Loading...
1981-01-21 57 MINUTES QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS January 21, 1981 7:30 p.m. Present: Kirkham Cornwell, Chairman Daniel Griffin R. Case Prime Sjoerdje Richardson Charles Sicard League of Women Voters-Sue Goetz Post Star - Barbara Stone Absent: Theodore Turner A. Mather Reed A motion for approval of the minutes of December 17, 1980 was made by Mr. Sicard, seconded by Mr. Griffin. The motion carried unani- mously. APPLICATION FOR INTERPRETATION No.2 - Sunsoval, Inc. Pilot Knob Rd. Mr. John Mason and Mr. Frank DeSantis, Esq. present. Mr. Cornwell: The first order of business is an application for interpretation by Sunsoval, Inc. Mr. Mason, does your attorney wish to discuss whether this is an appeal or an interpretation. I think it's an appeal. I was told at a late date that it was an appeal. Mr. DeSantis: Yes sir. It was our intention to file this as an appeal. I believe that the file includes a letter dated January 8, 1981 that Mr. Mason brought down to the Building Inspector which states the intent that it was a notice of appeal, an intent to present an appeal at this meeting and on January 14th of this year the actual appeal was filed. It was our intent to appeal the decision of the Building Inspector to rescind the building permit. We were just informed a couple days ago that it was possible that this Board might consider it a request for interpretation. Up until that time we intended to treat it as an appeal. As to whether or not the Board has made a determination on how to treat the matter, I can't speak to that. ~1r. Cornwell: I don't think an interpretation in view of what you hope to accomplish.. ..do you feel that an interpretation.... Mr. DeSantis: No, we do not, that is the reason we requested that it be treated as an appeal pursuant to the applicable section of the Zoning Ordinance which we set forth both in our notice of appeal, I believe, and certainly in the appeal itself which was dated January 14, 1981. '-- 5K Page Two Mr. Cornwell: Are you aware that an appeal has to be advertised? Mr. DeSantis: We were aware of it at that time and were under the impression that if we had it in the hands of the Building Department one week in advance, it would be sufficient time. I believe that a decision was made that we were asking for an interpretation and that was the reason it wasn't advertised and has not been, as needed. Mr. Cornwell: That was the Acting Building Inspector's interpre- tation of your request, that it was an interpretation, and I told him that I didn't think that it had to be advertised because it would just be our opinion, but an appeal which would affect the neighbors of the plot in question which we are considering...to make my point, those neighbors have to be informed within a certain radius of the site, by mail, as a courtesy, don't we..... Mr. Lynn: In this case we probably wouldn't because it is clear that it has to be a public ad. I discussed this with Joe Brennan (Town Attorney)....there has to be a public ad five days in advance and the surrounding property owners do not have to be notified, the only requirement is that it does have to be in the paper. Mr. Cornwell: Then why do we always notify them (property owners)? Mr. Lynn: I don't know why - we've only had one other appeal. Mr. Cornwell: This is an appeal that would affect the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Lynn: An appeal does not require notification to be sent to the adjoining property owners. Mr. Cornwell: We're referring to an appeal to the Building Inspector's actions which would just reinstate the now expired building permit. Mr. DeSantis: The building permit has not expired. It was amended. Although the initial building permit has an expiration date on it of November 1, 1980, the building permitvas amended through different plans which were filed with the Building Inspector's office on December 3, 1980 and I believe it was extended by that action beyond the printed date on the original building permit which was issued in July 1980. Mr. Lynn: If it was amended he would have another three months from December 3. Let me put it this way. If this is essentially con- sidered a re-application by amending the original permit, then he would have three months... .but I wouldn't hazard to guess whether this would be a re-application or not because I don't know. se¡ Page Three Mr. DeSantis: We are aware of the fact that any appeal does need to be published, we were under the impression that it would be published and that we would be properly on the agenda at this time, and as I said, it just came to our attention several days ago that this matter had been determined to be an interpretation and there- fore was not published. We would ask, however, that we be allowed to proceed as if this were an appeal, that being our original intent, as evidenced by the documents which we filed and be allowed to make our presentation despite the fact that it had not been properly published through no fault of our own. Mr. Cornwell: The Board is not required to send it to the Planning Board but the Board usually does as a matter of procedure and in this case I think most members of the Board would want some input from the Planning Board, of those who have been working on the new Master Plan for this area, and they might want some input from the County Planning Board. Mr. Prime: It is my interpretation of the law that notice of appeal is jurisdictional and that we don't have a right to hear the appeal until after we have given the notice. Mr. DeSantis: I understand that to be the case. I would make one request - given the expressed practice of the Board to refer the matter to the Planning Board of the Town, that that be undertaken. Time is an important factor and a delay of one month without any action at all would certainly work to the detriment of my client who attempted to fully comply with all the necessary matters by filing a notice of appeal. Mr. Mason: The zoning regulations do not mention the Planning Board under appeals. It was our understanding that the Planning Board would not be involved in the appeal. Mr. Prime: It is my understanding under Town Law, you are correct, the Planning Board is not part of the appeal process, that we need to give notice of the hearing and that would be your opportunity at the next Board meeting and anybody can be heard there that has an interest in the appeal. Mr. DeSantis: I agree with that. I guess what bothers me about this matter is that we made every attempt to properly follow this and for some reason, which is unknown to me and Mr. Mason, we are being told that next month is the proper time to bring this to the attention of the Board, due to a publication problem. I would ask the Zoning Board, if it's customary to refer to the Planning Board, that they utilize the time to do so, that their recommendation would be before the Board so that if at all possible the time for decision could be shortened within that 60 days. "0 Page Four Mr. DeSantis: We have never characterized this as an application for interpretation. I would like the record to show that we filed it as an appeal on January 14, 1981. I don't want it to seem that we're changing horses in mid stream, when in actuality, we're not. Mr. Lynn: The original letter was filed on January 8 but we did not receive the formal follow up papers from Mr. DeSantis until last week. Mr. Cornwell: What date was the advertising placed? Mr. Lynn: The advertising was placed that Friday. Mr. DeSantis: Did Mr. Lynn just say that the advertising went in on Friday... . that would have been the 16th? Mr. Lynn: No. I can get that information for you but I don't have it at the present time. Mr. DeSantis: I would like that information. Motion by Mr. Sicard, seconded by Mr. Prime that Application for Interpretation No. 2 be re-submitted as an appeal at the next meet- ing. The motion carried unanimously. APPLICATION FOR INTERPRETATION No. 3 - Jerry Brown,Big Boom Rd. M-l Mr. Jerry Brown present. Mr. Brown proposes to repair, refurbish, lease and sell industrial equipment on Big Boom Rd., an area zoned M-l for light industry. Mr. Cornwell read letter from Mr. Brown explaining his proposal and describing the surrounding area. His property is located at the northern and southern ends of the Northway rest area. The proposed building is 60 x 40 at the northern end, most of the storage would be outside. The west side of Big Boom Rd. is M-l, east side is R-3. It was the general feeling of the Board that this proposal would be better in a C-3 zone which would require a variance. Mr. Prime suggested that the interpretation be tabled until they had more input on the type of operation, the intent of the zoning ordinance and the fact that it has been rezoned since that map to SR 30 in the new master plan. The Board is going to look into it further and possibly consult with the Planning Board to determine what their plans are for the SR 30 classification in that area. Mr. Cornwell offered a motion, seconded by Mr. Sicard to table this interpretation for further research. Motion carried unanimously. c'-- t,/ Page Five VARIANCE No. 687 - Robert Sullivan, Glen Lake Road, Sullivan Place Sullivan Drive R-4 Zone Mr. Sullivan present. Mr. Sullivan applying to build a two car garage with less than 30' setback from all streets. Mr. Harris of Sullivan Place asked where the entrance to the garage would be. Mr. Cornwell told him it would be toward his street. Mr. Harris had no objection. Mr. Sicard offered a motion, seconded by Mrs. Richardson to grant this variance. Motion carried unanimously. RESOLVED: The Board granted this variance as reasonable use of a lot that cannot be used for anything else, for a two car garage only. VARIANCE No. 688 - David Kenny (HiWay Host Motel) C-3 Zone east side Route 9, north of Exit 20. Mr. Kenny present. Mr. Kenny applying to build a deck to be added to his pools. Setback of the deck is 20' from Route 9 in lieu of the 50' required. Motion by Mr. Sicard, seconded by Mr. Prime to grant this variance. Motion carried unanimously. RESOLVED: The Board granted this variance in concurrence with the Queensbury and Warren County Planning Boards, and as it will improve the appearance of the property. VARIANCE No. 689 - James Michael Lockhart - New Hampshire Ave R-4 Mr. Lockhart present. Application for use variance. Residence and use as part time business wholesaling security systems; no signs or structures will be added or changed on the site plan. Mrs. Fleming and a neighbor of Maine Avenue expressed concern about increased traffic. They were assured that there would be no increased traffic generated because of the business. Motion by Mr. Prime, seconded by Mr. Sicard to grant use variance. Motion carried unani- mously. RESOLVED: The Board granted this use variance for a period of one year from start of this business. Applicant to reapply March 1982. Approval is for Mr. Lockhart's tenancy only. ~irman ~