Loading...
1998-04-22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/22/98) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING APRIL 22, 1998 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS THOMAS, CHAIRMAN BONNIE LAPHAM, SECRETARY PAUL HAYES LEWIS STONE BRIAN CUSTER JOSEPH PORTER ROBERT MC NALLY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR -CHRIS ROUND STENOGRAPHER -MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS AREA VARIANCE NO. 6-1998 TYPE II JON AND SUSAN DOUGHER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 122 SUNNYSIDE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO BUILD A 2 CAR GARAGE WHICH REQUIRES RELIEF FROM HEIGHT RESTRICTION OF SECTION 179-16. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 61- 1997 TAX MAP NO. 50-1-85 LOT SIZE: 0.14 ACRES SECTION: 179-16 JON & SUSAN DOUGHER, PRESENT MRS. LAPHAM-“Jon & Susan Dougher, 122 Sunnyside North, Queensbury The Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed the following request at the below stated meeting and has resolved the following: Meeting Date: October 29, 1997 Variance File No. 61-1997 Area Approved Motion that a review of the Short Environmental Assessment Form indicates that there are no negative impacts brought about by this project, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for th its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham, Duly adopted this 29 day of October, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles” This is the first. I thought it was the tabling motion I was reading. It’s the first thing that we did, and now I think we’re going to be going. MR. STONE-They were here last month, the tabling motion. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay, but it was the first motion approving it, and then when they came back and wanted more height. MR. THOMAS-Right. MRS. LAPHAM-We don’t have it. MR. THOMAS-Apparently, we don’t have the tabling motion from last month. MRS. LAPHAM-No, we have the approval. MR. THOMAS-But anyway, we’ve had deep discussions about this, and I do believe we asked the applicant last time if there was any way that he could lower the roof down to the 16 foot level as required by law. MR. STONE-Do you want to read the minutes of that? MR. THOMAS-No, I just want to read the tabling motion. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. THOMAS-I don’t have it. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/22/98) MRS. LAPHAM-I don’t have it, either. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Detached structure, the maximum height is 16 feet, and the applicant is asking for 18 feet. Is the applicant here? Do you want to come up here. We’re going to take care of this one way or the other tonight. MR. STONE-Here’s the tabling. MR. THOMAS-Here it is, Bonnie. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. “Motion to table Area Variance No. 6-1998 Jon & Susan Dougher, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: So that the two other Board members can come up to speed on this variance and the applicant can produce th more information at the Board’s request. Duly adopted this 18 day of March, 1998 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Porter, Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes” MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. Custer and Mr. Hayes, have you familiarized yourselves with the notes of this? Okay. For the applicant, is there any way you can bring that down to two feet, down to 16 feet to bring it within regulations? You’ve looked at all kinds of plans and tried all kinds of things? MRS. DOUGHER-We tried everything. We’ve worked with Curtis Lumber, the contractor, and there is absolutely no way. MR. DOUGHER-Except for a flat roof. MRS. DOUGHER-Which we don’t want to do. MR. THOMAS-I don’t want to see a flat roof. MRS. DOUGHER-No. We don’t, either. That was the only suggestion that anybody could come up with, and that’s something we absolutely. MR. STONE-But that was to get as much space as you wanted. You could still get some storage space at the required height. You might have to, more like a crawl attic, rather than a crawl space. MR. DOUGHER-And I’m not getting any younger. MRS. DOUGHER-Right. Also we have some circumstances which would make it extremely hard for Jon to move around in an area like that, because he’s a partial amputee. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Does the Board have anymore questions for the applicant? MR. MC NALLY-Partial amputee? MRS. DOUGHER-Partial foot amputation. Right. MR. MC NALLY-Toes or something, on one foot? MR. DOUGHER-Yes. I mean, it just makes it difficult getting around, you know, balancing, if I don’t have to be crouched over lugging winter close up in the garage or something, I’d just as soon not have to do it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there anymore questions for the applicant before I open the public hearing? I’ll open the public hearing now. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this variance, in favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-We’ve done all the, there’s no new correspondence? 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/22/98) MRS. LAPHAM-No. MR. THOMAS-So, lets talk about this one. MRS. DOUGHER-Excuse me. Are you talking about letters? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MRS. DOUGHER-There should be a lot of correspondence, and I have copies of many letters. MR. THOMAS-Well, some we’ve read in there already, from the first time. Do you have any nd dated after the March 22 meeting? MRS. DOUGHER-Yes. MR. ROUND-You’d instructed the applicant to come back with an elevation and information from the owners on the other side of the road, if there were any concerns from them. MR. THOMAS-Yes. We didn’t get anything. Did they mail it? MR. ROUND-To be honest with you, I (lost words). MRS. DOUGHER-Actually, yesterday I hand carried two of them down and gave them to somebody there. MR. ROUND-If you want to bring them up here. We’ll just read them into the record. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. Nick and Karen Nichols, 122 Sunnyside North, Queensbury, NY “Zoning Board of Appeals: As the owner of the lots directly across the street from the garage to be built by Jon and Susan Dougher we wish to state our support for the height variance they request. We are aware that they need an additional 24 inches in height and think that this small amount would in no way cause any hindrance to our properties. We would have wanted to come to the April 22, 1998 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting to voice our support for the requested height variance but unfortunately will be out of town on that date. We hope the board will vote in favor of the Dougher’s height variance request. Sincerely, M. Brian Nichols Karen Nichols” Frank and Phyllis Riccio, 127 Sunnyside No. RE: Area Variance No. 6-1998 Jon and Susan Dougher “Zoning Board of Appeals: We are sending this letter in support of the Dougher’s request for a height variance concerning the garage which they want to build. A garage height of 18 ft. is not unreasonable and would not have an adverse effect on any surrounding properties. If anything, the garage would be an improvement to the character of the neighborhood. Overcrowding should not be an issue because on this particular stretch of Lake Sunnyside there is plenty of green land between properties and an unbuildable right-of-way borders the Dougher’s property. The normal height of a garage with overhead storage is 18 feet and to be able to have safe access to this storage space would greatly benefit the Dougher’s. We would like to note that all of the property owners and - or their families have been long term residents in this area of Lake Sunnyside and we hope the Board will vote in favor of this small variance requested by Jon and Susan Dougher. Respectfully, Frank and Phyllis Riccio” Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, from Bobby Riccio, 124 Sunnyside No. Queensbury “To Whom This May Concern: My property is next to where the Doughers want to build a garage and I fully support their request for a height variance. It has been brought to my attention that they only want 24 inches which would bring the height of the garage to 18 ft. at the peak making it the normal height of a garage with overhead storage. I think this is a very reasonable and small request and feel that their proposed garage could only be an asset to the character of the neighborhood and to the Dougher’s. I hope the Board will grant them the 24 inches that they request. Sincerely, Robert P. Riccio” RE: Jon and Susan Dougher, relief from height restriction, garage Section 179-16 “Zoning Board of Appeals: I fully support the request of the Dougher’s to build a garage with a garage with a height of 18 feet. The proposed garage would only enhance the quality of our neighborhood and the Dougher’s would greatly benefit from the additional 24 inches as they would obtain much needed storage space. I have seen the design of the garage they want to build and think it would look really nice. 24 inches is a small request and I hope the Board will vote to support the Dougher’s. Sincerely, Keith Barton 118 Sunnyside North Queensbury, NY 12804” From Mr. and Mrs. Harvey Raymond Sunnyside Lake, Queensbury “Zoning Board of Appeals: This letter is in regard to the proposed garage at said property. I have lived at Sunnyside lake for the past 25 years. The Dougher families have resided in Queensbury for the past 50+ years. Having attended many meetings at 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/22/98) Queensbury Town Hall, I have come to realize that exceptions/provisions have been made to grant variances for other residences in much more severe instances. Please take under consideration: 1. Twenty five + years as Queensbury tax payers. 2. Voting & involved community residents. 3. Cars removed off the streets during inclement weather - better enabling snow removal and safety for the area. 4. Enhancing/increasing value of property. The list could go on - Please consider the loss of long term families and loyal residents of Queensbury, by not allowing those people who want to grow with the community the necessities to live comfortably, 24” is not unreasonable. We are in favor of the addition of the proposed garage. Respectfully, Nancy Calano Raymond Harvey Raymond” That’s it. MR. THOMAS-All right. Are these just copies that we can have? MRS. DOUGHER-Yes, those are just copies, and I believe there were some other letters that were sent, too. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Well, we don’t have them right here. So, you know, there were five letters there that sounded like they were not opposed. All right. Are there any other questions for the applicant? If not, lets talk about it. Lew, what do you think? MR. STONE-Well, I was just reviewing what I said the last time. I was pretty negative. One of my concerns always is, what do the neighbors think? And you certainly have brought in some very positive observations by your neighbors, which is always reassuring to me. Your handicap is one you didn’t mention before. I kind of wish you had, but that doesn’t go with the garage. That goes with you, and if you sell it, the garage is still going to be there, but I think in light of the small amount of increase, plus the fact that the neighbors seem to be in agreement that it’s not a problem, I’d probably go along with it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jamie? MR. HAYES-Well, I, too, had to catch up on the minutes here, but I think I’m going to be opposed to the application. I really think that the applicant could get storage and still stay within the Code, and I think that we’ve protected the garage height, and quite honestly, I think 16 feet is quite a bit as it is. So I think that we’re talking about enough storage or more storage, and is that enough reason, using the test, to grant what I think is more than minimum relief. I think it is. So I would be opposed to the motion. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Brian? MR. CUSTER-Again, I had to catch up because I wasn’t here last month. The testimony of the neighbors was very helpful. That tends to sway me a little bit toward the Doughers. Wasn’t there a request to have a design shown, though? MR. THOMAS-Yes, we asked for an elevation. MR. CUSTER-Do you have that? MRS. DOUGHER-Yes, we have all that, yes. MR. CUSTER-Could I just take a quick look at that, if I could? MRS. LAPHAM-I’d like to look at that, too, you didn’t have it before. MR. MC NALLY-You had frontal elevations, I think. MR. DOUGHER-Right. MR. CUSTER-Last month you had frontal? MR. MC NALLY-We did. These aren’t drawn specifically for your lot? These are generic plans that Curtis Lumber provided to you, as part of the package or kit that they’re proposing? MR. DOUGHER-The package deal, yes. MRS. LAPHAM-But it’s going to look like this, right? 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/22/98) MRS. DOUGHER-That’s the way we want it to look. MRS. LAPHAM-I just want to get an idea of what it will look like. MR. CUSTER-Mr. Chairman, having reviewed those prints, I’m inclined to be in favor of the variance, but I’d still like to hear from other members of the Board before I make a final decision. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Joe? MR. PORTER-The neighbors are in favor of the applicant’s proposal. I can see different situations where that might be a problem, that the elevation was (lost words) the same elevation, that would be a problem, but seeing as how they are receptive to it, I don’t see a problem with it as long as it’s utilized as storage, if they keep it within that reason. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-For you two guys who weren’t here, we voted three to two to turn down last month, because we didn’t have four votes, we tabled it another month. I have continued problems with this. The Doughers were here several months ago, and I don’t think without the variance that we granted them at that time they would have been able to build a garage. This is a separate application, but in that earlier application, they presented a garage that was going to be a height that they agreed would be reasonable for that area, and given the close proximity to the road, I don’t like the idea of having to increase it any higher. I find that the request now for additional height indicates to me the problem is self created to some degree. The day after the fact, after getting the variance said, well, now we want, yet again, some more. There are feasible alternatives, and Jamie was referring to that when he said there’s other storage spaces. There’s more than ample and adequate storage space in that above the garage area. The really issue that we’re talking about, and that’s what we talked about last month, was can you stand up and walk around in a seven foot clearance as you would in a normal room, and there are feasible alternatives, and the alternative is not to have standing room, as you would, with a higher ceiling. There’s also the danger, I think, that maybe while the Doughers won’t use it as living space, someone in the future will. This garage is the same size as the house, as far as it’s 24 by 24, and in the area of Sunnyside where this thing is, it reminds me of Rockhurst, where the more that we’re allowing people to build garages close to the road, as we have here, it looks more and more like a Rockhurst type area, and I don’t think that’s appropriate for any neighborhood in Queensbury, and I don’t think we should encourage people in Sunnyside where the congestion is so high to get even more congested. I can understand people want to live on the lake, all right, but Sunnyside, those are camps and summer homes. They’ve got the absolute right to convert it to year round residence, but the additional space just keeps expanding beyond what I think is acceptable. Since there are feasible alternatives, and I think the problem is self created, I’m not in favor of it at all. MR. THOMAS-All right. Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-Well, I think I tend to agree with Brian and Mr. McNally, in that I really wasn’t in favor of it the last time and I’m still actually not, because the area is so congested. The only thing that gives me some kind of pause is that the neighbors are not only not complaining, they’re supportive of your request, and they don’t feel there’s any harm, but I’m not sure I could vote for more congestion in that area. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-I’m not sure where those neighbors were, but there are a lot of garages right on the road. There’s no setback at all. There’s a lot of houses close to the road, too. So, I mean, it would be only natural that people that have houses like that wouldn’t mind it, but it doesn’t add to the character of the neighborhood by now letting other people continue to build right on the road. I mean, it’s not the issue, but higher on the road. I don’t see it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I don’t see a problem with this application. Number One, the existing house is 24 by 24. There’s no storage in it. It’s a one story with an open basement, very little storage within the building. Number Two, the land behind the applicant’s property on the opposite side of Sunnyside Road north, it sits up on a hill, and I do believe there’s a bank of about five or six feet there, and if anyone ever built on there, they would have to meet the 30 foot setback requirements. So that would put them up even higher on the hill. So they’re going to be looking out over the house and the garage, and I don’t think that two feet will interfere with that view of any kind. Another thing is there’s a right-of-way next to the property which can’t be built on, and 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/22/98) as one of the letters stated, there’s a lot of space between all the properties. I’ll grant you that there are a lot of garages and houses built close to the road, but that pre-existed zoning. So we really can’t say anything about that. We already did give them a variance for a 10 foot setback from the road on that, and the only thing is, and like I said before at the last meeting, I think16 feet for an accessory structure of this type is too short. I really do, because in some cases it’ll force people to put flat roofs on here, and you’re going to have nothing but trouble with a flat roof in the North Country. Just ask anybody that has one. So, I have no problem. Really there’s no other means feasible to the applicant to achieve what he wants. There’s no undesirable change to the neighborhood or nearby properties. Is the request substantial? Two feet out of 18, that’s about 11%. MR. MC NALLY-I don’t think it’s substantial. That’s not the problem. MR. THOMAS-No. Will it have an adverse on the physical or environmental effects? I don’t think so because nobody has complained about it blocking their view. Everybody’s been for this thing, all around the neighborhood, and as we all know, we hang a lot on that. Was the difficulty self created? Yes, it was self created, but that’s the way a standard garage was prior to the zoning change in the Waterfront Residential, a year and a half ago. So at that point, I do believe it was 22 feet was the height, and they knocked it down to 16. They knocked six feet off it, and I think they knocked too much off it. So, as I said before, I’m in favor of this variance. So, would anyone like to make a motion to approve or a motion to deny? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 6-1998 JON & SUSAN DOUGHER , Introduced by Joseph Porter who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: 122 Sunnyside North. The applicant proposes to construct a two car garage. The proposed project requires relief of an additional two feet of restriction 179-16, and as far as Chapter 267, Town Law, by granting the relief, the benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be allowed to construct a garage for vehicle storage purposes. Feasible alternatives are limited to conformance with the Ordinance, and is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? Yes, and the relief may be interpreted as minimal. The effect on the neighborhood or community, as described, a minimal effect on the neighborhood is anticipated, and is this difficulty self created? No. That at no time should the storage area be occupied as a residence or a sleeping quarters, or any type of residential use. That goes with the variance. So that stays with that garage as long as it stands. So if the property changes owners, and that stipulation is still there, the next owners can’t convert it to an apartment or sleeping quarters or anything like that. It’s strictly used for storage. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of April, 1998, by the following vote: MR. DOUGHER-If I could say something. This storage area is only 12 by, I mean, this is like a pre-built truss roof, and the storage area up there is only 12 by 24. I mean, it’s not like you have the whole 24 by 20 foot. I know you people are really concerned about somebody living up there, but I’m guaranteeing you, nobody’s going to be camped out there. MR. STONE-Well, we’re making sure with the motion. MR. THOMAS-Yes. We’re just backing you up. That’s all we’re doing. MR. DOUGHER-Well, I just want you to know that the area that I have up there is only going to be 12 by 24 with a seven foot. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but we’ve seen a lot of storage areas like that along Cleverdale. All of a sudden there’s three beds up there, a sink and a toilet and everything else. You know, that’s not what it’s for. MR. STONE-It’s not a reflection on you. It’s a reflection on the fact that this, as Chris said, goes on with the property, forever. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I would just like to add that to it. AYES: Mr. Porter, Mr. Custer, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas NOES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mrs. Lapham 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/22/98) MR. THOMAS-So we have a four to three in favor. So that passes. I’ve got my lawyer right there telling me it passes. MRS. DOUGHER-Thank you. Will we be able to come in tomorrow to apply for the permit? MR. THOMAS-There’s the head guy right there with the tie on, if you have any problems, see him. MRS. DOUGHER-Thank you. MR. DOUGHER-Thank you. MR. THOMAS-You’re welcome. AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-1998 TYPE II MORGAN & MARY VITTENGL OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: END OF BIRDSALL ROAD APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A LAKEFRONT HOME. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-16. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 5-1996 TAX MAP NO. 40-1-33 LOT SIZE: 0.28 ACRES SECTION: 179-16 MORGAN VITTENGL, PRESENT MR. THOMAS-Do you want to read the tabling motion on that one? MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. “Motion to table Area Variance No. 9-1998 Morgan & Mary Vittengl, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham: So that we have more time to get more input since other things have come to the attention of the Zoning Board of Appeals, and also to allow the applicant and his neighbor to discuss the situation as it currently th exists. Duly adopted this 18 day of March, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Porter, Mr. McNally, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes” MR. THOMAS-Okay. Dr. Vittengl, the last meeting we left it you were going to talk to your neighbor to see if you could come up with some kind of solution. Have you done that? DR. VITTENGL-I’ve contacted my neighbor twice, and his reply that he wasn’t interested in talking. That’s the last verbal contact I’ve had with him. He had sent me a letter stating that if I’d be interested in purchasing five feet of property, for the amount of $20,000. That letter is part of the records I dropped off today, and that’s the way it’s been left. I’ve had no other contact with him, other than that. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any other questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-I have a question for Chris. How was this brought to our attention? Did the neighbor complain or was it we discovered it? MR. ROUND-Dr. Vittengl came in with an as built survey. We require as built surveys at the completion of a construction project, and it was identified on that. MR. STONE-And the neighbor never issued any formal complaint? MR. ROUND-There’s no complaint before the Town, as far as the applicant’s building activities, other than what you saw the night of the hearing. MR. STONE-Okay. MRS. LAPHAM-So if he purchased the five feet, would that bring him into compliance? MR. ROUND-He could comply with the previous variance. MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? Do we have any correspondence? 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/22/98) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. LAPHAM-Yes, but I can remember if I read it last time or not, from the Frejborgs. MR. THOMAS-You want to speak in favor of? Come on up here and tell us who you are and where you live. DON VITTENGL MR. VITTENGL-My name’s Don Vittengl. I live at 165 Mannis. I purchased the (lost word) property, three houses down from Morgan’s. MR. STONE-On the other road, though. MR. VITTENGL-The same side of the lake. MR. STONE-Yes, but five miles away by car. I’m kidding, two or three miles away by car. You and your neighbor are at extreme ends of the two roads, right? MR. VITTENGL-No. I’m situated here. MR. STONE-No, but Dr. Vittengl is. DR. VITTENGL-Actually, I have access from above and below. MR. STONE-You do? MR. VITTENGL-Yes. I have a right-of-way from down below as well. MR. STONE-So from Mannis? MR. VITTENGL-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. I’m sorry. MR. VITTENGL-Anyway, I’m situated on this parcel here. It would be Dr. O’Keefe here, the rental property who I guess didn’t file a complaint, did or didn’t, that’s Powell’s property, then my brother’s property. All I’m saying is that what he’s done is enhanced the overall value of the real estate in the area. There’s a transition from the camp effect to the more permanent residence, and to deny the enhanced feature of the lake I think is not beneficial to the area. DR. VITTENGL-I think there’s a letter, also, from the other neighbor. MRS. LAPHAM-I have a letter from Glenn Powell, and I have a letter, I’m going to read them in a minute, from the Frejborgs. DR. VITTENGL-Correct. The Frejborgs are the, I don’t know if I need to kind of run down what went on through this whole building process for the people that are unaware of it. MR. HAYES-I do have one question. I read the minutes, and I read them again now, and I’m still a little confused about when you were asked to move the camp to accommodate another neighbor, I mean, what actually transpired there. DR. VITTENGL-Yes. That’s what I meant as far as kind of a rundown. When I purchased the property it was an old Army green trailer, probably 60 to 80 years old. It sat 20 feet off the lake, approximately at the same level, and same distance from the lake as the Powell’s property. This old trailer encroached both property lines. The building itself sat on the east property, the Frejborgs, and there were structures, a deck and some railings, that sat essentially on the other property line where the Powells were. What I did, I was given a variance to build up above. So we demolished that, went up on the hill, with the land grades up and put the house up above on the top of the hill, essentially almost equal to where the Frejborgs were on the left side or the east side, rather. So, in doing that, they had some concerns, and your questions were in regard to that. MR. HAYES-So the Frejborgs, if I’m looking at yours, and looking at the lake, then the Frejborgs are on the left, then? 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/22/98) DR. VITTENGL-Correct. MR. HAYES-Okay. DR. VITTENGL-And so to accommodate them, the lot is only a 50 foot strip from front to back. To accommodate them I took and pushed the building over to the side of the Powells, took a deck off on that side and agreed to put in some shrubs, etc., etc. So that’s how the house got shifted to begin with. We didn’t discover the problem until the final survey was done, which was two months ago, or thereabouts, that it was about a foot and a half too close to his property. We were given a variance for seven feet. The house ended up at five and a half feet on that front corner, from the Powells property, and then apparently he had some concern with that, at the last meeting, but that’s what happened is basically it was a construction error. I, essentially, I gain nothing by having the house that much closer to that side. There’s no value for me. In fact, it’s less, because that side’s more of a gradual grade and it’s easier to come down toward the lake on that side than the other side. The other issue is that I already have approval, in that same variance that I got for the house, to build a two car garage there, and that was approved to be five feet from the property line, which is actually closer than I am now, with the house that I’ve constructed, that’s already been approved. So that’s in there as well. So I guess I’m a little confused. He, right now my house sits up on the hill. His house is down probably 10 to 20 feet below. The distance from my house to his is probably 55 feet. From my house to the Frejborgs is about 40 feet. So I’m actually further away from him than the Frejborgs, still, and I sit up on an elevation. When they look out the side windows, they see nothing. They see woods, and the frontage on the lake. So I sit up in back of them now. It is a rental property. He doesn’t live there year round. It comes up in a steep bank up in behind him, as well, so as far as visibility and such. I am sympathetic that it was a mistake, and I encroached a foot and a half, but I think given all the facts that he’s been trying to sell his house, and the enhanced value for everybody in the neighborhood, in regard to removing what was without question the worst site on the lake, with the septic, there was a 55 gallon drum that sat under the camp, and to do what I have done with the property to turn it around, and so that’s basically the background of it. MR. THOMAS-Any questions for Dr. Vittengl? MRS. LAPHAM-I just have one. Last meeting we were here, it was Mr. Powell that spoke, and he said that you had shrubs encroaching on his property and so forth. Has anything been resolved about that? Because the shrubs can be moved. DR. VITTENGL-I talked to him twice prior to the previous meeting, to ask him to get together, because I knew that I’d be going to the meeting. He didn’t want to get together. He said I’d be getting correspondence. The correspondence I got the day before the meeting was the same one that was entered at the last meeting. I went up the day of the meeting and cut the shrubs down. There was still frost in the ground. They couldn’t be moved. So those have all been cut down and removed. MRS. LAPHAM-When I went and looked at the site I thought they were gone, but I wanted to check with you. MR. STONE-Yes, and it’s true that there is a berm to the, between you and the Powells. I mean, it isn’t a straight, level lot. DR. VITTENGL-No, no. He sits down below. MR. STONE-Right. DR. VITTENGL-It’s a ridge that runs up above. He’s sitting down here, I’m up here, and there’s actually still another ridge that rises up to the west of me as well. MR. STONE-Another question that we had, we had it the last time. Technically, the corner of the wood deck, on the front, is closer than the 5.1. Did we ever come up with that number? MR. THOMAS-Is that that map, that as built map? It should be in there. Yes. It shows 5.1 feet. It’s probably closer than that, because the wood deck than the actual house. MR. STONE-It says four feet six inches. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/22/98) MR. CUSTER-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay. DR. VITTENGL-Yes. The deck is elevated off the front. There’s actually a post coming down from the deck that sits at that corner. That would be the closest. MR. MC NALLY-Is it 4.6 feet, or four feet six inches? MR. HAYES-Just four feet, six inches. MR. CUSTER-Four and a half feet, I guess. MR. THOMAS-So we allowed a variance of seven feet. So, two and a half feet. MR. HAYES-Is that as built survey on file? I mean, can we make reference to it? MR. THOMAS-Yes, it’s right there. MR. ROUND-It’s part of the building permit file. MRS. LAPHAM-Should I read these two letters in? MR. THOMAS-Lets see if there’s anyone else that wants to speak. Is there anyone else that would like to speak either in favor of or opposed to? Why don’t you read those two letters in. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. Town of Queensbury Zoning Board RE: Mary and Morgan Vittengl’s construction of a single family home at the end of Birdsall Road between 1996-98 Variance requested of side setbacks of Section 179-16 Zone: WR-1A/Tax Map No. 40-1-33/Section: 179- 16 Site Plan: 29-96 To the members of The Queensbury Zoning Board, We own the adjacent property to the west of Morgan and Mary Vittengl. Provisions were made to satisfy our concerns regarding the proximity of Vittengls’ new house and ours. The Vittengls have certainly built a home that has had a positive impact on both our properties and the lake in general. We are very pleased with the outcome of their project and feel that our concerns have been met. Frey & Anita Frejborg 153 Birdsall Road Queensbury” Dr. and Mrs. Morgan Vittengl, RE: Powell, Glenn E. & Regina and Vittengl, from Timothy Alden “Dear Morgan and Mary: This office has recently been consulted by Glenn E. Powell, relative to a situation which exists between your adjoining properties located on Glen Lake. As I understand it, you built a house on the property which is directly to the westerly line of the Powell property. This property currently violates the variance setback requires, previously approved by the Town of Queensbury. It is also my understanding that the Town of Queensbury has indicated that you may not occupy the residence built on your property, until such time as some resolution of the current violations can be achieved. Mr. Powell would propose that you purchase from him 5 feet of lake front in a strip of land running south from the lake front, and five feet distant from the current property lines, along its entire length. Mr. Powell would propose that you pay him the amount of $20,000 for the five foot strip. In addition, Mr. Powell will require that you assume all fees associated with the transfer, including but not limited to: Attorney’s fees, surveying costs, Town of Queensbury’s fees, and recording fees and recording taxes assessed by the transfer. In addition, if applicable, you would be required to seek and obtain subdivision approval from the Town of Queensbury, and would assume all costs and fees associated with that approval process. Mr. Powell would be willing to provide any support to get subdivision approval, if applicable, from the Town of Queensbury. If this proposal is acceptable, I would be willing to draw up a Real Estate Contract of Sale to transfer the property. This Contract would be a simple contract, which would be conditioned only upon subdivision approval, if necessary. In addition, a deposit of the entire purchase price ($20,000), would be placed in my escrow account, subject to final subdivision approval, and execution of the deeds. I will diary this matter for a two week period, to await your response. Thanking you, I remain. Sincerely yours, Timothy J. Alden” Copy to Regina and Glenn Powell. The date, April 2, 1998. MR. THOMAS-Two weeks has gone by. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Did you respond within the two weeks, as requested? DR. VITTENGL-No. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/22/98) MR. THOMAS-Okay. I’ll close the public hearing now. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Is this 250 feet from the shoreline to the end of your property, is that? DR. VITTENGL-Correct. MR. STONE-So it’s five by 250 that he wants to sell? DR. VITTENGL-I’m sorry, yes. MR. STONE-I’m just doing some calculations. Twelve hundred and fifty square feet. DR. VITTENGL-That makes his property worth, he has 100 foot of frontage. That makes his worth $400,000. MR. VITTENGL-His property is assessed currently at $87,300. Land value’s $38,000. MR. THOMAS-What’s his asking price for that property, do you know? MR. VITTENGL-It’s not formally listed on the market. Roughly in the mid 100’s. MR. STONE-We were also curious, conversation side bar, here, how do you get there from Mannis? Do you have an easement through his property, or do you come over the top of the hill? MR. VITTENGL-From Mannis, I have to come across his property. MR. STONE-So you have an easement through his property. MR. VITTENGL-Correct. DR. VITTENGL-Which is currently not used on a daily basis. MR. VITTENGL-The top is much more convenient, obviously, and there’s parking up there. DR. VITTENGL-That’s the draw back to his property is he has no real parking. He has to park in front of his camp. So obviously he’s blocking the easement continuously. MR. STONE-It seems to me that there’s some room for negotiation here. MRS. LAPHAM-I was going to say, have you had any conversations or approached it? DR. VITTENGL-No, he won’t talk, he won’t discuss anything with me. So, I’ve contacted him many times and he doesn’t, I don’t know what happened, to be honest with you. We were fairly amicable through the whole process, and then, I don’t know what happened. MRS. LAPHAM-Well, maybe an attorney could write him. DR. VITTENGL-Well, I would hope that. MRS. LAPHAM-Two neighbors could settle it without attorneys. DR. VITTENGL-That’s what I would hope. MR. THOMAS-Well, I noticed at the last meeting the two wives were chatting away very vigorously. So why don’t you let those two handle it. DR. VITTENGL-She called him, my wife called also, and he wouldn’t talk to her, actually. MR. THOMAS-All right. Are there anymore questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-Actually, that comes out to be about $600,000 an acre. Well, it’s 1250 over 44,000, and I’m just doing some rough, it’s about 30 times. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/22/98) DR. VITTENGL-That’s right. MR. STONE-Thirty times $20,000. That’s not bad numbers. Boy, I wish you could settle it face to face. DR. VITTENGL-I usually try to resolve things in that manner, and I’ve tried to contact him, but I don’t know what, you know, he threw out an offer, I guess, but it was such, so far fetched that I felt any, the way it was presented it almost seemed like it was leverage against the variance, etc., etc., and to me, five feet with that doesn’t change the location of the houses in regard to each other, as far as the impact on each other. It doesn’t change anything in that regard. All it does it say I own that I own five more feet, which it doesn’t really cause any change in interaction between the property. MR. STONE-It makes it easier on us, though. Chris, do we ever lend our good offices for negotiation? MR. ROUND-I don’t think we’d have any objection to that, and I think Dr. Vittengl has approached him several times. I take his word at face value, and there’s little else that we can really do to get involved in this type of negotiation, to facilitate. I mean, there’s really little else we can do. DR. VITTENGL-Does already having the variance for the garage being even closer to the building is now? Obviously that would have some impact on. MR. STONE-Where is the garage going to be on this? DR. VITTENGL-That sits behind the house, the top of the hill. MR. STONE-Top of the hill, but you haven’t built that yet? DR. VITTENGL-No. MRS. LAPHAM-And you would enter from Birdsall to the garage? DR. VITTENGL-Yes. Correct, and that’s already approved for five feet from his property line. MR. STONE-But that’s even further away from his house. I mean, that’s up the hill. You wouldn’t be able to see the garage, obviously. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but don’t you think that if someone bought that property that they would probably do like everybody else does, tear the camp down and build a new one? DR. VITTENGL-Sure, more than likely. MR. THOMAS-You know that you’d have to be here, they’d have to come before the Zoning Board. DR. VITTENGL-Right. MR. THOMAS-So you know we’d force them backwards. So it’s not unheard of. You say he’s only 20 feet. He needs to be 50 or the average of the adjoining two buildings, whichever one is farther back. So, you know, you being 61 and on the other side is your brother, right? DR. VITTENGL-No, he’s two over. MR. THOMAS-He’s two over. How close is the one next to it? DR. VITTENGL-He’s got a lot of frontage, Jim O’Keefe has like 275 feet. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but I mean, how far back from the lake does he sit? DR. VITTENGL-He’s probably 30 or 40 feet back there. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/22/98) MR. THOMAS-So the average of that is going to be about 55 and a half feet. So whichever is the greater. So he’s going to have to go back 55 and a half feet, or go for a variance, whoever buys that property, or if Powell decides to keep it and do something with it, if he can’t sell it. So he’s going to be coming back. I thought in a land purchase like that you would start at the property point and wedge back from there, starting at that property point and come back until you were five feet from, or seven feet away from the deck to the property line and then turn it and parallel it. That way, A, you wouldn’t be taking away from his lake front, and, B, you’d get the land you want. Because whatever we do there, he’s got less than an acre, we’d have to approve a variance for a subdivision of land. Because it’s less than the required one acre. DR. VITTENGL-Again, that’s the last I heard from him, was that type of offer that he gave me. If that’s the starting point, I don’t know how much flexibility there’ll be as far as. MR. THOMAS-Would you be willing to contact his lawyer and do some talking with his lawyer? Because apparently, as you say, you’re not going to be talking to him. DR. VITTENGL-Well, to be honest with you, I think for what has transpired there, I’m not on his property. I’m essentially a foot and a half closer to his property than I was supposed to be. He’s trying to sell his property. It’s a rental property. I do believe I’ve enhanced tremendously the value of this property already by building what I’ve done and taking away that old trailer that was next door, the septic that sat underneath it. To spend more money to, again, I don’t see the change in impact, as far as buying a few feet of land. The houses are still going to be the same distance apart, etc., etc. MR. THOMAS-All right. DR. VITTENGL-I don’t see him as very flexible, either, as far trying to negotiate. MR. THOMAS-All right. Anymore questions or comments for the applicant? If not, lets talk about it. Jamie? MR. HAYES-Well, I missed the last meeting, I can go, though. I can certainly appreciate your flexibility, but I guess having read the minutes and listened to Dr. Vittengl here, I really fail to see why he would have the motivation to actually build his house in a location that was closer to the line than he should have, and I’m aware that we’ve already granted a variance, and that certainly increases the sensitivity, as does the fact that he’s coming to us after the fact, but in this circumstance right here, I guess I’m in concurrence with his argument that it doesn’t change the relation of the two properties. I think that now that we have an offer on record, too, in my opinion, he has attempted to try and rectify with his neighbor, to the best of his ability, and it’s clearly a self created difficulty, but the effects on the neighborhood are minimal, and I think the benefit to the applicant is obvious, he gets to keep his camp where it is, and it is a fine, well, constructed camp. So I would be in favor of granting him the small amount of an additional one and a half feet. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Brian? MR. CUSTER-Just so I understand it, there was an original variance? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. CUSTER-And now because of the error, just another foot and a half is all we need? MR. THOMAS-Right. MR. STONE-Did you clock the house, by clocking, I mean, did you turn it from the original drawing? DR. VITTENGL-Again, it was supposed to be parallel. I think that’s where the error was made. MR. STONE-Yes, you just clocked the house, as they say in show biz. You moved it. DR. VITTENGL-That’s what happened, it was shifted, for some reason or other, construction error when they did the foundation. I’m not sure why, but, again, I was totally unaware of it until we did the final survey. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/22/98) MR. CUSTER-Anyway, as I was saying, I tend to agree with Jamie. I think that when you balance the whole thing, what was presented to us, I’d have to agree with Dr. Vittengl it was done unintentionally and in good faith he’s tried to come and rectify the situation, and I’d be in favor to grant the two and a half over. As Mr. Stone and I have always said and been on record, we don’t like these things after the fact, but I’m not sure it warrants tearing the whole house down for it, either. MR. THOMAS-All right. Joe? MR. PORTER-I’m in agreement with actually all three situations here. I think he’s made restitution in trying to come to some agreement, and it’s not a right and wrong case, and it would be different if he was blatant toward it, but I’d have to agree to allowing this also, the variance. MR. THOMAS-All right. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I agree with everyone else. The error seems to be unintentional. The benefit to the applicant would be great in maintaining their new vacation home. Given the fact the next door neighbor is asking what I think is an extraordinary amount, what I thought would be a simple little exchange of property or adjustment to the boundary line, there really is no feasible alternative. The relief, I don’t see it as substantial. The effect on the neighborhood is minimal, if any, because the property is there. It’s going to stay there. Regardless of what happens. It may be self created, but on balance, I think it should be approved. MR. THOMAS-All right. Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-Well, I tend to agree with the other Board members, and I think Dr. Vittengl has sincerely made every effort to try to contact his neighbor. While I don’t want to be guilty of libel or what have you, I think the word “opportunism” comes to thought, and I would be in favor of this. I think it was an honest mistake that he’s tried to rectify, and we’re not getting any cooperation. If you notice the neighbor on the other side was very much in favor and felt the property had been improved drastically. MR. THOMAS-All right. Lew? MR. STONE-Well, it’s interesting. I agree with what’s going on, but it seems to me, by making an offer, as you very eloquently said, it’s not going to change where the house is if you were to buy that piece of land. Therefore, he’s given tacit approval to the position of your house, visa vie his house. MRS. LAPHAM-But only if you pay for it. MR. STONE-Well, but he’s given approval because it’s not going to change the physical location. It’s only going to be, it’s going to make our job easier if he were to buy that land. It’s not going to help Mr. Powell. He’s going to get a lot of money, but the house is going to be as close as it is now. Therefore, on the basis of what everybody else is saying, and that, I’m certainly in favor of it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. STONE-Even though, as Mr. Custer says, I really hate when people come in, I guess I’ve got to say it. MR. CUSTER-We’re pretty much equal. MR. THOMAS-Who’s the General Contractor on that? MRS. LAPHAM-You’re looking at him. DR. VITTENGL-I took the shot last time. I’m the end of the line. MR. THOMAS-You’re the end of the line? DR. VITTENGL-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So in the end it all falls on your shoulders as the mistake. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/22/98) DR. VITTENGL-Correct, absolutely. MR. THOMAS-Did you ever contact someone about picking the house up, moving it over, putting another foundation under it? DR. VITTENGL-I did. MR. THOMAS-And was it near $20,000? DR. VITTENGL-That would be a steal. Just to lift it and move it two feet, just to lift the house, that doesn’t include demolition and re-doing the foundation, is approximately $15,000, but that’s a walkout basement. I’ve got sliders there. There’s glass. You’d have to tear out the old foundation, pour a new one. So you’re probably looking at costs in excess of $40 to $50,000. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Going through the Area Variance criteria, whether the benefit can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant, well, he could pay $20,000 to buy the land or he could pay $50,000 to move the house. They’re feasible, but, you know, it’s very costly. Undesirable change to the neighborhood character or nearby properties? No, I don’t think there’s any change. Whether request is substantial, well, we gave him a variance for seven feet, and he took two and a half feet of that. So that’s about a third. So that’s pretty substantial. Whether request will have any adverse physical or environmental effects. Not really because it’s already in place. As other Board members have said, that Mr. Powell really doesn’t have a problem with it if he can fill his coffers a little bit, and whether the alleged difficulty is self created, well, Dr. Vittengl has admitted he’s the General Contractor and when it comes to the end, it’s the GC that bears all the responsibility. So this difficulty was self created. I don’t know what else to say. I’ll tell you what. This is what we can do. We can vote on it, we can table it and you can talk to Mr. Powell or his attorney, or we can vote on it. DR. VITTENGL-I don’t see much flexibility with Mr. Powell, actually, no. MR. THOMAS-Okay. All right. Would someone like to make a motion, either for or against? MR. MC NALLY-I can. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-1998 MORGAN & MARY VITTENGL , Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham: Birdsall Road, Glen Lake. The applicant has constructed a house requiring additional relief from the setback requirements. Variance 5-1996 was previously issued, and had allowed for a seven foot side setback. The house is located 5.1 feet from the side line, and a deck extending from the front of the house on the lake side is 4 feet six inches from the property line. The amount of relief requested and required by this motion is seven foot six inches. A copy of the as built survey and the record shows that the existing deck is four feet six inches from the property line, and would need a relief of seven feet six inches to bring it into conformance, as maintaining a nonconforming structure, which is just newly built in the existing location, would be of great benefit to the applicant. While there are alternatives to this variance, such as the one proposed by the neighbor of purchasing a two foot piece of property, or five foot piece of property, I think it was, for $20,000, or actually moving the house, feasible alternatives are very expensive. I don’t see it as feasible, but they are alternatives. So as a practical matter, alternatives are limited or none. The relief may be substantial relative to the Ordinance, if you consider the two feet six inches relative to the seven foot, but overall, I don’t think that the relief is substantial when you consider what the normal setback requirements otherwise would have been. The effects on the neighborhood are minimal. The older building that was taken down is certainly not as attractive or as appropriate or as much of a benefit to the neighborhood and community as the existing structure is. I agree, from the things that people have said, that there’s a berm there, or ridge, which blocks, effectively, a large part of the view from the next door neighbor who did complain. It’s also set back a great deal. So the effects on the neighborhood are positive, and while it might be self created, on balance, the factors weigh in favor of Dr. and Mrs. Vittengl’s application. I’d move its approval. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of April, 1998, by the following vote: 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/22/98) MR. THOMAS-The only question I have on that is the setback relief. I think we should give them setback relief from the original 12 feet. MR. STONE-Right, 12 feet. MR. THOMAS-Rather than the seven feet that was approved before, because we should give it from the lot line, not from where we had an approval for a move. So rather than being two feet six inches, I think we should have in there seven feet, six inches. Agree, disagree, discussion? MR. STONE-I think it’s a good idea. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. I see what you’re saying. MR. THOMAS-Yes, because this will be off the original property line. Since the property line isn’t going to change, and the previous variance, it wasn’t an arbitrary number, but we really have no place to measure from, because really that seven feet doesn’t exist anymore. So I would say change that from two feet six inches to seven feet six inches. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. MR. HAYES-Can we cite the survey, too, the as built survey maybe? MR. THOMAS-Yes, and say in there, like Jamie said, that a copy of the as built survey in the record shows that the existing deck is four feet six inches from the property line, and would need a variance of seven feet six inches to bring it into conformance, as built. So, if you would like to add that stuff to your motion. MR. MC NALLY-So added. MR. THOMAS-Got it. You don’t want to talk about it? MR. MC NALLY-I already did. I think the question is just where you’re measuring the variance from. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-I think it’s quite clear from what you just said exactly where it is. MR. THOMAS-Yes, because that line exists, the seven foot line doesn’t. MR. MC NALLY-Great. I think it’s a good idea. MR. THOMAS-Thank you. AYES: Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Porter, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes NOES: Mr. Thomas MR. THOMAS-Six to one. It passed. DR. VITTENGL-Thank you. MR. THOMAS-You’re welcome. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 11-1998 TYPE: UNLISTED GLENN & SANDRA COMBS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: SR-1A, LI-1A LOCATION: UPR. SHERMAN AVE. WEST OF NORTHWAY I-87, (SOUTH SIDE) OPPOSITE LEO ST. APPLICANT PROPOSES A THREE (3) LOT SUBDIVISION CREATING TWO (2) ONE ACRE LOTS AND A 23 ACRE LOT. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENTS AND MINIMUM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB. 3-1998 TAX MAP NO. 93-2-20 LOT SIZE: 25.65 ACRES SECTION: 179-19, 179-30 (C), 179-70 (A) 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/22/98) DENNIS DICKINSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 11-1998, Glenn & Sandra Combs, Meeting Date: April 22, Project Location: Description of Proposed Project: 1998 “Upper Sherman Avenue Applicant proposes a three lot subdivision creating two one acre lots and a 23 acre lot. Relief is requested Relief from the minimum lot width requirements and minimum road frontage requirements. Required: Section 179-19, Suburban Residential requires an average lot width of 150 feet. Applicant proposes two lots of 1.15 and 1.10 acres, with average lot widths of 117.3’ and 105.6’, respectively. Section 179-30 requires double the lot width for lots abutting collector or arterial roads. This means each lot should have 300’ average lot width, unless there is a shared driveway. Section 179-70 requires 40 feet of frontage upon a public street for one principal building. Each Criteria for considering an Area proposed lot has 25 feet of frontage on the Town road. Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant will 2. Feasible alternatives: be able to subdivide and build on the two lots. At this time there are no feasible alternatives due to the split zoning on this parcel. Construction of a road to Town standards to access these parcels from the south would not appear to be economically feasible. 3. Is this relief substantial The idea of a shared driveway could be discussed with the applicant. relative to the Ordinance?: Applicant is proposing road frontage of 25’ where 40’ is required. 4. Effects on the Lot widths of 117’ and 105.6’ are proposed where 300’ is required. neighborhood or community: The proposed lots are larger than those in the surrounding area. It does not appear that there would be any adverse effects on the neighborhood. No public comment 5. Is this difficulty self-created? has been received to date. The difficulty lies in the lot configuration and zoning which were created before the current owner took possession of the land.” Notes prepared by Susan Cipperly, Senior Planner. MR. THOMAS-All right. Dennis. MR. DICKINSON-I’m Dennis Dickinson. I’m representing the Combs’ on this application. I am the surveyor/engineer of record. My understanding was the lot width was 150 feet. In our original request, we asked for a relief from the 150 because of the configuration. Subsequent to that, I determined that I could make them 150 feet, and did that change, and brought maps with me, but when I got here, I was told the requirement is 300 feet. Now these lots aren’t actually on Sherman Avenue. They have frontage on Sherman Avenue, as you can see on the map. I’m not quite sure of that determination, but I’d like to give you these maps. This is the same layout. I just made the lots average 150 feet wide. If you really need 300, it’s a moot point, but. MR. STONE-So you made it less severe, in a sense. MR. DICKINSON-Well, at the time I was under the impression the lot width was 150 required, and I was trying to alleviate that request. The real problem is the road frontage. Secondary to that is in order to decide what you’re going to do with those lots you really have to look at the remaining land and I’ve done some preliminary work on subdividing, which seems to be the most favorable use of the rear property, if it is re-zoned. It’s presently light industrial. If it’s re-zoned, we put together a proposal for subdividing the rear property, and no matter what we do in that proposal, we cannot get to these two lots with a road that is less expensive than what we could sell the two lots for, and we tried everything. I have been down to the Planning Department on a number of occasions and discussed options and possible solutions to this problem, and we haven’t come up with anything. Your road requirements are pretty land demanding for a simple two lots. You end up with a road that’s in the neighborhood of 300 feet long to service the two lots, and even at $100 a foot, you’re looking at $30,000, which is about the market value of the two lots together, plus you’ve consumed so much area, you don’t really end up with enough room to have two lots. So that put us where we are now. We’ve discussed several options with the Planning Department, and have decided this is the best option, to bring it to you and ask for a variance from the 40 feet. MR. THOMAS-All right. MR. DICKINSON-I do have a copy of a conceptual plan for the back if you’re interested in looking at it. MR. THOMAS-No, we’re not really interested in that because we’re just dealing with the two lots, and the 50 foot road frontage for these two lots. MR. DICKINSON-Okay. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/22/98) MR. THOMAS-I can’t find it here, Chris, right off the top of my head, but what’s it say about one driveway for two lots, in the Ordinance? MR. ROUND-You’re looking under 179-30. That’s where we didn’t identify the double lot width (lost word) our Code, we don’t always reveal all of the requirements. Double the lot width does apply to Sherman Avenue. It applies to most collector and arterial roads, and the language is not the best, but you either need double the lot width or you need a shared driveway, either or, a shared driveway consist with what the zoning lot width requires, and that’s 150 feet. MR. HAYES-So the arterial collector thing was dropped? MR. ROUND-Correct. MRS. LAPHAM-So, because I have this question, too, so I understand it. These two lots would not need any special treatment or a variance if there was a shared driveway. MR. ROUND-Well, they still would because they still wouldn’t meet the 150 feet. MR. HAYES-They do, now, though, according to this new survey. MRS. LAPHAM-But it would take away one of the problems, which would be the road frontage. MR. ROUND-Right. MRS. LAPHAM-And that one seems to be the least flexible. MR. ROUND-In both cases, number one, you need road frontage in order to provide emergency access and all the other services of the Town, fire protection, police, water, sewer, etc., in order to get infrastructure on your site, and two, it works, the lot width and the road frontage restrict density of development, and this double lot width was provided to reduce the density of development above and beyond what the actual density requirement, being the one acre or the half acre or whatever the particular zone is. It goes above and beyond that, and then the 300, you know, the double lot width also reduces the number of curb cuts on these arterial roads in order to provide for better traffic access management. In this case, the purpose of all those is really moot, and they’re restricted to the 40 foot or the 50 foot lot width. So none of those really have a real big impact on how development’s going to occur on the site. Development’s going to occur on this site, if you grant the variance, but it’s already restricted to these particular access locations. So it’s really not going to, we’re not going to provide for any more (lost words) development of this project, other than the future road design and the future subdivision of the property if that occurs. That’s my information to you, for what it’s worth. MR. THOMAS-Okay, and again, if he has a single driveway, he only needs 150 feet, right? MR. ROUND-Right, and there’s no clear direction in how to measure lot width. It says average lot width. There’s no mechanism. Some zoning ordinances and subdivision ordinances, and I’m sure Dennis will support this, in other municipalities they address, okay, if it’s a key shaped lot or if it’s a flag shaped lot, this is how you measure the lot. That’s not included in our Ordinance, and I don’t know how it was done previously. I’m going to ask three people, I’m going to get three different answers on how the average lot width is measured. In this case, Sue took an average. She took a 25 foot width, a width that the next, where it meets the back side of those existing lots, and then the rear of the property. That’s just one method. We could come up with as many measurement methods as we could and come up with many different averages. Sometimes as long as they will, most Ordinances read, they give you the minimum road frontage, and then they give you the lot width of the flagged portion, meaning the widest portion of the lot, and so it would meet the, the new configuration would meet the 150, if you measure just the larger portion. MR. HAYES-On this new survey. MR. ROUND-Right. MR. DICKINSON-Right. MR. STONE-What is this “approved 3/23/98, Town of Queensbury”? 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/22/98) MR. DICKINSON-That’s my free bee lot. MR. ROUND-That’s an administrative two lot approval, which was granted. MR. STONE-By the Planning Board, or who granted it? MR. ROUND-The Zoning Administrator. MR. STONE-The Zoning Administrator, okay. MR. DICKINSON-And who’s that? MR. ROUND-That’s this guy right here. MR. STONE-Explain that again. MR. ROUND-We have a process where you can do a two lot subdivision by Zoning Administrator as long as it complies with the Zoning Ordinance, as long as you don’t need a variance to do that activity. As soon as you need a variance, it goes to the Planning Board. The three lot now, this will require Planning Board approval next. MR. THOMAS-Well, we can step back here to what you said before, about having frontage on a collector road. MR. ROUND-Correct. MR. THOMAS-If it’s a 150 foot wide lot, they would need 300. Yet the lot frontage on the road is only 50 feet. MR. ROUND-Correct. The Ordinance reads, and you can help me out with this one, because this is where the Zoning Board is supposed to be (lost words). MR. STONE-What page? MR. ROUND-17930-C, Page 17989. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. ROUND-If you read the regulation, it says, “As of the effective date of this Chapter, all residential lots fronting on collector or arterial road identified herein or any new collector or arterial roads shall have two (2) times the lot width permitted in the zone in which the lot is located, except that this requirement shall not apply under circumstances where adjoining residential lots exist”. So, it’s my determination there’s existing lots here. They’re not going to be able to meet, you can’t have double the lot width or shared access if there’s already existing constraints there. It says, “or are proposed to be established and the width of each lot meets the required width of the zone and ingress or egress is limited to and provided by a single common driveway”. So in this case, that single location can’t have a shared access with another adjoining property owner, because you can’t impose that restriction on the new developer and have them try to establish a (lost word) relationship with an existing residential development. It’s impossible to, it’s not feasible anyway, and then double the lot width won’t, the purpose of the reg is to reduce curb cuts, the number of driveway accesses. By double the lot width, we’re not enhancing, we’re not going to conform to the intent of the law any greater than if it was 150 feet. MR. STONE-Interesting in the language here, Chris. MR. ROUND-It’s interesting. MR. STONE-Two times the lot width permitted. It doesn’t say the minimum lot width, which is what the restriction is. There is no permitted width. It could be 10,000 feet. MR. ROUND-I think I’d comment on that. It’s the existing language. MR. STONE-I mean, because the only requirement under 179-19 is a minimum lot size, not a permitted lot size. I don’t know what that means. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/22/98) MR. ROUND-That’s typical for our Ordinance, but it was my, that it complied with the intent of that Section, we weren’t creating additional curb cuts. MR. STONE-These lots on Sherman Avenue, these are substandard lots, these, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, they’re all. MR. ROUND-Pre-existing, nonconforming, as far as the density. MR. STONE-Some have been combined, I see, for purposes of building. MR. DICKINSON-1920’s subdivision. They were all 50 feet wide, and then they sold them in multiples, most of them. MR. STONE-They sold them in multiples. I see that. MR. THOMAS-Multiples of, what, 100 feet, or 150 feet? MR. DICKINSON-50 by 150. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. DICKINSON-They sold a couple of them singly, but they eventually bought other lots, except for the Stotenger. That’s a pretty small lot. MRS. LAPHAM-That still brings us back to the shared driveway, since this is vacant property. MR. DICKINSON-I don’t have any objection to sharing the entrance for the two driveways, so that when you get to Sherman Avenue there’s only one driveway. I find, in my practice, after 30 years, that people that share driveways don’t normally get along. For one reason or another, it never seems to work out, but I think if they both owned the exit portion of the driveway onto Sherman Avenue, that you could probably work that out. MR. STONE-From my standpoint, from my information from a building standpoint, would these be a single macadam driveway? MR. DICKINSON-Single lane, yes. MR. STONE-A single lane, but I mean, could you see a difference between one side and the other, since they’re going to butt up against each other, are they not? MR. ROUND-What they’ve typically done, you see them on Cronin Road with the Schermerhorn, his lots, is that the access point is a singular access point, and it may not be 12 feet. (Lost words) it may be 24 feet wide, so you’ve got a single curb cut, all right, and then they taper away from one another as I would imagine this case it would be two parallel drives, and then they would taper. MR. STONE-Snake off, when, at the end of that shoot? MR. DICKINSON-Almost as soon as you get off the road. MR. STONE-As soon as you get off the road. MR. DICKINSON-So you’d come out here. You’d have an area, I would imagine, an area that’s sufficient so that you had a car width out there, that would be owned by both people, and right after that, you’d split off onto two driveways. What typically happens is they always start arguing about maintenance, whether it’s plowing snow or drainage or sanding. MR. STONE-They’re still going to argue about the opening onto Sherman Avenue, aren’t they? MR. DICKINSON-Well, you’ve got a very small area there. The smaller you make it, the less they’re going to argue. From my standpoint, I would just as soon see two driveways all the way out. I don’t see the difference between that, really, and one drive, but if it’s going to alleviate a problem here with the Board, then I would agree to do a single drive cut on Sherman Avenue. MRS. LAPHAM-Well, if you have a single driveway, wouldn’t that put this project in compliance? 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/22/98) MR. ROUND-He still wouldn’t have the minimum lot size. We wanted to clean it all up. So he would have to come, regardless. MR. STONE-First of all, this is not in two zones, right? It’s all SR-1A? MR. DICKINSON-That’s correct. MR. STONE-The two lots we’re talking about. Okay. So that other thing is. MR. ROUND-That was just a comment on the (lost words). MRS. LAPHAM-He also has vacant land. So there’s still room to change their mind. MR. ROUND-Right. He had to come before the Board for not having the 40 foot, and this was one way, anytime there’s a question, a gray area, it’s nice to clear it up in front of the Zoning Board, whether the double lot width, or whether it was actually 150 foot, whether we could actually say that there’s 150 foot average, (lost words). MR. THOMAS-I’ve got a question for you, Dennis. The remaining lot, which is 23 something acres, I guess, or 21, the remaining land from which this is subdivided, has two 50 foot frontages on Sherman Avenue. MR. DICKINSON-Correct. MR. THOMAS-Could you draw that lot, you know, leave one lot where it is, with a 50 foot road frontage, and move the other lot down to like, you know, behind George Mabb, and use that 50 foot opening there? MR. DICKINSON-Chris, that goes back to what I was talking about before. Eventually what they want to do, they’re hoping that the Town is going to re-zone them to residential in the back, be it half acre or one acre, and when they do that, they’re going to do a subdivision, and that subdivision’s going to use those two 50 foot right-of-ways. MR. THOMAS-As access to the? MR. DICKINSON-As access to the back. MR. THOMAS-To Sherman Avenue. Okay. It’s just going to be a loop. MR. DICKINSON-I mean, you can see right there what our problem is. The two lots that you’re looking at are right dead center in that thing, plus, there’s a power line back there in our way. So we’re kind of squeezed in. We don’t have a lot of room to move around. Our options are somewhat limited. MR. STONE-What land do the Combs own, just those two lots? MR. DICKINSON-No. They own the whole thing. MR. STONE-They own the whole thing? MR. DICKINSON-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. So they could do this all as one subdivision. MR. DICKINSON-Is that what the application is in the Planning Board? What they want to do right now, see, you don’t have the zoning to do anymore than what we have right here. Right now we’re one acre residential in the front, and then we’re light industrial in the back. So what we want to do is get these two lots, and then we’re going to wait, hopefully, to see what the Town does about re-zoning. MR. STONE-You’re saying this they own, too? MR. DICKINSON-Correct. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/22/98) MR. STONE-Okay. So they’re talking this whole thing down here? MR. DICKINSON-Correct. MR. STONE-All the way down through here. That I didn’t understand. MR. DICKINSON-There’s a little bit of financial hardship here. I didn’t put it on the application. They acquired this property in lieu of being paid a sum of money they were owed by an attorney. They didn’t go out and buy this property so they could develop it as a business. They got involved with an attorney. He owed them a substantial amount of money, didn’t have the money. They litigated to get their money back and ended up with this property. Now by the time they got this property, after the litigation, which was a number of years, the man hadn’t paid his taxes on it. So not only did they get the property, but they got a pretty healthy tax bill with penalties and fees due. They had hoped to use the money to buy a business. They ended up financing the purchase of the business. Now they’re pretty hard pressed for money. What they’re trying to do is, if they can get these two approved, they should be able to pay off their taxes so they can at least hang on to the property while they wait for their re-zoning. MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for Mr. Dickinson? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this variance, in favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED BION & LISA GREEN MR. GREEN-Hi. Bion and Lisa Green. We live at 496 Sherman Avenue. Actually, the question I have, not so much as if I’m opposed or whatever, I really don’t know that much about actually what’s going on, because the notification that I got, which the first one was for tonight, it doesn’t really state what the purpose was. Listening to you now, I get more of a better idea, but I really can’t see, you know what I’m saying? I don’t have a map, or I don’t know exactly what’s going on. MRS. GREEN-This started with construction next to our house on the east side of our property, and through the course of the last year, a survey was made, and there’s a 50 foot parcel between our property, at 496, and between the property on the west side of us, and that was always in our mind an easement or a roadway to a lot behind our home. Our concern is, is there going to be a roadway put in between our home in this other property? What kind of effect is it going to have on us? Because our home has been there since the 1920’s. Our family has owned it since that time. It’s been passed on from generation to generation, and we enjoy kind of a rural setting, and our concern is, is that really going to upset what we enjoy as our standard of living, and how is it going to directly affect us, as far as traffic control, maintenance of roads, that type of thing, you know, safety for kids in the neighborhood, animals, that stuff, and we really don’t know exactly what’s happening. We haven’t come to any other meetings. We weren’t aware of them, until tonight. MR. STONE-This is it. This is the first one. We’re hearing it the same time you are. MRS. GREEN-All right. Good deal. Yes, we just really want to get an idea, as land owners, what’s going on in that area, what can we expect to be happening, and up until now we really had no idea. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Do you want to show them, Dennis, with the map, and just point out where that proposed subdivision map and the two lots? MR. DICKINSON-They have essentially the same map that you have, showing their lot. This lot has been approved. The shared driveways would be these two right here. MR. STONE-And to the west would be a driveway only, right? MR. DICKINSON-Correct. MRS. GREEN-That’s really what our concern was. MR. STONE-It would just be a plain driveway. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/22/98) MR. HAYES-Which doesn’t go down the lot, though, that you’re concerned with. MR. STONE-It just goes to the one lot, the one house. MRS. GREEN-That would be behind our property. MR. THOMAS-Right. MRS. GREEN-Okay. Our main concern was, was it going to be a roadway, and what kind of traffic flow would we have to contend with. Having pets and a teenager, you know, there’s some safety concerns. MR. HAYES-And that one’s already approved, right, as we speak? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. STONE-That’s approved, and that’s just a driveway. MRS. GREEN-That was always my understanding that it was a roadway or an easement to the property behind us, but for years, it had never been touched, at least since my mother-in-law has been alive it’s never been touched, and she’s 62. So it was kind of a shock to see all of a sudden there were surveyor marks in the area, and we had no idea what to expect. MR. STONE-Well, the house next to you, to the east, is just being built, or it’s just been built. MRS. GREEN-Yes. MR. STONE-It looked like it was just being occupied. MRS. GREEN-Yes. I think they just moved in recently. MR. HAYES-The ranch? MR. STONE-The ranch, yes, this one right here. MRS. GREEN-The only other concern that I would have is at the end of that, actually, it’s kind of halfway in the middle of it, there is a utility pole, and my concern is, can I expect to lose power or essential services while this is going on if they have to move that, or is that something that you’re going to go around? Do you know what I mean? At the end of this lot there’s a utility pole, next to that fence the other guy’s got. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MRS. GREEN-I don’t want to come home and I’ve got no power for three weeks. MR. DICKINSON-The pole doesn’t show up on that map. We have it located though. I’m familiar with it. It’s out of our way for the driveway. MR. STONE-Well, it’s in that 50 foot section? MR. DICKINSON-It is in the 50 foot section, but it’s not in our way. MR. THOMAS-I can guarantee you, you will not lose power. MRS. GREEN-Okay, and if I do, I can call you and say, Mr. Thomas, I’ve lost power. MR. THOMAS-I know the phone numbers, believe me. MRS. GREEN-I think that’s alleviated a lot of our concerns. We really were in the dark as to what (lost words). MR. THOMAS-Really, you’re just going to have the one house behind you. MRS. GREEN-Right. That’s not a problem for us. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/22/98) MR. STONE-And then you’re going to have a house possibly to the east of your rear most property there. You own that lot to the back. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MRS. GREEN-Yes. I see that also. We have quite a bit of woods still left that my husband hasn’t managed to cut down yet. He hasn’t gotten that far. So I mean, we have the option of leaving that there, because we do have some wildlife that we’d like to preserve. Our concern was just what kind of traffic was going to go through and how was it going to be handled. MR. GREEN-And the other question that I would have, too, is like the remaining land, as far as kind of where that would sit, in relationship to our property. MR. THOMAS-Well, everything you see outside those dark lines. MR. STONE-Between here, this big dark thing all the way. MR. GREEN-Right. All this left here. MR. STONE-All that blank area is what the Combs would like to subdivide at some point, I gather, right? MR. DICKINSON-That’s correct. MRS. GREEN-That’s on the opposite side of the pole lines, right? MR. THOMAS-Well, there’s some behind. MR. STONE-Mostly behind it. MR. THOMAS-Dennis has a map right there that shows the proposed subdivision. MRS. GREEN-I was wondering where all this property was coming from, because I couldn’t see that in my mind right off of Sherman Avenue. MR. DICKINSON-This is a conceptual plan, only. If they change the zoning. MR. GREEN-All right. This is up the road. MRS. GREEN-Going toward Smoke Ridge. Okay. All right. MR. GREEN-Right, on the opposite side of (lost words). MRS. GREEN-And this is where the driveway would be. Okay. That would never change from a driveway. That would always be a driveway. I wouldn’t have a concern in the future. Okay. All right. We just didn’t know if it was going to be a two lane road or, because you have quite a bit of room there. Discussion ensued. MRS. GREEN-I think he’s alleviated what we were essentially worrying about. As long as it doesn’t kill the flowers and all that, the vegetation we’re happy with it. That’s fine. MR. GREEN-A highway was what we were worried about, if a road was going to go down there, but if it’s just a driveway. MR. THOMAS-No, it’s just a driveway. It’s not a, it won’t be a dedicated Town road. Okay. Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak opposed or in favor of? Is there any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-No. MR. THOMAS-No correspondence, so I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/22/98) MR. THOMAS-Does anyone on the Board have anymore questions for Mr. Dickinson? All right. If no one has a question, I will entertain a motion. MR. STONE-We’ve got to speak first. MR. THOMAS-All right. If you want to do that, we’ll speak first. We’ll start with you, Lew. MR. STONE-All right. Well, I have concern. I have no problem with the two lots. I really don’t like two individual 25 foot driveways. I mean, we have, 40 is not a big number, and I really don’t think that we should grant a variance for that. I hear your problems with two neighbors, but it seems if you put that in a deed with all of the things, a joint driveway should work, and therefore you don’t even have to talk to us, but I am not inclined to grant two 25 foot openings for key lots here, I guess, for keyhole lots. MR. DICKINSON-Would you be satisfied if the driveways were common at the Sherman Avenue end? MR. CUSTER-How far in? MR. STONE-How far in? That’s the. MR. DICKINSON-Fifty feet. MR. CUSTER-I’d be comfortable. MR. STONE-I’d be comfortable with that, yes. MR. DICKINSON-That’s not a problem for us. MR. STONE-But I mean, other than that, obviously, there are two lots back here. The land is owned out to the road. I would prefer that it would be one lot in there, no question about that, but since you can put two, legally, I would just like to insist that we don’t mess with the opening on Sherman Avenue. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jamie? MR. HAYES-I agree with Mr. Stone. I think, you know, based on that modification that was just more or less agreed to, that we’ve now achieved a benefit by a method that’s satisfactory to everybody and the ranch that was built next door and these houses look the same. I think, you know, it’s going to lead to a desirable change in the neighborhood, and I don’t think that the relief is overly substantial. So I would be in favor. MR. STONE-Well, we’re actually not granting everything, if he will go with a common driveway, right, Chris? MR. ROUND-I just would cover them with the double, the lot width requirement, just because we don’t have anything on the books. MR. THOMAS-Yes. He’s going to need relief from the 150 foot lot width on the road. MR. STONE-Hundred and fifty foot lot width on the road. Okay. You’re right. MR. ROUND-Average lot width. MR. THOMAS-Average, well, he’s got 150 average. MR. HAYES-But you’re saying being the definition is kind of innocuous, we ought to just? MR. ROUND-Yes. MR. THOMAS-All right. We’ll do that in the motion. Brian? MR. CUSTER-I’m in concurrence with Mr. Stone and Mr. Hayes. MR. THOMAS-All right. Joe? 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/22/98) MR. PORTER-I feel the same way about the situation. We keep that one driveway. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-Ditto. I agree. MR. THOMAS-Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-I agree, and I’m picturing a “Y” configuration with, you know, one common road coming in from Sherman, 50 feet, and then it will go like that. I would be happy with that. MR. DICKINSON-Correct. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I agree with the rest of the Board members. I like the idea of the common driveway. It solves a big problem, and they can go forward with this project. So, having said that, I will ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 11-1998 GLENN & SANDRA COMBS , Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Custer: Upper Sherman Avenue, opposite Leo Street. This variance would provide for a common driveway to Lots Two and Three on the Glenn and Sandee Combs subdivision 4/22/98, signed by Dennis Dickinson. That in granting this variance, the applicant will construct a single driveway off of Sherman Avenue for approximately, for 50 feet. Then the driveways will be divided and go back separately to Lots Two and Three. In granting this variance, we recognize that these lots will have, while they meet the area requirement for SR-1A, namely one acre or more, they will have an average lot width as defined of 150 feet per the zoning requirement. We are granting relief from the average of 150. Namely, the average lot width will be 117 and 105. Therefore, we are granting 32.7 feet relief for Lot Two and 44.4 feet for Lot Three. In addition, we are granting relief from 179-70, the requirement that each lot have 40 feet of road frontage. We are granting 15 feet for each lot, with the recognition, again, that there will be a common driveway for the first 50 feet off of Sherman Avenue, then two separate driveways going back to the respective primary buildings. The benefit to the applicant, the applicant will be able to subdivide and build on the two lots. Feasible alternatives, we have recognized the feasible alternative by making it a shared driveway for the first 50 feet. Therefore, we are not really granting relief from that. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? In granting 15 feet for each lot on the road, this might be considered substantial, but when we combine the two lots for a total of 50 feet, this is minimized, and the relief of the lot widths, considering the nebulous character of the definition of average lot width, the relief is not really substantial. The effect on the neighborhood will be positive, in that there will be two one acre lots per zoning with Single Family residences on them which will be an improvement to the neighborhood as it would be to any other neighborhood, and certainly there will be no adverse effects. Is this difficulty self created? One might consider it self created, in the fact that they own this particular property. They were, as the applicant’s agent said, they were forced to accept this property, and they are trying to make the best of a situation, and I don’t think it represents a problem as far as this variance is concerned. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of April, 1998, by the following vote: MR. ROUND-You’re also granting relief from 179-70 for 40 feet. MR. STONE-From 179-70 for 40. MR. ROUND-Feet of frontage. MR. STONE-No, it’s going to be 50 feet. MR. CUSTER-179-70 is 40 feet. MR. ROUND-Yes, 179-70 requires 40 feet of frontage, and they only have 25 feet of frontage. MR. STONE-No, they have 50 because it’s a common. MRS. LAPHAM-Only if you put them together. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/22/98) MR. CUSTER-It’s an arterial road, it needs 50. MR. STONE-It needs 40. MR. ROUND-179-19 is average lot width. MR. STONE-Right. MR. ROUND-You’re granting relief from that. 179-30 requires the double lot width for shared driveways, so that’s out because they’re sharing the driveway, but 179-70 requires a minimum of 40 feet of frontage on. MR. HAYES-Per principal building. MRS. LAPHAM-Per building. MR. ROUND-Per building. You only have 25 feet per principle building. MR. THOMAS-So he needs 15 feet of relief. MR. STONE-Okay. AYES: Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Porter, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE MR. THOMAS-There you go, Dennis, with that little modification. MR. DICKINSON-Thank you very much. AREA VARIANCE NO. 12-1998 TYPE II JL KELLEY ENTERPRISES, INC. D/B/A LOX OF BAGELS AND MOOR OWNER: NORMAN C. BENACK ZONE: CR-15 LOCATION: 89 ½ MAIN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 16 FT. BY 21 FT. 4 IN. DECK WITH CANOPY OVER DECK (6 TABLES 24 SEATS). RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE CR-15 ZONE AND THE TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 4/8/98 TAX MAP NO. 129-1-17 LOT SIZE: 0.36 ACRES SECTION: 179-24, 179-28 JEFF KELLEY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 12-1998, JL Kelley Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Lox of Bagels Project Location:Description of and Moor, Meeting Date: April 22, 1998 “ 87 Main Street Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to construct a deck with canopy on the west side of an existing business, to provide outdoor seating. The deck will be 16’ x 21’4”, and provide room for Relief Required: 6 tables and 24 seats. Section 179-24, Commercial Residential Zone, requires a front setback of 75 feet for commercial uses. Section 179-29, Travel Corridor Overlay Zone, requires a 75’ setback from the edge of the road right-of-way. The applicant is proposing a setback of 59.16’ for the deck. The existing structure is set back 30’ from the property line. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant:2. Feasible Improved appearance and 24 additional seats. alternatives:3. Is this relief substantial relative to the None, other than not building the deck. ordinance?:4. Effects on The applicant is requesting 15 feet of relief out of the 75 feet required. the neighborhood or community: It does not appear that there would be any adverse effects on 5. Is this difficulty self-created? the community. No. The applicant wishes to improve upon a Parcel History pre-existing, nonconforming structure, most of which is within the 75’ setback. (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):Staff comments: SEQR Status: No further comment. ” th MRS. LAPHAM-“At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 8 day of April 1998, the above application for an Area Variance to construct a 16’ x 21’ 4” deck with canopy over deck was reviewed, and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact” Signed by Tracey M. Clothier, Chairperson. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/22/98) MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. Kelley, do you want to add anything, tell us about it? MR. KELLEY-Well, basically, just for the record, I am Jeff Kelley, and I live at 87 Main Street, Queensbury, NY, a couple of doors down. I guess basically, to me, it seems fairly simple. It’s a pressure treated deck that basically is going to be put on top of what is now a black top parking lot. It’s going to be off the ground about the size of a two by six, under eight inches anyway. The idea was, one, I’d like to have an outside eating area, just because I think it’s kind of a trendy thing. I believe in this particular case it will enhance the looks of the building. The building that I’m in, even with air-conditioning, is warm. It’s a restaurant, it’s a bakery. A lot of times with all the air-conditioning going, it’s, you know, over 80 degrees. I’m in a morning business. Obviously morning and lunch is big time. Summer months, I think it’s nice to sit outside and relax in the fresh air rather than stuffy indoor air. My proposal, just to the street side of this deck, is to cut a doorway through the existing concrete wall of the building, so you could come from in the dining area. I’m going to have to take out a booth. So you could come in either door, get what you want, and go out the little side door, step onto this deck and sit out there and eat. We’d have those white plastic tables and chairs, a trash receptacle type thing. There would be a three foot railing, all the way around it, except for a four foot opening where you come out of the building, and then on the back side, we’re going to put another four foot opening, so that we can actually clean the tables from the rear of the building, rather than have the girls from the front go out. Also to empty the trash, we could take it off the back, and our dumpsters are around behind the building. In addition to the railing, we wanted to put flower boxes. It would be a painted thing. It’s not going to be left pressure treated green, everything would be painted, white flower boxes. The awning that goes over this, we’ve got a proposal from Anchor Awning Company. It would be a pipe type structure that basically just lag holds onto the deck. The sunbrella type material or canvasy type thing. It would be a striped blue, light blue, white and gray to go along with the gray appearance of the building, and the deck part would be a painted gray, like porch enamel type thing. So it would all be color coordinated. I think, you know, from the funny looking building that it is now, it definitely should improve the appearance of it. Right now, we do not have any designated handicap areas, but in this plan you can see to the front of that deck or the street side of the deck, I was going to propose two handicap areas there with signs on the building. So it would be good from the handicap access, plus I don’t envision that that probably would be full all the time. So we wouldn’t have cars jammed up tight to this thing. People would kind of be able to come and go there, I would assume, pretty easily. I really, I can’t go back very much further. You can see on the plan there’s a couple of little like rectangles, one in front and one behind the deck. Those are, it’s a concrete kind of a column type thing, it actually stiffens up the structure of the building. If I go to the rear anymore, we have a service entrance there where I have deliveries of food and beverages and tractor trailers that back up to, that sort of thing. So, I mean, I really can’t go back any further. I mean, I realize the setback is 75 feet. So I’ve kind of pushed it back about as far as I can go, unless I’m out in the parking lot somewhere is kind of where it’s going to end up, I guess. I guess other than that, I don’t really, in my own mind, see much of a problem with it. I do think it would enhance the looks of the building and the entry into the Town of Queensbury and the City and probably one of the most heavily traveled County roads. Would it impact the neighborhood at all? Again, I think, my own personal belief is it would look better. I don’t see any adverse effect on the health and safety, so to speak. I think the road’s busy. If I attract a couple of more cars, the cars were probably there anyway. So I don’t know that I’m going to put a big load on that road. You talk about the welfare of the community. I guess all I can say is if I can do more business, I can pay the people that live in the Town more money, my employees, and I guess likewise, you know, when you read the paper and see a 10% increase in school tax, somehow I’ve got to come up with that. So if I can get more people and, you know, sell more product, I can pay my taxes like everybody else. Again, I don’t know what the alternative would be, other than to not do it. I believe the 15 feet of relief that I’m requesting is the minimum relief to grant the variance, and any long term major effects, I don’t really foresee any. If somewhere a long ways down the road this thing changes hands, it becomes something different, this deck really is, it’s a temporary structure, and all I’ve got to do is chop off the bottom and haul it out of there. So I don’t see it as any major structure being built here. I think that basically kind of covers it, unless you have questions. I should back up a little bit. The parking spaces, I probably in essence would lose two parking spaces by building this deck, but as you can see, in fact, I guess it was, I don’t know, a year and a half, two years ago or something we went back and cleared out a whole bunch more of the trees from behind the building, and now we actually have ample parking, and also the trailer trucks that deliver to me can now drive off the street, swing a big U turn and come back out, rather than be backing out onto that highway. So I think that definitely was an improvement, just to clear that. My anticipation is, as time goes on, I’ll probably pave some more of that and do some more blacktop work. My little snag with that is I do lease this building. I don’t own it. So sometimes I share the brunt of the expense for something that I don’t own, but I do predict that we’ll probably get into doing some more work back there, just to keep dust down and things of that nature. I 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/22/98) think, you know, the parking I think is okay. As I remember the Ordinance, I think I had enough spaces based on the square footage of the building. I kind of figured that out on the application there someplace. The only other thing that I did kind of note that I don’t know is necessarily right. On the notice of the public hearing, it said the lot size was .36 acres. I’m not sure where that came from. Norm Benack, the person that actually owns this piece of property, my parking lot is one parcel. The building is another parcel, and the little house to the right of that is another parcel. There’s like three, you know, there’s a 60 foot, a 55, a 55 and a 16 foot 4 inch piece that make up his total frontage there. The actual land that he owns is 1.239 acres. The part that I lease, somewhere around 38,837 square feet, so about three quarters of an acre, or something to that. So I think maybe that was a little error, erroneous or whatever there, but I don’t have seven copies, but I’ve got two or three here that show the entire parcel, if anybody needs to see that. MR. THOMAS-No, I don’t think so. This map you have I think is adequate. MR. KELLEY-I guess that’s it, unless you fire away at me. MR. STONE-A question I have, this is going to be a place where people take their stuff of their own, on their own? They’re going to carry, or are they going to be served? MR. KELLEY-No. They’re going to come in this door, get their tray. MR. STONE-And just go out and eat it there. MR. KELLEY-Yes. What we have now is a, it’s not really a self-serve, but there are no waitresses or people that come to the table and take your order and serve you. You have to come up to place your order. We prepare it while you stand there, and away you go, like a McDonalds type thing. You get in line, away you go. MR. STONE-This awning, will it retract in the winter? MR. KELLEY-No, actually I’ll take it down. I’ll take the canvas part down and probably leave just the, you know, the aluminum framework kind of thing, and the deck obviously would stay there. MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for the applicant? According to the Ordinance, you need one parking space for each 100 square feet of gross leasable floor space, and you’re adding on about 330 square feet, or 340 square feet, or one space for each four seats. So you’re adding 24 seats. So that means you need six additional parking spaces, okay. How many parking spaces do you have there now? MR. KELLEY-I’ve got what’s there, plus where the deck is would be, well, two if they’re 10 feet wide, and actually, beyond that deck where it says it’s 27.51 feet, there’s a couple of spaces there. MR. THOMAS-That’s right there in front of your employee’s entrance. MR. KELLEY-Well, I shouldn’t say, one space, because we try to leave a spot anyway for delivery guys or whatever. MR. THOMAS-Yes, for a delivery truck. MR. KELLEY-But right now it shows, I believe, 31, and then without the deck it would be two more. You’ve got 34 spaces maybe, something like that. MR. THOMAS-Okay. How many seats do you have inside the restaurant? MR. KELLEY-Inside, my little sign and the way that it’s set up says 48. I’m going to remove four seats. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So you’re down to 44. MR. KELLEY-Forty-four plus 24. MR. THOMAS-No. You need one spot for every four chairs, one parking spot. So that’s 11. That takes care of the inside, and for the outside it will take care of six. So that’s 17. Now, how many square feet is the building? 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/22/98) MR. ROUND-He’s got enough parking spots. MR. KELLEY-It’s on my application. MR. ROUND-The building area is 2364, which would require 23 spots. MR. THOMAS-Twenty-three spots. MR. ROUND-If it was all leasable area, he’s got kitchen, service area. MR. THOMAS-Yes, right, but we’re talking about leasable floor space. So that’s open floor space to me. MR. ROUND-Well, if you look at the definition, it excludes storage areas. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but I mean, that would include where the counter is, the bagels are across the back, that open space in there. MR. ROUND-They have, if you’re familiar with the site, they do have sufficient parking. MR. THOMAS-Okay, and even with this new addition, they’ll have, they’ll need six additional spaces, and they’ll have it. MR. ROUND-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay. That was my only question. MR. STONE-The only question I have, the boat. Is the boat there all winter? MR. KELLEY-Yes. I just put it out back there. It doesn’t have to be there. MR. STONE-I don’t know. There’s no problem having a boat on that? MR. ROUND-I don’t have a problem with it. MR. THOMAS-No. MR. STONE-I don’t have a problem with it. I just noticed it. He was cleaning it yesterday, making a lot of garbage when I was there. MR. ROUND-Who’s boat is that? MR. KELLEY-Mine. MR. ROUND-That’s your boat. MR. STONE-Somebody was working on it yesterday, cleaning it up. MR. KELLEY-Well, I was out, in and out. MR. STONE-When I happened to get there, there were a dozen cleaning bottles and rags and all that sort of stuff. That was all, no problem. MR. KELLEY-They’re not there now. MR. STONE-Good. MR. THOMAS-What about the parking lot and the access area to the parking, are you going to do anything with that? Because, to me, it’s a little dusty right now if you drive through there. MR. KELLEY-Well, actually, Monday or Tuesday I had a fellow who was supposed to come with a sweeper, but when I called him a week or so ago, they were talking about rain, and they said they may be a day or two behind, but he’s supposed to show up any time. I just, in fact, I just had my guys clean all around the edge of the building and along the fence and the property where that red 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/22/98) house is, raked and all that. I wanted to get that done, because the sweeper guy drives the truck type thing, and he only gets within, you know, a couple feet of the building, but he’s supposed to come like any day. MR. THOMAS-But you don’t think the dust will be a problem? MR. KELLEY-Well, my proposal, I didn’t commit to it 100% here, but I’m sure I’m going to have to pave more and go back further with blacktop. MR. THOMAS-The awning, that’s just an awning over it? There’s not going to be any sides on this awning, you know, like clear plastic? MR. KELLEY-Well, it would look like the gable end of a house. It would have a side, but on two sides it would come down and then it’s got like a scalloped. MR. THOMAS-Yes, right, but I mean the actual sides below the pitch? MR. KELLEY-No. MR. THOMAS-You won’t have anything there. Because I’ve seen some like that, especially in Florida, where they put that down to protect from the wind and stuff. That’s all the questions I’ve got. Anyone else? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this variance, in favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? Is there any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-No. MR. THOMAS-No correspondence, I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-All right. Lets talk about it. I’ll start with Bob down there at the end. MR. MC NALLY-The existing too close to the road, but the proposed deck is set back a good distance, and I feel that the 15 foot setback relief that they’re asking for from the 75 foot setback requirement is relatively insubstantial. It should be a great benefit to the applicant. Because I feel, if it’s built as Mr. Kelley indicates, it will improve the appearance. There aren’t too many feasible alternatives, I think, given the fact that there has to be access to the back of the building. It’s as far back as it goes, and I don’t think there’s going to be any adverse effect on the community. So I’m in favor of it. MR. THOMAS-All right. Joe? MR. PORTER-I feel the same. My only concern, too, was the four spaces in front. Sometime down the road there when the widening does transpire on that roadway, what will happen to that, but there seems to be plenty of space out in back to accommodate it. MR. THOMAS-All right. Brian? MR. CUSTER-I have no problems with this. MR. THOMAS-Jamie? MR. HAYES-Well, maybe I should have done this at the beginning, but, Mr. Kelley, I own Cool Beans, and before I comment either way, I mean, I’m comfortable either excusing myself or continuing. I guess I’d leave that up to you. MR. KELLEY-I don’t have a problem with it. MR. HAYES-Okay. I mean, I just think it’s the right thing to do. So, I have no problem with the application. I think it’s a, the relief is minimal, and I think it will not have a negative impact on that neighborhood. So I’m in favor of it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew? 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/22/98) MR. STONE-I concur. I’m pleased to see that you are considering two handicap spaces, since my wife has been suffering from a hip problem lately and I’m very aware of handicap spaces being a requirement, and I think it’s a great addition. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-I don’t have a problem with this, either, and when I look at some of the other decks that have been approved in the past, this is a great improvement. MR. THOMAS-Okay. My only concern was for the parking which Mr. Kelley has taken care of. I have no problem with the setback, going for a relief of 15.84 feet. Really, there’s no other place on that property you could put that, and as far as the variance criteria, the benefit can be achieved by other means? Not really because he has really no other place to put the deck. An undesirable change in the neighborhood? No way. That’ll only improve the neighborhood. The request isn’t substantial. Will the request have an adverse physical or environmental effect? Not at all. Whether alleged difficulty is self created? It’s self created, but it’s certainly the only thing you could do. I only have one other question. That’s permeability. You’re going over blacktop with it, right? MR. KELLEY-Right. There’s blacktop underneath where this deck is. MRS. LAPHAM-It’s already there. MR. STONE-And will the deck drain, self drain, will there be gaps? MR. KELLEY-Yes, little spaces. MR. STONE-So it’s going the same place it’s going now. MR. THOMAS-Yes. So he has 71.3% of the parcel, and required is 30%. So we’re within that too. So absolutely no problem on my part. I’ll ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 12-1998 JL KELLEY ENTERPRISES, INC. D/B/A LOX OF BAGELS AND MOOR , Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Custer: 87 Main Street. The applicant proposes construction of a deck with a canopy on the west side of his business. The deck will be 16 by 21 by 4 inches and provide room for six tables and 24 seats. To do so, he needs relief from Section 179-24, Commercial Residential zone, which requires a front setback of 75 feet for commercial uses. The Section 179-29, the Travel Corridor Overlay Zone, requires a 75 foot setback from the edge of the road right-of-way. The applicant is proposing a setback of 59.16 for the deck. The existing building is set back 30 feet from the property line. So to do so, he will need 15 feet of relief from the setback from the Travel Corridor Overlay Zone. The benefit to the applicant will be it will improve the appearance and the operation of his business. Feasible alternatives are limited based on where the building sits on the lot currently. If he needs to expand, this is basically the direction that he needs to go. I do not believe that it will cause an undesirable change in the neighborhood. In fact, I agree with the Chairman that it will be an improvement. I don’t think the relief is substantial, in that it’s 15 feet on a 75 foot. There’s still plenty of setback there. I don’t believe that it will any negative or environmental impacts that are negative, and the difficulty is self created, but again, it’s based on a need, and this seems to be the only way to meet it. So I would move for the variance’s approval. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of April, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Porter, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE MR. THOMAS-Go ahead and get your building permit and start whacking. MR. KELLEY-Thank you. MR. THOMAS-You’re welcome. 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/22/98) AREA VARIANCE NO. 10-1998 TYPE: II AMERADA HESS CORP. OWNER: GERALD & ROGER HEWLETT ZONE: HC-1A, LI-1A LOCATION: INTERSECTION OF QUAKER ROAD AND DIX AVENUE, WEST SIDE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A GAS STATION/CONVENIENCE STORE WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING, LIGHTING AND SIGNAGE. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM BUFFER ZONES AND MINIMUM SEPARATION DISTANCE FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS FACILITIES. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 11-98 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 4/8/98 TAX MAP NO. 110-1-2.7 LOT SIZE: 2.29 ACRES SECTION: 179-23C, 179-26C, 179-66 B, 179-72 MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LAPHAM-No Community Staff Notes from you? MR. ROUND-No Staff Notes. th MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. “At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 8 day of April 1998, the above application for an Area Variance to construct a gas station/convenience store with associated parking, lighting and signage was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Disapprove Comments: The WCPB denies this application without prejudice and will re-hear it after the Applicant has worked with the Warren County DPW to resolve the issues on the curb cuts, to resolve the issue of multiple uses and traffic counts on the piece of property and to resolve the issues of off-site impacts of the lighting systems and signage located there.” Tracey M. Clothier, Chairperson. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Before we start, the Warren County Planning Board has disapproved this application, which means to override Warren County, we have to have a majority plus one, so we need five in favor of, whereas, to disapprove, we only need four. So, having said that, Mr. O’Connor. MR. O’CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Lapham and Gentlemen, for the record, I’m Michael O’Connor, from the law firm of Little & O’Connor. I’m representing the applicant. With me this evening is Bill Wolfrom, from Hess, along with Kendell Gilgore from Hess. We also have two consultants with us, Dennis MacElroy, from Environmental Design, and Shelly Johnston who is the traffic consultant. Part of the reason that we’re all here together is that there was a meeting this afternoon with the Highway Department for the County to resolve the differences with the County, and a lot of what was read as to the County comments, or all of that has been resolved at this point. Probably we’re much in the phase of overkill for the presentation that we need to make to your Board, and I don’t say that begging the question. We had two applications in for variances for you, and we will withdraw the one which had to do with the required separation between the ingress and egress exits. We are going to conform to what the County has recommended, and basically we are going to amend our site plan and make it part of our site plan application, go back to the County Planning Board, and we will show one exit on Quaker Road. It’ll be a wider exit than we had before. It will not, I think we’ve shown it on this map here, and I apologize for confusing the thing, if I want, but I would like to kind of just put it aside. It really shouldn’t be an issue that you really have to concern yourself with, particularly even the County denial. Although you still have to have a super majority vote because of the status of the record, but basically on Quaker Road we will have one entrance here, and on Dix Avenue, we’ll have two entrances. One will be near the intersection, and this will be for right turns into the property only. It will be one way, and we’ll have another ingress/egress immediately opposite the one for K-Mart. So we’ve changed that. This entrance and exit, if you will, has the proper distance. I think you’re required by Ordinance to have 150 feet separation, and that does. I think it’s 180 feet. So the old map that we had, as far as the entrance and exit, is going to be put aside, and we withdraw that part of our application that was requesting a variance from what is required. The other part of our application was due to the fact that the property is divided by a zone line, if you literally read the Ordinance, it would require a no man’s land of 100 foot strip, 50 feet on each side of the zone line, and it’s apparently rather unique because the best, I think, the Staff could tell, and I think this was after consultation with Leon Steves, that zone line didn’t follow a street, water course, property line, when it was drawn. For some reason, it followed a lighting district line, which even if you look at your own Ordinance and the dictates of what should determine a zone line, it doesn’t appear to have been followed. What I’m speaking of is in the southwest corner of the property. It’s this dotted line. One side is LI-1A, light industrial, and the other side is Highway Commercial, and even though it’s light industrial on this side, the uses there aren’t typically light industrial, at least not in that particular part of the zone. Our request is that you do away with the buffer requirement on either side of that line, which would allow us to orderly develop the site. Otherwise, you’re 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/22/98) going to have a line out into here, which would greatly inhibit the site with very little off setting benefit to anyone, except that you’ve got a strip of land that’s vacant. I think even if you look at this line, as it continues up north and joins Quaker Road, it probably dissects the existing building that’s up there. I’m not sure how that all happened or didn’t happen, but we’ve shown it on here. We’re paying a little bit more attention to it than what we might have in the past or what not. So basically the Area Variance that we have before you, that we would ask for your permission or approval of, is to allow us to use this configuration internally. If you take a look at either map, this one here or the one that was part of the package, the location of the building itself, the location of the pumps, and the location of the canopy are still the same. It just doesn’t seem to make any sense to require a buffer in that area, and particularly, I think, on this end of the property where you actually have pretty much a commercial use on the other side of it, you don’t have a, what would be known as a light industrial use, and maybe we’ve got to go back, from a Town point of view, and take a look at that. It’s understandable why, maybe if you had a light industrial zone, and you had a light industrial use within the zone, that you might want to have a buffer zone to the adjoining zones, and I really can’t even fathom why you would have this zone buffer, this buffer requirement from the HC to the Light Industrial. Because Light Industrial is going to be a more concentrated, more business like use than the Highway Commercial, but that’s something that maybe the Town Board’s got to look at. There aren’t a lot of alternatives, as far as if you really want to get into nitty gritties and everything else, as to building this location. This area over in here is a wetland. We’re trying to keep the entrances a little bit away from, as far away as we can, from the intersection. So that you have more stacking area on the light, and that’s basically where we’re at. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Any questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-I’m curious. What would be in the triangle, Mike? Is that landscaping? MR. O’CONNOR-Most of it’s landscaping. The trash receptacles and a couple of parking spots. MR. STONE-No, I meant up in the corner. MR. O’CONNOR-Up in here? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. O’CONNOR-That is going to be green space with our sign, a freestanding sign. This is a freestanding sign. This is green area, and this is the planting plan, which was approved by the Beautification Committee. We had a planting plan that was approved by the Beautification Committee. It would be this one here. We’re going to have to modify that a little bit. I’ll have to talk to Chris whether or not we’ve got to go back to Beautification again. Basically what we’re going to do is have less driveways. MR. THOMAS-According to the Ordinance, you need a connecting road, or a service road to the next property. MR. O’CONNOR-As I’m told, what we need to do is have a set aside for that, and there’s a provision in the Ordinance that when the adjoining owner wants to make that available, they will enter into an agreement with us as to the construction and maintenance of it, and the cost of it, and we have set that up right in this area here, and we noted it on our plan. MR. THOMAS-All right. I’ll tell you right now. I have a big problem with the entrance and exit off Quaker Road, even the new plan. I have a problem with somebody trying to turn left onto Quaker Road and go north, well, northwest, at about five o’clock in the afternoon when that place is backed up. I think it’s just asking for an accident, just a place for an accident to happen. MR. O’CONNOR-You probably aren’t going to have a lot of people that are going to be doing that at that time of day, but during other times of the day, you are probably going to have some people that are going to do it. I think we all get used to driving, as to what traffic will permit. MR. THOMAS-Right. MR. O’CONNOR-That is a permitted access. We meet all the standards. We’ve met at length with Roger Gebo today, I think it was, and he has conferred with Wayne LaMothe, and they have approved it, and I guess he has the jurisdiction of granting the curb cuts or not. 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/22/98) MR. THOMAS-Because I can see that, on the Dix Avenue entrance there, the farthest one to the west, I can see people ripping right through there to go right out the other side on Quaker Road and take a left. I can see that happening now, and to avoid that intersection. MR. STONE-You mean people who go left onto Quaker? MR. THOMAS-Left onto Quaker Road. MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. If you take a look at the new configuration, okay, which maybe you do have or don’t have. MR. THOMAS-Yes, we’ve got it. MR. O’CONNOR-They have purposely located that so that it’s not a straight run. People would have to zig zag around the pumps to do that. If you looked at the old one, it was more of a straight run, particularly with the western entrance, or the western curb cut, and this way here it is not that same enter. MR. THOMAS-Because my opinion is I want to see what the Planning Board’s got to say before we approve this. That’s my opinion. MR. ROUND-Typically, the Planning Board won’t hear you until you have the variance. MR. THOMAS-Until they have the variance. MR. O’CONNOR-But the only thing we’re talking about, before you right now, Mr. Thomas, is whether or not we’re required to have a 50 foot buffer over here. If anything, if we were required to have the 50 foot buffer, we’d be more constrained to push things out, and probably make it more congested on the site. This allows us a better development. It gives us a better usage of that site. MR. THOMAS-Well, I’ll tell you right now, my opinion is that buffer line, I have no problem granting that easement, because I don’t think it belongs there, and it’s between, like you said, a light industrial zone and a highway commercial zone. So I really don’t have any problem with that buffer line, and if that’s the only thing before us tonight. MR. STONE-Well, but it’s on both sides of that line, right? The trash barrels would require that buffer, would be in the buffer zone, too. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. O’CONNOR-Elimination of the buffer through our property, and that is all that we’re here, particularly when we would, they met at length this afternoon with the County, and worked out what the County was agreeable. They’ve also had input from the Glens Falls Transportation people. All the transportation people seem to be happy with the second proposal that we make for curb cuts. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Does anyone else have any questions for the applicant? MR. HAYES-So this part of your application, the 179-66B, that’s a scratch then, Mike, for clarification? MR. O’CONNOR-Yes. MR. HAYES-That’s the part of it you’re saying we can remove for a motion? MR. O’CONNOR-Yes, all of Section 2 of the Page 3 can be eliminated. There was a narrative page that was behind the application. MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this variance, in favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED GREG SHERRY 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/22/98) MR. SHERRY-Thank you. My name is Greg Sherry. I work for King Fuels, from Troy, New York. We are interested in the project, as far as the square footage of the convenience store, and the amount of dispensers that would be on the site, in the hope that maybe to meet that 50 foot buffer zone on each side, the site could be, or the project could be downsized, in order to conform to the variance without the Board here granting a variance, and what would equate to a competitive advantage over King Fuels. We have a site right across the corner from them. We bought and developed that site, not thinking that this corner would be developed, based on that buffer zone, and now the variance request would change the nature of our original investment, and also give Hess a competitive advantage over us. MR. THOMAS-All right. Does anyone have any questions? MR. STONE-Well, could Hess not put, if we didn’t grant the buffer, they could move that building and cantilever it out over that ridge to the north/northeast, could you not? MR. O’CONNOR-It would make it an odd place. MR. STONE-Yes, I mean, it would be off center a little bit. MR. O’CONNOR-We could move everything, we could move the islands, Bill is better able to address it than I am, Bill Wolfrom. You could move things out into what is the landscape green area. MR. STONE-Yes, you could do that. BILL WOLFROM MR. WOLFROM-You could pull everything forward, to the east, the building, make the building 50 feet off this line, pull this up, but as Mr. O’Connor indicated, it would just make the traffic pattern on the east end much more confusing. MR. STONE-But could you move that building up and to the right, where there’s a ridge? Obviously, there’s a ridge there, too. MR. THOMAS-That’s wetlands. MR. STONE-Here’s the wetland, but they could go a little further, though. MR. THOMAS-You have to have 100 feet back, I think, from the edge of the wetland. MR. WOLFROM-You could pull everything forward. It would just make it tighter and more difficult to get out. MR. O’CONNOR-Mr. Thomas, I don’t think there’s any setback from the Corps. MR. THOMAS-Yes. It’s U.S. Army. There’s no setback from a Corps? MR. O’CONNOR-It’s from a State, it’s a State designated wetland that our setback requires. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I didn’t know that there was any difference. MR. ROUND-Well, they’re completely different animals. MR. THOMAS-Is there any reason you couldn’t encroach into that wetlands? MR. ROUND-I think for single family residences, you can fill up to one third of an acre, and then there’s a permit procedure to fill out for anything other than that. Army Corps is set up completely different than, DEC will do their delineations. Corps relies on a consultant to do it. It’s two completely different animals, and I think the setback is going to apply to what the Quaker Road setback is. It’s not going to be a wetland setback. MR. HAYES-The Travel Corridor’s going to do it anyway, you’re saying? MR. ROUND-Yes. 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/22/98) MR. STONE-So it could be moved is what you’re saying, Chris? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. STONE-It could be slid up to the. MR. ROUND-(lost words) to move it toward Quaker Road, but they’d still have to comply with the Quaker Road setback, for the Travel Corridor. MR. THOMAS-Yes, that’s 75 feet, I believe. MR. STONE-Okay. How far is it now? MR. WOLFROM-It looks like 120 feet from Quaker to the edge of the building now. MR. STONE-Okay. So it could go 50. MR. WOLFROM-Well, you could move it north, but that still doesn’t, you’d still need the 50 foot off the rear property, as I understand it. MR. STONE-Well, it’s the zone line which goes up on an angle there. It’s not the property line we’re talking about. MR. O’CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, if the speaker’s done, can I address his comments first? MR. STONE-Sure. MR. THOMAS-Sure. MR. O’CONNOR-Are you done with your comments? MR. SHERRY-Well, I haven’t heard any answers to some of the questions I’ve posed. One of the things that would make this project work for them is if they scaled the project down. One of their competitive advantages the number of fueling positions and the size of the C Store. If you could picture our location, we have a very small C Store, and that was because the property dictated we build something like that, and again, I’m just going back through the rules we developed under six years ago, and now the rules that are being proposed now. MR. O’CONNOR-I think my comment would be more generic. We’re applying under the Zoning Ordinance for relief for an Area Variance. I’ve been doing this for a long, long time. Economic competition is not the basis for consideration, when you consider the impacts that our proposal would have. I will admire the honesty of the competition for coming forth and announcing that they are the competition, and they’re here for the purpose of protecting their competitive position. Usually you have a neighbor that comes forth and says, it’s a neighbors position that they’re protecting, and you never can actually pinpoint it to a competitor, but under our standards, you’re talking about the zoning impacts, not the competitive impacts, and the considerations that have just been put forth are totally your jurisdiction and totally beyond the elements that you should be considering when you’re looking at what impact this has, and I just say that to you for the record. I don’t say that you’ve said you’re going to or not going to, but I mean, I’ve never been involved in this particular argument. We have a very artificial line. If you take a look at the beginning of the Zoning Ordinance, it says how they should have set the zoning lines. There are no conditions in there that says that they will follow a lighting district. Chris and I had this question in the very beginning, whether or not maybe we should even apply for an interpretation. There’s another section in there that says that if a property is divided by a zoning line, the majority of the property will control that parcel, and we can extend the usage for the whole parcel, and I think that that would apply also to the buffer zone. It’s something that happened here. I’m not sure as you take this line forward or northerly or southerly, actually, I didn’t go do the research, how the other properties are actually affected by it, but I can’t imagine it would be any different. MR. STONE-Mike, I was not suggesting that as, I was only saying that if, you could do it within the realm of the property, and still have exactly what you have, basically. I’m only saying that if we didn’t grant you relief, it’s possible to do the project anyway. I wasn’t using it as a competitive advantage. I was only saying, you could probably put almost the same project on there, if we turned down the variance. I’m not inclined to turn it down. I’m only saying that, that’s all. 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/22/98) MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions? Are there any other comments you want to make? MR. SHERRY-No. MR. THOMAS-No? Okay. Is there anyone else who’d like to speak opposed? Correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. Livingston’s Quality Manor, 53 Dix Avenue Extension, Glens Falls, NY, 12801, from Willston Realty Corporation, Post Office Box 151, Gloversville, NY, to, Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance Board, “As we are unable to attend tonight’s meeting of the Zoning Board, we wished to have our concerns noted as to the proposed use of the property at the corner of Dix Avenue and Quaker Road by the Amerada-Hess Corp. (area variance # 10-1998) We are the owners of the property directly across Dix Ave. from the above site, occupied by our sister corporation, Livingston’s Furniture. Our main concern is what effect additional traffic and additional driveway entrances on Dix Ave., near the corner of Quaker Rd. would have on traffic flow. We already have congestion at certain times of the day that makes it extremely difficult for anyone to enter our entrance if they are westbound on Dix. We feel that at a minimum, an additional turning lane on the north side of Dix for entering the Hess/Hewlett property would be necessary and ideally two lanes, one for turning right when westbound on Dix and a turning lane for turning left off Dix when westbound into both our entrance and the K-MART entrance. The future widening of Quaker Road to four travel lanes will increase the traffic in this area and should be considered when designing any entrances to the proposed Hess site. Thank you in advance for keeping us informed of any plans for this location and for listening to our concerns. Sincerely, Laurence W. Livingston President” Okay. Adirondack Glens Falls Transportation Council “Dear Chris: As you requested, A/GFTC staff has reviewed the two plans that your office requested comment on. Specific comments on each project, Amerada Hess at the intersection of Quaker & Dix and Jewel’s Donuts on Corinth Rd., are attached. Please contact this office if you have any questions or need any additional information. Thank you. Sincerely, Scott E. Sopczyk Staff Director” Okay. “Site Plan No. 11-98 - Hess Express @ northwest corner of Quaker & Dix Ave. Plan calls for the construction of a 4,950 square foot convenience store with 12 gasoline fueling positions. A/GFTC comments regarding the potential traffic impacts of this project are as follows: 1) The traffic impact study included with the project application indicates that 578 vehicles travel westbound on Quaker Road during the PM peak hour. 1997 traffic counts performed in this same area by NYSDOT put this westbound PM peak movement at 680 per hour (count on Quaker between Rte 9L & 32). This 15% disparity in traffic volume is significant, particularly since the site plan’s estimate is on the low end. 2) Overall, in light of the geometry and traffic volume on at the Quaker/Dix intersection, There appears to be more driveway cuts than may be accommodated and still maintain safe and efficient flow through the intersection. A/GFTC supports Warren County’s opinion that two of the four proposed cuts be eliminated, and that the two closest to the intersection be the ones removed. The two remaining should be widened to three lanes; two for existing traffic (one for left turns & one for right turns) and one for entering traffic. 3) The driveway accessing Dix Ave. should be aligned to directly oppose the existing entrance to K-Mart. This will provide for safer and more efficient turning movements in/out of the respective properties. 4) The driveway on Quaker should be located as far west as possible without disturbing the wet area on the northwest corner of the property. This will minimize any conflicts that may result from eastbound ques at the intersection and all vehicles accessing the CWI property across the street. 5) It is recommended that the Town consider requiring that this development provide direct vehicle access to the existing commercial property immediately adjacent to it on Dix Ave. This will prevent vehicles that wish to stop at both locations from having to enter and exit Dix Ave. twice and improve traffic flow there.” MR. THOMAS-But we aren’t concerned about that, because I imagine the Traffic Council has agreed with your revised plan, if I’m not mistaken. MR. ROUND-They haven’t seen it. MR. THOMAS-They haven’t seen it? MR. O’CONNOR-We saw the letter today. We don’t know exactly what day of the week it was or not. We’ll try and reconcile the difference in traffic counts, but because we’ve now conformed to what the County wanted us to do, it probably is not going to be a real significant issue. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Did you do your own traffic counts? SHELLEY JOHNSTON 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/22/98) MS. JOHNSTON-Yes, I did. MR. THOMAS-And did you come up with anywhere between those numbers that? MR. O’CONNOR-Shelly, why don’t you come up and speak on the record. This is Shelly Johnston who is the traffic consultant. MS. JOHNSTON-Your question again, sir? MR. THOMAS-Did you do a traffic count on this parcel of property on Quaker Road, on Dix Avenue? MS. JOHNSTON-Yes, we did. MR. THOMAS-Did you come up with any numbers near what the other two entities had come up with? MS. JOHNSTON-One of the references is to our count, and the other one is to DOT’s count. What I have to do is confirm what exactly the reference to DOT’s count is. I don’t know if that’s a design hour volume or if that’s an actual turning movement count, or if there were other factors considered in that report that A/GTFC is referencing. For example, if it was counted at a different time of the year or different day of the week, there could be variances. So we have to look into that, but, yes, one of the counts is from us. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. STONE-There’s was the lower one. Yours was the lower of the two. MS. JOHNSTON-Ours was the lower of the two. That’s right. MR. O’CONNOR-And again, maybe that’s site plan review material, but one thing we would mention, too, and we will then, is that in making the traffic count and study that Shelly did, she also discovered that that light is not functioning. It is misfunctioning, in a significant way, and if the timing of it were changed, that intersection would greatly improve. We had talked about volunteering the engineering to do that, and the Town wants to do it as a part of all of Quaker Road, and do all those lights at one time, but there’s a couple of waiting periods on that light that are completely out of whack, and the intersection isn’t functioning right now. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any more questions for the applicant? All right. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-And, no more questions for the applicant? Lets talk about it. Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-The only thing that we are dealing with, Chris, right, is the buffer? MR. ROUND-Right. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. If that is the only issue we are dealing with, first of all, I do not see a problem, in this case, in removing it. I think the plan that the applicants have presented actually has facilitated traffic somewhat, in the sense that the corner, it would be more where I’d be most concerned, that corner going around Dix and Quaker be kept green, and there’ll be no buildings to obscure vision from that angle, because that is, it’s a horrible intersection, and anything that could be done to improve it would be a delight. I try to avoid it at all costs, but the fact that they’re leaving that green space so that you can see around it, and I just don’t see any point to that buffer being there, because, well, the lighting district and the industrial district really shouldn’t be there. It’s out of whack with the neighborhood. MR. THOMAS-You’re right. Lew? MR. STONE-I’m basically, after listening to everything, I think originally I thought maybe we should see if the building could be moved off it, but when you look at the whole thing, and you look at the fact that it makes up a big part of this property and, as Bonnie says, has no real value in 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/22/98) doing anything of a positive nature, I think I would have no problem in ignoring, granting the variance from the buffer on both sides of the zone, of the line. MR. THOMAS-All right. Jamie? MR. HAYES-I agree. I mean, I don’t think the purpose of the buffer zone is served here, and I think that if we did carry the buffer zone out based on the zoning line, it would have the effect of making this parcel largely, and it would really decrease the value of this parcel for the current owner, and I think that would be a taking of some sort, and the plans look great. If Mr. Hess still has the money to spend after what he spent (lost words), I think it’s great. MR. THOMAS-Brian? MR. CUSTER-I agree with what everybody else has pretty much said. I think the project is well thought out, well designed, and I applaud the applicant’s manner and how they approached it, and to remedy some of the situation before they came here. So I think it’s relief that can be granted. MR. THOMAS-All right. Joe? MR. PORTER-I agree, also. MR. THOMAS-Bob? MR. MC NALLY-We had a very similar conversation with that property on Bay Road, with respect to the buffer zones, where two different districts meet, and the lighting zone district, also. It made no sense then. It doesn’t make any more sense now. This property, there’s no purpose served by having a buffer zone where it is. I see no reason or rationale behind it, and given that, it would be a great benefit to the applicant to build it where it is, as it is and as it is designed. Like Brian says, it’s a good project. There are feasible alternatives, perhaps, but I think it’s nicely centered on the property. So I don’t know how better off any other alternative might be. I don’t see any substantial relief by granting a variance from the buffer requirement, not in this particular application, and not for the other properties adjacent to it. So much clearly commercial property. The effects on the neighborhood are going to be minimal, and while the difficulty may be self created, as far as their placement on the property, I don’t see that, on balance, it really has any effect. I’m in favor of it. MR. THOMAS-All right. At first, I was real concerned about the traffic, but since that has been alleviated, with the conversations between the County, the applicant and other interested parties, that there’s nothing we can really do about that, and as I stated before, that zone line does not belong there, because the lighting districts, I don’t know where they came up with that one, but as we’ve said before in the past, that zoning lines should follow property lines, and this thing cuts right through a lot of property. So I would not have any problem in granting a relief from the Ordinance concerning the buffer zone. Having said that, I will ask for a motion. MR. STONE-Well, before we go to a motion, do we have to grant relief for that trash area? I mean, that’s not a building, and yet it’s. MR. ROUND-Buffer zone, I guess, my understanding is that the interpretation has been that no man made improvements. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. So we have to, we need a number for this? MR. THOMAS-No, you don’t. MR. STONE-We’re just going to eliminate? MR. THOMAS-Just, you know, eliminate the need for a buffer zone on this piece of property. MR. STONE-Okay. That’s an easy way to do it. MR. THOMAS-It’s more or less what we’re doing. So that’s what I would call it. 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/22/98) MR. MC NALLY-If any of the properties violates any other setback requirement, we’re not granting relief. They’re still subject to whatever the Code says. MR. THOMAS-Right. MR. STONE-Well, can we eliminate the buffer, or do we have to grant relief? MR. THOMAS-No. The only one that can eliminate the buffer is the Town. MR. STONE-Yes. So we have to grant relief, though. MR. THOMAS-Grant relief from the buffers. MR. STONE-On both sides. MR. THOMAS-On both sides. MR. STONE-That’s what I’m saying. We need the number. You have 15 feet on the one. MR. O’CONNOR-You give us a 50 foot relief on each side of the zone lines. MR. THOMAS-Yes. That’s the easiest way to do it. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 10-1998 AMERADA HESS CORP. , Introduced by Brian Custer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jamie Hayes: Intersection of Quaker Road and Dix Avenue. The applicant proposes the construction of a gas station/convenience store with associated parking, lighting and signage. Relief is requested from the buffer zones, according to Section 179-23C, 179-26C, and 179-72. The applicant requires the elimination of the 50 foot buffer zone, on both sides of the zone line, within the applicant’s property. By approving the variance, the benefit to the applicant, it allows them to go forward with the building of their project. Weighing the characteristics of the neighborhood relative to the project, there is no undesirable changes. In fact, it’s an improvement. the request for relief is not substantial, in my opinion, due to the fact that the zoning lines do not follow the property lines and arbitrarily follow an old lighting district. Relief, it does not appear to have any strong adverse effects, either physically or environmentally, on the area, and the difficulty is not self created because the buffer zones were drawn where they were. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of April, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Porter, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE MR. O’CONNOR-Thank you. USE VARIANCE NO. 13-1998 TYPE: UNLISTED WILLIAM J. SKELLIE OWNER: SAME ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: 1 HOLDEN AVENUE, BEHIND BERRYMILL PLACE PLAZA ON WESTERN AVE., IN THE REAR OF SKELLIE’S PROPERTY APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONTINUE TO LEASE HIS PROPERTY (EASTERN PORTION) TO BERRYMILL PLACE PLAZA AS OVERFLOW PARKING. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM THE USE RESTRICTIONS OF THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONE. CROSS REFERENCE: UV 2-1997, SP 6-97 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 4/8/98 TAX MAP NO. 117-11-8 LOT SIZE: 0.14 ACRES SECTION: 179-26 PAUL HAYES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HAYES-Mr. Chairman, may I be excused, as I am representing the applicant. MR. THOMAS-Okay. You’re excused. th MRS. LAPHAM-“At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 8 day of April 1998, the above application for an Area Variance for relief from rear setback and side setback 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/22/98) requirements for overflow parking on his property was reviewed, and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact.” Tracey M. Clothier, Chairperson. MR. STONE-What did you just read? MR. THOMAS-Warren County. MRS. LAPHAM-Warren County. MR. STONE-Yes, but I see a Use Variance to continue to lease his property, the one I’m looking at. MR. CUSTER-And an Area Variance. MR. STONE-There’s two of them. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. Yes. There is another here that I didn’t get to yet. MR. ROUND-The Area Variance wasn’t required. It was referred that way. MR. STONE-Yes, well, there’s a Use Variance one you’ve got to read. MRS. LAPHAM-Right, a “Use Variance to continue to lease to lease his property to BerryMill Place Plaza as overflow parking, was reviewed, and the following action was taken, Recommendation to: No County Impact.” Tracey M. Clothier, Chairperson. MR. THOMAS-All right. That was the one we needed. The first one was, we didn’t need that, according to Staff. Sir? MR. HAYES-Mr. Chairman, my name is Paul Hayes. I’m representing the property owner, Mr. William Skellie for his application. I guess I can go over what I think is the essence of his application or our application, and then I can go back. It’s kind of unique, because we’re not proposing a new use, to get into the return, but I did an example of what building he could build there and why that would be infeasible, but going through, basically, the outline of what we believe is the essence of the application, considering the list of permitted uses and the required setbacks under Section 179-26, Mr. Skellie could not get a reasonable return using the property as zoned. The entire parcel is only .14 acres. In a light industrial, the minimum lot is an entire acre, and with the setbacks, I have a diagram of what kind of building that he could put there, and what that would mean. If Mr. Skellie developed the property as zoned, it would actually be in conflict with the existing land uses, particularly some of the homes in the area. To the south is, which would be along Luzerne Road, is what remains a row of houses, homes, and I think that what’s proposed is a lower impact use than what Light Industrial would permit, and if we go through the uses that are involved with Light Industrial, it’s logging and mining and all those type of things, and I think that using the property commercially represents less, you know, less of an impact on them, and it’s more in accordance with what’s already going on there. I mean, you have CVS just put a big plaza in, and there’s a landscaping company across the street, and of course Berrymill Place immediately behind, and Curtis Lumber is directly, what would be north. So it’s completely surrounded by commercial property as it is now. The truth be known, I think the whole area being zoned Light Industrial is basically, I think, is under examination at this point anyway. So, using the property as requested, as Plaza Commercial, would actually be like, consistent with the existing uses. I think that we’ve been a part of the recycling of that neighborhood. We’d like to continue that, but it’s not always easy. These people are human beings. They own the property, and it’s theirs to do with as they please. So, when we’ve tried to continue some momentum in that neighborhood, which would of course be to our self interest, we have to do it in a way that they’re comfortable with, and I can tell you that we own the property directly across from this on Holden Avenue, that white building that now, there’s a landscaping company in there, but the deals that we’ve had to construct have, over time, been unusual. I can tell you that in negotiations that there’s been Corvettes and cases of cigarettes. What I’m saying is there’s a different level of, you know, negotiations that have to go on when you deal with these people, as far as using their property or buying them. So, it hasn’t always been easy. In the case of that white building, which is directly across from this parcel, it was a shanty that was filled, it took $10,000 to remove the paint cans and that was what was in it, completely filled with paint cans and flammable paint cans. MR. STONE-Do you mean across the street, Jamie? 42 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/22/98) MR. HAYES-Right. There’s a white two story building. MR. STONE-Opposite, you mean, this guy’s property, and then Holden and then on the other side? MR. HAYES-That’s correct. MR. STONE-You own that property? MR. HAYES-We bought it, and we tore down the shack that was there and we put that building in, and we rent it to a landscaping company now. So I guess, in an overall sense, you know, I think that what we’ve been involved with in the neighborhood, whether it be Cool Beans or Berrymill Place, or those buildings, has been a positive impact on the neighborhood, and quite frankly, when we, when people started parking on this person’s lawn, which of course offended him, all right, immediately, and that’s perfectly understandable. We talked with him, to say, you know, it’s not always easy, particularly when you have a restaurant involved, to control where people park. I know, as a young person, that when I went out, you know, socially, that if a place was crowded, at any given time, you still parked wherever you could. If it’s on the grass or wherever, you’re going to go there. So we talked to Mr. Skellie, and he was only comfortable, at that time, renting the parcel that is there now, you know, with that square footage. Another concern of ours, and I think if you inspected the property, was is that we, Berrymill Place itself was over $100,000 over budget, and part of the fact that it was over budget had to do with beautification. We exceeded the plans that we submitted to you guys, in a number of areas, including sodding the front and running the siding all the way down the side. I think we’ve shown good faith in that we, you know, we’re in it for the long haul. We’re in it to make things better, and that’s why the parking was even arrived at to begin with, eventually to say, we’ll meet your needs, and this would actually be an improvement in our situation. I don’t even really think it’s needed, but it just cleans up everybody’s idea, and part of the idea, quite frankly, was, what was coming back toward Berrymill Place. We had done a lot to beautify it, and if you look at both those parcels, Mr. Skellie’s and Regina’s parcel, which would be the house now, that’s there, there is a lot of junk that’s actually starting to work it’s way back toward our property. There’s a lot of cars and broken down vehicles and that type of stuff, and it’s a concern, I mean, as far as site. We’d like to, with that parking area, we’d like to put a fence up and completely, you know, separate ourselves, more than we’ve been able to so far, and quite frankly, that was part of our motivation. So I guess a lot of the logic, you know, as far as the Use Variance, as far as I’m concerned, piggybacks off the logic that because it is an extension of Berrymill Place, that parking is allowable in both a commercial plaza and light industrial. I guess, when I talked to Chris about this, you know, even having to be here was more of a procedural technicality than, you know, they’re both allowable in each zone. It’s not like I’m a, we’re trying to do something that isn’t allowable in one, and I guess it’s just the fact that one’s zoned light industrial and one’s zoned commercial. MR. STONE-I guess I’m trying to understand what it is we’re trying to do here. I mean, the guy’s got a piece of property, and he says, you can park cars on it. Why do we have to be here? MR. ROUND-Berrymill Plaza is a nonconforming use. It’s been granted a Use Variance, but it’s not an allowed use in the Light Industrial zone. An expansion of this activity onto other light industrial property is considered, it needs relief from the use requirements. It’s a commercial use. It’s a commercial plaza, with an accessory use of that is parking, and that’s expanded on to traditional light industrial property. So although parking is allowed in that zone, parking for light industrial properties would be associated with a light industrial use, an accessory to an allowed use, okay. This is not an allowed use in that zone, the Plaza itself. If it was a restaurant, a singly, alone, and this was restaurant parking expanding over into that, we wouldn’t be looking at it, but it’s a retail use. Retail is not allowed in Light Industrial. That’s why the Berrymill Plaza initially came in for a Use Variance. It’s accessory to the retail use, and it’s a Light Industrial zone, it also requires a Use Variance. MR. STONE-Okay. What if Mr. Skellie, on his own volition, paved that, how many feet have you got there, 25 feet? MR. HAYES-Yes. MR. STONE-He paved 25 feet, on his property, and then turned his back, and said, I don’t care what happens to that piece of property, I don’t care if people use it? 43 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/22/98) MR. ROUND-I think it’s, you know, anything, from an enforcement perspective, or trying to detail that, it’s something that we wanted to address. Immediately after, or signing off on the site plan approval, it became necessary, it became evident that they needed additional parking, and they wanted to accommodate it by the adjoining property. First, it was just a gravel area, snow removal, fenced parking, and the realized that there are constraints to their particular site, and they need additional parking, so, I mean, this is the proper way to address that. MR. STONE-Well, one of the things you mentioned is one of the things that does disturb me, the fact that you did come to get a variance, and were satisfied with the parking that was granted. MR. HAYES-Absolutely. MR. STONE-And now we’re saying you’re not satisfied with the parking that was granted. MR. HAYES-Actually, we are. I mean, I can say on the record that I don’t think we need it, per se, but when you have as much invested in the property, and Mr. Skellie offers it because he’s already being offended by people parking on his property, it was a natural remedy that made sense, where he was actually justifiably compensated for, you know, ingress on his property that was happening. I mean, I can’t say that they weren’t running over our landscaping. MR. STONE-But you could put two posts up with a chain. MR. HAYES-We could, and I’m not here to say that once he said, hey, that’s a good idea, and we said, that’s a good idea, that we didn’t see that, as Chris says, as a benefit to our parcel. I’m not here to tell you that. MR. STONE-I understand that. MR. HAYES-I mean, because it is a benefit to our parcel, and the reality is that that’s why I’m here. Otherwise, we’d just say, okay, you know, we’ll try and stop you from parking there, which is tough to enforce, too. I mean, parking’s a sensitive issue, but basically, we’re here. That’s there, and we’d like, the truth is, we’d like to improve that spot now to the point where it’s in accordance with the quality of Berrymill Place, and that’s why we want to get formal acceptance. MR. STONE-Okay, but if you do that, and the house next door sees that you’ve given him some consideration, are they going to ask the same thing behind their house? MR. HAYES-Well, we’ve talked to them, because we’re worried about their stuff coming back to us, too, and they had no interest. So, we just left the landscaping, and, you know, we try to enforce cars not parking there, but they still do, and they get upset. So, I guess it’s one of these things that when I’d spoken with people in the Department, you know, that if we had everybody in front of us here that parked on non business properties when there was a, certain times and stuff like that, and they made all those people come for Use Variances, we’d be spending a lot of time talking about this. We really would, because I can think of a lot of examples off the top of my head. So it more has to do with, we want to get it right, and get it where we can finish that properly. We have Item Four there now, and I don’t think that that’s as attractive as I would like it to be, but it’s permittable. There were a lot of things that nobody would share about, and that’s why, you know, we’re here, and that’s why I’m in front of the Board, and I spent a lot of, it was not easy to convince Mr. Skellie that, you know, to sign these forms and stuff. They don’t necessarily have a great deal of faith in procedural matters. Do you know what I mean? MR. STONE-You’re saying West Glens Falls? MR. HAYES-No. I’m just saying that they don’t, you know, they don’t necessarily have the same faith or understanding, and that’s, and I guess there’s no need to comment on that, but this is getting a lot of things straightened around. He’s already using the property commercially. That’s what’s kind of ironic about this. He’s fixing cars in that garage, you know, and it’s zoned Light Industrial. MR. CUSTER-As long as it’s truck repair, he’s okay. MR. HAYES-Yes. He could fit a nice truck in there. MR. STONE-He was working on a boat the other day when I was there. 44 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/22/98) MR. HAYES-Right. It’s a lot of everything. MR. STONE-I mean, there is a concern here. Alleged hardship is unique and does not apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood. MR. HAYES-Well, I think the fact that that is zoned Light Industrial is, you know, that that is a hardship in that neighborhood, because I don’t think that that is a realistic use of any of those properties, particularly with the size of the lots. I don’t think that, you could make the case that that is even the intention of Light Industrial zoning, to put them on places where there’s houses and small lots, and Plaza Commercial activity. I think that that’s a hardship. MR. STONE-That’s the Town Board. MR. HAYES-Yes. Well, I agree, but I’m saying, to me, that’s the hardship that’s really at place here. I mean, if they try to develop that as Light Industrial and put a logging company or a t.v. station or mining company. MR. STONE-Or a restaurant. MR. CUSTER-There’s no acreage there. MR. HAYES-I don’t think a restaurant is permissible in Light Industrial, is it? MR. STONE-Yes, it is. Type II. MR. CUSTER-You said it’s .14 of an acre? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. HAYES-Yes. MR. THOMAS-It’s a Type II, so it would have to go before the Planning Board. MR. STONE-Yes, but it’s permitted. MR. THOMAS-Yes. The question I have for Jamie is the, do you have the required number of parking spaces now, as the Berrymill Plaza sits? MR. HAYES-Yes. Well, we have, as far as, we came to an agreement with Mr. Martin, when the parcel was proposed, you know, we came to an agreement on what the Town would accept, based on the fact that three buildings were being reduced to one. It was an overall thing. He delineated the building size. Basically, he told us, you know the original Daggetts building, and then we put an addition on that, well, that was determined by Mr. Martin. He said, look it, this is as far as we’re willing to go. This was the parking that would be left, and I can’t recommend anything beyond this that we’re comfortable with. So that’s how that was arrived at. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Okay. They didn’t use the formula, you know, like for the Berrymill, one parking space for each four chairs. MR. HAYES-No. I think it was based on the desire to, you know, there was a strong desire, the Daggett Vending building and the continued usage of that as a distribution business, on a road that was overtaxed. I mean, we were a major player in blocking that road on a daily basis, I can tell you that, and there was a lot of on the table for the Town, and I think that’s how we arrived at that. When we were having the meetings, that was my understanding. MR. STONE-And who gave permission for this logging company to block off the road the other day? MR. HAYES-I’d like to know. MR. STONE-They literally had the road blocked on both sides of Luzerne Road. MR. HAYES-No, on Western. 45 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/22/98) MR. STONE-On Western, from Main to Luzerne. They were taking down a big tree or something, but when I was there, this road, you could not get through. So I went through CVS. I got a prescription on the way, though. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. STONE-No, I did not. MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone wishing to speak in favor of this variance? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? Do we have any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-No. There’s a letter to somebody, but it’s from Chris Round. So, there’s no correspondence from anyone. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Okay. I’ll close the public hearing. Are there anymore questions for the applicant? If not, lets talk about it so we can get out of here before 11 o’clock. MRS. LAPHAM-We’re going to have to talk fast. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Brian? MR. CUSTER-Well, I’d raise the specter of the character of the applicant. MR. THOMAS-I don’t think that’s part of the test. MR. HAYES-Mark that in the record, for my appeal. MR. CUSTER-I agree with the applicant’s argument on the hardship position, the criteria. I do believe that the zoning there presents its own unique hardships to them. So it’s not self created. The financial portion is accepting the applicant’s, again, explanation that, obviously, you’re not going to make a substantial return on that piece the way it is currently outlined and everything. I can accept that also. The request for this variance is not going to alter the character of the neighborhood. In fact, it’s going to add to the continuity that’s already been going on there, and I don’t think it applies to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood. In fact, it’s minuscule. So I have no problems. I can vote for it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew? MR. STONE-This is a difficult one because the first test, reasonable return. I’m looking at the Type II things here, which include restaurant, which include, skipping all the way down to passenger limousine and/or bus storage and terminal facility. These are certainly things, truck repair facility, as you say, he is doing some automobile repair. MR. HAYES-On cars. MR. STONE-Well, but the point is, he is getting some return on the property, as zoned. Reasonable return? I don’t know what a reasonable return for that particular property is. MR. HAYES-He’s getting a reasonable return, but he’s not using it as zoned. I mean, he’s using it to fix cars. MR. STONE-But he could use it as zoned. I mean, our test is to allow use not otherwise allowed in zoning, an applicant must demonstrate to the Board a necessary hardship. It says, demonstration includes all of the following, cannot realize a reasonable return, substantial as shown by competent financial evidence. I mean, you know as well as I do the Use Variances, we’re very tough on Use Variances. MR. HAYES-Sure. 46 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/22/98) MR. STONE-And I’m looking at the Type II, and I just see a couple of things that he hasn’t tried, necessarily. So I’m concerned by that. I’m willing, obviously, Brian did not have a problem there. I’m willing to listen. MR. THOMAS-Well, just an aside to that, that building has been there a long time, and it probably pre-existed zoning. MR. CUSTER-I also think, Lew, I took more of a look at the acreage there, and although I concur with you that those other uses are probably available to be put on there, the acreage is going to preclude anything to go in there. I’m reaching here, but without looking at competent financial information, (lost word) and things of that nature, but I can’t see a restaurant, and those things exceeding there on that kind of acreage. MR. HAYES-Well, when you consider that the, in the 179-26 Light Industrial, the front yard setback is 50 feet, and the two side yard, the two side setbacks are 30 feet. Basically, I mean, I drew a little map doing that, if he was going to construct a new business or run a restaurant to that nature. MR. CUSTER-We’d have six or seven Area Variances to consider. MR. STONE-Yes, that could be. MR. HAYES-And the most he could do would be a building of 184 square feet. So, I mean, there’s no business in the world that, with that size. MRS. LAPHAM-That’s even smaller than we allow for a home. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. STONE-This is very helpful. MR. HAYES-I mean, if you put a handicap bathroom in there, which I can assure you, Mr. Hatin would be happy to hang around and make sure that you do, that you would basically have nothing. MR. STONE-Hearing that, that certainly is very helpful. The other concern I have is, what are we really granting here? Are we granting Mr. Skellie the opportunity to park cars on this property? MR. ROUND-To utilize that portion of the site, and you have a copy of the site plan in front of you. MR. CUSTER-We can restrict that, can’t we? MR. HAYES-Sure. MR. STONE-Well, yes. I’m just trying to think what the variances that we’re giving. MR. MC NALLY-He can already park cars on his property, related to the existing industrial use. He cannot park cars on that property which are related to a Plaza Commercial use. He could park just as many cars there for the industrial use, but only as they relate to an existing industrial use. You can’t park cars there that relate to a Plaza Commercial use. You could have the same cars, the same number of cars, but it’s which property is using those parking spaces. MR. HAYES-(Lost words) it amounts to Mr. Skellie’s property becoming Plaza Commercial where there’s no, the distinction is no longer a problem. That’s what we’re talking about. MR. MC NALLY-There’s going to be no change in the essential character of the use of this property. It could be used for parking any way you. MR. STONE-I’m just curious what we’re going to say. I really have no objection to this thing. I’m only trying to be very careful. MR. ROUND-If the variance is granted, it would indicate that, allowed parking associated with a retail establishment that’s not an allowed use, and that’s why you have to grant the variance. It’s not allowed in the Light Industrial zoning. That’s the relief you’re granting. You could restrict it 47 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/22/98) to that portion of the property that’s currently utilized in that manner, and whatever the number of spaces is, etc., etc., you could always put reasonable restrictions on it. MR. STONE-But you’re not talking about buying this property. MR. HAYES-No, but I mean, I think that, when I talked to Mr. Skellie, I was like, listen, Mr. Skellie, this, part of the reason that he agreed to do this was, I said, look it, this property, your property, you’re using it commercial. This is cleaning up what is going to be in your favor anyway. I wouldn’t want him to think that I just got my thing taken care of, and I wasn’t, do you know what I mean? It should be divided, that would be more confusing, I think, than it was worth, putting that kind of medium in there and saying, you know, I think that the whole neighborhood is commercial as it is right now. I mean, everything around it is commercial. You have Curtis, CVS, Berrymill Plaza, Bolt Landscaping. MRS. LAPHAM-Plus Jamie’s not applying for himself, so to speak. He’s applying for Mr. Skellie as his agent. MR. STONE-I understand that, and I’m just trying to, what we’re going to grant Mr. Skellie, is what I’m really thinking. Are we going to say that you can use your whole property, or that you’re getting relief? MR. HAYES-I think what I’m asking you for is that his property be, he get a Use Variance for his property so that it’s Plaza Commercial, and then if you want to put the stipulation in that it’s going to be within accordance as so stated in the application, which there’s a diagram, and I have a rental contract. That’s fine. We’re not looking for anything, you know, to have the ability to expand that. MR. STONE-No, no. I understand that, Jamie. I’m not, that’s not it. I’m trying to write a motion in my mind, is what I’m really trying to do. What are we granting here? The test, this is very helpful, in terms of, Number One, the rest is basically not a problem. The alleged hardship is unique, in the sense that you’ve got a very substandard lot in a one acre Light Industrial zone. Obviously, very difficult to do anything with. It’s not going to alter the character of the neighborhood, and it’s not been self-created, because zoning, you’re telling me, pre-dates this particular garage that’s there, probably. MR. HAYES-Yes, it’s been there since the 40’s. MR. STONE-So, my only concern, and I hope other people share it, what are we going to say? MR. HAYES-Well, I want you to get it right, too. I mean, I don’t want to come back. MR. STONE-So, I guess I’m convinced that you ought to be able to park cars there. Now, lets see what we can do to make that happen. MR. MC NALLY-Are you just concerned about how large a space he’s looking for? MR. STONE-No. MR. HAYES-Well, the application is to have Mr. Skellie get a Use Variance for that .14 acres. MR. MC NALLY-The entire lot? MR. HAYES-Right, because I’m representing him and that’s what I told him. I wouldn’t feel right going back to him and saying, look it, I got my thing done. It wouldn’t be right. Outside of that, you know, restricting the parking as far as Berrymill Place to the area demarcated on the application, that’s fine. I have no problem with that whatsoever. Because then we would have got a Plaza Commercial, which I think it belongs anyway. MR. STONE-Well, we can’t make it Plaza Commercial. MR. HAYES-No. What I’m saying is you can give a Use Variance, though, that it’s, there’s no difference. MRS. LAPHAM-I do think there’s a hardship on that property. We’ve all agreed pretty much, and I think the parking ought to continue. Mr. Skellie should continue to be able to get his rent, 48 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/22/98) and we can’t, you know, you don’t want to penalize somebody for being successful. Berrymill Place is successful enough to need extra parking, but I don’t know exactly how one would word it, either. MR. THOMAS-No. It’s going to be tough wording this one. MR. HAYES-Well, if he gets a Use Variance to be Plaza Commercial, is there any issue at all, Chris, as far as then if people park on that property? MR. THOMAS-Well, what I’m doing now is looking through the parking ordinance. MR. ROUND-The application in front of us is to lease that portion for parking, and if that’s your wish. MR. STONE-Well, should we table it and try to work up the language? MR. ROUND-I don’t know. Is there somebody else on the Board that’s comfortable with the language of a resolution? MR. MC NALLY-What happens to his current use if the entire property changed to Plaza Commercial? MR. HAYES-I think he’s grandfathered. MR. ROUND-The advertisement was to allow parking on that portion that’s shown on your application. You have the application in front of you. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. HAYES-But it was a Use Variance that was. MR. ROUND-Right, but you can place reasonable restrictions. MR. HAYES-Right. I’m all for the reasonable restrictions. MR. ROUND-Minimum relief is necessary, as that portion of the site. MR. STONE-So we could issue a Use Variance that allows somebody else’s, and I’m being as broad as I can, somebody else’s restaurant parking on a non permitted use in Light Industrial. MR. HAYES-I think you want to say Plaza Commercial, because it’s basically, the people that park there. MR. CUSTER-I don’t think they need a variance. MR. STONE-I don’t, either, but Chris thinks they do, from an enforcement standpoint. MR. HAYES-Well, and if that’s what we need to do to get it right, then that’s what we should. MR. THOMAS-Well, see, there’s really no principal structure on there. There’s an accessory structure on that piece of property, which is a garage, and parking is to a principal structure, and, you know, really, there’s no principal structure on that piece of property. MR. CUSTER-The garage is not considered a principal structure. MR. THOMAS-No, that’s an accessory, a garage is considered. MR. STONE-You couldn’t have it. Under today’s zoning, you couldn’t put a garage. MR. THOMAS-Not in that zone. MR. STONE-Even a residential zone. MR. THOMAS-Well, in any zone. 49 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/22/98) MR. ROUND-A garage, if he’s conducting a principal use, the principal use (lost words). MR. THOMAS-Yes, from that standpoint, but that, the use he has now there, auto repair, is not a legitimate business in the Light Industrial zone. MR. MC NALLY-I don’t, it seems if the problem with the rest of the property, why don’t we just change the use of the portion you’re looking for. You may not like that. MR. ROUND-That would be my recommendation. That was the application in front of me and that was my understanding, what that request was for. MR. MC NALLY-That way you get around the problem of advertising, and stuff like that, but he’s not hanging his hat on having his garage changed to Plaza Commercial. Right? MR. HAYES-No. I think, you know, I think he just wanted to have it all cleaned up. I don’t know if he thinks that that should be zoned Light Industrial, but I mean, he’s grandfathered to do that as a garage. I mean, I don’t think it’s a fatal, I mean, if I went to him tomorrow and said, look it, you know, you can keep doing what you’re doing, based on the grandfathered and pre-dating zoning, and we can keep doing what we’re doing and you can keep getting your rent. I don’t think it’s the end of the world. MR. MC NALLY-Chris, do we run into any problem having a single parcel with two separate type uses on the same parcel? MR. ROUND-I don’t think you’re going to be able to make that distinction after this is addressed. It’s very unusual, and I can see you struggling. MRS. LAPHAM-We already have that on other properties where there’s one, we just debated one where it was Light Industrial on the same property as Plaza Commercial, and we decided to do away with the buffer. MR. THOMAS-Well, we haven’t heard from everybody yet. We need to hear from Joe. MR. PORTER-I don’t have a problem with it. MR. THOMAS-I don’t have a problem with it either. It’s just going to be the wording of this variance. Now, we also have, in the Zoning Ordinance, 179-66.1, which is linking of commercial and industrial parking lots and internal roads, and it also says, the last sentence says, “The Planning Board shall also consider interconnection of retail areas to allow for pedestrian access and circulation”. MR. STONE-We’re not the Planning Board. MR. THOMAS-I know. It also says if the adjacent property is undeveloped, then a connectionway shall be identified on the site plan for future linkage. So, what we’re talking about here is between a Plaza Commercial and a Light Industrial. So they would be linking. MR. HAYES-If you maintain that distinction. MR. STONE-You’re not Plaza Commercial. You’re still Light Industrial. MR. THOMAS-You’re still Light Industrial. MR. STONE-With a variance. MR. HAYES-Right. MR. THOMAS-Just say you’re putting a link between the two properties. It’s actually what it is is a link between the two properties. We’re grabbing at straws here. MR. MC NALLY-Just so I understand it. We’ve been talking all this time about a Use Variance, and I’m happy with that. Are you seeking Area Variances? MR. HAYES-No, it’s not necessary. 50 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/22/98) MR. MC NALLY-Okay. Then I can do that. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there anymore questions for the applicant before Mr. McNally does his thing? MR. MC NALLY-I have no more questions. MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 13-1998 WILLIAM J. SKELLIE , Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Custer: 1 Holden Avenue, behind the Berrymill Place and Plaza on Western Avenue in the rear of Skellie’s property. The applicant proposes to continue to lease his property. The eastern portion depicted on the application is a parcel 83.7 feet by 30 feet, approximately, wide, to Berrymill Place Plaza. Relief is requested from the use restrictions of the Light Industrial zone, and the request is made that it be changed to Plaza Commercial. Looking at the factors, I find that there is no reasonable return, with respect to this parcel. As far as I’m concerned, it’s unused and unusable as Light Industrial. It’s vacant land. It’s to the rear of an existing, nonconforming use, and has no economic use or benefit whatsoever. I don’t see any change in the essential character of the area. In fact, I think by improving the property, taking away the garbage, making it look attractive and appropriate for the use of the Plaza, it’s only going to be a betterment. The circumstances, in my opinion, are unique. This is something which other parcels in the area don’t share. In fact, it’s a piece of property that’s being used for the Plaza already. It’s just a matter of making lawful what has been a practice of customers of the Plaza to use it for already. It’s not a self created problem. Again, it’s something that’s created by the customers, and the last thing is the comment we talked about earlier, that this is really an existing use under the industrial zoning already, and that people can park there. So all we’re doing is changing what they can park there for, and in that case is the Plaza. Given these factors, I move the application be approved. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of April, 1998, by the following vote: MR. HAYES-How big was that, just to make sure I get it right? MR. MC NALLY-Well, looking at this, Jamie, it’s got to be. MR. HAYES-It’s 25 feet deep. MR. MC NALLY-I’ve got 30 on my map. MR. HAYES-It’s across, the eastern border, the eastern portion. That would be the easiest. MR. MC NALLY-My map shows something different, but if what you’re saying is true, then you’re looking for a Use Variance over the eastern most 25 feet? MR. HAYES-That’s correct. MR. MC NALLY-Of that parcel. AYES: Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Porter, Mr. Custer, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hayes MR. HAYES-Thank you. MR. STONE-I hope you’re happy, Chris. Whatever we did. MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. Round has some words of wisdom for us I believe. MR. ROUND-I just want you to address the situation on the Combs property. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I have minutes from February to do, and March was just handed to us. MOTION THAT IN REFERENCE TO AREA VARIANCE NO. 11-1998 GLENN & SANDRA COMBS THAT A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL 51 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/22/98) ASSESSMENT FORM FINDS THAT THERE DO NOT APPEAR TO BE ANY NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT , Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: nd Duly adopted this 22 day of April, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Porter, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE MR. THOMAS-That takes care of that. One other thing, in light of the Vittengl application, I started to draft a letter that I think we should send to the Town Board to make a small amendment to the zoning or building code, which states that there should be an as built plan submitted to the Town after the slab has been poured. That way there, we don’t get into trouble like we did with the Vittengl’s, and with other properties. Cronin Road we had a property. So I’m in the middle of drafting a letter. I will send it to each one of you for your comments, and then I think we should all sign it and send it on to the Town Board for their consideration, because, like I told Lew, I said, I’m getting sick and tired of these as builts. That seems to be about 15 to 20% of our business, and, you know, they expect us to just drop it to them because, you know, they made a mistake, just like in the Vittengl application. They made a mistake, but they want us to solve it for them. In that case we did, this case, we did, but in the future, I think some kind of Ordinance or amendment to the building code. MR. STONE-It’s just one more step in the process. MR. THOMAS-Well, they have to do an as built anyway, as Mr. Vittengl gave us, but that was after the house was built. MR. STONE-Yes, no, the as built slab. MR. THOMAS-Like I say, it’s not required now. You could save us, the Town, a whole lot of headaches in the future. MR. STONE-Is that why Jeff, was Jeff here tonight, thought we might turn it down? MR. ROUND-Right. MR. STONE-Well, what was he prepared to say to us? MR. ROUND-Well, what kind of direction that you can provide, you know, how far can you guys go in as far as tearing the house down. MR. STONE-Thank you for that. MR. MC NALLY-In case we were crazy enough to say take a chain saw to it. MR. THOMAS-I wouldn’t say take a chain saw to it. I’d say jack it up, put a new foundation. He made the mistake, and he wants us to cover for it. I can’t see it. MR. HAYES-Especially when they don’t hire a GC, too. MR. THOMAS-Yes, right. MR. HAYES-They’re doing it to save money. MR. ROUND-Other communities do, there are pros and cons on that, and I don’t know how the Board will act, but there are other communities, and Mr. Porter knows this, that do require foundation locations prior to issuance of the next phase of a building permit. Typically, since a survey is required, it’s just a minimal additional expense, that typically it doesn’t take them 30 minutes to go out and do it. MRS. LAPHAM-And it would solve that problem of being in a position where you make them take it down, or you let it slide past. 52 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/22/98) MR. THOMAS-Like I said, we’re seeing more and more of this, and it’s my opinion, I’m getting sick and tired of this. MR. STONE-We’re going to find one. This one, I mean, if the guy hadn’t made an offer, if they guy had complained, then I would have been more inclined to say, take it down, but by the guy saying, I’ll sell it to you for $20,000. It’s going to be in the same place, you gave me approval for it. MR. ROUND-We have priorities, as far as what we want to address in the Code, and our workload doesn’t allow us to do as much as we’d like to do, as quickly as we’d like to do it. The buffer ordinance is one of those, in light of your interpretation several months ago that it’s from the zone line. The regulation doesn’t read that way, and when the interpretation is so contrary to what the language is, it’s something we’ve got to address real quickly, and hopefully that will come up. The other thing is the way the buffer zone is interpreted, and what the purpose of the buffer zone is, is to mitigate conflicts in land use, and provide for (lost words). So hopefully instead of a distance, a separation distance, we’ll have some type of performance criteria. If it’s a separate use, you either have to provide (lost words) separation, or you have to provide this kind of landscaping or sound barrier, whether it’s as timber wall, etc. There’s other methods to provide buffers between uses other than separation distance. MR. THOMAS-It sounds good. MR. HAYES-One thing that I wonder about, Chris. I know we get the $35 for coming to this, but the one thing I wonder is, it would seem like they could provide us with some books, some kind of books that aren’t the exact code that provide better clear cut examples of what some of these definition meanings are. MR. STONE-Don’t you have these? MR. HAYES-No. MR. MC NALLY-I don’t have this either. MR. THOMAS-I’ve got it. MR. HAYES-What’s your definition of financial return? MR. ROUND-We get, I don’t know if Mr. McNally knows, land use law, or zoning digest, and it’s a newsletter. MR. HAYES-Are those available? Can we buy them? MR. ROUND-You should have all gotten them when you started. MR. THOMAS-Well, what I would say is call the zoning office and talk to Pam, and request, “All You Ever Wanted to Know About Zoning”, and “The Zoning Board Manual”. MR. STONE-I don’t have that one. MRS. LAPHAM-I don’t, either. MR. THOMAS-Okay. We have two of them “All You Ever Wanted to Know About Zoning”, and “The Zoning Board Manual”. MR. ROUND-“The Zoning Board Manual” is not that good. “All You Ever Wanted to Know About Zoning”. MRS. LAPHAM-Is better. MR. THOMAS-All right. Okay. Jamie needs one, Brian needs one. Do you need one, Joe? And Mr. McNally needs one. I’d also like to commend Mr. McNally on his piece in the Glens Falls Business Review about computers at work being used for personal. Having said that, does anyone else have any questions, comments for the good of the Board? All right. We’ll do February and March notes next time. 53 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/22/98) On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Thomas, Chairman 54