Loading...
1982-08-18 1Lf/ MINUTES Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Wednesday, August 18, 1982 7:30 p.m. Present: Kirkham Cornwell, Chairman Theodore Turner, Secretary Susan Goetz Charles Sicard Sjoerdje Richardson Absent: Daniel Griffin R. Case Prime The minutes of the July 21, 1982 meeting were approved unanimously on a motion of Mr. Sicard, seconded by Mr. Turner after the following addition. Mrs. Goetz asked that reasons for or against a motion be included with each variance application. Under Variance No. 768 Mrs. Goetz moved approval because of unnecessary hardship had been established, in the present economic climate it is not likely that a building of that size would be purchased and that it was not det- rimental to the neighborhood character. INTERPRETATION NO. 13 - Aviation Imports/Placid Foreign Auto Inc. 2 Aviation Road PC-1A Zone Mayan automotive sale business be operated in a PC Zone under a Site Plan Review Approval by the Planning Board. The automotive sale would be an adjunct to the permissab1e automotive repair already being conducted. Mr. Martin Morrell present. ~1r. Cornwell stated that the only place automobile sales is allowed is under Highway Commercial. Mrs. Rich- ardson said that one of the things to be considered under Plaza Commercial is "aesthetically pleasing shopping environment". It was the general feeling OD the Board that automobile sales would not fall under Site Plan Review but would require a variance. The previous owner had a Special Permit which expired after one year allowing auto sales. The Special Permit allowing auto repair had no stipulations, therefore it may continue. Mrs. Goetz offered a motion that the automobile dealership is not allowed in Plaza Commercial under Site Plan Review, seconded by Mr. Sicard. The motion carried unanimously. OLD BUSINESS: VARIANCE NO. 767 - Edward P. Foy, west side Bay Road - UR-5 Zone To operate a restaurant in an existing building in a UR-5 Zone. Mr. Larry Fox, Esq. representing Dr. Morrison, owner of the property who would like to rent to Mr. Foy. Mr. Michael O'Connor, Esq. representing the opponents of this application objected to Mr. Fox speaking on behalf of Dr. Morrison. Mr. Cornwell asked ~~r. O'Connor if he had ever spoken on behalf of his client Carswell Truck. Mr. O'Connor said yes, he is also an officer of that corporation. Mr. Rolf Ronning, Esq. representing Mr. Foy stated that he and Mr. Fox were co-counsel in this matter and that Mr. Fox is representing It 2_ Page Two August 18, 1982 Mr. Foy as well as Dr. Morrison. Mr. Ronning directed Mr. Fox to speak on behalf of Mr. Foy. Mr. O'Connor stated his objection to Mr. Fox presenting evidence. Mr. Ronning wants Mr. Fox's testimony to be considered evidence. Mr. Fox presented documents to the Board supporting his case for hardship: Estimate of renovation to two family dwelling from Mr. Ruggles, builder ($52,000.00) - Rental appraisal from Mr. Mellon, Realtor (about $800.00 per month maximum)- unofficial minutes from Town Board meeting of August 10 ..."the Town Board was not denying the zoning change on the basis of use of existing building...". Mr. Fox stated that the residential rent on $172,000.00 worth of property (purchase price $120,000.00 plus renovation) is far in ex- cess of the $800.00 per month the property would return. Mr. Fox traced the history of the parcel, noting that the property across the street is zoned HC-15 and the buildings to the left and right of this parcel are under variances. Mr. Ruggles and Mr. Mellon an- swered questions of the Board and Mr. O'Connor. Mr. Ronning noted that the building was built specifically as a veterinary hospital, is now in a residential zone but no veterinarian is interested in moving there. Dr. Morrison described the terms of the lease to the Board. Mr. Foy will pay $1250.00 per month on a net, net basis. All the ex- penses of the building (heat, taxes) are his. This gives Dr. Mor- rison a profit over the mortga~e payment. Dr. Morrison feels that as a commercial building it is a viable building. There is an in- crease in the rent over the course of the next two years with an option to buy. Mr. O'Connor questioned Dr. Morrison regarding his purchase of the building. Dr. Þ1orrison stated that the mortgage was held by the Small Business Administration as a commercial build- ing. The zoning was under a variance. Mr. O'Connor stated he was trying to prove that this was a self-created hardship. He said Dr. Morrison purchased the property in November of 1981 knowing the restrictions that were placed upon the property. Mr. O'Connor feels that they have to live within the zoning with which they purchased, they are not entitled to corne and claim hardship that they themselves created. He stated it was poor investment judgment. Dr. Morrison stated that the property was split when he bought it. Now that it is zoned residential, with an existing commercial building in the zone, he feels it could easily be given a variance for a reasonable commercial use. The use for a restaurant is not offensive to the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Frate from the Small Business Admin- istration testified that when they loaned the money for the veter- inary hospital, as far as they knew it was supposed to be zoned commercial, that is why they lent the money. In that same area they (SBA) have several other loans and if they go down they will have a piece of property that will not be paying taxes. The Federal Government doesn't pay taxes. Mr. Frate stated that the SBA had other interest in the property for commercial uses basically. ilf ""3 Page Three August 18, 1982 Dr. Morrison stated that he sought legal counsel before purchasing the building - that there was reasonable expectation considering the commercial nature of the area that zoning would not be a problem. Dr. Morrison asked to point out for the record that when Dr. Haviland requested the zoning variance, Mr. Philip Hart (represented by Mr. O'Connor) supported the request for a commercial use. Mr. O'Connor reiterated that the consent was for a veterinary hospital. Mr. O'Connor expressed Mr. Singleton's concern about noise from the restaurant. He also expressed concern that the Town had adopted a new zoning ordinance and that the Zoning Board was spot-zoning it away. He does not believe that the parcel in question is unique from the parcels adjoining. Mr. Foy spoke on behalf of his application. For a buffer zone he will have access on the south side of the building and will event- ually put shrubs on the north side. Restaurant will be family style, sign similar to LogJam. Parking for 25 cars, not a takeout restaurant. He will have a liquor license, hours of operation could possibly by from 7 a.m. to 4 a.m. He might have small entertain- ment, ego folk singer or guitar player. It will definitely be mellow. Con~iderable Board discussion regarding "family restaurant". It is difficult to define but the Board feels strongly that restaurant should remain a family restaurant as opposed to a noisy, bar type atmosphere. Mrs. Richardson stated the consensus of the Board in that they did approve a variance for a commercial building under the old ordinance creating the present hardship (due to failure of veterinary hospital). The property was purchased by Dr. Morrison under the old variance (split zone). Mr. Sicard stated that the building cannot be recycled without an excess amount of money, more than the building is worth. The Town and County Planning Boards recommended approval. Motion by Mr. Sicard, seconded by Mrs. Richardson to grant approval with stipulations. Motion carried unanimously. RESOLVED: The Board is of the opinion that such variance be approved with the following restrictions: 1. Access to parking lot on south side. No access road on north side of building. 2. Building will remain a restaurant for the life of the variance. Requirements for hardship: previous variance granted and property bought under previous granted variance. Zone change did not impose self-imposed hard~hip. Hardship created by split-zone. /1y Page Four August 18, 1982 VARIANCE NO. 770 - Flora and James Ingalls Cleverdale Withdrawn NEW BUSINESS: VARIANCE NO. 776 - John W. Crosse, Jr. Mallory Avenue, UR-lO To use one bay of garage for mail order accessory - automotive. Mr. Crosse present. Mr. Crosse has been operating from this location for four years. Mr. Crosse was not aware that he must apply for variance. There is no installation, limited inventory, no intention to expand at that location. Deliveries are made by uPS. Ninty per cent of his business is in Warren County. Mr. Singleton, neighbor, appeared on Mr. Crosse's behalf. The Town Planning Board recommended approval of variance. to approve offered by Mr. Turner, seconded by Mr. Sicard. carried unanimously. Motion Motion RESOLVED: The Board is of the opinion that such variance be approved. Character of neighborhood prevents the true value of the property from being acquired. 1. No sign except mailbox. 2. Variance granted for life of applicant. 3. Auto parts and accessories only. VARIANCE NO. 777 - Benjamin L. Aronson, 64 Main Street HC-lS Operation of a pre-packaged meat, cheese and other pre-packaged food wholesale business requiring addition of 80' x 64'. Mr. Wilson Mathias, Esq. representing Mr. Aronson. Mr. Mathias pre- sented pictures of proposed addition and stressed that there is no processing involved. Mr. Mathias pointed out that, except for an occasional retail sale, the business is strictly a wholesale busi- ness. The property is presently in a mortgage foreclosure action. Building is vacant, has been on market since 1972. Discussion en- sued on type of operation, traffic, etc. The Town and County Planning Boards recommended approval variance. The Beautification Committee also recommended Motion by Mr. Sicard, seconded by Mr. Turner to approve. carried unanimously. of this approval. Motion 115 Page Five August 18, 1982 RESOLVED: The Board granted this use variance with 80' x 64' addition and loading dock 36' x 16' for the following reasons: 1. Building on market for ten years at market price with no result in sale. 2. Many uses for highway commercial, but build- ing has not sold for those uses. 3. The use of the property is reasonable and will not change the character of neighborhood. 4. The use can be considered retail as well as wholesale business. ~