Loading...
1983-02-16 /~5 Regular monthly meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals was called to order on February 16, 1983 at 7:30 P.M. by Chairman Kirkham Cornwell. Present: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Griffin, Mr. Turner, Mr. Cornwell, Mr. Sicard and Mrs. Richardson. The Chairman asked for a motion to approve the minutes of the previous meeting. Mrs. Goetz said she had a correction on the Resolution set forth in the minutes for Variance 805. She wanted a period after the word "established" and to start the next sentence with the words "sales and services to be ...". Motion was made by Mr. Sicard to approve the minutes with the corrections and the motion was second by Mrs. Goetz. RESOLVED that the minutes of the Meeting on February 16, 1983 are approved subject to corrections. Approved by five "yes" votes with one abstention. INTERPRETATION NO. 17 - V.S.H. REALTY, INC. (Cumberland Farms) Corner Route 9 and Kendrick Road HC-15 Zone The application for interpretation and letter from Bascom, Prime & Mulder, Town Counsel, were read by Mr. Turner. Cumberland Farms was represented by Andrew McCormack. Mr. McCormack stated that the Cumberland Farms people had reviewed the letter of Town Counsel. Mr. McCormack stated that in December, 1982, they had submitted the site plan to the Planning Board for site plan approval. Approval was not obtained that evening. The Planning Board wanted to see more in the way of details regarding drainage. At the following meeting in January, they submitted the further de- tailed plan. The plan submitted to this Zoning Board of Appeals is the plan that was approved at the January meeting, the only addition being the 25 foot dimension from the Route 9 right-of-way line to the west edge of the gas pump. Shortly after the approval in January, the Cumberland Farms people attempted to obtain a permit and were denied because the gas pumps did not meet a certain set back requirement. Up to that point, the Cumberland Farms people had assumed that the plan having been approved by the Planning Board with the gas pumps in their present position (25 feet from the right- of-way line) were an acceptable set back distance for a gas pump. However, that was deemed to be only half the required distance that they should be set back because it was determined that a gas pump was a structure. -'--- Mr. Cornwell asked if they were talking about a gas pump alone or with a canopy. Page :2 February 16, 1983 18~ Mr. McCormack said it was just a gas pump. The original plan submitted in December did not have or call for a canopy nor did the one in January. The Cumberland Farms people originally had planned to have a canopy. It was decided earlier that if the canopy were removed that the gas pumps in their position would be in an acceptable position. Mr. McCormack said that having reviewed Mr. prime's letter wherein he indicates or implies that a gas pump is a structure and in this particular zone, a 50 foot set back is required for any structure, they were bothered by the definition of a structure and that is part of what they would like to get clarified tonight. Mr. McCormack referred to page 13 of the Zoning Ordinance and under definitions, read item "99" defining structures. Mr. Cornwell stated that anything made out of concrete that comes above the ground tends to be a structure. Mr. McCormack asked if they were to apply for the variance at less than the 50 foot set back for the structure, then would it later be construed that the gas storage tanks beneath the ground be considered structures? Mr. McCormack stated that the lighting poles were only 3 feet to 5 feet from the property lines , it being impractical to move the illuminating lights back 50 feet. There was then some discussion concerning the location of the poles on this site. Mr. McCormack stated that they wanted to go for a variance that includes everything - curbs, poles, gas tanks, etc. Mr. Cornwell stated that it appeared to him that a pole would be a structure. He said that interpreting the ordinance, he tends to feel that Item "99" says poles are included so that they should be included as part of the application of Cumberland Farms. He stated that inasmuch as the position of the building was not concrete yet, why didn't they think about moving it back so that they would not have to apply for such a close pump to the road. Mr. McCormack explained that the Company wants the pumps in location as set forth because they are more keyed to the distance from the building and the traffic flow around, in and out of the building. "'-...- Mr. McCormack brought up another problem concerning the required number of parking spaces. In the original December submissic.n, they were showing 35 to 40 spaces; each space Pa ge 3 February 16, 1983 It7 equivalent to the number of square feet in the building, one space per 100 square feet. Mr. Cornwell asked if they wanted the Board to say whether or no·t the number of parking spaces required shall be based on the net retail sales area. Mrs. Richardson asked if this should not be part of a variance request. Mr. Cornwell said that the Board was not doing a variance request and that Mr. McCormack wanted the Board to define the rUles for various things here. Mrs. Goetz agreed with Mrs. Richardson. Steve Lynn stated that it would be the Zoning Board's function to interpret the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. McCormack stated the net sales area should be the basis for the number of parking spaces needed. He said that the Planning Board that evening, even though Cumberland Farms had the required number of parking spaces, did not like that many, so the Cumberland Farms people found a way of reducing them. Mr. Cornwell then listed the three clarifications he under- stood the Cumberland Farms people were requesting: 1) Are pumps considered structures? 2) Are poles considered structures? 3) Are parking spaces to be based on the net retail sales area? He then asked if there were any more clarifications being requested. Mr. McCormack stated there was another problem with access points. The site plan calls for three access points, because of the two streets involved. The Ordinance called for one access point for industrial and commercial only. Mr. Cornwell said that the purpose of that in the ordinance was so you wouldn't have several places cars would be stopping to come in off of Route 9. They will all go to one place coming in and one place coming out. Mr. McCormack said that the site plan approved has three access points. Now on closer reading of the ordinance, they find they should not have had three access points. Mr. Cornwell stated that one should be in and one should be out. He said it was the Board's opinion that they would need a variance to have more than one. "-- The voting on the interpretations was as follows: 18J Pa ge 4 February 16, 1983 1) Gasoline dispensing pumps, as we know them, on an island for the service of retail gasoline to cars is a structure as in definition "99" in Article II, Section 2.020, Five yes votes and one abstention (Mrs. Goetz) 2) Poles are considered structures in definition "99" Article II, Section 2.020. Five yes votes and one abstention (Mrs. Goetz) 3) Parking spaces should be based on the net retail sales area, that is the area of the building exclusive of storage and service area. Five yes votes and one abstention (Mrs. Goetz) 4) That a variance would be needed for access points which do not conform to the description of access points in the ordinance, Section 7.071(d). Five yes votes and one abstention (Mrs. Goetz) 5) Below ground storage tanks would not be considered structures. Five yes votes and one abstention (Mrs. Goetz). Mr. Cornwell made a motion that the interpretations should be as read and Mr. Sicard seconded the motion. Chairman Cornwell, at this time, explained that Mrs. Goetz's term expired the day before the meeting and the Town Board had decided to renew her term, but did not pass the necessary resolution. To avoid any problems, Mrs. Goetz would not vote on any matter that came before the Board that night. INTERPRETATION NO. 18 - H.R. TYRER ASSOCIATES G1enwood Avenue (Doyle Property) HC-15 Zone Attorney Richard McLenithan appeared together with Bob Tyrer for H.R. Tyrer Associates. Mr. Turner read the application for Interpretation. Mr. McLenithan explained what they were applying for. Mr. Tyrer entered into a contract for purchase of the Doyle property on G1enwood Avenue. There are five apartments which they intend to keep renting and the main house in which they intend to establish a retail antiques sales within that property. '-- Mr. Cornwell asked if all the property is within the HC-15 Zone. /81 Page 5 February 16, 1983 Mr. McLenithan said yes it was. Mr. Cornwell said this interpretation only involves whether or not Tyrer Associates can have retail antiques for this service of the highway public in an HC-15 Zone. Mr. McLenithan stated that was correct. Mr. Tyrer explained that their intent is not to change any structure, either exterior or interior, on the existing premises. As far as the antique center, they plan to have a group of dealers in the main structure. They are not contemplating auction sales - nothing but retail sales. These retail sales do have a tremendous drawing appeal, especially to out of town people all through New England, all through New York City, the whole area. They feel being on a highway is one of the assets of the place. It should be a highway type of operation. It will have set hours anywheres from 9 to 10 in the morning to 5 in the afternoon. Mr. Cornwell asked if there are more than three dealers, did they understand it became a center and they would get only one sign covering the whole thing. Mr. Tyrer agreed. Mr. Cornwell asked if they contemplated any problems with storage or expansion. Mr. Tyrer said no. Mr. Cornwell asked where they will store the stuff that is not on display. Mr. Tyrer said that what will be in the structure itself will be only items that will be ready for sale. Most of the dealers that will be involved have other faci1ties which will be off the premises. Mr. Cornwell asked that if they get too many dealers, would they gradually encroach on the apartments. Mr. Tyrer said they have no plans of encroaching on the apartments. They want to leave the existing apartments in existence and they do not plan to put in any more dealers than they feel they can get into the existing structure. "-- Mr. Cornwell said that what Tyrer Associates wanted the Board to decide is whether or not the practice of retail sales of antiques to the travelling public serves the needs of the travel- ling public under the HC-15 Zone. Mr. Cornwell asked if any members of the Board had any questions for Mr. Tyrer or Mr. McLenithan. /10 Pa ~ 6 February 16, 1983 .~ Mr. Griffin wanted to know if there was ample room for parking. Mr. Tyrer said they will have three and one-half acres and ample room for parking. Mr. Cornwell asked if there was entry from the back side of the building. Mr. Tyrer said yes. Mr. Griffin asked how much renovations would be required. Mr. Tyrer said there will be no renovations. Mrs. Goetz asked if it was a lot like Bay Street Antiques. Mr. Tyrer said he organized Bay Street Antiques seven or eight years ago. This business will be on the same order, but on a bigger scale. Mr. Cornwell asked how many floors. Mr. Tyrer said there are two floors. Mr. Cornwell said there were no further questions of Mr. Tyrer and Mr. McLenithan. Mr. Sicard made a motion that the sale of antiques would be permitted under businesses which primarily serve highway traffic. Mrs. Richardson seconded the motion. There were five yes votes and one abstention (Mrs. Goetz). VARIANCE NO. 808 - The Silo (Harry Troe1stra) Aviation Road, Glens Falls NY Harry Troe1stra appeared for the Silo requesting a sign variance for signs on the building that did not meet the sign ordinance. Mr. Cornwell asked how they got there. Mr. Troe1stra said he just put them up. He did not know he needed a permit. There are six signs. Mr. Cornwell asked if he had permits for the other wall signs and the free standing signs. Mr. Troe1stra said yes. ...... Mr. Cornwell asked if they were advertising or directional signs. Mr. Troe1stra said they are advertising signs. They say what the business is. /1/ Page 7 February 16, 1983 '- Mr. Cornwell stated that it was an unfortunate use of words in the application saying advertising signs, because advertising signs are not permitted in the ordinance. Directional signs are. ~1r. Cornwell asked how many feet did Mr. Troe1stra have in the signs that he got the permits for - how much of the allotment did he use up on the words "THE SILO" on the tower and the sign on the west side of the building. Mr. Troe1stra said according to the first meeting he went to, they considered the six signs to be in place of the other sign that was permitted. He has one big sign they felt that these six signs should take the place of. Mr. Cornwell said he already had the sign that was permitted that said "The Silo" on the tower. He asked if he was going to take that down. Mr. Troe1stra said no. Mr. Cornwell asked how he was going to have these six signs in place of that sign if that sign was going to stay up too. Mr. Troe1stra said he did not understand that. The Board then referred to the minutes of that meeting. ~1r. Cornwell said that why he asked Mr. Troe1stra how many feet were the signs that he had up is because he is allowed a rather ample sign. If the 36' plus those would go in, it would throw a different light on it. Mr. Troe1stra showed the Board a picture of the signs. Mr. Cornwell stated he had a sign facing Carlton Drive and a sign facing Aviation Road and a free standing sign, all of which are legal. What he asked, is the sign on Carlton Drive or the sign on the tower less than the largest one he could have under the ordinance, because if it is, the Board might consider adding the 36 feet to that. Mr. Troe1stra said he did not know the square footage on the sign. He did not know how they figured it. All that was stated at the first meeting he went to, it was instead of the other signs. Mr. Cornwell said that if he got a permit for the signs, some- body knew the footage of it. ',,---, Steve Lynn said the size of the signs were well under the 100 square feet which is allowed. I~ Page 8 February 16, 1983 Mr. Cornwell said if Mr. Troe1stra could write that in on the application, he was sure it would make it a10t easier. Mr. Troe1stra said they are approximately four letters of 2' x 1', so it was about 8 square feet, and the other three letters are one square foot which consist of the words "The Silo". Mr. Cornwell said he was allowed 100 feet or 25% of the face of the building. Mr. Troe1stra said he had much less. Steve Lynn referred to the permit and stated the wall sign on the Silo was 15 square feet and the sign on Carlton Drive was 64 square feet. He is allowed 100 feet on either one. Mr. Cornwell said if he is allowed 100 feet on either sign, if he added the 36 feet to either one, he would still be within the limit of the ordinance. Mr. Turner read the Town Planning Board recommendation. Mr. Cornwell asked if there was any member of the public within 500 feet of the site who wished to be heard on the subject. He asked if there was anyone for this application. He asked if there was anyone against the application. No member of the public wished to be heard on this application and Mr. Cornwell declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Sicard made a motion that the six l' x 6' small signs, totalling 36', be included with flThe Silo" sign for the purposes of the ordinance. Mrs. Richardson seconded the motion. There were five yes votes and one abstention (Mrs. Goetz). RESOLVED that the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals approves Variance No. 808, that the Silo may include the six l' by 6' small signs as part of the overall requirement for a sign on the South side of the building. At this point, Mr. DeSantis, appearing for Top 0' the World Development agreed to let the Board hear the request for variance No. 810 before Variance No. 809. VARIANCE NO. 810 - Adirondack Baptist Church East Side Country Club Road. '-- Mr. Turner read the history of the application. Robert Lynn appeared for the Adirondack Baptist Church. Page 9 February 16, 1983 /93 Mr. Cornwell asked Mr. Lynn if they planned to build a school too. Mr. Lynn said no, just the meeting house. Mr. Lynn stated the building would be a log building. He showed the Board a drawing of the proposed building. He said it would be a 36 foot by 50 foot log building with a full basement with a seating capacity of fixed seating at 100. Mr. Cornwell asked if they had made borings to make sure they could have a basement without water. Mr. Lynn stated they had not yet. Mr. Cornwell asked if it was not possible, would they be able to build it on a slab. Mr. Lynn said he would think so. Mr. Cornwell asked if this was to take the place of their downtown location now. Mr. Lynn stated the address that is given in the application for the Church is his home address. They are presently meeting and have been for the last three years in the Queensbury Hotel. Mr. Cornwell asked if they needed just twenty-one parking spaces. Mr. Lynn said the parking spaces were determined by the amount of seats. One parking space for five fixed seats in the auditorium. Mr. Cornwell said he assumed as with any church, there would be funerals and weddings and asked if that would cover their requirements too. Mr. Lynn said he believed so. Mr. Cornwell asked if the plot was not fully wooded. Mr. Lynn said all except a small clearing near the front. Mr. Cornwell asked if they were going to set it back further. Mr. Lynn said they would have to remove some of the trees at the back of that clearing, but will be in that clearing for the most part. Mr. Cornwell asked what was what looked like a small stream across the back of the plot. He asked if it was a road or a stream. Mr. Lynn said it was a stream. ''-.,-- Mr. Cornwell said they were limited as to how far back they could go. P~ge 10 February 16, 1983 I~i Mr. Lynn said they have no present plans to be using the remaining part of the property. Mr. Cornwell asked if any member of the public wished to be heard on this application. Mr. Ed Graney, Customer Relations Representative from Lincoln Log Homes, spoke regarding the foundation of the proposed church. Their chief engineer, George K~rosaka, said that due to high table marks, the foundations can be put on piers. A full foundation, etc., would hold the weight of the church. There would be no problems with the construction of the building itself. Mr. Cornwell asked if there would be any problems with the cellar being full of water. Mr. Graney said no. He said he discussed this with Mr. K~æosaka who said that he would be available to come over and speak to the Board, if they so wished him to appear. Mr. Cornwell asked if there was any member of the public wished to be heard on the application, for or against it, or who wished to contribute any information. Mr. Cornwell then declared the public hearing portion of the meeting closed. Mr. ~urner read the Planning Board recommendation. ¥r. Sicard said he was a little concerned with the water problem. Gary Nelson, a member of the church, stated that the stream was way beyond where the church building itself would be. As for the site that exists right now, it is already elevated above the water table, probably four feet. He said he could see no reason why it could not be set in the ground two to three feet. Mr. Sicard made a motion to approve Variance No. 810 on the basis that a hardship is imposed by the ordinance. Mrs. Richardson seconded the motion. There were five yes votes and one abstention (Mrs. Goetz). RESOLVED that the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals approve Variance No. 810 for the building of a church building for the purpose of public worship services on the basis that a hardship is imposed by the ordinance. '- Approved. Page 11 February 16, 1983 /1~ VARIANCE NO. 809 Top 0' The World Development, Inc. Off Lockhart Loop on Lake George Attorney Frank Desantis appeared for Top 0' The World Development, Inc. Mr. Turner read the history of the application. Steve Lynn c1arfied that the Zoning Designation is LR 3A not LR 1A as on the application. Mr. Cornwell said that this application is just for a variance for the use of the shoreline. It does not effect whether or not there will be a development on the top of the mountain. The Board is only concerned with the use of the shoreline and maintaining quality of the neighborhood on the shoreline. Input will be received from neighbors on the shorelines and all comments to be addressed to the use of the shoreline. Mr. DeSantis described the request for the variance. He referred to the proposal which is Exhibit "A" with the application. Mr. DeSantis said the proposal was orally presented to the Queensbury Planning Board at an informal session on November 10, 1982. It was presented in written form in a letter to Richard Roberts, Chairmon of the Planning Board on December 7, 1982. On December 9, 1982, it was discussed in a meeting between the applicant for the variance and the Lake George Association in the offices of the Lake George Association. On January 25, 1983, the applicant received written notice from the Building Inspector that a variance would be necessary in response to a written request from Mr. DeSantis. '- Mr. DeSantis stated the proposal involves the use of a 330 foot wide parcel on the shores of Lake George for essentially con- tractual access from individuals who will be purchasing an interest in the Top 0' The World Development at the top of French Mountain. These individuals would use the 1akefront pursuant to a reservation procedure as set forth in the annexed statement to the application. The would reserve the time to utilize the 1akefront; they would be brought to the 1akefront by a shuttle bus. There will be no private parking of automobiles and no other access to other members of the public. The parcel currently uses one large dock and it is proposed that two docks would be on the property. The proposal restricts the type of boats. There will be no private water craft. All water craft would be the property of Top 0' The World Development and would be limited to 30 with only 3 power craft. The power craft would be necessary for safety reasons, rescue, etc. Other craft would be canoes, small sailing craft and possibly wind surf craft. All such craft to be stored on land except when in use; only three boats docked. There are three existing structures which will not be altered, but refurbished. The existing septic and sewerage disposal systems would be updated and contained in a holding tank. Page 12 FeÞ~µ~~y 16, 1983 Ir~ Mr. Cornwell asked if it is possible to upgrade those without a holding tank. Mr. DeSantis said they were advised by their engineer that the possibility of upgrading them is small as they are in deteriorating condition. They believe this would be the best system given the location of the buildings and rockiness of the soil. Mr. DeSantis stated that activities such as jet skiing would not be allowed on the parcel. The property would not be allowed to be used as a base £or para-sailing. There would be a limit to number of individuals at anyone time who would be allowed access to the property - a limit of 150 people. Mr. DeSantis stated there was a problem in that the ordinance speaks of lots, sites, parcels or multiple family dwelling units to be allowed deeded or contractual access and that it failed to derive a number of people from this. Mr. Cornwell asked if it was their intention to give deeded or contractual access to every owner on the top of the hill . Mr. DeSantis said no, that 150 individuals would be allowed access . Mr. Cornwell asked if Mr. Desantis found anywhere in the ordinance a limit to the number of people than can use the plot. Mr. DeSantis said he did not. He will be submitting a letter asking that it become a part of the record. The letter sets forth the manner in which they determined the 150 individuals, using the ordinance. Mr. Cornwell asked if they planned on giving lake privileges to everybody at the top of the hill. Mr. Desantis said no, privileges would be subject to the reservation system and no more than 150 people from the top of the hill would be allowed to be on the parcel at anyone time. They want to make access to the lake available to a limited number of people at anyone time. Mr. Cornwell expressed the concern over the possibility of every person up there thinking they had legal access to the lake and for one reason or another, they wanted to keep a 50 h.p. outboard or cabin cruiser died to a dock, there would be a problem. Mr. Desantis said he agreed with him. That the ordinance right now allows thirteen fami1i~s to do everything Mr. Cornwell recited. Mr. Cornwell said that 13 families could have a boat there if '- the three docks would hold them. Mr. Desantis said that 13 lots, sites, parcels, or multiple family Page 13 February 16, 1983 /i1 dwelling units could have deeded or contractual access to this shorefront without restriction as long as it was a legal use under the ordinance. What they proposed to do is to restrict some of those uses and define the numberof people. He said there is no limitation now for anyone who has deeded or contractual access or owners 1akefront to limit the number of people they can have on that 1akefront or what they can do as long as it is a legal activity. Mr. Cornwell asked if there is a limit to the number of guests somebody can have on their own peroperty at the lake. Mr. Desantis said none whatsoever. Mr. Cornwell said that since people are not counted in any other aspect of the ordinance and there is no other place in the zoning ordinance where people are counted, it did not seem likely that the Town would embark on a people counting venture just for one applicant. Mr. Desantis said they proposed to allow the Town to define and the Board to define exactly that. There was discussion between Mr. Cornwell and Mr. Desantis on the Town keeping a count of the number of people at the shoreline. Mr. Cornwell stated that all they could ask this Board for is a variance from the strict requirement of the three docks for thirteen units and they would have to prove those were not adequate or that they had some terrible hardship. Mr. Desantis said that given that the ordinance does not speak of people and if thirteen units were given deeded or contractual access without any restrictions as to the use of 1akefront, parking, boats, docks, etc., a question arises as to how many people does that allow. This issue given the purposes set forth in the ordinance needs to be addressed. Mr. Desantis said that in the alternative, the parcel would possibly stay the way it is, although it is unlikely, and that under the ordinance, thirteen units could have deeded or con- tractual access with the resulting problems just discussed. He felt that their proposal attempts to address the purposes and to create some safeguards for Lake George and the visual character of the shoreline. Mr. Cornwell suggested that perhaps not everyone at the top would want to go down to the shoreline at all. ',,- Mr. DeSantis felt that after one visit down to the shoreline, the people would find the pools next to their townhouses and the indoor-outdoor pools much more inviting than Lake George. However, with the total on-site population of 1,300 at build out, they felt 150 people maximum to the 1akefront was not out of line. Mr. Cornwell asked about the possible commercialization of the parcel, i.e., what if the individuals were to bring their own Page 14 February 16, 1983 /1'g jet skis as they could not obtain them commerica11y from somebody, couldn't they just use them on the property. Mr. Desantis said no, it would not be allowed. There would be a restriction. All the individuals would be members of the homeowners association subject to rules and regulations. One of the rules and regulations is going to restrict the type of activity that can take place on the parcel. Mr. Cornwell stated the original application talked about food being sold on the premises and there being a snack bar. Mr. Desantis said their application is the same as its always been and food would not be prepared on the site. There would be picnicing on the site, but no restaurants. Mr. Cornwell said the application indicates certain filling of the lake to make a beach. Mr. Desantis said that referred to what was already there. Mrs. Goetz referred to the minutes of the October 26, 1982 discussion of the Town Board. She indicated it mentioned Mr. Boice's comments that they will have access to the lake, a beach, rental boats, etc. and perhaps that is where the Board was thinking beach. Mr. Desantis said that the plan indicated people would be able to walk from the land to the water and that there is some sand that exists there. There is not a plan to fill in and create a beach there. Mr. Cornwell stated that until the fourteenth unit is completed, the applicant had adequate use of the property and had no hardship. Until they could project ahead far enough to make some market surveys to show how many people are going to actually want to use this, he could not see the Board conjecturing how many people on one afternoon would want to come down. They did not have any projection as to whether it would be worthwhile to have a bus service. Mr. Cornwell felt if the Board were to grant a variance, they would be writing a blank check for something that did not know what the situation would be. Mr. Turner asked how they applicant was going to regulate these people. Mr. Desantis said through the reservation system. There would be an employee there to monitor the people coming in and out. There is going to be a shuttle bus and no automobiles there. Mr. Turner asked what would be the total number of facilities '- when completed. Mr. DeSantis said there would be 170 projected after build out. /97 Page 15 February 16, 1983 ~- At Phase I, there would be 46 units and they go up in varying numbers up to 170. Mr. Turner asked how many people that represented. Mr. Desantis said 680 plus guests for a total of 1,360. Mr. Desantis stated there is going to be pools outside of each cluster of units. There is going to be a central indoor-outdoor pool and that they would be much closer than the beach. The pools are not going to be restricted and there would be no reser- vation to use them. Mrs. Goetz asked when would the pools be constructed. Mr. Desantis stated that in the first phase, cluster pools would be built simultaneously. By the third phase, they will be having the pools built. Mr. Cornwell said that he thought that to do down and make a lot of changes to the lake at this stage only serves to get the neighbors alarmed and get people made at you when probably you never need to. Perhaps some of the people might want to go down and enjoy the lake as it is now in the present setting, more or less undeveloped. Mr. Desantis said that they are really now changing the physical features of the shoreline in any other way than adding one dock. Mr. Cornwell said he did not see how they made a case for an unnecessary hardship, that 330 feet is quite a bit of lakeside and they did not know how many people will be using it. He said he would be for a denial of the variance. Mr. Desantis stated he did not agree with Mr. Cornwell's term of unnecessary hardship. That one of the problems as stated in his letter is people have rather loosely made statements as to what is necessary and what they are going to do there. It is necessary they look at the facts - what is the impact on the lake, what is the impact on the visual character on the shoreline. Mr. Cornwell said he did not feel they would need any variance if they stayed within the limits that are allotted to them by the lake, the people and the town, on the docks. The place is adequately protected . Mr. Desantis said they did not seek out getting a variance, it was at the insistence of the Lake George Association that the Planning Board felt it was necessary that a variance was necessary. Mr. Brian Harrison stated at this point, that the Board has the legitimate right to restrict a variance. From their point of '- view, what began the whole scenerio was the desire by the Town Planning Board as well as other people who have expressed concern that there ought to be some specific defined restrictions. Page 16 February 16, 1983 d 00 - Mr. Cornwell said that any variance that is given is supposed to be the smallest possible variance that will accomplish the purpose of relieving the hardship or difficulty. It was his point that the difficulty was no negu10us it had not been proved or projected by a market survey. He said that no other ordinance that he knew of had legislated the number of people per square foot or per square yard of frontage and the Board had no way of enforcing that. They could not really do much about the density of the people. Mr. Harrison agreed that enforcement was an issue. Mr. Cornwell said that if Mr. Desantis had made his presentation, he would like to hear from the public. Anyone on the "for" side? There was no one for the applicant. Mr. Cornwell reminded the public that they are considering the shoreline, not whether or not there shall be a development at all. He asked if there was anyone against the application that wished to be heard. Dr. James Blake of Plum Bay wished to be heard. He said it was his understanding that there are dock regulations that do restrict the number of boats that any of them could have. The Park Commission regulates the number of docks. There is a restriction on the number of boats. Dr. Blake asked that if three private residences are substituted by multiple housing units, that would allow for thirteen families and you would have to have a variance to allow for the thirteen that was spoken about earlier. Mr. Cornwell said that thirteen are already allowed by the new zoning ordinance. Dr. Blake asked if that was for three residences. Mr. Cornwell stated they could go right out there and have thirteen tomo,rrow. Mr. Blake said he was not clear on that. Mr. Cornwell said it is one for each 25 feet of shoreline. The access is based on 25 feet of shoreline for each unit of motel/hotel multiple dwelling. Dr. Blake said it was a precedent of an access of a funnel system of multiple houses behind that can have its own 1akefront. Mr. Cornwell stated that under Section 5, the following minimum shoreline frontages shall be required for deeded or contractual access to all such lakes, ponds, rivers or streams for two or more lots, parcels or sites, or multiple-family dwelling units not '- having separate and distinct ownership of shore frontage. Where two to four lots, parcels or sites, multiple family dwellings are involved, a total of not less than 100 linear feet, 25 feet Page 17 February 16, 1983 c2 0/ additional feet for each lot, parcel, site or multiple family dwelling unit thereafter. Dr. Blake said he believed what Mr. Cornwell was saying was you could have 100 feet plus 25 additional feet for people living elsewhere than along the 1akeshore. Mr. Cornwell said that was correct. Dr. Blake said he was there as a resident of the Plum Bay area to object to this variance. Plum Bay is a very small bay. The area in front of the Top 0' The World is fairly heavy traffic area. This small Bay will probably be filled with canoes and small boats. Normal traffic in the Bay is fairly heavy with their own residents and now some of the sight-seeing boats come in. The applicant plans to have the sight-seeing boats stop at their docks to discharge and pick up passengers. This will create a traffic problem. That amount of traffic in the Bay could very well disturb the ecology of the Bay. Dr. Blake stated that at the time he purchased his home in Blum Bay in 1955, he was advised that it was a residential area, that it was not commercial and it would not be commercial. Mr. Cornwell asked if his objection was mainly to water traffic. Dr. Blake said they moved there as a private residence area with no commercial activity on it and wanted it to remain that way. Next to be heard was Malcolm Mitchell of Assembly Point. Mr. Mitchell said he did not have 1akefront property in Plum Bay, but he is a near neighbor. He felt it would be impossible to keep the character of the lake the way it is. What is proposed will change character of the lake. Mr. Mitchell feels that the development will change the whole character of this side of the lake. Mr. Cornwell stated that Mr. Mitce11 was opposed on the basis of over-populating the shore of the Lake. Mr. Mitchell added "and changing the whole aspect of the lake". Mr. Thomas West, representing the Lake George Association, was heard next. Mr. West said he feels the important issue relates to understanding the existing character of the neighborhood and measuring that character against the proposal. He said not only is an area variance required, but there is a use variance required and neither standard for an area variance or a use variance had been either addressed or met tonight by the applicant. -- Mr. West stated that what was proposed on the top of the hill was Page 18 February 16, 1983 ;20) actually 170 condominium units. In addition, the project sponsor proposed a number of facilities to accomodate the owners of the units such as gold courses, swimming pools, racquetball, etc., which fall within the definition of common facilities in the ordinance. He referred to number 27 on page 5 of the Zoning ordinance defining common facilities as complimentary structures and/or improvements located on a common open space appropriate for the benefit and enjoyment of the space by the public or members of the controlling association of condominiums. Mr. West said that there was a zoning ordinance in the area that pre-dated the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance and that property has been zoned as residential for a number of years under this zoning ordinance, the zoning ordinance that is only one year old. He said there are three residences there and they have been used as single-family residences over time and that this question of prior non-conforming uses, he hoped, would be addressed by some of the residents. The use has been very sparse at best. Mr. West said that the ordinance tells us in various sections what use shoreline property can be put to and it tells us in other sections what type of set backs, area requirements we have and within that area is the contractual access section. It is the areas of the ordinance that tell us what uses are allowable within the lake shore residential area that have to be addressed and lead to the conclusion that a use variance is required here. He said that what is being proposed is a common facility for the 170 condominiums, and under Article 4 of the Zoning Ordinance, in 1akeshore residential area, that condominium common facilities are not either a permitted nor an accessory use. Therefore, that type of usage in the 1akeshore residential area requir.es a use variance. Also under Article 15, Section 15.20, planned unit developments are not allowed in the 1akeshore res- idential area. They feel that not only is this property a common facility for the planned unit development on the top of the hill, but it is as much a part of the planned unit development as the golf course, riding stables, etc., and as such it will be an illegal use. Mr. West said that Article 7 of the new Zoning Ordinance deals with the number of front footage on the lake that is required particular deeded or contractual access. Where the 170 units are going to have deeded or contractual access, you have to have 25 feet of lake frontage for each unit, for a total in this instance of 4,250 feet. The project sponsor is short of that goal with 330'. The project sponsor has not made any showing of practical difficulty and no showing of any type of hardship which would justify granting a 3,920 foot variance. Mr. Cornwell said that if we take this premise that a use variance is necessary and the use would be to put a common facility on a single family residential zone, then the common facility would be the sole occupant of the property. This is supposing that there was a use variance, then it would get the use of the shore - just as any other owner. Mr. West stated that the common facility requirement and the c2 03 Page 19 February 16, 1983 - requirement for use variance to place a common facility in the 1akeshore residential area goes with the question of what use the property can be put to. The number of units that can have contractual or deeded access to that common facility, is governed by Section 7.011 of the Zoning Ordinance which brings into account the area standards. The question of putting a common facility in there only goes to use variance. The number of people that can have access to that common facility is the area variance require- ment that is before the Board. Mr. Cornwell asked if it was his assertion then that all the buildings on the site here would represent common facilities. Mr. West stated that was correct. Mr. Cornwell asked if he maintained that under the Ordinance, thirteen families could not use the site. Mr. West said that there is a question that the ordinance says that thirteen individual units, whether they be units within a multiple family dwelling unit; whether they be units within a condominium unit, or thirteen individual homes, would have the right under the ordinance. Mr. West stated that it has been represented at prior meetings that although there would not be a snack bar there preparing foot, there would be foot brought down from the mountain and served to people down there. Feels it is approaching a commercial use. Mr. West suggested what is being proposed here is the funnel concept. It is the concept of taking a small piece or 1akeshore property and giving access to that property to a great number located someplace else. The Lake George Association feels that this is an extremely dangerous precedent. He recommended and urged the Board to deny the variance on the grounds that there has been no showing of hardship or practical difficulty, and that they believe this would be a dangerous and damaging precedent in Lake George Basin. Mr. Desantis then again spoke. He stated that the applicant has never proposed condominiums. It is a homeowners association. They have not said food would be served. He said the ordinance states that contractual access is allowed in the Town of Queens- bury. It doesn't limit it to any particular lake or body of water. What the Lake George Association would seek to do is to deny con- tractual access to Lake Goerge. I don't believe that was the intent of the Town Board when they passed this ordinance. Mr. Cornwell asked if Mr. Desantis was disputing the common facilities definition. Mr. Desantis said no, he thought the common facilities definition is clear on its face. Page 20 February 16, 1983 Jot(- Mr. Cornwell said the common facilities would require a use variance in the S.F.R. Zone. -- Mr. DeSantis said he did not agree. Mr. West stated that if you were to take a contractual access proposal for another body of water, you would look at the shore- line provisions to determine the number of units that could have access for the given footage and you would look at the zoning applicable in tha- area for what type of use the property would be put to and if that area allowed uses which were common facilities, then that would be a permissab1e use in that area. In the shoreline area, there are only certain permitted uses or permitted accessory uses, none of which are common facilities. In Article 15, PUD's in wl1o1e or in part shall not land in a 1akeshore residential area. We believe for those two reasons, this is an illegal proposal and requires a use variance. Mr. Desantis said that nowhere within Article 4 are common facilities a permitted principal or accessory use in the Town of Queensbury. Next to be heard was Charles Adamson. Mr. Adamson said he was there as an individual property owner who is a neighbor and not as a member of the Lake George Association. His main concern is that of precedent setting. He felt we are dealing with an area variance and would agree that an area vari~nce is totally inadequate for what is being proposed here. He feels a use variance would have to be involved. Regarding the three residences, if you change them now to bathhouses, etc., you will change the nature of the property. Mr. Adamson said what disturbs him is if the Board is going to allow tour boats. If there is a commercial tour boat landing at this dock to pick up people at the Top 0' the World, the people are going to have to pay money and this would be a commercial use of the property. If this precedent is allowed here, will we have tour boats stopping all around the lake? Mr. James DeNoyer of Lockhart Loop spoke next. He stated he owned a piece or property on Lockhart Loop and also a piece of property on the road going to the Top 0' the World. He stated he was totally against the lake variance. He asked if this was happening to you, if they were going to put this next to you on property you invested a lot of money on, what would you do? Jean Barto 1 i wa s next. She s ta ted she 1 i ves next to rlJ:r. DeNoyer. She was there representing herself, Mildred Stone, the Duggans and Mr. and Mrs. John Boomer. They all oppose this request. She stated that she and her husband bought the property on the lake in 1976, because it was residential. They object to changing the character of the residential area that has been established. -' Andrew Burnett of Plum Bay spoke. He stated he did not want the character changed and that he wanted to leave it residential. He respectfully requested that this variance not be granted. Ed Freihofer of Plum Bay stated he would like the character of the property to be kept residential. Page 21 February 16, 1983 J05- - Steven Birdsall of, Plum Potnt area, ~ta.ted !lt~ p;t:'operty !lad been in the family for over fifty year~. He objected to the po~sib1e change in the c!laracter of the east side of Lake George. Mark HOlcomb appeared as an tndividual and on behalf of his parents and brother. He read a letter from !lis parents stating- their disapproval based on the adverse effect it would have on the water quality &visual aspects and based on the noise pollution. Mr. Holcomb was personally concerned with the quality of life of the lake as well as the water eco10g-ica11y. Mrs. Bonnie Lapham of Dunhams Bay spoke. She read two letters from people who could not be there. One objected to the commercial venture and objected to granting the variance. This was from Blanch Elrod 0,£ Dunhams Bay. The second letter 11rs. Lapham read stated that no justifiable reason exists for the variance and no advantage to Lake George would be served. ~his letter was signed by Steven Lapham, Helen Moore, Thor Lundgren and Dr. Donald Pace, Jr. Mrs. Lapham expressed concern over what it would do to the property values of the property of neighbors. At this point Dr. Blake gave the Board a letter from Mr. VanLadd. Mr. west asked if all the letters would be part of the record. Mr. Cornwell said yes. All letters were against granting of the variance. Pete Brown asked to go on the record as being opposed to the granting of the variance. Mr. Cornwell then closed the public hearing. Mr. Turner read the opinion of the Town Planning Board. Mr. Cornwell asked if there was any member of the Board who wished to see the minutes of the Planning Board on that? There was none. Mr. Cornwell stated that in view of the fact that the project had been disapproved by both Planning Boards, that a vote of a majority plus one would be required to grant the variance. He asked Mr. Desantis if he wanted to put the matter off until there would be seven voting members present. Mr. DeSantis said he did not. Mrs. Richardson made a motion to deny Variance 809 on the basis that she felt it would substantially change the character _ of the neighborhood. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sicard. A vote on the matter resulted in five yes votes and one abstention (Mrs. Goetz}. )..0& Page 22 February 16, 1983 "- RESOLVED that the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals deny Variance No. 809 for an area variance with regard to the minimum shoreline frontage conditions set forth in Section 7.011A5 of the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance on the basis that it would substantially change the character of the neighborhood. Approved. Motion by Mrs. Richardson, seconded by Mr. Sicard that the meeting adjourn, all voting affirmatively. RESOLVED that the Queensbury Zoning Board meeting for Feburary 16, 1983 be adjourned. Approved. ~\.~l ~..M""·C'~· .) 'LI''') --