Loading...
1986-10-15 ¡q, /.-...., QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ~ Regular Meeting held: Wednesday, October 15, 1986 @ 7:30 P.M. Present: Theodore Turner, Chairman Charles O. Sicard Jeffrey L. Kelley Gustave Behr Stuart F. Mesinger, Senior Planner Susan Goetz, Secretary Daniel S. Griffin Michael Muller Susan E. Davidsen, Stenographer The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Theodore Turner, Chairman who at this time asked for a motion for approval of the September 1986 minutes. Mrs. Goetz MOVED APPROVAL of the September 17, 1986 minutes; second by Mr. Sicard, Passed Unanimously. Gustave Behr asked that the minutes of the September 24, 1986 {special meeting} be cOrTected regarding Variance Number 1151, Woodburys Lumber; to show that the reason a 3rd wall sign was being allowed. The COrTection: The 3rd wall sign is allowed 64 square feet in lieu of a 64 square foot freestanding sign at a 25 foot setback. Mr. Behr MOVED APPROVAL of the September 24, 1986 minutes as cOrTected, second by Mrs. Goetz, Passed Unanimously. OLD BUSINESS USE VARIANCE NO. 1149 Mrs. Goetz introduced the applicant as Marjorie Johnson of 372 Ridge Road, Glens Falls, New York. Ms. Johnson's proposed use and location of the property was stated: to place a mobile home on a lot outside of a zone designated for single site mobile home placement in a Urban Residential 10 Zone on the property situated at the corner of Feld Avenue and Columbia Street. The application had been tabled at the September 17, 1986 meeting so that the applicant could obtain more information regarding the value of the property for Single Family Residential use. Attorney, Mr. Raymond represented the applicant. He distributed a letter to the Board members from Reba A. Bernard, Sales Representative from Century 21 Professional Associates, Inc. The letter stated that the property is not marketable because of the condition of the neighborhood. Ms. Bernard's letter further stated that the property could /____ not realize its full or reasonable market value due to the neighborhood. ~ 1 1Cjh \.....' Mr. Raymond reiterated his past arguments that the lot is best suited for a mobile home, which would in fact enhance the property. Mr. Turner noted that Mr. Raymond had previously said the mobile home would be rented. Mr. Raymond said he was unsure whether this was still the case. Public Hearing Opened: no comment Public Hearing Closed. Mr. Kelley MOVED APPROVAL, second by Mr. Sicard, all voting affirmatively RESOLVED THAT Variance No. 1149 be approved as the applicant meets the criteria for a Use Variance and has specified unnecessary hardship due to the neighborhood. Also, this wouldn't be detrimental to the ordinance. No reasonable return is possible if a Single Family Residence is built on the property. Passed Unanimously. USE VARIANCE NO. 749 Mrs. Goetz introduced the applicant as Stanislaw Kostek (Stan's Seafood Specialties) of 284 Bay Street, Glens Falls, New York. Mr. Kosteks proposed use and location of the property was stated: to modify the Variance No. 749 by replacing condition number 1 of the variance issued in 1982. * Mark Shackner, attorney for Tom Collins who is a neighbor of Stan's Seafood, said that his client had been attempting for some time to get Mr. Kostek to canoy out the terms of this variance, issued in 1982. Specifically, Mr. Kostek had yet to install the required screening as per Queensbury Beautification Committee requirements, condition number 1 of the variance. Mr. Shackner said that the parties had recently met with the Queensbury Beautification Committee and reached a compromise whereby Mr. Kostek would put vinyl slats in a chain link fence which the Collins had erected. The Board expressed concern that Mr. Kostek had never canied out the terms of the 1982 variance. The members emphasized the need for enforcement. Mrs. Goetz read the report from the Beautification Committee detailing the agreement to put slats in the fence. Public Hearing Opened: no comment Public Hearing Closed. ~ Mr. Griffin MOVED APPROVAL, second by Mr. Kelley, all voting affirmatively L * Mark Sbackner, attorney for Frank. and EiJeeu. Collins... 2 tq7 '^ ~ RESOLVED THAT Modification of Variance No. 749 be approved. The Board. amends condition number 1 of the variance to require that the applicant install vinyl slats in the fence within 30 days based on the agreement between Frank and Eileen Collins and Stanislaw Kostek. The vinyl slats should be all one color. Passed Unaftbnously. NEW BUSINESS AREA VARIANCE NO. 1160 Mrs. Goetz introduced the applicant as Michael Blackmer of 35 Montray Road, Glens Falls, New York. Mr. Blackmer's proposed use and location of the property was stated: * to divide his parcel, creating Z lots, each with less than 30,000 square feet on the property situated at 35 Montray Road in a Single Family Residential 30 Zone. A variance was previously granted to Claire Guimond (Area Variance Number 1006) to do this but it was never acted on within the required time. In response to questioning from the Board., Mr. Blackmer said that there is a Right of Way to the lot which would contain the mobile home. He wished to continue to maintain the mobile home as a rental but wanted to have it on a separate lot. Public Hearing Opened: no comment Public Hearing Closed. Mr. Mesinger delivered a staff report recommending denial. He said that if the lot was divided and later sold, a single family house could be erected or a mobile home maintained. By dividing the lot the Board. would be making an undesirable situation permanent. The lot would probably always contain housing. If the variance is denied the applicant can continue to rent out the trailer. However, if in the future the use is discontinued, the property would revert to a much more desirable density in line with CUITent zoning. Mr. Blackmer said that he had no intention of selling the property. Mr. Muller pointed out that if the trailer were eventually discontinued and both lots were in the same ownership, they would have to be considered together for density purposes when considering housing. Mr. Mesinger agreed, but noted his concern was that the lot, once created, would be able to change hands no matter what the curt'ent intentions of the owner. The lot, once created by variance, would be likely to always contain housing. He reiterated that it is a considerably substandard lot. By denying the variance the applicant could continue to rent the mobile home and in the future there was some chance that the property would revert to a more desirable density. ~ Mrs. Goetz read the previous Guimond variance application. * the parcel of land is Dot his, it is owned by Mr. Nelson 3 \Y?5 "'" '~ Mr. Blackmer said it was never acted on because the family decided not to sell to Mrs. Guimond. The Board discussed the difference between the two applications. Mrs. Goetz noted that the Board had more input now, in particular from staff. The Board discussed with Mr. Blackmer why he needed to own the property; he could simply keep the mobile home on the lot and continue to rent it. Mr. Blackmer said that the lot belonged to his father-in-law and that he wished to own and maintain the mobile home separately. Mr. Turner MOVED DISAPPROVAL, second by Mr. Behr, all voting affirmatively RESOLVED THAT Variance No. 1160 be denied. No practical difficulty has been demonstrated. The proposal would only create 2. nonconforming lots in a Single Family Residential 30 Zone, considerably less than the required 30,000 square feet. Denied Uft3ftilnoualy. USE VARIANCE NO. 1161 Mrs. Goetz introduced the applicant as Robert Northgard, Jr. of R.D. :f#:4, Box 415, Corinth Road, Glens Falls, New York. Mr. Northgard's proposed use and location of the property was stated: to divide a lot and to build another single family unit on the property situated on the corner (west side) of Division Road and (south side) Corinth Road in a Highway Commercial 15 Zone and Urban Residential 10 Zone (split zone). In response to questioning from the Board, Mr. Northgard said that the rear 30 feet of the property is Urban Residential 10; the rest is Highway Commercial (330 feet). He planned to move into the new house and rent out the existing house on the corner of Corinth and Division Road. Enough land exists to create 2. lots over 10,000 square feet, the Urban Residential 10 Zone requirements. Public Hearing Opened: Mr. Northgard introduced a letter from Paul and Mary Naylor, Division Street, Glens Falls, New York. The letter stated that they were in favor of the application. Public Hearing Closed: Mrs. Goetz read the resolution by the Warren County Planning Board for the proposal which was approved without comment. Mr. Mesinger delivered a staff report recommending approval. He said that the split zone creates a hardship and that commercial development on this lot would be undesirable given the surrounding residential neighborhood. He recommended that the new lot meet the requirements of the Urban Residential 10 Zone. Mrs. Goetz MOVED APPROVAL, second by Mr. Griffin, all voting affirmatively \.....t 4 /q9 V· RESOLVED THAT Variance No. 1161 be approved. Unnecessary hardship is shown due to split zoning. It would be a mistake to put a Commercial use in an Urban Residential 10 Zone. The lot to be created should meet the specifications of an Urban Residential 10 Zone. Pa-.ed UnaDÏmoualy. At this time, Mr. Turner noted that Use Variance Number 1163 and Area Variance Number 1167 had been withdrawn. Further, Use Variance Number 1166 would be tabled until November 1986 at the request of the applicant. USE VARIANCE NO. 1162 Mrs. Goetz introduced the applicant as Robert and Carol Perkins, ill of 6 Boulavard, Glens Falls, New York. Mr. and Mrs. Perkin's proposed use and location of the property was stated: to change a single family home on lots 5, 6, and 13 to a three family home on the property situated at 6 Boulavard in a Highway Commercial 15 Zone and a Heavy Industrial 3 A Zone. In response to questions from the Board the applicant said that the house was large enough to contain 3 apartments in addition to the living quarters now present. He did not know the square footage in each apartment. It was noted by the Board that each apartment must comply with minimum living space requirements and that the Building Department was responsible for checking this when permits for remodeling, rewiring, etc. were obtained. Public Hearing Opened: no comment Public Hearing Closed. Mr. Mesinger delivered a staff report recommending approval. He said that the house could not realize a reasonable return as zoned. No adverse effect on the neighborhood was foreseeable. Mrs. Goetz read the resolution by the WalTen County Planning Board for the proposal which was approved without comment. Mr. Griffin MOVED APPROVAL, second by Mr. Turner, all voting affirmatively RESOLVED THAT Variance No. 1162 be approved. Practical difficulty is its presence in a Highway Commercial and Heavy Industrial (split zone). There are other multifamily homes in the area. Passed UJI,.nimoualy. AREA VARIANCE NO. 1164 Mrs. Goetz introduced the applicant as Frank D. Schulman of 24 Webster Avenue, Glens Falls, New York. Mr. Schulman's proposed use and location of the property was \..,. 5 1.Cf) ~~ stated: to construct a single family dwelling on the property situated north of Dixon Road, "'--/ approximately 344 feet (east side) on Park View Avenue in a Single Family Residential I 0 Zone. Mr. Schulman was not present and there was not anyone to represent the applicant. Mr. Henry Perquette of Park View Avenue, Glens Falls, New York received clarification from the Board as to why a variance was required. Mr. Perquette said he had no objection to the proposal. Mr. Muller MOVED TO TABLE, second by Mr. Griffin, all voting affirmatively RESOLVED THAT Variance No. 1164 be tabled until November 1986 so that the applicant can be present to represent his proposal. Tabled Unanimously. AREA VARIANCE NO. 1165 Mrs. Goetz introduced the applicant as Anthony J. Jones of Box 536, Big Bay Road, Glens Falls, New York. Mr. Jones's proposed use and location of the property was stated: to construct a duplex on the property situated on the west side of Big Bay Road, approximately 200 feet north of Reed Road. Mr. Jones was not present and there was not anyone to represent the applicant. Mrs. Goetz MOVED TO TABLE, second by Mr. Sicard, all voting affirmatively RESOLVED THAT Variance No. 1164 be tabled until November 1986 so that the applicant can be present to represent his application. USE VARIANCE NO. 1168 Mrs. Goetz introduced the applicant as James Steinmetz of R.D. ://=3, Leo Street, Glens Falls, New York. Mr. Steinmetz's proposed use and location of the property was stated: to place a mobile home on a lot of approximately 25,000 square feet which contains an existing mobile home on the property situated at the corner of Leo Street and Eisenhower Avenue in a Suburban Residential 20 Zone. The Board clarified that the request was for a Use Variance, not an Area Variance as indicated on the application. John Steinmetz, son of James Steinmetz said that his parents are in need of medical care and that he wishes to live nearby in order to provide it. He noted there was a letter in the file from the Steinmetz's doctor indicating that it was imperative that the Steinmetz's son live nearby to provide care. \/ 6 d.CJ( John Steinmetz said that he planned to move an older trailer on the lot as a permanent residence. The neighborhood. contains numerous mobile homes. In the future, he planned '* to divide to lot. Mr. Mesinger delivered a staff report recommending denial. He noted that although difficult personal circumstances certainly exist, the courts have repeatedly held that variances are granted for land and that, the personal circumstances of the applicant may not be considered. No proof of financial hardship for the land in question has been offered. The proposal would be detrimental to the neighborhood. by effectively doubling density on a lot which only exceeds the required size for one structure by a small amount. Finally, the intent of the ordinance is very clearly to restrict single siting of mobile homes. It was staff's opinion that the application met none of the tests for a use variance. Mr. Griffin said that in the past the Board has issued variances where medical problems were present. Board members noted, that the circumstances, particularly as regards lot density, were different. Public HearinR; Opened: David Pablette, Leo Street, Glens Falls, New York said that he lived across the street and believed that hardship was shown. He believed there was enough room for a mobile home and the application should be granted. Public HearinR; Closed. Mr. Kelley asked whether the applicant cóuld add an addition. Mr. Steinmetz said "no". Mr. Muller said that while the Board was sympathetic to the problem, the law is clear in the types of proof that are required for a use variance; this application did not meet these tests. Mr. Kelley MOVED DISAPPROVAL, second by Mr. Sicard, all voting affirmatively RESOLVED THAT Variance No. 1168 be denied. The application does not meet the hardship criteria that are necessary to grant a use variance. Denied Unanimously. INTERPRETATION NO. 34 Mrs. Goetz read a request from attorney, Malcolm B. O'Hara on behalf of a client to interpret whether a miniature golf course is an "amusement center" or a "golf course or club". The former would be allowed in the recreation commercial zone under site plan review. Mr. O'Hara said that this seemed to fall through the cracks of the ordinance. Certainly this use is found in various amusement parks and would be appropriate to the Recreation Commercial district. Mrs. Goetz and Mr. Turner both said they believed it was an amusement center. The Board discussed the location of other miniature golf courses, generally in amusement parks. '" '* to divide the lot 7 ~o~ \....,/ Mr. Mesinger delivered a staff report indicating that a miniature golf course should be considered an amusement center. He read definitions from The Handbook of Development Definitions indicating that miniature golf courses were not golf courses. Further, the New York State Planning and Zoning Law Handbook distinguishes golf courses from miniature golf courses and classifies the latter as commercial recreation. Also, other cities, for example New York City, classify miniature golf with other amusement establishments and confine them to certain commercial districts. Mrs. Goetz MOVED, second by Mr. Turner, all voting affirmatively RESOLVED THAT Interpretation No. 34 of a miniature golf course be defined as an amusement center. This finding is based on definitions in the New York State Planning and Zonin2 Law Handbook which include miniature golf courses under amusement centers and Commercial Recreation. This is a permissible use in the Recreation Commercial Zone under Site Plan Review Type II. Passed. Unanimously. The Board read a letter from attorney, John Carusone regarding Sign Variance No. 1139. Mr. Carusone's letter asked whether the Board's stipulation that "all other signs be removed" included the Mobil logo over each pump. The letter stated that these logos were required by Federal and State Law if the station sold branded gasoline and that other Queensbury stations contained similar logos. A motion was made by Mr. Turner, second by Mr. Sicard, RESOLVED THAT to request that Mr. Carusone supply the Board with additional information on the laws in question and appear before the Board in November 1986 for further discussion. Passed 6 yes (Turner, Behr, Sicard, Kelley, Griffin, Goetz), 1 Abstention (Muller). MEE11NG ADJOURNED @ 9:15 P.M. ~r7 , ///Á4ø~-1 Theodore Turner, Chairman Minutes prepared by Stuart F. Mesinger, Senior Planner \ .... - 8