Loading...
1996-08-21 /' / (-FILE QUEENS BURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 21, 1996 INDEX Area Variance No. 55-1995 Steven S. Evanusa 1. Area Variance No. 77-1996 Ronald & Barbara VanSlooten Tax Map No. 42-1-3 3. Area Variance No. 65-1996 Aldi Stores, Inc. Tax Map No. 105-1-3 FOR ALDI FOOD STORE 10. Sign Variance No. 66-1996 Hanley Sign Co., Inc. Tax Map No. 105-1-3 14. Area Variance No. 78-1996 Douglas & Deborah Petroski Tax Map No. 41-1-14, 17 19, Use Variance No. 71-1996 Charlotte Harms Tax Map No. 125-2-17 26. Area Variance No. 72-1996 Charlotte Harms Tax Map No. 125-2-17 34. Area Variance No. 68-1996 Gary Carstens Tax Map No. 54-2-8.1 35. Use Variance No. 76-1996 Joseph Monsour Tax Map No. 104-1-18.1, 12.1 38. 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. "..... ~ "i'=t f"-"\IIi;:<* :-- ::ï tnt'~c.J . .........- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/96) QUEENS BURY ZONING BOARD FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 21, 1996 7:00 P.M. OF APPEALS MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS THOMAS, ACTING CHAIRMAN BONNIE LAPHAM WILLIAM GREEN ROBERT KARPELES DONALD 0' LEARY MEMBERS ABSENT DAVID MENTER FRED CARVIN CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-JOHN GORALSKI STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. THOMAS-The first order of business-is an old application which the Variance has expired. It was Area Variance No. 55-1995 Steven S. Evanusa, and it was approved, and there were six Board members at that time. It was approved unanimously, and I think what we'll do is we'll just re-read the motion to approve and vote on it again, and that'll be it. So, if you would just read. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. "MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 55-1995 STEPHEN S. EVANUSA, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by William Green: The applicant is proposing to remove an existing 2,000 square foot house and replace it with a 2,500 square foot house, and in order for the applicant to proceed, he needs relief from Section 179-60, which requires a shoreline setback of 75 feet, and Section 179-16C, which requires side setbacks totaling 50 feet, with a minimum of 20 on one side. I would grant 35 feet of relief from Section 179-60, and I would grant 16 feet of relief from the total of 50 feet. The benefit to the applicant by the granting of this Area Variance would be that the applicant would be able to replace an antiquated house that is in need of replacement, and the proposed expansion is within keeping with both the lot size and the nature of the neighborhood. While the proposed setback relief of 35 feet may seem high, the actual house will actually be moved back an additional foot from the current foundation, and that the added eight feet is the result of a first floor deck protrusion. As far as the side yard setbacks are concerned, the house currently is conforming to the 20 feet minimum on the one side, but because of the unique size and shape of the lot, in order for the applicant to move forward, he would need relief of at least 16 feet from the total sum of 50. The applicant has shown and demonstrated that there are really no other feasible alternatives. Again, because of the siting of the septic and the placement of a garage, that this actually is the minimum relief necessary to allow the applicant to proceed with their project, and even though this may be a self created situation because the decision to replace versus renovate could be considered self created, it is felt that this particular project will have no detriment or adverse effect, and would be in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood and community. There has been absolutely no public opposition to this project as proposed. The height of the new building shall not exceed 28 feet. The applicant also has indicated that they will address any stormwater runoff issues. Duly adopted this 20th day of September, 1995, by the following vote: - 1 - '~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/96) AYES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Green, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE Sincerely, Fred A. Carvin, Chairman, Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals" MR. PALING-We need a motion to accept the approval of 55-1995 as read. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 55-1995 STEVEN S. EVANUSA, Introduced by Robert Karpeles who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham: The applicant is proposing to remove an existing 2,000 square foot house and replace it with a 2,500 square foot house, and in order for the applicant to proceed, he needs relief from Section 179-60, which requires a shoreline setback of 75 feet, and Section 179-16C, which requires side setbacks totaling 50 feet, with a minimum of 20 on one side. I would grant 35 feet of relief from Section 179-60, and I would grant 16 feet of relief from the total of 50 feet. The benefit to the applicant by the granting of this Area Variance would be that the applicant would be able to replace an antiquated house that is in need of replacement, and the proposed expansion is within keeping with both the lot size and the nature of the neighborhood. While the proposed setback relief of 35 feet may seem high, the actual house will actually be moved back an additional foot from the current foundation, and that the added eight feet is the result of a first floor deck protrusion. As far as the side yard setbacks are concerned, the house currently is conforming to the 20 feet minimum on the one side, but because of the unique size and shape of the lot, in order for the applicant to move forward, he would need relief of at least 16 feet from the total sum of 50. The applicant has shown and demonstrated that there are really no other feasible alternatives. Again, because of the siting of the septic and the placement of a garage, that this actually is the minimum relief necessary to allow the applicant to proceed with their project, and even though this may be a self created situation because the decision to replace versus renovate could be considered self created, it is felt that this particular project will have no detriment or adverse effect, and would be in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood and community. There has been absolutely no public opposition to this project as proposed. The height of the new building shall not exceed 28 feet. The applicant also has indicated that they will address any stormwater runoff issues. Duly adopted this 21st day of August, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Carvin, Mr. Menter MR. THOMAS-So it's extended for one year until August 21, 1997, today being the 21st, 1996. The next application is Gary Carstens. Is there anyone here for Gary? I understand he's at another Zoning Board meeting in Schenectady and won't be here until eight or eight thirty. So I think we'll skip over that one, and we'll go to the next one, Ronald and Barbara VanSlooten. The problem with this one is we haven't got any feedback yet or any approval from Warren County. So what we'll do is we'll run the public hearing, and if we get some kind of paperwork or some kind of move from Warren - 2 - '- -----. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/96) County, we'll run it through, but otherwise we'll just leave the public hearing open and make a motion at the next meeting. MARTIN AUFFREDOU MR. AUFFREDOU-Mr. Thomas, if I may, my name is Martin Auffredou. I'm the agent of the VanSlootens. An associate from my office is at Warren County right now. When she completes business there, she's going to be heading over here with word of their decision. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So, if we get word of that decision, then we'll move on it. MR. AUFFREDOU-Okay. MR. THOMAS-But in the mean time we'll open the public, we'll start things through. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 77-1996 TYPE II WR-1A CEA RONALD & BARBARA VANSLOOTEN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 91 FITZGERALD ROAD APPLICANTS ARE PROPOSING TO BUILD A SECOND STORyaAND AN ENCLOSED STAIRWAY ON AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME. THE EXPANSION OF THE HOME WOULD BE MORE THAN 50% OF THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE. THE PROPOSED STAIRWAY WOULD NOT CONFORM TO THE SETBACKS IN THE WR-1A ZONE. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE REGULATIONS REGARDING EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE BY MORE THAN 50% LISTED IN SECTION 179-79A, 2; AND THE SETBACKS LISTED IN SECTION 179 -16. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 8/21/96 TAX MAP NO. 42-1-3 LOT SIZE: 0.28 SECTION 179-16 MARTIN AUFFREDOU, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 77-1996, Ronald & Barbara VanSlooten, Meeting Date: August 21, 1996 "APPLICANT: Ronald & Barbara VanSlooten PROJECT LOCATION: 91 Fitzgerald Rd. Proposed proj ect and Conformance with the Ordinance: The applicant is proposing to build a second story addition and an enclosed stairway on an existing single family home. The home would be expanded by 560 sq. ft. The total square footage of the home would then be 1550 sq. ft. Proposed expansion of this home would be greater than 50% of the area of the original structure. The proposed stairway would not conform to the setbacks for the WR-1A zone. Relief is being requested from the expansion of a nonconforming structure requirements listed in Section 179-79A,2¡ and the setbacks listed in Section 179-16. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law. 1. Benefit to the applicant: Relief would allow the applicant to build a second floor and enclosed stairway on an existing home. 2. Feasible alternatives: One alternative may be to construct the stairway on the opposite side of the home. If this were done relief would not be required from the WR-1A setbacks. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The applicant is seeking 18 feet of side setback relief. The expansion of the home would result in square footage which could accommodate year round living. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? The expansion of this home would be in keeping with other homes in the area. The proposed stairway may have some impacts on the adjacent property owner. Additional comment may be made at the public hearing. 5. Is this difficulty self created? Depending on the floor plan of the home, the applicant may be able to relocate the proposed stairway. Staff Comments & Concerns: Staff feels that the expansion would be compatible with neighborhood conditions. However, drawings of the addition should be submitted to the ZBA which indicate the proposed height. SEQR: Type II, no further action required." - 3 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/96) MR. THOMAS-And as stated before, Warren County has not made a decision on whether to approve or disapprove that, but we may get word of that any minute now. So, we mayor may not be able to move on this. So, having said that, it's your show. MR. AUFFREDOU-Thank you, Mr. Thomas. My name is Martin Auffredou. I am an attorney with the Bartlett/Pontiff firm in Glens Falls, New York, on behalf of Ronald and Barbara VanSlooten. Sitting to my left is Mr. Lee Horning. Mr. Horning is also here on behalf of the VanS loot ens , and he is the gentleman who is the project contractor, if you will, responsible for the construction, the proposed construction. He has drafted the plans. He has indeed drafted the sketch of the site plan, if you will, of what is in front of you. Tonight here as well, sitting behind me, is Ronald & Barbara VanSlooten. They're here to answer any questions you might have, to put input on the project and the application. I also wanted to point out that present as well this evening is, are the neighbors of Ronald & Barbara VanSlooten at this location, and they're here to add input to this review process and also answer any questions that you may have about the proj ect impacts upon them. What I mean by that, looking at the project as a whole, a house to the north and a house to the south. Now, they may not be exactly to the north and to the south, but for practical purposes this evening, I'd like you to consider the house to the north and the house to the south, the property owners to the north and to the south. I'm not sure there's a whole heck of a lot that I can add to the statement that's already been reàd into the record that I've prepared as part of the application, but only to say that in an Area Variance context, what you now have is you no longer have a practical difficulties situation. You have a balancing of the equities. You have a balancing of a benefit to the applicants, which I think is clear and I think we've demonstrated, versus the detriment to the character and the community of the neighborhood. The house as proposed, we're asking for a second story. The house is undersized. It is nonconforming. We acknowledge that. Adding a second story to the house, we believe, is in keeping with the character of the community and the neighborhood. There are many, many multiple story homes on Glen Lake. This seems to be actually the exception rather than the rule, the VanSlooten's house. I think what you'll be hearing tonight is that, at least from the neiqhbors point of view, that they have certainly no objection to adding a second story, and we would echo Staff's comments on that, that it is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and character of the community, the addition of a second floor. It seems to us that perhaps the sticking point tonight is going to be the location of the stairwell. What I have to say on that basically is as follows. That where we propose to put the stairwell is going to benefit the applicants, because to put it anywhere else is either going to, is going to result in a large disruption of this residence. This is really the only location where it can be placed. You can't put it on the rear of the house because of the existing road and right-of-way. You can't interfere with that. We can't put it on the south end of the house without asking the VanSlooten's to completely disrupt the first floor. I have photographs here tonight that would show that the kitchen is on that side. I also have a sketch which I'll make available to you, which shows that there's an existing furnace room on that side and a bathroom on that side. There is no room along that wall. The entrance way is on that side as well. They don' t want to disrupt the entranceway. They like where that it is. The septic area is on that side. There is an existing well pond which pumps water from the lake on that side. We don't exactly know the exact location of the pipes, etc., for the septic system for the well, but I think it would be creating a substantial hardship to the VanSlooten's to ask them to put the stairwell on that side. Now, the most important factor, I think of all that you need to consider is where we're putting this stairwell is, for all practical purposes, already developed. This isn't green space. This is a - 4 - "'-' ,-",,' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/96) space, a very narrow alley, if you will, between the existing house and an existing retaining wall. The retaining wall serves, for all practical purposes, has the border between the VanSlooten's property and the Carder property to the north. There is an existing chimney there, for the fire place. That chimney right now is approximately two feet from the property line. This stairwell is going to be tucked in behind the chimney, and yes, it's going to go closer to the retaining wall, closer to the property line, but I submit it's really going to be imperceptible. It's not going to be noticed from the lake. There's enough green area there. There's enough shrubs there. There's enough trees there. You're not going to see the stairwell. There's a letter from Mr. Carder that is in the record. I'm not going to speak for Mr. Carder tonight, because he's here, but there is a letter in the record from Mr. Carder, and he really is the only person who could, he and his wife as the property owners are really the only persons that could be impacted by this project, and the letter indicates that they have absolutely no opposition to the placement of a stairwell where it's proposed, and the addition of a second story. I think, when you look at this project as a whole, the benefit to the applicants are clear. This is a well maintained property, and they want to improve the property. It's in keeping with the character of the community and the neighborhooð. Letting them place/ the stairwell there will let them accomplish the project as they would like to have it accomplished, and will eliminate the hardship of completely destroying the first floor to accommodate an internal stairwell. The rooms inside are simply too small in order to put an internal stairwell. Again, I have pictures of those. I even offered, I spoke to George Hilton a week or so ago, and offered that if he would like to go into the house and actually view the inside of the house or if he just wants to look through the windows, perhaps some of you have done that, to look at the size of the rooms that we're talking about. We're talking about two very small bedrooms, very small bedrooms. We're talking about a living room. We're talking about a kitchen and a furnace room and a bathroom. That comprises the first floor. For reasons which I can get into, I think are self, really, self evident, the stairwell cannot go in the interior of this house, and I submit that there's no other alternative than what we've proposed. MR. THOMAS-Is that it? MR. AUFFREDOU-That's it. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Well, I think the first thing that X would like to see, and I think the rest of the Board members would like to see, is a layout of the first and second floors as proposed, to substantiate what you've told us. MR. AUFFREDOU-Sure. I think what we've given you, as I understand it, is this map. This is the first floor, and this is the second floor. Mr. Thomas, in addition, I have a number of pictures of the interior, and also the exterior of the existing structure, if the Board members would care to look at those. MR. THOMAS-Would you like to submit those as part of the application? MR. AUFFREDOU-Yes. MRS. LAPHAM-Do you have any pictures of what the proposed elevations are going to look like? What the proposed outside is going to look like? LEE HORNING MR. HORNING-No, we don't. The total height is 22 feet. - 5 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/96) MR. THOMAS-It's going to be 22 to the peak? MR. HORNING-The peak. MR. THOMAS-How high is the existing chimney, do you know? MR. GREEN-It's 28. take that back. It's an existing fire place, 28 by 8'4". I MR. THOMAS-No, it can't be. That can't be the height of it. MR. AUFFREDOU-I don't think it's that high. MR. THOMAS-I don't think it is, either. MR. AUFFREDOU-Lee, can you tell how high the chimney is? MR. HORNING-Have you got a picture of it right there? MR. THOMAS-Yes, there's a picture of it. Bonnie's got a picture of it. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes, I have a picture of 'Í"t. Yes, because how high is this? It doesn't look like it's much. This is a one story house, 16 was it? MR. THOMAS-Yes, it's probably 16, I would guess. MRS. LAPHAM-That's about normal for that style. MR. HORNING-It's approximately 17 feet. MR. AUFFREDOU-I think as far as the, again, I'm not going to speak for Mr. Carder, as far as the stairwell impacting his concerns, but from the perspective of the lake, the VanSlooten's have taken some photographs, I think, which are, would indicate that there are enough trees there and shrubs and what not, green area, so that you're going to have to look pretty hard to see the stairwell, if you can see it at all. Just another comment, Mr. Thomas. I think the pictures along the shoreline would indicate that the VanSlooten's house is really at the lowest point along that ridge there, as far as the other houses that are shown, and I think that's also an indication of, as far as the height of this building. The height of the structure shouldn't have a very great impact on the neighborhood at all. MR. THOMAS-Anyone else have any questions for the applicant's agent? MRS. LAPHAM-Did I read that the family room was unheated? MR. AUFFREDOU-Yes. MRS. LAPHAM-Right. Then it's basically an enclosed porch. MR. AUFFREDOU-That's right. MRS. LAPHAM-Are there any plans to heat that, winterize it? MR. AUFFREDOU-They have a wood burning stove there, as I understand it, that they use from time to time, but I don't think there's any current plans, they haven't talked to me about that, as far as winterizing that or using that on a year round basis. They're indicating that they're not going to do that. There's no plans, as I understand it, to change that portion of the structure at all. That roof line there with the porch and what not and the family room is going to remain as is, as I understand it. - 6 - --- "-" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/96) MR. GREEN-Is there a basement in it? So it's just storage area, not accessible from the front? MR. AUFFREDOU-Are you talking about underneath the porch? MR. GREEN-Yes. MR. AUFFREDOU-That area, as I understand it, Mr. Green, it's a storage area, but it's very damp, and if they put anything down there, it virtually rusts. So they're not really utilizing it for very much. MR. GREEN-How big an area is that? MR. AUFFREDOU-The property itself? MR. GREEN-No, the basement area. Is it under the whole building, or is it just basically the porch area? MR. HORNING-It goes partially on the porch and partially in front of the building. MR. GREEN-Yes, because it goes out from the patio area. fine. That's MR. HORNING-Okay. MR. GREEN-And your front elevation is? MR. HORNING-Twenty-two feet. MR. GREEN-Twenty-two feet. Is that from the upper deck? MR. HORNING-That is from the front entry, right at the center of the peak. MR. GREEN-Okay. So from the lake, though, you've got to add, essentially another 10 feet to that? MR. HORNING-It is on a hill. higher. So approximately another 10 feet MR. THOMAS-I have a question for Mr. Horning. Where the entrance is coming in on the, well, it would be on the west side, the entrance, is there any way you could incorporate an entryway plus the stairway in there? MR. HORNING-That septic tank is right below the, it's three feet away from the front entrance. MR. THOMAS-But you stated in the beginning that you didn't know exactly where the septic system was. MR. AUFFREDOU-No. I don't think I said that. I said I think that there may be, I think Mr. Horning has identified the location of the septic tank, but there may be some additional pipes, particularly associated with the well, and the well pump, that I'm not sure we know the exact location of. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Anyone else got any questions for the applicant? I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHARLES CARDER MR. CARDER-My name is Charles Carder, and I live next door to the VanSlooten's, and my property line is the one that's affected by - 7 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/96) the setbacks, and I have absolutely no objection to adding this staircase. Besides, I'd make comment, too, that my second story windows in my house are higher than the peak of their house, okay. MR. THOMAS-Is that the existing peak, or the proposed peak? MR. CARDER-The existing peak. MR. THOMAS-Your second floor windows are higher than the existing peak, but they're going to go up eight feet. MR. CARDER-It has no effect. MR. THOMAS-No effect on you? MR. CARDER-Absolutely no effect at all. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Anyone else that would like to speak in favor of this application? CHRIS MOZAL MRS. MOZAL-My name is Chris Mozal. Tlive three properties .away, and I'd like to bring up something that wasn't brought up yet. I am in favor of this, but I like the idea of this stairwell where it is, because on the other side, where the entrance is, in the winter time, is where all the snow is pushed, and there will be absolutely no room to get by there if you allow a stairwell to be built on that side. You people, as you looked at it, are looking at a perfect situation right now with no snow banks, with no 50 inches of snow. I know, I've plowed the road myself. We have a snow plow, and often times I do plow VanSlooten's, and it will be impossible to get on the other side of there or for them to park a car if you have another structure on that side. That's all I have to say. I'm in complete agreement with what they want to do. So I go on record in favor of their variance. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Thank you. Anyone else in favor? Anyone opposed? I'll close the public hearing. Anyone opposed? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Anyone else have any questions of the applicant? Read the letters. CORRESPONDENCE MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. I think, as far as I know, I think there's just one. Okay. There's a letter from Mr. Charles Carder, Fitzgerald Road, Queensbury, New York 12804 August 8, 1996, Mr. James Martin, Executive Director, Town of Queensbury, Department of Community Development, 531 Bay Road, Queensbury, New York 12804 RE: Area Variance application of Ronald & Barbara VanSlooten "Dear Mr. Martin: I am the owner of property located directly to the northeast of Ron & Barbara VanSlooten on Fitzgerald Road on Glen Lake in the Town of Queensbury. I am aware of the Area Variance application submitted by the VanSlooten's. The project proposed by the VanSlooten's is to add a second story to their existing house which will include the addition of a stairwell on the north side of the property and very near the property line between our respective parcels. I have reviewed the plans for the proposed proj ect . This is to advise you that I have absolutely no objection to the project as proposed. The VanSlooten's are simply attempting to improve their property by adding a second story. The vast majority of homes in the area are two story homes and therefore another two story home in the neighborhood will certainly pose no problems. The second story addition will not impact the view from my property in any manner. The area where the stairway is proposed, for all - 8 - "'--./ ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/96) practical purposes, is already developed. The VanSlooten's house is just a couple of feet away from the property line which is marked generally by a three to four foot high retaining wall. The area between the house and the retaining wall is paved and therefore any further development on top of the pavement will be unnoticeable and will have no impact. I am the only property owner in the vicinity who could be impacted by the project. However, I see absolutely no impact whatsoever to my property if the requested relief is granted. Therefore, I am in favor of the VanSlooten's project. Sincerely, Charles Carder" That's it. MR. THOMAS-Well, lets talk about it. What do you think, Bill? MR. GREEN-I don't have any problem with it. MR. THOMAS-None whatsoever? MR. GREEN-No. MR. THOMAS-Bob? MR. KARPELES-I have no problem with it. It looks to me like it has no impact whatsoever on anybody, and it's just wasted space there right now anyway. So I have no objection to it. MR. THOMAS-Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-Well, I actually have the same problem that I had when Mr. Carder built his shed, because that part of Glen Lake is so congested, but I don't see any other way the VanSlooten's can really utilize their property. MR. THOMAS-Do you have any thoughts on this, Don? You can talk about it, but you just can't, all you have to do is abstain from voting. MR. O'LEARY-No, I don't see any difficult whatsoever. MR. THOMAS-To be honest, I had reservations in the beginning, but now that I've seen these drawings of the first and second floors, and the interior pictures, I don't see any other way around this, except to put the stairway where it is proposed. A visit to the property last Monday, I did see, as the pictures show, the cement and the existing propane tanks there, and like I said, there's really no other place to put that stairwell, according to all these drawings that we have. So, I don't have a problem with it. The only thing is, we can't move this right now, because we do not have an approval from Warren County. So, I will delay that until later, if and when it comes in, then we'll move it. Okay? MR. AUFFREDOU-That's fine. MR. KARPELES - Why can't we move it and vote on it, and then if Warren County approves it, it's okay? MR. GORALSKI-Well, Warren County is going to call me every time they get a result on one. That's why I keep running back and forth. So I would suggest you wait. This way there can be no question from anyone. What I'd recommend is you might want to take up the Aldi's Area Variance which was approved by Warren County Planning Board. The Aldi's store Sign Variance was disapproved by the Warren County Planning Board. As far as the Sign Variance goes, since you only have four members voting tonight, you won't be able to overturn Warren County's denial, but you certainly should open the public hearing on that and discuss it. MR. THOMAS-Right. - 9 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/96) MR. GORALSKI-But I would recommend you do the Aldi's Area Variance and act on it. I believe they've arrived. MR. THOMAS-I hate to go through and change the agenda, but because of Warren County, they're forcing us to do it. AREA VARIANCE NO. 65-1996 TYPE II HC-1A ALDI STORES, INC. OWNER: GROSSMAN'S INC. GROSSMAN'S BUILDING QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMODEL THE EXISTING GROSSMAN'S BUILDING ON QUAKER ROAD FOR A NEW ALDI FOOD STORE. THIS PROJECT INVOLVES CONSTRUCTING A NEW CANOPY ON THE EXISTING BUILDING. THE CANOPY WOULD NOT CONFORM TO THE SETBACKS LISTED IN THE SECTION 179-28 TRAVEL, CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE SETBACKS CONTAINED IN SECTION 179 - 2 8. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 8/21/96 TAX MAP NO. 105-1-3 LOT SIZE: 2.24 ACRES SECTION 179-28 JIM KEHRER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 65-1996, Aldi Stores, Inc., Meeting Date: August 21, 1996 "APPLICANT: Aldi Stores, Inc. PROJECT LOCATION: Quaker Rd. Proposed Project and Conformance with the Ordinance: The applicant is proposing to remodel the existing Grossman's building on Quaker Rd. as an Aldi food store. This project involves construction of a canopy at the north end of the building. This canopy would be approximately 60.1 feet from the front property line along Quaker Rd. This setback would not conform to the setbacks listed in Section 179-28, Travel Corridor Overlay Zone. Relief is being requested from the setbacks listed in Section 179-28, Travel Corridor Overlay Zone. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law. 1. Benefit to the applicant: Relief would allow the applicant to build a canopy which would be closer to Quaker Rd. than allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. 2. Feasible alternatives: The applicant is proposing to build a canopy that comes closer to conforming with the Zoning Ordinance than existing conditions. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The applicant is proposing a setback of 60.1 ft. instead of the required 75 ft. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? There do not appear to be any negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. 5. Is this difficulty self created? The current building at this location has a setback that violates the required setback to a greater extent than what is proposed. The applicant's plan would improve setbacks at this site. Staff Comments & Concerns: Staff is comfortable allowing a more conforming setback of 60.1 ft. at this location. Staff believes that this request would not have an impact on the surrounding neighborhood. SEQR: Type II, no further action required. " MR. THOMAS-And, since we don't have anything from Warren County. MR. GORALSKI-We do. MR. THOMAS-We do? Okay. That's right. They gave it a blanket approval. MR. GORALSKI-They approved. MR. THOMAS-So it was approved by Warren County. Okay. So that takes care of that. Gentlemen, anything to add? MR. KEHRER-No, sir. We're just here to answer any questions you may have. MR. THOMAS-All righty. I'll start if off. You propose to rip the entire building down that's there now? - 10 - "-' ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/96) MR. KEHRER-No. Probably three of the walls are coming down, the northern, southern, and western wall. MR. KARPELES-Maybe you could point that out. MR. KEHRER-These two. LOU KIBBLING MR. KIBBLING-Taking some off the front, and some off the rear, cutting it back 40 feet, roughly. MR. KEHRER-Grossman's typically constructs their buildings in 40 foot lots. All we're doing is removing the front 40 feet of the building and installing another wall in the canopy. MR. THOMAS-Okay. What's the parking requirement on that, John, for that zone? I can't find it in my book here. MR. GORALSKI-They do meet the parking requirements. MR. THOMAS-They do meet it? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. I can tell you exactly what it is, but they do meet the parking requirements. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Well, as long as they've made it, what about stormwater runoff and all the other? MR. KEHRER-It's going to remain as it does right now. Currently, all the runoff from the existing site basically enters two pits that are, there are no outlets. The majority of it enters the roof leader, enters a County system located along Quaker Road. The existing paved area drains down into a depression located in the front of the parcel, and then it enters the County system and across Quaker Road. We're not modifying it at all. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-As a matter of fact, I believe they're actually slightly increasing the amount of green space on their property. MR. KEHRER-The amount of pervious material out there now is around 16%. We're boosting it up to around 28%. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is the height of the building going to be any higher, lower, the same height? MR. KIBBLING-The same height. MR. THOMAS-The canopy, is that going to be off the, how high is that going to be? MR. KIBBLING-It should be no more than two to three feet above what's there currently. MR. THOMAS-You mean above the roof line now? MR. KIBBLING-Existing, right. MR. THOMAS-It's going to be that high off the ground? MR. KIBBLING-Well, it'll be. MR. THOMAS-Are you talking about the existing canopy that's on there now, that Grossman's has on the front? MR. KIBBLING-Our canopy, which is 10 feet out from each corner of the building, as you see, that area will be probably two to three - 11 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/96) feet higher than the existing roof line that's there now. MR. THOMAS-Okay, and is that canopy made of? MR. KIBBLING-Drivet. We have pictures if you'd like to see? MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. MR. KIBBLING-It will be brick masonry, the entire building, our prototype store. MRS. LAPHAM-Does this show what the building is going to look like, too? MR. KIBBLING-Yes. MR. KARPELES-Do I understand you're knocking 40 feet off from between the main roof there and the store, is that right? MR. KEHRER-Yes. From the northern most wall to the existing Grossman's wall right now is approximately 40 feet. MR. GORALSKI-They're adding back that canopy. MR. KIBBLING-The canopy's coming out 10 feet. MR. GORALSKI-So the net result will be that they'll be 30 feet farther away from the property line. MRS. LAPHAM-This is going to be a smaller building. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. THOMAS-Anyone else? I'll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. LAPHAM-There is no correspondence. MR. THOMAS-What do you think, Bob? MR. KARPELES-How much are we actually improving the setback? I'm getting confused. MR. GORALSKI-Thirty feet. MR. KARPELES-Thirty feet. So this is going to be 30 feet better than it is now. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. KARPELES-Well, I really can't object to this. I drive by there all the while, Grossman's, and I haven't had any objection with that. So I don't see why I would have any objection with it being 30 feet farther back. MR. THOMAS-Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-Well, I'm kind of with Bob. I never had much objection to Grossman's, although I don't like driving by a vacant Grossman's. So this is bound to be an improvement. MR. THOMAS-Bill? - 12 - '---" --.../' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/96) MR. GREEN-I think along the same lines, further back it's a nice idea. I've Portland, and they're very nicely done. to do an awful lot of, shall we say, just the site. I don't have any problem with that any time we move seen Aldi' s stores in It appears they're going cosmetic improvements to it. MR. THOMAS-Don, have you got anything you want to say? MR. O'LEARY-No objection. MR. THOMAS-You said you had a lot of turn over in this, do you know how many cars go in and out of there in a day, at any store? Pick one. MR. KIBBLING-Between 800 and 1,000. MR. THOMAS-A day? MR. KIBBLING-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Lets see. Quaker Road's a four lane highway. What are your operating hours? MR. KIBBLING-Nine to seven Monday through Thursday, nine to eight Friday, nine to six, Saturday, and closed Sunday. MR. GORALSKI-We don't anticipate that this will be significantly different from Grossman's. MR. KEHRER-What we did, Mr. Chairman, Aldi's has a generic traffic statement that they produce for the sites. I met with George VanDusen and one of his Staff out at the site, and submitted this study to them., They reviewed it, and I do have an approval letter from the County on the accesses and on the traffic flow on the site. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Have you got that letter with you? MR. KEHRER-Yes, I do. MR. KIBBLING-We typically like traffic lights, but in this case, there's two lights, and we're pretty well in between them. MR. GORALSKI-There's also the turning median, the flush median on Quaker Road. MR. THOMAS-Do you want to read that into the record there Bonnie? MRS . LAPHAM-Okay. Warren County Department of Public Works ,August 8, 1996, Clough Harbor Associates Attention Jim Kehrer "Dear Mr. Kehrer: This letter is in confirmation of our recent telephone conversation regarding the proposed Aldi, Incorporated project at the former Grossman's site on Quaker Road in the Town of Queensbury. When the revisions to the plans showing one lane in and two lanes out, one left, one right, at the eastern access point to Quaker Road is provided to us, a permit to work within the County right-of-way may be granted to whomever the contractor for the project may be. Thank you in advance for keeping me advised of the progress on this project. Very truly yours, George VanDusen, Assistant Engineer, Warren County D.P.W." MR. THOMAS-I don't have any problem with this either. I think it'll be an improvement to the area. You've got a vacant store occupied again, add to the business environment here in Queensbury. Warren County Highway doesn't have any problem with it, with the traffic flow. So, saying that, would anyone like to make a motion? - 13 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/96) MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 65-1996 ALDI'S STORES, INC., Introduced by Robert Karpeles who moved for its adoption, seconded by William Green: The applicant is proposing to remodel the existing Grossman's building on Quaker Road as an Aldi' s food store. The proj ect involves construction of a canopy at the north end of the building. This canopy would be approximately 60.1 feet from the front property line along Quaker Road. The benefit to the applicant is he would be allowed to build a canopy which would be closer to Quaker Road than allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. The canopy comes closer to conforming with the Zoning Ordinance than existing conditions. The applicant is proposing a setback of 60.1 feet instead of the required 75 feet. There do not appear to be any negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. This request would not appear to have a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Duly adopted this 21st day of August, 1996, by the following vote: MR. THOMAS-What about the side line setback? Because they aren't touching that wall, they don't have to? MR. GORALSKI-They're not. MR. THOMAS-That east wall they aren't going to touch. They're just going to shorten it up. MR. GORALSKI-The actual new canopy, what you're giving them a variance for is the canopy that they're constructing, okay. What they're removing there, they're not building anything new that violates the side yard setback. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. The only thing they're building new that violates the setback is canopy, and it violates the front setback. AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Carvin, Mr. Menter MR. THOMAS-Next we can do the Sign, because we have that back from Warren County. MR. GREEN-We just can't vote on it? MR. THOMAS-Yes, we can vote on it. MR. GORALSKI-You should act on it one way or another, or you could, if you wanted, you could table it. I mean, if the applicant agreed, if you're going to have five members here next week, you may just want to open the public hearing and table it and discuss it at a future date, because you're going to need five to, so the best thing to do may be just to open the public hearing and table the application until such time as you have enough Board members that you could potentially over turn the County's denial. MR. THOMAS-I think that's what we'll do. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 66-1996 TYPE II HC-1A HANLEY SIGN CO., INC. FOR ALDI FOOD STORE OWNER: GROSSMAN'S, INC. GROSSMAN'S BUILDING QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT TWO FREESTANDING SIGNS AND TWO WALL SIGNS AT A PROPOSED ALDI FOOD STORE. THE SIGN ORDINANCE ALLOWS ONE FREESTANDING SIGN WITH ONE WALL SIGN OR TWO WALL SIGNS WITHOUT A FREESTANDING SIGN PER BUSINESS. ONE OF THE - 14 - "'-" ~' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/96) FREESTANDING SIGNS IS PROPOSED TO BE 76 SQ. FT. WHICH IS LARGER THAN ALLOWED BY THE SIGN ORDINANCE. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE PLACEMENT AND NUMBER REGULATIONS FOR SIGNS LISTED IN SECTION 140-6b,3c; AND THE SIZE REQUIREMENTS FOR FREESTANDING SIGNS LISTED IN SECTION 140-6b, 2. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 8/21/96 TAX MAP NO. 105-1-3 LOT SIZE: 2.24 ACRES SECTION 179-28 LEE MOATS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 66-1996, Hanley Sign Co. for Aldi's Food Store, Meeting Date: August 21, 1996 "APPLICANT: Hanley Sign Co. for Aldi's Food Store PROJECT LOCATION: Quaker Rd. PROPOSED PROJECT AND CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE: The applicant proposes to construct two freestanding signs and two wall signs at a proposed Aldi's food store. The Sign Ordinance allows one freestanding sign to be used with one wall sign or two wall signs without a freestanding sign. The two freestanding signs would be setback from the front property line 15 feet. One sign is proposed to be 16 square feet in size, the other would be 76 square feet. A freestanding sign of 76 sq. ft. would be larger than allowed by the Sign Ordinance. The size of the two wall signs would be 46.88 sq. ft. which conforms to the size requirements for wall signs. Relief is being requested from the placement and number regulations for signs listed in Section 140-6b,3c: and the size requirements for freestanding signs listed in Section 140- 6b,2. 1. How would you benefit from the granting of this Sign Variance? Relief would allow the applicant to use two freestanding and two wall signs at a proposed food store. 2. What effect would this sign have on the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety, and welfare of the community? The requested signage would not be in character with the amount of signage used by other businesses in this area. 3. Are there feasible alternatives to this variance? The visibility of this location allows the applicant to use the amount of signage specified in the Sign Ordinance. In order to inform the public that a new store exists, the applicant could use temporary signs that are allowed by the sign code. 4. Is the amount of relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The applicant is seeking an additional wall and freestanding sign. The freestanding sign would be 26 square feet larger than allowed. 5. Will the variance have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood? No adverse physical or environmental effects on the neighborhood are anticipated with the proposed request for relief. Staff Comments and Concerns: No physical obstructions exist at this location that require signage above what is allowed by the code. It appears that the alternative of using temporary signs can satisfy the applicant's desire to identify this new business as a food store. SEQR: Unlisted, short form EAF review needed." MR. GREEN-I've got one question for Staff. Is this one double sided sign, or is it two freestandìng signs? MR. GORALSKI-There's one freestanding sign. MR. MOATS-Do you have a copy of the drawing, of the sign? MR. GREEN-Yes. MR. MOATS-What they're referring to, I'm sorry, my name is Lee Moats from Hanley Signs. What they're referring to is a second sign, it's a "Food Store" sign that's under the "Aldi" sign, which is a sign that will be removed in one year's time. They will remove that sign. It's just a temporary sign, really, that's put there for one year until people know that Aldi is a food store and not a hardware store. - 15 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/96) MR. GREEN-And that square footage of that "Food Store" is not in any of these numbers? MR. MOATS-No. MR. THOMAS-No, it's not. The sign that says "Food Store" is not included in the application. MR. GREEN-That's what's called Freestanding Sign Two? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. That must be what they're talking about. MR. KARPELES-Is that what adds the 26 square feet? Where does the additional square feet come from? MR. GORALSKI-Because 50 square feet is allowable, and the sign they're proposing is 76 square feet. MR. THOMAS-It's a big one. This one isn't included on there. MR. GREEN-This is Sign Number Two. MR. GORALSKI-As I said, you can't act'bn this tonight anyway. So it's up to you. MR. THOMAS-We can't act on it, but we'll go through the motions of the public hearing anyway, because Warren County has turned it down. We need a super majority, which is five members of the Board. We only have four sitting that can vote anyway. So, in your best interest, we'll put this off until we get a fifth and maybe a sixth member here. I f we can get five votes, we can overturn Warren County. Otherwise, we can't do a thing for you. MR. MOATS-I understand that. MR. THOMAS-My first question is, why do you need such a big sign, 76 square feet, 15 feet from the property line? MR. MOATS-One of the problems that we run up against here is the graphics for these signs, they're of limited sizes, and this is for the pylon sign. The graphics come out of Germany. They're not even made here. We make the box. We provide the box and the face, and the graphics come in from Germany, that they use allover the world, so that they're consistent, and we don't have the sizes to select from, and from what I understand, they're supposed to build a bike path at one end of that property some place with, a cross over or something, aren't they? MR. THOMAS-They were talking about using the old railroad bed, which is to the west of that property, at one time, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that thing to happen. MR. MOATS-It had been mentioned to me. MR. THOMAS-Yes. It has been mentioned for many years around here, but I don't think I'll see it in illY lifetime. MR. MOATS-And there are some photos of their signage. On the building signage, as you can see their signage is quite small on the building. Presently you have a great deal more square footage of signage. They chose to use a small sign on the building rather than a large shed of channel letters. MR. THOMAS-The sign on the building is 47 square feet. MR. MOATS-I think that the Ordinance permits 100 square feet on each side. - 16 - '-' ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/96) MR. THOMAS-No, one sign 100 square feet. MR. MOATS-Well, yes, but if you have two signs on the building. MR. THOMAS-Two signs, then they're 50 square feet each. MR. GORALSKI~No. You can't have two signs. MR. THOMAS-Well, you can't have two signs. Certain circumstances you can. MR. GORALSKI-Yes, but they're not on, it can only be if you're on a corner lot. You're allowed one sign of up to 100 square feet. You can't split that 100 square feet up. MR. THOMAS-And that is on the building, okay. So if you took the sign off the pylon and put it on the building, took the sign that's on the building and put it on the pylon, you'd be all right. MR. MOATS-But I'd still have one extra sign. MR. THOMAS-That's true, but you don't have to put that on there. " , MR. MOATS-Well, it's a matter of aesthetics, too. It looks like it's missing something from that side. We try to make the buildings look pleasing and look aesthetically balanced and the way they should, and they're very small signs. As a matter of fact, the "Aldi" is very small on the sign, the word. WILL CARPENTER MR. CARPENTER-The other reason we go for two signs on our canopy area is one identifies the sign to the drive by customer, or the building to the drive by customer, and one is over our doorway to identify the entrance to the customer. I'm Will Carpenter of Aldi. MR. THOMAS-Wouldn't the sign facing the road be like an extra sign, because of the pylon sign out on the road? I mean, wouldn't they see the pylon sign before they see the sign on the front of the building? MR. CARPENTER-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So really the sign on the front of the building is redundant. MR. CARPENTER-Well, the pylon sign is there, first of all to identify our location from the highway. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. CARPENTER-Secondly, to identify access to our location off the highway. The sign on the front of the building, we have a two sided canopy. Without a sign there, the canopy looks sort of silly, and just to have that bare canopy sticking up in the front. The actual entrance to the building is to the west side of the building, which is where we'd also like to have a sign on our canopy, directly over the entrance, to help identify that access to the building. MR. MOATS-See, the pylon acts more as an access locater, so that people know where they're going to turn. MR. CARPENTER-Give people time to see what they're looking for, and slow down for the turn. MR. MOATS-To make the turn. building pretty much. The other sign is identifying the - 17 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/96) MR. THOMAS-Most of the other signs along Quaker Road, in the stretch from Route 9 right on down through, most of them meet the, or conform to the Ordinance, the 50 square feet within 15 feet of the property line, 64 if they're 25 feet back. If we gave you a 76 square foot sign which is, what, 12 square feet over the largest sign we have, don't you think everybody else would be in here clamoring for a larger sign? MR. CARPENTER-We understand that, and we are prepared, within our building, to work within requirements, obviously. What we're limited by is that our signs are produced overseas in only two sizes, and if we're going to put a sign up there which we feel we need to identify our location to possible customers driving by, we have one of two sizes. MR. THOMAS-Okay, and 76 is the largest and 47 is the smallest? MR. CARPENTER-Yes. There's also a section in our Ordinance that says you can use directional signs at the entrances and exits, you know, to show where entrance and exit is, and I think they can be up to six square feet. MR. GORALSKI-Up to four square feet, six feet tall. MR. THOMAS-Six feet off the ground. So, I would take into consideration that. Being that there's only four members here, we can't vote on it tonight. MR. GORALSKI-Just to clarify. MR. THOMAS-Well, we could vote on it. MR. GORALSKI-You could vote to concur with Warren County and deny the application. MR. THOMAS-Right. MR. GORALSKI-You can't overturn Warren County. MR. THOMAS-No, we can't overturn Warren County. MR. GORALSKI-Typically, in fairness to the applicant, you usually table it and wait until you have a full Board. MR. THOMAS-Right, or until we get at least five members. AnYmore questions from the Board members before I open the public hearing? Okay. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. THOMAS-I'll leave the public hearing open. Would you like us to table it until we get more members on here so that we can possibly get an override, or would you like us, for the four of us to vote on it now? MR. MOATS-No. I would like to table it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I'll leave the public hearing open, and we'll hold the discussions before we vote on this, at possibly the next meeting. MR. MOATS-What date is that? MR. THOMAS-Can we squeeze it in next week? It should only take like 10 or 15 minutes to squeeze it in ahead of everything else. MR. GORALSKI-It's up to you. - 18 - --" -..../ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/96) MR. THOMAS-Yes. I think we'll squeeze it in the 28th. Is that any problem? Because the next one after that is the fourth, but that's all taken up, and then after that is the 11th, and that's not a scheduled meeting, and then the third week of September would be the next one. Do you want us to table it until, and we'll try and squeeze it in next week? MR. MOATS-Okay. That would be good. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 66-1996 HANLEY SIGN CO., INC. FOR ALDI'S FOOD STORE, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham: Until the meeting of the 28th of August, for a discussion among the Board and a vote. Warren County has disapproved this application, and it takes a super majority, or five positive votes to overturn Warren County, and the applicant has indicated that he would like us to wait until there are more members of the Board to take a vote. Duly adopted this 21st day of August, "1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Carvin, Mr. Menter MR. THOMAS-So we'll hold it over until next week until we get more members, and maybe we can overturn Warren County. MR. MOATS-Thank you. MR. THOMAS-You're welcome. MR. GORALSKI-Back to Petroski, I guess. Those are the only ones I've gotten results on. So I guess you might as well go back to Petroski. MR. THOMAS-Okay. AREA VARIANCE NO. 78-1996 TYPE II WR-1A CEA DOUGLAS & DEBRA PETROSKI OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LEFT SIDE OF FITZGERALD ROAD, GLEN LAKE APPLICANTS SEEK TO CONSTRUCT A NEW YEAR ROUND RESIDENCE. THE STRUCTURE WOULD NOT MEET THE SHORELINE AND SIDE SETBACKS OF THE WR- 1A ZONE. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE SETBACKS LISTED IN SECTION 179-16, THE SHORELINE SETBACKS LISTED IN SECTION 179- 60,15,C AND THE MERGER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 179-76E. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 8/21/96 TAX MAP NO. 41-1-14, 17 LOT SIZE: 0.57 ACRES & 0.39 ACRES SECTION 179-60,15,C SECTION 179-79E MICHAEL O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 78-1996, Douglas & Debra Petroski, Meeting Date: August 21, 1996 "APPLICANT: Douglas & Debra Petroski PROJECT LOCATION: Fitzgerald Rd. Proposed Project and Conformance with the Ordinance: The applicant is proposing to remove an existing home and replace it with a new year round home. The new home would not meet the shoreline setback and side setbacks for the WR-1A zone. Because this nonconforming lot adjoins another under the same ownership, both are considered one lot for zoning purposes. Relief is being requested from the shoreline setbacks listed in Section 179-60,15,C¡ the setbacks listed in Section 179- 16, WR-1A Waterfront Residential and the merger provisions listed - 19 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/96) in Section 179-76E. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law. 1. Benefit to the applicant: Relief would allow the applicant to build a new home. 2. Feasible alternatives: The width and slope of this lot limit what alternatives may exist. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The applicant is seeking side setbacks of 18 and 22 feet, the proposed shoreline setback would be 40 feet. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? The proposed expansion appears to be in character with other homes in the area. Other comment may be provided at the public hearing. S. Is this difficult self created? The slope and size of this nonconforming lot make it difficult to meet both the shoreline and side setbacks. Staff Comments & Concerns: The proposed home would result in one conforming side setback and one which is improved by five feet. The applicant should submit drawings of the new home indicating the height of the building. One impact of this proposal may be increased runoff on this steep lot. The applicant has indicated that stormwater management plans will be submitted before the August 21, 1996 meeting. The ZBA may wish to refer this application to the Planning Board as a site plan review if they are uncomfortable with stormwater management techniques that will be submitted at that time. SEQR: Type II, no further action required."·' MR. THOMAS-Before we get started, I have one question for John. Why is it, in Staff Notes, relief is needed from Section 179-76 E, the merger provision? They don't need relief from that. MR. GORALSKI-Because once they tear down the existing structure, they'll still have one structure. You notice on their map they have, they own two lots. MR. THOMAS-Right. MR. GORALSKI -Because they're both nonconforming, adj acent nonconforming lots, they're joined, for zoning purposes. MR. THOMAS-Right. MR. GORALSKI-Once they tear down that house, they will have one dwelling unit on less than two acres of land. So now you're going to have two dwelling units on less than an acre. MR. THOMAS-Yes, okay, I got it. MR. GORALSKI-Actually it's a density variance. MR. THOMAS-One more thing, Mr. O'Connor, I don't have a, are you acting as an agent tonight, Mr. O'Connor? MR. O'CONNOR-I intend to, yes. MR. THOMAS-I don't have an agent form with your name on it. The only one I have is Charles Johnson. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. As of Monday or Tuesday I was asked to. So I could sign the one that's there. MR. GORALSKI-I think that's Dr. Petroski. I think if he, on the record, states that Mr. O'Connor is representing him. DOUGLAS PETROSKI DR. PETROSKI-Mr. O'Connor is representing us. MR. THOMAS-Okay. That's good enough for me. MR. KARPELES-Before we get started, I've got a couple of questions. - 20 - ''"-- ' -....../ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/96) It says, they've submitted new drawings. It says, the applicant is seeking side setback of 18 feet. I think that's 15 feet now, isn't it, rather than 18 feet? MR. GORALSKI-Right. That's correct. MR. KARPELES-Fifteen instead of eighteen, on the Staff Notes, and it says the proposed home would result in one conforming side setback and one which is improved by five feet. It would actually be two feet. MR. GORALSKI-I believe that's correct. MR. THOMAS-Mr. O'Connor. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, I am a late starter, so my participation may be limited. I would address the issue on the merger. There's a specific section in our Ordinance that says that if you're in a Critical Environmental Area and you own adjacent contiguous lands there is a merger automatically by operation of law, but my understanding is that that zone is 100 feet wide around the lake, and I don't think these lots actually merge until further than that depth. "So I don't know if that's applicable. I also think that that intent of that, and I would just address it, and maybe we would still ask you for a variance, so that there's no question about it now or in the future. The intent of that section, I'm sure, was where you had usable contiguous parcels that people could combine with some reason, or some sense of reason. There's a specific case that dealt with the owner of a substandard lot was entitled to an Area Variance for single and separate ownership, notwithstanding that they owned a second lot attached at the rear of the other lot, and this is pretty much the same circumstance. Besides that fact, you've got two separate dwellings that are already there, that have already been established long ago. I think probably even before this merger business came into effect, because at one time I think they were both owned by Dr. LaPoint, and there was a ruling by the Town of Queensbury years ago that they were separate and distinct parcels. So I addressed mainly, in my presentation, just that issue of merger. It should not be a heavy issue. If you have some questions, I'd be glad to answer them, but I almost think that it's a non issue because it's beyond the 100 feet that they actually attach. MR. GORALSKI-If you'd like me to address that, the only thing I can tell you is that he's right, they do attach beyond the 100 foot Critical Environmental Area. I don't know the technicality of the law. That's not something, this is the first time I'm hearing this brought up. So I haven't had it researched, so I'm not sure. I would recommend, if you feel comfortable with it, that you just grant the variance, at this point, and this way it's a non issue. MR. O'CONNOR-I would prefer that myself, now that you've raised it as an issue, but I think if you really get technical, it's not a joined, contiguous parcel within a Critical Environmental Area, and maybe I should point out, the house in between is owned by Dineen. It's not owned by the Petroski's. A little further on that. This summer, they made a good faith effort, actually made a written offer for it, tried to purchase it, tried to swap one for another so that they could maybe do a better layout than what they can do if there's, that's right in the middle, and Mr. Dineen simply wasn't ready at that time, and hasn't indicated that he's ready since that time to give up his ownership, although in the future he may. CHARLES JOHNSON MR. JOHNSON-Good evening. My name is Charles Johnson. I'm an - 21 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/96) architect with Paradox Designs Architect. I've got some photos here from the lake that will give a better sense of the character of the existing house and the waterfront that we're trying to preserve here. As you've heard, the Petroski's are proposing to take down an existing house and build a year round three bedroom home in its place. This is a pre-existing, nonconforming lot. This dark line is on the plan, indicates what current zoning would allow for a buildable area. As you can see it's quite small and rather irregular and denies the applicant some reasonable use of his property. The design of the house and placement of this structure has been done with some character to minimize its impact to the neighbors on each side, as well as from the shore for the view. The side yard setbacks have been developed so that we've placed the house here, which increases the amount of setback from the LaPoint property, which is here. As you can see, this house pretty much takes up the whole site, from side yard to side yard. We wanted to maximize the distance between the new house and that existing house. We've placed the majority of the new structure closer, almost in exact alignment of where it was before. The correction is that the new setback is now 15 feet rather than 18, but as you go back on the lot, it does develop to 18 feet. On the lake, we have removed the large projecting portion as you can see in the photographs better than on this drawing the portion of the house that's on the stokes, we've removed that, which basically takes the front of the house and pushes it another 10 feet back from the water. We do have a small 10 by 14 projecting part of the house which is already an existing deck right now, and the back on the entry side, we've taken the existing paved area, reduced it by almost half. The resulting green area between the new parking and the house, along with the addition of the retaining wall which will increase the amount of flat green permeable area, will take care of the runoff from this parking area before it hits the lake. The Petroski's were at a Glen Lake Homeowners Association meeting last night and presented this drawing with the elevation. The elevation you can see here which has been developed. We've used some stone and natural materials and again tried to minimize this visual impact from the lake using receding roof lines. So as they presented this at the meeting last night, they had no objections from the Homeowners Association. In fact, they have six neighbors here who signed a petition in favor of this project. The neighbors directly adjacent to them, on this side of the property, are here to speak in favor of the project also. So in closing, I would just like to say that the applicant has developed a proj ect on an existing nonconforming lot in a sensitive and caring way that has won the support and approval of the lake, the Homeowners Association, and their surrounding neighbors. I'd be happy to answer any questions. MR. THOMAS-My first question is, how high is the building? MR. JOHNSON-Thirty-one feet, from the lowest point to the highest peak. MR. THOMAS-To the peak. MR. JOHNSON-And the highest peak is the point of the roof, which is way back in the center of the building. MR. THOMAS-Okay. When I was up there Monday, I did not see the shed that is shown on the map there. DR. PETROSKI-I tore it down about eight years ago. MR. THOMAS-Did you? MR. JOHNSON-The survey that I worked from is incorrect. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I was just hoping I was at the right place. The - 22 - '--' ,~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/96) Staff Notes address stormwater management. stormwater management plan? Do you have the MR. JOHNSON-Since Staff has seen this, we have developed a, or reduced, I should say, the parking area, increased the green area, by the inclusion of that retaining wall. We're also prepared to provide gutters and downspouts to drywells on the property. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-Mr. Thomas, if I could just address that. I know that George Hilton discussed this today, and we feel that the addition of the gutters and downspouts, and also more importantly the retaining wall and the green area behind it that would allow any water from an impervious parking area to infiltrate before it ever reaches the lake are sufficient stormwater management facilities. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Because I notice, you know, it was just mentioned in your notes, bring it up at the meeting. So I did. Does anyone else have any questions? MR. KARPELES-Well, I see you're coming back farther than you were in your original plans that you submitted. Are you going to have to dig into that bank that's back there? MR. JOHNSON-Actually, what's happening is the house is going to be raised about three feet, the back parking area is going to be dropped about three feet. So a two story house, being the exposed basement and it's main first floor is going to tuck in without having to excavate much of that back bank at all. Behind the existing house, there's about eight to ten feet of level yard and then the bank starts. We're going to be building in that already excavated area. So we're not going to be pulling out much of the back bank at all. MR. O'CONNOR-It won't go much further than the flat area that's already behind the house. MR. JOHNSON-Correct. MR. KARPELES-It looks like the new part you put on there goes considerably back farther than that. MR. JOHNSON-This is the extent right here of that existing pavement. So there is a small portion here which is actually going over a walk. MR. KARPELES-Going over a walk? MR. JOHNSON-Right. That walk is getting removed. That's the only part that's really extending past. MR. GREEN-So there won't be any basement under? MR. JOHNSON-No. There's no basement under this back projecting portion. The basement ends right here. So this is all going to be basement. MR. THOMAS-The septic system is going to be upgraded or replaced? MR. JOHNSON-It will be brand new. MR. THOMAS-A brand new one? MR. JOHNSON-Yes. MR. KARPELES-Are you going to have to pump that up? - 23 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/96) MR. JOHNSON-Yes. MR. KARPELES-Is there a garage included in this? MR. JOHNSON-No. MR. THOMAS-There's no garage included on here? MR. JOHNSON-No. We originally had a garage, and as the applicant and I began to design the house, the idea of a greenhouse became important, and we've substituted the garage for a conservatory greenhouse. MR. THOMAS-Okay. What about that barn that's there? Is anything going to happen to that, or is it just going to stay? MR. JOHNSON-At this point it's just going to stay. MR. THOMAS-You're not going to want to change that for, tear that down to put a garage up in the future do you think? MR. JOHNSON-That could be a possibility in the future. We haven't discussed it to date. MR. O'CONNOR-They may have the possibility of building a garage within all requirements at the back of the site. I know on the upper level they probably could. The neighbor just to the east of that, Kristensen, just built a garage, and maybe you saw the construction when you were up looking at the site. That conforms with all the present day setbacks, and everything else, that garage, and no variances were required for that, and I don't know if there's any intention at all. MR. GORALSKI-And certainly that would be an issue, if they decide that they want to put a garage that would need a variance, they'd have to come back to this Board for that. MR. THOMAS-Does anyone else have any questions before I open the public hearing? MRS. LAPHAM-The basement will be living space also? MR. JOHNSON-There'll be two finished bedrooms and a recreation room in the basement. The house will be approximately 3,000 square feet of finished living space. MRS. LAPHAM-It'll have how many baths? MR. JOHNSON-Two and a half. MR. THOMAS-Anyone else? All set? I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MARGARET KANE MRS. KANE-Margaret Alene Kane, and my husband Herb Kane. We're the neighbors, and we have no objections. MR. KARPELES-Which neighbors? MRS. KANE-We are on the south side. MR. THOMAS-So you're actually to the southwest of the proposed site. MRS. KANE-Yes. - 24 - '----' -...../ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/96) MR. THOMAS-And this isn't going to interfere any with your view of the lake or mountains or anything like that? MRS. KANE-No. MR. THOMAS-It won't interfere with any workings of your property, well, septic, anything like that? MRS. KANE-No. MR. THOMAS-So no objections whatsoever? MRS. KANE-None. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else who'd like to speak in favor? Anyone opposed to this variance? Opposed? No opposition, so I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Do we have any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. /' ,~~ CORRESPONDENCE MRS. LAPHAM-Mr. James Martin, Director of Community Development, Town of Queensbury, Bay Road, Queensbury, NY 12804, "Dear Mr. Martin: This letter is written in support of Variance No. 78-1996, submitted by Dr. Douglas & Mrs. Deborah Petroski for construction of a home on Glen Lake. As a neighbor, I am familiar with the property in question and the petitioners. Mrs. Milne and I believe that this variance should be granted for the following reasons. The setback from the lake as well is mostly increased from that of the existing building. The stonework planned for the front of the building adapts the structure to the natural surroundings, i.e. the hillside, the trees, and the stone on the property. This is a considerable improvement when compared to the existing building. Drainage and percolation will be improved under the plan. The previous owner of this property put in a driveway and a walkway which directs and washes runoff directly into the lake. This condition will be eliminated under this plan. The size of the project is modest when compared to many recent projects around the lake. Tree preservation is being maintained in the plan. If you or any of the Town Board owners were to visit the site, you could quickly verify the fact that the present owners, Dr. & Mrs. Petroski, are environmentally sensitive people who practice organic gardening, composting refuse to be reused as soil conditioner, and rej ecting the use of pesticides while maintaining a beautiful garden setting on their property. If this variance is granted, I'm sure the project will be completed so that it is less intrusive to the environmental sensitivity of the area. Sincerely, Donald A. Milne I II" August 20, 1996 "Dear Members of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals: We have reviewed the site plan and elevations for Area Variance No. 78-1996 by Douglas and Deborah Petroski. We viewed the project favorably. Barbara Milne, 31 Fitzgerald Road; Paul Vischer, 99 Mannis Road; Mr. Kim, 23 Fitzgerald Road; Eleanor Kim, 23 Fitzgerald Road; RaYmond Erb, 19 Fitzgerald Road; Joan Erb, 19 Fitzgerald Road; Margaret Alene Kane, 45 Fitzgerald Road; Herbert J. Kane, Jr., 45 Fitzgerald Road" MR. THOMAS-All righty. Lets see, the public hearing is closed. Lets start with you, Bonnie. What do you think? MRS. LAPHAM-Well, I like the idea that we're moving farther back, and they're new septic system. It seems to me there'd be a little less, you know, it would be less intrusive than it was before. So I don't think I have a problem. It's going to be a little large. - 25 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/96) MR. THOMAS-Bob, what do you think? MR. KARPELES-Well, I think it's going to be an improvement. I can't find any big objection to it, other than the fact that it seems kind of large for the size of the lot, but that seems to be standard up there. MR. THOMAS-Bill? MR. GREEN-I have kind of the same feelings as the other members. We are getting a new septic, and going to be improving some stormwater management runoff to the lake by coming back a little farther. The trend does seem to be going from cabins to year round homes. It seems they've done about as best as they can do. MR. THOMAS-Do you want to say anything, Don? MR. O'LEARY-I would have no reservations. MR. THOMAS-I feel the same way the rest of the Board members do. I think this is an improvement to the property. The new house, especially with the new septic system and a new house that's farther back from the lake. There's no objections from the neighbors. I would have no problem granting this variance. Does anyone want to make a motion? MR. GORALSKI-If I could, we should probably wait and see what we have from Warren County tonight. MR. THOMAS-We haven't heard from Warren County on this one yet? MR. GORALSKI-Actually, Mr. Auffredou just went up to Warren County to see what's going on up there. So hopefully he'll come back with some news for us all. MR. THOMAS-We'll do another one. We have to wait for that one. We have to wait for VanSlooten. Well, we'll put this one off to the side. Lets see, where are we going to go next? We'll do Use Variance No. 71-1996, Charlotte Harms next. USE VARIANCE NO. 71-1996 TYPE: UNLISTED SR-1A CHARLOTTE HARMS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 636 CORINTH ROAD, NORTH SIDE OF CORINTH ROAD, 2 MILES WEST OF EXIT 18 OF I-87 APPLICANT SEEKS APPROVAL OF THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING USE BY ALLOWING STORAGE OF ADDITIONAL MATERIAL IN FOUR STORAGE SHEDS TO BE USED ON HER PROPERTY. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE USES ALLOWED IN SECTION 179-19. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 8/21/96 TAX MAP NO. 125- 2-17 LOT SIZE: 9.26 ACRES SECTION 179-19 CHARLOTTE HARMS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 71-1996, Charlotte Harms, Meeting Date: August 21, 1996 "APPLICANT: Charlotte Harms PROJECT LOCATION: 636 Corinth Rd. PROPOSED PROJECT AND CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE: The applicant seeks approval of the expansion of a nonconforming use by allowing the storage of materials in four storage sheds to be used on her property. Relief is being requested from the uses allowed in Section 179-19. REVIEW CRITERIA, BASED ON SECTION 267-b OF TOWN LAW: 1. IS A REASONABLE RETURN POSSIBLE IF THE LAND IS USED AS ZONED? The ZBA should determine whether a reasonable return is possible given the fact that the current use of the property has been in operation for 40 years. 2. IS THE ALLEGED HARDSHIP RELATING TO THIS PROPERTY UNIQUE, OR DOES IT ALSO APPLY TO A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD? The current use of this property is unique compared to other neighborhood uses. 3. IS THERE AN - 26 - "---' ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/96) ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD? The effect on the neighborhood will be a small expansion over what has been in existence for the past 40 years. 4. IS THIS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NECESSARY TO ADDRESS THE UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP PROVEN BY THE APPLICANT, AND AT THE SAME TIME PROTECT THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY? The applicant's proposal is a minimal expansion over the present use of the property. Staff Comments and Concerns: It should be noted that this application is for the expansion of a nonconforming use at this location not an application for approval of the four new storage buildings. If the applicant wishes to keep these four buildings, an Area Variance must be applied for and granted in order to keep an additional number of storage buildings not allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. SEQR: Unlisted, short form EAF required. " MR. THOMAS-We don't have anything from Warren County on this one, yet, either? MR. GORALSKI-No, we don't. We have received something on VanSlooten, but nothing on this yet. MR. THOMAS-Okay. All righty. Mrs. Harms? MRS. HARMS-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Would you like to add anything to your application? MRS. HARMS-I'm not sure I understood any part of it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MAURICE COMBS MR. COMBS-This is something that was prepared by a fellow that doesn't represent us anYmore, and we had no way. MR. THOMAS-I think we'll read that letter in now, rather than wait. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. William E. Montgomery, III, Attorney At Law, 12 Pine Street, P.O. Box 228, Glens Falls, NY 12801 Use Variance No. 71-1996 Maurice Combs, 96 VanDusen Road, Queensbury, NY RE: Charlotte Harms, Use Variance No. 71-1996, Area Variance No. 72- 1996 Town of Queensbury, my file number 4-91 "Dear Mr. Combs: Based on our telephone conversation on August 19, 1996, it is my understanding you have met with the members of the Queensbury Town Planning Board and the Queensbury Town Building Department in reference to the applications submitted by Charlotte Harms, dated July 24, 1996 which are scheduled to be considered at a public hearing to be held on August 21, 1996. Further, that a resolution has been reached whereby you no longer require my services and do not wish that I appear with you and Mrs. Harms on August 21, 1996. Based upon the above stated, I would ask that you and Mrs. Harms counter sign this correspondence in order that it can be filed with the Queensbury Town Planning Board. Thank you for your consideration in this regard. Very truly yours, William E. Montgomery, III", and it is signed on August 19th by Maurice Combs and Charlotte Harms. MR. GORALSKI-Are you Mr. Combs? MR. COMBS-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. I just wanted to be sure for the record. MR. THOMAS-Is there anything you'd like to add to the application? MR. COMBS-No. All that we needed was a Use Variance for the four - 27 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/96) existing buildings. We didn't need any of the rest of the stuff he was doing at all. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I'm confused, John. These four buildings were put up recently? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So that's the expansion they need. MR. COMBS-No. MR. GORALSKI-When were the buildings put up? MR. COMBS-We've had them there for several years. I don't know the date of them, but we've had them there for a long time. MR. GORALSKI-Within the last eight years? MR. THOMAS-Yes, I was going to say, if it was before 1988. MR. COMBS-Some of them yes, and some of them no. MR. THOMAS-Do you know which ones were installed after 1988? MR. COMBS-Well, they were on the property, but we've moved them all over and put them in a line. MR. GORALSKI-And now they're being used for storage? MR. COMBS-Yes. They're being used for storage today. MR. THOMAS-What were they being used for before, storage? MR. COMBS-Yes, basically. MR. GORALSKI-My understanding is that this is the result of an enforcement action. There's a garage sale sign that's up on the property, constantly. The sheds were brought up toward the front of the property and now are being used in conjunction with that garage sale, and that has been determined to be an expansion of a nonconforming use. MR. THOMAS-Even though they were on the property before the 1988 revision of the Zoning Ordinance? MR. GORALSKI-That's correct. MR. GREEN-You're saying the buildings were on the property, possibly in a different location, but on the property prior to 1988? MR. COMBS-Some yes. I think two of them were and two of them were not. MR. GORALSKI-Well then at the minimum there are two that are? MR. THOMAS-So there's two, but the two that were there, even though they were moved from one location to another, as long as they don't violate the setbacks, I don't see where we have any jurisdiction over those two. MR. GORALSKI-It was the determination of the Staff, specifically the Zoning Administrator, that because they are now being used in conjunction with the sale of items from the site, that that constitutes an expansion of a nonconforming use. MR. THOMAS-Were they used in conjunction with the sale before they - 28 - \---... ~--/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/96) were moved? Did you store stuff in there that you sold before you moved? MRS. HARMS-We've always stored stuff in them. MR. COMBS-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Where's Mr. Martin when you need him? MR. GORALSKI -That's his determination. The Zoning Board of Appeals is the only one who can overturn his determination. MR. THOMAS-That's right. Do you know which two buildings are the new ones? MR. COMBS-He had pictures of them, the two brown buildings, furthest from the road have been there the least. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So it's the eight by eight and the 20 by 12? MR. COMBS-Yes, I believe so. MR. THOMAS-The first question under a Use Variance asks, "Is a reasonable return possible if the land is used as zoned? If the answer is no, please provide financial evidence supporting this claim" Do you have financial evidence to support the fact that if you don't have these two buildings, that you cannot receive a reasonable return? Do you have written financial? MR. COMBS-No, I don't. MR. THOMAS-We have to determine the Use Variance by the four questions that were asked and that you answered, the reasonable return, alleged hardship, alter the essential character, and is the alleged hardship self created. All four of those have to be answered to our satisfaction before we can grant this Use Variance. It's not like an Area Variance where we have some room to play with. These are sticklers. MRS. HARM-I have no place in God's world to put that stuff if I don't have the buildings, and I'll just have to put it outdoors, and it's going to get ruined, and there's a lot of personal things in there that I don't want to lose. MR. THOMAS-We do this on just about every Use Variance. The financial thing always hangs us up. We have to have some kind of proof supporting the claim that you cannot use this property as zoned without this variance. We have to have it really in writing, you know, balance sheets, tax returns, I don't know what else we usually have in the past, stuff like that. We have to have some kind of competent financial evidence supporting this, and if we don't have it, there's no way we can pass this Use Variance. MR. GREEN-This variance is here because the Zoning Administrator feels that there's an expansion in business? MR. GORALSKI-An expansion of a nonconforming use, yes. MR. GREEN-That being the garage sale? MR. GORALSKI-The nonconforming use being the sale of items from that site. MR. GREEN-Did he feel that there was an expansion since when? MR. GORALSKI-The placement of these sheds constitutes the expansion. - 29 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/96) MRS. LAPHAM-So if they moved them back where they were, wherever that was? MR. GORALSKI-Well, there's two that were, that the applicant has admitted have been there after 1988. So they weren't even on the site. So at least those two, there's no question that they are new and would have required a variance. The other two were included in Jim's determination, but I have to say that there are at least two, right now, based on this testimony, that are definitely additions since 1988. MRS. LAPHAM-Somehow I lost that. I thought he said that the two, there were two there and two that were moved since 1988? MR. GORALSKI-No. There were two that were brought to the property, there were two that were on the property prior to 1988. Two that were actually brought to the property since 1988. MRS. LAPHAM-That's the part I missed. MR. GORALSKI-Now I'm not sure if I answered your question. MR. GREEN-I guess, you know, if it is dêtermined that there wasn't an expansion in business. MR. GORALSKI-I hate to bring up a sore subject, but this is similar to the Mooring Post, in that you are expanding the facilities. You're physically expanding the facilities of a nonconforming use. By bringing new sheds onto this property, you are physically expanding the facilities of a nonconforming use. MR. GREEN-And that is the justification for expansion, which in turn needs the variance. MR. GORALSKI-That's why, that is by definition an expansion and requires a variance. MR. GREEN-So this is different than just an increase in the amount of business? MR. GORALSKI-Correct. MR. GREEN-Because of the additional facilities? MR. GORALSKI-Right. It's an increase in the facilities. I don't know whether they have more business or not, but there's an increase in the nonconforming facilities, or the facilities that are being used for the nonconforming use. MR. THOMAS-And the Town Attorney is not here. MR. GORALSKI-I'm not sure why you need him. MR. GREEN-That's essentially what, I went through that same question with him about the Mooring Post last week. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. GREEN-And that's exactly what he told me, because we had a logging business a while ago that an increase in business did not constitute an expansion. It was just purely business. MR. THOMAS-Right. MR. GREEN-But as soon as we were increasing facilities, that is an expansion that needs a variance. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So it comes back to the question, five minutes - 30 - ''--~' '-.-;' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/96) ago, we need the competent financial evidence to supporting this claim, and the applicant does not have the financial evidence at this point. Something in writing, to show you why this property cannot be used as zoned, that you need this variance. MRS. HARMS-All right, now, can we get another attorney and then try this again? MR. THOMAS-Would you like to have the application tabled, for 62 days, so you can get yourself another attorney and try and straighten this out? MRS. HARMS-Yes, because I don't understand a tremendous amount of this. MR. THOMAS-Okay. That would be a real good idea, but I would also, as soon as I got that attorney, go talk to Mr. Martin and find out about, or have your attorney talk to Mr. Martin about the moving of the sheds from one place on the property to another, but stay within these setbacks, okay, and they were there on the property before 1988, and see if you need them for two or for four. MR. GREEN-Or find out exactly when all the sheds showed up on the property. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-The public hearing has been advertised, and I believe there are neighbors who are here who would like to speak. So I would recommend you open the public hearing. MR. THOMAS-All right. I'll do that. I'll open the public hearing, but I'm going to leave it open, and I'm also going to table it at the end, but if there's anyone here that would like to speak. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DENNIS BROWER MR. BROWER-My name's Dennis Brower, and I reside at 9 Brookshire Trace in Bedford Close, and we adj oin the property in question. My understanding was that the applicant had applied for construction of a pole barn, an enclosed pole barn. Is that not the case? MR. GORALSKI-If I could clear that up. There are two separate applications here. Right now they're hearing the Use Variance application, which is for the expansion of the nonconforming use. There's also an Area Variance application after this. MR. THOMAS-The applicant has asked that when it comes to that, that the Area Variance be withdrawn. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. MR. THOMAS-So they are not going to put up, I'm told by Mr. Combs that they are not going to put up a pole barn, that they are going to withdraw that Area Variance request for the pole barn. MR. BROWER-Okay. Well, I think my concern and the concern of my neighbors are that there are a number of tractor trailers stored on the site, in view of our homes. They've been there, apparently, for years. There are some old barrels there, and we were hoping that we might be able to clear up the situation a bit by, hopefully, allowing our neighbor, potentially, to contain their yard sale goods, so to speak, in an area that might be away from our homes, and out of sight of our homes, and possibly we could negotiate a situation where we can indeed improve our situation, as far as our view, by having some of these things removed from the - 31 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/96) property, potentially. I don't know if you've been back there. Have you seen it? MR. THOMAS-Yes, I was at the site on Monday. MR. BROWER-How many trailers did you count back there? MR. THOMAS-I counted, I saw one long one behind the barn by the road, a full sized one, and I think there were two others on the far side of the barn. MR. BROWER-Did you ever get to the back side of the property? MR. THOMAS-No. I did not go to the back of the property. MR. KARPELES-Where is your property? MR. BROWER-Well, their property abuts the back yard of our properties, and I understand it has been there as a nonconforming use for years, but sometimes you can negotiate with people and improve your own situation, allowing them to do kind of what they want to do, and both parties are happier. I guess, I want to hear more from, I haven't talked to Mrs. Harms or Mr. Combs, but that's mY feeling. Okay. I'm speaking as an indi vidual here. My neighbors may feel totally different than I do, but I think we're all concerned, basically, about the aesthetic appearance from our properties, and it's worse in the winter time because obviously you lose the trees and the visual impact is much greater than it is in the summer. There's no doubt about that, but that's all I wanted to say, and I'm looking forward to your next hearing, and who knows, maybe we can. MR. GREEN-Could I ask you a question? MR. BROWER-Yes. MR. GREEN-You said a lot essentially across the back side? MR. BROWER-Yes. MR. GREEN-To be honest with you, I don't even (lost words), and I don't think this is a concern, from what I understand, that these trailers in the back have been there long before anything, and they are not even an issue. MR. BROWER-I think it's not an issue that you can address, per se. You can't really address it. MR. GREEN-Exactly. I do have one question for you. trailers there when you bought your lot? Were the MR. BROWER-Yes, they were, and it was in the summer time, and I didn't even know it was there. MR. GREEN-So then you're saying that you didn't see them when you bought your lot in the summer? MR. BROWER-I did not see that, no. MR. GREEN-So you can't see them now either. MR. BROWER-I can't see them right now, at this moment, but in the fall, the winter time, absolutely you can. MR. THOMAS-Thank you. MR. BROWER-Thank you. - 32 - '- --" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/96) MR. THOMAS-Next. KEITH WALLY MR. WALLY-My name is Keith Wally. I live at Number 11 Brookshire Trace, and my back yard buts right onto the property that's in question. The concern that we have was that if you grant the variance so that they can have an expansion, will this expand further back and make it even worse than it is now for us? Our property is the one that overlooks the trailers, from every room, at the back of our house and the yard. It's not one or two trailers. It's 14 trailers, two tankers, six mobile home chaises, and various assundry other pieces of metal. We're concerned that if the variance is granted and they expand further back, will they come back and even make it worse than it is now? We do realize there's nothing we can do about the trailers that are there now, but we certainly don't want it to be any worse than it is. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Thank you. Any questions? MRS. LAPHAM-How many trailers? / '.... MR. WALLY-There are 14 trailers, two tankers, some tanks that look like they've been taken out of a gasoline station, six mobile home chaises with tires, an assundry other long metal girders. It's a safety hazard besides a health hazard. MR. THOMAS-What you're talking about, they're stored way in the back of the property? MR. WALLY-Yes. MRS. LAPHAM-Where it says pre-existing storage area, way back here. MR. THOMAS-Yes. We can't do a thing about that. MR. WALLY-Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Thank you. Anyone else? LYNN ROSEL MRS. ROSEL-My name is LYnn Rosel. I'm 13 Brookshire Trace, and I go along with my neighbors. I think our main concern is that it does not get any worse, and it's, I have two children, and I feel it's a safety problem back there, and we're just worried about the expansion also. MR. THOMAS-Anything else? Any questions? Anyone else opposed? I'll leave the public hearing open, and the applicant asks that the application be tabled at this so that they can obtain another attorney who will confer with Mr. Martin, the Town Zoning Administrator, and see if they can come up with a good application. MOTION TO TABLE USE VARIANCE NO. 71-1996 CHARLOTTE HARMS, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by William Green: So that the applicant can obtain another attorney and come back before the Zoning Board. I do believe they have 62 days to come back, and they have I think it is 45 days to get any new material to us. So we'd have to hear the variance by the 23rd of October. Duly adopted 21st day of August, 1996, by the following vote: - 33 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/96) AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Carvin, Mr. Menter MR. THOMAS-Okay. So Use Variance for Charlotte Harms is tabled until no later the 23rd of October. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. Now the Area Variance. MR. THOMAS-Now, the Area Variance, the applicant, I want the applicant to come forward and for the record state that they want that Area Variance withdrawn, if you please. MRS. HARMS-Charlotte Harms. MR. GORALSKI-Area Variance No. 72-1996. MRS. HARMS-I would like to have it withdrawn. MR. THOMAS-72-1996. MRS. HARMS-72-1996. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Thank you. MRS. HARMS-Thank you. MR. THOMAS-All righty. Where do we go from here? MR. GORALSKI-Mr. Thomas, there's been some word from the County about the VanSlooten application. They could not reach a decision. So, therefore, four votes either way would determine a resolution to that application. MR. THOMAS-Okay. All righty. Lets see. The public hearing was closed on VanSlooten. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. THOMAS-We've talked about it. All righty. I guess we're up to the point where we need a motion on Area Variance No. 77-1996 Ronald & Barbara VanSlooten. Would anyone care to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 77-1996 RONALD & BARBARA VANSLOOTEN, Introduced by William Green who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Karpeles: The applicant is proposing to build a second story addition and enclosed exterior stairway on existing single family home. The home would be expanded by 710 square feet. The new total square footage would then be 1700 square feet. Since the expansion would be greater than 50% of the original structure a variance is needed from Section 179-79A, 2. The expansion would also increase the size of the nonconforming structure encroaching farther on setbacks, thus requiring setback relief from Section 179-16. Relief would allow the applicant to build a second floor and enclosed stairway access in existing home. There does not seem to be any feasible alternatives to place the stairway inside the structure based upon discussion of interior floor plans of the existing and proposed drawing. The stairway could also not be located at the westerly end of the building due to various developments such as septic tanks and water lines. It may appear that the relief is substantial, that being 19 feet three inches of setback relief, but due to the present location of the home, this expansion closer to the property line does not appear to create any greater difficulty. The area to be developed is already paved, and - 34 - ",,-, ~., (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/96) appears to be well hidden behind trees and an existing fire place. The neighbors to the east also have stated that they have no problem with the proposed addition. It does appear that this expansion would be in keeping with other homes in the area, and again, there's no public comment opposed to this addition. Based upon the layout of the home and the size of the lot, it does not appear that the stairway could be re-Iocated in any other area. Duly adopted this 21st day of August, 1996, by the following vote: MR. AUFFREDOU-Mr. Chairman, just a point of clarification. The application does read that that second story is going to be 560 feet. The drawing that you have before you tonight that was prepared by Mr. Horning, that's actually for site plan review. That would indicate that the total size of the upstairs is going to be 660 feet. My guess is that the application either contains an error in my mathematics, or, it's still an expansion of over 50%. MR. THOMAS-Right, but we've got to get the numbers right. MR. AUFFREDOU-You've got to get the numbers right. It's 660 feet of floor space, and I think you better add some as well for the stairwell, and my guess is that 100 wôuld probably be a safe bet for that, 50 square feet, so that would be 710, and my apologies for that. AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Carvin, Mr. Menter MR. THOMAS-The variance is granted. MR. AUFFREDOU-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Members. MR. THOMAS-You're welcome. MR. AUFFREDOU - I bel ieve we're on for site plan review, John. Would that be next week? MR. GORALSKI-Did you submit? MR. AUFFREDOU-We submitted an application. MR. GORALSKI-Then it would be, yes. MR. AUFFREDOU-Next Tuesday night. MR. GORALSKI-Call my office and I'll confirm it. MR. AUFFREDOU-I'll call you. Now the other, my associate was at Warren County and they did take action on other projects, but they haven't called, but it looked like it was clearing out when I got there. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-I see Mr. Carstens is here. So we can do that one. AREA VARIANCE NO. 68-1996 SR-1A GARY CARSTENS TYPE II OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 106 CHESTNUT RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO PLACE A SWIMMING POOL IN THE SIDE YARD OF AN EXISTING LOT. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE LOCATIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PRIVATE SWIMMING POOLS LISTED IN SECTION 179-67B. TAX MAP NO. 54-2-8.1 LOT SIZE: 2.35 ACRES SECTION 179-67B GARY CARSTENS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT - 35 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/96) Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 68-1996, Gary Carstens, Meeting Date: August 21, 1996 "APPLICANT: Gary Carstens PROJECT LOCATION: 106 Chestnut Ridge Rd. Proposed Project and Conformance with the Ordinance: The applicant is proposing to construct a swimming pool in the side yard of an existing lot. Swimming pools are required to be built in the rear yard of a lot. Relief is being requested from the locational requirements for private swimming pools listed in Section 179-67B. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law. 1. Benefit to the applicant: Relief would allow the applicant to build in a side yard of a lot. 2. Feasible alternatives: The septic area and relatively steep slope in the rear yard of this lot limit the feasible alternatives at this location. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance? It appears that the relief would not be substantial given the physical conditions of this lot. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? There do not appear to be any negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. 5. Is this difficulty self created? The slope at the rear of this lot makes it difficult to build a pool in the rear yard. Staff Comments & Concerns: Staff believes that building a pool in this location would not have a negative impact on the neighborhood. Vegetation located at the south property line provides a visual buffer from the neighboring lot to the" south. SEQR: Type II, no further action required." MR. THOMAS-We don't need anything from Warren County on this. MR. GORALSKI-No. There's no Warren County review on this one. So we can go right ahead. MR. THOMAS-Mr. Carstens, do you have anything to add to the application? MR. CARSTENS-No. I think that pretty much covered it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Did you know that you needed a building permit before you put a pool in? MR. CARSTENS-No, I did not. MR. THOMAS-You do now, don't you? MR. CARSTENS-Yes, I do. I would have normally acquired it, because as you know we're putting a addition on the house, and we got a building permit for the house. So, you know, it was certainly obvious that the Building Inspector would be around on frequent visits. MR. GREEN-Did you put the pool in yourself, or did a contractor? MR. CARSTENS-I did most of the work, much of the work myself. I basically bought the parts from the pool place and he never mentioned and I never asked. He never asked, and then when the Building Inspector came up to do the plumbing inspection, he said, oops. MR. GORALSKI-I know what you're probably getting at, and I can tell you that there is not one pool installer that does work in the Town that ever gets permits. They simply tell, I don't know. Some of them don't even tell their customers that any permits you need, they're your responsibility, not ours. MR. THOMAS-That's probably in the contract. They sign it before the pool goes in, in real small writing. MR. GORALSKI-That's right. MRS. LAPHAM-You are a contractor though, aren't you? - 36 - ...-" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/96) MR. CARSTENS-Yes, I am, but not a pool contractor. commercial builders. We're MR. KARPELES-Can't we fine a contractor if he doesn't? MR. GORALSKI-Typically, no, because the contractor, as Mr. Thomas said, the pool contractor has a contract that says, you know, we're not responsible for permits. The homeowner's responsible, and ultimately, that's the case, when we go to court. It's the homeowner who's responsible. MR. CARSTENS-See, I basically just bought the parts in pieces and put them in myself. So he just wanted to sell me the parts and pieces. MR. THOMAS-AnYmore questions from the Board? I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED / --.~, . MR. THOMAS-Bill, I'll start with you this time. MR. GREEN-I don't have a problem with the pool. I can't see where this could go any place else, to be honest with you. I'm really getting tired of doing these after they're already in. MR. CARSTENS-My objectives were the same, really, as the Ordinance objectives, was to keep it as far back from the road and keep it well screened and so on. MR. GREEN-Yes, and I think if, you know, you'd come here first, I would have said, great, go ahead and build your pool. I just really very upset with these the way they're going. MR. CARSTENS-And I apologize for that. MR. KARPELES-I could mirror what he's said. off to go out there and see it already in. It really turns you MR. CARSTENS-Again, I apologize. As soon as the Building Inspector came we stopped, and didn't do anything further, but I really had no idea. As I said, I knew I needed a building permit, because I got a building permit for my addition, and there was nothing, you know, we weren't trying to be coy or sneaky or anything like that about it. We just didn't know. MR. KARPELES-I can understand how it would happen in a case like yours, but when a contractor's involved, I would think there's got to be something we can do to penalize that contractor when he does that. MR. GORALSKI-We've tried that. We have tried. The problem is you get to court and the contractor says, I have a contract that says I'm not responsible for permits. MR. CARSTENS-See, I didn't even have a contract. parts. I just bought MR. KARPELES-I understand. MR. THOMAS-Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-Well, basically, I just feel the same way the other Board members do. I mean, I waste my time to go out to the site - 37 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/96) and see it already there, and it's a beautiful pool, but, and I really don't have any objection to where it is, just the way it was done, and I guess from what you're telling me, I'm not sure that that's really your fault. MR. CARSTENS-As I said, we were doing the addition, I didn't, if I thought I needed one, I certainly would have come to get one. MR. THOMAS-Well, I concur with all the other Board members, that this is the only place on the property this pool could be put in. As Mr. Carstens has stated, he didn't know that he needed a permit to put in a pool. It's also after the fact, but seeing as though the pool is in the only place it could be put anyway, I have no objection, and the only reason that that pool is not in the rear yard and is in a side yard is because of that enclosed porch on the back. If that enclosed porch wasn't there, Mr. Carstens would only be in getting a building permit. He wouldn't be here before us. Having said that, would anyone like to move this one? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 68-1996 GARY CARSTENS, Introduced by Robert Karpeles who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham: The applicant is proposing to construct a swimming pool in the side yard of an existing lot. Swimming pools are required to be built in the rear yard of a lot. Relief is being requested from the locational requirements for private swimming pools listed in Section 179-67B. The benefit to the applicant is that he would be allowed to build in the side yard of his lot. There are no feasible alternatives. The septic area and a relatively steep slope in the rear yard of this lot limit the feasible alternatives of this location. The relief does not appear to be substantial given the physical conditions of this lot. There do not appear to be any negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhood and there are no neighbors in objection to it in attendance. Building this pool in this location will not have a negative impact on the neighborhood. Vegetation located on the south property line provides a visual buffer from the neighboring lot to the south. Duly adopted this 21st day of August, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Carvin, Mr. Menter USE VARIANCE NO. 76-1996 PC-1A TYPE: UNLISTED JOSEPH MONSOUR OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 676 UPPER GLEN STREET, THIRD LOT NORTH OF GLENWOOD AVENUE ON EAST SIDE APPLICANT PROPOSES AN AUTOMOBILE RENTAL, LEASING, SALES, STORAGE, WASHING, SAFETY CHECK OF VEHICLES AND RELATED SERVICES BUSINESS. THIS USE WOULD NOT CONFORM TO THE ALLOWED USES IN THE PC-1A ZONE. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE USES ALLOWED IN SECTION 179-22. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 8/21/96 TAX MAP NO. 104-1-18.1, 12.1 LOT SIZE: 0.53 ACRES & 0.25 ACRES SECTION 179-22 MARK LEVACK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 76-1996, Joseph Monsour, Meeting Date: August 21, 1996 "APPLICANT: Joseph Monsour PROJECT LOCATION: 676 Glen St. PROPOSED PROJECT AND CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE: The applicant proposes an automobile rental, leasing, sales, storage, washing, safety check, and related services business. The proposed uses would not conform to the uses listed in Section 179-22. Relief is being requested from the use schedule - 38 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/96) of Section 179-22. REVIEW CRITERIA, BASED ON SECTION 267-b OF TOWN LAW: 1. IS A REASONABLE RETURN POSSIBLE IF THE LAND IS USED AS ZONED? Under the current zoning, a reasonable return could probably be realized if this property was used for one of the permitted or site plan uses listed in the Zoning Ordinance. The ZBA should determine whether or not adequate information has been submitted in support of the applicant's position. 2. IS THE ALLEGED HARDSHIP RELATING TO THIS PROPERTY UNIQUE, OR DOES IT ALSO APPLY TO A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD? It would appear that this lot which fronts on Route 9 has the same development potential as other lots in the neighborhood. 3. IS THERE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD? The proposed use would probably not have an adverse effect on this predominantly commercial area. 4. IS THIS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NECESSARY TO ADDRESS THE UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP PROVEN BY THE APPLICANT AND AT THE SAME TIME PROTECT THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY? The applicant may be able to use this property for one of the permitted or site plan uses for the current zoning designation. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: The tests listed in Section 267-b of Town Law must be met in order to grant a use variance. The applicant may have the ability to use this property for the uses listed in the zoning district and still realize a reasonable return on the property. SEQR: Unlisted, short form EAF required." MR. THOMAS-Alrighty. Mr. Levack. MR. LEVACK-My name is Mark Levack from Levack Real Estate. I'm here on behalf of Joseph and Celia Monsour as their agent, and also their listing agent on the property at 676 Glen Street. We also have with us this evening William Burch and Jeannette Faller from Enterprise Rent-A-Car, and they're here to answer any questions that you may have on the proposed use and day to day operations of the space. I'd like to start out by first addressing the current characteristics of the site, and a couple of the Staff's comments. The property is approximately a 1500 square foot old garage building that's been remodeled into a restaurant. Mr. Monsour's been there for 23 years operating it as Jo Jo's Restaurant. I've shaded in the area that is presently green space, and we haven't factored the area calculations of green space, but I'd say that it's well in excess of the required 30% area. He has an asphalt parking lot here, and he also has a crushed stone area. The newly proposed use does not plan to increase the size of the parking lot at all, and it does not intend on increasing the size of the building at all. So we believe that this fact represents a very unique and special opportunity for the Board to make a decision this evening that we really have a tailor made deal for this property and this building. I'd also like to point out that this is an office project. Office is a permitted use in a Plaza Commercial zone, but because you may store one vehicle in the lot, or you may sell one car, it triggers you into a Highway Commercial zoning, but I'd like to say that, you know, it's the applicant's belief and certainly the tenant's belief, that they really don't intend to cross over that line, in abusing any vehicle lot storage or selling vehicles out of that location. They, quite frankly, don't believe that they'll sell any vehicles out of that location, but we wanted to be as up front and forthright with the Town Board as we could be. That's why we listed all the permitted uses, all the possible uses, and we feel that's what triggered us over into this need for a Use Variance. So I'd like to just, again, emphasize that this is an office project, and an office is a permitted use in a Plaza Commercial zone. So we feel that the relief being sought here from zoning is extremely minimal, if not really not even necessary, but they do intend to remodel the exterior in a minimal way, in that they plan on painting it. There's some outside gas station, bathroom doors that are going to be totally sealed off from the outside, so you won't see those - 39 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/96) bathroom doors from Route 9 anYmore, and they do plan on putting a new mansard type facia facade around the front of the building and cover up the old mansard style roof there. The other real plus that we see that this Board has an opportunity to get involved with here this evening is to give us the ability to create a site plan there. Currently there's no site plan on the property. There are no striped ingress/egress arrows. There are no parking spaces. We feel this would be an asset to the Town to take it through the process and come up with a nice parking layout for this particular property and this particular tenant. Right here there are two curb cuts on the property. If a vehicle is parked right here, the way it currently exists right now, they stack along this front section of the building. If one tries to pull in here as another customer is trying to pullout, it's a real hazard, and what we propose to do, if we get past this level this evening, hopefully we will, is to propose making this an egress lane only, and then making this curb cut here an ingress and egress lane. We've talked to the people at Price Chopper across the street, and there's a stacking median in the middle, and if you've ever been in and out of that Price Chopper area right there, it can get a little dicey sometimes. So we think that this proposed project is really going to help improve that situation right in and around that area. I'd like to re-emphasize that there are no "alterations to size of the building, the size of the parking lot. This deal is really tailor made for this site and this project. Again, no vacancy. I think that in these hard economic times, if we have the ability to close the restaurant down and build to suit for another tenant, I think that bodes well for stimulating the economy so we don't see vacant buildings sitting on major travel corridors. I'd like to sort of address some of the Staff comments here this evening, and one of them particularly doesn' t sit all that well with me, and it's Number Two. It says that, "Is the alleged hardship relating to this property unique or does it also apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood?" Clearly, you have Cole Muffler storing cars. Firestone storing cars. Merrill Automotive storing cars, and they're in, also, to the Sunoco, storing cars, and they're also involved directly in the sales and service repair of vehicles. Those are certainly much more intensive uses and great violation of the current zoning than this proposed office building. So George is saying, "It would appear that this lot which fronts on Route 9 has the same development potential as other lots in the neighborhood". I think it's very important to point out here this evening that we have a, in this economic climate, a very, very narrow window of opportunity to put together deals, and we've been fortunate enough to find this tenant and have this building tailor made for them. Anybody else that would want this property or has even expressed any remote interest in the property, has discussed tearing the building down, which would mandate a setback of 75 feet from the Travel Corridor and also, too, 100 foot buffer zone to the Halfway Brook reservoir. So X would say that this lot has some quirky problems with it that really, with any new person, would require a lot more relief than we're certainly looking for here this evening. I'd like to also say that we've actively marketed the property at a very realistic $12 triple net rate, and an asking price of $295,000. We feel that this asking price is in line with market comparables, and we have not received a single offer on the property. That, we believe, is creating an economic hardship that would necessitate the acceptance of this Use Variance. Mr. Monsour can certainly speak to his involvement in the restaurant marketplace over the years, and how that's changed, and the advent of many fastfood restaurants and directly competing restaurants has put him in an impossible situation to compete with these people, and has really made the decision that he is going to be closing down the restaurant. So, regardless of whether this was accepted this evening or not, he cannot continue to run the business and we would impress upon you the urgency and the importance of working with us on this Use Variance because it is a tailor made deal. It is minimal relief from setback. There is clearly an economic - 40 - -' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/96) hardship that has not been self imposed and we also, too, have highlighted here in yellow and blue, the yellow is the Monsour site, and the blue properties are people that we've received written acknowledgement and acceptance from on this proposed Use Variance. We have Meta Murray, the former Flowerland location, which we also have listed next to adjoining their property. I have acknowledgement here from Meta this evening that she is in favor of this Use Variance this evening. We also have a signed letter from Mr. Wayne Kellogg, who's the President of Warren Tire, and he's in support of this this evening. We also have signed applications here or statements here from Cole Muffler and Firestone. I also spoke to Tom Jacobs. While we don't have anything signed from him this evening, he was not opposed to it, actually in favor of it. We were expecting the fax back and didn't get it, and I did talk to the Manager of Price Chopper. He was totally in favor of it, but he was trying to work up through his channels and wasn't able to get us a written affirmation of that here this evening. So I think we've pretty much covered everything. If there's any questions, we can answer your questions. MR. THOMAS-Well, we'll start with the same thing that we started the other one with. Do you have competent financial evidence supporting this claim? JOSEPH MONSOUR MR. MONSOUR-Over the past number of years, the chains have been moving in the area, and, you know, business has been going down each year. I mean, in 1990, I made $20,000, and last year I made $11,200. I work 80 hours a week, and, you know, it's not enough to make a living. You have to, you know, this year isn't any better. MR. LEVACK-Would you say it's a reasonable return? MR. MONSOUR-No. It's not a reasonable return at all. I mean, I've got to get a job. I mean, what can I do? I can't make it. It's tough. MR. THOMAS-Do you have anything in writing, like a balance sheet or anything like that that shows the declining, or can you provide that at some point, that shows the declining? MR. MONSOUR-I can do that. MR. THOMAS-That you're losing money? What about the other statement that the application asks for, any other use listed in the Plaza Commercial zone? MR. LEVACK-I'd like to address that, and, you know, there's no hard and fast answers to these questions. That's up to you and your ability to make this decision here this evening. The Staff comments are that, under the current zoning, a reasonable return could probably be realized if this property was used as zoned. Well, could probably in these economic times is, I can tell you that, up to this point, it definitely has not proven itself to yield a return under anything as zoned, because the property's been marketed. It's been available. There've been no offers submitted by anyone that is a conforming use in a Plaza Commercial zone. So could you say that it could probably? Well, it could probably, but we've certainly demonstrated to this point that it hasn't been able to, and that's why we feel that the relief from the zoning should be granted, and we've given it a very legitimate effort, and to give you an idea of the sign on Route 9 has yielded three telephone calls, 15, 16,000 cars a day, and you get three telephone calls on it, I really want to impress upon you the urgency and the importance of working with the deal at hand, and especially this one, because it is a tailor made deal. It isn't going to increase - 41 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/96) the size of the building. It isn't going to increase the size of the parking lot. I hope I answered your question. MR. KARPELES-Are you going to rent this? MR. LEVACK-Yes, it's going to be rented out, and that construction work will go into effect immediately. Hopefully upon a favorable outcome this evening we would immediately have site planners at the ready to submit a site plan to meet the August deadline so that we can be on September's agenda for site plan review, because the corporation that's sitting behind me here is very sensitive to time issues right now, as is Mr. Monsour, because every month that he's open he is just burning himself out and spinning his wheels with no reasonable economic return right now. MR. THOMAS-The only thing I can say to that is, if we don't hear anything from Warren County tonight, we can't make a decision. MR. LEVACK-We understand that. That's something beyond our control, and we all have to work with that. MR. THOMAS-Warren County did not meet last week. Therefore, their meeting tonight, we haven't heard anything from them. We are hoping to hear something from them so we can do determinations next week, and we'll go through the public hearing and we'll bring it up to that point, but we won't make any determination tonight. MR. LEVACK-Sure. MR. GORALSKI-Mr. Thomas, I think addressing the question you just asked, something I would add, and I haven't really talked to any of the other Staff about this project except that, I've had three calls over the last year regarding the availability of this site, and everyone of those asked if a gas station was an allowable use there, and it's not. Just for your information. MR. THOMAS-At one time it was a gas station, but that's been more than 18 months. MR. GORALSKI-That's correct. It's been a lot more than 18 months. MR. THOMAS-Scratch that out. The proposed new tenant you said was Enterprise Rent-a-Car? MR. LEVACK-Enterprise Rent-a-Car. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lets talk about that. You said they were going to paint the outside of the building and brick up some outside doorways that go into bathrooms? MR. LEVACK-Right. MR. THOMAS-What other improvements do they plan? MR. LEVACK-They plan to put a new facia style front on the front of the building, and I have a proposed, Rock, would you say that the proposed Burlington schematic would be similar and adequate to show the Board? Just as this business in Burlington has an existing roof line, and then it's more square looking facia was added to it, to cover up. It would essentially be the same style mansard roof. It would only be brought up straight. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are you going to need a Sign Variance for this? MR. LEVACK-No. They're well below. MR. THOMAS-They're well below the square footage? - 42 - '-.../ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/96) MR. LEVACK-Well below the square footage. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Cars parked on the property, how many? MR. LEVACK-Rock, would you like to address that, William? WILLIAM BURCH MR. BURCH-Yes. I'm William Burch with Enterprise Rent-a-Car, the District Rental Manager for Upstate New York and the entire state of Vermont. To answer your question in a best to worst case scenario, anywhere from three to ten at night, overnight. MR. THOMAS-That would be parked on the property? MR. BURCH-Yes, sir, overnight. MR. THOMAS-How many trips would you say a day would go in and out of that place? MR. BURCH-I would say, on average, it varies. Our busy days are Mondays and Fridays. I would say anywhere from 50 to 80. MR. THOMAS-Fifty to eighty trips a day. That's in and out? MR. BURCH-Yes, sir. MR. THOMAS-So that would be like 40 vehicles in, 40 out? MR. BURCH-More so some coming in and not going out. it's a variable, but, yes, as an average, 40. It's just, MR. THOMAS-Okay. Has anybody else got any questions? MR. KARPELES-How long term a rental is this going to be? MR. LEVACK-Ten years. MR. BURCH-Yes. We're working a ten year lease with an additional five year option, but to be honest with you, if we move here, we're not going to move out. MR. GREEN-Mark, you said this has been on for 10 months, and you've had three other people call but they were basically going to tear this down? MR. LEVACK-Yes. MR. GREEN-And were their uses approved, or would they still need, probably, Use Variances? MR. LEVACK-One was a gas station, and one was a convenient market, and the other one was trying to incorporate all of the properties, which was our real intention here was to put together a deal that moved Friendly's over to one side of the site, and demolished the three houses and the Flowerland building, plus the front house up front, which I don't have listed. Essentially everything from the Halfway Brook to the Bank, we were trying to strike a deal where it would erase everything, move Friendly's over to one side of the site, and then do a, you know, a more planned, horse shoe type, or, you know, larger single site user, but, you know, the tenant deals weren't out there. The economics were very difficult to warrant tearing, buy these properties at these prices plus tearing them down, just didn't fly, but I'm, quite frankly, surprised, and it's a real true indication of the economic climate right now, the fact that few deals, fortunately, all it takes is one deal. We do have that deal here, but it's been very, very slow. - 43 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/96) MR. THOMAS-Does anyone have any questions before I open the public hearing? MR. KARPELES-You say safety check of the vehicles. This would be done outside? There's no garage in there. MR. BURCH-Well, safety check, I would assume, when a customer brings the rental vehicle back, we inspect the car for damage, or to see if there is any collision damage against the vehicle. That would be a safety check of the vehicle. The question at hand was, we also won't be washing any other vehicles, anyone else other than rental vehicles that we own ourselves. MR. THOMAS-What about maintenance and repair? MR. BURCH-Maintenance and repair is, quite honestly, our biggest account is across the street at Firestone. We take all of our oil changes, tires, brakes, anything literally across the street. We do zero maintenance on the vehicles. I mean, we may put oil in a car to raise the level of oil, but we're not going to change oil or any maintenance whatsoever. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Has anybody else gotO"anything? MRS. LAPHAM-Well, when you say, selling, you might sell a car. Does that mean, like, when they get older, the rental cars? MR. BURCH-In general, we don't do that from here in the Queensbury area. We would take them to another city to sell those, but in a best case scenario, there may be someone comes in and would like to purchase what they were driving at that incident, and in a best case scenario, that may happen. However, we do not do that at the moment, but it could happen. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay, but you don't solicit that type of business? MR. BURCH-Absolutely not. MR. THOMAS-Anybody else before I open the public hearing? MR. LEVACK-Can I submit these letters now, at the public hearing? MR. THOMAS - You can do it now. anybody has spoken. We won't read them until after MR. LEVACK-That's fine. MR. THOMAS-I don't think there's anybody here to speak. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. THOMAS-Any letters? MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. Okay. There's one letter, Wilbur and Natalie Simpson, 24 Glenwood Avenue, Queensbury, NY 12804, Attention: Christian G. Thomas, Secretary, Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Queensbury Warren County, New York August 21, 1996 RE: Monsour Application hearing August 26, 1996 "We would like to go on record as stating we do not oppose the above application, but we do hope there will be no noise pollution of the area as a result of the proposal. As we have stated in the past, when noise pollution from radio became a factor, the angle of Glenwood Avenue here and the amplifying effect of Halfway Brook can present a problem. Thank you for informing us of this opportunity to present our position. Wilbur and Natalie Simpson" "To Whom It May Concern: I have been informed on the newly proposed application for a Use Variance at 676 Glen Street, Queensbury, NY 12804. I understand that if the - 44 - ~-- ,~' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/96) granted relief from zoning, an automobile rental agency will occupy the demise premises for automobile leasing. In addition to this use, the agency plans to conduct a safety check of vehicles, washing, sales, storage and other related services. Please accept my acknowledgement as my support for the proposed Use Variance." And this is signed by Anthony Howie, Manager for Cole Muffler. The same letter is also signed by the Assistant Manager, Matthew Rafferty at 657 Upper Glen Street. The same one is also signed by the President of Warren Tire, Wayne Kellogg, and Meta Murray, former owner of Flowerland at 2 Glendale Drive. MR. THOMAS-We have this letter from Simpson. Do you know which lot Simpson owns? MR. LEVACK-I went over and tried to meet with all the property owners. Yes, I think I do have a tax map. MR. THOMAS-I've got a tax map, but I don't have any names to go with it. MR. LEVACK-I might be able to tell you who that is. MR. THOMAS-Can you do it on this map,br do you want the? MR. LEVACK-I think it's this gentleman right here. This is a multifamily. He has the Pine Plank. They make pine furniture. MR. THOMAS-Right. MR. LEVACK-Then there's a multifamily right back here, and I believe it's this gentleman right here. MR. THOMAS-There's a list in here. I'll find the name Simpson. There is it right there, Natalie Simpson. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes, 24 Glenwood, 104-1-9. MR. LEVACK-I'm wrong. away. It's this person right here, quite a ways MR. THOMAS-Okay. Yes. All right. Having no more correspondence, I'll close the public hearing. The public hearing is closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Bonnie, I'll start with you this time. MRS. LAPHAM-I don't think I have an objection to this, and with no public comment, my biggest concern was the volume of actual car business in and out, and washing and, you know, activity with the residential neighborhood directly behind, and since the neighbors do not seem to be particularly upset, I'm not sure that I am either, although I'll be upset because there won't be anYmore hot dogs. MR. THOMAS-Bill? MR. GREEN-I think this use is probably less intensive than a lot of other ones that could be put on this site, a multi function department store, probably the number of trips that have been proposed, 40 or 60 or so, is probably going to be a reduction in the number of car trips there now, that have been in the past, I guess. It does seem to be nice that, (lost words) any length of time, someone's interested in purchasing it or using the site right off. My only thought is that, and I don't know how much weight I'd place on it, but it does give us an opportunity maybe to pull this building back, if we were to wait a little longer, wait for some other opportunity. It's awful close to the road, and you'd - 45 - ',~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/96) mentioned the ingress and egress from the one northerly exit, although a site plan would have to be done for any sort of development. That's my only concern, but I'd hate to see it sit there for a year or two or three empty while we're looking for someone that may be able to do something about it. MR. THOMAS-Bob? MR. KARPELES-I think it's a good use for that area, and I agree. I think there'd probably be less traffic there than there is with the restaurant, and I don't think it's a more objectionable use than some of the uses that are permitted. So I'm in favor of it. MR. THOMAS-I just have one question for Mr. Monsour, before I put out my thoughts, which I'll agree with the Board members. In a good year, at the restaurant business, how many cars would you say were in and out of there in a day, like, you know, back in '90, '91? How many people did you serve in a day, in a good year? MR. MONSOUR-Probably a couple of hundred. MR. THOMAS-In a day. So there's a couple hundred, you figure there'd probably be between maybe 90 and 140 cars a day in and out of there? MR. MONSOUR-At least. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I just need some kind of comparison as to what the proposed use. Like I stated, I have no objection to this variance. I would like to see some kind of financial statement or something stating that the restaurant has been losing business and a statement saying that this property, well, we already have it, a statement saying that this property has been advertised for two years, and then Mr. Levack came in for the last 10 months and only had three calls on it, and none of them were for the permitted uses. I think this car rental is a good idea, and there's no obj ections from the neighbors. In fact, most of the neighbors being in favor, I would say this is probably the best use we can get out of this property. We can't make a move on it. MR. GORALSKI-But you can't make a move. MR. THOMAS-Not unless we hear from Warren County. So I would say we will do the, well, we need to do a SEQRA determination on this, too. MR. GORALSKI-Right. Mike, do you have any idea what the result of this was? MR. O'CONNOR-I discussed ours and then left, and they were just getting to the ones of the people that had signed in, and there were still probably eight or ten. They go by the order, not of their agenda. Their agenda has got about 30 or 40 items on it. They don't go by the order of the agenda. They go by the representatives sign in. MR. GORALSKI-I would recommend you don't even do the SEQRA at this point. MR. THOMAS-No. we have to do. We'll do this next week, along with any others that So, sorry about that. MR. LEVACK-No problem, it's understandable. I wish I was in two places at once. MR. GORALSKI-I would recommend, it looks like the Board's going to table this, if you could possibly give the Board some type of financial statement showing what the return on the property has - 46 - , ----- .....,/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/96) been in the last couple of years, that would probably be helpful. MR. THOMAS-I'm not going to table this, but I'm going to leave the public hearing open. MR. GORALSKI-That's fine. MR. THOMAS-I did close it, but I'm going to re-open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED MR. THOMAS-And leave it that way. That way it doesn't have to be re-advertised, just to run it through the decision. MR. GORALSKI-Well, if you close the public hearing, then it doesn't have to be re-advertised. MR. THOMAS-I thought I had to leave the public hearing open? MR. GORALSKI-No. Well, you're closing the public hearing, we're not going to take anymore public comment. So there's no reason to re-advertise it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Well, I'll close the public hearing back down, then, and we'll make a decision next Wednesday, just run it through for the approval or disapproval or whatever. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. LEVACK-Thank you. MR. THOMAS-All righty. Lets see, John, we've gone through all the variance applications. MR. GORALSKI-Yes, and we're back to Petroski, which I, although we haven't heard, I think Mr. O'Connor's in front of this Board often enough that we can trust him that he'll tell us how they acted on the Petroski matter. MR. O'CONNOR-As an officer of the court, I am happy to report, no action. MR. THOMAS-No action. So we can run this one through with a four vote. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. THOMAS-And we have four people here. We've done the discussion on it. All we need now is a motion, right? If we can find the papers. All righty. So we're up to a motion on Douglas & Deborah Petroski. Does anyone want to make it, or should I do it? Since I haven't done one tonight. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 78-1996 DOUGLAS & DEBORAH PETROSKI, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by William Green: That we grant 53 feet of relief from Section 179-60,15, C, the shoreline setbacks. I also would grant relief from the side line setbacks as listed in Section 179-16 Waterfront Residential One Acre of the side setback. Relief of five feet on the southwest side and eight feet on the northeast side. The benefit to the applicant is that they would be able to build a new home. The feasible alternative, there really isn' t any due to the slope limitations of the property and the width of the lot. The relief is substantial to the Ordinance, but because of the width of the lot and the slope of the property, this is as good as we can get. - 47 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/96) There do not appear to be any effects on the neighborhood or community. There has only been positive input. The difficulty was not self-created, since the property is sloped and narrow. This variance also recognizes that the Petroski's own two separate lots, one of which this construction is being done on. It's also stated by the applicant that stormwater management will be set up on the property by use of retaining walls and increased permeable area. Duly adopted this 21st day of August, 1996, by the following vote: MR. GREEN-I think the relief that you said, 15 and 22, are actually the setback and not the relief. MR. GORALSKI-That's correct. MR. GREEN-They need relief of five and eight feet. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Amend those numbers, Maria, to the setback relief of five feet on the left side, on the west side, on the southwest side, and eight feet on the northeast side. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, could you say, build it as shown on the plan? I mean, I have a question on that front piece. Staff arrived at 40 feet on the front, and they kind of average something, if I looked at that by scale. MR. THOMAS-No. I see a deck sticking out 40 feet from the left, well. MR. O'CONNOR-You go to the west end of that property, it looks closer. MR. THOMAS - Yes, it looks closer. Yes, closer. Do we have the scale in there? by the boathouse there. that setback does look Right where it goes down MR. O'CONNOR-It's not something new, but I saw that tonight, and I said, I don't know how we got to the 40. This is 38 feet or this is 35 feet on this corner. MR. GORALSKI-I don't really know where the shoreline is. I would say, to be safe, I would say 22 feet from the shoreline. Well, because scaling it is not going to be the most accurate, knowing where the shoreline is. DR. PETROSKI-What I would probably do, if I were going to do this, I would go right along parallel with the house, and slide it back. MR. GORALSKI-I would say 22 feet. MR. O'CONNOR-So relief of 53 feet. MR. GORALSKI-Yes, you're right. MR. THOMAS-Maria, amend that setback from 35 feet of relief feet of relief. I think we're all set on everything now. see. We've got the two side setbacks, the shoreline setback. a lot that stands by itself. Stormwater drainage has addressed. to 53 Lets It's been MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. THOMAS-Anything else? MR. GREEN-Second. I'll ask for a second, then. AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green, Mr. Thomas - 48 - ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/96) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Carvin, Mr. Menter MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Thank you. Just for your information, the County took No Action, for the most part, the way I could understand the discussion that took place, because what's before you is different than what's before them, and their first motion was to deny it without prejudice, the motion was seconded, and then defeated because only two voted for it and six voted against it, because the others said they didn't see any County impact, and why can't they approve it as No County Impact, and then somebody said, they do their vote up there so that it didn't pass that way. They made a motion for No County Impact. They didn't get enough to pass. They have to have a majority to pass, which means no action, and they turned around and said, you got what you wanted, and part of it was, Charlie tried to accommodate what Staff was saying, and Staff had told them they thought the house was too big the way it was originally planned in the original map that was submitted, and that he needed more green space, and he changed it and everything else. So he was trying to serve more than one master, and in the meantime the map had already gone to the County, but just for your background as to why they took No Actiort; Thank you, again. MR. THOMAS-Thank you. MR. GORALSKI-Back in, I believe it was 1990, this applicant came in, and they were requesting relief from the requirement for double the lot width on a collector road. Since then, the Ordinance has changed to provide that you don't have to provide that if you provide a shared driveway, which they can do. Unfortunately, the way this is laid out, they don't even have the average lot width that they need for this lot. We felt that this was a different application from what they originally came in with, and that they should come in for a variance for this lot. We didn't want it to get to you and you guys say, well, this is the same thing that was denied years ago. MR. THOMAS-Okay. This is in a one acre zone. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. THOMAS-Okay. This is one acre, one acre. MR. GORALSKI-Right. The only relief they need is the average lot width on this doesn't average out to 150 feet. MR. GREEN-What does it average out to? MR. GORALSKI-It's close, 130 something. Well, there's some debate as to how you actually figure out average lot width on a flag lot like this. So what happens is they have 49 feet here or 50 feet here, and it widens out to 200 up here. MR. THOMAS-So, 250, 125 right? MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. THOMAS-And they need what? MR. GORALSKI-One hundred and fifty. MR. THOMAS-That would be the average lot width. This width here, plus this width here divided by two. MR. GORALSKI-The question in front of you tonight simply is, is this a different enough application that the Board should re-hear it? - 49 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/96) MR. THOMAS-Is this a different map? MR. GORALSKI-No, actually it's the same map. The regulations have changed so that they don't need the variance they were looking for originally. MR. GREEN-They're looking for a different variance. MR. THOMAS-If they're looking for a different variance, then it's a different application. MR. GORALSKI-That was our feeling, too, we just wanted to run it by you first. MR. THOMAS-So, add this on. MR. GORALSKI-We'll have them on in September. MR. THOMAS-AnYmore business before the Board? adjourned. The meeting is On motion meeting was adjourned. , .~.. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Thomas, Acting Chairman - 50 -