Loading...
1996-09-18 /' (- F·" E'· n.' ....~~ ,;\ ' f2 ~~ i.ln ì~\ . QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 1996 INDEX Use Variance No. 71-1996 Tax Map No. 125-2-17 Area Variance No. 79-1996 Tax Map No. 117-3-20 Area Variance No. 81-1996 Tax Map No. 7-1-3 Area Variance No. 82-1996 Tax Map No. 23-1-28 Area Variance No. 83-1996 Tax Map No. 13-1-16 Area Variance No. 84-1996 Tax Map No. 13-1-14 Area Variance No. 67-1996 Tax Map No. 83-1-12.1 Sign Variance No. 80-1996 Tax Map No. 110-1-2.8 Charlotte Harms 1. Larry Clute 9. Rolf W. Ahlers 12. Patrick Geruso 22. Angela Kladis 25. Mitchell Matthews 33. Marguerite Eldridge 52. Color Ad Sign Corp. 58. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. -- ---./ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/18/96) QUEENS BURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 1996 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS THOMAS, CHAIRMAN BONNIE LAPHAM, SECRETARY LOUIS STONE WILLIAM GREEN DONALD 0' LEARY ROBERT KARPELES DAVID MENTER CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-JOHN GORALSKI STENOGRAPHER-MARIA,GAGLIARDI MR. THOMAS-And before we get started, we've got one little thing we want to talk about among the Board members. It's a note that was given to me. "Please advise the Board members that the SEQRA course is available at ACC October 9th and the Town will provide the $10 fee. We need to know either via getting the forms back tonight or give Sue Davidsen a call at 761-8238 by Monday September 23rd." Those are the three courses being offered at ACC. The only one that would really interest us would be the SEQRA one, put on by the Town Attorney, Mark Schachner, and also you'll see you have a letter from Mark Schachner with the same form on there, and a letter. Having gotten that out of the way, I'll call the first application, Charlotte Harms. OLD BUSINESS: USE VARIANCE NO. 71-1996 SR-1A TYPE: UNLISTED 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 DON MATUSIK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. GORALSKI-The public hearing was opened on August 21, 1996 and was left open. MR. THOMAS-If you'd read the tabling motion. MR. GORALSKI-"MOTION TO TABLE USE VARIANCE NO. 71-1996 HARMS, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its seconded by William Green: CHARLOTTE adoption, 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: AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr.. Carvin, Mr. Menter" MR. THOMAS-Okay, and, Mrs. Harms, you do have a new attorney with - 1 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/18/96) you? CHARLOTTE HARMS MRS. HARMS-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay. The last time we left we couldn't get past the first criteria for a Use Variance, which is the reasonable return, or it was the money clause as we'd call it, as to why you couldn't get a reasonable return from the property as used. MR. MATUSIK-Thank you, Mr. Thomas. I'm Don Matusik. I'm representing the applicant at this time. My law office is at 611 Glen Street, Glens Falls, New York. I want to say good evening to each and every one of you and welcome, Mr. Stone, to the Board. I did not file this application on behalf of the applicant, and I had ample opportunity to review it. I personally, as well as professionally have some concerns about it and some questions, and I don't think these concerns were addressed at the last meeting. So I think I'd like to put these on the record. I also would like to state that I have not had the opportunity to discuss the legal issues here with either Mark, or with Mr. Schachner, and I'm not sure who's counsel to the Board? MR. THOMAS-We usually use the Town Attorney, Mark Schachner. MR. MATUSIK-Okay. I have not spoken with him. I conducted, I shouldn't say conducted personally, but I ordered a title search on this property, and determined that Mrs. Harms purchased it in 1959. I also determined, from speaking with Mrs. Harms, who has clarified this with some of the existing neighbors who still exist, that the actual commencement of this so called use of the property was in 1960. Now, the effective date of the Ordinance, of 179.19, is what? MR. GORALSKI~October 1, 1988. MR. MATUSIK-Okay. We're talking about a use which is extended now, and we'd like to call it a lawn sale, because that's how it initially started, that has extended for some 36 years. I think there's a genuine concern, at least on Mrs. Harms' part, that perhaps the applicability of the zoning, the current Zoning Ordinance to this particular property is moot, and therefore the application, whether it be to expand, whether it be to treat it in some other fashion, may very well be moot, and my original thought was that we would withdraw the application, but I think since everyone is here today and we've covered so much ground, even before my entry, I think it would be wiser to continue with the hearing or continue with the application, and maybe give the Board some history, see if there are any public comments, and then try to deal with the issues that are currently before the Board. So that's what I'd like to do, and there may very well be a situation that I will bring to the Town Attorney's attention that may render this process, if not moot, certainly maybe not subject to the type of application that's currently before the Board, which again I didn't file, but it appears to be as worded, an application for a Use Variance seeking approval of the nonconforming use, and what I really question is whether or not the use is, A, nonconforming, and whether or not it's grandfathered, but as I understand it, Mrs. Harms commenced this activity some 36 or 35 and a half years ago and still continues it as a lawn sale. As I further understand it, the actual sheds that are on the property, I believe they're four in number, are used to contain and keep from the elements, and also out of view, I think that's very important, keep out of view certain items that she offers for sale, and she calls it a hobby, and I think certainly closer to a hobby than a mercantile entity, because she makes essentially, the way it is now, minimal money. Enough, basically, to keep her occupied during the day, etc. She's - 2 - --.../ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/18/96) not in the position where, at her age, she wants to seek employment, and she also uses whatever she makes to upkeep the property. I think there came a time when the hobby became more expansive than she originally anticipated, and then the storage sheds, again, many, many years ago became used. Originally this was a chicken farm. It's history is as a chicken farm, and some of the sheds were existing. They were replaced by other metal sheds. I've been to the property twice, one visit most recently, and I have noticed that the front of the property has a lot less merchandise, if you will, than it perhaps had in the past, and she chooses now, she has so many repeat people that come and specifically ask, do you have a sink, do you have a bicycle, do you have a jug or whatever, and she responds, well, we probably have one. Lets go back and look. That type of thing. I know that, I think Mr. Green has been to the property recently, and I don't know if you can maybe bear me out on some of that, but I think there's sufficient things still displayed where people can pick and choose, but a lot of them are contained, and not just for the elements and for keeping things out of disrepair, but also for the purpose of utilizing these sheds, to keep the property more sightly. So, whereas the relief that's down currently before the Board is for an expansion of a nonconforming use, by apparently allowing these four sheds to be maintained on the property,· I think the history of the property and how these sheds came there certainly suggests that it may not, in its purest sense, be a mercantile use, and therefore the expansion of a "nonconforming use" may not even be the applicable remedy here, but again, for purposes of this application, we certainly wish to continue. The dollars and cents here are minimal. If, for instance, she was not able to, again, going along with this application, if she's not able to utilize these sheds for storage, she would probably have to cut down the activity, and therefore, again, not even be in a break even situation. People in the Town and in the area and the County, according to her, and I know this from my own inquiry to be quite true, almost consider coming to Mrs. Harms' property a social visit rather than a business visit. They may come to visit and they may pick up something while they're there. A lot of people have property on the river, or on the way to other parts of the County such as Luzerne make it a regular visit. She advises me that it is, at this point, a slightly more than break even proposition, and for her to be in any way restricted from using these sheds, just in those capacities that I've mentioned would make it financially infeasible for it even to continue. I haven't had the time, frankly, to make personal inquiry into the status of the neighbor's concerns, but she tells me that, in fact, they haven't been voiced to her, and if they had been voiced that she would deal with them on a one on one consideration, but with that history, and with the narrow, I mean, if she's crossed the line here from a lawn sale to a mercantile entity, that's something she can understand, and she can respect, and compliance with the Board notwithstanding, any pre-existing use, any pre-existing nonconforming use is necessary. So we can submit to the Board, I have, for the Board's consideration, as many copies as you need of the title search or the pertinent part of it. It's a fairly long document, which would show when she took ownership, some letters or affidavits which the neighbors are more than glad to offer, and some, basically, receipts and whatever over the last however reasonable time it is, to show that this is just a very, very borderline thing, and not to be able to have, these are metal storage buildings. Actually, they're wooden. I guess they're small. They're not unsightly, and unless someone really drives into the property, they're not entirely visible. I think the Board may have some photos. We've taken some photos, but I know there's been plenty of on-site inspections of the property. So that's what we would offer the Board at this time. MR. THOMAS-At the last meeting, there was testimony that this two sheds were added, two were added after 1988, which would be an - 3 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/18/96) expansion of a nonconforming use, adding two sheds in a Single Family Residential One Acre zone, SR-1A zone. MR. MATUSIK-That is clearly the case, and as Mrs. Harms explained to me, they were added, but there were others that were pre- existing that had either become dilapidated or just couldn't be used. They weren' t additionally added. They were replacement sheds. Is that correct? Again, that's something for the Board to consider. MR. THOMAS-Were building permits obtained for those? MR. MATUSIK-No. MR. GREEN-Were they built or brought on altogether? MRS. HARMS-arought on. MR. THOMAS-Were they the same size replacement? MR. MATUSIK-Were they similar size? MRS. HARMS-A little bigger, a little smaller, I don't know. MR. MATUSIK-That's not much of an answer. MRS. LAPHAM-They were similar enough so that you couldn't tell that they were different. MRS. HARMS-Not too much. MR. MENTER-Having missed the last meeting, what triggered this application? MR. MATUSIK-That's a very good question, one that I'm really not sure. I wasn't in this capacity then. So I'm not really sure. Someone approached you? MRS. HARMS-Dave Hatin. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. I can maybe fill in a little bit. We received, or the Town received, a complaint regard the addition of the buildings to the property. I don't know if they were moved from the back or the front. I don't know the specifics of that, but there was a complaint received. Dave Hatin went out and investigated. It was his determination that in fact the buildings were newly placed, at least in the position they are now, and that's what brought on the enforcement action and resulted in the application being filed. MRS. HARMS-I can tell you a little bit about that. It wasn't the buildings, I don't believe. My husband had brought in some decks from used mobile homes, and he brought in some decks, and etc., etc, and put them in the side field and had left them there for a period of time, until he had to take them out to take them where they were supposed to go, and in the mean time I assume that the neighbor had complained. Now we have talked to most of our neighbors, the ones that were here last week, the don't seem to have a problem anymore at all. We discussed the whole thing, told them that if there was something they didn't like that was there, we would be happy to move them. Their concern was, as I think you'll remember, they thought we were going to take and fill the whole 10 acres up with all kinds of buildings and sheds and this and that, and this is not our purpose. We don't want anymore. We just want what we've got there. In the meantime, my husband did not move these decks little buildings that weren't ours, and he didn't move, in the period of time that Dave Hatin wanted him to move them in. So this resulted in, more or less (lost word) but - 4 - -../ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/18/96) they have been removed at this point in time. MR. THOMAS-Okay. All the ones that were on the back of the property, like we talked about? MRS. HARMS-Not the back, no, just on the side. MR. THOMAS-The one on the side? MRS. HARMS-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MRS. HARMS-And most of them from out back. I'm talking about the wooden decks that go to the mobile homes, and he did have several small buildings that are additions that go to mobile homes. So that when you move a mobile home, he would take it to the site or to the garage lot and bring the building over the Corinth Road, and then after getting the mobile home set up, come and get the side building and take it to the mobile home and attach it, as to where it belonged, they did not even belong to us. It was more or less just storage, and at the time Dave wanted some of them moved, it was in the middle of December. He came out I think in September, but there was snow where we just couldn't get to some of them at that time. MR. MATUSIK-You think you've adequately responded to Mr. Hatin's concerns by now? MRS. HARMS-Everything that he wanted done at that particular point in time, yes. MR. O'LEARY-Mr. Chairman, would you just clarify one thing for me? Are we looking at an expansion of a nonconforming Use Variance? Or are we looking at an Area Variance? MR. THOMAS-We're looking at a Use Variance, an expansion of a nonconforming use. MRS. HARMS-I don't understand what the expansion means. MR. THOMAS-Yes. The expansion is the additional buildings. MR. MENTER-Apparently, there has been, apparently Dave Hatin believes that you have expanded the storage on this property since 1988. MR. MATUSIK-And that's not the case. MR. MENTER-That was my next question. done with this property? What have you physically MRS. HARMS-What have I done with the property? MR. MENTER-Since 1988. MRS. HARMS-Well, I've moved a few buildings around from place to place on the property. Some of the buildings that are there were there, but not where they are now. Some of them were out back and we brought them forward and put them all in a row. MR. MATUSIK-When I asked you the same question as Mr. Menter did you gave me a somewhat different answer. You said that you haven't added buildings. In fact, you may have removed some, but that you made more orderly. Is that correct? MRS. HARMS-Yes. - 5 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/18/96) MR. MATUSIK-So I think that would be the appropriate answer. MR. MENTER-And you've replaced. MR. GORALSKI-I just want to be clear on that. Previously you said that you may have taken some down and replaced them with some of similar size. So, they weren't buildings that were somewhere else on the lot. You took some buildings, took them away, and put in a new building to replace it? MR. MATUSIK-The answer she gave is all but two. There's been several buildings replaced, but all but two weren't there that are there now, and basically replacing those others, wooden or whatever, that, or dilapidated or weren't usable. MR. STONE-Mr. Chairman, I have a concern that I'd at least like to address. Having looked at the property, I noticed what appears to be an empty trailer truck body which is basically on the property line, which is not shown on the map that we have. There's also an old truck body between that and the first shed, and then as we continue back, I came to what I would consider, well I inventoried, a two car garage, two old truck bodies, one trailer, one double modular house, one house trailer, two sheds and a small shed, one what I would call junky foundation and then an open, not open in the sense that it was open to the air, but an exposed oil tank. MRS. HARMS-Those two truck bodies or whatever you call them, those are wood storage, and have been for many, many years, that I used to store wood in for my fire place. The trailer you're talking about has been there since I've been there, just about, on the property line. My neighbors have no problem with me. Dave Hatin had no problem with any of those. His problem was with the four buildings that go back beyond. MR. STONE-There seemed to be about six or seven buildings. MR. HARMS-He is concerned about the two brown buildings. MR. MATUSIK-When you make entry, he was concerned about the four on the left, side by side, I believe. MR. GORALSKI-Correct. MR. THOMAS-Yes, those are the ones we're talking about, nothing else. MR. MENTER-So for purposes of this, the storage of modular home decks on the property is really irrelevant. Any of the other issues are irrelevant. MR. MATUSIK-And apparently Dave didn't feel it was a major thing because he didn't raise any issues. MR. MENTER-So as far as we're concerned it's not an issue. MR. THOMAS-Yes. That's the only thing we're talking about is the four buildings on the west side of the property. MR. MENTER-The question is, do we as a Board want to consider whether or not, whether a Use Variance is required, or do we want to address the criteria for a Use Variance? MR. MATUSIK-I'm afraid I dumped that very same issue on you this evening, because I didn't really know where to go with this. We'll continue with the application to get a resolution if we need to. MR. GORALSKI-I'm not sure, at this point in time, an application is in front of you, I don't think you can make a determination as to - 6 - '-.- --- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/18/96) whether or not it's required. That question's not in front of you. If you'd like to withdraw the application and submit an appeal of the decision. MR. MATUSIK-Well, wouldn't the better situation or scenario be to table it for two weeks and get a legal opinion from Mr. Schachner? MR. GORALSKI-Well, it's not Mr. Schachner's choice. It's the Zoning Administrator's decision and this Board's decision. Mr. Schachner can advise both of them, certainly. MR. MATUSIK-Well, my point of view here would be, why withdraw it only to bring it back in another? MR. GORALSKI-Maybe the thing to do then is to table the application, and in that time period maybe Mr. Matusik can talk to Jim Martin, the Zoning Administrator, and Mark Schachner also. If they don't, what I would suggest is that that take place before September 25th, which is the submission deadline for October's meeting. If you're not satisfied with the outcome of those discussions and you'd like to submit an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision, you can do that and be on October's meeting. MR. MATUSIK-Okay, and the appeal would be as to the opinion rendered. MR. GORALSKI -As to whether or not there's a need for a Use Variance. MR. MATUSIK-I think that's very appropriate. We certainly don't want to prejudice what she's already done here, and if we have to come back, we're certainly prepared to have the Board make a decision. If there is any public comment tonight, I would ask that they come forward, because we want to know if anybody really has a problem with anything, you know. MR. THOMAS-Okay. What I'll do now is I'll open up the public hearing, and then I'll close the public hearing, and I think I'll poll the Board to see if they want to table it or not, and I think that's probably going to be the consensus, and then you can talk to Mr. Martin and Mr. Schachner before the 25th, and depending on what they say and what you think, we should see you back here in October for either the continuation of this Use Variance or for an appeal. MR. MATUSIK-Right, and if it goes back to the Board, certainly we'll be able to deal with the appeal, and we want to resolve it, too. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So I'll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-What do you think, Bob, do you want to table it or keep going with it? MR. KARPELES-I think it ought to be tabled. MR. THOMAS-Dave? MR. MENTER-Yes. I certainly don't want to get involved in deciding if it's legitimate, there's a need for a Use Variance or not. - 7 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/18/96) MR. THOMAS-Bill? MR. GREEN-Yes, that's fine. MR. THOMAS-Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM - I agree. MR. O'LEARY-Agreed. MR. STONE-Agreed. MR. THOMAS-Does somebody want to make a motion to table? MOTION TO TABLE USE VARIANCE NO. 71-1996 CHARLOTTE HARMS, Introduced by David Menter who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Karpeles: For a period of 60 days, pending discussion as to the substance of the Use Variance itself, and the applicant has 60 days to return before the Board. Duly adopted this 18th day of September, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Stone, Mr. O'Leary, Mr. Green, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE MR. THOMAS-So it's tabled for a maximum of 60 days, but we'd like to see it back here next month. So we would like you to talk to the Administrator and the Town Attorney before the 25th so we can get this back on here. MR. MATUSIK-I'll contact Jim Martin tomorrow, and probably get in touch with Mark, maybe get a conference call and get right to it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. We'd appreciate that. Thank you. MR. MATUSIK-Thank you very much. MR. THOMAS-Before we get on to the next one, I understand Mr. Eldridge is here. Your application is not on the agenda so we cannot hear it. Okay, but if you've brought any kind of material that you'd like to leave with the Board so we can look at it, then you'd have to contact the Planning Staff and have them put you on the next month's agenda, which is October 16th, I do believe, the October 16th meeting. Because it wasn't advertised and everything else we can't hear it tonight. MR. ELDRIDGE MR. ELDRIDGE-I thought the only question was whether I could show a hardship, whether I paid the taxes. That's really what this is all about, is to sell this property. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but see we can't hold a hearing until it's properly advertised, and I do believe Mr. Carvin, the previous Chairman, tabled it, and then it was up to you to get back to the Planning Staff to get back on the agenda. It's not on the written agenda that all the Board members have. MR. ELDRIDGE-I got a letter telling me to be here. MR. THOMAS-Who is it signed by? MR. GREEN-Did you open the public hearing last time? - 8 - '-- '-./ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/18/96) MR. THOMAS-Yes. Fred opened it, and then they tabled it for more information. It's still not on the agenda. We might be able to throw it on in the end, if we have time, but I just want to know who signed that letter. MR. ELDRIDGE-Fred Carvin. MR. THOMAS-Yes. He's the former Chairman. He's no longer with us. Is that the tabling motion you've got there? Does it say up at the top, something to the effect, Town of Queensbury, Motion to table? MR. ELDRIDGE-Tabled, yes. MR. THOMAS-Yes. See, I can tell from here without my glasses that's a tabling motion. See, that's not a letter to tell you to appear here tonight. That comes from the Planning Staff. MR. ELDRIDGE-But I went to the Town Building and they assigned me to come here tonight. MR. THOMAS-Do you know who you talked to? MR. GORALSKI-George Hilton, the other guy that's in my office? MR. ELDRIDGE-Right. Yes, that's who I talked to. He signed me up to come tonight. MR. THOMAS-Well, like I say, we'll try and squeeze you in at the end. If George told you to be here, we'll try and squeeze you in at the end, but we have a certain order that we go by, and this is it. So, having said that, we'll go to the next application. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 79-1996 TYPE II UR-10 LARRY CLUTE OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE WESTERN AVENUE TO NATHAN AVENUE, HOUSE IS ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF NATHAN AND HOLDEN AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A HOME WHICH WOULD NOT MEET THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR THE UR-10 ZONE. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE SETBACKS LISTED IN SECTION 179-17. TAX MAP NO. 117-3-20 LOT SIZE: 0.23 ACRES SECTION 179-17 LARRY CLUTE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 79-1996, Larry Clute, Meeting Date: September 18, 1996 "APPLICANT: Larry Clute PROJECT LOCATION: Northwest corner of Nathan and Holden Ave. Proposed proj ect and Conformance with the Ordinance: The applicant is proposing to construct a home which would not meet the required front yard setback. This property is currently zoned UR-10. The required setback is 30 feet. The applicant is proposing a setback of 27.2 feet. Relief is being requested from the setbacks listed in Section 179-17. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law. 1. Benefit to the applicant: Relief would allow the applicant to construct a home that would not meet the front yard setback. 2. Feasible alternatives: It appears that alternatives are limited due to the fact that a home is already constructed at this location. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The applicant is seeking 2 feet 10 inches of front setback relief. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? No negative impacts on the neighborhood are expected as a part of this request for relief. 5. Is this difficulty self created? The existing difficulty is one of seeking relief for a recently built building. Staff Comments & Concerns: Staff feels this construction is in keeping with the character of - 9 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/18/96) the surrounding neighborhood. Although the difficulty may appear to be self created, staff believes relief would benefit the applicant and not adversely effect the surrounding neighborhood. SEQR: Type II, no further action required. II MR. THOMAS-Mr. Clute, my first question is how to get within the 30 feet. I know the foundation's back 30 feet, but didn't you know you're going to be building a cantilevered house? MR. CLUTE-Yes, I did. MR. THOMAS-Didn't you know that was going to be included in that 30 foot setback? MR. CLUTE-Yes, I did, but at the time, it was my own mistake. I can't even blame my own men. I'm the one that basically set that corner when we did that foundation, and just inadvertently, never even thought anything twice about it, to be honest with you, but I do know what the setbacks are, and I knew the cantilever was involved. It was just a mistake. MR. KARPELES-Did you have a building permit? MR. CLUTE-Yes. MR. KARPELES-The building was for 30 feet back. MR. CLUTE-Right, and I'm off by the cantilever, to set the corner of the foundation. I should have set it back another two foot. MR. GREEN-So it's just basically human error, as to where you set that corner? MR. CLUTE-Yes. I just really wasn't paying attention to what I was doing at the time. MR. GORALSKI-This wasn't even discovered until the surveyor went out and did the final surveyed plot plan for the Certificate of Occupancy. MR. THOMAS-Has anyone else on the Board got any questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-The man has publicly admitted he goofed. I guess it bothers me when I go out, I didn't have benefit of the Staff notes when I went out, and I see this building already up. One begins to think, but you've me acupla'd here allover the place. MR. THOMAS-Well, I'll open the public hearing here. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions of the applicant from the Board? Any discussion? Bob, what do you think? MR. KARPELES-Well, I think it really turns you off when you go out there and you discover that a building's already built, in violation, and you see the other buildings there and you figure, well this guy had to know what he was doing because he's got, how many buildings have you got out there? MR. CLUTE-There's three of them. MR. KARPELES-Three of them, and anybody that builds that many - 10 - --,' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/18/96) buildings has to be familiar with the Zoning Law, but on the other hand, I can understand people making mistakes, and I don't think it's a serious mistake, as far as setback is concerned, and two feet, ten inches, it is in character with the rest of the neighborhood. I guess I would go along with the variance. MR. THOMAS-Dave? MR. MENTER-I agree with Bob. There's not really a lot of issues to discuss, once you get to the point of, you know, there it is and the amount of relief is minimal. I'd go along with granting it. MR. THOMAS-Bill? MR. GREEN-Yes, I guess. I'm not really happy about it, but. MR. THOMAS-Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-Yes, because I remember several years ago there was a house in the Pines that had to come before the Zoning Board because the only way it could meet the setbacks was to rip the front porch off, and the front porch is still there, and the house really looks better for it. So I'm for this variance. MR. THOMAS-Don? MR. O'LEARY-It's no problem. MR. THOMAS-Lou? MR. STONE-No, I have no problem. As I said, I did, but it' s certainly in keeping with the character of the neighborhood, and it actually improves the neighborhood. So I have no problem with it. MR. THOMAS-I also have no problem with it. I would just like to say to Mr. Clute, the next time, measure twice and cut once, and having said that, I'll entertain a motion. MR. MENTER-Do your guys know you screwed this up? MR. CLUTE-Yes. MR. KARPELES-I bet you'll never do it again. MR. CLUTE-I won't be there, no. I'll rely on them. MR. KARPELES-Well, you know, some day somebody's going to come in here and we're going to make them rip the house down. MR. THOMAS-Yes. I can't wait for that day. I need a motion. Does anyone want to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 79-1996 LARRY CLUTE, Introduced by Bonnie Lapham who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Karpeles: In the matter of the application of Larry Clute, for Area Variance No. 79-1996, the applicant seeks to construct a home which would not meet the required front yard setback. The property is currently zoned UR-10. The required setback is 30 feet. The applicant is proposing a setback of 27.2 feet. Relief is being requested from the setbacks listed in Section 179-17. The benefit to the applicant would be that he could construct his home which would not meet the front yard setbacks. There do not seem to be any feasible alternatives at this point in time, as the house is already constructed. Is the relief substantial to the Ordinance? The applicant is seeking two feet ten inches of front setback - 11 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/18/96) relief. The proposed variance does not seem to have an adverse or impact on the surrounding neighborhood. It does not seem to have any negative effects on the neighborhood or community. The proposed is a Type II, unlisted action, for which we have a Short Form which we have reviewed. Duly adopted this 18th day of September, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. O'Leary, Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE MR. THOMAS-You do have the variance, but we really don't want to see you back here again for another one, of this type. MR. CLUTE-Thank you very much. MR. THOMAS-You're welcome. Okay. Variance No. 80-1996 Color Ad Sign here for Color Ad? No? We'll push go to the next one. The next variance is Sign Corp. for K-Mart. Is anyone that one to the end and we'll AREA VARIANCE NO. 81-1996 TYPE II WR-1A CEA CROSS REF. SPR 58- 96 ROLF W. AHLERS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE BROWN HOME AT THE END OF KNOX ROAD, OFF ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A SECOND FLOOR ADDITION TO AN EXISTING HOME ON KNOX ROAD. THE PROPOSED EXPANSION WOULD BE MORE THAN 50 PERCENT OF THE AREA OF THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE BUILT AT THIS LOCATION. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM SECTION 179-79A,2 WHICH REGULATES THE AMOUNT OF AREA WHICH A NONCONFORMING RESIDENCE CAN BE EXPANDED. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 9/11/96 TAX MAP NO. 7-1-3 LOT SIZE: 0.50 ACRES SECTION 179-79A,2 JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 81-1996, Rolf Ahlers, Meeting Date: September 18, 1996 "APPLICANT: Rolf Ahlers PROJECT LOCATION: Knox Road Proposed Project and Confor.mance with the Ordinance: The applicant is proposing to construct an addition to an existing home on Knox Rd. The 812 square foot addition would be greater than 50% of the area of the original structure built at this location. As a result, the total building square footage, minus the garage, would be 2700 square feet. Relief is being requested from the regulations regarding the expansion of a nonconforming structure listed in Section 179-79A,2. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law. 1. Benefit to the applicant: Relief would allow the applicant to construct an addition to an existing home. 2. Feasible alternatives: It appears there are no alternatives which would allow the applicant to build an addition and stay within the existing setbacks at this location. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The proposed addition, which would be within the current footprint, would appear not to be a substantial addition. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? No negative impacts on the neighborhood are expected as a part of this request for relief. 5. Is this difficulty self created? The dimensions of this legal nonconforming lot, make it difficult to build any addition that would not require some form of relief from the Zoning Ordinance. Staff Comments & Concerns: The applicant should submit drawings indicating the height of the addition and what the new addition will look like. Staff believes this expansion would be in character with the surrounding neighborhood and would not negatively impact scenic views within this area. SEQR: Type II, no further action required." - 12 - --/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/18/96) MRS. LAPHAM-IIAt a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 11th day of September 1996, the above application for an Area Variance for renovations and additions to existinq residence. was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Approve Comments: With the conditions that a stormwater management plan be developed and that the sanitary system meets the Code of the Town of Queensbury." Signed by C. Powel South, Chairperson. MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. Miller? MR. MILLER-Good evening. This is really the third part of development of Mr. Ahlers property. The first part was back in 1990, 1991 when a new foundation was put under the existing house. So that was Phase I. Phase II was the garage application and variance that we went through the previous three months. Based on that and that process, we felt it would be proper to try to obtain all the permits needed to have a continuation and to finish the project. The third part would be additions to the existing residence on the same footprint, and that's primarily of a second floor addition to what currently is there. The height of the house would be approximately 31 feet 8 inches, which meets the current Ordinance. I understand that that may be changing, that height restriction, and if it does, we'll certainly conform to whatever's in place at that time. One of the constraints put on the garage application was that it was not to have a height higher than 20 feet. Having an 8 foot high ceiling and then generating the roof gave us a nine on twelve pitch for that garage to meet the 20 foot height. So that, we used that same pitch on the main house, and that's what generated the 31 feet 8 inches. Basically, the height from grade to the first floor eight feet of first floor, one foot of structure, eight feet of second floor, and then the generation of the roof. I can answer any questions that the Board may have. MR. THOMAS-Well, the first thing ~ see is there's a deck coming out from the second floor, and I do believe that encroaches over the top of the existing deck, and that does encroach in the 75 foot setback, if I'm not mistaken. That's a new structure within the Waterfront, within the setback. MR. KARPELES-Could you maybe open that up, go through that and show us which is the lake side and which is the back side. MR. MILLER-Certainly. This would be the lake side. Probably looking at the side view would be the best. Currently, the living room kitchen is up in this area. There's a deck out front. The deck is over the top of the full foundation. MR. STONE-That's looking south? MR. MILLER-We'd be looking toward the east at this point. This is the west elevation of the house. The lake and north don' t line up. MR. STONE-I understand that, but the lake would be out here? MR. MILLER-The lake would be out this way. So this deck goes over the existing deck, and these are designs, drawings. Nothing's really cast in stone here. The current roof comes up on an angle to a point somewhere in here. There's a second story addition here and then another roof, I believe, that slopes in this direction. What we're looking at is putting a nice clean gabled roof over the whole second floor, so the addition would be a section here and a section here with the width of the house. MR. GREEN-In the center portion there are you really going up any higher? - 13 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/18/96) MR. MILLER-The roof ends up being higher because it's a single pitch now that comes across like this. So by having a double pitch across the 26 feet of the house, it generates a bit higher. MR. STONE-Is that a third floor there? MR. MILLER-No. This is an attic. MR. STONE-With windows? MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. KARPELES-The thing facing the lake, I don't understand that. Is that a double deck or something there, on the other, lower right hand corner. What is that? Is that two decks, one above the other? MR. MILLER-This represents a deck over the lower deck, and again, this is just design level, but the deck would be over the top of this lower deck that's currently there. MR. KARPELES-And the existing deck is already there, right, the bottom deck is already there? MR. MILLER-Yes, to this point, and that's over a full foundation. There's a full basement underneath that deck. MR. STONE-Is that deck going to be open? You're going to have two open decks? MR. MILLER-Yes. Currently, there's a waterproof membrane underneath the planking, the walking surface, and that keeps the basement dry. I guess the point I'm trying to make is we're not looking to put the building over the full foundation that's there, but rather keeping it back to the base of what's existing. MR. KARPELES-Now where does the greater than 50% increase occur, if you're just going up above existing floors? MR. GORALSKI-Because that's actually a 100% increase. MR. STONE-Well, there is some upstairs, though. There is a second floor on the house. MR. MILLER-It depends on how you do the math. George and I talked about this. If you take the structure as it is today, the new addition is a 43% increase. If you take the numbers based on what George is calling the original structure, which was back in? ROLF AHLERS MR. AHLERS-1957, I believe. MR. MILLER-' 57, then it generated the 50%. So over the course of years there's been some additions and changes. MR. GORALSKI-The way that section of the Ordinance reads, you have to go back to the building before any additions were put on. MR. KARPELES-So what is the original square footage? MR. GORALSKI-Jim would know better than me. MR. MILLER-I believe the original structure was something on the magnitude of 1440 square feet, and then there were some additions to that. MR. KARPELES-So he could go 720 square feet without any problem, is that right? - 14 - ---- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/18/96) MR. GORALSKI-Correct. MR. MILLER-It generated a number of 50% versus, over 50% versus the 43% against the current configuration. MR. KARPELES-So that extra less than 100 square feet is that important to you, you've got to get a variance for it? I mean, you wouldn't even need a variance otherwise, right? Is that right or is that wrong, if he stayed within the? MR. GORALSKI-That's correct. If he stayed within the 50% of the original 1400 square foot building, there would be no variance required. MR. MILLER-This all came after we had put the application in. MR. KARPELES-You already had done your drawing. MR. MILLER-Yes. We were that far into it. So I guess we thought we'd just see how it settled. MR. KARPELES-Well, what relief are you looking for? Are you looking just for relief from the 50% area, or are you looking for setback relief? MR. GORALSKI-Just the 50% because they're staying within the footprint of the original, of what's existing now. MR. THOMAS-Even with that second story deck they show? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. The determination has been in the past that if there is an encroachment and you put something on top of that encroachment, that's allowable. MR. KARPELES-So you're looking for 92 square foot relief, is that right? MR. MILLER-I guess that's the way it goes, and we're just trying to have a regular shape over the top of the existing. If we were to cut it back, it's 26 feet wide, so it would be more or less four feet off of that. Then we'd have to have another small roof to cover the footprint on the first floor, if you can see what I'm trying to say. MR. STONE-How big is the garage? MR. MILLER-The garage, I believe, is 30 by 26. MR. STONE-780. MR. MENTER-So you put a new full foundation underneath the building? MR. MILLER-Yes. That was done in '90, '91, with a building permit, and the house was jacked up at that point and put in place, and it's quite a substantial foundation. MR. MENTER-Is that basement full, all the way from the north side, on the right back? MR. MILLER-Yes, under the whole house. MR. KARPELES-How does this differ from the other proposal that was submitted? It wasn't just for the garage the last time, was it? MR. MILLER-Yes, it was. MRS. LAPHAM-It was the garage and possibly storage over the garage, - 15 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/18/96) and then the garage was allowed. Would you be addressing the County's questions with the septic system, and bringing that up to Town Code? Is it up to Town Code now? I mean, lets touch on that angle. MR. MILLER-We feel it is up to Code currently. Also we are, currently there's four bedrooms. The new proposal is three bedrooms. They are larger bedrooms, but there'd be three bedrooms. The bathroom count would remain the same. MRS. LAPHAM-Which is? MR. MILLER-I believe three. Two. It's not anticipated that the use will grow much. It's just the Ahlers are looking for more space. MR. STONE-Is it still going to be, what, six feet off the one property line at the back line? MR. MILLER-Yes. I believe you have the map. The property, the house lines run kind of at an angle to the property lines currently. So at some points we meet these setbacks, and then at other points we're getting very close, but that's our current situation. That was also one that, in '90, '91 the building permit was issued for that full foundation under that. MR. THOMAS-Does anyone else have any questions? public hearing. I'll open the PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Does anyone have anymore questions for the applicant? MR. KARPELES-Maybe you've already answered this, but how high is that building going to be? MR. MILLER-Thirty-one feet, eight inches, taken from where we feel grade is currently. It's about two feet less than that if you take it from the first floor to the top of the peak. MR. THOMAS-I've got a couple of questions for John over there. Sanitary system, did Mr. Hatin go out and look at that and determine that it was adequate or not? MR. GORALSKI-No, he hasn't. The way our Code reads is if you have a functioning septic system, you're allowed to maintain that system. MR. GREEN-So according to Warren County here it does meet the Code, because it's functioning. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. I don't know what's there, so I don't know if they were building a new, brand new system, if what he has would meet the Code, but what he has there now is allowable, and he, by our Code, he is allowed to maintain that. MR. THOMAS-What about the fact that he's adding a bedroom? MR. GORALSKI-Actually, he's decreasing the number of bedrooms from four to three, but even so, the way our Code is currently written, that would not, it wouldn't matter. MR. THOMAS-Is this going to go before the Planning Board for the stormwater management? - 16 - -- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/18/96) MR. GORALSKI-This is an expansion of a nonconforming structure in a Critical Environmental Area. So it would. MR. THOMAS-Yes. It would go before the Planning Board. I just wanted to make sure. So they would address the stormwater issue that the County has stipulated in their conditioning of this variance? MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. THOMAS-Okay. That's all I've got. MR. MILLER-Excuse me. In terms of the stormwater management plan, on a residence, are they usually just looking for gutters and downspouts to drywells? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Gutters, downspouts and drywells. MR. GORALSKI-Or a trench drain or something like that, an eaves trench, that type of thing. MR. AHLERS-The Warren County asked me at the hearing on the 11th of September whether we had plans to address the stormwater disposal issue, and I said yes, because we had thought of that. I'm thinking about that all the time, and Mr. Miller and I have come to a tentative conclusion that probably gutters and downspouts and leaders in the correct direction would address that issue. We have, what I've said to the Planning Board was, in fact, the case, and on the basis of that, they have held on to that. They have held on to two things, the stormwater thing and then the septic tank question. MR. THOMAS-But the septic tank, it's been all taken care of. That's no problem there, and stormwater drainage. You'll address that at the Planning Board. MR. AHLERS-Well, we have gutters now, on the building, and the downspouts, and then the runoff would have to go into a southern direction. That's the way the general flow of the land goes. So I just plan to hook up those gutters from the new roof structure to those already existing runoff lines. MR. THOMAS-Okay. When I was up there, I noticed that the electric and the telephone service were over the top of the garage. Are you going to relocate those? MR. AHLERS-Yes. I've already talked to someone about that. That will have to happen, and yes, I think only the telephone line. I don't think the electric line. MR. THOMAS-Yes. The electric goes over the top of the garage. MR. AHLERS-Yes. MR. THOMAS-So that's going to be addressed? MR. AHLERS-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Because that's the safety concern, and the only other question I had was the elevations, and that's shown right there. So, anything more you want to add? MR. MILLER-No. I believe Mr. Ahlers has the support of his neighbors, as he did with the garage. Hopefully it's going to help the area. It's an area of Assembly Point where there's a lot of older places, and hopefully what's going to happen out there is - 17 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/18/96) over the years people are going to keep renovating, and, you know, the whole are is going to come up to a different level. MR. AHLERS-If I may just make one more comment. If you could see the structure as it exists now and compare the new structure, from an aesthetic point of view, there can be no doubt but that it is a major improvement. On the basis of that, the neighbors are also in favor of this, and I have talked to both neighbors. We have very friendly relationships to the neighbors. I have mentioned to them that I take risk in improving when the other properties are not improved, but as far as the Town is concerned, I think the Town will probably think that this is an improvement. MR. THOMAS-It certainly is. I have one more question. What type of siding will be on there? MR. MILLER-Well, it's still in a development stage, but we're thinking of cedar siding, counterpointed by like a stucco finish. The relationship of the two would be the stucco would be primarily on the foundation area, and the wood would be in the areas where it's wood frame. MR. THOMAS-Okay, the cedar, natural cedar colored? MR. MILLER-Yes, I think so, perhaps with a transparent stain, tinted somewhat, kind of take the harshness out of the real red cedar. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Anymore questions? MR. STONE-I have a question, only because I'm confused, looking at your site development data. You say the existing building area is 2777 feet. Then you say the proposed building area is 2777 feet, and I'm a little confused how those numbers came about. MR. MILLER-Okay. The house, I went over this with George, also, and it is confusing. The footprint of the house currently is 1,440 square feet. Then there's a shed that's over a basement space, which is an access to the current basement from outside. That's another 65 square feet. Then there's the deck that's over the full basement in the lake side of the house. It's not living space, but it still has coverage on this site. That's 492 square feet, and then the garage is 780, which gives you a total of, that gives you a total footprint of 2777. Now if you take the volume of the house, the numbers are a little bit different. The first floor of the living space is 1440. The second floor of living space is 448, which gives you a total of 1,888 square feet of living space. MR. STONE-Currently? MR. MILLER-Currently. The new addition is 812 square feet, and the difference in existing living space against proposed is 43%. MR. STONE-But the total, it appears to me, is going to exceed the 22% of the law which is currently being considered. It has no bearing here, I understand, but I just want to be sure that it doesn't, that my figuring is correct. MR. MILLER-It depends on where you take the numbers from. If you take from the original structure. MR. STONE-I'm just taking the total square footage of the house, that is first floor, second floor, including the garage, that appears to total up more than 3284 square feet, which is 22%. MR. MENTER-Which has no relevance at all. MR. THOMAS-Leave the garage out of it, to start with, okay. MR. STONE-Not under the new one. I'm just curious, that's all. - 18 - ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/18/96) MR. THOMAS-We have to use the 1440 square feet of the original structure, as a starting point. MR. MENTER-Currently that's considered as a one story structure, and the second story is added on. MR. THOMAS-That was the original structure put on the property in 1957, and then they're asking for an 812 foot addition. So that 812, as Bob figured out, was 92 feet more than 50% of the 1440. So that's what we have to give relief from, not from all the additions that have been put on since 1957 to give it its present 1440, plus the second story, which was 448. MR. MILLER-Which is 1888. MR. THOMAS-1888. MR. MILLER-It's a bit confusing. MR. THOMAS-It is. So we have to forget about that second story and go with the original first story, and give relief from that, for the addition of 812 square feet. I'll start down with you, Lou. What do you think? MR. STONE-I'm only concerned that it's going to be very big, compared to the total thing, but in certainly improving the area, improving the structure, as Dr. Ahlers said, it's a very big improvement. No doubt about that. If the neighbors aren' t complaining and it is a very isolated point on Assembly Point, it's out there all by itself, I guess I have no problem. MR. THOMAS-Don? MR. O'LEARY-As long as it's on the same footprint and there are no setback problems, I think that the 92 feet, which is just a shy bit over the 50%, is probably not even visible to the naked eye, and it certainly improves the property. MR. THOMAS-Bill? MR. GREEN-I don't really have a problem with the expansion. I'm more concerned with this 31 feet, 8 inches. I know, in the past, we've, 32 feet's allowable, but we always try and sneak them down as far as we can. You're saying that that, you come up with that figure to match the roof line of the garage, or you have the same pitch on your own garage, that's going to be strictly storage space up there, in the attic area? MR. MILLER-In the main house, yes, just attic. MR. GREEN-How high is that in the center there, from the center of the attic floor to the peak? MR. MILLER-I would guess about 10 feet. MR. GREEN-I'm trying to weigh the differences in the two pitches, versus trying to bring that down some. The only thing that' s really helping me go along with 31 feet 8 inches is the fact that it is out there by itself. No one else is really going to be around to ha~e to look over it or by it, but we've had other people come in here at 30, 31, 32 feet, and we've tried to bring them down. MR. MILLER-If we were building this on a new lot and we met all the requirements and we were just going for a building permit, what would be the height that we would have to address? MR. THOMAS-Thirty-five feet. - 19 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/18/96) MR. GREEN-You're right. There's nothing wrong with the 31' 8" as it stands. I'm just trying to justify this versus what we've done in the past. The expansion, (lost words) that doesn't make any difference to me. MR. MILLER-You know, Mr. Green, a little history on it, we started off with a 12/12 pitch, and this is before we came to any of the meetings, and the reason for that is the Ahlers live in the Albany area currently, and they don't want to be worried about shoveling snow, and so we went with a nice steep pitch, and then with the determination of the roof on the garage, that dictated that pitch, and we maximized that. We stayed right to the letter of what was asked of us, and then followed through with the other pitch. So that's the logic. MR. GREEN-It's just, you know, I'm trying to justify myself here, versus what, I've done in the past. As I said, the expansion, I don't have a problem with that. MR. THOMAS-Dave? MR. MENTER-Well, maybe I can help you with that. The way I look at the elevation numbers is that, yes, I would be considering that if there was an impact on any adjacent property, but this thing is about as hidden as you can be. It's buried in there. It's not really going to have an effect on anybody. Given that, the fact that it's well under the 35, I don't think there's a reason to address that. As far as the Area Variance itself, I don't have a problem. I think it makes a lot of sense to square off the building. I think that, weighed against the detriment, which I really don't see a detriment to the area. MR. THOMAS-Bob? MR. KARPELES-Well, I think the house stand alone is a big improvement. I kind of agree with Bill. I have trouble visualizing it from the lake, that height. I don't know whether it is out of character with the rest of the houses in the neighborhood or not. To be honest, I didn't look at it from that side because, mainly because we didn't have these drawings, I guess, but I'm trying to picture the houses on both sides of that. How do they look in comparison to this? MR. AHLERS-The highest point of the roof at the present time is 26 feet. The MacElroy house is a two story house, which is on the south side. It's a two story house. I don't know exactly how high it is, but the pitch of the roof is significantly steeper than this proposed structure here. I wouldn't be surprised at all if that house is 32, 33 feet, the roof, yes, above the two stories, which are each eight feet, and then you have to consider about a foot between each story. That is a slate roof. It has to have a fairly steep pitch. It's significantly steeper than this here. On the north side, that structure is very similar to our construction. Those two houses were built by friends who both worked at General Electric in the 50' s, and they are very similar in outward structure. So our building would be a little bit higher than the building to the north of us, but not to the south. I think that structure would be higher than this one, but I can't say for sure. I can tell you only what I know. The pitch of the roof is certainly steeper than this, and it's a full two story house. MR. MILLER-I would also say, if you were to go into a major development, say Bedford Close, a two story colonial that's 30 feet wide is going to generate about the same height as this is. So that's, I mean, the massing of it. MR. THOMAS-Anything more, Bob? - 20 - --/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/18/96) MR. KARPELES-No. MR. THOMAS-All set. Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-Well, since it does not obstruct anybody else's view, I don't really have a problem with the height, and I like the idea that it's in cedar, probably on the natural side, and you've designed it with a little more thought in mind, as far as not having this glaring wall of glass that you'd see from the lake, and I do think it would be an improvement over the area than what's there now. MR. THOMAS-Is that it? MRS. LAPHAM-Pretty much. MR. THOMAS-I'll concur with the other Board members. I did have a problem, at first, when I looked at these drawings, not only with the height, but with that deck sticking out on the second floor, but Staff has assured me that they don't need a variance setback from the lake for that. I was under the impression they did, but if they don't, they don't. I like the idea that the house is being squared off, that it's being modernized. I don't have a problem with the height, because there are no neighbors behind them that would have any view obstructed, nor would there be any neighbors in the future building behind this house because of the way it' s situated on the lot and the way the land and the swamp, for lack of a better word, is out there behind the house. There is no close neighbor. Is that a lot on the east side of the house? There seems to be a lot of empty space. MR. AHLERS-I don't know, now, what you're talking about. MR. THOMAS-Where the tree house is. MR. MILLER-The MacElroy property. MR. THOMAS-The MacElroy property. close on that side. I don't think there's a house MR. AHLERS-It's potentially one open lot on what we usually call the south side, that's toward Dunhams Bay, but that is owned by Mr. MacElroy, and in fact, three brothers own that property, and they promised to themselves that they would keep that property intact. 80 as far as the plan now goes, nothing is going to be constructed on that. MR. THOMAS-Okay, but at some point in time, there could be possibly, not this year or next year, but 20 years from now, 50 years. MR. AHLERS-We hope not. We've been thinking about that, you know, what we could do about that, but we hope not. MR. THOMAS-One other thing I forgot to ask. What about tree cutting? Is there going to be anymore trees cut to go up that additional height? MR. AHLERS-No. MR. THOMAS-I have no problem with it whatsoever. So, having said that, here again, we're looking for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 81-1996 ROLF W. AHLERS, Introduced by David Menter who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham: The applicant is proposing to construct an addition to an existing - 21 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/18/96) home on Knox Road. The addition would be 812 feet, which would be some 92 square feet greater than the allowed 50 foot expansion of original square foot of the building. This would allow the applicant to, in effect, enlarge the second floor of the building to coincide with the existing first floor, making a more uniform appearing structure. There would be no change in footprint, as he has recently rebuilt the foundation of the building. The 92 square feet of relief would not appear to be substantial relative to the Ordinance, in as much as the actual current square footage of the building is 2777 square feet, although a portion of that is from additions to the original 1440 square feet of the building. Due to the characteristics of the property, there would be no effects on the neighborhood or community. It is well protected by large trees, and there appears to be no chance that this expansion would effect in any way views of the neighbors properties. It does not appear that this is a self created hardship due to the fact that it is a pre-existing, nonconforming lot and the applicant needs to work within that lot to meet zoning requirements. This project will go before the Planning Board for site plan review, due to the over 50% increase in a Critical Environmental Area, at which time a stormwater management plan will be reviewed. Duly adopted this 18th day of September, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Stone, Mr. O'Leary, Mr. Green, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE MR. MILLER-Thank you. One question. When we go for site plan review, what will be the pertinent issues. Will they be the same issues this Board addressed or will it be primarily the stormwater? MR. GORALSKI - I would say primarily the stormwater management. There may be some questions about the sewage disposal, and then basically they look at visual, environmental factors similar to what this Board considers. MR. MILLER-Thank you very much. MR. THOMAS-You're welcome. AREA VARIANCE NO. 82-1996 TYPE II RR-5A PATRICK GERUSO OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE BAY ROAD TO LOCKHART MT. ROAD SECOND HOUSE ON THE LEFT APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING HOME. THE NEW ADDITION WOULD NOT CONFORM TO THE SETBACKS FOR THE RR- 5A ZONING DISTRICT. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE SETBACKS LISTED IN SECTION 179-15. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 9/11/96 TAX MAP NO. 23-1-28 LOT SIZE: 0.78 ACRES SECTION 179-15 PATRICK GERUSO, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 82-1996, Patrick Geruso, Meeting Date: September 18, 1996 "APPLICANT: Patrick Geruso PROJECT LOCATION: Lockhart Mtn. Road Proposed Project and Conformance with the Ordinance: The applicant is proposing to construct an addition to an existing home on Lockhart Mtn. Road. The addition is proposed to be located 44 feet from the front property line. The present zoning of the property, RR-5A, requires a 50 foot setback. Relief is being requested from the setbacks listed in Section 179-15. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law. 1. Benefit to the applicant: Relief would allow the applicant to construct an addition to an existing home. 2. Feasible alternatives: The size - 22 - '- -~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/18/96) and dimensions of this legal nonconforming lot limit alternatives that could provide less relief. This .78 acre lot is in an area zoned for 5 acre lot sizes. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance? The applicant is seeking 6 feet of front setback relief. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? No negative impacts on the neighborhood are expected as a part of this request for relief. 5. Is this difficulty self created? The dimensions of this legal nonconforming lot, make it difficult to build any addition that would not require some form of relief from the Zoning Ordinance. Staff Comments & Concerns: The proposed addition would not meet all required setbacks except for the front yard. Staff believes this addition to an existing structure would not have a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood. SEQR: Type II, no further action required." MRS. LAPHAM- "At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 11th day of September 1996, the above application for an Area Variance for the construction of an addition onto the rear of his pre-existinq, non-conforminq sinqle family home. was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact." Signed by C. Powel South, Chairperson. MR. THOMAS-Mr. Geruso, do you have anything to add to the application? MR. GERUSO-No. MR. THOMAS-Questions from the Board? MR. MENTER-Just to clarify exactly what we're talking about here. You're adding on, essentially, to the back of the house. MR. GERUSO-Yes, I'd like to put an addition to the back of the house, but right now the back of the house is only 44 feet to the road. MR. GREEN-And you don't want a six foot alley right down through there? MR. GERUSO-Well, yes, it's a big jump. MR. MENTER-I don't have any questions. MR. KARPELES-Is this more than a 50% expansion? MR. GERUSO-Well, I realize that, but they're just proposals in right now. I can shrink it down. I haven't designed yet, because I wanted to go through this first. MR. KARPELES-I would have brought it up when I was up there, but I just noticed that. MR. GERUSO-Yes. I realized that when I was sitting here as well. MR. THOMAS-Yes. That's greater than 100% expansion on that, and that's not what was advertised. MR. GORALSKI-No, the 50% expansion wasn't advertised. bring it down. If he can MR. THOMAS-Yes, nine by twenty-four. MR. GERUSO-Yes. I might have to seek additional relief. MR. MENTER-You may have to come back, yes. MR. GERUSO-As of right now, it may be another six to eight months before I even go into the project, because I just bought the house. - 23 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/18/96) MR. MENTER-Yes, okay. MR. GORALSKI-We'll meet with him and figure out what we can go here, but he may be back to see you. MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions from the Board of the applicant before I open the public hearing? I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for the applicant? Bonnie, what do you think? MRS. LAPHAM-I don't have a problem with it, but I think if he wants to do what he has here in the plans, the 24 by 24, we're going to see him again. MR. THOMAS-Definitely. MRS. LAPHAM-But I don't see how you could add a, you know, he doesn't seem to have a choice. MR. GORALSKI-We'll go out and inspect the site and determine exactly how much he can do and stay within that 50%. MR. GERUSO-I'm looking at the property behind the house as well, because if you look on your tax map, it's part of a, front part of a five acre lot. The people who recently lost the house own the property behind as well, but they sold it in a separate entity. So there's an alleyway on one side and then it comes back around and it's for sale now. So I may be interested in buying that, and that'll bring me up to the five acres, like everybody else. It's all five acre lots, I believe, on the street. MR. THOMAS-Bob? MR. KARPELES-I have no problem with this. MR. THOMAS-Dave? MR. MENTER-How can you? MR. THOMAS-Bill? MR. GREEN-No, no concern. MR. THOMAS-Don? MR. O'LEARY-No, no concern. Just one question. I'm a little confused as to, this is a .78 acre in a five acre, so we've already looked at it previous? MR. GORALSKI-No. What happened is this is a pre-existing, nonconforming lot. This lot was created prior to the, actually, this lot was probably created prior to any zoning. MR. GERUSO-It's an old schoolhouse, 1800 schoolhouse. I don't know if you've been out to it. Ed Lockhart, is he the guy that, he used to be the janitor, stopped by every once, said I used to be the janitor. MR. STONE-I have absolutely no problem whatsoever. MR. THOMAS-I don't see where he could, where any other place but there could be an addition, because of the septic on the north, the - 24 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/18/96) well toward the south, the road to the west. The only place he can go is east. So I have no problem. So if someone would like to move this, we can move on. It's a very simple one. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 82-1996 PATRICK GERUSO, Introduced by Robert Karpeles who moved for its adoption, seconded by Louis Stone: Located on Lockhart Mountain Road. The applicant is proposing to construct an addition on an existing home. This will require a six feet relief from the front property line that currently is 50 feet and it will be 44 feet. The requirement is 50 feet and he is requesting 44 feet. This will allow the applicant to construct an addition on his home. There do not appear to be any feasible alternatives. The relief is not very substantial in relation to the Ordinance, and there are certainly no negative impacts on the neighborhood or community. This problem is not self created as the lot pre-dates all zoning. The size of the expansion will be addressed in an additional application, if it exceeds the 50%. Duly adopted this 18th day of September, 1996, by the following 'vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Stone, Mr. O'Leary, Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE MR. THOMAS-So if it goes over nine by twenty- four, which is a little less than 240 square feet, we'll be seeing you again. MR. GORALSKI-Well, we can also look at that loft area and see if that can be calculated in and take it from there. MR. STONE-There is a shed there, too. MR. THOMAS-That doesn't count. MR. STONE-No, it's attached. MR. THOMAS-The attached shed? That's probably an addition to the original structure. MR. STONE-The only question I have, Mr. Chairman, is since the front of the house is currently 26 feet, I get confused as to why we need to take an addition that goes on the back and measure the setback. MR. THOMAS-Because the setback on the addition is only 44 feet, and it needs to be 50. Any new structure needs to meet the setback. MR. GORALSKI-Any new encroachment requires a variance. MR. THOMAS-You missed it by six feet. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. THOMAS-All right. So that takes care of that. AREA VARIANCE NO. 83-1996 TYPE II CROSS REF. SPR 59-96 WR-1A CEA ANGELA KLADIS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE WEST SIDE OF MASON ROAD HOUSE NUMBER 5050 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A RETAINING WALL AT THE SHORELINE OF HER PROPERTY. THE HEIGHT OF THE WALL WOULD NOT CONFORM TO THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS FOR RETAINING WALLS. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM SECTION 179-60,B,3,e,3 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE WHICH CONTAINS THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS FOR RETAINING WALLS. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 9/11/96 TAX MAP NO. 13-1-16 LOT SIZE: 0.45 ACRES SECTION 179-60,B,3,e,3 - 25 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/18/96) TODD STEWART, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 83-1996, Angela Kladis, Meeting Date: September 18, 1996 "APPLICANT: Angela Kladis PROJECT LOCATION: Mason Rd. Proposed Project and Conformance with the Ordinance: The applicant is proposing to construct a retaining wall at the shoreline of her property. The height of the wall, proposed to be 4 feet, would not conform to the height regulations contained in the Zoning Ordinance. Relief is being requested from Section 179-60,B,3,e,3 of the Zoning Regulations. 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 retaining wall on her property. 2. Feasible alternatives: The steepness of this lot limits the ability to construct a retaining wall that would conform to zoning ordinance requirements. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance? The applicant is requesting 2 feet 8 inches of relief. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? Comment on possible impacts will be provided at the public hearing. 5. Is this difficulty self created? The steepness of this lot makes it difficult to build any retaining wall at this location that would meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance. Staff Comments & Concerns: Any wall which would serve as an erosion control method for shoreline areas of this lot should be built to the height of this lot at the shore. The board may want to consider what visual impact this request, and others that could follow, would have on the overall shoreline of Lake George. SEQR: Type II, no further action required." MRS. LAPHAM-IIAt a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 11th day of September 1996, the above application for an Area Variance for the construction of a retaininq wall near the shoreline. was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Disapprove Comments: The Board denied this application without prejudice stating that the Board will re-hear this application if a different method of putting this wall in is determined to be used, but pouring the wall with haybales could be terribly detrimental to the lake and the creatures in it." Signed C. Powel South, Chairperson. MR. THOMAS-Okay. You understand Warren County, at this point, has disapproved it. In order for us to approve it, we'd need a super majority, which is a vote of five positive votes of the seven member Board. Warren County said they would re-hear it if you were going to use a different method. Are you going to try to use a different method, or are you going to go with the haybales? MR. STEWART-No, we're not going with the haybales. There was actually no method of construction actually presented to the Warren County Planning Board, and what I had explained to them, tried to explain to them, was the method of construction of a retaining wall would be the same, whether it's a 16 inch wall or a 48 inch wall. They really, I don't know why they were looking at the method of construction. The DEC oversees that and the Building Department oversees that. If it comes up for issue, I mean, the method of construction is going to be plywood stuck into the ground, and then the water will be pumped out behind that. We'll have a siltation barrier in the water, like DEC requires. It's not unlike any other retaining wall that's built around the edge of the lake. They're built a lot. MR. THOMAS-So how did they dream up this thing that you're going to pour the cement against haybales? MR. STEWART-I don't know. MR. THOMAS-I wonder about the air in that building sometimes. I - 26 - '-- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/18/96) really do. My first question is, why can't you build a 16 inch wall and terrace it back, like, eight, ten feet, and then build another 18, 24 inch wall? You'd be in conformance. MR. STEWART-A 24 inch wall wouldn't be in conformance, would it? MR. THOMAS-As long as it's not along the shoreline. What is it, 16 or 18 along the shoreline? MR. GORALSKI-Sixteen. MR. THOMAS-Sixteen along the shoreline, okay, pull it that way, terrace it back like ten feet and then build another twenty-six inch wall. MR. STEWART-If you look at this site plan here, along the left hand side, as you're looking at the sheet, along the left hand side, which would be the southerly property line, you see how the property line kind of goes in like a little lagoon there? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. STEWART-That area of embankment is at least four feet, and it's eroding pretty well. I don't know if anybody had a chance to go out and look at it, but that's a pretty steep, tall bank there. That was the main reason that we chose 48 inches. We plan on continuing it around, across the shoreline, just for aesthetic value. Most of the rest of the way around there's at least 24 inches, in some places more, of embankment between the edge of the water and the edge of where the soil starts existing. MR. THOMAS-Would you pour this wall 48 inches across the whole front of the property? MR. STEWART-That is our intention, yes. That's what we would like to do. MRS. LAPHAM-What is it going to look like from the water? MR. STEWART-A four foot stone wall. MRS. LAPHAM-Will it be stone or solid concrete, masonry? MR. STEWART-Yes, it has a stone veneer on the front, fieldstone. MRS. LAPHAM-All right. It would be like this back here? MR. THOMAS-Yes, that's looking from the side. MR. STEWART-Yes, with a stoned cap on it probably. MRS. LAPHAM-All right. I see now. MR. O'LEARY-With the cap, would that be 51 then, instead of 48? MR. STEWART-Yes. We can bring it down so it's 48 overall, without any problem. MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-I understand the lagoon issue, and there's no doubt in my mind that that needs some protection in there. It's definitely falling down, but along the rest of the property, you already have stone in there, which is very attractive to illY way of thinking, it's obviously doing the job. I think, to me, the project is too broad. It's too big in scope. MR. STEWART-I don't know how to answer that, other than it would be a nice, continuous wall. The appearance of it would certainly be - 27 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/18/96) more uniform. BOB KLADIS MR. KLADIS-You know, right now on Assembly Point, there's a wall going in over there, and it's about 520 feet of shoreline, 520 feet of wall. MR. THOMAS-How high? MR. KLADIS-About five foot. MR. THOMAS-Do we know about that? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. That's on the Morse property. That is replacement and repair of an existing wall that had deteriorated and was falling apart. MR. KLADIS-Which about 80% of it is existing foundation. MR. GORALSKI-They have a DEC permit for it. MR. KARPELES-Is it being built to the same height that it was previously? MR. GORALSKI-Exactly the same. MR. MENTER-The relevant Ordinance here says that, in addition, an expansion or replacement of any type of retaining wall shall be discouraged except in a case where the alternative of shoreline restoration to a natural state is impossible due to excessive slope or severe erosion problems, a condition to be determined by the Zoning Administrator. MR. THOMAS-Okay, and the Zoning Administrator has said that this condition does not warrant a four foot wall. MR. GORALSKI-That's for replacement and restoration. MR. THOMAS-Yes, well, you said there is a stone wall right there now. MR. STONE-There is a stone wall there now, along the bulk of the property. MR. STEWART-It's just stones. MR. GORALSKI-It's stone laid up along the shore. MR. STEWART-That's all it is. MR. STONE-What the majority of properties have. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. THOMAS-You'll have to bear with us. We haven't run into one of these yet. MR. STEWART-What he's saying is you could terrace it back, bring it up here 16 inches and terrace it back and bring it up a little bit. MR. KLADIS-That's more impact. That's more work. building two walls instead of one wall. Now you're MR. STEWART-Right. MR. O'LEARY-What is the proximity to you of the wall that's under restoration now? The long shoreline project that you discussed. - 28 - -' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/18/96) MR. KLADIS-Across the bay. MR. GORALSKI-It's on Assembly Point. This is on Cleverdale. MR. THOMAS-Any other questions for the applicant before I open the public hearing? I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Dave, what do you think? MR. MENTER-I don't know. I think, given the Ordinance, I don't see any reason for the scope of this thing. There may be an issue, there's a ton of things you can do, and there's a specific desire in the Ordinance to limit this type of a wall. There's other ways to address the problem. I'm not an engineer. I don't know the ramifications of a serious pitch with erosion of this configuration down here on the south side. There may be things I'm not aware of. I don't know, but I think that the overall proposal, you know, from illY standpoint wouldn't be in keeping with the Ordinance because I think there's other ways to address the bulk of that length. Does that answer your question? MR. THOMAS-Yes. Bill? MR. GREEN-Yes. I was out there the other day, and over around that lagoon side there is extremely steep. A 16 inch wall isn't going to do anything over there. I have to kind of agree with Dave that across the front, I personally didn' t see where it was really eroding and falling in and what have you, and right in here you said the reason for coming across the front, your own words was basically aesthetics, to keep it looking across the front. Right in here in our Code that we have to go by, that it shall not be permitted or constructed for only aesthetic reasons, and I can't really go across that. I am open to doing something over in that lagoon area where it is obviously falling in and what have you, but I think I have to go along with Dave, that across the main front area here, I don't think we need to go any higher than possibly the 16 inches .or what have you, or re-do the stones that are there, or something along that gender. MR. THOMAS-Don? MR. O'LEARY-Yes. I think that the applicant could and maybe should now try to make a little greater effort with regard to the necessity or practicality of the project, other than the aesthetics. MR. THOMAS-Lou? MR. STONE-I agree with what I've heard before. I think that lagoon area needs a shoreline, a retaining wall, but the rest of it certainly appears to me to be perfectly adequate, particularly when you consider the Code, as Bill said. MR. THOMAS-Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-Well, I think I tend to agree with the rest of the Board members. (Lost words) although I've seen these stone retaining walls from the lake side by boat, they're not unattractive, but it's also not the natural looking shoreline that I think we're trying to keep, as much as possible. MR. THOMAS-Bob? - 29 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/18/96) MR. KARPELES-I agree with the rest of the Board. MR. THOMAS-I would have to echo everything the Board has said. I do believe in that lagoon they do need that four foot wall in there, but as far as going along the lakeshore, I would say the 16 inches is more than adequate, if they want to put the wall across there to maintain some kind of continuity between a four foot wall and that lagoon, and step it down to a sixteen inch wall along the front. Other than that, the only other thing I could think of is, like I said before, put the sixteen inch wall along the lake, across the front there, and maybe terrace it back 10 feet and put another four foot wall in there, and that may give the appearance of a continuous wall across there. MR. STEWART-Can I ask a couple of questions? MR. THOMAS-Shoot. MR. STEWART-Can we get a variance to do that four foot wall in that lagoon section? Do we have to resubmit? MR. THOMAS-No. We can condition the variance that it's just in that lagoon section where the, in that steep section. MR. STEWART-Okay, and how far back do we have to terrace? You mentioned 10 feet, but is that a, how do you define along the shoreline? Can I come back eight inches? MR. GORALSKI-Well, we can talk about that. What we have to do is determine the exact location of the mean high water mark, and (lost word) back from that. The definition of, this is probably not the forum to actually, I can't make that determination. It's the Zoning Administrator's, but the definition of shoreline in the Ordinance, if I can find it for you, "The high water mark at which land adjoins the waters of lakes, ponds, rivers, streams, within the Town." So if you determine the mean high water mark and we, meaning the applicant and the Town, agree to a distance back that is not disturbing the shoreline, then you don't have to meet the 16 inch requirement. MR. STEWART-So there's not a set number. MR. GORALSKI-It's not a set number. The idea is that you're not disturbing the shoreline. So we would have to be far enough back that you could construct the wall without disturbing the shoreline at that mean high water mark. MR. STEWART-Okay. Thank you. MR. MENTER-You mean disturbing by construction or aesthetically, or how do you mean? MR. GORALSKI-In any way, whether it be construction or anything else. MRS. LAPHAM-In other words, by having something there. MR. GORALSKI-Right, by doing anything to that shoreline. MR. THOMAS-So they could build another wall back from a 16 inch wall along the shoreline back to say 10 feet, and then go up another 26 inches to match the wall that we come around the four foot lagoon wall, and go across like that. So it would give the appearance, from the lake, that it's one solid wall, but in reality it's not. MR. KARPELES-Yes, but then you'd be disturbing the shoreline. - 30 - '-- --,' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/18/96) MR. THOMAS-No. Well, they can do the 16 inches at the shoreline. MR. MENTER-You think 10 feet would, as a guess, be a safe? MR. GORALSKI-Certainly, I think that would be a safe. Once again, I have to just add that caveat that it's Jim Martin's, the Zoning Administrator's. I mean, what I would do is if you're planning on making a motion to approve any portion of this wall, I would simply include in that motion that the area that you're approving the wall at 48 inches, and the remainder of the shoreline could be addressed by the Staff. MR. GREEN-At this point (lost words) unchanged. MR. GORALSKI-Correct. MR. THOMAS-That would be Staff's call anyway, unless they want to go higher than the 16 inches at the water. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. THOMAS-But once they go back from the water, that's between Staff and the applicant, or the property owner if that be the correct term. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. THOMAS-I don't think there would be any tree cutting needed along there either. MR. GORALSKI-You'd have to ask the applicant that. MR. THOMAS-Are there any trees within 10 feet that would need to be cut? MR. STEWART-No, not for the construction of the wall. MR. GORALSKI-There are a couple of trees that we are aware of on the property that are diseased that would be coming down as a part of the construction project of the house, whether or not a retaining wall. MR. THOMAS-Yes, because I'm looking at that 35 foot setback for the vegetation, no cut vegetation. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. THOMAS-Any other questions of the applicant? MR. GREEN-I guess we should decide how far around that four foot wall should come, if that's what they're going to do. MR. KARPELES-Couldn't we just arbitrarily say four feet? I'm not convinced that it has to be four feet high in that lagoon area, when ~ looked at it. MR. STEWART-Can we show you some pictures, Bob, that might convince you? MR. KARPELES-You can show me the pictures. I don't know if they're convince me or not. MR. STEWART-It's kind of fuzzy, but that's the picture from the lake looking toward that lagoon. This is the beach that you see down here. These are some old curb ties, I believe, that were stacked there years ago, and this is where the lawn starts. This is at least four feet in here that's eroding. Here's a better picture. - 31 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/18/96) MR. THOMAS-In fact, it's part of the root system of that tree. Is that one of the trees that's coming down? MR. STEWART-No. MR. THOMAS-It's not? It looks like part of that root system is exposed. MR. STEWART-It probably is, it's been eroding so much. If we could get some dirt around it, it sure would help that tree. MR. KARPELES-So now where is this now? If I look at this, where am I here? MR. STEWART-Over here. MR. THOMAS-At this point, it looks like this point right here, it's this point right here. MR. STEWART-Right, it comes around. MR. KARPELES-Okay. So if you did need the four foot wall, it would be? MR. THOMAS-Right here, right back around to the property line. MR. KARPELES-That sure looks steeper to me than it did when I was out there. MR. KLADIS-It's steep. It's pretty steep. MR. STONE-That does lead me to a question. Are you going to have any kind of steps down to this little beach that is there? MR. KLADIS-There are existing steps there now that we're going to fix up. MR. STONE-So they would be an interruption, if you will, of the retaining wall? MR. KLADIS-Right, but they would be such that there wouldn't be any dirt there to erode. They would be made out of concrete or wood or something, stone. MR. THOMAS-So we wouldn' t worry about those steps. Any other questions? Any other comments? I guess we need a motion then. MR. GREEN-Did we decide where it's going to end on the northerly side? MR. THOMAS-I would say at the intersection, well, right where it shows that little better than 90 degree turn, right where the lagoon meets the lake on the northern side. That's about what the picture shows that the erosion ends, and there are existing rocks along the shoreline, along the main body of the lake, along the shoreline there. Would that be acceptable to the applicant, from that point, right in and around, from the south property line around the lagoon, out to where the lagoon meets the main body of the lake again, at that point, would be a wall no higher than four foot? MR. STEWART-Yes. MR. THOMAS-All right. I'll try this one. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 83-1996 ANGELA KLADIS, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Louis Stone: - 32 - '-- ---' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/18/96) On Mason Road, with the following condition, that a retaining wall, no higher than four feet in height, be constructed from the south property line along the lagoon and extend no farther than the intersection of the lagoon and the main body of the lake. Relief is being sought from Section 179-60B, 3, e, 3 of the Zoning Regulations. The benefit to the applicant would be the ability to build a retaining wall to stop the erosion of her property. There do not seem to be any feasible alternatives other than building this wall to hold back the erosion. The relief is substantial from the Ordinance. The relief being sought is two feet eight inches. The effects on the neighborhood or community. There do not appear to be any negative effects on the community, only positive ones, in the fact that it would stop earth from washing into the lake during heavy rain storms and in spring runoffs. This difficulty was not self created, due to the contour of the land. There were no negative comments from the public. That this does not include any of the shoreline, from the south to the north, along the main body of the lake. This only is for the lagoon, from the south property line around the lagoon to the intersection of the north side of the lagoon and the main body of the lake. That all applicable rules and regulations of the Department of Environmental Conservation be followed during construction of this p~oject. Duly adopted this 18th day of September, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. O'Leary, Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE MR. THOMAS-Okay. You have the variance with that condition to it, and you will be talking to Mr. Martin concerning the rest of it. Okay? MR. STEWART-Yes. Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 84-1996 TYPE II WR-1A CEA CROSS REF. SPR 55- 96 MITCHELL MATTHEWS OWNER: JEAN L. MATTHEWS WEST SIDE OF MASON ROAD, OFF OF CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REPLACE AN EXISTING "F" SHAPED DOCK AND BOATHOUSE WITH A NEW "U" SHAPED DOCK AND BOATHOUSE. THE NEW DOCK WOULD NOT MEET THE SETBACKS OF THE WR- 1A ZONING DISTRICT. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE SETBACKS LISTED IN SECTION 179-16. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 9/11/96 TAX MAP NO. 13-1-14 LOT SIZE: 0.23 ACRES SECTION 179-16 MITCHELL MATTHEWS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 84-1996, Mitchell Matthews, Meeting Date: September 18, 1996 "APPLICANT: Mitchell Matthews PROJECT LOCATION: Mason Rd. Proposed Project and Conformance with the Ordinance: The applicant is proposing to remove an existing F shaped dock and boathouse and replace it with a new U shaped dock and boathouse. The new dock, which is proposed to have a side setback of 2 feet, would not meet the required side setbacks for docks. 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 dock and boathouse. 2. Feasible alternatives: The applicant may have the ability to center the new dock on his property to provide a larger setback at the north property line. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance? The applicant is seeking 18 feet of setback relief. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? Comment on possible impacts will be provided at the public hearing. 5. Is this difficulty self created? The difficulty that exists is the - 33 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/18/96) desire of a property owner to construct a new dock in the same place a dock presently exists. Staff Comments & Concerns: The applicant is proposing to construct a new dock and boathouse with a flat roof. The new structure would improve lake views for adjacent property owners. The ZBA should consider the comments that will be provided at the public hearing. SEQR: Type II, no further action required." MRS. LAPHAM- "At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 11th day of September 1996, the above application for an Area Variance to remove "F" shaped dock and boathouse and reconstruction of new "U" shaped dock and boathouse., was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Approve Comments: The Warren County Planning Board concurs with the Lake George Park Commission relating to the safety concerns. The Board also conditions that there be no land bridges with this project." Signed by C. powel South, Chairperson. MR. THOMAS-Anything you'd like to add to the application, tell us about? MR. MATTHEWS-No, there's a couple of things. There's been some suggestions of moving the dock, and I think there is a retaining wall there, and the Lake George Park Commission required us to, from the original print of 36 feet out on the lake, to move it back to the present location of the dock. In doing so, that made the mooring of the 28 foot slip impossible if we didn't have that wall there, and since the wall is there, we can now moor a boat by moving the dock the four feet in. So the dock does fit the original footprint. If we move the dock toward the center of the property, there's no retaining wall there and I can't put the boat in. MR. GREEN-By moving it to the center of the lot, what is it going to do? MR. MATTHEWS-We don't have a retaining wall, and we can't keep the, the shoreline goes out from there. There's a retaining wall put in there for the inner slip. There's no retaining wall, the natural lake front. MR. GREEN-So you're then pushing the whole boathouse out? You would end up pushing it out further into the lake? MR. MATTHEWS-Yes, and I can't do that, because in order to get the same slip length and the same size of dock, I would have to move the dock out from the shore. MR. KARPELES-Are we going to hear the comments the Lake George Park Commission had relating to safety concerns? MR. GORALSKI-I have no idea what they are. MR. MATTHEWS-The safety concerns are bringing a boat through two swimming areas. My dock is 32 feet, less than 32 feet out into the lake, and I have pictures here to show where I have to bring my boat across two swimming areas in order to get into the slip. Many times, because of inclement weather or the situation we do hit the dock or come very close to a swimming, there's a float right off the dock, that we have to go between the float and the dock to the south of us in order to get into our slip. That's why we're moving the dock to a U shape. MR. STONE-Okay. through? You're talking the old dock you'd have to go MR. MATTHEWS-Yes. - 34 - '--- ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/18/96) MR. GREEN-So by turning is this way you can just drive straight in? MR. MATTHEWS-Just drive straight in. The dock's on the north and the south are both U shaped docks, so they don't have a problem. MR. THOMAS-Does anyone else have any questions? MR. MENTER-Yes. review on here, Mitchell, what's the reference to a site plan it was tabled? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. The site plan review was tabled when it was determined that this portion of the dock that encroaches on the setback was being completely replaced. Once he removes that entire section, he loses his grandfathered right and that's why he needs the variance, to basically put it back exactly where it was. MR. KARPELES-What does this mean, "The Board also conditions that there be no land bridges with this project"? Am I the only one that doesn't understand that? MR. GORALSKI -That's something that the Warren County Planning Board, for some reason, always opposes a bridge or a ramp from the land to the deck. MR. KARPELES-Which is shown on this. MR. MENTER-Ramp to shore, something similar to that? MR. STONE-You mean to the upper deck? MR. GORALSKI-Right, correct. MR. MATTHEWS-The upper deck. So we deleted that from the print. We're just going to put stairs in. MR. KARPELES-So that's out? MR. MATTHEWS-There's no ramp, no. MR. KARPELES-It shows a ramp, right here. MR. MATTHEWS-It shows a ramp, yes. MR. KARPELES-But you're not going to do it? MR. MATTHEWS-No. MR. STONE-You're going to have internal stairs? MR. MATTHEWS-Stairs, yes, going from the land, like all the other docks in the area. You can practically step across because it's such a steep bank. MR. THOMAS-Any other questions for the applicant before I open up the public hearing? MR. STONE-Well, the upper deck is almost on the level with, it's below the level of the house, isn't it? MR. MATTHEWS-Below the level of the land really, yes. MR. THOMAS-The new deck will be 13 feet to the top of the rail, from water level, well, from the new dock to the top of the rail, on the deck on top. How high is the existing one now? MR. MATTHEWS-Seventeen feet, which exceeds the Code. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So the top of the rail will be down four feet from the peak of the existing boathouse. - 35 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/18/96) MR. STONE-It's certainly better that way. I mean, it's a big roof. MR. MATTHEWS-It's a big eyesore, I think. MR. STONE-Your words, not mine. MR. MATTHEWS-They built it in 1902. It looked good then. MR. THOMAS-Any other questions for the applicant before I open the public hearing? MR. KARPELES-Yes. I don't understand this point where it shows a dotted line and it says, represents old crib dock, all to be removed? You're not going to use any of the cribs from the old dock? MR. MATTHEWS,:"No, because they're completely falling apart below the water line. MR. KARPELES-So you're going to take all those out and put new cribs in? MR. MATTHEWS-Yes, the open cribs, which is what the Park Commission wants to see. MR. STONE-Now there is no way you can move it even a few feet? I mean, it says in the variance, seeking 18 feet of relief, but that's 18 out of 20, which is 90%, which is a great deal, it seems to me, that you're asking. MR. MATTHEWS-Well, if I move it to conform, then I don't conform on the south side. It's only a 60 foot waterfront. So anywhere you put it, it's not going to conform. The only thing that could be done, if there's an objection, is moving it 10, 15 feet further south, but the problem there is I can't bring a boat into the slip, because there's no wall. You'd have to tear out the shoreline and put another retaining wall in there to be able to do that. I think you were at the site, weren't you? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. STONE-I saw that. I'm trying to think of what you mean by you have to have a wall there so the boat goes in there. MR. MATTHEWS-Because the natural shoreline goes further out from the retaining wall, beyond the present dock, where the present dock is. So if I move the present dock over, the amount of water that we'd have to put a boat in would be less. We'd have to build around the shoreline, or build another retaining wall. MR. STONE-Are you saying the water's too shallow? MR. MATTHEWS-It's shallow where it is now, where the retaining wall is, but you can bring a boat in there, but if I move the dock over, keeping the dock out as far as they're only allowing me to put it would make it so I'd have to put a short slip in, or build a retaining wall, another retaining wall. There's no shoreline diagram on here, but the shoreline is further in than the natural shoreline, where this dock is. All right. So if you move the dock, then the shoreline protrudes into where the dock usage is going to be inhibited. MR. THOMAS-On your print you show the two new docks being 38 feet long and eight feet wide. Is there any reason they have to be eight feet wide? MR. MATTHEWS-Well, the plan is to have a two foot walkway on the inside and a six foot open dock on the outside. That building is - 36 - '-- -' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/18/96) centered so that, in case in the future it gets enclosed, if it gets enclosed in the future, you have a place to walk on the inside of the building. MR. THOMAS-Because if you could knock four feet off that north dock, you could add four feet to the setback, to the side setback. It would be six out of twenty instead of two out of twenty. Any other questions before I open the public hearing? MR. MENTER-Yes, I do have one now. Are both of these slips, as it exists, serviceable right now? MR. MATTHEWS-Just the outer slip, because of the natural shoreline, the rocks stick way out into the lake. They've fallen down, or whatever, over the years. MR. MENTER-That's what I was going to say, how far does that retaining wall go?, MR. MATTHEWS-It stops at the 32 foot mark on the shoreline, the old dock. MR. KARPELES-Can you clear up something for me? restricted how far out into the lake you can build? you're saying? Has somebody Is that what MR. MATTHEWS-I think it was the Lake George Park Commission, I have the correspondence here, said that they wouldn't approve it unless we kept the original footprint. They wouldn't allow me to go any further than 31 feet 9 inches out from the retaining wall. MR. KARPELES-And is this, where the dock is now, is that the natural contour of the land, or was that dug out at one time? MR. MATTHEWS-I think they took some of the stone and used it in the dock, and some of it they used it in the retaining wall, because there is a level portion there, behind the retaining wall. So the foundations of the present boathouse are sitting on top of that retaining wall. MR. STONE-You said you couldn't go beyond the footprint, but the drawing looks as if you have. MR. MATTHEWS-The drawing was, that I got back from the Lake George Park Commission, brings it back into 31 feet 9 inches. MR. STONE-Brings it back? Okay. MR. MATTHEWS-Yes, sir. MR. STONE-Because what we have is hanging over. MR. MATTHEWS-But the dock itself and the slip and everything are still the same. It's just moved in four feet three inches, closer to shore. MR. THOMAS-Any other questions before I open the public hearing? I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRISTINE BASSINO MRS. BASSINO-My name is Christine Bassino, and I'm the northern neighbor of Mitch, the property line. We're on, the pier that now exists, I did write a letter, I didn't think I would be able to attend tonight's meeting, now sits on or very near our property line. Recently, a variance was, well, it wasn't a variance. Someone to our north, the Burke's, put up a boathouse. We happen - 37 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/18/96) to have 120 feet. I'm not sure what our neighbors have. I think it's around 60 both sides. He was not allowed to build two piers go out, for a boathouse. He has one pier, one crib pier, and then this other side is just four by fours, I don't know, holding up the rest of the other side of the boathouse, and he also needed to back off from our side of the property, you know, conforming to the setbacks, and we just feel like we need to, not that we don't want the boathouse, that we'd like to see some setbacks from our property line, on our south. MR. THOMAS-Do you currently have a boathouse or a dock on the property? MRS. BASSINO-Yes, we do. MR. THOMAS-Can you tell me how far it is away from that property line betwee~ you and Mr. Matthews? MRS. BASSINO-The boathouse? MR. THOMAS-The dock or the boathouse, whichever's closer? MRS. BASSINO-It's about 60 feet. MR. THOMAS-About 60 feet from that property line? MRS. BASSINO-Well, 60 feet from our property line to our boathouse. It might be less. It might be 50. I didn't measure it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. GREEN-And you're saying your lot's about double the size of the one's on either side of you? MRS. BASSINO-Yes. MR. GREEN-And your boathouse is essentially in the middle of it? MRS. BASSINO-Yes. MR. GREEN-So you're saying it's going to push Mr. Matthews'? MRS. BASSINO-More in the center of his. MR. GREEN-Another eight or ten feet away is going to make a big difference? MRS. BASSINO-Because it's right on our property line now or very near. I think, isn't that the reason why the variance is in place, for uniformity? MR. THOMAS-Yes, that's why he's here. MRS. BASSINO-Right, and you know we're not saying it has to be exactly 20, but maybe we can get these things looking, so people can see where properties are and boathouses and I didn't realize about your retaining wall. I'm confused about that part. MR. MATTHEWS-That was put in because there were two boats with that dock, and that's all navigable. In other words, you can bring a dock all the way up to the wall. MRS. BASSINO-Why won't they let you bring the pier out as far as ours is? I don't understand that? MR. MATTHEWS-(Lost words} crib, but they said no. MRS. BASSINO-That doesn't make sense to me. - 38 - ---' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/18/96) MR. MATTHEWS-I've got the shortest dock on Lake George, in Cleverdale. MR. GREEN-And they don't want to give you anymore. MR. MATTHEWS-No. MR. GORALSKI-Excuse me. Do you have that Park Commission letter here? Do you mind if I take a look at that? MR. MATTHEWS-It's not a letter. It's a print. Yes. There is a letter. MR. GORALSKI-I'm not sure what their reason was, but that's what they returned to Mr. Matthews, 31 feet 9 inches. MR. KARPELES-From the shoreline? MR. GORALSKI-From the shoreline. mean high water mark? I would assume that's from the MR. MATTHEWS-I have no reason to do this project, if I have to move the dock, then I will have a shorter berthing spot for boats. If you shorten this berthing spot, there's no way anybody in the future could, you know, it makes the resale and everything else crazy. Who has 20 foot boats anymore? MR. THOMAS-I don't own a boat. The Lake George Park Commission didn't say anything about setbacks or anything like that in their letter? They don't concern themselves with that? MR. MATTHEWS-No. The only thing they were worried about was the railing, it stuck out a little bit above the old roof line, when you superimpose them. I have a print on that, and they waived it. They said it wasn't necessary to get a variance for it. MRS. BASSINO-I also have a concern, I know with the Burkes, I don't think they applied for a variance. They were not allowed to put two eight foot piers out into the water, plus your 12 feet for your boat. They needed to narrow it, and so that's why they don't have two eight foot. MR. GREEN-Is it a new dock? MRS. BASSINO-It's brand new. MR. GREEN-There was no dock there before. MR. THOMAS-Yes, what was there before. MR. GREEN-That's why the new construction was. MRS. BASSINO-Okay. That, I didn't understand that. Okay. MR. GREEN-Does Mr. Matthews, John, have every right to essentially re-build this dock as it stands, to make it? MR. GORALSKI-He doesn't have the right to remove it and re-build it in the same footprint. He does have the right to repair it, and I've talked to him about that. If you go and look at the dock, there is a substantial amount of movement. However, if he wanted to go down to the water line, pull up what's there down to the water line and replace that and somehow try to stabilize what's below the water line, that he could do, and then go ahead and build this boathouse, at least under our Ordinance. I don't know what the Lake George Park Commission would say. MR. GREEN-He could correct the problem and leave it higher, or he - 39 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/18/96) can correct the problem and lower the height. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. Granting of this variance, what it does is allows him to remove the crib that is there and build in the same spot, rather than try to repair it. MR. GREEN-Repair the crib that is there. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. KARPELES-Can I ask you a couple of questions, Mr. Matthews, just in an effort to get this a little bit farther away from the property line. Take a look at the southern dock. Why couldn't the outside edge of that, the south end of it, be flush with the end of the existing dock, and leave your eight foot width on that dock, to move the center portion over and maybe eliminate or cut way down on the north eight foot dock? MR. MATTHEWS-That could be done, but I don't see what purpose it is. MR. KARPELES-Well, it would get you 10 to 12 feet. MR. MATTHEWS-We can get further away from our mutual property line. MR. KARPELES-That's what we're trying to do. MR. MATTHEWS-But I can't move it very far, because I won't be able to get a boat in, with the length that they restrict me to. MR. KARPELES-Yes, but you're getting a boat in that slip right now, in there. I'm just saying, put the south edge of that, flush with that. MR. GREEN-He's saying make your two docks thinner. MR. KARPELES-Well, I'm sliding it to the south, and maybe getting rid of the north dock, or cutting it down. I'm just looking for suggestions you might have as to how we could get, our purpose is to try and get as much. MR. MATTHEWS-Okay. I'm trying to do two things. I'm trying to get a safe boating, that's number one priority. Number Two, I'm trying to get a swimming area for my family, which I don't have now. MR. KARPELES-And where' s the swimming area? We haven' t heard about that. MR. MATTHEWS-Our swimming area is on the end of our dock. The right hand side of our dock, which used to be, back in the old days, is now their property, basically. So we have always had restrictions that the kids were not allowed to swim in their water. There's never been any objections or fighting over this. It's just being good neighbors. So now we want to use the southern end of our new dock for our swimming area. MR. KARPELES-Well, I don't see where that would bother that. If you moved that dock over four feet. MR. MATTHEWS-No, it doesn't. I mean, these are the two reasons for putting the dock, changing the dock, but I also would like to have eight foot wide piers, because they're standard material for one thing. They make (lost words) good cost factor. Number Two, I get the stability on these open cribs, which I had a higher stability with a full crib before it was six foot. If I reduce it, with these open cribs, I've got less strength. So I'd rather keep the eight foot to be able to bring my boats up, see it's only going to be a six foot dock anyway, because then I have two foot inside the - 40 - -' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/18/96) posts of the building. MR. KARPELES-I don't think anybody's quibbling that you should have at least one dock that's eight feet wide. We're just wondering why you have to have the second dock eight feet wide, the north dock. MR. MATTHEWS-The north dock. Other than the fact that it' s standard construction and strength. MR. KARPELES-Isn't there some other kind of construction that you could use that would? MR. MATTHEWS-Yes, a full crib, but they won't allow us to put a full crib in. The consideration of doing this in the first place was because I was concerned about the open crib and strength. My full crib now has withstood all the ice damage since 1902, and I think that says testimony to what a full crib can do. I don't think these open cribs are anywhere near as strong as the dock that I have now. So I really don't want to go to a six foot crib. MR. THOMAS-Why couldn't you leave it like an eight foot crib, and just put, like, a six foot dock on it? MR. MATTHEWS-Because the underpinnings, there's nothing to tie to. The engineer's he's already dove it, and the rods are all gone. MR. THOMAS-There's only two things I know about, and piers and docks aren't one of them. So that's why I ask these questions. MR. MATTHEWS-The last repair tried to tie into the lower end. Now the lower end is gone. There's nothing to tie to. MRS. LAPHAM-When you sayan open crib, you mean like a crib and then an opening and then another one? MR. MATTHEWS-Yes. They put the pile of rocks out here, and then you've got an open space, and then you've got a pile of rocks. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. Because I mean, I knew what a full crib was, but I didn't know what this was. MR. MATTHEWS-Yes. I have three full cribs now. MRS. LAPHAM-They are the most favorable. MR. STONE-How much would you pick up if you did as Bob suggested, move to the end of the F dock? MR. THOMAS-I measured about three feet, according to his drawing. MR. MATTHEWS-Three feet. I could tolerate three feet with the boat, because I'll still be within the wall space. MR. GORALSKI-Right, and then you would have five feet along the property line, which is more than there is now. MR. THOMAS-Yes. It's 90% now. It's down to 75%. MR. KARPELES-Well, I can't help but think that there's some way that that north dock could be mostly eliminated by. MR. MATTHEWS-What's the purpose, though? MR. KARPELES-To get more, we're trying to get more setback from the property line. That's the purpose of it. That's why you're here, is to get setback from the property line. MR. MATTHEWS-Yes, sir. I understand that. It's a construction - 41 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/18/96) problem if you go two or three feet. We've got to remove all the rock. If you leave it like it is, and build the other cribs and then take the other one out. MR. KARPELES-Yes, but you could put posts going down and then cross brace it from between the posts. MR. MATTHEWS-You mean retain the one we have now, you're saying? MR. KARPELES-I'm saying on the north dock. I'm saying eliminate that dock completely. If you eliminated that completely and put posts down to support your roof, you'd want a roof on that, right? And then put cross braces on those posts, both ways? MR. MATTHEWS-No, not like they did on Burke's, because the next ice storm's going to take their whole roof right down. There's nothing to support that thing when the ice hits. They've got no cribs on that south side. MR. STONE-Your roof is proposed to go from the whole 28 feet? MR. MATTHEWS-No, just from six feet in on the north side and six feet in from the south side. MRS. BASSINO-Sixteen feet of roof, about. MR. GREEN-Lower than the original roof that's there now, by how much? MR. MATTHEWS-Four feet, to the top of the railing. MR. GREEN-And it's an open area versus a closed roof area. MR. MATTHEWS-Right. MRS. BASSINO-But the roof doesn't block or the roof blocks your view, does it? It doesn't block our view? MR. MATTHEWS-It blocks my view and it blocks the people to the south, part of it, but I've got a picture of it. You can see how you cut this roof down, you're going to see more of the lake, closer to the dock. MR. GREEN-Are we asking for opinions then? MR. THOMAS-No. The public hearing's still open. Anyone else have any objection to this? Is that all you have to say, madam? MRS. BASSINO-I'm not sure what else to say, other than to have 60 feet of frontage and have 28 feet of boathouse on 60 feet, I think it's a big project, with two piers going out. I think we'd like the setbacks to be, try to conform to some of the setbacks, because it's right on our property line, or very close, as it exists. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Anyone else? Any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-Yes, one letter. To the Town of Queensbury, Re: Application for a Variance by Mitchell Matthews "As we will be out of town for the above public hearing, we are writing this letter in strong opposition to the granting of this variance. As stated in our previous letter regarding the first public hearing, we are adj acent property owners. We would like to see the Zoning Ordinance adhered to allowing setbacks for property lines. Realizing that this plan involves change in orientation, shape and size, the existing pier in question now sits on or very near our property linp-~ and this would constitute a change. We would like to see equal ~~operty line setbacks from north and south, centering this project on his property. Thank you for this consideration, - 42 - ----- '-" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/18/96) Dr. and Mrs. Lawrence Bassino, Mason Road Cleverdale & 950 St. Davids Lane, Nyskauna" And that's it. MR. THOMAS-All right. I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MATTHEWS-I've got one more thing I'd like to say. According to my print here, I guess I'd have to go back and look at it, but if we move it eight feet, the whole thing eight feet, it would give you a ten foot setback, eight feet to the south. I think the retaining wall is still giving me the length of the slip, and I wouldn't go over that. That gives you a 10 foot setback. You can't do the 20 foot setback. MR. THOMAS-No, because, well, if you moved that back another eight feet, you're going to lose, you're going to be only 22 on the south property line. So you'll need a variance from that, too, because it has to be a minimum of 30, total of 50? No, a minimum of 20. MR. GORALSKI-Twenty on either side. MR. THOMAS-You're okay by two feet. MR. GORALSKI-You're moving it another eight feet. Then you'd be 10 feet. MR. THOMAS-So you're talking 10 feet from that north property line. MR. MATTHEWS-Yes. MR. THOMAS-From the Bassino's property line, 10 feet. MR. MATTHEW-Yes, then the wall, I'll just pick up the end of the retaining wall. MR. THOMAS-What do you think, Bill? MR. GREEN-I don't think he should have to move it. I think he should be able to turn it and set it right where it is. He's lowering it. He's opening it up. He's cutting the roof out. There was some safety concerns about bringing the boats around that end of the dock already with some swimming areas over there, but we're going to move it eight feet in that direction, that is only going to increase the safety concerns to swimmers. They've got a retaining wall there that seems to be pertinent. He has, apparently, a pretty good right to essentially repair the dock as it exists now. I think we're making a mountain out of a mole hill. MR. THOMAS-Don? MR. O'LEARY-Well, initially I thought the navigational safety factors were an important concern. I think the approach to the dock, with it relocated, as a straight in approach, was an important concern. I thought the fact that we're reducing the height and therefore improving the views, if nothing else, was an important concern, but now, of course, it's mitigated by the fact that we have a neighbor who would like to see the setbacks maintained, if at all possible, which then raises the question of an amendment to the current plan. MR. THOMAS-Lou? MR. STONE-I feel all the things that Don said, and certainly the safety aspects that you were, the reason you were building the dock, relocating it are valid ones, and you've taken care of that. - 43 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/18/96) If the applicant is willing to give an additional eight feet of relief from the current dock, I say, so be it. I think it does our job or minimizing the amount of variance that we give. It represents a 50% reduction in the variance versus the 10% we had before, and I say, I'm very much in favor of the way the applicant has agreed to the change. MR. THOMAS-Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-I have to agree with Lou, that if the applicant is willing to move eight feet, this would certainly show consideration of his neighbor. The dock itself I don' t have a problem with because it is less high than it was before. I think falling apart cribs are very dangerous to swimmers and boaters, and they should be remedied as soon as possible, because of the danger. MR. THOMAS-Dave? MR. MENTER-I think the retaining wall thing is legitimate, as far as an issue to be considered, as much as the neighbor's wishes. If he's willing to move the thing eight feet, I think it's absurd not to do that. I think the eight's a reasonable concession, and I would go along with that. MR. THOMAS-Bob? MR. KARPELES-I agree. I think that we're supposed to grant the minimum variance, and I'm convinced that that is a minimum variance, and he's willing to do it, and I think it's very generous of him. I think it should please his neighbor, I hope it does. MR. THOMAS-I'll agree with the rest of the Board members. I was not happy, in the beginning, with the two feet. Ten feet is a lot better. It's a five fold increase over the two feet. It doesn't seem like much, but it is. It brings the setback to a 50% rather than the 100% that we would like to see. I would like to see one of those docks really narrowed down, one of those eight foot docks narrowed down to six feet or four feet, but according to Mr. Matthews, building wise, construction wise, it's really not feasible. Like I said, I don't know anything about dock construction. Other than that, I think it's a good idea to upgrade that, because that building that sits there now is 96 years old, and by the looks of that roof it isn't going to last the winter. It probably won't last the winter anyway, because you probably won't do construction until the spring. So I have no problem with a 10 foot side line setback on the north side and 22 foot on the south side. Having said that, does anyone else have any questions, comments of the applicant or any member of the Board, Planning Department? MR. GREEN-I'd just like to say that I'd be glad to move it the 10 feet, if you agree to do that, but my opinion still stands. I don't think it's necessary. MR. THOMAS-All right. Having said that, a motion is in order. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 84-1996 MITCHELL MATTHEWS, Introduced by David Menter who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham: The applicant is proposing construct a U-Shaped dock in place of an existing F-Shaped dock, removing the existing full cribs and building new ones. Relief is required from the north property line, and relief of 10 feet is granted, leaving the applicant with a 10 foot setback for the proposed dock. This would allow the applicant the opportunity to replace a dock that is essentially falling apart, as well as still utilizing an existing retaining wall which provides him with enough depth close to the shoreline to - 44 - -- ...- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/18/96) have an adequately long berth for a boat. Moving the dock further south would eliminate the use of that retaining wall. The proposed dock would overall be four feet lower in height than the existing dock, which would be an overall benefit to the area. This appears to be the best solution. There don't appear to be any better alternatives to such a plan. Ten foot relief, given the fact that there is currently a two foot setback, does not seem to be substantial, and the effects on the neighborhood from the proposed action would only be positive. It wouldn't appear to be a self created situation due to the fact that the existing dock has been in place for 90 or so years. In deference to the Warren County Planning Board, we would also require that there be no land bridges, and the applicant has agreed to that, even though it is shown on the print that was submitted. Duly adopted this 18th day of September, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. O'Leary, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Green MR. THOMAS-So now you have to go back to the Planning Board. Okay. We have two other items of business here. MR. GORALSKI-Actually you have three, because you still have K- Mart. MR. THOMAS-What are we going to do with K-Mart? MR. GORALSKI-Well, you can do whatever you'd like with it. It's on the agenda. You can discuss it and take a vote. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Well, that'll be the third thing. MR. MENTER-I say we discuss it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. We have a discussion item for a Use Variance that was applied for by the applicant, Jude Spero, and I do believe it was, could you tell me what the date is on that? JUDE SPERO MRS. SPERO-August 28th. MR. THOMAS-On August 28th. says. There's a number on there, too. It MRS. SPERO-It's File No. 69-1996. MR. THOMAS-Yes. It's Use Variance No. 69-1996. tell us what we're going to do here, John? Do you want to MR. GORALSKI-Yes. Mrs. Spero had a Use Variance denied, and she is requesting that the Board re-hear it. My understanding is that she has other information that she would like to present that she didn't have an opportunity to present previously. It's up to the Board to decide whether or not they would like to re-hear this application. In order to re-hear this application, there has to be a unanimous vote of the members present. MR. GREEN-Can we make that decision without knowing what the additional information is? MR. GORALSKI-Certainly you can discuss that with the applicant. - 45 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/18/96) MR. THOMAS-Okay. Before we get started, I'd like to say that this is not going to be something that's going to happen on a regular basis. This is going to be very rare that things are going to happen like this. Because once we either approve, deny or table a variance, especially deny a variance, we don't want to hear them again. Okay. We stand on our decisions, but I felt, in this case, that the information, or the lack of information on this, and I think there was some misunderstanding on some of the members of the Board at the time concerning this application. So I talked to Jim Martin, and he said, you know, you can bring it up as a discussion item and talk it over with the Board, and if you want to hear it again, fine. If you don't. MR. MENTER-They have a right to that any time they want. Any time they're refused, they can come before the Board and ask to have it re-heard. MR. GORALSKI-They can ask for it to be re-heard, but it has to be a unanimous, in order for you to re-hear the exact same application, it has to be a unanimous vote of the Board. MR. MENTER-Right. MRS. LAPHAM-And is the criteria for giving that vote? MR. GORALSKI-There is none. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. I was going to say, does it have to be new information or something? MR. GORALSKI-As a matter of fact, there's a recent court case, Ireland versus the Town of Queensbury, which states that the Board, there doesn't even have to be new information, that the Board, if they so desire, can re-hear an application, by a unanimous vote, 1992, I believe it was. MR. THOMAS-It must have been before August, because that's when ~ came here, and I don't remember that one, and that was against us, the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury? MR. GORALSKI-The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury agreed to re-hear an application. One of the neighbors of the applicants sued saying that the Town did not have a right to do that, and lost. The Town won and did re-hear the application. MRS. LAPHAM-We have the right to re-hear it, based on absolutely nothing new or nothing changed, if we all agree we want to re-hear it for whatever reason? MR. GORALSKI-If there is a unanimous vote of the Board. MR. THOMAS-Like I said, this'll be very rare, as long as I sit here in this Chairman's seat, but like I said before, I thought that this one had merit in re-hearing. MR. MENTER-There's nothing necessarily rare about an applicant coming before the Board and saying, listen, I'd like you to re-hear this. That's perfectly legitimate. MR. GREEN-But you feel, after reviewing this additional information, that it may have an effect? MR. THOMAS-Yes, it may have an effect on the outcome. MR. STONE-All we can do is agree to put it back on the agenda. MR. GORALSKI-That's all you can do tonight. Yes. - 46 - '- - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/18/96) MR. THOMAS-That's all we can do. We aren't going to re-hear it tonight. No, it has to be re-advertised, letters sent out again and everything. So, having said that. MR. KARPELES-Well, will we get the benefit of hearing what you've heard before we make a vote? MR. THOMAS-Yes. Mrs. Spero's going to give us that right now. MRS. SPERO-All right. I guess the first and foremost thing, I felt that there was a very big misunderstanding regarding the fact that if I were granted this variance, I was told, by the Board at the last meeting, that it would change the zoning classification of my property forever and all times, I guess, was the way it was worded, to a commercially zoned piece of property, and I was told I had the wrong information, and I told the Board I was at a meeting with Jim Martin, John and Fred Champagne, and they told me I was able to apply for a Use Variance that would not change the zoning classification of the property. If and when I were to sell the property, the variance would no longer exist. Am I correct in that interpretation? MR. GORALSKI-The Use Variance goes with the property. I believe what we said is that certainly the Board, in its powers to condition approvals, could put a condition on it that if you sold the property, the variance would expire. MRS. SPERO-Well, that was my intention in obtaining this Use Variance. My reason, just for the benefit of the Board members who weren't here the last time, I have a handicapped child, and it's really important for me to be able to be at home with that child. He's extremely impulsive. He needs continuous supervision. He's a Special Ed student in Queensbury school. By me seeking work outside of my home, it really puts me in a very awkward situation with this boy. He's 14 years old now. He's not going to get the same type of supervision at a regular babysitter's that he would get at home with his parents. That's my main reason in wanting to have, to be able to continue doing this. I've prepared a statement for the last time. I don't know whether you want to read this or not, but I haven't had any problems with any neighbors in the area. Everybody has given me a very positive response to what I do. It's a very quiet little operation. It's not even totally in my whole garage. Mr. Green was there. It's not even a full half of my garage. All I have is some quilts hanging up out there. I have a little sign on the side of the road. I'm not doing anything to upset the neighborhood. I don't have flashing lights or traffic running in and out of there all day. I really, really would like to be able to continue to do that. MR. STONE-Actually, I've seen it. I was here that night, if you think you have to talk to me only. MRS. SPERO-No. MR. STONE-I mean, I did hear the whole discussion. MRS. SPERO-Right. At the time that I purchased the property, this was not an issue. I was still a stay at home mom. Things changed. Our financial situations. Mortgage payments get higher. It' s tough out there, and I think by denying me this is really cruel. The criteria that I was not meeting was not even to get a reasonable return on the property. I really don't think this has any bearing on the issue, what I'm going to be able to sell my property for 30 years down the road. I really don't think that should be part of the issue. That was one of the things that was said here. I stated I was perfectly willing to comply with any restrictions that were put upon me with this variance, and stick to them, including the use of the sign and anything else. - 47 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/18/96) MR. THOMAS-Is that it? MRS. SPERO-I guess. I can ramble on and on. I don't think that's going to be. MR. THOMAS-Does Staff have anything they want to add to that, other than what they've already said? MR. GORALSKI-I'd just reiterate that the Board has the right to re- hear an application if you want to. If you don't want to, you simply determine that you've made your decision and that's it. It's the Board's prerogative. MR. STONE-John, was the Board mis-informed? MR. GORALSKI-I was not at the meeting. transpired. So I don' t know what MR. STONE-Well, certainly, the discussion that I heard, as a member of the audience that night, was that the Use Variance goes on with the property forever and couldn't be conditioned. That's what I remember hearing. MRS. SPERO-That's right. MR. GORALSKI-I don't know what happened that night, but certainly conditions can be put on the property. I don't know whether there have been court cases that challenged that type of provision, however, that provision has been placed on variances in the past in Queensbury, and in other towns that I've experienced, but in general, absent that condition, a Use Variance goes with the land. MR. GREEN-Unless the use has ceased for, what, 18 months? MR. GORALSKI-Eighteen months. Now, also understand that that use is not any commercial use. If a Use Variance, for example, for this property were granted for the previous application, it would be specifically for the business, the quilt business that was approved. MR. GREEN-If somebody else wanted to buy the house and sell quilts out of the garage, that Use Variance would go with it, but any other? MR. GORALSKI-Right. They couldn't come in and decide they were going to sell firewood or sell washing machines. MR. GREEN-That would be a different use. MR. STONE-So the restriction would be the specific use. MR. GORALSKI-Whenever you grant a Use Variance, it's for the specific use that is applied for. MRS. LAPHAM-And it would be difficult to have an expansion of that use, right? MR. GORALSKI-Well, it would be a nonconforming use. Any expansion of a nonconforming use requires a Use Variance. MR. KARPELES-But even that specific use you can limit. So that it does not go along with the property. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. GREEN-Like we have a double whammy on there, you could limit it, and then even if somehow they got around that, they could only - 48 - '--" - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/18/96) sell quilts. MRS. LAPHAM-And lets say Mrs. Spero sells three quilts, somebody else says, okay, I'm going to use the whole garage and sell six, we could limit that, too, that size. MR. GORALSKI-You could limit the area that is used in the business. You can't limit the volume of the business. If she has a great year and sells 20 quilts instead of 2, you cannot limit that. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. That makes sense. MRS. SPERO-And also, I'm sure I stated last time, this is a pretty seasonal thing. I'm not going to have the quilts hanging in the garage with the door open and the snow blowing in there on them either. I mean, it's pretty much for the warmer months and once the summer is over, that's pretty much it. I mean, it's not even an all year round thing. I mean, that would even be a stipulation you could put on there, I would only be able to do this from June to December, or from April to October or something like that. I would certainly be willing to comply with any measures that. MR. GORALSKI-There's one other thing! want to bring up, that I think's very important to Mrs. Spero. That is, that although you may not think that the questions regarding reasonable return and that type of thing are relevant. That is the State law, and those are the questions that the Board has to answer. So if they choose to re-hear this, you have to address those questions and the Board has to be satisfied with the answers to those specific questions. Whether or not the Board thinks they're relevant or I think they're relevant, that's what the law says. MRS. SPERO-But they are allowed to vote on that, and regardless of not meeting those particular criteria, they're still allowed to vote on it. MR. GORALSKI-The State law says you have to meet those criteria. MR. MENTER-In fact, that was, and I'm not opposed to re-hearing this, if the rest of the Board agrees to that, but the intent of the motion, if you look at that over, you look back at the motion, was, I think, at least in illY mind, and I'm pretty sure that the verbiage of the motion said that it was denied because you did not show that there was a reasonable, that you could get a reasonable return on that property if it was used as residential exclusively, and that was arrived at, I think, based on a pretty strict interpretation of what he just said, the State law saying that we have to follow that criteria, and I think that was more to the point of the decision that was arrived at, less than control, in illY mind, less than control of the application of that variance. Again, I'm not opposed to re-hearing it if every other member of this Board wants to re-hear it. MRS. SPERO-There's just one thing that's just not really clear to me on this. If I don't meet all the criteria by answering these questions, or showing that I do meet the criteria, I don't understand why the Board is allowed to vote on that and vote in my favor or not in my favor if I don't meet the criteria, before it's even heard. I'm not clear on that. I mean, if you're able to vote on that, I can't see why that's such an important issue in this whole case. MR. GREEN-With a Use Variance, we have to meet all five of those questions, essentially, positively. MRS. SPERO-I understand. MR. GREEN-Before we can approve. - 49 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/18/96) MR. MENTER-I think the answer to your question is, each one of us is our own person. I interpret the Code and the precedents that have been set in legal cases and everything else my way, and I have to go by what X think. He looks at the same things and comes up with a different conclusion. MRS. SPERO-So, in other words, you may think that I meet the criteria while you think that I do not. MR. MENTER-Or vice versa. MRS. LAPHAM-Right, it's an interpretation. MRS. SPERO-All right. So, originally, your thought was that I did not meet the criteria. Therefore, no matter what I said or did or what color my quilts were, you weren't going to grant that, because I couldn't get a reasonable return on the property. MR. MENTER-That's information, myself. the only way that I could process I'm just being honest with you. that MRS. SPERO-Right, okay, and I'm just trying to understand. MR. STONE-Each of us has to be satisfied that all four Use Variance criteria are met in a positive way. MR. MENTER-And that's not to say it might change in my mind, that something might change it and I might say, ah ha, that does effect that, and I can get around that. You're dealing with people. Unfortunately, you're dealing with people. MRS. SPERO-Well, I hope I'm dealing with some understanding people. I just feel that what I'm doing is not so unique to the area that I'm exclusively going to be the only little business operation on the road there. There's many, many other little things going on on that road. There's a guy up the road selling squash and tomatoes, and somebody else is selling nightcrawlers and somebody else has got something else going on up there. If I get shut down, I think that they should be, too, and then what is going to say about our town? I mean, you're not helping your citizens to have a livelihood in your community? Other towns allow these things. It's not that rare of a thing that people try to have a little bit of a home business, and operate out of their homes. There's hair cutters. MR. GORALSKI-I have to say this one more time because I really want you to understand this, okay. That may all be true, but the point is, there's a Zoning Ordinance, and there's criteria laid out in State law that has to be met to grant a variance. It's a legal issue. It's not an emotional issue, and you have to address all of those issues. I'm not saying you can't. MRS. SPERO-But they're telling me that meeting their criteria is by how they're viewing it in their eyes, but I mean, it's either yes or no, and you're drawing a very fine line. MR. GORALSKI-There is a very fine line. You're absolutely right. MR. GREEN-And if something happens and you don't like how we decide, and you want to sue the Board, then it's the judge that's going to decide what side of the line we're on. MR. STONE-We'd like to think that nobody would sue us, but that's impossible. MRS. SPERO-I just couldn't imagine doing that, but anyway. MR. THOMAS-Do you want that in the form of a motion? - 50 - -- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/18/96) MR. GORALSKI-Yes. You need that in the form of a motion. MOTION THAT WE ALLOW THE APPLICANT, JUDE SPERO, TO RE-APPLY FOR A USE VARIANCE FOR A HOME OCCUPATION AND RETAIL SALE TO SELL QUILTS OUT OF HER HOME, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by William Green: Duly adopted this 18th day of September, 1996, by the following vote: MR. GORALSKI-I believe, now I'm not sure because Mrs. Spero said she talked to Jim about this, I believe you're not re-hearing that application. I believe you're allowing the applicant to re-apply. MR. THOMAS-Okay, for the same application? MR. GORALSKI-For the same request. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-Because you've already denied that. MR. THOMAS-Yes, all right. MR. GORALSKI-Does everybody understand what we're going to do? We're going to re-hear a new Use Variance for the same. MR. STONE-If all seven of us vote on yes. MR. GORALSKI-Correct. MR. THOMAS-All seven have to vote yes? MR. GORALSKI-Everyone who's voting has to vote yes. If there's one no vote, then you can't re-hear it. MR. THOMAS-What about abstentions? MR. GORALSKI-Abstentions don't count. not counted. If people abstain, that's MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-That's the discussion I had with the Town Attorney. MR. THOMAS-I just wanted to get that on the record. I know what was said, but I just wanted to have it on the record so that everybody understood. All right. MR. O'LEARY-Question, Mr. Chairman. We're re-hearing it to receive new information? MR. THOMAS-No. We're hearing a new variance. MR. O'LEARY-A request for a new and different variance. MR. THOMAS-It's a new variance for the same thing. MR. O'LEARY-We forget the relationship to the old variance. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Take the old one and throw to hear a new variance for the same request. understand. Just pretend that you've never Jude Spero. it away. We're going Okay. Does everybody heard of or seen Mrs. MR. O'LEARY-One other question that may be more appropo for you. Do we have to vote on hearing a new variance? I mean, can't anyone submit another new variance? - 51 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/18/96) MR. GORALSKI-Not if it's for the same request, not if it's for something they've already been denied for. AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. O'Leary, Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Stone MR. THOMAS-We will hear a new Use Variance for the same project on Ridge Road. So you have to go through the whole process allover again, be put on the agenda probably, and it has to be submitted by the 25th of September to get it on the October agenda. Okay. MRS. SPERO-All right. MR. THOMAS-So you've got another shot at the same thing. MR. KARPELES-And you realize this might turn out exactly the same way as the last one did, and we heard all those arguments that you gave tonight the last time. MR. THOMAS-So, anything new you've got, bring it with you. Okay? MRS. SPERO-I thank you all very much for allowing me the opportunity to be heard again on this. John, do the same rules apply as last time? MR. GORALSKI-What rules are those? MRS. SPERO-Well, you had allowed me to continue, as long as I was applying for a variance. MR. GORALSKI-Give me a call tomorrow. MRS. SPERO-Okay. MR. THOMAS-We don't want to hear this. Okay. AREA VARIANCE NO. 67-1996 TYPE II SFR-1A MARGUERITE ELDRIDGE OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE NORTHEAST CORNER OF BENNETT ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE AN EXISTING LOT INTO TWO LOTS AT THE CORNER OF AVIATION ROAD AND BENNETT ROAD. THE NEW LOT WOULD NOT CONFORM TO THE AREA REQUIREMENTS OF THE SFR-1A DISTRICT. THE NEW LOT WOULD NOT HAVE THE REQUIRED LOT WIDTH NEEDED FOR A LOT LOCATED ON AN ARTERIAL ROAD. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE AREA REQUIREMENTS LISTED IN SECTION 179 - 2 0 AND THE REGULATIONS REGARDING THE WIDTH OF LOTS ON ARTERIAL ROADS LISTED IN SECTION 179 - 3 OC. TAX MAP NO. 83-1-12.1 LOT SIZE: 1.46 ACRES SECTION 179-20, 179-30C ROYCE ELDRIDGE, SR., REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. THOMAS-Next on the agenda is an Area Variance that was left open, that was tabled on the 28th of August, for Marguerite Eldridge and Royce Eldridge. So, I don't know if everybody has their application for that. The application was read into the record last time. Just read the tabling motion. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. Zoning Board of Appeals, record of resolution, Fred Carvin Chairman at that time, Chris Thomas, Secretary at that time, to Marguerite Eldridge, Royce Eldridge, Sr., 15 Forest Lane, Queensbury, Project for Marguerite Eldridge "The Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed the following request at the below stated meeting and has resolved the following. On August 28, 1996, Variance No. 67-1996, Area Variance was tabled. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 67-1996 MARGUERITE ELDRIDGE, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: - 52 - '----' -' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/18/96) For further information from the applicant. Duly adopted this 28th day of August, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mr. O'Leary, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Green Sincerely, Fred A. Carvin, Chairman Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals FC/sed cc: Pat Taylor, Realty USA" MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mrs. Taylor was here last time representing you, and we had other questions other than what you have in your hand, and she couldn't answer them. So you are here tonight, you being, you are Royce Eldridge. You have Power of Attorney over your mother's estate? MR. ELDRIDGE-Yes, I do, right. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Last time, Mr. Carvin asked for some financial information, tax records, or something. I don't have the minutes of that meeting. MR. GORALSKI-My understanding is that, this was to extend a variance that was previously granted. The variance had expired, and he was seeking the same variance. MR. THOMAS-Yes, 69-1994. It's because, the only reason that they were here is because they did not go to the County and file the maps. That's the only reason that they're here. MR. GORALSKI-And file the map. That's the only reason they're back here. The original variance was approved based, partially on a financial hardship, in that the owners of the property could not pay their taxes. Mr. Carvin was looking for some proof that that was the case, that the taxes could not be paid unless these lots were sold. That's my understanding of that part of the discussion. MR. THOMAS-Okay, and you have that with you? MR. ELDRIDGE-These are the unpaid taxes from last year. Now I'm facing this years. MR. THOMAS-Yes, which are due in another two weeks. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. ELDRIDGE-Right. MR. ELDRIDGE-What happened to me was, I'll tell you a short story here. Mr. Nacy did my surveying, and my last discussion with him at the site was he asked, do you want me to follow through and do everything you need to be done to cover the tracks with the Town of Queensbury, and I said yes. I don't want to be out on the limb somewhere. Well, unfortunately what he did was, he didn't follow through, and what he did was he wrote a nice letter for me, to tell me exactly how to finish the project, only out of six of these plot - 53 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/18/96) maps that he made up for me, he took the letter and he stuck it inside one of the plot maps. Now, I didn't look through all six plot maps to find a letter from Mr. Nacy to tell me what to do. So, unfortunately, that's why the years have expired, nothing happened, because I had no idea what to do, and that's why I left that to Mr. Nacy that didn't have it. So I do need to sell this lot to get the taxes paid on the property. I just haven't found a buyer. A buyer is very hard. MR. THOMAS-You don't have a buyer for the lot yet. MR. ELDRIDGE-Well, according to Pat Taylor, she does have a construction man, and she wouldn't tell me the name, but he's looking at it, and what his idea is to buy the lot, would be to pay me so much down, and then go ahead and build a house, and then pay me the balance of what is owed on the lot, which is perfectly all right with me, just as long as I get rid of the taxes. That's my primary thing. MRS. LAPHAM-Plus, the worst that could happen is you might own a house, too. MR. THOMAS-Another one to pay taxes on. MR. ELDRIDGE-Somebody said that to me, too, but I wouldn' t be interested in owning anymore houses. I'll be perfectly frank with you. MR. THOMAS-In the Staff Notes, when we granted the variance back in 1994, December 21st to be exact, we divided that, a 1.4 acre L- shaped lot into a 0.4 acre and a 1 acre lot. This application says you want a 0.922 acre lot and a 0.427 acre lot. MR. ELDRIDGE-Well, according to Mr. Nacy, I've talked to him about this problem, and his answer was that it would take 38 feet more on road frontage to Aviation Road to comply to the 1 acre on the existing house that's there, but to take 38 feet, to add it to that lot and take it away from the existing lot I'm trying to sell, would be detrimental to try to sell the lot, that the 38 feet would interfere with boundaries and things that he's drawn up, that was drawn up on the plot plan. So to explain to the Board that it's detrimental to the lot and the lot is in compliance with everything I've done here throughout all these years of surveying these lots out. He just drew a straight line following from the rear of the lot straight through to Aviation Road, and made the lot in compliance with everything else that's been done in years past. So we were hoping to ask the indulgence of the Board to overlook this little problem here of maybe keeping 38 feet with a lot that's for sale, versus giving it to a lot that is just not needed. MR. O'LEARY-I believe one of the questions last time was, in as much as it has carried on for two years, is there really evidence of financial hardship? MR. ELDRIDGE-Well, I work at Queensbury school. I make $25,000 a year after 30 years of driving a school bus, and I don' t have $2,000 extra to pay on this because I went through $8,000 worth of damage to one of the houses that I rent, and now I'm looking at almost $9,000 in the last occupants that came from Warren County, and I say, no, I don't have the finances to pay these taxes. I really don't. MR. O'LEARY-I think at the last meeting we did not know whether or not the taxes had been paid or had not been paid. MR. ELDRIDGE-Well, they haven't. Last years aren't paid, and this years is coming up, like he said, in two weeks. - 54 - -- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/18/96) MR. THOMAS-Yes, another two weeks. MR. STONE-Do you live in the house on the other property? MR. ELDRIDGE-No. I try to rent it. It's not rented. $9,000 worth of damage that has to be repaired. There's MR. STONE-That's the one? television set outside. Because I notice there's a big MR. ELDRIDGE-Yes, that's the dump, right. The Aviation Road dump. Thanks to John, though, we got rid of seven automobiles that these occupants had piled around the house, and he helped me out in that situation. I got rid of them. Now I got rid of the people. Now I've got $9,000, I'm fighting an insurance company, to find out how much they're going to give me for vandalism and damage. MR. THOMAS-They really need 38 feet, John, along that road front? MR. GORALSKI-I figure if you move that whole line 17 feet, still, you're talking a little over 3,000 square feet, is what you're short on Lot Number Two. MR. ELDRIDGE-But giving it back to the other lot doesn't do anything for that lot whatsoever. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. ELDRIDGE-I made the boundary. cedar hedge that we planted there, straight line, from the back acres. The boundary is actually the which is kind of like in a MR. GORALSKI-It doesn't appear that you're going to gain anything by making Lot Number Two a complete one acre lot. As a matter of fact, Lot One is the smaller lot to begin with. MR. MENTER-What was that? I missed that statement. MR. GORALSKI-I don't think you're going to gain anything by adding 3,000 square feet to Lot Number Two. In fact, you're going to make the smaller lot even smaller. MR. MENTER-Right. Normally I wouldn't agree with you, but I agree with you in light of the fact that nothing else is that size. MR. GORALSKI-Right. All the other lots in the area are similar to Lot One. MR. MENTER-Nothing else comes close to conforming there. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. ELDRIDGE-Right. MR. THOMAS-So that answers one of the questions there. MR. MENTER-Did we open and close the public hearing on this? MR. THOMAS-No, the public hearing is still open. MR. GORALSKI-The public hearing's open. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Does anyone else have any questions of the applicant? If not, the public hearing is open. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT - 55 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/18/96) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-All right. Lets talk about this one. We'll start with Bonnie this time. MRS. LAPHAM-Basically, I really don't think I have a problem with it, in that, like Mr. Eldridge says, he has shown a hardship, and I don't think that it's going to be a detriment to the neighbors or the community. Nothing else in the area conforms. So I think, as I said, with those reasons, particularly the fact that he possibly has a buyer, and you're not really accomplishing anything by making the other lot larger. I think I would go along with this. MR. THOMAS-Bob? MR. KARPELES-I agree with Bonnie. The only thing is, I really don't know, I couldn't propose a motion because I don't know what relief he's looking for here. What is the relief. MR. THOMAS-I've got the motion all, I just used the old motion, just change a few numbers. MR. KARPELES-Good. No, I don't have a problem with it. MR. THOMAS-Dave? MR. MENTER-Yes. It's okay by me. MR. THOMAS-Bill? MR. GREEN-Seeing as how it's a continuance of an old variance, it will even make it a little bit better as we go along here, I don't have a problem with it. MR. THOMAS-Don? MR. O'LEARY-Yes. I agree with Bill that it's a continuation, even though the numbers are slightly different, but it is a continuation. MR. THOMAS-And Lou, down at the end. MR. STONE-Absolutely no problem whatsoever. I concur with everybody, everything that I've heard, and if Mr. Eldridge can sell it, more power to him. MR. THOMAS-The only other thing is that this is on an arterial highway, and he needs twice the required road frontage. MR. MENTER-It fronts on Bennett. MR. THOMAS-Yes, that's where, the last variance said any curb cuts with this lot would come off Bennett Road, not off Aviation. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MRS. LAPHAM-Well, that even shows it on the map here. driveway coming off of Bennett Road there. See the MR. MENTER - Make sure nonconforming lots. the motion addresses creating two MR. THOMAS-Yes. MRS. LAPHAM-And you've read your paper. supposed to do this time. Right? You know what you're MR. ELDRIDGE-Well, Mr. Nacy has promised me he will follow through - 56 - '- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/18/96) this time. MR. STONE-We won't see this in 13 or 14 months again? MR. ELDRIDGE-Gosh, I hope not. MR. GORALSKI-This will require subdivision approval. MR. THOMAS-Yes, with the Planning Board. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. THOMAS-But you already did that the last time, too, you went through the Planning Board approval on that, I do believe. It was just, the map was never filed. MR. GORALSKI-Yes, so it's expired. So he's got to get subdivision approval. MR. THOMAS-Yes, because it has to be filed with the County 30 days after? MR. GORALSKI-Sixty days. MR. THOMAS-Sixty days after the Planning Board decision. All right. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 67-1996 MARGUERITE E. ELDRIDGE AND ROYCE ELDRIDGE, POWER OF ATTORNEY, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Karpeles: The applicant is proposing to divide a 1.4 acre L-Shaped lot creating a 0.472 acre lot and a 0.922 acre lot. In order for the applicant to undertake this proposed division, they would need relief from Section 179-20 which requires a lot size of one acre. I move that we grant 0.528 acres of relief from that Section. The applicant also needs relief from Section 179-30, which deals with frontage on a collector road where the frontage has to be double the lot width. I would again move that we grant relief of 184.64 feet from that particular Section. By the granting of this Area Variance the benefit to the applicant which would allow her to sell the vacant lot in order to pay taxes as weighed against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community would be minimal. There would not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood or any detriment to the nearby properties by the granting of this Area Variance. There does not appear to be any other feasible method for-the applicant to accomplish their goal, and it would appear that this is the minimum variance necessary and adequate to protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. I would also add that any curb cuts for this lot will come off Bennett Road and not Aviation Road. The review of the Short Environmental Assessment Form indicates a negative declaration. This variance is based on a map of a proposed subdivision of land of Marguerite Eldridge, dated July 26, 1995, prepared by Charles T. Nacy, Licensed Land Surveyor. Duly adopted this 18th day of September, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Stone, Mr. O'Leary, Mr. Green, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE MR. THOMAS-So everything is all granted. So you know the drill. Planning Board, within 60 days up to the County, get it filed, and we really don't want to see you here again. - 57 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/18/96) MR. ELDRIDGE-I really don't want to be here again, to be honest with you. I just wanted to tell you I'm really impressed. You people are very knowledgeable. I'm glad I came and sat. MR. THOMAS-Yes. You should have been here for the Mooring Post. We have this one Sign Variance for Color Ad Sign Corp. Do we want to hear it? Do we want to table it? MR. MENTER-Well, lets open it up, see if there's any comment out there. MR. THOMAS-Okay. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 80-1996 TYPE: UNLISTED PC-1A COLOR AD SIGN CORP. OWNER: K-MART CORPORATION DIX AVENUE & QUAKER ROAD INTERSECTION K-MART STORE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL WALL SIGN TO THE EXISTING K-MART LOCATION ON DIX AVENUE. THIS PROPOSAL WOULD INCREASE THE NUMBER OF WALL SIGNS AT THIS LOCATION BEYOND WHAT IS ALLOWED BY THE SIGN ORDINANCE. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE REGULATIONS REGARDING THE NUMBER OF WALL SIGNS LISTED IN SECTION 140-6,B. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 9/11/96 TAX MAP NO. 110-1-2.8 LOT SIZE: 28.98 ACRES SECTION 140-6,B STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 80-1996, Color Ad Sign Corp., Meeting Date: September 18, 1996 "APPLICANT: Color Ad Sign Corp for K-MART PROJECT LOCATION: Dix Avenue PROPOSED PROJECT AND CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE: The applicant proposes to add an additional wall sign to the existing K-Mart location on Dix Avenue. This proposal would increase the number of wall signs at this location beyond what is allowed by the Sign Ordinance. The sign would contain the message "Penske" and would be 31 square feet in size. Relief is being requested from the regulations concerning the number of wall signs allowed in Section 140-6,B. 1. How would you benefit from the granting of this Sign Variance? Relief would allow the applicant to use an additional wall sign at this location. 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 increase the number of wall signs at this location and 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? Signage currently exists at this location which identifies this area of K-Mart as an auto service center. 4. Is the amount of relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The applicant is seeking an additional wall sign at this location. 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 This location has signage above and beyond what the Sign Ordinance allows. Signage exists at this location which identifies this area of the site as an automotive service center. SEQR: Unlisted, short form EAF review needed." MRS. LAPHAM- "At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 11th day of September 1996, the above application for a Siqn Variance ·for the addition of "PENSKE" wordinq above current siqn COpy "Auto Service" at the K-Mart store. was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Disapprove Comments: The Warren County Planning Board believes that the Applicant should conform to the Town of Queensbury Sign Ordinance. " Signed C. powel South, Chairperson. MR. THOMAS-Well, since no one's here to represent the applicant, and Warren County has denied this application at their hearing, it's going to take a super majority or five positive votes to pass - 58 - '- -.' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/18/96) this Sign Variance request. Since no one's here to speak for them, we're going to have to talk about it among ourselves, I guess. MR. GORALSKI-And have a public hearing. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. There is some public comment. MR. THOMAS-Is there? Does anybody have any questions, to start with? MR. KARPELES-Well, do we have any idea why they're not here? Have they told anybody they weren't coming? MR. GORALSKI-No. MR. THOMAS-All right. Then I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. THOMAS-Do we have any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. Okay. The first letter is from Garvey/Hundai Volkswagon, September 13, 1996, Town of Queensbury Department of Community Development, Zoning Office, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, NY 12804 Attention: Christian G. Thomas, Secretary, Zoning Board of Appeals, RE: Color Ad Sign for K-Mart Corporation "Dear Christian: In response to the notice we received from you, Garvey Volkswagon Hundai is opposed to the additional wall sign requested by K-Mart. Our opinion is that no matter how big the corporation or the building it uses, the sign regulations are fair and should be adhered to by all businesses. There should be no exception." Sincerely, an unreadable signature, and he is president. Okay. PSM Autobody, Town of Queensbury Department of Community Development, Zoning Office, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, NY 12804, Attention: Christian G. Thomas, Secretary, Zoning Board of Appeals, RE: Color Ad Sign for K-Mart Corporation "Dear Christian: In response to the notice we received from you, PSM Autobody is opposed to the additional wall sign requested by K- Mart. Our opinion is that no matter how big the corporation or the building it uses, the sign regulations are fair and should be adhered to by all businesses. There should be no exceptions." Sincerely, another unprintable signature, president. MR. GORALSKI-Shaun Garvey. MR. THOMAS-Does that do it for the correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-That does it for the correspondence. MR. THOMAS-I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Lou, what do you think? MR. STONE-I think we should deny the variance. It's unnecessary sign. They have plenty of signs there. I know, as it is stated by the Staff, they are in excess of the Ordinance. It was granted, but we don't have to grant anymore, as far as I'm concerned. MR. THOMAS-Don? MR. O'LEARY-I don't think that the public testimony has convinced me. MR. THOMAS-Bill? MR. GREEN-I would have to go along with Don, that the applicant - 59 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/18/96) hasn't shown to me that he needs an additional sign. MR. THOMAS-Dave? MR. MENTER-They don't seem to meet the criteria, in my estimation. I mean, they already have an excess amount of signage over what the Ordinance allows, and I don't see any unique need for this. It seems like their auto service area is well defined, and that's what they're claiming would be the benefit. So I don't see it. MR. THOMAS-Bob? MR. KARPELES - I guess anything I'm going to say is going to be redundant, but I agree with everything that's been said. Also I drove by there today and I looked at that, and actually that's pretty good looking just the way it is there, and I think that adding that would detract from the appearance of that building. MR. THOMAS-Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-I feel the same, because if you look at them, they have, I think, something like six small signs and one large one, and if they want "Penskell on there that badly, then they can put "penske" where "Auto Service" used to be, as far as I'm concerned. MR. THOMAS-I have the same opinion as the rest of the Board members. What's next, if they get this "Penske Auto Service"? Is there going to be somebody else's name in front of the Pharmacy? Is there going to be somebody else's name in front of the restaurant? I mean, where does this all end? To me, this is an unnecessary sign. They have more than enough Sign Variances. In fact, I think we spent two whole meetings on their Sign Variances, and I don't see any need for any additional signs on that building, but what they have. Having said that, I will look for a motion. MOTION TO DENY SIGN VARIANCE NO. 80-1996 COLOR AD SIGN CORP., Introduced by William Green who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Karpeles: The applicant proposes to add an additional wall sign to the existing K-Mart location on Dix Avenue. The proposal would increase the number of wall signs over and above what is allowed by the Sign Ordinance. The benefit to the applicant would be that they would be able to have an additional wall sign to identify the auto service area. There does not appear to be any detrimental effect to the character, and health and safety of the neighborhood, but there is concern as to what may be next in the line of signage. There does not seem to be any feasible alternatives. The amount of relief is substantial due to the signage presently is already above what is allowed by the Ordinance. Duly adopted this 18th day of September, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. O'Leary, Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE MR. THOMAS-The application is denied. No sign. Any other business before the Board? I make a motion we adjourn. MR. STONE-Second. On motion meeting was adjourned. - 60 - '--" ----" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/18/96) RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christian Thomas, Chairman - 61 -