeling about noise escaping the building and fumes and things of that sort. It appears that an awful lot of planning has gone into to protect against those things. I still am not certain what I'm going to do, though. MRS. LAPHAM-Well, for me it goes back to the issue of Mr. Sullivan's property. We've already agreed that it's not suitable for a residence, and the FAA won't allow much to go on in the back part. I also agree that I don't think this is the worst thing that could be there. As an appraiser, this is what we call a neighborhood in transition. I do agree that they could end up with something far worse, and what happens the next time Mr. Sullivan has a buyer for his property? Are we all going to be back here tossing around the same thing, with people saying, boy, I wish I'd thought more about the S.P.C.A. MR. THOMAS-I was just looking at the Type II uses in Suburban Residential One Acre. Day Care center pops up. There's a lot of traffic on that. Hospital, nursing home, or health related facility, a lot of traffic there. Church or synagogue, Sunday, Friday nights. Planned Unit Development, you could have a whole bunch of apartments right there, looking at a bigger building. MR. CARVIN-If they could meet the height requirements. MR. THOMAS-Well, hey, if they can get it under 30 feet, if where they are, funeral home, professional office, multi dwelling project. It's not the worst thing that could be but there is a lot of neighborhood opposition. I'm still up. I don't know. that's family there, tossed MR. MENTER-Chris, you said 30 feet. You're referring to what? MR. THOMAS-Height of the building. MR. MENTER-They don't have 30 feet though, do they? MR. THOMAS-No, but that's as high as they could particular place, according to the FAA steps. See, away you get from the runway, the higher it can go. go in tha t the farther MR. MENTER-You could go 30 feet at that location? - 29- (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 3/20/96) MR. JONES-We could. I think our building's 22 to 24 feet high. MR. THOMAS-Yes. See, it depends on how far from the center 1 ine of the runway it is. MR. MENTER-Yes. misinterpreted that. MR. THOMAS-See, in fact, those trees out behind that are in violation. It's like Mr. Jones said. MR. CARVIN-Does anybody know if the Warren County Airport's going out of business right away so that the FAA loses it's jurisdiction? Think about what happens if that happens. MS. CIPPERLY-Fred Austin didn't seem to think they were going out of business soon. MR. CARVIN-I don't think they are either, but. MR. MENTER-It won't be any less a problem, I'll tell you that. MR. CARVIN-Well, you won't have the restrictions. MR. MENTER-Yes, but it's still a split zone. You're still going to be dealing with the exact same question. MR. GREEN-You could just move it back into the other zone. MR. CARVIN-Yes. MR. MENTER-There would be no change. MS. CIPPERLY-The ability to move it back could have some impact, lessening of impact on the neighborhood, except for the traffic concerns. Personally, I don't know that the rate of dropping animals off would exceed what it is now. I live on a nearby road, and animals get dropped off already. So I don't know if it would increase or not, but people see a rural area and think you need more animals. At least it would be a nearby place to take them. MR. CARVIN-Well, I think the Board has touched upon some very, very good points, and this is, I think, Bonnie, you've got a very good point. I think this is a neighborhood in transition. I think we've got a piece of property here that has got some severe limitations. So, I mean, obviously, the owner/applicants have got some pretty good arguments as far as the use relief. My biggest concern comes down to, I guess, is the drop off aspect, the 80 animals, and I realize that this is probably going on right now, but the unsupervision of those 80 animals for quite a period of time. I don't know what other questions to ask, and I really haven't made up my mind. That's the whole problem, which is unusual. I normally can come down pretty solid one side or the other. All right. Our options are, we've closed the public hearing. I believe we have, what, 60 days, 62 days to mull this over, or does anybody feel strongly one side or the other that they want to move this? Because this one is a very tough one, because you've got some justifiable neighborhood opposition here, but on the other hand, you've also got some pretty virtuous arguments to allow this to go in. MR. GREEN-I've got a goes to the runner. the middle, is there more? question for Staff. Like in baseball, a tie Is there any sort of, if you're strictly in any sort of guideline as to who has a little MR. CARVIN-Yes, on a seven Board panel, the Chairman gets to through the deciding vote. - 30 - -- (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 3/20/96) MR. MENTER-It would be nice, wouldn't it? MR. HILTON-I have a question of the applicant. The concerns that were raised by the residents, do you have any mitigation measures for such concerns? I mean, do you have any things that you might be able to do that would lessen the impacts or the concerns that were raised? MR. MENTER-Sight, sound, odors? MS. CIPPERLY-One question that did come up was the dumpster. Is it possible to locate that inside the building somehow? MR. JONES-It could be located inside the garage area of the building. There's definitely that option, because it's basically a two car garage on that end. In reference to the noise aspect, as I had indicated, it's a totally enclosed building. The windows are not operable. It's totally cooled and totally heated in the winter. It has a continuous air exchange going on in the building for cleanliness. So it's not appropriate to open doors and attempt to open windows. The faci J i ty that we've looked at down in Schenectady is a state of the art facility. It has been designed as a shelter, which is what our intent is. The building that they're in at the present time is basically a building that was designed as a shelter. It's a two story raised ranch type facility. Improperly insulated. It was built 25 years ago, and is certainly not the type of facility that we're proposing in this location. I can't stress it enough. Our attempt is to make the thing residential in character. I think we passed around a picture of the other facility, and we are not looking to build a concrete structure. We feel that we're leaving as many trees on the site as totally feasible. It would be our intent to add landscaping to the property, and we are required to go through a Site Plan Review. So we still have another hoop to go through, as far as our approval process on this project. MS. CIPPERLY-Another question have is do you know what the current practice is, for instance, at veterinary hospitals or other shelters as far as night time supervision? MRS. GRNH--At Glens Falls Animal Hospital, everyone is gone at eight o'clock. The shelter at Scotia, the last staff person leaves at, I believe, six o'clock, and if there are any animals in emergency care or emergency medication, they pay them to go in over time in the evening hours to administer medications. Other area veterinarians in our area, there's not anyone on duty. Once they're closed, they go home. There's no one there. Not only will the shelter be sprinklered, I mean, we are, the animals welfare is obviously our main concern. We want to go the extra expense of having it sprinklered. There would be security lights. We don't want anything to happen to the animals, but 24 hour days don't happen anywhere else in our area. Area veterinarians don't do it. Dr. GI endenni ng doesn't do it. Dr. French does not do it. You want the abi 1 i ty to take care of the animal s when they're not there. MR. JONES-One thing that I may also add about the parking. requirement for the 33 spaces is a requirement of the zoning. not our requirement. We would prefer fewer spaces, but requirement was for 33 on the property, and that's what we provided for at this point. We feel we could probably get with 15 to 20 spaces, tops. The It's the have away MR. HILTON-I have another question. There was a concern raised that, with a septic system, there may be trucks on the site. How would you compare that to a single family home? I'd like to know. I don't know if there would be any more trips generated than if it were a single family home and they had their septic being worked - 31 -- (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 3/20/96) on. MR. JONES-Normally a single family residence is either a thousand or a fifteen hundred gallon tank. We would be looking at something probably in the neighborhood of thirty-five hundred to four thousand gallon holding tank for the feces from the animals. We would have an on site septic system for the domestic use of the property. We would probably be pumping on the average of probably every six months. The other work that we have done similar to this, which is more of an intense, almost an adult care type faci 1 i ty, we normally go wi th something in the neighborhood of around three thousand gallons in septic tanks, and running nine months before they get pumped out. So you're probably looking at something (lost words). MS. CIPPERLY-So you're saying that all the animal waste is going to be handled in a septic system, not thrown into dumpster as newspaper? also the MR. JONES-Not on site, no. The dumpster cardboard, paper debris, that type of thing. disposing of animal waste in that dumpster. wi 11 We be used will not for be MR. CARVIN-Okay. What do you want to do here? MR. THOMAS-I myself, I'd rather table it and kick it around a little bit. MR. CARVIN-Do you want to go the 62 days? MR. THOMAS-I wouldn't go the 62. MR. FORD-I have no objection to tabling it. MR. CARVIN-{ don't know if we can table it, because we've gone through all the loops and hoops, here. I mean, the meter starts running for the 62 days. I mean, we have to make a determination, right, one way or the other. MR. FRIEDLAND-If you've closed the public hearing, you have 62 days to make a decision. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I don't think there's anything significant. I'm going to keep the public hearing closed. I mean, we've really heard all the mitigating arguments. All right. Is that the Board's feeling? Do you want to really mull this around, or do we have enough, I mean, if the motion is made, are we going to have a split decision, I guess? I mean, what factors, at this point, need to get resolved in your minds, one way or the other? We've got to come to the trough, folks. MR. GREEN-The more I think about it here, I have to kind of go along with it, just on the simple basis that I think, one, it's the S.P.C.A. They're going to do everything right. I mean, if it was someone doing this on a private level, I would possibly have more of a concern. You have the Animal Control Officer here that is in very much support of this, and it seems like, as I said earlier, they've built the most state of the art complex that's possible, taking, you know, trying to prevent any outside impingement on the neighbors, and I would vote for it. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I've gone through this several times, and the only one I keep tripping over is, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, and I'm kind of kicking around in my mind that if we limit it to no more than 80 animals at anyone time, that when we refer it to Site Plan Review, that extraordinary efforts are made, as far as the insulation and the soundproofing, that the exterior be maintained in some sort of material that is uniform to - 32 - '-- --" (Queens bury Zoning Board of Appeals 3/20/96) the residential nature of the community, so that we don't end up with a cement block situation. I mean, try to mitigate as much of this impact of the neighborhood or conmlllnity, I think we can move forward, because I think everything else does fal1 under the granting of this request, and by stipulating some of this, I think we can, we would be granti~g the minimum relief necessary, without upsetting the neighborhood health, safety and welfare. MR. FORD-I think the concerns expressed by the people who live in the neighborhood are not unlike those of anyone that might live in a similar neighborhood might come before this Board and express, including the Board members. MR. CARVIN-All right. or do you want to mull So, again, it over? do we have enough to move this, MRS. LAPHAM-I don't need to mull it over, but if the rest of the Board would like the time, I'm not against it. MR. MENTER-Why don't you make that a motion, Fred, and we'll see what happens. MR. FRIEDLAND-Mr. Chairman, this is a Use Variance. through SEQRA before you make a decision on application. You have to go the variance MR. CARVIN-Okay. Yes. MOTION THAT A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM WOULD INDICATE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: Duly adopted this 20th day of March, 1996, by the following vote; AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Ford, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Karpeles MOTION TO APPROVE (* TABLED) USE VARIANCE NO. 12-1996 WASHINGTON COUNTY SPCA. INC., Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by William Green: The applicant is proposing to construct an animal shelter In an area currently zoned SR-IA and LC-I0A. Animal shelters are not a listed use as permitted under the SR-IA zone classification. I believe that the applicant has demonstrated that a reasonable return off the land is not possible because of existing conditions in relation to FAA restrictions which are imposed due to the closeness of this parcel to the Warren County Airport, and that any single family development in this zone would be extremely difficult to achieve. Obviously, because of these FAA impositions, the hardship is unique to this property. In regard to the adverse effect on the essential character of the neighborhood issue, there has been neighborhood opposition to the location of this animal shelter in this parcel. However, I would like to mitigate the change of character in the neighborhood by conditioning this variance that at no time shall there be in excess of 80 animals on the property. That this application be referred to site plan review with emphasis placed on unique and extraordinary sound dampening materials and that adequate sewage and animal waste disposition be careful1y looked at and considered. I think the applicant has also gone to extraordinary lengths by the design and proposed construction of their building. That also emphasis should be concentrated on the outside material. That any of the building material be con1patible to the residential nature of the community - 33- - (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 3/20/96) and the area. I think by conditioning this variance with these conditions, that this would be the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the difficulty that's been confronted by the applicant. Duly adopted this 20th day of March, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Green, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Carvin NOES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Ford, Mr. Thomas ABSENT: Mr. Karpeles MR. CARVIN-So that's a No Action, in which case, we're back to Square One, folks. All right. Then I'm going to move that we table this for consideration under the 62 day limitation, so that the Board has an opportunity to address any of the issues that it needs to address to come to a decision. So, we'll have to get back to you with some kind of decision, and we have exactly 62 days to do that. All right. So do I need a vote on that, or is that just automatic? MR. FRIEDLAND-You have 62 days in which to decide it. MR. CARVIN-All right. Do we have to publically announce when we bring that decision out? What is the procedure there? MR. FRIEDLAND-No. had and closed. agendas. There's no notice. The public hearing has been What eve r yo u no tic e yo u ' d no r ma 11 y pro v ide to MR. CARVIN-Okay. that is the case. So it would be just an agenda item. So we'll let you know in 62 days. Okay. Then AREA VARIANCE NO. 13-1996 TYPE II SFR-IA TUOMO S. NYKANEN JULIE N. NYKANEN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE EAST SIDE OF OAKWOOD DRIVE AT INTERSECTION WITH WINCREST DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES A BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT OF A NONCONFORMING LOT RESULTING IN AN AREA OF .9569 SQ. FT. IN A SFR-IA ZONE (1 ACRE). THIS ADJUSTMENT REQUIRES RELIEF FROM THE AREA REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-20C. TAX MAP NO. 66-1-5.1 LOT SIZE: 0.96 ACRES SECTION 179-20C MICHAEL O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 13-1996, Tuomo S. Nykanen Julie N. Nykanen, Meeting Date: March 20, 1996 "PROJECT LOCATION: East side of Oakwood Drive at Wincrest Drive PROPOSED PROJECT AND CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE: The applicant is seeking to adjust a boundary line of a nonconforming lot. The present area of the lot is .9846 acres, the proposed area is .9569 acres. A driveway belonging to the adjacent property owner is located on the Nykanen's land. This adjustment is being made in order to remove this driveway from the Nykanen's property. CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERING AN AREA VARIANCE, ACCORDING TO CHAPTER 267, TOWN LAW. 1. BENEFIT TO THE APPLICANT: This relief would fix ownership patterns so that the adjacent owner's driveway would not be on the Nykanen! s proper ty. 2. FEAS IBLE ALTERNATIVES: Ther e does not meet to be any alternatives which could provide a lesser amount of relief from the Ordinance. 3. IS THIS RELIEF SUBSTANTIAL RELATIVE TO THE ORDINANCE?: The required area for a lot in the SFR--1A district is one acre, the applicants proposed lot would be .9569 acres. 4. EFFECTS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR COMMUNITY?: There do not appear to be any adverse impact associated with this request. Additional comment may be made at the public hearing. 5. IS THIS DIFFICULTY SELF-CREATED?: No. At the tin1e of the sale and survey of this lot in 1992 it was discovered that the neighbors driveway ran across this property. PARCEL HISTORY: This property was - 34 - -- -' (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 3/20/96) purchased by the Nykanen's in 1992, and their home exists on the property today. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: Staff feels that this is a small adjustment to the property. The difference between the required and existing area is a minor amount. SEQR: Type II, no further action required." MR. THOMAS-It appears this did not go before Warren County. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does everyone understand what the applicant is requesting? Any questions of the applicant? Okay. I understand full y w hat ish a p p en i n g her e . 1ft her e ' s no add i t ion ale omm en t from the applicant, then I'll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Any questions of the applicant? Then I'd ask for a motion. Everybody satisfied? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 13-1996 TUOMO S. NYKANEN JULIE N. NYKANEN, Introduced by Bonnie Lapham who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: East side of Oakwood Drive. The applicant is seeking to adjust the boundary line of a nonconforming. The present area of the lot is .9846 acres. The proposed area is .9569 acres. The driveway belonging to the adjacent property owner is located on the Nykanen plan. This adjustment is being made in order to remove the driveway from the Nykanen's property. This relief would fix ownership patterns so that the adjacent owner's driveway would not be on the Nykanen's property. There do not seem to be any feasible alternatives that could provide a lesser amount of relief from the Ordinance. The required area for a 'lot in the Single Family Residential district is one acre. The applicant's proposed lot would be .9569 acres. There do not appear to be any adverse impacts associated with the request. The difficulty is not self- created. It occurred at the time of the sale and survey in 1992. This property was purchased in 1992, and their home exists on the property today. Duly adopted this 20th day of March, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Ford, Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Karpeles MR. CARVIN-Okay. Area Variance No. I'm going to change. The next one IS going to be 17-1996, Joseph Guerra. AREA VARIANCE NO. 17--1996 TYPE I I WR~ lA CEA DR. & MRS. JOSEPH GUERRA OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE CLEVERDALE ROAD TO SEELYE ROAD, OPPOSITE DUTCHESS OF LAKEWOOD SIGN APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A SECOND LEVEL ON A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. THIS ACTION REQUIRES RELIEF FROM THE ENLARGEMENT OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS IN SECTION 179-79A2. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 3/13/96 TAX MAP NO. 16-1-32 LOT SIZE: 0.63 ACRES SECTION 179-79A2 JOSEPH & ROSE GUERRA, PRESENT STAFF INPUT 35 - (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 3/20/96) Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 17-1996, Dr. & Mrs. Guerra, Meeting Date: March 20, 1996 "PROJECT LOCATION: Seelye Rd. off Cleverdale Rd., opposite Dutchess of Lakewood sign. PROPOSED PROJECT AND CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE: The applicant is proposing to construct a second floor addition to his existing home. This action requires relief from the enlargement of a nonconforming structure requirements of Section 179-79A2. The applicant is proposing to expand the building area of his home by more than 50% of what the original structure was. The original square footage of the home is listed as 1618 sq. ft. (Assessor), and the proposal is for a second floor addition of the same size. CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERING AN AREA VARIANCE, ACCORDING TO CHAPTER 267, TOWN LAW. 1. BENEFIT TO THE APPLICANT: The applicants state that this relief is necessary to renovate the home because it will eventually be their permanent home. 2. FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES: It does not appear that there are any alternatives which could provide a lesser amount of relief from the Ordinance. 3. IS THIS RELIEF SUBSTANTIAL RELATIVE TO THE ORDINANCE? This 25,000 square foot lot currently has 2254 square feet of living area. This request would increase the overall living area to a total of 3872 square feet. 4. EFFECTS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR COMMUNITY?: There may be some effects on the lake and other properties due to stormwater runoff associated with this addition. Additional comment may be made at the public hearing. 5. IS THIS DIFFICULTY SELF-CREATED?: No. This lot contains 25,000 square feet in a WR-1A zone which requires a minimum lot size of one acre. Almost any type of expansion on this property would require a variance. PARCEL HISTORY: All assessor's records indicate this property has been owned by the Guerra's. Currently, there is 2254 square feet of living space on the property. The Guerra's applied for a variance in 1985 to expand their home. This request for side setback relief was denied by the ZBA. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: The Zoning Board should determine what visual impact this addition would have on the neighborhood. Staff has concerns about stormwater runoff onto other properties and into the lake. The height of the structure is not indicated on the provided elevations. The overall height of the building cannot exceed 35 feet as required in the WR-1A d i s t r i ct. S EQR : T y pel I, no fur the r act ion r e qui red. " MR. THOMAS-"At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 13th day of March 1996, the above application for an Area Variance to construct a second level addition to existing structure and new roof. was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact" Signed by C. Powel South, Chairperson. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I'm gOIng to move the Short Environmental Form. MR. MARTIN-It's Type II anyhow, Fred. MR. CARVIN-So we don't have to. the applicant is requesting? Okay. Everyone understand what MR. FORD-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Any questions of the applicant? MR. GREEN-I've got a question here, on Site Plan 3-93, that was the site plan for the second story, and you just never did it? The site plan was approved on? DR. GUERRA-It was approved in 1992? MR. GREEN-Well, it says '93 here, February 23, 1993. DR. GUERRA-Well, I just ran out and never got to do it, and didn't like the design of the roof. - 36 - - (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 3/20/96) MR. GREEN-Did you get a variance at that time? MRS. GUERRA-I don't think a varu:.trlce was necessary because the roof was not being changed that much. DR. GUERRA-Actually now I want to put a completely pitched roof on it. Before, they were leaving the flat roof. MRS. LAPHAM-This is what you're doing this time? DR. GUERRA-Correct. That's the type roof we want to put on now. MR . MART I N - I t h ink , Bill, t hat pro pas a I in' 9 3 did n 't nee d a variance, because it was under the 50 percent requirement, but any expansion of a nonconforming structure requires site plan review. So, should this be approved tonight, that's the next place it would go. MR. GREEN-I just saw the site plan was approved, and I was curious why it didn't go ahead then. MRS. GUERRA-(1ost words) my dad's very ill, and we were not interested or thinking about doing anything more. Now my husband's getting toward retirement, and I'm getting kind of itchy to get this house done so we can move up here. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Do you have the height from the front elevation, or the lakeside? DR. GUERRA-It would be the same height as the existing roof that we have there. MR. FORD-You're going to add another story and maintain the same roof? DR. GUERRA~Actually, the second story of it pi tched roof, and then there' 11 bf~ room for bathroom. is go i ng to be the two bedrooms and a MR. CARVIN-Well, before, but this I'm looking at this, and we've gone through this is the view from the lake, is it? DR. GUERRA-Right. MR. CARVIN-All right. Well, do you know what this height is going to be? DR. GUERRA-This IS just a sketch of what we're going to do, but I took it from the last time. Do you have a picture of the old roof there? I have some photographs of the old roof. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I've got this. DR. GUERRA-Well', I'm under the understanding that it wouldn't be any higher than that pitched old roof. MR. CARVIN-I'm looking here, and this is from the lake, and it would appear that you re going to have a substantially larger roof, and this is what I'm wondering. MRS. GUERRA-It's going to be a second story. DR. GUERRA--Yes, but still, I was under the understanding that the peak wouldn't be any higher than the peak of that roof there now, because originally he said he was going to extend it over. I don't have any measurements of that right now. MR. THOMAS-Well, it's got to be. If you look at the old roof, from - 37 -- (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 3/20/96) the lake side, and it shows the glass across the front, okay, and then you go over to the lake side elevation, you're putting two dormers on there, with the windows, and the roof above that. You can see that it's going to be higher than the existing roof. MR. CARVIN-From the lake, it's now one of these three story things. MRS. GUERRA-That bottom is a cellar. MR. THOMAS-Yes, it's a walk out cellar. MRS. GUERRA-Yes. MR. THOMAS-And then there's the first floor, and then there's no second story on there now? MRS. GUERRA-Right. MR. THOMAS-Okay. It's just a hip roof on there. MRS. GUERRA-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay. What you're going to do is put a second story on, and then bring the roof down and the eave of the new roof will be at the same level as the eave of the existing roof. That's the way it looks between the elevation from the lake and the existing picture, but the existing roof now doesn't look like you could stand up inside it. DR. GUERRA-You can. MR. THOMAS-But only in the center of it. DR. GUERRA-Right. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So in order to get more room toward the overhang, you would have to go up higher, in order to get those dormers in. That's the way 1 see it. DR. GUERRA-If you take a picture of this, there's a flat roof in front of that pitched roof on the side and in the back. So, really, I was under the understanding that originally they were going to try and extend that roof straight across and then come with a pitch toward the front and back, and then put the dormers on. MR. THOMAS-I don't see how they're going to do that. MR. CARVIN-In 35 feet. MR. THOMAS-Yes. I've seen a lot of renovations around the lake, and, to me, that roof has got to go up. Do you have a contractor or something, somebody that? DR. GUERRA-Being that we were approved before, I just thought we'd want to get it approved now. Then we were going to have the plans drawn up. MR. THOMAS-Yes. If you had a contractor in here that could tell us all this stuff. MRS. GUERRA-What do you need to know? MR. THOMAS-How high that roof is going to be above the existing roof, for how high, from ground level, to the peak of the roof. MRS. GUERRA-Okay, but our house sets down, so we're not obstructing - 38 - "-- - (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 3/20/96) anyone's view. MR. CARVIN-So it still has no bearing, it still can't be any higher than 35 feet, and what we're saying is; I don't think you're going to be able to put a third story up here and come underneath the 35 feet, because you've probably got, what, 10 foot here and 10 foot there. You've probably got 20, 25 feet, probably 30 feet now. I mean, is that a rough estimate? That's probably a close estimate. DR. GUERRA-On the plans that were submitted in '93, probably that height would be on that. I thought that you would have that in the file. Well, okay. I can get those things. MR. THOMAS-Do we have the plans from '93? be here. mean, they might not MR. MARTIN-We have them back in the office. DR. GUERRA-Yes. original plans. know I'm not going any higher than those MR . MAR TIN - W 0 u I d you h a v e a arc hit e c tor con t r act 0 r who co u I d provide you with that? DR. GUERRA-Well, after this step, we were going to go to an architect. MR. MARTIN-I understand that, but I mean, at this step, could they, could you get somebody to supply the Board with that information? DR. GUERRA-Yes. MR. CAR V I N- Yes. I'd I i k e to see, I t hi nk , a lit tIe bit mo r e detail, as far as what's projected there. MR. MARTIN-And I'm not saying go out and get your whole plans all drawn and go to that expense, but at least, you know, I think an architect or contractor could give an idea as to what the height would be. MR. FORD-I have another issue. MRS. GUERRA-Okay. Is th is wha t you wan t? You jus t wan t to know how high this building is going to be, is that correct? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. MARTIN-And bear in mind, height is figured from the lowest point on the grade to the highest point on the house. So in this particular case, it's figured from the grade down by the lakeside to the highest point on the house. DR. GUERRA-And this can't be any higher than 35 feet? MR. CARVIN-Currently, and I think that may, I don't know how this would bear. MR. MARTIN-Well, that's the current standard. There is a proposal before the Town Board to amend the Zoning Code down to 28 feet, and that is being heard May 6th. DR. GUERRA--If I was just going to change my roof, not the room upstairs, because basically I want a pitched roof. I mean, then could just go from the peak where I am now, is that correct? MR. CARVIN-Well, I think you'd probably have to consult and come up with the measurements. -- 39 -~ (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 3/20/96) MR. MARTIN-Just as a bit of advice, and I just mean this totally as advice, we've had applicants come before the Board who come with a sketch similar to that, thinking, you know, this is what I want to do, t he Board r eac t s and we've had them approved, and then they take it out to a contractor or architect, and they change that, once they apply their knowledge to it, and we get in a bind, and we get in a big problem because, there may be some practical reason why you have to change your roof line, and it doesn't match your approval, and it's caused big problems. So I think if you can get as best a handle as you can, from a practical point of view, as to what that design is going to be, and then come back to the Board, because I just don't want to see you get an approval, and then have, you know, problems down the road. MRS. GUERRA-Now, what are you saying, then? We have to come back with the figure of how high this building will be? MR. MARTIN-Yes, and I '01 just advising you go to get some verification of that from your contractor or from your architect or whoever you're going to have do this for you, and make sure that that is, in fact, what you envision and what can actually be built. Because sometimes that can vary. MRS. GUERRA-And actually this has to be done, probably, before May 6th, if you're changing the standards here. MR. MARTIN-Well, yes. I don't know if that's going to go into effect that night or not, but that's what's proposed. MRS. GUERRA-You see, we didn't want to go up. We didn't want to go up at all, but we were told we could not go out, because we had to go up. Going up is not to my liking at all. MR. M.ARTIN-No, don't blame you for that. MRS. GUERRA-All right. Then do we come to this next meeting next week or do we notify you? MR. MARTIN-That's up to the Board. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, we've got that issue on the table. MR. FORD-I'm trying to reconcile some footage. It's listed as 1618 square 2254 square feet, existing building. if either one of them is accurate? differences in the square feet. It's also listed as Which of those is accurate, DR. GUERRA-Actually, all I know is the existing building is 48 by 47 and a half. MR. CARVIN-Okay. How long have you owned it? DR. GUERRA-Since 1966. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Did you put an addition on it at any point? DR. GUERRA-No. We never really put an addition on it. MR. CARVIN-So you bought it as is? DR. GUERRA-Yes. We improved the original structure, but we never added. MR . CAR V IN - Th at' s w hat I' 01 ask i ng . original structure". When you say "improved the MRS. GUERRA-We didn't put an addition on. porch. We enclosed the front - 40 - '- --- (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 3/20/96) DR. GUERRA-Enclosed the front porch. MRS. GUERRA-But the structure was there. MR. FORD-When you square footage is considering living up with the 3872. come back, we'd like to know what the actual and how that is determined. What are we space, and then where do we go from that to come MR. CARVIN-When you enclosed the space, what was the space? Was it a deck or a porch? MRS. GUERRA-It was a porch, a screened porch. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and now is it living area? DR. GUERRA-·Yes. MR . CAR V I N - 0 k a y . We 11, t hat's an ex pan s ion, you see, and t hat's what I suspect, because you probably had a 1618 square foot original cabin, and if you had a deck, and enclosed that, that was probably where they come up with that extra four or five hundred square feet. MR. FORD-That's good supposition. verification. I'd just like some sort of DR. GUERRA-Originally, it was an open porch. MR. FORD-And when did you do that? DR. GUERRA-We did that in 1970. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions of the applicant? Okay. I just have one. Now, this is going to be an addition. You're not going to be tearing this whole thing down? You're just going to be taking the roof off and building up? DR. GUERRA-That's right. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MRS. GUERRA-And there's not going to be any more people in the house. I see here where there's a concern about the runoff on the lake. Actually, there'll probably be one less person. MR. THOMAS-We L I, when they're talking about runoff, they're talking about stormwater, rain water. Just because there's one less person, doesn't make a difference. MRS. GUERRA-Right. MRS. GUERRA-So where do we go from here? MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, we normally, I think we re going to table this, until we get some additional information. MR. MARTIN-We'd be happy to sit down with you and try and resolve a lot of these issues and get this application in a little bit better shape, at no cost. What I could recommend you do is, this is George Hilton. You could call him and schedule a time. We'll sit down with you and put in layman's terms what is actually needed here for you, and try and get you on a better footing here. MRS. GUERRA-Okay. Very good. MR. CARVIN--Okay, but table this, we have a should point out that 60 day tabling policy. if we're going to So don't know - 41 - (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 3/20/96) whether, if they're going to be longer than that. MR. GUERRA-Well, would the meeting be, are they every month? MR. CARVIN-Well, the meetings are every month, but it becomes a scheduling. In other words, if we don't hear back from you within 60 days, this application is null and void. DR. GUERRA-We can get back. MR. MARTIN-Yes. We can meet with you in the next few days and give you a list of things that you need to get done and get on your way. MR. CARVIN-We better open up the public hearing. All right. I'm going to open up the public hearing on this application. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. CARVIN-All right. I'm going to leave the public hearing open, because we don't have to re-advertise, is that correct, if we leave the public hearing open? MR. MARTIN-That's correct. MR. CARVIN-All right. So the public hearing will remain open. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 17-1996 DR. & MRS. JOSEPH G. GUERRA, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: To allow the applicant an opportunity to work with staff and to address some of the height and stormwater runoff issues and dimensions, and make this application complete. Duly adopted this 20th day of March, 1996, by the following vote: DR. GUERRA-Could I ask one question? Now the reason that this was approved the first time, was it because we left all that flat roof? MR. CARVIN-I don't know what, I can't give you an answer. I can tell you why it's not moving ahead tonight is because we don't have the answers. Okay. AYES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Ford, Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Karpeles AREA VARIANCE NO. 14-1996 TYPE II WR-IA CEA ALFRED E. & MARY E. KRI STENSEN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE FITZGERALD ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION OF PRE-EXISTING LOTS PARTIALLY WITHIN A CEA. THIS ACTION NEEDS RELIEF FROM THE AREA REQUIREMENTS IN SECTION 179- 16C AND THE MERGER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 179-76E. APPLICANT ALSO PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO A PRE-EXISTING STRUCTURE WHICH WILL REQUIRE RELIEF FROM THE SHORELINE SETBACKS OUTLINED IN SECTION 179-60(15)(c). WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 3/13/96 TAX MAP NO. 41-1- 21.1, 21.2, 21.3, 25 LOT SIZES: 0.34, 0.49, 0.22, 0.59 SECTION 179-76E, 179-60(15)(c) MICHAEL O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 14-1996, Alfred E. & Mary E. Kr is tensen, Meet i ng Date: March 20, 1996 "PROPOSED LOCATION: Fitzgerald Road PROPOSED PROJECT AND CONFORMANCE WITH THE - 42 - '- -- (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 3/20/96) ORDINANCE: Applicant proposes modification of pre-existing lots partially within a CEA. This action needs relief from the area requirements of Section 179-16C and the merger provisions of Section 179-76E. Applicant also proposes to construct an addition to a pre-existing structure which will require relief from the s h 0 rei i n e set b a c k sou t1 i n e din S e c ti 0 n 1 79 - 60 ( 1 5 ) ( C). CR I TER I A FOR CONSIDERING AN AREA VARIANCE, ACCORDING TO CHAPTER 267, TOWN LAW: 1. BENEFIT TO THE APPLICANT: The benefit to the applicant would be the ability to develop single family homes. 2. FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES: The applicant could split Lot C, giving area to Lot B and Lot D. The result would be three lots which come closer to conforming to the area requirements of the WR-IA district. 5. IS THIS RELIEF SUBSTANTIAL RELATIVE TO THE ORDINANCE?: The minimum lot area for the WR-IA zoning district is one acre. The largest lot will be . 6 1 acres , the small est wi 11 be . 4 9 acres . The shoreline setback is 75 feet, the applicant is seeking a setback of 35 feet for the proposed addition. 4. EFFECTS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR COMMUNITY?: These nonconforming lots which are located in a CEA, could have a negative impact associated with stormwater runoff into Glen Lake. Additional comment may be provided at the public hearing. 5. IS THIS DIFFICULTY SELF-CREATED? Lots B, C, & D were all under one ownership at one time. The Zoning Ordinance states that lots which do not meet the area requirements of the zoning district that are in a CEA will be considered one lot for zoning purposes. PARCEL HISTORY: According to the Assessors office files, the lots which make up Parcel "A" have been owned by Don & Kathyrn Maynard. Parcels "B", "C", & "D" have been shown as being owned by Mary Ellen Kristensen. On October' 27, 1994 a portiorl of Parcel "B" was split and is now under the ownership of multiple members of the Kristensen family. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: This application seeks to merge lots which according to the Zoning Ordinance are considered to be one lot because they are located in a CEA. If merged, these lots would not meet the area requirements for the WR-IA district. The applicant is also seeking shoreline setback relief to construct an addition to a pre-existing structure. The existing shoreline setback for that lot shown as Parcel "D" does not conform to the required setback of 75 feet. SEQR: Type II, no further action required." MR. THOMAS-"At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 13th day of March 1996, the above application for an Area Variance for the modification of pre-existing lots partially within a critical environmental area. was reviewed, and the following action was taken. Reconm1endation to: Return Comments: The WCPB agrees with the merger of the lots, but no action could be taken on the proposed addition since a majority vote could not be achieved." Signed by C. Powel South, Chairperson. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does everybody understand what the applicant is requesting? MR. FORD-Yes. I have a technical question, just for the appropriateness of accepting applications where documents have supposedly been read and attested to an accepting an undated stamp of an applicant's signature? It appears four times on this. I mean, if that's acceptable and appropriate. MR. O'CONNOR-We had all ten copies prepared, but we couldn't get the signature, ahead, on one to photocopy the signature. So what we did was have the original signed, and Staff has the original, or somebody has the original. There was an original signed, and we used a stamp on the balance. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-Next time I will have it signed before. MR. CARVIN-Do you have the original of Dr. Kristensen's signature? -- 43 - (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 3/20/96) MR. THOMAS-Yes, do. MR. CARVIN-Okay. On all of them? Because we have just a stamp her e. Does S taf f wan t to make any corrunen t sin add i ti on to the i I' corrunents? MR. HILTON-Just what's in the notes, and if any questions arise, I'll be happy to answer them for you. MR. THOMAS-Do you want me to read Jin1's letter to Mr. Price, about the three lots? MR. CARVIN-Well, it's part of the record. Okay. Any questions of the applicant? Okay. Am I to understand, in 50 words or less, that this is where you want to end up? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, it is. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and am I to understand that as it is right now, we have a lot here, a lot here, a lot here, a lot here, and a lot here, is that correct? MR. O'CONNOR-That was our understanding, without this merger business. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and what you are looking to do construct a two car garage, as opposed to the four, the closet here, requiring a setback from the lake? is actually and then pu t MR. O'CONNOR-And can I correct one thing? that's 45 feet from the lake, that closet. That's not 35 feet, MR. CARVIN-Okay. So that this is an incorre~t figure? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. The relief requested is 25 feet on the closet. MR. MENTER-The actual distance to the closet? MR. O'CONNOR-From the outside edge of the closet is 45 feet. If you take a look at the front of the house that's shown to be 30 feet, it should have been picked up before. MR. CARVIN-There's a deck there, too. house, but what's it to the deck? So tha t' s 30 feet to the MR. O'CONNOR-That's not shown on here, but just as a matter of scale, that line couldn't be 35 feet, Mr. Carvin, that closet back there (lost word). Relief requested from the closet is 25 feet. It's 30 feet. My apology. It presently is 45 feet, and the relief requested is 30 feet. MR. CARVIN-Okay. it's just the, currently? Am I also to understand that there is, I shed is the only thing that is existing think there MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. The shed will be removed. MR. THOMAS-Yes, that does scale back to 45 feet. MR. CARVIN-Okay. What is it from the front of that deck, existing camp, I guess I don't know what that abbreviation is, something or other deck. MR. THOMAS-I have 18 and a half feet, existing concrete deck. MR. CARVIN-Concrete deck. Now is that a patio, is it? be a patio, then. Is this a concrete deck, then? I just a patio? That must mean, it's - 44 - - (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 3/20/96) ALFRED KRISTENSEN DR. KRISTENSEN-No, it is raised. MR. CARVIN-It is raised. It's only 18 feet. That's been there for a while, I take it. Right? All right. Now you also have a new garage that you are proposing, or is that? MR. O'CONNOR-That is proposed. There are no variances required for that, I'm advised. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and then this IS an existing residence here. Okay. So I guess, if memory serves correct, the four car garage was conditioned that this line actually move 25 feet, or something like that, so that you have 175 feet? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So, actually, you don't have a four car garage until you get that moved. Is that correct? MR. O'CONNOR-Right. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Now, does a variance have a time limit? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. CARVIN-And is it one year? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Are there any anticipated, all right, now I guess these would all be common ownership, or would these all be in family ownership, different family members? MR. O'CONNOR-Individually owned. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and this has got no part of this application, technically? MR. O'CONNOR-It has no part. MR. CARVIN-That's Maynard. All right. Does everybody understand what they're requesting? This is kind of a spaghetti situation here. There's a lot of lines running all over. Let me take a shot at this, okay, Mike? MRS. LAPHAM-I think I've got it, but I don't know. MR. CARVIN-Well, this is where they want to end up. This is the bottom line, I guess. What has happened here is that there has been a number of combinations of purchases and lot line adjustments and so forth, but, essentially, we have a lot here, a lot here, and two lots here. In other words, this line here is actually a lot. For zoning purposes, because it's a common ownership, it's all considered as one lot. Now. When we granted the variance for the four car garage, back a couple thousand years ago, we conditioned that variance that this line be moved this direction, so that they had, they've got 150 feet, 149.xx, but we wanted 175 feet, and in essence I think we were going to subdivide this lot, is that correct, Mike? I may be wrong on that. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. We were going to subdivide that lot. MR. CARVIN-And end up with, essentially, two lots? MR. O'CONNOR-No, three lots. - 45- (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 3/20/96) MR. CARVIN-Three lots, with this one being a little one? MR. o 'CONNOR-I 've got about five different configurations of lots. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, I really don't want to get bOlged down in it, but, essentially, we were going to move this line this way. MR. O'CONNOR-We were going to change the boundary line, but still keep three building lots. MR. CARVIN-Right, and essentially I think all they've done is just even this up, so that they still have, essentially, three building lots, and my guess is that these lots, I don't think we would be giving up anything if we did this, because any building on this lot or this lot would have to be in compliance with any setbacks and so forth, so that if they were closer to the lake, that we would have to review that. MR. FORD-Or come in for variance. MR. CARVIN-Or come in for variance. All right. So the bottom line is, do we want to end up with this type of configuration, and is this, I think, detrimental to the overall aspect of the conmunity. Because I think we are creating, we're creating, what, nonconforming lots, essentially. Now, Staff has indicated that, well, gee whiz, instead of having three lots, why don't we just split it in two and we'll have two lots that are a little bit closer to conformance, and I think that surmnarizes Staff's position, in ten words or less? MR. HILTON-That's a feasible alternative. Yes. MR. CARVIN-Yes, that's one of the alternatives that we're looking at. That still doesn't address this issue, but it addresses whether we want to have three lots here or two lots. Okay. Does that succinctly clarify? All right. Having said that, are there any questions of the appl icant? I f not, then I'll move to the public hearing. I'll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. O'CONNOR-A couple of points I'd like to make, okay. One particularly as to the character of the neighborhood, and I don't want to bog you down and get you all confused, but we have gone through just about every type of configuration that you can think of to go through. Eventually, the Kristensen family is going to con t r 01 the Maynar d proper ty and wha t we s how on her e as be i ng three family lots, okay, and then they are going to sell, immediately, Lot D. We have a fellow who says, for reasons of his own and our own, he says he will lease it until November, and he will buy it if we get permission to do the closet and the two car garage. This is, I once did a, in the same file, did an application with regard to assessments, and I got copies of various portions of the tax map. If you take a look at this portion of Glen Lake, which is across the lake from what we are talking about here, probably 75 to 90 percent of the lots are actually 50 feet lots. They're the same lots as what we have here, and I say that simply to talk about the character of the lots, the reasonableness of the applicant when you come to balance what everybody is trying to accomplish. I'll show you the tax map of this particular area, and I will note that I speak not with tongue and cheek. I own that lot right there. My mother owns these two lots. My mother's going to be very surprised to find out that those two lots now are considered one lot, but that's an issue. I don't know. This merger business was never applied to Glen Lake before, and I'm not sure how it came up in this particular instance. It was accepted as being applied to APA lands, but it was snuck in, or not snuck in, but in 1988, it was put in with regard to Glen Lake lots, at - 46 - - (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 3/20/96) least the first hundred feet of those lots. Okay. So the back lots aren't merged either, if you want to talk about uniqueness and other different aspects he had. In this particular area, there are, other than the Maynard parcel, which was three 50 foot lots, and the Kristensen lot itself, there really are no lots as big as what we're proposing, 125 feet and 130 feet. If you talk about practical difficulty, you talk about area variance, you talk about a balancing. One other thing you talk about and can talk about, legitimately, from the area variance, is substantial economic impact. I have records, and I wi II submi tit as par t of the record, that right now the investment in this particular property right here, Parcel D, I say this with the permission of my client who is present with me, is $440,000. The market value on that property is $330,000. At least that's what we have been able to generate the best that we can. To follow Staff's comment and add some frontage to it, out of what we've bought from Price, we will not get a reasonable return. I almost think I have enough proof to actually merit not only an area variance but a use variance if that was what I was applying for on this particular thing. We've talked about taking tl1e 50 foot lot and adding it to the Maynard parcel, but then you've got all kinds of probl ems there, because then you've got two principal residences on a one lot. You also have an investment on the Maynard parcel alone of, close to $550,000. It just doesn't make reasonable, economic sense, in the sense of reasonabl e return, not making a prof it. I don't know how many parcels on Glen Lake are even comparable to that. We talked about leaving the 50 foot lot and creating two 100 foot lots. We've talked about adding 100 feet to the 50 foot lot and making one lot the other way. When we tried to come back to, say, where did we start this whole mess? We started it when Price gave an idea to us, and we verified it with Jim Martin, that he had a 125 foot lot adjoining Kristensen's main home. He had an 80 foot vacant lot next to that, and he had a 50 foot lot. I didn't think I was going to sell it to the eskimos, but that I was going to keep the three lots, and you talk about, we came in looking, thinking that we had three lots, and basically we're still keeping three lots. We came in thinking we had four. We thought we had the Kristensen family home, and three from Price. We are asking to go out of here with three lots, the Kristensen family home, the 125 foot vacant parcel, we've thrown the 80 foot parcel with the 50 foot parcel, to come up with 130 foot parcel. Out of curiosity, when I saw this map, and then I saw this map, I also went to the County Clerk's Office, because, if you have an area variance, this other land's available. Okay. There is no other land available coming this way, because you've got Maynard. There's no other land going that way, because you've got Parcel D that's fully developed. There is shown here a strip of land along the back of the parcel. Okay. You research that, Davey Fitzgerald owned that. He owned all that. In fact, my family probably had, my fan1ily, cousins, relatives and everything else, have owned probably 15 of these. They were all 50 foot lots, regardless of what you show. We bought 50 foot lots up there, all the way over to the Point, except the Point. Pioneer Point was bought as one pie, and Bill Barton, Bob Hughes, and Phyllis broke it up, in the way that they broke it up. D.J. Fitzgerald owned that. I found in the County Clerk's Office that his son, Daniel Johnson, and the wife of his other son, George Johnson, still owned that strip. I took a deed, this afternoon, from them. It took me a little bit of time to sort it out and whatever, but this is the strip that's there. It's the only way of mitigating anything I co u 1 d t h ink 0 f . So, we' v ego n e 0 u t, and I' lis u bm ita cop y 0 f this, we've got the strip behind it. That adds another 3.2 of the acre to the pie. So, I can give you, and it's also in answer to the question that somebody asked, do you have frontage on the road. Glen Lake has got a history. We used to come in next to the house on the gully, as you go across Country Club Road, and somebody shut that off because it was a private road. We then used to come through the Country Club, and then they shut that off and they built Mannis Road coming in, directly at the end of Country Club .- 47 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 3/20/96) Road. When they built Mannis Road to connect to us, the Town built this road, because they were somehow involved in the shutting off of the right-of-way, because what they did is they raised the grade as you go across the Newton's, there, you go across that gully. When they came in here to do it, the people on this end of the road wouldn't let them take down some trees, and in those days, they wen tar 0 un d them. So, the y , r e r 0 a din her e i s by pre s c rip t ion. They never took a deed, never took title to it, and it never met the back of the lots. So that's what created that. Specifically what we are looking for is a 30 foot setback variance on this piece right here, a 13 foot setback on that piece. If we add the piece that's behind Lot D to Lot 0, we have .687 of an acre. We're looking for a variance of .313. We have a lot width of 150. So we meet the lot width. On Lot C, we're talking about a lot of .535. We're looking for an area variance of .465. We have 125 feet. We're looking for a 25 foot lot width variance. On Lot ß, we end up with 7.45 of an acre, and that's a little convoluted, but all you're doing is talking about the square foot density. This piece will actually come out and come to the back of this corner here, but it gets it closer to your acre, and we'd be talking about .255. That has 130 feet width. We would need a variance of 20 feet width on that lot. I can show you all the things where we tried to add this to this piece here, why we tried to change this in here. If you take a look at the frontage, the entire frontage of the lake on that side, there isn't a lot as big as those. We're not impacting it in any manner. We've also had Tom Nace look at the site, and he says that we can put septics on there without any problem. Staff raised the comment about runoff. I'm willing to stipulation, as a condition to the approval, that any additions or new construction, because there's currently a distinction within the Ordinance, be subject to site plan review. So that we will show the Planning Board that we do proper drainage, as well as proper septic. We think that the applicant, trying to balance things, has come out with a fairly decent proposal. The problem that we had before is that we're segmenting it. We kept coming in with this, this, this. You've got the full package. MR. CARVIN-Any questions? MR. FORD-This portion here, you say you ve gotten deeds to that, to extend each of those properties out? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MRS. LAPHA~-So they would come back more this way? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, and when we go for site plan, we will show a site plan map showing. MR. MARTIN-Point being, you have frontage on the road? MR. O'CONNOR-I have frontage on the road. In all honesty, from a good planning sense, my question might be, if you think I'm window dressing, I might appreciate the fact that you told me that this one could go straight back. If you go up Fitzgerald Road, and you start right at the corner of, Mannis comes in and the first right is Fitzgerald Road. You notice all those funny fences and all those driveways? See, when we built, there used to be a big ridge, when those people built, there used to be a big ridge through there, and the back of the property didn't go the same way the front of the property went. People didn't draw straight lines back to their road, but that minimizes our request for variance, and I would state as part of the public record, in this particular thing, we now have 420. We pai d $203, on the bas i s tha t we had thr ee lots. This camp is not much of a camp. This thing here is now going to go some place close to 550. MRS. LAPHA~-All right. So this is going to be like this, and then - 48 - ",-. - (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 3/20/96) this line comes out, and somewhere like here? MR. O'CONNOR-This line goes back to there, okay. This line will go there, and that lines goes to there. MRS. LAPHAM-And what's this line? MR. O'CONNOR-That was just for me to know how much variance I was requesting. MRS. LAPHAM-I must be thick, Mike, but, one, two, three, four, where? MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. This is not ours. I thought, when I got this, okay, I thought I could combine this somehow and make it a better deal, but then I end up with more (lost word) because then I've got two. MRS. LAPHAM-I was going to say, you wouldn't want to do that, but if you combine those two, or take something out of here. I don't know. I t does get to be a conundr urn. MR. O'CONNOR-I can't add anything and make any sense to it. MRS. LAPH~~-Right, because this makes it economically unfeasible, if you start doing that. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, and there's no other piece over there that's got 255 fee t 0 f fro n tag e . You t a k e a 1 00 kat the map t hat I h a v e there, they're all, and the average lot size on Glen Lake, whether we like it or don't like it, is probably 60 feet, if not 50 feet. Basically, we're talking about area variances. We're talking about what is the impact, and we're willing to prove that we will not have any impact by runoff. It will not have any impact on septic. I'd like to submit the accounting statements to show that I've got $420,000 in that. I'd like this to be confidential. MR. CARVIN-Well, it's confidential to the fact that you're on the public record. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, you have the right, I think, when you submit things of a financial nature to, even on the public record, to ask that they be, there's a different level 01 ability to look at them if they're of financial nature. MR. CARVIN-Well, we have a public tape here. MR. O'CONNOR-Dr. Kristensen is here, if you've got a question of him. MR. CARVIN-I'm going to continue with the public hearing. Anyone else wishing to be heard in support? Anyone opposed? MR. O'CONNOR-One other corrU11ent, too. I did speak to Chris Mozel who is the President of the Glen Lake Association, and I spoke to Don Milne, who is Chairman of the Septic Committee and told them what we were proposing, and they had no problem with what we were proposing, based upon what they've seen, and the applicant knew as other lands. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any correspondence? MR. THOMAS-No. MR. CARVIN-Any other publ ic conmlent? the public hearing is closed. Seeing none, hearing none, PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED - 49 - (Queens bury Zoning Board of Appeals 3/20/96) MR. CARVIN-All right. Any comments or questions on this, folks? MR. MENTER-No. I pretty clearly understand what we're doing here. I don't really have a problem, in terms of the specific lots. I think, relative to the rest of the area, it's reasonable. How large is your house, at this point? MR. O'CONNOR-It's on the building deed, are you talking about? MR. MENTER-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Building deed, the existing is 1128 square feet, the proposed is 1744 square feet. MR. MARTIN-That's with a garage, Mike? MR. O'CONNOR-That's with the garage. DR. KRISTENSEN-The shed is a trade off. We're just removing 120 from the shed and we're adding 120 to the closet. MR. MARTIN-What was it with the four car garage that was approved? DR. KRISTENSEN-2700, with the four car garage. MR. CARVIN-And we're going to? MR. O'CONNOR-1744. MR. CARVIN-Now the garage, compl iance, as far as height and all that, is it 16, 18 feet from the garage? MR. MARTIN-Just a single story garage. CURT DYBAS MR. DYBAS-Sixteen feet. For the record, my name is Curt Dybas. The garage height, there's a small elevation BB on the site plan, and the ridge height is 16 feet. MR. O'CONNOR-Which is less than the other garage. The other garage, if you remember, was 17 feet, and we had some stipulations about not using the area above the car storage. MR. CARVIN-As I remember that other garage, it had kind of a dormer type of thing there with glass in it, if memory serves correct? MR. DYBAS-It had an offset ridge. MR. CARVIN-Something like that. MR. THOMAS-It conforms to the same roof line of the building. remember that. MR. CARVIN-Yes. Okay. Any anticipated uses of Lot C or B, as far as constructing houses? DR. KRISTENSEN-Not at the moment. MR. MARTIN-But you would stipulate to site plan review for? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, we would. DR. KRISTENSEN-That proposed garage on Lot B, which is not part of this application. MR. O'CONNOR-But we would go for site plan review for that, if you want us to. - 50 - --- - (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 3/20/96) MR. FORD-Can you show the drainage off the two car garage roof line? MR. CARVIN-He's got it right here, Tom. MR. FORD-I see that. just would like it described. MR. MARTIN-You mean you haven't received site plan approval for that four car garage? Did you ever go for that, for the addition of a nonconforming structure? MR. O'CONNOR-No. We never applied. I don't want to sidetrack from the Board's question. After we got the four dar garage approval, the Kristensens said, if they're going to make that investment, they're going to change the lot line. We started a proposal for a one story addition, and then Whetl they found out that the Maynard property was going to be available, rather than try to live with an addition upon an addition, which is basically what they're place is, they said, why don't we try and handle the whole thing, and we will vacate the Maynard property as soon as we can find that will come to our property, and we will show you what we're doing. MR. DYBAS-The garage, as you can see from the elevation BB, drains from the simple gable. On the back side, on the upslope (lost words) through there is very high perked soil, and we back-filled with gravel and take the runoff on that side. The side facing the lake is presently a drainage ditch, low area that receives the water off the existing house roof and has that drywell noted, and there's some question whether or not that drywell can handle it, we'll no doubt gutter that roof on that side and drain it into another drywell, and probably combine it with the roof off of the closet. The plans are to tie that roof line with the existing house. MR. FORD-You anticipated my next questions. MR. MARTIN-See, I think, as a practical matter, the more important site plan would come, maybe with the addition to the exi9ting house, in the form of the two car garage and the closet. The site plan on that stand-alone garage, I don't know what we're really going to accomplish. I mean, if you'll stipulate to some drainage control there in the terms of eaves trenches or something of that nature. MR. O'CONNOR-I'm trying to answer Staff's comments. Part of when we did this division and everything else, Al wanted to be sure that he had sufficient area for septics and that they would work, and that's why we had Tom Nace look at it, and we will do the same thing with this drainage. We would stipulate whatever you want. MR. MARTIN-I think it's a good idea on the site plan, if there was an addition to the existing residence on Lot, is it B, and then certainly for any development on Lot C. I mean, I could see where that would be appropriate. The position of that new garage being so far back, it's 24 by 36. What's the height on that, on that particular garage? MR. DYBAS-Sixteen feet. There's a small elevation sketch. We tried to make it blend in with the existing aesthetics. MR. MARTIN-I see it. Yes. MR. CARVIN-Is that garage going to be for the Maynard residence, is it? Is that the thinking? MR. MART IN--No. MR. CARVIN-They've got their own garage, don't they? - 51 - (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 3/20/96) MR. MARTIN-It's got an attached garage there. MR. O'CONNOR-The Kristensens own the people's place next door to them. In the middle of the winter, you may find some of the Kristensens parents' cars up there. If you've been to the property, you've seen the driveway, you may know why they have some cars up there. MR. CARVIN-Which is something that I think I addressed when we came before. MR. O'CONNOR-But I think that's permitted. The kids can park there cars there in the winter. MR. CARVIN-Well, the existing residence, I guess, is an existing residence. So you're allowed a garage. It doesn't matter whether the garage is bigger than the residence, but I think we've had a bigger problem with just a garage on Lot C, with no existing residence. I mean, that tends to be more of a problem. All right. Any questions, Bill? MR. GREEN-No. I think an awful lot of thought has gone into this, and I oan't see any real advantage of splitting that lot, other than I'm sure you're going to end up with a couple of lots that are a little bit bigger, but I think that's just kind of overkill, almost. MR. CARVIN-How about you, Tom? MR. FORD-Well, understand it. I don't really have any major problem with it, but I haven't spent the hours that these people have looking at alternatives. I've come up with one or two, but I think this is probably the best package solution that we would see. MR. CARVIN-Bonnie? MRS. LAPHA~-I pretty much agree with Tom and Bill. I don't have a real problem with it, plus the fact that it's obviously bigger than what they started with, and a lot of thought has gone into this. It just seems like it was better than what it was originally when it was four different lots. MR. CARVIN-Chris? MR. THOMAS-I've been sitting here reading this Section 179-76(e), about the Critical Environmental Area, that they're adjoining lots treated as one lot, and that was thrown in in 1988. MR. MARTIN-It would be at whatever time the Town filed with the State for the Critical Environmental Areas. I think that came at that time. MR. THOMAS-It says here in Item A, it says, adoption October 1, 1988, Amendment to the Town Zoning Ordinance. MR. MARTIN-I You recall, submitted? think they did those, virtually, at the Mike, when those Critical Environmental I think it was right in that timeframe. same Areas time. were MR. O'CONNOR-No. In honesty, I don't think the Glen Lake, when that was put in the Zoning Ordinance, it was 1988. MR. MARTIN-Yes, that was put in in '88, yes. MR. O'CONNOR-And that's a technical question. I don't think Glen Lake then was designated Critically Environmentally Sensitive at the time that that was put in. - 52 - ...- -...' (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 3/20/96) MR. MARTIN-If it was, it was shortly, '89 or so thereafter. MR. O'CONNOR-I actually think it was '91, and I think the areas that were actually Critically Environmental Sensitive in that area were in here. So I don't, you've got an Ordinance in place that says that if a certain thing is, this is what happens. If when that Ordinance is there, does it apply to other areas later? And I'm just taking from this thing, yes, it did, and that's why we're here. I don't know if that answers your question. MR. THOMAS-What I was thinking was, the Price property wasn't owned by the Kristensens back then. So the lots weren't contiguous, but they are now. MR. O'CONNOR-Those are all owned by the two Prices, and contradictory to not only Jim's letter, they got a letter from, the Assessor has a program here that if you own contiguous parcels, you can ask them to join them for tax purposes, but preserve your right for zoning purposes, and I know that that was done after the re- assessment, and probably after the '88 thing, and nothing was ever said to the people. MR. MARTIN-My only problem, and I've said this to the applicant, with this joiner clause, is, I've talked to a couple of the Board members on the phone today, is properties convey in and out of ownership all the time, across this lakeshore, and we're not apprised of it, and that's my only, because we're not, you know, a part of that process. So this mayor may not happen, and we're just not aware. MR. CARVIN-Well, Jim, does this clear up a lot of the confusion out there? I mean, is this a sensible plan? That's probably a leading question. That's probably something that we should be asking ourselves, not you, but, okay. Any other cOlmnents, Chris? MR. THOMAS-No. I'm set. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Did I miss anybody? All right. I don't have a problem with it. I mean, I think it makes probably the most sense. I guess we have the power to do it, so lets do It, if somebody wants to make a motion. MR. O'CONNOR-Can I ask a question? Do you care, does it make it better to tail behind Maynard with Lot A? MR. CARVIN-Well, let me ask you this, Mike. Kristensen is buying the Maynard lot. So, I mean, essentially it's going to end up, so, personally, I think a straight line makes the most sense, instead of creating another land. MR. O'CONNOR-I would rather have it, and then also A has frontage on the road. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I think the straight line makes the most sense. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MR. CARVIN-So that adjusts it down some, does it? MR. O'CONNOR-That means that as I just said it would be. out. Prior to that, Lot ß acre. Lot B is not going to be quite as big I didn't have the surveyor break that was, we needed relief of .255 of an MR. MENTER-Okay. That's going to be something greater? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. MENTER-The relief. - 53 - (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 3/20/96) MR. O'CONNOR-We'd within two weeks, acreage. have the map amended and submitted to Staff having the lines come back with the correct MR. MENTER-So the relief would be? MR. CARVIN-Yes. I think, caveat it, use approximately, with the actual figures to be determined by survey, at some point, within two weeks. MR. MENTER-Okayw I MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 17-1996 ALFRED E. & MARY E. KRISTENSEN, Introduced by David Menter who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: The applicant proposes modifications of pre-existing lots partially within a CEA. This action needs relief from the area requirements of Section 179-16C, and the merger provisions of Section 179-76E. Applicant also proposes to construct an addition to a pre-existing structure which will require relief from the shoreline setbacks outlined in Section 179-60(15)(c). The benefit to the applicant w 0 u 1 d be p rima r i 1 y the uti 1 i z at ion 0 f pro per tie s t hat he has purchased, a~ well as seeing a return on investment that he has made in these properties. An overall benefit would be the combining of two lots, turning four into three. Feasible alternatives are limited. This appears to be the best solution to the probl~n. The resulting lots are each greater in size than the average lot in the area, and therefore would not, by virtue of their size, have any negative impact on the area. With regard to Section 179-60, the setback relief required for addition to an existing residence on Parcel D, and the setback required for a garage also on Parcel D, the 30 foot relief, I would grant 30 foot relief for the construction of a closet onto the existing frame residence. At 45 foot, this would be 15 feet further from the lake than the closest corner of the bui~ding. Therefore, it would have a minimal impact, and the garage would be granted 13 foot of relief. At 62 feet, this would be substantially less than the current 30 foot setback of the house also. No side setback relief is required. With regard to the combining of parcels and the merger provisions of Section 179-76E, we would grant relief to each of these parcels, allowing them each to be treated individually for zoning purposes, and with regard to Section 179-16C, area requirements for parcels in this zone, the respectiv~ reliefs would be granted. Parcel D would require relief of .31 acres, with the understanding, in the case of each of these parcels, that the lot line extend southerly, parallel and in the same line as the current lot line to Fitzgerald Road. That would be true for Lots D, C, B, as well as A. The resulting relief required and granted for each of these lots would be, Lot D, .31 acres relief, and Lot C, .465 acres of relief, Lot B, approximately .3 acres of relief, of actual relief to be determined by that required when the lot line between Lot A and B is extended southerly to Fitzgerald Road. The granting of these reliefs would appear to have no negative impact on the neighborhood or the area, again, due to the fact that the resulting lot size is considerably larger than the typical current lot size in the area. I would require that any further development of Lots Cor B, in terms of residences or primary structures, would require site plan review to address runoff and other site plan issues. I would also grant relief of Section 179-16C, lot width requirement, for the following: Lot C, 25 feet of relief is granted for this 125 foot wide parcel, and Lot B, 20 feet of relief is granted on this resulting 130 foot wide parcel. Another benefit to this plan would be that the four lots involved would each have frontage on a Town road, a condition which has not been in the past. Duly adopted this 20th day of March, 1996, by the following vote: - 54 -- -... -"'"" ~ ... (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 3/20/96) AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Karpeles MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. MR. CARVIN-We meet again tomorrow night, folks. Executive Session. I will go into MOTION TOGO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS ITEMS RELATED TO THE MOORING POST, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: Duly adopted this 20th day of March, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Ford, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Karpeles MOTION TO COME OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: Duly adopted this 20th day of March, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Ford, Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Karpeles On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Fred A. Carvin, Chairman - 55 -